Parliamentary debates: Tuesday, 4 November 2025

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

Point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek leave to make a personal explanation to correct an answer.

Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is not.

On Thursday, in an answer to an oral question, I said I’d been advised that only one breakdown had delayed a fire truck arriving at a job. I’ve subsequently received an apology from Fire and Emergency New Zealand that that information was based on a miscommunication. I’d like to withdraw that statement.

Three petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.

Petition of Sam Troth on behalf of The Road to Healing Aotearoa requesting that the House implement a minimum sentence of eight years for sexual offending

petition of Stephen Lincoln requesting that the House urge the Government to advocate that an ultimatum be given to the Israeli Government to stop the genocide in Gaza and the West Bank to allow UN aid back into Gaza and to negotiate the release of all captives

petition of Aaron Livingston requesting that the House urge the Government to change New Zealand’s foreign policy from supporting a two-State solution in Israel and Palestine to supporting only Israel’s sovereignty and recognising Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered 16 papers.

Government response to the petition of Laura Daniela Vargas Salas

report of the Petitions Committee on the petition of Miryam Denny

2024-25 annual reports for

Antarctica New Zealand

Criminal Cases Review Commission

Law Commission

Māori Language Commission

Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission

New Zealand Green Investment Finance Ltd

New Zealand Lotteries Commission

New Zealand Police

Public Trust

2025-29 statement of intent for the

Māori Language Commission, and

Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission

2025-26 statement of performance expectations for the

Māori Language Commission, and

Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission, and

Ministry for the Environment’s 2025 Report on Reasons for Difference between Prescribed NZ ETS Limits and Price Control Settings for Units and the Climate Change Commission’s Advice on these Settings.

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

Reports of the Education and Workforce Committee on the

Education and Training (Early Childhood Education Reform) Amendment Bill, and

Employment Relations (Termination of Employment by Agreement) Amendment Bill

reports of the Environment Committee on the

briefing on the Climate Change Commission’s reports and upcoming work programme

report of the Controller and Auditor-General, Managing conflicts of interest in the Fast-track Approvals process

reports of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Estimate of environmental expenditure, 2022/23, Estimate of environmental expenditure, 2023/24, and Estimate of environmental expenditure, 2024/25

report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Overseas Investment (National Interest Test and Other Matters) Amendment Bill

report of the Māori Affairs Committee on the Ngāti Hāua Claims Settlement Bill

reports of the Petitions Committee on the

petition of Ann Chapman: Amend the HART Act to allow more flexible time frames for embryo/gamete storage

petition of Brian Webb: Adjust jury fees to align with the minimum wage

petition of Helen Duyvestyn: Micronutrient supplements for people with mental health disorders

petition of Liam Roach: Introduce a study wage for all tertiary students

petition of Robyn Cain: Remove all court and legal costs to ensure free access to justice for all, and

petition of Theresa Zame: Amend the Therapeutic Products Bill to allow importation of medication, and

report of the Primary Production Committee on the Valuers Bill and report of the Attorney-General under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 on the Valuers Bill.

The bills are set down for second reading. The briefing and reports are set down for consideration. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of bills.

Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu Claims Settlement Bill, introduction

Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill, introduction.

Those bills are set down for first reading.

Point of order, Madam Speaker. Thank you, Madam Speaker. When Ministers give incorrect information in answers to oral questions, there is an onus on them to come back to the House and do what David Seymour has just done and stating that they gave incorrect information, but there is also an onus on them to provide the correct information.

David Seymour has just made it clear to the House that he provided incorrect information, but he hasn’t done the second part of that, which is to discharge his responsibility for correcting incorrect information, and it is to provide what the correct information actually is. He has indicated that the Fire Service were disrupted more than once by having faulty equipment in responding to calls, but he hasn’t told us how many times.

Thank you. Does the Minister have the answer on hand? If not, the possibility is either now or at the earliest opportunity.

Well, I’m sorry, but the Leader of the Opposition’s assertion is incorrect. You do have an obligation to address questions, which I did at the time, and to correct any incorrect information, which I have. There’s no further obligation.

Point of order, Madam Speaker. David Seymour sought leave to correct an answer, and, on that basis, the House unanimously gave him leave to do so. He didn’t seek leave to withdraw information; he sought leave to correct information. He has not done that.

The advice I have is that if the Minister knows the answer, he should give it to the House, and if he doesn’t, he should give it to the House as soon as possible.

Well, with the greatest of respect, the problem is that there may not always be an answer. Therefore, you can’t always be—that’s why you’re required to address the question; not answer it.

Point of order, Madam Speaker. If the Minister does not know the answer, then how would he have corrected the answer? He must know the answer; therefore, he is obliged to tell the House what the answer is, given that the previous answer he gave was incorrect.

I just really hope that this is not how Labour Party logic works every day, because the simple fact is that while the statement made has been advised—[Interruption]

Quiet—the Minister is speaking.

—to be incorrect, that does not mean that a correct answer is available. It may be that the answer given was simply erroneous. That’s why it has being withdrawn, and with the incorrect part removed, the answer is now correct.

The Minister is saying that he doesn’t have an answer available—

You guys are simple.

—so, yeah.

Simple, simple.

Point of order, Madam Speaker. That isn’t what he’s saying; he appears to be saying he’s not willing to give it. If he—

No, that’s not what I heard. I heard him say—

Simple man.

—there wasn’t an answer available. That is what he just said to the House.

A further point of order, Madam Speaker. If it, therefore, becomes clear that David Seymour has been advised what the number is and he has chosen not to give that information to the House, will he still be in breach of the House, as he would have been had he not corrected it?

Speaking to the point of order, maybe I can help the member out. I’ve been advised that a number is not currently available, so therefore it’s not possible to answer the question—which is what I’ve been trying to get through to the simple man over there this whole time.

Yeah, that’s fine. There’s currently—

A further point of order, Madam Speaker.

I’m accepting that there’s not currently an answer available that the Minister has at this point in time—

Yep, I’m accepting that, too.

That’s what he said.

Madam Speaker, you’ll note that this is a serious matter, where a Minister has to seek leave to correct an answer in order to not breach the privileges of the House. I have raised the issue with you correctly and appropriately.

Yes.

I haven’t insulted the Minister.

No.

Multiple times in his answers to that, he chose to insult me and attack me in breach of the rules of the House. What would the consequence of that be for him?

Look, I will follow up and have a look at the Hansard because I didn’t pick up an insult. I know there was a bit of to-ing and fro-ing coming from the Minister, but I didn’t pick up the insult, and so I will look at the Hansard and I will come back to you.

to the Prime Minister

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

Yes.

If the economy has turned the corner, as he’s repeatedly claimed, why have record numbers of New Zealanders been applying for KiwiSaver hardship withdrawals in the past 12 months?

Well, as I’ve explained to the member before, it’s no doubt been a very challenging time for the New Zealand economy. The previous Government drove up spending, inflation, and interest rates, and put the economy into recession, and people lose their jobs as a consequence of that. But there are good signs. It’s good to see that job ads are up 3.5 percent. It’s good to see that building consents are up 12 percent just in the last quarter.

Is he aware that under his leadership, hardship withdrawals from KiwiSaver have outnumbered first-home withdrawals from KiwiSaver month after month, when previously it only happened once in 10 years?

Well, as I said to the member in my answer to his first question, it has been a difficult time for the New Zealand economy. We inherited a recession that was probably the worst in 35 years. There was a long COVID hangover, thanks to the previous Government being the second - biggest-spending Government in the Western world—spending $66 billion that no one seems to know where it went to. The reality, though, is that things are getting better: exports are up 4 percent; interest rates are down 300 basis points.

Has increasing the cost of doctors visits, home insurance, public transport, car registration, the price of going to a pharmacy, and student loans during a cost of living crisis made things better or worse for everyday Kiwi families?

Well, I acknowledge that many of those things that drive inflation, and particularly electricity but also, most importantly, council rates—that member opposes council rates. If he wanted to tackle that problem, he would come on board with the Government’s initiative to put a cap on rates.

Is the Government considering a law change to ban homeless people from central business districts; if so, why?

Our Government is doing everything we can to support people who are in homeless situations, and that’s why you’ve seen 300 more places made available through Housing First. A hundred of those 300 homes and accommodation have already been built, with 200 in Auckland, but, of course, our Government and our Ministers will work with lots of people to see what we can do.

Point of order, Madam Speaker. It was a very straightforward question: is the Government considering a law change to ban homeless people from central business districts; if so, why? I didn’t ask the Prime Minister what does he think about homelessness; I asked him specifically whether they’re considering a change to the law to ban homeless people from CBDs.

The Prime Minister did say that the Government will do what they can. I would like to know if the Prime Minister could elaborate on that to answer that specific part of the question.

I’m quite comfortable that I’ve answered one of those legs of those two legs in that question.

Is the Government considering a law change to ban homeless people from central business districts?

There have been no Cabinet decisions or discussion on that topic.

Has the Cabinet discussed a law change to ban homeless people from central business districts?

In answer to the answer I just gave the member for his last question, no.

When, if ever, will the Prime Minister finally respond to my many invitations to walk the streets of Auckland Central and meet the people, including the children, who his Government’s policies have made homeless?

Well, no disrespect to the member, but when she was part of a Labour-Greens Government and had one of her members as the Minister for homelessness, we saw $1 billion spent on emergency housing and a 37 percent increase in homelessness. This Government’s record on housing, I would line up against Labour, Greens, and Te Pāti Māori any day of the week. The great Labour Prime Ministers of their era must be rolling in their graves with the legacy of Labour and Greens housing—

OK, that’s enough.

If booting people out of emergency accommodation has fixed the homelessness problem, why is the Government now considering changing the law to ban homeless people?

Well, I reject the characterisation of that question, because here’s the deal on housing: this Government has delivered housing affordability for people who want to purchase a house or to rent a house. This is the Government that took 6,000 people off the State house wait-list while that member increased it fourfold over six years, this is the Government that took 3,200 households out of emergency housing, and this is the Government that is doing a lot to help homeless support.

Supplementary.

Is this—[Interruption] Quiet, please. Is this a supplementary question, Minister Jones?

Correct. To the Prime Minister, is the Prime Minister aware that a capital gains tax leads to complications, complexity, and administrative dead weight?

It’s not—well, it is relevant to the lead question, so I’ll let the Prime Minister answer that.

Well, I thank the member for raising that issue because I’m saying that taxing Kiwis and their houses and their KiwiSaver accounts is not the way forward to help people with the cost of living. It’s just adding cost and adding tax. On this side of the House, we believe in low taxes. We believe in backing people who want to make something happen, and not in taxing everybody in sight. [Interruption]

Question—quiet during questions, please.

to the Minister of Finance

What is the Government’s revenue strategy?

on behalf of the Minister of Finance: A revenue strategy is required by the Public Finance Act. The current Government strategy, part of the 2025 Fiscal Strategy Report, states that a good tax system is one that, among other things, “finances public expenditure in a fair and efficient way”, “encourages effort and investment”, and “has low compliance and administrative costs”. It goes on to say, “The Government will operate a stable, predictable revenue system”, and it adds that the Government “is committed to public engagement in the design of tax policy”.

What does the strategy say about future revenue and expenses?

On behalf of the Minister of Finance, the strategy recognises that Government spending is currently greater than revenue, meaning the operating balance is in deficit. Revenue and spending need to be brought back into balance. Crucially, the strategy states that “Spending restraint is the Government’s primary lever for achieving these goals. With prudent control of spending, the Government does not intend to seek”—nor does it need to seek—“major additional sources of revenue.” I would also note that a tax increase announced alongside spending increases that it matches dollar for dollar does absolutely nothing to improve the operating deficit or Government debt.

What has the Government done to encourage effort and investment through the tax system?

On behalf of the Minister of Finance: in last year’s Budget, the Government increased personal income tax thresholds. These had not been adjusted in the previous 14 years, despite significant wage growth. We also increased the in-work tax credit, which helps low and middle income working families with children, and we expanded eligibility for the independent earner tax credit. Working people in this country now get to keep more of the money that they work so hard to earn. That is reward for effort, and it is delivered within tight Budget operating allowances. An estimated 727,000 households benefited by at least $75 a fortnight, and members opposite voted against it.

What—[Interruption]

Quiet during questions, please.

What else has the Government done to encourage effort and investment through the tax system?

On behalf of the Minister of Finance, study after study has identified that compared to other countries, New Zealand has a low level of capital investment per worker. To raise productivity, lift incomes, and drive long-term economic growth, New Zealand needs businesses, big and small, to invest in machinery, tools, equipment, technology, vehicles, industrial buildings, and other capital assets. In this year’s Budget, the Government launched Investment Boost, a tax incentive for New Zealand businesses to make these sorts of capital investments. As a consequence of this policy, we expect to see a lift in New Zealand’s capital stock, a lift in GDP, and a lift in wages, again delivered within tight Budget operating allowances, and, again, opposed by members on that side of the House.

That answer was quite long enough. I’d like them to be a bit briefer, please.

What sort of tax would be ruled out by the Government’s revenue strategy?

Well, on behalf of the Minister of Finance, it would be one that, according to an Australian expert report—and I quote—“is a tax which in any administrative form must be complex and difficult and produce some abnormalities and inequalities of its own. There is no doubt whatsoever that any revenue it raises could be more cheaply and easily raised in other ways.” In addition, if that tax discouraged effort and investment, such as an investment in small-business premises, and if it gave preferential treatment to certain groups—for example, people that inherit property—

No, I think that that’s a long enough answer. Thank you. Question No. 3—

Madam Speaker.

Sorry—the Rt Hon Winston Peters. Is this a supplementary or a point of order?

It’s a supplementary because this is supplementary time. Can I ask the Minister, looking around the world, is there any comparative equality in terms of the policy advocated by the Labour Party when it comes to this question of a capital gains tax? Is there any example anywhere in the world—

What a dumb question.

No, it’s only dumb if you don’t understand taxes—

Quiet during questions, please.

—and this is not mirror time for Willie. This is a time when you pay attention.

Oh, get to the question.

With the greatest of respect, this guy could take some education about taxation.

Point of order.

OK, I’ll just ask—I’ve got a point of order here from the Hon Kieran McAnulty.

With respect, Madam Speaker, the question should have been ruled out by now. The minute that the Minister asked his colleague for opinions on a Labour Party policy, that was out of order.

Yeah, the reason the question hasn’t been ruled out by now is because there’s a lot of noise coming during supplementary questions. I’d like the Rt Hon Winston Peters to ask that question again without referring to the Opposition and to ask the question straight to the Minister, and the Opposition will be quiet.

Having heard of a recent example of a limited capital gains tax, is there anywhere in the world where an economy has adopted that policy?

On behalf of the Minister of Finance, what I am clear about—and I am not aware of other countries in the world that are looking to punish their citizens for success—

No.

—through taxation, and that is exactly what that side of the House—

No, that’s not an answer. Sit down, please.

Point of order, Madam Speaker. You made it extremely clear to the member asking the question that it was not to be in reference to any other party’s policy. The Minister then, in response, completely ignored your clear guidance.

Well, I cut the Minister off and asked him to sit down because I could see what was happening there.

He didn’t, though, did he? He continued on.

Well, no, he did. I said that that was enough and to finish off the answer, and I asked him to sit down.

With respect to tax policy, has the Minister heard the statement “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen”?

No, that’s not a question. Thank you.

to the Prime Minister

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

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

Yes.

What is the effective tax rate paid by the wealthiest 1 percent of New Zealanders, and why is it half the effective tax rate of the average hard-working New Zealander?

We have a progressive income tax system in New Zealand, and the more money you earn, the more tax you pay.

How is it fair that hard-working New Zealanders pay tax on every dollar they earn through income while the super-wealthy passively accumulate more and more untaxed wealth without lifting a finger?

Well, in answer to the member’s first leg to that question, it’s somewhat ironic because she and her party did not support basic tax relief for low and middle income working New Zealanders. It wasn’t ideological; it was a pretty simple up and down vote of “Do you lift the tax thresholds for low and middle income working New Zealanders?”, and Labour, the Greens, and Te Pāti Māori all said no because you do not care about working New Zealanders—period.

Point of order, Madam Speaker. Speakers’ rulings are quite clear that no Minister should bring parties that aren’t involved in the question into the fray, and that Minister—the Prime Minister—does it repeatedly and has been told by other presiding officers not to do it.

Yep, thank you, and I’d ask the Prime Minister to refrain from doing it for the rest of the day.

Why does he think that in the past three years, the average net worth of the wealthiest 20 percent in this country grew by 20 percent while the poorest 20 percent got poorer by 9 percent, if not because of economic rules that are geared towards the benefit of the wealthiest?

You’ve asked me why: because there was something called a Labour-Greens Government that mismanaged—

No.

—the economy.

No, I’d ask the member to ask that question again. That was a swing at the Opposition, and it wasn’t an answer to the question.

Point of order, Madam Speaker. The member asked a question about a period of time during which, as the Prime Minister has said, there was a Labour-Greens Government. I don’t see how that’s not a legitimate response to the question.

I’m asking the member to ask the question again, please.

Why does the Prime Minister think that in the past three years, the average net wealth of the wealthiest 20 percent grew by 20 percent while the poorest 20 percent in this country got 9 percent poorer, if not because of an economic system that is geared to benefit the wealthy?

Well, because when a Government increases spending by 84 percent and it drives up inflation to 7.3 percent, that then leads to higher interest rates—they went up 12 times—high interest rates puts an economy into recession, and people lose their jobs. The consequence of all of that is that working and middle-income New Zealanders got incredibly hurt and damaged.

So when does he expect his tax cuts and Public Service cuts to trickle down?

Well, the good news is that the economy is growing now in this quarter. We have job ads up, we have building consents up, we have exports up, we have interest rates down, we have inflation down, we have business confidence up eight points, we have farmer confidence at a good level, we’ve got Accor building hotels now—their 49th, going on to their 50th—we’ve got Ports of Auckland and Freightways talking about good activity, and loan arrears are down, and so they’re all positive signs.

What is more important to the Prime Minister: allowing the wealthiest to amass hundreds of millions in untaxed wealth, or properly funding our hospitals, our schools, our emergency services, and our infrastructure?

Well, I’m actually very proud that this is a Government that realised about $40 billion of inefficiency and deployed it to the front line, including almost $17 billion in healthcare in our first Budget and a further increase of 6 to 7 percent in our second Budget.

On the matter of Government actions, can the Prime Minister confirm that by exempting a substantial number of companies from the onerous obligation of reporting mythical climate emissions, our economy will be better off for it?

Anything that lowers compliance and regulation and red tape and green tape is a good thing for New Zealand because we’ve got to get the show unblocked and get it moving. Again, I’d just say to the Opposition parties: support our fast-track legislation and mining.

Does the Prime Minister agree with the assertion from his Minister just then that climate emissions are “mythical”?

He didn’t make that assertion. He said climate reporting that is adding huge amounts of cost and compliance to businesses is a waste of time.

Point of order, Madam Speaker. We have demonstrable evidence almost immediately that the Minister said precisely that.

Yes, I do believe that the Minister did use the word “mythical” in his question about climate reporting, though, wasn’t it? [Interruption] It was about climate reporting, right?

If I recall correctly, it was about reporting on “mythical climate emissions”.

OK. So—

Speaking to the point of order, the mythology refers to the beliefs of the party across the road. They are the ones who introduced that policy. It is mythical because it’s disappeared.

Speaking to the point of order—

Sorry, is this a point of order or a question?

I’m speaking to the point of order, in which I asked the Prime Minister a very straightforward question: whether he agreed with the assertion from one of his Ministers about whether climate changing emissions were mythical or not.

And the Minister has just clarified that the policy was now mythical because the policy was no longer in place. So we’ve—

Madam Speaker.

—clarified that. No, is this a new question?

I guess I just have a question for the House about whether the truth matters any more.

No, this—[Interruption] OK, order, please. Yes, the truth does matter, and we’re going to move on to question—[Interruption] Quiet, please.

Point of order, Madam Speaker. The last question was utterly offensive to this House. It was not within the Standing Order or Speakers’ rulings, or any other procedure past except—

You would know!

I would know—of course I’d know, far more than you, sunshine, and that’s why I’m mentioning this in a point of order. That member should be required to stand now and apologise to the House.

No, no. [Interruption] No, we’re moving on. It’s question No. 4, in the name of Barbara Edmonds. I had to tell the Opposition to be quiet during questions before, and now I’m going to tell the Government members to be quiet during questions.

to the Minister of Finance

Does she stand by her statement of July 2024 that “cost of living relief is on its way”; if so, why?

on behalf of the Minister of Finance: Yes. The reason why is that that statement was made two days before personal income tax changes came into effect on 31 July 2024. The member might be aware that the next sentence goes on to say, “From Wednesday, [you’ll] be able to keep more of your hard-earned money to put towards things that are important to you, your children, your weekly shop, [and] paying your power bill.” Those changes, mostly to income tax thresholds and the in-work tax credit, made around 1.9 million New Zealand households better off, on average, by $60 a fortnight. Households with children were better off, on average, by $78 a fortnight. It is strange that the member would ask about that particular quote in this particular week, because there is now a clear choice between a Government that wants to spend carefully, reduce your tax burden, and let you succeed on your own terms, and an Opposition that wants to put their hands in your pocket with a creepy and creeping capital gains tax.

How many families, therefore, lost money because of the tax changes which came into effect on the date the Minister has just reported?

Well, the tax threshold increase meant that people were liable to pay less tax, and so if there was any group that somehow paid more, then I guess you would point to them. But 1.9 million households were better off.

How many families have received the full $250 tax cut that was promised by this Government?

The fact is that that promise is a sliding scale. It is a range of relief that might be received, and the Opposition can spend as much time as they like pointing out that rather obvious fact. But the people back at home want to see a Government that spends their money as carefully as the people in it would spend their own and that is able to reduce taxes, rather than putting new taxes in front of them that will take all sorts of things that they might not have expected, because they can’t trust “Chippy”.

If the cost of living relief is on its way, why are KiwiSaver hardship withdrawals the highest they have been—more than double what it was this time two years ago?

The voters, I believe, have a lot more intelligence than they’re sometimes given credit for by the Opposition. They can see that the conditions New Zealanders face in the economy today are caused by a combination of factors overseas, historical policies by the New Zealand Government, and the initiatives of the current Government, and when they look at the current Government, they see a Government that is carefully managing its spending and that is presiding over falling inflation and falling interest rates so that New Zealanders have more money in their pocket left at the end of the week. The voters can work it out; if only those people could.

Are families getting more, when 5,530 people made KiwiSaver hardship withdrawals in the month of September?

It is clear that there are people having a tough time, and we feel for people that are in the position—

Do you—really?

—of drawing on their KiwiSaver. I’d just say to Ginny Andersen, who said “Do you—really?”, that, actually, yes.

I don’t think you do.

When a person answers a question in the House—oh, Madam Speaker, point of order. She’s just said, “I don’t think you do.” Now, to say that a member is deliberately misleading the House—

I think that—

—is a breach of order, and she—

That was an interjection going both ways, so carry on with the answer.

Well, no, I’m sorry, Madam Speaker, but it is a breach of the Standing Orders to accuse another member of lying. She did it twice and repeatedly—

In fact, no—

—and she should be asked to withdraw and apologise.

No, the member didn’t accuse the Minister of lying. She just said that she thought he didn’t understand.

Who else is there to blame for her economic mismanagement, given her Government has blamed Labour, power companies, Fonterra, insurance companies, supermarkets, US tariffs, “merchants of misery”, teenagers, John Key, teachers, firefighters, doctors, nurses, local councils, and unions?

Well, there once was a man called Christian Cullen, and he was known for being fast on his feet. Barbara Edmonds is the opposite of Christian Cullen: she stomps through question time with her lead shoes, reading out the questions that had been written down before, and not changing tack when anything else changes in question time. As I’ve said in a previous answer, the voters have a lot more intelligence and perspective than they are given credit for by the Opposition. They can appreciate that a combination of historical Government policy, events that have occurred overseas, and the current Government’s actions influence the conditions they face, and the current Government’s actions are to spend money carefully, to take pressure off inflation, to see interest rates coming down, to cut red tape, and to improve the prospects of New Zealanders. They can see that this Government is fixing what matters for them; those guys are out of touch.

Does she stand by her statement that the Labour capital gains tax plan is a “terrible idea”?

That’s not related to the original question, thank you. Question No. 5—[Interruption] Quiet, please. [Interruption] Quiet!

to the Minister for Biosecurity

What recent announcements has he made about strengthening the biosecurity system?

Last week, I announced the Government’s plan for overhauling the Biosecurity Act to safeguard New Zealand’s primary sector into the future. As an island food-producing nation, our prosperity relies on protection from biosecurity threats. New Zealand exports $60 billion of food and fibre products each year, and our relative freedom from pests and diseases is a big part of our competitive advantage and underpins our primary sector. That’s why we’re modernising the Biosecurity Act with nearly 50 proposals for change that will strengthen protection against invasive pests and diseases.

How could an invasive species or a disease that impacts animals have such a big impact on our economy?

Oh, he’s really kicking the hornets’ nest now!

Yes, and we’ll take care of them. The primary sector really is the backbone of our economy, but we cannot afford to be complacent. Diseases and invasive species can spread fast and wipe out entire sectors if they are not prevented at the border or detected early and managed properly. Economic analysis from the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research says that a foot-and-mouth incursion would cost over $14 billion a year. That wouldn’t just cost farmers; it would shut down our economy and permanently damage our international reputation and credibility. Our biosecurity system is strong, and we’re committed to maintaining a strong border and robust biosecurity systems.

How will the biosecurity system at the border be strengthened?

One of the things we will be doing is to introduce a new offence for not declaring high-risk goods such as raw meat at the border. This offence will attract a fine of $800, while low-risk goods not declared will stay at $400. Our relative freedom from pests and diseases is greatly valued by all Kiwis, and this will remind visitors that New Zealand takes biosecurity seriously. We cannot afford to put our primary sector and our natural environment at risk, and the best way to manage any biosecurity incursion is to stop it from happening in the first place.

What changes have been made to import health standards?

We’re improving New Zealand’s import rules by making the development of import health standards more flexible and allowing risk assessments to be tailored to the scenario—for example, we will enable the ability to issue a one-off permit for goods where it wouldn’t make sense to develop and maintain an import health standard. These changes are in addition to a new programme of work that I announced this year, aimed at significantly reducing the time it takes to develop an import health standard. This will enable higher volumes of trade, and thus give exporters greater access to new materials to develop innovative products without lowering our biosecurity standards.

On the matter of pests, can the Minister confirm what is the status of the invasive Portuguese millipede, otherwise known as Ommatoiulus moreleti, and whether or not it has crept across to the other side of the House?

Does the Minister wish to answer the first part of this question? I have no understanding of what that species is.

I believe in terms of where you’ve got a pest at a regional level, the regional council does take precedence. But, yes, we will be looking to equip Biosecurity New Zealand with lots of flamethrowers to try and remove that, and spiders.

to the Minister of Health

What actions is the Government taking to increase vaccination rates?

Our Government is taking the current measles outbreak very seriously. Cases are now confirmed across multiple regions, and the risk of continued transmission is high. That’s why, this week, Health New Zealand has launched a nationwide Measles Immunisation Week, to highlight the need for Kiwis to get immunised. Measles is a serious disease. In the 2019 outbreak, one in three people who contracted measles needed hospital care. That’s why Health New Zealand is running pop-up clinics, tracing contacts, and supporting families to lift our vaccination coverage in order to stamp out the measles outbreak and to prevent the wider impacts of this disease on our schools, our health system, society, and the economy.

What steps has the Government taken to reduce the impact of serious diseases like measles?

We have reinstated the health target for immunisation, and after years of decline, our latest quarterly health target results show that 82 percent of children are now fully immunised by age two, up from 76.5 percent at 30 June last year, representing the largest annual gain across all of our health targets. This shows that our focus on targets is working. Whilst this is a significant increase, though, there is still much more work to be done. Health New Zealand is working with providers to make it easier for people to get their MMR vaccines and other vaccines, including through extra and pop-up clinics, to prevent the outbreak from worsening.

Why is it important to increase the MMR vaccination rate?

Measles is one of the most infectious viruses in the world. One case can infect 12 to 18 unvaccinated people, and if you’re not immunised and you’re exposed, there’s a 90 percent chance that you will catch it. Vaccination is the single best way to protect families, prevent community spread, and take pressure off our hospitals, with two doses of the MMR vaccine providing about 99 percent protection. We need around 95 percent coverage to stop future outbreaks and to stamp out the current incursion. Over the last few years, rates fell. We are now turning that around, but there’s still more work to do.

Why did the Government reintroduce the immunisation target?

Let’s be clear: we’re committed to giving every child the healthiest possible start to life. Targets matter because, ultimately, that helps to drive the system to ensure that we can reach the targets needed to prevent outbreaks such as what we are experiencing today. It also ensures that children get the protection they need when they need it. Whilst New Zealand’s overall vaccination rates have improved, there is still much more work to do. That’s why Health New Zealand is working with providers this week and all weeks to continue—particularly this week, with Measles Immunisation Week—to drive up immunisation rates and to promote the need for immunisation so that we can act decisively to prevent this outbreak from spreading.

Is it correct that despite his Government’s performance against the target, the number of susceptible people is estimated to increase by a thousand a month and, therefore, the risk of an outbreak continues to grow irrespective of the target?

Well, I would say to that member that it is critically important that we focus on improving immunisation rates, and I would point out what happened to immunisation rates during the previous six years under the Labour Government, where they fell from around 92 percent of two-year-olds to around 75 percent of two-year-olds due to the removal of the target. We have reintroduced the target, we are now focused on meeting it, and we acknowledge that there’s a lot more work to do and we’re focused on doing it.

What approach is the Government taking to school attendance in the course of this outbreak—particularly during NCEA exams—and what advice has the director-general issued to schools in relation to attendance and the outbreak?

The Director-General of Health has provided very clear advice that school students should continue to attend schools and exams, unless they are identified as a close contact and aren’t immunised. It’s about making sure that we continue to get our children the education that they need. Ultimately, though, the very clear message is that whether it’s teachers or students, immunisation is the best protection against measles. We’re encouraging everyone to take up that opportunity to get immunised, and the latest data, which I have just received, shows that there were around 2,500 measles immunisations delivered yesterday—the highest number since 2019.

to the Prime Minister

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

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

Yes.

Does the Prime Minister stand by his answer to the Greens in question time, December 2023, when he said—and I quote—“We’re not weakening our actions on climate change, we’re just going about it in a different way.”, when his Government has just announced weakening our methane targets by halving them?

Well, I think we’ve been very clear about our position on methane targets. We have the best farmers in the world; we have the most carbon-efficient farmers in the world. The madness of the previous administration of sending production offshore to less carbon- and production-efficient countries makes global greenhouse gas emissions worse. We want to maintain our delivery of our commitments that we have. [Interruption]

Quiet during questions, please.

Does the Prime Minister understand that Government policy which increases climate-changing emissions will ultimately increase New Zealanders’ cost of living?

We’re not going to drive our farmers offshore and shut down farming production in New Zealand. We are not here to punish our farmers. They are the best in the world, they are the most carbon-efficient in the world, and we back them to succeed out there in the real world.

Is the Prime Minister aware that for every Government action that increases emissions, we become more liable to pay billions of dollars offshore for other countries to reduce their emissions?

Well, I’m not punishing New Zealand farmers in any stretch of the imagination. These are the farmers that get up early each and every day. This is the farming sector that’s pulling New Zealand out of the recession that the Labour-Greens Government created. We are backing our farmers. We are not punishing our farmers. They do an outstanding job, and we’ve got the right policy to help them.

Point of order, Madam Speaker. The question was specifically about our constructive liabilities under the Paris Agreement, which the Prime Minister should understand, and the fact that if we are not reducing our climate-changing emissions domestically, then we have liability to pay other countries to do that. He did not even address the question.

Does the Prime Minister want to expand, please, on the liability part of that question?

This is a Government that is doing everything it can to meet its climate obligations, including Net Zero 2050, and, based off our latest emissions reduction plan, there’s a possibility we may even do it earlier.

To the Prime Minister, when you were answering that question, were you giving the answer to the Māori version or the English translation version, given that the latter is not an accurate translation of the former?

Well, can I just be unambiguous in either te reo or English that we are backing farmers. Our policy is the right one. We’re going to make sure that we deliver on our commitments but, importantly, we are powering up this economy and we are all about economic growth.

I actually think that that wasn’t an actual question. The translation is not the Prime Minister’s responsibility; it’s part of the question sheet.

Supplementary question.

Is this a supplementary to question No. 7?

Yes. A question to the Prime Minister: is he aware that one of the most wealthiest men in New Zealand has abandoned the hyperbole and hysteria of climate change—in the form of Bill Gates?

Well, what I’m aware of is that if you want to back climate change, you would support fast-track legislation, you’d support mining for critical earth minerals, and you would support ending the oil and gas ban because, actually, that’s what’s needed in this country.

Point of order, Madam Speaker. The translation may be not the Prime Minister’s role or responsibility, but I asked the question as to what he was answering—the Māori version or the English version—and you thought that you’d dismiss it by saying what we all know—that it’s not his responsibility. So let’s have this question: why aren’t you fulfilling your responsibility, and your staff’s, and getting it right in the first place?

No, I’m not accepting that point of order. This is a translated question which has been on notice for today, and it’s the translation on various other days. The Prime Minister is well aware of what the question means, and I’m moving on to question No. 8.

to the Minister of Health

Does he stand by his statement that “We want all New Zealanders to be able to see a GP when they need one”; if so, is it acceptable that almost one in six New Zealanders cannot afford to go to the doctor?

In the context it was made, yes. Our Government is committed to ensuring that all New Zealanders can access the care they need when they need it. To do this, we’ve delivered the biggest ever funding boost for GPs—$175 million this year alone—at an allowable fee increase of just 3 percent, keeping costs stable and predictable. We know that the biggest barrier for patients today is actually getting an appointment. In 2023-24, 25.7 percent of adults couldn’t see a GP due to wait times, up from 11.6 percent in 2021-22. That is why we are focused on affordability and accessibility. We’re extending prescriptions to 12 months where safe, saving patients up to $105 a year in GP fees; we’re strengthening the primary care workforce; we’ve launched a 24/7 online GP care service for times when patients can’t see their regular GP; and we continue to target support through subsidised GP visits for community services card holders, and the Very Low Cost Access scheme. All of this is about putting patients first and making sure that every Kiwi can get in to see a doctor when they need to.

Will he help the tradie who said to me that “I don’t go to the doctor’s, because I can’t afford to. I earn $24 an hour.”, or is he not bothered by the fact that cost is preventing working people from seeing the doctor?

Well, as the member will be aware, there is the community services card scheme, which means that those people earning that amount of money are able to pay a maximum of $20 co-payment, and, ultimately, that member’s policy is to put a capital gains tax on property, on commercial buildings, and on KiwiSaver so that people earning high incomes can go to the doctor for free.

Does he recognise that the cost of doctors visits is harming patients like the woman who wrote to me that she’d self-treated her joint problem with anti-inflammatories because she couldn’t afford a $60 visit and ended up with hearing loss?

What I’d say to that member is that the increased number of New Zealanders who could not access a GP appointment because they couldn’t get one went from 11 percent under her watch, to 25 percent, and the other point that she fails to actually mention is that the cost of GP fees went up by 30 percent under Labour. We are focused on increasing accessibility and affordability, such as our policy of extending prescriptions, which is saving people with long-term conditions $105. I have not heard from the Labour Party whether they actually support that policy.

Is it fair that under his Government, a woman with pneumonia has to choose between her own health and that of her diabetic husband because they can’t both afford to go to the doctor?

Well, as I’ve said earlier, the cost of seeing a GP went up 30 percent under the Labour Party’s watch. We are focused on improving accessibility and focused on improving affordability with policies such as extending prescriptions to 12 months. I am yet to hear from the Labour Party as to whether or not they support our policy of extending prescriptions up to 12 months. That would save people up to $105 per year on seeing a GP. I have not heard from the Labour Party whether or not they support that policy.

Is the 70-year-old grandmother with asthma, diabetes, and high blood pressure who has cancelled her last three doctors appointments because she can’t afford it because of the $75 fee getting the care she needs?

Patients with asthma, such as that grandmother and such as me, require long-term prescriptions, and our policy will mean they won’t have to get repeat prescriptions costing $105 per year and they will be able to get a 12-month prescription. I am yet to hear whether or not the Labour Party supports that policy.

to the Minister for Tourism and Hospitality

What recent announcements has she made to support tourism in New Zealand?

Recently, I’ve made two joint announcements that will bring more visitors to New Zealand and boost our economy. Over the weekend, Minister Potaka and I announced $10.8 million of funding to complete two sections on the Mountains to Sea great ride. These sections are among the last needed to complete the full trail from Mount Ruapehu to the Tasman Sea. Minister Stanford and I also announced that, as of yesterday, Chinese visitors are now able to travel visa-free from Australia to New Zealand. Tourism is a key part of our Government’s plan to grow the economy, and these announcements will help do just that.

How will the cycle trail announcement support the regions?

We know the benefits a thriving tourism and hospitality sector brings to our economy, supporting local regions and communities. Ready-to-go projects, like the cycle trails, will bring more visitors to the Ruapehu region and entice them to stay longer, and boost the central North Island economy. Overseas tourists coming to New Zealand remain a key driver of regional growth, and we want them to experience our great rides. Our Government is fully committed to supporting the regions to thrive, including getting more visitors to every corner of New Zealand.

Why are Chinese visitors important to New Zealand’s tourism market?

China is New Zealand’s largest trading partner and our third-largest source of international visitors. In the last year alone, we welcomed almost 250,000 Chinese visitors to our land. We also know that over 60 million Chinese travellers are actively considering a visit to New Zealand, and China will play a pivotal role in doubling New Zealand’s exports over the next 10 years. We’re committed to welcoming more Chinese visitors to New Zealand and strengthening the ties between our two countries.

How will more international visitors support economic growth?

By investing in tourism, we are creating opportunities for growth, as tourism supports one in 10 jobs in New Zealand and contributes $44 billion to our economy. Every time a tourist comes to New Zealand and spends money in a local shop, buys food in a local restaurant or cafe, and stays in our accommodation, it’s good for jobs, it’s great for growth, and it’s great for the incomes of New Zealanders. Our message is clear: New Zealand is open for business, and we welcome visitors anytime, anywhere, from any place.

to the Minister for Social Development and Employment

Does she agree with the Prime Minister’s statement regarding employment, “They do have jobs. Often what happens is the people will take a job, they don’t stick with it for longer than a couple of days, they don’t show up on time”; if not, why not?

Yes, I do agree with the Prime Minister’s comments that he made about young people. We know young people may need more support and training to be job-ready. We have already made the welfare system more active and have brought back rights and responsibilities with the traffic light system to help people stay on track. We are encouraging New Zealanders to be ready for work, while also backing employers who need committed staff to grow their businesses and our economy.

Would the people of Tokoroa have more jobs right now if they had followed the Prime Minister’s advice and stuck with a job longer than a couple of days and showed up on time?

On behalf of the people of Tokoroa, I find that member’s comments offensive. I know that the local MP has spent time with them on Friday, supporting the community with job opportunities, with recruitment agencies, and with on-the-ground support from the Ministry of Social Development and community organisations, and I find that member’s comments offensive.

Point of order, Madam Speaker.

I’ve got a point of order from Kieran McAnulty, and we may be thinking the same thing, but make your point of order.

If a member finds a comment offensive, then the person who made it should be made to withdraw and apologise. In this instance, the person who made those comments was the Prime Minister. He should be made to withdraw and apologise.

No, I think—

Speaking to the point of order—

Yeah, speaking to the point of order, I think the member was referring to the comments of—

I was, and, speaking to the point of order, that member is speaking about a quote that has nothing to do with Tokoroa and he might want to check his facts before raising it.

I’m going to say that I did not find the member’s statement or question offensive to the people of Tokoroa. I took it more that there have been some job losses over there, and the member may wish to clarify that because it didn’t sound offensive to me.

Speaking to the point of order, the comment was made about young people. There are young people in Tokoroa who no longer have employment, and I wanted to know whether that related to them or not.

Thank you. You can ask the next question.

Does she agree with the local people of Tokoroa, who have said that cutting their trade training capabilities right after so many job losses is just another “kick in the guts”; if not, why?

I would really encourage the member to get her facts straight. In terms of the Toi Ohomai Institute of Technology, the Minister responsible for vocational education has ensured that there is additional funding available for Toi Ohomai, both for the Tokoroa campus and for the Taupō campus, to ensure that training is available on the ground.

Why then did her Government force Toi Ohomai to cut jobs in trade training right after record job losses in the very same region?

I think the member is confusing a number of things, and, as I’ve said, she might want to get her facts straight about Toi Ohomai in the centre of the North Island and the campuses in Tokoroa and Taupō. The member of Parliament for Taupō has worked incredibly closely with the council and with businesses on the ground to ensure that there is training available. What I don’t think is particularly helpful in this House is to bring in the lives of a challenged group of locals who have lost their jobs recently. I feel for them and their families, and I don’t believe it is suitable for that member to be dragging them into this House with issues that are actually factually incorrect.

I believe the member is asking questions on their behalf, rather than targeting her questions at them.

Does she agree with the Prime Minister’s statement that employers in the Hawke’s Bay are “crying out” for young people; if so, why are there 7,359 job seekers but only 568 advertised jobs in the Hawke’s Bay?

Well, I would like to just encourage that member to realise that we are seeing some really positive signs. If you look at the increase recently in the online job advertisements, it shows that there are increased opportunities in construction and hospitality, of which there are jobs in the Hawke’s Bay. I would encourage members to look at where there are positive opportunities, instead of doubling down on those who have challenges.

Has the Minister seen media reports of the hard work of the member of Parliament for Taupō in working to ensure that Toi Ohomai’s campuses in Taupō and also in Tokoroa remain open and that they were facing significant changes that would have led to a lack of training locally in those communities as a result of the significant wasteful spending of the last Government and a wasteful reorganisation?

Yes, I have seen reports of the work that the local member of Parliament has been doing on the ground with stakeholders, with the council, with Toi Ohomai, with the unions, with the community organisations, and with other training providers and other polytechs, and I’m sure that training—

And that’s a long enough answer.

Point of order, Madam Speaker. Was she answering that question with the Pākehā translation “Tow-po”, or from the Māori translation of Taupō?

She was saying it in her form of pronunciation.

How can she agree with the Prime Minister and say that there are jobs available when 600 people applied for one casual job at mini-putt golf in this region?

As I’ve said, there is positive annual growth. It’s up 10 percent for the construction industry, 10.2 percent for the IT industry, 6.8 percent for the hospitality industry, and 2.9 percent for the primary industries. We should be positive. We should be looking forward—as well as the 240,000 jobs that are coming over the next couple of years because of this Government’s investment in infrastructure and this Government’s work to unleash businesses by getting rid of red and green tape.

to the Minister for Trade and Investment

What has the Government recently announced about strengthening trade and economic ties with Singapore and Chile?

Just last Friday, at APEC in Korea, along with the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister of Singapore, and the President of Chile, we launched negotiations for the Green Economy Partnership Agreement, or GEPA. This will be a high-quality agreement that boosts trade and investment between our countries and will drive economic growth in New Zealand. This agreement will position New Zealand businesses at the forefront of the growing global green economy, which is expected to be valued at $19 trillion by 2040.

What are the key pillars of the Green Economy Partnership Agreement?

The GEPA, as it’s called, will cover many innovative areas, including sustainable finance and investment, green goods and services, sustainable agricultural food systems, and low-emissions fuel alternatives. It aims to bring down barriers, lower costs, and reduce tariff rates across the green economy, and, once completed, it will be open to other countries to join. Our shared vision for the GEPA is to support new trade opportunities and efficiencies for businesses, reinforce the rules-based order of international trade, and lower trade barriers while achieving climate change action.

How does trade and investment support sustainable growth?

Well, the Government believes that solutions to environmental challenges, including climate change, will come from having greater trade and cooperation with other countries, not less, and through investment in new technologies, not putting up costs on businesses or putting them out of business. The GEPA will drive investment in innovation and trade with Singapore and Chile and, in turn, it will mean more exports and more investment for higher-paying jobs for New Zealanders.

What other agreements has the Government announced with Singapore and Chile?

Well, successive Governments have worked away with these two countries. New Zealand, Singapore, and Chile have a proud history of shared leadership in developing innovative trade agreements to drive innovation and economic growth, from the P4 agreement, which went on to be the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, to, then, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership—and the CPTPP—the Digital Economy Partnership Agreement, and, more recently, the New Zealand - Singapore Comprehensive Strategic Partnership was agreed with Singapore and it had been worked on for some time. All of these agreements have benefited New Zealand exporters, and this is why the Government is committed to doubling the value of exports over 10 years through agreements like the GEPA.

to the Prime Minister

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

Yes.

Why has his Government chosen to punish success by defunding Māori health infrastructure that saved lives and performed better than many State services during the pandemic in regard to vaccination?

Because this Government is determined to lift health outcomes for Māori and the way to do that is to focus on lifting immunisation rates for under-twos, and I would just love that member to come out and have a policy idea on doing exactly that.

If those vaccination rates are to increase, why have Māori vaccination rates plummeted, and what is his Government going to do about it?

Well, this Government in the very first few weeks partnered with Māori health organisations, I think, from memory, to the tune of about $50 million. It has achieved really outstanding and excellent results, not just with Māori kids getting immunised, but non-Māori kids, as well.

Does the Prime Minister believe that teaching our children about Te Tiriti is the foundation of a bicultural nation?

Well, we are, but what we believe is that the number one priority is actually academic achievement and teaching our kids the basics brilliantly, whether they’re Māori or non-Māori. This is a Government that has done more in two years, with an outstanding Minister, than the previous Ministers did in the previous six.

Is he going to ban visits not just to marae but to churches, museums, and mosques also—when does this Government’s intrusion on where our children can learn and visit end?

I’m confused by the question as to the relevance of the question, but what is unambiguous is that this is a Government that is focused on lifting Māori academic achievement, and it would be fantastic if that member and his party had any ideas and any policy contribution to that. We have done more to lift Māori educational outcomes than in the previous six years, and let me give you an example. Māori new entrants are operating at or above expectations on the phonics checks 20 weeks into schooling life: it’s up 18 percent. Māori kids needing targeted extra support is down 15 percent because we are teaching the basics brilliantly, and we make no apologies for doing so.

On the matter of statements and actions, is the Prime Minister aware that the term “wehewehe kāinga” means splits and divisions lead both to doom and a political tomb?

The Prime Minister doesn’t have any responsibility for that question.

Is the Prime Minister proud of the Government’s—[Interruption]

Quiet, we’re having a question.

—charter school kura hourua policy, which has seen schools such as Te Rito in the Far North, TIPINE in South Auckland, and, soon, Te Aratika in Hawke’s Bay open to empower Māori to learn on their terms in their way?

I am, and there are 17 charter schools now in motion and it’s important. Iwi leaders that I’ve spoken are very supportive of charter schools—even Willie Jackson is a fan.

That concludes oral questions, and in the spirit of the House, I’m going to give people 30 seconds to quietly leave the House without having conversations.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave for the order of the day for the second reading of the Regulatory Standards Bill to be discharged.

Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection?

Yes.

Leave denied.

I present a legislative statement on the Regulatory Standards Bill.

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

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

This bill is a crucial piece of legislation for improving the long-term quality of regulation in our country and, ultimately, allowing New Zealanders to live longer, happier, healthier, and wealthier lives. In a nutshell, if red tape and regulation are holding New Zealanders back because politicians find it politically rewarding to tie them in red tape, then we need to make regulating less rewarding for politicians by putting more sunlight on their activities. That is how the Regulatory Standards Bill will help New Zealand get its mojo back.

This bill turns the explanation from politicians passing laws that restrict our freedoms from “Because we said so” into “Because here is the justification, according to a set of principles.” To the rest of my colleagues across the House: if you want to tax someone, if you want to take or impair their property, if you want to restrict their livelihood, well, you can still do it, but you’ll face tough questions about the impact that those actions have on people’s property rights, their freedom, and the compliance of your proposal with the rule of law. It does this by introducing principles of responsible regulation into primary legislation, with a focus on good lawmaking processes and the effect of lawmaking on existing interests and liberties.

When making legislation, agencies and lawmakers will have to consider the principles and be transparent about those considerations. Agencies will need to confirm that the legislation and the process for developing it has been reviewed for consistency with the principles, and summarise any inconsistencies with those principles. That work will need to be published, and, where an inconsistency is identified, the responsible Minister or the maker of any secondary legislation will need to explain the reasons why.

Let’s put that into perspective by considering some issues that matter to Kiwis and how the Regulatory Standards Bill helps us avoid such mistakes. Earthquake regulations—recently repealed, and not a day too soon—have cost Kiwis billions. Saving $8.2 billion is what will occur when we remove these earthquake standards. Too many people have suffered and had their livelihoods taken away because a Parliament and a group of politicians decided that being seen to do the right thing at a moment in time was more important than the underlying rights of New Zealanders. The warnings were there—I voted against that legislation myself—but nobody took the warnings seriously enough, and it was only nine years and billions of dollars later that we are able to start putting those valuable resources into things like car crashes and cancers that, sadly, kill so many more Kiwis.

I want to touch on one change that’s been made to one of the principles of good regulation that has been particularly topical: the takings principle. That principle provides that “legislation should not take or impair property without the consent of the owner unless there is good justification and fair compensation is provided.” The inclusion of “impairment” is essential to the intent of the bill, which is to focus attention on the impact of legislation on existing interests and liberties as well as good lawmaking processes. When the Government is considering passing legislation that impairs property rights, the nature and extent of that impairment should be made clear, and relief should be considered. However, the committee’s change clarifies that the principle is intended to address situations where there is a high degree of impairment, not simply any impairment. Therefore, a reference to “severe impairment” has been added, which means the principle will not be engaged when there is not a severe level of impairment.

The bill does not require any action to be taken or compensation to be paid; the responsible Minister can provide a statement of reasons why they consider a severe impairment to be justified, and, if not paying compensation, the reasons for that position. However, the point is that this principle will make it easier for Parliament and the public to see where property rights are being severely impaired, with the intent of helping to reduce instances where impaired property rights without compensation lead to New Zealanders being so much poorer. I look forward to the committee of the whole House stage, when we can talk about the specifics of this bill in further detail. Overall, I’m proud to be responsible for a piece of legislation that is going to bring discipline and transparency to New Zealand’s lawmaking processes.

This bill, when enforced, is going to support the people of New Zealand by ensuring them that serious consideration is being given to legislation that impacts on their lives and livelihoods. If we’re asking New Zealanders to comply with regulations in everyday life, then it’s only reasonable to ensure that they’re clear, consistent, and meet a certain standard. When they do not meet that standard, the public rightfully expects lawmakers to be transparent about that fact. The passing of the Regulatory Standards Bill in later stages will take us a step closer to a more principled, transparent, and accountable process for making legislation in New Zealand. It will help build confidence in the legislative process, support better outcomes for New Zealanders, and ensure that our regulatory system is fit for purpose in the 21st century.

I’ve been very interested to see how easily people have mischaracterised this bill in the debate that has ensued, and I would like to touch on two changes, or two objections, that I think are misguided. One has been the repeated assertion that, somehow, the Regulatory Standards Bill imposes restrictions on Parliament and, therefore, is undemocratic. The law is crystal clear; it’s there in black and white. The purpose of this law is to promote accountability and transparency to the Parliament by the executive. This enables our democracy; it enables greater transparency.

Building on that misconception has been another widely shared in the public domain that, somehow, the principles are inadequate because they don’t include all of the objectives that the Government might have. A Government might wish to uphold the Treaty of Waitangi; it might wish to pursue goals around equity or public health or environmental protection. The fact that those are not included as principles reflects the fact that every initiative brought to this House and every regulation made by a Government is already assumed to have a public purpose. It is already assumed to have a purpose like one of the ones that I listed. The purpose of this bill is to enable and make transparent the Government of the day, to be able to show the public, and for the public to be able to see, where that collective purpose and the pursuit of it is impairing the rights of ordinary people. It’s not a surprise that it doesn’t include collective goals; the purpose of the law is to show when ordinary people’s rights are being impaired.

I’d like to thank the Finance and Expenditure Committee for its very efficient consideration of the bill. I would like to also acknowledge the changes that they have made to the Regulatory Standards Board, in my view, strengthening the bill by enhancing its independence and by saying that it will be reinforced by the Governor-General rather than the Minister for Regulation. I believe that that is going to make the Regulatory Standards Board a much more august body with more authority, and it will allow that board to further raise the quality of the consistency accountability statements. Without further ado, I thank everybody for listening, and I commend this bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Kia orana e te Mana Whakawā. Well, here we have it: a bill that 0.7 percent of submitters supported. Here, it is hard to find a bill which fewer people are in favour of, but this National Government is the lapdog of the ACT Party in this instance: sitting there and doing the ACT Party’s bidding. The real irony of that speech by David Seymour is that this bill is one of the worst in terms of regulatory quality that I have ever seen.

Do you know who said that? The Ministry for Regulation and the Ministry of Justice in the regulatory impact statement. They said this bill has been poorly consulted on; it hasn’t got a problem that it needs to address; even if there was one, it’s the wrong solution; and the Minister won’t let us do our job and explore other options. That is how you make bad law, and that is what we’ve got here.

One thing that struck me about the submissions process was the long list of submitters who came in and gave really thoughtful submissions. Not people from particular perspectives, but NGOs, even Government organisations, came in and said this is a bad idea. You know who looks after our legislative quality at the moment? The Legislation Design and Advisory Committee. Excellent body, thoughtful people; hate politics. They said, “[these] principles are novel and deeply contestable”—in other words, this is not a straightforward bill; this is a politically charged, ideological bill.

What did the New Zealand Law Society say? “It is striking that the process and content of a Bill purporting to promote good law-making and high-quality legislation should fail to meet not only the Bill’s own standards, but the existing established processes for supporting good law-making.” So it’s a bad bill. The New Zealand Human Rights Commission, our independent human rights body: “The Bill embeds a narrow set of principles that prioritise individual and private interests as paramount considerations in lawmaking, effectively sidelining wider considerations of collective wellbeing”. The Human Rights Commission hates this bill.

Then you’ve got a whole lot of regional councils. The Greater Wellington Regional Council: this bill “Will impact on local government, creating legal risks, inefficiency, complexity and increased costs”. Does that sound like good law to you? I picked those quotes because they are not politically aligned. They haven’t got an axe to grind. They are thoughtful people who explained why this bill is bad law.

Of course, David Seymour says, “Here’s my list of regulatory principles, but don’t worry, you can have other things in there. You know, just because I haven’t mentioned Te Tiriti o Waitangi doesn’t mean it’s not in there.” That is rubbish, because what this bill does is it highlights what, in his view, are the most important principles. At the top of that hierarchy are private property rights.

This bill is seeking to entrench, by the back door, private property rights as a constitutional principle. In fact, the chief economist of his own Ministry for Regulation wrote a paper saying that private property rights are the most important human right not currently in our law, so we can see where it’s coming from. These principles are totally selective. Private property is not a guiding light for good legislation and regulation.

The fact of the matter is that equal treatment—the second principle, stating that everyone should be treated equally—is shorthand for the status quo. It’s shorthand for saying, “Take the existing inequalities in our society and don’t seek to address them.” It’s saying, “Where wealth has accumulated, leave it there.”

Well, on this side of the House, we believe in equity. We believe in addressing the inequities which are troubling our society. Of course, not only is it silent on the Treaty, it’s silent on all kinds of other key principles. All of our international obligations—nowhere in that bill does it say we should adhere to the promises we as a nation have made in the international community, whether they be around human rights or whether they be around defence and trade.

Human rights; what does it say about gender? What does it say about disability? What does it say about race? It says absolutely nothing.

We’re not debating human rights.

No—well, the ACT Party doesn’t want to debate human rights. The ACT Party is not interested in human rights; the ACT Party is interested in property rights.

This bill is constitutionally significant. It is about how law is made. Now, the fact of the matter is that for a constitutional bill, the process has been shocking. A constitutional bill should be careful, thoughtful, and, ideally, engaging on a cross-party basis. This has been anything but. This bill is seeking to entrench property rights into our lawmaking process by stealth and at speed. It basically promotes private property interests over collective benefits.

Fundamentally, this is about looking after corporate interests, because if we think about all of those rules there, all of those impairment rules, if we try to protect our communities, if we try to reduce the use of vapes, or if we try to limit alcohol advertising, all of these are impairments. Now, David Seymour would say, “Well, you can do it; you just have to say why.”, but we know that putting sand in the gears of legislation makes things less likely to happen, and that’s what he wants to do. He wants to tilt the playing field in favour of corporate interests.

Look, even the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment came along—not known as a great supporter of the left, but he came along—and he had a lot to say. The most important thing he had to say is this: this bill puts the environment at risk, because nowhere does the environment feature. When your bureaucrats are doing their bureaucratic job, and all of this new blue tape and yellow tape that David Seymour’s creating—as they’re running through their checklist, where does it say, “How does this impact climate change?” “How does this impact biodiversity?” “How does this impact sustainability?”? It doesn’t say it anywhere, because at the heart of it, this bill is putting property and private interests over community environment and sustainability.

The bill, also, is just a failure. It’s an absolute procedural and regulatory failure. As I’ve said, it failed its own regulatory impact statement. The very thing it says we should do, which is check a bill for good process, that was examined, and they said it didn’t meet good process. Probably the most important thing, if we have an issue with regulatory quality in New Zealand, the question is: what’s the best way to fix it? The short answer, by everyone who was asked the question, is: not this. We have a whole lot of rules out there already, a whole lot of bodies—the Attorney-General, the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee, the Regulations Review Committee, every select committee, and the list goes on, of quality checks that exist for legislation which aren’t engaged in sufficiently already, largely because this Government ignores them and rides roughshod over them.

This year, we had a situation where the scope of the question was limited. David Seymour, against all his own advice, came into this with a closed mind, poor problem definition, and a solution that was in place before the problem was identified.

Here’s the other thing: this bill will cost a fortune. Not only will he have to set up his Regulatory Standards Board—his a little pet board—at a cost of probably $2 million or $3 million but every ministry will have to follow his new yellow tape; all of his rules he’s put in place. How much will that cost? Well, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment said that department alone will have to spend 15 percent of its time following David Seymour’s little rules at a cost of $60 million—$60 million.

Oh, rubbish.

You can rubbish it, David Seymour, but you’ve seen the report, and you know it. It’s a total waste of money.

The second thing, or the final thing, is this: this bill puts into the hands of the Regulatory Standards Board the job of questioning what we do here. That’s their job: second-guessing Parliament—and for a party that talks about parliamentary sovereignty, that lies ill in your mouth.

The bill is a waste of money, it doesn’t meet its own standards, it’s narrow, it’s contested, and it’s a constitutional change by self. We will oppose this bill to the end.

E te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I guess at the end of the day, the real question for this House is precisely who asked for this piece of legislation. It wasn’t health experts, it wasn’t the legal profession, and it definitely wasn’t former Prime Ministers and those who have led former political parties. It wasn’t regular New Zealanders; in fact, regular New Zealanders decided to overwhelmingly oppose this piece of legislation.

If we just boil it down to the two main threads of arguments that were heard at the Finance and Expenditure Committee and have been well canvassed in the media landscape over the last few months as this Minister for Regulation has decided to push this legislation, through despite the overwhelming opposition, on the one side, we’ve heard that it’s largely redundant, that it is going to be duplicative, and, as indeed, Dr Duncan Webb alluded to, it’ll be expensive. Then on the other side of the debate, at the most egregious end, we hear very clearly that what this legislation does is provide a framework for multinational corporations to be compensated by the people of this country when this Parliament decides to curtail their supposed right to destroy our shared environment, our climate, or to incur on our human rights.

I think, again, one of those foundational questions—we hear a heck of a lot from the libertarian or the supposed libertarian party in this place is about special treatment for certain demographics in our country—we have to ask ourselves is: who, really, is getting special treatment in this country? Frequently, we hear the Minister in charge of this legislation say that it is precisely the same communities and demographics who are disproportionately overrepresented in every single negative statistic in our society. We then don’t hear next to anything about the corporations who are exploiting both people and planet; in fact, they seek to pass this legislation which makes it easier for them to do precisely that exploitation.

I find it quite fascinating that we are indeed having this debate about how a law is made; this law being the constraints of the rules of how we are supposed to progress with making legislation into the future. We have a situation where the Minister couldn’t follow his own rules. He wants to talk about good lawmaking, yet he couldn’t even uphold the processes of good lawmaking.

Today, the Minister of Education is removing Te Tiriti obligations from schools and saying that it is the Crown’s obligation to uphold those obligations, yet we have represented in this very piece of legislation the removal and the de-prioritisation of Te Tiriti as a principle that is to be considered in good lawmaking practices. Which leads us to the statement from the Waitangi Tribunal, and here I quote from their urgent inquiry report none the less, that the Crown accepted that its policy development for the bill occurred without targeted engagement for Māori. The tribunal found that this was in violation of the Crown’s obligation to consult with Māori in good faith and therefore violated Treaty principles of partnership and active protection.

Further, we hear from the likes of the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee, who submitted on the first round of the design of this legislation—which I might add had approximately 25,000 submissions, which again were overwhelmingly opposed to this legislation. They said, at that point in time, that they had, “misgivings about the capacity of this bill to offer improvements” because they see risks with the proposals, including the risk of significant unintended consequences. They then went into three key prongs: the bill is unnecessary to the extent that it restates existing constraints in the principles of good lawmaking. Secondly, the principles contained in the bill are selective and deeply contestable. Thirdly, the bill has the potential for significant constitutional impact that has not been fully explored.

If we are to take the Minister’s arguments in good faith, at just that surface level and to ignore all of the behaviour and everything else that he has said about our many communities across this country, if we are to believe that the aim here is to make good law, then surely there should have been a good lawmaking process to produce this very law which would have brought the people of this country along for that process. Instead, what we have ended up with is something whereby, as the Minister would say, it’s the people who are wrong; it’s his own officials who are wrong. It’s the legal experts who are wrong, the environmental experts, the health experts, former Prime Ministers, and the overwhelming majority of regular New Zealanders who used their time to oppose this legislation—99 percent of them—only to be ignored yet again by this Government.

Then we have the impartial Law Society who says, and I quote, “As well as being the product of inadequate consultation, the content of the Bill itself runs contrary to established precepts of legislative design in various important respects. It is striking that the process and the content of the Bill purporting to promote good law-making and high-quality legislation should fail to meet not only the Bill’s own standards, but the existing established processes for supporting good law-making.”

Then we hear about the red tape—the red tape. Well, let’s just talk for a minute about the yellow tape which the Minister’s own ministry advised him he would be creating with this very piece of legislation. Firstly, the creation of the Regulatory Standards Board, which we’ve just heard will cost in excess of approximately $3 million of taxpayers’ dollars per year. Then there are the new compliance costs with the requirements for each ministry and agency and department to create a consistency accountability statement. Then thirdly, at the conservative estimate of $60 million per year, the requirements to review existing legislation.

Again, I’d make the core point that if the Government genuinely wanted to engage on the point of how we make good law and improve our constitutional arrangements in this country, we’re game. We’d be totally down for that, because, in fact, I think that it would be great if we could have some form of agreement about the values and the principles that guide this country. What we instead, unfortunately, have represented here is a pet vanity project from one guy in one political party that has sought to pass this legislation three times and failed, until it met such a poor negotiator as our current Prime Minister.

On those foundational values, well, I hold the very earnest, and perhaps some on the Government side might say naive, view that New Zealanders actually care about each other and the planet that we live on. Those principles, well, they’re nowhere to be seen as far as the design of this legislation. Again, we would make the point that if the Government wanted to actually meaningfully engage on how we could go about creating these better processes, the Greens absolutely would have been the first ones sitting around the table. Unfortunately, what we have here is the entrenchment of special rights for those who currently own things.

As we well canvassed in question time today, this Government cares not a whisker for addressing inequality—inequality which is compounding under intentional Government decisions that have been made to push more children into poverty, to make more people homeless, to increase our climate changing emissions, and in turn the cost of living for New Zealanders, whilst also making it more difficult for our farmers to farm; guess what! They’re the ones hit first and worst by climate change. If we wanted legislation that actually addressed these issues, we could be debating that here in the Chamber today, but instead, we unfortunately have this petty, petty vanity project.

I’d just make the other point that you kind of can’t have it both ways. On one side of things, the Government is saying, “Don’t worry. Nothing to see here. This is kind of just business as usual. This aligns with stuff that’s kind of already happening and in train.” Then, on the other side, we’ve got a Minister professing that this is a bit of a foundational shift in our constitutional arrangement. Again, I think I tend to believe the latter, because what we’ve seen from our Prime Minister is an inability to grasp the detail of the things that he has negotiated and put our country on the line for, in order to cobble together this coalition Government.

I just make, in my final 30 seconds, an appeal to the New Zealand First Party. Will the New Zealand First Party please stand up? Here is an opportunity to truly put New Zealand first. One of our Amendment Papers which will be tabled at the committee of the whole House stage will be to stop non-citizens from taking complaints and seeking compensation from the Regulatory Standards Board and we look forward to New Zealand First supporting New Zealand first. We oppose this bill.

The Regulatory Standards Bill gives effect to National’s coalition agreement with ACT. As chair of the relatively collegial Finance and Expenditure Committee, we also undertook extensive consultation on these matters. We heard approximately 30 hours of oral evidence and received over 159,000 written submissions. Of course, this follows last year’s departmental consultation which attracted 23,000 submissions.

FEC—the Finance and Expenditure Committee—canvassed a range of views and took a relatively liberal and cross-party approach as to who we would hear from and its acceptance of submissions. Following many submitters’ feedback, key amendments to this bill have seen a best-practice tightening of the board and chair’s independence and separation from the Minister and Government of the day, consistent with the provisions within the Crown Entities Act. I want to congratulate the ACT Party on what has been over 20 years of advocacy and hard work. Thank you.

I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Regulatory Standards Bill second reading. New Zealand First supports this bill because it promotes open and accountable Government that legislates with key principles in mind: the rule of law, efficiency and regulation, property rights, an independent judiciary, and a belief that every New Zealander is created equal before the law.

The bill upholds equality before the law, it promotes openness and accountability in Government, and it ensures that property holders cannot be dispossessed of their property without fair compensation, and cost-benefit analysis of legislation ensures that economic policies that will impede productivity and growth are adequately scrutinised. For these reasons, New Zealand First commends the bill to the House.

The next call is a split call.

E te iwi, the Treaty principles bill tried to change the meaning and the intent of Te Tiriti o Waitangi; the Regulatory Standards Bill (RSB) erases Te Tiriti entirely from Aotearoa’s democracy, without even mentioning it. This bill creates a world of minimal-to-no rules in order to ensure the profitability of all things; “all things” means at the expense of our people, our oranga, our labour, our whenua, our moana. The bill circumvents the rights you already have, by treating those rights as rules which the Government can consider inefficient and unprofitable. E kī, e kī. [What a cheek.]

Te Tiriti o Waitangi is the first and the last line of defence against corporate exploitation in Aotearoa. This bill and the sham select committee process to ram it through the House is proof that true democracy doesn’t exist in this country. This is what the Treaty principles bill, the takutai moana amendment Act, and the removal of Treaty clauses from legislation are really about: dismantling our collective rights to allow the Atlas Network - backed foreign companies to plunder lands, water, and resources. It creates an anti - Waitangi Tribunal, giving David Seymour’s unelected mates the power to review every single law that addresses systemic inequality.

Make no mistake, e hika mā, the Treaty principles bill was a distraction. Chris Luxon’s donors only allowed him to vote against it because they knew this bill was coming next. The Regulatory Standards Bill is a direct assault on the constitutional foundations that protect all New Zealanders from exploitation.

For te iwi Māori, this looks like “Your rights are now rules.” that the Government can deregulate as they see fit, especially when these rights are held collectively—for example, as a part of the common public good, or as hapū and iwi. These rights create costs that the Government, under the Regulatory Standards Bill, can deem to be unnecessary. Our people know this and this is why 98.7 percent of New Zealanders oppose the Regulatory Standards Bill, and yet not a single recommendation provided by the people was adopted. Te Pāti Māori stand with the majority of the 156,000-plus people who made submissions against the bill because they knew what this bill means for Aotearoa.

For our remote and rural communities, this bill means the emergency services and authorities can make decisions about who and where to help in a crisis, based on efficiency rather than need—because it’s more expensive to help everybody—and this looks like our more marginalised rural communities being left behind.

For our community kai gatherers and whānau who rely on the moana as a kāpata, the bill would enable the Government to smash our fisheries even further. For example, a rule about putting cameras on boats to monitor fisheries and illegal dumping can be argued as being inefficient because it is an unnecessary cost, with no regard for our moana or our people, who depend on it.

What this means for our kaumātua is that this bill would enable Governments to raise the age of eligibility for our nannies and koros to access their super, or to significantly alter the scheme completely. For our learning support kaimahi and their tauira, this bill would allow the Government to justify reducing Māori curriculum content that would require expertise and new staff to deliver it—an additional cost that they would be able to label as inefficient purely due to the expense rather than need. The cost of education should not cost our mokopuna the ability to be supported in our education system.

For our whānau rangatahi on social welfare, right now, the Government is moving debt off its own balance sheet and placing the debt as an obligation on our parents, even though rangatahi are entitled to these provisions as citizens of the State. These decisions were made without the RSB even being in place, and yet, under the RSB, the situation could become the enforced norm.

For our country dealing with the cost of living crisis, without rules the supermarkets will not bring the prices of food down by themselves. Their first priority is making money for their owners—which fits the purpose of the RSB—not ensuring that people have access to kai.

I want to mihi to the 156,879 people who made powerful submissions in the resistance to this racist bill, the multitudes of people who donate their time, their expertise, and their aroha to fighting for the kaupapa, only to be ignored. This Government won’t listen to you, but Te Pāti Māori have heard you. We will get rid of this Government in 2026, and the Regulatory Standards Bill along with it. Kia ora tātou.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise in anger to denounce the Regulatory Standards Bill. I would describe this bill as a wet fart of a dying Government that’s run out of ideas, that’s incompetent of doing what everyday New Zealanders want.

At a time when our economy is at a record low and our unemployment is at a record high, at a time when a measles outbreak is rising out of control, and property damage from a climate-exacerbated natural disaster is still being repaired all around the country, you would think that this Government would be focused on that and the real issues. But, no, they’ve put this at the top of the Order Paper. Why? Because, fundamentally, they’re a distracted, out-of-touch, ideological Government that’s focused more on their imported culture wars and their pet projects than serving the needs of ordinary New Zealanders.

There’s been a number of super-heated, inflated claims about this bill from the other side. The first claim that’s been made by the proponents of it—and, by the way, we’ve seen speeches from the opposite benches. We’ve had Mr Seymour not even give the full speech—eight minutes—we’ve had a one-minute speech from Mr Brewer over there, and we’ve had a one-minute speech from Ms Costello over here, because, fundamentally, they know that this bill is actually indefensible. They know that this bill can’t be defended, because it’s got no real substance to it.

They say that it’s about better regulation, but better regulation for who? It’s certainly not for the people, if you listen to the submissions of all the number of people who have submitted against it—98.7 percent opposed—it’s certainly not for the planet, if you listen to the submissions of experts, like the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and groups that care about the environment, like 350 Aotearoa, Forest & Bird, and Greenpeace; and it’s certainly not for Te Tiriti, if you listen to the expert submission by the Waitangi Tribunal on why this bill is so bad.

We’ve heard claims that this bill will cut red tape and actually introduce a new era of prosperity where there’ll be fun for all and a new level of economic activity, but if you actually listen to what the Government’s own advisers have to say about this, they’ve said the opposite. They’ve said that creating a regulatory environment which is subject to chop and change, like this bill will do—because we will chop and change this bill up next term—is actually the opposite of how you create a stable environment for good investment in economic growth.

This bill will cost a minimum of $60 million, and actually a lot more if you consider all the costs that’s being spent on the Ministry for Regulation. Rather than cutting red tape, this bill actually creates the opposite of it. It creates a tsunami of yellow tape that will strangle the Public Service and that will create distractions from core work. So much for a Government that claims to care about economic efficiency, when the bill will do the opposite with their consistency assessment standards.

Finally, this bill makes claims about good lawmaking. As we’ve heard from my colleagues Chlöe Swarbrick and the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, this bill has actually followed the opposite of the process of good lawmaking. From the abuse of urgency that this Government has undertaken in various legislation such as the pay equity bill, to cutting off the number of oral submissions, this bill actually gives the opposite of how you would do good lawmaking in this country.

We’ve heard this bill denounced as an ACT Party bill, but the reality is that while David Seymour might have created the legislation—and the legislation is the gun—the reality is that Winston Peters and Christopher Luxon loaded the bullets with their complicity in allowing this legislation to pass.

Now, what would the Green Party do instead? Well, we actually care about genuinely good legislation, and so the first step would be to repeal the Regulatory Standards Bill and to end the tsunami of yellow tape that this bill will create. The second is that we will abolish the Ministry for Regulation and end the libertarian industrial bureaucracy complex that this Government has entrenched in their current lawmaking. We will end the shoddiness of poor decision-making and the number of abuses of urgency that this bill has created.

I want to spend the next 15 seconds thanking the submitters who have helped to create amendments to this bill, and all of the people who have taken part in this process. This Government has not and will not listen to you, but we have, and together we will make this a one-term Government.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The object of the Regulatory Standards Bill is to increase transparency in regulation and the resulting accountability with the New Zealand public. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for this opportunity to speak on the Regulatory Standards Bill. It is, somewhat, déjà vu for me because, whilst I haven’t been involved in the select committee process on this bill, last term, we had a member’s bill in the name of David Seymour, and it was very similar to this. I was able to speak on that bill when, of course, we voted it down. That is what we will do when we have the opportunity. This bill will be repealed. This bill is vain. This bill is ideological in a very negative way. I say that despite what the introduction on the select committee report-back says. I will read that to you. The first sentence is: “This bill seeks to support the executive’s accountability to Parliament.” I have to say, that sounds like a wonderful and glorious ambition.

As somebody who is part of Parliament but not part of the executive—the executive being the Ministers; there’s not many of them in the House at the moment—most of us are members of Parliament; we are not members of the executive. We hear, over and over again, that Parliament, this Parliament of all of us, the executive members and the non-executive members, is sovereign. We can make the laws, but what actually happens is that an executive can have so much power that they make sure that all of their members—all of their non-executive members that are part of Parliament—just go along with them and don’t do any scrutiny. That is a real problem if Parliament changes as drastically as it has this term.

This term of Government has seen an egregious use of all-stages urgency and giant amendments coming in at the committee stage, with no recourse for the non-executive Opposition members to scrutinise that, to ask experts about what the changes might mean. I hear often from the other side: “In the last term of Parliament, there was lots of urgency used.” There’s a big difference between all-stages urgency and using urgency for different parts of a bill because you require more House time. Those two things are very different. There is also a huge difference when a bill is passed under urgency because there is something like an emergency—that is a good use of urgency—and when there are pieces of legislation passed that have post-enactment review provisions so Parliament can accept that it does need to do this thing quickly because, say, we had some space legislation earlier this year where there might be a national security interest. That is a good reason to pass something under urgency. But then, you have a post-enactment review placed so that the parliamentarians have an opportunity to scrutinise that legislation; this Government does none of those things.

It is quite ironic that we have this bill here and that the introduction from the select committee starts with the sentence that this is about changing the dynamic, moving away from executive powers to parliamentarian powers. That is not what this bill is doing at all. We heard the Minister say something about mojo—which we hear a lot from that Government; that’s all they seem to like to talk about—and then he said pieces of legislation need to be justified against some criteria. That sounds reasonable, but, of course, the criteria are David Seymour’s criteria; they are not Rachel Brooking’s criteria, and they are not many other people’s criteria.

I am amazed that both National and New Zealand First seem to have been so bamboozled by this that they have laid down and agreed to David Seymour’s libertarian criteria to be used in an expensive process that will cost us all time and money and not result in better lawmaking and not, importantly, result in more power of the Parliament over the executive. We have his criteria—and he described in his speech—that they were just rights of ordinary people and that they were, of course, not collective rights. As I said before, these are not the Rachel Brooking rights. If they were Rachel Brooking rights, they would include ones about our Treaty arrangements—of course, one of our most important constitutional documents—but, no, they’re not there. They would, of course, include something about the environment and, maybe, the principle of polluter pays—that’s something that should appeal to libertarians—but, no, that’s not in this bill either.

We’ve heard from Dr Duncan Webb that this was a solution looking for a problem and that there have been many submissions about this question. If you do want to actually do what this first sentence says—to support the executive’s accountability to Parliament—what might you do? In 2019, before I was in Parliament, the Legislation Act 2019 was passed. This Act has a Part 4, yet this Part 4 is still not in force. I just want to quickly read the purpose of Part 4 of that piece of legislation, “Disclosure requirements for Government-initiated legislation”. Section 101 states: “The Purpose of this Part—is to (a) better inform parliamentary and public scrutiny of Government-initiated legislation; and (b) promote good administrative practices for the development of such legislation.”

That sounds to me like a very fine ambition, one that appears to mirror what has been said about this version of the Regulatory Standards Bill. Yet I have not seen the Minister or any proponent of this bill explain why it is that they don’t just bring into force Part 4 of the Legislation Act 2019. Of course, we already have in existence the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee. We heard mention of them before, again from the contribution from Dr Duncan Webb. This committee are, and I say this with admiration, some truly independent law nerds, and they look at the legislation—they don’t look at the policy; they look at the legislation—and say whether or not it will work and how it could be improved. They already exist. Again, why are they not mentioned?

I want to conclude by being very clear that the executive’s accountability to Parliament should be strengthened, and there are some ways to do that. One of the ways is to bring in Part 4 of that Legislation Act 2019 that I just read out. One of the ways could be bolstering the role of that Legislative Design and Advisory Committee. This is something that the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment submitted on. Another one would be not to be using all-stages urgency for bills that have nothing to do with emergencies or any sort of national security, because all-stages urgency means that when the ACT Minister comes in with a pay equity bill, we don’t see it until she stands up and starts speaking on it, we go to the table and pick up that bill, and then we go through all the stages of that legislation at once. That is a disgraceful and stupid way to make legislation, whatever you think of the policy. We will repeal this bill. It is a terrible bill.

For the members’ benefit, I just want to highlight the purpose of this bill, which is to hold power to account and to raise the standard of lawmaking and policy making in this country. I think we’ve all got great examples from across the House of poor policy that we’ve seen, and the purpose of this bill is to strengthen that. That’s why this bill sets out standard principles for good regulation. It sets out a process that it needs to go through and sets out a regulatory standards board to provide a way for Kiwis to have their say on bad and poor regulation, and it ensures that Ministers and agencies take their obligations seriously.

As a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, it was good to hear those that came before us. I wish to thank those submitters. We did make some changes to this bill, and I look forward to debating those throughout the stages.

I wish to clear up some mistruths about this bill that have been fed from the other side. The first is that this takes away the sovereignty of Parliament. It does not take away the sovereignty of Parliament. There’s nothing in this bill that prevents us from passing legislation. With that, I commend this bill to the House.

I normally have a lot of respect for Mr Bidois on matters relating to this particular bill and other bills that we’ve debated in this House, but Mr Bidois, in his speech to the House this afternoon, made it very clear he didn’t listen to the vast majority of submitters who opposed this bill. Making good legislation in this House is about making legislation for the people. How is it that over 98 percent of those who submitted on this bill opposed this bill, and yet the Government continues to push on with its legislation agenda, of which the Regulatory Standards Bill is one?

Every bill in this House has a whakapapa—it has a history—and it’s easy to start at the Treaty principles bill, but I won’t do that. For context, the history of this bill started in the negotiations between the National Party and the ACT Party, where the National Party and the ACT Party in their coalition agreement came up with the Regulatory Standards Bill. Now, I could go back a little bit further, to past iterations of the ACT Party in Government where they tried to do a very similar thing. It still got the cut then, and yet this ACT Party continues with it to this day.

The National-led Government under Christopher Luxon negotiated, in their negotiations for the coalition, to have this bill come into the House. How is it, then, that on that side of the House, they can stand there, hand on heart, and say, “We are making legislation for the people.”, when the people clearly do not agree with it?

Moving on to the heritage of this bill, the perennial beat-down on Māori in this country has been nothing but absolutely revolting from this Government from the time that they took office in 2023, and, yes, it did start with the Treaty principles bill. When they say, on that side of the House, “We’re here for efficiencies to make Government work better.”, well, they tried to push through a bill that wasted taxpayers’ dollars on a process that was never ever going to get across the line, yet we had to suffer the division forced on our communities, and we continue to do so with this particular bill.

Now, if the Minister today had stood up and said, “I heard all of the great suggestions from those who made submissions on this bill and we’ve incorporated some of those into the next iteration of this bill, in its second reading.”, well, we might have listened a little bit more. But, in reading the legislative statement today, what we see here is not only are there minor amendments, one of them actually continues to rub the salt in the wounds of Māori, who have only just recently suffered under the passing of the marine and coastal area (MACA) legislation in this House.

The legislative statement quite clearly says here that “A clarification has been made to provide a consistent approach to excluding legislation that gives effect to customary marine title under the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011”. Well, why don’t you rub it in? Why don’t you rub the salt in the wound, when this House has already gone and done that and made it even harder for anyone to try and seek customary title under the MACA legislation?

We have a reminder here, in the second reading of this bill, in the Minister’s legislative statement, where he, in an attempt to try and assuage the voter out there, has said, “Oh well, we’ve excluded those who have already been recognised under the MACA.” Well, I’d ask this House: how many of those who have sought customary title have been recognised under MACA? No, people across this House probably don’t know the answer, but I can tell you that I’m aware of only one, and that is the settlement that was reached with Ngati Porou.

There’s another attempt by this Minister and this particular bill to say, “There’s nothing to see here. We still want to respect individual property rights.”, but that, actually, is not what’s happening here. We know that what this Government has done, with the way that they’ve passed their bills, that it is a challenge to the democratic processes of this House. How many times have members in this House sat on select committees where the process has been truncated in this term? Far too many—in fact, more than I’ve experienced in the three terms prior to this term.

That’s if it goes to select committee.

That’s how many, and my colleague here made the very good point that when you rush things under urgency, nobody gets to see the bill. Members don’t even get to see the bill until it’s tabled in the House. Well, if we don’t get to see it, that means the people of this country don’t get to see it, and that side of the House wants to talk to us about good lawmaking? They want to talk to us about good democratic processes?

Well, this is another affront to the democratic processes of this House and the ones that I know New Zealanders believe in, right up and down this country. We will repeal this legislation when we get the opportunity, and we do not support it.

Look, red tape and regulation has been holding this country back for far too long; much of it introduced under that previous Government. We need to get rid of the unnecessary red tape holding our farmers and our growers, our primary sector, our horticulture sector back. We need to get the wheels moving. We need transparent regulation, smarter regulation, and less regulation so that we can strengthen this economy and lift wages for everyone. I commend this bill to the House.

The introduction of this bill tells us that the “bill seeks to support the Executive’s accountability to Parliament for developing high-quality legislation and exercising stewardship over regulatory systems.” This is the Government that we have seen over the last two years flout their responsibility as a Government to have proper scrutiny of the regulations that have been put in place.

We have had unprecedented numbers of bills coming to this House without regulatory impact statements. This is a Government that can’t even use the existing apparatus that exists to ensure that we are making good laws in this House. We’ve had member after member on the Government backbenches jumping up and defending laws that they have no idea about the impact of, because none of us in this House do, because this is a Government that has just blatantly disregarded its responsibility when it comes to oversight of our regulatory systems in this country.

We are not supporting this bill; my colleagues have made that clear. In fact, the Labour Party has made this clear at every stage of this piece of legislation. It is a deeply flawed and ideologically driven bill. It is an example, yet again, of the tail wagging the dog. This is where David Seymour got one over Christopher Luxon in the coalition arrangements and shows, yet again, what weak leadership we have from our Prime Minister; what weak leadership we have from the National Party in terms of standing up for what is right and what is wrong. I feel sorry for the New Zealand First members. I suspect that they know that this is deeply flawed legislation but are being forced to vote for it because of their coalition arrangement.

Let’s go through and have a look at what this bill does. On the face of it, we see it sets out the principles about what we should be taking into account when we make law. It sets up a board that is appointed by David Seymour, and can be directed by David Seymour, to look into legislation. If we have a look at what this bill does, one of the things it does is it puts the primary of private interests over the collective interest at every point that it can.

Now, let’s consider what that could do. We had Transpower, for example, come and give a submission to the Finance and Expenditure Committee about clause 8(c) of the legislation that pointed out, because of this regulation, if in the national interest we need to upgrade our power grid—which we will, we will need to put more infrastructure into place—that because of what is laid out in this bill, New Zealanders will pay more for their power; that there will be a requirement, because of this legislation, for compensation to be paid.

We see this in multiple ways. In fact, 98.7 percent of the people who came and submitted on this bill pointed out what problems there were with this legislation. I want to point out how wide the opposition was to this bill, how wide-ranging it was. We heard from the Law Society, we heard from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, we heard from iwi, we heard from groups that spanned a huge, broad span of New Zealand society how problematic this piece of law is in so many ways. We heard from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment the way in which this legislation will impede our ability to make laws that protect our environment, to make laws that put in the necessary provisions we need to do to counter climate change. These were things that we had respected bodies, like the Parliamentary Commission for the Environment, come and give their submissions on.

We also heard from iwi, repeatedly, of the failure of this legislation to take into account the Treaty of Waitangi. This comes within a bundle of legislation that this Government have passed. Not only with the Treaty Principles Bill; we’ve had the marine and coastal area legislation that my colleague the Hon Peeni Henare just talked about, that this really is part of the trifecta from this Government of having a complete attack on Māori and Treaty rights in this country.

Now, under the shadow but trying to hide behind a fig leaf of good lawmaking, we have a Government that really is cutting to the heart of who we want to be as a country and what we want to be able to achieve with our legislation; that what we can see in terms of the rule of law, liberties, the taking of properties, taxes, fees and levies, the role of the courts, and good lawmaking—these might seem on the face of it very sensible provisions. We in no way are not saying that we should have proper transparency and oversight of the way in which we make law in this country, but we have a Government that can’t even use the existing apparatus. Time and time again, they’ve just bypassed the regulatory impact statement. They’ve brought legislation to this House that simply does not have that statement with it. The Cabinet hasn’t considered regulatory impact statements when they’re making decisions whether or not to progress legislation.

Focus on individual liberty: this obsession that the ACT Party have got into the Government’s agenda with this single focus on individual liberty does not recognise the duty that we have as lawmakers to protect a vast array of things for future generations. That it is our job as lawmakers: to make sure that we are thinking beyond just the individual rights of a single entity or a single person, and think about what we need to do to protect Aotearoa New Zealand and make sure that our children and our grandchildren can benefit from things. All of these things need to be considered when we are making laws.

When we look at the submissions that we heard, as I said, 98.7 percent of the submissions opposed it. That should give a Government pause for thought, the fact there was overwhelming opposition to this bill. We weren’t talking about just a small number of submissions. There were a very large number of submissions that came in. They went through an absolute range of things that could be put in place. One of the things, when we look at the taking of property principle that is in the legislation, it is unworkable. We heard this time and time again from those who came and submitted to the select committee, suggesting that a property right should not be impaired without fair compensation. This is what is in the legislation: where that impairment of property rights benefits one person but causes a detriment, the person who benefits should provide compensation.

One of the questions that we asked, and Government members on the committee refused to engage with, is: what about laws that we make in this country around healthy homes? What about where we say that, actually, people deserve the right to live in a home that does not make them sick; that as legislators we should have the ability to actually legislate to say there are minimum standards around the homes that we allow people to live in so that we don’t add to the health burden of this country and to the detriment of individual’s health.

What about swimming pool fences? Now, this will probably be something that will excite David Seymour a great deal—in terms of the reason why we have laws around we may do safety measures like this. This is in terms of the taking of property principle. These are where we are thinking about the collective benefit over that individual benefit. What about if a district plan would change to place height restrictions on a building to preserve the sunlight to a neighbouring building that would impair one landowner’s property rights for another’s benefit? That’s clearly unreasonable to expect the neighbour to compensate the owner of the restricted land. These are all the kinds of issues that were raised at select committee of why this bill is unworkable.

This is a piece of law that is simply the ACT Party flexing its muscle with a weak majority party within a coalition that has no ability to stand up for New Zealanders and is letting New Zealanders down. New Zealanders are being stuck with a piece of legislation that is to their detriment.

Excellent, I have the 12th spot in this debate, and we have heard a lot of hyperbole and a lot of rubbish in this debate. This bill is very clear: it aims to bring the same discipline to regulation that some argue we already accept and expect in our fiscal management. It aims to set clear principles for good regulation, and then requires Ministers and agencies to disclose and explain any inconsistencies. The board’s advice to Parliament is non-binding, contrary to what we’ve heard. It cannot strike down laws. Urgent or exceptional laws can still proceed, but departures must be transparent and justified. This is about transparency and holding the executive to account.

The question is that the amendments recommended by the Finance and Expenditure Committee by majority be agreed to.

I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Medicines Amendment Bill.

Members, the House is in committee on the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Medicines Amendment Bill.

We come first to the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2), and we begin with the debate on Part 1. Part 1 is the debate on clauses 4 to 29, “Amendments to principal Act”, and Schedule 1. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Kia ora and good evening, Madam Chair and members of the Parliament. Before we begin the committee’s discussion this evening, I just wanted to open the debate by once again thanking members of the public who provided their comments on this bill, and I also thank the members of this House who were sitting on the Education and Workforce Committee. The feedback that we received has been valuable in helping us better understand differing viewpoints and shaping a more structured and informed discussion today.

As I mentioned during the second reading, this bill introduces several important changes that advance the Government’s commitment to improving student achievement. It requires that school boards will make educational achievement their paramount or highest priority or objective. It also strengthens initial teacher education, ensures teacher discipline and competence processes are fit for purpose, and provides clear procedures for managing industrial action within the school system, alongside other improvements to the education system.

One of those key proposals in this bill is to amend section 127 of the Education and Training Act 2020 so that educational achievement and attainment becomes a school board’s paramount objective. It is the highest priority in school governance. By placing student achievement right at the heart of what boards should focus on, we are supporting schools to return to the fundamentals of education and get them right. This change ensures that every learner can gain the knowledge, the skills, and the competencies they need to reach their full potential.

The bill also includes proposals aligned with other key Government priorities, including raising our national student attendance. To support this, the bill introduces new requirements for schools to have attendance management plans that set out how the school will respond to and address the diverse underlying causes of non-attendance. My colleague the Associate Minister of Education, David Seymour, will also speak to and address questions in the committee that anyone may have on these proposals.

Similarly, the bill also introduces a proposal to require universities to protect and promote academic freedom and freedom of expression in universities. It’s vital that universities remain spaces that foster debate, encourage ongoing learning, and expose students to a diverse range of viewpoints so that they can develop into the critical thinkers that we need. My colleague the Minister for Universities, Minister Reti, will speak and address questions on this proposal.

Alongside the proposals in the bill, I’m also announcing that I’ll be introducing two Amendment Papers during our discussion in the committee today. The first Amendment Paper proposes to rebalance the Teaching Council’s membership. It proposes a majority of ministerially appointed members by removing the teacher education position and adding a ministerially appointed member. This change will help ensure that appointments are focused on professionalising the council and strengthening its strategic capability to more effectively perform its key regulatory function.

The second Amendment Paper relates to additional changes to school board objectives in section 127, and it responds to the Government’s Treaty reference review. During this review, concerns were raised about whether it is appropriate for boards to be held accountable for meeting the Crown’s obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi. School boards are made up of parents and community members, who volunteer their time to support and run their local schools. This Government does not believe that it is reasonable to expect these parents, who are, effectively, volunteers, to carry legal responsibilities that rightly belong to the Crown.

This Amendment Paper proposes the removal of the explicit requirement for boards to give effect to the Treaty of Waitangi from section 127. It’s replaced by explicit objectives for school boards to seek equitable outcomes for Māori students, to take all reasonable steps to provide for te reo Māori, and to reflect the school community’s cultural diversity in its policies and practices.

Given that my colleagues Minister Seymour and, shortly, I hope, Minister Reti are here to speak to the attendance management plans and the freedom of expression proposals, I’d welcome members’ questions on these proposals first. Then I can speak and answer questions from members on the other proposals in the bill, as well as the Amendment Papers.

Point of order, Mr Chairperson. Thank you, Mr Chair. I just wanted to get a clarification from the Minister of Education. Right at the end of her speech, the Minister’s recommendation was that we look at the questions on universities and attendance plans, etc., first, before coming down to other things like section 127, which is within her mandate—or is it that anything goes? I just wanted to check.

Well, just before I call the Minister, it’s up to the members to ask whatever question they like. However, it’s up to the Minister, if she can give any indication—

Yes.

But the questions will be—

Speaking to the point of order. Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m just seeking your guidance on this and the follow-up. Given that the Minister of Education has indicated that Minister Reti will be arriving to respond to the freedom of expression component in Part 1, how does the Minister—or yourself, as Chair—recommend that we ask questions based on that, given that the Minister hasn’t arrived at this stage? Should we postpone those questions, or how would—

Well, I would suggest that if members want the best answer from the Minister, they would probably be able to observe whether the Minister is here or not. I would say, looking at the bill, that there is plenty of material that will lead up to the arrival, or otherwise, of any Minister.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I just wouldn’t want to miss the opportunity to ask the Minister for Universities directly—as outlined by the Minister of Education—the questions we need to, relative to this bill. I just seek that commitment.

Well, once again, the questions will be actually through this Minister, and, generally, she will play something of a puppet master around how the other Ministers—the first questions, generally, are primarily directed through her. I’m sure she will be very quick to direct questions to other Ministers where she believes they have greater expertise or can provide a better answer than she can.

Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Despite the Minister of Education’s preference to deal with attendance and universities from the outset, we actually can’t do that, because the Minister for Universities is not here, and I’m a bit worried that the jumping all over the place is going to make it difficult for us to track what has been covered off and what hasn’t been covered off.

I want to say that I think, when we look at the bill, there’s actually a quite thematic approach that we should be taking to this, because the clauses are—for example, issues that we want to raise around the National Education and Learning Priorities (NELPs) and Te Tiriti in clause 8 and clause 9 also come under clause 127; attendance is in clause 9 and clause 23; universities are in clauses 12, 7, and 11; and then we have the Teaching Council later on. I would like to make my contributions along the lines of a thematic approach, and the Minister can figure out who needs to answer what questions, depending on what we all put to her in our contributing speeches.

I want to start by saying that the Minister, in her opening speech, acknowledged the public and the submissions process, but what she failed to do in that acknowledgment is actually acknowledge that the majority of submissions were opposed to these proposed changes. In fact, 80.5 percent of the submissions disagreed with the proposal to make educational achievement the primary objective. The Minister, on the one hand, thanks the public for participating in this process, and then—typical of this Minister—she absolutely ignores them. She ignores the submissions that they’ve given and the feedback that they’ve given back and continues to push ahead anyway, always so dismissive of the points that they’re making.

I would also make the point that these changes are not based on evidence. They are based on the Government having a coalition agreement between the National Party and the ACT Party. It is, in fact, in there that this is the baseless politicisation of education in Aotearoa, which is a troubling trend with this Government, including the latest Amendment Paper that we have received this afternoon about removing Te Tiriti o Waitangi provisions for the board. What we have here is that the Government has a very narrow and antiquated view of education, which is fitting for this Government because they have little interest in meaningful engagement and collaboration with the sector.

My question to the Minister is: where is the evidence of the collaboration with the sector on the changes that she is making—which is acknowledged and actually is being celebrated by the Hon David Seymour, who is saying this is a win for them because this is something that they campaigned on and that they put in their coalition agreement. My question to the Minister is: where is the evidence of her engagement and collaboration with the sector on these proposed changes?

What we have here is a very simplistic solution that is not evidence-based. While the Ministry of Education and the Minister of Education portrayed a view that nothing will change under the new drafting, there is a reason why statutory interpretation actually exists, and the changes to section 127 do have interpretation repercussions.

In my first contribution, I just want to know, given that the Minister acknowledged the public and the effort that they went to to make submissions into this process, why she ignored that the majority of them were opposed to these proposed changes, and what evidence she can give this committee of the whole House of the collaboration that she did with the sector.

Like the previous speaker, the Hon Willow-Jean Prime, mentioned, we are going to take quite a thematic approach, and I think this bill does lend itself to that quite nicely. We are starting with replacement section 127, inserted by clause 8—and just a signal to the Chair as well that we will then move on to attendance, universities, and the Teaching Council, in that particular order.

Now, starting with section 127, I also want to signal to the Chair that the Minister of Education released a very substantial Amendment Paper yesterday, without public consultation, without notifying anyone. Usually it has been the case in the past that when Ministers do bring a bill or have those Amendment Papers, they at least make the House aware that a certain Amendment Paper has been released, as a sign of good faith, but we also didn’t really see that. I really want to just request to the Chair that we do need to, because it is substantial, be given the full opportunity to examine this, as well as where the intention of this particular amendment came from. I think I’m referring to Amendment Paper 408.

In terms of section 127—this is clause 8 we’re looking at—this is something that we never got clarity on despite the select committee stage, and I understand the Minister’s position is that we want to have a single paramount objective, but then the Minister was also like, “Nothing is going to change.” The question then is: why make that change if nothing is going to change? If we are making that change, having the singular paramount objective, then something would be changed in terms of how the board is going to work. If something is going to change, then could the Minister walk us through, operationally, how school boards are expected to see that change? That’s my first question for the Minister and I do want to touch on, I guess, one of the bigger questions—and I also have an amendment to this particular section as well, which I will mention later.

I want to touch on the second question, which is on the Minister’s Amendment Paper 428. This is the Amendment Paper that came in yesterday, and this is the troubling amendment where the Minister has removed Te Tiriti o Waitangi, specifically the giving effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi in new section 127(2)(e).

While I understand the Minister is saying that, “Oh well, some of the criteria are still there.”; that’s very different to giving effect to Te Tiriti, because giving effect to Te Tiriti is far more holistic than that. Other than what the Minister has just mentioned before, what sort of advice has the Minister received? I also want to look to the Minister who, in this case is also responsible for—hold on, let me just quickly check; it is in clause 11 of the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2). Nope, it’s not in that one. I’ll try to find it in another contribution, but I guess the question is: where is this coming from in terms of the removal of Te Tiriti? Also, more importantly, what we also want to check with the Minister is what consultation she has undertaken with the New Zealand School Boards Association, noting that the school boards are going to be the ones who are implementing this. I’ll leave those two questions for the time being. Exactly what is being changed? Walk us through the operational aspect, and where did this amendment come from?

In relation to the first question that was questioning the consultation, there has been consultation on section 127. There was public consultation on the proposal to amend section 127 and to remove the National Education and Learning Priorities provisions from the Act between 2 September and 14 October 2024. The Ministry of Education consulted in 2024 on section 127, making achievement paramount—

And what was the advice?

—before introducing the bill, so—she asked specifically about consultation.

Just making some comments in relation to the second question about the process, I’d just like to point out that the process is that the Amendment Paper should go up, I think, 24 hours beforehand—which it did, yesterday afternoon—and from all my time on the Opposition benches, the job of the Opposition was to keep an eye on the website to make sure that any Amendment Papers were brought to their attention. That’s certainly how it’s been working since 2017, and so that’s what the member should do.

In addressing the point around evidence, the evidence is that there have been decades of decline in student achievement, and I know that it hurts the Opposition—especially Willow-Jean Prime—to know that they had six years in Government and didn’t manage to raise achievement for tamariki Māori, or any students at all. I know that that hurts, and I know that it hurts that in 18 months, we have managed to raise the early achievement of phonics and reading for Māori students—

Oh, tell us about that data.

—in just 18 months, and I love it that then they have to say, “Oh, it must be the dodgy data.” That’s where they always have to go to. Well, I know that it hurts—[Interruption]

Ms Prime, the good thing about being in the committee stage is that you’ll get a chance to go to your feet and respond to this, rather than have a continual barrage.

The point of this change is so that we are all rowing in the same direction, that achievement is the paramount objective of school boards, that we are being very clear and concise in our directions on what boards must do in order to raise achievement for Māori students and achieve equitable outcomes, to make sure that they are offering te reo Māori, to make sure that they are then culturally competent in their schools.

We are still being very directive, but what we are doing is saying that the Crown holds the duty when it comes to our Treaty obligation. It was signed between the Crown and iwi Māori. We take that very seriously, which is why we have made sure that every resource that we have produced in English has been also provided in te reo Māori, and that every single professional learning and development, every single resource, and every single policy has also been made available for kura kaupapa and available for Māori immersion units. That’s why we are seeing an increase in Māori achievement.

It is not the job of well-meaning parents who run schools who are, effectively, volunteers to be deferred a Treaty duty. Do you know what happened in the last six years since that’s happened? Nothing. Student results didn’t get any better. I know that that hurts and I know that it hurts that under our Government they have finally started to turn a corner, but when you focus on achievement and have everybody focused on that and following the evidence and the science as to what works, that’s what happens. Virtue signalling and empty words smattered around don’t actually raise student achievement. The core tenet—the core tenet—of our Treaty obligation as the Crown is to raise tamariki Māori achievement. Unfortunately, the previous Government couldn’t do that, and that hurts.

Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you for pointing out that I get a chance in my contributions to respond to the Minister of Education and her virtue signalling about her recent results. I mean, I’ve seen so much feedback from the sector on those results that the Minister is boasting about, and I do question the robustness of that. I do question the methodology behind it—so maybe if the Minister would like to answer those questions in terms of that data that she is boasting about.

The Minister said that they consulted on these proposed changes in replacement section 127, inserted by clause 8. I asked the Minister: what was the result of that consultation? What feedback did she get and did the ministry get from the sector around the things that they consulted on before bringing this bill to the House? The Minister didn’t talk to any of that, conveniently. She also, conveniently, does not acknowledge that, in the public consultation process in select committee, the majority of those that submitted opposed what is being proposed here. She has this consultation, she ignores all of the feedback, and she carries on and pushes ahead anyway.

One of the things in this bill that they are proposing to do is to repeal—to repeal—the provisions around the NELPs, that’s the National Education and Learning Priorities. This is in clause 5. Those National Education and Learning Priorities were actually developed through extensive consultation with the sector, something this Minister doesn’t like to do.

No, I like to raise achievement.

No, the Minister does not like to work in consultation with the sector. It says that they provide crucial strategic guidance to school boards about areas such as putting learners at the centre; barrier-free access to learning; quality teaching and leadership; the future of learning and work; and creating a world-class, inclusive, public education system. They are only in place in the Act where children’s participation and decision making is required. Does the Minister care about the children and the students at all? Does she care about what they think? What consultation has she done with the children about anything that she has proposed in here?

Stakeholders made the point that they do not believe that it is necessary to repeal this provision within the Act, so why is the removal necessary when it is not a requirement to issue a NELP but only an option for the Minister if they choose? Why does she want to get rid of something that the sector supports—that, in fact, the sector was involved in the development of? She doesn’t seem to like working collaboratively with the sector and respecting anything that they may have worked on and put forward. Why is the removal of this necessary?

Interestingly, while submitters on this issue to the bill disagreed with the proposal to remove them, the School Boards Association did their own survey of school board members—so this is more like the public; you could imagine parents and people who are serving on school boards. The survey received 55 percent agreeing with the removal of the NELP. There is a diversity of views out there.

The views of this Government are that, yes, the previous Government did spend a long time on the NELP, around two years, consulting fully and creating another strategic document—they created many of them—in the end that only required school boards and others to “have regard to”. It was a document that they spent a very, very long time on that actually was replicated in many, many other areas and documents that was their work programme, but we have an urgent issue; we have got plummeting student achievement. If the member opposite and her previous Government had spent more time focusing on the children and their outcomes, rather than all of these strategic documents that didn’t actually do anything, maybe student achievement would have improved in the six years under their watch, but it didn’t.

We have used a different vehicle for our six priority areas. Many of the things that are outlined in the NELP are already replicated elsewhere. It is a document that people don’t have to give regard to or don’t have to follow if they don’t want to. We have our work programme. It is outlined in our Cabinet paper and in our press release and shown to the sector on many occasions. I talk about it often; it will never change, our six key priority areas to drive achievement. They’re already having an impact.

Again, I’ll say to the member: I know that it’s tough to see this Government raising achievement, when they spent six years with a whole lot of documents and strategies that didn’t go anywhere, but that’s just really unfortunate.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I also want to get some guidance from you, Mr Chair. We have heard the Minister of Education, rather than responding to the questions on this particular bill, spending an inordinate amount of time actually attacking the previous Government. I’m just checking with you, Mr Chair, that if we are opening up shop for political hot takes, then there are a lot of things we could also be saying. I would like to speak very closely to the bill.

Well, I’ll just answer that question. The Minister is aware that the wider her answers, the more material then comes within scope for those asking the questions. It’s been a fairly broad-based debate to date. It is a little bit more difficult to direct to specific parts, probably, while the Minister’s answers remain as broad as they do, because there is always going to be that wider scope. Carry on, Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I think it is important, and what the Minister is saying is important, but I want to look at a few things that I asked before.

One of the things I asked is when it comes to the removal of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and potential legal obligations. Let me just say, then, the president of the School Boards Association has come out, and I wondered—the first question is around how the Minister keeps on talking about “core Crown”. The term “core Crown” has never come up anywhere else that I know of, so if the Minister wouldn’t mind first defining what she means by “Crown”, because school boards themselves are Crown entities—in effect, school boards are the Crown. If the Minister is saying that we don’t want school boards, as Crown entities, to be in charge of overseeing student work—and let’s say schools already have a number of obligations, responsibilities, and accountabilities. We have seen that, in the past, school boards have been charged with neglect, so school boards already have to do that. By giving effect to Te Tiriti, it doesn’t actually mean what the Minister thinks that it means. I just want to check, just clarify: what is “core Crown”, and is the Minister aware that school boards are Crown entities and they do have a legal obligation as well?

Which then comes to my second question around Te Tiriti, which is: have the Ministers consulted with the Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti? In section 6 of the Education and Training Act, they do give allowances for the Minister to actually collaborate with the Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti on certain announcements. I would assume that the removal of Te Tiriti o Waitangi is probably quite a big one to consult with the Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti on. I’m just checking if the Minister has consulted with the other responsible Minister in this area, on this, and whether the Minister will see this potentially open up to things like a Waitangi Tribunal application, because, again, we do, broadly, have an obligation in Aotearoa for things like the inclusion and, in this case, the removal of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. It’s not just simply something that the Minister can drop the day before. That’s my third question.

On to consultation. I’m glad that the Minister quoted the consultation that she did, and I’m actually very pleased with that consultation. Hats off to the Minister for being one of the few Ministers that released an exposure draft bill. In that consultation, in terms of making student outcomes the primary objective, the opposition rate—because the Minister cares about numbers, when she quoted 55 percent of school boards didn’t like the National Education and Learning Priorities—80.5 percent of the submitters did not agree with making education outcomes the primary objective for section 127. Then, if we’re moving on to the select committee stage, 94 percent of the submitters to the Education and Workforce Committee did not agree, or were opposed, to this particular section of making student outcomes paramount in the bill.

I know that it does hurt the Minister to consider that the way that we’re looking at student outcomes is the be-all and end-all, but, at the same time, if this Minister spends some time in front of a classroom, I feel like that it is a little bit different and it can almost be considered hubris for the Minister to not actually take the advice of the sector with something like this. That’s my third question. If the Minister truly did consult, then why has the Minister not taken on board the other numbers that didn’t necessarily agree with her agenda?

I’ll attempt to answer all of those—there are a number of questions there. Firstly, the core Crown—i.e., the Government of the day and central government agencies—are parties to the Treaty. The explicit duty for school boards to give effect to the Treaty is being removed in recognition that schools are not part of the core Crown. Yes, there are some Crown entities that have Treaty obligations, but school boards are very, very different than any of those. They are predominantly made up of parents who are, essentially, volunteers, who have a range of things that they need to achieve in the governance of their school.

We don’t, as a Government—and this Cabinet has decided that the core Crown has the duty with iwi Māori in relation to the Treaty of Waitangi and that it is not up to a school board to try to decipher how to give effect to the Treaty. We are, instead, being very clear with school boards: what are the things that you need to do around language, cultural competence, and ensuring that there are equitable outcomes for tamariki Māori so that they are very clear and not having to try and decipher what giving effect to the Treaty is? That is the job of the Crown; that is the decision of Cabinet.

In relation to the second part of the question and some idea that I don’t spend time in classrooms, I spent a lot of time in classrooms and with students and talking to teachers and talking to parents—

More than anyone—more than anyone.

Yes, I’d say you’re right, probably more than anybody in this House. It is one of my very, very favourite jobs. It’s also important to note that, yes, there were people who submitted on the bill. There are also a number of other stakeholders in New Zealand, like parents. There are tens of thousands of parents who expect this Government to make sure that when their child turns up to school, they get the very best world-leading education and they reach their full potential at school. Now, for too long, as I mentioned, those results have been declining. Nobody has managed to turn it around. We have a plan, we’re putting it in place, we’re already seeing the early results of that, and we are unashamedly making sure that when children turn up to school, we turn those results around, because if we don’t, then the future of this country is not in a good space.

There may have been a third question that I’ve missed, and if the questioner wants to raise it again, I’ll answer it, because I don’t remember what that was.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I have some questions for the Minister of Education on these provisions that we’re discussing. The first is: does she accept that Te Tiriti is the country’s founding document? Does she accept that Te Tiriti has constitutional status in New Zealand? Does she think it’s inappropriate or appropriate for our public school system to operate in accordance with Te Tiriti, particularly if she does regard it, in fact, as a constitutional document?

Does she think that it’s a zero-sum game that schools cannot chew gum and walk at the same time—that is, they cannot strive and improve educational achievement and do it while operating in a way that is consistent with Te Tiriti? If she does think it’s a zero-sum game, and that any energy that a school puts into operating in a way that’s consistent with Te Tiriti is energy that cannot be put into educational achievement, what evidence does she have to support that?

The member will be very aware that the Cabinet Manual sees the Treaty as a constitutional document, of course. Since 1989, we have had school boards, and we have not had a clause in any part of the Education Act which has conferred or deferred a Treaty obligation away from the Crown to a group of parents who are volunteers on school boards. Now, that change has only been in place for a few years. I’d also say to the member, there is more than just—

In recognition that it was failing.

You’re going to have your say when you get to ask your question, so just [Gestures for member to sit down] for a bit, all right?

In answer to the member’s questions around chewing gum and walking at the same time, there are many things in section 127 that we’re asking the school board to do, not just to raise achievement. Around student safety and wellbeing, there’s parts around making sure that they’re turning up to school—attendance—and making sure that they’re carrying out assessments. There are a huge amount of things.

Not only that but also we’re being very, very clear about what school boards need to do, as I’ve already mentioned, in order to ensure that there are equitable outcomes for Māori students—that they’re offering te reo Māori and that they’re being culturally competent in the way that they operate in their school. There are many things that we’re asking the school boards to do, and being very particular, and some of those things are particular to tamariki Māori.

It is, as I’ve already said, the Crown’s responsibility, and it’s Cabinet’s decision that it is the Crown’s responsibility, to honour the Treaty and to make sure that we are abiding by that, and we’re doing that in many ways. If you look at our entire work programme, everything we’re doing is also in te reo Māori. I’ve already mentioned all of the resources, all of the professional learning and development (PLD). We’re providing new assessments for assessing early readers’ phonics ability in te reo Māori, which is why we’re able to see where and when we need to intervene early for those students who are learning in te reo Māori, in immersion units, or in kura kaupapa, so that we can intervene early to make sure that their reading is on track as well.

As far back as I can see, no Government has ever mirrored their exact work programme to make sure that all of the resources, all of the PLD, everything that we’re doing, every policy, are also there and available in te reo Māori for Māori students as well. That is why we’re starting to see a shift.

Point of order. Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to say that I do take personal offence, under Standing Order 121, from the Minister for using te reo Māori when she is actively removing Te Tiriti o Waitangi from the legislation—

Oh, sit down!

Shush, children! When someone is raising a point of order, it is heard in silence. Thank you. My point of order is that I do take personal offence, under Standing Order 121, for the Minister to use te reo Māori when she’s actively removing Te Tiriti o Waitangi from the legislation, and I would like for her to withdraw and apologise.

Speaking to the point of order.

Yes, you can speak to the point of order, the Hon Erica Stanford.

Madam Chair, it is very clear, in everything that we’re doing, that we are supporting te reo Māori in schools, not only making sure that school boards have an obligation to make sure that they’re offering te reo Māori but also making sure that everything is available in te reo Māori—more so than any Government ever, that I’ve been able to see, so there’s no need for the member to take offence.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We’ve just had the Minister of Education, once again, standing up and talking so proudly about her record of te reo Māori.

My question to the Minister is: what gave the Minister the right to determine that Te Tiriti o Waitangi means providing resources in te reo Māori? Who gave the Minister and the Crown the sole right to determine that giving effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi is to simply provide resources in te reo Māori? Who did she talk to? Which iwi, which hapū who signed to Te Tiriti o Waitangi did the Minister talk to to determine that in order to give effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, all she has to do is give some resources in te reo Māori? The duties of the Crown to give effect to and honour Te Tiriti o Waitangi are far more than providing some resources in te reo Māori, OK? The Minister might want to address that one for us.

I want the Minister to also tell me how she can claim that providing resources in te reo Māori is giving effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, when she is also recolonising the curriculum, whitewashing the curriculum. Who was involved in the rewrite of that curriculum, minimising the use of te reo Māori, minimising Māori concepts and matauranga Māori in that curriculum?

Minister, as the Crown, who did you work with when working with your Treaty partners? Who did you consult? Who agreed that giving effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi was removing Māori words from 5-year-old students’ readers? Can she tell me the answer to that one?

Who did the Minister consult with when she decided that giving effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi meant removing $30 million of funding for Te Ahu o te Reo Māori, which is to train Māori teachers to be able to deliver?

Can I stop the member for a moment and just ask which clauses you’re referring to because I’m trying to find the scope of the questions that you’re currently asking. Can you refer me to a clause?

Sure, yes. Replacement section 127, inserted by clause 8, the removal of giving effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Madam Chair, for your benefit, prior to you arriving, the Minister made some quite broad contributions, and as the previous Chair pointed out, opened herself up to this very type of questioning and debate. That was made very clear by the presiding officer who was here immediately prior to you.

Now, the Minister, in her last contribution, as you were switching over, talked about how she was proud of this Government’s record of giving effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the responsibility of the Crown by giving te reo Māori resources to kids, by translating them. I am responding to that. The Minister stopped me as I was interjecting over here and said that I will get my turn. In my turn, I am asking the Minister to now answer the questions that she invited me to ask.

Thank you for the recap. That’s helpful in the changeover, thank you.

Now, I look forward to the Minister answering those questions. I also want the Minister to explain very clearly for the—

And slowly for the member.

That’s right—really slowly, really clearly, in real detail, what she understands the Crown’s obligations to Māori under Te Tiriti o Waitangi are. In the Cabinet Manual, what are the Crown’s duties and obligations in education to give effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi? What are the obligations of partnership? What are the obligations of active protection? What are the obligations of equity? Can the Minister please tell me what she understands her obligations are, as the Crown, in terms of Te Tiriti o Waitangi?

Can the Minister then tell me how she intends to ensure that schools do this if the boards of trustees no longer have any responsibility under this legislation and the proposed removal of this requirement on them? The Minister is going to delegate duties to boards of trustees but not any responsibilities. How is the Minister, who says she’s going to retain that responsibility—what mechanism is she going to have in place to ensure that schools and boards of trustees are upholding her Treaty obligations? Because you’re removing one of those provisions. Can the Minister tell the committee this evening how she intends to monitor that so that parents across Aotearoa know that she is not simply delegating authority to school boards with no responsibility and that it just falls through some gap, which I’m sure is actually one of the key objectives of this? How will you ensure that that is upheld?

Going back to the start of that contribution where the member was asking around the provision of te reo resources—and this may go to part of my questions as to why the previous Government didn’t do this; I’m now starting to understand it. Under the Waitangi Tribunal’s decision, Wai 11—and the member would be advised to go and look at that decision, which says that treating te reo Māori as a taonga is important and that te reo Māori is, in fact, a taonga under the Treaty of Waitangi and it deserves active protection.

The way that we do that in education is to make sure that we are providing resources, that there is bilingual education like the kura kaupapa and rumaki units, and that we are actively protecting the language, and a part of that is to provide resources. It’s only one way, but it is an important way of making sure that we are actively protecting that taonga of te reo Māori, which is exactly what we’re doing. There are a lot more things that we do in order to do that, but the member asked that particular question about resourcing.

The member also went on to ask what I think honouring the Treaty means, and I’ve said this a number of times. In article 3 of the Treaty, it’s very clear that the rights and responsibilities are given to Māori as they are British citizens, if you take the literal reading of the Treaty of Waitangi. That means, when we think about education, that tamariki Māori are receiving an education and they have equitable outcomes. That is why that yawning gap between Māori achievement and non-Māori achievement over so many decades has meant that we haven’t been doing all we can do to uphold that part of the Treaty, which is why I am so focused on every single thing that I do in the mainstream to make sure we’re also doing it in te reo Māori.

All of the things I’ve already mentioned, I won’t go over them again, but we are also being very clear with school boards. As I’ve already said, it’s very vague to say to a school board that “You need to give effect to the Treaty of Waitangi.”, because what does that mean, in effect, for a school board?

If it wasn’t taken out, they might know.

I’ll tell you what, the member opposite hasn’t actually said what she thinks that it means. We are being very, very clear. We are saying that you must offer te reo Māori when students request it, you must make sure that you are attempting to achieve equitable outcomes for tamariki Māori, and you must make sure that you are being culturally competent—very clear and specific to boards so they know exactly what they need to do. It’s all very well to just put words in without actually being clear about what they mean, because what happens is that boards lose their focus, and we want them to be laser focused on raising achievement, closing the equity gap, and doing those things to raise Māori achievement. That’s what we’re focused on doing.

Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Tēnā koe e te Minita. Otirā, tēnā tātou katoa. It’s my pleasure to stand here as the presiding member of te kura kaupapa Māori o Taperenui a Whatonga to seek further clarification around section 127.

Beyond te reo and beyond resources, can the Minister of Education accept that giving effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi looks different according to iwi, hapū, community, and the tikanga and kawa processes of that iwi, hapū, and community; if so, how can the Minister monitor effectiveness and, of course, ensure consistency? I mean, I’m yet to hear a good argument about why we’re honestly mucking around with Te Tiriti o Waitangi. He moumou taima tēnei. [This is a waste of time.]

It’s absolutely unnecessary. To simply say that if someone wants access to their reo, to their culture, they can request it, already disenfranchised people are not going to do that. They are going to sit—

Why not?

—i roto i te whakamā [in embarrassment]—because they’ve been downtrodden by ridiculous laws like this. That’s why Te Tiriti being in these documents is so important, so ignoramuses can’t detach people from their culture and their reo. The question is: how can a Government asking stupid questions like that give us any comfort?

Direct the questions to the Minister and less of this pointing, thank you.

How can anyone in this country feel reassured that Te Tiriti will be honoured when we’ve got Government Ministers making silly quips like that about the value of Te Tiriti and access to te reo and tikanga and identity?

In simplistic terms, how will the Minister monitor the effectiveness of this? What qualifies the Minister to ensure Te Tiriti will be given effect across schools across Aotearoa and therefore how will she ensure the consistency when the delivery giving effect to this will look different and it should look different in every school community, and that’s what boards can be charged with. Tēnā tātou.

One of the easiest ways to ensure that you are raising achievement—which is, again, the core tenet of a Treaty duty: to make sure that tamariki Māori are succeeding to their full potential, which we have not done in this country for some time—is to make sure that we’re assessing our young people. That’s why we created Hihira Weteoro, which is a phonics check that is designed specifically—a world first, as far as we can tell—for Māori children learning in bilingual units. It tests them at 20 weeks, 40 weeks, and 55 weeks—understanding that they are learning in a bilingual environment, in some cases, or in full immersion—to make sure that they are staying on track with their learning. Where they fall behind, we pick them up with our literacy intervention teachers and programmes that we have put in place, which are very, very important.

What we’re also doing is making sure that, for the first time—this has never been done before; the previous Government didn’t do this—we’re actually assessing. We’re taking a sample assessment in our Curriculum Insights and Progress study, where we take samples of children in years 3, 6, and 8 in the mainstream and assess them in reading, writing, and maths to make sure that they’re on track and that Government policies are working—for the first time, we’re going to be doing that in immersion settings as well.

The best way to make sure that we are achieving equitable outcomes is to actually ask the question: are we? We haven’t done that before. We haven’t had really good data across our mainstream and immersion units.

Also, from next year, there will be a requirement to assess, using one of the three assessment tools, reading, writing, and maths, twice a year, every year, from year 3. It will be very telling how achievement is going and whether or not we are making sure that there are equitable outcomes for Māori students.

Can I just say, before we take some more questions for the Minister, that we’ve spent a reasonable amount of time around replacement section 127, in clause 8, and the Minister has been answering the questions all the way through. The members may not like some of the answers, but the Minister has actually been answering. It’d be really good if we could branch out to see if there’s anything else in this piece of legislation.

Point of order, Madam Chair. Thank you for that. I do just want to check your understanding, though, because this Amendment Paper that has been introduced around Te Tiriti—the removal of the requirements for giving effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi—has not been to select committee. This is our only opportunity to ask the Minister questions about this specific point. There are other things in section 127 that did go to select committee, which we haven’t addressed yet—

I get the point of order from the member. My judgment is that the questions that have been asked to this point about how the Minister is going to ensure and measure have been answered by the Minister. I’m looking for different questions because I feel like the questions since I’ve been in here for the last 20 minutes have been very similar questions and very similar answers to what I’ve already seen that the previous Chair has written down. I’m looking for you to broaden out. What I’m saying is you may not like the answer that the Minister’s giving you, but it doesn’t mean that she’s not answering the question.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate and respect your comments, and I’ll do my best to add additional points. The problem here is that the Minister of Education has been quite narrow in her responses and that what we’re trying to understand is actually how this decision came about where, at the eighth hour, we’ve received an amendment. We’ve been through a select committee process, and our select committee actually does good, constructive, robust work. It wasn’t a short process, so there was every opportunity for the Minister to drop this particular amendment.

It is a pattern of behaviour from this Government. This is not the first amendment that is dropped at the eighth hour to remove the Treaty of Waitangi; Minister Simmonds and Government colleagues did the same in the vocational training bill. It’s not new for the Government. It is part of the coalition agreement, so I am confused as to why the Government is, in fact, dropping such a large piece of discussion that is sensitive in nature and is the foundation document for our country at a late stage in this process. Hence why I’m sort of drilling into the Minister to say, “When did this amendment go to Cabinet and get approved by Cabinet? Was that this week?”—just to understand why it’s so late in the piece and what consultation keeps on coming up.

She actually hasn’t identified for us which groups have been consulted around this particular amendment. It is the removal of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. I acknowledge that she is uncomfortable about doing this and probably is being wedged by the minor parties around her in this Government—the ACT Party and New Zealand First. This is their push, and she will be uncomfortable about this decision, but she is the boss here and she needs to answer these questions in this phase of scrutiny in the committee of the whole House.

Which groups did the Minister actually consult with here, which Māori groups as well, and which schools, if any—if any—came back and said to the Minister, “This is a good thing, to put an amendment in place that removes Te Tiriti o Waitangi?”

The next layer of that is about understanding the rationale behind why this is important. The Minister has talked a lot about equity but we haven’t unpacked the role that Te Tiriti plays in achieving equitable outcomes for tamariki in our education system. The question arises: can equity be achieved without our foundation document underpinning the decision making at a governance level in our schools; if that is removed, how do we achieve true equity?

The Minister, this afternoon, has come up with examples—some people call it cherry-picking—of the work that the Government is doing in te reo, and the like, which is fine, that’s good; I respect those things that they are doing, but that is not equity. That is not equity, Minister—

What is it? Tell me.

—it is examples—I’ve still got a minute.

No, I mean, tell me what those things are.

My question here—it’s my job to scrutinise you today, right?

The Minister’s just asking the member to clarify what he meant by that last statement.

As I said—

Point of order. Madam Chair, you’ll know that there is a Standing Order which prohibits the Minister from utilising the microphone during the committee stage in order to insert comments into the debate. I just appreciate—

I do understand that. I’m just trying to get the best answers out for the questions. If the Minister wants to clarify a question that somebody’s asked, I think it’s really important for the Minister to be able to answer the question. I don’t believe she was injecting herself. I’ve seen Ministers inject themselves in the past; she was just trying to get some clarification.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The thing I’m trying to understand from the Minister is: what role does she see Te Tiriti o Waitangi playing in achieving equitable outcomes for tamariki in our education system? That has been removed.

What has been done here is silencing of Māori voices around a governance group that runs our schools. I’d like her to give me an understanding of if she agrees that that is silencing Māori voices around that table and what’s the impact of that.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to say, Madam Chair, this is not repeating questions for the sake of it. I want to respond directly to something that the Minister of Education didn’t say in her failure to answer one of my previous questions, but also to respond to things that she actually has said.

I finished my last intervention by asking the Minister to share with the committee evidence that underpins, I think, her assertion that having the Treaty of Waitangi enshrined in this legislation is somehow a distraction, or detracts, from her objective—that, I think, is shared by everybody here—that we want to see tamariki Māori do as well as they possibly can in the education system. She didn’t answer that.

Further, I want to take the Minister’s claims at face value that she’s committed to supporting the achievement of Māori in the education system, and she’s investing and producing resources and so on; and, also at face value, the distinction that the Minister draws between achievement of Māori in the system and the inclusion of Te Tiriti in law. If I can paraphrase what I’ve heard from the Minister today, she’s more interested in educational achievement than she is in, somehow, the kind of symbolism of having Te Tiriti in our education legislation.

My question is: logically, why not do both? Why choose one over the other? Why not knock yourself out doing everything you can to encourage Māori to do as well as they possibly can in our education system and have Te Tiriti enshrined in our law, conveying to this and all future Governments our shared obligation to make sure that Māori see themselves reflected in everything we do in public life in this country? Why is she choosing one over the other?

The Treaty of Waitangi is enshrined in our legislation. It is deeply enshrined in the Education and Training Act, in section 32, and I take that responsibility very seriously. But to have a clause and a board of trustees requirement that says they need to give effect to the Treaty, without actually being very clear on what that means—and it’s very interesting that’s the members are using words like “true equity” and “really honouring the Treaty”, without even saying what it is that they think. The reason that they won’t is because they’ve got the same problem that boards of trustees have; that they don’t know what “giving effect to the Treaty” actually means.

What we are being very clear on is what they need to do to seek to achieve equitable outcomes for Māori students: to take all reasonable steps to provide for teaching and learning in te reo Māori to students whose parents or caregivers request it; to take reasonable steps to ensure that the policies and practices for at school reflect New Zealand’s cultural diversity. What we really need boards focused on is language, is culture, is making sure that students are achieving to the very highest possible of their abilities.

In section 32, deeply enshrined in our legislation, is the Treaty duty, which sits with the Crown, which has been guiding me in all of my policies and all of my decisions. The members opposite might not like to think that providing resources and professional learning and development and making sure that we are providing Māori language skills to teachers—which we are about to commence with next year, as it was budgeted for this year; or the literacy resources we’re providing to schools, secondary schools, kura kaupapa, whare kura—is important. Those things are very important to our Treaty obligation to make sure that we are revitalising the language and making sure that Māori students are reaching their full potential, and that is exactly what we are doing.

What we are saying to boards is we don’t expect them to sit around and try and work out what honouring or giving effect to the Treaty means—because if you want to talk about something being very unclear, that is exactly it. We need, and parents expect, boards of trustees to be laser focused on outcomes for students: getting them to school, making sure they’re achieving to the highest possibility, and keeping them safe.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I also just wanted to mention to you, Madam Chair, that with the previous Chair we mentioned there are broader themes within this bill that we want to explore and we’re on the section on the obligations of the board, but there is also the other sections of attendance, universities, and the Teaching Council.

I want to just check with something that I asked the Minister of Education right at the beginning, which was around not so much broader consultation with the public but more consultation with, potentially, her Cabinet colleagues or with other officials.

I think my first question would be: how come, particularly with some of these changes, we haven’t seen a child impact statement being conducted, when this particular bill does affect children quite severely? In this case, in terms of a child impact statement, what sort of consultation, particularly with the latest amendment, Amendment Paper 428, that the Minister dropped, has been consulted through Mana Mokopuna, the Children’s Commissioner? I think that’s also a helpful indicator to the committee that the due diligence, even though we may not have seen it, has been done when introducing something like that into the committee.

The other person that I checked with in terms of consultation, for the Minister, was the Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti. That was mainly from the perspective of what, then—I understand what the Minister is saying, the Treaty of Waitangi is available in clause 6, amending section 9, but anything that removes the giving effect of Te Tiriti o Waitangi within any legislation should have serious scrutiny. I want to know whether the Minister for Māori Crown Relations has been consulted and what this would mean for Māori-Crown relations in general, and has the Minister received advice on what this would mean in terms of potentially an application to the Waitangi Tribunal?

All of these included, when we’re looking at replacement section 127, inserted by clause 8, I think a broader question that we haven’t asked is: sure, the Minister wants to make sure that there is one single paramount objective, but with everything else we’re talking about, were there actually other options that were being considered? The Minister has consistently mentioned that it was confusing, that boards are volunteers, etc., and I 100 percent agree with that, but, at the same time, what are some of the other ways for us to potentially reach the sort of ability for the school boards to be able to do their role as the governing body of a school by other means, by providing additional resources? Rather than kind of like saying, “You only need to focus on one thing, because you are volunteers and you don’t have the capacity.”, was there any option being considered that would give them the capacity to actually consider all of these or give them the resources that would potentially consider all of these?

Those are the tangible things. What information, then, have school boards been given on how to communicate or how to involve the mana whenua where the school is based? These are some of the tangible options that, for example, the Minister may have considered. I’d be keen to hear from the Minister.

Now, the Minister has also mentioned, in terms of ākonga Māori and some other things—and I think it’s really important to highlight that kura kaupapa, kōhanga reo, kura reo, and all of those sort of things, we are seeing tamariki Māori, etc., thriving in those environments. I don’t deny the fact that the Minister has put resources into it. However, 97 percent of ākonga Māori are in English medium; they’re not in Māori medium. While we’re celebrating Māori-medium success, what are we doing, signalling to those 97 percent of ākonga Māori in the English medium, saying “We are now removing the school boards’ need to give effect to Te Tiriti.”? What, then, would the Minister say to these 97 percent?

I really want to pick up the question from my colleague Cushla Tangaere-Manuel, because I think that question is really important, because what we are hearing from the Minister is that, yes, parents, caregivers, students can request it, but what that translates to is: “If you want to do anything that is culturally yours, you’ve got to bat for it—you’ve got to ask for it; it is not naturally given to you as your birthright.”

Madam Chair?

Sorry, Madam Chair? I’m almost done.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I apologise. I lost track of time.

I apologise too because I wasn’t watching the clock; I was listening.

I think that’s a really important point: what, then, would this signal to ākonga Māori in terms of how the Minister’s intent is empowering them to succeed as Māori, not succeed for Māori? That is the really important question when we’re looking at a lot of these.

Again, I don’t deny the fact that the Minister mentioned about success in phonics and all of those, because when you are looking for success, you will find success. It’s also ironic that the Minister uses phonics as an example, because I think it’s a really important analogy when it comes to the understanding of phonics and semantics and all of those other things and when you’re looking at context within a language, is that, with phonics, the Minister is using Māori like phonics, but the Minister doesn’t understand the context of being Māori or what it means for Māori. That’s a very, very important analogy when we’re looking at purely singular success when it comes to phonetics.

The Minister also mentioned te reo Māori being a taonga. Now, we have seen, both in terms of the way that the new curriculum has rolled out, we’ve also seen, in terms of some of the removal of kupu Māori in books like At the Marae. I want to check with the Minister, when she says that te reo Māori is a taonga, then why are kupu Māori being removed—

It’s irrelevant to the bill.

Well, it is because that’s what the Minister is saying, and the Minister is using this to justify that it’s OK to remove giving effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Is there a question?

The question, then, for the Minister is: why has, then, the ministry also decided not to include kupu Māori in any new Ready to Read Phonics Plus books, except for only in character names?

All of those sorts of things, I just wanted to get clarification from the Minister, because the Minister is saying one thing but what we are seeing in terms of the reality and what we are seeing in terms of the announcement is something that’s completely different.

Just to recap a couple of the questions that I have: why was there no child impact statement being made? What consultation has she done specifically with things like Mana Mokopuna, in terms of obligation to children, with Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti? What are the potential consequences of application to the Waitangi Tribunal? Has she considered any other options in terms of this particular bill, other than having one paramount objective? What is her position, then, on things like removing kupu Māori when she says that te reo Māori is a taonga?

I want to finish with just touching on two additional things. One of the things is around the National Education and Learning Priorities (NELPs). I understand the Minister was saying before that one of the things that was part of the consultation was that though NELPs were really good, the current NELPs have “particular regard”. That I understand, from what the Minister is saying. I would ask the Minister to consider my amendment, Amendment Paper 403, which is to reinstate NELP but actually make it stronger by saying “to give effect” to NELPs, rather than just simply removing them altogether. I do agree with the Minister that “have regard” is a little bit more vague.

I would also like to ask the Minister to consider my Amendment Paper 404. Now, this is one of the other questions I had earlier, which is: if nothing’s going to change, why change section 127, everything within section 127, including supporting objectives? I want to pick up particularly on section 127(2) and 127(3), in clause 8. I propose that we change “To meet” to “In addition to”. The reason for that is just to ensure that the supporting objective must be met. It provides a clarity that has not been provided from a statutory interpretation perspective. This particular amendment that I want to ask the Minister to consider is to provide a needed clarification that much more aligns the intention of the clause, where supporting objectives must be independently met, rather than have one be conditional on another.

I’ll just run through those questions. Firstly, there’s no requirement for a child impact statement. Secondly, the question around consultation—there was full ministerial consultation, as there always is in a Cabinet process, and Minister Potaka was also on Minister Goldsmith’s ministerial advisory group around the Treaty principles work that was done, so he was consulted, of course.

Around the claim that I’ve said nothing will change, that is not the case. What we’ve said is we want boards to be laser focused on raising achievement, and that’s exactly what we expect to happen. With the clarifications that we’re putting into section 127, we are being very clear that there does still need to be—and very importantly—te reo, culture, and making sure that that equity gap is closed in section 127 so that boards are focused on doing their duty and not on a vague clause that says “give effect to the Treaty”, but they don’t know what that means. We are being clear in what it means: those are the things that you must do.

The member is talking like there is only one objective for a school board. There are many objectives and they are all essential supporting objectives, but we want to make sure that they are laser focused on achievement.

With the National Education and Learning Priorities (NELP), I appreciate the member’s position, but this Government has come in with six very clear priorities. The NELPs are overly burdensome. They are just one of many documents that school boards have to look at. We’re reducing that compliance. We’ve been very clear on what we need them to do and been very clear on what our six key priority areas are, and that is the work of this Government.

There may be some other things I haven’t answered; apologies. There were lots of questions and I tried my very best.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is my first contribution, and I’ve been listening very carefully to what can seem like quite an academic and conceptual debate around “giving effect to” versus a list of things that are based on assumptions.

Picking up on what the Minister of Education just said, we heard about te reo / language. We heard about culture versus “giving effect to”, which was presented to us as being vague. I wanted to try and ground this in some questions, for the Hansard, actually—for the record—so that I’m reassured that not only our Māori kids but, actually, the diversity of cultures in New Zealand who benefit from Te Tiriti clauses will not be disadvantaged when it comes to things that do enhance their learning and do improve their academic achievement, and those are around culture and identity.

I want to just reference work that I did with the Rt Hon Adrian Rurawhe a couple of years ago and bring the voices of the students into the House. I had a constituent case which was tricky, of a student who was wearing corn braids. That was part of his cultural identity. He was not Māori. The rector at the school decided that that was a distraction, and there was a bit of an impasse.

The result of that was that we decided to hear the voices of students. We asked students from different schools—uniformed schools and non-uniformed schools; about six of them, I think, in total, from the greater Wellington region—to come in and give us their experience of having these school uniforms that did not or did require certain things. This is around identity and culture. It was very clear, from those conversations—there were arguments on both sides, but it was very clear that cultural identity and giving effect to Te Tiriti is embedded in school uniform protocols and in grooming protocols, and that those protocols benefit not only Māori but other students.

Actually, it goes a step further, because we also had a gender lens and we were able to understand the difficulty for some people to go into classrooms being required to wear binary uniforms that were distracting to their education. It was very clear that the evidence that the kids were giving us was that what they need to do to achieve is to feel comfortable and confident in their identity and in the rules that allow them to express themselves.

As a result of that, the Human Rights Commission drew up a list of guidelines for boards of trustees, and those were received around Aotearoa. They were not mandatory, but they were based on the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, on freedom of expression and identity, and on Te Tiriti and giving effect to Te Tiriti.

My question for the Minister now is: if we’re going to take that out of the board of trustees’ suite of things to consider, does that mean that those school uniform protocols that have been adopted by many schools and welcomed with open arms by many boards of trustees and by many students and that, no doubt, have led to higher achievement are to be thrown out—the baby with the bathwater? Does it mean that giving effect to Te Tiriti, as I understand what she just talked about, is about culture? We might think of kapa haka performances, te reo classes, and resourcing. What about these really fundamental questions about self-expression and identity? If they are to be in that list of things, I think the Hansard needs to reflect that now so it’s very clear; if they are not, if they’re seen as a distraction and not part of the core things that boards are to focus on, then I think that needs to be on the record.

That, again, goes back to whose perspective on identity and culture we are honouring here. Is it one part of the Treaty partnership or is it true partnership? The reason I ask this is because this is not conceptual. We have had feedback from students, even in my electorate, who have had cultural taonga through moko kauwae, through other things, where they have embraced those. Their schools have embraced them. They have found a new love of learning. They have said how liberating it is for their education, and all the evidence stacks that up. This is not a conceptual debate; this is real life. If the Minister agrees that those school uniform guidelines should stand, then I would like that to be in the Hansard so there is absolutely no doubt that we are not ripping away things that have been built carefully with students at the centre of the of the debate.

I’ve already said this a number of times and I’m in danger of repeating myself, but if the member looks at the Amendment Paper, firstly, it does say, “takes [all] reasonable steps to ensure the policies and practices [at] the school reflect New Zealand’s cultural diversity:”, and I expect that schools, as self-managing entities, will continue to do exactly that.

There are a number of things in section 127 that are not changing: that a school is a physically and emotionally safe place for its students; that it gives effect to relevant student rights set out in this Act and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990

There are a number of things that are already in the Act that protect against those things; it wasn’t suddenly in just the last few years since the previous Labour Government put in the obligation for a board of trustees to give effect to the Treaty that suddenly gave rise to all of these things. In fact, the Opposition are speaking like this is a duty that has been on school boards since the dawn of time of boards, which is 1989. In fact, it’s only been in since 2020 and it hasn’t given rise to these things. In fact, since it’s been in place, the core tenet, as I’ve said, of giving effect to the Treaty, which is raising student achievement, has gone backwards.

I can assure that member that schools are self-managing entities, and they will still take these decisions and continue to do so because it is here and we’re being very clear in the legislation: take reasonable steps to ensure that the policies and practices of its school reflect New Zealand’s cultural diversity. I’m answering all of that member’s questions.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that debate on this question now close. All those in favour say Aye; to the contrary, No. The Ayes have it? The Ayes have it.

The Noes have it. Party vote, please.

Too late, sorry. I’ve just called the Ayes have it.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendments to Amendment Paper 364 amending new clause 15AAA be agreed to.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Papers 364 and 428 be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 403 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendment to delete clause 5 be agreed to.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to clause 6 set out on Amendment Paper 404 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s remaining amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 404 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendments to clause 8, new subsections (2) and (3) of section 127, be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 411 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendment to clause 8, new section 127(1), to insert “and to give effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi” be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendment to clause 8, new section 127(1), to insert “while upholding, protecting, and promoting the best interests of the child” be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 412 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendment to clause 8, new section 127(2)(c)(ii), be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 413 be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 414 be agreed to.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 415 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendment to clause 87, new section 127(2)(e)(ii), is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 416 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 405 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendments to clause 9, new sections 137A(2) and 137B, be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 406 be agreed to.