Parliamentary debates: Tuesday, 11 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 welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen.

Members, under Standing Order 36(1)(c), I have been advised by Te Pāti Māori that their parliamentary membership has changed and that Mariameno Kapa-Kingi and Tākuta Ferris are no longer members of Te Pāti Māori for parliamentary purposes. Accordingly, under Standing Order 35(5), those members, from 10 November 2025, are regarded as independent members for parliamentary purposes.

Members, I regret to inform the House of the death on 7 November 2025 of the Hon Roger Neville McClay, QSO, who represented Taupō electorate from 1981 to 1984 and Waikaremoana from 1984 to 1996. During his membership of this House, he served as Minister of Youth Affairs and Associate Minister of Education, Pacific Island Affairs, and Social Welfare.

I desire, on behalf of the House, to express our sense of loss and sympathy to the relatives of the late former member. I now ask members to stand with me and observe a period of silence as a mark of respect for his memory.

Members stood as a mark of respect.

A petition has been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.

Petition of Bevan O’Connor requesting that the House urge the Government to withdraw the Regulatory Standards Bill from the legislative programme.

That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered 12 papers for presentation.

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

Reports of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee on the

review briefing on the 2023/24 annual review of AgResearch Ltd

review briefing on the 2023/24 annual review of the New Zealand Institute for Plant and Food Research Ltd

report of the Education and Workforce Committee on the

Immigration (Fiscal Sustainability and System Integrity) Amendment Bill

reports of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on the

Defence (Workforce) Amendment Bill

petition of Murray Tingey

report of the Māori Affairs Committee on the

Te Pire Whakahoki i a Kororipo Pā/Kororipo Pā Vesting Bill

reports of the Petitions Committee on the

petition of Paul Barton

special report on the petition of Ross Hoole.

The bills are set down for second reading. The review briefings and special report are set down for consideration. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of two bills.

Building and Construction Sector (Self-certification by Plumbers and Drainlayers) Amendment Bill, introduction

Building and Construction Sector (Strengthening Occupational Licensing Regimes) Amendment Bill, introduction.

Those bills are set down for first reading.

to the Prime Minister

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

Yes.

Who is correct: the Prime Minister when he said, “we’ve got the right economic plan”, or the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Winston Peters, who said his Government is “pursing a failed economic strategy”?

Well, I’m not sure the member said that. I’ll just say the Minister of Foreign Affairs has been here a long time—he’s been here almost half a century. He has a lot of entrenched positions on lots of different things, but he and I are very, very cognisant of what our pronouns are, and they are “we”.

Does he agree with Winston Peters that his Government has “failed to run the economy properly”, and, if not, how is shrinking the economy by 1.2 percent proper economic management?

Well, as we have discussed before in this House, this Government inherited the biggest recession in 35 years. It also inherited the longest post - COVID19 hangover, which I note that members on the opposite side failed to take responsibility to discuss or to show up for any hearings on, and, as a result, it’s been difficult cleaning up that mess. But the good news is that parts of our economy are recovering well; other parts are continuing to struggle, but there are positive signs that future growth is on the way. Just look at the 3.5 percent growth in jobs ads, look at the 4 percent growth in exports, and look at the job-rich infrastructure activities that are coming our way.

Well, does he agree with Winston Peters that the Government is “not actually fixing the economy”, and, if not, how does he explain why more people are out of work and staying out of work for longer than at any time in the last 30 years?

Context—context.

Well, I can—

Just a moment. Please repeat the question, without any interruptions from anywhere in the House.

Well, does he agree with Winston Peters that the Government is “not actually fixing the economy”; and, if not, how does he explain that more people are out of work and staying out of work for longer than at any time in the last 30 years?

Well, because there was a Labour Government that increased Government spending by 84 percent and that drove up domestic inflation, which drove up interest rates 12 times to record highs. That ends up putting an economy into recession, and that means people lose their jobs. The good news is that unemployment is about peaking; it’s less than what the forecast was under his Government.

Was Winston Peters correct when he said of the current Government this morning that “we haven’t turned the economy around in the way we should have as fast as we should have”; if not, why was he wrong?

Well, as I’ve said, parts of our economy are recovering well and are experiencing growth. As I’ve said before, it’s a two-speed recovery at this point in time; there are parts that are also struggling. But the good news is just look at the commentators’ reports and look at the forecasts going forward from here, and you can see that people are feeling positive that the economy is now growing. It’s expected to strengthen its growth, and that’s a good thing that we should be celebrating, because cleaning up a mess, after six years of mismanagement in less than two years, is pretty good.

Will he guarantee there’ll be no sale or reduction of the Government’s current 100 percent ownership of Kiwibank before the election; if not, why not?

I’ve been very clear: we won’t have asset sales under this term. But, as I said yesterday, we should be able to have a more serious conversation, rather than a political one, about what is the optimal use of capital. With very high-functioning economies like Singapore, one of the hallmarks of their success is asset recycling, and we should look to do the same.

In that case, is the Government preceding with Kiwibank’s current capital raise, which Kiwibank has announced will be concluded by June next year; if so, how can he say that the Government‘s ownership of Kiwibank won’t be diluted before the next election?

There is ongoing engagement with the market and there is ongoing advice being taken.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister said in his answer to the previous question that there will be no asset sales before the election. Kiwibank are currently in the process of trying to raise capital, and that is going to be concluded—according to Kiwibank’s announcement and the announcement of the Minister of Finance—by June next year. I’d ask the Prime Minister how he can reconcile those two statements.

Well, you’re asking me to judge the quality of the answer. I sit here, listening to the question, and immediately, in my head, thinking that there are many ways which capital can be raised. If the Prime Minister has got more to add, he may do so.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. It was clear to everyone that the Prime Minister had addressed the question, as the Standing Orders require. The Leader of the Opposition is using points of order to make political points, and I think that’s unacceptable.

Yes, well, I think the leader of the ACT Party is doing exactly the same thing at the moment. I was in the middle of explaining a position when you decided you’d add your little bit to it—very unhelpful. Does the Prime Minister have more to say?

I would just say that that’s not characterised as an asset sale. The member seems to misunderstand what equity and debt and asset sales actually are. We saw a similar response to the Chorus proposal. He sold Kiwi wealth out of Kiwibank. That was an asset sale; this is not that. [Interruption]

Someone from the Government backbench is going to be leaving the House very shortly if we have more of those outbursts.

Can the Prime Minister confirm that under the last Government, Kiwibank sold its KiwiSaver business for $310 million to Fisher Funds, whereas under this Government, we are focused on getting more investment into Kiwibank through a capital raise?

Yes, and that is what is the difference between an asset sale and a capital raise. They’re two different things.

Was that sale of Kiwi Wealth Ltd conducted before or after the previous Labour Government bought back the 49 percent of Kiwibank that the previous National Government sold?

Well, I think you’ve made a point, but it’s not something he’s got responsibility for.

Supplementary question.

The Rt Hon Winston—

Point of order, Mr Speaker.

No, hang on. You asked: can he confirm something that a previous Government had done—

Which was exactly the question the Minister of Finance asked him immediately prior to that. So if he’s responsible for question that she asked him, which was to do with the actions of a previous Government, how is he not responsible for my question?

Well, I don’t know if you want the Prime Minister to be responsible for the actions of a previous Government—and that would be something new. But the Prime Minister may like to make a comment on that.

Look, I’m not responsible for the actions of a previous Government, but what I would say is that the member has got himself a bit worked up into a lather and has gone down a bit of a wormhole, and the reality is that this is a Government that is committed to not having asset sales over the course of this term. But there is a legitimately serious conversation that we should be having in this country so that we can ensure that Government capital is deployed to the highest possible purpose, with the best returns, and the greatest benefits to its citizens.

With respect to the substance of Nicola Willis’s question, does the Prime Minister know the massive dissociated scandal that went with that transaction?

I’m unaware of the details, and, again, I’m not responsible for the actions of the previous Government.

Does the Prime Minister believe that the public of New Zealand recognise the challenges their country faces and are up for an honest, rather than an emotional, conversation around how the Government manages its assets?

I think that we should make the case to the New Zealand people pro and for the position on asset sales, and the reason is very simple, which is that if you are a high-functioning economy like Singapore, one of the hallmarks of their success has been their asset recycling. They’re able to take Government capital and redeploy it to higher purposes that generate greater returns and greater benefits for their people. It’s pretty simple.

Can the Prime Minister tell us as to who privatised a third of the BNZ without going to tender, so that within three years that bank was—the biggest bank in this country—insolvent?

You’re not responsible for a previous Government.

I think that might not be—I’m not responsible for previous Governments’ actions, yeah.

Can the Prime Minister confirm, with reference to the Leader of the Opposition’s remark about the sell-down of Kiwibank in the previous Government, that in 2016, the New Zealand Superannuation Fund acquired a 25 percent share in Kiwibank and the Accident Compensation Corporation acquired another 22 percent share, all of which, of course, are on the Crown balance sheet?

And we had to buy it back, because they were trying to sell it off.

Buy it back from what—from the super fund? [Interruption]

Wait on. Sorry—

That’s your proposal.

Do you want to leave the House? Do both sides want to leave the House, because that will be happening if that sort of exchange occurs again. The Rt Hon Prime Minister.

I don’t have anything further to add, except to say that I think we’re going to have an adult conversation—a serious conversation, a strategic one—to say that if there is Government capital or Government assets that could or should be recycled for greater purpose and greater benefit for the New Zealand people, that’s a legitimate question that we should have. But we should have it without trying to politicise it in the way the member started today.

to the Prime Minister

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

Yes.

What does he have to say to the 29 kura and the 95,000 kaiako and ākonga who have spoken out against the education reforms his Government intends to pass tonight?

That they should be incredibly supportive, because this is a Government that is focused on lifting educational achievement and attendance for Māori and non-Māori students, and the success that we have seen already in the lift of new-entrant Māori reading rates under a structured literacy programme are incredibly encouraging.

Does he stand by the answer that the Minister of Education gave last week to our question on removing Te Tiriti o Waitangi obligations from school boards that “Elected parents to a school board should not be delegated what is a core Crown responsibility.”?

Yes, I do. I don’t believe it’s the board’s responsibility to discharge a Crown responsibility around Treaty obligations. I believe it is the board’s responsibility—their No. 1 priority—to make sure that they get kids to school, that they teach them the basics brilliantly, and that they focus on academic attendance and achievement.

Should Crown entities be expected to uphold core Crown responsibilities?

Again, the Crown has its relationships and its obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi, and I’ve addressed that.

Why should school boards—a specified Crown entity—not be delegated a core Crown responsibility?

We are making it crystal clear to board members that we expect, in a country where half of our kids don’t go to school regularly, thanks to a Labour-Greens previous Government policy; in a country where half of our kids are not at the standard that they need to be at for reading, thanks to a Labour-Greens education policy; and where 80 percent of our kids who are hitting high school are not at the standard that they need to be at in mathematics, that we are going to do everything, and that nothing is more important than setting our kids—Māori or non-Māori—up for success so that they can access high-paying jobs. We are not tolerating, after five-and-a-half years of an absolutely hopeless education Minister who ran our education into the ground, couldn’t get the kids to school, couldn’t teach them to read and write, and couldn’t teach them maths—we’re not doing that any more.

What is his Government’s track record of upholding their core Crown responsibility to honour Te Tiriti o Waitangi?

We, as a Government, are very focused on improving outcomes for Māori, and I would appreciate it if that member maybe had some policy contribution to make as a party as to what he’s doing to improve educational outcomes for Māori, what he’s doing to improve health outcomes for Māori, or improve economic opportunities for Māori. There’s been nothing from that member that I’ve heard on those policies.

Can he confirm that the core tenet of upholding the Treaty is around raising achievement for Māori students, and that it has, in fact, been the first time in the last two decades that we’ve seen an increase in Māori reading achievement through the phonics check?

Yes, I can. Again, what we believe, on this side of the House, is in providing kids—[Interruption]

Sorry—sorry. Prime Minister, stop for a minute. It’s not possible for the House to hear an answer when there is an immediate barrage as soon as he stands on his feet.

I can hear him.

Well, you’ve clearly got a greater capacity for hearing than I do.

I’m happy to swap with someone who can’t.

Prime Minister, you’re going to be given a little bit of a better opportunity to answer that question.

On this side of the House, we believe that Kiwi kids, setting off on life, should have an equality of opportunity, and one of the ways we do that is we lift educational outcomes for all kids, irrespective of their backgrounds, their ethnicities, and their circumstances. I am proud to say that our focus on back to basics has meant that for young, five-year-old Māori kids, doing their first phonics checks 20 weeks into school life, there has actually been an 18 percent improvement, where they’re at or above expectations. There has been a 15 percent reduction in Māori new entrant kids needing new and targeted support. That is a good thing, and I would hope that those members of that party, if they genuinely cared about improving outcomes for Māori, would celebrate that.

Does removing Treaty obligations from school boards actually stop anyone from doing anything they would like to do, or does it simply give more people the choice to live as they would like to in this country?

It makes it crystal clear that the primary, number one job of school boards is to focus on educational achievement—nothing matters more than that.

If Crown entities are not expected to uphold core Crown responsibilities, and if his Government is not expected to uphold core Crown responsibilities, who is?

The Crown does honour and uphold its responsibilities under the Treaty—that is our obligation to do that. In this case, when we’re talking about school boards, we want school boards focused on getting kids to school and getting them set up for success, and I would hope that those members really would want those same outcomes for their kids, too.

On the importance of the Treaty of Waitangi as a part of the education curriculum, can he confirm that conflict resolution is a key outcome, and sadly it’s lapsing?

Rawiri Waititi—

Point of order, Mr Speaker. That question in no way violates 390 of Standing Orders. Conflict resolution is a key part of educational outcomes.

You’re quite right, but the Prime Minister didn’t stand up to answer.

Why has he allowed David Seymour to test his deregulation agenda on our mokopuna with the Education and Training (Early Childhood Education Reform) Amendment Bill?

With apologies, I don’t really fully understand the gist of the question. I’d just say that the Regulatory Standards Bill is about making sure that we make regulation in a better way, that we get better quality legislation and regulation, and that’s what’s been proposed with that bill.

Why does his Government feel so threatened by Te Tiriti o Waitangi?

We’re not. We’re a Government that’s very focused on saying that it’s high time we improved educational outcomes for Māori, we improve health outcomes for Māori, we improve economic opportunities for Māori, and that’s what this Government is working really hard to do.

Following up on the question of “threatened”, does the Prime Minister feel threatened by any of the Māori members of his Cabinet?

No, I appreciate the challenge that I get from them on a daily and weekly basis.

to the Minister for Economic Growth

What actions will the Government take to boost the success of the New Zealand screen industry?

Last week, I announced changes to the international screen production rebate, ensuring New Zealand remains a competitive and attractive destination for international productions to invest and create jobs for New Zealanders. Analysis shows that, for every dollar invested, the scheme delivers around $2.40 in economic return, supporting more than 24,000 jobs and more than 5,200 businesses. The Government backs New Zealand business to do well and compete on the world stage, and that is why in Budget 2025 we confirmed $577 million in new funding over four years for the scheme. The rebate will only be paid out if new productions come here and make investments in our economy. These changes that I have announced will generate more investment, create more skilled jobs, and ensure New Zealand remains screen test ready.

How will the updated rebate settings make New Zealand more competitive internationally?

Global competition for large-scale productions and small and medium size productions is fierce. The updated settings ensure that New Zealand has its ticket to the game and lower the qualifying threshold to attract more productions, a change described by the screen production association as a game changer; making the 5 percent uplift more accessible for productions delivering lasting economic benefits; extending eligibility to our world-leading post-digital and visual-effects-only projects; and removing the cap on above-the-line costs to bring us into line with international standards. These refinements respond directly to industry feedback and will help secure more consistent work for our world-class crews, technicians, and creatives.

What has been the reaction from the screen sector to these changes?

The response has been overwhelmingly positive. The screen industry guild described it as big news for New Zealand’s screen sector. The screen producers New Zealand president said it is incredibly welcome news, a pragmatic decision, and the one that’s the real game-changer is taking down the value of projects. The New Zealand Film Commission said the changes will strengthen New Zealand’s competitive position, and industry figure Cliff Curtis called the updates crucial to keep New Zealand competitive on the world stage. This Government is listening to industry to secure growth, investment, and opportunity in a very important export sector.

How does investment in the screen industry contribute to the Government’s wider economic goals?

We see the screen industry as part of our plan to develop talent, create higher-paying jobs, and double the value of New Zealand’s exports in 10 years. It attracts international capital, builds skills, and promotes New Zealand’s brand to global audiences. Modelling indicates the improved rebate settings, which we have delivered, could attract as many as 15 additional international productions per year and increase foreign investment by several hundred million dollars. Productions made here, like Avatar and The Lord of the Rings, generate not just the jobs on set but the flow-on benefits for tourism and hospitality. I am told that one boat produced for the Avatar movie involved contracts with more than 40 small New Zealand businesses. We are backing this kind of activity, this high-return industry, to deliver growth for New Zealanders.

to the Minister of Finance

Does she stand by her statement of 29 August 2024, “Difficult conditions are starting to ease. We are already seeing the green shoots of recovery”; if so, why?

Yes. Let me take the member back in time. That was the quarter when Consumers Price Index inflation finally came back within the 1 to 3 percent target band, having been above the top of the band for three whole years, reaching a peak of 7.3 percent under the previous Government, driving a cost of living crisis. Two weeks before the statement the member quotes, the Reserve Bank had lowered the official cash rate for the first time since 2020. In the following two quarters, following my statement, GDP rose by 0.4 percent and then 0.9 percent. Business confidence was high. So, yes, there were certainly green shoots of recovery. Like many recoveries, there have been bumps along the way.

Why did she claim in October 2024 that “The green shoots of business confidence are re-emerging.”, when construction liquidations are up 23 percent, retail liquidations are up 16 percent, and hospitality liquidations are up 41 percent, just in the last year?

Because current activity in the retail sector recorded the highest response in four years; because building consents in terms of the monthly numbers are the highest in two years; and because the October ANZ Business Outlook showed a jump in confidence, the highest in six months.

Why did she claim on 5 November 2025 that an economic recovery is under way; the same day that we learnt that 160,000 people are now unemployed, the highest since 1994?

Because, as economic literature concludes, the foundations for an economic recovery are: inflation back in target, interest rates reducing, and the conditions for investment and growth. Our Government has rebuilt those foundations that you trashed.

No, I didn’t trash anything, and it’s not appropriate to use a question to attack the Opposition. [Interruption]. I beg your pardon; who’s speaking at the moment?

Is Winston Peters correct that “We’ve got a situation where we haven’t turned the economy around in the way we should have, as fast as we should have. I know it can be turned around but not with this sort of strategy where you’re not actually fixing the economy.”; if not, why not?

Well, Winston Peters is one of 20 Ministers around the Cabinet table who are absolutely of the shared, collective view that we need to do more to recover this economy, to have it growing faster. I am in complete agreement with him about that. I’ll tell you what we all agree won’t help, and that’s loading more taxes on to every business and KiwiSaver account in the country.

Point of order, Mr Speaker.

I’m not calling you just yet. There are people who are constantly calling out during the answer to a question, in order to drown out what the answer is. If that continues, that and those people will need to leave the House.

Point of order Mr Speaker. In that last answer, the Minister of Finance—I hope it was deliberately, because I can’t think why she would have done it otherwise—deliberately mislead the House about the nature of our tax policy; there is no tax on KiwiSaver, there is no tax on businesses.

There was no particular allegation made in that, from what I was able to hear of it.

Who should Kiwis believe: the Minister of Finance last week that, “A hard-won”—

Sorry, just a minute. Why are backbenchers from the Government speaking during the asking of a question?

Who should Kiwis believe: the Minister of Finance last week that “A hard-won economic recovery is now under way.”, or Winston Peters this morning, that her Government “has failed to run the economy properly”?

I think New Zealanders should believe me, and they should also believe Winston Peters, that we want to turn the economy recovery around faster. I’ll tell you, if we’re talking about the question of who should be believed, believe you this: your capital gains tax will hit every business and KiwiSaver fund in the country.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister of Finance is incorrect. Our capital gains tax will not hit KiwiSaver, will not hit businesses. She is completely misrepresenting us.

It would be a debatable point that I’m not going to rule on.

Why should New Zealanders believe her repeated declarations of an economic recovery when, since mid-last year, the economy has entered recession, unemployment is at long-term highs, food prices are up, and record numbers are fleeing for better opportunities offshore?

Because I am the finance Minister in a Government that has delivered tax relief to working people. I am the Minister of Finance in a Government that has got inflation back under control after three years of a cost of living crisis under the last lot. I am the Minister of Finance in a Government that has seen interest rates fall, and I am the Minister of Finance who says no to a capital gains tax on businesses, KiwiSaver funds, and hard-working Kiwis.

Point of order. I seek leave for the Hon Deborah Russell to ask two more supplementary questions on this question.

Leave is sought. Is there any objection? The Hon Deborah Russell.

Why—[Interruption]

Questions are heard in silence.

Why should New Zealanders believe the claims that the Minister of Finance has made about data points when the lived experience of everyday New Zealanders is that they cannot get appointments at the doctor, that the cost of living is up, and that they simply cannot afford to live in this country?

From the tax lecturer, I’d expect she would understand that when the data shows that price increases have been far lower in terms of inflation, that food price inflation is far lower than it was under her Government—those are real facts that matter—and because it is absolutely the case that were we to have a Government with a higher inflation target and more taxes on everyone, things would be a lot worse. That’s the alternative prescription you’re proposing.

Does the Minister of Finance understand that even though the rate of inflation has decreased that still means that prices are going up and still means that New Zealanders are still worse off every week because her Government is failing to fix this economy? [Interruption]

Just calm it right down. [Interruption] Just wait. Calm it right down.

I well understand and actually have daily recourse to reflect on the fact that when inflation has got as high as 7.3 percent—as it did under the last Government—and when that is sustained for a significant period of time it does bake-in prices across the economy at a higher level. Actually, bringing that back down again takes a lot of work. I also reflect on the fact that when a Government puts forward proposals to reduce inflation; to increase supermarket competition by fast-tracking new supermarkets, to increase jobs by fast-tracking new housing developments, new ports; when a Government reduces tax on investments that businesses make, it is supporting growth. When other people stand up in this House and say that their one solution is more tax on the economy, I wouldn’t take them seriously.

to the Minister of Health

What announcement has he made about improving access to timely, quality healthcare services in Hawke’s Bay?

Today, I announced the completion of stage one of the radiology upgrade at Hawke’s Bay Fallen Soldiers’ Memorial Hospital. This upgrade is part of a $35.8 million investment to double imaging capacity and deliver more than 10,000 additional MRI and CT scans each year for Hawke’s Bay patients. These significant upgrades are all part of our focus on putting patients first and will help Hawke’s Bay patients get the answers and treatments they need sooner. My thanks go to the project team, who delivered this critical project within a year of funding being allocated.

What benefits will this project deliver for patients in Hawke’s Bay?

The first stage has delivered an additional 808 square metres of floor space, and, from next week, a second MRI scanner will provide 4,000 to 6,000 extra scans per year, and a second CT scanner will double CT capacity with 6,000 to 10,000 extra scans annually. The facility has been designed to maximise efficiency, with dedicated spaces for patient preparation and post-scan care, to get as many scans done—for timely, quality access to radiology services in Hawke’s Bay.

How will these upgrades support the Government’s health targets?

These upgrades directly support our health targets to reduce wait times for patients. For cancer treatment, CT wait times will now consistently meet the two-week target. Increased CT capacity means faster access to urgent imaging and quicker clinical decision-making, helping reduce emergency department stays. Expanded imaging will also streamline diagnostic pathways for first specialist assessments and support faster treatment planning for elective procedures.

What other projects are under way to improve access to timely, quality healthcare in Hawke’s Bay?

Good news for Hawke’s Bay: Health New Zealand is delivering a rapid-build ward with 28 beds to boost capacity at the hospital and reduce wait times for patients. We’re also progressing a linear accelerator and bunker to improve services for patients needing cancer treatment in Hawke’s Bay; and more good news: the third endoscopy room will open later this month, further boosting diagnostic capacity. There’s a lot of work under way in Hawke’s Bay as part of our focus on putting patients first.

to the Minister for Children

What recent reports has she seen on serious and persistent youth offending?

I have seen a recent independent evaluation report on the Military-Style Academy (MSA) Pilot which shows two-thirds of participants reduced the frequency or seriousness of their offending in the six months after the residential phase of the pilot. I want to acknowledge these young people who have taken this opportunity to make better choices, but I also want to acknowledge all the staff who have been involved, including the mentors and social workers helping these young people. The Military-Style Academy Pilot had a real focus on the transition back into the community, and we have seen some good results.

What else did the independent evaluation report show about the outcomes of Military-Style Academy Pilot participants?

Comparing the six months before the residential phase to the six months after the pilot, participants reduced their violent offending by 67 percent. To put the outcomes of this group into context, the participants in the MSA pilot were matched with a cohort of nine other young people. The MSA cohort had longer periods of non-offending than the matched cohort. The independent report shows there were wider benefits too, including involvement in education, work experience and employment; improved physical and mental health; reconnection with whānau; and stable living situations. The evidence shows that these are all important protective factors that young people need as a foundation to be a success in life.

What have been some of the other outcomes for the young people in the Military-Style Academy Pilot?

There have been 11 young people in total involved in the pilot. One elected to leave the programme in the first couple of weeks. One young man tragically passed away in a car accident, and my thoughts go out to his family. Seven of the 11 had some alleged reoffending, generally at a lower level than before the pilot; and five of those are now back out in the community, and I’m told they’re doing well with no further offending. Reoffending rates are not the only measure of success. Every single one of these young people has the potential to do amazing things with their lives and become the best versions of themselves, and I hope they can achieve that moving forward.

What is the Government’s record on youth crime?

There has been a 16 percent reduction in children and young people with serious and persistent offending behaviour. We have taken an issue that was out of control and achieved our Government target four years ahead of schedule. We’ve invested in and expanded the few things that were showing results, like the fast track programme, but we also brought more accountability for young people and their actions. We’re getting on with the important work of fixing what matters.

to the Minister of Health

Does he stand by his statement that the health system is “finally turning a corner”; if not, why not?

In the context it was made, yes. We’re seeing steady improvements, with more Kiwis getting care sooner and wait times coming down. Patients are at the heart of everything we do and after years of decline, the health system is starting to move in the right direction. We have brought back health targets—because you can’t manage what you don’t measure—and we’re now seeing those results show up for patients. There is still a lot more work to do. Too many New Zealanders are still waiting too long to get the care that they need. We are making progress, but we won’t stop until every Kiwi can access timely, quality healthcare.

When Christchurch emergency department spent over a third of its winter days in code red, was it turning a corner?

The majority of patients at Christchurch Hospital were being seen within six hours, and we are now measuring that through the health target which the previous Government removed. What I would point out to the member is that the last Government decided to remove the health target for shorter stays in emergency departments. The number of patients which were being seen within six hours when Labour came to office was 89.2 percent; when they left, it was 67.5 percent.

Is 400 patients attending Christchurch emergency department on every day in September a sign that the health system is turning a corner, or a sign that more people can’t afford to see their doctor in the community?

Each year, we see increased presentations at our emergency departments due to population—

Because each year, you let GP fees go higher.

Well, if she’s going to talk about GP fees, Labour let GP fees increased by 30 percent in their six years in Government. That is on Chris Hipkins and the Labour Party. What we’re focused on is making sure that we’re investing in primary care, investing in the workforce that’s needed, and we are having to turn around a health system which the Labour Party decided to restructure during the middle of a pandemic.

Is that emergency department being crowned the busiest department in New Zealand and possibly Australasia a sign that the Canterbury health system is turning a corner, or that successful systems for keeping people out of hospital in the community have fallen apart?

As the member will know, if people need to have emergency care, they should go to an emergency department, but we also need to make sure that we’re investing across our health system. That’s why I’m proud that, under this Government, we have made a record investment in primary care this year, and a record investment in the primary care workforce, all whilst the previous Government increased GP fees by 30 percent.

Is erecting a tent care facility outside the Christchurch emergency department a sign that the health system is turning a corner, or a sign that it is in terminal decline?

Well, I’m not aware that that was done at that hospital, but what I would say is that, under her Government, she allowed GP fees to increase by 30 percent; and, whilst we are focused on trying to improve access to primary care through our Primary Care Tactical Action Plan, the Labour Party still won’t answer a simple question: do they support extended prescriptions to 12 months, which will save patients $105 per year and improve access to general practitioners? Why won’t the Labour Party say whether or not they support that policy?

to the Minister for Mental Health

What recent announcement has the Government made about combating methamphetamine harm?

The best way to take a drug is not to take it at all. The reality is meth destroys people’s lives, rips families apart, and harms our communities. That’s why the Government released a bold and comprehensive action plan to combat the harm caused by meth. We’re taking action to reduce demand by increasing the range of addiction services in our communities that have been hard hit by this drug. The health actions are just part of a wider plan across Customs, police, and justice to combat organised crime and give people the support they need. Whether it’s your child, a friend, or a family member reaching out for support, this Government is committed to ensuring support is there.

How will the Government’s action plan reduce demand and boost intensive treatment services?

One of my top priorities is to improve access to addiction support so we can ensure that when someone takes a brave step of reaching out, that support is there. We’ve invested an extra $30 million to deliver faster access to support by rolling out screening, brief intervention, and referral for treatment services in seven hospitals; boosting existing treatment services so they can scale up; training more front-line workers while also upskilling the existing workforce; and establishing new community early intervention and peer support services. Behind every one of these new services will be hundreds of Kiwis getting the support they need.

How will the Government’s methamphetamine action plan help prevent people from starting to use meth?

The Government’s health response to meth is focused on “stop people from starting”, “start people stopping”, and “keeping people stopped”. By expanding the Tūturu programme, we can get in a lot earlier and actually stop our kids from starting. We know engagement with education is a powerful protective factor for preventing drug use. Tūturu has been shown to improve outcomes for our young people by reducing the number of students being stood down, suspended, or excluded. There will also be a hard-hitting national media campaign from the proceeds of crime fund. This campaign will raise public awareness about the dangers of meth and show that support is available. The Government is not just focused on ensuring the right support is in place but on preventing Kiwis from getting to that point.

How will the Government’s plan to combat meth deliver more early intervention and peer support services?

Our mental health and addiction plan is working, with 77 percent of people seen within three weeks for specialist drug and alcohol support, with a growing front-line workforce, with our addiction workforce vacancy rates down by 17 percent. We don’t want people to get discouraged from reaching out for support. If someone is ready to get treatment, then that support needs to be there. That’s why we’re boosting community-based early intervention and peer support funding which will increase access to recovery groups, which are proven to support long-term abstinence. Increasing availability of these programmes in areas hardest hit by meth will ensure the right services are ready to support those who want to stop using. Our priority is to improve access to support so more Kiwis can get the help they need when and where it’s needed.

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 he think it undermines the mana of the Royal Commission of Inquiry to continue with boot camps in the face of unequivocal opposition from survivors and care-experienced youth?

What I’m proud about is this Government has seen a 16 percent reduction in serious youth offending, which was completely out of control under a Labour-Greens Government. Our change to our general approach on law and order is working.

Does he stand by his statement that his boot camps are “a powerful targeted intervention”, or does he accept findings that the boot camps had insufficient preparation, therapeutic support, and individual intervention due to a lack of capacity?

Yes, they’re an important part of lowering serious youth offending, which is down 16 percent under this Government.

Does he accept that expanding boot camps, despite official advice saying they’re costly and ineffective, is a mistake, when community-based, trauma-informed solutions, like Ngāpuhi social services youth remand programme, are having far better outcomes?

Serious youth offending’s down 16 percent and the community is safer.

Why is it a priority to invest in millions of dollars in boot camps when care-experienced youth implore the Government to instead fund properly trained staff, better access to education and healthcare, and safe therapeutic spaces in existing residences?

Because this is a Government that doesn’t believe a 30 percent increase in violent crime, a 51 percent growth in gang membership, a doubling of retail crime, and a quadrupling of ram raids is what is needed. This is a Government that’s invested in restoring law and order. That’s why there are 29,000 less victims of serious violent crime, that is why serious youth offending is down 16 percent, that is why there is growth in police out on the beat, and ram raids are down 85 percent.

Is the Prime Minister attributing the 70 percent drop to boot camps?

Can you clarify what drop, please?

In crime and reoffending. Is the Prime Minister—

Is that the same question or not? You’ve had an answer.

No, he didn’t address it. He asked for it to be—[Interruption]

Rhetorically, that’s right, but it is addressing the question.

to the Minister for Hunting and Fishing

What recent announcements has he made about Herds of Special Interest?

On Saturday, I was with the Prime Minister at the hugely successful Sika Show, where we announced the opening of public consultation on the draft herd management plans for wapiti deer in parts of Fiordland National Park and sika deer in the Kaimanawa and Kāweka forest parks. These plans outline a proposed new approach to sustainably managing these two herds. The changes will allow hunter-led conservation groups to better manage herd numbers, improve our native biodiversity, and create opportunities for economic growth and jobs in those regions.

Why are these draft herd management plans needed?

A herd management plan is required before the Minister can designate a Herd of Special Interest. These draft plans contain the blueprint for how we can sustainably manage sika and wapiti deer numbers, enhance ecological monitoring, strengthen community stewardship of the herds, and improve our biodiversity. These plans are now open for public consultation so that all members can make a contribution and ensure that we reflect the values of our local communities in Fiordland and in the Central Plateau.

How will Herds of Special Interest influence conservation outcomes?

Herds of Special Interest represent an exciting opportunity for all New Zealanders to better sustainably manage deer numbers in these two herds. By managing these herds for their hunting attributes, we can achieve smaller herd numbers and healthier animals. That means better environmental outcomes, enhanced canopy recovery, better meat recovery for our whānau and families, and more valuable hunting opportunities. It is a win-win for hunting and conservation.

How can Kiwis have their say on draft herd management plans?

Anyone, including members, can have their say on the Department of Conservation website. I would like to encourage all interested parties to have their say. Let us know what needs to be improved or changed in order for these plans to deliver the best possible Herds of Special Interest. Consultation opened on Monday and is open until Monday, 8 December.

How does a Herd of Special Interest management plan recognise the hard work that hunters do on the ground as conservationists?

Fantastic question, from one of our best hunter-conservationists in this House. These draft plans highlight the fact that hunters are one of our biggest conservation assets, and the plans actually acknowledge the contribution that they make to maintaining a healthy ecosystem. I can only point to examples of the great work done by the Central North Island Sika Foundation in leading the Kaimanawa whio duck recovery project or the Fiordland Wapiti Foundation, who operate over 500 predator control traps. These are just some of the many, many, many examples of hunter-led conservation in New Zealand.

to the Lead Coordination Minister for the Government’s Response to the Royal Commission’s Report into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions

Does she stand by her statement regarding her abuse in care redress decisions in May that “here is what we can do now, we can do quickly, we can get in place so that we can prioritise that certainty and surety for survivors”; if so, why?

Can I first acknowledge the National Day of Reflection for abuse in care tomorrow. In response to the question: yes, in context. The context was about prioritising improvements to the current State redress system that could be delivered quickly and would make an immediate difference to survivors. So I can advise the House that since those comments were made in May, in the June to September quarter, 1,056 new claims for abuse in care were lodged with agencies. This is a 114 percent increase in new claims on the previous quarter. This shows that survivors have responded to the certainty that the Government redress decisions provided. In addition, over $13 million has been paid in top-up payments to over 1,100 survivors. This is an average of almost $12,000 per survivor.

How has the Minister prioritised speed and certainty for survivors when a survivor died before getting her claim settled because she had to fill in additional forms about her criminal history?

There is a process for those who are terminally ill to have an exemption from that process. The process is that it comes directly to me and I sign it off. One of those has come to me and it was signed off on the same day it was delivered. In that particular situation, Health New Zealand did not follow the correct process, but I can advise that the payment will be made to the estate of that survivor.

Is lawyer Sonja Cooper correct to ask, “Why should somebody who is terminally ill, hospitalised, unable to move, in their last [few] weeks or months of life, why should they be put through this additional hurdle to get redress when it is hard enough, in any event, to go through the redress processes?”

There is no additional step. The exact same step that you have to follow when you are terminally ill as a survivor to get your claim expedited is exactly the same as to get through this other process. All you have to do is show that you are terminally ill. It’s the same process. There is no additional step. So the person who is terminally ill provides the report to show they’re terminally ill and, in the back end, we do all the rest. There is no additional step for the survivor.

Why is she requiring survivors to fill in forms about their criminal offending before the legislation is even passed?

Well, if the member were to read the legislation, she’d understand the answer to that question.

Why did she inform a survivor that their claim was not paused when the Ministry of Social Development told them their claims could not progress to settlement until the legislation is finalised or the new declaration and consent forms are ready?

I don’t remember saying that. If the member wants to put that in writing to me, I’ll be able to respond.

Why did she promise speed, certainty, and surety for survivors in her May announcement, yet months later, claims were not progressing because of her new legislation and new forms?

Well, since we have made that announcement, we have put a huge amount of resource into making sure that there are more people processing claims. I can say that we took the amount of claims being processed from 1,100 a year up to 1,550 a year, and this year we are on track to exceed that number because of the hard work that we are doing. So we are providing more certainty and more surety to survivors, and that is exemplified in the fact that more survivors are coming forward to make their claims.

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.

Can the Prime Minister guarantee that every New Zealander—particularly our young people—can get the support that they need to prevent them from sleeping homeless on the street tonight?

Well, that’s what this Government is doing. We’ve done a good job of making sure housing affordability is in place for owners and renters; we’ve taken about 5,000 people off the social housing wait-list; we’ve taken people out of emergency housing; and we’re continuing to support people who are in homeless situations.

Why will the Prime Minister not commit to ensuring that all New Zealanders—especially our young people—get the support that they need to prevent them from sleeping rough on the street tonight?

Well, this Government’s undertaken quite a few actions, as was announced by Ministers just recently. We’ve put $10 million of additional funding into support services for rough sleepers in exactly that situation; we’ve expanded the Housing First programme with another 300 spaces—I think 100 of the 300 have been allocated already, and 200 of the 300 are actually in Auckland itself.

What’s the local MP doing about it?

Can the Prime Minister guarantee that a job is available for every young person who he has decided to make access to the jobseeker support more difficult for?

Well, this is a Government that wants to see young people connected to employment, training, and education, and we are putting expectations on our 18- to 19-year-olds to do exactly that.

Has the Prime Minister read the advice to his Government from his officials that introducing his new barriers to young people’s access to jobseeker support will not reduce barriers to employment and could actually increase unemployment, or is he just ignoring like he did the advice that his decisions would make more people homeless?

I’m proud of our record on housing, and when I consider that against a Labour-Greens Government that had a fourfold increase in State housing wait-lists, that actually drove up house prices by 30 percent in a single year, and drove rents up $180 per week—we’ve taken 3,000 people out of emergency housing and put them into homes, and we are supporting homelessness. When the Greens member had their own Minister, homelessness went up 37 percent despite spending a billion dollars on it. Our record on housing beats that record on housing any day of the week.

If the Prime Minister chose to resource housing and job creation for all of our young people, would it cost more or less than his $3 billion tax cut to landlords?

Well, I’m actually proud of the tax cuts that we made to working New Zealanders—the people that Labour and the Greens used to purport to care about, but didn’t, and didn’t support that initiative.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave of the House to address the questions from one of our co-Deputy Prime Ministers about what the Auckland Central MP is doing about this homelessness issue—

Sorry, I can’t—

—which this Government has exacerbated.

Sorry—[Interruption] I’m sorry—[Interruption] Excuse me. I didn’t hear what she just said. Could you say it slowly and clearly?

I was seeking leave of the House to address the questions put to me by one of our co-Deputy Prime Ministers about what the Auckland Central MP is doing about the issue of homelessness, which this Government has exacerbated.

No, you can’t seek leave on behalf of someone else.

In relation to jobseeker support, is the Prime Minister aware that a couple of Māoris are about to become unemployed?

Well, this is a Government that actually offers support to all New Zealanders.

Have Ministers received any advice—

Sorry—sorry, Rt Hon Chris Hipkins, there are people behind you speaking. There are people throughout the House who are speaking. The next one who speaks will be leaving.

Have Ministers received any advice on potential law changes to move-on homeless people from central business districts, and, if Ministers have, why did the Prime Minister tell the House last week that they hadn’t?

Because the member’s question was different from the one that he’s just posed now. I’d just say that the Minister for Auckland, as I have said, subsequently, over the course of the last week, is going to do everything we can to make sure that the CBD is safe for Aucklanders. When we have cruise season upon us, when we have major events, a convention centre, and the City Rail Link opening up, we want people to be able to go into the Auckland CBD and not be intimidated. We are considering move-on orders, but we need to make sure the support is in place so that those folk, when they are moved-on, actually have somewhere to go and we don’t move the problem around the city.

Will he guarantee—

Wait on—just wait for the House to settle itself. This is a bad day. There is too much discussion going on on the Government benches while questions are being asked.

Will he guarantee that homeless people won’t simply be moved into outer suburbs or other areas out of CBDs because they don’t have anywhere to go?

What I can guarantee is that we are not a Government that is putting emergency housing and 501 deportees into downtown Auckland CBD to create unsafe environments for other citizens. We take this very seriously—that’s why we’ve increased police on the beat in the CBD, and that has helped in some dimensions. That is why a Minister for Auckland is actually engaging with NGOs, Government agencies, and local government to actually identify what solutions—together, collectively—we can do. That is important.

Can the Prime Minister confirm that thousands of visitors to Queen Street fear for their own safety and that it’s not purely an issue of homelessness, but potential criminality, drug taking, and people defending victimhood?

Yes, I can. Many Aucklanders in Auckland refuse to go into the CBD for exactly that reason. We are opening up cruise ship season, where visitors from overseas are coming to our country, and that is their experience in the Auckland CBD. We will fix it up—

Prime Minister—

—another mess created by the Labour-Greens Government—

Prime Minister—

—but we’ll sort it out.

Just stop. We’re going to hear the answer in absolute silence. Barracking across the House like that is totally unacceptable.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. Sir, I don’t dispute that direction whatsoever, but it needs to be pointed out that it is extremely difficult to expect order in the House when Ministers regularly ignore the clear guidance and direction that you have given on the quality of answers. The Prime Minister, just then, used that answer, given to him by his own Minister, to have a swipe at the Opposition. No wonder there was disorder as a result.

Well, the reality is that I just couldn’t hear it—that’s why I intervened and said we’ll hear it in silence. If there is such commentary, it’ll be stopped.

No New Zealander wants to see homelessness in this country. The previous Government would acknowledge that they spent a billion dollars on emergency housing, and homelessness went up 37 percent. That only speaks to the complexity of the issues around homelessness. What we are doing as a Government is working with many agencies and NGOs to actually get a solution in Auckland CBD, because it has to change. It will be different, and this Government will get that job done.

to the Chairperson of the Environment Committee

Why did an advertisement go out in her name allowing only 11 days for submissions on the Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill when there was no instruction from the House for a report deadline under six months?

The Government has been clear to the public that it expects the Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill to be passed before the end of the year. As the chair of the Environment Committee, I agree, as does the majority of the committee; therefore, as per Standing Order 198, I set out a timetable to ensure this expectation is met. I would like to point the member to Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand, which makes clear that chairs can, and do, frequently call for submissions on the committee’s behalf, and that the chair’s actions are subject to the direction from the committee and must be endorsed by the committee at its next meeting. As that member knows, the Environment Committee voted, by majority, to endorse this call for submissions on Monday, 10 October. The Government has been clear to the public that—

That’s good—that’s probably enough.

—they want to deliver benefits to Kiwi shoppers—

Thank you.

—as soon as possible—

That’s enough.

Yeah.

Sit down.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you very much, sir. The member is being asked a question in her capacity as chair of the Environment Committee. Is it appropriate for that member, therefore, to be using the answer to a serious question, which was straight to the point, to be broadcasting what her view of the Government’s intentions are? I believe that is going beyond her responsibility to the House.

Well, the question did ask why she made a decision. The answer was far too long, but it did appropriately point to the Standing Orders and also Parliamentary Practice. That would back up the point, and make further the point, that any decision by a chair has to be backed by the committee, which, clearly, it was. The Hon Rachel Brooking, one supplementary—

Point of order, Mr Speaker. Given the answer that has been provided to this question by Rachel Brooking, can I ask how on earth did this question get on the Order Paper? Because it’s all there—no instruction from the House. Well, the House actually sent the bill to a select committee; the committee gave the instruction. So how did this question get here?

Well, members are able to ask questions under the Standing Orders. If something that should be patently obvious to everybody is not obvious to the person asking the question, then it can be answered.

Which Ministers or ministerial advisers, if any, did she communicate with about the 11-day submission deadline before the advertisement was issued?

I’m not responsible for that particular decision. As the chair of the committee, I acted under Standing Order 198 to make a call for submissions—

Good. That’s enough.

—to open up submissions, and this was within Parliamentary Practice—

Thank you—that’s enough.

Point of order, Mr Speaker.

It needs to be a fresh and genuine point of order.

I refer you, therefore, sir, to Speaker’s ruling 185/2, made by Speaker Smith, which dealt with this exact situation. In the answer to the primary question, the member outlined that she made the decision, which was subsequently backed up by the committee. It is, therefore, I believe, inappropriate, or certainly not living up to the requirements of her to address the question, to say it is not her responsibility when she has actually just informed the House that she made the decision. The question as to whether she liaised with or consulted with or, indeed, was instructed by a Minister is entirely valid, and the House deserves a response.

That may have been how you interpreted the question; it’s certainly not how I interpreted it. I think the response that was given was satisfactory, and that ends the member’s question.

I move, That the sitting of the House today be extended into tomorrow morning to consider the following Government orders of the day: consideration in committee of the Regulatory Standards Bill; the third reading of the Medicines Amendment Bill; consideration in committee of the Crimes (Countering Foreign Interference) Amendment Bill; the second reading of the Education and Training (Early Childhood Education Reform) Amendment Bill; consideration in committee of the Crimes Legislation (Stalking and Harassment) Amendment Bill; and the second reading of the Overseas Investment (National Interest Test and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.

Those who are leaving the House need to do so without any discussion on the way—very quietly.

Point of order. Mr Speaker—

We’re just, it’s unusual to take—

I know, but I seek leave to see the Green Party Whip’s authority for the last two votes that they cast.

I’m aware that they have the authority.

You’re aware that they have the authority?

I am. I’ve been notified by the members that the Green Party carries their proxy.

Yeah, but have you seen them?

I don’t have to see them. I’m allowed to take members at their word.

Well, that’s a mistake.

Well, I’ve been giving the member the benefit of the doubt for the last couple of years. We will have silence while the vote is called.

In the first person pronoun, we present a legislative statement on the Racing Industry (Closure of Greyhound Racing Industry) Amendment Bill.

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

We move, That the Racing Industry (Closure of Greyhound Racing Industry) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. We nominate the Primary Production Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, we intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 13 March 2026.

Since 2021, the greyhound racing industry has been on notice, after three successive reviews over a decade all found animal welfare concerns and a need for change. These concerns clearly put the industry’s social licence to operate under threat, and in December last year, the decision was finally made to close commercial greyhound racing in New Zealand from 1 August 2026.

This decision was not taken lightly. Many MPs are adverse to any business shutting down. It was acknowledged that the industry, in Greyhound Racing New Zealand, had undertaken genuine efforts in recent years to improve animal welfare. However, it was considered that the rate of dogs being seriously injured remained too high, and the improvements made were not significant enough for the industry to retain its social licence.

The decision to close was also taken against the backdrop of greyhound racing declining worldwide. Since December 2024, Wales, Tasmania, and Scotland have all followed suit. It is pleasing to note that Greyhound Racing New Zealand has withdrawn its judicial review against the Government. We encourage members of Greyhound Racing New Zealand and the wider racing community to actively engage in the select committee process and focus on the way forward.

To close our own industry, a carefully managed approach has been undertaken. The approach comprises two bills. The first bill was the Racing Industry (Unlawful Destruction of Specified Greyhounds) Amendment Bill 2024, which unanimously passed all stages of this House on 10 December last year. That bill was to prevent the unnecessary killing of racing dogs as the announcement of an incoming enclosure meant that racing greyhounds became less economically valuable or viable, and I thank members across the House for their unanimous support of that bill.

It was necessary that the first bill was passed under urgency to immediately put in place protections for the greyhounds themselves, and it was undertaken in the knowledge that a second, more substantive bill that would close the industry would follow and allow for public input. That leads us to the second bill, the bill before the House today, the Racing Industry (Closure of Greyhound Racing Industry) Amendment Bill. This bill’s primary intent is to close the industry in a way which prioritises greyhound welfare and the wellbeing of greyhound racing participants throughout the closure process.

This bill is based on the recommendations of the Greyhound Racing Ministerial Advisory Committee, which was established to provide expert independent advice on the closure and oversight. The committee, which is comprised of Heather Simpson as chair and Lindsay Burton and Murray Johnson as members, has met and continues to meet with a range of industry bodies and organisations. They’ve also maintained close contact with Greyhound Racing New Zealand. From those meetings, the committee delivered a report at the end of May, with a set of detailed recommendations for the legislative changes needed to close the industry in a measured way. Thank you to the committee for its ongoing hard work and its well-informed report, and thank you to all of those who were engaged with the committee in good faith.

After further consideration, the committee’s report was released in August, alongside the announcement that the Government agreed with the committee’s recommendations and would proceed with a bill that implements those recommendations. The bill sets out the framework for a transition to closure for the industry which prioritises the welfare of greyhounds and is concerned with the smooth transition out of the industry for affected people.

To provide a well-managed closure, this bill comes into effect over three stages. This will ensure a framework for closure is in place before commercial greyhound racing ends on 1 August 2026. It will also allow sufficient time for some subsequent work to wind up the greyhound racing industry, such as ensuring that greyhounds are successfully rehomed over time. The first stage will be from the day after Royal assent and lays down the framework for closure ahead of 1 August 2026. This stage will see the establishment of the transition agency responsible for ensuring that a transition plan relating to Greyhound Racing New Zealand is in place to wind up the industry.

It’s intended that the current members of the Ministerial Advisory Committee would be appointed to the board of the transition agency, and collectively these members hold relevant skills and experience in governance, project management, and animal welfare. These members have built their necessary relationships to continue working with the industry, and it’s in everyone’s best interests that engagement in good faith continues. The agency would be responsible, amongst other things, for ensuring a transition plan is in place, closing Greyhound Racing New Zealand (GRNZ) and clubs, facilitating greyhound rehoming, and supporting industry participants.

The second stage is from 1 August 2026 and will bring the actual closure of commercial greyhound racing in this country. This stage will see the removal of references to greyhound racing from the Racing Industry Act, so it is no longer permitted. During this stage, Greyhound Racing New Zealand will be dissolved and appropriate remaining functions will be transferred to the agency.

Finally, the third stage will see the repeal of provisions relating to the agency. While the bill anticipates the agency will have completed its function within three years, it allows for some flexibility in timing in case there is still some outstanding work at that time. Hence, the third stage comes into force on a date set by Order in Council, but no later than 31 July 2031. We might possibly still be around to see what’s going on at the time! Once disestablished, any residual assets held by the agency would be distributed to the other racing codes.

This transition to closure needs to be as smooth as possible. Members of the greyhound racing industry, wider stakeholders, and the general public are all encouraged to engage with the select committee process so that this bill and this process is as robust as possible. It should also be noted that, whilst the select committee is undertaking its consideration of the bill, the Ministerial Advisory Committee will continue its work to lay the groundwork for the transition agency. This includes ongoing work with greyhound rehoming organisations to identify what practical steps are desirable to scale up the rehoming effort.

Finally, greyhounds make great companion animals, and we encourage New Zealanders to consider adopting them as the industry is wound up. We will need to find these dogs homes. In conclusion, the bill is commended to the House. Thank you.

Thank you. I call—away you go!

I know that you know that. It’s always a question of which “Rachel B” is it in the House.

It is a pleasure to take a call on the Racing Industry (Closure of Greyhound Racing Industry) Amendment Bill as Labour spokesperson for animal welfare. Just noting at the beginning of this short call that Labour will be supporting this bill, and our hope is that this bill will receive unanimous support from across the House.

Can I just begin by acknowledging the Minister and thanking him for his work on this important transition approach to ending greyhound racing in New Zealand. Where we are today is a continuation of work that was begun under the previous Labour Government. Can I begin, as well, by acknowledging our previous racing Ministers Grant Robertson and Kieran McAnulty, both of whom did significant groundwork to address the animal welfare concerns that existed within industry to get us to this point

Just to begin, I just wanted to acknowledge that for many people working in the greyhound industry this decision will have a significant impact on the people who work in this industry—who train dogs, who race dogs—and who have done that for most of their lives; many of whom are part of generational families who have worked in the greyhound industry. This will have an impact on their lives and their livelihoods. Can we acknowledge that for those people, they will need that transition support. We acknowledge in the Labour Party that there is that need for fairness—[Interruption]

Just a moment. OK, carry on.

We acknowledge within the Labour Party that there is that need for fairness and for meaningful support for those involved in the industry who will need to be transitioning into other work, and so we acknowledge that for those people today will be a difficult day in their working careers.

What this bill does is it formally ends commercial greyhound racing in New Zealand by 1 August 2026. As I noted earlier, there have been a number of reviews into greyhound racing. The industry was put on notice. They were told that if things weren’t significantly improved, that the industry was likely to close. I want to acknowledge that there have been some improvements made by industry, but those improvements have not gone far enough. They have not been enough in order to ensure that this industry could continue. The social licence to operate greyhound racing has been lost. I note that in the 2024 to 2025 season there were 17 greyhound deaths, which was an increase on the previous year. Just at the end of October, two greyhounds were killed in Invercargill as a result of spinal injuries due to racing.

As animal welfare spokesperson, I hear from members of the public. The public of New Zealand cannot tolerate this any further. It is clear from reports in the media and from engagement with the people of New Zealand that the social licence for greyhound racing has been lost and people are no longer willing to see dogs perish or be injured as a result of this practice.

What I think will be the most important thing to do, alongside supporting those who’ve worked in this industry, is ensuring that animals are rehomed. What I’m pleased to see as part of the transition plan is that it will continue to do that work alongside organisations like the SPCA, like Greyhounds as Pets, and other organisations to ensure that these dogs can be suitably rehomed. I’ve said in the House before that if I didn’t already own two labradors, I’d probably look at adopting one of these beautiful animals. They are wonderful pets.

They aren’t for every family. Some people would prefer cats—Camilla Belich. So people do need to take a considered view around—like they should anytime they adopt a companion animal, they should do so knowing that they have the ability to care properly for that animal. But can I encourage New Zealanders who are listening to this debate today, who are following this in the media, to seriously consider adopting a greyhound? We will need to see a significant number of New Zealanders over the coming weeks and months adopt a greyhound into their family. They can be, as Kieran McAnulty often points out, exceptionally lazy. Then when they do want to chase something, they can go at a wicked pace, as we sometimes see with his dog, Zoi, down the corridors of Parliament.

So I commend this bill to the House. I thank the Minister for his work in leading this change today. I do encourage New Zealanders to get in behind the rehoming programme. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise today to speak on behalf of the Green Party in support of the Racing Industry (Closure of Greyhound Racing Industry) Amendment Bill. This bill is underpinned by an important principle and a strongly held New Zealand cultural value, which is that New Zealanders don’t want to see animals suffer. It’s a simple principle. Whenever there is a survey done, whether it’s in regard to companion animals or farm animals or animals in entertainment, overwhelmingly, we have a strong-held cultural view that animals shouldn’t suffer. They should not be the subject of cruelty. They should not live miserable lives. Unfortunately, in the case of the greyhound industry, there has been years of evidence and facts, in regard to the operation of that industry, that have brought us to the point where it is clear that this is not an industry that has a place in a country that holds to that principle of animals having a good life.

For a long time, the Green Party have called for an end to the greyhound racing industry. I want to acknowledge previous member Mojo Mathers, who, in 2016, presented the first petition by the greyhound protection league calling for a ban on greyhound racing. I want to acknowledge the campaigns that were run in the 2020s. My colleague Chlöe Swarbrick, in 2022, introduced a member’s bill with the help of Save Animals from Exploitation (SAFE) and the Animal Law Association to ban greyhound racing. I adopted that bill on my entry to Parliament in 2023 and only removed that bill from the member’s tin because of the announcement by the Minister that it was the intention of this Government to bring in a ban on greyhound racing. We commend that intention.

I cannot put it any more clearly than how the Minister himself put when he said, “The bottom line is too many dogs continue to die and be seriously injured, and it is time to do the right thing.”. For those people watching to understand the extent of the harm that comes to greyhounds and the extent of that death toll, just to be clear, in the 2023-24 season, there were 145 greyhounds that died or were euthanised. In the 2022-23 season, there was 145, and in the 2021-2022 season, there were 236. These dogs are doing what they are bidden do, which is race, but very often that leads to serious, fatal injuries or injuries that are so irreparable that the dogs must be euthanised. There are very high rates of euthanasia in this industry.

One of our concerns is that dogs will be exported for racing. In April this year, the Goldstar Racing training organisation exported 80 dogs to Australia to continue racing. We’ve made it clear: our expectation is that the legislation should ensure that there is a prohibition on the export of dogs for continued racing. We also note the Minister’s comments that they will be re-homed, not re-racetracked, and we support that principle.

Just to finish, greyhounds are gentle animals, they are loyal dogs, and they do love to run but not, perhaps, as much as they would if they were being raced. We want to see them put into loving, caring homes where they will be free to run of their own volition, not because they are compelled to. They make great companion animals, and we support the call of colleagues across the House that we would love to see New Zealanders step up and take these greyhounds into their homes and rehome them so that they can live out a good life, having been part of this racing industry that is coming to an end, and rightly so. We commend this bill to the House.

I rise in very cautious support of this bill. To speak frankly, this bill is taking away people’s property rights. For the first time in our history, the State is stepping in to takeover and shut down an entire sport. It is the Government deciding that an industry people have built with their own hands, their own money, and their own passion no longer deserves to exist.

I know emotions run hot on this issue, but when feelings are running high, that’s exactly when Parliament needs to keep its head. Behind all the noise, we cannot forget the people whose lives are being upended by this.

When the Labour - New Zealand First - Green Government rushed through their firearms ban, ACT stood with the people affected. We went out and listened, we heard their frustration and their sense of betrayal. Today, this House and its members must do the same for the greyhound community. They deserve to be heard, not shut out and dismissed.

Unlike some, I, alongside ACT MPs, have met the people affected. I went to the races in Christchurch to see the sport in action. I have sat down with Greyhound Racing New Zealand, with owners, trainers, and their families who have poured generations of work and love into this sport. What we have here is heartbreaking. They’ve written letters, they’ve asked for meetings, they’ve begged for a chance to be heard since this was announced, and they have been ignored. These people are not the type of people that some people make them out to be: villains. They are good, hardworking New Zealanders who have done everything the Government has asked of them. They have followed the rules. They have poured millions of dollars into ensuring the safety of these animals during their racing lives, as well as getting them rehomed. They love their greyhounds, and they are now being told that their livelihoods are being taken away, while other people in this community and in this House celebrate.

I keep hearing the argument that greyhound racing has lost its social licence. But I ask: how long until it’s rodeo—or roe-dayo? How long until it’s the horses? If the Government can erase an entire industry because it’s politically convenient, then no one is safe. What we’re saying is that if enough people shout loudly, the State can trample over property rights, over livelihoods, and over communities built through generations. This is not just about racing; it’s about property rights. It’s about fairness. It’s about a group of people, especially in rural New Zealand, who are losing a community.

There are some big questions that the select committee will need to answer. What will happen to the leftover assets built up over decades? What happens to TAB revenue from betting on dog racing outside New Zealand? And what happens to the thousand-odd people who depend on this work to feed their families? When the State takes something as fundamental as private property, it must answer to the people it is taking it from.

My message to every MP and Minister here: go and meet the people this bill affects, look them in the eye, hear their stories. This isn’t about a faceless industry; it’s about families, generations deep, who are now on the verge of losing everything. The people in this industry aren’t responsible for what past Governments or Ministers have done or spent. They deserve respect, understanding, and the basic dignity of being met face to face, and the least that we can do is listen to them. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I understand the point that my colleague from the ACT Party makes. This has been a well-signalled change. Over the last 12 months, I’ve met with people from the industry; I’ve met with those who oppose it; I’ve met with those who rehome dogs like in my electorate in Manakau from the Great Mates team, but also those that work outside of the industry to rehome dogs. I don’t think any of those that I’ve met with would see this being about property; I think this, for them, is about passion. I think it’s about the thing that they love.

What I have found in every person I’ve engaged with is that they are passionate about these wonderful animals. They’re passionate about what they do, and for those in the sport, they’re really passionate about that as well. I do think this is a really significant step that we’re taking. I do accept the argument that the world has moved on, that the social licence right around the world to continue in dog racing has been eroded, and that as much as this is a difficult decision, it is the right step to take at this time.

I also think it’s important to give these people a voice. That’s why I hope and I encourage all of those I’ve met with and those that I haven’t to engage in the select committee process—to have their say. I look forward to reading their submissions and to them having the chance, one last time, to have their say. But I do commend this bill to the House to move to the next stage at select committee.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. A privilege to follow on from my colleague Tim Costley. I just want to reiterate a point we haven’t actually so far this afternoon: that New Zealand at the moment is one of only five countries across the world where commercial greyhound racing is still permitted. It’s not an easy decision that the Minister is making but it is the right one, because it’s actually about reflecting our commitment to prioritising animal welfare while providing the industry the time and support that they need to bring about this change. Therefore I commend it to the House.

Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this piece of legislation. I want to acknowledge the Minister for Racing for bringing this to the House, and I want to acknowledge the previous members and Ministers that have worked on the piece of legislation up to this point.

I just want to acknowledge some of the issues that Cameron Luxton raised in his speech and I don’t believe that anybody in this House has made out the people that work in this industry to be villains. I don’t believe anyone in the House has said that. In fact, what we have heard in this House and what this piece of legislation does is acknowledges that there are people who will be impacted by this decision, as the member who spoke previously said, that have perhaps been in this industry for generations. It is important that we do acknowledge that and acknowledge that it’s not easy for anybody to be losing their job, and particularly in this day and age.

So, again, nobody has accused these people of being villains but what we have said is that the industry has basically been on notice since 2021 and there have been constant calls for improvement in the industry. Sadly, for whatever reason, it hasn’t happened as it should have. What we know is that New Zealand is a country that prides itself on its animal welfare standards, and what we see with this industry is that there is a really high risk of injury and death for these dogs when they race: broken legs, fractured skulls, spinal injuries, heart attack, and heat stroke.

After an injury, they are simply euthanised because they are no longer deemed to be profitable for those who wish to race them. In fact, according to SAFE, since December of last year and as of 9 November 2025, 645 greyhounds have been injured, 93 have suffered fractures, and 17 have died. So this decision is the right decision and I am proud to be standing here as a member of the Labour Party that supports this piece of legislation. Greyhounds are gentle, social animals and if anyone has met Zoi, the Hon Kieran McAnulty’s dog, we can all attest to that. They might not be the smartest and they may not be the prettiest, but they are—Kieran, don’t judge me—but they are certainly social, they are loyal, and they are absolutely lovely animals.

It’s interesting to note, as the Minister in his opening speech mentioned, there are several other countries who have followed suit since, since the Government announced that this was going to be happening. As the Minister mentioned, this is going to be a staged approach to the shutdown of this industry, and that is important because it does speak to the people who are involved in the industry, as far as jobs go. Re-homing—and as my colleague Rachel Boyack mentioned, I do urge people or encourage people to look at adopting one of these greyhounds in order to ensure that they are sent to loving homes around the country.

There were three options, I think, that were put before the Government with regard to this piece of legislation. One being that they stick with the status quo, no changes. Well, that’s not acceptable to anyone, I don’t think. Option 2—industry continuation with increased oversight and regulation. But there were some concerns that outcomes and enforcement of animal welfare—that it actually wouldn’t happen appropriately, that it would only make slightly better improvements. Option 3, that would have the most positive impact for animal welfare, was to work through the closing down of this sector in a transitional way.

So I am pleased to be able to support this piece of legislation whilst acknowledging those that are going to be impacted by this and working with them; urge them to submit. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to support this bill. I have to say that the decision was not taken lightly. It follows three independent reviews that were done about the industry back in 2013, 2017, and 2021, and it is for the welfare of the greyhounds. I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to take a call on this bill and am very pleased to be able to take a call because Labour supports this bill. We’ve heard other speakers talk about the welfare of greyhounds and I want to thank the Minister for his opening comments. I think it’s really important in this day and age, as members in the House, that we try to achieve a balanced argument. What is important is that we’ve heard more and more concerns from animal welfare supporters as to why, over time, with the reviews and all the work that has continued, as the Minister pointed out, that it is an important issue about animal welfare. New Zealanders want to come to a point where the industry has worked on trying to get better outcomes for the greyhounds, but we’ve seen and we’ve heard the injuries cannot be sustained. So it is important that the Minister has undergone, with appointing the ministerial advisory committee that has been set up, through a process and looked at the best options with Greyhound Racing New Zealand.

I do want to point out—and I’ve heard other colleagues from across the House talk about it—the other side of the argument for those who have invested time and money and their careers to do with greyhound racing. We’ve heard that the wellbeing of the industry specifically for these animals—and we’re quite lucky because, like my colleague Jo Luxton pointed out, we’ve got Kieran McAnulty’s greyhound, in terms of the approach that he had taken to adopt one of these animals.

The bill ensures the framework in closing the industry, with the set date of 1 August, and that will have the upside and the downside. The downside will be for those who are affected by the closure of the industry. In particular, we’ve heard that those who’ve been in industry for quite a long time are affected. One of the things that they’re asking about is: is there compensation? Is there going to be a transition period? Are their concerns going to be heard?

Again, I go back to the earlier a point that I mentioned around compensation, but also around a balanced argument. Well, it’s probably from their perspective that it’s going to be an unbalanced time for them, specifically for those who have been in the industry for such a long time. They wanted to have their day in court. They wanted to be heard about their concerns about their investment of time, and they don’t agree, because for their livelihoods this has a significant impact and is a significant step for the industry.

I do want to raise that through the transitional period there needs to be meaningful support, compassion, and also fairness for those who have worked in the industry: the trainers, the communities, and those who supported the activity. However, we’ve come to a point now where we, in Labour, are supporting the decision, as we’ve heard the Minister announce in this bill. It will have a major impact. I know we will have a committee stage in this process after the select committee process, but specifically, my plea is that the transitional authority that will be appointed to do that role, with the cost of the role of $60 million, that the steps in place—again, I want to mention, just as I wrap up, the balance of hearing how those in the industry will have the opportunity to raise their concerns about when the industry is going to be closed, is going to be wrapped up. Will it be fair compensation? But Labour does support this step in this bill. I commend the bill to the House

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to be able to take a very short call on the Racing Industry (Closure of Greyhound Racing Industry) Amendment Bill. We’ve heard across the House that there’s unanimous support for this very compassionate bill, and we’ve also acknowledged that there will be a huge impact on those people involved in the industry. Without extending the time any longer, I commend the bill to the House.

The question is, That the Racing Industry (Closure of Greyhound Racing Industry) Amendment Bill be considered by the Primary Production Committee.

I move, That the Racing Industry (Closure of Greyhound Racing Industry) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 13 March 2026.

And I thank my colleagues for the abbreviated version of support.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I present a legislative statement on the Land Transport Management (Time of Use Charging) Amendment Bill.

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

I move, That the Land Transport Management (Time of Use Charging) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

This day marks a significant milestone in our journey towards a smarter and more efficient road network. This bill will cut congestion, boost productivity, and help futureproof our transport system. Today, we take a decisive step forward in tackling congestion and modernising how we manage road use in New Zealand. The bill creates an enabling framework that can be used to establish a time of use charging scheme anywhere in the country that needs it. This legislation is not just about traffic; it’s about time, productivity, and the future of our cities. It places New Zealand amongst a growing number of countries embracing intelligent transport solutions.

The design of the bill and the schemes that will be created under it—or potentially created—draw on international best practice with tailored findings to our unique needs. It enables targeted and adjustable charges that are designed to improve traffic flow and make better use of existing infrastructure. It embeds a partnership approach between local authorities and the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA), working together to design and deliver charging schemes. It puts strict limits around exemptions, to ensure time of use schemes are fair and effective and to reduce overhead and bureaucracy.

We had quite a debate in the committee stage of the bill’s passage around whether or not there should be wider exemptions. I think Parliament has rightly decided that there are narrow exemptions in the bill for emergency vehicles and for school buses, for example, but anything wider than that leads to a potential slippery slope where, once you start one exemption, you keep going, and then, eventually, everyone’s got an exemption, and the scheme becomes deficient. We have taken an agnostic approach to the use of technology, which means that, in the future, time of use schemes could interface with future road pricing mechanisms like fleet-wide road user charges, which, of course, the Government is advancing separately.

Time of use charging is not about raising revenue; it’s about improving network performance. Every scheme must show it will enhance traffic flow and efficiency, and it has to go through public consultation and impact assessments and will be subject to strong oversight. This is a really important point: net revenue raised through congestion pricing, or time of use pricing, will be reinvested directly into local public transport infrastructure, which means it supports better services and outcomes for those communities. The trade-off is quite simple: people pay a bit more to travel at peak times, which encourages them to travel at different times or to alter their behaviour or to use different routes, thus smoothing traffic across the road network and increasing productivity and efficiency. The revenue that is generated from that can be reinvested into the public transport options on the local road network, creating even greater options for people, and creating a synergistic feedback loop—as someone said to me.

I love it.

Now, listen, I’m not one for big buzzwords like that, but I did quite like that—synergistic feedback loop. When I first heard about that, I didn’t know what it was, and I’m still, today, not sure I’m using it in the correct way. Anyway, there we go. What will be achieved is fewer hours stuck in traffic, more reliable traffic, and more reliable journey times.

I do want to thank the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. This is a bill that I was really determined to try and get cross-party support for. It is really important, and, I think I said in the second reading or maybe the first reading that Parliament, or at least New Zealand, has looked at congestion pricing since 1994; we’re well over 30 years. I think the first New Zealand Institute of Economic Research report was 1994. Back then, it was a bit of a new concept, but in the meantime, lots of countries and jurisdictions have done it, and we’ve sat there saying, “That sounds like a good idea. Maybe we should do that one day.” Well, we’re actually doing it, and to be fair to the previous Government, they did advance some legislation around that. I don’t think it’s as good as this piece of legislation, but they did take those first steps in that direction. When I talk about cross-party support in infrastructure and transport and bipartisanship, that’s what this means, because, ultimately, if we’re going to make this scheme work for New Zealand, we’ve got to make sure that it enjoys broad support. It will be bumpy on the way through. I fully anticipate that the first scheme will be quite contentious.

Probably in Auckland.

It’ll probably be in Auckland; Dan Bidois is right—MP for Northcote. It will probably, almost certainly, be in Auckland. We’ve already said we want to work closely with Auckland Council on the first scheme. It will be bumpy. Successive countries and jurisdictions that have done congestion pricing have found that people, broadly, don’t like paying for things they think they’ve already paid for. Fair enough. But, actually, once it starts—and this was certainly the experience of New York, where I was three or four months ago—and the benefits start to flow in terms of smoother journey times, reduced traffic at peak times, smog goes down, and safety improves, people go, “This is fantastic.”, and, immediately, public opinion turns around. We’ve just got to hold—

Ride it out!

—ride it out. Literally ride it out. We’ve just got to ride it out, Dana. We’ve just got to hold our nerve as a polity and—

Foot on the accelerator.

Well, foot on the accelerator in a smooth, congestion-charged way.

I want to thank the committee for the work on it. It was really well led by Andy Foster, and I understand the committee worked quite hard to find common ground. The Government did cede some things through the committee process. Thank you to the public, who submitted on it, and to all the officials and the parliamentary staff. There has been a range of people working on this for a large number of years. In particular, I do want to thank Mr John Edwards, who members with long memories will know. He is the Ministry of Transport’s lead official on the bill, and he will soon retire after four decades of service at the Ministry of Transport. Isn’t that remarkable? Four decades; 40 years. I was going to say it’s longer than I’ve been alive, but that’s not true anymore—but 40 years, four decades, of service at the Ministry of Transport.

When he began his career at the Ministry of Transport in 1986, back in the halcyon days of the fourth Labour Government, he worked on future road pricing policies, including, I am told, congestion charging—all the way back in 1986. The first report might have been in 1994, but, actually, smart cookies in the bureaucracy have been talking about this and thinking about it for four decades. Isn’t that remarkable? Here we are, in 2025, and we’ll get congestion charging over the line in 2026 and 2027. I hope that Mr Edwards—who I don’t know well—will get an opportunity to drive on the first congestion-charged scheme.

This has been a long time coming, and I think it is a significant achievement, actually. I think we will look back on this day with a great deal of pride. Certainly on behalf of the Government, we are proud of what has been developed, and we are looking forward to rolling it out. We know that it’ll be a difficult journey at various points, and we know that it’ll be a bumpy path along the way, but it is the right thing to do for productivity in our major cities, and I therefore commend the bill to the House. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank you for the opportunity. Thank you, Minister, for those words and for summing up what we agree is a very good bill, and Labour will be supporting it.

It’s a simple idea: essentially, when too many people are driving at the same time, the system—unsurprisingly—clogs up and makes it worse for everybody. It’s important to note, as well as the Minister’s comments, that it’s not a revenue grab—unlike many changes, sometimes, in the transport arena—but it is, as has been depicted, a really smart tool to fix what is a serious problem.

The bill is about making our cities better and making our cities move faster. It’s about tackling that very common frustration of sitting in traffic and not moving. It’s not just a waste of people’s individual time when that happens; it’s a real pull on productivity. It has huge complications for all aspects of the economy, let alone aspects of everyday life. It establishes a framework for time of use charging, as has been discussed, allowing local councils with New Zealand Transport Agency Waka Kotahi to introduce congestion management schemes in those high traffic areas. I’m sure we can all probably relate to sitting in a queue on some motorway and watching the lights change once or twice before anything ever moves, and knowing that we are losing time that we’ll simply never get back. This bill does give us a way to tackle that.

In terms of a little bit of background to further elucidate on the comments that the Minister has made, when we think about Auckland, congestion in our largest city is something like 35 percent more time in traffic is spent by people in Auckland than their counterparts spend in traffic in Sydney and Brisbane and places like that. So it’s one of the worst in the OECD. It’s definitely not a solution looking for a problem. As I said, that’s productivity loss, that’s lost time with families, that’s lost opportunities to spend your leisure time differently. The international experience, as the Minister correctly pointed out, is that when this congestion charging has been introduced elsewhere in big cities where there’s specific congestion, it has appeared to work.

However, the proof of how good a policy this will be, as with any policy, is in the implementation. That’s where things fall down, if they’re going to, and whilst we’re supporting this, we certainly will be keeping an eye to make sure it’s well implemented. Realistically, all we need is a 5 to 10 percent drop in that peak traffic usage to actually make a significant change. That is something that we can certainly look forward to.

With regards to fairness and accessibility, that was certainly a theme that came through the prior stages of this bill as it’s progressed through the House, and it does matter, because fairness does matter. We have to make sure that in introducing a congestion charge, or a different system—an alternative—that there are actually viable alternatives for people to make those behavioural changes. It’s OK for people that have relatively equal choices to make—do they travel at this time? Could they travel a little bit later to avoid the traffic and avoid the congestion charge?—but we do have to acknowledge that for lots of people, they simply don’t have the luxury of necessarily being able to time their life around peak traffic, or they don’t have the luxury of being able to take any other form of transport other than their personal vehicle. So we do have to ensure that the system is fair and that it’s equitable, otherwise that public buy-in will erode, and that public buy-in—that social licence—will be incredibly important to this.

My colleague Tangi Utikere spoke at the committee of the whole House stage about consultation and fairness, and that it is going to be important that people understand what they’re being asked to pay for, what alternatives exist, and that those, particularly with mobility challenges, are not left out. That was a point raised by the Hon Julie Anne Genter in so far as the amendments that she put forward, and it’s a really, really important consideration. I take the Minister of Transport’s point that he made—quite correctly—early on: that if the integrity of a system can be degraded really quickly, the more exceptions that you make, but exceptions are there for a reason, to be carved out when there are exceptional circumstances. So we were very disappointed that the mobility permit holders weren’t—that that amendment wasn’t considered. We do urge the Government to reconsider that and to think about the overall integrity of the system, should it not—well, should it affect people particularly adversely.

It’s really also important that revenue from the scheme goes back into better transport options, not just motorways or—certainly not back into the Government’s central coffers. As highlighted during the committee of the whole House stage, successful cities where they have introduced this scheme—the ones that have been the most successful—have used those initial congestion charges to expand bus services and reduce fares, therefore really making that alternative option; if we’re looking for behavioural change, something that’s more and more viable. We’ll be watching closely to ensure that that pretty simple basic principle is applied to this one.

With regard to transparency and local leadership, public trust will be important here, and I think that the points that have been raised in previous readings and certainly in the committee of the whole House stage were really important. If we think of new section 6E requiring consultation before a scheme is submitted—but consultation must mean more than just a survey buried in the junk mail or at the bottom of some website that people may or may not see. It’s incredibly important that it be done really well. With regard to the potential flow-on effects, I think it goes beyond just basic traffic flow. Cities overseas, as we’ve heard, are linking congestion charging to low-emission zones, tackling pollution, and improving public health. So there’s an opportunity here—if implemented correctly and implemented well—and we have to wait and see how this Government tackles that, but if done well and if revenue comes in and can be channelled into, firstly, improving those alternatives through cheaper buses or more reliable buses, and then actually providing some public good, I think that’s a real win-win for this scheme. Cleaner, faster, more efficient transport could be the outcome, if done well.

Labour supports this bill, because, fundamentally, we have to; because, at some point, we’ve got to change the way that we operate as a society. For too long, we’ve been so used to one person in a car driving, roads being congested, and as the population grows and as our infrastructure—our woeful history of infrastructure spend—has not kept up with all of the alternatives to those more roads, we find ourselves in this situation.

In the committee of the whole House stage, there were a couple of amendments that I just want to briefly touch on. The Hon Chris Bishop’s Amendment Paper 400: Labour did support efforts to tidy up and strengthen the bill by the host of things that were touched on in that Amendment Paper, and we supported these changes because, essentially, they did address some of their concerns around transparency and around accountability. But, as I alluded to earlier, I think it’s a real shame that the Hon Julie Anne Genter’s Amendment Paper 376—we’re disappointed that the total mobility users are not part of the exemption criteria. We do understand, again, that exemption criteria can degrade the integrity of a system, but that’s what exemptions are for.

We support the amendment which exempts vehicles registered to people who hold those disabled persons parking permits from having to pay time of use charges. That’s not about saying there’s an intrinsic fairness issue there; that’s just simply saying that the fundamental conditions that allow for behaviour change aren’t in play when someone doesn’t have a legitimate alternative. You can’t change a behaviour toward a legitimate alternative if those conditions aren’t there or if those factors aren’t the same. So we are disappointed in that, but, overall, we support this goal.

The Green Party has had in its transport policy a point about investigating congestion pricing for at least 15 years—probably closer to 20—so we do support this bill. Enabling local authorities to have tools to better manage their transport systems and their streets is the right thing to do. This actually starts to take a paradigm shift approach to how we define and manage our transport problems. We now have decades and decades of research that shows that expanding lane capacity—that’s a technical term for adding more car lanes within cities—does not reduce congestion. It never has, and it never will. Adding car lanes will actually result in more congestion and more car trips within five to 10 years of building those roads, and that’s why urban highway projects are not the best use of money to solve the problem if your goal is reducing congestion, improving travel times, and reducing transport costs.

It seems like many members on the Government benches don’t really grasp this concept, so I’ll take this opportunity to say that we can’t build our way out of congestion. Bringing in congestion pricing or enabling more direct pricing, whether that’s through time of use charges or changes to road-user charges, will result in a shift in demand away from private car trips to other modes of transport, hence why the Green Party has always said that we need to invest better in more capacity for public transport, for rail and coastal shipping, and for active transport modes. These are all things that absolutely have to happen, and, if we’re going to bring in congestion pricing—or if local authorities are going to be enabled to do that—we need to have a shift in transport investments.

The current Government’s transport investments over the next 10 years make zero sense. They’re just incredibly expensive, they don’t solve the actual problems, and, when we bring in demand management tools like time of use pricing, there will be even more demand for the alternatives, and even less demand for the roads. I really hope that the Government is going to take on board the fact that once this legislation is passed, every single investment case for every single urban or urban fringe highway must include congestion pricing as a base case in the transport modelling. If we did that, we would see that we don’t need to spend $3.8 billion on two kilometres of one extra car lane in each direction in the centre of Wellington. That makes no sense. We should be investing in much better, more frequent public transport and lower public transport prices.

The Greens support the bill, but there are three big missed opportunities with it. The first one is local autonomy. Basically, the vast majority of trips are local trips. Whether they’re on State highways, whether they’re on local roads, whether they’re on public transport, the vast majority of peak hour trips are local trips. If we want decisions to be made well and efficiently, we need to give the funding and the decisions to the local authorities, and we do need to have the right setup for that. Maybe we need some more regional transport authorities. This bill really puts way too much control in central government’s hands. It really should be more for local authorities to be controlling the scheme boards, how the scheme is operating, and where the revenue is going. We raised that in the Transport and Infrastructure Committee; it’s in our differing view, and we put Amendment Papers to that point.

In places around Christchurch or around Wellington, you could have a whole lot of suburban or fringe territorial local authorities joining a scheme board and then outvoting the local authority who are actually the managers of where the scheme is going to be. Imagine we’re bringing in congestion pricing in Wellington city or in Christchurch city, and we’ve got a whole lot of outlying territorial authorities and the New Zealand Transport Authority who can outvote the local authority on the design of the scheme and the use of the revenue. That doesn’t make sense; that’s a missed opportunity.

The second big missed opportunity is around the low-emission zones and addressing air pollution. I was the only one who was on the committee last term who heard the inquiry into a congestion question or Auckland congestion pricing, and we heard from a lot of experts from European cities and other cities that have brought in congestion pricing, and they said that low-emission zones are big. It makes sense, if you’re enabling legislation for congestion pricing or time of use pricing, to also enable local authorities to bring in low-emission zones, which is a different type of tool. It’s similar to congestion pricing, but, actually, it’s addressing an even bigger productivity challenge, which is air pollution.

We aren’t even really measuring the true cost of air pollution from vehicles in Aotearoa, but the Health and Air Pollution in New Zealand report—the most recent one—was absolutely shocking. It says that the cost of harmful air pollution from vehicles—well, harmful air pollution generally—costs $10 billion a year, and the majority of that is actually from vehicles. A lot of those aren’t old vehicles—they’re brand-new diesel vehicles. Diesel has turned out to be far worse for human health than people realised, and that’s why European cities have been actively managing it and reducing diesel particulate in their city centres for the last 15 years. A recent OECD research report shows that 30 percent of all the productivity growth in European cities from 2010 to 2019 was due to improvements in air quality. A big part of that is low-emission zones.

Another big part of it is making cycling, walking, and public transport the priority for urban areas, which also makes sense from a transport cost perspective, from a congestion perspective, and from an air quality perspective. If the Government’s goal is productivity, they should be thinking about air pollution and giving councils the tools to manage air pollution from private motor vehicles, because that is a big hidden cost. It causes tens of thousands of children to have asthma—to be hospitalised with asthma—and far more premature deaths than we even have through road crashes, which this Government is, of course, absolutely keen on increasing with their absolutely evidence-free approach to speed limits.

Finally, the third thing with this bill that is a missed opportunity is the earlier point that I raised about how it changes the investment priorities. The Government policy statement on transport funding needs to be revised, and we need to make sure—we proposed an amendment at the select committee stage—that we limit what the revenue can be spent on. It needs to be spent on providing for the alternatives. Everybody knows that New Zealand has underinvested in public and active transport for decades. This isn’t a result of people’s choices—people have not chosen to own and use cars at a higher rate than pretty much any other country in the OECD—it is the result of previous Governments’ decisions. Local government and central government, over decades, have made it difficult, impossible, impractical, and expensive to do anything else, and that costs New Zealanders tens of billions of dollars a year. That is a major cost of living issue. After rent and food, transport is the largest expense for most households. Households who own one car are having to spend thousands of dollars a year owning that car, and that doesn’t even take into account the full costs of car parking, etc.

The costs of high car ownership are far more than congestion; congestion is probably one of the smaller costs associated with our transportation system. If we look at all the cities in the world that have embraced congestion pricing early—and there were only about five of them until recently: Stockholm, Singapore, the City of London, Gothenburg, and Milan—all of those cities had higher levels of residential and employment density in their cities. They had much lower levels of car ownership, much higher levels of public transportation services, and better provision for walking and cycling. They also had higher prices for car parking, so the cost of car ownership was already more direct in those places. Then they brought in congestion pricing. Of course, that’s been extended to New York City, but I would say that those criteria also apply to New York City.

The answer is pretty simple; it’s going to become very clear. As the Minister said, he embraces congestion pricing, and he thinks it’s the right thing to do. Does he understand—does the Government understand—what New Zealanders need their Government to do as a response to making the cost of using a car at peak time more direct? The answer is Government investment priorities need to change. Right now, we are barely investing in, or planning for, any improvements to public transport right across the country. The Government is spending not one cent on the critical public transport spine along the quays in Wellington. The big project that they’re bragging about is one that I campaigned on for four years—the City Rail Link—before the then National Government agreed to pay for it, and there’s almost no planning for serious capacity improvements for public transport outside of a few busways. The Government needs to step up and realise that New Zealanders are crying out for passenger transport services. We need to invest in those, and that helps the roads, too.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. ACT supports the Land Transport Management (Time of Use Charging) Amendment Bill because it is a smarter way of dealing with congestion. It sends a price signal and creates an incentive for motorists traveling at peak times, and I’ve been one of them. As a civil engineer and working as a contractor, I’ve spent hours and hours and hours of my life stuck in traffic on Auckland’s motorways and arterial routes, cursing the people who failed to provide the capacity for our city to grow.

Now, it’s true that congestion charging can influence people to choose to travel at a different time, but for the 60, 70, 80 percent of New Zealanders who do now and always will rely on private transport, it’s not necessarily going to help them unless they have alternatives. So, look, congestion charging is important; it’s just one more funding tool in the funding toolbox. This Government will also be introducing Infrastructure Funding and Financing Act amendments—we’ve talked about that previously—so we can actually start to increase revenues from land that benefits from large-scale infrastructure and development projects. We’re moving to road-user charges so that Kiwis, no matter what type of vehicle they drive, pay the full cost of using the roads. But it doesn’t change the fact that growing cities, growing populations, people who are more mobile, need extra capacity.

There’s going to be a test. The honourable member Julie Anne Genter said that this Government does face a test. Well, we will see it. If you raise a congestion charge to a certain amount and you collect the money but the congestion doesn’t change, what that tells you is that even despite providing public transport services—and, maybe, these bike lanes, which, you know, carry a very small amount of people at great cost—maybe what that signals is that you then have to provide the additional capacity, the additional lanes. Auckland is a city that’s going to grow from about 1.3 or 1.4 million to 2, maybe 2.5 million people between now and 2050, and simply assuming the next million people who come will only ever catch a bus is the kind of fantasy, unicorn-chasing thinking we hear from the Green Party. It’s not real; it’s not true. That’s why congestion charging is one very small part of the way to solve this problem.

ACT does support this bill, and we’re also very keen to let people who have been concerned about their privacy know that this bill actually contains protections for their data. For the ACT Party, privacy is not up for negotiation. Clause 65ZF of this bill deals directly with privacy, and it’s one of the most important parts of the whole framework, because people using a network and paying a congestion charge want to make sure that any information collected under a time of use scheme is handled responsibly, securely, and only used for its intended purpose. Under this clause, personal information can only be kept for as long as it’s needed to calculate and collect the charge—no longer. That’s vital; it means that this information won’t become a backdoor for Government to track where people drive or how they travel. Now, I know some members of the Green Party would love to know where people drive and how they travel, so then they can work out how to change their behaviour. But I trust Kiwis to respond to price signals like congestion charging, and also respond to other incentives.

The clause will also require a clear and transparent privacy policy. For each scheme, it puts limits on agencies so they can’t use the information for anything beyond the operation of the time of use system itself. This charging system could have easily gone the wrong way and became a mechanism for State surveillance. ACT will not accept that. This bill includes clear, practical limits that keep it focused on the roads and on reducing congestion and providing incentives for Kiwis to travel at different times. ACT supports this bill because it represents modern, practical reform done the right way. It’s another example of this Government fixing what matters.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, I’m delighted to rise on behalf of New Zealand First, and delighted to speak on this time of use bill, and that time of use changing will soon become available as another tool in the transport tool kit. It’s something that local government—in particular in our biggest city, Auckland, but also in the Wellington region—has been asking for, for several years, and saying, “Can we have some empowering legislation that allows us to look at time of use or congestion charging schemes?”

As a former councillor in the Wellington City Council, I was charged often with, and quite enthusiastically, advocated for that both to the Hon Phil Twyford when he was Minister of Transport, and Urban Development, and also to the inquiry which was headed by Greg O’Connor in the last Parliament’s Transport and Infrastructure Committee where we, as a Wellington City Council and we as a Wellington region, were advocating for this very tool.

It’s really nice, now, to be in a position of having been able to shepherd this bill through the select committee process as the chair of that committee and to make some good improvements to that bill. I did want to start by saying thank you to all the members of the committee, to our great committee clerks, to all the officials who helped us, to all the submitters, and also to the Minister of Transport. I’m going to come back to the Minister later on because there was a particular role which I think is really, really important that he played in this process.

Time of use charging, really, is all about managing or balancing supply and demand. It’s what you potentially impose; the price goes up when supply is overwhelmed by demand at those peak times. While we’re not used to it in the road transport situation, we are in many other situations. Think about public transport pricing: peak, off peak; those prices are different. Think about energy prices, think about aviation, think about ferries, think about accommodation; all of those we have a charge which is greater at times of higher demand than it is at lower demand periods.

The Infrastructure Commission has encouraged greater use across the board of charges to modify behaviour so that we take some of that pressure that the Hon Julie Anne Genter was talking about off our infrastructure system. Time of use charging in the transport area is about putting a charge in place so that people either change the time of travel or the way in which they travel, the mode in which they travel. It sometimes only takes a small change in traffic volume to make all the difference to the speed in which you travel and the travel time that it takes to get from A to B.

It also potentially—and I guess this reflects one of the things that Julie Anne Genter was talking about—allows you to either delay or even not to do some major infrastructural projects. I think she’s quite right that every one of those business cases now should really be considering what would happen to that business case if you put in place a time of use charge. Does it still hold water? Is it still something you should do or maybe it’s something you can do later or maybe it’s something you don’t need to do at all. Those are the things which we should be thinking about.

She also raised—it was interesting—the old induced demand. If you build some more lanes, they’ll automatically fill up over a period of time just because you built the lanes. Well, yeah, but do think about sometimes the population has grown very, very significantly, and those people, as Simon Court said, might not all travel on a bus; they might also put their cars on that road. There might also be different changes in land use which are driven by—so, for example, in the Wellington region, you think about the roads which have been built up towards the Kāpiti Coast. Funnily enough, as soon as those roads were announced, what did the real estate agents start saying? “Well, there’ll be more development up there.” Of course there’s going to be more development up there; that is induced demand. But it’s not just because you built the road; it’s because people decided to go and live there—more people decided to go and live there. That is where that demand is coming from.

Dr Tracey McLellan raised concerns that some people cannot change their time or their mode of travel, and that’s absolutely true, but they will get a benefit from that. That’s one of the answers we have, particularly to the freight sector: you do get a benefit because you’re able to travel to where you want to get to much quicker. She said that the cost of congestion was one of the smaller costs in the transport system. The estimate in Auckland alone is $2.6 billion in time lost in traffic congestion every year; that is not a small cost to the system, not a small cost to us as a community, and not a small cost to productivity.

The Transport and Infrastructure Committee listened carefully to submissions, we asked questions; I think we engaged authentically and that is what we should always be doing, whether it is in select committees or any form of Government or local government, and also challenging submitters. All of those things are really vital to trust and confidence in process. The Transport and Infrastructure Committee made several amendments and one of the things I did want to say—I go back to the Minister of Transport—we did get pushed back from the Minister’s office on three amendments, but we pushed back again and said, “Actually, we think that those amendments really hold merit.” We had some conversations and ultimately the Minister said, “Actually, I agree with you and I’m going to accept those amendments.” I think that is the select committee process at its best; it is not just automatically going along with what the executive says, but it’s saying let’s think about those things, let’s push back, let’s come to the right answer.

It’s interesting to reflect that when we are considering the issue of a four-year term, the bill—which is still, I think, somewhere in the system, talks about the role of select committees in that process and that being one of the checks and balances on the system and on the executive. So I think that is something that we should be thinking about: what do we expect from our select committees in terms of the way in which they look at, consider, and report back legislation?

Quickly, on those three changes, one of those was around governance and we put in place several safeguards for local government, for the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA), and for the community. The particular one for local government was that local government was quite adamant that if NZTA was given the dominant role—was given the chairing, effectively, of the scheme boards which we set up—that they weren’t going to have a bar of it, and that would defeat the whole purpose. So what we’ve done is we’ve listened to that very carefully and we’ve recommended that there is an independent chair of that process to balance NZTA and the councils, and that is something we should push with the Minister, and the Minister said, “Ultimately, yes, I agree with that.” So that was really, really good.

The second one was exclusions. Originally, the bill as introduced only had emergency vehicles being excluded. The ACT Party representative decided that even those shouldn’t be excluded, but we figured that those had to get to where they had to get to and the ambulance officers aren’t going to get out and walk with their equipment, or the fire engine crew aren’t going to be able to walk their hose from A to B. So that exclusion stayed, but we did include the exclusion for public transport—for scheduled public transport—and for Ministry of Education rural buses. The reason for that simply is we want—part of this is changing the time you travel, part of it is changing the mode you travel. That was about changing the mode you travel.

The third one which we pushed was the use of surplus funds, and hopefully there are some surplus funds because there is a big, big deficit in the transport budget—over decades, probably—and we need to be able to address that over time. We said there needs to be a closer nexus between where the money comes from and where the money is used; not just in the wider region, but in the area close to the area where the congestion is, to help deal with that congestion. That’s about making the ideas of these schemes palatable and understandable to the communities. The Minister, again, accepted that, after discussion.

The legislation does not implement any time of use charges, but what it does do is create the framework so that councils and NZTA can go and engage with their communities and implement those, working together. I think it’s great that we’ve got to this point. Again, I thank everybody for the hard work that’s gone into this and I commend this bill to the House

Thank you. I rise to support this bill, and it’s a pleasure to speak after the man who was the chair of the Transport and Urban Development Committee at Wellington City Council. I know we jointly signed off a number of submissions supporting time of use, but remember that transport and urban development should go hand in hand.

There are a number of things that I want to say, despite the Green Party—and I listened to Julie Anne eloquently putting our position. I want to say that this is a good step forward, but it’s lacking some systems thinking. For example, it promotes people being able to choose a different transport mode if it’s available, but it’s a bit like the old saying—and some of you may be old enough to remember this—“Mother, mother, may I swim?” “Yes, my darling daughter, but don’t go near the water.”

It’s a bit like that: “Choose another transport mode, but we won’t fund walking. We won’t fund cycling. We will put up the prices of public transport, but, oh, time of use will encourage people to use different transport modes.” You actually have to do both. You have to do time of use and you have to invest in transport modes that are less emitting and less congesting.

Talking about urban development, I take the point from Mr Court, who is not listening at all at the moment, which is sort of typical of his approach to evidence, I would suggest. There may be population growth, but where is it going to go? Is it going to go in the inner cities? Only yesterday, Minister Bishop approved less residential intensification in Christchurch. He said, “Let them off the hook.” I mean, Christchurch doesn’t have the benefits of a hilly city that has given us topographical limitations, that have promoted us as being the highest proportion of people who walk to work because (a) it’s downhill to walk to work and (b) people live close to their work, whereas if you live on the outskirts of Auckland or the outskirts of Christchurch, it’s very difficult to walk.

I would also suggest that this is partly during the hours—and I’m glad that it’s up to the local scheme boards to determine questions like the hours and where the boundaries might be. Some of that congestion will be caused by parents or caregivers dropping off children to school and the amazing cognitive dissonance between saying, “Yes, we want to reduce congestion, but we’re not going to fund safe routes to schools. We’re going to allow for there to be a tiny period in the day with lower speed limits around schools, but we’re not actually going to do anything to help children walk or cycle to school.”

Frankly, putting those time limits on lower speed limits in areas around schools is like saying that you’ve got a curfew for kids; that, OK, if they’re going to school, if they’ve been dropped off by their parent on one side of the road, they’re going across a crossing, it’s a lower speed for that moment, but if they’re going back home from after-school sports or after-school drama or Duke of Edinburgh club or all of the different things that kids do, “Oh, it doesn’t apply then, because, my gosh, we’ve got to let the cars through at 50 kilometres an hour.”, which is not safe for people on foot.

The other interesting thing is how Government parties talk about localism and yet all of those councils that consulted on mainly lower speed limits consulted with their communities. If they hadn’t done it exactly ABC for six weeks, that was reversed, and at a huge cost to councils and communities. So stick with it, stay local, have your development and population growth in the centre of cities, and now we can do the time of use congestion charge. Thank you.

This is a good day for this Parliament, that we come together and support legislation unanimously. You wouldn’t think that from the previous speaker’s speech. But it is unanimous because we recognise that this bill is a game-changer. It’s a game-changer for productivity on our major roads, for reducing congestion, and for investment in public transport.

This bill is the right thing to do. As I said, it’s got the unanimous support from our Parliament. It follows other successful schemes implemented overseas and it makes good economic sense to put a price on congestion. Now, we know, as the Minister said, that this bill is going to have a bumpy road through to implementation, and we’re saying let’s stick with it so that the public can see the benefit for themselves of lower congestion, increased investment on public transport, and certainty for how long it takes you to get across Auckland, for example.

I wish to thank the Minister for entertaining the important amendments that the select committee wished for inclusion as part of this bill. I also wish to acknowledge our bipartisan Transport and Infrastructure Committee, led by Andy Foster. Great committee and leading, really, some real tough challenges. This is an important tool in the tool box, and I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m pleased to be able to rise today to speak in this third reading of the time of use charging bill. As I’ve said before, Labour supports this bill. I do, too. As a resident of Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland, and on the North Shore, I support its intention to decongest our city, get our transport networks flowing, and allow Aucklanders to get from A to B more quickly and efficiently. This legislation has been, in fact, a long time coming. Work began under Labour in 2021 when we opened an inquiry on addressing the congestion challenges in our cities. It was a robust and thorough consultation, as any legislation with such a large impact should have.

But we know the statistics: Kiwis spend up to 35 percent more time commuting across our cities then our Australian counterparts do. It leads to lost productivity, a reduced quality of life, and greater frustration for us all. The estimations for Auckland were that congestion would cost us $2.6 billion a year by 2026 if we did not act. There was simply too much time, too much productivity, and too much money to be lost to congestion.

I do want to take this opportunity to talk to the impact this will have on the community where I live in Northcote. I’ve said before that the reality of this legislation is that it will halve congestion, and that for people in our community it will mean the dreaded morning rush down Onewa Road will look more like what we experience during the school holidays. It’s a stark difference we all relish during those school holiday commutes, and soon we will get this experience on every day. This is a good thing.

However, I do acknowledge too that this is another cost for our community, one that they are faced with during a time when there are many cost of living pressures biting at their heels. If we look at the six charging options presented by Auckland Council, I note that five of them will directly impact our community who travel over the Harbour Bridge; all through the isthmus to get to and from work each day. So I appreciate the anticipation from our community about what this will mean, money-wise, for them going forward.

Auckland Transport’s 2020 modelling suggested that for light vehicles this would cost up to $3.50 per trip at peak times. Of course, more work now needs to be done to update these figures. It is important that our community is informed and consulted on what this will look like for them. To date, there hasn’t been a lot of information provided by Government MPs to the North Shore, and it is important that not only do they get to have their say but also our local board in Kaipātiki does too.

As you can imagine, with congestion charging coming, there is a lot of discontent and concerns coming directly from our community that currently remains unresponded to. Congestion charging is not a solution in and of itself. The charge is a demand management tool that requires alternatives to motivate people to change the way that they move around the city.

The 2023 census showed 84 percent of Aucklanders use private or company vehicles to get to work. That is why it was always the vision and intention of the previous Government to roll out congestion charging alongside the alternative measures we were working on. Investments in reliable and available public transport, active walking and cycling measures, and affordable fees that encourage behaviour change and an uptake in buses, in rail, and in ferries.

Congestion charging cannot be left as a revenue-gathering measure alone. Under this Government, they have cut the regional fuel tax, leaving a $1.2 billion hole in transport infrastructure in Auckland. The result of this is that Aucklanders are paying more to use our public transport system, whether that is individually or through their rates. Half-price fees and free for under-12s made a significant difference in the affordability of using public transport to get around our largest city.

Mayor Wayne Brown and Auckland Council have also made it clear that under the National Government’s national land transport plan, Auckland’s public transport network has been cut. Thirty-nine percent less funding for bus projects, 37 percent less for ferry projects, 35 percent less for cycleway projects, and 36 percent less for road safety. These are all things that we need to be investing in if we want this legislation to be successful.

The North Shore has one of the most progressive transport systems in this country, thanks to the Northern Busway, which was an innovation established more than 50 years ago. While we support congestion charging in principle today, affordability and reliability need to remain the priority for Aucklanders to be able to take public transport to get them to and from work. Currently, the Government is not investing enough in public transport and alternative modes to ensure that this legislation will be successful. That, of course, is my main concern.

This has been an ongoing conversation for a long time and that is why I’m happy for this legislation to be before the House today. But it does worry me, the lack of information locally that has been provided, or not provided, by MPs that represent our area. I wonder—I wonder why they haven’t spoken up on this issue. Why have they not put it out to the community? Why have they not taken a leadership role to educate the community on the benefits of congestion charging as a tool, and the opportunities and benefits that it presents to our community?

I think I know the reason for that. It might be unpopular, but it’s the right thing to do. But it also holds Government members accountable for the cuts that they’ve made to our public transport system. It is more expensive than ever to catch the bus in Northcote into the city, where the majority of people use the system.

This goes through today. Further consultation will be up. But I hope that Government MPs—and there’s seven of them across the North Shore, seven in total—actually front up, hold a public meeting on the North Shore, take the responsibility to educate our community about this tool, and ensure that they do the right thing in putting the information out there. So, without further ado, I commend this bill to the House.

Mr Chair.

Dr Carlos Cheung. It’s Mr Speaker, because I’m in the big chair.

Oh, Mr Speaker.

There you go.

This Government is doing the right thing. The intent of this bill is very clear: to better use a transport network and to ease congestion. This is a goal we can all support. However, as the MP for Mt Roskill, I want to urge Auckland Council to treat this as an opportunity to deliver real solutions, not as a tool to punish drivers. Aucklanders, including people in Mt Roskill, already contend with a long travelling time, unreliable public transport, and a rising living cost. Any charging scheme that is set up must not—let me repeat: must not—become another burden on hardworking families or, worse, lead to further congestion, as we have seen in the past, with poorly designed T2 and T3 transit lanes.

This is a chance to get it right—for Auckland Council and for Auckland Transport to pair smartly, to communicate clearly, and to ensure that Aucklanders experience travel that is genuinely smoother, fair, and more efficient. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise, like my colleagues, to speak in support of this bill. I’ve been a resident of Auckland for 30 years, so I am very familiar with some of the congestion issues that our beautiful but very big city has. I do think that this is a positive step that’s being taken in terms of changing behaviours, but as my colleagues have said, it can’t be the only step. It must be one of many that supports people to take public transport and that informs people about the fact that these changes are going to happen.

I wanted to address some of the privacy issues that were discussed at select committee when the bill went through that process, and I do commend the committee for making some changes in this respect. The committee made some very helpful changes in response to a number of submissions, including inserting new paragraph (fa) into new section 65Z(2) to require that the scheme impact assessment must set out potential impacts on privacy, to include that there must be privacy policies in place as well, and to ensure that there’s consultation with the Privacy Commissioner—all good things.

However, my view is that this is one of those bills where we do need to ensure we’re actively monitoring how privacy requirements are playing out. It is because, as with a number of different bills that travel through the House, they are still subject to the privacy principles which sit separately. In this case, as in those other cases, the police, for example, could bypass the requirements in this bill due to information privacy principle 11(1)(e), which says that “the disclosure of information is necessary—(i) to avoid prejudice to the maintenance of the law”. So, in essence, there is an out clause to still allow the disclosure of that information even if privacy and interests are protected within the bill itself. This is something that I do think we need to actively monitor.

The Law Society also made some useful suggestions, which in my view should be periodically reviewed as we see how the bill impacts people’s lives. They talked about the fact that the current tolling provisions were deemed to be sufficient because people had another option, whereas with this framework they simply won’t.

Now, you have countries like the US where they have these sorts of user charges but they also offer lanes and ways through the city where they’re not subject to those user charges. One might say that’s a positive and that it retains that option of choice, but what they’ve found in the US in those circumstances is that there are arguments that it creates layers of privilege and access as well. So these are certainly not easy issues to grapple with. However, I do think that we must ensure that we keep a keen eye on the privacy interests.

The Law Society also made the point that there’s power within the current scheme for specifics within the scheme to be changed, and that perhaps there should be explicit consideration of privacy policies when changes are made. That’s not a current requirement that those policies be updated. So again, that may be something that we want to look at down the track.

From here on in, I do think there are still questions about implementation, and Shanan Halbert has made the point that there hasn’t been sufficient socialising of this thus far, so there is absolutely a need to bring the public on board. We’ve seen how in Edinburgh there was a failure to do this and a rejection by the public of moves towards a system like this. We’ve seen operational issues in Germany, where they underestimated the technology that would be needed to effectively run this kind of system, and we’ve seen the system where, in London, people did stop using their cars but then opted for taxis, which then maintained the congestion that the city had.

So the need for active review is absolutely necessary. But, again, for now, this is a good bill as part of a broader scheme of changes that we would like to see, and I commend this bill to the House.

Te mutunga kē mai o te ohorere! I whakaae kotahi. He rite tēnei ki te pire whakataunga, ne? Kua horahoratia ngā taipitopito o te pire nei e te mema o mua, nā reira ko tōku harikoa kia tuku i te pire nei ki te Whare.

[Mr Speaker, I am so surprised! We are all agreed. This is like a settlement bill, isn’t it? The details of this bill have been laid out by the previous member, therefore it is my pleasure to commend this bill to the House.]

I’m very happy to be making a contribution on this third and final reading of the Land Transport Management (Time of Use Charging) Amendment Bill. The reform that this bill sets up the framework for is, in my view, one of the most important reforms that we can make as a country to kind of modernise our legislative and policy framework to support the growth and development of our towns and cities.

This and its policy cousin—the shift to an electronic time of use charging system for our entire transport system to replace the old road-user charge and the petrol excise; the chief sources of funding for our whole transport system—will make very, very important system changes for us. When you put them alongside some of the other reforms that have been adopted in recent years or are in the pipeline, like the whole reform of our zoning system to enable urban intensification, actually, it’s remarkable and good that both the zoning reforms and this reform to put in place time of use charging are supported across the House, and we have cross-party consensus in the Parliament for two of the most critically important reforms.

Others that I would put in the same category in terms of really important modernisation are the elimination of mandatory parking minimums, which was contained in the National Policy Statement on Urban Development, and the ongoing quest for new funding and financing streams for the infrastructure that enables urban growth. Both transport networks and the pipes that carry water and waste water—these are the system reforms that will allow our cities to grow. They have been put together because our policy framework has been so unfit for purpose and so out of date that it has acted as a terrible roadblock that has stopped the market responding to demand—that is, we just haven’t been building the homes and the urban infrastructure that our growing population has needed—and that is one of the things that’s at the root of the housing crisis that has bedevilled New Zealand for the best part of 20 years now.

There’s one additional reform that’s critically important if this one is to succeed, and it is that we need more investment in public transport, in rapid transit, and in walking and cycling. If you want people to change their behaviour at those critical peak congestion times—that is, in the morning and the afternoon peaks; that’s what this reform is all about—it’s about smoothing off those peaks to allow a more efficient use of the transport network. If you want people to make those decisions not to clog up, in my patch, the Northwestern Motorway, then you have to give them proper alternatives. You’ve got to allow people to use other ways to get where they need to go, so we need more investment in the ferries, we need more modernisation and more efficiency in our rail system in Auckland, and we need more high-frequency, comfortable, convenient buses. That’s what will enable people to make the choices. If we don’t make that complimentary investment alongside time of use charging, we won’t get the returns.

Some people, to avoid spending five bucks to use the motorway to get into the city or to go out south on a busy afternoon in Auckland, will choose to delay their journey or do it at another time, but many, many people cannot do that, and so they have no choice. Because of the dictates of their employment, they have to travel at a certain time, and so we must give them better choices, and that means walking and cycling, trains, buses, and ferries, otherwise this won’t work.

The second point I wanted to make is that this is critically important, because all of the international evidence is that with cities of scale that are growing, congestion always, always comes. You cannot build your way out of urban congestion in large growing cities, and the reason is induced demand. If most people rely on the private car to get where they’re going and you build more roads and more motorways, you increase the carrying capacity of the urban transport network; people will simply buy more cars and use the roads more. You might add an extra lane to the motorway, as we have done time and time again in Auckland, and in no time at all, those extra lanes just fill up with cars.

It’s called induced demand, and the members on the National Party benches would benefit, I think, from doing a bit of reading on induced demand, because their fetish—the cult that they have on that side of the House for the private car as a solution to every transport problem is one of the biggest issues we’ve got in developing good transport policy in this country. So please do some reading up on induced demand because it will change your perspective on how we modernise our transport system.

The next thing I wanted to say—and other colleagues have referred to this—is that one of the really challenging parts of this framework that we’re putting in place with this bill is that there are real equity, real social justice fish hooks in here. Pricing to ration the use of the roading network—let’s use Auckland’s motorway network as an example—is very likely to be extremely efficient. Pricing works as a rationing mechanism, but it’s very, very tough on the people who can afford it least, and so we have to take that seriously, and it’s up to Auckland Transport and Auckland Council to really apply themselves to this problem.

If you spend 2½ hours on the road every day driving to and from work—and in West Auckland, where I’m from, more people have to drive every day to get to and from work than any other part of the city because the jobs and the education opportunities are, by and large, in other parts of the city. So if you have to spend all that time on the motorway every day—and for some people it does amount to two hours or 2½ hours—that’s less time that you can spend working and earning money to feed your family, spending time with your family, or spending time doing things like getting an education or starting a business. That is a form of transport poverty that affects large areas of our city.

We have to invest in the public transport choices and walking and cycling choices that will give those communities real options. It is distressing at this time, when the country is in a cost of living crisis, when there is more than 5 percent unemployment, that this Government has chosen to slash by a third the expenditure on public transport and road safety and cycleways. It cuts completely against the grain and shows no common sense.

I want to just briefly mention a part of the electorate that I represent in West Auckland, Te Atatū and Henderson. It is entirely dependent on State Highway 16, the Northwestern Motorway, for connection to the rest of the city. We’re talking about 100,000 people in Henderson and Te Atatū, and 15 years ago, it was a transport crisis. The congestion on the Northwestern Motorway spilled back on to the arterials like Te Atatu Road and Lincoln Road. State Highway 16 was, basically, a parking lot, and yet in the 10 to 15 years since, we now have a form of rapid transit - lite on the Northwestern Motorway, which I’m very happy to say I played a part in getting the funding for. We now have a high-frequency bus network serving our communities, with buses going every 10 minutes, seven days a week. We have much better cycling infrastructure and the promise of Te Whau pathway/cycleway connecting New Lynn to Te Atatū.

We’ve made enormous progress—we actually have. The public transport system is much, much better now and congestion is no worse than it was 15 years ago. You can make a difference with these things, and it’s not by building more motorway capacity and more roads. It’s by investing in public transport infrastructure, and that’s what this Government needs to do to make this time of use policy work.

Oh, thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m very pleased to be invited to make the final speech in this third and final reading of the Land Transport Management (Time of Use Charging) Amendment Bill. Let me just take you back. This has been 25 years in the making, and I was working in the Auckland mayor’s office at the time when the Land Transport Management Act 2003 came through. That was, in theory, about enabling user-pays funding, but it didn’t work—it didn’t work.

Steven Joyce in 2011 amended the Act, which of course removed the barriers to tolling and public-private partnerships, and now, the third leg of the treble, we’re amending the bill again with the time of use charging. As has been articulated, 25 years ago it was a billion dollars in wasted time and wasted energy for Aucklanders every year; now it’s projected to be $2.5 billion. I congratulate the Minister of Transport, Chris Bishop, on putting this bill together—25 years in the making—and getting unanimous support across the House.

Aucklanders will soon experience school holiday - like traffic—school holiday - like traffic. It might be a little bit bumpy to start with as far as the small cost involved, but that will well and truly be outweighed by the savings in time and energy. I commend the bill.

Thank you. I rise to speak on this bill, in support. I think this is actually a really good opportunity. Obviously, it’s been in the pipelines for a long, long time. I remember as a city councillor when I chaired the Urban Development and Transport Committee between 2019 and 2022 at Christchurch City Council, we were trying to get measures in place for road pricing. At that point, we did have a few councillors pushing back and most of them were on the, let’s say, right side of the political spectrum. So I hope, actually, when this is approved that we can work with local government to ensure this does happen smoothly.

I know we’ve heard a lot about Auckland, but the slowest commute in New Zealand is actually in Christchurch. A 2025 report showed it took Christchurch drivers 33 minutes on average to travel just 10 kilometres during the 5 p.m. rush hour. So this is a very good tool to have.

But I think we need to acknowledge this is actually the stick; it is not a carrot. The solution to congestion is modal shift, not actual congestion pricing. What we’ve seen of late is actually the taking away of funding from the areas that we will get modal shift in public transport and active transport.

When I look at Christchurch City, we were very fortunate to have investment from the last Labour Government, the previous National Government. That paid massive dividends in our cycleway roll-out, which we started in 2013, and we’re probably at least two-thirds or three-quarters of the way through. Last year, we had 4 million cycle trips in Christchurch City. One cycle counter had 500,000. That was because of investments. Point of contact surveys showed that 15 percent of the people on the cycleway cycling had got out of a car because of the cycleway. Survey after survey shows that, actually, the reason why people don’t bike is because they feel unsafe and it’s the cycling infrastructure that actually encourages them to bike and start biking.

That is what reduces congestion. When we give people true modal choice, you will actually see congestion ease. It’s very, very simple to actually understand that. It surprises me when I see the likes of $54 billion going to be invested in roading, when, actually, the solution is not in building more roads; it’s about encouraging modal shift—a very, very cheap and affordable method to not just make people move easier but also help people’s health.

One of the things that’s also been interesting as well in the transport space is this clear desire from the Government to not care about the health of people too, because there’s a really good opportunity to actually bring more into this space when you look at the amount of people having premature deaths because of pollution from vehicles. But yet we simply ignore the elephant in the room and just focus on little things that you think are wins when there are bigger things that we can do in the transport space.

It has been very clear that this Government has deprioritised actual moving people and just focused on vehicles. It is not good enough for the cities. If we want to be a truly modern and sustainable country, we need to ensure that people can move around safely in all forms and modes and it’s just not happening. We have seen that in Christchurch, where the Government reduced funding to active transport, that suddenly the cycleway programmes have almost come to a halt.

Hallelujah!

This is not helping people.

You say, “Hallelujah!”; what about the young tamariki that want to bike to school? The reason why we have congestion is because you focus on cars, cars, cars, and kids are too scared to bike to school because of the attitude on the other side of the House.

While I support this bill, I think we need to realise that, actually, the solution to congestion is modal shift. If you actually care about people’s wellbeing, you’ll actually help them to get there with where they need to go safely.

on behalf of the Minister of Education: I present a legislative statement on the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2).

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

I move, That the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time.

This bill represents another meaningful step towards strengthening New Zealand’s education system. It introduces a range of legislative changes designed to advance the Government’s key priorities and improve outcomes for learners. Among its proposals, the bill requires schools to place students’ education educational achievement at the centre of their decision making, provides schools and families with more time to respond to planned union strike action, and ensures that initial teacher education, teacher discipline, and competence processes are fit for purpose. It introduces new requirements for schools to have attendance management plans, and mandates that universities uphold freedom of expression for students and staff. Changes include further measures to support a high-performing, equitable education system. My colleagues Ministers Seymour and Reti will speak to those proposals shortly. The changes in this bill are vital to advancing our goals to raise student achievement and attendance, prepare our future-ready workforce, and build a knowledge-rich curriculum grounded in the science of learning.

One of the key proposals in this bill relates to changes to section 127 of the Education and Training Act. As the Minister of Education has previously raised, this Government is relentlessly focused on lifting student achievement and closing the equity gap so that every learner gains the skills they need to thrive. Section 127 sets out the range of objectives that school boards must deliver. This bill amends the section to make educational achievement the paramount objective for all school boards. This means that boards must treat educational achievement as their highest priority when making decisions. To achieve this, boards must also meet a range of essential supporting objectives, including a new focus on student attendance and good quality assessment, as well as other existing obligations around safe and inclusive school environments.

During the committee of the whole House, the Minister of Education introduced Amendment Paper 428 that made further changes to section 127. This proposal responded to the Government’s Treaty reference review, which was part of the National - New Zealand First coalition agreement to undertake a review of all legislative references relating to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. Currently, section 127 requires schools to carry out a legal duty to give effect to the Treaty. However, questions were raised during this review, about whether it was appropriate—

Can I ask members to not talk across the Chamber, because we’re trying to listen to the Minister. Continue, please.

—thank you—for boards, who are made-up of parents and volunteers, to be held accountable for meeting the Crown’s Treaty obligations. This Government considers that it is unreasonable to expect elected parents, who volunteer their time, to discharge the Crown’s legal responsibilities in respect of the Treaty. Instead, the Government believes that it is the Crown’s responsibility to support Māori educational success. And we currently do this in education—

How?

—through a range of different initiatives—wait and I’ll tell you—plans, and programmes, including the Māori Education Action Plan, which sets clear goals for delivering better outcomes in the classroom for Māori students and focuses on delivering a knowledge-rich curriculum using evidence-based teaching methods in te reo matatini and pāngarau.

The curriculum refresh, which makes changes to the national curriculum, includes te Marautanga o Aotearoa and includes a more knowledge-rich approach to teaching and learning and includes more concepts drawn from te ao Māori than previous curricula covering history, language, and culture. Further Budget 2025 investments include the allocation of over $100 million—$100 million—to lift Māori education achievement through things like new curriculum resources in te reo Māori and investing in safe, warm, and dry classrooms for kaupapa Māori and Māori-medium kura. We are already seeing indications of progress from this work. When phonics was first introduced, only 25 percent of Māori five-year-olds were meeting expectations. That figure has now risen to 43 percent, and the number needing reading support has dropped from 62 percent to 47 percent.

The bill replaces the provisions on how schools are required to give effect to the Treaty, with new, supporting objectives—that all boards must give effect to—to meet their paramount objective of educational achievement. These new objectives require boards to seek to achieve equitable outcomes for Māori students, take all reasonable steps to provide for students to be taught and to learn in te reo Māori on request of their parents or immediate caregivers, and takes reasonable steps to ensure that the policies and practices for the school reflect New Zealand’s cultural diversity. This change continues to maintain the need for boards to seek to achieve equitable outcomes for Māori students. However, it also reflects the reality that while some families may consider teaching in te reo Māori important to their children’s education, this change provides choice so that they can enable their children to be educated in line with their child or family’s aspirations. Overall, we consider that these new changes will help focus boards on delivering equitable and excellent educational outcomes for all New Zealand students through clarifying expectations.

Alongside the changes to school board objectives, the bill also removes the ability for a Minister of Education to issue a statement of national education and learning priorities—NELPS. This tool was originally introduced to give schools greater strategic direction. However, the updated school board objectives, together with curriculum statements and frameworks, provide stronger, clearer directions setting clear requirements to help guide schools more effectively. Again, the Minister of Education does not want schools to be overburdened or distracted from educational achievement. By streamlining boards’ obligations and removing the NELP, schools will have a clear, simple framework with achievement at the forefront.

We know that schools will need some time to give effect to these changes, and that is why the Education and Workforce Committee have agreed to amend the date at which the school boards’ next strategic plan takes effect, from 1 January 2026 to 1 January 2027. This will provide for boards to prepare for and make changes to their strategic plan in 2026 and consult with their community.

Another key change proposed in this bill is increasing the amount of days’ notice that unions must provide before they strike, from three days to no less than seven days. We recognise and respect the rights of unions to strike—it is a fundamental part of a democratic framework. However, schools and parents need adequate time to prepare for the disruption that strike action can cause. This includes determining whether they remain open, and, if so, arranging provision for supervision. Parent, caregivers, and whānau deserve sufficient time to make alternative arrangements should their school decide to close. Every learning day matters, and this change continues to preserve the rights of union to strike, but we believe that it is a practical and fair adjustment that supports our students, respects our educators, and strengthens our system overall.

As mentioned in the Minister’s second reading speech, teachers have a significant influence on the educational success of all learners. In particular, the quality of teaching is a critical factor that influences educational outcomes. This bill makes amendments to strengthen initial teacher education through greater Government involvement in standards for teacher registration and practising certificates and approvals of initial education programmes. The Minister wishes to pass on her thanks to colleagues who have given consideration to this bill, and we commend the bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Tēnā koe—

Oh, God!

—e te Māngai o te Whare. Did that member across there just say “Oh, God!” as I—

No, I’ve heard your speech before.

Oh right, what a start—the Deputy Prime Minister.

This bill is an absolute travesty—travesty—because what we have here is this Government ramming through these changes and this legislation. They’re ramming it through because they didn’t—

Hey, we went through a full select committee process.

Is that right, Mr Chair? Full select committee process for the two Amendment Papers?

You were there. Did you concentrate?

I do not want you having conversations across the Chamber. Please restrain yourself.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’ll point out for the chair of the Education and Workforce Committee that this did not go through a full select committee process. The two Amendment Papers tabled by the Minister last week in the committee of the whole House stage of this bill did not go through a select committee process, so the public did not have an opportunity to make submissions on the proposed changes to remove the section regarding Te Tiriti o Waitangi for boards or the changes to the Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand. Now, this is a travesty, because what we have here are two really significant changes which, as I just said, have had no consultation, no select committee process, and, actually, very little debate.

In terms of Te Tiriti o Waitangi: first, the Government’s plan was to deprioritise that in the legislation, but then, after significant lobbying by Hobson’s Pledge, the Minister caved to Hobson’s Pledge, caved to the Deputy Prime Minister’s political and ideological agenda, and actually removed that provision for boards. There were patronising comments that volunteers and parents cannot understand what Te Tiriti o Waitangi obligations are from both Ministers—that Minister that has spoken today, and the Minister that spoke last week. They are elected members of a Crown entity, and, in fact, we had the president of Te Whakarōputanga Kaitiaki Kura o Aotearoa, or the New Zealand School Boards Association, Meredith Kennett, say that the change would undermine the legal and practical standing of schools as Crown entities and risk damaging wider social cohesion, to no clear benefit. Kennett said that the clause did not cause harm, but removing it would. “To understand attendance and achievement statistics for rangatahi Māori, you have to understand our history—and that includes Te Tiriti,” she said. “That understanding leads to more practical, effective, and inclusive school policies.”

This particular amendment that the Government introduced during the committee stage, without consultation, without a select committee process, is absolutely undermining our founding document and undermining our boards of trustees. It’s no wonder we have seen them, in the last week, rejecting this Government’s moves to undermine them—doing the best for their schools and their communities—by patronising, saying that they can’t understand what the obligations must be.

The Minister did not answer my questions in the House last week, when I asked what are the Crown’s obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi when it comes to education, and how will the Government ensure that the authority that they give to school boards is going to be overseen and that we are going to have assurance that the Minister is going to be able to ensure all schools uphold her Treaty of Waitangi obligations, when there is no mechanism for us to be able to see that. They are delegating significant authority to school boards with no responsibility to do it in a way that upholds Te Tiriti o Waitangi. We have had organisation after organisation, school board after school board, in just a week, come out condemning this Government’s changes to removing Te Tiriti o Waitangi from school boards.

The other issue that I want to talk to—which we didn’t have an opportunity in the committee of the whole House stage last week—was the significant changes that this Government is making to the Teaching Council through their Amendment Paper. To the chair of the committee on the other side of the House, I say that this was another one that did not come to select committee and did not have consultation. What we have is, basically, the Minister had already tried to do this before: remove these powers from the Teaching Council. She wants to set the standards for the teaching profession. This is a political overreach. This is going to allow for the political influence and interference into the teaching profession. We don’t have that for doctors; we don’t have that for lawyers—but here, this Minister wants to take on that responsibility and have the ability to have that level of political overreach into our teaching profession.

Now, this did actually come up in one submission in the select committee, and I point that out for everybody, because basically, the Minister is adopting the playbook of The New Zealand Initiative. This particular change was in their submission, and I don’t think anybody in this House should be surprised that the Minister has chosen to pick up the suggestions and recommendations from The New Zealand Initiative and take that and put that into an Amendment Paper, introduce it at the last minute with no consultation, no select committee process, and pass it through the House, because so many of the things that this Minister of Education is doing comes from suggestions—the manifesto, submissions—from The New Zealand Initiative. We should all be concerned, because if the Minister is successful in taking these powers of the Teaching Council and putting them in the Ministry of Education—and tonight is the first stage of that—they will be responsible for setting the standards for the teaching profession.

I also think that they are starting to lay the groundwork, the foundations, soften everything, ready for performance-based pay. That is something that has been rejected time and time again, and here we have the Minister taking the steps to allow that to happen. Mark my words, that’s what her agenda is. Also, the Minister has already developed the set of standards she would like for the Teaching Council, so she’ll just be able to bring those: “Here’s what I prepared earlier but wasn’t able to get through because I was advised by the ministry not to. Now, I have this opportunity to do that in law. Here is the first stage.” Again, this is going to be rammed through.

So we have teaching organisations who have hit back on the Minister’s proposals. Here, we have the headline “Education groups oppose minister’s Teaching Council shake-up”. We have signatories from NZEI Te Riu Roa, the New Zealand Post Primary Teachers’ Association, the New Zealand Principals Federation, Te Akatea, New Zealand Catholic Primary Principals Association, New Zealand Pasifika Principals’ Association, Aotearoa Educators Collective, Montessori Aotearoa, Kindergartens Aotearoa, and the Tertiary Education Union—representing approximately 100,000 educators in New Zealand, all expressing significant serious concerns about the Minister’s proposals to take the Teaching Council into the ministry so she can have the ability to influence and interfere in the profession. Ultimately, this, they say, will put the quality of teaching and learning for our students at risk.

We should all be seriously concerned when that many organisations, representing close to 100,000 educators, are writing an open letter and expressing serious concerns about a piece of legislation that the Minister simply introduced as an Amendment Paper in a committee of the whole House stage, without a select committee process, without consultation, and it’s just going to pass into law tonight. As I said at the beginning of my speech, this is an absolute travesty that we have the Minister here first trying to deprioritise Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and now entirely removing it from the responsibilities of school boards. They did not consult on this. They did not get support for this through the proper process. They introduced it in the House in the committee of the whole House stage. That is not democratic, and we are seeing backlash from the sector, from the schools, from our communities.

I hope the Minister will listen, but I don’t believe I have seen her demonstrate that to date. She is going to continue to push ahead, regardless of the fact that there is no evidence to support these proposals that she has here—no evidence. What she has is a coalition agreement that said she was going to do these things, so that is political, not educational. We do not commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is a despicable bill by a despicable, despicable Government.

The Green Party will not be supporting this, and let’s discuss why. First of all, the bill is going to remove giving effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi in the school board under section 127 of the Education and Training Act 2020. Now, this, as the previous speaker, the Hon Willow-Jean Prime, has mentioned, is an amendment that was introduced in the House during the committee of the whole House stage. This was not consulted on, this was not part of the select committee stage, and this has received backlash from the New Zealand School Boards Association themselves, who are most affected by this. It removes local tikanga Māori, it removes mātauranga Māori.

Why is the Minister of Education doing all of this? Let’s face it, the mask has really come off from the Minister on her agenda to attack Te Tiriti o Waitangi. She doesn’t need the Minister of Justice’s support any more—she can do that for herself. We’re seeing the removal of the National Education and Learning Priorities (NELPs), despite the fact that in the truancy inquiry report done in 2027, it says that NELPs are helpful when it comes to attendance.

What is this bill aiming to do? Actually, more broadly, what is the Government’s agenda? A lot of this bill is the Government and the Ministers saying that they want educational outcomes for students. Are educational outcomes important? Yes, but what is education? Education is about curiosity. Education is about children understanding and having a love of learning and asking questions. Education is not a means to an end. It is not that you go to school, you go to uni, you work, you retire, you die. But that is what this Government wants out of education, because it has a Minister who has never set foot in front of a classroom, who does not understand what it means to be an educator, and who has the arrogance to not consult with the sector on any of the changes that are being made.

This is a bill that is going to create good little productive units, because that is what this Government wants. They want labour units. They don’t want people to ask questions. They don’t want people to learn. This is what’s going to happen with this bill. When we have an announcement made by the Minister with a backdrop of Business New Zealand that’s done in a law firm with no teacher or student in sight, that is a problem and that should be a concern for parents, for students, and for teachers in Aotearoa.

We are seeing Te Tiriti under attack. What we’re seeing from this Minister is that while, yes, they are tooting about the fact that they are doing all of these little things—first of all, if you look for success, you can find success anywhere, and that’s what we are finding with some of the reports that are coming out regarding education. We are seeing a cherry-picking of evidence.

Ninety-seven percent of ākonga Māori are in English-medium streams. They will be under this system. This Government is like, “Well, what is wrong with removing Te Tiriti o Waitangi from school boards? They can still do it.” But do you know what? School boards had 150 years to teach Te Tiriti o Waitangi and to teach New Zealand history to students, and it wasn’t done. So the fact that they’re like “Oh, school boards can still do it.”—that’s not going to happen.

When they are talking about “We want to make sure that everyone’s going to succeed.”—no. They want to make sure that people only succeed within a white framework. They are saying that they want educational outcomes for Māori, but God forbid as Māori; God forbid that there should be educational outcomes as Chinese. They mean that with this legislation, you have the option, if you ask for it, and so if you want access to your heritage and your culture, you’d better beg for it.

That is what this Government is trying to do when it comes to education: “Know your place; otherwise, we will put you in your place.” That’s what’s happening with this bill right here. It is sheer arrogance.

When we’re looking at this bill, when we’re looking at the fact of changing the New Zealand history curriculum—I want to know, how is that history curriculum going to be taught? Are they going to teach about the colonial history of the oppression that Chinese people had to go through in the Opium War, when our imperial palaces were sacked by the colonial power and our heritage looted? Are they going to talk about the Congo massacre that Leopold II of Belgium committed on the people of Congo, which was one of the worst tragedies in the world? Are they going to teach about blackbirding, where Pasifika people were traded as slaves in Aotearoa and Australia? Are they going to teach the colonial history of the world and the fact that it was the colonial powers that caused what we’re seeing here today? Are they going to teach any of that in this history curriculum? Because if they are not, if they are not—

I don’t think they know about it.

No, of course they don’t know about it, because that would actually require people to know global history, for a change. It would require them to know the history of Aotearoa, for a change.

When we are looking at this bill and when we are looking at the fact that Te Tiriti is going to be removed from board obligations, we are looking at the fact that the Minister has, without consultation, decided to stack the Teaching Council and rob it of its independence, where now there are going to be more ministerial appointees on the Teaching Council than genuinely independent elected officials. When we’re looking at the fact that amendments that have been dropped during the committee stage have not had proper consultation, that is undermining not only Te Tiriti o Waitangi; that is undermining the democracy of Aotearoa and that is undermining the unity and kotahitanga of Aotearoa.

That should never be accepted by the House—that should never be accepted by anyone in the House—but am I surprised? No, because we’re seeing decisions made by this Government over and over again in sheer arrogance, because they think they know what’s best for every single sector. They think they know more than teachers. They think they know more than educators, more than people who have spent decades of their life—and from a Minister who has been a Minister for half a second—and they think that they then know better than the people who are the professionals. That is hubris.

As I mentioned during the committee stage, this is something that the Green Party will not support. Also, when we did ask the Minister a question during the committee stage on why she chose to cherry-pick certain things and certain data, there was no response for that. There’s no response. The Minister keeps on talking about the recent changes being made for the Teaching Council because of the OECD’s Teaching and Learning International Survey report of 2024, but there were lots of things in that report, such as the fact that our teachers in Aotearoa New Zealand feel that they do not have the authority to make decisions about their curriculum—about the changes they’re making—and the fact that, on average, they work 6½ hours more than the OECD average. That data was not addressed by the Minister.

To close, the Green Party is making a commitment to educators and to teachers and to students, now. We are going to revert to and commit to the vision and direction of Te Mātaiaho as implemented in 2023, and we are going to commit to the intention of the original history curriculum, because ka whawhai tonu mātou, āke, āke, āke.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m very pleased to take this call to support this bill on behalf of the ACT Party. This is a great bill from a great Government, and I really want to commend the Hon David Seymour for his work that is part of this bill.

As the previous member Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan, who has just sat down, has said, their commitment is towards unions, our commitment is to parents and students. Their commitment is confined to only unions, not to students and not to parents, but on this side, we are committed to seeing what is best for students and what is best for parents. We have been hearing from parents, and we have been taking their interests on board in making sure that this legislation goes through this House in the best possible version.

We are really pleased to see the changes that have been made to this legislation in the committee of the whole House, and I heard members on that side saying that the committee of the whole House stage was not the appropriate process. They had so many Amendment Papers, and even if, like, one Amendment Paper of theirs had gone through, I would ask them: would you have said the same thing—that that process was not the right process? No, they would not have, because this is the process that we adopted, and it was in the committee of the whole House that we made the changes on the basis of the feedback that we were getting when the bill was reported back from the Education and Workforce Committee. So I don’t understand what those members were saying about the committee of the whole House, because that is a process, and I can’t remember how many Amendment Papers there were. I think that it was close to 130 Amendment Papers, or something like that. They were fighting to make changes in the committee of the whole House, and now they are saying, “Why did you make changes to this bill in the committee of the whole House?”

I’m really pleased to see the changes that have been made to this bill in the committee of the whole House because the objectives of school boards are not to give effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi. That is just a distraction. It’s just shifting their attention to something that is not measurable. We want to see that school boards are able to deliver in the best interests of students. We want to see that they are focused on improving numeracy, they are focused on improving literacy, they’re focused on improving attendance, and they’re focused on improving engagement. These are the kinds of things that parents have been asking to see school boards deliver, and that is what we are delivering.

School boards are not entities that are there for any kind of cultural or political kind of motivation in these institutions. Their job as a governance board is in being an educational institute, and so we want to see that they are focused on delivering the best educational outcomes for all students, irrespective of their racial background, whether they’re Māori, Pasifika, Chinese, Indian, or of any racial background. To say that this is going to have a negative impact on Māori students—that is just rubbish. Why do I say this? Because still now, that is happening, and we haven’t seen that making any difference to Māori students.

I do accept that, yes, there will be some students who do lag behind. Not every student can learn at the same pace, and so what we need to do is we need to focus on those students on the basis of their need. Race has nothing to do with that, and giving effect to the Treaty of Waitangi is not going to help anybody. It’s just a waste of resources, and so I’m very pleased to see that in the committee of the whole House, we’ve managed to make this change. In my second reading speech, I said that this was going to be removed as part of the wider Treaty clauses review, or even before that, and so we’re really pleased that it has happened before that so that schools get more certainty, parents get more certainty, and students actually know that they have to focus on numeracy and literacy, and they have to focus on learning the subjects that are going to give them the skills to succeed in the real world.

Talking about attendance, yes, attendance management plans in schools are really important. We saw that attendance in schools dropped under the previous Labour Government, and we have been working really, really hard. Again, I want to commend the Hon David Seymour for his work, and we are seeing that the attendance data is looking better and better, day by day.

This will happen only when students see that they have value when they go to school. If we’re not providing value to students, they’re not going to turn up to school if we’re just wasting their time, and even parents will think that sending their children to school is just a waste of their time. We want to see that schools are able to provide real value to students so that parents also think that “Yes, my child should be in school.” That is what we are doing.

In this legislation, we are ensuring that schools will have attendance management plans, and, of course, I understand that there can be so many different reasons why students don’t turn up to school. That’s why we are saying that the schools should respond to the underlying reasons, as well, for students being absent, because that will give us a really good picture of what is happening in different schools.

Now, finally, I want to talk about freedom of expression in universities. Yes, we start from school, and in school, the children learn about the skills that are needed to succeed in the world. In university, they learn those skills, but they also want the exposure to the wider world, and what is happening at the moment is we are restricting that kind of exposure for students. We want to empower students. We want to protect those students who want to bring different kinds of speakers and those who want to express different views on campuses—they should be able to do that.

Under the previous Labour Government, open debate was under threat. Open debate was under threat under the previous Labour Government, and we want to see that open debate is protected.

We want to see that people are able to hear different kinds of views and they’re able to make up their own minds. If they want to accept those views and agree with those views or disagree with those views, students should be able to do that when they are at university. That is the age at which they should be able to develop that kind of thinking process, and we want to see that that is happening. I’m really pleased to see that in this legislation, universities will be required to develop and commit to having a policy of freedom of expression, and also there will be a complaints process, which will make this whole thing really transparent.

So this is a really good bill. We’re very pleased to support it and we commend this bill to the House. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Thanks, Mr Speaker. When I was listening to the Opposition speeches, which seemed like a defence of the current education system, you’d kind of think that from the Opposition point of view, everything is working really, really well. Willow-Jean Prime said that this bill is a travesty. To me, that is defending the indefensible, because at the moment the travesty actually is that our education system has been failing our young people for a very long time and it’s getting worse. The level of attendance is really, really poor and we are starting to see that beginning to come back up again with a lot of hard work, particularly from the Ministers in this Government.

We’re also seeing the levels of achievement in some of those core skills—the ability to read, to write, to be numerate. Those kind of skills had got to a level which we should be collectively ashamed of and yet the Opposition seem to be defending that. That, to me, is defending the indefensible.

Look, if you don’t believe what I’m saying there, just look at what the regulatory impact statement (RIS) says: “While there is much good practice and achievement in the New Zealand education system, educational achievement data shows significant gaps and variability in the educational achievement of New Zealand students. The 2022 results of the OECD’s Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) examinations continue the trend of worsening overall performance of New Zealand students and large equity gaps.”

What has that got to do with Te Tiriti?

That has nothing to do with Te Tiriti, but what that does have to do—actually, I’ll come back to that. It does have a little bit to do with Te Tiriti, but what it does say is that we have a problem in our education system. That problem is that our students—[Interruption] I don’t know what these people are yelling and screaming about, but what that says is that our education system is failing our students.

What this bill does is it quite rightly says that that is not acceptable, and it says that instead of a confused mess of several equal and competing objectives in the education system, we are going to say that there is a primary objective—a primary objective in the education system, a paramount objective—and then there are a number of supporting objectives. That seems reasonable, doesn’t it? Doesn’t it seem like common sense to say that a school board’s paramount objective in governing a school is to ensure that every student at the school is able to attain their highest possible standard in educational achievement? Does that sound like a terrible thing? It sounds like a very, very good thing to me, because what’s quite clear is that, at the moment, that has not been happening and this bill is about saying that is front and centre. There are a whole bunch of supporting objectives, but that is front and centre. That is the most important objective of our school system.

In terms of Te Tiriti, I think there was a question and a bit of interchange that that happened during question time. It was about what this bill does in terms of giving effect to Te Tiriti. Well, it actually does one very, very practical thing because what it says is it seeks to achieve equitable outcomes for Māori students. We know that Māori students generally are performing much worse than students as a whole, and so to lift that, surely, has to be a good thing, and it is not an amorphous objective about Te Tiriti. It is saying very concretely that we want to lift the performance of those students, in this case Māori students, who are not performing at the level that they need to. Across the board, our students are not performing at the level they need to. That is particularly true of some sectors of society—Māori students and people from lower socioeconomic areas are performing particularly poorly, and they need to be lifted up. We don’t want just to have some really high performers up here and then a big tail of people who are not able to cope in the education system. That is not setting those people up to be citizens of the world, citizens of this country.

The next part of this bill is about ensuring that schools have attendance management regimes. Again, that makes sense. How can you learn if you’re not actually at school? This Government has put a lot of focus there, and the Hon David Seymour has put a lot of focus on making sure that we get more of our students spending more of their time at school, so they are—guess what!—learning more. That has got to be a good thing.

Finally, in terms of the Teaching Council—because we had a lot of that from the Opposition as well—again, if you look at the RIS, the RIS is quite clear because it says that at the moment what’s happening is that we are not setting our teachers up for success either. It talks about saying, if I can find—oh, there we go. “If new teachers do not feel confident in their preparedness to teach areas of the curriculum, it is likely that their learners will struggle in these curriculum areas.” So what that is saying—and we know that’s the case—is that we are not setting our teachers up. I was a teacher 30-odd years ago. We are not setting our teachers up to succeed either, and it is really, really important that we rectify that.

The last couple of things I would say—what an impassioned speech that was from Lawrence Xu-Nan. In terms of history—and I used to be a history teacher once—we should be teaching every bit of history that we can. Of course, I mean, history is such an enormous thing. We should be celebrating history. We should be teaching that, and we should do that, warts and all. There are no perfect races, no perfect groups in history. We should be doing that warts and all. Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan, you’re quite right; curiosity, love of learning is really, really important. What we should be making sure is that people are able to look at that information and to make up their own minds about what it means, not be told what to think. I think that is much more the fault of Governments of the left rather than Governments of the right.

The final thing I wanted to say, it seems slightly anomalous to the rest of the bill, but it is an important thing as well, and it’s good that we actually bring a lot of things in together—the issue of freedom of speech at universities. Quite clearly, we have seen quite a number of instances where freedom of speech has been denied, where both staff and students have been unable to say what they would like to say. Freedom of speech is a cornerstone of democracy, and it is really, really important. It is really, really important that universities are required to adopt statements on freedom of expression and the way in which that is done is set out very, very clearly. I think that will make universities, which should be the place where you have debate, sometimes uncomfortable debate—they should be the place that we have those discussions, and I think that is a good thing as well. So with that, I commend this bill to the House.

The next call is a split call.

Tēnā koe e te Pīka. It’s an honour to be here, standing on behalf of Te Pāti Māori in staunch opposition to this Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2). This is not a minor or technical tweak. It is actually the rotten stripping and the removal of Te Tiriti o Waitangi from the education system. That’s what we’re contending with today. It removes Māori partnership, it removes iwi partnership, it removes accountability to tangata w’enua, it removes accountability to iwi, and it’s deliberately silencing our tamariki Māori in their own classroom. It’s a regression. It’s a regression to a monocultural colonial model of education that is knowingly erasing Te Tiriti in this time and age—knowing the importance of mokopuna, of tamariki, of rangatahi, turning up to schools and being comfortable in their own cultural identity.

We are all here because of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and yet we have a Government who’s intentional on trying to wipe it and attack it from the moment it got in.

Repeka Lessels, who is the president of the New Zealand Educational Institute, with 50,000-plus members, said that this is the latest in a series of racist, dogmatic attacks on our education system. That is from an absolute specialist. We have got schools—and I’m going to read them out because what I want our whānau to do in listening to this debate is actually get in behind these schools and encourage more to join them: Whakatāne High School, Te Uru Karaka Newton Central School, Allandale Primary School, Apanui School, Tauranga Intermediate, Te Kura Takiwa o Opononi, Prospect School, Ao Tawhiti Unlimited Discovery school, Te Hiwa Shirley Primary School, Richmond Road School, Pāpāmoa Primary School, Somerfield Te Kura Wairepo, Sunnyvale Primary, Victoria Primary School, Te Kura o Hau Karetu, Huirangi School, Waterloo School, St Mary’s School in Foxton, Opoutere School, One Tree Point School, Ruakākā Primary School, South Otago High School, Porirua East School, Paraparaumu College, Albany Senior High School, Te Aute College, and Te Kura o Mangaweka. These are colleges that are actually in the areas that some of these Government MPs belong to, and huge accolades to these schools for showing leadership because they are actually doing something that we encourage the rest of the country and the rest of the schools to stand in solidarity and support them.

This is what we have, and Governments cannot wipe us out. Governments cannot wipe us out. They have tried before. Today, there are 29 kura and growing; 950,000 ākonga and tauira and teachers who are calling this Government out. They are calling out the Government’s short-sighted, anti-Māori, anti-Treaty approach that they have shown from the moment this Government got in.

I think of Moana Jackson above, who reminded everyone in Aotearoa that the Treaty has “never been about Treaty rights, it’s always been about the rightness that comes from people accepting their obligations to each other.”

This Government is out of touch with the very communities it’s meant to represent. Instead, this Government has been ignored, quite rightfully, by the schools that have got the courage to show their commitment to a united Aotearoa hou, to a country that is intentional on peace. Indeed, we’ll have the last laugh in 2026 when we see the end of this Government and its revolting attacks to Te Tiriti.

We have continued to see the beautiful, humble leader Rahui Papa and the National Iwi Chairs Forum have spoken out about this Government—spoken out about it again: its blindness to what it is that encourages our tamariki with their whānau, with their communities to stand in unison. You can only learn when you’re in an environment that encourages you to be who you are, when you are allowed to express your culture, when you’re allowed to express your hapū, when you’re allowed to express your iwi, and they are the very communities that help fund and get these schools up and running.

This Government is bereft. It is bereft of any conscience that should be shared towards these schools, towards our students, and towards the nation-building of Aotearoa. Shame, absolute shame on the whitewashing and the continual back-pedalling we have to the colonial construct that ruined the education, and the whole fact that they are in denial of the equity that we have in education. They are in denial of how Māori children arrive to not fit into this education system. No, instead we have a Government intent on dragging every Māori child back to where it is that they think normal is. Nō reira, we are absolutely opposed to this bill.

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

Good evening. We are still on the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2). Francisco Hernandez.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. And points for the full, correct name. I wanted to take the speech to—

We do our best.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, I’m rising in opposition to the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2), but in contrast to my usual form of speech, I’m going to try and give a slower and more measured speech. It’s good to, sort of, practise different kinds of speech techniques.

During the committee of the whole House, it was disappointing not to have been able to explore the contribution which I’m going to focus my speech on, which is the issue of how this bill potentially creates restrictions on the ability of universities to act as a critic and conscience of society—a function which I’m sure all of us members can appreciate. It is something that I’ve gotten a new appreciation for, on how important it is to ensure that universities are able to have people that are able to speak to potentially, you know, controversial ideas and such. I mean, obviously there’s a spectrum of what limits can be placed and there’s a spectrum of what sort of conduct is allowed to be engaged upon. But I think we all agree, in general, it’d be good to not place undue restrictions on the ability of people to exercise, you know—to invite speakers or overly restrict what speakers on campus are allowed to say and do.

This is something that was impressed on me, quite unusually, when as the Green spokesperson for tertiary education—we’ve been doing this save our polytechs tour—and I tried to get a booking on the Otago Polytechnic campus to hold a public meeting around saving Otago Polytechnic. It all seemed to be fine at first glance. They accepted the booking, but I think a few days before the event was due to be held, the event was cancelled at the last minute by Te Pūkenga, by the administration, because they didn’t want the campus to be politically influenced. So, having had that happen to me, I’m sympathetic to the idea that we should be protecting the rights of speakers to be able to speak on campus, because it is concerning that in a tertiary institution that people are not able to speak. I do think that this was one of the potential omissions of this bill that could have been included.

Obviously, we take exception to how sweeping the powers of the bill are, but if we are to place polytechs on the same status as universities, and I’m sure all of us members here agree that polytechs, you know, should be on the same status as universities, then they should also be required to uphold academic freedom as universities have been required to, in our view, in an overly strict way. I mean, we’d water the bill down and, you know, just protect the right of speakers.

We do take exception to the how this bill, essentially, restricts universities from being able to take a public position on issues. And this is concerning to us because, you know, when we asked the Minister questions during the committee of the whole House stage on how taking a public position would be defined, we weren’t able to get a concrete answer. That’s concerning to us because universities should be able to take positions as a public institution and also submit on bills. We got no assurance from the Minister that the function of universities as a critic and conscience of society in the context of being able to submit to, you know, for example, bills in the House or really any legislation, anything that’s being done in the context of the role, would be protected.

Another area that we would have grave concerns about, in terms of taking a public position provision, is in terms of the curriculum. Now, a very strict, hard-line application of this legislation could render universities being unable to take official stances on what they’re teaching. For example, whether it’s evolution versus creationism. Now, you know, we do know people are allowed to have opinions, but the difference is evolution is a scientific fact, and universities should be able to proclaim that. But, unfortunately, this bill casts doubt to that, which is why we oppose it.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. To anyone listening at home to this debate this evening, they might have got confused around what is trying to be achieved here. I want to help just make it pretty clear and pretty simple, because the Opposition have tried to confuse everyone about what the role of schooling is about. This bill is focused on ensuring we help get students to school—attendance—and, secondly, we focus on educational achievement; and for parents like me across the country, I know that that’s what we want. I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you Mr Speaker. The Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2), the legislation that nobody asked for, that universities didn’t ask for, that schools did not ask for—yet here we are again, debating a piece of legislation that takes away the localism, the autonomy, the decision making of our educational institutions.

Like three waters.

Like three waters, and, Mr Doocey, you campaigned against that and you promised localism, and here you are taking it away. Minister Doocey is advocating for localism, in a bill that takes away localism. How does that go? All of this because this National-led Government thinks that they know better than our educators, the sector, the school boards, and universities. It’s another example where they are out of touch. In fact, the only people that this bill serves is Hobson’s Pledge, Don Brash, and the Free Speech Union.

I want to start by reflecting on clause 11 of the bill amending section 281, and its freedom of expression requirements for universities. Over the past eight months, I’ve had the absolute privilege to travel across tertiary education institutions in this country and see the fantastic work that they do. I’ve listened to the concerns of their leadership, their staff, and their students, and you know what? None of them have said to me that universities adopting a statement of freedom of expression is something that they want, that they need, or that it is a priority for them. This proposal is a mishmash of things. It’s an afterthought, mentioned as a joke in passing about how the tail wags the dog in this Government, because in the current educational environment this is not a priority for our universities. They want to focus on the core issues, the real issues: how they can deliver for students and provide an education that sets them up for a successful workforce.

On the perceived problem of freedom of expression, the Ministry of Education’s regulatory impact statement makes it very clear: “We have limited evidence on the actual extent and impact of freedom of speech concerns in New Zealand.” Additionally, it said that universities themselves have a “lower level of overall concern that freedom of speech is being constrained.” The ministry’s preference was in fact to maintain the status quo. When I asked the Minister, in fact, in our select committee, who it was that asked for this bill, the only person that she could reference was in fact Don Brash. Don Brash was the only person that the Minister could say asked for this piece of the legislation. It comes as no surprise to those of us who sit on this side of the House that during the select committee process’ submissions, only 13 percent of submitters who mentioned these sections of the bill supported these proposals. Ridiculous.

There were core themes throughout the submissions that were heard. This legislation is absolutely unnecessary, overly prescriptive, and actually creates greater risks around academic freedom and the freedom of expression. The New Zealand Law Society have noted that this legislation is unnecessary—they’ve noted it too—and “would at best simply affirm what is already accepted to be the case under existing legislation.” They asked a simple question: whether anything is gained by the proposed reform, which would impose legal obligations upon university councils.

Universities New Zealand, the sector voice for our eight universities that represents their collective views, I think answers this question best in their submission: “All universities in New Zealand regard the protection of freedom of speech, academic freedom and the encouragement of robust and respectful debate to be essential to our work and critical to our purpose. Given this enduring focus delivered via the current institutional policies, Universities New Zealand does not see that there is a problem requiring legislative change with respect to freedom of expression at our universities.”

So the question remains, who other than “Uncle” Don Brash and the Free Speech Union, does this part of the legislation serve? In the UK, the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act and its provisions, including a mandatory complaints process like the one proposed in this legislation, resulted in the proliferation of frivolous and vexatious claims, and weaponisation of the complaints process that actually had a chilling effect on free speech.

At the heart of it, we actually know what the real issue is here and who it impacts most. It will be Māori, it will be rainbow communities, it will be those with disabilities, those that are marginalised, and it will be women. This bill sets out to undo this.

I move on to the second part—and there’s a lot in this unnecessary, bundle-junket of a piece of legislation. It’s a lack—

It’s a bit negative, Shanan—quite negative.

Somebody from the Government side just said that I’m negative. Actually, the entire sector is negative about this bill. They don’t agree with any of it, Stuart Smith. Are you in touch? Are you in touch with your communities? I will share one of my schools. Written to myself and National MP Dan Bidois, and to the Minister of Education, Erica Stanford, “As an appointed body to provide governance in this school, we are, effectively, the representatives of the Crown in a relationship with our school community and particularly, in this matter, with Māori. The obligations of the Treaty of Waitangi have been clearly and consistently restated by national and international rulings.” They are one of many school boards across the country releasing statements like this, open letters opposing this legislation. That is because they recognise the important role they play in honouring Te Tiriti o Waitangi, a recognition that is built on their work on their ground in their own communities. Yes, we call that localism, and it is the National Government in this legislation that is taking that away. Boards of trustees lead our schools. They set the strategic direction and they are the vehicle for bridging the Crown’s educational responsibilities with their local community in its unique educational context.

The final comment: in the committee of the whole House last week, I asked the Minister directly: how do you achieve equity without Te Tiriti o Waitangi? I’ll repeat, for ears in this House—

Just treat everyone like a human being.

—how is it that you achieve equity without Te Tiriti o Waitangi? David Seymour wouldn’t know, he wouldn’t have any idea. The Minister came back to me and asked me how you achieve equity. It comes to partnership. It comes to taking care of all tamariki in our school system. It doesn’t come about by taking away the rights, the responsibilities of Te Tiriti, and the choices of schools, of trustees, and of whānau in our education system.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. One of the key parts of this bill that I think is really worth highlighting is that the foremost obligation of boards of trustees, the priority for them, is to concentrate on educational achievement. Now, if everything is important and everything is a number one priority, then nothing is really a priority. We’re returning a sense of order to things, and we are making it very clear that this is the one number one thing that we care about in education: actually educating our children. They need to turn up—and that is a part of the obligations—and they need to be seen to achieve. I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Unfortunately, we have here a bill that got changed quite dramatically in the committee of the whole House. When those sorts of things happen, when we see a change that is made so drastically at that point, there is nothing other than to say that this is a grubby little bill. Not giving people the opportunity to actually speak on clauses and parts of this bill that are absolutely critical is a really, really big affront to democracy. I’m really surprised because I’ve heard members on that side of the House say that democracy is really important, and yet they go and they do this to this particular bill—particularly when we see how the bill now removes the need for boards of trustees to give effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

When I hear the arguments on that side of the House, I think “Do they not realise, when they say that that is what the Crown needs to be doing, that boards are a Crown entity?” It almost beggars beyond belief that they have no understanding of the make-up and the nature of a board of trustees. If that is the fact and, in effect, what they are saying, is it that they’ve got a broader agenda around what they want to do with those boards of trustees? Giving effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi is an incredibly important function of a board of trustees.

The fact that this came through almost under cloak and dagger was absolutely disappointing—and, yes, they should be hanging their heads for such an obvious affront to the democracy of legislation in this House. [The Hon David Seymour throws his hand up] And, yes, that member over there can go like that, because that’s how I feel when I see such a terrible piece of legislation that will impact on education.

What I will say, though, is that according to the bill as it was written and went through the committee of the whole House, boards of trustees don’t have to give effect to their change in their strategic plans until 2027 anyway. So that means that they will still have to give effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, which means that when this Government gets elected out in 2026, it will change anyway. So I would suggest that boards of trustees will be looking to make sure that they can keep that as they’ve always known, because it is an incredibly important function of boards of trustees—not that anybody that has not been involved in education would actually know that; they think they might know, but they don’t have the data to actually show how much that makes a difference, because they don’t understand it at that level.

The other important aspect that came in cloak and dagger in this particular piece of legislation, which was absolutely disgraceful, was the fact of altering the composition of the Teaching Council of Aotearora here in this country. It is just unbelievable that here we have professional bodies in every area in this country—we have lawyers’ professional bodies, we have doctors’ professional bodies, we have them right across the board, where the profession owns what is happening and owns what that profession will look like and the standards for that profession, but that Government on that side of the House will not give that ability to our teaching profession. What does that say? That says that they have very little regard for our teachers in this country.

No regard.

They have no regard for our teachers in this country, and that is absolutely disgraceful. No wonder the Ministers are getting so much correspondence from the teachers and from the principals saying how much they are absolutely upset with what that Government and what this Government is doing.

I would challenge anybody on that side of the House who comes from an alternate profession to say whether they would like the Government telling them how to do and how to run their profession—such as, how to do operations, how to run a business. No, because we have the people who are the experts in those areas who run those professional bodies. Yet that Government wants to take that away from our teaching workforce.

This is a disgraceful bill and shows little to no regard for our teaching profession in this country. I am disgusted in what is happening here tonight.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Education and Training Amendment Bill is focused on one thing: lifting achievement—lifting achievement so that every Kiwi kid can reach their full potential in school, which will equip them with the knowledge and skills they need to take on life and thrive. Thank you to our Minister of Education for being bold, for being courageous and being game-changing, and for believing in the power of achievement and the power of education to lift our kids from poverty of aspiration. I commend this bill to the House.

This bill demonstrates so much of what is wrong with this Government. It’s a grab bag of right-wing bigotry and settling scores with the Government’s perceived and imagined critics. It’s probably one of the reasons—the fact is that this Government is so inclined to pursue fringe ideological distractions, instead of focusing on the things that people in this country are most concerned with, and that’s the cost of living, actually, they spend the time of the House passing laws like this. This bill is not worthy of this House’s time, it’s not worthy of a Government with any self-respect and understanding of the importance of this country’s institutions, and it’s not worthy of a Government that claims to be laser focused on educational achievement.

Let’s take the issue of freedom of speech in our country’s universities. No evidence has been presented either to this House or to the Education and Workforce Committee to justify putting the long arm of the State into our autonomous universities to basically micromanage them and make them report regularly to the Government of the day on their free speech policies. There has been no evidence.

As Shanan Halbert said to the House, the only instance that was used to justify this, in all of the discussions at the select committee, was the incident when Don Brash was denied a platform at Massey University. That is the only crisis that justified this intervention. These provisions are the bastard children of the right-wing libertarian movement internationally, like the Free Speech Union, which is trying to use the power of Government to break open our universities and require them to provide platforms for the racists, the Holocaust deniers, the trans haters, all of the people that the libertarian right want to give respectability to. They want to force our universities to provide platforms for those fringe people at the cost of the credibility and the status of our universities.

The thinking behind this provision completely confuses the idea of free speech with academic freedom. Our universities are based on a tradition of academic freedom that is hundreds of years old, where ideas get tested against research in a climate that fosters independence, fosters critical thinking, and thinks about the quality of ideas. The notion of free speech that people like David Seymour and his ilk are promoting has no notion of quality. Actually, they want the most fringe, notorious people to have access to our treasured academic institutions.

It also completely misses the point that free speech traditions in this country have grown up with a much more balanced approach that requires people to think about the consequences of what they say, because we live in a small island country where we have to get on with each other. The whole idea of freedom of speech should, in any sensible society, sit alongside the balance and the responsibility to consider the consequences of what you say. In universities, it’s the job of the universities to make that judgment, not to have people like David Seymour and right-wing libertarians like him imposing some foreign concept of freedom of speech on our institutions.

I want to talk about the provisions in this bill that set out to neuter the independence of the Teachers Council. Again, a measure in this bill for which no evidence was provided—no serious or plausible rationale for these principles. Where did it come from? Where did it come from? The New Zealand Initiative. Now, I asked the House, why would the Government deliberately undermine the autonomy of the Teachers Council, the body that’s legislated to govern the profession and set standards? Who’s next? Lawyers, accountants, doctors? No, only teachers. That’s right.

There’s only one reason. We have to surmise, because they haven’t actually been open enough and transparent enough to tell us why, but there is only one reason the Government would do this, because they see teachers as their ideological enemies. Now, let’s think about that for a moment. The National-led coalition Government sees the people who get up every day and go off to work to teach our children and help them grow and develop and learn as their ideological enemy. You can see that in the recent comments that several Ministers made about the teachers taking industrial action.

They are happy, in the interests of cultural war politics, to reduce education policy to some kind of parody where they demonise the very people who teach our children. Their whole approach to education policy is to set up this false contradiction between teachers and parents that they’re somehow in opposition to each other. Well, they’re not. They are simply not. If you ask people in the community that I represent, if you ask parents what they think of the teachers in our schools, they respect them, they thank them, they appreciate them, because they know that their kids’ progress in life depends, to a large extent, on good schools and good teachers, but for this Government, teachers are just pawns in their culture war.

Finally, I want to talk about the move to remove the clause that says that schools don’t need to give effect to our country’s founding document. Whose idea was this? No, it wasn’t the Free Speech Union. No, it wasn’t the New Zealand Initiative. This one came from Hobson’s Choice, shoehorned into the coalition agreement by David Seymour and ACT, supported by New Zealand First.

No evidence was supplied to justify this move. In fact, it was basically inserted into the bill late in the select committee process. It’s just an assertion that parents and teachers, the people who govern our schools, cannot be expected to understand or give effect to the Treaty of Waitangi. Who says they can’t? How patronising, how absolutely patronising to say that the people who govern and run our schools—thousands of schools around this country, from one end of the country to the other—cannot understand and cannot give effect to our founding document.

Think about this: our public school system is one of the core and most indivisible parts of the modern State. It is one of the main ways that Government touches the lives of people on a daily basis. The people who run those schools are now being told, “You’re not capable of understanding or giving effect to our founding document, the Treaty of Waitangi.” It says to us as New Zealanders that we have rights and responsibilities for ourselves and to each other, that this country is built on a partnership between tangata whenua and tangata Tiriti.

Is that so hard to understand, that we owe each other the obligation to ensure that each other’s views are taken into account, are heard, that Māori have a say, that we share this place and we are bound together? Is that so hard to understand for the volunteers who govern our schools? I find it absolutely gobsmacking. I worry that this philosophy that is terrified of Māori aspiration, that’s terrified of our founding document is actually percolating through every Cabinet discussion, every Cabinet paper, every bit of law that comes to this House, they are trying to ethnically cleanse out of it the idea that sits beneath our founding document, and that is that this country is based on a partnership. For this side of the House, it’s so terrifying. It’s so obnoxious that they want to pour Janola on every bit of law and bleach out of it any kind of commitment to the Treaty of Waitangi.

Three changes in this bill—all of them fringe ideas that have come in from the outside, with no evidence to support them. This Government is content to bring pure right-wing ideology into this House at the expense of educational achievement.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. I just want to note that there are many New Zealanders who moved here to seek refuge from actual ethnic cleansing, and I think the use of that term was incredibly irresponsible and, really, he ought to withdraw it for the reputation of the House.

No, Mr Seymour. I heard that and I think it’s probably a little bit of grandstanding on your part.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, it’s great to have the privilege to take the last call on this bill. It’s a great bill. Listening to the people on the other side of the House, I’m beginning to think they’ve missed the memo. This bill is very simple. It’s about prioritising educational achievement for students and children. And, you know what? I think it’ll do the members on the other side—they can do themselves a favour and go and stop talking to all their union mates and talk to parents—you know, those people out there that are parents. The ones that want to send their kids to school and let them get ahead in life.

This Government is focused on getting kids to school, educating children, and giving them a greater opportunity in life. I commend this bill to the House.

Members, the House is in committee for further consideration of the Regulatory Standards Bill. When we were last considering the bill, we had just completed the debate on Part 2. We now come to Part 3. Part 3 is the debate on clauses 41 to 47, “Regulatory reviews and information-gathering powers”.

Madam Speaker, first of all, I thank you, the other presiding officers, and members for their engagement on this bill so far.

Part 3 is a relatively simple part of the bill. It sets out provisions for the Ministry for Regulation to carry out regulatory reviews, that is, backward-looking evaluations of the stock of laws that the Parliament has previously made or allowed. It then goes on to set out how the ministry—the regulatory standards ministry, that is—should go about reviewing a regulatory system, or rather its responsibility to present a report to the Minister on any review it does, and subsequently for the Minister to present that to the House of Representatives.

It goes on, in a series of clauses, to set out powers for the Ministry for Regulation as a central agency to require information to be shared by Government agencies in the course of preparing briefings for regulatory management, which is a procedure that’s been described earlier in Part 2; also, for giving information on regulatory reviews, such as asking for information from Government agencies. It then sets out a series of limitations on that power to request information, noting, for example, in clause 44 that it cannot demand information from the House of Representatives, an Office of Parliament, the Clerk, or the Parliamentary Service. It also goes on to say that it cannot require information from non - Public Service agencies, or at least has restrictions on that; and, finally, that it cannot require information from a person who is contracted to a Government agency.

It concludes—the bill, or at least this part—with the consequences of failing to comply with a notice issued by the regulatory standards ministry to provide information, and it provides that a court may make an order if the court believes it’s necessary or desirable to enable the regulatory standards ministry to review a regulatory system to which any legislation relates. It has a role for the court at the very end if there is a dispute over providing information to allow the Ministry for Regulation, as a central agency, to do its job, both preparing reports and also carrying out regulatory reviews into existing regulatory systems. I hope that will make clear that the purpose of this—it’s really quite a straightforward purpose, with a series of exemptions and conditions for using that power for that purpose.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I thought I heard the Minister for Regulation say that a person who is a contractor couldn’t be asked for information. I might have misheard that but, if I didn’t, that isn’t how I read the Act. But that’s not really where I want to start.

Where I want to start is around why we need this part at all, because the ministry has actually undertaken a number of regulatory reviews already, and the idea that one ministry whose job it is to undertake regulatory reviews—the Ministry for Regulation—needs a special statutory power to ask another agency for information about the regulations that are being administered seems truly extraordinary. That kind of interaction between ministries can be dealt with entirely by Ministers and, if necessary, by Cabinet minutes. So why on earth we need this, I seriously don’t know.

The other thing is this: it’s actually really intrusive. You’re asking about how a regulation works and you have a sweeping, or a largely unconstrained power. The only constraint on it is that it’s for the purpose, if necessary or desirable—or whatever the exact words are—of undertaking a regulatory review. So it’s entirely conceivable that you might want to look at complaints information which contains personal information, or any other number of kinds of information which ought not readily be shared between departments. So it’s funny that you’ve got the first half of the bill saying it is to protect liberties and rights—presumably, including the right to privacy—and then Part 3 of the bill says “Forget about that. If we’re undertaking a review, we should be able to embark on a sweeping inquiry. A bit of a Star Chamber inquiry, where we can look at, essentially, whatever we like.”

I guess that’s why in my amendment—and there’s a few of them here—that I lodged on 4 November at 12.08 p.m., I suggest that there should actually be some further constraints, and there are a couple of constraints. One is the obligation—because in these regulatory reviews, you’ve got all this information-gathering power and no direction as to how the reviews themselves should be conducted.

So there’s a couple of points there. First, which is the obvious one: consult with affected stakeholders. It’s all very nice to do a review, whether it be on farrowing crates or otherwise, and consult with farmers, but not animal welfare groups. So all affected stakeholders should be consulted. The other one, of course, is that when you’re undertaking a review—particularly one that touches on things to do with Māori—you should take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. Now, that’s a pretty standard thing, and I would have thought that would have been a really easy and reasonable thing to do.

It might be that the Minister, or his officials, have some better and further rules about what it actually means to undertake a review and what it should look like, because it’s all very nice to say that “You do a review, and here’s information-gathering powers.”, but to give some procedural rules about what a review is, what its purposes are, and what its extent is would be very useful, as well. That’s why I’ve got that amendment in—but, on reflection, perhaps it doesn’t go quite as far as it should. But I’d be very interested in the Minister’s observations as to (a) why this is needed, (b) what the constraints on intrusion are, and (c) what, in particular, constraints there are on what is reviewed; how and why and when.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I have a few questions for the Minister for Regulation regarding Part 3, but I think I want to start by asking a broader question around clause 41 regarding regulatory review reports. It’s, again, looking at the report and briefing from the Regulations Review Committee. I still have some concerns over the potential overlap between the work that is being done by the Regulatory Standards Board and also the Regulations Review Committee. There are a couple of things, if the Minister wouldn’t mind sort of clarifying. My understanding is that the Regulatory Standards Board covers primary and secondary legislation, whereas the Regulatory Review Committee covers only secondary legislation, so I’ll be approaching this only from the context of secondary legislation.

What sorts of instances can the Minister foresee where there is a partial or complete overlap between the function of the Regulatory Standards Board and that of the Regulations Review Committee? When that does happen, how does the Minister foresee that engagement between the board and the committee on matters such as this? Additionally, what happens. Then, when the review done by the Regulatory Standards Board and the review done by the Regulations Review Committee do not necessarily overlap or align? What are the mechanisms there for the two groups to come together? That’s my first series of questions regarding the two, and I’m sure that others who have been on the Regulations Review Committee much longer than I have may also have additional questions for the Minister regarding that.

I want to continue on with looking at clause 41(2), which is talking about “reasonably practicable after completing the review”. I just want to check: what, then, would the Minister, in this case—because they have to give it to the regulatory standards Minister—be expecting when we are looking at “reasonably practicable”?

I guess that the next question that I have for the Minister is when we are looking at—let’s say, I’m going to ask the last few questions, but I’m going to just focus now on clause 42(1). I think that this is something that submitters have raised concerns around, which is the scope of power when you’re looking at “The chief executive of the regulatory standards ministry may, by a written notice, require”. Is that requirement then mandatory, again, to fulfil? I guess, in a way, that consists of centralisation of power, particularly—unlike the Regulations Review Committee, which is a Parliament committee—that this is solely within the one ministry, and no ministry or agency has that kind of power to expect or to require information from others, as far as I know of. The Minister may have other advice on that, but I do want to know what the scope of the term is when you are looking at “require”.

The first series of questions is around the interaction between the Regulatory Standards Board, in the context of clause 41 in Part 3, and the Regulations Review Committee. What does the Minister consider to be “reasonably practicable”, and also what is the scope of “require” in clause 42(1)?

Mr Chair, I usually try and take four or five questions or speeches before replying, but I just feel I should get up now.

The Hon Duncan Webb makes the point—he asked why is this statutory power necessary when Cabinet minutes could issue directions for departments to share information with each other? One answer for that is that actually Cabinet has decided to introduce this legislation and express its will this way if Parliament agrees. The second, which also answers Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s question, is actually the Treasury does have very similar powers in relation to public finances. So it’s also not unusual for a Government to ask the Parliament to pass such a law to administer the interactions between its own departments. This is another example of that.

The amendments from Dr Duncan Webb suggesting that there should be more consultation or the Treaty of Waitangi should be taken account of, when one Government department decides to use its power to ask another department for a purpose which is set out in clause 16, which we debated in Part 2 earlier. It’s not clear what benefits that Duncan Webb thinks we would get from that, and the Government is not interested in adopting the amendments that he has proposed. So we won’t be doing that.

He suggests that there should be limits on powers. Again, I don’t want to be repetitive, but clause 16 sets out the purpose of requesting this information, and clause 44, 45, and 46 all begin with the word “restriction”. They set out the restrictions that are placed on the use of these powers. So we’ve actually already put quite a lot of thought into how we restrict the use of these information-gathering powers.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan asked at some length about the interaction of the Regulatory Standards Board with the Regulation Review Committee. I would just refer him to the extensive debate that we had on Part 2 where that issue was covered in some depth. I’m not sure that it’s relevant to quite a different issue here, which is the ministry’s ability to request information from other departments.

Then he asked about clause 41, subclause (2): what does “reasonably practicable” mean? This is a term that appears throughout the statute book, throughout Government papers, and what it means is exactly what it means. Is it reasonable to think that a person could do this thing? If there are clear reasons why they couldn’t, it’s not reasonably practicable. If there are no good reasons why you couldn’t do it, then it is reasonably practicable. This is something that I think people can work out without me needing to talk about it more in the House.

Finally, he asked about clause 42(1). Again, I’ve addressed that; see clause 16 for the purpose of doing this. There was a final point—oh, sorry, I’m struggling to read my own writing, but he said no other ministry has this power. Well, actually the Public Finance Act gives the Treasury—and he’s now nodding. He knew that already when he asked the question. So I think we’re there. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you for that discussion on the overall purposes of Part 3 and clause 41. I wanted to turn to clause 42, which gives the chief executive of the Ministry for Regulation the power to require an agency to supply information. One of the things we’ve heard throughout this debate is concerns around the costs of that. But also when we look at this, it’s a largely unconstrained power. Most notices to produce generally have things, particularly dates. So the notice “must state the date by which, and the manner in which, the information must be provided”. Now, I’m hopeful that our Government departments and the Ministry for Regulation will be reasonable and give a significant period of time, but it doesn’t say that, right, or in the manner in which it must be provided.

So, you know, we’ve all got Official Information Act responses saying, “That’s going to take far too long to collate and we’re not putting that in a spreadsheet for you, so we’re not going to provide that information.” There’s no such power to decline here.

Now, that’s my view in my Amendment Paper—filed on 4 November at 12 p.m. and nine seconds—and it outlines at least some constraints on that. It requires the chief executive, in making a request under clause 42(1), to take into account the costs of the agency providing that information and whether the request is, in all of the circumstances, reasonable. So it’s a balancing exercise because the danger is—of course, this is classic poor regulation—that there’s no costs on the Ministry for Regulation and asking for the information. They don’t have to pay for it and there’s all the costs on the other agency who is obliged to comply. Now, we do expect our public servants to act reasonably, but the incentives there go in all the wrong directions.

So, that’s why I have suggested that there is some constraint and that you can at least have a discussion and say that the request is unreasonable because we can’t tabulate—because this is the manner in which the information must be provided: “So please provide a tabulated spreadsheet of all of the instances of prosecutions, the provisions under which it was prosecuted, and the penalties imposed.” Now, if you do that for, I don’t know, the Ministry of Primary Industries, it’s going to be months and months of work, and if it says that it would like that by next week, all of a sudden you’re putting entirely unreasonable demands on your Public Service. So there’s two things. One is that the date and time frame should be prescribed. You shouldn’t just have it that the Ministry for Regulation can absolutely make up its own mind. The second thing is it’s got to be reasonable. It’s got to be something which isn’t unduly onerous.

Now, there’s actually an argument to say that if you’re going to do this, the cost of it should be funded or one ministry should have to pay the other ministry for the costs of compliance, but a lot of that is captured simply by the concept of reasonableness that I’ve proposed in proposed clause 44(5)—that is, that the request is, in all of the circumstances, reasonable.

The other thing we’ve got here is this: there’s no tiebreaker. In legal matters, the tiebreaker is the Crown Law Office. If two departments disagree about the law, they don’t go to court and sue each other, they go to the Crown Law Office who says, “Look, here’s the legal position and here’s our”—essentially—“adjudication on this matter.” If there’s a scrap going on between the Ministry for Regulation and a department, who’s the tiebreaker? What is the procedure here? Because you’re going to need a dispute resolution procedure, and you don’t want relationships within the Public Service to come to breaking point because either a department’s unreasonably refusing information or the other department is unreasonably demanding information. So that’s a pretty expansive power and I’m very surprised that it isn’t limited in some way. The Minister’s comments would be welcome.

I will give some very quick answers. I just note the last two contributions by Dr Duncan Webb. In the first one, he said that really none of these powers is necessary because it can be sorted out amongst Cabinet Ministers. I made the point that Cabinet has a general view and hopes the Parliament will pass a law reflecting the general view that this central agency should have power to request information. Now, Duncan Webb is saying that the Ministry for Regulation will abuse this power and run unfettered, as though he’s forgotten that only a few minutes ago he was saying that of course departments are responsible to Ministers who can sort out matters amongst themselves back in Cabinet.

So it is possible for Cabinet and Parliament to give a general direction, but also Ministers who are responsible and who are colleagues in Cabinet to moderate the use of that power. Therefore, we don’t have an interest in adopting any Opposition amendments as Government amendments in this area.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m just wanting to seek a quick call, at this stage, just to ask questions about two things. The first is the interaction between clause 41(1)—and I acknowledge I’m asking information around 41(1) in relation to an earlier clause, but I do want some guidance from the Minister for Regulation on this. Clause 41(1) states “This section applies when the regulatory standards Ministry reviews (in whole or in part) any regulatory system to which any legislation relates.” I just wanted to check that clause 6A(1) earlier in the piece still applies, so that 41(1) does not actually, in fact, refer to “any” regulatory system and “any” legislation that it might relate to; that it still excludes the items that the bill says that it excludes under Schedule 1A. So I’m just checking that this part of the bill doesn’t trump the earlier clauses of the bill.

My second question is specifically around clause 42(1), but it’s also a broader question because I know that the bill uses similar language in this clause, which is the phrase “necessary or desirable”. Why has the scope been expanded to such a wide extent? I mean, I understand “necessary”, but “desirable” seems to widen that up quite substantially.

I guess, related to that point: is there any intention to build privacy safeguards into this bill so that personal information isn’t unnecessarily being hoovered up into this? Because it does confer quite sweeping powers. The chief executive of the regulatory standards ministry could simply deem it as “desirable” or “necessary”, and then request potential information.

So I’m just asking those two questions. The first is around whether clause 41(1) trumps the earlier clause 6A(1), or whether clause 6A(1) still stands. The second question is around that language around “necessary or desirable”. Related to that is: what sort of privacy safeguards does the Minister envisage being potentially built into this?

I’ll very quickly answer. I point the member to clause 6A(1), which says “Nothing in this Act”, so clearly, from reading that, the answer to his question is actually in the paper in front of him. Then the question of whether privacy applies; well, of course, if the Ministry for Regulation was to acquire information, it would still be governed by the Privacy Act regardless of whether it got it from this mechanism or any other, so I don’t see why that would change.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I do think this is in an interesting part of the bill, because it’s the most enforceable part, of course, as well. It’s the only one that’s not subject to the provision that we all reflected on earlier in this conversation. But, essentially, the bill’s saying that while you don’t need to comply with the substantive parts of the bill, you must review compliance, so it directs review of compliance, which is quite fascinating, in many ways.

Other members have raised questions about the interaction with Parliament’s Regulations Review Committee. My understanding is the Minister is saying a lot of it is left unsaid here, but he expects that the Minister would pay heed to whatever might be happening in these dual streams that are both potentially operating at the same time. My view—I suspect, as others—is that it would be better if that was specified in the legislation, and potentially within section 41.

I did have a question about what the Minister’s understanding is about the scope of the power of this board to direct or to compel the production of documents and evidence versus the powers that the Regulations Review Committee currently has. Is his understanding that these powers would give this body more scope in terms of what they could obtain either by request or by a High Court order, or that they would be the same?

My colleague has asked a question about “desirable” and the scope of that. I’d just say that I agree with that question, and whether it ought to be narrower. Dr Duncan Webb referred to section 43 and the issue of cost lying with public agencies. There’s also the issue of clause 43(2)(b): that covers “a person that is engaged under a contract with a principal agency to support or facilitate the performance of a function that is imposed under legislation.” So it’s one layer removed, again, and the cost would likely sit with that entity—a contracting entity—and to what extent that the Minister believes it would be fair. I can understand provision for or requirement that the public entity itself must bear those costs. It becomes more complex when we have a contractor who’s sitting underneath that public entity—whether the Minister had considered differentiating between those two so that there are less stringent, or there are more criteria if you were to ask a contractor to provide information, as well.

Dr Duncan Webb has very usefully suggested some language about reasonableness or proximity to the issue that’s being investigated. That seems to make sense to me. That, again, probably speaks to the issue about “necessary” versus “desirable”, but a two-tiered system, in my view, would make sense.

The restriction on giving notice in connection with Parliament: there’s, of course, the listed exclusions there. My understanding—I could be wrong—is that the Office of the Clerk does have some obligations under the Official Information Act, which are different from the other parts of Parliament; and whether the Minister considered that some of these document requirement rules ought to apply to the Office of the Clerk even if they weren’t to apply to the other entities, as well?

Just clarifying, as well, that the Minister’s view is that, if information is passed on, and it does include information that falls under the Privacy Act, that entity would be responsible for notifying the individuals concerned; or is that the Minister’s view that the board would have that obligation under the Privacy Act?

Finally, just asking out of curiosity whether the Minister had considered specifying withholding grounds, as well? So other than the kind of blanket reference to other legislation, whether the Minister considered that there were other grounds that may be a justifiable limit on disclosure—so framing them as withholding grounds as opposed to a threshold, as Dr Duncan Webb has suggested.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I have further questions for the Minister, but I wanted to clarify, I think, two points that the Minister mentioned. First of all, I actually didn’t know that Treasury is one such agency. It was the Minister’s earlier response to the Hon Dr Duncan Webb in the same block of answers that the Minister gave that I was like, “Oh, I did not know that. That’s good to know.”

The second point I was going to make is that the difference between why we are discussing the Regulations Review Committee now as opposed to what was discussed last week is that last week, the report on the briefing on regulatory reform was not publicly available, and it is now publicly available. As a major stakeholder in a lot of these, I thought it was important to address the report that just came out of the Regulations Review Committee. The Regulations Review Committee, in the report, says, “we remain concerned about the constitutional implication of the potential for overlap between the board and our committee.” Last week it was theoretical but now, from the board itself, it’s more concrete.

In terms of my questions, I want to now move on to clause 43 and also clause 44. The first question I have, in terms of clause 43, is around clause 43(2). It’s important that, in the earlier legislation, local government has been sort of alluded to as part of this, where information, for example, could be requested or would need to fulfil certain requirements. I think we talked briefly about one of the schedules around local bills, but I don’t know, unless it fulfils the requirement of, I guess, a Public Service agency or a maker of secondary legislation, perhaps. Would the Minister articulate which of, I guess, subparagraphs (i) to (iv) under clause 43(2)(a) is where local government potentially falls under, because I think that’s potentially quite an important point.

My next question is around clause 43(3), because here it says, “A notice must state the date by which, and the manner in which, the information must be provided.” Now, on the surface, there’s no problem with that. However, there’s no safeguard in terms of what that date potentially could be. The thing is, when there’s no safeguard around the date, it means that the date could be as long or as short as what the chief executive of the regulatory standards ministry may determine. I would like to ask the Minister to consider my amendment on this, which is, rather than saying “the date”, it is “a date” that is reasonably practicable.

Now, the Minister has mentioned previously—thank you for his response to my earlier question on “reasonably practicable” as something that is consistently used throughout this bill. I will ask the Minister to seriously consider this amendment, because I think something like that would provide just enough safeguards. That way, agencies or a maker of secondary legislation or anyone isn’t going to be frantically trying to gather information because the regulatory standards ministry decided arbitrarily that the date is two days, without any specific requirement or consideration for the scope of what they’re asking.

My final question is around clause 44(b), which is around the definition of an Office of Parliament. Now, I did have a look at the Public Finance Act 1989 and Office of Parliament is specifically limited to the Ombudsman, the Controller and Auditor-General, and the Commissioner for the Environment. However, it doesn’t include other things like, for example, the Commissioner of Mana Mokopuna, etc.

Now, the reason I mention some of these commissioners is very specific and potentially quite niche. Under certain international requirements—and I’m thinking of OPCAT, which is the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture—there are five national preventative mechanisms that we have here in Aotearoa. Now, the Ombudsman is one of them, but there are another four. I wanted to check whether there should be a restriction being placed on the other four national preventative mechanisms that allows for this sort of exemption on giving notice in connection with Parliament, because of the fact that they fulfil a very specific and very important role under international convention. Those are my three questions, on clauses 43(2), 43(3), and 44(b).

Thank you, Mr Chair. Just taking Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s questions first, the Regulatory Review Committee’s report may well have been released since we last met on this topic. However, there will be commentary, including from parliamentary committees, on this legislation and matters that it affects for a long time, I suspect. I would still point to the debate that we’ve had quite extensively over that overlap.

The question of where local government fits: under clause 43(2)(a), it could be either subparagraph (ii) or subparagraph (iii). A local government can be an administrator of secondary legislation—by-laws are secondary legislation—but also a maker of that because by-laws are secondary legislation under the Legislation Act.

In terms of the date amendment for what is reasonably practicable, the Government will not adopt that amendment, for the simple reason that “reasonably practicable” is a term in good use that is well understood within Government administration. Making dates, actually, in a way, adds additional complication because they can be seen as arbitrary and then you have to argue about whether the date was reasonable, rather than just saying the time that it’s done should be reasonably practicable.

Then there was a question of whether there should be exemptions for other “preventative mechanisms”; that was under clause 44(b). In my view, the purpose of this exemption for Parliament and its various Officers is simply to ensure that the sovereignty of Parliament is not in any way affected by this law. I have been very clear through all of this that the purpose of the law is to increase the accountability of the executive to Parliament, not to undermine Parliament’s sovereignty. Having achieved that purpose, we wouldn’t go further. You could argue that the Clerk of the House should be exempted from the exemption, or not exempted. However, the Clerk of the House is not really a regulator that puts restrictions on how New Zealanders live their lives. He’s an official within Parliament, so I don’t think there’s any problem with him being exempted from the Ministry for Regulation’s use of these powers.

Vanushi Walters asked about the power of the committee vis-à-vis the Regulations Review Committee. These powers technically aren’t vested in the Regulatory Standards Board but, rather, the ministry, although it is true that the ministry does act as a form of secretariat to the board. Regardless, her question was about the power of a select committee, which has all of Parliament’s privileges, versus a committee with statutory powers that might be upheld by a court. I’m sure she would probably know more about the comparative powers of those than I would, but, suffice to say, they’re both things that people in general should follow and observe.

She asked about clause 43(2)(b). This is the idea of a person who has a contract with a principal agency and the question of, well, if you contract, should you be exempt or included as if you were a central agency yourself? Should you have to provide information in these cases? I think, first of all, it’s important to say that it’s only if they are performing a function that is imposed under legislation. What we have in mind is a regulatory function there. Second of all, I’d just go back to the point I’ve made a few times now that these powers can be used only for the purpose of carrying out a sector or a regulatory review or compiling a report on the state of regulatory systems. By the time you have that specific purpose for using the powers at all, and the limitation to people who carry out a function, then I think you find that power is a bit more circumscribed than it might seem.

Finally, there was a question of the Privacy Act: should an agency notify someone that the information has been requested? Again, this doesn’t alter the obligations that any agency has under the Privacy Act. The information is not leaving the public sector. It is still with an agency that has the same obligations as the agency that originally had it. I wouldn’t view there as being a need for a notification in that sense, because the Ministry for Regulation is part of the public sector. The Privacy Act is applicable, so it’s not material that it’s with a different agency.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ll just whip through a few of my Amendment Papers. Some of the issues have been raised, so I don’t want to dwell on them, and then I’ll get to some material around clause 44.

It is interesting: the Minister seemed to suggest that there weren’t going to be many private agencies that administer regulations. As I thought about that, I thought of Serco, that administers a prison, which is just a raft of regulations. If the ministry were to inquire into how the regulations around prisons worked, and asked Serco to provide reports on all of its investigations, inquiries, complaints, and what have you, at no cost, that would, essentially, be rewriting the contract with Serco, which is an unusual thing for the ACT Party to advocate. That’s why my Amendment Paper, essentially, does a little contractual amendment. It allows for a private agency, a contractor, to charge a reasonable cost because it would seem to me that it’s not good form for Parliament to impair the property rights conferred by contract and require them to supply information which wasn’t previously required.

In terms of clause 43 and the time limits, my suggestion, in another Amendment Paper, filed on 4 November at 12.20 p.m., is simply to say “within 20 working days”, which is the Official Information Act (OIA) framework. I think it would be really useful to have that guidance. I’ll skip over that one because it’s being talked about. The other thing is this: I’ve proposed in clause 43 to insert a new subclause (2A), which says the chief executive of the regulatory standards ministry may exercise the power under section 43 only if it is consistent with the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure, whether it’s a person, or property, or correspondence, or otherwise—because this is a search power; let’s get it right—particularly if it’s a private agency. This is a power to demand the production of private information. It might be that it’s done in the discharge of a contract, and it might be that it’s done in the discharge of a statutory power, but it’s a search. Let’s be upfront about this. This amounts to a search and there’s no rights analysis here of the balancing of privacy, the right to freedom from an arbitrary search, and the right to demand this information.

I wanted to turn to clause 44, which is the exclusions. There’s two questions I have. The first is actually just about exclusions generally, if this doesn’t affect the general law. This is a very clear question, and it is this: are OIA grounds for refusal under this power? They fall into two categories: absolute, national security being the archetype; and kind of not absolute, which are things like privacy, commercial interests—too expensive to collate. So do those grounds apply here?

That’s the kind of general exclusion question. The particular exclusion question goes to two other classes of people. One is members of Parliament. Now, as members of Parliament, we may not be an agency, but nevertheless we are part of this institution which has regulatory powers. If we’re excluding the House of Representatives, which I struggle to see how it’s an agency as well, actually, shouldn’t we be excluding members of Parliament?

The other one, which I’m surprised isn’t in there because it kind of smacks you right between the eyes when you think about it, is the Governor-General—the regulator-in-chief—who actually passes and, by executive order, authorises almost all of these regulations. Why isn’t the Governor-General exempt from the power in terms of her, or his, information around how regulation works and how regulation-making powers are exercised, in particular? This might be interesting information, but in terms of the Crown prerogative and her being the domestic embodiment of the Sovereign, that would be a very unusual thing indeed.

So a few issues there. Interested in your views on the power to charge, if you’re Serco, but also the exclusions, I think, are an important part.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the Minister for Regulation for those initial responses. I am a little bit concerned about his response to the question about third-party notifications. My understanding would be that there is a notification requirement; I’m trying to think of the Privacy Act changes that have gone all the way through the House.

Which clause is the member referring to, please?

Sorry. So this is third-party notifications—where was I? So it’s the power to obtain information to enable the review, so it really connects to clause 43, but also connects to clause 45, restrictions on requiring information from non - public service agencies—so individuals—and clause 43(2)(b) was the one I was specifically referring to, where a person is engaged under the contract. The Minister’s comment was that because it would be across the public service, the information wouldn’t be shared outside of public entities. However, my understanding of the changes to the Privacy Act is that a notification would still be required. I was just making the point that there’s obviously a cost associated with that as well. So I’m just asking whether that is intended that this would be an additional burden and cost that’s put on those entities as well?

In terms of a clause 46, I just wanted to know whether it was the Minister’s intention to include former contractors? This is something I was thinking about in terms of what the Regulations Review Committee could do, because it can, obviously, look at any regulation-making power, and could look at situations where an entity had been contracted to deliver a service, but then that contract had ended and a new contract had begun. The parliamentary committee could easily look at the former contract as well. My question was around whether it was the Minister’s intent for the board not to be able to look at a former contract, and, if so, what the rationale for that was.

But also, the trigger for enabling a person who’s engaged under a contract to have information sought from them seems to me to be a little unusual. So in clause 46(2)(a), one of the options is that the principal agency has been asked to supply the information, but has been unable to supply the information within a reasonable time. I guess I’m just worried that if you have a department that’s dragging its heels, or for whatever reason doesn’t meet that time deadline, the obligation—and we’ve talked about the burden of the cost that would fall on that contracting party—would then be moved to the contracting party. So what I’m wondering is whether there’s potentially some language within paragraph (2)(a), where it can be clear that reasonable efforts have been made, or it is a last resort type of option. Paragraph (2)(b) I can understand; it feels like if there is information that the public entity simply doesn’t hold, that would be a very valid reason for seeking it from a third-party contractor. However, it feels to me that we must pursue those within the public space first, to avoid the burden falling onto contracted parties.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to move on a little bit, not too far, to clause 44—actually no; let’s go to clause 45. This is about a non - Public Service agency, which is the most kind of perplexing and unusual power when you’re talking about a regulatory inquiry, to be able to go and just demand of someone who’s under contract that they produce information. As the Minister pointed out earlier, clause 45 starts with the word “Restriction” but it doesn’t really restrict anything. It just gives some procedural notes and, in particular, subclause (2) states, “The chief executive of the regulatory standards Ministry may exercise the power under section 43 only if they have first consulted the relevant chief executive.” I mean—really?

If you take the Serco example, the chief executive of Regulation consults the chief executive of Corrections, and then they go and demand a raft of information from Serco, their contractor. Now, that consultation is meaningless. They don’t have to consult with the agency they’re about to demand information from. My amendment actually says that it doesn’t place an unreasonable burden. Following the words “consulted the relevant chief executive” it inserts the words “and there is no more appropriate way to obtain the information.” A lot of that information is likely held elsewhere, and, in fact, it is referred to elsewhere in this legislation but it isn’t clearly set out that there’s a hierarchy whereby you’ve got to go to your Government agency first and then—and only if you need additional information—can you go to your citizen contractor, who, in the contract, isn’t expected to and isn’t paid to provide all this addition information.

So it does seem reasonable to me to say, “Well, look, even if you don’t accept the amendment that they can charge for doing additional work that’s not in the contract, at least this is a residual power, one that isn’t exercised as a first resort—because, of course, that’s the danger, isn’t it. You consult with the chief executive of Corrections and you get the response, “Oh, gosh, my crew at Corrections is pretty much under the thumb. Why don’t you ask it from our private contractors because they’re obliged to under the legislation and it doesn’t then fall on the Public Service.”

So, again, this is about incentives. There are some real risks in there. So that’s the amendment I’m proposing to clause 45. I did suggest an amendment to clause 44 as well, which was filed at 12.52, which really, again, limits the power. It says that the chief executive of the regulatory standards ministry may exercise the power under section 43 only if it’s consistent with the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure, and so on. So it’s a reflection of the earlier proposed amendment but it’s new and different because it’s a much broader note on the restriction of those powers.

I’d be very interested in the kind of hierarchy of demand and whether the Minister would be amenable to making sure, when you’re demanding information from a non - Public Service agency, as to whether that’s only going to be in the case where there’s no more appropriate way to obtain that information.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to address a few questions, starting with Vanushi Walters—the question about former contractors, whether the Regulations Review Committee has that power. With the legislation, the trick is in the word “is”—“is engaged under a contract”—so a person that used to be engaged under a contract would not fulfil that. I hope that addresses her concern.

She then raised a question, which Duncan Webb carried on, about why the contractor is seen as the last resort or has less protection; if I can address that. I noted Dr Duncan Webb asking whether an organisation like Serco would face punitive or undeliverable demands for information. I thought that was interesting—the Labour Party’s new-found concern for Serco—but my answer was actually given earlier: just because this power exists for a ministry, to use it under legislation, a ministry still has a Minister.

One of the reasons for informing the chief executive of the other department is so that Ministers can talk and say, “Well, is your department really acting in the best interests of the Government when they do this?” Yes, the Government has asked Parliament to pass this law to express a general intent, but departments will share information with the Ministry for Regulation, but that doesn’t mean that it is a completely unfettered power. Ministers are still in charge of their departments and can intervene if they feel it’s necessary. I don’t think we need to worry about powers being taken to absurd extents, so long as, of course, the Government has competent Ministers, which I am sure it will.

That means that we will not entertain the tabled amendment on clause 43 that was introducing time limits or requiring 20 working days, as the member has suggested. He then asked whether there should be exclusions like the Official Information Act. Well, no, this is a central agency within the Government asking for information from another department. It doesn’t involve a person outside the Crown asking for information from withinside the Crown.

In relation to the Privacy Act, which Vanushi Walters raised, I may have misled or misspoken when I said there wouldn’t be any need for any notifications. I didn’t mean to say that notifications currently required when a department transfers information from one department to another would be somehow wiped. I meant to say that the requirements of the Privacy Act for handling information would continue as they are today, regardless of the mechanism of transfer; whether the department transferred information to satisfy this requirement as opposed to any other that they might have. I hope that addresses the members’ questions.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

There’s a small section that hasn’t been addressed in this part, so I’ll just see if anyone attends to it.

Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, I’m going to address a follow-up question for the Minister for Regulation on clause 43(2)(b), but I’m going to then move on to clause 45 and then clause 47. So in terms of 43(2)(b)—and this is in response to Vanushi Walters’ question around contractors. Now, just using the Official Information Act (OIA) examples that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb mentioned before, I wondered if a person that is engaged under contract, whether you are also going to be seeing circumstances where the response from that is that it’s commercially sensitive, because, again, a lot of OIAs—particularly when it comes to contractors—often come back saying that the OIA is rejected on that basis. I just want to check with the Minister if that has been a consideration.

In terms of clause 45(2), just a very short question for the Minister. When he says the chief executive—“section 43 only if they have first consulted the relevant chief executive.”—I wondered if “first consulted” would also imply received approval from. The reason I ask this is I do have an amendment on this particular part because I think it does add reassurance that the consultation needs to also have the approval from the relevant chief executive. Otherwise, they could just consult, but if the other chief executive says no, they’ve done the consultation anyway.

Finally, in terms of clause 47(1), I do have a very short question. This is the important clause of failing to comply with a notice. I understand this is a safeguard measure, but has the Minister received any advice on how likely it is that something like this would happen? Are there any sort of other comparables, for example, using the OIA or anything else; whether we’re going to be seeing quite a substantial or drastic or even a reasonable increase in terms of the pressure that’s going to be added on to the High Court and High Court judges when it comes to a failure to comply notice. That’s all.

Can I quickly address the question about clause 43(2)(b). The member asked if this is like the Official Information Act (OIA) where information could be withheld because it’s commercially sensitive. This is not an OIA. The Ministry for Regulation is a central agency within the Government. It has the ability to request this information under the law because it too is bound by the kind of confidentiality that is required to deal with commercial sensitivity.

The question was whether we would consider amending the bill so that the information could only be supplied if the chief executive of the department it was asked for from agreed to provide the information. Now, if you had to get them to agree, then there would be no point in having this whole section of the bill that we’ve been debating for the last hour, because they could already ask for information and get them to voluntarily agree without passing this law, or this part of it. That’s definitely not an amendment that we will adopt because, frankly, it’s silly.

On clause 47, whether we have any advice on how likely it is that this matter will fall under adjudication: no, we don’t, but it would seem extremely unlikely. It would seem to be a backstop rather than something you would expect to frequently occur, because Ministers who are in charge of departments have an incentive to ensure that the public spectacle of their departments suing each other is not apparent.

I can tell you, before I take another call, that there is no part of this part that has not already been covered. If you’ve got something unique to the debate, I’m happy to take another call.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to talk about a clause that nobody has talked about tonight, and that is clause 47, which talks about the powers of the High Court. One of the difficulties is it kind of falls short. I’ve actually got two Amendment Papers in, in respect of this clause, both filed at about 12.20 p.m. on 4 November. One is doing it light and the other’s doing it a bit more thoroughly, so I’ll talk about the one that does it more thoroughly.

The difficulty is that the power here, or the direction here, is that if someone doesn’t comply with the notice, the ministry can go to the court and the court can then make an order on any terms that it thinks fit—if it’s satisfied that the information is necessary and desirable—but it doesn’t, essentially, do the flip side. My Amendment Paper does two things: first of all, it says the court can set aside the notice, so it makes it clear that the court has the power to make one of two orders: comply with the notice and do it like this, within this time, and in this way; or that was a silly notice, you don’t have to comply with it at all. Essentially, the court may set aside the notice.

The other thing is this, and Minister, I think this is actually a relatively useful clause—it would be new clause 47A: any person who receives a notice can themselves go to the court. So any person who receives a notice under this part may, within 20 days of the service of that notice, apply for an Order of the High Court setting the notice aside. You could have people go, “That’s a silly notice. I’m not required. This isn’t necessary.” That requires the ministry itself to then, essentially, prosecute, if you like, the notice in the High Court. It would be a lot cleaner if someone could simply say, “Look, we don’t consider ourselves obliged, so we’re going to the court to seek clarity on that.”

Then, the court can do all of the things it could otherwise have done, which is set the notice aside or say, “No, that is a legitimate notice; comply with it in full.”, or anything in between: “It is a bit silly because it asks for seven days; you’ve got 60 days, because it’s a big notice.”; or “It’s far too expansive; you can comply with the notice in a much narrower class of information.”; or “It’s asked you to do something which is entirely unreasonable. It’s not your job to collate and sort information; that’s the job of the ministry who’s undertaking the review.”

So that kind of power, importantly, probably falls within it if the ministry goes to the court, but not if the person who is subject to the notice goes to the court. So that’s actually a very reasonable Amendment Paper, which clarifies the court’s powers and actually truncates the timeline because the person subject to the notice doesn’t have to sit on their hands and wait with bated breath to see whether the ministry decides whether or not to go and seek that court order.

Can I very quickly address this. I’ve had members of the Government benches suggesting that Dr Duncan Webb is actually trying to audition for a role on the Regulatory Standards Board, which I find an interesting proposition, but, at this point, I’m not very persuaded, because he asked whether the court should be told in legislation that it can set aside an application. The court can already do that. Even a dumb engineer like me can read it and say that the court may make the order—so that implies that the court doesn’t have to make the order—meaning it could set it aside. There’s no need for more verbiage to spell that out; the law should be as succinct as possible, if not more succinct.

Then he asked whether there should be a sort of Mexican stand-off where the recipient of the request for information could actually go to court and say that they don’t want to answer. That, I think, is bureaucracy in the absurd and not something that the Government will entertain, nor the previous tabled amendment.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 3 set out on Amendment Paper 427 be agreed to.

The question is the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment inserting new clause 41A be agreed to.

Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment deleting clauses 42 to 47 is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 42 inserting new subclause (5) be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 43(1) be agreed to.

The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 42, inserting new subclause (5) be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 43(2)(a), deleting subparagraph (iv) be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 43, inserting new subclause (2A) be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 43(3), replacing “the date” with “a date that is reasonably practicable” be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 44, inserting new paragraph (e) be agreed to.

The Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 44, inserting new subclause (2A) is ruled out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 45(2) be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 45(2) be agreed to.

The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to delete clause 47 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 47, inserting new subclause (3) be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment inserting new clause 47A be agreed to.

We come to Schedule 1.

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 3 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment deleting clause 4 be agreed to

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment deleting clause 5 be agreed to.

Schedule 1A.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 1A set out on Amendment Paper 427 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to Part 1, deleting item 5 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to Part 1, inserting new item 10 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to Part 2, inserting new item 10 be agreed to.

Schedule 2.

The question is that the Minister’s amendment to Schedule 2 set out on Amendment Paper 427 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to insert new clause 1AA be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 3, inserting new subclause (3) be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 4 be agreed to.

The question is t

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 7, inserting new subclause (2) be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment replacing clause 8 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment inserting new clause 9A be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 10, inserting new subclause (6) be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 16 be agreed to.

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

I’ll briefly describe that the Regulatory Standards Act is the name of the Act. The Government has no intention of entertaining any of the alternative names that members have proposed, entertaining and hopeful as some of them may be. We are happy with our own name for this bill.

Secondly, the commencement says that the Act comes into force on 1 January 2026. That is Part 1 and Part 3, which set out the purpose and interpretation of the bill, and, in the case of Part 3, the powers that we’ve been debating tonight for the purposes of obtaining information, reporting, and doing regulatory reviews. However, Part 2 comes into force on a date no later than 1 July 2026. This is what is set out in the subclauses of clause 2, “Commencement”.

The reason for the delay of up to six months is to provide time for the Government to issue guidance—which is required under, I think, clause 27—to also appoint the Regulatory Standards Board, and to prepare ministries for adhering to the Act and administering it. We don’t believe that there is any need for debate on those timelines. We’re very confident that all of the things required for Part 2 to come into force can be done within the time frames set out, along with the flexibility of it being up to six months.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It may come as a surprise, but I have some amendments on this, and one of them actually suggests that we title this Act—and this isn’t a joke title; it’s actually quite a serious title—the “Regulatory Constitution Act 2025”. There are two reasons for that. One is that it actually reflects what this piece of legislation will do, which is change the very structure of our constitution in New Zealand, and it will change the way in which the organs of Government work with and speak to each other. In fact, you know, if we go back and see the history—in New Zealand, at least—of this bill, you’ll see that it really started with a paper by Richard Epstein in April 2000 called “Towards a Regulatory Constitution”.

Great guy. I met him.

Yeah—I even read stuff like that. Of course, that was commissioned by the New Zealand Business Roundtable—now the New Zealand Initiative—which really just tells you what you’ve got in front of you here. So for two reasons: one, call it the “Regulatory Constitution Act”, because it is about a shift in how Government works, and that’s what constitutional law is about. It’s appropriate to recognise that, but also, it’s appropriate to recognise where it came from. This legislation came from libertarian philosophy in the United States, adopted and promoted by the Business Roundtable, and that’s exactly how we’ve got to where we are today.

There you go. Let’s be a bit upfront. It’s still a serious title: “Regulatory Constitution Act 2025”. I’m surprised that the Minister won’t entertain anything. He hasn’t been very entertaining all night, which is a bit of a pity. There is plenty more of those amendments, but I’ll do them one at a time. So I’ll come back to my next one in my next contribution.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 1, replacing “Regulatory Standards” with “Lawmaking Procedures” be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 1, inserting “(Right to Personal Property Rights)” be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 1, replacing “Standards” with “Constitution” be agreed to.

The Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s remaining six tabled amendments to clause 1 are ruled out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.

Francisco Hernandez’s six tabled amendments to clause 1 are ruled out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment replacing clause 2 be agreed to.

The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment replacing clause 2 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 2, replacing subclause (1) be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 2, replacing subclause (2) be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to delete clause 2(3) be agreed to.

Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Regulatory Standards Bill and reports it with amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

This bill is set down for third reading next sitting day. The time has come for me to leave the chair. The House will resume at 9 a.m.