Parliamentary debates: Thursday, 9 October 2025

The House is resumed for the extended sitting. I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Responding to Abuse in Care Legislation Amendment Bill.

Members, the House is in committee on the Responding to Abuse in Care Legislation Amendment Bill. We first come to Part 1. Part 1 is the debate on clauses 3 to 10, “Amendments to Children’s Act 2014” and Schedule 1. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The Responding to Abuse in Care Legislation Amendment Bill marks a very important process in the Crown’s response to the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions. This bill was introduced to Parliament on 12 November 2024, the same day the Crown made its historic public apology to survivors of abuse in care. The changes in this bill are another step forward in the Crown’s response to the royal commission, making an important start on changes to improve the safety and wellbeing of children, young people, and adults in care.

I just want to start by thanking the survivors who made submissions on this bill for your bravery in coming forward and helping to make the care system better for others. Thank you to the Social Services and Community Committee for your significant improvements to the bill.

This is an omnibus bill that makes improvements to four Acts. Under the Standing Orders, where a bill is drafted in parts, we will consider it part by part. Each Minister responsible will talk to their relevant part. I will lead Part 1 on the amendments to the Children’s Act 2014, which falls into my portfolio responsibilities as Minister of Education, before handing over to my colleagues: the Minister of Justice for Part 2, the Minister for Children will lead Part 3 and associated Schedules, and I believe that the Minister for Children will also be looking after Part 4, as well, today.

The two changes in the Children’s Act will help keep children safe by strengthening provisions relating to core children’s workers with certain types of criminal convictions. The changes are extending the workforce restriction for core children’s workers to include overseas convictions for offences that are equivalent to specified offences and adding offences involving minors in the Prostitution Reform Act to the list of specified offences that trigger the workforce restriction.

The first change to the Children’s Act addresses a gap relating to children’s core workers with convictions for serious offences overseas: it’s unlawful to employ someone as a core children’s worker if they’ve been convicted of a specified offence and do not have an exemption. The specified offences are listed in the Children’s Act. They are offences under the New Zealand law involving serious harm, including harm to children, but they currently do not cover overseas convictions. This change will make it unlawful to employ a person with an overseas conviction for an offence equivalent to a specified offence in New Zealand as a core children’s worker unless they have an exemption. Exemptions enable a person to still be employed if they would not pose undue risk to the safety of children. Individuals with overseas convictions will be able to access, review, and appeal rights when a decision is made about the equivalency of convictions.

The second change adds offences involving minors under the Prostitution Reform Act to the list of specified offences. These are offences under the New Zealand law involving serious harm, including harm to children. This will make it unlawful to employ a person with a conviction for one of these offences as a core children’s worker without an exemption.

These changes will help to close known gaps in the protections in place to reduce the risk of harm to children by people employed to look after them. Guidance will be made available to support employers of core children’s workers to understand and comply with the changes. This work is well aligned with the royal commission’s findings and recommendations in relation to screening and vetting of workers.

The feedback on the changes during the select committee phases were largely supportive. A common theme throughout the select committee process was that the changes were positive, but that we could do more to improve child safety—for example, through further amendments to the Children’s Act, which we will consider.

The amendments are a first step. Cabinet has directed further work on options for improved children’s worker safety checking requirements, and the Ministry of Education is leading that work. In addition, through Budget 2025, the Government invested up to $71.5 million to build a capable and safe care workforce for children and adults across the care system, and agencies are working on a joint approach which will include consideration of any changes needed to strengthen the workforce safety further.

Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, I just want to acknowledge the people who have suffered under a law that has not protected them for many years. It is something that we can never really say enough about.

Labour is supporting these changes, because they’re a first step, but we are absolutely committed to a much more comprehensive response to what has been an appalling practice in New Zealand. The apologies that came out of the Government were very much an acknowledgment of that, but my own personal concern is that we still have many children who are not being protected sufficiently in New Zealand, and we have a continuing issue. I acknowledge that this piece of legislation is a start in that direction and while there have been many concerns raised by the community and concerns raised by other parties, as well, in support of a community that is worried that it has not been consulted sufficiently, we will be supporting the changes, so far as they go, today.

I just wanted to talk about the nature of the changes in an overarching way. We have changes to the Children’s Act, the Crimes Act, the Oranga Tamariki Act, and also to the Public Records Act here. One that’s maybe the most controversial is the issue over search plans, and that will be looked at today and, no doubt, there’ll be questions asked of the Minister about that.

I think we’re all in agreement in terms of the movement to look at convictions overseas and that gap. That’s a really important gap. I was recently in Australia at the women’s shelters conference, and Australia’s doing a lot of work in its children’s safety plan to really make sure that in every state information is being passed and people are not able to move from state to state. It made me reflect that we’re very lucky here. We have a small country and it’s quite possible for us to close that gap, and that overseas convictions gap was, really, that one. We don’t have the same complexity as people who can move from state to state, so we’re in a pretty lucky position in that way—but we have had an issue in this area, so that is something that I think we can all support in this House.

I’m also really interested in the changes to care record access and transparency, and the interest in public records. Again, I have been concerned that, in places like Canada, while there have been these commissions that have looked at these very similar issues with indigenous populations—for example—being hurt, there is often a lack of transparency over what has happened and a lack of power kept by the people who’ve been hurt. I think these changes, while they don’t probably look, to the public, like they’re important, are important changes where we make sure that our public record system is acting on behalf of the people impacted, not protecting others in the system. I think those ones are underestimated in terms of their importance and the value of keeping going.

Sorry, I’ve just got a few questions. I would like to start with a question about the issue about survivors and their involvement in this process, because it’s been raised by several parties that there hasn’t been enough. It’s a concern that the Labour Party has had too, that there hasn’t been the consultation that had been expected, and when you have that kind of low trust of people who are deeply traumatised, that seems to be something where we could do better. Why has there not been the consultation and what plans are there to consult? Thank you.

I’ll basically just put that one question to you. I do have other questions, but could we start with that? There’ll be people watching today who have been impacted by this, and they have expressed a concern that they have not been consulted sufficiently. One example of that was the issue over disability and vulnerability, and its inclusion, that has come to light. Could we talk about why we made the choice to go the way we did—why did the Government make that choice, and what will happen from now on in terms of opening that consultation? Does the Minister concede that perhaps we can do better in the future iterations and changes to respond to this abuse inquiry? Can I know about that first? Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mōrena ki a koutou, mauri ora ki te Whare. Tuatahi, ki ngā morehu o te motu, tēnei te mihi nui ki a koutou, ngā mihi aroha ki a koutou mō ō koutou kaha, mō ō koutou whawhai tonu. Ki te Minita, mōrena.

[Good morning everyone; life and vitality to the House. Firstly, to the survivors of this land, I extend my warm greetings to you, my heartfelt acknowledgments for your strength and your continued struggle. To the Minister, good morning.]

We’re, obviously, supporting this bill because of all of the work that has gone into it from survivors, from people from all different parts of society, and from the community. Our contributions in this committee of the whole House are really an attempt to try and understand particular parts of the bill that survivors have brought up that need to be scrutinised. That scrutiny is deserving, because we know that one of the reasons why this scale of abuse of children, this scale of torture, this scale of violence that took place between the years of 1975 and 1999 is because of a lack of institutional safeguards, because of a lack of children’s safety and, indeed, children’s rights being put at the forefront of legislation and of all of the rules and conditions around that State care. We know that some of the other contributors to that horrendous abuse that took place in State care and in faith-based institutions was also a consequence of having untrained staff members, a lack of institutional safeguards, a lack of safe regulations, and also the location that some of these institutions were at—for example, Great Barrier Island or Aotea in the 1970s during the Whakapakari boot camp.

Our question, to start off, in terms of Part 1, is similar to Helen White’s questions to start off, and it’s really to understand how survivors have been involved in this process and how, since the first reading of this bill, has the Government listened to that feedback from survivors. We all would have received lots of emails from survivors, whether they’re part of an advocacy organisation who are doing that work on behalf of survivors, or you might have heard from individuals who have reached out to us.

I guess to summarise what our inquiries will be about today, we’re really interested in the use of force and how that has been safeguarded, and we are wanting to ensure that that is a last resort and that all other options have been exhausted before we get to use of force—

Is this Part 1?

That’s Part 3.

Sure. There’s no problem in breaching what we’re going to be talking about today so that this is a productive session. So we’re in Part 1. Nothing’s changing in Part 1. I’m just letting the Minister know what our areas of inquiries will be.

So I’m interested in the use of force. I’m interested to know how survivors have been involved in this whole process. We’re interested to understand secure care and young people and how long they are allowed to be legally within that secure care. There are other areas in terms of youth justice residences and State care institutions that we’re keen to breach, but, firstly, I’m keen to start off with how have survivors been incorporated meaningfully into leading us to the bill we have in front of us today.

Thank you, Madam Chair. In relation to the similar questions asked around consultation in relation to my part of the bill, remembering that this bill was a bill we introduced a year ago in response to the royal commission, which undertook extensive consultation—we had a six-year process, which raised some of these issues. This also seems to be an issue that has been known for some time and not dealt with, and, when I became the Minister, it was not only something I realised we needed to deal with through the royal commission but something that seems to have been known and not dealt with for many years, as far as I can tell.

First thing: we had a royal commission for six years, and they were very clear in their recommendations. This bill responds to that. Secondly, it’s been a year that we’ve had a select committee process. People have been able to have their views heard. We’ve taken those into account. This part of the bill was relatively uncontroversial. We didn’t have many—hardly anyone, in fact, I believe—saying anything about this part of the bill that meant they were opposed to it. It’s a widely supported, relatively straightforward change that fills a known gap and responds to the royal commission report. Many people were involved in that, but, more broadly, I have set up a ministerial advisory group of representative survivors to help guide the Government in its work over the next few years.

Kia ora, Madam Chair. Firstly, can we ask if that microphone can be just slightly tilted more towards you while you’re standing up, just to hear properly?

OK. I’ll watch that.

Thank you, and thank you, Minister, for being in the chair. As has been addressed by colleagues already this morning, this is around acknowledging our survivors—those who are still with us, and those who have passed—and we acknowledge them this morning and throughout this process. I also want to acknowledge that last night, in Parliament, we celebrated 50 years of the Waitangi Tribunal, and, I guess, the significance that that holds in the space we stand in today and as we talk about abuse in State and faith-based care.

My simple question to the Minister this morning, following what you’ve just said, is: yeah, there has been a six-year process and survivors have been a part of it all the way through; we understand there’s a ministerial advisory group that survivors are part of—but, I guess, my question to the Minister is just around trust. In terms of where we’re sitting in this part of the legislation, trust has been broken. The State and faith-based organisations have breached that trust for many, many years, and so my question to the Minister is: are you confident that we have landed, in this part of legislation—that survivors can trust that you have leaned in, that you’ve listened, and that you’ve taken on board what they want?

As we continue to move through the morning, and as this proceeds through the committee stage and then into the third reading, the fact that that meant survivors and families can actually trust you as a Minister—and I mean that in a genuine way, in terms of that they are on board and that, in every word that’s in this legislation, they can trust that you have listened and will continue to listen, and if anything does need to change, then there is openness to that.

Thank you. I have quite a specific question, which is about the responsiveness of Part 1 to new offences. I know that we’re moving, hopefully, to a law where we change the rules around trafficking and that’s quite a significant change, and I really welcome the work done in that area where we move away from consent. For the public, that means that we’re looking at children—and, in fact, even adults in that situation—who might be enticed into exploitative behaviour, perhaps with offers of gifts, etc., so it’s sort of organised exploitation of people.

I can see that we talk about specified offences. I’d be really keen to know, from the Minister, with that kind of law change in the wind, which is really welcome, is that wide enough? Is it that there’s a regulation where, in fact, specified offences can be added to and that that would mean that somebody involved in those kinds of activities—which, in the past, have not come into offences—would be captured? That is a worldwide phenomenon; those law changes, hopefully, are happening as we recognise that kind of behaviour internationally, so while we’re doing it here, we’re also following a trend overseas.

I’d be really keen to know: what is the Minister’s plan with regard to offences here and offences overseas as our recognition of inappropriate behaviour, hopefully, changes for the better? How are we capturing that? Thank you.

We think it’s already clear in this bill that we are adding specified offences, as I mentioned in my opening speech. It’s very clear that as things come up, we will consider adding them to the specified offences list, as we’ve done in this bill today.

Kia ora, Minister. Thanks for your answers before, as well—really appreciate you illuminating some of these issues for us. I’m keen to ask another, more of an overarching, question, just because I understand that Minister Stanford is here with us for Part 1 and then we’re moving to a different Minister for Part 2. This question is about kind of the broad thrust of the bill, but there are parts that are relevant in Part 1. It’s the fact that in Whanaketia, the actual report that came out, there were a number of different recommendations made, and some of those span across this entire bill, including within Part 1.

I guess, some of the big feedback that we’ve gotten from mōrehu is that they want to understand why some recommendations have been implemented in this bill and why some have not been implemented into this bill. So I’m really keen to get an answer from the Minister in charge of the inquiry and the follow-through of those recommendations to maybe talk to the committee a little bit about why some provisions that were called for weren’t followed through with. One of the main ones that we hear about is the request for an independent, survivor-led redress system, but I understand that there were other recommendations that haven’t been followed through.

Yeah, my quick question to the Minister is: what was your decision-making process when you were going through those recommendations, and how did you choose which ones you would implement through this bill, and which ones you weren’t able to?

As I already said in my opening speech, this was a bill that we introduced a year ago—it was the very first piece of legislation. There is an enormous amount of work to do. There are hundreds of recommendations that need to be looked at, considered, and enacted, potentially, and we’re going through that work. Budget 2025 funded a safe and capable workforce, for example. There will be an enormous amount of work to do there, including lots of consultation to get that right—so a huge piece of work.

This was the piece of work that we knew we could do quickly: identify known gaps and move on with it and make meaningful change so we can say to survivors, “We are listening. We hear you. We want to get something under way as quickly as we can where there are known gaps in the system; this is this piece of legislation.” But since then, there has been an enormous amount of work, and a huge Budget injection to make sure that we will continue this work.

I’m going to take a call from Helen White, but what I’m going ask for now is—we’ve had a good, respectful way of setting the scene this morning; I’d like people now to refer to clauses specific to Part 1.

Thank you, Madam Chair, although my wish when I stood up was to just look at this issue about the consultation, because I don’t think it’s been addressed yet, and to explain this is an issue about how we got to Part 1 and this priority list—

I actually have been listening to the Minister’s answers, and she did talk about the inquiry in the select committee and the consultation and the opportunity, so I feel like we’ve covered that. I’d like questions related to specific clauses now, please.

Thank you. I think that we are in agreement, largely, with Part 1, and I don’t want to waste time on things that we actually agree with, and so I think that we probably could just leave it there on that—I don’t think that’s a problem. Thank you.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Glen Bennett. Do you have a specific point to Part 1?

I do, Madam Chair, thank you. I think to do due diligence is to actually spend a bit more time, because people are listening and wanting to make sure that we are held accountable.

I’m looking at new section 28C, inserted by clause 5, in terms of the review process. It talks about going to the chief executive and the process of doing that, in terms of a survivor being able to ask questions, but I want to come through to new section 28D(2). If the applicant wants to appeal against a decision that has been made by the chief executive, new section 28D(2) says, “The applicant may appeal to the High Court against the decision to confirm the determination.”

Now, it’s really just a question about cost, and I haven’t actually been on the Social Services and Community Committee, so forgive me if it is answered somewhere else. In terms of a survivor going through the process, they will be able to apply, they will be able to go to the chief executive, but then, in terms of, again, the support for a survivor who has been through trauma, who has been harmed and hurt by the State, and the State then requiring them to potentially pay to have their appeal heard by the High Court—I’d appreciate for that to be illuminated to understand a bit more about, again, for a survivor, who is paying the cost when they’ve already paid the highest cost.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to be clear, this part already exists in the legislation for core workers who have a conviction in New Zealand. We’re just aligning the law so that people who have an overseas conviction and now fall under this piece of legislation also have an appeal right. This is not about survivors having appeal rights; this is about the core worker having an appeal right against not being able to work.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the Minister for her responses thus far on this piece of legislation. I do agree that it’s a missed opportunity. I have just a general comment, and then I’ll speak to a few of the specific clauses.

I attended a conference last week on the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and met several of the lawyers working in this area. A comment on repeat was around the Limitations Act and whether consideration had been given in terms of that very key limitation on people being able to access their rights of complaint—which was six years, I understand. It’s just a general comment.

In terms of new section 28A, inserted by clause 5, I just had a question about the interaction between the determination under section 28 and name suppression provisions. What consideration is there when a determination is made under the new section 28 and there’s a clear indication that there will be an application for review? This may tie into separate legislation, but I’m just curious about whether there may be name suppression issues in that.

In new section 28B(2), inserted by clause 5, there is a reference to a chief executive receiving an application, and the ability to hand that application for review on to another chief executive. I just have a question about the rationale for that and when it would be used.

In new subsection (3), there is a reference to the chief executive confirming whether the applicant has previously applied for a review under the section before making a determination. This is, obviously, a separate ask and just a general question about the rationale for the chief executive to need that information before making a decision on the application in front of them. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. OK, to get specific, my questions are around the amended section 28, in clause 4, which talks about core workers—so “Core worker convicted of specified offence not to be employed or engaged”. I guess my questions are around the word “core”, because, obviously, if we’re looking at a youth justice residence or a care institution or if we’re even looking at third-party providers that might provide training or a course or something to the young people in either of these institutions, I want to understand what “core worker” means and why we’ve only focused in on core workers. Does that mean that other workers that are working in and around children are able to have convictions of these specified offences within the Act? Does this go far enough to provide the kind of institutional safeguards that are required of the adults who are meant to be caring for and looking after young people in these institutions?

I just think it’s interesting that there is that use of the words “core worker”. What does that mean for other people who are engaged? I’m thinking there might be, say, trained youth workers or social workers but they might have people who are supporting or volunteering in an organisation, like a third-party provider—whatever; there’s lots of people around. My assumption would be that, after the scale of abuse and torture that was experienced for decades and, in some ways, still endures today—how much of that abuse took place by people who are just simply around and had the ability to be around? Do we expect the same requirements of them to not have offences that make them a danger or a risk to be around children, particularly really vulnerable children?

Yeah, I’m seeking to understand why we’ve specified that only core workers must not be engaged or employed in this business, and what safeguards are in place to make sure that every person that interacts—guides, teaches—in any way, small or big, with vulnerable children are not going to pose any danger or risk to their wellbeing and safety.

Thank you, Madam Chair. In response to that member’s question, “core worker’ is an existing term defined in the Act. Specified offences only apply to core workers for restriction. The key is that when people are working with children and have unsupervised access to children, they are teachers, learning support people, and teacher-aides, and those types of people who generally have unrestricted access to children that we need to protect children from. That’s why we had this known gap and that’s why it’s being closed.

Just in relation to some of the other questions, the Limitation Act is outside the scope of the bill, I’ve been advised. The chief executive can hand over a review if the work or person is more relevant to the other child education sector, which makes sense. In terms of the no-repeat reviews, we don’t want the worker to keep applying for review for the same offence.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Members, we come now to Part 2. Part 2 is the debate on clauses 11 and 12, “Amendment to Crimes Act 1961”. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

I’m expecting my colleague to come down and take most of these questions, but I just want to open with one of the things from the select committee process. I know that there was a huge amount of debate over it, because the bill amends the Crimes Act 1961 to add “disability” to the definition of “vulnerable adult” in section 2(1) of that Act. This is a direct response to recommendation 26 of the royal commission’s final report—a direct response to the royal commission’s report—which states that “The government should amend the Crimes Act 1961 to specifically include disability within the definition of a vulnerable adult.”. The amendment does not expand the scope of what is captured by the definition of “vulnerable adult”; it’s a classification rather than a change to the effect of the law.

During the select committee process, the Ministry of Justice recommended, in the departmental report, that the words “at risk” be added alongside “vulnerable”, in the definition of “vulnerable adult”. However, the Parliamentary Counsel Office suggested that doing so would carry the risk of unintended consequences to the underlying definition of “vulnerable adult”. As a result, the ministry recommended withdrawing this recommendation and retaining the original amendment, as proposed by the royal commission themselves. As I said, this was a direct response to their recommendation. I know that it has caused some disquiet in the community, and we are very sensitive to that, but the word “vulnerable”, in this instance, has a definition—it has meaning—and it was a recommendation by the royal commission, after six years, of their report, and we are responding to that. I think, as you can see, the Social Services and Community Committee—and thank you to those of you who were on the select committee—did try and come up with solutions to help solve this problem. But in the end, we ended up back in a position, as recommended by the officials, that this was the best course of action in responding to the royal commission’s advice.

Thank you. The Minister in the chair is absolutely addressing an issue that I’d like to take further, because this was perhaps something that was the most passionate response that was given on this area. Just for the benefit of the public, we had a lot of submissions. I wasn’t on the Social Services and Community Committee at the time, but I have had approaches about this very issue. There was a lot of people who considered the words inappropriate; what they wanted was a replacement of “vulnerable adult” with “adult at risk”. I continue to think that it’s incredibly important, and that it is something that we never dismiss—this actual, on-the-ground experience—because of the trauma involved. I appreciate that the Minister has given an explanation that we’ve gone back to what the commission has suggested, but the very purpose of a submission process is that we listen to the New Zealand public and we listen to those voices. I, for one, think that’s one of the best things about our system that we do—that we listen very clearly to those voices in our process, and that we respond to those often by changing where we’re going. I would like to know whether the Minister would consider—

Can I just interrupt you—because we’re changing Ministers, could you just set that scene again for the question that you are asking, just so we’re clear.

Thank you very much. Good morning to the Minister in the chair. What we are talking about here is Part 2, and we’re talking about the significance of the use of the words “vulnerable adult” and the potential replacement of those words with “adult at risk”. While I acknowledge that the last Minister in the chair, the Hon Erica Stanford, explained that what has been done here is to continue with the language that was proposed by the commission itself, I was explaining that one of the best things, I think, about the New Zealand democratic system is the force of us listening very genuinely to submissions in select committees. This was a submission that was made repeatedly and very articulately by people who had suffered this trauma and had thought very deeply about these issues. The preference of many of those people was to swap out the use of the words “vulnerable adult” with “adult at risk”. It seems to me something that we really could do, but I would like the Minister’s explanation as to whether he would entertain a change of language there by amendment. I could put an amendment on the Table doing that.

The select committee rejected the suggestion out of concern for what was seen as unintended consequences. Could the Minister, for the people who are listening who actually made those submissions—and they will be listening today, because this is something so close to people’s hearts—could explain what, specifically, some of those unintended consequences that the majority of the select committee were worried about are or were? I’d really like to drill down here, because I am conscious that it is really, really important we respond to the select committee. It’s related to an earlier point made, right at the commencement of this committee stage, where we were really talking about the concern over the lack of consultation. The one thing that—I think—has been done well is the select committee process, and this is what the people said, so it’s a really heavy thing not to listen to it.

I just wanted to emphasise that, in an area of great trauma for people—that’s very real and absolutely rests on, and was the responsibility of, the State—listening to people at this point builds trust, and that trust starts at an all-time low. Listening, in this case, and responding here, today, to this suggestion by altering the language or accommodating the worries of the people involved in this process would actually be its own step in terms of trust, rather than overriding it with something that can be seen as an institutional override. Can I have an explanation as to what the fear was of unintended consequences of using the alternative language, and can I have an explanation of whether the Minister would consider swapping out the language? Including the language is the other way to go, perhaps, by having both those parts of language. I’d be very grateful for a proper answer on those things. Thank you.

Thank you, and kia ora to the Minister. We have a number of questions on the term “disability” and, again, on the term “vulnerable adult” versus “at-risk adult”.

I guess the problem that my colleague Helen White is canvassing is that “vulnerable adult”—the term “vulnerable” kind of suggests something inherent within somebody, almost something that you can’t change or shift or shake. The connection between “vulnerable adult” and having a disability kind of implies that, if you are disabled, you are a vulnerable adult. Now, I’ve got multiple disabilities—I’ve got rheumatoid arthritis; I’ve got lupus—but I wouldn’t consider myself a vulnerable adult. There are many people who live their lives and who have disabilities who we wouldn’t consider vulnerable; they’re completely independent, they’re capable of making their own choices, and they’re capable of moving around and exercising their own discretion and power in whichever way they see fit. I guess, the question we’re trying to understand is: what was the decision making behind connecting the existence of a disability and the term “vulnerable adult”?

Again, “vulnerable” suggests something inherent that will always be there, whereas the term “at-risk” points to or suggests maybe the circumstances that somebody is living in that makes them vulnerable. I’m thinking about the children and the young people who end up in youth justice residences or end up in State care. There might be a number of factors that mean that they are at risk—it could be their home environment, it could be the town or the community that they’re growing up in, it could be influences around them, like the use of drugs and alcohol, violence in the home. These are things that would suggest that that young person is at risk, but if we can remove them from those environments and put them into a safer environment, that factor might be mitigated, meaning that they’re not necessarily a vulnerable adult any more. I’m really keen to understand that choice to use “vulnerable adult” over “at-risk adult”, but also the choice to connect disabilities to that definition of being a vulnerable adult.

The other thing we’re interested in is the term “disability” and how that fits into the definition. In this country, some disabilities are treated differently to others. Some are not recognised, some come with funding, some come with better methods of diagnosis, and some disabilities have far better understanding in the health world and in the children’s world as well, in terms of those professionals that are working with children. But they’re not all treated equally. The example that I want to give is fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD). FASD is very prevalent in our prison population, and I would assume, based on my one visit to a youth justice residence last year, Te Puna Wai in Christchurch, that fetal alcohol spectrum disorder is probably prevalent in a lot of the young people in there; I know traumatic brain injuries definitely are. If you’re a kid with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, you don’t get access to certain types of funding. Ongoing Resource Scheme funding, which gives that extra funding to kids in the education system with disabilities—if you’ve got FASD, you can’t even access that, and that’s not the only disability that is not recognised or funded or supported in this country.

What definition or list were you working with when you were thinking about disabilities? Is there a defined list, or would that be up to the courts to determine whether that child is disabled or not? Or is there a list that you’re working from, and is there a recognition that not all disabilities are treated or identified or supported evenly?

I thank the two speakers for their questions and their introductions. I think the first point I’d make is that of course the Government has been listening to the submissions in the select committee process, and that’s very much our intention. It doesn’t always mean that you’d necessarily agree with the suggestions made, but that does not equate with ignoring. It is just recognising that what we’re doing here is responding to the recommendations of the report of the royal commission, which has spent many years on this and has had an enormous amount of consultation with the broader affected community.

The royal commission’s conclusion and their recommendation to us was to acknowledge the concerns from the broader disability community about describing people as “vulnerable”, but they recommended changing the Crimes Act to strengthen the protections for disabled people in the current legislative framework. That was the recommendation: to include or add “disability,” to the definition of “vulnerable adult”, which is currently in the Crimes Act, and it is well-established and it has a lot of case law around it. That was their recommendation, and that’s what we’re undertaking in this legislation.

If you were to change “vulnerable adult” to another definition such as “at risk”—well, that obviously has consequences much more broadly than this particular instance, because it would change that for everything that applies in that situation in the Crimes Act, with ramifications that may be unintended and not necessarily helpful to other elements of that regime. We’re following the recommendation of the royal commission. We understand that there will be a variety of views on this, but we do take some confidence in the process of the royal commission and the very extended process and significant amount of consultation that went into that in order to recognise that that was a sensible thing to recommend, and that’s why we’re carrying it through.

Kahurangi Carter’s Amendment Paper No 365, deleting Part 2, is out of order as being a direct negation of the question. The best course of action for any member supporting this amendment is to vote against Part 2 standing part.

Members, we now come to Part 3. This is the debate on clauses 13 to 31, “Amendments to Oranga Tamariki Act 1989”, and Schedules 2 and 3. The question is—I’ll just wait for the Minister to swap, because you may wish to speak first. I’ll just wait for the Minister for Children to get settled.

Thank you.

The question is that Part 3 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This part of the omnibus bill in response to the abuse in care inquiry is around the Oranga Tamariki Act. The content of this part of the bill makes three changes to all residences. It repeals strip-searches, requires a search plan to be created, applies to all children and young people in secure residence, and it’s around plans being adhered to, unless not reasonably practical. It clarifies the duration in secure care, which will be three days before court authority is required, and it also makes two changes to youth justice residences. It will enable searches to entry—everyone may be searched before they enter, with no requirement to have reasonable grounds—and it also enables the use of image technology that applies to all searches, both on entry and inside a residence.

I’ve also tabled Amendment Paper 354, which is looking at clause 17 of the bill, which defines terms related to the new search on entry provisions in secure youth residences. Under this clause, I’m proposing to add a definition of the word “enter” in relation to these searches. The definition makes it clear that a search on entry can include entering from an administration or staff building or thereof into a secure area containing residential units. This means that a search can happen at the boundary of an administration or staff building at the secure residential units where young people live, or when entering the administration building from outside of the secure residence. This flexibility is needed to accommodate infrastructure differences between residences, which can affect where a scanner can be placed. It also gives Oranga Tamariki the option to avoid searching visitors who do not go beyond the administration building. The Amendment Paper also proposes minor and technical amendments to the bill to clarify definitions and address drafting errors.

This has been a long time coming. It’s been spoken about for years—even before the abuse in care inquiry—around safety when it comes to our young people in care and particularly in residences, and making sure that we’re listening to them and making sure that they are safe when they are in a residence.

This bill is about making sure that we’re keeping our young people safe, keeping our staff safe, and bringing some professionalisation into these residences that hasn’t been there, to make sure that we have good oversight so that our young people can’t be hurt or harmed when they are in a residence. I feel that these changes are just a small part of what we are doing within Oranga Tamariki. There’s a lot of work going on in the background that doesn’t require legislation, but with the help of this legislation, our youth justice and care and protection will have better tools to be able to make sure that our young people are safe. I look forward to answering any questions.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to start by looking at clause 16, “Section 370 amended”, which is the time limits on secure care, and talk about that. I just want to open on this Part 3 by saying this is probably the part of this bill that people have been most worried about, and for good reason. It’s very serious in its implications and the actual tension and the time period is part of that, but so is, obviously, the invasiveness of searching and the humiliation that is involved and the control over people in that situation—but probably the most contentious part will be the issue over force used in that situation.

I wanted just to start with this in a methodical way and focus on clause 16. What has happened in the amendment of the law—or will happen—is that we’ll move from a continuous period of 72 hours of detention, and we’ll be moving to a situation where there is clarity over the period that there hasn’t been before, including the actual period “commencing on the day on which the child or young person is first placed in secure care”.

I would like the Minister to explain, because we will have people watching who have had this happen to them and have had this situation abused in some way—I’d like a plain explanation of what this change is intended to do and what kinds of grey areas there have been in the past, and the concern over the previous way that this was written in the law and why we are now, in particular, moving to articulating that the commencement of the period is actually at the time when the person is first placed in secure care. Had that not happened before? What were the stories that we heard in terms of when that was triggered in the previous situation? I’m only just putting this one thing so that it could be addressed. I do have, obviously, lots of other questions about this particular part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll follow in that lead around questions on clause 16, about time limits on detention in secure care. I just want to note for the Chair that we’ve got a number of Amendment Papers that we’re keen to explore—again, in the kind of good-faith, good-natured approach of trying to make sure we cover all our bases while passing such an important piece of legislation.

On the time limits on detention in secure care, we’ve got an Amendment Paper which reduces the 72 hours to three hours, mostly because we’re cognisant of the psychological and physical impacts that it can have on any human being who is detained in secure care for prolonged periods of time. Obviously, at the extreme end, we see that quite a lot in the adult prison system, where you have reports like the report into the Prisoners of Extreme Risk Unit (PERU) at Auckland Prison, where there were people in there who spent 900 consecutive days in, essentially, solitary confinement.

Back to the youth justice (YJ) residences. We’re really interested to know how you landed on 72 hours as your amount of time that you’re comfortable, or want to legislate, for young people to spend in secure care. Having spoken to people who work in YJ residences, I can understand why secure care could be an option in some circumstances. It can be really overwhelming being in a residence full of other rangatahi, and maybe being in secure care gives them that time to just be alone with their thoughts and kind of regather and regulate their emotions and figure out what’s next, particularly in really hostile youth justice residence environments. I think we have to be really careful that we’re not leaving people and leaving children in the secure care for too long of a period of time, because when people exit that secure care eventually, if they haven’t had any human or social interactions or contact for too long, it can cause even more adverse problems. It can mean that their emotions or their actions can become more aggressive or more hostile because they haven’t been around other human beings, so they have to kind of ease back into that.

Our question on the 72 hours in secure care is: how did you land on 72 hours? Why was that picked to be the period of time that young people would spend in secure care? Why would a young person need to be put into secure care in the first place? I obviously just gave some examples of that, but I think that illuminating why you need access to that tool in the first place could be constructive to the interrogation that we’re doing of this bill today. What do those 72 hours look like? What is that child entitled to during their time in secure care? Does it mean that they will be constantly observed during that 72 hours? Will there be someone sitting outside that cell? Let’s just call it what it is: it’s a cell. Will there be someone sitting outside and observing during that 72 hours? Will that young person have privacy? How often will they have meals? Are they allowed to be visited by family members or by mental health professionals or workers that work in those youth justice residences? What does that 72 hours look like for that young person in secure care, and what else happens during that time? Is that young person given an explanation as to why they are in there? Are they given a really fair understanding of how to get out of there, or how to raise concerns if they don’t feel that they should be in there?

To relate it to solitary confinement for adults in the correctional system, one thing that was brought to light through the PERU report that came out last year is that people who are in PERU for prolonged periods of solitary confinement had no idea either why they were in there or no idea how to get out of there, or what the process was to get out of there. If there is a young person in secure care who doesn’t want to be in there, are they made aware of their rights? Are they made aware of the process to get out of there?

In terms of that 72 hours, when does that start again? If a child spends 72 hours in there, and you’re like, “Oh well, the law says that you’ve got to get out of here because it’s been 72 hours.”, is there a period of time that they have to spend outside of secure care before they are able to go back into it again? We don’t want there to be a system where a young person spends 72 hours in there, and then they’re out for, let’s say, 10 minutes and then they’re able to be put back into it, so that you end up with these long lags of secure care and kind of skirting around the legislation that is supposed to prevent that. When does it start again and how are they eased back into social interactions? Again, anybody, any human being, who spends a long period of time in a cell by themselves—largely by themselves—it’s going to be hard for them to go back into an environment where there are lots of other people. How are they eased back into the residence or back into the community, following that security care?

Just to summarise, my questions are: how did we land on 72 hours; is that aligned with other international standards, or is that aligned with some kind of recommendations from someone like the Ombudsman or the independent Children’s Commissioner—who set that 72 hours? Why would somebody need to be in secure care, and is it made clear to them how they can exit secure care eventually? What does that 72 hours look like: are they being observed; what are their meals like; are they able to be visited by professionals? When does that 72 hours start again, in terms of is there a grace period before they can enter secure care again? And, when they exit secure care, how do they ease back into the residence without being overwhelmed or aggressive? You know, the natural feelings that you might feel after not having human contact for three days, in this case.

I’ll answer some questions around secure care and why a time frame is needed. I just want to clarify, because it’s been repeated a couple of times that we landed on a 72-hour time frame: actually, this legislation will be deleting the 72-hour time frame to make sure that we are very clear that it clarifies that three days in secure care before court authority is required is what was landed upon—not 72 hours.

The problem is that when you have two separate definitions, if a child or young person was placed in secure care at 6 p.m. on the Tuesday, that is day one, so, when counting three days, they need to be out by midnight on the Thursday; in contrast to, when counting 72 hours after 6 p.m. on a Tuesday, it is 6 p.m. on a Friday—18 hours later than when counting three days. We just want to make sure that they’re not staying in secure care longer than they need to, so the three days just really clarifies that. If we have the 72 hours, they’re staying longer. This is just a clarification, because there was a bit of a gap in that legislation when we had two different timings. That’s how we came to the three days, not 72 hours. I just want to make that very, very clear: we haven’t landed on that 72 hours. It just removes doubt about when court oversight is required. The question was asked: “When does that start again?” Once you hit the three days, you need to be court authority - required if you want to continue that secure care. That is up to the courts whether that continues.

What I would say, though, is that the member has painted a pretty bleak picture of what secure care looks like within a youth justice residence. I just want to clarify that the young people are not withdrawn from contact with other people. They don’t sit for three days with no contact with a person. They are in a secure care unit, which means that they have the ability to move around the unit. It is a separate unit from the unit where they may be cohorting with a group of people. They are removed from that unit with a group of other young people and moved into a secure care unit, where they have the ability to move around a secure unit. They will have staff with them and they have access to their social workers if need be, and they are able to be in the day room during the day, but just within a more secure area, to keep them safe, to keep the other young people safe if there’s been a bit of a conflict within their unit, and to allow them time to have a conversation, maybe, with a worker around how we can do better with the behaviour, and give them a chance to regulate themselves so that they can move back within a normal unit.

This picture of sitting in a cell, with the door locked, dark and dank, and not being able to leave their room, and have no contact with people for three days, is absolutely untrue and overexaggerated. Young people do have the ability to have conversations with workers about why they are in there, what they could do to avoid ending up in a secure care unit again, and how we can work better, even as staff members, with them to help de-escalate a situation. I just want to make that clear.

Why do we need secure care at all? Secure care is only used as allowed in law and where necessary. There are times when a young person may seek to abscond from youth justice residences; this is one of the reasons, which is one of the statutory grounds for placing a young person in secure care. But there are also times when secure care is needed to ensure the safety of maybe not just that young person that’s been put in secure care but other young people that are within a unit, if that young person’s behaviour is showing that it may cause harm to others. We need to be able to have that, unfortunately, as a temporary solution to de-escalate dangerous situations.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the Minister for Children for those initial responses. I suppose my initial response to that response is that three days is still a significant period of time. I think my Green Party colleague has raised some of the issues in terms of trying to understand the logic for the three-day period, but also the very valuable question of to what extent that young person can then be made to go back into secure care and what the time period between those two instances must be or if that’s a case of judgment, and whether it would be appropriate for there to be some statutory provisions around the gap between those potential periods.

The other issue is that secure care is also tied to very broad discretion in terms of when that can occur—and just looking at the scope of searches that can be done under these provisions, as well, it is quite considerable. Under new section 384A, in clause 17(2), search can be any article; under new section 384(b)(i), it could be “anything that could, while in the possession of a youth justice resident, be harmful to the youth justice resident or any other person:”—so I think the point we’re trying to make is that the discretion here is extremely broad, and the question is whether there’s consideration of how that could be drawn down.

When I was working at YouthLaw Aotearoa, I visited Whakatakapokai, and we used to go in to deliver sessions with educators, and there were times, on multiple occasions, when simple objects would go missing and that would restrict the provision of those legal services to those young people. I remember, at one stage, it was a pen that had gone missing and had not been identified. While I completely understand the Minister’s explanation of it not being an isolated cell that this young person is in, there are certainly large restrictions that are made around young people in care and a huge amount of discretion—just one general point.

I’ve also just been looking at the Minister’s Amendment Paper 354, which amends clause 17. In the explanatory note, it amends the current definition of a “pat down search” in section 384A to ensure that it covers not only the youth justice resident but those who enter a youth justice residence. I’ve just spoken to one of the roles I used to play entering a youth justice residence, and so I have just an observation that I think it would have been useful to consult with some of those entities that are regularly entering youth justice facilities to hear their views on the pat-down searches.

My second question—because I haven’t had time to go back to the principal Act and check the cross reference—is: would it only be pat-down searches, or are there other provisions within the changes made in this bill that would also apply to visitors or professionals coming through to youth justice facilities?

I do also want to speak to some of the amendments that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime has proposed. A first question here would be: what advice did the Minister seek regarding how the use of force is consistent with the royal commission’s findings and recommendations, which found that laws and regulations surrounding the use of force were often ignored when they were in place, and, in reality, legitimised the use of force, leading to severe harm, abuse, and trauma in far too many cases?

Now, the Hon Willow-Jean Prime has proposed an amendment to new section 384A in clause 17(4), by inserting, after paragraph (b) of the definition of “authorised person”, “a person who has received training in de-escalation methods appropriate for children and young people.” She has also proposed a similar, but different, amendment to new section 384H in clause 24, where she proposes inserting, after the heading, a new subclause (1A) that provides that no member of staff may use physical force in carrying out a search authorised by section 384C unless that person has first used de-escalation methods appropriate for children and young people which the person has been trained to use.

The question here is, really, whether the Minister agrees that it would be preferable to avoid the use of force and whether, if she agrees with that, she would agree to those amendments, which would then give statutory—

Of course she does.

Which is great, and that’s wonderful, but whether she would then agree to statutory direction in terms of that being the preferred method—again, just recognising that there’s a huge amount of discretion in this area. Having been into many of these facilities, I was struck by the good faith of the staff who are in those facilities and who run them. However, it is a broad amount of discretion and these are young people who don’t often have access to easy avenues of complaint or raising issues, so it’s a space where clear statutory direction could be quite valuable.

Again, I think there are several amendments here from the Hon Willow-Jean Prime that the Minister could consider. I guess the question is what advice the Minister has had on whether provisions like this would be useful in terms of directing that those staff are trained in this area and that de-escalation is the preferred method before search, as well. Thank you.

Madam Chair.

Tamatha Paul.

Madam Chair?

Sorry, I had called Tamatha Paul. Sorry, Minister.

I’ve got more on the use of force if you wanted me to do my questions—I don’t know how this works.

You’ve got the call; you can take it or not.

OK, thank you. I have some follow-on questions around the use of force, so maybe this will mean that the Minister for Children could address both of our questions around the use of force and a consideration of our amendments that seek to put some more safeguards in place where force is used.

Just to kind of comment on the answer that the Minister gave me before, I think it should be appreciated that not everybody can go into youth justice residences and into these State care institutions. I don’t think we should be able to do that in the same way that we are able to visit any prison in New Zealand. But the Minister was talking about the true nature of what secure care looks like, and kind of saying that the way that I was describing it may not reflect the reality. That might be the case, but we don’t know because we’re not able to go into those—

You’ve visited.

We weren’t able to see the secure care residence when we were at Te Puna Wai, actually. I’ve tried to visit Korowai Manaaki, as well, but have been denied three times. We don’t have the same access that the Minister has, so we are going to be asking questions, because apart from herself and apart from the independent Children’s Commissioner, we don’t know what the reality is. We know the laws that surround youth justice residents, residences, and State care, but we don’t know what the reality of that looks like—hence why we’re asking questions to try and determine what that looks like, so that we can put the right safeguards in place to protect children.

My questions are around the use of force, and I’m going to be talking specifically to our Amendment Paper 366. This is an amendment that looks to remove all provisions for the use of force against youth justice residents. Now, obviously, during this submission process, there were people who came and spoke about the use of force—when might it be necessary, what is it used for, and what are the safeguards that can be put in place? It also made me think about the Oranga Tamariki (Responding to Serious Youth Offending) bill that came up, and we had lots of organisations during that time come and talk to us about the use of force that is permitted for third-party providers in the setup of the boot camps for young people who are absconding. There were lots of questions and valid points raised about what the use is of “the use of force”. There are many people who believe there is no justification for the use of force against children, which is a viewpoint that we tend to agree with.

I guess the balance that we’re trying to strike with this amendment is how we can make sure that a youth justice residence worker, or anybody who’s working with these tamariki, truly resort to the use of force as a last-case tool. We want to know what processes will be in place to make sure that every option is exhausted before a staff member resorts to using force against that young person.

What are some of the modern de-escalation techniques that a worker might be able to employ before they resort to a use of force? But more importantly, what kind of training are these workers, who are going to get—I mean, that’s a lot of power, allowing someone to be able to use force when carrying out a search or preventing a young person from absconding. That’s a lot of power. What training will go into these workers’ programmes and regimes and life to make sure that they know that the use of force is a last resort, and so that they are really confident with nonviolent de-escalation techniques that they can employ confidently before they resort to force? What is the training going to look like for those workers?

Then, more importantly, what is the evaluation process that follows after that use-of-force event? Will it be monitored? Will it be tracked? Will it be recorded somewhere? Is there a chance for all different people involved in that residence to come together and actually evaluate that use of force?

In prisons, when there is a use of force, the best practice is that there’ll be a bit of a multidisciplinary team that come together. They look at the body camera footage, they look at the CCTV footage, and they ask themselves, “Did we have to use force, did we have to escalate this, or could we have tried something else differently?”—and they bring in mental health professionals, psychological experts, the officers themselves, and they kind of look at the situation to reassess. That means that there is better practice, because people are more aware of the different tools that they can utilise before resorting to force—because it truly should be the last thing that anybody thinks about. So appropriate training, and then the “after” in terms of evaluation and what’s happening there. We’re really interested to know how they might keep a record of what de-escalation practices were tried out before they resorted to the use of force.

The other question we had was in terms of recording those incidences where force is used. Like I mentioned before with corrections officers, they have got body cameras and there’s CCTV everywhere. I acknowledge that there are bigger sensitivity and privacy concerns when it comes to children who are in these residences, but how are they going to be able to reflect on their use of force? Like, how will that be captured so that they can reflect? Otherwise, it’s kind of a “he said, she said”; the young person says, “They held me down and put their knee on me.”, and then the officer says, or the social worker or youth worker says, “No, I didn’t do that.” How do we keep a record—a physical record—of what actually happened, and how is that recorded?

I guess the other point I’ll make in terms of the use of force is, when weighing up whether to allow for the use of force and whether to expand that provision to other people as well, how did you strike a balance between professionalisation—which you talked about in your opening speech, Minister—versus institutionalisation? One of the core recommendations from the abuse in State care report Whanaketia was the institutionalisation of those residences or programmes and how that could lead to a lifetime of staying in institutions, whether that be in mental hospitals or in prison. How do you strike that balance of professionalising things so that there are appropriate safeguards, so that people do have appropriate training and expertise and evaluation processes—but how do you make sure that that’s not just institutionalising an entire generation of young people, where it becomes normalised to them to have force used against them by people in authoritative positions in their lives?

There are quite a few questions there. One was around section 384A of the Act, defining pat-down searches. I just want to clarify that that amendment in clause 17(2B) of Amendment Paper 354 just amends the definition of “pat down search” to ensure it covers non-residents to make sure it’s consistent with section 384KC. It replaces references to “child” or “young person” with the term “person”. It’s just to tidy that up so that they are consistent.

When it comes to pat-down searches, those will only happen if there’s a circumstance where they don’t want to go through the scanner. It’s a bit like an airport. If something pops up, just a quick pat-down search, just like you would at the airport, or if you don’t want to go through the scanner, it will be given as an alternative. It’s not a punishment; it’s used as an alternative option if needed. That’s just really a tidy-up in the legislation rather than a change.

I would like to go through some of these amendments that have been put on the Table, some by Kahurangi Carter from the Green Party. I’ll speak to Amendment Paper 370: “This amendment requires reasonable modern de-escalation practices to be exhausted before any force is used in carrying out a search.”—and there’s a bit more to it, but what I would say is I do not support this, as legislating modern de-escalation practices in the context of searches would make the safeguards for searches different from safeguards for other contexts where force may be used, for example in self-defence or in defence of another person. Nothing in this bill allows for force to be used as a first resort in the context of search on entry.

Amendment Paper 369, in the name of Kahurangi Carter, is to reduce the ability to retain images generated from the use of technology. I would say that this bill is clear that the scanner search images must be disposed of within 24 hours, meaning that they can be disposed of sooner if necessary. In those cases where a harmful item was identified by the scanner, it could be useful to retain the image for a short period of time to allow staff and managers to make necessary decisions about the search. For example, if an image indicates a young person has swallowed a harmful item, decisions will need to be made about seeking medical attention or whether the image should be copied, photographed, or provided to medical professionals. The Privacy Commissioner, in his submission on this bill, found the restriction on the retention of images was generally appropriate, so we won’t be supporting that amendment.

Amendment Paper 368 amends clause 16, “Section 370 amended”. This amendment prevents children and young people from being kept in secure care for longer than three hours. The existing time limit applies to the period before approval must be sought from the court for an extension. Reducing the period to three hours is not a practical time frame in which a court decision can be sought. If the intent is just to cap secure care to a maximum of three hours without any possibility of court approving an extension, then further amendments would be needed—so we wouldn’t be supporting that amendment.

Amendment Paper 366 is around removing provisions authorising the use of force against youth justice residences, including existing authority in the Act to use force for searches generally, not just for proposed new authority to use force for searches on entry. I would say that, without this provision to use force in the context of a search on entry, Oranga Tamariki would have no authority to touch the child or young person who is not cooperating—for example, even to just guide them to a scanner. Nothing in the bill allows force to be used as a first resort, I will repeat. It is clear that an authorised person must not use force on carrying out a search on entry unless there are reasonable grounds to consider it necessary in the circumstances, so we will not be supporting that amendment.

Amendment Paper 371: this amendment that specifies that contractors may not be authorised to use force against youth justice residences. The intent is to ensure that only staff can be authorised to use force. I can certainly understand the thought behind this amendment. Further work is required to consider whether it’s practical to authorise contractors to carry out a search on entry, but to prevent them from using force if necessary to the purpose of the search. The proposed amendment as it currently sits could mean that staff would be pulled away from their duties inside the residence only to use force for the search. There has to be further consideration, if we were to look at that—but the way that this amendment has written, we cannot support that.

We have amendments in the name of Willow-Jean Prime. The first amends clause 17, “Section 384A amended (Interpretation)”, the amended definition of “an authorised person”. We won’t be supporting this, as the bill already allows for regulations to prescribe the qualifications for being an authorised person.

The next amendment from Willow-Jean Prime amends clause 24, “Section 384H amended (Use of force in carrying out search)”. It’s pretty much the same answer I gave to a previous Amendment Paper—nothing in this bill allows force to be used as a first resort in the context of search on entry, so we will not be supporting that amendment.

Now, this has been brought up a little bit around recording inspections and searches. This is something that is allowed for within regulations and staff training and making sure that we are recording incidences. In clause 29 of the bill, “Section 447 amended (Regulations)”, new section 447(1)(caac)(vii) contains the words “prescribing procedures by which a person may make a complaint in relation to a search, and how that complaint is to be dealt with:”, and then (viii), “prescribing recordkeeping requirements relating to searches conducted on entry to a youth justice residence:”—that has been taken into consideration around how we do record-keeping and how we make sure that there is accountability in that space. We won’t be supporting that amendment.

Willow-Jean Prime’s next amendment amends clause 28, new section 384KB. This amendment is around the use of force in carrying out searches in youth justice residences. Same answer that I’ve given in the past: nothing in this bill allows for force to be used as a first resort in the context of search on entry. Willow-Jean Prime also has an amendment that amends clause 28, new section 384KK. This has been covered in another amendment around record-keeping, so we will not be supporting that amendment.

I think there are only a couple more amendments that are in here that haven’t been spoken to. If I’ve missed any, please let me know—but, hopefully, that gives an explanation as to as to why we won’t be making those changes.

Can I just ask, before I take the next call, for members to please highlight which clause that you are speaking to? It just helps with the order that we’re trying to work through in the paperwork. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Before I get on to clause 17, I am really curious as to the Minister for Children’s answer to the issue about repeated detention under the 72 hours. I thought that was an excellent point by people, and I’d be very, very, interested in hearing what the response is in terms of the misuse of that by repeatedly detaining, with a few hours in between, perhaps, and what safeguards are in place with regard to that. I do know that’s an issue in many clauses about detention—that people game that system if they can—so I will be very keen to hear about that.

I want to ask about clause 17, which is the “harmful item” section. I can see in clause 17(2), which amends section 384A, that a harmful item includes one that “has reasonable cause to believe is likely” to cause harm, but that seems, to me, to be an undercooked section in terms of setting out the principle of harm. If I go down to the list, under paragraph (b), of things that have already been identified as likely to cause harm, we get to an example here of an “electronic communication device”. I can see that there may be instances where that is—and there’s a further section on that further on, which I’ll come to—but I can see that it could be, or it could not be. It is something that most of us have all the time, and there will be arguments as to why it is actually not harmful for people to have those things.

I’m not a fan of tobacco or vaping—I do think there is a harm—but there is a proportionate nature to those things. We have lots of adults who self-medicate with tobacco and vaping, and they are not seen as particularly harmful with regard to their mental health. They are a method of self-medication and comfort. These things are clearly on the list as harmful, and I wondered what balance has gone into making sure that there is an availability of things that might be things that we would respect autonomous individuals to be able to make choices about? We allow adults to make those choices, but, in this situation, we’re kind of clamping down really hard—so you’ve got a child who’s coming in and they’re just stripped of all these things that have been used, probably, for comfort, etc., and they’re in an extremely challenging situation. Is there any discretion in that situation? I completely agree that I would not want my kids vaping or using tobacco; I’m not suggesting that it has not got some harm associated with it. I’m just asking, in this situation, why has this been prohibited in this way rather than some sort of proportional assessment at the time, or is that built in? Is it something where there can be a discretion involved? I can’t see any form of discretion here.

I want to ask about clause 17(2), inserting paragraph (b)(xi), which is an “article or thing declared to be a harmful item by regulations”. I wanted to ask the Minister to explain the process around how that decision would be made, given what I have suggested, which is that we’ve got a fairly spare—a minimal—principle of harm in the first clause. Is the process simply applying the standard that the people making the decision to put something new in the regulations are simply making a case that they have reasonable cause to believe it is likely? Again, it involves the same kinds of issues of proportionality and that kind of invasion. Thank you.

Just in regard to the questions that have just been asked around harmful items: the harmful items are the same as the list in the Corrections Act, for starters. That’s part of how we came to the decisions to be making that.

What I want to make really clear as well is there are two areas to this. You were speaking around vapes being something that can be—some items can be an item that can relax a young person, that they’re used to having it, and that it may not be harmful. What I would say is that staff and people who work in this area have seen these items being used in very harmful ways. They can be used as shanks that can cause major damage, and even death, with just that item alone. It’s not just really up to discretion; there has to be a link between an item and harm. If the item is not likely to cause harm to a child or young person, there is no reason to add it to the list and regulations. There are also existing processes in place to curb the power of adding inappropriate items to this list—for example, the role of the regulations review committee is to scrutinise the regulations to ensure they are made fairly and used consistently.

The bill was also amended at select committee stage to include guiding criteria for this legislation-making power. This will require the Minister for Children to consult with the Minister of Justice and be satisfied on reasonable grounds that the harm that could be caused by the items justifies it being added to the list or even removed from the list if requested. That puts in that safeguard in the areas of harmful items.

This is not about taking away what young people enjoy. They are in an area where they are high risk; in a youth justice facility, in particular, they are court-ordered to be there. There are some restrictions that come with being in a court-ordered youth justice residence where some of your freedoms are taken away. There is good reason for that. What I would say is that we do not want to see a staff member in danger of being stabbed; we don’t want to see a young person in danger of being stabbed.

Part of the responding to the abuse in care legislation—it was very clear throughout that we needed to listen to the voices of young people. Young people within youth justice residences have consistently said, “This is my home and I want to feel safe.” If you know you are going to be in a unit with young people that have weapons on them, that have the potential to stab you or kill you, you are not feeling safe—and so what I would say is this is a valid response to making sure that young people in our care are safe.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Mōrena, Madam Chair. Mōrena, Minister. I’m still on clause 16 and I might move on to clause 17, and I guess I will start by saying this: if only the descriptions of “dark and dank”, and those types of descriptions were actually an exaggeration. The Whanaketia report shows very clearly that they were not exaggerations; they were the horror that people lived through. I think it’s important not to bring those things back into memory for drama, but more for centring ourselves in the conversation, and so I just wanted to remark on it in that way.

As a party, we get and we acknowledge the efforts going forward to improve what we’ve failed on. You will recall, Minister, when I spoke in the House to the fact that was an apology and there were apologies provided, but by no means did that mean that all the survivors have to forgive us, and I think we have to do better.

I want to take us to the question about training, and I think that there’s something really important in that. I’ve heard words like “de-escalation” from my colleagues on the right as a being a smart and good idea, but that takes real, solid, enduring training and monitoring and assessment as to whether people are up for that. I’m keen to know if you can tell us what the model of care is, because if we’re talking about moments of securing—putting young people into security, for whatever reasons—it’s the moments before and after they’re secured. So spending three days in secure is one thing, but the 22 previous days is really where I’d want to understand in a more thorough way, Minister, as to what that actually does look like and what is the model of care.

Can that be described, and are you confident and assured that it is rigorous enough and that it is deeply understood from the young people and their families as to what it takes to provide a model of care, particularly for mokopuna Māori? It’s not for only mokopuna Māori, obviously—I’m not that silly. But I don’t hear that in the descriptions. From what I’m hearing this morning, I can hear intention, but I don’t hear deep conviction in that way, and I’d like to understand that better.

The use of force: even when we use that word description of “force”, it conjures up all kinds of horror. I have this Ngā Rākau Rikiriki, which is the poetry, which is the document that was provided and put together by survivors. It’s worth a read and a reminder.

Minister, I genuinely want to feel whether any of the discussions or the questions this morning are appreciated in your responses so that it gives us the confidence that we can do this better, together. Thank you.

I just want to go back to a question asked by the member Tamatha Paul: what training was there to ensure that youth workers know that use of force is a last resort, and what is the evaluation process after a use-of-force event? I thought that that needed to be answered; I want to make sure I give you a good answer on that.

Standard operating procedure is that physical intervention can only be used when verbal de-escalation techniques have failed. I do agree that in the past that hasn’t really been followed very well because there wasn’t a very good training programme in place when people came to work within youth justice. This has been a real passion of mine, making sure that we’re not (a) setting staff up to fail when they go to work within these facilities, but (b) making sure that they have an understanding of what their obligations are to keep young people safe, and that we need to treat these young people with dignity and respect. Yes, they are in there for reasons, but they’re also human beings that deserve to be treated with respect. I’m very passionate about that, and I want to make sure that we give the tools to these staff to be able to do their job and do their job well.

That was part of the professionalisation of the workforce programme that we’ve been working on, making sure that every staff member that goes to work within a youth justice facility is well trained. Part of that training is around that and also retraining staff that have been working for us for a while that may need a reminder in that space of what their obligations are. Now staff are trained in verbal de-escalation with restorative practice in addition to proactive prevention of events like fights. After the use of force, it will be reviewed by a team leader. It will also have a process to escalate internally to the Oranga Tamariki escalation team where any concerns about the appropriateness of the use of force can be investigated.

I think that’s actually really, really important because you are right, it is a massive power to have and we have to make sure that there’s really good oversight on that. The use of force, any use of force, whether it be showing a young person to the scanner, if we have to physically move them in any way or touch them in any way, must be recorded in a daily log and also reviewed for appropriateness.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

I don’t think we’re quite there yet. But I do have to note to members that there is a lot of repetition coming back in around the timing, the secure care, and the use of force. Look, there are quite a few clauses in this particular part that are still to be explored, so I do encourage you to move on.

Thank you, Madam Chair. My questions are on a few other parts of the bill. Can I, first, just thank the Minister for Children for her extremely thorough responses and addressing the Amendment Papers individually. That was very helpful and actually addressed a number of questions I would have otherwise asked. Thank you for pre-empting that.

I’m looking at—so where are we?—clause 23, which is the amended section 384G, “Restrictions on searches”. This clause replaces the wording “must be carried out by a member of staff who is of the same sex as the child or young person being searched” with “must not be carried out in view of another child or young person in the residence”. They’re quite different objectives, in my view. I’ve also noted that, obviously, we have the new section 384AC, inserted by clause 18, which is around the plan, and I really appreciate the language in that around the needs of the child and what’s reasonable, and that, potentially, the child could express a view there about who should be searching them. I’m also very aware of the lack of explicit language, given that if we look further at new section 384KF, inserted by clause 28, (3A) says, “A person (other than a youth justice resident) may request that a pat down search be carried out only by an authorised person of the sex or gender identity chosen by the person.” It’s very explicitly giving this right to others who aren’t youth justice residents. I must also commend the Minister on the inclusion of “gender identity chosen by the person.” within that section. My question is, really: why wasn’t that explicit wording included in 384AC, and what was the intent of the removal of some of that language in section 384G, as well?

My other question is back to new section 384KF(3), which lists the people who must be present when a youth justice resident is being searched. It includes (b), which says that a prescribed person can be someone who’s named in regulations made under section 447. Again, I haven’t done the cross-reference, but I’m wondering why we don’t have a closed list in legislation and who that provision might, then, include. It just feels to me like the appropriate people—like, (3)(a)(ii) is worded so broadly “another authorised person:”, I can’t imagine who might be included under regulation who sits outside being an authorised person. Just those two issues for me. Thank you.

I just want to come back to questions from Helen White and Tamatha Paul around the period of time in secure care and repeated use of secure care, because that’s been raised a couple of times.

I just want to address the concerns where you are asking if, when a young person comes out, what’s to stop the abuse of reusing it. What I would also like to say is, I just want to bring a little bit of balance to this, because we have some pretty amazing staff that take care of our young people, and whilst, at times, there are people that do skirt those lines of being responsible caregivers for our young people, most of our workers go to work every day to make our young people’s lives better. I just want to make sure that people have an understanding that nobody goes to work to try and torture or break the rules and have a young person repeatedly in secure care—just to bring a bit of balance to it.

This bill’s not changing the existing time limits for secure care. Although a young person can be placed in secure care again, with each placement there’s a strict criteria for admission, so they have to have to meet that criteria and additional safeguards for preventing continuous care. It can’t be for the same offence that they were put in there the first time around. They have to really justify why that young person is being re-placed there; it may be a new event that has happened. There’s a very strict criteria for admission.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Minister, for your detailed answers to our particular points. As I said at the beginning of this session this morning, we’re supporting the bill, so it’s good to use the session to just clarify and make sure we’ve got some of those safeguards right. Your answers really assist us in feeling a little bit of confidence in what we’re all—or mostly all—agreeing to.

A few questions ago, there were some questions from Helen White about harmful items. I just wanted to touch on that a little bit, because I totally agree with the Minister; I have also heard from tamariki that prohibiting these items makes them feel safer, and I totally support that—whatever makes them feel safe in their residence or the place that they’re calling home for that period is 100 percent justified. It’s also justified in light of news stories—last year, I think—around Korowai Manaaki, where contraband was being brought in. Vapes were one of the items mentioned, so I’m glad that this kind of responds to that, and I hope the Minister is keeping those managers accountable for those findings from, I think, the Children’s Commissioner.

On the harmful items point, I guess what I’m keen to understand is: with more harmful items comes a greater level of searching when families come into visit their tamariki or their whānau who are in there—not just family; maybe friends, mentors, whatever. One thing I have heard from rangatahi who have been in youth justice residences is that the family visits can make a big different to the care they’re being provided, or maybe the counselling they’re getting in there or the programmes they’re doing. Those family visits really reinforce the positive things that they’re learning. Knowing the kinds of backgrounds that a lot of these tamariki come from, some of these families might have experienced—I’m not saying it’s all of them, but some of them may have been in prison or may be a bit sensitive to that institutional nature. I wanted to ask a question to the Minister about how you strike that balance between keeping kids safe but not being too prohibitive to those families. We want them to visit; we want them to be an active part of their tamariki’s healing and rehabilitation. How did you go about striking that balance in terms of the family visits?

The other points I just wanted to raise are in reference to our Amendment Paper 369, which addresses the image scanning, which we haven’t touched on yet; and also Amendment Paper 371, but I’ll start with the image scanning because we haven’t really touched on that yet this morning. Obviously, this bill, in clause—I’m not going to waste our time finding it, but it is definitely in Part 3. The clauses and sections around the scanner searches and the images: we’re really keen to understand how those images are stored. We’re kind of presuming that these images could be quite intimate images of those young people. It could be normal images as well, but there could be some really sensitive images, so we’re keen to understand how those images will be stored prior to them being deleted.

We know that this bill will mean that they’re deleted a lot faster, but how will they be stored? Is it secure storage software or whatever it ends up being? How will we know and monitor that those images have been deleted within that 24-hour window? Who has access to those images? Does that include third-party contractors? Is it just the people that work in the youth justice residence? Is it the police? Is it other youth justice residences around the country? We’re keen to understand how those are stored, who has access to those images, and whether there has there been any communication with the Privacy Commissioner or people in those kinds of roles who specialise in privacy and storing sensitive information and data?

Some of us might recall—a couple of years ago, I believe—there was this kind of big drama about police taking lots of images of young Māori on the street and not storing those images securely, and the Privacy Commissioner found that there were tens of thousands of unauthorised, unsecure photos of young Māori children just floating around and being stored on these devices.

The privacy of children is of the utmost importance to us, and we’re also keen to understand how that deleting happens. Where do those images go once they’ve been deleted? We’re keen to understand the dynamics of the image-scanning aspect of this bill.

Sorry, I’m still a little bit behind. I will answer that question soon, but I just want to go back to the harmful items and also address what Tamatha Paul has just also said around staff as well.

We have to be careful that we’re not just laying the blame on whānau members and saying this is all them bringing in contraband to these young people. There are multiple layers of indirect harm with some of these items. I’ll give an example around vapes: they can be made to use as shanks, as we’ve talked about, but they can also be used as contraband trade or a commodity within a youth justice residence. That’s not just by young people; there is the temptation for staff to use them in ways to get young people to do things, so we want to make sure that we’re holding staff to account when we’re doing searches coming into residences.

Aside from legislation change today, there is a lot of practice change going on in that space too. If you look at that search on entry, which we’re looking at, when you go through, say, a corrections facility, there are some practices there that staff have had to do for a while. One of those is the clear plastic bags so that we can see what staff are bringing into residences, and holding the staff to the same level of accountability as any other visitor that comes into a residence. We want to stop this contraband being used as commodity, which can often lead to fights and lead to cliques that become quite dangerous within a youth justice residence.

Around the image technology, I think it sounds really scary, that we’re bringing in this image technology, that we’re scanning people. What I would like to say is it’s not as uncommon as we think. You walk through an airport; you get scanned at an airport if you want to catch a flight. You often can come to these restrictions when going to court. There are multiple places where you walk through a scanner and it’s “nothing to see here” and not a problem. What I would say is, yes, we are aware of the unintended consequences of whānau not wanting to visit, that it could be quite a traumatic experience for some whānau, if they have been incarcerated in the past. We want to make this process as friendly as possible, but also, quite frankly, we need to put the safety of the young people in our care at the very front of our decision making.

We’re very clear that there will be training in this space around how we deal with whānau visitation. We will make sure that it is made very clear, before they come into the residence, what is expected of them. Currently, there is a sign on the entrance saying, “Please do not bring these items in”. That has not worked, obviously.

With the scanners, that’s also why we changed the entry: because it had the possibility of actually searching people who were just coming to the reception to ask questions. By changing that entry, we have an area where we can first speak to the visitors, set that expectation before going through the process so that it’s not just, wham, “I’m stuck in this process where I can’t even speak to somebody, and I’m already being searched”. We’ll set the expectations very clearly in the beginning.

If something is found, through either the scanning process or the pat-down process, if it is not an illegal item, then they will be given the option to take that back to their vehicle and then come back again. We want to make it as least restrictive as possible, but make sure that we’re keeping our young people safe.

Thank you. First of all, I just wanted to thank the Minister for Children for the thorough answers on the issue that I’ve raised about repeated detention and on the harmful objects. My only remaining concern in that area is my concern about self-soothing and addiction to things like nicotine. I seek the Minister’s assurance that people would be given appropriate interventions in terms of things like nicotine patches, etc., because they’re undergoing huge amounts of stress and they’re being asked to, basically, detox at the same time, quite often. I would like an assurance that there are processes in place with regard to alcohol and nicotine.

I actually want to move on to the area of vehicles and dogs because they’re both important issues. With regard to vehicles, I guess what most New Zealanders would wonder is: if we’ve got this very comprehensive system of search, and things aren’t coming in, why is it necessary for us to search vehicles? I did a lot of work on these kinds of searches when I was a lawyer in relation to workplaces where cars were parked in the car park. There were always balancing acts that needed to be done, like giving people the appropriate warning that their vehicle could be searched but also explaining, in those situations, whether the invasion of privacy over a car was necessary.

When it comes to cars, one of the issues is that you’re not in control of them all the time. People would find things in the cars that were, perhaps, illegal. I remember I had a case where there was equipment for the use of marijuana and there was equipment for the use of P. In fact, it’s very hard to link that to the person who’s driving the car because so many people are in the car. I would like to know what the logic is here and what procedures we are copying and following with regard to why we are we looking at the vehicles with a search in that way?

Then the other issue I’d really like to know about is the use of dogs. Now, I can see this has been considered in this piece of legislation. The worry about dogs is that they’re actually very frightening, and I can see the legislation has said that they will be kept at a distance from the people, etc. I would like for people who are listening today to hear a little bit from the Minister about what kind of dogs are involved and whether there have been any instances where those dogs have got out of control, because it’s very hard to control a dog, actually. One the challenges that many of us who’ve had dogs face is they’re not actually entirely in our control. Given the fact that these are trained dogs, I’d like the Minister to talk about why we use the dogs, what they can do that is not able to be done by human beings, and what safeguards are put in place, in really ordinary language. What kind of dogs are we talking about here and is there any risk that the dogs would be aggressive or would frighten people involved in this process, given that we’re often dealing with really traumatised people? Thank you. I’d be grateful for your answers to both those questions.

Thank you. I’m just responding to Vanushi Walters’ question around clause 23, “Section 384G amended”. Section 384G relates to searches inside residences. The bill removes the current requirement that pat-down searches only be carried out by a person of the same sex as the child or young person. This is done because it would completely contradict the new section that it’s being replaced by, which would require search plans under new section 384AA, inserted by clause 1, where a child or young person can express the gender or sex of the staff member they prefer to be searched by. It’s just to clarify that, otherwise we’ll have two contradicting pieces of legislation that don’t match. It’s just to tidy that up to make sure that we aren’t contradicting what we have said we will do. It’s making sure that young people feel safe in their home and feel safe in the processes that happen within their home, because this is their home, and whilst there are quite a few more rules within their home, we want them to feel comfortable with the processes, to understand the processes, so that it’s less traumatic than is needed to be and less traumatic than it has been in the past. It’s also to set the expectation upon staff members of what is expected from them in respecting a young person’s wishes around how they are searched and who they are searched by.

Thanks, Mr Chair. Thanks, Minister, as well for all those answers. My questions follow on around the search provisions in clause 28.

The one I’m keen to ask a few questions about is the vehicle searches. This bill allows for vehicles that enter the perimeter of a youth justice residence to be searched. We’ve, this morning, been having a bit of a conversation about striking that balance between safety for ngā tamariki but also making sure that families feel safe and comfortable to visit, recognising that they’re a really important part of the healing rehabilitation journey for young people.

Obviously, this bill puts lots of measures in place within the kind of administrative office or when you enter a justice residence where there’s a lot of screening, as Helen White was just talking about. There may be dogs, there are the body image scanners, and there are the various layers of security that are now presently in place. This bill talks about those vehicles, and I guess I’m just a little bit worried about those powers around searching a vehicle, because of the possibility that it might deter people from coming in.

Like, let’s be real. I don’t have a car, but if I did, I might have friends in that car, a vape might fall out of their pocket, and there might be, I don’t know, a vape on the ground or something like that—I guess I’m a bit nervous that that family might get searched and “Oh, you’ve got an unauthorised item in your vehicle.”—and then they’re not able to visit their kids or their niece or nephew or whatever it is. I’m just keen to understand why the extra precaution on the vehicles. Is that based on an event that’s happened or is it that we’re not feeling completely confident in the protections that are in place at that office—I was going to call it a receiving office, but that’s not what it is. That’s that question around the searching of vehicles.

I just also wanted to raise our Amendment Paper 371, which talks about, within Part 3, the amendments that specify that an authorised person is able to use force. We wanted to just question this a little bit and make sure we understand what the implications of this amendment are. We’re wondering if this means that contractors who may be running a programme or something within a youth justice residence—does this mean that they too are able to use force? We’re quite keen to just interrogate this a little bit more. Our preference in light of the answers the Minister’s given us around de-escalation training and the evaluation post use of force—we’re keen to understand if those measures would be extended to any other people that might be granted greater powers within this bill, particularly those who might be third-party contractors, acknowledging that in that pool of third-party contractors there could also be iwi social services and things like that.

I’m keen to understand the vehicle search, the rationale behind the searching of the vehicles, and the weighting of how this might deter some families from visiting their family or friends or mentees or whatever just out of the fear that they might have some harmful items in their cars, which, as Helen noted, some of those are legal objects that adults use for various different reasons. Has that been considered? Also, on the use of force for third parties or contractors, what steps will be in place to make sure, again, that it’s a last-case resort, and what kind of training and evaluation might be provided to those people using that power?

Thank you. In regards to new section 384KG, inserted by clause 28, “Search of vehicles entering youth justice residence”, I just want to make it very clear that it’s vehicles that are brought within the secure perimeter of a youth justice residence. The vehicle may be searched by an authorised person for the purposes of detecting any unauthorised item. It’s the secure perimeter, so it wouldn’t be the car park that a visitor comes in to visit. It’s where contractors may come in through a back gate into the secure area. They might be bringing items in for the kitchen, they might be bringing anything in, and it just gives us the ability to be able to make sure that contractors aren’t bringing in unauthorised items, because they will be skipping the process of going through the scanner in the initial entrance to residence. It is all about the secure perimeter of a youth justice residence.

Just to clarify, we won’t be putting dogs in searches on family that are coming to visit and are parking in the car park. The use of dogs will be extremely limited. It would have to be quite a significant issue to use dogs. Maybe if we found somebody coming into the secure area in a vehicle with cannabis—quite a fair bit of cannabis—we might call in to get that checked by dogs. It’s only to be used in shared spaces, and the dogs will be controlled by police or Corrections handlers, not youth justice staff.

Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you to the Minister for Children, for her response in relation to the new section 384AC, inserted by clause 18; I think it’s reassuring to know that that would be part of the plan. My concern on that one was more about whether we ought to make it explicit, given that in other sections we make it explicit that non-residents of the facilities can elect either someone of the same sex or the same gender. It was just trying to work out why the language was different in that section versus new section 384AC, but I am assured that that remains a choice for the young people.

My next question is in relation to new section 384KD, “Consequences of refusing search under section 384KC”, inserted by clause 28. We had an earlier conversation about people being able to elect whether they went through a scanner or had a pat-down search, and one of those being sufficient. My read of that section is that that’s correct. The question would just be that my read is also if someone were to go through a scanner and then the security were alerted for a need for a pat down, the person could refuse a pat down but still not fall within the section—so they’ve complied with one or the other and, therefore, this section wouldn’t prevent their entry. That’s my read of the section, but if I could get some clarification from the Minister on that.

The next one is consequences of refusing a search because you failed to remove an outer item of clothing. Now, this includes head coverings, as well, and I just wonder whether the Minister had received advice on religious head coverings and the interaction with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and how that would be treated in terms of this instance?

My next question is in relation to—let me find the number—new section 384KC, “Search of other persons entering youth justice residence”, the new subsection (7), “To avoid doubt, the search of an authorised person under this section must be conducted by another authorised person”, inserted by clause 28. My question is just around whether it would be useful to include additional language about it not being the individual subordinate or not being from the same team or finding other protective ways of ensuring that a diligent and objective or independent search is conducted.

I have another question in relation to new section 384KF, “Restrictions on entry to youth justice residence”, inserted by clause 28. These are the provisions under subsection (5), which state, “An image produced as a result of an imaging technology search must,—(a) so far as practicable, avoid showing a clear image of the body beneath clothing; and (b) obscure the genitals or make them not easily distinguishable if they are included in the image.” I wondered whether it would be useful to prioritise obscuring the genitals as opposed to making it an alternative, and that way, saying that the preference by far is for that to be used as an option instead of making them not easily distinguishable, which feels to me quite invasive.

Again, I’m just aware of the discretion in this space and the times at which we can and should, perhaps, legitimately be very clear about our preferences. I take the Minister’s point that she’s made earlier about the need for that discretion and the respectful way in which the people employed in these facilities conduct themselves. I do think that when it comes to searches where body parts are involved and these images are captured, it potentially warrants a more closely drafted section. I’m just interested in the Minister’s comment on those questions.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to address the question around new section 384KD, around the consequences of refusing a search under section 384KC, inserted by clause 28. What I would say is, yes, you have some alternatives. You can go through the scanner, or you can get a pat down, or it may be both. If the scanner detects something you might be asked for a pat down. But, yes, absolutely if you do not comply with the obligations of entry, then, yes, you can be denied entry to the youth justice residence.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to ask the Minister for Children about the consequences of using too much force. There’s a section here that talks about the need to be minimal—

Can you repeat the section again?

Sorry, I did have it. I’m just flicking through now for the actual section number, but it’s the one that talks about minimisation of how much force is used.

Do you know the number?

Sorry, I just had it and I’ve just lost it. Apologies. Look, I could just go to a different question and come back to it, if you prefer. I will find the section number, but the question is simply one about what happens if somebody does actually go too far in their use of force when this legislation is very clear that they must use minimal force. I will give you the section number as soon as I find it.

The other questions that I wanted to ask were about the regulation-making criteria over harmful objects. I can see that there has to be satisfaction that there are reasonable grounds that the nature or extent of the harm that may be caused by the article or thing justifying the article or thing being declared as a harmful item for the purposes of the Act—that is in the criteria—and that the Minister of Justice has to be consulted about adding to that list. Because I talked so much about it earlier, in terms of that, I wanted to ask about that regulation-making power and what was envisaged in terms of time frames on making new objects, and what happens in a situation where a new object is presented which isn’t in the scope so far but would come into this regulating-making power—what will happen to that object at that time? I can see a gap there. The world is an inventive place and new things turn up. It’s the other side of my question about making sure that we’re limited and we’re proportional.

There is one final issue here, which is the way that that’s framed is all about the risk but not about the benefit. What if you have an object that has benefit as well as risk? I could only use one that I know already exists, rather than one that is anticipated to be covered here. You’ve got a situation where you’ve got a communication device. Some of the features of that are actually probably very good for people, and I can see that the legislation has included references to telephones that are clearly limited in their ability. I presume that’s because they’re permitted because there is a benefit to people being able to continue having that kind of communication available. What happens in this wording? It looks to me as if it’s balanced towards risk rather than benefit, and, in most areas of the law, we’ve moved to balancing those two things in our words as well, saying we need to actually look at the benefit as well as the risk when we decide whether to prohibit such an object. I would love to know about that.

Apologies for not coming to you with the section number, with regard to the other thing. I will actually just sit down and find it. Thank you.

If I have understood your questions around harmful objects, I actually think I’ve been very thorough in my explanations, a couple of times now, and have gone through the process of “It must go through a process to be added to the list or taken off the list”. I will just leave that one because I think I’ve explained that one a couple of times.

What I would go into is what would happen to a staff member if it is shown that the use of force was unnecessary or inappropriate. After a use of force, it’s reviewed by a team leader and would also be able to be escalated internally to Oranga Tamariki around any concerns of appropriateness of the use of force. If it is found that that use of force is questionable, I would assume and expect that that would be a disciplinary and that would actually be a matter when it comes to their contract.

Thank you. The section that I wanted to refer to when I was talking was new section 384KB, inserted by clause 28, which is “Use of force in carrying out search of youth justice resident”. I think that you’ve answered my question in terms of disciplinary process.

I also wanted to just reflect on what the Minister for Children and I had talked about earlier in terms of repeated searches. While I agree that there would be a disciplinary issue involved, there is also probably a role here for the Ombudsman in both situations where they would be looking at patterns of behaviour. If things like this were occurring and there was more force being used than necessary, I would like the confirmation of the Minister that one of the checks and balances in place is our Ombudsman, who would be able to have access to this information.

I would still like the answer to the question about what happens with an object that hasn’t been identified as harmful but may have those results, and the issue about the—I don’t believe that the Minister has ever answered the question about that proportionality of some benefit in a new situation. I am not talking about the same section; I am talking about a later section in this Act, which we have not discussed before and it has a different nuance, which is those new objects that have yet to be classified. Thank you.

When it comes to the oversight of a youth justice facility, the Ombudsman does have access to that information. Mana Mokopuna does regular reviews of our youth justice facilities. We also have a panel that is there to take on concerns of young people and make sure that those concerns are addressed. There are plenty of oversights available in that space.

Just before I take the next call, if members could talk specifically about the clauses that they’re talking about, that would assist the committee. We are tracking which clauses have been discussed and which points have been addressed.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to seek clarity from the Minister for Children, who did comment on clause 17(4), which is amending section 384A. It was about the amendment of the Hon Willow-Jean Prime, which was around the definition of “authorised person” and the request in our amendment around adding the words “a person who has received training in de-escalation methods appropriate for children and young people”. The Minister, when she responded, just said that it’s described in the Act who an authorised person is. The reason I just wanted to clarify that—and can you point me to where that is?—is because, obviously, the protection of our young people is of supreme importance.

The reason we are debating this in the committee today is because of abuse in State care, but it’s also about protecting the State by making sure that we have the right people with the right skills. I just need clarification that there is a description of what an authorised person is in order to make sure that they have the skills, because we know that we’re dealing with young people who have trauma and young people who are in escalated situations. We need to make sure that we protect the people working with them who are working for the State and working in these institutions, and, obviously, the most important thing is the protection of the young person.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I am looking at new section 384KN, inserted by clause 28. This is the “Power to seize articles … found on search”. In particular, it’s in connection to new section 384KC, inserted by clause 28, which is not about residents but visitors and authorised persons who may be coming on to the property. My question is really about what is appropriately placed in primary legislation versus secondary legislation, because those sections taken together and the broadness of the section as it’s currently drafted mean that regulations would set out how long an item that was seized from a visitor to a facility could be potentially held for and under what circumstances they could be released.

I can see why you may need to withhold possessions when they’re seized from residents of those facilities, but, certainly for visitors, they should have that property returned to them as swiftly as possible. In my view, given it is a search, it’s more appropriate for that to be set out in primary legislation as opposed for it to be delegated. It’s an issue that I raised before in terms of who the prescribed person is who must be present during a pat-down search. I questioned why we needed secondary powers to create other persons when we already had the wording of “an authorised person”. I couldn’t imagine circumstances where anyone but an authorised person would be the person who was there for a pat-down search. I’m also just seeking a response to that. There is, as my colleague has just said, a question around who is an authorised person, and that’s also prescribed by secondary legislation, so I wonder whether consideration was given to those definitions being held within the primary Act. Thank you.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that Kahurangi Carter’s amendment set out on Amendment Paper 367 be agreed to.

The question is that Kahurangi Carter’s amendment set out on Amendment Paper 368 be agreed to.

The question is that Kahurangi Carter’s Part 3 amendments to Amendment Paper 354 set out on Amendment Paper 366 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Karen Chhour’s amendments set out on Amendment Paper 354 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendment to clause 17(4) amending the definition of “authorised person” in section 384A be agreed to.

The question is that Kahurangi Carter’s amendments set out on Amendment Paper 369 be agreed to.

The question is that Kahurangi Carter’s amendments set out on Amendment Paper 370 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendment to clause 24 inserting subsection (1A) into section 384H be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendment to clause 25 inserting subsection (1A) into section 384I be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendment to clause 28 inserting subsection (1AAA) into section 384KB be agreed to.

The question is that Kahurangi Carter’s amendment set out on Amendment Paper 371 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendments to clause 28 amending new section 384KK be agreed to.

Now we come to the debate on Part 4. This is a debate on clauses 32 to 35, “Amendments to Public Records Act 2005”. The question is that Part 4 stand part.

Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s a privilege to be able to stand here on behalf of the Minister responsible for this part of the legislation around improving public records and the record-keeping in response to the royal commission of inquiry into abuse in care. Part 4 deals with amendments to the Public Records Act 2005. Whilst this may seem like a small change, the change is to allow the Chief Archivist to audit an agency more frequently where required and to allow the Chief Archivist to work with agencies to put in place action plans and to issue performance notices to improve practice. This will make a big difference to the lives of people who are care experienced.

This is something that’s close to my heart, knowing that for children—especially focusing on children that have gone through the system from a very young age and have been part of the system most of their life—each page of documentation, each entry around what has happened in their lives, is a page in their story. They have a right and deserve to be able to see their story, understand their story, and digest their story in a way that they want to. Having to beg, chase, and often fight for those pages that make up a life and make up the story and the journey that they’ve been through going through a care system is highly inappropriate and quite disgusting in some circumstances.

We need to make sure that we give back the power to people who have been through the system and people who are care experienced to own their life and own their story on their terms. Anything that we can do to improve this, bring some more accountability into this space, speed up the process, and actually make sure that we’re doing the right thing to help people reflect on their history, heal in their present, and empower their future, is a good thing.

Thank you, Mr Chair. As we head toward the end of our engagement with this bill, our thanks, again, from this side of the Chamber to the Minister in the chair, the Hon Karen Chhour, for her really robust responses to questions, which we’ve found very helpful. I would say that we continue to believe that transformation is needed in this space. It’s certainly what we are hearing from those who’ve been through the system thus far and from those who represent them—that more needs to be done—and so we look forward to ongoing discussions with the Government. I do believe this an area that will require all sides of the House to work together in harmony as we continue on this journey.

I have a question in relation to a change proposed to the Public Records Act. I am looking at clause 34, “Section 33 amended (Independent audits of public offices)”; there are two issues I have here. The current section 33 of the Act, which is the “Independent audits of public offices”, requires that audits of the data kept must be conducted at an interval of not less than five years and not more than 10 years. The amendment removes that time period and changes the language so that it’s just “as directed by the Chief Archivist”. I am wondering what the rationale for removing that time period was.

The second issue is around independence. The current section 33 under the Public Records Act requires an independent commissioning of that review. The changes allow the audit to be “carried out by an employee of the department or another person engaged by the Chief Archivist”. I wonder if there are budget issues here. Section 33 in the current Act specifies that the archivist must carry the budget for those audits, and I wonder if, by making this change, we’re solving a budget problem but potentially not the independence issue—which the legislation, as it is currently drafted, protects.

I wholeheartedly agree with the Minister that the keeping of data is critical in terms of really giving justice to the people concerned. On the issue of timing and the issue of independence, I’d really appreciate the Minister’s response.

Kia ora, Mr Chair. Again, I want to reiterate my colleague’s thanks to the Minister in the chair, the Hon Karen Chhour, for her free and frank engagement this morning. It’s much appreciated, and I know that people whose lives are impacted by this appreciate it also. My second brief thanks is around Part 4, and you made it very clear, Minister—and for me and my own family, one of my parents came from a different time, when the records of their early life were long-since destroyed and burnt. It’s paramount that we protect and guard, as you said, Minister, people’s stories. I look from many decades ago to only the last two decades at young people in my care and the ability to access parts of their story.

I just want to seek reassurance—I feel like you have answered it, but I want to be able to, I guess, leave the House today and go back into my community and my home to make sure that everything will be available to a young person who has been in care. Secondly, I wonder if there’s any way within this—and I haven’t put an amendment on the Table, but it’s around plain language: I know that, at one stage, a young person received what was their Child, Youth and Family services information back in the day, but a lot of it was hard to understand. Is there any ability to ensure that plain language can be included in this piece of legislation?

I just wanted to answer the question in regards to clause 34. The advice here is that this allows for faster re-audits to check up on agency record-keeping. The Chief Archivist is statutorily independent as to looking at those audits, and the budget available for the audits is not changing.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Kahurangi Carter’s Schedule 3 amendment to Amendment Paper 354 set out on Amendment Paper 366 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Members, we now come to our final debate, on clauses 1 and 2. This is the debate on clauses 1 and 2, “Title” and “Commencement”.

Kia ora, Mr Chair. Just a final contribution from the Labour caucus this morning: there are some things that we would have liked to see amended, but, on the whole, we support the progress of this legislation and thank you for the engagement of Ministers. Really, that’s all I have to say, because I think it’s time for us to move forward and, I think, to be collegial in this. We support what the Ministers have presented and, as I say, we would have liked to see a few changes. We will continue to support it moving forward, so that we can continue to address the harm and ensure it never happens again.

Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Responding to Abuse in Care Legislation Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

on behalf of the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: I present a legislative statement on the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) (Customary Marine Title) 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 Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) (Customary Marine Title) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

The Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act was established in 2011 as a regime for managing interests in the foreshore and seabed that carefully balanced the recognition of Māori groups’ customary rights with the legitimate interests of all New Zealanders. One way customary interests are recognised under the Act is through the award of a customary marine title (CMT). CMT comes with valuable rights. These include the ownership of non-Crown minerals, involvement in planning, and the ability to permit or decline certain resource consent applications. CMT also provides holders with the right to be engaged with when new significant infrastructure is proposed.

These rights were included in the 2011 legislation on the basis that the test for CMT was exacting and recognised CMT only where customary interests have been maintained with sufficient strength right through to the present day. However, in 2023, the Court of Appeal interpreted the CMT test in a way that significantly reduced the need for continuity and exclusivity in the scope of what can constitute a substantial interruption. I respect the role of the courts as one decision maker under this regime and the challenge in interpreting the CMT test in the context of the wider Act, but for this regime to work as Parliament intended, a rigorous test for CMT needs to be maintained. The Government believes that the Act was, and is, a strong affirmation of Parliament’s role to achieve fairness for all those that have interest in coastal areas.

The Justice Committee reported the bill back in December of last year, and I will discuss the committee’s work in a moment, but as members will be aware, the Supreme Court delivered a judgment, also in December last year, directly relevant to the test for customary marine title, in a case called Re Edwards. The sensible thing to do in these unusual circumstances was to take time to carefully consider the Supreme Court judgment and its implications for the bill, and that is what we have done. Let me say it is a helpful judgment. The Supreme Court confirmed that the Government was right to have concerns about how the 2023 Court of Appeal Re Edwards decision approached the customary marine title test.

As the Supreme Court noted, the Act aims to balance a wide range of interests in the common marine and coastal area. However, that does not mean that the Supreme Court judgment substantially fixed the difficulty with the previous court decisions or restored the balance of interests. Following the Supreme Court’s December judgment, the High Court issued a decision that has made extensive findings of CMT, illustrating that the Supreme Court’s test has not altered the approach of the courts in practice. Parliament, clearly, did not intend that CMT would be available at that scale, so to resolve Parliament’s intent, legislative clarification is still required.

The bill provides the necessary clarification because it goes further than the Supreme Court in crucial ways—including more tightly defining what “exclusive use and occupation” means—requiring the courts to base any inferences on firm physical evidence, not on cultural association alone, and placing the burden of proof more squarely on applicants. As members will be aware, the Supreme Court has recently issued a second judgment in Re Edwards. That judgment has limited relevance for the bill although it does raise some broader issues about the beds of navigable rivers, which the Government is still considering.

I will now return back to the work of the Justice Committee. I wish to thank the chairperson, James Meager, and members of the committee for their efforts, including hearing a large number of submissions under demanding time frames. It was good to see that submissions came from a wide range of submitters, including current CMT applicants, other groups, and members of the public. I would like to extend my thanks to those who participated and made valuable contributions in that select committee process. The Justice Committee’s report proposes mainly clarifications around technical drafting amendments, and I am glad to see that the committee confirmed the substance of the bill. The most notable amendment proposed by the committee responds to a theme of submissions. It relates to how the bill’s amendments prevail over other law. The scope of this overriding-effect provision has been confirmed in the committee’s proposed amendments to refer to the purpose of the Treaty sections of the principal Act and relevant judgments. This is shown in the proposed new section 9B(3).

Part 2 of the bill outlines the specific aspects of the law that are to be altered by the bill and the parts of court judgments that are being expressly altered or overwritten. The committee has not proposed any changes to this part of the bill. However, as I’ve said, the courts have issued further decisions since the bill was introduced, so this part will need to be updated. To do so, I intend to table an Amendment Paper during the upcoming committee of the whole House phase. I acknowledge that some submitters raised concerns about the retrospective elements of the bill in new Schedule 1AA. The schedule provides that CMT decisions after the date of the announcement of this policy—that is, from 25 July 2024—will be on the basis of the amended test, and any CMT decisions made in the interim period between the policy announcements and enactment will be overturned by clause 4 of the new schedule and reheard under the amended test.

This will require rehearing seven cases, including four where customary marine title has already been recognised. In the Government’s view, retrospectively applying the amendment test is necessary to have as many applicants as possible decided under a test that appropriately captures Parliament’s original intent. Recognising the impact this will have for the affected applicants, the Government has approved $15 million to help meet their rehearing costs.

In conclusion, now the bill has been reported back and Ministers have considered the Supreme Court judgment, the Government intends to progress the bill to enactment without delay. A further adjustment will be required before third reading. To do so, I will introduce an Amendment Paper on the bill at the committee of the whole House stage. The Amendment Paper is required to address the court’s judgments issued since the bill was introduced, clarify that changes to the CMT tests do not apply to Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Porou, as their bespoke legislation is based on prior agreements with the Crown, and address one outstanding issue about the kinds of activities that can cause substantial interruption of CMT. I commend the bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to put on the record that we oppose this bill, and we do so in light of the Minister’s words just now. We can’t look at this particular bill in isolation. The Minister has made it very clear, and this Government have made it very clear, about their willingness and their policy to exploit the minerals of Te Takutai Moana, and the Minister has just confirmed that. This is simply easing the way—even more so for this Government—to just ram through their policy and run ahead with what they see fit.

Yesterday in the House, the member Mr Ferris asked a very good question of the Minister, and that was: what does he say to the private land owners who own parcels of land all around this country that actually deny access to the beach? The Minister’s flippant comment—I’m hoping it was flippant, but it certainly wasn’t well received—he said, “Get on a boat. Jump on a boat and you can go around and access it by the ocean.” Now, Mr McCallum, who’s in the House, is the member for Northland and knows many of those parcels of land across Te Tai Tokerau where those landowners—the majority of them Pākehā, non-Māori—stop access to the beach.

Not everyone—not everyone.

They do, and I know where that is. If anyone knows where Waimahana is in the Far North, when you get to the ridge before you look down to the left on Waimahana, have a look to the right. There’s a place called Paradise Bay, where you can’t get to. The Minister says, “Jump on a boat.”, so I’m going to encourage all of my whanaunga: according to the Minister, get on your waka, go and visit those parcels of beaches and Takutai Moana, right across Te Tai Tokerau, and express your views to the landowners there and say, “It’s OK” because the Minister said, “Jump on your waka.”. That’s what we’re going to do.

I’m really upset that the way the Minister in his speech just now characterised that it wasn’t the intention of this House at the passing of this bill in 2011. Christopher Finlayson, a man who is well respected right across this House, and, indeed, across the country—the Minister already spoke to the bespoke legislation with Ngāti Porou—Minister Finlayson did that work. Former Minister Finlayson was very clear to this Government that what they’re doing to this bill is abhorrent, and it actually isn’t what he did when he passed this bill in 2011. I want to remind the House that that bill was carefully negotiated between the Māori Party and the National Party of the day. Mr Finlayson is very clear that what this Government is doing is wrong.

Now, the Government’s just spoken to something that I know, in this House, we seldom use. One of those kaupapa is retrospective legislation. It is one of those avenues where we warned members of the House—long before my time here, and I’m sure into the future—that you use the reach of retrospective legislation very rarely. In only very few circumstances has that happened. I’ve been here in the House when that has been used before. Now we’re saying not only are we going to change the rules while everyone’s playing the game but we’re going to push you all back to the start line. Why does this sound familiar to our people in the House here? That’s what they did on pay equity—it’s the same thing. We’re going to change the law, and we’re going to push everyone back to the start, just because of a case where a judge and the court actually found in favour of customary title.

For anybody who has been through the process of proving either customary title or any kaupapa through a settlement, the burden of proof rests with the iwi, rests with the hapū, rests with the whānau, rests with the claimants. I can say to this House that that burden of proof is extremely high, and it takes years and years for that evidence to be built and for that case to be brought in front of the court. Once it gets to the court, the court made a decision, and this Government is saying, “Oh, no, that’s not good enough; we’re going to change the law. We’re going to go back to what is actually intended.” Well, the person who passed the bill was clear on what was intended when he passed that bill.

Now we have a change from this Government. Well, we’re not surprised—we’re not surprised. We’ve got a number of Treaty settlements coming up in this House, and we want to remind the whānau out there that this particular bill doesn’t sit in isolation from all of those that are currently pushing their bills through this House. We’re going to remind this Government of that, because often, on those bills, we stand in this House, and we talk about unity across the House. Well, right now, that’s clearly not happening.

Labour opposes this bill, for the matters of retrospectivity, for the matters that the Minister has raised about their push and their policy to exploit the minerals at the Government’s will. We also oppose it because, what we know about this particular bill is that, when the Minister introduced it last year—one year ago—he said it was going to be passed quickly. Then he learnt a solid lesson—that you actually have to talk to the people who it affects the most. It has taken a year, and we’re back here. Now the Minister is saying that it’s going to pass again, it will still pass before Christmas, a year after it was first introduced in this House.

Now, usually in this House we’re slating the Government for the fact that they truncate all of the process on important bills that matter to New Zealanders. What we have here is that the Minister learnt his lesson. He introduced the bill this time last year, and then went “Oh, heck, I might have bitten off more than I can chew.” Now we’re back here a year later and, guess what! What I heard from the Minister in his second reading speech—nothing has changed. To all of those people that submitted—and it’s very clear, some very powerful people submitted; legal experts, those who are in the know, iwi, and others who have gone through this journey, who submitted on this bill—it’s very clear to them that the Government is still not prepared to listen, and it’s still not prepared to alter its view on this particular matter.

We are really disappointed that his particular bill continues to strip away rights, and what we’re asking for on this side of the House in the Labour Party is—actually, we have a right to prove that case in court, and, once we did, guess what! The rules have changed again. All of those whānau out there—all of those hapū, all of those iwi who have been through this process—will know just how hard this is going to be from here on out because of this bill. It is unjust and it is unfair—it is grossly unfair that the Government, at the will of their policies—at the will, dare I say it, of many of their backers—push a bill like this through the House simply because they are unhappy with a judgment from the court.

Now, I recognise that Parliament can make legislation. It is the job of the courts to interpret it, but what I don’t, and I can’t stand for, is when this Government and this Parliament stands up and says, “Oh, we’re not happy with the court, so we’re going to change it.”. We’ve got to ask ourselves, are there other pieces of legislation that the Government might look at simply because they don’t agree with a judgment from the court?

That’s the role of Parliament.

Yeah, it is, and that’s why we’ve got to respect that. The member on the other side of the House said, “That’s the role of Parliament.” I just said that. This bill was passed in 2011 by a man well respected in this House, who actually negotiated a very good bill, and this Government is now changing it simply because they’re not happy with what the courts have said. Now, that member, I know for a fact, has never been to the court to prove a customary title. I know for a fact he hasn’t. Well, guess what! You’re looking at somebody who has—you’re looking at a tribe and a person who has been through that process. That member can chirp all he wants—and I look forward to hearing what he has to say when it comes to his party’s call on this bill, because I can tell that member that when the ACT Party get up in this House and talk about Treaty settlement bills, we’re all going to sit here and go: “Two-faced.” Because that’s what that is—that’s what that is.

That member knows that this House can make law, but this Government has proven, time and time again, they’ve blurred the lines between the courts and this House. They continue to do it, and they do it again on this bill. That member sits there and shakes his head, but he is incorrect when he thinks we are the ultimate lawmaker here. Yes, we are—however, the courts have the opportunity to define that. Why? Because people take their case to the court. That member doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

Just in the final minute, we want to be very clear: we’ve heard the amendments that the Minister has offered for the committee of the whole House. We’re going to offer some amendments, and I can guarantee we’re going to prosecute those matters when it comes to the committee of the whole House. It is clear that this Government haven’t heard from those who have submitted—they’ve clearly just listened to them and done nothing about it. Maumau tāima—waste of time—and they wonder why the public out there have no confidence and no faith in what this Government is doing. Once again, we’ve got a Government who thinks they know best—they know best!—they know better than the legal profession, they know better than the courts, and they know better than those who have had customary title, and we’ll, once again, show this Government where it’s at.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I visited a thing called the Anaweka waka in Golden Bay about a year ago. It is quite a profound thing to see directly in person. It is a 700-year-old sailing waka found on a beach at the top of the South Island. It’s a moving experience; to see what we all know is the history of these lands, that the tūpuna of tangata whenua Māori sailed that vast ocean of Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa to arrive here in these lands. For most of the last thousand years, they have circumnavigated and sailed and gone through the harbours, and the inlets, and up and down the estuaries, and they have built their homes and their rohe, and they have interacted with the takutai moana—the marine coastal environment. It is a simple fact of history. I have seen the timber waka that is 700 years old, and yet we seem to be here questioning whether Māori have customary use of the marine coastal environment. How ludicrous. What a preposterous thing to be contending. That is the starting point for how ridiculous it is to find ourselves in this situation. Yet there was effective confiscation of that marine coastal environment.

If we as a Parliament, as a nation, believe in the intention of settlement, to recognise a wrong and make amends for it, then the highest principle should surely be justice. We know why justice is important, because of rapprochement, because of the establishment and the resumption of harmonious relations. Anyone who thinks there can be a cohesion, or a lasting contentment, in our nation, for any of us, without upholding and making good on the dignity and the intent of that founding agreement—Te Tiriti o Waitangi—is a fool, frankly.

This bill is the most anti-Treaty act of this Government. Far worse than the Treaty principles bill, only because it will pass; it will affect confiscation. Where Seymour failed to clumsily rewrite our founding agreement, this bill undoes a settled pathway for rapprochement, for settlement, and, therefore, it is fundamentally an anti - New Zealand bill.

The 2011 correction of the confiscation of the foreshore and seabed that was affected by the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act, was achieved by agreement across the House. There was an agreement that a wrong was done. Labour realised the error of their approach and a markedly more visionary National Government than this one before us—in coalition with Te Pāti Māori—brought a mechanism for recognition of Māori customary rights to the takutai moana. The restoration of the rights of Māori to go to court—a basic common-law right. Even the ACT Party at the time thought it was a travesty that that right had ever been removed. But this bill retrospectively cancels that right for all the claimants who’ve already been or are in the process of going to court. Basically, Māori went to court, won in court, and the Government went, “Oh, hang on a minute, we can’t have that. We’d better fix it and undo it.” That’s what this bill does. It sets the bar so high as to dissuade any other iwi from wasting their time and money on that court process. It rips up that cross-party agreement and, frankly, it stabs Māori in the back once again. It exists in that long and tawdry tradition of Crown betrayals of iwi, Māori, and it is as such a restoration of the raupatu of 2004.

It is anti - New Zealand because if our objective is rapprochement, harmonious relations, this commits a treachery against that founding relationship. It has a constitutionally treasonous character because it betrays the intent of the mutual agreement which formerly brought the nation of New Zealand into existence. An agreement between two sovereign entities, the rangatiratanga of te iwi Māori and the British Crown.

This bill is in the tradition of traitorous Crown betrayals of Māori and that founding agreement, the very tradition we are trying to correct through the settlement process. This is exactly the laws that we apologise for when we do the settlements. It renders those present day settlements as a true duplicity. The Government gives back a little of what was stolen with one hand and steals even more with the other. That is what this bill today does. It is kaupapa kāwanatanga. It is perfidious Albion. Duplicitous Britain. Perfidious Albion refers to acts of diplomatic sleights, duplicity, treachery, and infidelity with respect to promises made or alliances formed with other nation States. The promise of Te Tiriti o Waitangi to uphold tino rangatiratanga and the sovereignty of Māori, is broken by this bill. The alliance formed in the founding of our nation through that agreement is betrayed by this bill. It is perfidious Albion, the character of constitutional treason. The Minister resurrects the darkest tradition of Crown betrayal, evokes the tradition of colonial theft, and should we be surprised, because that particular Minister believes colonisation was a good thing for iwi Māori—so, surely, doing more colonisations would be good in his estimations. Well, this bill does that, and he is deeply wrong in that.

The view of this bill is from a Government that proportionally has a property rights ideology, in so much as it believes they can manage the commons, the rivers, the lakes, the aquifers, the oceans, the atmosphere through private property rights. Yet they don’t uphold the first property rights of this country—Māori customary rights—and they’re diminishing those rights across the vast acreage of the marine coastal environment today. They don’t really believe in property rights. They believe in the right to accumulation of capital of those who would exploit nature. In fact, as with the environment, they see protecting the commons and upholding Māori customary rights and Treaty rights as a barrier to the commercial exploitation of the environment. The Minister has said as much in his recent statements on opposing tikanga components of law because they were a barrier to business, justifying opposing the logical plurality of our legal system, upholding both tikanga and common law is consistent with the Treaty.

Every legal system is bespoke, of course. Every country has its own sets of laws and established jurisprudence. The idea that Parliament intent is being restored by this is absolute garbage, and if you have any doubt, you could simply ask the author of the original Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act. He’s still alive; he’s still around. He’s speaking at the Waitangi Tribunal commemorations right now. Is there any accident that this bill comes before the House on the 50th anniversary of the creation of the Waitangi Tribunal? I would love to say it was an accident. Mr Christopher Finlayson, who wrote this bill, the former Attorney-General, put it plainly, “These amendments do not restore the original intent of Parliament. They undermine them. Let there be no doubt about that at all,”.

I marched across the Auckland Harbour Bridge in 2004 against the Foreshore and Seabed Act. My parliamentary forebears stood with an “Honour Te Tiriti” banner. On these steps, in 2004, as the throng of the hīkoi arrived and that banner said, “Honour the Treaty”. This Green caucus here stood on the steps again where that massive hīkoi met us at Parliament last year with the same message of honour the Treaty. We stand for the principle of rapprochement. We stand for upholding that founding agreement for the good of all New Zealanders. This wretched bill will be the first bill on the repeal list of things that we will do to uphold Te Tiriti o Waitangi when there is a change of Government in one year’s time.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to take a call on the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) (Customary Marine Title) Amendment Bill. There’s been a lot of kind of rhetoric across the House this morning. I see things slightly differently, as you might imagine. In 2011, there was a test established for marine customary title. Basically, the Government’s position is that the Court of Appeal got that wrong. What we want to make sure is that, actually, the intention of this House is restored. In fact, the Supreme Court agreed that the Court of Appeal got that wrong. What we are simply doing is making sure it’s very clear what the customary title test should be. That’s why I commend this bill to the House. [Interruption]

A disturbance took place in the gallery, and a member of the public was removed.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First in support of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) (Customary Marine Title) Amendment Bill. The Justice Committee—and I acknowledge the chair, the Hon James Meager—received and considered submissions from 6,692 interested groups and individuals and heard oral evidence from 69 submitters. Customary marine title was established under the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 and it replaced that very controversial Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004.

A customary marine title cannot be sold, and public access is maintained. The test for the customary marine title is primarily contained in section 58(1) of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act and has two limbs. It provides that, “Customary marine title exist in a specified area of the common marine and coastal area if the applicant group—(a) holds the specified area in accordance with tikanga; and (b) has, … [either] (i) exclusively used and occupied … [the area] from 1840 to the present day without substantial interruption; or (ii) has received it, at any time after 1840, through a customary transfer in accordance with subsection (3).”

In 2023, the Court of Appeal interpreted provisions of the Act about the requirements for recognising customary marine title which materially reduced the threshold of the continuous exclusive use. New Zealand First believes the court’s interpretation fails to give effect to the intended requirement that applicants for customary marine title must prove they have exclusively used and occupied the area from 1840 to the present day without substantial interruption.

This bill aims to reduce the ambiguity of the test for customary marine title. It will amend the 2011 Act to provide much more clarity and certainty around how customary marine titles are determined, particularly in response to recent legal judgments Re Edwards that have created some confusion, some ambiguity about Parliament’s original intent.

This bill fulfils a coalition agreement between New Zealand First and National. We believe these changes address New Zealand First’s focus on the sovereignty of Parliament and on fairness and transparency in legal processes. It’ll balance the natural expectations of all New Zealanders to have an interest in what occurs in the coastal marine space, balancing that with Māori customary marine title which grants their own valuable rights.

My colleague the Hon Shane Jones has stated that recent court decisions have made the test for customary marine title too easy, and that rights creep—rights creep—could enable iwi to obstruct critical development projects such as ports; rights creep that threatens the economy—seeking to restore that higher threshold for customary marine title being granted. This amendment bill aims to restore the original, higher test for customary marine title set in 2011. I commend this bill to the House.

Tākuta Ferris. [Interruption] No, Tākuta Ferris is—

Are you going to take the next one?

Yeah, I’ll take the next one.

All right.

Tēnā koe e te Pika. Tēnei Kāwanatanga he kai a te kuri, upokokōhua i roto i ēnei tūāhuatanga. Ēnei mahi tūkino, whānako e kore e whakaaetia, e kore e tautokona e te iwi Māori, kaua ko Te Pāti Māori.

[Greetings, Mr Speaker. This Government is damnable in these circumstances. These violations and thefts will not be permitted, they will not be supported by the Māori people, let alone Te Pāti Māori.]

I’ve just been at the celebration of 50 years of the Waitangi Tribunal. This is being talked about, but I’m going to take this time to just set the record straight for our whānau at home, because this is a take [subject] that has to land at home. E te whānau, you have to get up and make sure that this thing doesn’t go anywhere.

In 2004, there was an Act by a Parliament led by the Helen Clark Labour-led Government. They enacted a piece of legislation that they were warned not to—the courts told them not to, the UN told them not to, their Treaty partner told them not to. They just arrogantly bowled ahead and did it and they confiscated, without authority, 336,000 square kilometres of Māori land. The test that had to be proven was: was there legislation that had actively extinguished that Māori right before 2004, and the answer was no, there was not, so the right in Te Tiriti o Waitangi was still there when they passed the legislation. That’s number one.

That led to the rise of Te Pāti Māori. Why? Tariana Turia left the Labour Party because the voice of the Māori seat that she held wasn’t recognised. Its independence was stifled; its voice was ignored. She left to assert the independence of those seats. Why? So that we could protect these things. That’s part two.

The biggest contemporary theft, confiscation, of land, Te Tiriti o Waitangi - rights land, happened in 2004, whānau—not 1904, not 1804; 2004. The Māori Party came about and they had to fight that battle for seven more years until they got into Government with the Key-led National Government and agreed to a middle ground, which wasn’t a fix or an addressing of the 2004 debacle; it was a band-aid for it, all the while knowing it would continue on into the future as it has.

In 2017, things happen; there are cases that go through. We get to this Government, the Luxon-led National Government, and they don’t like the band-aid that was put on in 2011; they’re ripping it off—ripping it off and taking everything with it, e te whānau. This is for the public of New Zealand, OK, because if you listen here to what these guys are saying, they’re not even telling you half the story. They’re a waste of time; they’re not in the debate.

So here we go. The takutai moana Act was a band-aid, OK, and the removal—[Minister Goldsmith enters Chamber] Oh, kia ora. Kia ora, Minister—grab a seat, have a listen. So the band-aid is being pulled off. There are about six or seven other iwi and hapū that have got across the threshold that—although they say it wasn’t good enough, they set it, and Māori did the work, like we have for 21 years, to prove it. We’re proving a right that we didn’t have to prove, because it was there in 2004 and an arrogant Government took it away. That’s all this is, and here we are having to deal with it again. Well, good luck. Good luck with all of the tribunal. Good luck with all of the legal precedent that’s already there. Good luck with your courts, because they are pushing back on you. You will not succeed.

So, Ngāti Kere, my hapū, from the puku of Kahungunu, one of those hapū that achieved the customary title, and now he wants to take it away. My iwi, of Ngāti Raukawa ki Te Tonga; one of those iwi that achieved that right—he wants to take it away. All right; they’re ready. Kei te pai. It’s all wasting your time, public. It’s all wasting your money, wasting your time, wasting everybody’s everything.

I’m going to finish by saying this—these are the words, actually, to the public: who would you rather have look after the interests of the coast, Māori or the liberal corporates over there? Think about that. This is what Justin Tipa, the chairman of Ngāi Tahu, had to say: “Let’s be clear: this is not about ‘recognising the legitimate rights of all New Zealanders’. This is about removing the legitimate rights of Māori.” We do not support the bill at all.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of Te Rōpū Kākāriki, and in support of my colleague Steve Abel, we absolutely oppose this legislation, because, like a thief in the night, this Government comes through with this legislation that will raupatu—the biggest raupatu that Maori will suffer—to our mana takutai moana. What was the issue? What was the problem that this Government is seeking to change and improve? There was no need. Māori have been here mai rā anō. We are intergenerational. We were here yesterday, we’re here today, and we’ll be here tomorrow. Our tūpuna, our people have paddled, have harvested, and have lived on these waters for generations. Yet we have a Kāwanatanga that is turning its back on the very Māori-Crown relationships that have been tenuous for the last two years—now tearing it up. You’re tearing up Māori-Crown relations.

We should be celebrating today 50 years of the Waitangi Tribunal, Oriini Kaipara coming into the House. We should be celebrating, but instead we’re here fighting against the legislation that is the biggest raupatu against te iwi Māori in the history of Aotearoa, because this is an uncaring Government. This Government cares more about the property rights of Pākehā than the Māori. Why can’t Māori have property rights? Why can’t Māori have some customary rights to our takutai moana? When my rangatira from Ngātiwai yells at this House and affirms that we did not cede our sovereignty: e tika ana, e kore e riro [that’s correct, we will not cede]. We will not stop fighting this Government that continues to hamahama us, as te iwi Māori who have been here mai rā anō.

That is the crime. That is the shame. That is the mahi apo, the greed of this Government that turns its back on its customary partners here, who signed to Te Tiriti o Waitangi in good faith. At no time did our tūpuna who signed Te Tiriti think that we would be left pōhara, that we would be left destitute, that we would lose our mana takutai moana, because we signed it in good faith. We have a Government that is stripping Māori rights. Our communities are exhausted. It’s been two years of submissions. It’s been two years of waving a flag, of hīkoi, protests. Our kaimahi are going to strike again: on 23 October, we will stand to whakamana Te Tiriti; on 28 October, its tuakana, He Whakaputanga.

This Government has no care for te iwi Māori. Our rights are intergenerational, and this Government seeks to raupatu, to confiscate those rights that are intergenerational for our people. I cried this morning at Te Herenga Waka as we stood and we looked at the 50 years of delivery, of listening and hearing our people in the Waitangi Tribunal—those judges, those kaiwhakawā, those legal counsel who have supported us—for their ability to bring truth, truth to Aotearoa, that a record would show, that there is research that affirms, the raupatu that has happened on the whenua.

Now we have a raupatu on the papa moana. How dare you? How dare you do this to our people at such a time when we are already at risk? We are trying to put food on the table. Our people don’t know that this legislation is back. We’re just trying to survive. We’re just trying to be claimants in a process that was not designed for us. The claimant burden of having to go back to the courts again. Do you even understand the 18 weeks of hearings that the tribes of Whangārei had to stand, prepare our elders, get our research, do all of the blimmin mapping—all of these thresholds set by the Crown? We met the rule of law, we presented our evidence, and we’re waiting for a judgment. Now you’re saying, “Oh, no, Māori, no, sorry to the hapū of Whangārei—you’ve got to go back and do it again.”

He mahi pōhēhē e takatakahi ana te mana o ngā hapū o Whangārei. Kitengia ana koutou ki te rangatira o Ngātiwai e karawhiua ana i tōna rikarika ki runga i a koutou. Nā wai e teka? Nā wai e teka kei a koutou te mana ki te tāhae i tō tātou mana papa moana. Kīhai te iwi Māori i tuku i tō tātou rangatiratanga i te wā i hainatia Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Kore rawa te Māori e tuku i tōna rangatiratanga i tēnei wā tonu. He mahi pōhēhē. He Kāwanatanga apo, he Kāwanatanga tāhae. Tūturu whakamaua kia tīna, e tātou mā.

[It is a misguided bill that tramples on the authority of the subtribes of Whangārei. You will have seen the chief of Ngātiwai berating you. Who’s telling lies? Who told you that you have the authority to steal our authority over the seabed. The Māori people didn’t cede sovereignty when they signed the Treaty of Waitangi. Māori will never cede sovereignty now. That is a mistake. The Government is greedy and thieving. Be true, be steadfast, be firm everyone.]

No way—no way will te iwi Māori stand for this. You have torn up any Māori-Crown relationship that we will have moving forward.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. This amendment bill is important in order to provide clarity on Parliament’s original intent. It is the Parliament of New Zealand that sets the laws of this land, and this inserts a statutory declaration that overturns the court’s reasoning and ensures the intent of this House is clear. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Rapua te huarahi whānui hei ara whakapiri i ngā iwi e rua i runga i te whakaaro kotahi.

[Let’s seek a broad pathway to connect the two peoples in shared understanding.]

I stand before this House after observing an interaction, just before, that makes me quite sad. I come from a school of thought where I believe that Te Tiriti o Waitangi is not only the past of this country but, most of all, it is our future, that together, all peoples in this country can come together. More than that, I believe that, at this particular time, no matter who you are, where you are in this beautiful country of ours, you want to be a part of a country that is about kotahitanga, about inclusion, that is about a way forward, and it’s about coming together to address the challenges that are in front of us, whether they are short term, medium term, or long term.

But I come back to the point that Te Tiriti o Waitangi is our future. Sadly, that is not what I see before us today. Can I acknowledge our rangatira from Ngātiwai, who stood up because this kaupapa is sensitive. It brings the grief of decades, of hundreds of years of trauma that people in this country have faced. It takes us backwards—it takes us backwards to a part of this history that we don’t want to go back to. In my own party, we have that black mark, we have that history. Motatau hē. We acknowledge that, but this is not the way forward.

In addition to that, last night, together, we all celebrated, in the Legislative Council Chamber, 50 years of the Waitangi Tribunal—50 years, some would say 50 years of progress, some would say 50 years of protest. Maybe it’s all of those things, but even to have this reading on the Order Paper this year, as we celebrate 50 years, Minister, this is cynical. It is cynical, and under your Government, you continue to kick Māori down. This does not make us a stronger country. This does not progress our people—our New Zealand people—and it does not progress Māori alike. This is a cynical move; absolutely cynical.

My second point is to the Government member that put an allegation forward against a member of this House that she incited protest from the gallery, from one of rangatira from Ngātiwai. That is unfair, and that is not true, and that is an example of this Government being out of touch, not understanding the kaupapa in front of us. But again, the backbench is reflective of their leadership, and that leadership is cynical. It is cynical, it is mean-spirited, and it continues the punch-down of our indigenous people in this country. Every opportunity that I have in this House, I will remind Government members of the bad choices that they have made for our country and for Māori alike: repealing Te Aka Whai Ora, taking us backwards on Māori wards, removing Te Tiriti from legislation. I also challenge the members of the Education and Workforce Committee, who are doing that under our vocational training legislation and under the tertiary education strategy.

Time and time again, I think that this Government might take a step back and think, “Oh, times are challenging for us.” New Zealand has question marks about the direction that they’re taking our country. The actions that they take are more divisive than ever, but then, they do something else, then they do another thing, and so the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) (Customary Marine Title) Amendment Bill is just another example. Radio New Zealand, under this headline, when reported, “characterised by a blind adherence to pre-existing political commitments at the expense”—at the expense—“of whānau, hapū, and iwi.” Not at the expense of every other New Zealander that lives in our wonderful country; at the expense of whānau, hapū, and iwi.

That’s because this, clearly, is a breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. It’s a dismissal of official advice from the Waitangi Tribunal and the important steps not taken in the development process. That’s resulted in the Crown breaching the principle of good government. I truly believe we all come to this place to represent people, to represent everyone, and when we do get to become Government, that we lead this country in a way forward, and this is simply taking us backwards.

Not to consult adequately with tangata whenua, with mana whenua, with iwi, hapū, and whānau, to push that through, that is not modern-day practice, and that’s exactly what the Government has done. This Minister in the House today, he has not consulted adequately with Māori. That, in itself, is a breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The breach there is the principle of tino rangatiratanga by exercising kāwanatanga over Māori rights and interests in the takutai moana without providing any evidence—any evidence—for one of its key justifications. Namely that the public rights and interests require further protection beyond what is already provided by the Act. The Crown also failed to inform itself of Māori interests. The Crown failed to inform itself of what the Māori interests are.

Now, I hope that Governments moving forward think about what’s best for our country, how they will close the gap of the division that we experienced. This cynical move is not the direction that people in Aotearoa are looking for. They want unity, they want kotahitanga, they want access, they want fairness, and they want equality.

This is a terrible, terrible sleight on this Parliament, that we are moving this piece of legislation before the House as we celebrate 50 years of the Waitangi Tribunal. I do not commend this bill to the House.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I rise to stand in support of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) (Customary Marine Title) Amendment Bill. As has been traversed by the Minister in charge and some of my colleagues already, the bill is amending the test for recognising customary marine titles, noting the decision of the Court of Appeal last year. We’re setting it in a place where we can seek some clarity around the intention of the legislation so that we can make it crystal clear. Therefore, I commend it to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I listened to the ACT Party contribution on this bill, such as it was—the minute or so that it took—and I was aghast because the ACT Party’s promoting a bill that says that we shouldn’t take or impair property rights without proper compensation. I want to recognise that customary and marine title is, essentially, a property right. Yet the ACT Party, for all of its pro-property rhetoric, doesn’t believe in protecting the property rights for Māori that are enshrined in customary title.

I want to say one other thing before I get into any detail: this bill does not create property rights. The Minister, Paul Goldsmith, in one of his speeches said this legislation creates and confers property rights, and that’s not true. What it does is it recognises existing rights. These rights, by definition, have existed since time immemorial. This is not a concept that is at all foreign to New Zealand or English law. The idea of having customary rights which have been created by the behaviours of people across generations is something that crosses many cultures. It’s not unique to Māori.

As Steve Abel said so articulately, the fact of the matter is that Māori have, for generations, been people of the sea. They have navigated our coastline, they have harvested kai from the estuaries and coasts around us, and they have done that across generations. Yet what we are seeing now is a confiscation. It is a limiting of that. Once again, this Government is, by inches, encroaching and taking away rights.

Have you forgotten Helen Clark?

The Minister protests, but he doth protest too much, because he knows as much as anyone that the bill as it stood, the original piece of legislation, was carefully crafted, and it makes it very clear that, to establish customary title, the burden is high—that, in fact, you have to show that, across generations since 1840, you have exercised those rights, because customary rights can be lost through a failure to use them. They must have been held in a substantially uninterrupted way, and that is the test that was presented to the courts. The Court of Appeal took one view, but the Attorney-General appealed and the Supreme Court actually took it back—took it back. Yet the Government presses on with this bill, stripping property rights from Māori.

What is worse is that there was an agreement that this House reached with Māori to recognise coastal and marine rights, and Māori, in good faith, embarked on the process to do that. As Peeni Henare said, the process is arduous. Finding the history, the maps, the oral records, and presenting that in a form which can prove—because the onus is on Māori to prove—is onerous. But they did it, and yet this Government is going to strip away conferred rights; rights that the court has actually already recognised. They are going to strip away that retrospectively, and that is a constitutionally abhorrent thing to do. There is no reason for it, no reason other than keeping their crony mates happy so that they can get the consent they want to exploit coastal areas, whether it be for sandmining, for fishing, for wind farming—for whatever it might be.

No, they don’t want to go through a proper consents process. They don’t want to have to engage with Māori. They don’t want to have to act in a way which is consistent with property rights. They want to trammel them, and that is why we won’t support this bill. It’s a terrible bill, and I can’t believe Jenny Marcroft, who usually is so sensible on things affecting Māori, spoke in support of it, either. It’s a shameful bill, and it’s a dark day when we don’t protect property rights.

I’m grateful for the opportunity to be able to express my thoughts in this second reading of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) (Customary Marine Title) Amendment Bill. I think I need to just—as I’ve done before when we have members of this House going beyond, to a great extent, what we’re trying to achieve here. Let’s just bring it back to what the main—if we sift through—objective of this bill is.

If we can just go back to 2004 when a destructive, damning bill was passed, by the Labour Government back then, called the Foreshore and Seabed Act of 2004—

Oh, here we go!

Yes, I do know, Mr Duncan Webb. I do know, because, yes, I wasn’t here back then, but I actually do my research because I love this country. I wasn’t born here, but I love it, and I love the people that are in this country as well. So, yes, I do know. I do know because I’ve had members, elders of Māoridom talk to me about what happened back then in 2004 and how it broke their hearts. So, yes, I know from that extent, Mr Duncan Webb.

So what happened was this damning, destructive bill was passed. Along comes a guy named John Key with the National Party—and the Māori Party; we worked together in 2011 to pass the Marine and Coastal Area Act. What’s happened since then is a court judgment has decided to go way above and beyond what the intention of this House was when we were restoring things in 2011; they went above and beyond what the intention was.

What we’re doing here is we’re going back—we’re going back—we’re not rewinding; we’re going back to what this House intended before this court decision was made. It is wrong. It is actually cynical. When we’re talking about cynical—someone from the other side of the House spoke about cynicism—it’s cynicism to work people up into a frenzy when they’re not saying what the actual truth is. We’re restoring what Parliament’s intent was when we were fixing up the brokenness of Māori, thanks to the 2004 bill that was passed under that Labour Government back then. I commend this bill to the House.

This debate is interrupted and set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. today.

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

Members, I understand that Oriini Kaipara is present and wishes to make the Affirmation of Allegiance. Would Oriini Kaipara please come forward.

Ko ahau, ko Oriini Kaipara, e kī ana i runga i te pono, i te tika, i te ngākau tapatahi me te whakaū anō ka noho pirihonga, ka noho pūmau ki a Kīngi Tiāre te Tuatoru me tōna kāhui whakaheke e ai ki te ture.

[I, Oriini Kaipara, solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles III, His heirs and successors, according to law.]

Today, the House will adjourn until Tuesday, 14 October. That week the House will make progress on the Education and Training (Vocational Education and Training System) Amendment Bill and the Building and Construction (Small Stand-alone Dwellings) Amendment Bill. The hours of Tuesday will be extended into Wednesday morning for Government business, and on Thursday there will be a one-hour special debate on local issues.

No petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. Ministers have delivered 11 papers.

2024-25 annual reports of:

the Accident Compensation Corporation

the Crown Law Office

New Zealand Qualifications Authority

Kordia Group, and

Pamū Farms

Accident Compensation Corporation Climate Report for the Year Ending 30 June 2025, and Service Agreement for 2025-26

Ministry for the Environment and Stats New Zealand, New Zealand’s Environmental Reporting Series: Our Marine Environment 2025

Notice of declarations of inconsistency: Public Protection Orders under the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Act 2014 and Extended Supervision Orders under the Parole Act 2002

Report in relation to selected non-departmental appropriations for the science, innovation and technology portfolio within Vote Business, Science and Innovation for the Year Ending 30 June 2025.

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

Reports of the Social Services and Community Committee on the:

report of the Ombudsman, OIA timeliness obligations: Compliance and practice in Kainga Ora Housing New Zealand

review briefing on the 2023/24 annual review of the Social Workers Registration Board.

Those reports are set down for consideration. No bills have been introduced.

to the Minister for Economic Growth

What recent announcements has she made?

This morning, I announced new Government procurement rules that take effect on 1 December. These are the rules that Government agencies apply when assessing bids to supply them with goods and services, including everything from paper towels to roads. All told, Government contracts are worth more than $50 billion a year. That is a huge amount, but Kiwi businesses have been telling Government for years, over successive Governments, that they’ve been missing out because the rules are not fit for purpose. Today, the Government has fixed it.

What is the key change being made to the Government procurement rules?

The key change is an economic benefit test that levels the playing field for New Zealand businesses. When considering tender applications, Government agencies will now be required to give a weighting of at least 10 percent to benefits to New Zealand. This means New Zealand companies won’t miss out on contracts to overseas competitors because of small differences in price. This provision does not breach international trade agreements, because overseas companies have the same opportunity to demonstrate wider value to New Zealand, and similar provisions exist in many of our trading partners’ procurement rules. This Government recognises that there is benefit to New Zealand in companies employing New Zealanders, training New Zealanders, and investing in New Zealand, and we are putting taxpayer dollars to that purpose.

What other changes are being made to the rules?

Businesses, particularly small and medium sized businesses, have been telling Government that the paperwork involved in bidding for contracts is too onerous, so we are getting rid of requirements that are redundant or unnecessary, that duplicate content, that repeat statutory and regulatory requirements, or that have never been applied in practice. As a result, the number of rules is being reduced from 71 to 47—far, far simpler.

What has been the reaction to the new rules?

Well, if the response to this morning’s announcement at Business New Zealand is any guide, unadulterated delight. In the words of Business New Zealand chief executive Katherine Rich, the new rules are transformational, sensible, and fair and will be celebrated by businesses from one end of the country to the other. That is fantastic, and I’d like to pay tribute to Katherine and her team at Business New Zealand. Business New Zealand has been campaigning for this sensible change for 10 years, and I’m glad our Government got it done.

to the Minister for Māori Development

Does he agree with the Waitangi Tribunal’s official position on the proposed name change: “We do not support changing the name from the Waitangi Tribunal to a Commission in case it leads to confusion concerning the bespoke jurisdiction we exercise”?

The Waitangi Tribunal carries over 50 years of jurisprudence, symbolism, and mana. I am not aware of any proposed name change as the Minister responsible for the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975. But I am aware of last night’s excellent 50-year anniversary function at the Legislative Council Chamber, attended by the member in question and other members of this glorious House. Hari huritau 50 ki Te Rōpū Whakamana i te Tiriti o Waitangi.

[Happy 50th anniversary to the Waitangi Tribunal.]

Can he confirm that the proposed name change would erode the independence of the tribunal, creating a system where Ministers decide what claims can be heard?

Tē mō’io au ki te ia o te pātai a tēnei mema.

[I don’t know what the thrust of the member’s question is.]

I am not aware of any proposed name change for the Waitangi Tribunal.

Is he concerned by Crown Law’s own assessment that altering the powers of the tribunal could breach the principle of separation powers and the principle of responsible Government?

The Government continues to be responsible in this space and is progressing the review announced, in a very timely manner.

Will he rule out changing the name of the Waitangi Tribunal?

That is a matter that I’ve only just become aware of as a result of the question posed to me by the member.

Question No. 3, the Hon Barbara Edmonds.

Supplementary question.

Oh, supplementary question, the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Has the Minister looked at the tribunal’s statement about their concern regarding a “bespoke jurisdiction”; and having regard to the word “bespoke”, who’s the tailor here, who’s the customer here, who’s this being made for: Parliament or some other body?

My responsibilities in this space are focusing on clarifying these matters, not confusing these matters any further.

to the Minister of Finance

Vinaka vakalevu, Mr Speaker. Is an annual growth rate of negative 1.1 percent, three percentage points lower than forecast before the election, the result of her economic plan; if not, why not?

As I said yesterday, and the day before: no. Let me point something out for members: the IMF’s latest World Economic Outlook shows that in 2023, out of all the world’s advanced economies, New Zealand had the largest positive output gap. In other words, it had the most overheated economy in the world. Inflation was far above the target band, and the Reserve Bank had to the raise the official cash rate to 5.5 percent—the highest rate since 2008. That’s why the economy went into a long, painful downturn. It is now recovering, but, as often happens in a recovery, the road has been rocky. The member might think that spending more, taxing more, and borrowing more is an alternative plan, but I disagree with it, and so do most New Zealanders.

So, therefore, is she borrowing more or less?

I’m pleased to report to the House that today’s Financial Statements of Government shows that debt, for the first time in five years, has not increased as a proportion of GDP.

What does she say to one business leader who said, “What has she done to create growth in New Zealand? I can’t think of a single thing other than the supermarkets/banking publicity, which so far has not achieved anything.”?

Let me count the ways: tax relief for more than a million working New Zealanders; Investment Boost to encourage investment in our businesses so that they can grow; delivering fast-track infrastructure projects; investing in structured literacy in our schools; overhauling the Overseas Investment Act to welcome capital into this country. To finish a theme for the week, here’s the quote I preferred from a chief executive in that publication: Labour, “Not as co-ordinated on communications as they need to be, especially between Chris and Barbara.”

Does she agree with Christopher Luxon that “Nicola Willis and myself understand economics. We understand Budgets. We understand numbers.”; if so, is that why, under even her own measure of OBEGALx, the deficit is higher now than it was it in 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024?

Let’s keep it simple: I agree with the Prime Minister.

How much of that deficit is interest repayments on debt that was built up by the previous Government?

It’s approximately $8 billion that we are paying to service the interest on our debt. I would also point out that those who are suddenly concerned about deficits might want to ask why they said that every time we made a spending reduction, whether it was pay equity, reducing the number of bureaucrats, reversing stupid programmes, that we shouldn’t be cutting spending—get consistent.

If she understands numbers, then does she understand that the Government reduction in capital asset spending of $2.9 billion less has played a role in the decline of the construction sector and a loss of 20,000 construction sector jobs?

Well, in each of our Budgets, we have invested more funding in public infrastructure, and I can’t wait untill we sign those contracts for the Northern Gateway road and for the many roads of national significance around the country. I’m proud that, unlike the last Government, we’re actually funding Dunedin Hospital, we’re rebuilding Nelson Hospital, that we’re building more classrooms every year than they ever managed, and that we built more social homes in the past 23 months than they did in three years.

Is her idea of an economic plan to deliver more unemployment, a shrinking economy, an inflation that is on the rise, and to blame everyone else except Nicola Willis?

No, it is not, but I think that those who commit arson and then blame the firefighter should not repeat the same mistake. All I’ve heard from that member is: let’s borrow more; let’s spend more; let’s drive up the debt and inflation—and that is no prescription.

to the Minister for Tourism and Hospitality

What recent announcements has she made about supporting major events and tourism in New Zealand?

Last week, we served up a major win for sports fans and tourism alike. We announced a $5 million investment in a new centre court roof for Auckland’s Manuka Doctor Arena. This is the first infrastructure project from our $70 million major events and tourism package. This upgrade is a grand slam for New Zealand’s events sector; it means rain delays will be out, and world-class tennis will be in no matter the weather. Tourism and major events are a crucial part of our Government’s focus on economic growth. More world-class events mean more visitors, more jobs, and a growing economy.

Why is this investment needed?

This investment will help New Zealand stay match fit on the international stage. If we want to continue to attract world-class events to New Zealand, we need to have world-class facilities to go along with it. This investment not only futureproofs centre court against the weather but also expands the types of events that can be held there, attracting more visitors and supporting our economy. The arena is also an important asset for the Auckland community, promoting the growth and development of tennis for players of all ages.

How will this investment benefit tourism in Auckland and beyond?

This investment is a game-changer. The ASB Classic alone attracts thousands of visitors each year, and next year, it will be the 70th year of this event. In 2024, just this one event alone brought significant economic benefit to Auckland, resulting in 16,600 visitor nights to the region and injecting $3.4 million into the economy. With a covered centre court, we’ll be able to serve up more events year-round, and welcome even more fans, players, and international media. More visitors means more bookings, more meals, and more spending in local shops and hotels.

What feedback has she received on this announcement?

I promise this is the last one: we have had a volley of positive feedback. Tennis Auckland CEO Rohan West has said, “It’s absolutely massive. I can’t underplay the significance of it.”, saying it gives the organisation the confidence to move ahead with the project. The Auckland Business Chamber has said the announcement is “Really welcome news for Auckland. Ongoing matters like this make our biggest city a better place to live in, work in, and more competitive with our Aussie cousin cities.”. This announcement is already proving—oops, one more—to be a winning shot, which means New Zealand’s tennis future is game, set, and match.

Question No. 5, the Hon Ginny Andersen.

Oh, here’s McEnroe.

Tēnā koe—

Sorry. Just wait while one or two people up the back there calm themselves down.

to the Minister for Economic Growth

Is her economic plan responsible for higher unemployment and more business failures; if not, why not?

No. Is it just me or have I answered this question half a dozen times already? Higher unemployment is a result of an economic downturn driven by high interest rates—high interest rates needed to bring down inflation, fuelled by reckless and undisciplined Government spending. That may be the member’s economic plan; it is not mine, thank goodness.

Why, then, are there 36,000 people who are not in work, and liquidations are up 26 percent?

Well, these are the terrible human consequences of a down-turning economy which results when it is mismanaged as poorly as it was by the last Government. It is also the case, though—I would point out to members—that the number of unemployed New Zealanders at this point still remains lower than Grant Robertson was forecasting it would be at this point.

Why does she continue to refer to the pre-election forecasts for unemployment but not the GDP forecasts, which are three percentage points higher than what she has delivered?

Because as the Treasury has previously acknowledged extensively on the record, they vastly overestimated their growth assumptions in the pre-election fiscal update, which may have been convenient for the Minister at the time but was inaccurate none the less.

How can she justify her plan when it has led to rising power and rent costs and a failing construction industry that has forced Auckland-based business Pipe Vision to go under and to cut 100 jobs?

Well, if that member’s version of economics is that every Government should take responsibility for every firm that ever fails, then I invite her to have a chat with Barbara Edmonds. But I would also point out that the assertion that rents have gone up under our Government is not correct. In fact, what we have seen is downward pressure on rents since being elected after a period of extreme rent rises under the previous Government.

Has Ikaroa-Rāwhiti been left out of her plan when the Hawke’s Bay lost 837 jobs in just one quarter and Eastern Institute of Technology, Tairāwhiti lost 40 academic and support roles, who were there to help young people into work?

Well, no. How could they possibly be left out when they are represented by Dana Kirkpatrick and Katie Nimon, two of the extraordinary members of Parliament in the National Party caucus?

Is her economic plan responsible for the more than 300 workers from Carter Holt Harvey, Sealord—

Shame!

—and Proper Crisps in Nelson-Tasman—

Shame!

—who are losing their jobs—

Sorry; stop. Who is calling out during a question? You don’t do that. [Rawiri Waititi wags his finger] I never wag a finger like that; it’s something that is particular to you. Rachel Boyack—start again.

Is her economic plan responsible for the more than 300 workers from Carter Holt Harvey, Sealord, and Proper Crisps in Nelson-Tasman, who are losing their jobs, or should they not take it personally?

No. What our economic plan is directly responsible for is more than half a billion dollars having been committed to rebuilding Nelson Hospital and the fast tracking of a major housing development that on her watch, would have been tied up in red tape for years. [Interruption] We’ll take responsibility. [Interruption] I think you will find that the people of Nelson would like it if you’d just welcome the investment in their hospital.

No, I think if we’re going to have that sort of outburst, we’ll just move on to the next question. It’s largely in Opposition’s hands, but you cannot ask a question and then engage in a barrage like that and expect that you’re going to be given other opportunities to do the same.

In what way is two plants closing and 249 jobs being lost in Tokoroa a sign that her plan is working?

Well, as I pointed out to her colleague Ginny Andersen in the previous answer, a number of factors contribute to firms no longer being profitable. One of those factors is very high interest rates, which is why our Government has worked so hard to take pressure off inflation and ensure the Reserve Bank has had space to reduce those interest rates. [Interruption]

I’ve repeatedly now, over a number of days, expressed the view that the sort of ongoing chips are not reasonable, nor are they witty, nor do they add anything to the debate, and members should refrain from doing it. There’s one particular member who I know is now diligently looking at a piece of paper who would do well to take that on board.

Has she considered asking for help with her numeracy, considering that she considers negative growth to be a sign of recovery?

No. As my mother once said to me, if you can’t say anything nice, which I can’t right now, don’t say anything at all.

to the Minister of Conservation

What recent reports has the Minister seen on the Hauraki Gulf?

On Tuesday, with the backing of all the parties that were present that day in this fine Parliament, the tautoko and support of iwi around Tīkapa Maona, and thousands of New Zealanders, we passed this bill that will triple marine protection in the Hauraki Gulf.

Various groups have welcomed and celebrated this step: the Environmental Defence Society, of course, calling it a landmark achievement for conservation; Forest & Bird saying it’s a significant victory for the Hauraki Gulf; and Seafood New Zealand welcoming the bill as a balanced approach for marine protection. I look forward to seeing the recovery of this iconic, majestic, and epic place, moving forward.

What benefits will the new protections have for marine conservation and ecosystems?

This bill introduces 19 new, expanded marine protection areas, and is the largest increase in marine protection in Aotearoa New Zealand in over a decade. The amount of area that is to be protected here is twice the size of Singapore. We hope to see snapper density increase; spiny rock lobster increase—I just want to acknowledge Minister Jones in his protection for that—the recovery of ecologically important species such as corals, cockles, anemones, and mussels; and, of course, the reduction of kina barrens. Also protected will be some of the smaller and less well-known species such as colourful and flamboyant nudibranches, which have helped inspire some of the outfits of the hard-working people in my office this week. Effective marine protection, we know, helps restore the health and mauri of seascapes.

How will this support jobs and greater economic growth in the region?

A 2023 NZ Institute of Economic Research report stated that the economic value of the Hauraki Gulf is $100 billion and produces over $5 billion of value each and every year to this country. There’s a lot more potential for economic activity in the gulf because it can generate tourism opportunities, such as diving, snorkelling, and watching marine mammals and porpoises. We know that healthy marine environments can boost tourism by looking at the Goat Island Te Hāwere-a-Maki Marine Reserve, celebrating its 50th anniversary this week, which accommodates and hosts over 350,000 visitors per annum. The economy and the environment go together.

Why did he allow eleventh-hour lobbying to influence changes that now enable commercial fishing in high protection areas, when reports show that it will further damage the health of the gulf?

As you will all know, as members of this House, my astute selection is sometimes a compromise, as is moving legislation through this House. But isn’t it ironic that the very member who asked that question today also, along with her party, voted for it yesterday.

Looking ahead, how can we leverage the partnerships that have been formed to capture more opportunities?

This bill presents a fantastic opportunity for co-investment into the Hauraki Gulf, and getting to this point, of having this bill passed, is a result of over a decade of collaboration; can I mention Sir Robert Fenwick and Nikki Kaye in this light. It signals what is possible when we work together—Kāwanatanga, iwi, industry, various groups like Live Ocean—to produce outcomes for all New Zealanders, especially Aucklanders. This is just the beginning. Nicola Rata-MacDonald, the co-chair of the Hauraki Gulf Forum and CEO of Ngāti Manuhiri Settlement Trust, said it has taken an army of united voices to protect this taonga, and I congratulate everyone on their involvement and look forward to our next steps.

What is his message to the 32,000 Kiwis who signed the World Wide Fund for Nature’s petition urging his Government to remove the carve-out that allows commercial fishing in the gulf’s high protection areas due to the risk that it sets a dangerous precedent where industry lobbyists could weaken future marine protections?

My message is this: to the 32,000 people and the 5.5 million New Zealanders and Kiwis that voted in their elected officials to this glorious institution of Parliament, all parties present in Parliament on Tuesday voted in favour of the very comments and the very provisions that the member asked for.

Can I ask the Minister as to where are the customers for those limited commercial fishing operations—are they New Zealand customers or overseas customers?

I am advised that the customers for those particular ring net fishing operators are New Zealand, particularly Auckland, customers.

to the Minister for Social Development and Employment

Does she stand by the Government’s decision to apply tightened eligibility criteria to 18- and 19-year-olds accessing jobseeker support (health condition or disability); if so, why?

Yes, jobseeker support (health condition or disability) is a temporary support for people who are limited in their ability to work for two years because of a health condition, injury, or disability. It’s designed to support them while they recover and prepare to re-enter the workforce. Those with permanent or severe conditions are supported through the Supported Living Payment which recognises long-term incapacity. Our Government has high aspirations for young New Zealanders, and we make no apologies for encouraging them into education, further training, or employment instead of welfare. This approach helps young people to build independence rather than be reliant on welfare.

Does she agree with the Disabled Persons Assembly who told 1News last night that disabled people face barriers to access the Supported Living Payment due to a lack of access to diagnoses, and, if so, does she accept there are several people with long-term conditions who are on jobseeker support (health and disabilities)?

What I can say is that we have aspirations for all young New Zealanders, and it was fantastic, just last week, to meet with an organisation employing young disabled people. I saw how important and how critical it is for them to be in employment and the massive difference it makes in terms of their lives.

Is it fair to subject 18- and 19-year-olds who are receiving jobseeker support (health condition or disability) to the new parental assistance test when they’re suffering from severe ill mental health, recovering from a car accident, or undergoing cancer treatment as reported by 1News?

Let me be clear that the jobseeker (health condition and disability) is, as I said in my primary answer, for temporary conditions. We have other systems like ACC to support people who have had severe accidents and the Supported Living Payment for those with permanent incapacity. What I won’t make any apology for in this House is our Government’s ambition and expectation for 18- and 19-year-olds to have a great life and not be stuck on welfare for another 18 years of their life.

Why restrict access to income support for people who cannot work, temporarily or otherwise?

Because we want to see them engaged in education, engaged in training, and preparing for work, and if they can’t, then to be supported by their parents. It’s a very simple policy. We’ve got high expectations, and we want young people to do well and not be trapped for a lifetime on welfare.

Does she accept that many of the people on that benefit that she’s now restricting access to are also not able to go into education due to those very same health conditions or disabilities?

That’s exactly why there are programmes to support them. We don’t think that it is acceptable in a country like ours to leave a whole generation of New Zealanders to rot on welfare.

Question No. 8, Glen Bennett—before you start, Mr Bennett, there is a huge amount of conversation going on that needs to stop.

to the Minister for Tourism and Hospitality

Are recent hospitality industry closures the result of the Going For Growth strategy; if not, why not?

Our Going for Growth strategy is about strengthening our economy and creating the conditions for businesses and Kiwis to succeed. Recent closures in the hospitality sector are primarily driven by economic pressures, including high inflation and high interest rates, which were the legacy of the previous Government. That’s why our Government’s relentless focus on economic growth is so important—so that businesses have the confidence to invest, to hire, and to grow. Our investments into tourism and hospitality will mean more international visitors, more full tables in our restaurants, more jobs being created across the country, and a stronger economy overall.

Does she consider the more than 2,500 hospitality closures and almost 300 liquidations in the past 12 months evidence that her Government is driving economic growth for the hospitality industry?

I’ve got great news for that member: in August 2025, there were 135 more businesses in accommodation and food services than the previous month, and that is trending up. That’s great news.

How can hospitality in Auckland’s CBD thrive when the Heart of the City survey showed that 77 percent of business owners say that the Government does not listen to their needs?

I disagree. If you look at another quote from Hospitality New Zealand, you can see that they are incredibly supportive of the Government’s major tourism and events boost and they know the enormous difference that that will make.

What does it say about the state of the economy when popular Wellington venue Fortune Favours is forced to close, saying, the “cost of living crisis has proven too difficult”, after business dropped nearly 45 percent in two years?

That member should have listened to the answer I gave to my first question, which was to say exactly that economic challenges from high inflation and high interest rates, which have led to an economic recession, have made it difficult for businesses to operate. The good news, though, is that in the last month, we’ve seen more new businesses open than close.

How can she stand by her economic growth strategy for hospitality when thousands of hospitality businesses are closing and tens of thousands of people are still looking for work?

I would invite that member to actually look at the data around the tourism and hospitality sector. Hospitality job advertisements are up 3.8 percent in July compared to last July. That’s great news. It’s looking up. There are more jobs, and we’re excited about it. I’m surprised that member isn’t.

to the Minister for Courts

What outcomes has she seen from this Government’s focus on delivering faster justice for New Zealanders?

This Government is committed to restoring law and order and improving the timeliness of our courts. That’s why I was pleased to see reports from the District Court’s civil jurisdiction showing active cases down 20 percent in the year to July 2025 and the average age of active cases dropping by a remarkable 36 percent over the same period. This means thousands of New Zealanders are getting their cases resolved months sooner. Justice delayed is justice denied, and that’s why this Government is focused on fixing what matters to deliver the fastest justice for New Zealanders.

What timeliness improvements has she seen regarding the Disputes Tribunal?

The Disputes Tribunal has had an outstanding year, completing more than 900 extra cases in the year to July 2025 compared to the year before. Even more pleasing is the tribunal’s focus on targeting older cases, which has led to a 21 percent drop in aged files—that’s 134 fewer aged cases than in July last year. This means more disputes being resolved quickly and fewer New Zealanders left waiting for decisions.

What progress has been made in the Coroners Court?

I’m pleased to report that the Coroners Court has reduced its active caseload by 15 percent thanks to the introduction of associate coroners, clinical advisers, and relief coroners. The number of active cases now sits at levels not seen since 2020. As a result, families are getting closure sooner and cases are moving through the system faster.

What additional work does the Government have under way to continue to improve court timeliness?

This Government has a strong pipeline of reforms to deliver faster justice. We’re expanding community magistrates’ powers so that they can manage more District Court cases and raising the High Court judicial cap to increase capacity. We will ensure remote participation in our courts is fit for purpose. I could go on, but instead, I’ll finish by thanking the judiciary, courts, and the Ministry of Justice staff, who, like the Government, are working hard to fix what matters and improve the timeliness of our courts.

What additional funding will she seek for the courts, given the Chief Justice’s view that our justice system is under considerable stress?

Thank you for that patsy question from the member across the House. Budget 2025 contained funding of $18.3 million over four years to fund two additional High Court judges and associated staff, as well as expanding the number of community magistrates by three and appointing the Chief Community Magistrate. This extra capacity will help relieve pressure across the justice system and improve timeliness, leading to a reduction in backlogs and the time that people do spend on remand. The Judicature (Timeliness) Legislation Amendment Bill has been introduced, which will make changes across three Acts to improve court procedure and increase the number of High Court judges that can be appointed. We are committed to fixing what matters.

to the Minister for Pacific Peoples

Ni sa bula vinaka. Happy Fijian Language Week. Does he believe that the Ministry for Pacific Peoples has a role to play in getting more Pasifika into work or training; if so, how will it address the current unemployment rate for Pasifika peoples, which is double what it was at the end of 2023 when the Government came into office?

Bula, Mr Speaker. I am aware of the recent rise in Pasifika unemployment, which is concerning. The Ministry for Pacific Peoples, alongside the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) and the education sector, have a role to play in placing more Pacific peoples into work or training. We are relentlessly focused on growing the economy to support Pacific peoples—and all New Zealanders—with better job opportunities, higher wages, and a brighter future.

Does he regret repeatedly cutting funding to the Ministry for Pacific Peoples, including cutting $22 million out of the Tupu Aotearoa work-ready programme at a time when Pasifika unemployment is 12.1 percent, more than double the national average?

What I regret is the actions the previous Government took that put us in this position.

Was the $22 million cut from the Ministry for Pacific Peoples’ Tupu Aotearora work-ready programme transferred, in its entirety, to MSD for targeted Pasifika employment and training programmes; if so, what are they?

The transfer of Tupu Aotearora to the MSD programme was to generate efficiencies by collaborating with two programmes that were, effectively, producing much of the same. The complete transfer did not occur to MSD.

How can he say that the MSD programmes was actually for efficiencies when he previously claimed that it, and I quote, “was particularly to look at those who are not in employment, education, and training, different to MSD in that it wasn’t limited or capped by the age bracket, like MSD”?

I don’t have responsibility for MSD, but I do have responsibility for the programmes that the Ministry for Pacific Peoples brings to the question of Pasifika employment. That includes the Pacific Business Trust and Pacific Business Village, which placed hundreds of people in the last financial year; the partnership with Pacific Media Network, through the Moana Reo Media Fund, which, again, has placed hundreds of jobs; and Pacific Building Affordable Homes and Our Whare Our Fale, which are stimulating Pacific-led construction and employment, as just a few examples.

When will he accept responsibility and take action to help Pasifika into employment or training, when, in the last year alone, 6,100 more Pasifika people are now unemployed and 1,900 more Pasifika young people are not in education, employment, or training?

I acknowledge the challenge with employment for Pacific people. I’ve already identified three initiatives that the Ministry for Pacific Peoples has responsibility for, in collaboration with other ministries, including the Ministry for Social Development. I would highlight Alo Vaka, which, amongst other things, developed 14 micro-credentialing courses in the last financial year and more than 6,000 micro-credentials delivered to Pasifika, particularly Pasifika youth.

to the Minister for Mental Health

What recent announcements has he made on the Government’s mental health targets?

One of my top priorities is faster access to mental health support for all New Zealanders. Last week, I released quarter four mental health target data, which shows that more Kiwis are getting faster access to mental health support. I’ve always said that I won’t be just happy with the national average; it’s the ability to measure performance in the 20 health districts that will make a real difference. No matter where you live, this Government is committed to ensuring that, when someone is reaching out for support, timely support is there.

What progress has been made in achieving the faster access to primary mental health and addiction target?

Good news: this Government is focused on delivering faster access to support, more front-line workers, and a better crisis response. That’s why this Government set a target of 80 percent of people being seen in primary mental health services within one week. We are meeting that target, with 83.8 percent being seen within one week. In the South Island, access to primary mental health support has improved from 75 percent in quarter one to 84.7 percent in quarter four—well above the target. The Southern district went from being one of the worst-performing districts, at 66.4 percent, to one of the best, at 91 percent of Southern residents accessing services within one week.

What progress has been made in reducing wait times in emergency departments?

Improving our crisis response is a key part of our mental health plan. Across the country, all regions have improved the number of people waiting less than six hours in emergency departments to receive timely mental health support. This is a target where we have seen the biggest improvements. In the Northern region, there’s been an 11.3 percent improvement, which has been driven by an increase of 8.9 percent in Northland, and an impressive 20.8 percent improvement in Auckland. When Kiwis, their loved ones, friends, or family members make the brave step of reaching out for help, this Government is committed to ensuring we have the right support in place.

What progress has been made in achieving the faster access to specialist mental health and addiction target?

Our mental health plan is working nationally. We’re achieving the specialist target of 80 percent of people receiving support within three weeks. It’s pleasing to see areas like Taranaki and South Canterbury seeing 90 percent of residents within three weeks; however, there is still work to do to lift performance in some districts. That’s why I meet regularly with Health New Zealand regional leaders to ensure plans are in place to lift areas of underperformance and ensure we’re constantly improving access to mental health services. The data shows that we’re turning the corner on reducing wait times. We’re also increasing the front-line mental health workforce, which has grown by 10 percent since coming into office, with the child and adolescent workforce growing by 19 percent and peer support and lived experience by almost 100 percent.

to the Minister of Justice

Why are Māori disproportionately overrepresented in prison populations in Aotearoa?

It is a sad reality that Māori are overrepresented in prison, and nobody is happy with that fact. The consistent focus of the justice system over many decades has been to reduce that overrepresentation, and it has proven very difficult. As to why, there will, naturally, be a variety of opinions. At one level, the make-up of the current prison population primarily reflects offending rates in New Zealand. As the recent long-term insights briefing on imprisonment in New Zealand outlined, “Most people serving sentences in prison in New Zealand have been convicted of serious sexual or violent offending. New Zealand prisons are not full of people in prison for minor charges.” It is also a fact that Māori are disproportionately overrepresented as victims of crime in New Zealand, which is why this Government is focused on restoring real consequences for crime and reducing the number of victims of crime. That is our primary focus in the justice sector, regardless of ethnicity.

Does the Minister agree that it is important for Corrections to accurately record the ethnicity of incarcerated people; and, if so, why hasn’t the Government implemented action 5.1 of the Hōkai Rangi Strategy to “Accurately record ethnicity, descent, and iwi affiliation … (consistent and in conjunction with Stats New Zealand standards and iwi)”?

That is probably a question best directed to the Minister of Corrections, but I’m sure every effort is made to accurately record data.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. I wasn’t able to get a good answer to my question because of the jurisdiction—[Interruption].

Sorry. There’s a bit of a hum—

Yeah, a lot of noise.

—in the gallery, so I can’t hear you. Speak clearly into your microphone.

Yup. For context, Mr Speaker, my question is about the overrepresentation of Māori in prison populations. Originally, it was directed to the Minister of Corrections but was redirected to the Minister of Justice. My supplementary question just now, asking about the Hōkai Rangi Strategy, was not answered because it is within the delegation of—

I’ll tell you what, ask your question again—

Again? Yep.

—because if the Government has decided that this is the Minister who can answer it, we should expect an answer.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’ll repeat my question: does the Minister agree that it is important for Corrections to accurately record the ethnicity of incarcerated people; and, if so, why hasn’t the Government implemented action 5.1 of the Hōkai Rangi strategy to “Accurately record ethnicity, descent, and iwi affiliation data”?

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

Does the Minister think that defunding the police and letting offenders go without prosecution has any chance of helping innocent Māori victims?

No, I don’t think that would be helpful to Māori victims of crime, and that certainly appears to be the Greens’ policy.

Does the Minister know whether the methods currently used by the Department of Corrections for ethnicity data collection are giving an accurate view of who is in prison?

Well, I don’t have that detail to hand. I certainly can confirm that Corrections and the broader justice sector are very focused primarily on reducing the number of victims of crime, regardless of their ethnicity; unlike the previous Government, which had a focus on reducing the number of people in prison irrespective of what was going on in the community. Our focus is on reducing the number of victims of crime.

What evidence does he have that a higher prison population makes Māori safer?

Well, if you’re wanting to reduce the number of victims of crime, a very good place to start is with that very, very small section of New Zealand society that creates multiple victims over and over again. The primary focus is effective rehabilitation of people who have been involved in violent crime, but there are some people that need to be kept out of society for a while so that the rest of society can be kept safe. That is a pretty important part of our justice response.

Is it this Government’s position that if someone does the crime then they’re going to do the time, regardless of their ethnicity?

Yes, indeed, that is our position. It is not from a sole focus on the punitive side of justice—though that is important—it is part of a broader focus of our justice sector response, which is to reduce the number of victims of crime. The good news is that collectively in this country, we’re making great progress towards that target that the Government has to reduce the overall number of victims of crime. When we came in, there were 185,000 New Zealanders suffering violent offences; we’ve reduced that down to 156,000 in the latest stats. That is still 156,000 too many New Zealanders, and we’re determined to make further progress.

Was Moana Jackson wrong when he said, “the majority of those behind bars are Māori, and the system itself reflects a punishing and very real racism.”, or does he accept that the overrepresentation of Māori in prisons is a reflection of structural racism? [Interruption]

Hold on! Hold on! Right-o.

In regards to structural racism, I would say that that’s a very easy phrase for an academic to use, but I would say to the thousands of New Zealanders—Māori, Pākehā, and from a wide variety of ethnicities—who get up early every morning to work at Corrections or the courts or in many parts of the justice sector, the suggestion that they are just mere cogs in the wheel of a structurally racist regime is an insult to those people who work hard every day to do the right thing for this country and to keep New Zealanders safe. I don’t think that’s an appropriate way to reflect on their efforts.

Could the Minister tell us exactly how many Māori accused did Moana Jackson ever defend at court? [Interruption] What’s wrong with that question?

Well, it’s something you could put in a written question. I doubt the Minister’s got that at hand.

Can the Minister also confirm that Māori are disproportionately represented among the victims of crime, and would it help to go soft on the perpetrators for reasons of political correctness?

Well, yes, I can confirm that Māori are overrepresented amongst the victims of crime, and that is why this Government is absolutely focused in its justice policy on reducing the number of victims of crime. That’s what it’s all about. We have made good progress towards that goal but we are very conscious of the fact that there is a lot of progress yet to be made because New Zealanders deserve to feel safe in their communities. They do feel safer than they did a couple of years ago, but we can do so much better as a country. That’s why we’re focused on strong, clear consequences for crime.

The time for oral questions has concluded. There is a maiden speech to follow, but we’ll give everyone who needs to go to other business 30 seconds to leave the House without discussion, without any slowness of movement.

In accordance with a determination of the Business Committee, I call on Oriini Kaipara to make her maiden address to Parliament.

Kōrihi, kōrihi, kō

Iti rearea, teitei kahikatea ka taea

Kōrihi, kōrihi, kō

[Birdsong, birdcall, call

Though the bellbird is small, it can conquer a tall white pine

Birdsong, birdcall, call]

Tā Tumu, kei hea rā koe ka ngaro nei? Kua hau angiangi ngā pae o ngā iwi katoa. Ko ngā kāhu e rua nō runga mai o Takaparawhau ērā kua taka ki te pō. E aku rangatira, Clay kōrua ko Pāpā Grant Hawke, haere aku rangatira, haere. Mokowhiti atu ki Taupiri-kūao, hine i pūāwai, e hine, haere, haere. Koutou e ngā mate o te wā, haere i te aukume, i te auroa, i te au tē hoki mai anō. Haere e ngā mate, haere.

Kei ngā pou o tōku whare wairua, hoki wairua mai, hoki wairua mai. Ki ngā pou o Te Aho Matua, Nanny Tuki. Nāu te kōrero, “Kia mau ki Te Aka Matua, te toihuarewa tipua.” Whaea Kāterina Te Heikōkō, nōu te ringa i whakairo i Te Aho Matua me ōna wāhanga e ono, nāu i whakamahara i a mātou kia kimihia te mea ngaro.

Ki te pou o tōku reo Māori, Hōri Te Pou, Grandad, nāu taku reo, nāu i Tūhoe ai taku arero, nāu i Tūhoe ai tōku ngākau, ā, i Tūhoe ai ahau.

Ki ōku pou o te ao haka, Koro Ngāpō kōrua ko Kui Pīmia, nā kōrua ngā rangi me ngā kupu i tito i mana anō ai te kōrero “Ki te wātea te hinengaro me te kaha rere o te wairua, ka taea ngā mea katoa”.

Kei ngā pou o tōku whare, o Ngā Tūmanako, Whaea Arapera, Whaea Hinerapa, Nanny June, Whaea Barbara, Ricky, koutou aku titi raukura me aku iti raukura kua riro ki te pō, e muramura tonu ana te ahi nā koutou i toutou i tō tātou pā. Anei, kua kaewa mai e mātou ki konei, ki tēnei Whare i tēnei rā.

Kāti, ki ngā pou tokomanawa o Te Pāti Māori, Whaea Tariana kōrua tahi ko Takutaimoana: māreikura mārire, ngākau māhaki. E Kui Tari, nāu a Whānau Ora i ōhia ake i te kore ki te ao mārama. Takutai, e whāia e koe ngā mahi a Rarohenga kia whai pokohiwi pono ai ngā whānau o tō tāua rohe, o Tāmaki Makaurau. Ko kōrua ka noho hei iho pūmanawa ki a au, otirā ki a mātou o Te Pāti Māori e apakura tonu nei. Nei ka mihi, nei ka tangi.

Kia whakatepehia ake i konei, he rārangi maunga, tū tonu, tū tonu; he rārangi tangata, ngaro noa, ngaro noa. Tauāraitia te pō, tītoko ki te ao mārama. E ngā urupā o rātou mā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

Whakakau ake te kauae kahika o Kiwa, Te Arikinui Kuīni Nga wai hono i te po, tū mai rā. Tū mai koe i runga i te ahurea tapu o tō pāpā, o tō kuia, o ō tīpuna kua riro ki te pō. Tū mai rā koe hei tapairu mō te reo Māori. Ā tēnā, kia whakatino-rangatiratangatia e au tō tāua reo ki konei, ki Pāremata, ā, ki te ao tōrangapū.

Ko te Kuīni Māori hei whakamarumaru, ko te Kiingitanga hei whakaruruhau mō te mana Māori motuhake. Rire rire hau, pai mārire.

E te ariki hou o Tūwharetoa, Te Rangimāheu, e tū. Kia whitikina iho koe e te ihi o tō pāpā. Te mauri o te iwi, te hana o ngā waiariki, nau mai rā koe e te whatu o te whare o Te Heuheu. Rarau.

Te Ātiawa, Taranaki Whānui, Ngāti Toa Rangatira, e ngā reo whakahei nō runga mai i ngā maunga whakahī o Te Whanga-nui-a-Tara, tatū atu ki Muaupoko ki Ōtaki, tae atu ki Rangitāne ki te Wairarapa, tēnā koutou e ngā matamatahuānga, e ngā mana whenua o ēnei whenua.

Whakatau mai i taku iti, i taku rahi. Whakatau mai i a mātou, ngā waewae tapu. Whakatau mai i taku whānau, i taku hapori, tēnei kua tau mai. Mihia ā mātou mokopuna. Mihia ngā tamariki o Te Kōhanga Reo me te Kura Kaupapa Māori. Mihia ō rātou mātua, ō rātou pākeke. Mihia ngā toa o te reo Māori. Tae atu ki ngā pā kai ahi me ngā mana tiketike o Tāmaki Makaurau. Ehara, mihia te uru kahika o Tāmaki Makaurau, tēnei kua pae mai nei.

Mihia ōku pāpā i konei i ngā tau o mua, hei aha? Hei kauwaka, hei māngai mō ngā iwi Māori i mua. Mihia te matakīrea o te rangapū tuatahi o Te Pāti Māori kua auraki mai. Anei a Tā Pāpā Pita Sharples me āna apataki e tū tonu nei te whare o Hoani Waititi Marae e tau nei, e mihi atu nei. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

Ā kāti, whakatau mai i ahau, i te mema Pāremata hou o Tāmaki Makaurau.

Ko ahau ko Oriini Kaipara, ko te teina o Rawinia rāua ko Te Raina, ko te tuahine o Hakaraia, ko te whakapākanga a Shirley Te Pou rāua ko Eruera Kaipara. Ko Gary Grey taku pāpā whakaangi. He mōkai ahau nā Hōri rāua ko Te Auta Te Pou. He mokopuna hoki ahau nā Wikeepa rāua ko Kaira Te Maioha Kaipara. Ko au te māmā o Paetawhiti, o Te Aomihia, o Nikau, o Ngarongokahira. Ko au hoki te kuikui o Puaroa.

He uri ahau nō Hine-pūkohu-rangi, nō Te Kura-i-monoa, nō Wairaka, nō Hine-te-ariki, nō Hāhuru. Ko au te wawata o Te Ōkahurangi, te tūmanako o Rangitōwhare, te kauae o Parehuia. Ko au ko Ngāti Awa, ko au ko Tūwharetoa, ko Tūhoe, ko Ngāti Rangitihi, ko Ngā Pōtiki, ko Te Hapū Oneone.

E te Pīka, e te Whare, e aku mema hoahaere i tēnei Whare, ka puta i te motu whānui, koutou e ngā maunga whakahī o ngā tīpuna kei te pō, anei ahau e mihi atu nei ki a koutou. Tēnā koutou, ā, tēnā tātou.

[Sir Tumu, where have you gone? The leadership panels of all iwi have thinned. The two hawks from upon Bastion Point are those who have fallen into darkness. My noble leaders, Clay and Pāpā Grant Hawke, pass on my noble leaders, rest in peace. Leap on to Taupiri-kūao, the lady who flourished, my lady, rest in peace. To you, the recently departed, go on the drawing current, the persistent current, the current that will never return again. Pass on, our dearly departed, go.

To the pillars of my spiritual hall, return in spirit, return in spirit. To the pillars of Te Aho Matua, Nanny Tuki. It was you who said, “Hold fast to Te Aho Matua, the miraculous pinnacle.” Whaea Kāterina Te Heikōkō, it was your hand that carved Te Aho Matua and its six component parts; it was you who reminded us to seek the unseen.

To the pillar of my Māori language, Hōri Te Pou, Grandad, my knowledge of the language is due to you. It was you who made my tongue Tūhoe, it was you who made my heart Tūhoe, who made me Tūhoe.

To my pillars of the haka world, Koro Ngāpō and Kui Pīmia, it was the two of you who composed the arrangements and lyrics that confirmed the statement “If the mind is clear and the soul is soaring, everything is possible”.

To the pillars of my house, Ngā Tūmanako, Whaea Arapera, Whaea Hinerapa, Nanny June, Whaea Barbara, Ricky, all of you my treasured plumes and humble affiliates that have gone into the darkness, the fire that you tended in our fortress burns on. Here, we have travelled here to this House today.

Well, to the central columns of Te Pāti Māori, Whaea Tariana and Takutaimoana: peaceful majesty, humble hearts. Kui Tari, it was you who brought Whānau Ora from nothing into the world of light. Takutai, you pursued the endeavours of Rarohenga so that the families of our region, of Auckland would have a strong shoulder to lean on. You both will remain role models to me, indeed to us, Te Pāti Māori that continue to grieve. I thank you, and grieve for you.

To conclude here, mountain ranges endure, while humanity passes on. Let the night stand apart, as we move into the world of light. To the living memorials of those who have passed on, greetings and thanks to you all.

As the noble jaw of Kiwa comes into view, it is the Monarch Queen Nga wai hono i te po, arise. Arise upon the sacred throne of your father, of your grandmother, of your ancestors who have passed into the night. Arise as sovereign for the Māori language. Indeed, let me ensure the sovereignty of our language here in Parliament, and in the political sphere.

As the Māori Queen is shelter, so is the Kiingitanga a sanctuary for Māori authority. Peace and goodwill to all.

To the new supreme leader of Tūwharetoa, Te Rangimāheu, arise. May you be illuminated by the power of your father. The life force of the people, the radiance of the geothermal features, welcome, the rock of the house of Te Heuheu. Welcome.

Te Ātiawa, Tarana Whānui, Ngāti Toa Rangatira, the voices of welcome from upon the proud mountains of Wellington, including Muaupoko in Ōtaki, and also Rangitāne in Wairarapa, greetings to you my relatives, the authorities over these lands.

Welcome my humble and proud ones. Welcome us, those new to this place. Welcome my family, my community, we who have arrived here. Greet our grandchildren. Greet the children of the Kōhanga Reo and the Kura Kaupapa Māori. Greet their parents and their elders. Greet the champions of the Māori language. Including the sentinels and the exalted authority of Auckland. Indeed, greet the leadership group of Auckland that has arrived here.

Greet my uncles that were here in prior years, as what? As media and representatives for the Māori people before. Greet the advance guard of the founding group of Te Pāti Māori who have returned. Here is Sir Pita Sharples and his retinue who maintain the hall of Hoani Waititi Marae, who have arrived and greet you. Greetings and thanks to you all.

Oh well, welcome me, the new member of Parliament of Auckland.

I am Oriini Kaipara, younger sister of Rawinia and Te Raina, sister of Hakaraia, youngest child of Shirley Te Pou and Eruera Kaipara. Gary Grey is my stepfather. I am a favourite of Hōri and Te Auta Te Pou. I am also a grandchild of Wikeepa and Kaira Te Maioha Kaipara. I am the mother of Paetawhiti, Te Aomihia, Nikau, and Ngarongokahira. I am also the grandmother of Puaroa.

I am a descendant of Hine-pūkohu-rangi, Te Kura-i-monoa, Wairaka, Hine-te-ariki and Hāhuru. I am the aspiration of Te Ōkahurangi, the hope of Rangitōwhare, and the pride of Parehuia. I am Ngāti Awa, I am Tūwharetoa, Tūhoe, Ngāti Rangitihi, Ngā Pōtiki, and Te Hapū Oneone.

Mr Speaker, and the House, my fellow members of this House, and out to the nation, you, the proud mountains of the ancestors in the night, here I am offering thanks to you. Greetings and thanks to you, and all of us.]

I am Oriini Kaipara, member of Parliament for Tāmaki Makaurau. Greetings, everyone.

I’m not going to stand here and tell you about the impacts of colonisation on whānau, hapū, iwi, and even on me. That story is well documented. One only has to turn to the Hansard to see in plain black and white how this Government and past Governments have perceived our people. Instead, I will speak of resilience: the resilience of Māori, the resilience that has carried us through generations of struggle and survival, and the resilience that has shaped me into the woman, the mother, the grandmother, and now the member of Parliament who stands here before you today.

Te reo Māori, tikanga, kura kaupapa, kapa haka, the arts—heck, even Matariki. None of it survived by accident. E hē. It all survived because we fought for it, Māori and non-Māori alike. We have been fighting for a very long time for te reo to survive and thrive. In 1970, Ngā Tamatoa and Ngā Kaiwhakapūmau i te Reo lobbied for the introduction of te reo Māori into all schools. Two years later, the Māori Language Petition, signed by over 30,000 New Zealanders, was carried to the very steps of this Parliament. Ordinary people, extraordinary in their vision, stood up to say that the language of our tīpuna and of this whenua will not die.

In 1975, three historic events took place. Dame Whina Cooper and Te Rōpū Matakite led the biggest land march of its time, from the top of the North to those very same steps. The Waitangi Tribunal was established—and I acknowledge the taraipiunara, who are here commemorating their 50th anniversary. The third was Te Wiki o te reo Māori, which also began that year. Here we are, 50 years later, celebrating but with eyes wide open to the realities both institutions face right now.

May I remind everyone in this House and out there that in 1975, just 5 percent of all Māori schoolchildren could speak and even understand their own mother tongue—5 percent. Ruātoki stepped up first. They became the first bilingual school in the entire country, in 1978. That was also the year of Takaparawhā—Bastion Point. E kore rawa mātou e wareware.

[We will never ever forget.]

A year later, iwi and hapū gathered near here to plan strategies for the survival of te reo. Te Ataarangi was born.

In 1980, Hoani Waititi Marae opened its doors for the very first time, becoming home to many West Aucklanders, including myself and my whānau. That same year, the kōhanga reo movement was born, in Ngāruawāhia. In 1982, the first kōhanga reo, Pukeatua, was opened in Wainuiomata. Later, former politician and Māori broadcaster Derek Fox delivered the very first televised news bulletin entirely in te reo Māori. Te Karere was born—and so was I—in 1983. Still young!

These acts of resilience, they were critical to our existence and our success, then and still now. We created more than a movement; we built community. Community is what established the kura kaupapa Māori movement, which is here in this House right now.

In 1985, Te Kura Kaupapa Maori o Hoani Waititi Marae opened. A dream once whispered became reality, a place where tamariki could grow as who they were born to be: unapologetically Māori. Anei ngā titi raukura o Hoani Waititi Marae, anei ngā raukura o Te Aho Matua, ngā mokopuna a Rāwiri Wright, Te Rūnanga Nui o ngā Kura Kaupapa Māori kua tae mai. Anei te āpōpō, anei te tira hou kua tau.

[These are the valued affiliates of Hoani Waititi Marae, these are the graduates of Te Aho Matua, the grandchildren of Rāwiri Wright, Te Rūnanga Nui o ngā Kura Kaupapa Māori, who have arrived here. This is the future; this is the new crew that has landed.]

The fight for te reo didn’t end there. That same year, the Waitangi Tribunal heard the te reo Māori claim, Wai 11. It confirmed what we always knew: that te reo Māori is a taonga guaranteed protection under Te Tiriti o Waitangi. This led to the establishment of Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Māori—the Māori Language Commission. What followed next was Te Māngai Pāho, Whakaata Māori, and many other Māori language revitalisation efforts that still stand today. Tēnei te reo Māori te toitū tonu nei.

[This is the Māori language that continues to endure.]

I honour our pakeke who did not speak Māori—all of you who know and who carry the ache of disconnection, and ensured that my peers and I would never feel it. Just as they stood for me, so I now stand for our tamariki and our mokopuna. Thank you for the sacrifices you made. Thank you for the ridicule you faced and for the courage that you showed in your commitment to a better life for us.

When I stand in this House, I do so not as a survivor of colonisation who made it in the Pākehā system, but as the product of Māori resilience. We are the culmination of dreams, of purpose, of hard work, and of intention. We are here by design. Every single one of us who walks our own reo journey is a beneficiary of the efforts of all those who held and who still hold the line for all of us today. We embody everything they stood for, all that they dreamt of, and all that they hoped for.

I’ve broken barriers, but now I choose to break cycles. I’ve covered stories, and now I choose to change them. I’ve competed at the Olympics of haka and I’ve taken haka to the Olympics. I’ve introduced te reo Māori into every space I’ve walked in, and I have no intention of stopping now.

Some say te reo is another act of resistance. For many of us, it is our way of life—it just is. The Aotearoa hou I aspire to is free from racism, from discrimination, from trauma, and from unnecessary suffering. The Aotearoa hou I see is vibing and it’s thriving, growing and going forward, not backwards. “Kia whakatōmuri te haere whakamua”—“I walk backwards into the future with my eyes fixed firmly on our past”.

I entered this Whare holding in my hand Te Aho Matua, the values and principles coined by the people who mentored and who shaped who I am today. They’re in this House; many of them are not.

I also enter on behalf of Takutai Tarsh Kemp, my predecessor, my tuakana. I hold firmly in her honour and that of her whānau all that she carried and all that she meant, not only for Tāmaki Makaurau, but for all her people who continue today to grieve for her loss.

I stand here proudly for Tāmaki Makaurau. To my own whānau, aunties, my uncles, my cousins, my nephews, my nieces, everyone—[Bell rung] I hear you; kei te pai—

I don’t think you do.

—thank you for being here with me. I know how unnatural this is for all of us, but trust: we’ve got this. I’ve got you, and you’ve got me.

I wonder what my mum would say if she were here right now. I know she would be beaming and saying something like “Go, my baby!” She’s here, I know, and I really do hope to do her proud, and do all of our whakapapa proud.

To my hāpai ō, my pillars of support, kāore i ārikarika aku mihi ki a koutou [profuse thanks to you]. Jen, Faye, Rei, Mahanga, Ngira, Rukuwai, Donna, Rahera, Kelz, Maria, Parekura, Pāpā Rangi, our Te Kei o Te Waka whānau, tae atu ki a koutou, Kereama mā [our family from the Stern of the Canoe, and also including you, Kereama and others] in the US of A right now: thank you for having backs, guys, and for joining me on this journey. We made it. You did this. E kore te puna o mihi e mimiti.

[The fountain of thanks will never dry up.]

To the other members of this Whare—[Bell rung]—know this: we will debate, we will challenge each other—

This is not on.

—and we will disagree—and I will wrap it up, everybody.

I started and now I end my kauhau with the pao of the bellbird to remind us—especially now, during spring—that even the smallest of us can achieve greatness. “Just like the bellbird dared to ascend the tallest kahikatea, we can, and we will.”

Kōrihi, kōrihi, kō

Iti rearea, teitei kahikatea ka taea

Kōrihi, kōrihi, kō

[Birdsong, birdcall, call

Though the bellbird is small, it can conquer a tall white pine

Birdsong, birdcall, call]

Waiata—“Whakarongo”

[Disturbance in the public gallery]

No, not that—the guarantee was that that would not be taking place. The House is suspended.

The House is resumed. This afternoon, following the maiden statement by Oriini Kaipara, I suspended the House because of a disruption in the gallery outside of an agreed process that the Business Committee had authorised. The key point in this place is that no one member is more or less elected than anyone else and the time that the House allocates for anyone to speak in here is by agreement, and when we have people coming into the House who decide they’re not going to abide by their agreements, then they put themselves in a contemptuous position. The behaviour in the gallery was contemptuous, and it is my intention over the next couple of days to find out whether or not that was by agreement with any party inside this House.

People go on to marae all over the country and respect the protocols. We have a protocol here; it is our tikanga. That tikanga is based, as I’ve said before, on agreement, and for people to decide they’re not going to participate in that process, then they put themselves very firmly in contempt of Parliament.

The House will now continue with its business.

on behalf of the Leader of the House: I move, That the House adopt the following sessional order:

ELECTRONIC PETITIONS WITH HIGHLY DISCRIMINATORY CONTENT

Electronic petitions with highly discriminatory content

The Clerk may refuse to host an electronic petition on the Parliament website if they are satisfied that the content of the petition is highly discriminatory.

Before refusing to host a petition under paragraph (1), the Clerk must—

take account of whether the content of the petition is threatening, abusive, or insulting to a group of people by reason of any of the prohibited grounds of discrimination under the Human Rights Act 1993, and

consult the Petitions Committee.

Standing Order 371 is read accordingly.

Functions of Petitions Committee

The functions of the Petitions Committee include responding to consultation by the Clerk under Rule 1, or by the Speaker under Standing Order 372(2).

Standing Order 378 is read accordingly.

Application to electronic petitions already hosted on Parliament website

Rule 1 applies to electronic petitions already hosted on the Parliament website when this sessional order is adopted.

Expiry

This sessional order expires 6 months after the date on which it is adopted.

This sessional order has come from a submission from the Petitions Committee that they made to the Standing Orders Committee regarding petitions with highly discriminatory content, which currently must be uploaded to the Parliament website, even without the requisite number of signatures needed to be presented to the House. There was unanimous agreement on the Standing Orders Committee that this was a matter which should be addressed. A sessional order was drafted so that we can get on with it, and then the proper changes will be made during the usual Standing Orders process.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I do think it’s appropriate to make some comments on this. The difficulty or the problem which is being addressed here is the fact that a petition that is open for signatures is almost automatically placed on the Parliament website, and there have been instances where the petitions that have been put on the Parliament website—which gives it the appearance of being approved in some way by this House—have had racist overtones or misogynistic overtones, or something of that nature. So this sessional order now gives the Clerk the ability to not post those petitions on the website. In fact, those petitions could still occur on a paper form by doing the rounds in the kind of old-fashioned way, but that doesn’t give it the appearance of this Parliament approving as in any way legitimate petitions which are outrightly offensive.

There is a reference in there to the prohibited grounds of discrimination under the Human Rights Act as a guiding light but not the sole basis for refusing a petition, and this will be in place for six months. I suspect that it will be seen as a useful innovation, and I hope will become a permanent feature of our Standing Orders, but that’s not for today. But it is a good addressing of an issue to make sure that the processes of this House, which are open to all New Zealanders, aren’t inappropriately abused.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Greens to support this sessional order. I think this has been a debate that has gone on for a few months in relation to the realities of having a much more accessible Parliament where petitions can be hosted electronically, and, personally, I really support the fact that we have an electronic platform where people can host their petitions. It’s super-accessible, it makes incredibly clear to people the instructions they have to follow, and that is amazing, but it then puts the question back to us about the nature of the petitions we’re able to host on that electronic platform.

The solution that we’re going to trial for the next six months is, as others have said, innovative, and I think it should allow us to explore whether we can continue with it later down the line. When I think about the realities of some petitions that definitely have been highly discriminatory and that are less about free speech and more about just causing genuine harm, I think this is an important step.

This will not prevent paper petitions of that nature from going out in the community. I don’t think, therefore, that anyone could argue that this is about restricting people’s ability to canvass petitions in their communities; this is simply about what gets hosted on the website and what gets platformed. Giving the Clerk the ability to refuse to host an electronic petition if they’re satisfied that the content is highly discriminatory, within some pretty tight guidelines, also takes it away from partisan politics, and I think that’s also a really important consideration because I want to make sure that the public is given the certainty that partisan politics will not be coming into play in the six-month trial that we’re about to, hopefully, undergo.

Once again, the Green Party supports this. We encourage members of our communities who care deeply about issues happening in this country to use these tools that they have at their disposal—in this case, petitions—to canvass their communities and to bring forward important issues which, in some cases, have led to legislative and policy changes in Government. Thank you.

on behalf of the Leader of the House: I seek leave to present a legislative statement on the Parliament Bill.

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

I move, That the Parliament Bill be now read a second time.

I welcome the report of the Parliament Bill Committee, which was established with the singular purpose of examining this bill. In the six months of its existence, the committee gave this bill a really good going over. In doing so, the committee consciously pursued a consensus-based approach to what is a significant part of our constitutional framework. All the committee’s recommendations are unanimous, and I thank the committee’s members for their approach and diligent work on the bill under the guidance of the chairperson, the Rt Hon Adrian Rurawhe.

The bill, essentially, brings together the statutory framework for the operation of Parliament, its privileges and powers, remuneration, and support for members, and the agencies that enable the institution of Parliament to function. It combines the four separate Acts that currently set out these arrangements. Aside from this consolidation, the bill makes some policy changes to strengthen the independence of Parliament, setting out a funding model for the parliamentary agencies so their appropriations are commended by the House rather than determined by the executive, providing a statutory process for security arrangements in the parliamentary precincts, making the system for funding members’ work-related expenses clearer and more family friendly, and updating and aligning provisions relating to the functions and staffing of the parliamentary agencies.

The committee received 62 submissions and several of them dealt with constitutional matters, as you would expect for a bill of this nature. Some went well beyond the content of the bill to call for substantive amendments to the Official Information Act of 1982, broader reform of the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act of 1993, the establishment of a parliamentary budget office, and an increase in the number of members of Parliament. The committee heard these points, but reached the view that even if the committee had the power to recommend amendments along these lines, such major changes would require separate policy development processes, rather than being added to the bill at the select committee stage.

Aside from those broader issues, the main focus of the submissions was on the bill’s provisions for parliamentary security. As introduced, these provisions were based on the Court Security Act of 1999. The bill gives parliamentary security officers statutory powers of consent, search, denial of entry, temporary seizure of specified items, and temporary detention, subject to limitations. These statutory powers could be exercised in the parliamentary precincts, at select committee meetings outside the precincts, and in limited circumstances at the electorate and community offices of MPs. These provisions are intended to ensure Parliament’s safety and security are adequately protected, including a capacity to deal with serious threats to the safety of MPs, staff, and visitors. At the same time, the aim is to uphold Parliament’s current level of openness and accessibility to the public as far as practicable in light of the threat assessment at any given time.

A number of submitters were concerned about the introduction of coercive powers that could affect people engaging with Parliament and urged that such powers not be conferred or that they be exercised with great caution. Some submitters suggested that a better policy approach would be to maintain a permanent police presence at Parliament. I note the committee’s finding that the current lack of statutory powers to support actions taken by parliamentary security officers could place people in the precinct at risk.

The bill provides a clear framework for parliamentary security officers to screen for security issues and respond in the first instance. The police will continue to liaise with the Parliamentary Service, assess the threat environment, and deploy as needed. While recommending that the bill’s provisions relating to parliamentary security should proceed, the committee expressed its strong expectation that the current level of freedom to use and protest lawfully on the Parliament grounds will continue, and I share this view.

The committee recommended several amendments to the security provisions. A couple of areas that I would highlight are the strengthening of qualification and training requirements for parliamentary security officers, and new provisions relating to oversight and reporting on the use of security powers. In terms of the qualifications and training of people employed as parliamentary security officers, the committee recommended that they be required to complete an approved training course developed by the Parliamentary Service in consultation with the Ministry of Justice and police. Amendments also require an equivalent standard of qualification and training for any person appointed as a parliamentary security officer who is not an employee of the service.

The committee heard submissions calling for stronger reporting requirements on the exercise of statutory powers by parliamentary security officers, and recommended that the bill be amended to set out reporting requirements to this end. Proposed new clause 190A requires officers to report to the chief executive within three working days when certain coercive powers are used, summarising the circumstances and reasons for their exercise. It applies to the use of powers to detain or handcuff persons and to the use of reasonable force. Under the bill, the chief executive will be responsible for reporting to the Speaker and the Parliamentary Service Commission on the exercise of parliamentary security powers, just as for other operations of the service.

In terms of public accountability, new clause 190B requires the annual report of the Parliamentary Service to include information about the exercise of specified powers by parliamentary security officers. Another point to note is that under the Ombudsmen Act 1975, an ombudsman can receive complaints about and investigate actions of the Parliamentary Service. That’s already the case, and when the bill is passed, it would then apply to the exercise of powers under the bill’s provision relating to parliamentary security.

The bill incorporates the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Act of 2013, primarily in Part 4 and Schedule 3. That Act provides for remuneration, funding, and services for MPs and sets out travel services for their family members. The bill largely reproduces the legislative effect of the Act, with some policy changes—for example, the bill sets out guiding principles for the use by members and eligible candidates of authorised funding and services. It also gives greater flexibility for members’ travel services so that a caregiver can accompany a member’s dependant family members to Wellington. Another change is to include a new definition of “adult dependant”, to cover a member’s family member who is over 18 but who by reason of a disability is dependent on the member.

Several submitters called for greater disclosure of members’ spending. The committee adopted a proposal from the New Zealand Law Society for the Speaker to have authority to set the disclosure requirements relating to categories of expenses and services that are determined by the Speaker. This would be in addition to the reporting that is already required for specific types of travel and accommodation expenses that members incur.

Part 8 of the bill amends the Public Finance Act 1989 to establish a model so that the House can determine the funding of the parliamentary agencies similar to that used for deciding the appropriation of the Offices of Parliament. These provisions are intended to enable parliamentary funding to be determined in a way that upholds the House’s right to control its own affairs while also being fiscally responsible. The committee agreed it is constitutionally appropriate for the legislature to determine its funding levels and allocations for itself rather than leaving it to the executive, and did not recommend any amendments to Part 8. In its commentary, the committee recommended that the Standing Orders Committee consider how to reflect this new process in the House’s rules.

Finally, an important feature of the bill is Part 2, which incorporates the Parliamentary Privileges Act of 2014. The bill as introduced did not alter policy settings in this area, but included parliamentary privilege in the bill so that legislation relevant to the operation of Parliament is in one place. The committee received submissions that sought some quite profound alterations to how the law provides for parliamentary privilege. However, in supporting the incorporation of the 2014 Act into the bill, the committee reiterated that no changes were proposed to the substance of parliamentary privilege.

Again, I thank all members of the committee for their thoughtful consideration of the bill. I commend the Parliament Bill to the House.

Just a procedural issue: that legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website. The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. There’s not a lot of detail I can add after that comprehensive speech by the Minister, which quite accurately went over the main changes and initiatives of this bill, and so I will keep my comments relatively general.

The first comment I would make is actually about procedure, and what an excellent procedure this was for a bill which is clearly part of our constitutional framework. It was a special select committee, ably chaired by Adrian Rurawhe, and also it was not done at pace. It was not a hurried piece of legislation, but it was very well prepared over a number of years, and it was well formed when it came to the Parliament Bill Committee. Some of it has been improved in that process, and that is how constitutional law should be done. Everyone knew that it was coming and what it was going to look like, and I would suggest that whenever we look at matters which strike to the constitution of our country, that is the approach that we should take and, sadly, it hasn’t necessarily been the approach of this Government to date.

The access of the public to Parliament and parliamentarians is one of the defining features of our democracy, and we should absolutely hold it dear and treasure it. But we have seen over the few years that risks to MPs have increased, and it is necessary to give powers to security staff—employees of Parliamentary Service—and, in some cases, others to address those risks. I think it was a very useful process in select committee to go through in some detail the nature of the powers and it was just a real caution as to what degree and how often they are exercised. Those powers, for example, of a security guard to detain someone or take them out of the gallery if they’re being disruptive, or to exclude them from the premises if they’re causing undue harm, are entirely appropriate. But we absolutely want to know how and why those powers are exercised, and so that reporting was an important part of the improvements, along with, I must say, a number of other what could be called tweaks.

A further major part of this is the way in which Parliament is funded. Parliament’s finances, as we would all know, are under strain, but this place is absolutely fundamental to trust in our democracy. When we have an accessible Parliament—and some of us in the House will know that the number of submissions being made on bills has increased and the work associated with it has increased, as well, and the amount of work that Governments are pushing through has increased—what we don’t want is an under-resourced Parliament where the quality of the lawmaking and the quality of the interactions of the public with this place are at risk, because if that trust is eroded, then our democracy is waning. We remain a high-trust democracy, and we need to protect that.

The change in the funding model which, essentially, gives this House control over its own funding in the same way as the Ombudsman is funded, and the like, is absolutely a step in the right direction. We do have a constitutional conundrum in that this House is also dominated by the executive, but I am hopeful both that this change will bring an improvement and that the executive will adhere to the spirit of this change and not seek to use its parliamentary majority to exert an inappropriate influence.

The only other thing I really wanted to say before I close—and I won’t speak for much longer—is that we did have a discussion, and perhaps it’s a interesting day to have to mention this discussion, on the role of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. There was a member who suggested that perhaps we should somewhere in the Parliament Act recognise the Treaty of Waitangi and perhaps tikanga. Now, that didn’t happen, and I can see why. The reason why was actually well articulated by advisers, and that is that it is the executive who is bound by the Treaty, not Parliament. The relationship is between the Crown—that is to say, the Ministers of the Crown—and Māori, rather than between Parliament, or the legislature, and Māori, and so it wasn’t constitutionally appropriate. But, at the same time, the select committee report notes that there is work being done to develop a te ao Māori strategy, and I think that is appropriate. Obviously, fitting tikanga within this House in a way which we all agree about would be a great thing, and so let’s hope we can get there in the not too distant future.

With that, can I thank my colleagues from around the House for the work on the Parliament Bill in select committee. It’s a significant improvement. It makes what we do here a lot more accessible and understandable, and that’s a good thing. Kia ora. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Democracy comes at a price, and it is a price worth paying. That price also includes resourcing our parliamentary institution, which in and of itself supports us to do our mahi to be effective voices for the communities that we represent. This Parliament Bill, I think, is a step in the right direction when it comes to the changes that we are making in a cross-party spirit to change mechanisms by which the Parliament Service and the Office of the Clerk are funded, for example, and how their budget works.

I want to mihi to the work that the Parliamentary Service does and that the Office of the Clerk does to uphold our democracy and to enable us to be effective representatives. Without them, we wouldn’t be able to do our mahi, and in my personal opinion, what I have observed is that with a growing population and with growing complex issues in our communities, the current mechanisms that are in place to ensure that the Parliament Service and the Office of the Clerk are adequately resourced to, for example, ensure that we meet the needs of our communities at the select committees are just insufficient. So I’m really, really stoked that we’ve got to the second reading and that we’re able to progress new processes that will ensure that those funding mechanisms are less in the hands of the executive and more in the hands of the rest of Parliament.

I want to thank submitters, who canvassed quite a range of issues, including access to information and issues around security and constitutional questions, and I want to also thank the Parliament Bill Committee for adequately addressing concerns that the Green Party initially had in relation to the issues around oversight and reporting of the use of the new search, seizure, and detention powers. Those additional mechanisms include the requirement to report the uses of detention, force, and handcuffs to the Chief Executive of the Parliamentary Service within three days; the requirement for Parliamentary Service to report on the number of uses of detention, force, handcuffs, and seizures, and the removal of persons in the Parliamentary Service’s annual report; the requirement for an approved training course for security officers, to be consulted on with the police and the Ministry of Justice; the requirement for identity cards held and presented by parliamentary security officers to include name, role, photograph, and unique ID number; and other measures.

Those are important not just to give the public certainty that these new powers will be used adequately but also, I think, in my view, to protect the security officers who are there to keep us and the public safe. There will be a greater level of trust from the public when we increase that level of accountability, and that in and of itself would, I hope, make those interactions that security officers have with the public a lot smoother, which is what I would hope we would move towards and continue to aspire towards.

The bill also advances other changes, and, in my view, some of the changes that I think are really important are also around the support that we provide for parliamentarians with adult dependants. That’s really important. I think that Parliament should be a place where all types of families should be accommodated, and that no parliamentarian should feel they have to leave their family behind when they enter into this space. I think that’s also important.

The bill continues to work to address issues around what we do to support the families of deceased members. I think that’s also a really important situation, and it’s important that we canvassed this at the select committee stage because, at the end of the day, these incidents may be rare, but when they do happen they can have a huge impact on the family of parliamentarians.

Ultimately—and I won’t take too long on this speech because, as others have noted, we have reached a really constructive, cross-party consensus on how to move forward—I hope that that very same spirit of cross-party consensus gets taken into the new processes that this bill will enable, to ensure that we have a well-functioning, well-resourced democracy because, at the end of the day, that’s what our constituents deserve. They deserve select committee processes that can accommodate hundreds of thousands of submissions. When that does happen, it’s because we’re pushing through bills that have reached the members of the public and that have garnered interest from the public. We need systems in place to ensure that we MPs canvass the views of the public and are well-resourced, and then we don’t have to make as many compromises as we have done due to the lack of resourcing in recent times.

The Green Party commends this bill to the House and thanks to the committee for addressing some of the concerns we had at the first reading. We look forward to the bill progressing to the next stages.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I, too, was on the Parliament Bill Committee, which heard this bill, and I would like to just pass my acknowledgments on to the Rt Hon Adrian Rurawhe, who did a very impressive job of chairing, assisted by the Hon Scott Simpson as the deputy chair. It was a masterclass in the way to run a committee.

This bill had many people submitting on deep constitutional issues, and that was an enjoyable experience for a new MP such as myself to be a part of. It was an incredibly important piece of work for this Parliament. To security, you guys are doing a great job, and I think we really did get some good wins in there for democracy. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, thank you. Ka mihi ahau ki te Whare Pāremata. We are all privileged to sit here in this House of Parliament. It’s a place of mana, it’s a place with its own tikanga, and it’s a place that needs to be treated with respect. We are put here to represent the people of New Zealand, and I think that that is part of what this place owes respect to, because we are here to represent the people of New Zealand. It’s also a place of mana. If I look around the walls and look at the names on those walls, where we know that New Zealanders in times past fought, suffered, shed blood, and sometimes died—many times died—for their country and for democracy, it is this place more than any other place in our country which represents that democracy.

It was a privilege to represent New Zealand First on the Parliament Bill Committee, and it’s a real privilege to finally—because it’s been quite a while that we’ve been waiting to get to the second reading—stand and speak in the second reading. It’s an important bill. It’s a bill about the operation of this House of Parliament, and I just want to thank all the parties around this Parliament for what was a very collaborative process. There was a lot of to and fro, we built consensus through that, and I think what that represents is that we all recognise that this is about how the Parliament runs. Regardless of who sits where, which parties are here, and which parties aren’t here, it’s about how Parliament runs, and we do that as best we possibly can.

I think the select committee, under the able chairmanship of the former Speaker Adrian Rurawhe, of course—thank you—recognised that this is something which is supposed to last for a long time. It’s been worked on under both this Government and two previous Governments. It’s not a constitutional bill—people have asked about that a little bit—although there is one constitutional aspect I will touch on, but it is about the practical operation of Parliament, and we’ve heard a fair bit about the consolidation of four Acts and putting them all in one place with the modernisation of those Acts. What the bill does is it makes the legislation about Parliament more accessible than it is when you’ve got to go to four different Acts.

What the bill does is it addresses issues, particularly around parliamentary security, and I think we should take great pride in this. We’ve already heard a little bit about that. We’re one of the most open, accessible parliaments in the world, and also one of the most accessible groups of parliamentarians. That’s something which we should be treasuring and that is not something which we should take for granted. We’ve only got to look at the incidents over the last week or so—particularly around our party leader’s home—and say that that is not something which we can take for granted. It is something which we need to treasure and to look after.

I want to pick up one thing from the commentary on page 3. It says that “the bill aims to maintain Parliament’s current level of accessibility as far as is practicable. We are proud of the openness of Parliament’s grounds, and the ability … to protest peacefully on the lawn.” That’s an important part of our democracy—the freedom to be able to speak one’s views—and I just wanted to say that one thing I was proud of the last Parliament for was that after the parliamentary protest, you’ll remember that the then Speaker, Trevor Mallard, said, “Look, I want to go and look at potentially putting a lot greater security around the parliamentary grounds, and potentially make it harder to get in.” As the Mayor of Wellington at the time, I was going, “Oh, no, don’t do that.”, but the Parliament—his parliamentary colleagues—also said, “Don’t do that.” It is really, really important that people are able to access these grounds and this building—that’s very important.

Coming back to the security issue, not everybody who comes to this place comes in a way which is orderly and helpful. Our security staff are part of the wonderful, welcoming face of this Parliament. Along with the education team, the Chamber officers, and the Clerks, they do a fantastic job in being the friendly face of our Parliament, but sometimes they need powers when somebody is not behaving in the way that they need to do, when they are not showing respect not only to this this Parliament but also to the people that visit this Parliament.

I can remember in the Legislative Council Chamber one elderly lady standing there with a protest sign. Winston Peters was speaking in his role at that time as both the Deputy Prime Minister and also the Minister of Foreign Affairs. All the dignitaries were there, all the ambassadors were there, and one person, because security couldn’t just say “Hey, we’re going to take you aside, move you away.”, actually disrupted that whole operation for quite some period of time. That’s something that our security staff need the ability to be able to say, “Respectfully, we need you to move away so that Parliament and the people who are in this place can get on with doing their jobs.”—and, of course, we’ve had the situation just now. I’m not sure whether parliamentary security’s powers actually help there or don’t help there, but.

Anyway, this bill gives some powers for our security team to at times prevent access, to remove objects, to remove people, or, occasionally, to detain people, and it gives some necessary immunities. The committee made some amendments because we want to be very, very clear that there is additional training for those staff, because that was something that came through the submissions. Also, if there is an exercise of any of those powers, those exercises are reported, particularly issues where force is used or detention is used. The officer involved reports those within three days, and also—second tier—the Chief Executive of the Parliamentary Service reports those in their annual report. Those are really, really important. Those are new clauses 190A and 190B, which were added by the select committee.

There was also a lot of focus on MPs’ expenses, and we had a number of submitters who, of course, wanted to get stuck into the details of MPs’ expenses. I don’t think they actually realised that they are published every quarter anyway, and, by crikey, I think we all know that the finance team are assiduous in pursuing every single receipt that we’ve got or haven’t got. So I think that the people who pay our wages should take some comfort that those expenses are well reported, well scrutinised, and well looked after.

Where was this yesterday?

Sorry?

We needed this yesterday.

Oh look, I’m sorry, Tom. Well, I’m going to come to yesterday, very shortly, and you—

Oh, make him stop!

Do you want me to change the clock?

Well, Tom Rutherford clearly does. It also was very, very good to be able to provide for greater support of families of parliamentarians, especially where an MP is a carer for an adult dependant rather than just a child dependant. That’s really, really important.

We had quite a bit of discussion about the Official Information Act (OIA), and, actually, what was reassuring is that while there was a lot of focus on MPs’ expenses, there was also some interest in the agencies of Parliament. The report covers that, saying that while they don’t operate under the OIA, they operate under a “Protocol for the release of information from the parliamentary information, communication and security systems”. We considered that, but said that that was outside of scope.

There’s one constitutional matter, in my view, which is in there and that is that Parliament is supposed to scrutinise the executive. However, at the moment, the budget for the agencies of Parliament—the Office of the Clerk and the Parliamentary Service—is set by the executive, not by Parliament. This legislation changes that and sets up a process to do that so that the Parliament itself says “This is the resource we need.”, and recommends that to the Governor-General. What it doesn’t do is say, “Parliament, you can sort out the buildings.”, because there’s a lot of expense in those.

We considered the idea of setting up a parliamentary budget office. There was communication to the Minister of Finance, who is giving that consideration, and I think that that’s potentially a really exciting proposition, because it means that we, as political parties, can’t just charge off and say, “Hey, we’re going to promise the world.” Our voters should know what the world is going to cost, and I think that’s really, really important.

Now, I do want to touch on something else, as one final point. We had some interesting submissions, notably, I remember, from the Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Palmer, and he said that we’re all far too busy. He said we should have more MPs, and I actually challenged him on that and said, “Well, don’t you think we could actually get more out of our MPs if we operated more efficiently and our processes were potentially more efficient?” It strikes me, having considered the way in which we operate, particularly in the committee of the whole House, that at times we could be a hell of a lot more efficient in that particular situation.

Ha!

Suze Redmayne is saying to sit down in this particular case. But if it had been yesterday, it wouldn’t have been “Sit down.”, it would have been “Spend as much time as you possibly can on your feet to try and take as long as possible.” That is not good use of our time, and that’s something which we should reflect on. I thought Sir Geoffrey Palmer raised a good point, and we should consider that. I commend this bill to the House.

The next call is a split call.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s really interesting to hear the ways where the often unsung heroes of making democracy work are recognised in this bill. Whether it’s people with legislative experience, the wonderful people who when you’ve forgotten your papers come trotting in with them, when you’ve left your phone under the desk, or all of those, they seem like minor matters, but without that support it would be really difficult for the hundred-plus MPs to work.

I do think that the role of elected members is a complex one, and we are reasonably remunerated and we have reasonable expenses. I think it would be useful if people realised how transparent those are, and I agree with my colleague Andy Foster on that.

We were concerned that there might have been some over-the-top security provisions in this Parliament Bill, so originally, we were, as a party, prepared to support it to select committee. There have been a number of amendments that have smoothed some of those issues, but I also reflect that the good outcomes and the improvements have come from being able to take the time, and I think there’s a number of pieces of legislation that would hugely benefit from a more considered approach.

I’m not saying that everything would come out with cross-partisan support, but at least we wouldn’t be almost pretending that there’s no disagreement because things go through so fast, in a number of instances, and then perfectly reasonable member’s bills—I was so looking forward to supporting Mr Brewer’s life jackets bill. I’ve been looking forward to it for weeks—

Same.

—but we haven’t done it. So I do think there are some changes to processes, particularly—

Help is on its way.

Mr Brewer couldn’t possibly disagree with that!

—particularly to do with raising the role of member’s bills. We are a Parliament as well as having an executive Government, and sometimes we forget the opportunity for people to bring up things that are important but maybe haven’t hit the priorities of their party that day.

Our committee services at the moment are under huge pressure, and, again, this is one of the issues of ramming through legislation too fast. We end up having to select just a few submissions in some cases, or we have to break into subcommittees where, actually, all of us on a committee would like to hear more of the submissions, and we curtail our ability to deliberate, especially when select committees are always squeezed into that 8 a.m. to 9 a.m. time slot or that hour at lunchtime, and you can barely get a doughnut at Copperfield’s in your breaks. So that’s pretty tough.

I just wanted to say, though, that there are improvements, but one of the things that submitters to select committees have wanted is for the committee staff to be able to get back to them and tell them what happened next. They don’t always expect us to have taken on their issue or they realise that they are putting in a contrary view, but then they never know when the legislation is coming up, what’s been agreed, whether there has been an amendment, and so on. Now, at the moment, we cannot expect our committee staff to have the time to be able to do that. So I will support this bill on behalf of the Green Party, but unless there is some budget allocated for improvements to the parliamentary services and the support of the staff, we will not, as a country, be as well served as we should be. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Well, thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m pleased to speak in the second reading debate on the Parliament Bill. I had the privilege of being the deputy chair of the special select committee that was formed to consider this bill, under the very capable chairmanship of the former Speaker the Rt Hon Adrian Rurawhe.

No matter what we as members of Parliament or as citizens or members of the public might think about our Parliament, we are privileged, as New Zealanders, to live in a functioning, stable, participatory democracy. Over the 150 or so years of unbroken, stable participatory democracy in New Zealand, society has changed, attitudes have changed, and so too must this institution of Parliament evolve, change, and modify and reform itself.

The Parliament Bill Committee received 62 submissions from some notable New Zealanders who had given some of the weighty constitutional matters great thought and great consideration. It was actually a real privilege to sit and listen to those contributions. Ultimately, the recommendations that the committee has made were unanimously agreed by members of Parliament representing every party in this current Parliament. I think that’s a good thing because this is a Parliament that does need to change, evolve, modernise, and ensure that it stays relevant and functioning in how it’s administered, how it operates, and how it looks after itself.

I want to thank everyone who participated in the process, whether it was at the special select committee or as a member of that committee, and thanks also for the collegial, thoughtful, and considered contributions of all members. I, with great pride, commend this bill to the House.

Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Otirā tēnā rā tātou katoa. It was a privilege to chair the Parliament Bill Committee, and I want to acknowledge a few people. First of all, I acknowledge our officials, in particular, from the Office of the Clerk and from the Parliamentary Service. They provided excellent assistance to the committee, and I’ll give you an example. We would have a meeting and discuss certain things. We would, at the end of it, ask the officials for further information about all manner of things within the scope of the bill, and then, before the following meeting, they would have distributed quite comprehensive further information for us to go into the next meeting. I kind of identify the value of them being able to do that for us in that it was often the case that we would go back to the select committee and there would be only a few questions, or no questions at all, because all of the information about what we had asked the previous time had been answered in those documents. So I want to acknowledge all of those officials that provided that information for us. It certainly made the work of the committee a lot easier, I believe.

I also want to acknowledge all of the submitters. As the Hon Scott Simpson has said, it was a privilege and pleasure to listen to the well-thought-out contributions of all of those who had made submissions on a bill like the Parliament Bill. It’s not the kind of bill that many people would take an interest in and write down their thoughts about this particular bill, and so I believe the quality of submissions that we got was excellent and it was helpful for the committee.

I won’t go into the full detail of everything that we changed. Many of the things have been spoken about already. I just wanted to highlight a couple. Around the funding of Parliament, the couple of things that I wanted to mention about that are, firstly, recognising the importance of the independence of this Parliament and that it should be able to set its own budget for its own functioning, and, secondly, for the infrastructure that is needed to enable that to happen, it will need to see some changes to the Standing Orders in order to establish such a committee and how it will operate.

We had some comments that it wouldn’t be as transparent as the current system. I reject that, and we’ve reported in our report exactly why. It is a very transparent process, what is being proposed, and it is very similar to how Officers of Parliament operate, as well. It would mean that all parties would be represented on a select committee to decide and to consider budget applications from the Office of the Clerk and from the Parliamentary Service, and it would be scrutinised by, basically, all parties in Parliament.

There was some discussion around whether the Government’s veto would still be appropriate or not. I’m not sure that that’s fully been resolved, and a change to the Standing Orders may or may not happen around that.

In terms of security, I encourage MPs to actually go and speak to some of our security officers around Parliament, especially some of the ones that have been around for a little while, and they’ll happily tell you why these changes are necessary. I’ll summarise the changes that we made in increasing reporting and increasing monitoring. There were concerns that were raised around whether there was enough reporting and monitoring of what those officers will be doing. If they use their new powers, that must be reported to the CEO within three days, and the CEO must report those at least annually.

As we pass this—hopefully—into law, ready for the next Parliament in order to give time for the training of Parliament’s security officers to be able to properly implement the new powers that they will have after it has passed, it’s really important, I think, that we continue our scrutiny and examination through the parliamentary process. I commend this bill. Kia ora.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Just a really short call from me this afternoon to say that this is a really collaborative and proactive approach to the legislation around how this place actually operates and how it works. It is bringing together four different Acts to enable a modern framework for Parliament to work as best as it possibly can, and for the agencies that support this incredible place. Full credit to everybody who has been involved in this process. Therefore, I commend it to the House.

The next call is a split call.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to also add my contribution to the Parliament Bill. Like many others have also noted prior, this bill is important. It’s important that a bill like this has support across the House because it is constitutional in nature, and my colleague Andy Foster is correct to say that it’s not entirely constitutional. There are practical considerations and practical operational enablements within the bill, which is important to note as well. But it’s part of what governs Parliament, so it is important that across the House, people are on the same wavelength, so to speak, about what we value and about the modernisation that needs to take place to make the operations of this place work for everybody.

It’s very easy for us to think of this sometimes as our place of work, or as our place, but it’s the people’s House, and it does need to be accessible and it does need to reflect what people’s expectations are of this institution. It is, therefore, important that it remain accessible and not just accessible in a physical sense in terms of access but also accessible in understanding and accessible in so far as the appropriate separation of those powers goes.

As has been said, the bill does three main things. It takes the parliamentary services out of that contestable process that’s applied to other public sector agencies, and rather applies them on the same basis as applies to Offices of Parliament, which I think is absolutely the right thing to do. As well as the budgetary concerns that have been raised—because any institution or any agency is only as good as it’s afforded the opportunity to be, with appropriate budgets—it’s a symbolic change to make sure that that separation of power between the legislature and the executive is seen to be done, which is important.

Other people have also made mention today of the utility and the esteem in which we hold our parliamentary security staff, as well as all other staff. It is important, given the nature of the job has changed as time has gone on, that they should have those enhanced powers that reflect the reality of what it’s like to be the host and the face, and be in charge of the security of this important place. Simple things like consented search and denial of entry, temporary seizure of specified items, or even temporary detention—those are all within the scope of what we would expect, and they’re certainly the same standards that are applied in the Courts Security Act.

The bill also makes some changes to MPs’ work-related expenses, with the aim of trying to create a more transparent and family friendly regime. Is it now perfect? Absolutely not. Are there more things that we could do to enhance that? We should probably hope so over the course of time, but the ones that are being made within this bill are worthy and, therefore, worthy of support.

With that said, I do note that Labour has an Amendment Paper lodged for consideration, because whilst we’ve all acknowledged the collegiality of the special Parliament Bill Committee, which was very ably chaired by the Rt Hon Adrian Rurawhe, I don’t suppose everybody was always unanimously excited about every suggestion that was made. Certainly, Labour has an Amendment Paper lodged for consideration at the committee stage to clarify that parliamentary security does not, amongst all those other powers that we’ve mentioned, have the power and shouldn’t have the power to imprison, as was quite shamefully suggested by one member in light of the recent breach of privilege. With that said, we’re happy to commend the bill to the House.

A decade in the making, this is a constitutionally important bill. I want to highlight the fact that this bill empowers Parliament’s security team, and I’d like to take this opportunity to thank and acknowledge the security officers in Parliament, especially Manoj Thattipron—who’s here this afternoon—and also Geno Wharakura, who I think has just left. You do an outstanding job. You’re on the job 24/7, taking care of us, as MPs, and taking care of staff, visitors, and the parliamentary precinct. This bill recognises your vital role, and it gives you the tools to be able to do your job efficiently and effectively. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. One of the things that I noticed was quite novel about the New Zealand Parliament when I came in last term was that in the months of summer, the parliamentary grounds become almost this lunch destination for people, which I think is absolutely wonderful. Along with being able to see our kids and other kids play on the playground and being able to sit so close to select committee submitters, my absolute favourite is seeing our school kids line up and come into the gallery and see their local MP give them a little wave. We are an intimate but a loud democracy. We’re small but of special character, in my view, and that’s something very uniquely New Zealand to protect.

I do remember being here in the last term when conversations started happening about potentially doing things like putting a plastic barrier up so that there would be something between the public and members of Parliament, and considering what the future grounds would look like. I think it’s a real credit to this place that within what was a difficult period in New Zealand’s history, we’ve recognised that we’re anchored in this idea of accessibility and of being close to people and people feeling like this is their Parliament. It isn’t an easy decision to make to get that balance right, and we’re certainly a standout when you see countries like Ireland, who have got those barriers in place, and there have in the past been discussions in other Parliaments, including the UK Parliament, about what potential barriers might be put in place, as well.

I think this is absolutely the right balance, and I’ll speak more about that in a moment, but I just also wanted to add my thanks to our security team here in Parliament. As others have mentioned, they aren’t just security; they’re also our greeters, and they’re the face of Parliament in so many ways and they’re problem solvers in so many ways. For years and years, they have operated so graciously, in extremely difficult circumstances at times, and so I just wanted to add my thanks to them.

In terms of the changes that are being made, Part 7 of the bill is modelled on the Courts Security Act, and, interestingly, this isn’t the first time that those provisions have been stretched into new spaces. In April 2019, there was a decision taken to stretch those rules into a whole host of new tribunals, including the lawyers disciplinary tribunal and other tribunals, as well, and so I think what we’re seeing is a tried and true set of rules. I did look to see if there had been complaints made or anything that was very obvious in the media space in this area, and I really couldn’t find anything, which says to me that the rules are set in a reasonable way. As you read through them, you’ll see that the powers of search, for example, are quite restrained in themselves in terms of how they’re drafted.

We are different from other parliaments. If you look at Australia, the UK, and Canada, there aren’t specific statutory powers or immunities as we’re writing them in. However, what they have instead is a much higher police presence on their parliamentary grounds, and, certainly, if you take the example of the Palace of Westminster, the Metropolitan Police Service there are contracted to play a much larger armed role within the parliamentary grounds. I do think that we’ve taken the right approach in going the way we have. I understand that the New Zealand Police have said that they wouldn’t have capacity to be able to perform that role in Parliament, but I actually think that regardless of the capacity question, we’ve made the right decision in terms of the culture of New Zealand.

Something people that haven’t yet mentioned is that the coverage of these new powers will extend to parliamentary meetings outside of the grounds, and they will also extend to electorate offices and community offices, too. Here I just wanted to recognise the work that a lot of our staff do out in the regions, out in electorate and community offices, and the risks that they will sometimes put themselves in to respond to community need. My team in Upper Harbour last term, at one stage, had what we thought was a bullet go through our electorate office window. It ended up being a projectile—a metal projectile that shattered part of the window—but, certainly, for the weeks and months after that, I was very concerned about the sense of safety that the staff had. To continue to be able to fulfil that function well and be accessible, I’m delighted that those powers have been extended, as well.

I won’t go through the powers in detail, but I did just want to stop a little while on the powers of search. As I mentioned before, I think they’ve been drafted really carefully so as to be cautious to allow only what is necessary, and there’s language, for example, in the drafting that says, “involves no physical contact” when they’re using electronic screening devices, or only the “external examination of the person’s clothes”. There’s language that says, “no more than incidental physical contact with the property being searched”. So, in the language itself, it’s quite restrained, but then we also have to remember that the common law continues to apply in these circumstances, and the courts have also been very clear about limiting and making sure that any powers exercised in search have been reasonable.

I now want to talk a little bit about complaint, which I don’t think anyone else has touched on yet, as well. When I first heard about the changes to these powers being introduced, my first thought was, well, where’s the avenue of complaint? Where would people go if they had an issue with this? Certainly, they could go to the Speaker directly, but there’s a useful case in Police v Beggs, which was a 1999 case where the courts were very clear that the Speaker must also have regard to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. In effect, the delegations that come to security here are also subject to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and if there was a complaint that proceeded down that pathway, then certainly those rights would be assessed against the powers exercised and we’d have to determine whether in the circumstances reasonable powers had been exercised.

When speaking to a few legal colleagues about this, some raised issues about the institution that is the Independent Police Conduct Authority and whether it would be useful to expand the powers of an institution like that so that it covered not only security staff on precinct here but also all the other security officers who are using similar powers in the courts and in the tribunals. Perhaps that’s something for us to think about going forward.

My final point is on going forward, because I think this has been a really useful exercise. I think it should take as long as it has done, and I think we should constantly be in the mode of reviewing how Parliament should evolve, in much the same way as we do in terms of the Standing Orders.

I would put a challenge to our Parliament in regards to an issue that I think we should consider next time around, and it is ensuring that our Parliament is accessible for people with disabilities. I had a fantastic youth MP in the last term, Ayolabi Martins, who raised this issue as he navigated Parliament himself, and he raised several issues of sometimes not being able to access certain things and sometimes finding it difficult. I think that with 25 percent of our population identifying as having some sort of disability, there’s certainly a need for Parliament to consider whether it’s time for us to have that kind of review in place.

Finally, I just commend the committee for its excellent work. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank you for the opportunity to speak on the bill. I wanted to touch on the fact that the bill makes the Parliamentary Library a standard business unit in the Parliamentary Service, and to just acknowledge the role that the parliamentary librarians play in supporting us as MPs, particularly with our constituency work and the ability to engage and contact and get feedback that helps us answer constituents’ queries on a daily basis, for those of us who are hard-working constituent MPs, like my colleagues on this side of the House. I really just want to acknowledge the work of the Parliamentary Library and the change that this bill brings about for them. Therefore, I commend it to the House.

This is a split call.

It is. Thank you. It’s an honour to speak on this particular piece of legislation, and I just want to focus on a couple of things: first, the very careful rules around parliamentary security. I think that we are living in a bit of a different world. I was very lucky to go on a Speaker’s tour with several other people in this House, many years ago, and when we were looking at other Parliaments, most of them are not as accessible as ours. We don’t have any screens here.

We should be proud of how accessible our Parliament is, but we also have a world where people are starting to disconnect from the reality and the humanity of the people here, and that can only be for the worse. I do remember at one point a banner being dropped down here. I was quite frightened and I think that probably quite a few of us would have been, and I don’t think it occurred to the people who were dropping the banner that they would scare us—I’m not suggesting that.

I think we’re living in a world where things now happen that mean that the people who are at the front line—those who are our security guards—need to be given appropriate powers, but what I like about these powers is they haven’t gone too far. They’re very much in line with the powers that have been given in courts and they’re carefully considered, and so I’m fully in favour of those powers.

I’d also like to talk about the provisions that relate to MPs. One thing I recognised when I first arrived here—and, in a way, it was very old-fashioned what we were doing. We didn’t really treat MPs in the way we were in amending legislation and recognising whānau, and I’ve spoken to the Speaker about this myself. Whānau, for me, is something much broader. I’m no longer married, I have children who are adult, I have people who are connected with me, and, actually, there are a lot of people in that situation, and one of the things we’ve done recently in our history is we’ve really recognised that families come in all sorts of shapes and sizes. One of the things that happens in this legislation is that we recognise that families where people have an adult child with disability are no longer in a situation where it’s appropriate to treat that child as if there is no dependency, when, in fact, that is the case.

Now, I would argue we could go further. I think that perhaps we should look at some other iterations of this later, with things like perhaps a buddy system. In the time I’ve been in Parliament, I’ve never been able to bring somebody down to support me in any way, and I think we should look at some of those relaxations, because it’s not a conventional situation for many people. I think it reflects the work we’re doing in other places, and we should have some sort of consistency over that concept of whānau.

I fully support what my friend Vanushi Walters has just said about disability. I think that’s a really key issue where we could show some leadership with a change in the rules, but I am very thrilled to see this legislation as step one on that process and we’re really adopting some extremely good modernisations. I commend this bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion will say Aye, to the contrary, No.

Party vote called.

The Ayes have—oh, sorry, did you vote no?

Yeah, as a proxy—no. Party vote called.

Oh, OK. Clerk, please conduct a party vote.

That the Parliament Bill be read a second time.

Point of order, Madam Speaker. It’s been a while and I could be incorrect, but I understood that if a party has six or more members, another party cannot do a proxy vote for them.

Thank you for that reminder. That is correct, so we’ll just put the question again so that we’re very clear. We’ll disregard the last vote.

So, when we were last having debate on this bill, we were up to call 11, which is a Labour Party call.

Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. As I was listening to the debate during an extended sitting this morning, I started thinking about, how did we get to this point? We had some very passionate contributions to this piece of legislation this morning. I remember in 2004, I was working for Tariana Turia at the time, and she crossed the floor on the foreshore and seabed Act—well, bill then. So that’s where this issue actually started. It started before that at the Privy Council, when Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō took a case to the Privy Council over its rights being breached. We jump forward because that bill, of course, passed into law. Then the formation of Te Pāti Māori came along under the leadership of Tariana Turia and Pita Sharples, and, in an agreement between the National Party and Te Pāti Māori, we come to having the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act—MACA; that’s how we got there today. I say that because I listened carefully and I quite often heard in the debate about the intent of Parliament when this piece of legislation was processed.

I don’t think we should confuse intent with outcome because they’re two different things. I absolutely 100 percent believe that Te Pāti Māori then, particularly under the leadership of Tariana Turia, who left the Labour Party over this very piece of legislation, wanted less than what we’ve got now—I refuse to believe that. Reducing it again under this amendment is not what her intent would have been.

I stand in this House today and say don’t let the outcome of what’s happened up to now—that that is not the intent of the Parliament when they passed it. It was a convenience back then for the National Party and it was a way forward for the then Māori Party. It was also divisive amongst Te Pāti Māori back then. This is the very reason why Hone Harawira actually left Te Pāti Māori. This bill certainly wasn’t his intention, and I say to the House that what we’re doing today adds another layer to what should never have happened in the first place.

When the Helen Clark Labour Government passed the foreshore and seabed, that shouldn’t have happened; the reaction of the National Party in addressing that, that shouldn’t have happened; and I can tell you that this amendment shouldn’t happen either. I do not recommend this bill to the House.

This amendment bill restores clarity to the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act, ensuring Parliament’s original intention. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House.

I present a legislative statement on the Broadcasting (Repeal of Advertising Restrictions) Amendment Bill.

I believe you are seeking leave to present that legislative statement.

Well, OK then: I seek leave to present that statement.

Could you just read out what you’re seeking leave to—

I thought I was presenting the legislative statement.

No, you’re seeking leave to present a legislative statement. Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is none. That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

I move, That the Broadcasting (Repeal of Advertising Restrictions) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

This bill is short and simple, but it’s an important change for the media sector and one they have been calling for for a very long time. I’m proud that today, hopefully, depending on the length of the speeches, we’ll be able to pass this bill and get it into law. The bill repeals section 81 of the Broadcasting Act 1989, which restricts broadcast television and radio advertising on Sunday and Anzac Day mornings, and both television and radio advertising on Christmas Day, Good Friday, and Easter Sunday.

The good people of New Zealand might say, “Well, that’s a reasonable thing to do.” The problem is that the world has moved on somewhat, and there are many, many people looking at YouTube, Spotify, Facebook, TikTok—a whole range of other things—where these restrictions don’t apply. Of course, online, all the various ways that people get their entertainment has changed dramatically, so the broadcasters, particularly the New Zealand - owned broadcasters, are at a competitive disadvantage in not having the ability to do something that their competitors can. The current rules deprive local broadcasters of, they think, around $6 million annually in advertising revenue, and, of course, as we all know the pressure that the broader media sector is under, every dollar helps and every dollar counts. That’s why this bill is an important—small but important—way that we can help level the playing field for New Zealand broadcasters to compete in a very difficult environment.

I want to thank all those who have been involved in the bill, and particularly, in the spirit of bipartisanship, I do want to thank the Labour Party and spokesperson Reuben Davidson on this matter for their support for this bill. There’s been a lot of talk this week about polarisation in New Zealand politics, and it’s good to see that, on this occasion, we’ve had support across the House for a piece of legislation that will help our broadcast media sector to be more sustainable in the time ahead. On that basis, I commend this bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a pleasure to be able to rise and to take a call on a bill for broadcasting. But it is also a speech about broken promises, because this is from a Government that came in saying they were going to get things back on track, and from a Minister a year ago—over a year ago—who said he was going to take immediate action for our broadcasting and media sector. If this is immediate action, I think that was false advertising.

Now, we know what this bill does, but I think it’s good to just spell it out again. What this bill does is it says, to a very outdated Broadcasting Act, “Linear broadcasters can have the same rights to advertise on Sunday mornings and public holidays as are currently enjoyed by digital platforms and advertisers on those platforms.” It’s a very, very, very simple bill.

Such a simple bill, after more than a year, from a Minister who promised immediate action. I’ve done this before but I’m going to do it again, because across the time when this 73-word bill has been the only immediate action the Minister has taken, this is what else has been happening. At the beginning of 2024, Warner Bros. proposes to close Newshub. On 7 March 2024, TVNZ announces 68 job cuts.

Cheer up!

On 9 April 2024, Newshub confirms their closure plans, and that is 200 job losses. Now, there’s a chirp from that side of the House saying “Cheer up!” My message is: say that to the hundreds of people losing their jobs in the media sector while you progress a 73-word bill that allows advertisements on linear broadcasters on Sunday mornings.

On 24 April, Melissa Lee was sacked as Minister and Paul Goldsmith was appointed Minister of Media and Communications, and this was on 2 July 2024, not 2025—not this year—but 2 July 2024, with the now infamous media release from the Minister committing to taking immediate action to support the media sector. And this 73-word bill is all of the immediate action—that’s it; that’s all that’s been taken.

On 7 November 2024, TVNZ announced a further 50 jobs to be cut. On 13 November 2024, one of the tools in the tool box, the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill, was reported to be in limbo all of a sudden, and the next day, on 14 November, New Zealand Media and Entertainment (NZME) announces the closure of 14 regional community newspapers before Christmas, resulting in the loss of 30 more jobs in the broadcasting and media sector in New Zealand. I don’t know if you’re keeping count on the other side of the House; I don’t know if you care. But that is hundreds of people—hundreds of people—who have lost their jobs in the broadcasting and media sector, and this bill is the only immediate action the Minister has taken.

Now, the job losses continue. In January 2025—that’s the beginning of this year—NZME proposes a reduction of 40 further roles, and the job losses go on and on and on and the cuts from central government for funding to the sector come through in that Budget, and what else do we see but just this week: The Hui and Te Karere, two very, very important programmes here in New Zealand—vital programmes here in New Zealand—are now faced with the prospect of no longer existing because this Minister, who promised immediate action, has delivered only a 73-word bill.

The other thing I’ve got here—I like lists; this is a list of dates, and on this list there are 49 dates during which Cabinet met and the Minister, in response to a question about what he took to that Cabinet meeting to help, what he took to those Cabinet meetings for immediate action for our broadcasting and media sector, the answer, for all of these 49 dates, is nothing—nothing taken; nothing offered; no immediate action.

Here’s an analogy for you. If you have a business with a limited number of customers and you’re not making enough money and you’re trading six days a week, the solution is not just to open on Sundays, because you just have the same number of customers, but you have to be open more and you have to work harder. That’s, essentially, the silver bullet solution this Minister has brought here in the repeal of advertising restrictions. It’s a little bit like saying to someone who’s receiving welfare or a benefit that they need budgeting advice. I can tell you that I have met so many constituents who have come into our electorate office because they cannot afford the basic necessities that they need—some of these people are working, some of these people are receiving support, some of these people are receiving a little bit of both, and they’re being told that they need to budget better. I can tell you that they run some of the best, tightest budgets I’ve ever seen, and they could teach Nicola Willis a thing or two about how to manage a decent budget. That’s what this bill is a little bit like, because it offers so little to the industry.

Now, way back in 2024, when Melissa Lee was the Minister and it became evident that there were some real challenges in the industry, Melissa Lee said that she was not a magician. Then she was replaced by Minister Goldsmith—and I know there’s the obvious joke, and I’m not going to make it, about Minister Goldsmith being a clown, because I don’t think that would be fair, because, actually, Minister Goldsmith has been a mime: he’s moved around a whole lot and he’s waved his arms around, but he hasn’t said anything. He hasn’t delivered a single word of help for a broadcasting and media industry that really, really needs it. This is at a time when other Ministers have had quite a lot to say. Minister Peters, on RNZ, when he didn’t like the tone of questions, said he’d simply turn the tap off, and Minister Seymour put out social media tiles celebrating the cuts to funding for Radio New Zealand, our State broadcaster, in this year’s Budget.

They’re losing their audience. Why would you fund losers?

I think that member ought to check the growth in the digital audience of RNZ, because I think you’ll see astronomical growth in the digital audiences and platforms of RNZ.

They are a radio station.

The ignorance from the other side of the House is astounding, and that’s why I’m not going to poke the bear any further, because we’ve actually got the solutions that the Minister needs, and the good news is they’re available for you, Minister: two of them sitting in the biscuit tin, and one of them is on your desk. In the biscuit tin, there is a bill for a streamers levy, which ensures that the international streamers that sell us their content and charge New Zealanders to watch it would contribute a percentage of their profit back, which could be invested in local content. It’s not quite as simple as your bill, Minister, but I think it’s a great, great bill and an excellent mechanism to ensure a user-pays system, Mr Court—you’d love that—to fund local content.

No, it’s State-sanctioned theft.

I’ve stopped listening.

The other is the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill. Now, that was written, it’s ready to go, and what that does is it makes sure that those international platforms that host our content pay for it. The money in can continue to fund more of it. So that is another bill sitting there ready to go.

I’ll give you a third because I’m feeling generous and I’ve got 45 seconds: the Online Safety Bill is also sitting in the biscuit tin, Minister. It will be simple for you and me to sit down over a cup of tea and get that one out of the tin and under way in this House, to make sure that these online platforms and spaces are much safer for all New Zealanders, and that should be a priority for everyone in this House. But instead, we’ve got a 73-word bill. If you typed it out, you could fit it on a postage stamp, and it’s probably worth about the same to the industry, because no one believes it’s worth $6 million. It’s more broken promises from a Government that keeps making things worse. We’re supporting the bill, but, Minister, we are so disappointed for the industry.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party to speak to this legislation and the Broadcasting (Repeal of Advertising Restrictions) Amendment Bill.

As we gather today, we actually have to think about how, often, we live in such a crazy, noisy world, and where the sanctity lies when we have Anzac Day, Easter, and Christmas. It is actually having some quiet time with whānau. Our viewing might have changed, acknowledging we don’t always watch TV these days, but for those of us with mokopuna or those of us who do care for our elders, we enjoy watching the Q+A. We might watch Marae. We might gather as whānau to have breakfast and talk with one another and not have the distraction of advertising from big industry or businesses coming across our TV screens.

To be fair, when we hear about the potential income that could be generated from allowing advertising on Sundays and public holidays, it’s just approximately $6 million. That’s not going to fundamentally fix the shortfalls that we have.

Come on.

No, the shortfalls that we have in funding, if we’re being real about fixing the system, have got to be more than a $6 million lifeline, because that $6 million that might be raised isn’t going to fix the shortfalls that we have in TVNZ, fix Whakaata Māori, or fix Radio New Zealand also. Yes, it is correct: we have heard that there are going to be changes in funding through Te Māngai Pāho for shows such as Te Karere and also Marae, maybe even The Hui, but this little $6 million that might be generated out of advertising on our Christmas Day, on Anzac Day, on Easter, and our regular Sunday viewing, is not going to fix the fundamentals.

That’s the issue here. We have a system that needs a good review. We need to review and provide a clear direction in terms of where we are heading, a better coordinated, collaborative—and also something that brings together innovation, the online as well as the linear. We’re not having the relevant wānanga to bring the stakeholders together. In fact, it’s actually dog eat dog right now. We’re competing. We’re in request for proposal mode. We’re going after funding to try to keep our kaimahi engaged. That’s no different across Māori radio. That’s no different to what’s happening in Te Māngai Pāho right now. Sustainable funding for public broadcasting is well overdue, and that’s what this bill does not address. This bill does not provide the relevant lifeline, beyond the $6 million, that will fix these fundamental issues.

I thank those in the community who have said, “Actually, why do we have to bring advertising in? Why do we have to do that?” For the $6 million? No. Actually, when we have time like Anzac Day—and I want to highlight Anzac Day as a day of sanctity, of remembering those that fell in the great wars and the beautiful coverage that we see coming out across our screens, both online as well as on TV. To know that we could have advertising on there selling us a burger, that we could have Briscoes popping up on our TV screens, The Warehouse—why would we do that? Why would we clutter our online as well as our TV viewing on a day when we should remember them? Look at this House, remembering all of those, all of these great battles, and then we have Anzac Day. I’m only using Anzac Day because that is a day when we pause as Aotearoa New Zealand. Nothing’s open—none of the shops are open—so why should we allow advertising on such an important day for us in Aotearoa New Zealand?

We continue, as the Green Party, to say, “Well, actually, this is a bigger issue beyond advertising on public holidays and Sundays. This is actually the need for us to wānanga a collective solution for proper sustainable funding for public broadcasting.” There could be solutions in the biscuit tin—absolutely. Quality public broadcasting, including our digital media, is an important space, whereby we do need to move, we do need to nurture, we do need to increase the workforce development for kaimahi in the sector, and we’re losing too many. But $6 million in revenue ain’t going to fix it. Te Rōpū Kākāriki maintains our ongoing concern and opposition to this legislation. Kia ora tātou.

The ACT Party supports this bill. It’s quite clear that businesses and organisations involved in producing a product and putting it out there on the market need to be able to find all kinds of ways to generate revenue, and selling advertising space to television viewers on linear television is a pretty simple way to do that.

It’s important that they do increase their revenue. This is one tool. Apparently, $6 million could be generated in this way. But I also point out that another really good way for linear television broadcasters to increase their revenue is to produce products that people actually want to watch, and so if people watch it and then the advertisers get revenue, maybe that’s another way to fill the gap. I highly recommend that they consider that as well, and I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First, noting that we have asked for a conscience vote on this particular piece of legislation, the Broadcasting (Repeal of Advertising Restrictions) Amendment Bill.

Our party has always encouraged policies that enhance respect for national identity and shield traditions from erosion in the quest of profit. It’s important for those members of the House who will be taking a personal vote on this not only to reflect the views, if they hold Christian beliefs and believe that those days when advertising will now be available if the bill is to pass—that they can actually also reflect their constituency, if they have a Christian conservative constituency, and are able to cast a vote on their behalf as well.

Media entities exist within an ecosystem that’s been disrupted by new media arrivals and they’re enjoying, no doubt, some critical advantages. For one, they don’t rely on paper and pen any more to get their messages across. They don’t even actually employ journalists, artists, photographers, or editors. The legislation that applies to old media does not and cannot apply to big tech situated offshore in Silicon Valley. This is a reality that so far has evaded not just New Zealand but the entire world, in how to deal and re-engineer ways in which the media landscape can change up its business model. Digital media, the big tech companies, are just as regulated as the whalers and sealers of the 1880s.

Society has, in most parts, moved on from the analogue environment, the paper and pen environment, into our digital environment. This digital paradigm has completely flipped that business model on its head. The advertising has shifted from traditional media into large global platforms, and that has had massive implications for mainstream media. If we look at the last five years of advertising revenue that has been spent on our local media, in 2019, the total industry revenue spent was $2.76 billion of advertising across our media. In 2024, it had increased by 30 percent, to $3.59 billion. Advertisers are spending more. However, television advertising revenue has gone down by 15 percent; radio has gone down by just 3 percent. The digital advertising—and this is the rub—has gone from $1.08 billion, in 2019, to $2.17 billion. Radio has done a really good job of increasing their digital advertising revenue. They have increased it over the last five years by 325 percent, but television has done a really bad job of it.

This broadcasting amendment bill will only increase advertising revenue by $6 million. That’s an assumption that’s been made: $4 million will go to television; $2 million will go to radio. For radio, that’s a 0.73 percent increase. It’s very small amount. That’s an 0.81 percent increase—for the $4 million—to television. Now, we believe that this amount of money is not worth changing how we keep those special days sacred; carving out and protecting those days for special religious observance and for Anzac Day to commemorate all of those people who fought in the wars, as outlined by my colleague Hūhana Lyndon.

Just a couple of points I’d like to make: Radio Rhema is able to advertise currently as a radio station on a Sunday. They choose not to. If this bill passes, they will not be taking advantage of advertising and will not conduct any advertising or seek any advertising revenue with this repeal.

There’s no doubt the New Zealand media faces many difficulties that have been agonised over in great detail and at great length. Those issues are of a higher order than the discussion of whether or not to deregulate advertising in New Zealand on these few special days. If we relax advertising standards at this point, it will be seen as a further dumbing down of our media space that we still do have control over.

New Zealand First stands on a conservative platform of keeping the best and avoiding unintended consequences of deregulation. Those boundaries that we draw around our working lives and our very special celebration days are important to all of us, and we’d be the poorer without them. We oppose this bill. This bill overlooks the cultural value of New Zealand’s commercial-free days as roadblocks to revenue and not foundations of our country’s character. We don’t buy into the idea that every moment of broadcast has to be sold. We believe in New Zealand’s secure times of reflection, family, and community, and will not be supporting a bill that takes that away. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Tamatha Paul—five minutes.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of Te Pāti Kākāriki to speak to this bill. I don’t really watch TV. I don’t know anyone my age that watches TV. I’m going to be honest with you. We can’t escape—

We don’t watch it, either.

Yeah, I don’t know of anyone in this room who watches TV any more. Obviously, we watch the shows. We can go on TVNZ+ and YouTube and stuff like that and watch them all again. I always catch up with the old Q+A interviews on YouTube these days, and because I’m subscribed to YouTube, I don’t get any ads. I didn’t realise the gravity of this issue, but I can see why it means a lot to people because of the significance of the holidays.

I might not have TV and I might be living free from ads, in the privileged lot living free from ads, but I can definitely respect that days like Anzac Day and Sundays, for some people, are sacrosanct and that they should be protected from, I guess, needless ads—although I would hope that, on days like Anzac Day and other special days, people wouldn’t be watching TV; that they would be having a good kai and having a laugh and a kōrero with their family rather than watching TV. I guess it’s out of that respect for some of those really important milestone days and days like Sunday, which carry a lot of significance for different people of different faiths. I can respect that, and I can respect the freedom, I guess, to watch TV on those days without having those ads in your face.

There isn’t a whole lot more to add than that. I guess I want to echo the points that people have made: that this change will bring in $6 million of revenue into these broadcasters; however, that is really a drop in the bucket compared to the type of funding that these organisations need. I wanted to reiterate some of the points made around Government cuts to broadcasting, some of which are a $10 million cut to Whakaata Māori, our national Māori broadcasting channel; a forecast $18 million worth of cuts to Radio New Zealand, which is quite depressing given that they are also our kind of emergency national radio station, who have to communicate those really important messages to everybody; and the fact that TVNZ’s call for an extra $30 million worth of revenue has been ignored. We all know where that money has been going instead of to our broadcasting channels.

In a time when people are quite suspicious of mainstream media and when people are getting a lot of their information from the internet, it’s probably quite important that we protect national broadcasting channels and platforms as a source of truth for people to get information and to learn things and to know what’s going on in the rest of the country and, indeed, the rest of the world. There are better alternatives, like Reuben Davidson talked about, to look after broadcasting and people’s access to information. Some of those ideas include long-term funding for public, Māori, Pasifika, and community media, strengthening NZ On Air and the Māori Television Service, supporting non-commercial spaces for children’s content, and protecting independent journalism and niche audiences. I don’t know what they mean by “niche audiences”, but it’s clear that better alternatives exist.

I’ll leave it at that because there isn’t an awful lot more to say, except that I totally respect the sacredness of particular days for particular people. Twenty percent of New Zealanders subscribe to some form of faith, and I’d assume that many of those include Sundays being protected and days of rest and days of worship as well. We’re keen to honour that and respect that, and that means we will be opposing this bill. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise for National in support of the Broadcasting (Repeal of Advertising Restrictions) Amendment Bill. I’m sure that, along with myself and Mr Costley, other veterans have far better things to be doing on Anzac Day than watching television. It’s probably one of the busiest days of the year for us. Therefore, I commend the bill to the House.

Kia ora, Mr Speaker. As I listen to the debate and reflect on my life growing up, on Sunday mornings, it was always TV1, and Praise Be was always playing in our house. I actually enjoy—I love—Praise Be. As we ran around, getting ourselves ready for church on a Sunday, Praise Be would always be blasting in the background.

But, Mr Speaker, I have some news for you as well. It gets better, on a Thursday afternoon! I was actually on Praise Be once as well. It’s all coming back to me—

Sing us a song.

As much as I would love to sing to you this evening, the Standing Orders do quote about offensiveness in this House, and I will be careful. But I actually played in a brass band with the Salvation Army; I played the tuba. I digress, but the reason I played the tuba was because it was the biggest instrument you could hide behind, so none of your friends from school would see you behind the tuba. That’s another story. But we do reflect on—

As long as your digressions are entertaining, the Speaker is fairly lax at this time.

We do reflect on the significance, as has been said, of religious festivals, holidays. But the reality of this one is, as with most of the New Zealand calendar, which was imported from England, it is the Christian tradition that we always commemorate. I don’t see any broadcasting advertising being taken away for Eid or taken away for Ramadan or those kinds of things. We are in a modern world, and as much as I respect my Sundays, though I don’t particularly watch Praise Be much these days anymore, I think that it is the modern world; therefore, we need to reflect on that.

I did think long and hard about would I support this or wouldn’t I, and I have come to a place where I do. Because I think it’s actually about fairness. It’s about fairness when YouTube and when Facebook can make millions and billions of dollars and then little old TVNZ is unable to advertise on a Sunday morning. It just seems a bit unfair. I hope that they don’t flaunt this too much and just sort of go hell for leather with everything else, but we all need to consider the changing world.

We reflect on the world, as it changes so rapidly and things evolve, and I think that in broadcasting, it’s changing even faster. We look at what was offensive once upon a time to what’s offensive today. As I was listening, I was thinking, who remembers the “bugger” ad? Who remembers the Toyota “bugger” ad? The Broadcasting Standards Authority was involved, and there was huge outrage in 1999 about this little wee dog and others saying the word “bugger”. I hope my mum’s not listening because she’d be outraged if she heard me saying that word. Anyway, I just think that the world has changed and moved on, and we need to be reflective of that.

Now, a comment was made by a previous contributor about the fact that if TVNZ just produced better material, then people might watch it. Well, that’s not the point. It’s not the point, because you look at what was just said by Tamatha Paul, and, obviously, we’re very generationally the same because I have a YouTube account; in fact, the only paid subscription I have in my life is YouTube—it’s amazing—so I get to watch Q+A and I get to watch all of those TVNZ shows without ads. It is great—another digression, sorry. But things have changed; things have moved on, so the reality is—

There you go. Without ads is great. Get rid of the ads.

Yeah—that’s what I’m saying, that the reality is we need to actually have fairness within all this. That’s what I made clear when I first started, and that’s why I brought it up now: it’s around fairness. But the reality is—to finish off—the out of touch-ness of this Government. My colleague Reuben Davidson made it very clear that, you know, “We’re wanting to fix everything.”, this Government came in saying, and “We want to get everything back on track.” This is $6 million; this is small change. It’s significant change, but it’s small change.

We need to be sitting in this House, talking about bigger, more important things than a piece of legislation that just lets you put a bit of advertising on a Sunday morning or on Anzac morning, and I think we need to be reflective of that. We support this bill. I’ve been thoughtful and cautious, and I might go home afterwards and, on YouTube, watch a bit of Praise Be, just to cleanse myself.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Praise be.

You can follow me on TikTok, Scott Simpson, ad-free. I’m down with the kids. I’ve heard of TVNZ+. My friend Glen Bennett makes many good points, but we need to have a median, neutral approach to regulation. It is pretty much in the dark ages when we are having one set of rules for broadcast television, which I’ve heard referred to as linear television, and in exactly the same programmes provided by exactly the same entity, if you stream them, you’re not subject to those rules. That’s just irrational.

I do think we need to recognise that broadcasting is in a parlous state. Look, yes, there’s a place for purely commercial programmes that people just love to watch, but we’ve also got to recognise that the Government has a role to play to make sure that our stories are told, and those stories aren’t always commercially successful stories. They can be dramas and comedies or documentaries or even shows like Country Calendar and what have you, but they’re our stories, and what this bill does is give a small amount—not of funding but of an opportunity to get funding, but it’s not enough to plug the gap.

We heard today that funding for some of our Māori broadcasts like Te Karere is at risk. That’s another example of where there’s a real obligation to give voice—a Treaty obligation to give voice—and funding through advertising goes only a very small part of the way.

As Reuben Davidson so clearly phrased it, there’s lots of movement from the Minister for Media and Communications, but no real noise, no decisions, no statements, no effective actions. He’s miming the position of Minister of broadcasting, and, frankly, he seems to be somewhat stuck. So we really do need some action in broadcasting from this Minister, because this small change, allowing advertising on otherwise prohibited days, might go some small way, but it’s not really stopping the rot, the decline in broadcasting.

When I refer to broadcasting, I think we need to make it clear: broadcasting more generally across all of the platforms that Tamatha Paul watches. We need to be clear that people do need to be able to go and see our stories on YouTube and on TVNZ Ondemand and what have you, because it’s part of our really important cultural heritage to have our stories being told.

So, look, yes, we’re going to support this bill and quite right to observe that, particularly for religious days, it’s a bit of an anachronism to have the Christian religious day as a preserve when we now live in a very multicultural society where other religious days come and go. While some of us might respect or adhere to them, they’re not considered to be kind of State affairs. Anzac Day—I get it. I won’t be watching telly on Anzac morning; I will be respecting the work and sacrifice of those who have fought for our freedom and for the freedom of others, but I think that is a personal choice, not one that the State should be imposing on. So for those reasons, we’ll support the bill, but really much more needs to be done in the broadcasting space.

As technology changes, so does culture, and so does legislation. I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Yes, we are seeing broadcasting change across the world, globally and here in Aotearoa New Zealand. With that, we do need to shift and change some of the legislation and restrictions to enable the broadcasting industry to be at its best. Sadly, this Government just continues to let New Zealanders down. They set big expectations, and I heard more ideas and contributions in this House today from my relation Jenny Marcroft. I think she could do a better job as the Minister and come up with better ideas in the absence of a Labour-led Government. This bill really is about fairness. It’s about balance. It’s about bringing more revenue into broadcasting to make great content that New Zealanders love. I commend this bill to the House.

The New Zealand media sector has long called for these changes and this Government is responding. I commend this bill to the House.

Mr Speaker.

Sorry, the votes—which call are you taking?

It’s already taken.

Sorry.

I have determined that the subject of this vote will be treated as a conscience issue. In this case, I know there are members who want a personal vote and I’m prepared to accept one. This is the process that we’re going to follow. I’m going to put the question, I’m going to announce the result. At that stage, any member can ask for a personal vote. The question is that the motion be agreed to.

A personal vote was called for on the question, That the motion be agreed to.

The Ayes will cast their vote in the lobby to the right, the Noes will cast their vote in the lobby to the left. Abstentions will be recorded at the Table. All votes and abstentions will be recorded by the Clerk. Proxy votes will be marked as such. Members present in the Chamber or lobbies must cast a vote or abstain, and must not leave before the vote is announced—Standing Order 151(1). Members, the Ayes are 49; the Noes are 22.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. I’ve just had occasion to look at the Standing Orders and I’m reading Standing Order 154. Now, Standing Order 154 states—it’s very short—“Where fewer than 20 members attend the House to vote or abstain on a personal vote, that vote is of no effect.” It appears we have 13 members who attended the House to vote, and it would appear, therefore, that that vote has no effect.

Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand that the Labour Party is looking for opportunities to kind of undo some of the process that we’re following, but I just want to ask you, Mr Speaker—speaking to the point of order that the Labour member raised, my understanding is that we’re to take members at their word and if they’ve cast proxy votes for other members of their caucus who aren’t here, we take them at their word.

Well, for a start, I’d direct the member to Standing Order 152(2) and he may find that he’s actually wrong. It’s quite clear, for those who are present, that “(2) A proxy must include—(a) the name of the member who is giving the authority, (b) the date the authority is given, (c) the period or business for which the authority is valid, (d) the member who is given authority to exercise the proxy, and (e) the signature of the member who is giving the authority.” The chair is not only not satisfied that hasn’t happened, the chair is satisfied that it didn’t happen. So, now, I’ll speak to the Clerk and relate.

Speaking to the point of order, if the interpretation of Standing Order 154 is correct, then that would, therefore, mean that the voice vote is the one that is carried. So the motion is agreed because the Standing Order 154 applies to the personal vote which was called after the vote which was carried on the voices.

I’m advised that’s not correct. At this stage, the debate on the bill is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day. There were less than 20 members present at the time the vote was taken, in contravention of Standing Order 154.

The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 14 October 2025, and we all leave much better informed than we were when this debate began.

The House adjourned at 6.23 p.m.