Parliamentary debates: Wednesday, 12 November 2025

I present a legislative statement on the Medicines 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 Medicines Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Today, we bring the Medicines Amendment Bill to its third and final reading—a bill that is about improving access to medicines, trusting expertise, and delivering better health outcomes for New Zealanders. It is also about politicians listening to concerns about the community, formulating solutions, and staying the course until they are implemented so that people get better outcomes.

Throughout COVID-19, myself and others noted it was strange that Kiwis were waiting for medicines and devices that had been approved overseas and yet, somehow, we had to wait for Medsafe to check they were OK for us, too. It was crazy. We asked the question: has the rest of the world ever approved something, and New Zealand, at the end of the queue, said, “Oh, sorry, you guys got it wrong”, and they all cancelled their approvals? Of course not. Kiwis should not come second to anyone in this world and we should not be waiting to access things that have been consented elsewhere. That is why we have introduced the rule of two: if a medicine is consented in two other developed country jurisdictions, then within 30 days, Medsafe will approve it here if there’s an application from the manufacturer.

The bill also expands rights in a safe and sensible way. Nurse practitioners and now pharmacist prescribers will be able to prescribe unapproved medicines that are in their scope of practice just as doctors can. Especially when there’s a supply shortage, this is important. Authorised prescribers will be able to prescribe funded alternatives without more hoops, and it means continuity of care for patients and a better use of our health workforce—again, a clear problem in the community heard by the Government and a practical solution put in place. We’ve tidied up outdated rules around the Medicines Classification Committee, making membership requirements fit for purpose, and moving detailed operational matters out of legislation and into procedures where they belong, because good governance actually matters.

During the committee stage, we added two further changes that are a result of listening to people in the community and fixing things that matter to them. For too long, New Zealand clinicians have been going to trade shows where new medicines are promoted, in places like Fiji and Noosa—all that money going overseas, when, actually, we could be having these medical trade shows right here in New Zealand. Clinicians will be able to go and learn of the latest medical technologies in places like Queenstown and Auckland, that are part of the New Zealand economy, because we are removing an outdated restriction on advertising new medicines at trade shows—within strict limits that there has to be a genuine purpose to it.

We’ve also removed an outdated restriction on pharmacist prescribers having an interest in a pharmacy. You can understand what the intention of that might have been, but when we trust professionals to act ethically, we should also allow them to have a financial interest in a pharmacy where they may be prescribing.

This bill is ultimately about pragmatism, trusting professionals, speeding up access to medicines, and making sure our regulatory settings are agile and focused on the outcomes. I particularly want to acknowledge officials at the Ministry of Health and Medsafe; the Parliamentary Private Secretary for Health, Todd Stephenson; the select committee; and all the stakeholders who contributed their expertise. This has been a collaborative effort. I note that the rule of two was campaigned on by all three coalition parties and, so far, has had support from every party in this Parliament. It’s a very good example of how politicians can actually hear people’s concerns in the community, formulate a solution, stay the course, implement it confidently, and make New Zealand a better place to live, one step at a time. I’m very proud to be part of this bill and to commend it to the House. Thank you.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to speak on the Medicines Amendment Bill. As the Minister has just outlined, this bill has achieved good support from across the House, and I’m pleased to say that Labour continues to support this bill. There are many things that we want to call out as positive aspects of this bill. One of the things that does reflect the Minister’s statement that the bill was a collaborative process is the positive inclusion of changes made at the Health Committee.

The bill originally listed overseas regulators. It specified them by name in a schedule and, as submitters pointed out, that meant that, were there to be changes or were New Zealand to lose confidence in some of the processes of those regulators—and, let’s be clear, they are very, very esteemed regulators internationally—we would need a change of the Act in order to no longer accept that organisation’s approvals. The fact that, now, the bill takes an approach of specifying criteria that would allow for the approval of particular overseas regulators is, we think, a positive development. It allows flexibility; it allows New Zealand control over its—shall we say—regulatory sovereignty should we ever have a reason to question those regulators in the future. That’s not an unreasonable concern; some of those regulators have been the subject of political interference or suggested political interference overseas, so it’s important that, should that ever reach a threshold that is concerning to us, we have the ability to take action there. We’re grateful to the other members of the select committee and the Government for accommodating that change.

Another positive change was the inclusion of pharmacist prescribers among those that can prescribe unapproved medicines. It appears that unapproved medicine prescribing has grown in scope due to the challenges in supply chains for medicines, which have really escalated in recent years and following on from the pandemic. More and more, substitute medicines that are unapproved are being used, and, therefore, the very narrow ability for those to be prescribed is being shown up. These changes, which allow both nurse prescribers and pharmacist prescribers to prescribe unapproved medicines, are positive, and, of course, the number of protections that exist around the prescription of unapproved medicines remain, which are important.

I want to also note that our main objection to the bill as it is going, apparently, to be passed is the ability for ministerial appointments to the Medicines Classification Committee. It seems undesirable that what is, essentially, a technical committee should be the subject of ministerial appointments. We would have preferred to see the membership of that committee be appointed by the Director-General of Health.

I’ll now turn to the main purpose of the bill. The bill has the intention of speeding up the approval of medicines in New Zealand, and, for that reason, it is a laudable aim. We note that the description of the, aim according to the Government, has changed over the course of the Government. Initially, it was described as a much more automatic approval process than is now reflected in the bill. Whereas approval overseas would have automatically led to approval as initially proposed, now, not only does the medicine need to be approved overseas in two jurisdictions but it also needs a local sponsor. What that means is that the incentives that apply to sponsors continue to apply under this bill. As we heard at select committee, those incentives are often what delays the approval of these medicines in New Zealand.

To give a little bit more context, drug companies will look at a market like New Zealand—we’re clearly smaller than other markets—and they may not think it’s worth their while to submit an application in New Zealand because they’d rather prioritise their resources for supporting that application into bigger markets. I suppose you can’t really argue with that—it is the fact of being a small country—but that’s one reason why we’re slower to get new medicines approved in New Zealand. That won’t be changed by this bill.

Another reason is that the pharmaceutical companies make a judgment about how much they’ll sell. Of course, if you don’t get Pharmac funding in New Zealand, that is the main determinant of the price of your drug to the consumer and the likelihood of it being widely used in New Zealand. The drug company doesn’t know at the time of their application how likely they are to get Pharmac funding. That won’t change with this bill. For those two reasons, there is reason to think that the incentives on what’s referred to as “sponsors” in the Act, or pharmaceutical companies, are unchanged by this bill, and that’s what makes me question how much this will, in practice, speed up the availability of medicines.

However, the bill also does not do much harm—actually, we’re confident it does not do harm—therefore, the potential improvement is worth us voting for this on this occasion. But really, the proof of the pudding, I would argue, is in whether or not we see a speed-up in the approval of new medicines. We’ll be very pleased if we do. That’s why we’re voting for the bill.

The final point I want to make is about the addition made to the bill at the committee of the whole House stage for the advertising of medicines at medical conferences. This was not included in the original bill, and, officially, the first I heard about this change was when the amendment got tabled. Unofficially, the first time I heard of this change was at a Business New Zealand event, where one of the stakeholders who would be a beneficiary of this change approached me and outlined why they thought it was a positive change for the New Zealand scientific conference industry and encouraged me to support it. Good on that person who was upfront and engaged with us over this change. It would have been nice to have heard that from the Government when the bill had garnered such cross-party support in every other respect.

It did make me wonder why that idea—the idea that the regulation of advertising at medical conferences should be changed—is being included at the last minute in this bill. Because, of course, that idea was kicked around when we debated the Therapeutic Products Bill in the last Parliament, and it did make me wonder if the Therapeutic Products Bill was in trouble. When we passed the Therapeutic Products Act, in the last Parliament—I had met an official who had been working on an update to the Medicines Act for over 20 years when I worked on that bill, and now it appears that, having repealed the Therapeutic Products Act and promised a new Medicines Act, David Seymour doesn’t want to wait for that to make these changes in this Medicines Amendment Bill. We’re told that there’s another bill coming down the pipe that’s going to take care of our outdated medicines regulation, but that bill must be in trouble, because why on earth would you put these changes about medical conferences into this bill at the last minute? Then I read in The Press the other day that Casey Costello is indicating that there will be new medicines regulation in by 2030. Well, colleagues, last time I checked, they’re still writing science fiction about 2030. The Medicines Act is an Act from 1981. That is how outdated our medicines regulation is in New Zealand.

We support this bill and the modernisations and small changes to our medicines regulatory system that are in here, but our entire regulatory system is out of date. We saw that in the pandemic, when we had to debate, as a Parliament, retrospective changes to the Medicines Act to get an emergency approval for vaccines. We had no way of getting expedited approval, and, under the current Act, there is no proper way to deal with public health emergencies. There is no regulation of medical devices. There are a number of problems with our Medicines Act, and the fact that this bill has had this addition to it suggests to me that medicines regulation in New Zealand is in big trouble.

Tēnā tātou katoa e te Whare. I stand on behalf of the Green Party to offer our tautoko towards this legislation also. I echo the sentiments of my colleague within the Labour Party around the small changes that are being made that look at patient care and the health and wellbeing of all New Zealanders. But, of course, reformation of the entire system is required, and I thank the former Minister of Health for reminding the House about the challenges of access to medications, to immunisations and vaccinations across the board, but particularly with COVID-19.

The rule of two fast track is one fast track that the Green Party does support, so it’s good to be standing here to tautoko and, also, reflect on the select committee process that the Health Committee oversaw and the diversity of submissions received in the 185 rōpū, hauora, individuals, and whānau who provided submissions, both in writing and orally. There was strong support. But of course, you know, we’ve always got to keep an eye on health equity, on access, on timing—and this is addressing the timing issue.

But, also, I want to talk about workforce and ensuring that our workforce is adequately trained, working at top of scope, but, also, fuelled in the system to deliver these medicines fast into the community. When we think of areas such as the far, far North, where we have a shortage of clinicians and also those working in general practice, there continues to be these challenges in terms of workforce. This legislation does open up the space for access for our nurse prescribers to work at top of scope and support an effective access for the community to medications—but, of course, we need the trained clinicians in the community in the first place. So those are the questions we ask in terms of the way with which we can fuel not just this part of the system but the entire system to ensure that we have the relevant workforce that is capable, that is trained, and has the supports and resources available to be able to deliver medications to the front line.

We heard in the select committee the way with which the access to faster medicines will support better health outcomes for all New Zealanders. The view of those particularly—and I think of our hauora Māori—is how do we take a Te Tiriti - based approach, looking at health equity for those most impacted on the system and ensure that voice is heard across the kaupapa? I think about the way with which appointments can be made to committees, and I’m thinking about, also, the Medicines Classification Committee having recognition of an ao Māori voice—a clinical expert and leader can offer that lens.

We do have concerns, of course, around the Amendment Paper that was tabled without, really, notice. It’s a missed opportunity that the Minister brought it into the committee of the whole House, because we could have interrogated and provided community and the health sector with the opportunity to have a voice on the amendment that the Minister put forward at a very, very late stage. While I wasn’t present for the debate of the committee of the whole House, we have to be really careful about the way with which non-approved medications can be advertised and promoted, and what is a conference, too. So those are some concerns that we have. But, again, going back to the foundation of the Medicines Act in general, this is a good start, but there requires more.

I want to talk particularly, again, about rural communities and the way with which those who are in rural and urban settings serve those who are most impacted and have the lack of access. Te Hau Awhiowhio o Otangarei Trust came before us and spoke to the way with which they have to work in a collaborative approach. This is a low socio-economic community in Whangārei. The clinicians, as well as those that are allied health, are trying to usher whānau into the health system so that they can access medication and treatment.

They were absolutely supportive of this legislation, but they did also bring in the consideration around how do we bring everyone up in the health system as kaimahi to work at top of scope, because that’s part of the challenge, is the way with which we can provide access to timely, quality health services no matter where you live—no matter where you live. Whether you’re in Kaitāia, whether you’re in Bluff, whether you’re in Ōtauthi, Taranaki, or the East Coast, or for me in Tai Tokerau, those are the challenges. While we do provide this fast-track process to bring medications into the country, it is about form following function, and are we readying the system sufficiently so that both our health providers, Te Whatu Ora - Health New Zealand, and those on the front line in pharmacy, dental, everyone, has the ability to be able to exercise at top of scope—what they need to do to provide the medicines?

Also, when we’re talking about Pharmac, you know, we’ve seen the increase in funding. That’s really awesome, because we know that there are a broad range of medications that are available internationally that have yet to land here in Aotearoa. I’m hoping that this will be one of the levers to increase access. I reflect on a fundraiser that a particular whānau member has, a loved sister, cousin, and niece; 10 years fighting a frontal lobe tumour. They are currently fundraising $70,000 for another year of treatment for a medication to help treat this issue she’s had for 10 years. She’s been everywhere, man, in terms of trying to get a range of treatment options. But this medication, of which I cannot pronounce the name—vorasidenib; something like that—is available in Australia for free. It’s available in Australia for free, but she can’t move to Australia. She has commitments here and she has whānau.

What I am pointing out to members of the House, is that this is an opportunity for us to open our eyes and our hearts in the way with which funding is distributed into the health system, because there are those that are impacted, like this whanaunga who’s reached out to me. She’s just like, you know, “Can this new thing that’s come through—”, because people are googling, people are watching Parliament TV more now than ever. So when this amendment legislation came through, it’s then that I got a message saying, “There’s a whānau member. There’s an issue. How can we get these types of medications into the country?” I said, “Oh, that’s something new to me. Aroha mai. But let’s scope that.” This is not something that is foreign to many of us. We have many whānau who have been impacted.

So what do we do? In terms of the levers that are available, we have got this fast track that provides the way with which access can open the door for more medications into New Zealand. We have now seen an increase in budget for medications through Pharmac into the system. But, ultimately, it is about the entire system, the health system in the fullest, and also providing our workforce with the necessary skills, tools, and ability to be able to deliver these medications into community so that they can help prevent, but also treat.

So, again, prevention is better, of course, than getting it further down the track and you’re only treating it. If we can pull it back and take a population-based approach, we could start looking to identify and work with those communities most impacted, those who have the biggest challenges to support and care. I always go back to the far, Far North, Te Hiku o Te Ika, and consider the way with which they have a serious lack of access to primary care, with some 3,000 whānau members who cannot access a GP. I hope that levers such as this legislation will provide a mechanism for our doctors to be able to offer the medications available. But how do we find the workforce to do the mahi, ultimately? Tēnā tātou.

It’s a pleasure to be able to rise on behalf of a Government that is improving the healthcare system in New Zealand, and the Medicines Amendment Bill helps to further that. The Minister has already spoken about the rule of two, which is going to bring more medicines more quickly into New Zealand—this is a very good thing—and about the extended rights to nurse practitioners and pharmacist prescribers, which is going to increase access, which is much needed. I want to say thank you to the members of the Health Committee for their collaborative and pragmatic approach to this bill and for the positive inclusions that were made in the committee. This is a fantastic bill, another step on the way to improving healthcare outcomes for New Zealanders. I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a privilege to stand on behalf of New Zealand First in support of the Medicines Amendment Bill. This bill is the tonic that the country needs to ensure that we get rid of that bureaucratic sluggishness, which has basically held up medicines at our door. This bill, as has been mentioned by other members, is a fast track to medicines. Actually, I’d like to go further and say this is the smart track to getting medicines out the door to New Zealanders. We should be at the front of the queue when it comes to accessing world-class medicines. Whether they’re safe, life-changing, life-extending medicines, New Zealanders should be at the front of the queue.

The rule of two enables this pathway to be expedited, to get these medicines that have been approved by two other regulators that we agree are the regulators that we can trust. Then those medicines can be prescribed in New Zealand, rather than undergoing that full local evaluation. We’ve expanded, also, through this bill, the prescribing rights to nurse practitioners, and through the select committee, we included pharmacist prescribers, as well.

Another change was that all prescribers, in times of emergency—where there is a shortage with some supply chain in terms of the medicines that have been approved—will be able to prescribe funded but, also, unapproved medicines. This is practical and pragmatic, and it is that smart track for medicines approval and getting those medicines to the patients.

I’d like to thank all the submitters that contributed to the development of this bill through the select committee stage, and, in particular, noting Dr Malcolm Mulholland from Patient Voice Aotearoa and the advocacy and the work he has done to get the voice of our patients right into this Chamber. That voice has been loud and strong. We’ve made changes today. I think we should all be proud in this House today that we can support this legislation.

I’d just like to turn to the “good book”, the good book called the coalition agreement between New Zealand First and National, and I’d like to read very briefly from the scriptures, which state: “From this coalition agreement, we will require Medsafe to approve new pharmaceuticals within 30 days of them being approved by at least two overseas regulatory agencies recognised by New Zealand”. For that reason, I support this bill. I commend it to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. As canvassed by my colleague Hūhana Lyndon, we are supporting the Medicines Amendment Bill. I just wanted to take a moment, before I go into some other aspects of the bill, to just recap reflections of the committee of the whole House stage that we had. I think there’s a bit of an irony here with the other piece of legislation we’ve seen that aims to create better frameworks for high-quality legislation and make sure that we are having robust processes, and yet, while we support this bill, it was concerning to see a last-minute amendment being added which would have added—this is the new addition of clause 12A, on the exemption for advertising medicines at medical conferences. I think good process would have meant that this change would have been introduced at the select committee stage so that it would have been adequately canvassed. It was a shame that we did not have the opportunity to have the select committee adequately evaluate the merits of the amendment that was introduced by the Minister during the committee of the whole House stage.

An example of this is when we tried to examine some of the commentary by the Minister at the time, in relationship to, for example, the amount of revenue and the changes being made that this amendment would bring to the country. The Minister, at that time, during the debate, for example, made some—I would characterise them as kind of flippant—remarks and just raced figures off the top of his head around the revenue that these medical conferences would bring. I think it makes it hard for us to have a robust committee of the whole House stage when we have these sorts of amendments being introduced at the very last minute and no analysis to go alongside them except the Minister’s opinions on the matter.

It also does not do service to an adequate democratic process when members of the Opposition are not able to adequately engage with these amendments, because we’re engaging with them at the last stage that we’re able to and without adequate analysis to do so. So I think that while this bill has a lot of merits, I’m still none the less concerned that the Government did not follow, I think, best practice when it comes to making sure that the bill was fit for purpose at its introduction and during the select committee stage. And so, yeah—we didn’t support the amendment at the time, but we still think that the bill has merits.

As others have canvassed, access to medicines in this country—to the most modern and most, sort of, recent medicines available—is a barrier. What we can lean on are other countries’ robust processes in order to acquire more medicines to alleviate the issues that we are facing in relationship to access to medicines. This is why we are welcoming this bill, and we welcome the provisions that allow us to lean on peer-reviewed research from overseas. My colleague Lawrence Xu-Nan, at the committee of the whole House—and I know that he’s got a pharmacology degree—helped evaluate some of the robustness in which we’ll have in this bill, in relationship to making sure that we have those peer-reviewed studies being done before we are able to evaluate whether overseas jurisdictions have done due diligence.

There were some questions in relationship as to whether we’re genuinely tapping into the wide range of jurisdictions that are out there, particularly because the provisions in this bill require that these entities produce those reports in English. I did welcome the Minister’s engagement on the issue at the committee of the whole House stage, where he did note that some jurisdictions that may not use English as an official language none the less take steps to produce that material in English. But none the less, I think, moving forward, in terms of creating legislation that allows us to genuinely tap into as broad a range of medicines as is available, and where robust processes have been followed, there’s a missed opportunity to move away from the Anglosphere when it comes to access to medicines.

I think in order for this bill to be genuinely successful, we have to turn our eyes to supporting some of the bodies that help distribute those medicines to our communities—for example, our pharmacies. We know our pharmacists are under humongous pressures. They are often the first line of defence when it comes to public health, and they’re often engaging with sectors of our communities that would have been underserved by other parts of the health system. As we broaden the range of medicines that our pharmacists can deliver to our communities, I hope that the Government turns its eyes to adequately resourcing our pharmacies and our pharmacists so that they’re well looked after and they’re community-led, as opposed to risking those bodies being run by corporates. Thank you.

It is a great pleasure to rise and speak in favour of the Medicines Amendment Bill in the third reading. This Government has been focused on increasing our access to pharmaceutical interventions. We look at the money we’ve added to Pharmac—an extra $604 million for those really important cancer medications and other life-saving medications. This is a step that makes very good sense so that we can speed up access to cutting-edge medicines that actually will extend people’s lives and make people’s lives better.

We’re also making sure we’re expanding the ability for various health professionals to be able to prescribe medications. This, once again, is all about getting timely healthcare, which is what this Government is very focused on. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. That was a very big claim from a very short contribution, which is probably summing up this bill quite nicely—it claims a lot, and doesn’t necessarily do everything that’s written on the till.

So at the third reading of the Medicines Amendment Bill, it’s worth, I think, reminding ourselves what this legislation actually does—and it does do some good things; it certainly doesn’t do any harm—and what it doesn’t do. The bill has been presented by the Government as a step forward to access to medicines in New Zealand. In reality, it’s a relatively modest set of technical changes, some of which may help streamline regulatory processes—we have no problem with that; that’s a good move—but few of which are going to make any particular, tangible differences in terms of people’s access to medicines, and particularly for New Zealanders struggling to access medicines and the healthcare that they need. There are many other problems afoot, and the Government is choosing not to tackle those.

At the heart of this bill lies Medsafe—as we’ve heard from previous other contributors—New Zealand’s medicines regulator and agency, obviously, that performs an essential public service to New Zealanders. We know that Medsafe’s work is critical, it’s really critical. It’s an agency that people fundamentally rely upon to make sure that the medications that they receive are safe, and that they have access to the medications that they fundamentally do need.

We also rely on standards set by respected international regulators. We’ve heard much said—well, we’ve heard it mentioned; not exactly much said because the contributions from the Government have been very short and very brief. But we’ve heard the rule of two mentioned, and that seems to be a little bit of a catch phrase that has been relied upon quite heavily. But those international benchmarks should fundamentally complement Medsafe’s work, and not replace it in any way, shape, or form. So as Parliament continues to consider these changes, we’ve got to be very clear—and we are clear on this side of the House—that nothing in this or any future legislation should diminish Medsafe’s independence or its ability to make those incredibly important, careful, evidence-based decisions.

So with respect to the verification pathway, the bill introduces a new verification pathway allowing approval for medicines that have already been authorised by trusted overseas regulators. That sounds sensible, and, on paper, that absolutely makes sense. If a medicine has been fully approved by a regulatory body, a comparable regulator, it absolutely could save time and reduce duplication, to recognise the approval process here. But the key, I suppose, is in how that is done. Safeguards must be in place so that Medsafe can swiftly act if issues arise from those overseas regulators. It must retain the power to halt or even revoke approvals if new evidence comes to light that points to some sort of safety concern. It’s also important that the operational details—you know, the documentation, the conditions, the oversight mechanisms—are clear and that they’re regularly reviewed. Without that clarity, we risk that shortcuts could undermine the trust that people have in the system, which obviously is incredibly important. So while Labour sees potential in this pathway, and we do support this bill, we do so with caution. Efficiency, ultimately, must never come at the expense of safety or at the expense of independence.

That brings me to thinking about the difference between intent and impact—so intent versus impact. The stated goal of this bill is to improve access to medicines. That’s something that absolutely everybody in this House could get behind, and everybody in this House, no doubt, supports. But the question is whether this particular bill meaningfully achieves that. The Government has promised faster access, but there is little evidence in this particular pathway that it will deliver real change. My colleague the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall outlined some of those specific concerns earlier.

When we consider patients waiting on life-saving treatments, it’s important that this bill is meaty enough to actually make those changes, and not just the sound bites that the Government are offering at the moment. Otherwise, it risks being more symbolic, really, than any kind of proper fix—any kind of structural fix.

So if the Government truly wants to improve access, it should be (a) transparent about who stands to benefit, how much sooner treatments will be available—specifically, we should have been able to hear details, potentially, about that today—and what accountability will be in place if those improvements don’t actually materialise. We haven’t heard information about that, and it’s important because New Zealanders, quite frankly, are tired of announcements, and announcements that don’t come with delivery. But as my colleague the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall said earlier, in effect, it doesn’t do any harm, hence the fact that we will be supporting this bill.

Now, another area that deserves some close attention is the proposed change to the way that members of the Medicines Classification Committee are going to be appointed. Labour is concerned that shifting more power over appointments to the Minister risks politicising this process, opening the door to what could potentially be undue influence from industry.

That brings us, I suppose, to the broader question about priorities. That’s a broader question that is raised on this side of the House frequently, because it needs to be. At a time when New Zealanders are struggling with the cost of living, they’re struggling with a health system that is absolutely under immense pressure, the Government has chosen, as core business, to focus on this bill—which, while perfectly acceptable, while it does no harm, probably isn’t anything more than a technical fix, but, nevertheless, this is a priority. It’s tidying up a regulatory process, and its tidying up, in regulatory terms, offers little to the average family, who are still trying to struggle to fill a prescription or to actually see a GP. And remembering this is the same Government that scrapped free prescriptions, a decision that immediately made it harder for low-income families and vulnerable New Zealanders to access the medicines that they need. So whilst, again, we’ll support this bill, it’s potentially largely symbolic. I don’t think it’s the fix that it’s claimed to be on the other side of the House during these short contributions. But it’s a little bit ironic that it crows about access to medications on one hand—by a Government that has directly made that access more difficult on the other.

So while we’re here debating procedural tweaks and international alignments that all sound very good, thousands of people are now thinking twice about actually collecting their prescriptions, because of the cost. That’s the real access issue. If we’re going to talk access issues to medications, that is the real access issue—not at all something that’s even touched on with this bill. So it’s another example of the Government, I think, focusing much more on appearances than outcomes. After all, they did talk a big talk, and when it comes to delivery, these are the types of things they’re offering up.

Now, in the remainder of my time, I’d like to repeat something that was mentioned earlier in relation to the Medicines Act 1981—which is older than some of the medicines that it continues to regulate; it absolutely belongs in a different era. If the Government truly was interested in making this sector better, and this sphere of operations safer, that’s the Act that they’d be working on. But we haven’t heard much about that. It does raise our interest, on this side of the House, as to exactly what’s going on with the update of the Medicines Act 1981. As I said, it was written in an era before modest biotechnology, it doesn’t reflect today’s complex international supply chains, it doesn’t reflect new forms of therapy, and there’s absolutely gaps around things as basic—as absolutely basic—as medical devices.

Labour will support this bill’s passage, mainly because it does no harm. It could have been better, but it’s not—that’s OK. We remain deeply concerned about the Government’s overall direction in general, but particularly in health. And we implore the Government to start thinking about the fact that New Zealanders need policies that make a real difference—we hope for better, but we aim for less.

This bill is another critical step by this Government to ensure New Zealanders have access to timely and quality healthcare. This Medicines Amendment Bill increases patient access to medicine by introducing a streamlined ratification pathway for medicine approval, the rule of two, allowing safe and effective treatment to reach patients more quickly. It’s also updating prescribing settings to enable suitable qualified health professionals to prescribe an approved medicine in appropriate circumstances. This reform modernises our regulatory system and aligns with international best practice.

This Government continues to work to improve patient wellbeing and healthcare outcomes. This Government’s focus is all about patients—their safety, their access, and their care. I commend this bill to the House.

Kia orana, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call on the Medicines Amendment Bill, and, as colleagues from my party have indicated, we will be supporting this bill this morning. I do want to acknowledge the Health Committee, which has obviously progressed this bill, which appears to have multi-party support across the Parliament, which I think it’s fair to appreciate, because this is a bill that will deliver some modest technical changes that, I’m sure, will make some difference.

I think the jury is still out as to the full extent of the difference that it will make, because we hear from the Government that this bill is about improving access to healthcare, improving access to medicines. What would actually make a difference, I think, is a Government that introduced a bill that delivered things that led to things like three free GP visits a year. That would certainly send a strong signal around improved access to health. Perhaps a Government that would instead spend its time ensuring that free prescriptions were still made available to the community—that would have a direct impact on access to healthcare, and, in particular, to medicines, as well. But, instead, they decide to strip all that stuff away, make it more difficult, and, instead, they have done something quite different.

Health targets. We’re investing.

It’s interesting that members opposite love to chip in whenever we get up, and we intend to take our full calls, because the public of New Zealand deserve to hear what members of this House actually think about this legislation. It’s unusual that we’re sitting here on a Wednesday morning, because the Government believed that this is so important that it needs to set aside the time of select committees. I look forward to the next Government member taking a full call. [Interruption] Members, there’s no need to chip in with your interjections. You’ve got an opportunity to stand up and tell us exactly what it is that you want to say. So we look forward to that for the future.

This is a particular bill that relies on things like international best practice—yes. It relies on the way in which other jurisdictions are approaching things—yes. It relies on the fact that some specified practitioners, as identified in the bill, will have an increased level of support and ability to be able to provide medication to members of the community.

I was listening to colleagues, and I listened to my colleague from the Green Party talk about the role that pharmacists actually play in our community, and he is absolutely right. Any member of this House who talks with a community pharmacist will know that they are often the first port of call. They are the ones that don’t just dispense the medication but, often, are in circumstances where they are required to dispense some advice—for example, when someone is choosing between one medicine or another because they can’t afford it. The fact is that when they front up—and this Government have stripped away free prescriptions now so people have to pay for their medicine—pharmacists are tasked with giving advice on what medication might be better for them, given that element of choice.

What this bill does is it provides additional powers and responsibilities to specified practitioners, including pharmacists, including nurse practitioners, and others, as well, in addition to their medical practitioner. Now, my colleague Dr McLellan talked about the fact that we cannot afford as a country, we cannot afford as a community, to set aside the safeguards that are in place to protect communities when it comes to medication. We expect that when someone goes and gets their medicine or their medication, it’s able to actually hit a particular threshold. We rely on this bill in terms of the international reciprocal approaches that may exist in terms of standards that it actually does fit the bill and does cut the mustard.

And so, it is important that whilst we are supportive of what are technical changes to this bill, the underlying intention of providing safeguards is actually not compromised, and that is something that the Labour Party do express some concern around—in particular, when we’re talking about the ministerial appointments to the committee that would be making recommendations that would inform the decision-making process. We cannot afford for that to become a political exercise. Yes, we accept that Ministers of the Crown, through holding the warrant, are empowered to make those appointments. But what we don’t want to see—what we cannot see—is the nature of those appointments becoming political; effectively, jobs for the boys. Instead, what is really important is that those who sit on that particular committee, who are making these decisions, have the technical skill, have the medical capacity, to be able to make decisions that are right.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise to speak in this third reading of the Medicines Amendment Bill. Some very sensible changes are made within this bill, and it has real-world implications for people working in the clinical coalface every day. Because of the way our supply chains are often interrupted, some medicines have to be sought that are alternative sources. That means that they are, effectively, unapproved medications and come under what’s called section 29. Previously to this, only a registered medical professional could sign a prescription for those, even if another prescribing authority could prescribe the same medication; because it comes from a different factory, it’s essentially not allowed to be prescribed any more. It creates a huge amount of confusion and extra bother for people. So this change will have real-world improvements for people on the ground, along with the other sensible changes. Therefore, I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to join with my colleagues in support of this bill. I commend the select committee for its work; I didn’t have the pleasure of sitting on the committee, but I have reviewed some of the submissions that went to the select committee, and they tend to fit into one of three categories in terms of the points that submitters were making. Some were around the time taken for approvals; some were around attracting suppliers to New Zealand—so, the actual funding gap, and what fund is Pharmac committed to funding; and then there was a third, broad set around access to not just medicine but healthcare.

I do think that that’s relevant to this bill, and I do think that that’s relevant to the intent of this bill, which is to address a healthcare issue. The Government really must recognise that all of these issues, in terms of access, do sit side by side for people in their real lives. If it does cost too much for them to access their prescriptions, they simply will not go and make use of that opportunity to resolve an issue at its earliest stage. If we are finding it takes up to $70 or $90 to visit your doctor, then, again, people will simply just not engage with the system whatsoever. [Interruption] I hear members commenting opposite about the cost—those are the prices in some parts of West Auckland, so those are issues for real people who are trying to access medical facilities.

The other issue is delay; when you find people who need to access specialist services having to often wait for months and months before they see a specialist—but even for the simplest of things. I’ve spoken to people who have had delays just getting their children vaccinated at their local GP because of the lack of nursing staff in their medical facilities. So delayed access is an important issue, as well, and the Government needs to look at the cost of prescriptions. The cost of prescriptions is something you could also remove. It is part of the reason why people do not go and access those medicines at an early stage. So those submitters were making very, very valid points.

In terms of the genesis of the bill—and we do support the bill. I think that the need for the support is really there in the data. The regulatory impact statement refers to some research that was done over 20 OECD countries between 2011 and 2020, where New Zealand ranked last for the approval of modern medicines—last out of 20 countries, which is really shocking. There was a core list of 403 medicines included in that analysis, and New Zealand had only publicly funded 24 of those medicines—that’s 6 percent—by 2018, which is really shocking. On the 2020 study, it took New Zealand, on average, 659 days to publicly fund modern medicines, which was compared to an average of 273 days for other OECD countries, which is really, really shocking.

That research was then extended into 2025 and the data remained really bad in terms of New Zealand’s comparators. New Zealanders, at 2025, are missing out on access to 142 modern medicines that are publicly funded in Australia, and 81 percent of those medicines are considered core by international standards; 38 are oncology medicines, including therapies for blood cancer. So this is really significant in terms of some of the data that demonstrates that change is needed.

Change is needed, and this will go some way to addressing that, but I think we also have to recognise that it doesn’t go all the way in terms of addressing what the problem is. A number of submitters raised the issue of the gap between approvals and what Pharmac will actually fund as being a core issue that we need to address before we believe we’ve solved this problem. Many companies, it was argued by some submitters, wouldn’t be interested in entering the New Zealand market because they don’t think it’s worth the effort to submit, simply because the funding isn’t there overall. That problem absolutely must be addressed. Again, we do support this bill, but the view from many submitters is that it doesn’t go far enough.

I wanted to briefly speak to the issue of the secondary legislation provisions that are in the bill, which the committee did make some changes to. This is new section 22AA, the recognised regulatory authority, and this is where the Minister may, by notice in the Gazette, declare a person or body to be a recognised regulatory authority if the Minister is satisfied across a number of criteria. The important thing, in my view, is that the power also gives revocation powers to the Minister, so the Minister may revoke a declaration if they’re satisfied that the recognised regulatory authority no longer meets one of the criteria.

This was important in reflection of what some of the submitters to select committee reflected on, which is that while a certain list of countries can be useful in terms of predicting where we might go and who our comparators are, that’s not always the case. We had members of the Wellington Community Justice Project, for example, who are made up of Victoria University law students, who argued that while a country may historically be relevant and reliable, it doesn’t remain the case that they would always be so, so it’s important that we have flexible powers of regulation to allow determinations to change those standards, should they be required.

There were also some submitters who, again, said that the bill didn’t go far enough. The New Zealand Law Society was certainly one of those, and I do tend to think that we need to review those submissions in terms of understanding whether further statutory changes are needed to ensure that international players are able to pitch in to the market and have a reasonable hope that they will be considered for Pharmac in terms of funding, as well, and that is absolutely a barrier.

Other members have spoken about our objection, on this side of the House, to a part of the bill. Our main objection is that the appointment to the Medicines Classification Committee should not be a ministerial appointment, and that’s really because of the technical nature of this role. It shouldn’t be a political appointment, and therefore our view is that that is one change that could really reassure the public that the people who are appointed are being appointed because of their technical skills. Interestingly, on this point, the UK, in 2016, looked at its processes of appointment. They were looking particularly at judges, but they did do an examination of what is an appropriate appointment and to what extent you should assure that there’s independence in the appointment process. They updated their transparency and appointment guidelines—well, in 2016 they were first created; they then updated them in 2024.

I’m of the view we should be doing precisely the same thing. We should have very clear guidance on how appointments should be made and the criteria that Ministers should be following, including potentially having a system where, if you have potential appointees that are vetted through a department, the Minister may only appoint from those who are deemed capable and qualified—that the Minister cannot appoint from anyone who is outside that “A list”, if you like, of individuals who’ve been individually and independently vetted. Right now, New Zealand doesn’t have that system, and Ministers can overlook the recommendations of a department. I think what that has meant for us is that we are subject to political appointments, but also, for me, the important thing is a lack of public trust in terms of some of our appointments.

Again, we wish that the Government had considered this. They haven’t. However, we are supportive of the bill overall, and I commend it to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. We actually live in one of the most exciting times in human history. Science has delivered to us innovations, including medical innovations, that were completely unimaginable only a few decades ago. We now understand the entire human genome, or we can at least sequence it; I don’t know whether we completely understand it. What this amazing scientific revolution has led to in the area of medicines is that we now have new ways of treating diseases.

Yesterday, I was privileged enough actually to host an event around skin cancer, and that was put on by the Skin Cancer College Australasia. It was focused around prevention and detection, which is extremely important, but unfortunately, skin cancers can often develop into very aggressive diseases. I remember, about 15 years ago, when I was working in the medicines industry, I actually helped launch what was called the first BRAF inhibitor, which is a medicine that can actually shut down a cancer from growing. How that works is it actually attacks a particular pathway that causes the cancer to grow. That’s the kind of amazing medical technologies that we’re faced with today, and since then, there have been lots and lots of advances: we’ve got CRISPR technology, we’ve got CAR T therapy, we’ve got immunotherapies. What this bill does is mean that we’re actually allowing New Zealanders to get these technologies much, much faster.

We want to ensure that New Zealanders get access to all of the medical treatments that are available in other countries as quickly as possible, and I do want to commend everyone in the House for coming in behind this bill and saying, “Actually, Kiwis’ health and treatments matter as much as other countries’.” This pathway of allowing us to recognise two other highly competent international regulators who have approved a treatment and then expedite it into the New Zealand market is a great step forward. This was asked for by patient communities and groups; it was campaigned on by ACT, and I’ve got to acknowledge our other coalition partners as well; and it has been supported by members across the House. This is a way of actually making sure we get these exciting technologies and medical treatments to people quicker.

Now, there has been some talk about funding, and look, I totally acknowledge there is more to do, but this is a very important step in making sure our regulatory processes are fit for purpose and deliver treatments in a timely manner. The Government has an entire other programme of ensuring that Pharmac is fit for purpose. We obviously have increased funding to Pharmac, and we look forward to making the case for more funding to Pharmac. But I am very pleased to commend this to the House. This will make a difference to New Zealand patients and really make sure we can get new medical technologies and new treatments into New Zealand faster.

I rise on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa to also speak on the Medicines Amendment Bill in its third reading. Like my previous speakers, Hūhana Lyndon and Ricardo Menéndez March, we do support this bill, but having partaken in the committee stage, there are a few things that I want to address specifically from the committee stage. A part of our time was spent discussing, particularly, Part 1, clause 6, subclause (2) with regards to some of the clarifications around the idea of peer reviewing but, also, around susceptibility to undue pressure from industry and, also, political pressure. I think, in those cases, the Minister has expressed—which is very helpful—that when it comes to things like peer review, etc., those regional authorities, or local authorities, do, in fact, do some of that ahead of time. The reassurance that we were given is that these peer reviews, particularly, will be in line or up to the same standards, if not better, than what we have here in Aotearoa. When we’re looking at the susceptibility to industrial and political pressure, we’re hoping, as the Minister expressed, that we’re not going to be seeing some of those aspects.

We do still have concerns around new section 22C, when it comes to the Minister’s consent by verification, although the Minister did raise the idea that the ministerial consent by verification “does not require independent assessment by the Director-General to contextualise the benefit-risk profile of the medicine due to local disease epidemiology”. I think the Minister said that we are looking at a diverse culture and diverse society. When we’re looking at multiple authorities around the world that do approve these sorts of medicines already, we should be reassured that those kinds of data can be extrapolated or used here in Aotearoa New Zealand. I think, in particular, part of the concern with that is, in terms of the pharmacological properties, that we’re still not entirely sure if sufficient work has been done on local disease epidemiology and how that relates to, particularly, Māori populations and Pasifika populations, as other regulatory authorities overseas may not have access to some of those data, bar a few particular regions. I think that particular challenge of that element is still something that should be teased out and should be considered when we are reviewing this bill or how this bill is put into practice.

Now, a big part of this bill is also around expanding the prescribing rights by allowing nurse practitioners to prescribe medicine under section 29 of the Medicines Act. I think this is also a really pertinent and crucial moment to thank our nurses in Aotearoa for the work that they are doing and for the challenges that they are currently facing right now in the current political environment.

Finally, I think it’s also really important to address, as my colleague Ricardo Menéndez March mentioned, the surprising—and we have seen a lot of that—amendment bill that was dropped by the Minister during the committee of the whole House stage without any prior select committee process and without any prior consultation with the House. In general, we’ve seen a number of those kinds of amendments taking place just this week or over the last few weeks, but, in this particular case, the new addition of clause 12A, in terms of the advertisement of medicine, was something that this bill shouldn’t really be addressing. If we’re looking at the core essence of this bill, it is to expedite the approval of medicines and make medicines more accessible for the people of Aotearoa. We fail to see how the advertisement of medicine would support or enhance that particular purpose of the bill. I think, more concerningly, we don’t want it to turn into a situation like we are seeing in the US, where the advertisement is a way of pushing medicine to people who don’t really need it in the first place. That’s something that is of a little bit of concern. But, overall, the Green Party does support this bill.

Members, the House is in committee on for further consideration of the Crimes (Countering Foreign Interference) Amendment Bill. When we were last considering the bill, we were debating Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 3 to 15, “Amendments to Crimes Act 1961”. The question is, again, that Part 1 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m looking forward to continuing this debate on this bill today with the Minister, and I note that we have the officials here today with us, which is good as there were a few questions I had last time we were considering this bill that I didn’t get a response to.

I will start with new section 2A(3). I had a question about the definition of a person who is in New Zealand who obviously owes allegiance under that section. The question I have is: who is covered by the statement “who is in New Zealand”? The reason I raise that question is that the Law Society raised an issue on this about there potentially being a difficulty with the reference to “Persons in New Zealand” due to the need to reconcile, respectively, the Crimes Act 1961 and the Territorial Sea, Contiguous Zone, and Exclusive Economic Zone Act 1977, which perhaps from here on I’ll just refer to as the economic zone Act.

In section 2 of the Crimes Act, it defines “New Zealand” as follows: “New Zealand includes all waters within the outer limits of the territorial sea of New Zealand (as defined by section 3 of the … Exclusive Economic Zone Act)”. That’s one definition. It’s referring then to the second Act. Section 3 of the economic zone Act then defines “territorial sea” as encompassing the sea within 12 nautical miles of a baseline, being the lower watermark along the coast of New Zealand, including the coast of all islands. However, in that same Act, in the economic zone Act, section 2 has a definition of “New Zealand”, which “includes the Ross Dependency”. The statutes, essentially, don’t fit together very well on the Law Society’s read, and neither do they on mine. The question is whether the Ross Dependency counts as being part of New Zealand or not—so whether the lean is on section 3 of the economic zone Act or section 2 of the Crimes Act.

The second question I have on this part as well—still on new section 2A(3)—is how, if at all, the proposed law applies to Niue. This is another issue that the Law Society raised in section 3 of the Niue Constitution Act. In section 3 of the Niue Constitution Act, they are self-governing. However, section 6 provides that “Nothing in this Act or in the Constitution shall affect the responsibilities of Her Majesty the Queen in right of New Zealand for the external affairs and defence of Niue.” The question is: is there an application or not? When I asked this question last time we were considering the bill, the Minister’s response was, “Well, it applies to everyone who is in New Zealand, and that’s what the bill says.” I don’t think that sufficiently answers the two questions—one around the Ross Dependency and the other one around Niue as well. I potentially have some more questions on other parts as well soon, but perhaps I’ll leave that question with the Minister for now.

I know that it has been a little while. I just want to also do a very small recap because, again, my previous question to the Minister hasn’t had a response or acknowledgment yet, and that is around new section 2A(4), inserted by clause 4, regarding persons outside of New Zealand. This is something that we haven’t quite covered. Part of that is to do with how we are particularly looking at new section 2A(4)(c)(iii). There it states that in terms of a person who is outside of New Zealand owing allegiance if the person has family or property in New Zealand, that demonstrates an enduring connection to New Zealand.

I guess the question to the Minister is because when we’re looking at new section 2A, that is of the highest order in terms of statutory interpretation, just behind the interpretation section, but “enduring connection” is a new term that has just been introduced under this bill. So I’m checking with the Minister how that enduring connection is supposed to be interpreted and what is the degree of enduring connection in relation to the idea of family or property.

Now, the idea is also that family is not a definition that was given under section 2 of the Crimes Act, ergo there needs to be a definition that the Minister is able to provide for family. Property, on the other hand, is a defined term under section 2 of the Crimes Act, but property could also include things like debt or anything like that. So, again, to what sort of extent are we interpreting the relationship of property and enduring connection? That’s my first question to the Minister that I would appreciate a response on.

For my second question I’m just going to move ahead to new section 69(1)(1A), inserted by clause 7. I want to focus on when we’re looking at the idea that the person who owes allegiance to a Sovereign in right of New Zealand commits an offence if the person outside of New Zealand aids, incites, counsels, or procures the doing or omission outside of New Zealand. Now, the aids, incites, counsels, and procures is relatable to section 66 of the Crimes Act around party liability, but in this particular context, I want to check. Now, party liability is an incredibly tricky aspect of the criminal law and has a lot of case law around it, and I just want to check with the Minister: how would this be assessed and how would this be judged in terms of all four? All four are a little bit different. Aiding, for example, is probably the most straightforward perspective, but in this case, particularly when we’re looking at the definition that we’re discussing here under clause 4 on a person who owes allegiance to a Sovereign, how would we see counsels or procures play out, particularly if the counselling and procuring was done offshore or overseas? I’ll leave those two questions to start with.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning to the committee. Already, there were some very detailed questions from Vanushi Walters and Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan. To start with, Vanushi Walters: hopefully, persistence pays off, and we’ll see by the critique of your answers. I’ve been advised, under the definition in the bill, if someone is in New Zealand, they owe allegiance unless one of the exemptions relating to the diplomats and enemy aliens apply. This is because, generally, foreign nationals are entitled to the protection of the New Zealand Government while in New Zealand. The nature of allegiance is reciprocal, so the foreign national is subject to and is required to comply with the laws of New Zealand whilst present in our country. The definition is clear as to who this applies to.

Regarding the Ross Dependency, Niue, and, also, include there the Cook Islands, persons owing allegiance who are outside of New Zealand are clearly defined. These explicitly include persons who hold New Zealand citizenship. Beyond this, it is intended that the status of people in New Zealand’s Realm jurisdictions be determined by the common law. Maybe going a bit more tightly defined, in response to the question, a New Zealander in the Ross Dependency will be covered. The status of a foreigner in the Ross Dependency or Niue will be determined by common law.

Also, while I’m on my feet, to respond to Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan, with his typical, quite-detailed, punctuated questions: a judge will make the determination of whether a person owes allegiance, as it’s been made a question of law. This was recommended by the Law Society and was added in at select committee.

“Property” is defined in section 2 of the Crimes Act. It is used, through the Crimes Act, and regularly considered and applied by the courts. The term “family” is not defined in the Crimes Act nor under this bill. It will be left to the courts to determine the scope of the term “family”, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case—in particular, whether the family relationship demonstrates an enduring connection to New Zealand.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the Minister for early engagement on this. Just a quick follow-up question before I get into an Amendment Paper in my name. I wonder if the Minister could give us some clarity, because there will be those of us from the Cook Islands and Niue who have used our own passports wondering how this would impact us. I heard the Minister saying that it will be left to the common law, but what does that mean? What will that mean for those of us—for example, the 80,000 Cook Islanders—who can actually go through a bit of a process and actually have all the privileges and rights as Cook Islanders, in this case, living in the Cook Islands as well? I have gone through the process myself. My oldest child has. To have that clarity in terms of what the position is with the common law right now for those of us in that particular circumstance would, I think, be good for us to know. It would be good for those of us in the Realm countries to know as well.

I want to turn the Minister’s attention to my Amendment Paper 431, which is not related—but maybe it is; it’s all kind of related—and in my Amendment Paper, clause 10, new section 78AAA(4A)(a), it says, “after ‘a profession,’ (page 7, line 2), insert ‘advocacy,’ ” and “after ‘or unpaid,’ (page 7, line 3), insert ‘or in their personal communication,’ ”. The purpose of this Amendment Paper is the understanding that there are other roles that people play. Yes, doing things in terms of your normal business or as a part of your job or occupation is fine, but people are often more rounded than that, and the term advocacy is in there around “What about people working in human rights areas?”, “What about people working in different environmental areas?”, “What about people engaging in different activism?”

Activism, in my view, can strengthen our democracy, can improve our democracy, and can improve our processes, so my question is around whether the Minister would, first of all, accept this amendment, and if not, why not? Then, also, how would the Minister unravel and unwrap, if he isn’t keen on accepting this amendment, in terms of making sure that those avenues for advocacy, which are incredibly important, are protected?

The questions could be: how would the Minister see, if this amendment is not accepted, that individuals can engage lawfully in advocacy or activism and will not be unfairly targeted under this particular bill? Could the Minister give us some examples and perspectives around the bill as it is currently worded? Why does it exclude advocacy or personal communications, given that many groups—I mean, I can’t count the number of WhatsApp groups that I don’t want to be part of that I end up being a part of, and Signal groups. The Minister is laughing. He’s probably had his pinch as well.

And that’s just the Greens!

“And that’s just the Greens!”, Francisco Hernandez says to me as well. There has to be some way that people aren’t caught up in this, and if the Minister could provide some light on that, that would be good.

Also, could the Minister clarify how the bill would protect the privacy rights of citizens who use encrypted messaging or secure communication tools just for personal use—not just human rights advocacy or activism, and environmental activism and that kind of thing as well, but just in their everyday life. Some light gathered there would be really interesting. And, I guess, how would the Minister distinguish between legitimate advocacy and community organising, and those types of activities that could actually fall under the phrase of “improper conduct for or on behalf of a foreign power”? If the Minister could help to unravel that for the committee, that would be very helpful.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have one relatively short point, and it’s around clause 7, new section 69(1B)—this is the penalty provision: “A person who commits an offence against subsection (1A) is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.” That is the offence that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan spoke to, which is aiding, inciting, counselling, or procuring, but not conspiring, of course.

The interesting thing is that aiding and abetting, to use the old language, is generally considered a lower offence than doing it yourself. Someone who is engaging themselves in foreign interference would usually be considered more culpable than someone who—if you take “counsels”, for example, it is an offence for me to suggest, on behalf of a foreign power, that someone go and spray paint an embassy. That is acting on behalf of a foreign power and doing an illegal act. Doing it is the serious offence; me kind of suggesting, counselling, or even giving them a can of spray paint—that would be aiding. Now, should that act of giving someone who is determined to engage in foreign interference on behalf of a foreign power a can of spray paint be the same penalty?

As I understand my criminal law, in almost all other situations, it’s not, but here we have a maximum imprisonment of 14 years for suggesting someone troll someone on the internet or offering someone a can of spray paint. They’re probably the obvious ones—the aiding ones and the counselling ones. That, in short, is my question: why is it such a serious penalty for an offence that is not being the main perpetrator but being a party to the offence?

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Just responding to, I think, probably the latter questions of Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan, I’ve been advised that the usual rules which apply to party liability generally will be applied to section 69, amended by clause 7. There is nothing unusual about the terms, which are regularly considered and interpreted by the courts.

To start my response to the questions by the member Teanau Tuiono, I would point out—and I’m sure it was discussed during the Justice Committee process—there is no need to include “advocacy” in new section 78AAA(4A)(a), inserted by clause 10, because it would introduce unnecessary duplication into the offence. “Advocacy” is already included to make clear that engaging in advocacy does not by itself provide a sufficient basis to infer a person is intending to, or is reckless as to whether their conduct is likely to, compromise a protected New Zealand interest.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the Minister for Mental Health for the answers thus far. That was very much appreciated in terms of getting the substance of the last answers.

I do want to ask a question about a change in the bill. In the original iteration, under new section 2A(3)(c) in clause 4, the first item, I guess, on that sub-list was “the person is an enemy alien”, and that has been removed post - select committee. The new subparagraph (iaa) has been inserted, which says, “is a citizen of a State that is at war with New Zealand;”. My question is really a consistency one here, as well, in terms of the Minister’s intention about what should be covered.

I’m just noting that in the Crimes Act, there’s a definition of “enemy” in section 73, “Treason”, where the definition of “treason” includes “an enemy at war with New Zealand, or any armed forces against which New Zealand forces are engaged in hostilities, whether or not a state of war exists between New Zealand and any other country;”. I’m just checking whether it’s the Minister’s intent that the scope of liability under section 73 wouldn’t apply in this case, and that that is an active policy decision in terms of the shift from “enemy alien” to “that is at war with New Zealand;”. The proposal from the Law Society was including a definition of “enemy alien”, so that, I believe, it would be consistent with the Crimes Act provision, but I’m just wanting the Minister’s comment on that.

The other question I had is on the same issue, but it’s on a different point to the one that a colleague has made. Teanau Tuiono asked about what it means to have that reference to the common law in new section 2A(2)(b), and I am also of the view that that is problematic in terms of its vagueness. But my specific question is around what the common law provisions that would apply are when in relation to repudiation or denouncing citizenship.

Generally speaking, as I understand it, common law concepts can be relevant to determining liability for alleged criminal offending, both in relation to the defences under section 20 of the Crimes Act and determining the meaning of words or phrases in the definition of offences. However, that is where the common law is both reasonably accessible and it aligns with common law usage, and in the case of repudiation and denouncing citizenship, it isn’t clear—neither of those qualifications are there—which means that it would be very hard for a decision maker to understand the scope of the common law provisions that apply in that case.

I mean, the Law Society expressed a view that any prosecution be based only on a renounced allegation risk being an abuse of process, and said that that should be excluded from the relevant offence. However, again, the bill isn’t explicit about this, and there’s this broad statement that relies on the application of the common law. Now, I think precisely for this issue, that is a problem.

The other proposal, given we’re at committee stage, that I just wanted to float with the Minister is the concept of temporary allegiance—so understanding and requiring allegiance on the basis of a person being in the country. I’ve mentioned this in the past, but there was historically an understanding that people on short-term visas could be subject to allegiance requirements for the period that they’re in a country, but otherwise they would not, and that seems in many ways the more sensible way to treat offending, as people can come into the country with eyes wide open. I do have a few more questions, but I’ll leave those ones with the Minister for now.

I’m going to call the Hon Ginny Andersen, because I heard someone calling from over there before, and I wasn’t sure which one of you it was.

I did try earlier, but I was a wee bit slow that time, I do admit. I’ve got some questions for the Minister, and I just want to clarify, because a range of the existing offences that criminalise foreign interference are there already. So we’ve confirmed—and the committee process has been good—that we have existing offences over a wide range of harmful activity, and that may include foreign interference. Those offences criminalise activities that can be undertaken as part of any foreign interference efforts. An example would be offences related to bribery, corruption, blackmail, harassment, and any sort of hostile actions against States, such as even treason or sabotage.

Our current criminal offence regime also accounts for many of those things in the Crimes Act, but it is noted that there are some concerning activities that are not captured by existing offences. I’m really interested in the Minister’s view as to whether there is some additional work—we know the changes in here will add to the suite of actions that can be undertaken by law enforcement and to take action more proactively—but it’s also important to note that as we receive new intelligence, as information is gathered by New Zealand and our security services, I’m interested to know what the ongoing programme of work is to make sure that we keep, I guess, up to date in the way that we’re responding. Those activities are not captured by the existing criminal law, and that’s specified in the regulatory impact statement.

I’m interested to know whether there are some additional things that are not captured within this legislation that the Government is looking at or aware of that we can remain vigilant of and consider how we can make sure our laws are always kept up to date, because this is essentially the first piece of legislation in some time where we’ve updated those previous offences. So I’m interested to know: is there a programme of work ongoing that would review whether these are working, review whether we need to update them, to make sure that there are clear lines of communication between what intelligence we receive and what types of offences are required to make sure that we remain, I guess, resilient or resistant to attempts of foreign interference? I’m interested to hear that.

“[T]he limited nature of [partial] liability allows New Zealand citizens, in some instances, to assist foreign operatives to commit espionage acts in or [even] outside of New Zealand, while remaining immune from criminal liability”. They were the sorts of things that were found in that overarching review that looked at legislative provisions. I’m interested to know whether the Minister considers that the additional offences within this legislation addresses some of those shortfalls that were found in their overarching review; and, if not, what is the Government doing to address those?

Thank you, Madam Chair, and good morning to members of this committee of the whole House. I’m grateful for the questions that have been posed in my brief time so far in the chair, and I’ve been handed some notes that relate to a question asked by the Hon Dr Duncan Webb. I’ll do my best to address that.

I’ll start in reverse order—so with the comments of the Hon Ginny Andersen. First of all, in relation to her point regarding adding to the suite of law enforcement opportunities over time: I think her point is well made that, as our updated understanding, essentially—if I can use that term—in the kinds of threats that might be posed advances, of course, her point is the right one, which is that an ongoing programme, if not a formal programme with a capital P but a process of reviewing or a commitment to understanding how the environment may change over time, would be prudent, such that offences and the regime as a whole could or should be updated.

I would just make the obvious point that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. I think you can feel assured that the Minister and, indeed, the Government as a whole are committed to an ongoing understanding of the threat environment, so to speak, and would be determined, I’m sure, to make any necessary changes in the future—albeit respecting, of course, that, from a civil liberties point of view, we don’t wish to have broader expression of offences than is appropriate at any given moment, because we don’t want to anticipate further types of offending and catch those in a way that would be unreasonable such that people don’t understand the law. Of course, it’s a key element of the rule of law that the law be accessible and knowable and not retrospective, as it might, effectively, be seen to be in the event of very broadly expressed provisions.

In terms of Vanushi Walters’ typically astute points: first, in terms of the common law, I take the point that she has made around the fact that it’s ordinarily the case that, to the extent that we would even rely on common law at all to inform a criminal or quasi-criminal regime, we need to have the greatest clarity and accessibility possible. I don’t think there’s anything particular I can add about whether that would be required in the case of repudiation or renouncement provisions. It seems to me sensible that the more accessible and clear such law is—and common law is, by definition, law, albeit of a different variety than statutory law—then that would be more helpful and perhaps might be relied upon more fully, but there isn’t anything, to my understanding, in the legislation that specifies that. I don’t wish to go out on a limb and suggest that that’s the case definitively.

In terms of temporary allegiance, I’ll simply acknowledge the point of Ms Walters that it would be more sensible, in her view—and I’m sure I’m characterising her comments correctly—to have a temporary allegiance as opposed to a permanent allegiance related to non-permanent people being in New Zealand. I don’t know that I can take that point much further in terms of what the law could or even should say.

As for the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s comments around penalties and challenging or questioning, at least, the relativity, I suppose, of the offences: my understanding is that the penalty referred to has been carried across from the existing law, and it’s considered as serious as espionage and treason—that’s in relation to section 69.

I don’t know that there are any other comments I could make at the moment that would be helpful, or any comments that I could make that would be unhelpful—members will judge—but I look forward to the rest of the committee’s consideration.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m going to make another short point, and I am leaping ahead but I wanted to do it because it’s an important one. It’s around the substantive offence. The definitions are actually quite hard to find your way around, but I know officials would know them inside out. The guts of it is this: it is an offence against this Act to commit an imprisonable offence on behalf of a foreign power. It also says that it’s not an offence simply to engage in a protest. Now, since this legislation was considered by the Justice Committee, we have seen legislation around protests outside people’s houses, and a disruptive protest targeted at a person in a residential address has become an imprisonable offence.

I just want to be clear—and I think, to be perfectly honest, the answer is yes. But the question is this: if, on behalf of a foreign power, I organise or participate in a protest which is intended to be disruptive outside a person’s residence—an ambassador would be the most obvious one, but anyone—am I liable for foreign interference and, therefore, liable to 14 years in prison for engaging in a disruptive protest?

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the Minister for his responses. It sounds like there may be some agreement in terms of the status of the common law. I think the problem we have is that the current provisions make it feel like the common law position of retaining your obligations of loyalty may endure even if you have renounced, which I think is problematic in the legislation but—yeah, unfortunate that it won’t be fixed at this stage.

I have another suggestion. In terms of understanding whether someone does owe allegiance for the purposes, or not, of criminality, whether there could be merit in including an officially induced error defence? So where an individual has sought or applied for confirmation from the New Zealand Government as to whether they owed allegiance to the Crown in right of New Zealand or not, had been advised that they did not, but were later charged with a potential offence—at this stage, that is another matter that’s potentially uncertain. One can imagine situations where this might actually happen. I think—I could have this wrong—it might be Canada that has a register of third party interests, where people who are in a country and who may be senior members of the Government but they’re not there for diplomatic purposes may register the fact that they’re in the country and the things that they will be doing so that it’s all very clear and transparent.

We obviously don’t have that, but I can imagine a situation where people would want to be very clear about which role they held, and where people travelling to New Zealand or who are of New Zealand descent but born in another country, people of dual citizenship—we can’t imagine that we would know all the circumstances that are covered. So that just feels to me like something that would be worthwhile exploring, as I’m sure a number of us have a lot of questions around in relation to this bill. If the Minister does think that there’s potential for something like that to be included, I could certainly draft something up on the go.

The other question I had is around section 69 amended. This is in clause 7 of the bill, which introduces subclause (1A): “A person who owes allegiance to the Sovereign in right of New Zealand commits an offence if the person, outside New Zealand, aids, incites, counsels, or procures the doing or omission outside New Zealand”—so outside New Zealand is key here—“by any person not owing allegiance to the Sovereign in right of New Zealand, of any act which, if done or omitted outside New Zealand by a person owing such allegiance, would be [one] of the crimes mentioned in subsection (1).” So that would be a crime inside New Zealand.

A couple of questions here. The first is whether it’s intended for the amended offence to capture conduct outside of New Zealand which has no impact inside New Zealand. The way it’s currently drafted, it does look to be that way. So just asking whether that is the intent of the bill and the provision.

The second is a suggestion that one of our submitters had proposed, which is to provide a defence that if it’s lawful in the jurisdiction where it’s done, it shouldn’t be counted within this provision. Right now, the test is whether it’s illegal in New Zealand as opposed to the country itself. So yeah, just clarifying what the intent is behind those two sections, and if there’s appetite for some drafting to make it clear what the intent is.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m going to move on to clause 8, and then start on clause 10, noting that clause 10 is one of the most substantive sections of this part.

First, I want to raise a question that the previous speaker, Vanushi Walters, touched on. I think this particular angle would be really good to get the Minister’s elucidation on, and I appreciate both the current Minister in the chair, the Hon Chris Penk, and the previous one, the Hon Matt Doocey, for their engagement and responses.

So when it comes to clause 8, inserting new section 69A, “Party to certain acts or omissions in New Zealand”, the first thing to note is that under “Relevant act done or omitted”, section 69A(2) says, “imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.” Then, in subsection (4)—under “Relevant act not done or omitted”—it is 10 years. This is when you are looking from a perspective of party liability, as the Minister has mentioned before. But if you are reading it in the context of the Crimes Act, section 76, in terms of treason—as in an individual actively conducted treason, etc.—the penalty is “not exceeding 7 years”. And if you’re looking at section 77 of the Crimes Act, for mutiny it is no more than 10 years. So I guess the first question to the Minister is: why then is party liability a doubling of the penalty, as opposed to a person performing it themselves? So that’s my first question to the Minister.

The second question is more of a question of clarification. So subsections (3) and (4) of section 69A are “Relevant act not done or omitted”. That, to me, reads like it is a strict liability. I want to check with the Minister if it is the intention that when you’re looking at something like this, it is a strict or limited liability for any individual who owes allegiance to the Sovereign in right of New Zealand, when they’re committing an offence under that section, and that they are liable to no more than 10 years of imprisonment. So that’s my second question.

I want to start on clause 10—noting that there is a lot more that I would like to say about clause 10, but I’ll limit it to three questions for the time being. So in new section 78AAA, inserted by clause 10—and let’s start with subsections (1) to (4). Now, subsections (1) to (2), “Intentional conduct”—now we’re wading into mens rea territory. From a men’s rea perspective, the intention or knowledge—under subsections (1) and (2)—I kind of understand. But in terms of recklessness, under subsections (3) and (4), I want to check a particular scenario, because recklessness is in the sense of not just simply you acting on it or knowing of it—that there is even a benefit of doubt that the outcome may potentially even happen. So, in this case, when you’re looking at “engages in … conduct for or on behalf of a foreign power;”, if we’re looking at a situation where MPs or Ministers or public officials travel to another country and take their parliamentary devices with them without following through on the recommendation of, let’s say, parliamentary security, that would be considered recklessness. So, in those cases, let’s say a public official travels to another country, potentially using a device from here and that got found out, would that be covered now under sections 78AAA (3) and (4)—where that particular official, etc.—now would be charged with recklessness and would be looking at an imprisonment rate not exceeding 10 years?

So those are my three questions for the time being.

Can I encourage the member—when you asked about Part 10, you indicated you had some more questions. If you can succinctly do the rest of those questions in another call, I’ll give you one.

OK, thank you. I do have more questions, but, like I said, clause 10 has a lot of different parts. But I would like a follow up question later, on subsection (6) of section 78AAA.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll give it a go—I’ve got a few different slips of paper here. Returning first to the question posed by the Hon Dr Duncan Webb in relation to peaceful protest that he says could be considered as criminal activity: as he’s rightly noted, there is other legislation that’s passing through this House that would create offences of a criminal nature whereby protesting in residential places could be deemed to be criminal in themselves. The question then is whether that imports into the kinds of ways that we would characterise foreign interference in this, if such activity was conducted on behalf of a foreign power.

At the risk of stating the obvious: first of all, all elements of that offence must occur, so I don’t think—and I’m sure the member didn’t intend to suggest this, but I do want to assure anyone who is following—that there wouldn’t be any kind of lower bar than that which Parliament is agreeing in relation to those kinds of protest offences against people’s personal property and so forth. The foreign interference element would need also to be satisfied as to whether it was carried for or on behalf of a foreign power and so on. I should also add that the Attorney-General would need to consent to proceedings, so there’s a safeguard in that, which complements the elements of the offence or the threshold set out in new section 78AAB.

In terms of some of the comments of Ms Ginny Andersen—in fact, I should flesh out my answer a bit more, having provided a reasonably high-level assurance that it seemed to me that it would be likely that there would be ongoing cross-Government work to address foreign interference into the future. I’m well advised that this includes work that is ongoing, and that it includes, but is not necessarily limited to, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the New Zealand Police, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT), intelligence agencies, and various ethnic communities. I’m sure I’m right in saying that these would be quite broad conversations that would also take into account perspectives of civil society and so on. It was earlier this year that the Ministry for Ethnic Communities, as part of an all-of-Government work programme to tackle foreign interference, released resources in 30 languages to better inform communities, in a way that’s understandable and clear to them, about what foreign interference is; how it can affect ethnic communities as well as New Zealand more broadly; and how to report foreign interference should they see it.

In terms of another comment—I think it was probably unrelated, but I think it was by the same member, the Hon Ginny Andersen—the bill does provide quite a broad set of tools to respond to interference activities. She will know—she in fact has a background in the Police—of investigative tools for police, including the use of existing warrantless search powers to enable police to act swiftly to avoid the loss of key evidence. We can all think about ways that that’s an important consideration, albeit weighed against usual civil liberty protections. There is also a basis for MFAT—the relevant ministry, external facing as it is—to use diplomatic tools to engage with other countries’ representatives about inappropriate conduct covered by the bill. There’s a bit of diplomatic as well as legal consideration there.

As for the question about the owing of allegiance and whether this would come into play: only if a person has otherwise done the acts constituting espionage or treason. Again, just to highlight, the various different elements would need to be satisfied such that there was the activity that could be characterised as espionage or treason, as well as then considering the status of the person who had been alleged to conduct such activities.

In terms of the suggestion that I think Vanushi Walters has said came from a submitter—and on which she was asking my view—regarding whether we should instead have a bar or a test of whether the conduct complained of is illegal in another jurisdiction as opposed to that of New Zealand: I’m not sure that there is any support in Government circles for that. I hesitate to state a personal view, but perhaps I can venture that that seems to me the wrong way around for New Zealand lawmakers to be considering the question of criminality—an interesting suggestion as it was from said submitter.

As for the contribution of Lawrence Xu-Nan of the Green Party: the good doctor, as always, makes a number of helpful points. In terms of new section 69A replicating penalty levels of section 69 amended: again, it’s because it covers the same type of conduct. I think I’m right in saying this is a point made previously by our friend Dr Webb and, just to point out, the bill doesn’t amend penalty levels for treason or incitement to mutiny, and adjusting penalties for crimes against New Zealand more generally is out of scope for this bill.

Returning to Dr Xu-Nan: I think he’s referred to section 77—perhaps existing? It must be existing. Why would party liability attract twice as great a degree of liability as opposed to performing the act itself? I might need to take some advice on that; I don’t have a coherent or glib or easy answer for that. Perhaps I’ve misunderstood something in the way that he’s asked the question, which is on me, if so. I’ll commit to coming back to him if I can find out more about that. I wasn’t sure which section he was referring to with the comment around strict liability, or asking if strict liability applied, so I wonder if he could, in his next contribution—assuming he chooses to make another and is allowed to make another, Madam Chair—sort of help me out with that one.

Finally, in terms of clause 10 and that new section 78AAA—like the battery—obviously there is a difference between intention, in the general sense, and recklessness, and he’s right to highlight that that is, effectively, a lower bar, albeit still within the ambit of mens rea more generally. I’m not sure that I can advise on the scenario of a member of this House going overseas and not taking the precautions suggested by a relevant security agency of New Zealand in terms of maybe taking a “burner” phone, just to use that vernacular. I would, of course, encourage all members to act prudently in such situations. I would say, instinctively, that it seems to me that that would be a stretch to indicate necessarily that the member would have conducted interference for or on behalf of a foreign power merely by not taking those precautions. We might characterise that as negligence—maybe in a general sense rather than the legal sense of the phrase—but, certainly, I would be surprised if, on many occasions, that would reach such a bar as this legislation is setting.

I’m just going to indicate, at this stage, that the Minister has just advised that he is going to seek some advice. I know this committee stage got off to a bit of an interesting start last week, but I feel like it’s had a select committee and it also has no Minister’s amendments. I’m going to give Teanau Tuiono a chance to speak to the amendments that he’s suggesting—and also, Lawrence Xu-Nan. I think there’s a clarification that the Minister has actually asked for.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and particularly to the—

Point of order. Sorry, to interrupt the member, but, Madam Chair, I just wanted to bring to your attention that we have been seeking the call on this side of the Chamber, a few times, and haven’t yet had an opportunity. I guess there are a few points within that: there is a requirement (1) to try and ensure proportionality of calls within speakers, and also (2) to ensure that all sides can take part in the debate. Indeed, we’ve had three members that sit on the Justice Committee seeking the call, and there is preference, typically, given to members of the committee. I guess my concern is that—

I’m taking—

—it feels like there’s, perhaps, some pre-emption about what the content of speeches might be on this side, which is not the role of the Chair.

And often there is. What I would say about that is that often, if there’s a member who genuinely wants a call, they would indicate, or the whip or someone would indicate, to the Chair that that would be the case. If that is the case, I would ask somebody—

Speaking to the point of order. I’m happy to yield to the other side if they want to make a contribution and not a closure motion.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for the opportunity to take a call on this legislation. We traversed it in some detail through the select committee process and had a good opportunity to explore a number of these questions, Minister; particularly interested in this issue of seeking allegiance and who you have allegiance to.

I think for the average New Zealander out in the community watching this debate this morning, some of these ideas about who has allegiance to New Zealand and who doesn’t may get confusing. I would appreciate some clarification for the average New Zealander—if you live in the wonderful Whanganui electorate, for example, or up in your part of the world where you fit many electorates into the sort of space of the wonderful Whanganui electorate. That aside, for the average New Zealander who is a citizen of New Zealand who may have come from somewhere like South Africa, in the case of my wife—not yet a citizen—but would she owe allegiance? And, say, in my example where I’ve got a British passport but also a New Zealand passport, would I have that allegiance to New Zealand? I just want some clarity on those sorts of typical examples for the average New Zealander.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the member opposite, as well. Just to support what that is around the clarity, we have heard earlier—

Point of order. Apologies—I just note the clock has been reset but he yielded so it shouldn’t be. It should be carried on from where the time had been used by Mr Bates.

Look, I’m taking this as a new point.

It’s not a new call if the member yields, Madam Chair. It’s quite clear in Speakers’ rulings that they can yield and that time is taken out of their call, but it’s not a new call.

I’m not sure where—

Speaking to the point of order, I can live with less—with 10 seconds less.

About 5 seconds, I’m advised. So carry on, Mr Tuiono.

No, no—this member’s time gets taken out of his call.

She just extended the call.

But I took another call. Point of order.

No, no, it’s the same call.

Responding to the point of order, we’ll set the clock at 4 minutes.

Is this the new call?

I don’t know how long that call was but—

It was one minute, 30 seconds.

OK. One minute, 30 seconds—sweet as. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to support what the member opposite was saying around clarity, we have heard the example I gave earlier around the folks in the Cook Islands and Niue—and, of course, I’m very interested in this because I’m from there—and about what that exactly means, and we did hear that that will be determined by the common law. I do note that there are officials behind them—just for the sake of my relatives in the Cook Islands, on a remote island, wondering if this might actually impact them—if they might have some information about what the current situation is with the common law. That would be really useful.

Also, to support the conversation that we’ve had around reckless conduct, I did note that when Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan mentioned people missing their laptops and iPhones and so on and so forth, I saw a number of people looking around the room wondering if they knew where their laptops and iPhones were, including myself as well.

I wonder if the Minister could turn his mind to my Amendment Paper 431, which was about making sure that we did define exactly what that advocacy part was, and I do note that they did say earlier that, actually, advocacy and the process was actually covered in the legislation, but there are so many different examples where it’s incredibly grey, where people could, because of involving themselves in reckless conduct, find themselves not liable for three months but actually seven years, because that’s the difference in the carry-through. So if I could get an answer around that, that would be good.

I’ve got another Amendment Paper—Amendment Paper 433—which is about that proportionality aspect. It amends clause 10 and states, “In clause 10, new section 78AAB, replace subsection (4) (page 9, lines 30 and 31) with: (4)A person who commits an offence against subsection (3) is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the sum total of the following: (a) the maximum term of imprisonment for the applicable offence; and (b) an additional 3 months.”

There’s a big difference between three months and seven years, and so I wonder if the Minister could give us some clarity around the differences and perhaps look at it from the perspective of the proportionality principles in the Sentencing Act, which I’m sure the Minister is familiar with, and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It seems to me that to go from three months to seven years is quite a stretch, particularly if somebody is engaging in reckless conduct, not necessarily sure that they’re doing what they’re doing, and so I’d like to get some comment on that. My Amendment Paper, in my view, would go some way to addressing that concern to make sure that the penalty is actually more proportional and fair, as opposed to automatically adding an extra seven years. So I’d like to get some clarification from the Minister on that.

I did hear earlier that the reason why this is following through is because treasonable offences have a lot more years added to them, but I wanted to get some clarification from the Minister on the rationale—

We are at the point of yield, so we’re just going to reset the clock. Does the member want to continue?

Yes. Thank you. I wanted to know the rationale for the Minister and the officials behind him around pitching it to those treasonable offences, and then if people are engaging in treasonable behaviour, that makes sense, but if people are engaging in reckless conduct, then surely there should be a way to explain why proportionality is being used in this particular way—from three months to seven years—so I’d like an answer to that.

I also wanted to get the Minister to engage on the Amendment Paper around that proportionality, making sure it’s consistent as well, so I’d like to get some sort of clear answers there as well.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ve had the benefit of a lot of good discussion around all sides of the committee since I last rose to my feet. I’ll do my best to meet the challenge.

I should start by saying, having in my last contribution sought clarifications from Dr Xu-Nan about a point he’d made previously, that I’ve helpfully had some advice that’s indicated to me not only what he was asking but, actually, suggesting what I might provide by way of response. In terms of the question around strict liability, it’s not a strict liability offence. It would be the case that all the elements of the primary offence would need to be made out, and then, obviously, it would be the usual ruling in criminal law, as opposed to a strict liability regime—that is, there would need to be both the mental element, or the mens rea, as well as the actus reus, or the thing itself. I understand that this relates to the new section 78AAB offence of committing an imprisonable offence for or on behalf of a foreign power. So I hope that that answers the question, and it’s certainly my best effort.

In terms of the question posed by, again, the same member, party liability penalties are actually already those set by the Crimes Act, and there isn’t a change in that regard. If the member’s view is that those are somehow out of whack, then I suppose that that’s a matter which he could consider further in another context. But within the scope of this legislation, I don’t think that we can bring that forward more usefully than just to acknowledge that point.

As for recklessness, I suppose that the point about that—again, I’m indebted to those who are much more knowledgable in this space than me, which is many people, but it’s certainly those in our Chamber today. As to recklessness, it would require in the usual way that the person would recognise a real possibility—or, in other words, foresee the risk—that their actions would likely compromise a protected New Zealand interest, and then, having regard to that risk, that those actions would be unreasonable. I think, going back to that point about travelling with phones without all the necessary protections as recommended—it seems to me that that would be unlikely in any given case to result in a prosecution against said member.

As for the question posed by my colleague and friend Carl Bates—“Mr Everywhere Man”, but particularly of the Whanganui electorate—I think that he raised a really interesting and helpful point for people to understand in layperson’s terms, perhaps, the effect. Certainly, there are many of us, including many in the House—and, actually, other members have alluded to family or even personal situations of what might appear to be a split allegiance. For those of us who have other Commonwealth passports, and I myself have British and Australian ones in the—

Greedy.

—collection, as well as New Zealand, I hasten to add—getting greedy. But if there are any Canadian friends of influence who are watching, you’ll know what I’m going to ask you aboot, eh? But I know, of course, that that is the case for many people in New Zealand, whether they were born overseas or have some other connection such that they enjoy different connections to other nations. Of course, the question is complicated, or more complex, in the case of Realm nations or other Pacific nations with whom we have particular arrangements, but certainly the intent of the legislation is to clarify the common law and provide greater prosecution security, and, really, at its base it is to ensure that everyone in New Zealand is able to be prosecuted for espionage—for the relevant acts, obviously—as proven, unless that person has diplomatic or consular immunity, as defined elsewhere in legislation, and/or that person is a foreign national, or the child of one, of a State at war with New Zealand. So there are some pretty serious but niche ways in which this could apply to someone in this country who is acting for or on behalf of a foreign power.

Finally, in terms of Amendment Paper 433 in the name of Teanau Tuiono, the proposed penalty reduction we don’t think is appropriate. Our starting point, and the position of the Government, is that the current penalty is appropriate and consistent. I wouldn’t wish to suggest that having the foreign interference element merely topping up the other offence would be appropriately punishable by only an additional three months, as opposed to the seven years that’s put forward. But it’s the case, I think I’m right in saying, that, consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—as the member quite rightly points out—we’ve specified that there be a proportionality in terms of that offence and the foreign interference element.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that Teanau Tuiono’s amendments to clause 10, new section 78AAA(4A)(a), set out on Amendment Paper 431 be agreed to.

The question is that Teanau Tuiono’s amendments to clause 10, new section 78AAA(5)(a)(ii), set out on Amendment Paper 432 be agreed to.

The question is that Teanau Tuiono’s amendments to clause 10, new section 78AAB(4), set out on Amendment Paper 433 be agreed to.

Members, we come now to Part 2. Part 2 is the debate on clause 16, “Minor and consequential amendments to other Acts”, and the Schedule. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Point of order. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to seek your guidance because before, when we were debating Part 1—I didn’t want to interrupt when we were voting—you did mention that you were going to give me a call to finish—

And then the Minister said that he had understood the clarification that I was going to give you the call for, and then answered, so it was solved.

OK. I thought the call you were going to give was because I indicated that—

No, I indicated there was a call for clarification.

Madam Chair?

So this is on Part 2, right?

Thank you, Madam Chair. So, in terms of Part 2, what we’re seeing, particularly around focusing on the insertion of new section 78AAA and 7AAB into various other legislation—and I just want to check with the Minister, in terms of how that interacts with some of the legislation here, and I think, particularly, I want to focus on the Criminal Procedures Act but also the Human Rights Act. Can I check with the Minister that it is my understanding in this section that after section 78, it says, for example, under the Human Rights Act, insert 78AAA and 78AAB—however, would that, then, preclude section 78A and 78AA as a part of that? I just want to check with the Minister on why, then, those two particular clauses were precluded as part of the insertion into this area as well, noting that there’s a basis that both 78AAA and 78AAB are also relying on the fact that there is a 78A and 78AA within the legislation. So, in those kind of cases, what sorts of allowances are given for the other sections? I will start with that, because, I think, you know, if the Minister’s able to answer that short question, it will help us unpack a lot of the other additional amendments in this particular section.

While the Minister’s thinking, just continuing on in terms of the fact that when we are looking at this section, and I pulled up on the Human Rights Act, and I think what’s probably pertinent here is the Human Rights Act, the Ombudsmen Act, and the Privacy Act, as a start. For those sections that were mentioned in Human Rights Act, 130; Ombudsmen Act, 26; and Privacy Act, 90, is the intention, then, that those particular sections, then, whether there was an exemption of sorts in terms of how new section 78AAA and 78AAB are going to be interacting with those particular sections?

I think it’s vital that when we’re looking at this particular part, noting the number of additional bills that are affected by Part 2 of this legislation, we don’t inadvertently, I guess, challenge or put in—I guess “challenge” is a good term in terms of some our fundamental rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and also the Human Rights Act—the allowances for people when they are being, I guess, charged with any of the new additional crimes under 78AAA and 78AAB. I’m particularly thinking of how does this thing interact with the limitation that’s being placed on this bill and on individuals in Aotearoa New Zealand under section 5 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. So I just want to check with the Minister in terms of that interaction.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to add to the checks we’re doing in terms of the other Acts referred to in the Schedule, my question is in relation to the Bail Act changes. The current heading of section 9 in the Bail Act references “treason or espionage”. It’s, essentially, a restriction on bail if there are charges on those two matters, and it replaces that with certain offences. The certain offences look to me to be the full set of offences under new section 78AAA of the Crimes (Countering Foreign Interference) Amendment Bill, which relate to “Improper conduct for or on behalf of foreign power to compromise protected New Zealand interest”. These are, of course, just cases where charges have been brought. There’s not necessarily a plea in there and no guilt found yet. There are other provisions in the Bail Act further down—sections 9A, 10, 11, and 12—which also impose other types of restrictions—and I would say lower restrictions—on the granting of bail. I wonder if the Minister had considered whether it would be useful to split the alleged offences that the person has been charged with so that, if someone is a third party and they were assisting, for example, they may fall into further restrictions on bail in certain cases. That would be a less restrictive application of the Bail Act restrictions, whereas if someone was charged with a more serious offence on the basis of the facts, then they could very validly sit within current section 9 of the Bail Act. I’m trying to find a way just to split how those offences would be treated.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for the engagement so far on this particular part, which impacts Part 2 and the Schedule, I’d like to draw the Minister’s attention to Amendment Paper 434, in my name. I’ve been thinking about a scenario where you could have a human rights advocate who shares information online as a part of their work, as a part of their mahi, and under the current bill, as I read it, if authorities suspect the work that they are doing is related to foreign interference, they could conduct a warrantless search of their home or devices, even if there’s no immediate threat. The concern there is overreach, and with the amendment in my name, Amendment Paper 434, authorities would need to apply for a warrant, giving a judge the authority to check whether the search is justified. This protects people from excessive or unnecessary intrusions or overreach by the authorities. It was a common theme that came to the select committee, that we were overreaching with this legislation and not necessarily focusing on the issues or finding a way to actually deal with the very real issues that that some of the submitters were bringing in as well.

I guess my question to the Minister is around the justifications for allowing warrantless searches for such broad offences under new sections 78AAA and 78BBB and without additional safeguards—if I’m missing something, could the Minister explain what potentially those safeguards would be? I think it would be important to have some safeguards in there. The right to freedom of expression, the right to be able to have your say, is an important right, and I know that has been expressed by all members of all corners of this Chamber as well. If we’re going to limit things, then I think it’s really important that the committee understands that and that the people, in general, understand that as well.

I also think about it in the context of journalists. They’ve got to be able to talk to as many people as possible. Could the Minister also clarify how the current proposal might impact journalists, activists, and advocacy groups but, in this particular circumstance, the impact on journalists? We know journalists play an important part in making sure that our democracy is robust. Yes, they ask us awkward questions, and we don’t like it as politicians, but that’s an important part that they play—an important part that, I think, the algorithm can’t do as well. The engagement of journalists and the work that they do—where they need to talk to a wide variety of different people—shouldn’t open them up to a warrantless search.

In my Amendment Paper, the suggestion is to delete the amendments to the Search and Surveillance Act 2012 in the Schedule—on page 15, lines 11 to 14 on the select committee report. In that way, from our perspective, this ensures that it allows for that extra level of scrutiny of having to go to a judge to make sure that the search that is going to happen is actually warranted. If the Minister could focus on the reasons why he thinks, or the Government thinks, that that extra layer is not warranted, it would be good to hear that.

Just to recap, my questions are around the safeguards available and the protections for journalists, in particular. They have a particular role, an important role. What are the safeguards that are in place to make sure that they can do their job and not be subject to a warrantless search? The example that I gave earlier around human rights advocacy is also incredibly important work, which does require them to talk to people, even people that we might not like, potentially—what’s in place for them?

In my view and in the view of the Greens, this amendment would go some way to addressing those concerns, giving that extra layer of having a judge make sure that there was a warrant there, as well, because, generally, when we look at the context of this bill as it is, there are issues around proportionality, which we have raised, and there are issues around overreach as well. There are issues that need to be dealt with and grappled with, but I think there needs to be clarity about how this will, specifically, actually do that. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Point of order, Madam Chair. I seek leave to correct a vote.

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

Labour is in support of Part 1.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks to members who have contributed in this relatively narrow second part—obviously, consequential amendments. I think some of the points that were made by Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan and, actually, also by Vanushi Walters, really just go to the fact of cross-referencing in the nature of consequential amendments—more particularly, in relation to the New Zealand Human Rights Act, though, as our friend mentioned.

So section 78AA amended by clause 11, (Wrongful communication … of classified communication), and section 78A amended by clause 12, (Wrongful communication … of official information). These are already referenced, so the new provisions are included to provide consistency. So it is, for example, that where espionage can be charged, the new offences can also be charged, which is what you would expect and hope for the two regimes to be coherent.

In terms of Ms Walters’ point around the Bail Act, I think I understand your point as being that, you know, there could be a separation or a split. But I think it’s in the nature of, you know, a bail regime. Of course, there would merely be a charging as opposed to a conviction for offence, which is why the question of bail would even come up in the first place. So on behalf of the Government, I don’t think we’ve got any appetite to rework any of the ways that those two pieces of legislation would connect with each other.

As to Teanau Tuiono’s point, I mean, I’m sympathetic at a high level. Of course, we want freedom of information and a free and democratic society. But, of course, as always, there are balance of rights considerations we can make, or competing rights we could even say, or, to characterise differently again, a balance of responsibilities. Clearly, the fourth estate plays an important role, as the member acknowledges, even if it’s not convenient to those of us whom they think they are holding to account.

But nevertheless, I think it’s entirely possible to separate good investigative journalism on the one hand, for example, and conducting certain activities as defined on behalf of or for a foreign power—whether one analyses the importance of freedom of information or expression from the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, section 14, for example, or that narrative of holding those in power to account. Nevertheless, I think this legislation is reasonably tight around the purpose of what we’re trying to achieve, which is to react to the possibility of foreign interference as opposed to a chilling effect on speech more generally.

The member asked whether the search provisions are warranted. I think he meant in that general sense of justified, as opposed to warrants that are put forward in terms of search powers. On that note, then, I can provide some assurance either way, actually, that the bill introduces no new search powers; instead it simply relies on existing powers in the Search and Surveillance Act. Warrantless search powers for espionage and the offence of wrongful communication, retention, or copying of classified information are included. These are quite analogous with certain categories, at least for foreign interference activity.

I should point out, just again, more generally, existing powers would be exercised in a way that would have to reflect the case being of great urgency and requiring immediate action and there being reasonable grounds to believe that the evidence relating to the relevant offence is at the place to be searched. So it can’t be, as we always say, a fishing expedition.

Just to conclude that matter, courts also apply a warrant preference rule, which is to say, even though there may be the ability to conduct a warrantless search, if there was sufficient time for a warrant to be obtained, then it should, or the court may determine that it would need to be. Ultimately, of course, the consequence of all this is that if a warrantless search is conducted in a way that offends these types of rules, then the evidence might be inadmissible, which is the ultimate consequence for those wishing to find the evidence to be able to, you know, make a case of this nature.

Thank you, Madam Chair, I’ve got two very short, concise questions to finish this part of Part 2. The first question—thank you to the Minister for responding to my question—I want to check, particularly, is what the Minister was saying in terms of the Human Rights Act and the Ombudsmen Act. Again, noting that the section that we are discussing here is privileged proceedings and these two are now 78AAA and 78AAB, and are now exempted from such privilege, as indicated in those sections. Can I check with the Minister how this then also interacts with those two agencies? So we’re looking at the Human Rights Commissioner or Commission, and the Office of the Ombudsman when it comes to our obligation under the Optional Protocol Convention against Torture, and particularly as those two agencies are in charge of or are part of the national preventative mechanism. When it is going to be things that touch on their role as the national preventative mechanisms, would that then also mean that they have to break privilege by the inclusion of these two additional sections, under those two particular Acts?

So that’s my first question. The second question is also coming to the Search and Surveillance Act. Thank you to the Minister for that response but my question is: what we saw in terms of the power granted under the Search and Surveillance Act, as part of the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill, and the subsequent amendment of that is that when a person’s being searched and if they found something that was incidental that wasn’t part of the original intention of that search, that material can still be used for them to be charged with additional offences. I want to get reassurance from the Minister that the similar thing then wouldn’t be happening in this case with the inclusion of 78AAA and 78AAB. Because, again, those are kinds of the things that potentially will affect or could have a chilling effect for ethnic communities, quite severely, if people are being targeted for additional things; but then when there is a search, either warranted or warrantless materials were found and how that would then interact with the new offences created under this bill.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that Teanau Tuiono’s amendment to the Schedule set out on Amendment Paper 434 be agreed to.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to ask the Minister some questions around clause 2, with regards to the commencement—noting that the commencement is the day after Royal assent—both in terms of the conversations that we’ve had during this committee stage on some of the uncertainties around the definition of some of the clauses but also, I guess, the breadth of what could potentially be covered.

For example, while this covers everything, what is, then, the scope of what we considered? Some of the scenarios weren’t actually teased out in the select committee as well. One of the examples of that is, for example—when we’re looking at the commencement date being the day after Royal assent, in the context of some of the things we have seen—the way that we’ve seen the FBI, potentially, as a foreign agency interfering with Aotearoa New Zealand. We have seen things like the Atlas Network, as a public organisation, interfering with some of the things in New Zealand. We have seen trans-exclusionary radical feminists coming from other regions, such as the UK, putting harm on some of these things. These are the potential scenarios that are considered under new sections 78AAA and 78AAB. It doesn’t seem to me that having the commencement date as the day after Royal assent is something that allows our court system and the justice system to fully engage with this new offence.

Now, the previous Crimes Act bills we have seen that have gone through the House have all—as far as I can remember, and the Minister may be able to correct me—had a commencement date three or six months after Royal assent, but this one does not. Considering that this is creating a new criminal offence, which is incredibly serious—imprisonment of up to 14 years is a serious matter—I ask the Minister to consider doing just a little bit more work both in terms of teasing out some of the scenarios but also giving the Ministry of Justice and, as the Minister mentioned before, the Ministry for Ethnic Communities, who have had some work done in terms of the education programme, the ability to actually let the public know what the new offence is going to be.

Again, I’m speaking as someone from an ethnic community, and for those for whom English is not their first language and particularly for those who may not be able to speak English fluently, this new offence may be meaningless to them until something comes up. Because the commencement date is the day after Royal assent, immediately it then creates an offence. I do ask the Minister to consider seriously whether there can be a grace period that allows the ethnic communities, in particular, to understand what the new offences are and what the consequences are. That’s going to be my only contribution for this section, but I think it’s a really, really important one for the Minister to consider.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I also have some concerns about the time in which the bill will become law. I’m mostly concerned about young people and the behaviour of young people and what they would expect to be an offence or not, just remembering that we do have some quite broad provisions here, including the new section 69A in clause 8, which includes the offence of aiding, inciting, or counselling—so not necessarily being the one who passes on information but being that one step back.

I note that when we were discussing the Schedule to the bill, one of the amendments was an amendment to Schedule 1A in the Oranga Tamariki Act. Schedule 1A is a specified list of offences for young people aged 17, and so these are still young people and, yes, there is a list of offences that they would be subject to. It adds this bill to that space. I imagine that there would be a number of young people who are just starting to explore the world of protest and international affairs and who are understanding how to interact with international issues and with conflict, and, ideally, it would be good for us to ensure that they are well-educated on what this means for them, whether they are the individual who passes on information or whether they are one step back and they are counselling, inciting, or—under those provisions that I’ve read earlier—directing someone else outside the country to do something or to pass on information.

Ideally, I wouldn’t argue this for all pieces of legislation, and I think it does make sense for many of our bills to become law immediately. I do think that there are times when we need to consider whether there’s a valid reason why we would want to have a period of education to ensure that it’s not catching people who otherwise wouldn’t step into this area, at all. I ask whether that is a consideration for the Minister.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just really briefly, my understanding is that the issues have been well articulated and canvassed, including by agencies, through the six-month Justice Committee process—for which I congratulate all members involved—I think, as well, with some of that outreach conducted by the Ministry for Ethnic Communities. Respectfully, I think it’s unlikely that there won’t be a level of understanding that’s necessary in the community as to what the implications of the new legislation might be.

I respectfully disagree with Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan in terms of a lack of clarity within the legislation. As to courts having the ability to consider how these scenarios might play out, the scenarios that they will see are cases that will be brought before them in due course, and, on that basis, they will have the opportunity to consider how the law should be applied. It’s no grace period; otherwise, we provide a window of opportunity—a mixed message—in terms of the kind of behaviour that we consider to be appropriate in this country. All relevant parties have had an opportunity to understand it, and we look forward to it coming into effect as soon as possible.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The committee has further considered the Crimes (Countering Foreign Interference) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

I present a legislative statement on the Education and Training (Early Childhood Education Reform) 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 Education and Training (Early Childhood Education Reform) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Madam Speaker, I want to take you back to a convention centre in Wellington in mid-2023, filled with around 500 representatives of early childhood centres up and down the country. It was a pre-election political briefing. Astonishingly, representatives of the governing parties hadn’t shown. As the meeting went on, I started to appreciate why that might be. The people in this room—salt of the earth people, often small-business people who work hard, invest to ensure the next generation of young New Zealanders are cared for and ready for school—were ropable. They were tired of the regulatory overreach of the Byzantine rules and the abuses of power that they perceived coming from the Government. They said, “All I wanted to do was help young children discover their potential. And all I actually do is fear the regulator that is supposed to work for all of us. After all, it’s our taxes that pay for them.” I looked at this and I thought: surely we can do better.

Fast forward a little way, and the Ministry for Regulation was formed. Its first sector review involved going out and hearing from people, like the ones in that room that day, and asking them: what is it that has made it so difficult and so frustrating to do what should be a very rewarding and positive job, and mostly is? The Ministry for Regulation assembled a long dossier of concerns. It assessed them against the need for sensible regulation. It has come up with, broadly, three changes that Cabinet signed off. One is a simplification of the rules, and a binning of rules that make no sense; that’s happening separately from this bill. Another is transferring the responsibility for regulating to the Education Review Office—who are very good at doing this, in my view—away from the Ministry of Education, which I don’t believe has done a consistently good job; it tends to depend on the region. It also means that the regulator is separate from the policy maker, which is generally good practice for regulation. Those are two parts of the change coming out of this sector review.

There’s a third part which is encapsulated in this bill. It is setting out that there should be a person called, in this case, the director of regulation. It’s not a new position; there’s a person that does something like this. But they’re going to actually have their responsibilities set out in legislation, and they’re going to have the rights of people who run early childhood centres set out in legislation, and the purpose of regulating set out in regulation. In particular, things like enabling choice for parents is in this legislation. Things like ensuring childhood safety is in this legislation. Things like ensuring those things with the least possible regulation so that the people like the ones in that room aren’t tied up in endless red tape.

Where the rubber hits the road—and I happen to be the Minister responsible for early childhood education—there’s a wonderful place called Country Kindy, in Manawatū.

Yes.

These are salt of the earth people. There’s the member for Rangitīkei right there, and I’m sure she knows it well. These people were harangued, harassed, shut down to within an inch of their life. As the Minister responsible, I was very keen to intervene. To this day, I don’t fully understand what they were accused of doing wrong, because when I brought in the secretary to ask—the former secretary, that is—she didn’t have a good answer. I went into Country Kindy and was almost suffocated by a hug from the person in charge, because they were so relieved that this harassment had ended.

Well, what this legislation sets out to do is give people like her the ability to tap on the sign and say, “You regulate for a purpose. We pay your taxes.” Child safety—absolutely, 100 percent; 200 percent. Giving parents choice and information and making it clear what’s needed and what’s going on: absolutely. But overreach and abuse of power and overburdensome regulation and red tape that stops us doing our real job: that’s yesterday’s news.

This is another example of how a Government can hear people’s concerns and aspirations out in the community, formulate a plan, and bring it to fruition in this House. It’s one of many examples that we’re talking about just this week, that makes me very proud to be part of this Government. It makes me proud to be a member of the ACT Party, and it is going to make, I believe, a lot of people even prouder to work in the early childhood sector, because this statute will ensure that they are treated, by law, with the respect that they deserve. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, we heard there, in the first sentences that the Minister spoke, exactly the true intent of what this particular bill does. Unfortunately, that was reflected very much in the submissions which also identified the true intent. I just want to start by talking to one of those submissions that came through from the Office of Early Childhood Education, who said, “Let’s be honest; it’s misleading to say this bill is designed to improve outcomes for children and family. Its true intent is to satisfy service providers and their lobbyists who want a much lighter-touch approach to monitoring and enforcement.” The select committee had a number of submissions to this bill—107 submissions in fact—of which 78 of those submissions—78 of 107 submissions—opposed the bill. They opposed the bill because this was not putting children at the centre of this piece of legislation. In fact, it is such a dangerous change to what we will see and have ever seen in the early childhood sector.

The purpose of the regulations has been narrowed so much in this bill and in what it is doing that it does not put children at the centre of their education. Just think about that for a moment: children in the early childhood sector not being at the centre. Suddenly, the purposes of regulation have been changed so much that we’ve taken children away. Let’s just hear, with your indulgence, what the current Act says about the purpose of current early childhood education (ECE) regulation: that it “is to regulate an early childhood education system where all children are able to participate and receive a strong foundation for learning, positive well-being, and life outcomes by—(a) setting standards to support quality provision and learning; and (b) supporting the health, safety, and well-being of children; and (c) enabling parental choice by providing for licensing and funding of different types of provision.” So, that’s a service where the regulations, currently, ensure that there is quality provision that supports solid learning for those young people and children being put at the centre.

This bill has made a significant change; a very disappointing significant change. This bill changes that to: “[it will] regulate an early childhood education system to—(a) set and implement minimum standards to provide for quality early childhood education that allows all children to establish strong foundations for learning, well-being, and life outcomes; and (b)”—and this is where it’s critical—“support the choice of parents and caregivers to participate in the labour market.” It’s taking a labour market approach to early childhood education, and that’s exactly what the Minister just outlined in his speech.

That is absolutely worrying in an educational context in this country. I cannot understand why members on that side of the House have not fought back more about that. Our youngest and, as research shows, our children with the most potential to learn, are our under 5-year-olds, those in their first 2,000 days. If we get it right as a country, we have the most potential to make the biggest difference in a young person’s life, but because of the ideological nature and thoughts of one Minister, we are making a change here that will have a very detrimental impact on that. I urge everyone in the House to think about that and take that very, very seriously.

Now, really interestingly in the Minister’s address here this morning—which was very, very short, I should say, for something that’s an incredibly important piece of legislation—she talked about the input from the providers. Well, I can tell you that during the select committee process, we heard from teachers, centre managers, and parents who felt like their voice had been marginalised in that discussion and in that consultation. They felt like they had not been heard at all. I should add another group to that: the early childhood academics, who are some of the world-leading academics in early childhood in this country; people that are well respected around the world and who also feel that their voices have been marginalised.

Revising the purpose of early childhood regulation and legislation—and this is also important—was not part of the original terms of reference for the review. We understand, from the Ministry of Regulation, that it was not up for debate in that part of the process. Where people did have their input, they didn’t realise that this part of the purpose was actually going to be changed in legislation. Now, again, that seems like a little bit of a grubby process that has happened here. That’s the second time, where we’ve had an education bill put up in this particular session, that similar processes have happened. It isn’t any wonder why the education sector are starting to push back around what is happening to them.

It is really, really important that children must remain the centre of ECE regulation. We heard that time and time again in select committee, not only from teachers and not only from those heavily involved in the sector but also from the parents who are involved heavily in the sector but also want complete quality for their young people and the provision that is there for their young people. They said, “Look, we understand that this helps us get back into the labour market, but that should not be at the cost of quality.” That’s exactly what this bill is setting up. It is setting up at the cost of quality and quality provision. We know, from overseas research, that there have been dire consequences for similar changes that have been made in other jurisdictions. Be that on people’s heads who support this bill, if that is going to be the outcome here. From what we are seeing with this ideological approach, I would hate to think that, as a Parliament, we were setting our young people up to be in a really unsafe situation. This is exactly what we are doing if we pass this piece of legislation into law. We heard that from so many different sources during the select committee process.

Another part of this piece of legislation—I just want to finish within my final part of this contribution—that came up time and time again, from many of the submitters, was the omission of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in this legislation. We heard, “Look, it would be too hard because it’s in the primary legislation.” Actually, this bill is setting it up to water that down because it is not there and not being given the direct notice that it should be. The bill does not recognise Māori as tangata whenua nor ensures Māori participation in decision making. Now, that is of huge concern. When we have got kōhanga reo and puna reo that come under the guise of this bill, that is of huge concern.

Again, I implore members on the other side of the House to think how those parts of our early childhood system are world leading. I have been in other parts of the world where Ministers have said to me: “You have the gold standard of what you’re doing with kōhanga reo and puna reo. Teach us how to do it.” We should be proud. We should be setting that up and standing that up, but instead, we’re taking that away by not making that a big part of the provision of this bill. We are absolutely watering down Māori rights and their values and their perspectives within ECE by what we are doing here.

Once again, that is absolutely disgraceful in this particular space. I absolutely implore members on the other side to think very seriously about what they are doing here—

The member’s time has expired.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Let’s be clear. This Government is happy to sacrifice children and young people for profit. That is what we are seeing here with this bill, and their intentions have been on full display this week on a wide-ranging education bill, whether it is the easy one we are seeing today or the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2) from yesterday.

Let’s unpack why I say that. Let’s start with the fundamental aspect of what parents want to do when sending their children to early childhood education (ECE), other than having it being cost-effective. We’ll talk about cost later, but the most fundamental aspect is health and safety. It’s that they are sending their tamariki to ECE, to kindergarten, to puna reo, and to kōhanga reo, knowing that they are safe when they’re in those kind of places. This bill will do none of that.

It’s all very well for the Ministers to go, like, “Oh well, health and safety is really important for me.”; thoughts and prayers. They are empty words and empty promises with no evidential backing. What is evidential is the fact that the move to deregulate the ECE sector has seen wide-ranging health and safety concerns in Australia, to the point that tamariki are being actively harmed in ECE centres, and to the point that we’re seeing rampant issues of violence and violations in Australia due to deregulation. This Minister and his Government has the gall to come into the House and say that deregulation is helpful for children. For whom, I ask? It’s not for the children. It is for those little corporate elves that are whispering sweet nothings in the Minister’s ear. It is for the international companies that come here and take advantage of our tamariki and our whānau. When you are looking at health and safety here, we are seeing—and we will see more and more of this—our tamariki being harmed.

Let’s move on to another aspect of what this bill is doing: taking the bill out of the hands of the Ministry of Education and putting it in the hands of ERO, the Education Review Office. Now, what that does is send a clear signal that the Minister and the Government doesn’t care about ECE teachers because they are moving to de-professionalise ECE so that they can pay the staff less. We have just recently, over the last few days, seen an ad saying, “Look, now is your chance. Staff can be paid at a lower rate.” How wonderful is that for our children? That is shameful. It is shameful that that kind of ad is even allowed to be up.

When we are looking at this bill, part of the thing that the Minister mentioned is the genesis of this bill is based on a Ministry for Regulation’s report. Now let’s unpack that Ministry for Regulation’s report, which we have done in the select committee stage. We also asked the Minister at that stage, “Well, how did you come about with this report, and how did this report actually shape the bill itself?” Because, number one, when the report was conducted, it had a number of leading questions, but also when we’re looking at the actual report itself, there was no genuine data that had been presented. Instead, it was a lot of hot takes from the Minister for Regulation on what they think and how they choose to interpret the data. That’s not genuine independent research. That is leading research and wanting a particular kind of outcome.

So when we did question the Minister in the select committee stage, the Minister was like, “Oh, you know, maybe, the report isn’t everything, etc.” But we asked the Minister, “Well, you based this bill on that report. How did you base this bill on that report if the Minister himself does not have full confidence in the report?” So we actually don’t know where this bill came from, to be perfectly honest.

Also, when we are looking at certain sections of this bill, let’s say in terms of the new role of records of regulations, we’re seeing, again, that for a Government that is all about deregulation and cutting all of the tapes, they certainly love to create a lot of new additional roles, additional bureaucracy, and additional yellow and blue tape. So I think that there is so little information in the select committee stage about how that Director of Regulation is going to eventuate, particularly, as the previous speaker, the Hon Jan Tinetti, has articulated, about when the Director of Regulation is going to be formed. They are also going to be overseeing kōhanga reo and puna reo, yet there is no evidence in here that says anything about our commitment to Te Tiriti o Waitangi. In fact, the regulatory impact statement said there has been limited ability to consult with Māori on this bill. Why? Because the Minister doesn’t want to hear from Māori on this bill, or from the general population, or from kōhanga reo or from puna reo, because it doesn’t suit their agenda.

I mentioned in the beginning that this is part of a broader attack by this Government on the ECE sector. We’re also seeing the fact that there is an ECE funding review that has been happening again on how we can squeeze more money out of parents and out of Government, and how we can really scrape the bottom of the barrel in terms of staff ratio, in terms of teacher qualifications, in order for those international companies coming in here and buying up our ECE centres to funnel the money offshore. That is what we are going to be seeing in this whole ECE reform package. That is not the intention of early childhood education. That should not be any Government’s intention for the future of our tamariki and mokopuna.

We want to see safe and thriving children and young people here, but this bill is not going to achieve that. This bill is not going to achieve the fact that the top comment and the top ask from qualified ECE teachers is to have a better ratio for student teachers. We are seeing that teachers are working longer and longer hours in ECE centres. They are having more and more of a burden, I guess, in many ways placed on them because of the ratio and because they are looking after more children. They are asking for better support, and from a Government that talks about how much money they are putting into learning access in this year’s Budget—not a single cent of that has gone to ECE. We have not seen an increase in the education support workers’ hours that are provided for children and for tamariki in early childhood education settings. That is the ask of the sector, and that is the ask of the teachers because we are seeing more tamariki with more needs manifesting.

For a Government that talks about educational outcomes, by having unregistered teachers in the ECE setting, how are we going to be preparing our tamariki for entry into primary school if this bill goes through? So, again, we want to see safe and thriving children and we are deeply concerned that this bill is going to take us backwards and we are going to be putting tamariki in harm’s way.

There are a lot more things that I think this bill could potentially tidy up on, and we’re happy to engage with the Minister during the committee of the whole House stage, but the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand will not and will never support this bill.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

If I was on that side of the House this morning, I would be embarrassed by the scaremongering they are creating in this House. I am lucky that I have a 17-week-old daughter this week, but I’m lucky because she’s not my first. We have children in early childhood education and we know the value of the work that teachers do across this county in early childhood education right now. But if she was my first and I had to watch what these guys have been saying in this House about the challenges they are creating in their minds and in the minds of New Zealanders about early childhood education, I would be worried about the education my daughter would be going into. But I want to assure New Zealanders that it’s not the truth. The truth is that this bill will support the development of early childhood education in this country, and, therefore, I commend it to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. This bill follows what I think was some really good work. It’s good to see the Ministry for Regulation finding its feet and doing some good work. If we want our country to be more prosperous and if we want to be wealthier, we have to reduce red tape in some places.

I heard the words “gold standard” uttered by Jan Tinetti, and, look, I can well recall a number of early childhood education centres which were looking to upgrade what they were. They wanted to go from, if you like, bronze standard, and silver standard was all that they could afford to do, but the ministry would say to them, “No, if you can’t make gold, forget it. You’re not going to go anywhere.”, and so they had to stick with bronze standard.

I also heard, as Carl Bates has said, a lot of scaremongering from the Opposition parties about things like health and safety. Those are all in the bill. There is the primary purpose and a whole bunch of objectives, and that includes health and safety. I think that the Opposition is misrepresenting this bill, and I commend the bill to the House.

Kua tipu hei oranga mō te iwi Māori

Mā te Matua i te rangi hei ārahi te kōhanga

Nō reira mauria mai ō tamariki

ki te kōhanga reo

[It has grown for the wellbeing of the Maori people

May our Father in heaven lead the Kohanga

Therefore, bring your children

to the kōhanga reo]

This is probably one of the most colonial, violent pieces of legislation to move into this House. I go back to a time as a graduate of te kōhanga reo, and when I was at the kōhanga reo, it was driven by community, it was driven by elders, it was driven by hapū, and it was driven by iwi kōrero and mātauranga. This particular bill takes that power away from our people. It takes away the ability to ground our tamariki in who they truly are. It takes away the ability for our people to live by design and not by default. This particular bill is probably one of the most atrocious bills I have seen in regards to Māori being able to live their best lives and being able to grow tamariki mokopuna to stand strong, to stand tall, and to stand true to who they really are.

We don’t need monocultural perspectives. We don’t need monocultural subjugation and assimilation projects and experiments. What we need is to allow our people to live with dignity, integrity, and rangatiratanga. This bill strips away all of that. It takes away the cloak of safety that Te Tiriti o Waitangi provides, not just to Māori tamariki but to every tamaiti in this country. To then move it to a ministry and a Minister who has openly attacked Te Tiriti o Waitangi, who has openly attacked te reo Māori, and who has openly attacked the rights of tangata whenua here in Aotearoa is absolutely appalling. That this Government will allow that, after years and years of support for kaupapa like kōhanga reo and puna reo—this particular party and past MPs that have supported kaupapa like kōhanga reo and puna reo would be ashamed. They would be ashamed that they have allowed this piece of legislation to go through this House.

They gave an ability for Māori to be able to build a kaupapa that was grounded in te ao Māori. This iteration of a National Government and a National Party disregards the mahi that their forefathers and those who have gone through this House before them have left. It was a legacy that allowed a relationship to be built—albeit incremental, albeit very slow—but at least they were listening to the people outside of this House. They have forgotten the voices outside this House. They have forgotten those who matter. They are out of touch—they are out of touch. What we need to do is just have a look at the history books, have a look at the Hansard, have a look at what past National Governments have done to ensure that Māori were able to build kōhanga reo and were able to build puna reo.

But what we have done is moved it under a Minister that has a fetish to discriminate iwi Māori, not only its language but Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

What a load of absolute nonsense!

It’s all in your legislation. What we want to do is to say that Te Pāti Māori are absolutely and unequivocally opposed to this bill. At the second reading, we hope that the National Government and the National Party find the heart that they have had in the past to ensure that this bill doesn’t go through, and allow Māori to live by design and not by default. Kia ora tātou.

Before I take the next half of the split call, can I just remind members that the conversation does not happen across the House. If you want to have a conversation with anyone else that’s not speaking, take it out into the corridor. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to take a call on the Education and Training (Early Childhood Education Reform) Amendment Bill. Before I begin my speech properly, I just wanted to acknowledge two of the previous speakers from the Government benches: Andy Foster and Carl Bates. They’re very able and intelligent people, so it surprised me that they couldn’t do full calls on this, that they did sub-one-minute speeches. I had a think: why would these intelligent, thoughtful members have such short contributions to a debate? I think it’s because they know that this bill is actually indefensible, so they can’t muster up any kind of defence to what this Government is doing, which is actually continuing the deregulation agenda that has begun from their term. We’ve seen the impacts of the deregulation agenda on our electricity markets and we’ve seen the impact of deregulation on the monopoly power that our supermarkets enjoy. So this is just continuing a trend that has immiserated New Zealanders.

Now, we have specific objections to this bill that were articulated already quite nicely by the previous Green speaker, but I’ll go through them again. One of the concerns that we have is the speed at which this legislation and all the wider Government reforms are actually taking place. It’s a policy blitzkrieg because they know that they’re on their way out already and they’re trying to rush through as much legislation as they can on their way out.

One of our concerns, as well, is the opaque consultation that has occurred. We know that the genesis of this bill and the report that it relies on was the regulatory review that the Ministry for Regulation did. We know that that report ignored the research evidence relating to teaching and learning; we know that the ministry chose not to proactively release the data collected from the consultation; and we know that this is a trend and that it doesn’t have to be this way, because we’ve seen other bills where they’ve actually released the information proactively. We know that this bill creates potential risks for people not only working in the sector but for the people that they’re servicing, the children who are in these centres.

One of the main recommendations of the genesis of this, which was the Ministry for Regulation’s regulatory review on the early childhood education (ECE) sector, was to remove HS5, which is safe assembly areas for children in the event of fires and emergency. We see this sort of thinking permeate with the shift to risk-based monitoring that this bill is proposing to do. We on this side of the House think that’s potentially dangerous, and it’s dangerous because we know that the number of emergency events in New Zealand has only risen quite precipitously since—well, it’s been increasing constantly.

One of the things that you do when you’re a new MP is you get taken to the bunker and they show you the number of emergencies that New Zealand has had. There’s a little chart that they show you that shows the number of emergency management events that have occurred in New Zealand. There’s been quite a rapid explosion over the past 10 years. So the removal of safe assembly areas, and the shift to risk-based monitoring that this bill is proposing to shift towards, is really a retrograde step in the wrong direction and it’s something that will potentially compromise the safety of the tamariki in the centres but it also potentially compromises the staff and also the wellbeing of the parents.

We also know that the child impact statement was not produced as part of the consideration for this bill, and Mana Mokopuna were not genuinely engaged in the development of this bill. We know that this uneven scrutiny invites breaches of trust, places children and families at risk, and risks jeopardising our obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. We know that this will further undermine the confidence of parents, whānau, and the community in our ECE provision.

With the remaining 10 seconds that I have left on this bill, I want to reiterate our opposition not only to this bill but to the wider deregulation agenda that this bill represents. Kia ora.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call on the Education and Training (Early Childhood Education Reform) Amendment Bill in its second reading. At the Education and Workforce Committee we did hear from a wide range of people and we were ably supported, and I want to say thanks to all the submitters and all the staff who supported us in this process.

The bill that has come through is a sensible one that focuses on safety, and it makes sure that it clarifies regulations for the education providers so that they can be there for the children and have a better opportunity to be able to start up businesses and therefore improve competition and reduce costs across the board. I commend the bill to the House.

Thanks, Madam Speaker. So just by way of a bit of context for my comments, there’s no doubt in my mind that the expansion of early childhood education over the last, let’s say, two decades - plus has been one of the really important advances in New Zealand’s social provision. It’s become an indispensable service for so many families now who rely on one or both parents working in order to feed the family. So from a sheer economic point of view, it’s become a vital part of modern life for families in New Zealand. It’s now widely accepted, I think, that high-quality early childhood education is one of the best social interventions we can make to give our children the best possible start in life. It’s one of the most powerful things we can do to improve the life chances of our people.

We have, through successive Governments, kind of pieced together, layer upon layer, a mixed model of public funding—public provision and private provision. That has its pros and cons. There’s a strong view amongst the non-profit providers in the early childhood education (ECE) sector that the competitive pressures inherent in the market actually tend to cut against the really important quality aspects of early childhood education that are so important: that is, highly qualified teachers, appropriate teacher-to-student ratios, an emphasis on child development and really positive learning environment, safety, and the wellbeing of the students.

There are, of course, many privately run early childhood education providers that do a fantastic job. My granddaughter’s just graduated to the local primary school. She spent more than two years with a local ECE that is privately run, and the quality of that centre and the teaching and the overall environment was outstanding. But nevertheless, I think the tensions that are inherent to this kind of mixed model are a really sensitive issue that this House should pay attention to.

The suspicion from the beginning of this process that the Minister, David Seymour, initiated with his review of the regulatory settings has been that it was a move by an ACT Party Minister to pursue a competitive market approach to the provision of early childhood education that would further privilege the market position of privately owned early childhood education centres. I think that suspicion has been reinforced with the emergence of this bill, with the submissions that we heard at select committee. I think that many in the sector—in the non-profit part of the sector, particularly—would say their suspicions have been borne out. What we see with this bill is that it puts in place a new regulatory framework, the appointment or the establishment of a new director of regulation whose mandate is framed primarily around the economic imperative to make it easier for parents to get back into the workforce.

Now, of course, that is important; that’s part of the equation. But, we ask, why isn’t the important framing for this new measure the quality of early childhood education: learning, the safety and wellbeing of the children who are in that system? That seems really to put the cart before the horse. If there’s a part of the education system where the wellbeing of the students and their safety should be paramount, surely it should be the early childhood sector.

The bill also establishes a number of principles that the director must have regard to. That includes the health, safety, and wellbeing of the children; it includes their learning and their development; the role of parents and caregivers; and that good regulatory practice must be risk-based, proportionate, fair, and transparent, and avoid imposing unnecessary costs on parents, caregivers, and service providers. The effect of that and the overall framing of this provision, we believe, is to move the dial in the direction of low-cost regulation that will remove the regulatory burden on providers and away from what we think should be the paramount objectives, and that is the safety, wellbeing, and the educational experience of the students.

There’s been a lot of criticism, and it needs to be noted that the process has been rushed, consultation has been limited, and that has, I think, further undermined confidence of much of the sector in this regulatory process. Ultimately, we’ll see in the work of the director of regulation and what that position delivers. We’ll see whether or not, in fact, the fears that the sector have that this is simply a Trojan horse to run the sector along purely market and competitive lines—we’ll see, in time, whether in fact those concerns are borne out. I’ll leave that there. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s great to take this short call on a very important bill. Listening to the Opposition, anyone would think that the world was going to end. Actually, we’re very focused on providing an early childhood education (ECE) sector that is both safe and provides high-quality education for young children. But what we do have to remember is parents. Remember the parents in this situation: the parents actually need the ability to find an ECE facility to use, and to also have the ability to afford it. This bill will allow both of those things to happen, and I commend it to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for this opportunity to talk on the Education and Training (Early Childhood Education Reform) Amendment Bill. Of course, those words are important: early childhood education. We are not talking about daycares or childcares; this is childhood education. It is not babysitting, and I’ll come to that point in a minute, but I want to start on a positive note, and that is that I’m standing here as the member of Parliament for Dunedin. Of course, Dunedin is famous for many things: amazing wildlife, beautiful heritage, an amazing university, and—

Amazing businesses.

—some amazing businesses. That’s right; lots of innovation. It’s a great city. There’s a real emphasis on education there.

As part of their emphasis on education, there has been the world-renowned longitudinal study—the Dunedin study—of people that are now, I can’t remember, 52 or 53. This study has gone for over 50 years now, over half a century, looking at, and following, about a thousand people over that half-decade and more, and they bring them back to Dunedin every seven or so years—it depends on the age that they’re at—and they do a lot of different testing and studying with these wonderful people, who’ve given up so much of their life to be part of that study. From this study, there have been lots of pieces of research, and one of those has demonstrated the importance of the first 1,000 days of life. Of course, for many children, those first thousand days of life will involve an early childhood education centre. This legislation is incredibly important because it deals with those first thousand days.

I also want to add, in my being a person from Dunedin, that I’m also a mother from Dunedin and have had all three of my children go through an excellent early childhood education centre attached to the hospital, and so I know what it feels like as a parent to have your children being educated by trained teachers with good ratios. What a difference that made to my comfort in going back into the workforce. It’s so important that we recognise their expertise and also the stresses that are on that workforce.

Of course, I’ve also been talking to NZEI in Dunedin and the teachers there that are very opposed to this legislation and have problems with both this legislation and the other regulations that the Minister has referred to. I want to go to who does the regulating. That is an issue that the Minister addressed in his speech on the second reading. He said that it’s good to separate the regulatory body from the policy body. That is a common thing that we see in regulatory systems, but it’s also good—and, I would argue, much, much, much more important—that the regulated isn’t doing the regulating. One of our concerns with the bill is that the industry who is now providing for some of this childhood education will set those standards and will become the regulator. That is of great concern because, of course, they have other incentives there, like the ability to keep on doing their business, which is this childcare. That is a concern and that is my answer to the Minister. Of course, we’ve seen that from ACT in other settings, as well, most recently with farm plans. This is where the industry is doing the regulation rather than a Government body.

I also want to quickly touch on these changes to the purpose of Part 2 of the Act, and that is where the focus becomes on the parents participating in the labour market rather than on all children being able to participate and receive a strong foundation for learning and positive wellbeing. That is a terrible change, and we’ll have more to say about that in the committee of the whole House stage. I do not recommend this bill to the House.

It’s a great honour to rise in support of the Education and Training (Early Childhood Education Reform) Amendment Bill in this reading. I agree with the previous speaker: this is about education. If we tie up our educators with a high compliance burden, that’s less time for genuine educational engagement and children interaction. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House.

Kia ora, Madam Speaker. As I rise to reflect on this piece of legislation and, I guess, echo the words of my colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking, who was talking about the Dunedin study, I say that I was about two years old and I was too young. I think it was about 1972 that that was first initiated, and I was born in Dunedin in 1975. So—

A great year.

A great year—but it was. As my honourable colleague has said, the significance of that piece of work and its reputation not only in New Zealand but globally demonstrates the fact that good data and tracking for a long time is what we need to be doing. That was about the role of nurturing a baby from conception right through that first 1,000 days, but often I reflect that now a lot of the research and work talks about the first 2,000 days, and that is the thinking about the fact that the time of conception through to the time a child can start school is significant and is so important in terms of the foundation. It is so important in terms of attachment, and you can look at all the research when it comes to not only early childhood education but also the make-up of a whānau and a community.

Attachment is such a key element when it comes to the wellbeing and the potential that a child has to grow into an adult who can participate in society in a productive way. All the research and the evidence shows that, and often in this House it does concern me—and I talk from all colours of Government—that at times we do ignore research or evidence. That is unhelpful, particularly when it comes to our youngest and particularly when it comes to the foundation, which means, if we get it right in those first 1,000 days and in the first 2,000 days, there is far more chance and likelihood that children will be, as I’ve said, those productive and engaged members of society.

I didn’t sit on the Education and Workforce Committee for this bill, and so I have just a few comments that I wanted to make as I’ve read through the regulatory impact statement (RIS), as I’ve looked briefly through the bill, and as I’ve listened to colleagues on all sides of the House debating this legislation this morning. I want to reflect on some of the comments in the RIS, and often we hear—particularly as this was brought to the House by the Ministry for Regulation, and the leader of the ACT Party, and the current Deputy Prime Minister—that it’s all around the money and it’s all around the cost.

I flicked through the RIS, looking at the cost impacts and what it means and what was presented to the Cabinet, what was presented to the select committee, and what’s been presented to the House this afternoon in terms of the cost benefits. For those who haven’t read one of these documents before, it goes through and it can be fairly methodical at times, and at times there can be lots of bits missing. When we look at this one this afternoon, we can look at the cost and there is, it says here, an outline of the key monetarised and non-monetarised costs, where those costs fall for people and organisations or the environments, the nature of those impacts, and the direct impacts that the cost of a piece of legislation like this will have. I looked at it, and it’s just missing. It’s completely redacted.

Obviously, we know that there are different reasons that information is redacted when it comes to the RIS, but the fact is that the whole section on the cost—the core information around this bill—has absolutely nothing that we can take as a House and there is nothing that we can take as a select committee around the cost implications. Whether it’s good or whether it’s bad, we don’t know, because it is completely missing, and that is always a challenge for us, as we in Opposition want to critique, want to understand, and want to find a way forward that shows that maybe, potentially, there is something good about this. But we don’t know because it is missing.

My second comment that I want to make—and my colleague the Hon Phil Twyford, who did sit on the select committee, brought this up briefly—is around the limitations and constraints on analysis on this piece of legislation. Again, we go through the RIS and look at the information that is at hand, and it talks about there being several limitations or constraints on the regulatory analysis outlined in this RIS. That is due to the limitations on the rigour and depth of analysis undertaken as part of the review. It talks about the ministerial direction to accept the findings and recommendations of the review and the ministerial direction to develop and implement the policy response at pace.

It is talking about trying to reduce regulatory burden for the service providers, but then it goes on to say that there are limited opportunities to test the key assumptions underpinned by some of the findings and the recommendations of the review and considered alternative options. That’s because time wasn’t allowed to make this happen, that is because they weren’t able to necessarily engage with all the stakeholders and key people that they needed to, and that is a challenge when we come back to the House. Not only is the select committee having to unpack it but then we come here in the second reading and, again, when we move into the committee stage to debate, to unpack, and to pull this apart to ensure that it actually has some decency when it ends up—if it does—having its third reading and having the Royal assent.

It talks about there being limited time to undertake a detailed analysis. There just was not time for them to engage with that, and then there was the lack of consultation with key stakeholders—including service providers, parents, and Māori—on these policy proposals, and that is a challenge for us, because we often talk about what the role of the Opposition is. The role of the Opposition is to critique, the role of the Opposition is to hold the Government to account, and the role of the Opposition is, yeah, to pull it apart. Potentially, we might not agree with every bill—in fact, on many of them that are currently coming through, we very rarely agree—but if we have to deal with it, it’s around how do we pull it apart and put it back together in a way that maybe is acceptable, not only to us as the Opposition but to the key stakeholders, to the families, and the people involved. But the challenge we have is that, yet again, it’s a rushed process and so there’s limited analysis and there’s little understanding of the cost, and that is where we have to say no, we can’t continue to support this legislation in its form, because we are just not happy with where it’s landed.

Finally, I just wanted to talk about the shift away from the child-centred approach that this legislation brings, and that is of concern for us. Again, as the Hon Rachel Brooking and I have talked about the first 1,000 days—and others in the House have nodded and agreed—we say that the child-centred approach should always be the key. With every piece of legislation—whether it be about children, whether it be about early childhood education, or whatever it is about—we should always focus on ensuring that there is a child-centred approach, and in this legislation the concern is that the child development, the wellbeing, and the learning are at risk because of the way that this legislation is put together.

The stakeholders actually talked about the fear and the concern that they have about this, and about the intrinsic value that play brings, that exploration brings, and that holistic learning brings in terms of a child’s development. We look at this bill, and it feels like it’s just around the economic development and participation—how to actually make it work from an economic development perspective—whereas it should be from a child-centred perspective. It should be about creativity, it should be about play, it should be about exploration, and it should be about the social and emotional foundations that we build when we talk about those first 1,000 and 2,000 days, to ensure that a child is equipped and ready to face the big, wide world out there, which is so challenging and tough.

We can’t support this bill. It fundamentally goes against many of the values and what we stand for as the Labour Party, and I know that other colleagues in the Opposition agree with that, as well. We cannot support this bill, and we ask the Government to consider voting against it. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to take the final call on the Education and Training (Early Childhood Education Reform) Amendment Bill. I agree with the comments made by my wonderful colleagues as they have traversed this bill, and we do not agree with many of the comments from the other side. We support the bill, and I commend the bill to the House.

The question is that the amendments recommended by the Education and Workforce Committee by majority be agreed to.

Members, that is the end of Tuesday’s day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m.

The House adjourned at 1 p.m. (Wednesday)

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

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

I move, That this House acknowledge today, the National Day of Reflection for survivors of abuse in State and faith-based care.

One year ago today, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, on behalf of this House of Representatives and Governments past and present, apologised for the abuse and neglect suffered by children, young people, and vulnerable adults in State and faith-based care, and for the torture of children and young people at the Lake Alice child and adolescent unit. It was an apology that this House acknowledges, while meaningful for many survivors, can never undo the harm, the trauma, and the disenfranchisement inflicted on tens of thousands of people who should have been protected and cared for, and, instead, they were utterly let down and were failed.

Today, a year on from the apology, marks the National Day of Reflection. Around New Zealand, 65 events led by survivor communities and their supporters are commemorating the day in ways that are important to them. It is important that this House acknowledge today the harm that was caused to so many and the devastating impact it has had on their lives, and the critical and ongoing work that I know every member across this Parliament is committed to do to ensure that such terrible events can never happen again, so that the wrongs of the past are not repeated.

Two petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.

Petition of Terry Morris requesting that the House require members to pledge that they will resign if, with the exclusion of cosmetic treatment, they use any health service other than those funded by the Government

petition of Nicola Harris requesting that the House update the Child Support Act to pay penalties for non-compliance to the receiving parent, give IRD powers to take harsher enforcement action against non-paying parents, and improve the IRD administration review process.

Those petitions are referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered five papers.

2024-25 annual reports of:

the Electricity Authority

Maritime New Zealand

Real Estate Authority

Tourism New Zealand

2024-25 Statement of Performance Expectations of the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission.

Those papers are published under the authority of the House. No select committee reports have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. No bills have been introduced.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I wish to make a ministerial statement on the report by the Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA) into their review of police handling of complaints against Jevon McSkimming. I want to acknowledge the Independent Police Conduct Authority for their comprehensive work on the report. Complaints were referred to the IPCA on 10 October 2024 that included allegations of sexual interaction without consent, threats to use an intimate visual recording, and misuse of a police credit card and police property to further a sexual relationship. These included both allegations of criminal conduct and potential breaches of the police code of conduct. The allegations arose from a sexual relationship between the complainant and Jevon McSkimming that developed in 2016.

The IPCA’s findings reveal significant flaws in decision making, judgment, and actions, and are made in respect of a very small group of people in the former police executive, including the former Commissioner of Police, two deputy police commissioners, and an assistant police commissioner. The IPCA found that no effective action was taken when a comment was made on social media at the time of McSkimming’s appointment as a deputy police commissioner.

It found that no action was taken by senior police officers after the Fixated Threat Assessment Centre recommended referral of the allegations contained in hundreds of emails, three 105 reports, and a social media comment to the National Integrity Unit and the IPCA. Complaints made to 105 about police officers are required by statute and agreement to be notified to the IPCA. This was not done. The only action taken was to investigate and prosecute the complainant under the Harmful Digital Communications Act.

When a preliminary investigation was initiated, the terms of reference were inappropriately worded and did not comply with police’s adult sexual assault policy. The matter, when referred to the IPCA, saw the then police commissioner attempt to influence the nature and extent of the IPCA’s investigation and its time frame. Others in police perceived this as a clear attempt to ensure the investigation did not impact McSkimming’s prospects of being appointed as his successor.

The IPCA also found that there were repeated failures and inadequacies by the then police commissioner to disclose information relating to the allegations to the Public Service Commission during processes for McSkimming’s appointment to his first statutory deputy role and then later around his potential appointment as acting police commissioner.

The behaviour outlined in the report is utterly disgraceful. We cannot forget that at the very core of this is a woman who was severely let down by the previous police executive and the system. As a father of daughters and an uncle of nieces, I cannot express how frustrated and disappointed I have been since becoming aware of the situation. In making this statement, I want to acknowledge those staff highlighted in the review as having showed exceptional moral courage. They have done themselves, their colleagues, and their organisation proud.

I also want to acknowledge the 15,000 dedicated men and women in police who serve and protect our communities with distinction and bravery every day. I’m incredibly proud of our outstanding front-line staff. They have, as Commissioner Chambers has said, been let down. I can assure her and all New Zealanders that the Government is taking these findings extremely seriously. On becoming police Minister, I have been unequivocal in my expectations of police that conduct and integrity must be held at the highest standard across the police service.

I have acted decisively at every juncture. On 6 November 2024, Andrew Coster informed me that there was an IPCA investigation into Jevon McSkimming surrounding an affair that he had had and that had soured. He informed me that there was a female before the courts for harassing McSkimming. The narrative I was presented was consistent with the narrative highlighted in the IPCA report that McSkimming was a victim. I want to stress that at this stage this is all I or the Government knew.

The IPCA investigation raised questions as to whether McSkimming was fit and proper to carry out the duties of acting police commissioner. Given that Coster was soon to leave the police and having been appointed to another role, the following day, I met with the Public Service Commission and the Solicitor-General. I was concerned about McSkimming’s ongoing fit and proper person status in relation to his current warrant and the ongoing prosecution of the complainant.

I met again with both parties on 13 November raising similar concerns. On 14 November, I wrote to acting commissioner Tania Kura to highlight my concern that investigations are properly and carefully conducted to form the basis for advising the Prime Minister of McSkimming’s fit and proper person status. I received a reply the next day that it had been agreed that McSkimming would be placed on special leave.

On 11 December, further information was elevated to me by the new commissioner about the police investigation into the complaints against McSkimming. I instructed the Public Service Commission to commence a process to suspend McSkimming’s warrant pending the result of that investigation. The warrant was suspended on 23 December 2024.

In early May this year, I was informed of another investigation surrounding objectionable material found on McSkimming’s police laptop. On learning of this, I advised the Public Service Commission that I was no longer satisfied that he remained a fit and proper person to hold statutory office. Three days later, this information was presented to McSkimming, and the following Monday, 12 May, he chose to resign. If he had not done that, his warrant would have been revoked.

The New Zealand police enjoy strong public trust and confidence. It is imperative that this trust is maintained, and that comes with strong action on the part of the Government and the police. The Government and the police have accepted the IPCA’s recommendations. These adverse findings should not be seen as a reflection on our police service as a whole. Like most Kiwis and our police officers, I’m extremely disappointed at what has been revealed by this report. I want the public to be assured that this Government takes this seriously and is working to do everything we need to do to prevent this happening again. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It is clear from the Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA) report that senior police failed the woman at the centre of this report, and they also failed New Zealanders. It is inexcusable and a complete failure of duty. The handling of these complaints did not meet the standards of transparency, fairness, or independence expected of New Zealand Police. The report shows that internal processes were influenced by rank and relationships rather than by impartiality and professionalism.

When a woman is brave enough to come forward with serious allegations against a senior officer, she should be treated with respect and have confidence that her complaint will be investigated without fear or favour. That did not happen. This was not just a failure of process; it was a failure of leadership, accountability, and duty to the public of New Zealand. Police now have a significant job ahead of them to restore public confidence. The integrity of our police is built on public trust. Every day, New Zealanders rely on police to uphold the law, protect our communities, and respond to moments of crisis. That relationship only works if people believe that police act impartially, regardless of rank, regardless of reputation. When misconduct by senior officers is mishandled, it damages that trust. It makes it harder for victims to come forward.

The IPCA has made it clear that while many parts of the organisation operate with integrity, the systems at the top are not yet strong enough to ensure accountability in every case. Rebuilding confidence will require visible, sustained action, not just words. With that, I believe the culture within the New Zealand Police needs to change to make sure this never happens again. The IPCA’s report acknowledges that the organisation has made major progress since 2007, with the Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct, led by Dame Margaret Bazley. That inquiry made 60 recommendations to strengthen ethics, independence, and complaint processes. Police did respond. They established a code of conduct, ethics training, and policies to ensure independence in investigations. The AuditorGeneral monitored progress for 10 years, and further reviews in 2017 and 2022 recognise substantial improvements, but it is important, as the IPCA itself notes, that while police have made significant advances towards a more positive culture since the Bazley inquiry, the findings graphically demonstrate that the settings in place to protect and enhance integrity are still not sufficiently robust to enable the public to have confidence that police will do their job without fear or favour.

There needs to be a sustained plan of action to effect further substantial change. That is the challenge right now: to maintain the positive gains and culture while eliminating the negative patterns that persist at senior levels. It is within all of our interests, across all political parties, to ensure that the New Zealand public have sufficient trust and confidence in the New Zealand Police that they can report a crime, be listened to, and have it investigated thoroughly. That trust is essential. It underpins every part of policing in our country, from community safety to serious crime investigations. Without it, people hesitate to come forward, and they lose faith that justice will be done.

Labour supports the changes set to be made by the commissioner and the Government to restore public confidence, including the appointment of an Inspector-General of Police. Independent oversight is essential. The new inspector-general will provide a safeguard to ensure that investigations into police misconduct, particularly at senior levels, are fair, consistent, and free from internal influence. Labour supports this reform alongside broader measures to strengthen police integrity, such as enhanced leadership, accountability, continued ethics training, and stronger whistleblowing protections. We will also support the commissioner’s efforts to rebuild trust, provided that these efforts are transparent and measurable.

Every day, officers go to work. They do it with integrity, professionalism, and genuine care for their communities. Those officers deserve leaders who uphold the same values they live by every day. This report makes it clear that at the most senior levels, that standard was not met. When leadership fails, it damages the morale within the organisation and erodes public confidence outside it. Strong leadership is not only about management; it is about setting an example of integrity, accountability, and transparency. That is what front-line officers do every single day. That is what the public expects from the top.

We want to recognise the mana of the most important person in this entire report, and that is the mana of the woman—the brave, courageous woman—who came forward, the woman who is a survivor. On this particular day, we wish to acknowledge every survivor of any form of abuse by any person in a position of power or influence over that person. It’s particularly stinging to have to discuss this on this particular day. The headlines are taken up by this matter instead of being a platform for amplification of the voices of survivors today. Instead, it is being highlighted by the actions and behaviour of people in the highest ranks of the police—the police; people we are told to trust, and people that we are told are here to keep us safe.

I want to acknowledge that I’m glad that we got this report, and that it is a real shame that the Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA) only have the resource to investigate 2 percent of all of the total cases that are reported to them. We have been saying for a long time that the police needs higher levels of oversight over their conduct. Let’s be clear: this is a not a case of one man’s actions; there were multiple senior police officers, including the former police commissioner, who all colluded to cover up genuine complaints of abuse and misconduct.

The way that these allegations were covered up is perhaps the most disturbing part. They took a relationship between a senior police official and a woman 20 years his junior, where a clear power imbalance existed, and where there was alleged abuse, and they charged her—they charged her. They failed her, and she is not the only one. That is the reason why 94 percent of sexual assaults in this country go unreported to the police.

I want to quote from a meeting I had this morning with survivors about this very case: “Silence protects those who cause harm.” More importantly, in the way in which this case unfolded, and in many cases of survivors of abuse in State care, police can be obstacles to justice, but they shouldn’t be, and all of us should make sure that they are not.

The new police inspector-general adds another layer of oversight, but I want to add some of the things that we are pushing for to add further accountability to the police. We want all police to wear body cameras. It’s what corrections officers do; we think that the police should do the same thing. We want better resourcing for the Independent Police Conduct Authority, and we want them to have power to discipline officers at whatever rank they sit in, and we want the IPCA to have the power to actually change police practices, including directing the police commissioner himself. Lastly, we want greater limits and safeguards on police power and discretion, including in regard to arrest, entry, search, and seizure.

Now, we have some questions for the Minister of Police in relation to this report. We want to know which of the IPCA’s recommendations the Government will be implementing, and by when. Will the Government be looking to introduce any legislation that amends the Policing Act before the end of the year, given the graveness of this situation, and given the many statements that have been made about this never happening again? Although, I will note this has happened before. I also want to ask the Minister whether he’s concerned about the impact this cover-up will have on public trust in the police, and what will he be doing to try and repair that.

I’ve noted the issues that the member has brought forward, in terms of the changes they wish to see. In relation to the Independent Police Conduct Authority of New Zealand (IPCA) recommendations, both the police and the Government have been clear that we accept all of those recommendations. In relation to the legislation, probably the Attorney-General will handle this, but there will probably have to be new legislation that will deal with the formation of an inspector-general, and the office will provide a much higher degree of oversight; the ability to go uninvited and look at police processes, prosecutions. We think that level of oversight—it’s timely for that, now.

In terms of public confidence, absolutely; it would be naive to think that there hasn’t been an impact on public confidence. We are dealing with the prior police executive, the most powerful and influential police officers in the country. We’ve all been horrified, I think, to see the findings of the IPCA and how deep that ran, and the behaviour that was exhibited by those officers, but I do also want to reinforce the fact that it was a small group; it wasn’t our entire police service.

By Louise Nicholas’ own comments—and there is no one that has got a stronger or more authoritative voice when speaking to police culture than Louise Nicholas—she acknowledged the police have come a long way in the last 20 years. We have quite simply got outstanding police officers that turn up to work every day, that deal with extremely difficult sexual violence, family violence cases. They show empathy, they are professional, and they guide those cases through court so there can be justice delivered for those people.

I would ask the public to focus their anger and disappointment at the previous police executive, and not at our 15,000 outstanding police men and women who turn up to work every day to protect and serve the communities that they live in.

I have a few additional questions, and I want to thank the Minister for the constructive answers to our questions. I wanted to know whether there was a timeline on that significant piece of work that the Minister talked about and when we can be expecting to see introduction of anything, or when that work might occur. If the Minister has been advised on any timelines, we would like to know that. We also wanted to know whether there would be any space or room for cross-party collaboration on increasing the accountability and oversight of the police, and whether that is something that the Minister would be willing to consider.

To the second part of the question, absolutely. There should be cross-party work on this, and I’m very happy to chair that myself to make sure that work is done. In relation to the first part of your question, we’ve accepted the recommendations, and it would be fair to say that now we will be working as quickly as we can to make sure they are implemented

Does the Minister want to have a right of reply?

I guess all I’d say is that for us a nation and a country, we have all been rocked by the findings of the Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA) report, because it goes to the very heart of what we all have to have trust in, and that is the executive leadership of our police.

The one thing that I would say is that prior to us receiving the IPCA report, there had already been definitive, firm actions taken from both the Government and the new incoming commissioner—well, he just celebrated his first year of his appointment as commissioner—Richard Chambers, a man of integrity, a genuine leader, someone who is deeply connected with his front line and cares about his front-line officers, and someone who understands inherently the responsibility of delivering to the public and maintaining that public confidence.

I guess the one thing that I’d leave you with—and anyone watching our Parliament today—is that we are going to work as hard as we can, whether it be in Government, whether it be me, and whether it be our police commissioner, to make sure that we take the actions, that we deserve to retain that public confidence and support, and that we support our front-line police officers to continue to go out and do the outstanding job that they do every day. Thank you.

Members, I have received a letter from the Hon Willow-Jean Prime seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 the lack of progress on the recommendations from the royal commission’s Report into Historic Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions. Even if I accepted the member’s opinion on the implementation of the recommendations of the royal commission, the absence of action on the part of the Government is not a particular case of recent occurrence that can be raised for urgent debate. I refer members to Speakers’ ruling 222/4. The application is declined.

to the Minister of Finance

What recent reports has she seen on the economy?

Morningstar DBRS, the fourth-largest credit rating agency, recently released for the first time a sovereign credit rating for New Zealand. Morningstar has rated New Zealand with a triple A rating, the highest possible rating. Its view is that the Kiwi economy is rebalancing, economic growth is set to accelerate, and the Government is pursuing a gradual fiscal consolidation, designed in a way that doesn’t cut across this economic recovery. Morningstar’s triple A rating is in line with others. New Zealand also has a triple A rating from Moody’s and has an AA+ rating from both S&P Global and Fitch Ratings.

Why does having a strong sovereign credit rating matter?

It simply means that the Government can borrow on international markets at reasonable rates. The Government borrows regularly for new purposes and to roll over existing debt. The regular weekly bond tender is for $450 million, with additional tenders, typically in the billions of dollars, occurring periodically. That debt has a cost. At present, it’s around $9 billion a year in interest. If our credit rating was downgraded, that interest bill would go up, as lenders would demand compensation for higher risk. That would of course flow through to retail interest rates, as New Zealand would be seen overall as a riskier country. Recently, S&P downgraded France’s credit rating, and French bond yields—that is, the interest rates on French Government debt—rose immediately.

What impact would a ratings downgrade have on the cost of New Zealand’s debt?

Well, it’s hard to isolate the direct impact of a ratings downgrade, because it’s likely that a deteriorating fiscal outlook—which is typically the driver of a downgrade—would already have been largely priced in by financial markets. In other words, interest rates on Government bonds would already have risen, at least in part. As I’ve said, however, French bond yields rose immediately on S&P’s downgrade, and I am advised that a one-notch downgrade to New Zealand’s credit rating could lead to an increase in bond yields of up to around 15 basis points on the day of the downgrade.

What did Morningstar have to say about New Zealand’s ability to maintain its credit rating?

Morningstar said that New Zealand’s credit rating could be downgraded if there was an absence of fiscal consolidation over the medium term, or a severe financial or external shock. Another credit rating agency, Moody’s, has also said recently that downward pressure on New Zealand’s rating would develop if fiscal consolidation was not effective and there was a persistently higher debt burden. It is clear that we cannot take New Zealand’s strong credit rating for granted. Those who seek to ramp up Government spending and debt should think very carefully about what that would do to New Zealand’s hard-won international reputation and to interest costs, which ultimately fall on New Zealand households, businesses, and taxpayers.

to the Prime Minister

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

Yes.

When he said that New Zealand needed to have an honest rather than emotional conversation about asset sales, was he referring to Winston Peters, who said that his proposed asset sales are wanton neoliberalism, failed economics, an admission of failure, and a disaster?

Well, I’m just excited that the member’s come back overnight. He’s learnt a little bit about what a capital raise is versus an asset sale, he’s learnt the difference between equity and debt, and he wants to have another economic conversation—from the man that spent $66 billion and failed to take account for it and didn’t show up to a COVID inquiry. I’d just say to the member: I answered this question yesterday. It’s entirely appropriate that we actually have a more sensible, less political conversation to say, “Are our assets deployed in the optimal way to get the best return to New Zealand taxpayers and citizens and to deliver them benefits?”

Was Winston Peters wrong when he said the Government’s proposal to sell down its remaining interest in Chorus was “creative accounting of the worst sort”, and, if not, in what ways was he wrong?

On Chorus, again, I noticed the member was very confused about equity and debt. They’re two pretty basic concepts in economics, but having watched his public comments in recent weeks—but, again, what we have going on here is a legitimately good inquiry to ask for some advice to say, “Is there a different way to actually offload that debt now rather than later so that we can deploy that money into something—an asset—that would have more benefit to New Zealanders than being tied up in Chorus debt?” We’ll get that advice, take it to Cabinet, have a good chat, and we’ll see where we get to.

If Winston Peters calls the Prime Minister’s explanations “creative accounting of the worst sort” and doesn’t believe what he says on asset sales, why should New Zealanders?

Look, I think it’s a pretty petty line from this member on economics, right? He’s the guy that actually lit the fire. He’s the arsonist that put the economy on fire. Now, he’s complaining about the fire brigade putting it out again. His literacy on anything economics is abysmal. But I just say again: we are looking at things so that we can make sure that our balance sheet, as a Government, is used optimally for the benefit of New Zealanders. The member himself came up with a policy a couple of weeks ago called the Labour future fund. He said he’d based it off Temasek in Singapore. Temasek in Singapore—one of the key hallmarks of that economy is they are able to recycle assets. That’s all that we’re asking for a conversation to take place around.

Does the Prime Minister agree with Labour Party policy council member Craig Rennie that—

No, no, sorry. Hang on. Stop right there. He’s got no responsibility at all for any view, and he can’t express it today. Is there another supplementary?

Does he stand by his statement “If you want a job, you go where the jobs are.”; if so, does he believe the thousands of people in regions like Hawke’s Bay and Gisborne—where there are 78 percent more unemployed people under his leadership than before it—should simply pack up and leave their communities?

Look, the member has a real problem, on any topic, asking questions of this Government, because he abysmally failed. At a time of 3.2 percent unemployment, he created a 60 percent increase in people on jobseeker support. That is unacceptable. We have ambition for young people in New Zealand. We’re not just going to consign them for the welfare list where they can sit there for 18 years. We want them connected to employment, training, and work, and if they have to move to do that, so be it.

Is he saying to the 78 percent increase in unemployment in Gisborne and Hawke’s Bay that they should just pack up and leave the regions?

What I’m saying is that this is a Government that cares about young people on a jobseeker benefit, rather than the last Labour Government that just chucked them out there and didn’t give a toss. We care about them, we think they’ve got potential, we think they’ve got a future; we want them connected to work, employment, and education; and we’re going to do something about it, not just talk about it and watch the unemployment rates go up while unemployment was at the lowest it’s ever been.

Well, does he stand by—

Just hang on. Don’t start until your own team calms down.

Does he stand by his statement “If you can work, you should.”, given the number of unemployed 40- to 44-year-olds has doubled under his watch as Prime Minister, or does he think that people in their 40s are sitting at home playing PlayStation?

I’m just not taking lectures from that member on anything to do with employment policy, given how badly he wrecked the economy. He may wish to be the great gaslighter, forgetting the record, but I’m going to prosecute you on your record, because you deserve to be attached to it. But the bottom line is that we care about getting people into work because we actually think that’s good for people, they have potential, and we are doing everything. We’ve got a great Minister making sure people are prepared and ready to work, and that’s great. [Interruption]

That’s clearly an important exchange that goes on, and there will be an animated position taken from both sides of the House, but it’s going to stop for the rest of the day.

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.

Will he commit to implementing all Government-centred recommendations of the royal commission of inquiry into abuse in care, as called for by survivors?

Yes, this is a Government that’s working its way through the 207 recommendations. We’ve already accepted or partially accepted 85 of those.

Does he accept that not implementing recommendations in the way that the abuse in care report sets out undermines the dignity of survivors of abuse and the point of the sixyear-long royal commission of inquiry, and, if not, why not?

It’s important this is a Government that actually takes those recommendations very seriously. They need to be weighted and considered. There’s 99 more of them to be considered and actioned. But at this point, we have partially accepted or fully accepted 85 of the 207.

Did he scrap the design group’s proposal, which would have been a pathway for meaningful redress for survivors, instead funding the broken and retraumatising existing system?

We considered lots of different approaches to a redress system, but at the end of the day, we decided it would be time-consuming, expensive, and disruptive, and, frankly, these survivors have waited too long. I’m proud of the fact that we’ve put $770 million into Budget 2025 to move this forward.

Does he accept that barring survivors of abuse who later committed crimes from receiving full redress minimises the violence they experienced and lets the Crown off the hook from taking proper responsibility for State harm?

We’ve taken a similar approach to Australia and Scotland, with respect to serious offenders, and we also have an independent decision maker and a robust process for those cases to be considered.

How can adults and children being abused in care today trust that they will be listened to and that things will get better under his Government if even a royal commission of inquiry into 50 years of historic abuse is undermined?

Because they can see the Government apologised on behalf of previous and current Governments a year ago—genuinely, authentically, seriously; has put $775 million immediately into a budget to deal with the redress system; and has actually put a redress system that will ensure that survivors don’t have to wait longer than they have been in order to get action and be able to move forward.

Does the Prime Minister suspect that written supplementary questions means that no matter what his primary answer may have been, he is going to still get asked the same supplementary question?

Again, I would just say I’m answering this question as it’s been asked. I think it’s a serious issue. I think it deserves serious and straight answers.

to the Minister of Transport

What steps has the Government taken to improve productivity in our cities?

Yesterday, the Land Transport Management (Time of Use Charging) Amendment Bill passed its third reading in Parliament, marking a major step forward in tackling congestion and improving productivity on our busiest roads. This is an initiative that’s been talked about in New Zealand for years. I think the first report was back in 1994—

Unblocks congestion, guys.

I was just about to say something nice about you, but maybe I’ll—[Interruption].

That’s enough. Just—don’t hold back, Mr Bishop. Carry on.

In the spirit of generosity and bonhomie, I will say it is great to see that the legislation passed Parliament unanimously.

What is the impact of congestion on our cities?

Travel times in our major cities are up to 30 percent longer than in comparable Australian cities. It’s estimated that congestion in Auckland alone costs up to $2.6 billion by 2026. Sitting in traffic wastes time, it costs money, drags down productivity. Time of use charging is a common-sense tool that encourages people to travel at off-peak times or by other modes. It is fundamentally about keeping our cities moving and improving growth and productivity.

How do we know that time of use charging works?

There’s now a raft of international evidence that time of use charging reduces travel times and improves productivity. For example, the Manhattan congestion pricing scheme in New York has delivered measurable results—only started in January earlier this year. Traffic delays within the zone are down by around 25 percent, average speeds have improved, travel times have improved by about 20 to 30 percent on key corridors, and the net revenue for the programme is supporting major investment in New York public transport infrastructure. The real lesson is that we can do the same here in New Zealand. With the passage of this legislation, now we can.

What are the next steps for time of use charging in New Zealand?

The legislation passed yesterday allows local authorities to partner with New Zealand Transport Agency on targeted time of use schemes. The Government has signalled that Auckland Council will be the first local authority the Government will be looking to partner with, given the importance of Auckland to the national economy. Work by council and Government officials has been under way for some months now. Finally, I do want to thank everyone who helped shape the bill during the select committee process. I think it’s a good scheme, and now we need to get on with it.

How did including the congestion charging proposal in the ACT-National coalition agreement contribute to policy development around the bill?

Well, including it in the coalition agreement certainly helped make it more likely it would happen.

to the Minister of Finance

Does she stand by all her statements and actions?

Well, yes, and in particular I stand by my statement this morning that after yesterday’s failed audition, I am glad to see Barbara Edmonds back.

Nasty!

If it weren’t an Opposition question, and the Opposition’s right to question the Government, that might curtail the question.

How will the Government’s decision to cancel 33 in-progress pay equity claims help women, given that—in comparison to men—Pasifika women have, effectively, been working for free since 9 October, Māori women since 18 October, Asian women since 25 October, and Pākehā women from 25 November?

The Government has ensured that there is a fair pay equity regime in law that allows women to raise claims of under-pay on the basis of gender discrimination, and I note that there doesn’t appear to be a position from the member asking the question about whether she would, in fact, restore the old pay equity regime—so, brave question.

Are the 18,000 women now out of work since she became the Minister of Finance seeing “the green shoots of recovery”?

Treasury analysis makes clear that there are fewer people unemployed now than was being forecast when Labour was in power.

What programmes has the Government delivered to help the 21.3 percent of women who work part-time and want more work since she became the Minister of Finance?

Our Government is committed to fixing the fundamentals of the economy so that more jobs can be created. Most recently, we have put in place a fast-track regime that would allow major private projects to progress at pace. For example, there is now a port development occurring at Auckland port that could’ve been tied up for years, housing developments able to occur across the country—all of which create thousands of jobs. That member opposed that legislation and the jobs it supports.

Who should Kiwi women believe: the Minister of Finance last week, that “a hard-won economic recovery now under way”, or Winston Peters yesterday, that her Government has “failed to run the economy properly”?

Well, they should obviously believe both of us, because we agree that more work needs to be done to clean up the extraordinary mess our three-party coalition inherited from the Labour-led Government. We have to work hard every day to clean it up, and I know New Zealand women are too smart to let Labour trash this economy again.

to the Minister for Tourism and Hospitality

What recent announcement has she made on hospitality in New Zealand?

Last week, we announced that Michelin will be adding New Zealand to the menu for the very first time, showcasing our country’s incredible culinary scene to an international audience. This marks Michelin’s first ever expansion into Oceania after 125 years and is a vote of confidence in our hospitality sector. This announcement not only celebrates our talented people but it marks New Zealand as a go-to destination for international visitors. It means more visitors dining in our restaurants and enjoying all that New Zealand’s hospitality has to offer, supporting small businesses, jobs, and the local economy.

What impact will this announcement have on the tourism and hospitality industry?

This is an incredible opportunity for our hospitality and tourism industry. It will serve up some of our finest chefs and restaurateurs on the world stage. A Michelin selection will also fuel more than appetites; it will encourage more international visitors—

Come talk to my businesses.

—to come and experience New Zealand’s unique—

They do not think this is a good idea.

—food and hospitality offerings. I’m really sad that members opposite, particularly from the Greens, are disparaging our fantastic hospitality sector.

Far from it. We’re standing for them.

Don’t they realise how many people are employed in it, and the fact that it’s growing?

They think this is a waste of money.

Tourism New Zealand cites—

Come at me, Louise.

—87 percent of prospective visitors to New Zealand cite—

Come visit my businesses.

—trying local cuisine as their number one interest in visiting. This means more visitors frequenting our local food and hospitality businesses, which is a real boost for local businesses.

Supplementary.

Just a moment. That exchange across the House is not acceptable, and if it continues through the afternoon, then—on both sides of the House—those participating will be leaving.

What feedback has she seen on this announcement?

The feedback from the industry has been fantastic. To quote a few: Steve Logan, from Logan Brown, has said, “Hats off to the Government for recognising how important food is to our country.”; Lisa and Simon Levy said, “The Michelin guide would put New Zealand on the world stage for culinary tourism.”; and Auckland chef Josh Emett said, “There was incredible value in bringing the guide to New Zealand, and kudos for actually getting it over the line and committing to it and seeing the value in it.”—yes, including Auckland Central.

How will more international visitors support economic growth?

We know that the hospitality sector is a significant part of New Zealand’s economy, with revenue reaching $21.4 billion for the year ended March 2025. Investing in tourism and hospitality is a recipe for growth, and with this announcement, we expect to bring in up to an additional 36,000 international visitors. Michelin’s presence in New Zealand will mean more visitors dining in our restaurants and experiencing what our fantastic food producers and growers have on offer. This is good for jobs, it’s good for growth, and it’s good for the incomes of New Zealanders.

to the Minister for Children

Is she reconsidering the Oranga Tamariki (Responding to Serious Youth Offending) Amendment Bill in light of the final evaluation report on the military-style academy pilot; if not, why not?

In answer to the first part of the question: no. In answer to the second part of the question: because the recent independent evaluation report on the military-style academy (MSA) pilot showed that two-thirds of the participants reduced the frequency or seriousness of their offending in the six months after the residential phase of the pilot. Comparing the six months before the residential phase to the six months after, the pilot participants reduced their violent offending by 67 percent and had longer periods of non-offending compared to a matched cohort. I want to acknowledge these young people who have taken this opportunity to make better choices. The military-style academy pilot had a real focus on the transition back into the community, and we’ve seen some good results.

Does she agree with the final evaluation report, which highlights that therapeutic interventions worked the best, and, if so, will she accept that the military element of the pilot was not even needed?

What I would say is that there is an approach to this that comes from multiple angles. The military part of the programme had a focus on health and physical activities, including drills, which young people responded to well, and they actually asked for more of those physical activities. The independent evaluation itself noted that the young people “Expressed pride and self-respect in cleanliness, tidiness, uniforms, and well-ordered living spaces.” The MSA stakeholders told the evaluation that the structure and routine was a “good fit for rangatahi because it was absent from the lives they were living in the community when they offended.”

Why does the evaluation compare the boot camps with youth justice residences, when youth justice residences are underfunded and, in some cases, unsafe, instead of comparing it with community-based and evidence-based initiatives, which are proven to be more effective in reducing reoffending than the military approaches?

I would just like to say that this Government is not running boot camps. We have piloted a military-style academy programme that had a focus on therapeutic support, mental health and wellbeing, education, whānau contact, and a real focus on transition back into the community. There are prevention programmes such as Fast Track that have a good rate of reduction in offending, but there are still members of young people that will reoffend. We can’t just stick them in the too-hard basket and allow them on the pathway to Corrections. We must intervene, and we must do something about this.

Does she accept Mana Mokopuna, the independent children’s monitor’s findings in their monitoring report of Korowai Manaaki, a youth justice facility, that “Funding restrictions and reprioritisations have impacted on the availability and quality of programming, access to resources, and specialist supports for mokopuna to rehabilitate and have their needs met”, and will youth justice residences continue to be starved of resources so that she can focus on her own political experiment of boot camps?

What I would agree to is that what this Government inherited with the youth justice residences was absolutely disappointing. They had been ignored for far too long. These young people were stuck in the too-hard basket and ignored and allowed to go on to the pathway to Corrections with no intervention. We have put a lot of resources and support into youth justice residences, which means that these young people have a better hope now than they did in the past.

What will she say in the decades to come when this national apology anniversary arrives and she has to explain to future generations why she chose to continue with military-style academies and the young serious offender label despite warnings from everybody: the Children’s Commissioner, the Youth Court, youth workers, social workers, forensic psychiatrists, rangatahi, and, of course, survivors themselves?

Well, that question alone just proves that member didn’t read the whole evaluation, because there were many members of those cohorts that she just spoke to who said that this programme was good for these young people and did give them hope for the future. I am proud that we have given these young people a better chance in life and an opportunity to turn their lives around. That’s what I will say in 20 years’ time—at least I gave a damn and tried to make a difference in their lives.

to the Minister for Infrastructure

Does he stand by his answer to oral question No. 8 on 6 November 2025, “there’s billions of dollars of construction jobs coming into the market over the next few years”?

Yes. Between July and Christmas this year, $7 billion of central government - funded infrastructure projects have started or will soon start. Construction, for example, of the Rolleston access improvements package started in October; Ōtaki to north of Levin started in September; the Melling Interchange project started in September; the Brougham Street package started in August; the Ministry of Primary Industries’ Plant Health and Environment Capability started in September; Defence’s Burnham regional supply facility started in August; and tomorrow I turn the sod on the Hawke’s Bay Expressway. Overall, the Infrastructure Commission’s National Infrastructure Pipeline shows we have over 9,200 initiatives, worth $237 billion, under way or in planning across central government, local government, and the private sector.

How many jobs have been created to date?

I don’t have that figure to hand, and it would be difficult to work out because it will depend on each specific project. As I think I’ve said to the member a couple of times now, projects take time to ramp up, so when you first start a project, you literally get on with the initial work and then over time you start building, and that’s why these things take a while. At the peak of a project, there’ll be thousands of people working on a job, depending on the size of the project, and then as the project finishes, things ramp down again. But the key is to get a consistent pipeline to address our infrastructure deficit, and that’s what the Government’s working so hard on.

If the Infrastructure Commission can ascertain how many jobs are created from infrastructure investment, why can’t he, as the Minister responsible, specify how many of those jobs have been delivered?

The Infrastructure Commission’s numbers that the member references are an estimate, but it’s around 4,500 jobs per billion dollars of infrastructure investment. But at any given moment in any given project, there’ll be a range of people working on jobs. Halfway through an infrastructure project tends to be when the majority of the jobs are created; at the start they’re not there, but they ramp up. I think the member knows that.

Why did he promise New Zealanders thousands of jobs when he has no ability or inclination to monitor how many have actually been delivered?

Well, if the member thinks that $7 billion of infrastructure projects that start—

You asked us the same questions.

Unlike you guys, we’re actually building stuff. [Interruption]

That’s enough. Any further supplementaries?

How can he seriously promise thousands of jobs from projects that were already funded when unemployment is rising and the construction sector has lost over 20,000 jobs across New Zealand?

Well, they might have been funded, but that’s different to actually starting. For example, the recladding of Middlemore Hospital was funded in 2018 but has only started in the last couple of months. Funding something seven years ago creates no jobs other than for the Treasury bureaucrats who have to administer the funding that sits there on the Crown balance sheet while no one is actually employed. To create jobs, you have to fund it, plan it, and actually deliver it, and that’s what we’re doing.

to the Associate Minister of Agriculture

What recent reports has she seen on the horticulture sector?

I’ve seen multiple reports, from the likes of United Fresh, Zespri, and the Ministry for Primary Industries, confirming New Zealand’s horticulture sector is in outstanding shape, with export revenue reaching $8.8 billion in the last financial year, which is leading the primary industry’s growth at 24 percent. The kiwifruit industry is, obviously, a flagship success story, with exports reaching $4 billion for the first time, and New Zealand Apples and Pears have surpassed a billion dollars, at $1.2 billion, for the first time.

What has the Government done to support the horticulture industry?

The Government is supporting this success by cutting unnecessary red tape, by streamlining resource management processes, and by ensuring environmental rules are workable. The industry has benefitted also from tariff removals achieved through our free-trade deals, strong global demand, and strategic partnerships.

How is the Government supporting the sector to access new markets?

Trade is, obviously, critical to horticulture, and we have delivered on some significant wins. The New Zealand - European Union Free Trade Agreement was brought into effect months earlier than expected, removing tariffs on the likes of kiwifruit. We saw a boost in those exports by 69 percent. We’ve also expanded opportunities through agreements with the UK, the United Arab Emirates, and the Gulf Cooperation Council.

Thank you, Labour!

These agreements, obviously, open doors to higher value markets. I would note that there is quite a difference between negotiating a deal and actually signing it and ratifying it.

Yeah, we signed it. Jesus Christ.

Supplementary—

Just wait a minute. I presume you weren’t referring to me with that last comment. I can understand it if you were, but try not to.

What does this growth mean for regional economies and jobs?

A strong horticulture sector delivers enormous benefits to regional New Zealand. It provides thousands of jobs, from orchard workers and packhouse staff to transport, logistics, and processing roles. Those follow-on effects are significant. Local businesses such as contractors, equipment suppliers, and service providers all benefit from the sector’s growth. With revenue forecast to climb to $9.8 billion by 2029, regions like Tauranga, Bay of Plenty, Hawke’s Bay, and Northland are seeing increased investment in infrastructure, skills and development, and jobs.

to the Minister for the Public Service

Does she stand by all her statements and actions in relation to the industrial action undertaken by public sector workers on 23 October 2025?

Yes, my statements and actions were reasonable, practical, and, more importantly, accurate.

Was her response to written parliamentary question No. 50726 (2025) accurate when she stated that the Prime Minister was informed in advance of the Public Service Commission’s advertising campaign?

Let me just find that one—what was the number again?

50726.

Right, just a moment. It’s a communications strategy regarding the industrial action. Was that 50726? My answer was: “The Public Service Commission’s communications strategy regarding the industrial action held on 23 October 2025 was discussed with the Prime Minister and myself and our offices prior to the Commission’s advertisements”. It doesn’t say that the Prime Minister was advised of any paid advertising. I suggest the member go back to the answer before she asks a question like she just did.

Was the Prime Minister incorrect when, on 3 November 2025, he denied that he had been informed in advance of that campaign?

Well, I don’t have the Prime Minister’s statement in front of me, and having just had to correct the member herself on the question that she just gave me, I’d have to absolutely ask to see the evidence—

Point of order. My question was very simple. It was asking whether the Prime Minister’s answer—and I provided the exact reference—was correct, and I believe that there is nothing incorrect about the way that was presented.

I think you’re quite right. The answer to the written question was read into the answer to the question. That certainly brings that question into scope. If you want to ask that question again, so we all know what it is.

Well, it would be good, and if she could give me the exact—

No, you don’t need to comment.

My first supplementary was: was her response to written parliamentary question No. 50726—

No, no, we’re not doing that again—just your second supplementary.

Was the Prime Minister incorrect when, on 3 November 2025, he denied that he had been informed in advance of the campaign?

Well, the Prime Minister is never incorrect as far as I can see.

How can it be correct that in her written question, she said the Prime Minister was informed, when the Prime Minister himself says he wasn’t informed?

Right, a communications strategy is not the same as a paid advertising campaign, which I was not aware of—a paid advertising campaign—because, unlike many other people, I don’t need to pay for advertising on Facebook, because I’ve got so many followers! The other thing is that a campaign in terms of a communications strategy to get the truth out when there is misinformation out there in the public is not the same as a paid advertising campaign.

Which Government department raised a concern as to whether the advertising contravened social media guidance, and what reasons did they provide?

Well, I’m not in charge of all the many Government departments there are, but I would suggest that the member, since she has now written to the Office of the AuditorGeneral asking the Office of the Auditor-General to investigate the Public Service Commission, should maybe wait until that investigation, if there is one, is undertaken, because I don’t know how many others.

Point of order, sir.

We’re not going to have a point of order. We’re going to have the question again, and we’ll see if we can get an answer.

Which Government department raised a concern as to whether the advertising contravened social media guidance, and what reasons did they provide? The Minister might like to know that is in reference to her written answer No. 51004 (2025).

For goodness’ sake. Honestly, Mr Speaker, I’m coming down to the House here trying to think of all the possible questions, and I don’t expect to have to then try and look for that member’s—so which number is it now?

51004.

004?

This is shocking.

No. The Public Service Commission, here, “advised that one government department raised a concern as to whether the advertising contravenes social media guidance.” I don’t know—I don’t know which one it was. I’ve answered the question honestly. I suggest that that member might want to do a written question or even Official Information Act request the Public Service Commission. That’s the normal way of doing it.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether you could perhaps go and watch that question exchange again and consider the adequacy of those answers. This is a serious matter, where a member has actually prepared and asked written questions of a Minister and is seeking to get verification or elucidate those answers in the House. That is a very legitimate thing for a member to do, without the sort of abuse from the Minister, or the obfuscation from the Minister, that we’ve just seen. I think that was a very good example of a member being well prepared for question time and a Minister not being.

Point of order.

No, you’re not. Are you speaking to the point of order?

Well, do you want me to? I’m happy to.

No, I don’t want you to. The member will know that it’s not for the Speaker to judge the quality of the answers or, for that matter, the content of the answers. We’re restricted to: has the question been addressed? It was. The adequacy of the address of the question will, of course, be a matter of judgment for the public.

to the Minister for Resources

What reports, if any, has he seen regarding the resources sector?

A host of reports affirming that I have won the debate in the minds of New Zealanders about the importance of mining. Common sense has prevailed in the Otago Regional Council, for as long as they remain in place, with the approval of the OceanaGold five-year extension on their mining permit. No critters will snuff out economic development there. I welcome the OceanaGold fast-track application next year for further expansion of the Macraes Mine.

What does this mean for the region?

J-O-B-S—jobs for Jones. At a time when unemployment is at a nine-year high, mining is an opportunity to ensure that employees in this area—nigh on 700; an additional 200 contractors—will be kept in employment. This extension is overdue. This entity is a leading contributor to the regional economy—something sadly forgotten and deprecated by too many loud, shrill voices on the other side of the House.

What other reports has he seen in the resource sector?

The golden age, as I’ve been heard to remark, is well and truly upon us. Siren Gold has begun its fieldwork in Marlborough. Drilling is taking place in Waitekauri, in the Hauraki area. A Westport company wants to prospect gold offshore from the West Coast; they can learn from the errors of the protesters in Taranaki in that regard. KO Gold is continuing to undertake exploration in Otago, with plans to drill in the near future. The South Island and parts of the North Island are overwhelmed with interest in mining, and with the fast track, those permits should be delivered in short order.

What does this mean for the economy?

Burn and bust, baby!

Lots of money for the Australians.

No, calm down. There is a mineral called arsenopyrite which has been found, which might be of relevance to you.

No, no, don’t make those comments—particularly don’t direct them at me.

Sir, it is an actual mineral.

No, no. Think about what you just said.

We are redeeming the prospects of regional New Zealand through mining. The approaches that have marginalised and undermined mining projects are well and truly over. Whether it’s critical minerals, whether it’s rare earth minerals, there is inordinate interest. The law has been changed to accelerate the allocation of permits. Men and women are being trained, and nowhere are they more sorely needed than in Taranaki. Shortly, we will be “drill, baby, drill” on the base of the Taranaki moana.

to the Minister for Vocational Education

How many more people aged 15 to 24, if any, are not engaged in education, employment, or training compared to September 2024?

I’ve been advised by Stats NZ that in quarter 3, 2024 there were 76,400 15- to 24-year-olds not engaged in education, employment, or training. In quarter 3, 2025 there were 86,900 15- to 24-year-olds not engaged in education, employment, or training. That is an increase of 10,500 15- to 24-year-olds not engaged in education, employment, or training in quarter 3, 2025, compared to quarter 3, 2024.

Are there now more or fewer courses available for enrolment at New Zealand polytechnics, compared to when she took office?

Well, that’s a decision for the New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology or individual business units of that, as they ensure that they meet the needs of their community.

Point of order. The Minister is accountable to the House for these sorts of decisions. We’ve been down this road around operational responsibility, and you’ve ruled in the past that Ministers should address the questions on matters such as this.

“Matters such as this” is a subjective statement. The point that the Minister has just made is that these are decisions for local polytechs, where some time ago that was not the case.

Is there enough provision of foundational learning opportunities so that every young person who wants to access it can?

Of course, that is quite a major issue, because we are facing a situation where many of our young people came out of compulsory schooling during the time of the previous Government, without the numeracy and literacy skills that we might expect of them, and so there is considerable catch up having to take place—remedial work particularly around that level 1 and level 2 numeracy and literacy training.

Does the Minister understand that fewer courses at polytechnics and young people struggling to access foundational education are a result of her reforms?

I understand that institutes of technology, polytechnics, and every other tertiary provider must ensure that what they provide is relevant to their community, to the industries in their community, and that they deliver in a way that is financially sustainable. It is a pity that not all Governments have shown that same restraint.

Does the Minister accept that fewer courses at polytechnics and young people struggling to access foundational education has contributed to the number of young people not in education, employment, or training being higher than any other time in eight years?

I’m very aware that in times of higher unemployment, young people are disproportionately impacted by that. That is why we have been so careful in terms of standing up the polytechnics again to ensure that we made strategically important provision of funding to enable polytechnics to have provision available in areas where there are high numbers of young people not in employment, education, or training (NEETs), to ensure that training that is important to provide pathways for NEETs into employment is available. That is why we made $20 million per year available for the next two years.

to the Chairperson of the Environment Committee

Which Ministers or ministerial advisers, if any, did she communicate with about the submission deadline to the Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill before the advertisement in her name opening submissions was issued?

None. I had a conversation about the submission deadline with the clerk of the committee, as per usual practice.

How does her statement yesterday, “The Government has been clear to the public that it expects the Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill to be passed before the end of [this] year.”, as the reason for implementing a short deadline, comply with Speakers’ ruling 117/1 that the “chairperson should generally allow a minimum of six weeks. … [unless] the House [has] significantly limited the time available to a committee”?

Look, the Government has made it clear—as that member has, rightly, pointed out—that it expected the bill to be passed by the end of the year. Under Standing Order 198, I opened submissions to meet the expectation of the time frame, and this was endorsed by the majority of the committee on 10 October.

Point of order. Thank you, sir. There’s actually two issues here, and the Standing Order that the member refers to doesn’t actually relate to the first part of her response. That Standing Order relates to the chair’s ability to call for submissions. Her response linking to the desire of the Government, in the absence of a clear instruction from the House, was the report back. The Standing Order does not refer to a chair’s ability to determine that. This issue, where this chair made a decision in a corresponding press release on an earlier report-back, to which they were required by the House, is not covered by that Standing Order.

That is quite correct. It would be appropriate for the select committee chair to answer that. There may be another supp.

Why did the select committee chair ignore the normal process, which is for the House to direct a select committee to report back earlier than four months, by a debatable motion?

No, that’s not a reasonable question. That’s not a question for the member.

Supplementary question.

We don’t have further supps; it’s only between the two under this particular provision. But you can seek leave.

I seek leave for a supplementary question.

Leave is sought for the purpose of asking a further supplementary question. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

Well, thank you very much. Could I ask the chairperson of the committee: did she get her authority by a majority vote on the committee for the time frame she agreed to?

On 10 October, we had a meeting whereby that Standing Order was put to the committee—Standing Order 198—and we passed it. So that was by majority.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, that was actually a very, very—[Interruption]

Just a minute—points of order are heard in silence.

It was actually a very helpful supplementary question from the Rt Hon Winston Peters, asking the chair of the select committee whether she had sought the approval of the committee for the time frame that she put in the advertisement. It is clear that she didn’t do that. Her own statement says that only happened after the advertisements had already been lodged. She hasn’t answered the question that Winston Peters asked.

I think she has. The member will be aware that it’s not unusual for select committee chairs to take this course of action and for an ad to be placed to give submitters as much time within the constraints of the time period set to make a response. I don’t think there’s further to discuss on this.

Point of order. I seek leave to ask a question of the member.

Leave is sought for the Hon Kieran McAnulty to ask a question of the member. Is there any objection? There appears to be.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, this is a serious matter. The House, through the Standing Orders Committee, has agreed that where the Government seeks to report back a bill in less than four months, it requires a debate in the House. The Government can’t get around that simply by a select committee chair unilaterally deciding, with no approval by the House and no approval by the committee at the time they make the decision, that they are going to truncate that process. Had the Government come to the House and said they wanted the bill reported back before Christmas, it would have had to be debated in the House. A select committee chair does not have the ability to circumvent that requirement unilaterally. This is a serious matter, because it means that a committee chair, without any authority from the House or any authority from the committee itself, has circumvented the rules of the House and infringed the rights of New Zealanders to participate in this process, and infringed the rights of the minority in the House at the same time. It is a matter, Mr Speaker, that I would suggest that you should consider and take seriously, because your job is to uphold the Standing Orders of the House, and that includes the rights of the minority, which, in this case, have been woefully inadequately overridden by the chair.

Well, I’ll just choose to ignore the admonishing tones of what you’ve just offered the House and make it clear that yesterday I spoke at the Business Committee, and, whether we like it or not, this is best described as a gap or a loophole in our Standing Orders. There is a problem with that, it is the Standing Orders Committee that will need to consider it, and I have said I will put it on the agenda for that committee to review.

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

For too long, politics in this country has been driven by grievance and guilt. Too many politicians have tried to build New Zealand up by tearing New Zealanders down, telling us we’re either villains or victims and that the only way forward is to pit one group against another. With ACT in Government, that has changed. The corrosive idea that you’re not responsible for the crimes you committed last week yet are somehow to blame for what happened generations before you were born is being stripped away. We’re saying what you do and where you’re going is important. Look forward; learn your past, but don’t live in it.

Take the new history curriculum. It will create citizens who know where they’re from but also understand the world across the seas. No longer will it indoctrinate young people for political purposes. History education will be for the benefit of children, not ideology. We’ve also ended the education culture wars. The scrapping of section 127 means schools will no longer be legally required to give effect to the Treaty in every subject. Boards will still be able to teach te reo, tikanga, and mātauranga Māori as they wish, but it should be the parents’ choice, not Wellington’s command. Education will once again be about achievement, not activism. Thanks to ACT’s—to Dr Parmjeet Parmar’s—advocacy, students at the University of Auckland have finally won back their right to choose. Students will no longer be forced to take compulsory Treaty papers that add nothing to their degree. It’s a victory for freedom, for fairness, and for common sense.

We have proven that Government can solve problems without dividing people by race and resentment. David Seymour’s rule of two for medicines means fewer Kiwis will have to leave the country to get treatment easily available elsewhere or suffer because they can’t afford to. Brooke van Velden’s fix to the Holidays Act succeeded where years of Government failed, creating a system better for both workers and businesses—even welcomed by the unions. We’re cracking down on organised crime, taking the money gangs make from meth and using it to fight meth addiction, stopping people from starting, and starting people to stop—a welcome change from the dark days when Labour literally gave it all back to those who created the problem in the first place.

ACT has also been vindicated on some of the big calls. When ACT alone opposed the Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Act 2016, we said it was emotion over evidence, a triumph of populism over reason. Nine years and billions of wasted dollars later, we were proven right. The law has now been fixed, saving billions, restoring confidence, and breathing life back into our town centres. When ACT stood alone against the zero carbon Act and its unscientific methane targets, we did so because science matters more than symbolism. Now those targets have been halved, and farmers can finally breathe again. ACT stood alone for licensed firearm owners, even when every other party in this House turned their back on them.

Time and again, this House has responded to tragedy with virtue signals. ACT responds with reason, because what New Zealand needs most in times of crisis isn’t emotion; it’s calm logic and courage. Inch by inch, we’re seeing parties shift closer and closer to the positions ACT has always held. Just yesterday, I announced the complete rewrite of the Arms Act 1983, the most significant win for licensed firearm owners in over 40 years, while also improving public safety. The reform delivers 90 percent of what I and firearm owners fought for: easier compliance, fewer dumb rules, faster licensing, trust, and respect. I didn’t get everything that I wanted. I fought hard on the registry and for a narrow sports exemption. But in MMP, if your partners won’t agree, you just don’t get everything across the line. What we have achieved is a law that restores fairness and common sense, and lays a strong foundation for more progress in the future.

Through the Regulatory Standards Bill, ACT is making sure every future law is tested for logic, for fairness, and for consequences, so never again will Kiwis pay the price for rushed, emotional lawmaking. We’re making it easy to easier to employ people, to build, to invest, and to live your own life on your own terms. As other parties reluctantly shift towards ACT’s long-held positions on regulation, education, farming, and—I even dare say it—firearms, my message to them is simple: this is just the beginning.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I first want to acknowledge the Day of Reflection and add my voice to the ministerial statement and the steps being taken to address and redress this very important matter.

Last night I had the privilege, with the Governor-General’s company, as we acknowledged this year’s Royal Society of New Zealand recipients. But before I revisit that, I want to place this in the context of what are the biggest reforms of the science sector in 30 years. What we’re trying to do here is we’re trying to solve how we can improve the impact of our science spend so that more New Zealanders feel tangible benefit from science and technology.

Science and technology is one of the five pillars in Going for Growth, and, carrying on the work from my colleague Minister Collins, I want to briefly describe what we’ve achieved in science this year. There are five big items. First of all: consolidate the seven Crown research institutes into three public research organisations—done. There is Bioeconomy Science, Earth Science, and Public Health and Forensic Science—the results of that piece of work—and I want to thank all of those who have been able to bring those large Crown entities into the public research organisations. It is a hard job to bring large Government entities together, and I want to put it as a proposal that this is actually a template for what that might look like.

We’ve all lived through DHBs merging into Health New Zealand—that wasn’t fun. We’ve lived through polytechs merging into Te Pūkenga. People haven’t enjoyed that, either. But I’d have to say the main actors in the amalgamations of these Crown research institutes have done a very good job, and I’m excited by their collaboration and by their opportunities.

The second thing was to establish a new public research institute, the National Institute of Advanced Technology—done. We have done that, and we’ve also made two major announcements. Robinson Research Institute has been given $70 million, with a focus on materials, metals, and superconducting magnets as the first spoke, and, of course, the artificial intelligence platform as the second.

The third was to establish Prime Minister’s Science, Innovation, and Technology Advisory Council—done, also. The advisory group are very accomplished individuals who are guiding the science sector strategy.

The fourth was a national artificial intelligence (AI) strategy—again, done. We were one of the few countries in the world not to have a national AI strategy, and now we can start developing operational imperatives around that national strategy, and, of course, Minister Collins leads the allofGovernment approach to artificial intelligence, and the two together will work hand in hand.

The fifth and one of the last objectives is the business research and development tax incentive. The review of that was done and was well received by the sector. I believe, for every dollar from the Crown, I think there’s about $1.40 of benefit, and that’s being retained, as well.

All of these actions will underpin economic growth, but it’s also supported by science funding, including the following: $42 million for a new biodiscovery platform. This will create real opportunities, I’d have to say particularly for Māori researchers who have a head start with indigenous knowledge. In those 80,000 indigenous species, of which we only scientifically describe 35,000—I believe that the next new cancer drug is in that mix. I believe that the next new nutraceutical is in that mix. So I’m very excited about that opportunity.

There is $70 million for artificial intelligence, and the sector and industry are currently responding to the request for proposal, and I’m looking forward to seeing what solutions industry may have in that space.

I’ve mentioned $70 million for future materials and magnet superconduction through Robinson Research; $46 million for the Endeavour Fund’s “Smart Ideas”; $183 million for Endeavour major research programmes, including $10 million for the Deep Heat project, a project that’s dear to the heart of my colleague to my right, around supercritical geothermal in the Taupō volcanic zone. The sum of $80 million was recently announced for Marsden funding, and last week I announced $75 million for the infectious diseases platform at Public Health and Forensic Science. Not only have we set the structure; we’ve also started to put some money beside it.

At the Royal Society awards with the Governor-General last night, some of our brightest and best were acknowledged, and I want to highlight a few of them. The Rutherford Medal went to distinguished Professor Wickliffe Abraham from the University of Otago, and he was awarded the Rutherford Medal for breakthrough advances in understanding neural mechanisms of memory. “Plasticity” is a word that he created. The Hutton Medal was awarded to Dr Dennis Gordon, an emeritus researcher at Earth Sciences New Zealand, for two significant bodies of work. The first was about an organism called Bryozoa, and he has described 758 new species in the genre and 34 new families. He also instigated, designed, and edited the New Zealand Inventory of Biodiversity, describing everything from bacteria to blue whales—another substantial body of work, and this gentleman is retired. He is in his latter years, and he still gets excitement from science.

I’m excited for science. I’m excited for what we can do, and I agree with media—science is back.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. This Government was elected on a platform of fixing the economy. It’s clear, after two years of slogans, of bluster, and of blame, they have utterly failed to do so. If that speech is anything to go by, they’ve now decided that their pathway back into Government is to try and bore people into submission. Instead of fixing the economy, this Government has made things worse.

We have seen unemployment going up. There are now more New Zealanders unemployed than at any time since 1994, and that has happened under this Government’s watch. Far from getting people off the jobseeker benefit, we have seen significant increases in it, and New Zealanders are voting with their feet. Kiwis who can’t find work here are giving up and leaving the country in record numbers. Two hundred Kiwis, every day, are giving up and permanently leaving the country under this Government’s leadership. Today, what did we hear from the Government in response to that? Young New Zealanders should simply abandon the regions and move to where the jobs are. When this Government sees 78 percent more people unemployed in places like Gisborne and Hawke’s Bay, Christopher Luxon says they should move to where the jobs are. Regional families, hearing that now, have just heard the Prime Minister say to their kids: give up and leave. Unfortunately for those families, those kids are giving up and leaving. They’re leaving the country, and they’re not intending to come back.

We also heard him say to 44-year-olds, where unemployment has doubled in that age cohort, that it’s because they don’t want to work. Those New Zealanders want jobs. They can’t find them under Christopher Luxon’s economy. The parents of 18- and 19-year-olds, by contrast, are being told they should work less, because this boneheaded Government have come up with a welfare policy that says to parents of 18- and 19-year-olds who are on low incomes that if they work less, their family will get more support. That requires a degree of incompetence that’s hard to fathom—the Government developing a welfare policy that says if you’re a parent of an 18- and 19-year-old and you’re already on a low income, work less and the Government will give you more money. How do they come up with that? That’s just purely incompetent in a cost of living crisis, which the Government promised they were going to fix.

We’ve seen food prices go up, electricity prices go up, going to the doctor go up, and businesses closing in record numbers. The liquidators are salivating in the paper, saying, “It’s going get worse before it gets better.” Despite what Nicola Willis and Christopher Luxon are saying about “green shoots” and how “the economy’s turned the corner, and we’re in recovery”, the liquidators are saying, “We’ve never been busier and, in fact, we’re expecting to get even busier as businesses go to the wall under this Government’s economic mismanagement.” All Kiwis are feeling it. They’ve seen their KiwiSaver being cut, they’ve seen women’s pay being cut, they’ve seen jobs being cut, they’ve seen health services being cut, and they’ve seen education services being cut. Kiwis know that this Government, far from fixing things, are making everything worse. Who is winning, though? Landlords are winning, tobacco companies are winning, and the tech giants like Facebook and Google are winning under this Government. Everyday, working Kiwis are not winning under this Government.

There is an alternative. We can invest in ourselves as a country—a future made in New Zealand by New Zealanders for New Zealanders. But to have that, New Zealanders need a Government that’s going to back that, not a Government that’s going to sell everything off, return to that failed idea that if we just hock everything off, things will somehow, miraculously, correct themselves. Instead, we need a Government that’s going to invest in New Zealand’s future, a Government that’s going to get New Zealanders back to work, not a Government that’s going to talk about productivity and talk about fixing our infrastructure and then, actually, do the opposite of those things. We need a Government that’s going to build things. I remember sitting on the other side when they were saying we weren’t building enough and we weren’t building it fast enough. We were building a hell of a lot more than this Government’s building, because they have ground everything to a halt. But don’t take my word for it. Just go and ask any one of the 20,000 New Zealanders working in construction that have lost their jobs under this Government. They’re not fixing anything; they are making everything worse.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, we’ve had some fantastic news coming out recently, and it’s about our wonderful kiwifruit sector: they are thriving. It’s a good thing, because it means that our economy is getting back. We are growing and there is good news—those green shoots, those blue shoots coming back into New Zealand.

What you get from economic growth is that you have the opportunity to support families; you have the opportunity to build new health facilities, to build new schools, to invest more in health and education, to invest more in our police and customs, and to do all of the things that New Zealanders expect us to be able to do.

All the things.

More housing. More roading infrastructure. There’s plenty there, Shanan, if you want to go back through my transcript. We are focused on economic growth, because it’s through economic growth that we get to be able to afford the things that New Zealanders need.

We have good news: for the second year in a row, Zespri has reported the biggest kiwifruit season in history. This is good news. This is great news. It’s great news for the people of Tauranga, it’s great news for the Bay of Plenty, and it’s great news for New Zealand. Our primary sector is dragging New Zealand up again.

Kiwifruit is our largest support sector in export, returning over $3 billion in direct payments to growers—over $3 billion in direct payments. Do you know where that goes? It goes into our economy. Those people go out there—those growers and those Zespri shareholders go out there and they spend it. That is fantastic. That drives economic growth. That drives jobs. It drives people down there at your cafes and at your hospitality and retail settings. It reverberates through the economy.

Zespri is 100 percent owned by New Zealand kiwifruit growers. That is a fantastic thing. What a success story, and we should all celebrate that. The workforce employs 10,000 permanent employees. There’s another 24,500 jobs over that harvesting time, that three to four months. I’d like to make a special mention to those Recognised Seasonal Employer (RSE) scheme workers, who contribute enormously, with a workforce that’s made up 37 percent of RSEs, and the positive impact that has on our community and back in the Pacifics, as well.

I want to congratulate Zespri for the great job that they’ve done opening up new markets. Hopefully, India comes on board soon. I was in Vietnam a couple of months ago and I saw Zespri products on the shelves there, and it was a fantastic thing to be able to see that. We know that economy is booming. It’s grown 30 percent in the past four years. It is really going well. All of that booming middle class are going to want New Zealand kiwifruit.

It’s a high-quality brand. It’s being led by the markets. It’s a sustainable brand. It’s responding to consumer trends. They’re doing a great job on managing their costs. They are the number one fruit brand across 15 core markets, reaching more than 100 million households. What a fantastic achievement. They are a highly trusted leader in health and nutrition.

There is more work to do, and we could make it even better. I think one of the key things we need to do is upgrade the Port of Tauranga. I’ve said that here many times. But many people in the industry are calling it out—that the inability to provide for those berth expansions is going to restrict larger, low-emission vehicles, and low-emissions fuel production plants in the Port of Tauranga, our largest export port.

Zespri and the industry support more resourcing for the labour inspectorate, and we certainly don’t want bad actors in our horticulture sector ruining it for others. I have a clear message for people out there: if you are acting improperly, we don’t want you in the sector; you are a blight on the rest of it.

I want to say thank you, as well, to all of the hard-working growers. I appreciate it. My wife’s family is a kiwifruit family and have been since the early 1980s. How hard these people work—they’re working seven days a week, dawn till dusk. They go out there, and you see them, and they work incredibly hard to get ahead. They do eventually get ahead and they succeed. They are a real success story. It’s been phenomenal to watch the growth of kiwifruit. Zespri is a true success story. But, ultimately, it’s off the back of all of our hard-working growers.

The good news for us, as I said at the start, is that all that money—that $3 billion in direct payment to growers—most of that will go straight through into regional economies. It will reverberate around New Zealand. We’re seeing the green shoots coming up. Kiwifruit is leading the way. Other key primary sectors are leading the way. We are very, incredibly lucky to have them. Thank you to our growers.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. If someone has to lie to make their point, do they really have a point? That is a question that many New Zealanders have been reflecting on as they see the desperation seep from the National Party over the last two weeks. They are trying to tell New Zealanders that three free GP visits is a bad idea and they’re trying to tell New Zealanders that free cervical screening is a bad idea. How are they going about it? They know New Zealanders want free access to their GPs; they know New Zealanders need it desperately. They also know that New Zealanders need free access to cervical screening. So what do they do? They scaremonger and they make things up.

We’ve seen it all over the show. They have been telling people that a capital gains tax, as proposed by the Labour Party, is a tax on business. Is it? No. They’ve been telling people that it is a tax on KiwiSaver. Is it? No. Why do they have to make things up to make their point? Why can’t they just put forward their arguments and let it sit on their merits? Because they have no argument and it has no merits. If they come out to Kiwis and look them in the eye and say that they don’t think Kiwis should get access to primary healthcare, they know they’re going to lose the argument. If they told New Zealanders that the National Party doesn’t think that they should have free access to cervical screening, they would lose the argument. But they’re also losing the argument because Kiwis can see through a fib and they can see through this like glass, and the National Party have no leg to stand on.

If you’ve got the finance Minister feeling the need to comment on Labour Party and Labour Party MPs’ Facebook pages, things must be bad. You’re the finance spokesperson, you’ve made a mess of the economy, you’re promising New Zealanders that you will create jobs, and that she will fix the cost of living, but she’s got time to go on to Facebook and try and argue with some commenters. Things are not well over there. That is a sign of desperation, and it is a sign that they know things are not going well.

Let’s clear this up. Let’s cut straight to the chase. The family home is exempt under the capital gains tax that we’ve proposed. KiwiSaver, farms, shares, businesses—they are also exempt. Nothing applies until after 1 July 2027. All the things that people have been saying—that people’s investment for their retirement is going to be taxed—it is not true, they know it’s not true, and they’re only doing it because they know that their back’s against the wall and they can see that their polling is dropping through the floor.

See this? [Member holds up a card] This is a promise to New Zealanders that when Labour get into Government next year, they will get three free GP visits and free cervical screening. The Labour Party’s promise to New Zealand is this. The National Party’s promise to New Zealand is this: a finger. When New Zealanders expect this Government to give them a say in the laws that they are passing, when New Zealanders expect the Government to be open and upfront and clear about what they’re doing and follow parliamentary process and give people a chance to have a say in select committee, they give them the middle finger. When New Zealanders expect the Government to provide an answer on why unemployment’s gone up and why costs have gone up and why businesses are failing and why record numbers of people are leaving the country, they get a finger pointed in every single direction except towards themselves. All they have is blame. All they have is excuses. If they really want to point a finger, go and stand in front of a mirror, because that is the only direction that their finger should be pointing.

They made promises that they have not kept. They have made it harder for New Zealanders, and here’s the thing: New Zealanders know it. Why else would they be polling considerably lower than what they were on election night? Because there’s one thing New Zealanders don’t like, and that’s someone misleading them and someone saying that it’s someone else’s fault when it’s actually theirs. They don’t like being misled. They don’t like insincere people, and when they look across these benches, they see 63 of them.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is regrettable and disappointing that we’re seeing Te Tiriti o Waitangi under attack in our education system. It is disappointing and regrettable that we’re seeing a Government that pits Te Tiriti against student outcomes, framing it as a way that you can only have one or the other. It’s also important for us to think about the holistic nature of what Te Tiriti o Waitangi means within the education system. I thought I’d use this opportunity to give a few examples and breakdown some tangible aspects of Te Tiriti in education.

If we were looking at Te Tiriti o Waitangi—particularly if we were looking at article 2—article 2 of Te Tiriti o Waitangi serves everyone in Aotearoa but particularly addresses the cultural needs and the taonga of tangata whenua and of mana whenua. What it means for students is that it allows for students to have agency in the way that they work, for students to have flexibility in the way they work, for students to be able to know the kind of mana that they have when they are in a school environment. We are all often saying that we want to see people work smarter but not harder. But when we see students working smarter and not harder by knowing what they have to do to get to where they want to be, we pull the rug from underneath them.

We’ve seen some of the programmes, such as Creatives in Schools, that we heard from this morning at the Education and Workforce Committee—that it allows a holistic view of education that not only helps with truancy, brings students in, makes students interested in what they’re learning, and makes students understand what they’re learning, but it also helps with things like literacy and numeracy, but that has been removed as part of the Government programme.

When I went to visit Ōpōtiki College a few weeks ago, we heard about local solutions on what it means for them in education and how they uphold and interpret Te Tiriti o Waitangi as a school. We’ve seen schools with a really, really low attendance being able to tap into what the students want by looking at trade, by looking at construction—where the Eastern Bay Trades Academy, for example, now has an excellent over 90 percent attendance rate, because they know what the students want. This is a school solution, not a top-down approach.

Article 3 of Te Tiriti o Waitangi talks about equality and talks about everyone being treated equally. It’s hard for me to understand how they would say that removing to Te Tiriti o Waitangi is about everyone being given equal opportunity. Those people who have had the strongest outcry against the inclusion of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in our school board objectives are the same people who have stayed silent while our Māori students, our Pasifika students, and our migrant students have the highest rate of school bullying in the country. That’s not equality, and it’s not them addressing equality.

Te Tiriti should provide a baseline, united understanding of how each school should work. By removing it, we’re going back to what we’ve saw for the 150 years after the signing of the Te Tiriti o Waitangi, where Te Tiriti wasn’t taught, when schools weren’t equitable, and when schools didn’t have that baseline understanding of what it means for our students. Of course, our teachers are also at the centre of this, and all they’re asking for is to be heard, is to be respected, is to have a transparent process and co-create a world-leading curriculum, but we’re not seeing that, particularly if Te Tiriti o Waitangi is removed under attack. The Green Party is committed to the vision and direction of Te Mātaiaho as implemented in 2023, specifically placing Te Tiriti at the centre of Te Mātaiaho and at the centre of education in Aotearoa New Zealand.

Supporting economic growth is so important to driving growth, jobs, and opportunity across our whole country. When you have a Government supporting infrastructure, primary industries, and tourism in the regions, we see New Zealand and Hawke’s Bay, the fruit bowl of New Zealand, growing and doing well. Wow, has it been a week for Hawke’s Bay this week, with substantial progress in health and infrastructure.

Yesterday, I had the privilege of opening the newly upgraded radiology department at Hawke’s Bay Hospital alongside our amazing Minister of Health. This is a major development—actually, the biggest development that we’ve seen at the Hawke’s Bay Hospital in years. The radiology department had lost its accreditation under the Labour Government, but under our Government, we have worked hard to deliver a state-of-the-art facility delivered on budget and on time, which is the beating heart of our hospital.

For our community, this upgrade is not just about bricks and mortar; it’s about faster diagnosis, faster treatment, and better patient care for thousands of families across Hawke’s Bay. It will double scanning capacity and deliver more than 10,000 additional scans each year, ensuring that people get the care they need, when they need it. It will take some pressure off the emergency department.

Look, I can speak firsthand, because a few weeks ago as a mum, I got the call that no mum wants to receive from school that my little 10-year-old had fallen off the monkey bars and broken her arm. We have spent the last few weeks in and out of X-rays and surgery, which I appreciate and understand can be a very stressful time for families and patients. Speeding up the radiology process and investing in modern facilities is vital to better healthcare and patient outcomes.

Cutting the ribbon on that radiology department at Hawke’s Bay Hospital is such a milestone for our community. It was so wonderful to be there yesterday with the radiology team at the Hawke’s Bay Hospital, who do such a wonderful job, and see the smiles and positivity around the hospital there. They were so upbeat and they were so excited about working in this modern facility, because they know how important this is. For too long, patients have been waiting in the corridors, and now they have a modern space.

This new infrastructure shows our Government commitment to providing better healthcare in the regions. This is on top of the already announced 28-bed inpatient unit that will be built next year and also the linear accelerator cancer treatment machine, which is going to mean so much for our Hawke’s Bay families.

Our focus is on delivery in healthcare in Hawke’s Bay, and this week we also are going to be delivering on infrastructure, roading that four-lane expressway that has been talked about for such a long time. This is going to stop the congestion and the delays that we’re seeing across Hawke’s Bay, and it shows real action by this Government. We’ve got shovels on the ground, hard hats, hi-vis vests, and diggers. This is a Government of action. We are delivering, and this, of course, is going to be creating a lot of jobs across Hawke’s Bay in that construction and contracting space.

Of course, this expressway is more than just a road; it’s a lifeline for our exporters, our commuters, getting our product to the port—you know, our amazing fruit from Hawke’s Bay and our red meat, of course, which are experiencing record prices, and we’re seeing global demand across the world for our products from Hawke’s Bay. This road is going to be significant for Hawke’s Bay in terms of getting that produce off to the market a lot faster and a lot more efficiently.

Of course, things are looking optimistic in the regions and in Hawke’s Bay in our fruit sector, because we’re seeing record exports in the fruit sector—driven, obviously, by kiwifruit, which we’ve already heard about today, but also apples. Apples have reached over $1 billion in exports, which is an incredible achievement. We’re seeing more planting, we’re seeing more innovation, and we are seeing more opportunity and jobs in the region driven by this Government.

It pains me to be, yet again, here speaking in defence of this Government’s commitment to getting to New Zealand’s smoke-free target, but it seems, given that the Leader of the Opposition still believes that budgeting for a reduction in excise collection when people quit smoking is deemed to be a tax break, that we have to revisit this narrative.

We have to respond to today’s nonsensical headline about New Zealand’s global ranking and interference by the tobacco industry. This highlights the ideological capture of a certain Radio New Zealand journalist and public health lobbyists, who don’t seem to care about New Zealand’s success in supporting people to stop smoking. Instead of looking at the facts—our smoking rate is at 6.9 percent, one of the lowest in the world—we have the Cancer Society’s reckonings around hysteria and misinformation. Rather than looking critically at other countries that took the reduced access, limited supply approach, which this Government repealed, they have chosen to add more of a dark shadow over the success that New Zealand has achieved—and why do this, when they know that reduced access has resulted in organised crime and illicit tobacco trade having a significantly negative impact, which is where we would have been had we not repealed?

The report released by the Cancer Society is focused on the tobacco industry interference and clutches at straws to build an implication of corruption across Government and our staff. To be clear, the controls in place in 2023—when we were ranked second in the world—are exactly the same as they are now. There has been no change. Innuendo and suggestion is not fact.

Ludicrously, the report even makes comment about the tobacco industry meeting with the Customs Service, who collect excise from the tobacco industry, and yet that is deemed to be a questionable activity. The report goes even further with an inference that individuals and companies should not even be allowed to make submissions to select committees, and so democracy in itself is now deemed to be some level of influence by the industry. The report criticises engagement with BusinessNZ and Retail NZ, and, ludicrously, anyone that works for the Taxpayers’ Union or even the New Zealand Initiative is tainted. The fact is that the tobacco industry has no involvement whatsoever in our smokefree policies, and when you just focus on the report, it is expanded to impugn the reputations of other elective representatives and staff.

I could go on about how objectively ridiculous this assessment is, but I think that the real evidence is in the countries ranked ahead of us in this report—the likes of Ethiopia, Iran, Mongolia, Chad, and Myanmar. Taking one look at those countries’ rankings in the Global Corruption Index tells us how irrational and unhinged this ranking is. Brunei was ranked No. 1 in 2023, and again in 2025. Apparently, one of the key aspects as to why they are ranked so high is because they don’t have a domestic tobacco industry, and yet they have a 17 percent smoking rate. Those countries that apparently have less interference from the tobacco industry than us—well, let’s just compare them to our 6.9 percent smoking rate: Mongolia has a 28 percent smoking rate, Myanmar has a 44 percent smoking rate, and Vietnam has a 23 percent smoking rate.

As has been the case since this Government was formed, we remain committed to actually stopping people smoking. We have an ambitious target to get to Smokefree 2025, and that requires listening to experts who understand how to reach smokers. But this report doesn’t draw any comment about how many times I’ve met with quit-smoking providers or how closely I’ve engaged with the frontline workers—no, it is just full of innuendo. Apparently, the New Zealand First manifesto aligned with comments from the tobacco industry, ignoring that it also aligns with comments and commitments from ASH.

If the Cancer Society and the public health lobby actually cared about stopping people smoking, which I would have thought would have been their primary concern—

The member’s time has expired.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Te Rohe a Tokerau—look north. Yes, it is time to look north. It is time to travel up State Highway 1, over the Brynderwyns, to the beauty of Northland. To help make that trip safer and faster, it is time—and this Government is doing it—to develop a four-lane expressway as part of our roads of national significance programme. This Government understands the importance of the roads of national significance to the regions, and it recently committed to the Northland Expressway $187 million to progress design, consenting, and route protection, with priority given to the Brynderwyn section.

It is time to come and enjoy all the amazing attractions in the North. From Tāne Mahuta in the west, to Cape Reinga in the north, and the history and significance of Waitangi, tourism is back. It is back in Northland. Bookings are increasing. Sales have increased over the last couple of months. To quote a leading restaurateur, “The laughter is back. The vibe is back. Something that has been missing for the last five years.” Great news.

In 2024, tourism contributed an estimated $570 million to Northland’s GDP. Tourism accounted for 6,751 jobs—or 8.2 percent of our regional employment. Accommodation and food services contributed 4,800-plus jobs. Under this Government, this will continue to grow. This Government has said yes to tourism. We have said yes to the international visitor levy to help grow our visitor experiences. We have said yes to a $70 million events fund to help turbocharge this sector, and the sector is responding.

In Northland, we aren’t resting on our laurels; we are creating our own events. A great example of this was recently completed in the North, called Savour Northland. I recommend, next year, you all come along and enjoy it. It was developed and led by Northland Inc., our development agency. It was a great success. The event explored a curated programme of locally inspired dishes, special one-off events, culinary collaborations, and immersive workshops all over the North—all served with our warm Northland manaakitanga and some of the best views in the world.

On Monday, we had the awards evening for this spectacular event. The evening was a celebration, starting at Charlotte’s Kitchen in Paihia, then heading to Hone’s Garden in Russell, before enjoying the breathtaking location that is Eagles Nest. I recommend, if you ever get the chance, go and enjoy it. It’s unbelievable. We then concluded the evening at the legendary Duke of Marlborough—some say that is my second home, but, no, I wouldn’t care to comment. There were numerous awards. Two of my favourites involved using local produce to produce the best dish. The first was using Kaipara kūmara. The winning dish involved cooking the kūmara in a hāngī; the kūmara was then turned into ice cream by mixing it with Bella Vacca jersey milk from Kawakawa, which was then put into a Yorkshire pudding base, and then we took macadamia nuts from Ruakākā, and these were turned into a brittle, and this was topped with foraged watercress, which was turned into toffee gravy. It was delicious.

Michelin star.

Absolutely. The winning chef was Tama. Then there was the Haku Kingfish dish, using kingfish from the Ruakākā Kingfish Farm. This was turned into a crudo with kaffir lime sorbet, and matched with local wines. The winning chef was Tito from Charlotte’s Kitchen, who is the son of Tama. So quite a competition. The signature award was for the perfect pairing, and this went to Kai Mata Restaurant in Kerikeri. Congratulations to all that participated and to the winners.

To reinforce all this, this Government recently announced $6.3 million to encourage the Michelin star opportunities across New Zealand. I am going to lobby hard to get one to turn up in Northland at some stage—that would be great.

Events like this symbolise the returning growth in our economy. This Government has focused on getting inflation under control, which led to reduction in interest rates. This means, for the average Kiwi, a saving of $10,000 per year in mortgage repayments. This creates more opportunities for families to travel and enjoy what the North and the rest of New Zealand has to offer. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Otirā, e te Whare, tēnā koutou katoa. On Monday, the Minister of Housing made the announcement around Christchurch city being granted exemption from city-wide housing intensification. In some of his comments, he spoke about a fastgrowing city and that Christchurch needed more homes in the right places to keep up with the growth. It’s not just Christchurch that’s actually growing; it’s also the sub-region. Currently, Greater Christchurch has a population of roughly 420,000 people, yet the population is expected to be around 700,000 by 2050, and, within 60 years, 1 million people.

Actual growth is faster than what is predicted. In Selwyn and Waimakariri, the growth rates are at the highest. You only have to look at aerial maps over the last decade or so to have a look at what’s happening out there. Rolleston is becoming bigger and bigger, getting closer to Lincoln as that becomes bigger and bigger, getting closer to Prebbleton as that becomes bigger and bigger, getting closer to Halswell. We’re becoming one massive big city.

But it’s not just the population that is growing. The number of cars on Ōtautahi’s roads has grown by 65 percent since 2001, and we now have the distinction of having New Zealand’s slowest commute. In just 10 years, there will be 32,000 more people in Ōtautahi alone, and with the amount of cars that will bring, it will bring the city to a halt.

Transport and urban development need to be done together. We have seen how difficult it has been to retrofit decent public transport infrastructure into a busy Auckland city. We have the opportunity in Ōtautahi to get in front of that by prioritising public transport and mass rapid transit now.

Canterbury has 13 percent of New Zealand’s population and contributes 14 percent of the money into the National Land Transport Fund, yet we only get 5 percent reinvested into our region. The current Government appears to be focused mainly on really expensive motorways, and even with that obsession, the funding is unfairly skewed to the North Island. The recent announcement of $1.2 billion on road funding saw only 6 percent go to the South Island, and we’ve seen benefit-to-cost ratio standards change to justify the roads of national significance. I can only imagine what that will do for cycleway infrastructure, when you look at the cycleways in Christchurch that are already at 13 to one.

We know that if we want to have good urban development, we need good transport investment—investment that doesn’t encourage people to sprawl like it does now; investment that encourages reductions in emissions, unlike building more motorways. What we have been seeing from this Government is a lack of investment in transport modes like walking, cycling, and public transport. These are the modes that will actually encourage sustainable living, less congestion, more productivity, less emissions, and better health outcomes—modes that truly work in tandem with good urban development.

While Canterbury and the South Island continue to be short-changed with transport investment, New Zealand cities, towns, and communities are missing out on transport investment that encourages this type of transport choice. Roughly 50 percent of car journeys are less than 5 kilometres, yet the Government is wanting to invest over $50 billion on 17 roads that most people will not use. If the Minister of Housing wants good urban development outcomes, then the Minister of Transport himself needs to ensure that the transport investment is structured to enable modal shift instead of making sure it goes into car dependency. The Ministry of Transport’s emission reduction plan called for fewer vehicle kilometres travelled, not more, but what have we seen? Just roads—just roads.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I hope this Government has started packing, because Aotearoa has had it up to here. Aotearoa has had enough of a tone-deaf Government rushing through legislation with less than 1 percent support from submitters. Aotearoa has had enough of the anti-Māori, anti-worker rhetoric, and they’ve had enough of the struggle.

The cost of living is up, and so is unemployment. Today, in response to a question about unemployment, we heard the Prime Minister say, “This Government have ambition for young people, and we want to get them connected to training and employment.” Yet here we are—unemployment in Aotearoa is at a nine-year high at 5.3 percent. It’s worse for Māori and Pasifika, but the worst statistic of all is that of Gisborne and Hawke’s Bay, who have an astronomical increase in unemployment of 78 percent. It’s a beautiful part of Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, renowned for its contribution to primary industries. These are not just statistics. These represent whānau already decimated by Cyclone Gabrielle being further decimated by the inaction of this Government. It’s not young people at home on PlayStations, as this out-of-touch Government would have you believe. These are people once gainfully employed, supporting their whānau and their local economy, now being forced to look for opportunities abroad, leaving their whānau and their whenua.

When whānau move overseas, leaving their whenua, it not only has a financial impact. It can cause an interruption to the connection future generations have with their reo, their customs, their marae, and their extended whānau. But this Government have demonstrated that they don’t care about that. Instead of fulfilling their promises and dealing with what whānau repeatedly tell us matters to them—getting ahead through their own hard mahi, having access to quality healthcare, having a roof over their heads—this Government prioritises rushing through backward bills like the Education and Training Amendment Bill to remove Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

On this side of the House, we listen, and Labour has a plan—a plan for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, a plan for Aotearoa. Labour will back innovation, create jobs, and allow people to stay right here in Aotearoa and build a future.

It’s a tax plan. Tax, tax, tax.

Even in Northland, of course, Grant. We care about Northland too. Our targeted capital gains tax will boost health, with every dollar ring-fenced for your hauora, paying for three free doctors visits for everyone in Aotearoa, because health is wealth.

Don’t believe the rūpahu you hear from that side, whānau. Your whānau home, your whenua Māori, your farm, your KiwiSaver, and your business assets will not be affected by this. Your health will. Let’s get back to building an Aotearoa by us, for us; an Aotearoa where people can live where they’re from, where they want to be. Let’s build an Aotearoa that embraces our unique Māori identity and the greater role it will have in boosting our morale, our kotahitanga, and our economy.

I look forward to heading to the centre of Ikaroa-Rāwhiti tomorrow to celebrate our reo and identity at Toitū Te Reo. Heretaunga will be alive with pride at an event that celebrates Māoridom and has a massive impact on the local economy. Who would have known!

Aotearoa, if you’re sick and tired of a tone-deaf Government, if you’re sick and tired of anti-Māori, anti-worker rhetoric, and you’re sick of the struggle, take the power into your hands. You must enrol and you must vote to make sure we have a future-looking Government, a Government that embraces all of us, our unique identity as Aotearoa—everyone, manuhiri and tangata whenua alike. Enrol, vote, look forward to the future, and keep your eye on the prize, and that is ensuring that this tone-deaf, backward-looking Government is a one-term one.

I’m so pleased that I get this opportunity, which is quite rare in the greater scheme of things, to share some thoughts on the time that has just passed in the last couple of months since I last had this opportunity.

I’d like to start off by saying happy Diwali to all my neighbours in Takanini, in South Auckland, in East Auckland, and all around Aotearoa New Zealand. Our Indian community and our South-east Asian communities that celebrate Diwali give so much to our beautiful country, and I’m so grateful for the work that they do in enriching our land. I’m so grateful that I was invited to, and enjoyed attending, the third Pōkeno Diwali celebration—thank you to Prince and his team—the New Zealand Diwali 2025 in Barry Curtis Park, in my beautiful electorate, in Flatbush. There was also the South East Auckland Senior Citizens’ Association Diwali celebration; the Kiwi Tamil Samoogam Diwali celebrations; the Auckland Tamil Association; the inaugural Annakut and Diwali celebrations right here in Wellington, with the newly opened BAPS, where the Prime Minister and other Ministers also attended; the Bihar Jharkhand Association of New Zealand, that colourful celebration only a couple of weeks ago; and not to mention New Zealand Telugu Association, as well, amongst many others. Happy Diwali, and may the festivity of this season continue to enrich your lives until the next season and beyond.

It’s really great that during celebrations and all types of events, I get to speak to people that are in my community. We talk about all things—happy things and quite depressing things, as well. It’s no secret that people are doing it tough. They’re doing it really tough, and these conversations come to my ears on the doorsteps of Takanini and at events like this, as well. They’re doing it tough, and my heart goes out for them. They’re doing it tough, and they know that things will not turn around in the less than two years that we’ve been in Government. They’re doing it tough, but they’re not angry at me; they’re angry at the six years before we came into Government. What happened then?

Shall we have a bit of a friendly reminder about what happened in the last six years before we were given the privilege and the responsibility to take taxpayers’ money into our hands and work with it carefully? Tell us about that Auckland light rail, Mr Dan Bidois. What happened there? Almost $230 million was spent, and not a metre of track was laid. Money went everywhere, except on the ground. What about three waters? Oh my goodness! A staggering, eye-watering over $1 billion was spent on something that would have taken assets away from local communities. We scrapped it because it was rubbish. What about that Auckland Harbour cycle walking bridge? Shall we get a memory about how much was spent there? Over $51 million on a bridge that actually never left the drawing room. What about that public media merger of TVNZ and RNZ? Nearly $20 million was spent on a merger that no one got to watch. What about those health reforms in the middle of a pandemic? In their infinite wisdom on the other side, they decided to thrust us into a health reform. What does that say about how they treat taxpayer money? What about the $2.75 million that was given to the Mongrel Mob so the Mongrel Mob can teach others how to avoid meth? That is the biggest oxymoron of the century.

I am proud—I am proud—of the fact that there is so much going on in New Zealand and we are going to feel the tides turn very soon, because we are setting the foundations for this economic growth that we’ve been working on since before we actually got into Government. I’m proud of the fact that one of those is Mill Road in my beautiful electorate of Takanini. I’m proud of the fact that with Family Boost, we’ve expanded it so many more families in Takanini can utilise that. So much more is coming, not to mention the fast tracking of getting Costco built in the Hon Judith Collins’ electorate. That’s going to cause competition and bring prices down. I can’t wait for this growth to continue. Here, on this side, we’ve got competence, not people that waste taxpayers’ money. Thank you very much.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

I move, That the Auckland Council (Auckland Future Fund) Bill be now read a third time.

It is a privilege to rise today for the third reading of the Auckland Council (Auckland Future Fund) Bill. I have had the honour of carrying this local bill through Parliament on behalf of Auckland Council from its introduction to this final stage. Reaching the third reading and seeing this bill likely to pass is an incredible moment. This is the first legislation I have carried through Parliament, and it has been a remarkable journey working with Auckland Council and colleagues across the House.

Knowing this bill will soon make a real difference for Aucklanders is truly exciting, a moment I will always remember. Throughout the development of this bill, I have had the privilege of engaging with colleagues from across the House. Many members generously shared their time, offered insights, and provided constructive feedback. Your engagement has strengthened this legislation, and I sincerely thank you for your willingness to listen, discuss, and contribute to a bill that will benefit Aucklanders for generations.

The purpose of this bill is straightforward: to ensure that the Auckland Future Fund is governed and managed as a long-term financial investment for the benefit of current and future generations of Aucklanders, with the aim of maintaining or even increasing the real value of its capital over time. In other words, this bill is about securing a sustainable financial foundation for Auckland now and for generations to come.

As Auckland is the heart of New Zealand, the benefit of this fund will extend far beyond the city itself. Improvements in Auckland will generate positive impacts for other regions across the country such as Northland, Tauranga, and Hamilton as well.

The Auckland Future Fund was formally launched in September 2024 and initially capitalised with the council’s remaining shares in Auckland International Airport Limited. Auckland Council’s longterm plan identified this fund as a key mechanism to diversify investments, protect the real value of major assets, fund services, and reduce reliance on rates. This bill formalised and strengthened this arrangement by embedding key principles of governance, investment, and distribution in statute. It ensured the fund remained a long-term financial investment and established a 75 percent supermajority first hold of the governing body for any decision to depart from the fund’s core principles.

The Auckland Future Fund spreads risk across sectors, regions, and types of investment, reducing exposure to uncertainty. It represents a shift in how we think about public finance. Whether they rely solely on rates, debt, or central government funding, this fund provides a pathway to a long-term financial resilience. It gives Auckland Council a tool to invest in the city’s future while shading it from short-term uncertainties and political pressures, strengthening Auckland’s ability to face future challenges with confidence. The fund is expected to generate an additional $40 million per year for the council from the 2025 to 2026 financial year. This means less pressure on rates, greater financial flexibility, and a stronger buffer for the city in times of uncertainty.

In the 2024 to 2025 financial year, the fund produced $38.4 million in distribution income, compared to just $10.2 million in dividends they would have received from retaining the airport shares. Combined, both the capital value and income mean the council is currently $100 million better off than it would have been without the fund. These are real measurable gains that demonstrate that the fund is already delivering strong financial outcome for Aucklanders. This legislation embeds credence and accountability in laws, and ensures the fund is managed carefully and wisely so it will continue to benefit Aucklanders for generations.

Looking to the future, this bill represents long-term planning and responsible financial management. It provides Auckland with a stable foundation to continue growing, investing in essential services, and meeting future challenges. It ensures the city wealth is managed wisely for the benefit of both current residents and future generations.

I would like to acknowledge the Auckland Council, particularly Mayor Wayne Brown and Councillor Christine Fletcher, who is actually present in the House today—welcome—for their leadership in establishing the Auckland Future Fund.

Thank you also to the Minister for Auckland, Simeon Brown, for his support. I am especially grateful to both Mayor Brown and Minister Simeon Brown for putting their faith in me to carry this legislation. I also wish to recognise Auckland Council Head of Governance Stu Mullin and all council and parliamentary staff who have contributed to bringing this bill to the House. I also want to acknowledge the chair and all the members of the Governance and Administration Committee, as well as all the Aucklanders who took the time to share their feedback on this legislation.

Mayor Wayne Brown has asked me to pass on his sincere thanks and to read a message on his behalf: “The Auckland Future Fund is a long-term investment for Aucklanders, and this bill is the strongest protection possible to ensure the money is only ever used for what the fund was intended for: improving Auckland’s financial resilience.

“This is a sensible idea and an example of Wellington actually doing what Aucklanders want. The fund is already contributing far more than the airport shares it came from, and that will benefit Aucklanders in the future. I don’t go to Wellington, so Dr Carlos Cheung, reading this on my behalf, is the closest I will get to being in Parliament. Thank you to all the MPs from across the House for coming together to support this bill and to Dr Carlos Cheung for sponsoring it. This is a good example of Wellington working with Auckland on a sensible idea. I look forward on this continuing.”

I also got a message from Councillor Christine Fletcher, and she asked me to pass it on to the House as well: “In suggesting the establishment of the Auckland Future Fund to the Mayor, I recognised the huge financial challenges facing Auckland and the need to do things differently if we were to succeed in increasing our own rates revenue for council, in order to meet its operation.

“I wish to acknowledge James Colvin for his collaboration in working with me to build a business case to present to the Mayor as part of the long-term funding plan. The greatest risk I faced in developing this was to lose the trust of the public in the misuse of the funds. Therefore, I warmly welcome this strong legislative protection for the fund that will give the public confidence that this legacy will be respected now and into the future.

“I wish to record my gratitude to the directors of the CCO, chair Chris Swasbrook and the members David Callanan and Greg Strobo for their careful, yes, visionary approach to the fund and testimony, and acknowledge Megan Holley and the Auckland Council staff who have worked closely with the board. I sincerely thank Carlos Cheung and all the members of the Parliament who have guided this legislation with careful stewardship through the House for Aucklanders.”

In conclusion, with the support of all the colleagues across the House, this important legislation will pass, providing a strong financial foundation for Aucklanders today and for generation to come. The Auckland Future Fund ensures Auckland is ready to meet the challenges ahead with confidence and care. I’m looking forward to families in Mount Roskill and the wider Auckland community benefiting from this fund now and in the future. I commend this bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

I was going to start by thanking Dr Carlos Cheung for bringing this bill to the House, but he thanked himself—twice—so I’m not sure that that’s necessary. I do, however, think it’s necessary to acknowledge and commend the hard work and creativity of Mayor Wayne Brown and Auckland Council in drafting this bill. The council has demonstrated professionalism and a strong commitment to ensuring that Auckland will have the capital funds to support the city’s future, and we, of course, support that, and we also support this bill.

I think it’s important to note that there was nervousness and there was criticism from some of our Auckland representatives who wanted to keep some ownership of their locality’s biggest asset. As has been mentioned by Dr Carlos Cheung, this fund is primarily supported by airport share sales that will provide at least $1.31 billion to the Auckland Future Fund. It’s important to note that the former Manukau City Council was very vigilant on holding on to their assets, and so you can understand why the South Auckland - based councillors feel a sense of ownership and loss with this particular asset. In saying that, at least in this instance, it has been invested in what we think is an appropriate manner. That doesn’t mean that asset sales proposed by the other side of the House would necessarily be done in the same way. In fact, I doubt that they would.

While the bill is a step forward for the city of Auckland, it does not change the fact that the Government continues to take Auckland backwards and we face several challenges in Auckland at the moment. As a result of National’s economic mismanagement in Auckland, Aucklanders continue to face an unemployment rate up to 6.1 percent in the June 2020 quarter—the worst of all regions. We face increasing food crisis prices, up another 5 percent on last year; new vehicle registration fees; increased public transport fees; and increasing food insecurity in the city. It is important to note that, because despite this very good idea by the Auckland Council, and the Auckland Council being able to think ahead and futureproof Auckland’s future, the Government, yes, have adopted this bill and taken it forward for them alongside Dr Carlos Cheung—I thank him for doing that—but we have to recognise that Auckland faces so many challenges and that this Government has done very little to alleviate the pressure for Auckland City. However, it is about the Auckland Council (Auckland Future Fund) Bill, and I stand here today to say—it feels like it’s been a very long process, but I’m glad that we’re at the third reading and we support this bill.

E te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I just want to join with the Hon Carmel Sepuloni in congratulating Carlos Cheung for bringing this bill to the House. I had had a number of conversations with our mayor, Wayne Brown, about this intended bill when it was first being drafted up and understand why it landed with a member of the Government, given the convenience of working with the Government of the day.

I just want, firstly, to articulate for those who may be following along at home what this bill actually does, because I think it’s important to note that this bill does not action the selling of assets. That has already been done. What this bill does do is set up a framework for the fund that is to be established with the revenue that is generated from the sale of those assets, with requisite guardrails around it—namely, to ensure that there is a protection of the real value of Auckland Council’s intergenerational assets so that they can continue to benefit future generations.

I think it is really important to note what this bill does and what this bill does not do—that it does not sell these assets but, instead, sets up this fund and the guardrails around it—because I need to be crystal clear that the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand unequivocally opposes the sale of our public assets. I am concerned about how, potentially, at some point in the not too distant future, commentary on this piece of legislation may potentially be taken out of context.

We’re stoked to see that the Government, and particularly the member Dr Carlos Cheung, is listening to Auckland, to Tāmaki-makau-rau, and to local government with this plea, but what we plea to the Government is to be consistent and principled in the listening that it is citing it is doing in creating and passing this legislation today, because Aucklanders, and even actually our mayor, are crystal clear that what Tāmaki-makau-rau Auckland needs is surface light rail. We need public transport systems that bust our congestion and that are adequately funded. We also need meaningful and real action on homelessness, which looks like providing housing for everybody who needs it. Also, we know that the majority of Aucklanders agree with the need for far faster and more serious climate action.

However, unfortunately, what we’re hearing from this Government in response to all of these pleas, both from Aucklanders and from local governments across the country, is that what their intention is to do is to respond with a rates cap, to minimise the ability of local government to have that direct accountability to their constituencies when it comes to raising the revenue to invest in infrastructure, to invest in the likes of public transport and the likes of that climate action. Unfortunately, this bill does not touch the sides on the far broader and more significant issues that face local governments around this country, which successive Governments, actually, have commissioned reports on time and time again, to tell them exactly the same thing, but then do nothing to act upon that advice.

We had, almost 15 years ago, the Shand inquiry into local government, which told us that local government does not have the revenue necessary to invest in meeting its mandate. More than that, we had the Productivity Commission review of the Shand inquiry about six or so years ago, which said exactly the same thing. Then, about a year or two ago, we had the Future for Local Government Review, which again told us that we need to resource local government if we want it to work effectively, let alone meet its democratic mandate. However, unfortunately, what we’re met with right now is a ticking time bomb of the situation with local government in this country, and I here want to point to three particular things which are all deeply interrelated.

We have seen that there has been an historical rates increase for local governments all across the country as a result of rates being made artificially low for far too long and cost pressures accumulating. That has simultaneously been met with so many of our local governments being faced with the need to make their books balance under the auspices of a Government that is not willing to do its part in the partnership of meeting the needs of our communities. So many of our local governments are also being forced to sell off assets, which means that there is less of those assets available to leverage against should our local governments like to borrow into the future. The third point is that also so many of our local governments have had their credit ratings downgraded as a result of the Government chopping and changing the plan when it comes to three waters.

All of those three things point to a pretty bleak picture at the moment for the state of local government in this country, and I guess in my contribution what I am asking for from this Government and from all members in this House is a recognition of the fact that we are elected by precisely the same people who our locally elected representatives are. We hold the same responsibility, but we hold so much more of the budget. If I recall, off the top of my head, correctly, we are amongst the lowest in the OECD for the proportion of spending that occurs discretionarily within the local government sphere compared to the central government sphere. In the OECD, I believe, it’s an average of about 30 percent, but here in Aotearoa New Zealand, it’s less than half of that, at 11 percent. If people in this place want to bang their chest about localism and want to bang their chest about working in partnership with local government, we need to see that consistency and that principle carried on into the future.

In a nutshell, we support this legislation today, again, because it does not sell those assets but puts in place the guardrails around how those resources are to be managed into the future. I would just like to, in speaking to the broader context in summation, point out that if we are to go down the track, as the Prime Minister has foreshadowed in his public commentary this week, of the sell-off of our public assets and the need for a supposed mature conversation, I would broaden the remit of that mature conversation to one of how we are running our economy and who we are running it for. Our country is also well overdue a mature conversation on who is carrying the tax burden and, ultimately, the kinds of investment that we can make in increasing our productive capacity and in meeting all of the rhetoric that this Government talks about when it comes to growth. In fact, if you are to measure the actions of this Government against its own rhetoric, what you see from their shredding of public investment in our public services and in our public infrastructure is actually the diminishing and the whittling away of that productive capacity and of that very growth they say they care about. This is how you go about killing the golden goose.

In my final remarks, I just want to acknowledge and celebrate the incredible creativity and talent and innovation of Aucklanders and call upon this Government to do what it knows it actually can, which is to properly resource the infrastructure and our communities to help them to realise their potential. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. This is what Auckland Council is doing with the future fund; it deserves real credit. I want to acknowledge the former Mayor of Auckland, Christine Fletcher, who was a hero of mine as a young engineer for promoting and sponsoring fantastic infrastructure projects like the Britomart Railway station, and what has flowed from that? Incredible developments like Britomart Square and so many others. It’s wonderful to see you here, Christine Fletcher.

This bill, this future fund, is courageous, it’s practical, and it’s a grown-up move, because the adult conversation New Zealand needs to have right now is about how we manage publicly owned assets and whether we’re going to keep all of these old things in the shed or we’re going to bring them out and we’re going to dust them off and we’re going to see if we can turn some of these old assets into better, more productive assets that actually allow our city to grow.

I just want to refer to the member who’s just spoken, the member for Auckland Central, Chlöe Swarbrick, who described cost pressures facing local government. She’s absolutely right. She described council’s struggle to balance the books; she’s absolutely right. But what she failed to mention was that after many, many years of councils raising rates or taking on debt, they failed to make the tough choices. When they’ve got billions and billions of dollars’ worth of assets, like Auckland Council does—it’s got stadiums, it’s got land, it’s got all kinds of things. If you can’t make tough choices about which assets do we really need to keep for the benefit of our city and our people, and which assets do we really, really need to build and buy, and can we make a trade-off—if you can’t make those tough choices, your city just grinds to a halt. The growth happens, but ever more slowly and in an ever more costly way, pricing people out of homes and futures.

It means employers who want to hire people—the new employees, the people applying for jobs, say, “I’d love to take the job, but there’s nowhere I can afford to live.” It means businesses who want to set up say, “Well, it would only work if I could do three loads a day, but, based on traffic congestion, I can only do two.” If we can’t solve those problems—and one of the ways we solve them is by recycling assets into new assets that we need—then we’re not having that tough conversation. We’re enabling bad behaviour and we’re limiting how, and how fast, our wonderful cities like Auckland can grow.

I applaud the council and I applaud Christine Fletcher and, of course, Dr Carlos Cheung, the sponsor of the bill, somebody who’s demonstrated that he listens to the needs of Aucklanders, as I know he did when he listened to Aucklanders about the speed humps and all the ridiculous things that Auckland Transport were doing to make our lives worse but weren’t saving any lives or the planet. Carlos Cheung listened to Auckland. This is a great example of that. Congratulations, Carlos. Bringing this to completion today is a great example of a local MP listening to local people and delivering a solution.

I just want to come back to this issue of lazy assets, because, for decades, central government and local government had both sat on lazy assets: ports, airports, buildings, all kinds of bits of land, growing gorse or barbed wire or rusting machinery. I know—I’ve seen it, because I worked at Auckland Council for three years in an asset management role. I saw it with my own eyes.

I saw people in one part of the city saying, “We want a new dog park.”, council saying, “We can build it for you, maybe a million dollars.”, then other people like me saying, “Hey you know, if people turn up in their really flash cars with dogs worth ten thousands of dollars—you know, a big pack of dogs—maybe you could charge them a small fee to use this dog park?” People looked at me like I was mad. But you know what, if people can afford to pay for a service, maybe we should ask them to chip in a little bit.

Anti - dog park. How’s that going to go in Mt Roskill, Carlos?

So many lazy assets. Unfortunately for some of the Labour members barracking across the Chamber, they honestly believe in fiscal unicorns—that there are these money unicorns that fly around showering money on local government, any project that Rachel Brooking or Arena Williams thinks up. Maybe ratepayers or some wealthy banker—I don’t know—maybe some oil baron is going to turn up and buy it for you. They’re not. Aucklanders and Kiwis need to make tough choices.

[Standing near Table of the House] Not the oil barons, thank you very much.

It’s not sustainable, what they’re proposing—

Please don’t speak while you’re on your feet.

—raising taxes, raising rates, borrowing money, and not making tough choices. The Auckland Future Fund changes that. It takes money locked up in the past and invests it in the future. Asset recycling is about adult behaviour—unlocking capital from things councils don’t need to own—

Paint the honesty box green, Rachel Brooking.

—and reinvesting it where it delivers value. That’s right, Cameron Luxton. Cameron Luxton, an MP from Tauranga—he knows what it’s like to live in a city where tough choices need to be made if you want your city to grow. That’s what responsible businesses do every day. That’s what families do every day. They sell one investment. They sell one investment to make a better one. Government and councils like Auckland should be no different.

The fund is projected a $40 million dividend next year. That’s not just a number; it’s real relief for ratepayers and it’s new money for infrastructure and services. But there’s a challenge, because if Auckland really wants to deliver on its growth ambitions, if it wants to be a world-class city, it’s going to have to be even more courageous and it’s going to have to go further. This council is going to need, like many others around New Zealand, to take an aggressive and innovative approach to leverage this fund and the other lazy assets they have on their balance sheet, because you can’t run a busy city if your balance sheet looks like a museum collection. The value of an airport or a port isn’t just in owning it; it’s using it to build what comes next.

I want to talk about the Port of Auckland—potentially a future opportunity for the type of asset recycling into the Auckland Future Fund that the airport was. It’s great to see Auckland setting up the port to become a truly commercial and profitable business. That’s setting the right direction, and if the port performs as it should—efficiently, safely, profitably—it could one day be a very attractive investment for private capital looking to partner with Auckland. That could be a KiwiSaver fund; it could be a local infrastructure or an international infrastructure investor.

These things are all available to New Zealanders right now, but what we need is courageous leaders like the former Mayor of Auckland and Auckland councillor Christine Fletcher and others who see the benefit of this. You think about the amount of capital tied up in an asset like the port. Councils don’t have to sell the underlying land, but what they can do is market the opportunity to run a business for a certain period of time and then use the funds that an investor is prepared to put into that to recycle into the next asset.

No one is talking about giving up the land and the future opportunities that presents. That’s how we build housing, we build transport and water infrastructure without incurring endless new debt. The bigger picture—

Privatise everything.

—this is now New Zealand’s conversation. I’m hearing it wherever I go, even in places like Dunedin, Rachel Brooking. I know they’re a long way from Wellington and civilisation, but even in Dunedin, they’re asking questions: how do we pay for the things we need, like a new town landfill? How do we pay to upgrade all of these buildings that need some kind of seismic repair? What assets do we own that we could recycle into something that we really, truly, desperately need?

We can’t keep taxing and borrowing for ever. We need to start reinvesting, and we can do that by recycling lazy assets. We can make our public balance sheets work just as hard as the people who fund them. Auckland’s leading the way; the rest of the country should follow. This isn’t about ideology. I want to reassure members, including the member for Auckland Central, Chlöe Swarbrick, who was concerned that this might lead to further discussions about asset recycling. I promise you it’s not about ideology; it’s about doing what’s practical. It’s about making the kind of choices that households and businesses make every day, that councils and Government have been insulated and isolated from for decades because they’ve been able to lean on taxpayers, lean on ratepayers, take on more debt. We saw what the previous Labour Government did—took on $60 billion—

$66 billion.

Sixty-six—Dan Bidois corrects me—during COVID. We’ve got absolutely nothing for it—not a hospital, not a school, not a road, not a port. Absolutely nothing. That shows you what lazy behaviour gets you.

But we did do it; we built a whole lot of shit.

It gets you nothing, Helen White. That is why we need to use what we have to build what we need. That’s what ACT calls “fixing what matters”. I commend this bill.

Point of order. I was waiting for the member to finish his contribution. Madam Speaker, we had a member come to the Table and make contributions to the debate whilst standing at the Table. I would ask for your reflections on what took place there, please.

I saw what happened and I saw you intervene with a ruling and I thought the matter was dealt with at the time.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I find myself somewhat unexpectedly talking on the Auckland Council (Auckland Future Fund) Bill and I was feeling a little bit sheepish on that. But then Simon Court decided to wade into Dunedin issues, so now I’m not going to hold back—I’m going to give in. I’ll tell you what I think.

The first thing I’d like to say is that I join in the congratulations to Dr Carlos Cheung for bringing this bill forward. Local bills aren’t that common in this Parliament, but I too have had this honour with the Gore District Council (Otama Rural Water Supply) Bill back in the 52nd Parliament. That was a bill that that was far smaller in scale than this. It was a about local water scheme where there was a stock reticulation scheme where there was a dispute about the ownership or they were trying to sort that out, and they did that through a local bill in the Parliament. I do know what a great honour it is. There are a lot of MPs in Auckland, and that you had been asked to bring this forward is a real feather in your cap.

New Zealand First will be supporting this bill, and in saying we are supporting the bill, what I’m really saying is that we respect the decision that has been made by the democratically elected council by a 75 percent supermajority. I note that one of councillors and a former mayor, Mayor Fletcher, is here in the building—of course, a former member of this Parliament.

What I would ask—and this is an ideological divide; it absolutely is, and let’s not put the blinkers on this. New Zealand First would not be selling this if we had any part in this. Auckland Airport is an absolutely gold standard, blue chip investment. It’s far from rusting barbed wire and gorse. It’s under a major expansion, which is probably why the dividend is pretty modest at the moment—because it’s in a major expansion phase. It is a really important asset not just for Auckland but for New Zealand.

Simon Court did raise the issue in Dunedin. We had exactly this issue come up recently, and Rachel Brooking would know this well. With the local lines company, Aurora, the council were looking to do exactly this, and the parsimonious southerners, the Scottish Presbyterians down there, said, “No, we’re not doing this.” The council tried to, and there was a local revolt, because we know what a long-term strategic asset looks like. We didn’t go down that path, and we now have a $1.5 billion asset that has almost a guaranteed return as a lines company. We didn’t go down that path. However, the Auckland Council has, and New Zealand First will support this bill under those criteria. This is a local democracy issue.

I think one of the reasons why Dunedin didn’t go down this path was because there was an underlying lack of trust—that a big lump sum of money like this going back to a council would just be squandered over time. If you look at Auckland, what was the ASB, the Auckland Savings Bank? That was a local asset that now returns billions of dollars to the Australian economy, not our economy. That’s what happens when you sell your assets.

But this is a decision that has been made by Auckland Council, and bringing it here to this House is a very smart move to codify in law what the criteria are, what the guardrails are, to make sure that it isn’t squandered and is used for its intended purpose so that there is some hope that wherever it’s invested will be within the intent of the original decision makers and why the decision to sell the airport shares was taken. I think it’s really important that we have these guardrails, so, again, I congratulate the council for being forward-looking and recognising the fact that we need to protect what is a major investment, a major lump sum of money, so that it is used appropriately and not squandered in any sorts of vanity projects that we are somewhat prone to seeing around the country.

This is a smart move, and it puts at arm’s length the mechanics of how this money will be invested and protected against overly zealous future councils blowing the lot. That’s the New Zealand First position. I think we’ve made pretty clear. It is an interesting ideological debate, but it’s a bit of a phoney war at this stage. We’re debating someone else’s assets, but come the election, I’m sure that this will be a live issue. With that, I commend this bill to the House.

Now that I am safely behind this side of the wall, I can continue. I do rise to support this Auckland Council (Auckland Future Fund) Bill at its third reading, but I want to draw a few challenges and contrasts. This bill was good legislative practice, both in its substance and in the way it got here. Although it’s actually fairly small, fairly straightforward, it still went through the whole select committee process, and we all agreed. We on the select committee asked the Auckland Council quite a number of questions. We had submissions from other organisations—not a huge number. We were able to hear every submission as a committee.

This bill is putting the proceeds from asset sales into a long-term fund. It is trusting the council to manage its own assets, and, in a way, that’s almost quite patronising. But given the attacks on local government from the Government benches, I think it is still worth noting your support for this bill. At the moment, the Governance and Administration Committee is debating the extent, with the Local Government (System Improvements) Amendment Bill, to which we will let local government do anything. I think it’s most unfortunate when the blame for local government rates rises is—what’s the word—very shallow, because you take a few projects that you don’t like and pretend that that’s the bulk of the capital or operational spending. That is absolutely not the case.

I would really urge any member of this Parliament who is interested in local government to go back to the 2019 report from the late, lamented Productivity Commission—it’s still there; it’s on the Treasury website—and have a little look at that international comparison of the responsibilities and the funding, and you will see how New Zealand depends so much on property taxes. There is very little partnership in other funding with central government. As a percentage of GDP, New Zealand’s local government spending is less than 4 percent. Whereas there are many places—France, Korea, Japan, and, of course, the Scandinavian countries, Poland, Spain, Germany. You wonder why their transport infrastructure, whether it’s cycle ways or roads or rail, is better than ours. Sometimes it’s because they spend more money on it.

In New Zealand, central government is spending over 40 percent of GDP, which is around about 10 times as much as local government, and yet, local government has got 25 percent of the public infrastructure. It is just not fair to slam local government for not being able to look after that infrastructure effectively. Forty percent of GDP might worry you, but I would say Finland, the UK, Iceland—they’re all well above 40 percent, and they’re very good countries to have your education, health, and infrastructure.

Given that the previous speeches went wide about local government, thank you, Mr Speaker, for indulging that broader conversation about central government letting local government do the right thing, agreed by the local people. This bill is a glimmer of hope that parties can work together for the benefit of local government. Thank you.

This is turning into a really interesting Wednesday afternoon, as we delve into the depths of ideology. We’ve just heard from the Greens, who said, “Will the Government let local government do anything at all?” Yet Celia Wade-Brown’s leader, Chlöe Swarbrick, was the one standing up and saying they shouldn’t have been selling the airport—“We shouldn’t have been selling that.”—trying to change what Auckland Council democratically chose to do, saying it was the golden goose. I think that party is full of dead ducks, personally, but a golden goose is what they called it.

She celebrated the fact that we heard from all the submitters. We heard from two out of 12. One of those was the Auckland Council, you’ll be shocked to hear! We heard from Dr Carlos Cheung. What a great advocate he has been for Auckland. I have no doubt—no doubt—that he will be here for many years as the MP for Mt Roskill, because he’s such a strong advocate for his community and so well respected. I’ve had the privilege of seeing that as I’ve travelled around and met people from the Mount Roskill area—just how well respected he is and how hard he works.

In fact, I was on the plane with—I’d better not name him—a former All Black the other day, and we were having a great chat about how the team were going. He said, “Do you know what, something strange happened.”—and this relates to the bill. He said, “Something strange happened the other day. For the first time ever, someone knocked on my door, an MP.”—because I talked about how we go knocking on doors. I said, “Where do you live?” He said, “Mount Roskill.” I said, “Was it a tall Chinese gentleman?” He said, “Yes, it was.” That just shows how hard Carlos Cheung is working for the people of Auckland, and this bill is yet one more example of the great work he’s doing.

Of course, we’ve had New Zealand First saying they wouldn’t sell anything. There’s been a lot of talk about future funds recently.

Good talk.

“Good talk,” says someone from somewhere in the country. New Zealand First just said that we shouldn’t sell anything. There’ll be a future fund that we’ll put assets into, but you wouldn’t sell anything to get the capital to put into that fund. I’m intrigued to see how that works.

Even less detail comes from the other side of the House, as they stand up and say we should take this bill and have this on a national level, a future fund for all of New Zealand, based on the Singapore model—but you wouldn’t sell anything; you’d transfer assets into it. You wouldn’t sell them, but you’d grow the fund. I don’t know how that works, because in the places like Singapore, where it works, you put assets in, which is what Auckland Council have done here. There’s a lot of debate, and we’ve heard it over the last hour. Should the airport be sold? Should the shares not be sold? It’s too late; they have been sold. This decision was made. It’s part of the long-term plan from last year. Auckland Council made the decision. This is about what we do with the funds now, going into an account where they can be used, they will be grown, they can be invested somewhere else. We can sell something else. That’s how we’re going to trade up and get more money for Auckland City.

That’s what this is all about, and on the other side of the House, they’d say, “Well, you wouldn’t sell anything”—but magically it will be growing! The Green Party was saying, “We’ll just tax everyone more, borrow some more. That’ll be the answer.” It is absolute insanity, but I think it’s important to just remind ourselves that what’s not up for debate in this bill is whether you should be selling shares in Auckland Airport. Auckland Council have taken that decision. There was a democratic decision made by Auckland, by the people they have voted to represent them, and now it’s about what we do with that money and how that fund is handled. Again, this is what Auckland Council have asked for. We are doing our due diligence over the legal aspects of the bill, looking at the legislation, making sure it’s going to serve the correct purpose, but that decision has been made. It’s really interesting to hear the ideology of the other side, who want to borrow more, want to tax more, want to somehow not sell the assets to get more value out of them. The mathematics is confusing. What we’re talking about here is what we are going to do with this legislation.

Really, it looks pretty simple when you read it. It’ll be a four-page Act when it comes into force. I know this has been highlighted, but the Allan McLean fans in this House will know that there’s a lot of talk about when a local bill or a private bill should come to pass. When should it just be done through a trust? Well, the “Takapuna Ice Cream Bill” was a really interesting one that we’ve just passed through this House as well. Why can’t this just be a fund? As we’ve just said, the decision was made by Aucklanders about what to do with their shares. The decision has been made that they’ll put it in a fund that will continually grow and be used to pay for the things that they’ve consulted on in their long-term plan, the kinds of things that Aucklanders might want in the future—I assume, to leave Auckland!—but other things as well. Why would it need this Act of Parliament?

One last time—this is the last time we’ll have time to cover this in the House—the reason is it is slightly different to something like the Allan McLean trust variation bill that we went over last year, where it was already an existing Act of Parliament and the law needed to be changed. We all remember the story of Allan McLean: leaving Scotland, coming out to Australia; gold mining; his brother’s life being threatened; Fan So, the Chinese man that helped him to escape; they moved to New Zealand; he sets up a refuge for women and young girls in New Zealand—the great work he did. There are a lot of fans on this side of the House for what Allan McLean has done, but the difference in this case is that there is no Act of Parliament that exists. The reason we’re creating one is almost entirely for what we read in clause 11. It’s about the distribution of funds.

What they have said is, “Hey, you should always ensure that the total of the fund is growing each year—that the balance either stays even or goes up.”, but they have said there are specific requirements that you can meet if you want to spend it down. I think back to the 2011 Rugby World Cup. I was a fan of a big waterfront stadium in Auckland. That was the opportunity. Richie McCaw was always going to lead the men to victory, as he did. That was the chance, winning at home. Could we have a big waterfront stadium so we wouldn’t have Helen Clark and the wokes complaining about concerts late at night? But the decision wasn’t made; it was a big spend of money. But there may come a time that, with some kind of asset like that, Auckland says, “This is worth it. We’re going to spend down the capital in the future fund, but it will create opportunities. It will create growth. It might create employment. It might create more tourism, more hospitality.”

Explain what those are. Labour don’t understand what they are.

That’s a good point, Mr Carl Bates, MP for Whanganui—great man. The reason we’re going to do that is there are specific criteria, and what they have said is that there must be at least 75 percent of members on council who are entitled to vote that vote for the resolution.

Now, that 75 percent is really important, because otherwise, under normal law, it could only go up to 66 percent. To get to 75 percent, what they call the “supermajority”, to make sure we’re really protecting these cases, so that you can’t easily tilt the numbers on council and come in and spend down the fund and just fritter it away on the kinds of pet projects that that everyone hates—to protect that at 75 percent—it has to be set by an Act of Parliament. We tested this in the select committee. We looked at this carefully. We looked at this closely. There isn’t another way around it. That, for me, is the bit that meets the threshold to say, yes, it is worth us setting aside time in the House, the time of Parliament, of the House staff that work here, of all those that work in this House: the Clerks, the Hansard team, security guards, everyone that is part of this—and we’re so grateful for their help in this place. It’s worth us all putting the time into this to protect it with that 75 percent supermajority.

I should point out, in fairness to council—because I do think they’ve done their due diligence in this—it is not just a 75 percent majority that we are enshrining in legislation, but also that they have to meet these grounds: that the proposed distribution, the spending of that money, will achieve a benefit for Auckland that is better for the current and future communities of Auckland than just maintaining or growing the cash. Hey, we could just grow the cash and that gets us a 5 percent return maybe next year. No, it is better for us now and into the future—there’s a future focus—that we invest the money, that we spend the money, and that reducing the real value of the capital is the best means of achieving that benefit. In other words, have we considered another way to build the stadium? Can we do both things at the same time on two sorts of parallel railway tracks?

Also, there has to be consultation take place explicitly in the long-term plan. You can’t just come up with this idea at a council meeting and suddenly convince everyone “Do you know what? Let’s do that waterfront stadium. We’ve got the Auckland Future Fund. We just need three-quarters of us to agree.”—“Yeah, let’s do it.” No, you have to actually go out, consult the public through that longterm plan process, and there will be a chance for the Auckland Council to do that in the next 18 months. There are really clear, I think, criteria that explain to us and give Aucklanders some certainty that this bill is the right option and that their future needs are being protected in terms of assets that are being sold. They can rest easy knowing they’ve got MPs like Melissa Lee and Cameron Brewer and Dan Bidois and Carlos Cheung, who are in the House right now fighting for them, fighting for their future, enshrining this.

We don’t need the crazy ideas on false economics from the other side of the House, the dead ducks from the Greens, or the ideological debates. What we need to do is support Dr Carlos Cheung, MP for Mt Roskill. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Tāmaki-makau-rau, Tāmaki Herehere, Tāmaki Herenga Waka. The Auckland Council (Auckland Future Fund) Bill, today, Labour will be supporting. It’s been a long time coming, and can I acknowledge Mayor Wayne Brown; Councillor Fletcher, who is with us here today; Stuart and the team in the mayor’s office who have been doing the hard yards, answering questions in the background and supporting us to get through this third reading today.

It is a good thing, this future fund. Labour supports this bill and its provision of statutory protection for the Auckland Future Fund. It will help provide Aucklanders with the confidence they can know that it will help current and future councils to invest productively, helping to support our city to grow and to become more prosperous. The fund operates as a council-controlled organisation and regional fund under high-level direction from council but through an independent structure where the trustees board makes key decisions. This is estimated to return 7.24 percent per annum over the long term, with 5.24 percent return to council as an annual cash distribution, and the rest protecting the real value of the fund. It is approximately $60 million to $70 million per year returned to the council from 202526. That is money invested in Aucklanders; that is real money, real returns, and real investment in our greatest city in this country.

I do acknowledge the further investment that is required back in Auckland, back in transport, back in infrastructure that has been cut under this Government. But for today, we will celebrate that this bill is going through, that it’s an achievement of Mayor Wayne Brown and of all of our councillors here that have done work on this today. I commend the bill to the House.

It’s a pleasure to rise and contribute to this debate about three very important topics that are near and dear to my heart: Auckland, the future, and funds. It’s great to be here. It’s a great day for Mount Roskill. I would like to start out by acknowledging the hard-working member from Mt Roskill, Dr Carlos Cheung, an outstanding member. It’s a great day for Mount Roskill, as it is for Auckland. Christine Fletcher, it’s great to see you here; congratulations on your re-election and thank you for your leadership in this matter. Thank you to the Governance and Administration Committee—hard-working. You’ve had some big topics this Parliament, and I appreciate your contribution. Thank you to the council team—Stu Mullin, a guy that would always say there are no votes in the electorate office. I treated that to mean “always be out and about in your own community”. Thank you to Stuart for his constant advice and wisdom.

Auckland is a great city. It is the greatest city, in my view, in this country, and I’ve lived all around the world. I’ve lived in Paris, Kuala Lumpur, I’ve lived in San Francisco, I’ve lived—I need to check my notes, because I don’t know where else I’ve lived. I’ve lived in Kuala Lumpur, and I must say, Auckland is the best city, by far, that I’ve lived in, and I’m not putting other cities down, but it is the only city that I’d want to live in in New Zealand. From the wonderful run along the Tamaki Bay Drive to the mountain ranges in the Waitakere hills, to the wonderful old splendour of the Chelsea Sugar Factory, it is a great city.

But it’s got some really big challenges in the future, as we know. Those challenges are around water infrastructure; transport, and that includes roads and other public transport; and ports. We’ve got some massive infrastructure challenges in this city so that it maintains its standing as a wonderful place to live, grow, and raise a family.

It’s often said the regions are the backbone in New Zealand, and I would agree with that.

They are.

But increasingly—they are, as Carl Bates, member for Whanganui, said—with the demographics change in New Zealand, Auckland is going to be the backbone of the country in the future. It is essential that we have the finance and funding capabilities to make sure that this city thrives into the future. This is what this bill is about. It is a part of the funding solution for Auckland’s future.

Let me turn to the purpose, which is about making sure that this fund lives in perpetuity for future Aucklanders, for years to come—Aucklanders, hopefully, like my son, your kids, kids across the House, and their grandkids as well. This fund is all about maximising the return that can then fund the infrastructure needs for the future. This is an independent fund. We have a 75 percent threshold for distribution, and that is, I think, and as Carlos Cheung thinks as well, a high enough threshold to ensure that that fund continues to grow and that it is only needed when there is near unanimous views across our Auckland Council Chamber.

Just in terms of the bill, I have read it. It isn’t a big lengthy bill, and I know members here have read it, because it isn’t that lengthy, but sometimes good things come in small packages. It really talks to the governance and management arrangements for this bill, the investment structure, and the distribution structure as well. Again, part of the solution is this bill, but I want to now turn to other parts that will help fund Auckland’s future. Our Minister, Simon Watts, is working hard around this Government’s rate cap policy; we look forward to announcing that very, very soon. We have also been very clear to councils up and down this country: get back to the basics, focus on the basics. And what is that? It’s core infrastructure, core services that every New Zealander, every Aucklander, every ratepayer deserves and expects.

We just passed in this House, a bill yesterday, the time of use charging bill, that allows a further funding option for councils to be able to fund public transport and other infrastructure needs. It passed with unanimous support, and I certainly look forward to helping to roll this out in years to come. It will be a bumpy road, but it is part of the funding solution for the future.

We’ve also got regional deals, which are part of this Government’s strategy around making sure that we partner with councils. I, certainly, want to acknowledge Wayne Brown, the mayor, firstly for his re-election—very strong re-election result—but secondly for his willingness to engage with this Government on a regional deal to make sure that we partner with them where they need it. We’ve heard the mayor’s calls loud and clear. We want to stick to our knitting and let council actually get on with it as well.

But we can’t have this debate without actually turning to the area and topic of asset recycling. Our Prime Minister has made it clear that on this side of the House—well, most of this side of the House—we should have a grown-up, honest conversation about the assets that we have and what is the best use of those assets. I come from an economics profession, which is a bit dry and boring, but, essentially, the key theme in economics that comes up is: who is the best organisation to get the best outcomes for those assets? If you can convince me that, actually, it’s the Government ownership or local council ownership, then fair enough. But I think for New Zealanders up and down this country, they would say, “Well, actually, it doesn’t make sense for Governments or councils to own certain assets.” The council made this decision as they started to sell down their assets and shares in Auckland Airport.

I think that it’s high time that we as a Parliament have that same conversation, because the fact is, we’re talking about the future. The future we need to talk about is the level of debt that this country has endured and has accumulated, largely due to the $66 billion that that Opposition spent in the last six years. They are funds that, sadly, our kids, our grandkids are going to be saddled with unless we have a serious conversation about how to get that debt down. Most of the people on the other side probably haven’t learnt that we are paying $8.8 billion, this year alone, on our interest bill. That’s 5 percent. Look, we need, I think, a serious conversation. This side is certainly up for that, and this bill is good.

Can I just wrap up and say this is a wonderful bill. It does, I think, go some way to addressing the infrastructure and funding needs—

Funding model.

—the funding model, as Carlos Cheung just reminded me—for the future. I want to commend those who have been part of this process. It takes a lot to bring a bill like this to Parliament. Thank you to the member for sponsoring. Thank you to, again, those from council and those who have been part of this process. I welcome this bill’s passing and I look forward to the day when we can start to see the benefits of compound interest and the benefits of the rate of return that will actually give a fantastic option for councils up and down this country. I know this model was actually started in Taranaki; they were the first mover with this fund. We are the second mover, as Auckland, and I look forward to, potentially, other councils right up and down this country doing similar things so that we all can have a better, brighter future in this country. I commend this bill to the House.

The next call is a split call.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. First of all, I want to acknowledge Councillor Fletcher. It’s lovely to see her here in the House today, because she, obviously, started her political career here. I get to work with Christine Fletcher in my electorate, and it’s a very collaborative and successful relationship. Congratulations to Christine Fletcher for being part of actually building this solution.

This solution came out of a very angsty discussion about the airport shares and whether they would be sold. What has been built is a solution which has received support from the council and the representatives and, I believe, from the public. It’s a solution that addresses those fears—that by selling something that was an asset that was treasured by a community and built up by a community, it’s going to remain within that community and benefit it in the long term. It is a long-term fund, and there have been mechanisms built in, guardrails built in, which mean that it should be a safe place, and it should be something that actually endures into the future. I think that’s a fantastic part of what we’re doing here today. I think those are very real fears that people have about asset sales, for very good reasons. We had a history of asset sales in the past that have been problematic, to say the least, and we’ll be talking about those, no doubt, as we go into the next year.

I also want to talk about how this is not a get out of jail free card for the Government, because Auckland is intensifying. Auckland, in my area in particular, is getting a lot more housing, and it’s getting it because it will make the Auckland economy more productive. It will bring a whole lot of productivity into the whole of New Zealand, if we do that well. If we do it badly, it will be very difficult for the people of Auckland. It is really important that this Government support the infrastructure needs of a growing Auckland, because the taxpayers’ dollars come from Auckland, and it needs to be adequately supported. Alongside those intensifications that are going on, we’re going to need to make sure we have decent stormwater.

I reject the suggestion of the other member, Dan Bidois, that there’s a need to make sure we’re just doing the basics, because what are the basics? The basics also include building very good community. It’s really important that those communities are happy places, where my grandkids and my kids can thrive. Those are really important things. I don’t believe that we should restrict what our local councils do. I actually think it’s really important that we respect those local councils to do the job that they’ve got to do closer to the ground. It is very important that they are adequately resourced to do that.

This fund is a good start, because it’s hard out there, and it’s hard for people to pay their rates. This will take the edge off. But it’s also important that the Government, as it brings in policies that mean there’s going to be more houses in an area like mine, actually steps up and make sure that the rail works, that the public transport is done, that we do have good stormwater, because otherwise the place will flood. All of those things are important. It’s important that it respects the job of the council to make sure that we have a decent community in place, not just one that is haphazard. It needs designing and building, and the best people to do that are the Auckland Council. Thank you. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr Speaker, thank you so much. It gives me great pleasure to speak in the third and final reading of this Auckland Council (Auckland Future Fund) Bill. I want to commend its sponsor, Dr Carlos Cheung, and all the work that you have done in getting this through—it’s been incredible—and all the work that you do as the MP for Mt Roskill. If there’s any particular group that wants you re-elected more than the National Party, it’s the Labour Party. The Labour Party wants you re-elected more than the National Party—it’s unbelievable—because the other option’s not so good. I digress, but Auckland is under huge pressure, and this is timely. Auckland is currently growing at about 50,000 people per year, and Statistics New Zealand say it could reach 2 million people by the end of the decade.

I want to reinforce that this is the Government for Auckland—this is the Government for Auckland. How do we know that? Well, we know that when you look at the SkyCity convention centre—the keys have been handed over, and the opening will be next year. We know when you look at the City Rail Link, and the fact that John Key pulled the lever on that, and it will be Christopher Luxon who cuts the ribbon on that. We know when you look at the Land Transport Management (Time of Use Charging) Amendment Bill that also got unanimous support in the House—something that the Auckland Chamber of Commerce and the Employers and Manufacturers Association have been calling for, for a number of years: congestion charging. Also, when you look at the Hauraki Gulf Marine Protection Act that we passed last month, there are 19 new protection areas—the most protection for the Hauraki Gulf ever. I also want to acknowledge, like others have, Christine Fletcher. She has been a big leader in the Hauraki Gulf, and, of course, she being a former MP and one of the architects here of the Auckland Future Fund—so I want to acknowledge Christine in being a brainchild of this Auckland Future Fund.

Isn’t it interesting, as far as asset recycling goes, we get unanimous support? If you call it asset recycling—I think it’s the word “recycling”—the Greens are on board. You can see what we’re saying there. I would like to think that, as others have said, we can have a grown-up conversation about asset recycling. What a brilliant idea to put it in a perpetual fund—that $1.3 billion of the last shareholding of Auckland Airport, with a special dividend from the Port of Auckland—put it in a special, perpetual fund.

I’d also like to see more public-private partnerships (PPPs) pertaining to Auckland. As well as congestion charging and the likes and perpetual asset funds, I’d like to see more PPPs. Let me give you the best example of a PPP in Auckland, to say that they can be beyond the roading infrastructure, and that is Spark Arena—the 12,000-person indoor arena which is Spark Arena. In 2004, when that deal was done, when an events company went into lease with Ngāti Whātua, the Auckland Council paid $68 million. That events company has it for 40 years, and, guess what, we’re into the second half—we’re into about 19 years. At the end, in about 2044—in 19 years’ time—Spark Arena will get handed back to the Auckland ratepayer for zero.

Wow.

They are the kinds of public-private partnerships that I want to see more of, Dan Bidois—and, guess what, the teenagers that go there to listen to Tay Tay or whoever, they’re not interested in who owns the arena. Public-private partnerships have to be part of the future for Auckland.

This is a great day—it is a great day for Mount Roskill. Again, I commend the sponsor of this, Carlos Cheung, on the fabulous job that you’ve done. I commend the Auckland Council. I congratulate Mayor Wayne Brown on his 100,000-plus majority. I congratulate those councillors and local board members that got re-elected. We look forward to working with them. We are continuing to support Auckland, and this is only just the beginning. The best is yet to come. I commend the bill.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a real joy to be able to speak on this important bill for Auckland. I asked for a call on this because this is an important one for the many people who have worked on it, not in the least Dr Carlos Cheung. Can I congratulate you on having this bill in your name, working it through the parliamentary process with a number of Auckland leaders. It has been a real pleasure to be able to see this come together, not only with Government support but support from across the House. You have done a great job there.

I also want to acknowledge—like many have—Mayor Wayne Brown. It takes tenacity to get something like this over the line with Aucklanders, who care about their assets and about the way that the council manages this; he has done that. To his deputy mayor, Desley Simpson: she is an incredibly hard-working deputy mayor. As a team, they are the engineer and the Energizer Bunny. Aucklanders are so well served by this dynamic vision that they have managed to bring to this term and council. I want to really make sure that people understand just how much work this has taken to be able to land this in a way that Aucklanders understand and broadly support. It is just another reminder of how important locally elected people are to something long term. This has been an idea that has floated around for a long time. But it takes leadership to be able to land something like this.

Can I also acknowledge the former Mayor of Auckland Christine Fletcher, who is in the House with us today. You know, it is important that people like this are around to see these ideas come to fruition. She has been an advocate and champion for Auckland’s assets not only in her time as the Mayor of Auckland but also within the Cabinet of a National Government. It is so important that these ideas that have come to fruition today are supported not only by current Aucklanders and current Auckland representatives but also by those people who occupy this place, in our collective, public discussion in Auckland about what is important to the future.

I also want to acknowledge the founding trustees of the Auckland Future Fund, particularly Chris Swasbrook and his experienced colleagues, for guiding the fund through this first phase. It would have been difficult, again, to build public support for this, and then to show value around that fund, and they have done that well. I want to, also, add my congratulations to the Auckland Council staff, particularly Phil Wilson. He’s a celebrated Manurewa boy. We are proud of our Manurewa locals who do well, and he has won a celebrated career in council governance and leadership over decades, and this is one of many achievements that he can be proud of, to have contributed so much to Auckland. Obviously, to my very clever husband, Max Hardy, who has also had a good role in this, and we are proud of him as a family. Also, to the mayor’s office team, there have been a number of accolades. To our favourite, Stuey Mullin, the all-star in that office, but can I also make my acknowledgments to Jazz, to Luke, and now to Tamsyn, taking up the reins. Good on you guys; let’s keep going with this vision for Auckland which needs to be driven not only by the political staff but by the Auckland Council, who are tasked with doing this important work.

Finally, I want to acknowledge those councillors who have carefully worked through the issues at play here alongside the constituents. This wasn’t an easy one for all councillors. Councillors Henderson, Fairey, and Hills—who I very, very much admire—laboured over these decisions, and I know met with many of their constituents about how they would make this sort of decision. Then, for them, they all gave very considered comments. I particularly want to acknowledge Councillor Henderson for what I found to be a very moving speech on this, about the importance of the future of Auckland to him and his children. They have obviously worked through these issues very carefully, and I want to acknowledge them as supporters of this for a longer-term vision of growing assets in Auckland.

But I also want to acknowledge, very much, my local councillors, Councillors Filipaina and Fuli, for whom this was a difficult decision, because they had had personal experience of the way the Manukau City Council, and its amalgamation into the super-city, had contributed significant assets, particularly the Auckland Airport. From their perspective, it was so important to make sure that these assets—that were contributed by South Aucklanders and grown up over time by South Aucklanders contributing not only to their rates but to local community work that had enabled the council to hang on to that strategic asset, then into the super-city. The argument was that fairness matters here, and I agree with them. It is important to me that this future fund now delivers on the promise to South Aucklanders, who, over many generations, have contributed to the Auckland Airport asset, which is no longer in public hands, and that they see some benefit of this. It is so important that the Auckland Future Fund returns that benefit to South Aucklanders.

Just in the Manurewa area, to catch up in its investment in playgrounds to an area like the North Shore, you would have to invest around $70 million just to catch up, just to get on par. It’s really important to me that this Auckland Future Fund recognises that and recognises the deficit and investment that South Auckland has dealt with over time and that this council is working towards over a longer period to rectify. I thank those councillors for the tireless advocacy, as well as Councillor Newman and Councillor Angela Dalton for their work in highlighting these issues.

Just some quick points. As Councillor Henderson says, this fund is a $1.3 billion regional wealth fund, and that’s a great thing to be able to have. It’s designed to invest in the long-term benefit for current and future Aucklanders, turning what was available to council into an intergenerational investment. I hope that this focus on growing the value of this fund is also matched by investment to improve the things that make Auckland great: our local environment, our local facilities. It is a visionless and sad view of the future of Auckland when we have a member stand in this House from the ACT Party and say that there isn’t value in things like dog parks and like those things that we would really like to see Aucklanders all have universal and public access to. I’m very, very proud of cross-partisan support for many of those things, and I don’t think it is a view shared by most people in this House, because it is an important role for the council to be able to continue to provide those public facilities to Aucklanders.

One question I want to raise here that we have to ask ourselves in Auckland is, as Aucklanders, now that there is this vehicle for strategic ownership of assets—there are some strategic utilities in Auckland which were privatised in the 1990s—is that working for us? Is it working for Aucklanders that the energy trust, which was privatised in 1993, is still held completely at arm’s length from any sort of local representation or any sort of input from the council, who were duly elected by Aucklanders and are accountable to them? Now that we have this kind of fund, is it appropriate for us to now investigate, as not only Auckland MPs but alongside our council colleagues, a better mechanism for public accountability and control of those assets?

The third point I want to make is to underscore those points made so eloquently by the Auckland councillors who are based in South Auckland: this has to be fair, and it has to be fair for South Auckland. To maintain public trust and confidence of Auckland as a whole, in something like this, we need to show that everyone is getting a fair go, and if South Aucklanders consistently feel that they have contributed more, over generations, to an asset, then it is fair that those people can expect a kind of investment that will bring them at least up to par with the rest of the city and that they will get a fair go from their council. I hope that is the case. I encourage the mayor to take on board those concerns, in what has been an excellent job of landing this with Aucklanders. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you so much. As the last speaker on this bill, I’d just like to start by congratulating my colleague and baby younger brother Carlos Cheung, who is so much taller than me and bigger than me—he stands so tall that sometimes I feel like I get a pain in the neck when I actually look up to him. A bit of a joke there, but I’d also like to acknowledge the Hon Christine Fletcher, former member of Parliament for Eden and Epsom, who actually became the Mayor of Auckland as well as councillor for a long time. I know how hard she works to serve her community, and she was one of the people who was responsible for the establishment of the Auckland Future Fund, so I acknowledge her.

Being the last speaker in the Chamber, it just feels like I’m repeating everything that everyone else is saying. I just want to quote you something from the website of the Auckland Future Fund—their vision. It says, “The Auckland Future Fund is an investment for all Aucklanders and future generations, and is designed to enhance the financial and physical resilience of Tāmaki Makaurau. By diversifying Auckland Council’s major investments, the Auckland Future Fund is part of a financial strategy to better protect and strengthen Auckland in times of need.”

This fund is all about getting one asset and becoming many assets that Auckland Council and the people of Auckland can actually benefit from. How this fund was funded is it was initially capitalised from the $1.31 billion divestment of their Auckland Airport shares, and it is invested in many things. I’m just looking at the clock, Mr Speaker, and we’re getting very close to the dinner break, and I just hope that this bill gets passed before that.

I just want to say when a city works, you get great cities around the world. I know that Dan Bidois, my colleague, was talking about how his favourite city was Kuala Lumpur (KL)—I grew up in KL, but I have seen many other cities that actually do what they do really well. I hope that with this fund, Auckland City can grow and perform better for the city of Auckland and their citizens. I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. We have one final call which our friends in Te Pāti Māori usually would take, but I’m just standing as the final speaker to say that this is a really good piece of legislation and it’s really forward-thinking, and, actually, we need to put some credit on Carlos Cheung, the great MP for Mt Roskill—hard-working local MP. A lot of work has gone on behind the scenes, through the council, but Mr Cheung has eloquently led this process through the parliamentary process, as a local MP, as a local member, and as a local bill, and I think he’s done an incredible job of it—stewardship through the process. I just wanted to put credit on his name for what he has done, along with everybody else who has been acknowledged. The Auckland Future Fund has taken some great leadership from him as a local MP in Auckland, and I think he deserves all of the acclaim that comes with that.

I think, ultimately, this is pragmatic, it’s forward-thinking, and it’s fiscally responsible legislation, and that’s what we like to see as a National-led Government. That’s what we like to see in 2025 and that’s why I think this is a fantastic piece of legislation, and therefore I commend it to the House.

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

I move, That the Companies (Address Information) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

I wish to begin my speech this evening, on the third reading of this bill, by thanking two of my colleagues—one former; one current—for their work on this issue too. The bill was initially Sarah Pallett’s bill, who was the MP for Ilam in the last term of Parliament. Sarah had put the bill in the ballot, and after the 2023 election, I took the bill on under my name, in the ballot. When it was drawn, it was as much Sarah’s bill as mine. The other person, who is a current MP, who I would like to thank is Laura McClure from the ACT Party. She was working on a similar issue and, I think, even had a somewhat similar, though not completely the same, bill in the ballot. My one got drawn first, and, of course, she has been very supportive of it throughout. I’d very much like to acknowledge her input into this issue, too.

What does this bill do? It’s actually quite a simple and straightforward thing that it does, in some ways. What it does is it enables people, where they feel that they are under some form of threat or could suffer some form of harm—it enables people who are directors of companies to have their name removed from the register of companies in the Companies Office. The purpose that serves is quite straightforward. Look, at present, company directors are required to have their home address on their records in the Companies Office. What that means is that if you know someone’s name and you know they are a director of a company, then it is a matter of a simple Google search—a matter of seconds—to bring up their home address.

Back in the olden days, before the internet, before the Companies Office records were all put online, if a person wanted to find out a company director’s home address, they had to physically travel to the Companies Office and actually physically look up the records. There was a bit of a barrier there, so you’d have to be pretty serious about doing it. Then, of course, your face would be in front of the Companies Office; people might remember who you are. Today, an anonymous Google search does the trick.

What that has done is it has led to some very real problems for people who have been stalked and harassed because someone wishing them ill has been able to find their home address through the Companies Office. We need to change that. What this bill does is it changes it. What it means is that a director can go to the Companies Office, sign a statutory declaration, and ask for their name to be removed. That applies to directors, and, of course, to shareholders who are also directors; they can have that name removed from the shareholders records.

You might think this was a small issue, but in fact it was one that Sarah Pallett did pick up and talk about, and she told me the stories about it. There was one woman who wrote to her, or who contacted her, when she was an electorate MP. This woman was a clinical psychologist. She was, obviously, working with some people who had some particular issues going on. She was at risk of being stalked and was in some difficult situations because of the nature of her work. She ran her own small company. Because she was a director of that company, her home address was discoverable on the Companies Office records. It’s notable that the New Zealand College of Clinical Psychologists was one of the groups of people who put in a submission on this bill, in support of it.

I’m holding here a copy of the letter that Sarah sent to the then Minister, asking for this problem to be sorted out. That was in February 2022. In December 2022, Sarah wrote again to the Minister at the time, bringing to attention a case where—well, she says, “One of the women who initially contacted me in January, relating to threats to her physical safety from a man who has historically victimised her through domestic assault, stalking, embezzlement, identity theft, and fraud, has continued to be at risk because of the state of the legislation.” That man was able to stalk this woman. That is quite frightening.

I want to thank here another person who made a submission on this bill, a person who I sat down and talked with. We met in Auckland and had a long talk about the issues behind this bill. That’s Susan Templeton, who, as a founding director and sole shareholder of her company, had her address on the Companies Office register. She had gotten a text on her cellphone from someone who didn’t identify himself. But then it became very apparent that person knew where she lived, and it was a whole lot of stalking going on. Her story goes on: this person had found her residential address; “I soon noticed that on my morning walks, a car would pull up behind me very slowly on the street, and when I turned to look, they would speed off so fast. I never caught the licence number.” It just goes on and on; the story goes on. She managed to find out the licence plate number, because this happened repeatedly, made a report, and it was the person who had been stalking her. He had found her because her address was available. This is a very real problem that needed to be addressed.

This bill does offer a solution of sorts, and I will speak about that in a moment, but what I want to point out in the meantime is that it isn’t just these stories of individual women—important stories. In terms of the submissions we received, we had a whole lot of submissions from pretty important entities in support of this bill—not only in support of it; actually urging us to go further. We had submissions from the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, from the Restaurant Association, from Retail New Zealand, from Russell McVeagh, from Business New Zealand, from IAG, and from the Institute of Directors, who all thought the bill was a good step and who all urged us to go further. The particular step further, of course, would be to have shareholders be able to do this as well, not just shareholders who are also directors. I think there was a great deal of support for this bill. I thank those people for their submissions.

The other person I wish to thank at this time is Roger Wallis of Chapman Tripp, one of the partners there in corporate law, who wrote to me a number of times about the bill, actually, in his inimitable way, urging me to go further, saying, “You’re doing a good thing, but goodness! It’s got to be better.” OK, I didn’t quite get it there, Roger, but we did the best we could.

This bill has had a very long gestation to get to this stage. It was actually drawn from the ballot on 15 February 2024. As I said—I think, in the committee stage reading—that was back when I had red hair. A few things have changed since then. The first reading was on 20 March 2024. Then we had the whole select committee process. I would like to thank the chair of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, Parmjeet Parmar, and the members of that committee for their assiduous work on this bill. I see Vanessa Weenink smiling, there. She was the deputy chair—

Hard-working member.

—and did a lot of hard work on this bill, as well. Thank you for your contributions, Vanessa.

The bill came out of select committee—a reasonable process—and then I delayed the second reading for a little bit of time. Look, the reason for the delay was that as soon as this bill was drawn from the ballot, the Minister at the time contacted me and said, “Oh, we don’t need this bill. I’ve got a companies amendment bill coming, which will offer a better solution.” Indeed, the Minister does have a better solution coming. But that better solution—it was promised it would be into the House before the end of last year. It wasn’t, so we had the second reading.

Then a few more months went by. At that stage, we had the committee stage. I’d like to thank particularly the members of the Opposition for their assiduous work on the committee stage of this bill. Then I said to the Minister that, yes, I would delay this third reading. If he got his bill into the House before the end of the year, then I would withdraw my bill. His bill is not in the House. This is likely the last members’ day of the year, so that is why I have brought this bill back now.

I would like to thank everyone who has worked on this bill. I would like to thank people across the House for their support on this bill. I would like to thank Sarah Pallett and Susan Templeton and Laura McClure. Thank you to everyone who has helped to get this bill to this stage.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a great pleasure to speak in support of the Companies (Address Information) Amendment Bill in its third reading. As Dr Deborah Russell has pointed out, it has been a long time getting through the House. In many ways, I can see now the wisdom of Dr Deborah Russell in saying that, yes, we’ll wait and see if this new companies bill actually gets brought to the House, because we were promised many times that it was coming. It is a huge piece of work, and I just acknowledge that the officials are not just twiddling their thumbs. There’s a lot of incredible detail to be worked through in that. However, in working through this bill we are putting a stop-gap measure in place for something that is a real-world problem.

As has been pointed out, there have been cases of stalking where people’s information is being discovered through this method, and many are already not using their home address anyway because of that fear. However, when we went through the select committee process, one of the things that we considered was whether or not it could be something where we could change the scope of the bill to make it wider for including shareholders or to make it so that nobody has to have their home address included, or whether there could be another process that didn’t need to be so prescriptive. For many of the submitters, as has been pointed out, this is just a small step, and it doesn’t go far enough in terms of protecting people’s privacy.

Through the select committee process, we did have some excellent submissions, and for me one that really stood out was from the Institute of Directors. They really encouraged us to look further, both with the shareholder aspect and also the aspect of identification, because of the fact that they had had such strong feedback from their directors that one of the key issues of safety and concern for directors in this country is the fact that their personal information is so easily discoverable.

There was also the concern that, potentially, this factor could be one that holds women back from wanting to participate and wanting to become directors. There’s enough of a potential risk in terms of the financial and fiduciary kind of responsibilities that come with being a director, but the actual personal risk to oneself that could be part of this is another factor that was raised. We want to increase and promote women’s participation in governance roles and not have anything that distracts from it.

As Dr Deborah Russell pointed out, the changes to the Companies Act that are, hopefully, coming will potentially allow for—and the reason we have an address is so that we can definitely define and identify a director. We need to know that of the pages and pages of John Smiths, which particular John Smith this is, and an address is one way of confirming that identity. To have a director’s personal identification number, a system of being able to have a director be identifiable across all of the entities that they are part of, would be an important step to having an assurance about identity. It would also have the extra benefit of preventing a phenomenon we see—phoenixing of companies, where a director will close off one business and—the next day, almost—start up a new business in a similar industry and therefore dodge some requirements of legal jeopardy that they may have.

This is a very small step, and because it’s a member’s bill, it’s very narrow, and we did interrogate this very, very closely during the committee stage, and I must say it was a very generous question and answer response from the member in the chair. It’s also probably one of the most fun nights that we’ve had in the House on this side. It was a bit of a record for a member’s bill; I think it was nearly four hours in the committee stage. It was well interrogated. It was incredibly detailed and it was well gone through.

We did have a lot of excellent discussion through the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, and I really enjoyed the discussion we had, because we did have such a great array of submissions that were able to get into the detail of the legislation, and then we were able to make some very sensible minor tweaks. We did improve it through that process, and it was a very cross-party and agreeable way of working. Because it was one of the earlier bills that came to our committee, it really helped to build that camaraderie among those committee members. I really appreciated having Dr Deborah Russell with us for that time, and I thank her for that.

I also just want to quickly thank the officials who were there to support us all the way through, and also those submitters that came. It has been one of those things that has been delayed along the way, and I appreciate the member taking that time and being quite generous about that and being very collegial about it. But in the end, she was right, and much as the Minister might like the idea of things getting in, he’s not the only one that has legislation that needs to get through, and these things sometimes don’t work out quite the way that people predict. In the end, I think the member is absolutely right—this needs to be done—and also I would note that we had a year to get this done and sorted before any changes have to come into place from this legislation. Let’s use that to encourage the Parliament to get the Companies Act work finished so that we don’t have to double-do them. In closing, I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. We’re supporting this bill. I want to acknowledge the Hon Deborah Russell for being so constructive throughout these debates, despite what I just heard—a very “most fun four hours of committee of the whole House” debate. I actually do question about the kind of description of these processes as just kind of things that we should laugh at or boast about the length, when this is a bill that clearly is gathering crossparty support and the time that we use on it should genuinely be, if people are not opposing it, to actually examine it thoroughly.

I do want to acknowledge the member who the member holding the bill acknowledged: Sarah Pallett. I had the privilege of working with her in the last term, and so it’s really good to see that a former member’s work has been carried through to the third reading. That’s really good to see.

There’s a lot of ways that we need to be holding companies’ directors that act unethically to account, but having mechanisms in place that risk people’s privacy being undermined is not a useful method to hold company directors to account. The member in charge of the bill used a really good example in that regard, in that we got clinical psychologists whose privacy could be compromised as a result of the current provisions. I think in a health system where so much of our health—primary health services, particularly—are still held within the private sector, we’ve got to acknowledge that we’ve got people who would be deemed companies’ directors who are providing really critical services to our communities, whose privacy is currently being put at risk.

We’ve been supporting this bill since the first reading, and we acknowledge the work of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee to explore the scope of the bill and include shareholders within the bill. I think the challenge now from the Government will be—and I noted the comments that the National member made in relationship to phoenixing—to turn its eyes to addressing those very same issues. It’s a really serious issue. As the immigration spokesperson for the Greens, I know that phoenixing is a very unfortunate and common practice, and there are businesses that are often exploitative, and so I encourage the Government—and their acknowledgement of these issues—to turn their focus to tackling these exploitative practices. We look forward to members’ bills continuing to be a constructive place for cross-party work and for those processes to be treated seriously, and so we commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, it gives me great pleasure to rise on behalf of ACT and speak on the Companies (Address Information) Amendment Bill. I just want to acknowledge the member in charge, Dr Deborah Russell, and I wanted to thank her for her very kind comments about my colleague Laura McClure. I know Laura would have loved to have been here and spoken on the bill, but she had to go down to the Canterbury show, which is obviously a very important fixture. I think, as Dr Deborah Russell acknowledged, this was popped back on the Order Paper this morning, which was great, and I want to talk about that in a moment, because I think it’s tactically very smart; otherwise, Laura McClure would have been here speaking. But you’re going to get me instead.

I know the other thing Laura would like to just acknowledge, too, is that it’s been a very constructive process, working with Dr Deborah Russell. I think she found it very easy to engage and give her feedback. Again, this is an idea that ACT has long had, and, again, I’m sure Dr Russell wouldn’t mind me saying that also Brooke van Velden in the last Parliament championed these ideas, because we do think that privacy in this area is important.

One of my favourite sayings is “A good plan violently executed today is better than a perfect plan executed tomorrow.”, and I think bringing this bill back on and getting it read tonight and getting it in place leads up to and really exemplifies that kind of saying. I think it’s really good that you have decided to get it on.

This is, as Dr Russell said, will be likely the last members’ day of the year, so let’s get this bill passed, because it is an important piece of legislation. It has had a long process through the House—yes, some people have commented on the committee of the whole House stage, but sometimes Government members need to get their own back on the Opposition, who put us through that time and time again and again. I think Dr Russell took it in good humour and answered all the questions, and I don’t think that members of this House, or the New Zealand public, could say that it wasn’t well interrogated in the committee of the whole House. It was very well interrogated at the committee of the whole House.

Look, ACT has long acknowledged that the idea behind this bill is really, really important. It’s about protecting people’s privacy and safety when they are a company director, and privacy does matter. We live in, really, an age where lots of information is available at people’s fingertips. Dr Russell has already talked about Google searches, but there’s just a wealth of information about everyday New Zealanders out there on the internet, in the cloud—whatever the cloud is—and I think this is very important, that we start to think about these issues in a modern context.

We, again, admit that being a company director, a shareholder, and actually having a company structure is a privilege, because it is a special type of legal entity which gives a business a special—well, it gives it its own personality and legal protections. That is something that is both very important but also needs to be respected. We do know that people do have the right to understand who is running a company, who its shareholders are, who its directors are, but we don’t think having personal, home address details necessarily prohibits that information being available. This bill really does ensure that people can still operate as directors. We’ve obviously talked tonight about ensuring that particularly women and other people who might feel vulnerable having their home address information published can have that protected, but it does it in a way that ensures that there is contact information available for that company still having to be provided. We think it really does strike that balance about ensuring transparency.

Again, some comments have been made tonight about ideas around directors’ IDs, which they do have in Australia, for example. Again, that might be some of the work that the Minister is bringing forward in his yet-to-be-revealed bill. Again, Dr Russell, you shouldn’t feel special—I haven’t seen the Minister’s work yet either, so it might be a pleasant surprise for all of us. Hopefully, that will marry in with this bill, and, again, I think it does. I think it’s always good to keep pressure up on Ministers to make sure they do deliver on their work programmes, so I think this is a great way of doing this. I wouldn’t call it a criticism, but probably the one area where we might have differed with Dr Russell is the idea around actually having to do the statutory declaration, which, look, it is possible to be done, but it is still a bar to actually putting this in place. Again, we probably would not have had that, as long as some of the other mechanisms were met. But I do think this bill is a really, really sensible change.

It’s really great when a member can actually get something over the line with the support of MPs across the House and do something which is actually going to be practical and make a difference. I think that is really great. I think it’s also quite timely, again, when we get back to Government business either tomorrow or the next sitting, we’re going to be talking about stalking and harassment. Again, I know there’s a lot of support across this Parliament to actually get some proper laws in place in this area. I think it’s very important that we acknowledge that we do have an issue around stalking and harassment, and doing something, even as small as this might seem, to stop that opportunity occurring, I think, is really, really important.

As I’ve said, I want to commend the Minister. This bill does strike the right balance between protecting the privacy of directors but also ensuring that the public and people who interact with companies can still get the necessary information. I do commend this bill to the House.

Now, I understand New Zealand First are going to split this call?

We are indeed. We were both prepared to speak, so we’re going to split it between us. We know that there is a desire, an unusual desire, to make sure that we use our allocated time.

I will call Andy Foster, then.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, first of all, I want to start by congratulating the Hon Dr Deborah Russell for getting the bill and shepherding the bill through to this point in time. It was interesting to listen to the introduction and to hear the lengthy gestation that has been for this bill.

Now, New Zealand First is the only party in this House that actually opposed the bill at the first and second reading. I’ll come back to the reasons that we did that shortly, but I do want to say that as Ricardo Menéndez March said, we do consider it’s very important that the public, the shareholders, whoever it is that has an interest in the performance of the behaviour of companies are able to hold directors to account. The question is how that is done and whether that is done in a way which is safe, reasonable, and lawful.

At the first reading, I look back at the notes and what I said in the Hansard, and I talked about the Fair Go principle. Of course, Fair Go, in the days that it was around, used to, occasionally, turn up on the doorsteps of various companies and say, “Well, look, Mr Director, Madam Director, your company’s actually not behaving in a way which is fair, reasonable, equitable.”—whatever it might be—“We are trying to hold you to account.” Actually, there was some good value in doing that.

However, we are also very conscious, as we’ve heard in this debate already, that personal safety of those directors is a really, really important—trumping all other things—issue. Sadly, that is increasingly so. That’s a reflection, I hope, not on our society as a whole but on some members of our society who are willing to cross the line into a behaviour which is less than helpful. “I know where you live” should not be something which sounds and is threatening, and that is the issue which sits behind this bill.

Of course, as MPs, we’re very aware of this. We have the ability to have our names not on the electoral roll. We have the support of parliamentary security. We know that there is a potential issue for us, and if it’s a potential issue for us—of course, we saw our own party leader whose property was attacked not that long ago and had protests outside his property. Of course, there’s legislation around exactly that issue as well, again, protecting individuals, in this case parliamentarians. But it’s more than parliamentarians: there’s also other people who might have protests outside their houses. It is an important thing, which we are, as a Parliament, well aware of.

Our key issue was not about objection to directors having the right to safety. Our key issue, and it’s come through in the speeches which we made in the first and second readings, was around the expectation—I’ll talk about that now—that we would actually have another piece of legislation which will come up and actually deal with this issue in a comprehensive way.

I want to also pay tribute to Deborah Russell here for the way in which she’s handled this, because she has shown the willingness to say—and actually agreed with the Minister to say—“Look, if you bring your bill up, I’ll pull mine.” I think it’s a really, really responsible way of doing it. But the reality is—and we’ve also engaged: we actually specifically said, “Well, look, this is the position we’re in. We’ve not supported this bill because”—I talked to Minister Simpson—“we expect your bill to turn up. When’s it going to turn up? When’s it going to turn up? Is it going to turn up before Christmas?” Look, what we hear now, clearly, is it’s a much, much bigger bill. It’s a review of the Companies Act. That’s a really substantive piece of work. Clearly, it is not going to turn up in the time frame that we anticipated, that we hoped for, so as a consequence, we have changed our position and said that we will support the bill in its third reading, because we think that that is the right thing to do. The reason for our opposition, which was the expectation that there would be a much larger review of the Companies Act, is, clearly, not happening in a timely way, so we think it’s appropriate that we support this bill.

The final thing I want to say is it is really important that we do have mechanisms to hold directors to account, that there is still a way, in this bill, of getting in touch with those directors, and people being able to say, “Look, there are concerns which people have got with the directors or with the company’s behaviour.” We expect that the Ministers, eventually, will have something—which we’ve heard will be done in a more comprehensive and a better way of doing that—but for now, we think it’s appropriate that we pass this piece of legislation, and we will support it. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you. I’m very happy to speak to the Companies (Address Information) Amendment Bill, which went through the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee that I was on. I’m also reminded of a time where I stood on a certain bridge in Italy after having avoided being pickpocketed and looking at all the wonderful businesses that were on that bridge to recognise that that bridge, and that place in Italy, was the birth of the limited liability company, which has been with us for a couple of centuries and a half.

I think we may have produced or gone a little further in some of the formations around what a director is involved in. I, myself, have been a director with responsibilities in an academic setting, many businesses, corporate, and social enterprises. I heard my colleague from the Green Party talk about some of the bad behaviours that are involved in being a director. I just want to give you a different view of that from being in that perspective. That is that—

Phoenixing is objectively bad.

Sorry, I missed that. That is that directors are responsible for an awful lot of responsibilities: health and safety, employees, and sometimes those employees—

Even the National Party said that phoenixing is bad.

—are a little bit aggrieved, such as my companion is right now.

Climate change, we heard in the Finance and Expenditure Committee this morning, is another large and onerous and possibly treacherous thing that can happen to directors, in terms of the fact that their responsibility for the decisions made by others may actually affect them and they can be facing large fines. There are a lot of responsibilities in being a director. To add harassment to that is actually not really fair, is it?

I think it’s wonderful that we’ve actually had a chance to review some of these things, especially in the context that we are waiting the never-ending wait, I see, for the Companies Act amendment bill to come forward to us. We’ll all look forward to that, because we have moved on from some of those early formations of businesses and companies. The modern-day ability to research a certain person’s address is alive and well and will go far past this particular aspect of trying to discover. We all know this; this is true. But it landed with me when I reflected on my own business coming to the House. The important Parliamentary Service’s people said to me, “Is your address discoverable?”—and perhaps brought home a little stronger just recently with our leader, the Hon Winston Peters, having a personal attack on his own house. Those kind of things are quite pertinent.

Yes, this bill is important for us. I think I would like to commend Dr Deborah Russell for her long suffering and forbearance in holding there, and holding to the will of what we needed to achieve in this bill and giving us the path towards the amendment, which is forthcoming, I am sure. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you. The Green Party—like the previous speaker, Ricardo Menéndez March, suggested—do support this bill, and I think, again, this is something that is important. There are concerns that my colleague has articulated, but I think from a privacy and safety perspective, we do believe the bill to be an important step towards protection of individuals who may be subjected to this. I think the bill itself does provide sufficient safeguard in there, in the purpose of that there needs to be genuine reason and declaration for the registrar to determine that there is a serious concern regarding the impact of the availability of the information on their personal safety. I think from that perspective, that has been well covered.

I do want to address one of the things that other members have mentioned quite a bit. This is a bill that has gone through select committee stage, and the member opposite has mentioned that it went through a four-hour committee stage. I just want to note the fact that this is a four-page bill that is done clause by clause; there are no parts to it. I do find it interesting that when we are looking at Government bills—and particularly bills where Ministers may potentially drop late-stage amendments on the committee during the committee of the whole House stage—to feel that it is OK for the Government members to shut down a committee stage debate or to seek a closure motion within a much shorter period.

I am heartened by the fact that the Government members are able to scrutinise a bill, and I will be holding the Government members to account at an hour-per-page standard for all future bills that come through this Parliament, whether it is a member’s bill or Government bill. I think anything else would be a complete mockery of our democratic processes. I think that is something that I am incredibly looking forward to.

With that, we support this bill to the House, and I look forward to the Government members’ contributions—

Oh, you’ve got seven minutes.

—in future. It’s not a 30-second speech though. I will look forward to the Government contributions for future committee stages. Like I said, I have a very process-based mind and I like rules and standards, so we’re going to be looking at one-hour-per-page of committee stage.

Excellent, Madam Speaker. I rise in support of the Companies (Address Information) Amendment Bill in the name of the Hon Dr Deborah Russell. I think this represents quite a necessary step towards balancing corporate accountability with the fundamental right of personal safety for those who serve as directors of companies here in New Zealand.

Currently, the Companies Act 1993 requires the residential addresses of company directors to be publicly available and easily accessible on the Companies Register. Of course, some of this legislation has been put forward before things like the internet were available, so it has meant that this is now very, very easily accessible. While corporate transparency is vital, this practice has created quite a bit of vulnerability for some people who are directors. Forcing the public disclosure of home addresses exposes directors and those living with them to significant harms, including stalking, harassment, and other acts of violence.

Of course, it’s not just for the directors; it’s also for the families. I think, living a bit in the public eye, as an MP with a young family, you do have to be mindful of the safety of your children and young family as well. Even with protests that may happen, they might not understand what’s really going on, but they can understand the uneasiness and threat that this can pose. It doesn’t actually take many people to cause harassment or stalking—it can be just one or two—but it can have a drastic effect, not only on the director of the company but also on their wider family that lives with them. During the select committee process, I do believe there was a lot of views sought on this, and it was widely accepted, and there were a lot of people saying that directors do really consider their privacy as important.

This bill really does address a specific, urgent gap in our current regime. Presently, only directors who have been issued a protection order under the Family Violence Act 2018 may apply to have their residential addresses suppressed, leaving many directors really facing threats unprotected. This will be a useful initiative, which I do believe is very widely supported. It will be quite a simple amendment to the Companies Act 1993, to safeguard directors and their families from the very real risks associated with public discourse. Of course, we’ve seen in other jurisdictions quite tragic outcomes when people have taken exception to company executives. We haven’t really witnessed that in New Zealand to the same degree—we have had, as we’ve heard, many cases of stalking, and probably many acts of violence—but it’s something that we need to bear in mind.

There was always a bit of to-ing and fro-ing about this bill and the process to go through to have a different address put down. You need to have a statutory declaration, but, unfortunately, sometimes these things can happen out of the blue, and you’re not necessarily realising you’re at risk until it’s too late. Potentially, that could be something that could be tidied up.

I do want to acknowledge the work of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee. This bill actually went through that committee before I became a member. I became a member of that committee at the start of this year. I think they did a great job on going through this legislation and trying to make it as good and as well-formed as possible. There were a number of unanimous recommendations that the committee made, which have then been put into this bill. One of them was improving the clarity by replacing the original term “address for service” with the clearer term “alternative address”. During the committee of the whole House, we did kind of tease out different technicalities around that address, and, of course, there are some exceptions that you can’t use: things like postal centres, document exchanges, or the company’s registered office. We do need to guard against misuse, we need to have transparency, but, of course, we need to make sure we can have that safety. One of the other things is that there can only be one alternative address used at any one time.

The select committee also ensured that the protection was comprehensive so there wasn’t going to be leakage in other places where the address or documents that might be publicly available would have that information that people would then be able to discover. Of course, we have some amazing tools on the internet that can find information—even deeply buried in documents—and I think that is an extra safeguard that we needed to put in. We also made sure that we could extend it to make sure that it covers shareholders who live with the directors because, of course, we often know that some of these family businesses can have directors and shareholders in the same household. We made sure that we could kind of close that loophole and make that important.

There were a number of other key operational improvements that the committee made. The application now no longer needs to be made by the director personally, allowing professionals such as lawyers or accountants to apply on their behalf. I think that just really makes common sense. The bill also now covers prospective directors and shareholders, allowing their addresses to be kept private right from the onset. Once again, I think that’s just a very common-sense amendment that was put in the bill.

Put all together, I think there have been some serious concerns around people’s addresses being able to be made public. I appreciate that there is work going on—a more comprehensive review of the Companies Act—but this, of course, is a bit of a stop-gap measure that will actually fill a real gap that we have at the moment. I think it has struck a very good balance of being able to locate rogue directors—if I could use that term—to address misconduct but also making sure we have the right balance for, actually, directors’ right to safety. Of course, as I mentioned, the requirement for a statutory declaration might be a little limiting, and I think that’s probably something we’ll see going forward. Basically, I think this provides a necessary shield against maybe some untoward behaviour that, unfortunately, some directors may face. With that, I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a pleasure to speak on a members’ day on any of these bills that attain the special place of having cross-partisan support around the House. It’s a real celebration of when select committees and parliamentarians are able to identify issues, work on them together, and arrive on common ground where—especially in a case like this—it’s not going to be top of the pops for the Government to resolve but it is something that makes a real difference to real people and is a meaningful change.

First, let me acknowledge my colleague Sarah Pallett, the former MP for Ilam. She was passionate about these issues, and her work in introducing this bill has made a change and it will have a meaningful and lasting impact in our legislation. May I also congratulate the Hon Dr Deborah Russell for doing what many members in this House will never have the opportunity to do, which is to not only have a member’s bill pulled but also take it right the way through the process, to work with Ministers and other members from around the House, and to arrive at something that everyone can agree with. It is a real career achievement, and I congratulate you, Dr Russell. I also want to acknowledge Laura McClure, a hard-working member of the ACT Party who has also raised these issues and been able to continue on this work. This is a really special opportunity to be able to debate this and to have seen it evolve along the way as something that others have been able to bring their perspectives to and ultimately decide was worthy of their support at this stage.

I won’t take up too much time, but I wanted to record for the House at this juncture just how important this is for small businesses. When you think about law and where big businesses have access to something that small businesses don’t, it should be incumbent on all of us, as parliamentarians, to scrutinise those laws very carefully. As Todd Stephenson said—I thought it was a really interesting and pretty philosophical point around what the corporate veil is for, who gets to enjoy the privilege of the corporate veil, and how ordinary working New Zealanders might continue to buy in to a system like that, which is a pretty special aspect of our legal system and is very fundamental to the way that our economy works.

When you have rules where big businesses can, essentially, circumvent the requirement to put their directors’ home addresses on the Companies Register, where, say, if you are a director of ANZ, you will be able to put Queen Street as your address, or if you are the director of a company that doesn’t have premises at 80 Queen Street—that’s the BNZ, sorry—you will also be able to engage a lawyer or an accountant in some situations to receive a document for you legally. It’s perfectly fine to have the address of a professional services firm like that to receive legal communications on your behalf, but if you’re a small business, that’s not available to you.

This is one of those issues which, for some businesses, they get around it and it is standard practice to get around it. But for others, such as those sole traders, those mum and dad shop owners, and also the doctors, the lawyers, the architects, and the people who trade on their own professional account and use a company structure to arrange their professional affairs—any of these people who are going about their ordinary business might not even realise that their personal details are available online for everyone to see, and not only are they affected by that but everyone in their household is, and that’s a problem.

It’s a problem because small businesses are treated in a way where transparency is extremely high for them—probably higher than most New Zealanders would appreciate—and then for large businesses, it’s standard practice to be able to circumvent that. It’s not even something that most directors who are paid directors on these sorts of boards would probably even think was something that was appropriate for them to do, because they’ve always got around it, and the expectation is that they will use a business address or the address of a professional services firm. It’s right that we even this up, and the point I want to make about evening this up is that this is an easy step in this member’s bill, to give small businesses the privilege that their large competitors have, and we should look for all opportunities that we can to make sure that we are advancing that sort of change. It’s fixing up a discrepancy which is unfair at the moment, and it’s unfair on some of the hardest-working business owners, whom we need to be encouraging.

There’s more work to be done by the Government. I thank members from around the House for acknowledging that this was going to be part of the wider Companies Act review. That is incredibly important work, and I don’t want to labour that point, but I would just say that there are a huge number of people who practise in this field who are relying on further Government work to progress the Companies Act review. There are some really big issues there—particularly around directors’ liability—which other parts of legislation hinge upon. The work on the phoenixing of companies is incredibly important for sectors like the construction sector, which has been affected by the economic downturn at the moment. There are business owners, there are creditors, and there are insurers who are relying on us in Parliament being able to progress that and to get it right for them.

It’s also important, as we improve our insolvency pathways for businesses and modernise the Act so that it reflects current online business practices, that those two go at the same time so that the system can work as a whole and that we tighten the holes in the net that we all acknowledge are there, because the Companies Act is old and difficult to practise with. That piece of work shouldn’t hold us up in doing this.

It is a good thing that we are making this change, which is not the whole way there, and I would caution anyone who thinks that the fully gold-plated version is also what we need when what we have here is a sensible solution, which might not be the full business ID, but it does fix the problem for small businesses. This is a fair solution for those mum and dad shop owners and for hospitality owners who are running a four-man band. This is the solution which actually works for them perfectly, because they don’t own a group of companies. They’re not a director on seven different companies. They don’t intend to have a portfolio of directorships from their 50s to their 70s, and to have a complicated web of corporate affairs. This is the perfect solution for the little guy. This is probably the best solution that we needed here. Let’s not overdo it when it comes to that wider Companies Act review, but let’s make sure that it works for small businesses and the people who need it most.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise to speak on this member’s bill, the Companies (Address Information) Amendment Bill. I want to congratulate the Hon Dr Deborah Russell for drafting this bill and also having it pulled. It’s rare as hens’ teeth, it feels, for many members of Parliament in this House to have a bill pulled from the ballot, and it’s even rarer to get it all the way through the third reading. I want to congratulate that member.

This is a great member’s bill. It addresses a longstanding issue—and certainly one I’ve actually had a longstanding interest in personally, because it seems to be one of these anomalies that we’ve allowed the personal information of individuals who are involved in a company to have to have that online and available for the whole world, with no protections available, and it’s their home address. The home is a person’s castle. It’s a safe place for people. To have that available for people—many of whom are operating small businesses across New Zealand—has been one of those odd things about our system that I think is an anachronism from a past era and one that hasn’t been appropriate for some time. I think it’s great that this is being addressed.

I just think that the unique landscape in New Zealand, where 97 percent of businesses in New Zealand are small businesses—that’s employing 20 people or less. The majority of our landscape is small businesses, and those people who take the risk to set up a small business, to make it work, and to provide employment for people—and they are the majority of the businesses in this country—I think it’s great to have that extra protection for them where their home address doesn’t need to be available online for all without some protection around that. It’s great that this is doing something about that.

This does replace a director’s address with a service address in public record, provided conditions are met, and it allows directors to substitute the residential address with a service address through a process requiring a personal application, risk declaration, alternative address, and a fee, which is applicable across multiple companies.

Other speakers before me have spoken about this. The Government is working on a comprehensive Companies Act amendment bill, which will go beyond what is proposed in this bill and deliver more comprehensive protections for directors, but that doesn’t take away from this being a great step forward in providing a solution to a longstanding issue. That’s, ultimately, what this Parliament’s all about. It’s great to have some bipartisanship, I think across the House, on an issue that I think we all recognise is an important one that needs to be addressed. Sometimes, I think, people across New Zealand only see the headlines and see the things that we disagree on and don’t actually see things like this, where we get agreement across the House. With that, I congratulate the member again and commend the bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s an absolute pleasure to rise and speak in support of this bill. Like colleagues across the House, I would join in congratulating the Hon Dr Deborah Russell for her work shepherding this bill through the House, but also Sarah Pallet, who I was in Parliament with last term, in terms of the genesis of the bill. It takes a lot of courage and wisdom to see the issue, research the issue, draft the bill, and pitch the bill, as well, so congratulations to both of them, as well as to Laura McClure. I think this House is doing some really diligent work in terms of looking at harassment issues across the House, and there’s a real cross-party flavour to that work that’s been done.

I think, sometimes, members’ bills can seem like they fix very small things but actually have quite a big impact, and this is potentially one that does that. It does that because it responds to real issues. I remember reading an article in 2023 about a woman who had to get a protection order in trying to demonstrate that there was good reason for her details to not be published. But also, we have had prominent figures like Kirsten Patterson from the Institute of Directors New Zealand—so the industry representatives themselves—calling for this, as well. I also think it’s quite remarkable when we see bills travelling through the House that offer two solutions to a similar problem but from different angles.

We also have the stalking and harassment legislation—that also has a cross-party flavour. Its genesis was with the Hon Ginny Andersen, who first had a member’s bill in this area, and then the issue was taken up cross-party, and there were a lot of discussions at select committee on that. I think—I hope—that the public knows and is reassured that on these important issues, we continue to work together.

My very last point was just in response to Todd Stephenson’s lament at the fact that statutory declarations are still needed. I thought I’d just raise a fun fact that up until 1998, post shop managers could take statutory declarations. Now, in 1998, that was done away with, and part of the argument was that there were plenty of other people out there who could take those statutory declarations. I hope that reassures the member somewhat. But once again, congratulations to the member, and I commend this bill to the House.

E te Māngai o te Whare, nōku te maringa nui anō—whakaae kotahi tātou anō.

[Madam Speaker, it is my good fortune again—we are all in agreement again.]

For the second night in a row, I have the great pleasure of rising to speak in this House on a bill that we all agree on. That is why I love members’ days—love, love, love members’ days. We have heard a full rendering of the bill in hand, and we’ve heard many congratulations to Deborah Russell. Can I add mine as well, not only in terms of your perseverance in steering the bill through but also in the way that you have set an example in terms of working so constructively with the Minister and the committee on that. It reminds us, again, of what is possible on members’ day.

When I look ahead, I’m aware that every second that I am speaking here tonight is a second that my good friend and colleague Carl Bates has to wait for his first chance in the chair. He’s very excited about that. I’m very much looking forward to getting through to the Juries (Age of Excusal) Amendment Bill. Then, of course, following that, we have a conscience vote on Kieran McAnulty’s bill as well. I love these days. Sometimes I wish that we had more members’ days, but tonight, in this moment, it’s all about the Companies (Address Information) Amendment Bill. It is my pleasure to add my support to this bill. There has been a full rendering of why this bill makes so much sense, of why it serves our communities, our companies, our individuals, and our businesses so well. With that, I commend it to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for this opportunity to speak on the Companies (Address Information) Amendment Bill. When I came to this Parliament, I was a director of, I think, three different companies, and so I have some experience with the Institute of Directors, who submitted in support of this bill, and with some of these issues, and, of course, as an MP, I am very aware of our profiles.

I wanted to note that one of the things the bill does is, as we’ve heard, that if you make a statutory declaration, it has a threshold in it that it is likely to result in physical or mental harm. That is a higher threshold than I expected upon looking at the bill, but there it is. You have to do that to get this alternative address. I think most people in Parliament are aware that if people really want to, they can probably find your address, but it’s good to put a step in between that so it makes it a little bit difficult and reduces the risk. We heard earlier some commentary about how in the past if you wanted to see who a company director was, you would have had to go to the Companies Office, and that would have taken some effort, whereas now you can Google it and it comes up. This is just adding that step in there for people who want it.

I want to commend Sarah Pallett, who thinks very carefully about these issues and worked very hard on a range of issues associated with women’s safety in particular whilst she was in Parliament. Also, of course, I commend the Hon Dr Deborah Russell, who has brought this bill through the House to the third reading stage—and we’re almost there—and everybody else. I have not been involved with this legislation, but I’ve been sitting here this evening and hearing the names of many other members of this House from all different parties, and also from people around the country. Thank you to all those people who made it happen. Thank you to the people who’ve taken the time to make submissions. I commend the bill to the House.

How good is a members’ day? You know, I heard Xu-Nan just before making comments about extended periods of time over committee of the whole House stages and things. It’s not necessarily about the quantity of the committee stage; it’s about the quality of the contributions from the members being involved. That’s right, Vanessa Weenink—it’s what you do with the committee stage that’s really important.

That’s why I commend the member Dr Deborah Russell, because she diligently sat in her chair during the committee stage. We sat here on our side and did—number one, the most important job of us as elected MPs is to scrutinise legislation to make sure the intentions are right, to get those things on Hansard, because if we ever have to come back to refer to it, if anyone out in the general public needs to come back and refer to it, they can see it on the Hansard; they can see the rationale from the member in charge. That’s why that scrutiny stage was so important through the committee of the whole House. I commend the member. She played in good faith in that process, and I commend her for engagement with us in the Government benches.

I’m rising as the final speaker to speak in support of this legislation. “Best till last”, Dan Bidois says. He’s not wrong. I want to acknowledge all members across the House. It’s not common to have, sort of, full Kumbaya moments in this debating chamber, particularly not at about 8.35 p.m. on a Wednesday evening, may I say on a member’s day, but I just want to say what a great process it has been to watch this legislation progress—actually, a number of pieces of legislation.

But to see one where the members got the bill to a place where you can get political parties from across the board—now, I do need to be slightly careful here, because we’re still going to vote on the legislation, and we’ve had a bit of a change since the second reading and the committee of the whole House. Our new independent members, well, they may well have changed their vote, and I’m looking forward to seeing them turn up to cast it to see how they feel about the legislation. But I do commend the member for getting cross-party support on the legislation and getting it right. I think that takes a lot of work, and I commended her for it.

At the heart of this bill, it’s not a complex bill and it’s not ideological and it’s not abstract, but it’s fundamentally about people and their safety and modernising the system that was designed for an era that, really, no longer exists in 2025. The Companies Register does serve an essential purpose. Transparency in business matters; it’s really important. Public confidence in things like our markets, accountability for corporate actors—and no one in the House is arguing that. But the Companies Register was built in a time when transparency, as Rachel Brooking just quite rightly said in her contribution, was walking into an office, requesting a paper file, and then physically inspecting it. That’s what used to transpire—probably before I was born, but that’s probably what transpired. I can’t tell you first hand—can’t say I’ve done it specifically myself, but I’m told. Rachel Brooking told me that that’s what happened. You would walk into the office and, say, request the physical paper, and then you would inspect it.

But in 2025, our world isn’t built quite like that anymore. It’s where transparency now means you put a name into a Google search bar and you instantly receive someone’s home address, the postcode, and you can even get directions. You can get directions on how to get to their house. You couldn’t get that when Rachel Brooking went into the Companies Register and said, “Can I have a look at the information on the director?” and they said, “Yeah, here it is—here it is.” But they didn’t say, “OK, now you need to take the first street on the right and then the next one on the left and then take another left and that’s how you get there.” But you can today. That’s why this legislation change is really important, that Deborah Russell has put up.

As we’ve sort of talked about—and I can’t believe I’m going to agree with him, but Ricardo Menéndez March talks about doxxing—doxxing.

Are you feeling OK?

I am feeling OK—I am feeling OK. Kumbaya hasn’t completely gone to my head yet. Transparency is essential, but doxxing by default is not. Right now, the law doesn’t distinguish between a director’s professional identity and their personal point on the map. It does not distinguish between, say, a commercial address and a family home. It does not distinguish between accountability and risk. But this bill finally does.

It says clearly that a director must be reachable. They must be identifiable. They must be accountable under the law. But it also says they do not have to trade their personal safety and, actually, wider than that, the safety of their family and the security of their family to do so. This isn’t about anonymity, and this isn’t about, say, things like secrecy. This is not about hiding corporate misconduct. It’s about proportionality. It’s about what logic tells us is the inherent public good in publishing the home address of a dairy owner in Welcome Bay in my home electorate in the Bay of Plenty, or the tourism operator in the beautiful Mount Maunganui, or an independent trustee in Maungatapu, or that small engineering firm in Papamoa, who happens to run their business from the same place that their kids catch the school bus. How could that possibly be right or fair in 2025? They’re not hiding and they’re not evading sight from other people or accountability. They’re simply being asked not to be treated as public infrastructure in 2025.

I do want to speak—and I wrote a little bit about this, because I want to speak for a moment about the world as it is, not the world as we sometimes wish it was. Harassment today has changed. Threats have changed. Stalking has changed. Intimidation has changed. They’ve moved online, they’ve scaled, and they’ve accelerated. You no longer need influence, resources, or proximity. You just need the access to Google. We’ve seen people like our local councillors on city and regional councils across the country being threatened at their home, health professionals harassed for doing their jobs, public servants being caught out on the street, for example, and journalists warned that their houses will be found. Those are all in recent history. Every one of those cases begins with the same sentence of “We know where you live.”, because it’s publicly available. This legislation goes to that point to change it and to update it.

Now, there were some questions—and I had a look through the select committee report—around: what about service of legal documents? That was a question I actually asked in quite large detail to the member in charge at the committee stage. She doesn’t remember. I do remember.

I do. I remember.

Oh, you do—oh, she does. I stand corrected. She does remember—she does remember. I’d welcome her taking another call to talk about it if she’d like. The answer is really simple and sensible. This bill does not remove the requirement to provide an address for service. It strengthens it by ensuring that there are reliable and appropriate channels for contact that protect both due process and personal safety. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Then there was a question around transparency. Transparency is about knowing who is responsible for a business. It’s not about publishing a residential address when a service address will do the better job and be safer and with less collateral risk. I do really want to make it clear that this bill does not reduce accountability. It refines it. I think that’s a really important point: it doesn’t reduce accountability; it refines it. I think that is really clear.

MPs have received emails. Councillors, they’ve received phone calls and voicemails. Employers, in some cases, have called the police, and families—some directors have had to install cameras at their own home because of harassment they have received at their own family home, where they may have young children. They may have grandchildren, for example, at their own home, and they have had to take those drastic steps. The threat landscapes that they are facing have fundamentally changed in 2025. I think good law adjusts to reality; it does not ignore it out of nostalgia. I think that is really, really important.

In my home electorate of the Bay of Plenty, we celebrate people who build things. We have incredible orchards. We have amazing businesses, fishing fleets, tourism ventures, tech start-ups, trades, and family companies that quietly keep communities like Mount Maunganui, Welcome Bay, Te Puna, Oropi, Papamoa, and Tauranga moving. Most directors on the company register are not high-profile power brokers; they’re employees with dusty boots, inventors with late-night prototypes, growers tracking export seasons, accountants helping neighbours, and people who said, “Let’s give it a go.” and did the paperwork themselves. For the founders, the small business owners, and the growers, retailers, and employers, the mums and dads across the Bay Plenty and New Zealand, the bill says, “We see you, we value what you build, and we do not think safety should be optional for those who step forward to lead.”

Good law is not always dramatic. Sometimes it’s practical, sometimes it’s protective, sometimes it simply closes the door that should have never been opened. I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, it’s a pleasure to take this final call in this debate. I’ll keep it brief, because I know that the member who has the next bill up is keen and eager to get, perhaps, into the chair. I do want to acknowledge my colleague the Hon Dr Deborah Russell for shepherding this bill all the way through to the third reading. In doing so, I also want to acknowledge a former colleague of the former 53rd Parliament, Sarah Pallett, who basically pulled this particular bill together. Dr Russell has continued it through to today.

I think it’s a wonderful testament to the fact that Dr Russell has indicated that she has been more than happy to have parked this bill and, actually, was prepared to pull it if the Government had had something in place. But we’ve got to the point now where it hasn’t been the case, and it’s a pleasure to be able to support this bill this evening.

It’s interesting that the Companies Act 1993 indicates a time when things were very different, when there weren’t as many small businesses in this country, where the examples that have been shared in the Parliament this evening were not the examples that those who are in public service or in office were able to experience at the time. I think this is a bill that is going to make a huge difference to personal safety, to households, to the way in which people can have a sense of security about going about their daily business and not having to worry about the fact that they will have to disclose their home address as part of that. This is something that puts that right. It’s surprising that the submissions indicated, as I understand it, that people who are directors already don’t actually disclose their home address because of the fear of what this means. I think that is a huge indication that this is a bill that will make a huge difference. I commend this bill to the House.

Can I just take a moment to remind members about referencing people that are not in the House.

I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Juries (Age of Excusal) Amendment Bill.

Members, the House is in committee on the Juries (Age of Excusal) Amendment Bill. We start with clause 1, the debate on clause 1, “Title”. The question is that clause 1 stand part.

I seek leave for all provisions to be taken in as one question.

Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none. The question is that clauses 1 to 6 and the Schedule stand part.

Madam Chair—fantastic. It’s a great way to start this evening. I just want to commend Carl Bates. This is going to be his first time in the chair. I’m not going to play nice, but I still want to wish him well from the start.

I want to start, firstly, at the first part, because, actually, I’m going to work my way through the legislation—even though we’re taking it as one part, I’m going to make sort of a systematic approach through the legislation. From a rugby referee and a hockey umpire, you’d expect nothing different but to follow the rules and follow them to the letter of the law.

The first one is on the title. At the moment, the legislation is called the Juries (Age of Excusal) Amendment Bill. I wondered if the member had considered alternatives to the title, particularly related to the word “excusal”. Now, I think the word “excusal” has got a few points going with it at the moment. It can be a little bit on the nose, a little bit, if we think about the word “excusal”. I thought, had the member considered whether, actually, looking to include the age specifically in the legislation? If we think about it—

McCallum.

Well, I don’t want to talk ill of members not here. But had the member considered, because at the moment it’s 65, and, as we’re going to dive into further down the legislation—[Grant McCallum enters the Chamber] Oh, he is here. It’s 65, but it is moving to 72 under the legislation. I wondered whether the member had, firstly, considered actually removing the word “excusal” and looking to see whether including the words “72” or “the age of 72”—something like that. I think including the word “juries” in the title is really paramount, because that’s, ultimately, what we’re talking about here and what’s involved—but whether he’d considered actually including the word “72”, which, I think, is vitally important.

Give us the full name.

Give us the full name—well, that’s the issue, Steve Abel, because I’ve actually been thinking about it quite long and hard, actually, particularly while I was just giving my previous contribution on the Companies (Address Information) Amendment Bill. I was actually thinking about “Juries (Age of Excusal/Maximum 72) Amendment Bill”, or whether you’d want to get rid of—would you think you’d get rid of “excusal” altogether and just have “Juries (Not Above 72 Years Old) Amendment Bill” or something along those lines? I would welcome Steve Abel to take his own call to make some contributions on the title, but I wanted to put that question first to the member in charge and would welcome his initial thoughts on it. Thank you.

I have a few clauses I’d like to ask the member in charge about, but I’d also like to start with the title. I do want to focus on the word “Excusal”, but I come from maybe a slightly different angle. I worry that this just reinforces—and I’d be interested in the member’s view—a culture that we see permeating throughout our country of a lack of service. It’s a frame of reference that this is “What is the age of excusal? How can I get out of this? How can I avoid it?”. Actually, this country is great because we were built up by people that contributed to their communities.

I think about, for example, in Paraparaumu, the Rotary Club and the Lions Club—people over the age of 65, and, indeed, over the age of 72—and they’ve just joined together to build a new mini-golf course. It’s called Golf for Good, and it is going to be giving back to the community. It’s not just providing something great for our community, but all the money raised goes back to the community, and on and on it goes. It’s fantastic—I can’t wait to join them for the launch.

When you’re 72.

This is a group of people who are giving to their community—I didn’t hear that, Madam Chair, and I’m sure it was nothing to do with—

I said, “When you’re 72.” You said, “I can’t wait to join them.”

Well, you may not be 72 yet, but you may be captured by this Act, Madam Chair. I just wonder—here is a group of people that are giving to their community, yet where we see community breaking down in New Zealand is people who are not looking for a way to give but a way to avoid, a way to be excused, a way to not contribute. What message does it send if we’re passing legislation—albeit this is a change to actually bring more people in to the point at which they can serve, but the frame of reference when people look at this is all about excusal. It’s about “How I can get out of it?”.

Now, I accept that there may be, indeed, some legal references that the member is considering. There are the current provisions within the Act—in sections 15 and 15A—that use some of that language. Would we not be better to set the tone that we believe—and certainly, on this side of the House, we believe—in strong communities, in strong families and caring communities? Those are some of the values that the National Party is grounded in. Why would we not be setting something out that says this is about how we can include more people? How can we participate? How do we give back to our community? How do we value what it is that people over the age of 65 have to contribute?

I see, throughout my electorate, which is the electorate with the highest number of over-65s in the country, the value that it adds—organisations like Volunteer Kāpiti, that are saying, “This isn’t a burden on our community; this is an amazing asset, as they help others, as we leverage the skills and the experience they have to contribute to our community.” Is there not a way that we could highlight that, that we could celebrate that, that we could look at how we include more people? How do we value what it is that those that—yep, they may have a SuperGold card, but that hasn’t ruled them out from the sort of gold-medal service that we have seen from them in our community. It’s something that I worry about, and this is important.

I look around the community, and I look at service organisations—like Lions, like Rotary, like Altrusa, like even Probus and Rebus—and the numbers that are slowly being whittled away, the people that used to regularly contribute to the community, to sports clubs, to churches, to organisations, and even to political parties. The breakdown of community we see because people of younger generations don’t routinely want to give, and I worry that we breed a culture of people who are looking for “How do we get out of this? How do we avoid this?” rather than “What do we have to offer? How do we contribute?”.

It may seem like a small point. It may seem, to some, like a pretty minor point or a naff point, but, actually, I think it speaks to the heart of the kind of community we want to have. We talk in New Zealand about superannuation and how we are going to afford it. I notice the discussion in countries like the United States is not “How do we afford it?” but “How do we find opportunities for people over that age to work?”, where they feel discriminated against. Again, it comes to that point that, actually, people over 65 have great value to contribute to our community, and I want to make sure that they are honoured, they are celebrated, they are valued, and they are able to contribute.

It might be small, but it might be that changing just one or two words from “Age of Excusal” to “Including More Seniors” or to “Appreciating Experience”—maybe that’s a way that we could just set the tone that we’re looking for. My question to the member is: has he considered the sort of negative or double negative perception that could be taken into that title, and would he consider one if we were to flip it on its head?

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for giving me the opportunity this evening to bring this to the committee of the whole House. It has been a journey taking this bill through the process and having the opportunity—as my colleague and friend, the member for the Bay of Plenty, Tom Rutherford, mentioned, this is the first time I’m in the chair this evening to present this bill and answer questions, legitimate questions, that have been raised already about the title. We’re at the beginning of the process, and I intend on responding to each of those as we go through and exploring some of these ideas, because I am open to constructive contributions from members about the bill as we go through the process this evening—

On both sides.

—from both sides. I’m sure that my colleagues across the Chamber are taking the opportunity to consider, deeply, how they can contribute to the discussion this evening and ask some insightful and engaging questions.

The first part of the question this evening was around the name and whether the name “excusal” is an appropriate context, given, potentially, some of the challenges we’re experiencing in New Zealand at the moment, even—and I’m not sure if the member was directly referencing the context of excusal, like excusal from a political party or excusal from the House, and the implications and the intentions of that—maybe some of that.

If he was, he would have been wide of the bill. I assume he wasn’t.

Well, that assumption is probably fair, Madam Chair. I won’t assume that that was his sort of negative implication on the term “excusal” at the moment.

But I understand the intention or the question of adding a specific age into the bill. I think the challenge with adding a specific age—72 or 70, if there was to be amendment to the actual age during the committee of the whole House—to the title could be that in times in the future, we’re here in this Chamber again, having to go through this process again and not only update the age, because life expectancy is intended on continuing to grow, but we’d have to change the title, as well.

The first time that age was introduced into the excusal process of juries was in 1945. If you take the same time length to get to the point now where we’re moving to 72—the member from the Bay of Plenty will be sitting there in his 70s, and we will be updating the age of excusal to 75 or 80 or something like that in a few years’ time. I’m not sure if adding the specific age 72 into the title of the amendment bill would be appropriate. It could potentially include options, but, again, I think that would complicate and confuse the specific intention of the title.

I take, though, the member from Ōtaki, Tim Costley’s point regarding excusal and the idea of service and the lack of service and the lack of intention and engagement that’s permeating many organisations in New Zealand. If I think in my home electorate of Whanganui, which includes South Taranaki and Stratford, the Volunteer Whanganui Centre are very focused on the idea of service. I’ve had the opportunity to go out and serve with them as part of National Volunteer Week last year and again this year, and the opportunity to acknowledge all the great volunteers that provide service. I appreciate the concern the member has about the negative connotation of the idea of exclusion and how we could potentially turn that around.

I think one of the things that’s intended by this amendment, as I said in both my first reading and second reading speech, is the need for a reminder to our community that this is a civic duty, and that civic duty doesn’t end at 65. We’ll get to this, no doubt, when questions are asked on the age a little bit later this evening. But for now, when we’re talking about the context of the title, I think keeping the idea of excusal in there reflects the intent of the underlying legislation, which is that you have to go and be excused. If there is a member that wants to understand what some of the other reasons for excusal are, I’m happy to share that in a few minutes’ time.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I’m looking forward to having a discussion with the member in charge, and I want to, again, thank him for getting the bill this far. One of the things I want to test with him—this really goes across all of the sections of the bill. I mean, we could talk about the title, but it really does get to the substance. See, in ACT, we don’t actually believe in discriminating people based on characteristics—whether that’s sex or gender, ethnicity, and, I dare say, age. One of the things I did explore in the select committee but I’m very keen to explore it tonight is: is it appropriate to even discriminate on age at all? In ACT, we actually believe an individual, regardless of their characteristics and personal attributes, can make a contribution to society. In this case, what we’re asking them to do, regardless of their age, this would be my view, is serve on a jury. I mean, we could, obviously, talk about the title, but, actually, this gets to the substance, where we’re just literally replacing 65 years with 72 years.

In fact, my suggestion would actually deal with some of the other questions that other members have already asked tonight. Let’s just get rid of the age altogether and actually have people judged on their ability to participate in the jury process. There are obviously—if we go to the Juries Act 1981 and look at sections 15 and 15A—other reasons people can be excused from jury duty, but would the member just actually consider getting rid of age? It does seem quite a discriminatory attribute. We have members in this House that are well over—or not well, but they are over—the age of 80, serving today. Some of them are Ministers and very competent. Again, I don’t think we should be using age as an arbitrary—look, I can understand it, potentially, in a bygone era when healthcare wasn’t as good. Obviously, we now have interventions where people can live healthier lives and can retain all their cognitive functions. I think really what we’re wanting is someone competent to serve on a jury. It does seem to me that having this age of 72 is a bit arbitrary.

In relation to both the substance of the bill and also the title, would the Minister—member, sorry; not a Minister yet—consider just getting rid of the age altogether and then just fall back to the other provisions in sections 15 and 15A of the Juries Act where the registrar can decide to excuse someone? I know one of the provisions in there is that they may be ill and frail, so that would seem to cover if you’re of an advanced age and you can’t actually carry out your duties, rather than just having this blanket age.

The other thing I would note is that they must—again, with you, obviously, changing the age, but if we go back to the primary Act—excuse them. If someone, basically, says, “I’m of this age.”, the registrar doesn’t have any discretion. They actually do have discretions in some of the other reasons they might excuse someone. Again, they’re the things I’d like to have your response to, because we’re about getting rid of discrimination in ACT.

Just before I ask the member to speak—on a bill that’s been taken as one part, I’d like to congratulate that member on spotting the substance of the bill and getting to it.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for the focus on the substance of the bill. I’m sure that there will be questions on why, ultimately, the age of 72 was chosen, given that I did reference, in both the first and second reading speeches, the range of options that were considered.

But to focus on your specific question, at this stage, as to why there should be any age at all, it’s interesting that this was something—and you’ll recall it was raised as part of the select committee process as one of the questions by, for example, the Christian Council of Social Services. They made the point specifically—they said, “We suggest assessing if there is a need for this age of excusal at all, or whether the normal process of application for excusal on existing grounds is sufficient. If an older person wishes to be excused on one of the other grounds, specifically the health and disability option or the ‘Other personal circumstances’ option, then this would be more than sufficient to support the needs of older people who do [not] need to be excused for these reasons, not automatically assuming that all older people should want to be excused from service.”

I think the member raises a very valid question. Certainly, when I engage with my grandparents—I’m very lucky to have three of my four grandparents still alive, and I’m sure they will be watching this evening at home; hi Nana and Granddad and Grandma—they are very competent at contributing to an engaged discussion. Of course they are; they have all their faculties about them. They voted for me, so that’s a good start; that’s a good indication that they’ve got their faculties about them. There is a question to be asked as to whether or not age should be included at all.

However, this evening I think it comes down to practical politics. I’ve had indication from across the committee that there will be support for this bill going through the committee. I wouldn’t want to change the dynamics. We’ve already had, through the select committee process, Te Pāti Tamihere—sorry, Te Pāti Māori—indicate that they were going to support—sorry, I’m losing myself; Freudian slip—the bill because it was a unanimous decision of the Justice Committee that this bill would be supported, and it was reported back to the House unanimously. I’ve already lost the six votes—or the three plus three or four plus two; whatever it is now—I no longer have that support—

You don’t know that, Mr Bates. We haven’t taken a vote.

They have indicated that to me, Chair, so I’m of a reasonable understanding and confident that that is the case.

I don’t want to be in a position where I lose further votes by introducing a new framing of having no age. I’d invite the member to put in an amendment if his party is of that opinion and we could maybe debate that amendment. But I think, for the context of ensuring I retain the support of the committee this evening, I’m not sure that we’ll do that.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m so grateful for getting this opportunity to ask a question to my colleague—my excellent colleague—the phenomenal Carl Bates, the MP for Whanganui. Mr Bates, thank you very much. Thank you for the work that you’ve done ever since your member’s bill was pulled out of that biscuit tin. I’ve seen the way that you vehemently fought for this. I’ve said this in a few of my speeches—that, yes, it may seem like a small change, but to a lot of people, in particular our elderly out there who are so filled with those pearls of wisdom, this means a lot to them that they can continue to contribute to the workings of the justice system with those pearls of wisdom that they are so enriched with. Thank you, Mr Bates. You really are a master in some situations like this.

What I’d like to bring the attention of the committee to, Madam Chair and Mr Carl Bates, is that one thing I want to ask you about is—because when I went through this process with my own member’s bill, which I was very blessed was pulled out of the ballot early last year, the Corrections (Victim Protection) Amendment Bill, which is now an Act, we spoke, at the eleventh hour, about the commencement date. The commencement date was originally the day after Royal assent. If my colleagues across the Chamber do recall—as I said, at the eleventh hour at the committee of the whole House stage, I put an amendment forward to change that from the day after Royal assent to six months. That was because, upon reflection and conversing more with the advisers from the Department of Corrections, we came to the realisation that Corrections would need more time to implement the small change with a great ripple effect. In turn, I reflect on the commencement date of the Juries (Age of Excusal) Amendment Bill and how it says it’s “the day after Royal assent”, and I was just wondering if there’s any whakaaro around whether that could be or you would want to change that to a longer period of time, given what may be involved for the court system to implement this change?

Now, we know—and I’m so grateful to have you on the Justice Committee with me, alongside a number of my colleagues—that there’s the project that’s going on right now, the Te Au Reka project, where the focus is on implementing a new digital case flow for filing and case management in our court systems. It’s on its way. It’s not quite there yet; there’s still quite a way to go. I know—as you would, because you’ve got a very astute mind—that when everything becomes more digitised and has more of a flow and connects to different organisations, as well, changes will be a lot easier to make. But in the meantime, the status quo is that it’s not fully implemented, so I was wondering if the member did give any thoughts to the commencement date. Is saying that it’s “the day after Royal assent”, in this situation, sufficient?

There’s quite a lot to unpack there, Mr Bates. If we think about the court registrars, no doubt, they would know that this is in the parliamentary process; I’m sure that they’ve got their ears on the ground in regard to that. But I do wonder, does there also need to be some movement and some time given so that it could, as we say, have that go across all the different organisations that this change needs to go—I’m thinking about things like our Grey Power, our senior citizens clubs. I’d love the member to let me know if there’s been any thought about that—and the secondary thought: will he be putting an amendment down on the Table about changing the commencement date?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Rima Nakhle, for your question and your focus on an important point, which is about implementation. I’m surprised—well, I’m not really surprised that it is the National Party member that has raised implementation and ensuring effective implementation, because we haven’t heard it from anywhere else in the committee. We’ve heard it from the Government bench, and I appreciate a question focused on effective implementation, because at the end of the day, if we create laws and they aren’t effective and they’re not able to be implemented, then that does create a problem.

I appreciate the question, and you’ve reminded me of the importance of acknowledging the staff at Auckland High Court, where I visited, along with Minister Goldsmith, where this idea first came up, because it is a good opportunity to remind the committee that this bill came out of a discussion with the front line. So often we are challenged as members of Parliament for having ideas that haven’t come from the front line, and this was literally from the front line. I happened to be on crutches at the time, so I was hopping along the front line and got this idea from them and really have taken it on board and shepherded it through. I appreciate the member’s recognition of the fight it takes to guide a bill through the House.

I specifically made a point of engaging with Rawiri Waititi regarding the support of Te Pāti Māori about this bill. I was given their support for it, and I’m really disappointed that while they unanimously supported this at the select committee, at second reading they voted against it. I was hoping, with some of their changes in membership, I might have been able to get some support from their ex-members, but, apparently, that’s not going to be the case. However, I will continue the fight, despite some of those challenges.

When it comes to the commencement date and your implementation question, I had the assurance of the Ministry of Justice that they have confirmed their readiness and that they are able to update their summons material and systems in order to implement this change quickly, effectively. Therefore, the commencement date of the bill is not going to be an issue.

I’ll leave my response at this point, because I’m sure the member will ask about the transition arrangements, which are slightly different to the date at which commencement occurs of the bill, which, as you’ve rightly pointed out, is the day after Royal assent. Quite looking forward to, actually, that day that it gets Royal assent, and looking forward to that notification.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Firstly, I want to commend the member Carl Bates for the hard work he’s done to bring the Juries (Age of Excusal) Amendment Bill through the parliamentary process. Mr Bates, the bill appears to be well researched. It’s based on something that people have been asking: why can’t older people serve on juries? It represents a good example of members of the Government side of the committee identifying a problem and a policy solution, taking responsibility for delivering that policy solution, developing legislation, and here we are this evening. To all of those listening and watching at home, or in the cab of your truck, if you’re out there on the State highways, I just want to let you know that Carl Bates, today, is expressing the spirit of all Government parties, in that fixing what matters is what we are here to do.

Now, Mr Bates, I want to ask you a couple of questions, and some of them are based on my personal experience, having served on a jury. That was on a very complex, very difficult trial that involved a case where, it would be fair to say, some horrendous things happened to people in our society. The victims of certain crimes often feel it’s very challenging to come to court and to present their evidence. One of the things I’m concerned about—and I have a question for you—is about when people come to court and they have to give evidence, sometimes, the way they describe experiences, whether they’re a victim, whether they’re a witness, or whether they’re a defendant, they often use lingo, street jive, or slang—the kind of thing that comes up if you watch some kind of TV programmes, you know, NCIS or some of these other crime dramas—

It’s N-C-I-S.

NCIS. I’m an engineer; it’s got to be an acronym. To the honourable member Mr Bates, how do we expect older jurors to understand lingo, street jive, and slang without some kind of—

I was wondering where the point of this question was getting to—you got there.

Does he expect courts to support older jurors with some kind of dictionary or some kind of explainer or FAQ sheet about what all these terms mean when they come up? I mean, I won’t give away my age—some of you might assume I’m in my forties, and I’d accept that today—but even I struggle to understand some of the language used in my own home by my children in their teens and twenties. I can’t imagine what a struggle it would be by the time I get into my sixties, seventies—up to the age of 72—to deal with this. One question: how does he expect the courts to support older jurors with understanding the lingo?

Secondly, what about the tiring—emotionally and physically tiring—effort that jurors put in? What I remember is turning up to be selected at about 8.30 in the morning, eventually being selected and being briefed, and sometime later that afternoon, closer to 5 p.m., finally being released, with not a lot of an idea about whether I needed to bring a packed lunch or a water bottle or some other type of thing to keep me going throughout the day. That went on for weeks after the initial briefing and impoundment onto a jury—so I’m interested.

Older people are living older, longer, but better lives. But still, older bodies need more maintenance; they need asset renewal, pit stops, breaks done, filter changes. Will courts be ready to support older jurors, such as with more regular breaks, and actually provide more flexibility so that older jurors can participate in what are very long, very emotionally and physically stressful days, hearing what is often very disturbing testimony from victims and witnesses and family members? While my questions might appear to be a touch of brevity, these are serious matters, and I look forward to the member addressing them.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for the questions. I appreciate even that one of the questions might have been asked in a way that actually enables me to highlight one of the key misunderstandings about the age of excusal when it comes to jury duties. Often, there is a perception across the country that when you hit 65, you are no longer required to serve, and that no one over the age of 65 serves on juries. That would lead to a number of the members’ questions being even more important, if we actually had no one over the age of 65 currently serving on juries.

I’m going to just quote from my opening remarks to the Justice Committee. I want to acknowledge the members of the Justice Committee who are here this evening, who went through this process and were really engaged in making sure we created a good piece of legislation that solved the problem. I want to acknowledge the honourable Simon Court for his contribution to helping create this clarity for all of those listening at home this evening. And it says—

Or in their truck.

—“This is not about”—or in the truck. Or in the truck—or on “The Facebook”, as my nana calls it. You know, she is up with the slang. She calls it “The Facebook”, but it’s all the same.

“This is not about introducing age into the jury system. That already exists. Currently, anyone above the age of 65 can request automatic excusal from jury duty, either permanently or just for that particular case, and that request is granted without question. The bill simply raises the age of automatic excusal to 72. It doesn’t mean that you can’t serve if you’re older than 65 currently, and 72 once this bill has completed its shepherding through the House. What it does mean is that if you choose to ask for automatic excusal, either for that occasion or permanently, that will be granted without question. So what that means”—and it’s important to clarify this point—“is that you can serve on the jury, currently, past the age of 65. In fact, many do. But the automatic opt out creates confusion, and worse, a cultural expectation that once you hit 65, you’ve done your bit and you don’t need to serve. That is not a view that I support.”

When we have that understanding that we already have jurors who are over the age of 65, our courts are already managing some of those challenges that the member raises about potential fatigue, about ensuring appropriate breaks, and about the make-up of people in the jury itself—which I suppose is part of the answer to the question about slang.

One of the great things about jury duty is that a jury is a combination or a collection of our peers. It’s a cross-section of society. In the jury room, you may have a 72-year-old who’s worked in trucks all his or her life and got life experience on the road. You might have a lawyer from Kāpiti—from the mighty Tim Costley’s electorate—who’s only ever worked in an office or an office from home and doesn’t necessarily understand the concept of manual labour. Then, you might have someone from down South who is off farm and has got a different perspective on life and has a different vocabulary that comes with being a Southerner. I just want to acknowledge our Minister for the South Island, here, who I’m sure will appreciate the fact that there are differences in our islands and, therefore, vocabulary that people bring to the table. That collection of individuals in the jury room will help with that understanding and be able to teach each other.

You know, one of my favourite programmes on TV at the moment is a series: 12—or The Twelve, it might be called, but 12 all the same. It sort of follows those on the jury through the life that goes on around jury duty and jury service. I think that that is one of the ways that we can appreciate that as a jury, they will help each other understand the language in the particular case that is going through the court at that particular time.

Madam Chair, I have one final point I want to make, if you’ll give me a little longer to make it.

I’ll give you seven seconds.

Thank you. It’s related to understanding different vocabulary and being connected to your community. I just wanted to—Madam Chair, very quickly. I just wanted to—

Madam Chair?

No—the member’s still on his feet. His seven seconds are up, so be quick.

For those of us on the Government side, many of us are electorate members of Parliament, which means we’re very engaged in our community and we meet people across our community—another way that helps us keep up to date with the different language. I’m sure many people on juries are engaged across the community in the same way.

Grant McCallum—I can see you’ve got a brand new question.

I’ve got a very brand new question, Madam Chair—thank you very much. It’s about time we brought some wisdom to this debate, because that has been distinctly lacking up till now. Some of my junior colleagues—in fact, I think that is everybody—

All of us.

—are coming at it from the wrong angle, I feel. The question I simply have is: when you were looking at the age you were picking here, you settled on 72, and I begin to wonder, why that? Why did you settle there? Why not go a lot higher? For example, I’ve been well and truly led to believe that there was a senator in America who was 100 years old. Why couldn’t you take it to that level of age? These people have wisdom—real wisdom.

There’s one area that you haven’t really addressed—you haven’t really, really addressed; that’s a challenge—which is, actually, did you consider at any stage a minimum age? Did you consider what the minimum age should be? I just do wonder whether it needs to be set a little bit higher. I just want to remind myself again how old the member for Bay of Plenty is—I would make it about five years older than that. That would be about right! That would make it about 40. If we made the minimum age 40, I just think we would get more wisdom on the jury, and we would actually get better decisions. I just wondered if you’d actually considered that, Mr Bates. I just think that’s really important to look at. I just think you should have a minimum age of around 40, maybe a bit higher, because then you’d get people with real life experiences. I just feel that has been lacking in this debate.

We really need to look at it, because I do worry about some of the rather interesting angles that have been taken by junior colleagues here, and I just think they’ve shown up their level of immaturity in this space. Particularly some of the members from—the member from Bay of Plenty, I suspect, might want to give consideration in that space. We have some very good members here who would actually do a good job, but I just wonder, then, if maybe we need to move that up a bit. At the upper end, I do worry. I just kind of feel—speaking as someone who’s sort of entering their 60s—

Entering?

That is correct—entering their 60s. I just feel I’m reaching my peak of life and my peak of knowledge and contribution, and I could really actually demonstrate real, considerable contribution to a jury. You’ve got to have that jury of your peers, as they say it, and have the ability to sit there and concentrate. Some of us did not grow up with screens, so we can actually sit and concentrate without having a screen. We don’t need bans—we don’t need bans for under-16s and that sort of stuff to worry about—we can actually just go in there and concentrate and go through the evidence and bring that level of wisdom and experience that I feel some younger people would struggle with. We could really add value in the jury space.

I’m really interested to hear why you didn’t consider a much higher upper age and actually bringing in a lower age. I just think that would add real value to this whole debate, and I do reserve the right of reply if more flak comes in this direction.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to respond, quickly, and then, I understand, there’s going to be some more questions. I’m already seeing some interest there. I just want to acknowledge and respect—I was always taught to respect my elders, so thank you, the MP for Northland, Grant McCallum, for your question. I’m not sure that we considered 100. We did consider 75, which would be the age of 70, the retirement of judges, plus five, because they can have their term extended for five years. That would have been one option. Seventy-two is the age of retirement of the Ombudsman, which is why we, ultimately, I think, went with the age of 72. In England and Wales, they have an upper limit of 76 in jury duty; Scotland has the age of 71. My son Angus would appreciate it if we went with the Scottish 71, given his ancestral links back to Scotland. I regularly meet with constituents over the age of 65 who are in the workforce, and so that was why 65 was, clearly, not appropriate.

On the question whether there was a minimum age, I would imagine there would be questions from the other side of the Chamber if we were to touch on ages at a minimum age. I think the contributions made by the youngsters like the likes of the member from the Bay of Plenty, Tom Rutherford, was really valuable in terms of supporting and asking some questions around the title and the context of excusal.

There were some questions from Te Pāti Māori in the second reading, actually, when it comes to who should and shouldn’t be involved in jury duty about whether or not that this was anti particular demographics in New Zealand. I haven’t had a question from them this evening to explore those ideas. It would have been a good opportunity for them to ask those questions, had they genuinely believed that this wasn’t fair and reasonable across the board.

The member should not be using his time in the chair to be having comments about other parties in the Parliament. Just answer the questions. Thank you.

Fair enough, Chair. I was just keen to explore that question, because I thought it was an important one to debunk, if you like, had I had the opportunity. But, that said, I will leave that contribution there. An age of 100 would not be appropriate, and I think a minimum age was outside the scope of this legislation.

I’m going to take a call from Cameron Luxton. So far the questions have largely been different. There’s not much left to ask. Also, the committee stage is designed to ask questions, not take five-minute speeches. This is not directed at this member, just at the general context of the conversation, because I think there’ll be a lot of 65-year-olds out there wondering if this little bill will be passed by the time they’re 72.

Madam Chair, thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to have a contribution, because I have got a substantive and new question I hope to explore with the member in charge. Mr Bates has done a great job, as has been pointed out and elucidated, of finding an issue and bringing it to this House.

I don’t want to retread old ground that other members have made contributions on, and it has to be said that the member in the chair does deserve to be complimented on his ability to engage with every contribution. It’s been quite an impressive thing to watch and an example to others in this Chamber to emulate.

I have a few questions that have popped up, but the one that I wanted to ask that I don’t think has been touched on prior to this is did the member explore or did the committee explore having incremental age increases for the age of excusal? I mean, if you would have increased the age by, say, three months a year, how would that work? I mean, just quickly on the back of the envelope, I think if we started now with, say, three months a year, the age of excusal would increase—by 2054, it would be a full 72-year-old.

If he’s explored that route, did he try other incremental expansions such as maybe four months? That would lead to 2047. If 2054 was too early to get to that limit, did he look at maybe not setting an upper limit by default by making it 72 and perhaps having an incremental two months, three months, four months a year increase beyond 72 so that Parliament doesn’t have to come back and deeply explore these issues again? I’m glad that they’re being traversed in the committee tonight, but, say, in a few years’ time, when New Zealanders’ age demographics balloon at the upper end of life and we enjoy the company and the contribution of more over-65s and, indeed, over - 72-year-olds—when that day comes, will we be able to properly get use of that knowledge, that skill, that contribution to society and life experience and common sense and experience, as the member for Northland put into the Chamber in his contribution? Would it be prudent, do you think, Mr Bates, to put in an incremental increase past the age of 72?

Then, while I have this call, because I understand you do want us to be moving along—that’s one question. The second question that I had was in your explorations, Mr Bates, and mastery of this issue from issues around the world, you’ve mentioned Scotland and a few other countries—you said there was an upper limit on age. I want to just understand, because is that an upper limit on jury duty service and did that influence your thinking, or was that an upper limit on the age of excusal? It is a vastly different thing that people need to understand—that you can have the automatic excusal over 65 and use that up to 72 if your bill was to pass tonight, which all indications say it will. But if we were going to follow the best practice around the world and what’s been tried overseas, are those hard limits on jury service or are they hard limits on the age of excusal?

It was interesting to hear about the cultural expectations of our older citizens. Mr Bates, have you had a chance to explore the impacts of having that sort of experience, that age on juries? I know we’re speculating on what will happen, but has there ever been any reports that you might have seen come out of our university institutions, our law societies, legal fraternity talking about what sort of contributions different age demographics actually give to society?

There are a few things. There’s the incremental increase in age, talking about overseas experience, upper limits versus limits on excusal, and the cultural input that different demographics have.

Finally, since I think this might be my last call, I would just like to say hello—sorry for taking the committee’s time—to my grandfather, who I don’t think has got many days left, Stanley Gib Luxton. Love you, man.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to acknowledge what you’ve shared with the committee there, Cameron. My thoughts are with you guys through that process. I know what it’s like in those final days and just heart and prayers with you guys.

When it comes to your three questions, thank you for the intellectually stimulating questions you’ve brought to the Chamber this evening around the bill. I think this idea that you’ve raised for the first time through this process that I’ve shepherded this bill through the Justice Committee and through this House—this idea of incremental age expansion or increase over time. There are other things in the House that this House sets policy for that I would be very keen to see regularly adjusted—inflation adjusted, even.

But when it comes to the point you make, over the next 25 years, essentially, it would take it three months to get to 2050, to get to 72. The challenge would be, over that period of time, if you take the last 25 years—so if you take the period 2000 to 2025, being the last 25-year block. Then you’re referring to the next 25-year block. To the last 25-year block—2000 to 2025—there has been an increase in the average age of 3.5 years. If we were to simulate your example forward to 2050, we would need to, essentially—if you assume that average age increases correlate with an increase in cognitive ability, age for age likeness, etc.—get the age of excusal in 2050 to 75.5 years.

If we were to take your suggestion and have an automatic increase now, as is proposed by the bill, to 72, that would provide an opportunity maybe for you to come in with a member’s bill that introduced the idea of beginning that incremental increase now so that when we hit 2050, we are at that 75.5 point. I think it creates a mechanism that might be more complicated to manage and for organisations to understand where it’s at, but it might be that it’s pretty simple for the Ministry of Justice to administer. Essentially, if you get the summons, you get the summons, and if you don’t, you don’t. It could work pretty easily, but I think that there’s an opportunity for us to today reset the age, given it hasn’t been changed since 1983—was the last time we looked at this—to 72 and then introduce that incremental opportunity, as you’ve raised.

The second question that you’ve brought to the table is around the expectation. Now, Lawrence Xu-Nan explored this on behalf of the Green Party, who had a concern around this question and how a potential change in the average age of juries could change the role of juries in trial and how they might come to decisions based on having a different demographic or more prevalent demographic being present in those jury trials. Through that select committee process—and he just reminded me, I’m sure he won’t mind me sharing it with the committee, before the committee of the whole House began this evening, that those concerns were completely alleviated through the select committee process.

Indeed, what the submissions and the questions and the feedback from the departmental report did was remind us that it’s not our place to judge juries’ determination of how they come to their answer. It’s not our job to say if there are more women on a jury, is that going to sway the way the jury votes? If there are more men on the jury, is that going to change the way they determine if someone is guilty or not guilty? That is not the question before us and in front of the House this evening. The question simply is: is it appropriate for someone at the age of 65 to say, “Because I’m 65, I don’t need to do or deliver my civic duty of serving on a jury”?

I think we traversed that question through the select committee process. We got to a point where unanimously—and I remind the committee again this evening that, unanimously, the Justice Committee returned this to the House, and then, obviously, there has been a series of changes in the membership of the House since then that have changed that outcome. But we did address this question and, I think, came to a good conclusion.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I was looking for someone who hadn’t taken a call yet.

Yes. I’d like to thank the member for getting this bill so far—congratulations. I’ve just got one basic question: what happens to a juror who at the start of the jury proceedings is 71 but turns 72 during the trial? Has the committee considered what that means and what that means in this bill? Thank you.

What I was going to commend that member on is just simply getting up and asking a question and not making a five-minute speech!

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I won’t give a fiveminute answer to this question, because I know that there are other questions that want to be asked. It’s actually a really important question, and it was considered as part of the select committee process around the transitional arrangements. I want to acknowledge the select committee for actually improving the bill through the select committee process by addressing this point. The age you are at the point the summons is issued is the age that is relevant here. If, during jury duty, you turn 72—and I’m sure you’re not asking about this in your case, but if your constituent or the person you were thinking of was 71 turning 72—

Asking for a friend.

—asking for a friend—during jury duty, that would not mean that they could say, “Hey, I’m 72 now. Can I be excused?” and get automatic excusal. No, it’s at the point that the summons is issued that the age is important. I think that that’s a clear answer, and we addressed it as part of the select committee process.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

He always goes first.

You went first last time.

Age before beauty, Madam Chair! But it’s both in this case. My question relates to clauses 4 and 5, and it’s around the grounds for excusal. I don’t feel like we have traversed this part around the grounds that people actually use for excusal at all. We’ve talked about the age component of it, but we actually haven’t talked about the rationale that people use when they write back to their summons to say they are looking for excusal.

What are the grounds for excusal from jury service, and how frequently do we know that they are used, compared to, say, the age-based excusal? In Mr Bates’ member’s bill, we’ve got the age-based excusal moving from 65 to 72, but what actually are other grounds for excusal from jury service, and how frequently are they used compared to age-based excusal? Does the member think there is public awareness around those options as well? How many people know about the age of excusal component to begin with but also the other excusal options they have for not accepting the summons and not turning up to do their jury duty?

My other question is: how does the bill ensure that older people who wish to be excused, whether it’s for health or for personal reasons, can still do so with this change? Are there things like permanent excusal provisions? For example, if I get a summons after this law change comes in and I’m 68 years old and I apply and I get an excusal or whatever, or if I’m 74 or 75 and I put the excusal in, whatever the situation may be, is that permanent or is that just based on that one summons, and is it likely that I may, in a year’s time or in a couple of years’ time, get another summons?

Is the excusal that the member of the public uses permanent? Does it last? If it does last, how long does it last for? If it doesn’t, then is it expected that those people might receive another summons at another near point in time? Is that for the registrar to consider when sending out the summons? I’d just like some clarity around that and also around the grounds for excusal and how frequently they are used compared to age-based excusal.

The member made a comment on whether the changes in the bill might result in more applications for excusal on other grounds and how that might affect court administration. We talked slightly in the commencement process around the administrative changes and whether the courts and the Ministry of Justice were prepared for this legislation and what the implementation would look like. But we haven’t talked about what may be the effects on court administration more generally.

Will the removal of, say, automatic excusal at 65 shift burden to other categories? Did the member get the opportunity to talk with the ministry about modelling to get an understanding from them around what implications this change may well have on them and whether they would be in favour of it, and whether they might think that this would likely result in more applications for excusal on other grounds? I’m keen to understand. There are quite a few questions there relating to sections 15 and 15A, in clauses 4 and 5 respectively. I’d welcome the member’s thoughts, please.

Thank you very much to the member for the questions, and I just actually want to go back first to Cameron Luxton’s question. There was part of it that I didn’t answer about the upper limit. The upper limits I was referring to in Scotland and Wales were for permanent excusal, in that people are not allowed to serve on a jury above those ages in those jurisdictions. It’s not excusal in the context here in New Zealand where you can choose not to and get excused; it’s that you’re not allowed to serve on jury duty.

I did hear from Arena Williams before a question of whether or not she could be excused. I think she was referring to her duty in the House. I’m not sure the answer to that question. That’s a question for the whips in the Labour Party. But I am going to help answer what you can be excused for in terms of a jury duty because of the question from Tom Rutherford. Happy to come and do a workshop in anyone’s electorate so that constituents, like your constituents, understand the answer to this question. But there are a variety of reasons—

We need to pass the bill first.

There are a variety of reasons for why someone can be excused from a jury duty. They include family commitments—something that the member from the Bay of Plenty, Tom Rutherford, is going to learn in the journey that he’s going on; health; occupation or business; personal circumstances; physical disability—if you’ve got a physical disability that prohibits your ability to effectively engage in your duty as a juror, then you can be excused; previous excusal. Religious belief is a reason that jurors can get excused from jury duty and service in the last two years. Now, agebased excusals made up 39 to 42 percent, depending on the month, of all excusals. A large portion, 39 to 42 percent of excusals were age-based excusals. I think that that’s important to recognise.

The supplementary question that the member asked was around whether or not those other reasons for excusal—health, personal circumstances, disability—can lead to permanent excusal. Now, the answer to that question is yes. If you have a particular health condition, a disability—say, for example, maybe someone like my dad, who is, following a major stroke, unable to engage in asking questions and would find that difficult, then he could get permanent excusal from jury duty under the current scenario.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s great to be able to take a two- or three-minute contribution to bring us home tonight. I just wanted to make a brief contribution around this last point around excusals and the types of individuals who can both apply for excusals and deferrals. I think it raises an important point about the purpose of juries. Fundamentally, from a philosophical perspective, it’s supposed to be a jury of your peers—that’s pee-r-s, Catherine Wedd, not the fruit bowl kind. It’s raising the point that if it is truly supposed to be a jury of your peers. We have a range of excusals that are able to be given. That is age. You can be excused for illness, hardship, and disability. You can be excused for your religious belief, public duty, or if you can’t even access the courtroom because the courtroom’s not set up for wheelchair access, you can be excused from jury duty. You can be temporarily relieved from serving and put off for another time if you are in the middle of harvest or if you undertake caregiving duties or if you are facing exams.

Now, all of those things limit the jury-of-your-peers concept, because, all of a sudden, you have a range of people with a range of characteristics that are more commonly excused or not part of juries to the point where you have to question whether or not juries truly remain a group of your peers. It raises a point that I wanted to just very quickly raise: if it no longer is a jury of your peers, at what point do we look at a system where we change it slightly to, perhaps, a sort of semi-professional jury selection pool? I know there are huge amounts of time and resource costs that go into selecting juries that go into serving on a jury, and I think that could be a solution that’s in place.

Just before I take my seat, I’d just like to pass on all my best to Ivan from the Chamber staff, who today is celebrating five years of service here. Congratulations, Ivan.

Thank you. Well done, Ivan.

Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Juries (Age of Excusal) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. Madam Speaker, I move, That the report be adopted.

Point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek leave to make a personal explanation to correct an answer from question time today. I said 10 October; I meant to say 10 November.

Thank you, everyone. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.