Parliamentary debates: Thursday, 20 November 2025

This debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption this morning. The House is suspended until 9.00 a.m. today.

Good morning, everyone. When we finished last evening, we were on the second reading of the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Standard) Amendment Bill (No 2), call No. 9.

I’m not sure if it was too late last night for the members on the other side, but, clearly, they are still living in a dream, or perhaps in their own la-la land. The members on the other side tried to link falling electric vehicle demand to the repeal of the Clean Car Discount, yet almost every submitter confirmed that that’s not what’s driving the market. It is driven by the broader market factors, not the policy change. One thing is certain: the vehicle importers who made submissions all agreed that the previous standards, set by the former Government, were unrealistic and impractical, and this is why we’re here—to clean up their mess. I commend this bill to the House.

Good to see the caffeine levels have hit in this early in the morning. Shanan Halbert—a five-minute call.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look how backwards Mt Roskill has become when it comes to the progress in our transport fleet. Anyone in this discussion will know that 43 percent of our emissions in this country come from our transport fleet across Aotearoa New Zealand. And we are, this morning, debating a bill that certainly takes us backwards on climate and emissions. It takes us backwards on our transport across Auckland and New Zealand. But this is no surprise, and this is exactly the reason why New Zealanders are turning against this National-led Government.

Labour continues to oppose this bill because it takes us backwards and the select committee process confirmed that this bill in fact weakens the clean vehicle standard and undermines New Zealand’s progress in transport emissions. Our dissenting view makes it very clear that the bill does prioritise short-term convenience for importers over meaningful emissions reductions. It extends the carbon credit lifespans from three to four years, undermining annual accountability, and it will slow decarbonisation.

We spent a bit of time at the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. A lot of mahi was done and there was a lot of consultation across the sector, and change is difficult, of course. Change is difficult, but what I know is that New Zealanders don’t want to go backwards. They want to protect our planet. They want to make sure we’re doing the right things now for tomorrow and for generations to come, and this bill simply weakens the standard of what New Zealanders expect.

This Government has been influenced. It’s been influenced by the big players in town, so they’re making decisions to move such legislation despite the fact that the majority view in the report makes no attempt to hide the fact that the bill responds to industry pressure. The bill responds to industry pressure for looser rules, not environmental or economic evidence. Now, that “E” word does go missing quite often under this Government. Evidence isn’t informing the decisions of the leadership of this country at the moment.

We’ve got to come back, move away from our political ideology and what we hear, and try and fight for relevancy in a New Zealand that is turning against the National Party, and start using evidence for the decisions that we expect, whether it be in transport or whether it be in health or whether it be in education. Evidence is incredibly important. But the thing is, we’ve got to listen to our communities. We’ve got to listen to our communities and find the right balance; listen to our communities and hear what they are saying, as well as to industry—I say to the ACT Party over there. Yes, industry is important, but we’ve got to make the right decisions for now and for tomorrow. But the new trading rules risk incentivising higher-emitting used vehicles. The majority’s recommendation enables credit transfers between new and used importers with a two-for-one exchange rate. And, of course, Labour highlighted to the committee that this flexibility risks flooding New Zealand with more used high-emitting vehicles.

Anyone who has sat on the Transport and Infrastructure Committee will know that because we’re at the bottom of the world, we will be recipients of the dirtiest cars in the world, and this was an attempt, of course, to change some of that, to do better, to protect our environment, and to actually demonstrate some evidence-led leadership in this country.

We do not agree with this bill. It takes us backwards. It doesn’t reduce emissions and, of course, this Government is making just another bad decision that New Zealand is turning against them on.

Good morning, Mr Speaker. Well, there’s something that the people on the other side of the House haven’t worked out. It’s that the people of this country love their utes, and we need to be able to have our utes so that we can drive up to Northland—the electorate that’s miles above the rest—over the Brynderwyn Hills and do it in an affordable manner. I commend the bill to the House.

Good morning, everyone, and good morning, Mr Speaker. I was on the Transport and Infrastructure Committee when the legislation came through that both provided a discount, an incentive, for people to buy electric vehicles and brought in standards. One of the things that we heard was we heard an outcry that I was used to hearing in my previous job, where people would go, “This can’t possibly happen. This won’t work. We’re going to have this crisis.”, etc.

None of this actually happened. What we got was we got things like electric vehicles going down—one went down $20,000 because there was a market to meet. That was a van, and it was something that wasn’t on the market, and so, actually, the dealers reduced the prices of those, and we got a whole lot more electric vehicles in the country than we had had before. So there was a lot of choice, and the Hon Julie Anne Genter talked about that. There were things like “build your own” electric vehicles, which just weren’t here, and suddenly they were here.

That’s the value of Government taking leadership: we can create a market. We can create an appetite. I look at the report that was done on this bill. It says, under “Other matters considered”, “We heard from the motor vehicle industry, particularly the new vehicle industry, that settings in the clean vehicle standards regime are fundamentally and structurally misaligned with the vehicle fleet that New Zealanders wish to purchase.” That’s a really interesting comment. It’s from a lobby group and it’s talking about what New Zealanders wish to purchase. Well, we live in a world where we actually can lead that desire.

When I think about my electorate of Mt Albert, which is, actually, very similar to Carlos’—in fact, Carlos Cheung’s electorate and mine will actually lose a bit of ground together in the next boundary change—and I think about those people who are living in somewhere like Wesley, which is an area that we share in that way, I think about the way that the motorway goes right next to the people in that area, and it dips. They’re being impacted by the emissions from those very vehicles. Their kids will die as a result—[Interruption] I’m not overstating it, and I need to be able to make this point. The children in that area will die at a greater rate because of the emissions from those utes that Grant McCallum just talked about.

Before you cry across the House, there’s actually good research on that: people die because of pollution in cities from cars, and, actually, when you remove a whole lot of petrol vehicles and diesel vehicles from the fleet, you actually impact on the wellbeing and the health of the children in the very electorates that you come from. It might not be such a problem for Grant McCallum, who comes from an area where there aren’t a lot of people, and so those emissions aren’t such a problem, because there’s a spread of people. But in intensified cities—and remember that Carlos Cheung’s and my area will take the majority of new people coming into Auckland because we’re building in a different way and we’re building more intensely. As we do that, it’s incredibly important that for the sake of Carlos Cheung’s children, for the sake of, hopefully, my grandchildren, we clean up the air.

Point of order. Mr Speaker, I accept that the other member can attack me, but I don’t think she should be using my children as an example in the speech.

Sit down, Mr Cheung. Mr Cheung, this is a robust discussion, and I’ve heard you, actually, being quite vocal in it. Give and take—just a little bit less sensitivity. Carry on, Ms White.

Point of order.

Sorry, Mr Cheung, this is a frivolous interjection, and I’m treating it as such, particularly for someone who has been actually making some considerable noise across the House.

Point of order. I do take your point, Mr Speaker, but there is a long-held convention in the House that we do not introduce our families and family members into the debate.

Yes, well, I took it as a broad enough mention. But there’s obviously been some—just carry on with your speech and be aware of the sensitivities of the House.

Absolutely, I will. My point was about the broader situation in both our electorates. We have children growing up in an environment where we know that children in this country in particular get asthma. We know we have higher rates than most places in the world. It’s incredibly important that we work on air quality.

I take the point that was made by Simon Court that cars have got better. They are better than they were; we’ve taken out the lead. But our job as a legislature is to actually lead changes that are important to the wellbeing of our people. We can drive an economy one way or the other, and this is very, very important to the people in our electorate, because it is a life and death situation. We know from the science that we have done; we know that those are real, real prices that people pay for the pollution in our cities. I remember waking up in the COVID era when we were in our lockdowns, and lots of people will remember this: we had a city where there were fewer cars and we actually had a cleaner environment than we’ve ever had, and it was a little glimpse of what we could build into our cities.

So while I am in favour of building more intensely in the inner city, I do see the value in doing that alongside initiatives like the Clean Car Standard. When we do that, we drive change that’s consistent with the communities growing in a different way, and that’s our job: our job is to lead that change. Our job is not to listen to a lobby group that says, “People don’t like all these vehicles; we have to sell them cheaper.” Actually, that’s a good thing. If there’s a glut of electric vehicles and hybrid vehicles on the lots of the car dealers, if there’s a glut of those and they have to cut their profits to get those cars out—if they have to do that, and there are not a lot of car dealers going bust at the moment, they’re doing OK. If they have to move into the electric vehicle fleet, then, actually, that’s a really good thing. It’s a really good thing. That’s our job.

It’s so interesting that we’re so tough on people out there who lose their jobs at the moment that we tell them they have to move regions. We tell them they have to be flexible, that they should go to Australia for that. We’re so tough on them, but we’re not tough on the people who are running these kinds of operations where they have to be mindful.

We had a person on the radio today talking about this law. He runs an electric motor vehicle company. He is bringing in electric motor vehicles. He was talking about the damage that this is going to do. That person is actually working to a value system. It’s not all about profit for him; it’s a balance. He’s making money out of those vehicles and he’s doing a good thing at the same time. Those are not things that we should see as some sort of dichotomy. We can drive this industry the right way, and we can actually save some lives by doing so. We can clean up our environment, and we can meet our emissions targets, which is going to be really, really important.

Instead, what I’ve heard from this House is—I’ve heard Grant McCallum, who’s a really lovely guy, get up and say he wants to drive—

Oh!

He is; he’s a lovely guy. But he’s in the Dark Ages. He’s saying he’s got the right to go across the Brynderwnys in his ute. Well, that is an important right for Grant McCallum, but it is not as important as the right of the children in my area to have a clean environment. That’s a more important right. And we actually have to choose sometimes. It’s our job to choose, to be brave.

It’s really interesting that the National Party came into Government talking about bringing people forward, and it’s doing the opposite. It’s burying its head in the sand in pieces of legislation like this. If there’s any issue in this area, well, it needs a solution that’s creative, it needs a solution that’s principled; it does not need this movement backwards, this visionless move. Find some decent solutions, do some work. If you’ve got a problem, fix it well, not like this.

Just before I call the next speaker, I just reflect on the interaction that took place, Mr Cheung. I accept, Mr Cheung, that, clearly, you felt that you had been impugned or your family had been impugned—you mentioned this. So I accept that, and this is to just reinforce that we do keep families out of this. Some of this is in the eye of the beholder, I realise that, so just a general warning that we do keep families out of our debate here. So I’ll accept that you were genuinely distressed at that comment.

Look, I’d just like to acknowledge some of the comments that the member on the opposite side of the House made around providing practical solutions and choice. That is what this bill is all about, because, like she has said, people want choice. If they want to drive their ute across the Brynderwyns, they should be able to have that choice. If a consumer wants to buy an electric vehicle and drive around the streets of Auckland, that is their choice. This is about bringing down the cost of vehicles for consumers in a very tough time at the moment and providing choice. It’s a practical solution. I commend this bill to the House.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi—the Te Pāti Māori call.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Kia ora tātou. Choice is often the realm of the privileged. It is not something that is extended to all, generally, particularly where I come from, in Te Tai Tokerau, and that’s not because we don’t want it. It is because, often, we are locked out of it, and this bill, with all it’s good intentions, I guess—this is how I’d like to speak to it.

When this bill was first introduced, we were told that it was about flexibility and balance. I haven’t found that in any way, regardless of the work that’s been put into it. The weakening of the clean vehicle standard, a policy designed to reduce emissions and prevent Aotearoa from becoming a dumping ground for inefficient vehicles rejected in countries with stricter environmental rules—that purpose is worth remembering, even if you do own a ute and drive up the Brynderwyns.

The Government claims that these changes will make compliance easier. In reality, they create loopholes, extending the lifespans of carbon credits from three years to four years, removing restrictions on transferring credits between the new and used imports sectors, and allowing the borrowing for future overachievement beyond 2025. These measures delay real progress and undermine the integrity of the standard.

We’ve heard rhetoric about affordability and choice, but the facts tell a different story. Modelling shows that by 2035, these changes could result in 39,000 fewer fully electric vehicles and 19,000 fewer plug-in hybrids on our roads. That’s not affordability; that’s locking families into higher fuel costs and higher emissions for decades.

Climate change is not a distant threat; it is here, now, and it is hitting hardest. Why do Grant McCallum and I know that? Because we come from the North, and particularly if you’re in Whangaroa, Whangārei, or Te Kaipara, you’ll know about the flooding and all of the things that are meant to come every hundred years, but it feels like it’s every five years. They’re not just once-in-a-lifetime floods; they seem to be too many, too often. If you drive through Kāeo or Whangaroa today, you’ll see the decimation of homes, farms, roads, and infrastructure. These are not isolated events; they are a reality of a warming world.

Any legislation that prioritises short-term profits over the long-term health of our environment harms our children—especially mine and Helen White’s—and I say that because it must be said and stated like that in this space, where we make law and then we decide on resource for our future mokopuna rising. Hence my statement.

I think ka nui tēnā, Mr Speaker. I did want to make sure to stand and say that from a Te Tai Tokerau perspective, as the MP, the balance and the flexibility that was once offered is not a real thing, though I wish that it was, and I think that the Government should do better. Tēnā tātou.

The question is, That the amendments recommended by the Transport and Infrastructure Committee by majority be agreed to.

This bill is set down for committee stage immediately. I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Standard) Amendment Bill (No 2).

Members, the House is in committee on the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Standard) Amendment Bill (No 2). We come first to Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 4 to 9, “Amendments to principal Act”. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We’re now in the committee stage of the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Standard) Amendment Bill (No 2), and I’d just like to start by recapping some of the comments made by Minister Bishop during the second reading. I’ll just acknowledge the work of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, led by the very able Andy Foster, and all those who submitted, including individuals and industry. The vehicle industry made it clear, in its submissions to the select committee, that the current standard under market conditions is proving too stringent and will result in significant costs to consumers. We don’t want New Zealanders to be facing those burdens and those costs at a time like this, so we feel that some sensible changes need to be made.

The bill that we’re considering today is the first step in fixing that, and I think we all look forward to a constructive debate over the next 90 to 95 minutes. The bill itself has two parts. The first part amends the Land Transport Act 1998, and the second part makes consequential amendments to the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Standard) Regulations 2022. I thought I’d outline just the four key changes that the bill makes.

First, it gives the Minister of Transport the ability to recommend regulations that set uniform carbon dioxide targets for vehicles. This is going to be important for weight-adjusted vehicles which give heavier vehicles easier targets, at the point where they no longer feel justified. Secondly, it extends the life of the existing emissions credits from three years to four. This is a pretty sensible change, which gives importers more time to use those credits that they earn. This rewards good performance and helps further keep those costs down on everyday working New Zealanders. The third thing the bill does is it keeps the options open for importers to borrow credits from future years. That’s just a practical change that means if they fall short one year, they can make up for it in the next. That avoids charges that otherwise would be passed on to consumers—again, most likely those consumers who are in the part of the market where they are seeking more affordable vehicles and can’t afford a brand new shiny $80,000 hybrid or whatever it is that those at the top end of town may be able to afford. Finally, the bill allows credit trading between new and used vehicle importers. That helps importers who don’t have enough credits from their own vehicles to offset charges, making it cheaper for them to meet the standard.

Now, that’s what the key changes to the bill are. The Government has also indicated it will introduce an Amendment Paper, and I believe that it’s sitting on the Table right now. I’ll go through the Amendment Paper now just for the sake of clarity and time. The paper does two things, and it’s been well signalled in advance, I think, to the public and to the House. First, it temporarily reduces charges for 2026 and 2027. I will just outline those for the committee: for new vehicles, the top rate will drop from $67.50 to $15 per gram of carbon dioxide; for used vehicles, the top rate drops from $33.75 to $7.50 per gram of carbon dioxide. This maintains the current proportional rate for used vehicles, which is about half of the new vehicle rate.

What the lower charges will do in practice is they will substantially reduce the risk of unintended increases in vehicle prices caused by that combination of market conditions, coupled with the standard’s current settings. Those charges will return to current levels on 1 January 2028. What it does is it provides a little bit of breathing space and time for importers, for industry, and for purchasers of both new and used imports to limit the costs being placed on them at this time.

The second thing the Amendment Paper does is it extends the expiry dates for those credits that were earned in 2023. No credits will expire before 31 December 2028. This gives credit holders with credits from 2023 an extra year to use or sell them at a market rate. Basically, it’s a one-year extension. This is important because those lower charges mean lower prices for credits, because the charges effectively cap the price for which credits will be traded. Without this fix, credit holders would lose out. Officials have done some work, and they estimate that the temporary changes will reduce projected fuel savings by about $115 million. That is offset by avoiding an estimated $264 million in net charges that could be passed on to consumers in higher vehicle prices.

Projected emissions reductions will fall by 38 kilotons, but this won’t affect our ability to meet the second emissions budget or the sufficiency of the second emissions reduction plan, because, of course, the emissions trading scheme (ETS) is a contained cap system. When there are fewer emissions taking place in one area, they are, obviously, offset by the ability to reduce in other areas. When emissions reductions do take place in, say, the vehicle industry, that means there are fewer carbon credits available in other industries, so the capped nature of the ETS means that, on a net basis, emissions reductions won’t change.

I think this amendment is about striking a fairer balance, supporting New Zealanders upgrading to newer vehicles, which always cost less to run, supporting our climate goals while ensuring the clean vehicle standard remains practical, achievable, and equitable for both importers and consumers. It’s a practical step forward.

Now, I will take the opportunity in the four minutes for this call, before we move on to questions around Part 1, just to address some of the initial amendments lodged by Arena Williams. Quite a few of them are to do with Part 1. I thought I’d indicate that, at this stage, having had a good look through over the past hour or so, the Government doesn’t intend to support those amendments. I can take the committee through most of them to indicate why, just so that we don’t spend too much time litigating amendments that won’t be supported. For example, the very first amendment to Clause 7 is an amendment which proposes to replace “Clean Vehicle Standard” with “foregone revenue from the vehicle industry”. I’m not sure if that’s a serious attempt at an amendment, but we won’t be supporting it.

The second amendment on this one is an amendment to clause 7. It proposes to replace “standard” with “indefinite postponement”. We don’t think that’s a serious attempt to provide a valuable amendment to the bill. We won’t be supporting it. There are some other amendments which extend out some time frames. For example, there’s a further amendment to delete the entire clause 4(1). We don’t agree with that. We think those clauses are vital to the operations of the bill. There is a further amendment in and around, again, clause 4(1) to insert, before the full stop, and replace “with any measure relevant to Government policy to reduce emissions in relation to vehicle weights”. We don’t support that amendment, nor do we support the other amendments from Arena Williams around clauses 4(1) as well.

There are some amendments to do with the title and commencement clauses, which we’ll get to at that part of the debate, that don’t appear to be serious attempts and are mere criticisms of the bill. There is a further one, towards the end of the Table, that has quite technical adjustments that I think the member is, in good faith, trying to somewhat improve the bill, but we think the bill’s in a good space, and we won’t be supporting those amendments at this stage. With that, I will take my seat and take questions.

While that was an admirable attempt by the Minister to get his retaliation in first on these amendments, that won’t curtail a full discussion of those amendments.

Kia orana and good morning, Mr Chair. Thank you for that clarification. I know my colleague Arena Williams, on behalf of the Labour Party, has lodged a number of amendments, and I’m sure that she would appreciate the opportunity, along with colleagues, to sort of work through those.

I want to just make some brief sort of top-level comments. We do not support this bill, but we do see this as the opportunity, given that we’ve just come straight from the second reading into the committee of the whole House stage, to scrutinise the clauses in Part 1 and beyond, and to put to the Minister questions related to why some changes should perhaps be considered or not. While it’s disappointing that the Minister has indicated that the Government’s position at this stage is that they don’t support those amendments, that should not, in our view, curtail the opportunity for the Opposition to still explain why it is that we think that those amendments should be considered. It wouldn’t be the first time, of course, that Governments have changed their mind over the course of a committee of the whole House stage. The other thing of note is that the Minister’s Amendment Paper 444, in its form as presented to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, was not made available—I mean, Amendment Papers are not made available to the select committee, but the specifics of it were not something that was reflected in the select committee’s report, so we do want to take an opportunity to look at that.

Last night, I did indicate to the Minister that I had a question that I was going to raise in the committee of the whole House stage, and it is about the regulatory impact statement (RIS) that has been uplifted by members from the Table. It is clear to us that this RIS seems to be what was relied on when bill (No 1) made its way through the House. My first question to the Minister is: what is the reason as to why the regulatory impact statement that is currently on the Table—and I’ve just gone and had a look, and it still is the same one that we picked up last night—seems to relate to a bill that was being progressed previously through the Parliament? Surely members can rely on getting information that is more up to date, and, when looking at the bill that’s currently before us, what is the impact of this bill.

The reason as to why members would be familiar with the RIS previously is because we did have an opportunity to speak with the former Minister of Transport around what he relied on in terms of bringing bill (No 1) to the House. The RIS that’s currently on the Table identifies that, actually, only industry participants were consulted with. Now, we know that we had a select committee opportunity where we heard from more than just those individuals, but it does signal that, actually, this is a bill that perhaps hasn’t changed in terms of the Government’s focus around it being fairly blinkered. The question to the Minister is: can he just step us through the rationale for the RIS that’s currently on the Table and how that relates to the bill that’s currently before us right now? I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect that what is available actually takes note of the fact that there has been a passage of time. The reason why this bill is (No 2) is because the Parliament turned its mind to this issue last year, and the information that’s currently before us in terms of what is the impact of this step that’s being taken—and these are not insignificant steps that are being taken. They will have an impact.

My first question is a fairly basic one, really, and it’s around the regulatory impact statement, because, as members know, when it comes to an opportunity to examine things, often we rely on that. It’s not uncommon for regulatory impact statements to be made available throughout the whole range of a bill, but I do think it is a little bit unusual and perhaps rare that a regulatory impact statement for a bill that the Parliament has already considered and has already passed is seen as a justification as to looking at what the impacts in regulation are for this.

Exactly. The rates are all different.

The member is right—the proposed rates that are being proposed by the Government are different. They are lower rates; they have different impacts. I would suggest to the Minister that the Minister cannot simply say, “Well, no, it’s a similar sort of situation.” When people pay less, there are impacts; when people pay more, there are impacts. Even when people pay the same amount, given the passage of time, there might be impacts. That is the first question to the Minister.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m not sure which clause that question relates to, but I’m advised that the updated regulatory impact statement is on the ministry’s website and—

Why is it not here?

If the member wants to give me more than 3½ seconds to answer his question, I’ll give it a really good crack for him. I’m advised that the correct versions are currently being printed on paper with ink and are on their way down for the member to read with interest.

Thank you, Mr Chair. My colleague Tangi Utikere and I have a number of questions about the policy intentions of the Government, because that has not been made clear. I think the Minister is referring to a two-page document called the short-form supplementary departmental disclosure document, which the simple contributions from officials here are, “No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no”—end. I’m not sure whether that seeks to address the points my colleague has raised, but we hope that the Minister will engage with this in good faith or else it will be a very long day from here.

My first question about the Government’s policy intentions around this is: how much revenue is foregone by the Government because of this decision? Is it the full $264 million that would have otherwise been raised? Does he consider the $264 million to be a tax cut for car importers; and, if so, how did he consider the different revenue-raising options around this? There would have been some other options that he could have taken. Perhaps he considered the other options available to him, like better funding for rural roads. Rural communities around New Zealand would benefit from $264 million applied to the fixing of rural roads. That was something that the Government campaigned upon, particularly around the fixing of potholes. How many potholes could the Minister fix with $264 million raised from this policy, and why was it better to return that to car importers instead of fixing rural roads?

Did the Minister considering spending the $264 million foregone by this policy decision on public transport? How many young people would have benefited from a $264 million contribution to, say, subsidised public transport, which was the policy of the previous Government, when $264 million would be applied to, say, bus routes to children who have missed out on their school bus routes around the country, particularly in rural areas? How many children would have benefited from $264 million applied to those bus routes which they have now missed out on under this Government? What were the policy choices that the Government considered, other than giving a $264 million tax break to car importers?

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ll remind the member Arena Williams what I literally just said in my answer before, which is that the updated version of the regulatory impact statement is on its way and is available online as well. I’ll get—

On its way?

Again, more than 3½ seconds, Mr Utikere, and I’ll try my best to answer your questions, but if you interject after every time I try and answer, it’s not going to get us very far.

In terms of the questions that are around revenue, I’ll get the officials to provide some clear advice on that.

Is it a tax cut for the industry? No, it’s not—that’s an easy one.

Do we need better funding for rural roads? Well, compared to, say, the funding in the period from 2017 to 2023, I think absolutely.

How much money could be spent on fixing potholes? Quite a lot. This Government has invested, I think, from the top of my mind, half a billion dollars in pothole maintenance and pothole prevention, and have fixed a heck of a lot more potholes in and around the rural roads of mid-Canterbury and South Canterbury then were done, say, over a period from 2017 to 2023.

How many young people could benefit from public transport? Well, in mid-Canterbury and South Canterbury, in parts of the world where rural people live, not many, because we live in far-flung destinations where we rely on, predominantly, a lot of second-hand vehicles. If you’re a farm kid and you’re looking to try and get to school or go to your after-school job, you rely quite heavily on second-hand vehicles, and you rely on the fact that those second-hand vehicles are affordable, because you already face very large barriers as being from an isolated rural community.

I think it’s important that everyone in Parliament should support whatever we can to reduce the costs on all rural young people so that they can have the best opportunity for success, and the best opportunity to access the resources and services that are available quite readily to people who live in high-density urban areas. But, unfortunately, because rural folk are out there doing the mahi, growing the grain, feeding the cattle, building our exports, and doing the hard slog at 4 a.m. in the morning in the dairy sheds, they have to do that out in the countryside. The best thing we can do to support young people out in the regions is to support this policy, reduce the cost of their vehicles, and give them the best chance at success.

Thank you, Mr Chair. This my first call in this part of the committee of the whole House stage debate. I just wanted to highlight that this bill did not go through the full select committee process that it could have, and that was because of a decision by Government members to respond to a Minister’s request to wrap up the bill early and bring it back to the House. Now, we’re considering an Amendment Paper that is a substantive policy change that was only tabled late last night, and now it’s going through in urgency—so I think this debate is one where the Opposition does have to be able to ask a reasonable amount of questions about the policy intent of the bill.

I’m going to start with asking the Minister which industry players did they consult with in the making of this bill; and, particularly, the Minister’s Amendment Paper 444, which inserts a new clause 5A. My specific question, because the Minister in the second reading speech referred to the Motor Industry Association (MIA) and the Imported Motor Vehicle Industry Association (VIA), who are broad representatives of the industry, but I’m wondering if the Ministry officials and the Government consulted some of the car companies, independently, that are bringing in zero-emissions vehicles, like BYD, Tesla, and I also was wondering if there was any specific consultation with Toyota.

The reason I ask this question is because MIA has to represent a broad range of players in the vehicle industry, and there will be some players that are particularly advantaged by this policy change and others that, we could say, are disadvantaged. The ones that are disadvantaged are the ones that are bringing in zero-emissions vehicles or who have done a lot of work, like Toyota, to actually be able to meet the targets. I’m just interested to know if the consultation was limited to broad representatives of the industry or whether they took into account the impacts on those companies that are actually doing the important work of bringing in the zero-emissions vehicles and the low-emissions vehicles, and what impact that would have on them.

One other question, because there’s been a recent development this year of BYD bringing in fully electric vehicles under $30,000 in New Zealand. I wonder if—you’re hearing from the Minister and the Government, and certainly the Transport and Infrastructure Committee is hearing from certain players in the industry claiming that cars are going to be less affordable, but, of course, they’re not considering the fact that that’s only the polluting cars and we are getting more and more affordable options on the low emissions. Is this change really necessary?

Finally, the Minister and Government MPs, during the debate, have referred to alignment with other countries, particularly Australia, and I’m wondering if the Minister can tell us what the equivalent penalties are or would be in Australia, and how that compares to the fees that are laid out on Amendment Paper 444 in new clause 5A, subsections 2(b)(i) and (ii). It’s from 1 January 2026 to 1 January 2028—the fees that are proposed in that section, and the ones in new clause 8A, also on the Amendment Paper; same issue, it’s subsections 2(b)(i) and (ii): how will this align us with Australia? What will the difference be between the penalties faced by importers who are bringing in higher emissions vehicles above the target in Australia, and how will that compare to New Zealand’s should this Amendment Paper 444 be passed today?

A couple of questions in that one. Who in the industry was consulted? I think as Minister Bishop outlined in his second reading speech, yes, the Motor Industry Association (MIA) and the Imported Motor Vehicle Industry Association were both consulted. Of course, MIA represent BYD and Toyota. Every industry player also had the opportunity to submit during the select committee process and have their views heard and incorporated into the departmental report. I’m advised that no individual car companies were consulted, as that could be seen to confer specific market advantage during consultation so it wouldn’t have been appropriate.

As to the question around why the proposal has been brought back now, it is because the changes are required to be in place by 1 January 2026, and due to the mechanisms or the process of legislation in the House, we have to have this done by Christmas, effectively, so that’s why it’s back in the time that it’s back.

I’ll get some advice on the penalties from the officials. The previous speaker, Julie Anne Genter, asked some questions around—I think she read out a bit of paper and then she said the word “No” about 12 times—I think she’s having flashbacks. I think the issue is that she was reading the departmental disclosure statement and not the regulatory impact statement.

In terms of the question around how much revenue is foregone by the Crown, well, the way the system works is that the charges are placed—well, they’re not placed into the National Land Transport Fund; they’re held in accounts to offset the credits. That’s the answer to that question there. Oh, and I’ve actually had a last-minute run of advice provided to me. I’m advised, in terms of the question around penalties, the equivalent Australian penalty is AUD$50. Ours will be NZD$15. Apparently, it’s $50 imposed by the regulatory and $100 imposed by the courts for Australia. That’s the answer to that one there.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, I thank the Associate Minister of Transport for his answers, but there is not a lot of clarity that’s been given around the information that’s currently available before the committee. Members, particularly when we’re in urgency, rely on what is on the Table to inform the contributions that are to be made in terms of the passage of the legislation. My colleague Arena Williams has referenced papers that are on the Table, because that’s all that’s there. The Minister talks about this regulatory impact statement (RIS), but where is it? The only—oh, he holds it up. Well, is that the RIS that’s dated finalised 25 June 2024? That’s the first question for the Minister, because if it is, then that is the RIS that is being used for bill No. 2. The Minister is handing it to—is it the one that’s 25 June 2024? I mean, that would be the interesting thing because that’s the one that we’ve got there. If not, which one is he referring to? His has got a watermark stamped all over it—not something that we’ve got this morning. Those are real issues around what’s available to the committee as we’ve started this process.

Shoddy.

It is shoddy indeed.

The question around the policy intent and objectives—and the Minister has talked about potholes, he’s talked about rural buses, he’s talked about public transport, he hasn’t talked about road cones, but probably that’s something the Government don’t want to talk about at the moment. But this policy intent is really, really important, because he’s talked about rural bus routes. The $264 million could be utilised in other areas. Why is it that the Government are choosing not to do that?

I see that the Minister of Education, Erica Stanford, is here in the Chamber right now. Perhaps she would like to take a call around whether she thinks that the $264 million not being spent on the rural bus routes, that she cancelled in places like Ashurst and also Rongotea and other places, could be better utilised. I hazard a guess to suggest that she won’t because she’s remained silent in that space. But this is about prioritisation: the revenue that’s been generated, the $264 million, could be spent in other areas. So, Minister Stanford, are you prepared to take a call and indicate whether you think that, actually, this is good money spent or saved, and that maybe it could be used to save school bus routes that you cancelled?

Now, these are real considerations, and I think, in terms of bringing this back to the policy objectives and intent of this bill, members of this—it is not unreasonable to expect that when this committee stage commences and the Associate Minister of Transport refers to a regulatory impact statement, that we have it.

Oh, he thinks he’s got a new one; he doesn’t.

I think the Minister has a new one. Now, prior to commencing—[Member is handed a document by Chamber staff]. Oh look, we’ve suddenly got one—thank you, sir, for this. Now, this in itself creates a little bit of an issue because we now have a regulatory impact statement that has a date of 4 November 2025. Why was this not put on the Table?

What’s the date today?

Well, the date today according to the clock is 18 November—well, actually, most people in New Zealand think it’s the 20th—because we’re in urgency, one of the quirks of this place.

But my question to the Minister is: when this particular bill came into committee, why was the RIS that we think the Minister is relying on, dated 4 November 2025—why was that not included for members to be able to collect? Now, we accept that in urgency there are some things that have to be rushed through. We also expect that when a Minister stands up to talk about his overall objectives and what he wants to achieve in progressing this on behalf of the Government, the information available to members to scrutinise, to question, to hold the Government to account, and to come up with some other possible changes—that the information to be relied upon is also there. That is the first question for the Minister.

Well, I think the member needs to go back and do his history, because when the Labour Party introduced this policy—whenever it was, back in the last Government—they were quite clear that it was not intended to raise revenue, and it’s not designed to raise revenue. I don’t know where Mr Utikere’s magicking up his $264 million from, but it’s not from this policy, because that’s not how the policy works. If he wants to go and campaign on borrowing another $264 million, he’s welcome to do that.

Of course, they didn’t do too much in the way of supporting rural New Zealand and rural schools under the previous Government. If he wants to talk about school bus routes, I suggest he has a sit down with Chris Hipkins, who can take him through the process that Mr Hipkins undertook as Minister of Education with school bus route reviews. He might find quite an uncomfortable conversation with Mr Hipkins. In the previous Government, when a few reviews were under way, then, all of a sudden, an election came around and, oh, what happens? We might just softly, softly put that on hold until it kicks off under way. Maybe Mr Utikere can get his questions from a previous Minister of Education rather than the one that’s in the Chamber, who’s not responsible for anything under this bill—because, under this bill, we’re talking about the clean vehicle standard, which is quite a long way away from issues like rural bus routes and road cones. If the member wants to get into a conversation around road cones, he should go for a trip up to Auckland and have a chat to Mayor Wayne Brown, who is a strong advocate for eliminating most of those.

In terms of the regulatory impact statement (RIS), I’m glad Mr Utikere didn’t even need to stretch his legs and had the RIS hand-delivered to him. He is very welcome to peruse that. Of course, the RIS has been available online for quite a while now. I’m sure he’s a very busy man, and he’s very diligent, and maybe accessing it online wasn’t a high priority—but he’s got it now. It’s on the Table. He can have a great look through it. Of course, the RIS isn’t part of the bill. When you’re scrutinising legislation in the committee of the whole House stage, we are supposed to talk about what’s actually in the bill, so I’m looking forward to that.

Just before I take the next call—again, both parties are certainly broadening the scope of this discussion, and it won’t continue to widen. We just need to now bring it back to something resembling what’s in front of us here.

Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you, Minister Meager, for what can only be described as a somewhat lacklustre response to some questions around policy intent. I understand the position that the Minister’s in and can feel somewhat sympathetic that, you know, when one inherits the role of trying to sell something without all the relevant information provided to the Opposition, there’s not a lot to go on. But I don’t think that we’ve received sufficient clarity about the policy intent and those policy objectives that sort of underpin this bill, hence the fact that the responses to date have been somewhat flat, for lack of a better word.

The Minister in his previous response, in an attempt to perhaps draw on some local knowledge and paint this bill in so far as how it might affect rural communities, raised a couple of points that I just do think are worth going back to, because I do sympathise with the concept of affordability. Certainly on this side of the Chamber, that is our number one concern at the moment, the pressures that people are facing and that households are facing in terms of household bills, and fuel costs are certainly one of those that are driving the cost of living crisis, the real cost of living pinch points that many families are feeling at the moment.

Whilst the Minister talked about having affordable cars in rural areas—and, again, forgive me Minister; I haven’t had a chance to have a look through this regulatory impact statement properly. One can only have a quick skim read whilst listening to other people talking; it’s a little bit distracting, but the policy intent that the Minister has laid out in his response to the first three or four questions this morning hasn’t really elucidated on what the thinking was behind or what the analysis was behind futureproofing some of those affordability considerations. It’s one thing to be able to afford a second-hand car in today’s market, but we also have a responsibility to ensure that that second-hand market updates and becomes cleaner but also more cost-efficient and cheaper to purchase those cars. We really run the risk of being the dumping ground for an old, expensive fleet of cars if these types of measures continue.

I’m sure—absolutely positive—that the Minister would have considered those considerations or made those considerations whilst working out what the policy objective here is. On the surface, without that information, if the Minister’s not going to provide a little bit of oomph with regard to that policy intent, we can only assume, and we’re left to assume, that it’s just a quick and cheap, cheap and cheerful, cheap and dirty method by which to keep importers happy in the short term and leave this looming question for someone else to resolve. I would appreciate if the Minister could just provide a little bit more background as a starting point for us to have a much clearer understanding of what the policy intent is.

Thanks, Madam Chair. I’ll just round-off the regulatory impact statement (RIS) questions. Of course, if members had looked at the Amendment Paper that has been on the Table for quite a while, on the back of the Amendment Paper is a little URL, and with the URL is a link to the RIS. I’m sure that may have skipped members’ attentions because there’s a lot of paper to read, but if members pick up the papers and read them thoroughly, they will find everything that they need. Of course, there is no requirement under the Standing Orders to table a RIS, and I look forward to that suggestion being made to the Standing Orders Committee by the Labour Party in a supplementary submission—

This is an all-stages change. It hasn’t been to a select committee. No need to be so rude.

Because it probably is quite good practice. The member interjects that this is an all-stages change—

I apologise. It’s a significant change at this stage.

It’s actually not. We’ve just come from a select committee and had the second reading. The member also interjects and says, “It’s a significant amendment.” Well, that’s correct—but the whole point of the committee of the whole House stage is to be able to provide a chance for the committee of the whole House to make amendments to the bill. I’m not sure how long this practice has been in place, but we’re about hundreds of years under the Westminster system. Again, if the member is not happy with that programme and that system, she can make a submission to the very receptive and, I thought, polite Standing Orders Committee, who are actively considering how the House runs at the moment.

Anyway, on to Tracey McLellan’s very, very good, I thought, question around the policy intent—although she was quite disparaging of my attempts to answer in the first instance. I thought that was quite unfair. Her question around the policy intent—what is the intent of the policy? Well, without wanting to expand the scope of the debate too far and, paraphrasing in my own limited mental capacity at this time of the morning, the intent of the policy is to reduce the costs of vehicles imposed by the previous Government on everyday working Kiwis. That’s the intent of the policy, and I think, once we pass it in the next 45 minutes, it will be implemented well and truly.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I presume, Madam Chair, that you may have been watching from outside the Chamber, but I wanted to draw your attention to the fact that the regulatory impact statement (RIS) has just been introduced to the Chamber.

Yes, it’s just been introduced to the Chamber, but I understand it’s been in a link and it’s been available for a period of time.

We’re in urgency, obviously, dealing with a huge volume of legislation and there is, rightly, an expectation that something like this RIS would be available to us in physical form in the Chamber.

My understanding is that it has been available. It hasn’t been on the Table but we also have had a response to this issue, so I feel like it has been covered off. It may not be ideal from some of the members’ perspectives, but we can’t carry on debating that issue all morning because it’s been covered off by the Minister.

Can I just—

You can talk to the RIS—

OK, thank you.

—but how it got here and why it’s here has been explained.

Actually, you’ve just clarified what I really was wanting to ask. Given that our ability to talk to the RIS would be useful—

Yes, you can talk to the RIS.

—and the Minister made a point of the RIS being the significant part of the case for the Government’s policy position. I’m just wanting to clarify specifically in terms of the policy objectives: given the essential purpose of the legislation and that its original intent was to assist in the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions, how did the Government evaluate the impact that this policy would have on targets for reducing carbon dioxide emissions, which is covered in section 175, which is being repealed? I note that in the RIS, on page 7, one of the more striking graphs shows the average carbon dioxide performance of all new vehicle types in a blue line and the target in a red line, and at the point where the Clean Car Discount was cancelled, those lines crossover and the emissions profile of the vehicles falls below the targets. How did the Government take into account, with this new amendment, the impact on our overall targets around carbon dioxide emissions?

My second question is: in terms of our balance of payments and the cost to New Zealanders, if the Minister and the Government are concerned about the cost of vehicular transport to New Zealanders, to what extent did the Minister evaluate the impact of our dependency as a nation on the whole on petroleum imports? To clarify this, looking at the latest economic fact sheet for the week ending 14 November, currently our three largest goods imports in the year to September 2025 are mechanical machinery at $11.6 billion, followed closely by petroleum end products at $9.6 billion, followed by vehicles at $8.7 billion. Of our three biggest goods imports, two of them are petroleum and vehicles.

Did the Minister or the Government take into account the extent to which we are subject to the vicissitudes of the overseas price of oil and petroleum products? We have never produced domestic oil that has been consumed by vehicles in this country. Did he consider the extent to which he is locking New Zealanders into an ongoing dependence on that expensive imported petroleum, instead of moving our fleet to electric vehicles that are fuelled by domestically produced electricity, which is 85 percent—or even 95 percent on a good day—from renewable sources, not from fossil fuel sources?

To what extent has he evaluated the opportunity that is lost in decarbonising our transport system and the real cost-savings that that means for New Zealanders at a personal level, a household level, but also for us as a whole country, because if more of our transport fleet is electrified, then more of the fuel by which our nation is powered is domestically generated renewable energy.

The other question I have is how much of this new fleet and second-hand fleet are actually the practical vehicles that Grant McCallum refers to—the utes that people drive up through the Brynderwyns to Northland—and are actually impacted versus what I colloquially call the sort of urban wanker-mobile fleet, which is a big problem we have in Tāmaki-makau-rau Auckland? We have these monstrous Raptor/Rhino vehicles that are more dangerous, because if they hit somebody it’s fatal, and they are also obnoxious in terms of the space they take up on the road visibly. They impact on people driving normal vehicles. What sort of vehicles does this benefit in terms of those classes of cars that are actually a necessity to have in rural areas? But I can assure you, having gone to the High Country in the South Island last year, that farmers are not driving those Raptors and Rhinos; they’re driving the practical Toyota Hilux and the like. How much of the impacted fleet is those overpriced, oversized urban wanker-mobiles versus the actual tradie, farmer, practical vehicles that no one contests that people need and use? Thank you.

I’m not sure if the Greens are opening up an Eastern Front against urban bankers or whatever it was that Mr Abel said—I didn’t quite hear them properly from back there—coupled with their other front against the rural part of the economy. I’m sure there’s probably someone left for them to not have a war with, in the coming future.

I’ll backtrack in terms of the reverse order of questions. If Mr Abel doesn’t like the Rhinos or whatever it is he called them rolling around Auckland, some good news is on the way. One is that he doesn’t have to buy them. Two is that, with the new time-of-use congestion charging legislation coming into place, individuals will be able to make better decisions about whether or not they do take those vehicles in and around parts of Auckland that Mr Abel doesn’t want to see them in. Thirdly, on that, with the shift from road-user charges to all vehicles—and I’m assuming that some of these obnoxious gas-guzzling monstrosities that Mr Abel doesn’t like will be both diesel- and petrol-fuelled—they will be paying more for the impact on the roads that they do have. All of those initiatives by the current Government are actually favourable to Mr Abel’s point and, hopefully, will be supported by him.

If we then go to the issue around what was looked at in terms of the impact on the balance of payments: I’m advised that it was looked at generally in terms of the impact of lost fuel savings, and as I outlined at the start, this is approximately $115 million, but that is more than offset by the $264 million in charges that will not be passed on to hard-working everyday New Zealanders who get up every morning, get into their vehicle, clean our offices, stack our supermarket shelves, work in our pack-houses, and generally just want to get on with life in their second-hand, low-cost vehicle—because if you come from a part of the world where, like some of us, we didn’t have a car until we were seven or eight, you’re very grateful just to have any vehicle. To avoid lumping on an additional $5,000 or $6,000 cost on those vehicles, I think it’s a good thing to support working New Zealanders. This is something that everyone in the Chamber should be supporting.

Now, Mr Abel talked about reliance on fuel and gas. Well, then, I look forward to him supporting our efforts to maintain our domestic fuel and energy security in terms of repealing the oil and gas ban: investing in liquified natural gas; making sure that we have greater fuel security and storage requirements at our airports and in our fuel facilities; making sure that we have good import controls for our fuel import terminals, including the one down in PrimePort Timaru, which is a great source of opportunity and employment for the people of South Canterbury. Of course, I look forward to the support of the fast-track legislation and Resource Management Act (RMA) reform, which will fundamentally revolutionise how we can create, produce, invest in renewable energy all across the country, whether that is data centres fuelled by solar power down in Southland, or whether that is the many, many offerings of solar farms in and around the Mackenzie Country, which take a discreet, packaged-away parcel of land and produce solar energy that could generate power for tens of thousands of homes if it weren’t for the prohibitive framework of the current RMA.

I very much look forward to the Greens supporting all efforts to increase the amount of renewable energy up and down New Zealand, whether that is solar, whether it is hydro, whether it is tidal or whether that is offshore wind, whether that is bioenergy, geothermal—whatever it takes, I look forward to that support over the coming years.

Now, there are a couple of other questions that were outstanding that I’ve just had put in front of me. A question from a while back: was the analysis behind this futureproof? Of course it was, because these measures aren’t temporary. The current charges return on 1 January 2028 and, in the meantime, the Ministry of Transport is undertaking a full review of the scheme, with a report to Cabinet due in 2026.

What is the impact on the targets? Well, we all know, and we’ve had this traversed many, many times in this House: vehicle emissions are contained within the emissions trading scheme (ETS). The ETS is a closed-cap system; it has a sinking lid on emissions over time. Where emissions drop in one sector, they are offset by emissions in the other sector. Because there are caps, if industries decide to exceed their emissions, they either have to pay for them through New Zealand Units or they have to pay a very significant fine. It is unlawful to breach the emissions caps, so in terms of emissions reductions, whether you reduce them in the vehicle industry sector—whether you reduce them in waste energy, whether you reduce them in heat energy processes—it is a cap system, so when you push down here, it pushes up here. But overall, on a net basis, it won’t make a difference.

I’m going to call Arena Williams. I’m looking for specific clauses and specific questions now please, rather than speeches. That’s not a reflection on this member. It’s just that we’re getting—it’s less than two pages, this particular part of the bill, and I’d just like to see people referring to the clauses and having questions around the clauses.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and welcome to the chair. You can tell that people are exercised about this. We’re also into, I think, the twentieth hour of urgency, so there is a little bit of tetchiness in the Chamber—but let’s change that. Let’s get enthusiastic about this bill.

I want to speak to the Minister’s Amendment Paper 444 now. This is the guts of the policy here. This is the clause that enables the $264 million tax cut to car dealers. I want to ask him about his choices around how big that cut would be. The options that I understand he’s considered are the status quo, which would leave it at $67; halving that to $33 as the top charge; halving that again to $15, which is the option he’s gone for here; or zeroing it. The options that I’m really asking about are $30, $15, and zero, because, as I understand it, the Government’s policy intention could have landed on any of those and, really, what I’m asking here is about the trade-offs between those options.

If the top charge were double what it is now, I want to understand how the industry would have been impacted by that and the kind of vehicle mix that we would have seen being imported. Given that there is a lower consumer demand at the moment for electric vehicles (EVs), did that play into the choice between $15 and $30 being the top charge and the expectation of economic conditions either improving or stabilising? That’s not information that was made available to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, because the committee didn’t consider the difference between say $30 as the top charge and $15 as the top charge.

The reason I raise this is because we saw a very open-minded and collegial discussion of the different road-user charges that applied to plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) in that committee when the Government was considering a bill very similar to this a year and a half ago. The committee actually arrived at a different rate that would be set there—at, essentially, halving what was the original rate but doubling what the Government’s suggestion would have been. A committee of like-minded and reasonable MPs in that room came to a different view of the appropriate rate there, so I wonder whether the committee would consider a movement up to that rate of $30 that, in my view, trying to think through this reasonably, would also reach the Government’s policy intention.

A particular part of the Government’s policy intention that I want to draw the committee’s attention to is in the regulatory impact statement, on page 3. It says that the best way to address that demand issue created by economic conditions at the moment, and by the demand for EVs being low, is to make the settings more flexible—that’s the one-year extension. We will return to the one-year extension, but that’s not in Amendment Paper 444. It also says, “to adjust the targets to levels that are achievable and do not result in high levels of net charge.” That $30 top rate would do that. It would also mean that there was a greater level of stability within the system.

Stability is a stated goal of the Government in this policy. It would have been in line with the expectations of the industry, and that stability goal is really important here—particularly for the relative market share of some small importers as opposed to some larger importers. The Minister will note that I have made a number of amendments that are particularly designed to protect the interests of those smaller importers. What I think we would all agree around the Chamber is that we don’t want to have the unintended impact, by setting the rate where it is currently, of disadvantaging smaller importers over the larger ones.

You would have heard, Madam Chair, in an answer the Minister gave to my colleague Steve Abel, that the Minister didn’t consult with particular importers. Any given importer had the chance, he said, to be able to present to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, but they didn’t make that information available to the select committee, because it is sensitive to them. As I understand it, the Minister will well know that smaller importers are at the sharp end of this change; there will be some market impacts for them that make it harder for them to be profitable relative to their larger counterparts. I want to test with him whether that $30 top rate charge is an appropriate charge, and whether he also considered a zero rate and what that would have meant for the relative market share of larger and smaller importers.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I was just checking whether my colleague Tom Rutherford had an insightful contribution to make, and I thought I’d give him a crack. Just in terms of a couple of prior questions I just wanted to tick off, there was a question previously around carbon dioxide emissions, and I just wanted to—for completeness, because I did sit down before and didn’t quite get to finish that off. An emissions trading scheme (ETS) is always a difficult system, but it’s a closed system. There are a certain number of carbon credits available, so, for example, I’m advised that this policy may well result in 83 kilotons of emissions additional into this particular industry. Now, of course that is the equivalent—if my maths is right—to 83,000 New Zealand Units (NZUs). Those are, therefore, NZUs available for other emitters to purchase.

It’s a closed system. You’ve got a capped number of emissions that you can emit over a five-year period, the carbon budgets. If Governments want to go harder and faster on that, they can. They can change those caps. If they want to reduce emissions more quickly by reducing the number of emissions in the system, they can do that. They can buy credits; they can shred them. That all has trade-offs and balances because that drives up the cost of carbon credits. They are the trade-offs that we’re all talking about here.

This goes to the member’s point around what the options were and what the top charge could be. Well, if you double the top charge, you’re just doubling what the importers have to pay and pass on to their customers. It’s all a trade-off in terms of how you make the system continue to work as best it can in a difficult and, we think, relatively unworkable system. You’ve still got to make the system work by having some sort of credit and penalty, but, at the same time, if you leave it up to where it was, you’re going to be hitting consumers with an incredibly high cost—people who, generally, are not in a position to pay that cost. In terms of a system that’s supposed to be supporting working New Zealanders and the people who are out there actually generating the income that we need to pay for our nurses and our doctors and our schools and our hospitals—we should be supporting them, and we shouldn’t be putting these costs on them, particularly in a situation where the ETS does most of the heavy lifting.

That’s, essentially, the answer as to why the rate is set as it is. Look, there are arguments both ways—whether it should be higher or whether it should be lower—depending on what your value set is and what your priorities are, but the Government has set them at the rate suggested in the Amendment Paper. We think $15 provides meaningful relief for importers and consumers while still incentivising compliance with the standard. I’m also advised that the Motor Industry Association were the ones that proposed $15 as a balance to balance the interest of their members who held excess credits against those who face net charges. It’s a relatively good middle point that we think hits the right spot. If members are interested, there is more analysis in the regulatory impact statement on pages 13 to 14.

We’re getting very close. I’m going to take a call from Tangi Utikere; I see he’s been writing furiously during the course of this last little section. But I will indicate that we are getting very close.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to ask the Minister some questions in relation to clause 4. This is the clause that, basically, removes the ability for regulations to be targeted, around the vehicle weights being adjusted. The proposal from the Government is to basically cancel it so there would not be any criteria in that particular space.

My first question for the Minister is: given that heavier vehicles emit more carbon dioxide, why is it that there hasn’t been, really, any thought around a gradual approach to weight adjustment—i.e., not just a blanket ruling-out but maybe some sort of a transitional phase dependent on weights? Now, that might be, perhaps, more difficult if it’s in the lighter fleet, as opposed to not, but given that the focus of this is around taking our climate change responsibility seriously, what consideration, if any, was given to having some sort of gradual approach to that? The other part of that, of course, is what modelling supports the change and whether any specific advice around that was sought.

There is a tabled amendment in my colleague Arena Williams’ name that has not been referred to in the committee this morning. I actually think one of the interesting things, if the Government is open to actually looking at it, is what the impact of these changes is going to be. Whilst the Minister and the Government have said that there will be a review opportunity—that that might be at some stage in the future—there is really no scope defined around what that looks like. What Ms Williams’ tabled amendment very clearly does is seek to insert a new clause 4A, which she suggests is titled “Annual impact assessment of clean vehicle standard”. Now, this would be a new clause that would, effectively, require the Minister—and there is no time frame, but there kind of is; I mean, it’s about practicality, right? It’s around “as soon as practicable” after the end of a financial year, which does make sense in terms of aligning that with Budgets. It would require the Minister to turn their mind to preparing and publishing a report that would be required to contain a number of different aspects.

Now, we haven’t actually touched on this yet today, and they are things like, “Well, what is the actual capture of volume of used vehicles that are actually being imported into New Zealand?” This is a bill that does provide some differential between new imports and used imports. It might be all well and good to say, “Well, all that information is contained elsewhere”, but what we’re talking about here is having a centralised opportunity for the Minister, as the Government’s appointee, to present to the Parliament a form of accountability on an annual basis to cover off a few things—not just actually the volume of used vehicles.

That’s really important, because, if we’re looking at trying to shift the dial on having households move into lower-emitting vehicles, one of the key incentives for that is ensuring that the used vehicle fleet is accessible and that there are a larger number of low-emitting vehicles that form part of that fleet. Having an opportunity to annually account to the Parliament—and that paints a picture—we think is actually a good move. Alongside that, consideration around the changes in not just how old these vehicles are but the average age, worked out across the entire fleet, and specific to the light fleet.

The other two points that Ms Williams’, in her Amendment Paper, touches on is this issue of retail affordability. This is a real concern, and this is what has been driving a lot of the submissions that the select committee heard as well from importers. It’s their view that the uptake is actually, post the Government’s decision to get rid of the Clean Car Discount, actually not serving as an incentive for people to be able to access the market. If that is the case, what metrics are there to ensure that retail affordability is something—it’s not something that we’ve actually talked about. The Minister might not think that’s a good idea. OK, that’s fine, but it would be helpful to hear from him none the less.

Of course, the final bit there is around the impact or effect that that would have specifically on Māori and Pacific communities. Why? We know that they are generally parts of our communities—and members across the Chamber will know this themselves—that find it very difficult to be able to make sure they are a positive stat when it comes to low-emitting vehicles, because of the accessibility and the equity issues. The question to the Minister is: how does he see that ability to capture all that information in one place and to provide that through a vehicle to be accountable to the Parliament?

I couldn’t quite discern many questions from that, but I’ll address the one at the top around clause 4. I think the member misunderstands how the clause works. It actually allows the Minister to set a weight-adjusted rate or a uniform rate. Currently, if you just set a strict uniform weight, that would be harder for heavy vehicles to meet, and I think that was the intention of the previous Government’s policy. Clause 4 actually gives the Minister the flexibility to do one or the other, and so I think that’s what he actually wants and that’s what the clause achieves.

In terms of an amendment to require a Minister to review or report—well, as I’ve mentioned before, there is already a report due in 2026 and, as I thumb my way through many of Arena Williams’ amendments, I note that with regard to the amendment lodged at 10:50:07, the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) currently already publish monthly reporting on the volume of charges and credits, and the Ministry of Transport publishes information on the volume of new registrations. If we go to 10:50:11, the Ministry of Transport publishes vehicle registrations, including both fuel types. If we go to—I’m just skipping along because the rest of them aren’t actually consistent with Government policy, so they would be rejected outright. If we go to the one at 10:50:21, all of the information sought in that quarterly publication is published monthly by the NZTA. If we go—and we’re still going; they’re not consistent with Government policy for the rest of these ones—to 10:50:25, again, that information is already published by the NZTA. Then, for the one at 10:50:28—no, that’s on the title. I thought that there was one more.

Essentially, the essence of what I’m getting to is that much of what the member has suggested or wants in her amendments is already published by various agencies, and, of course, Ministers of any stripe, any kind, any colour, or of any age or vintage can issue a report or do a review on any piece of legislation they want at any time. If they want to spend their time running through working groups and reports and reviews and things like that, then they can do that, but what we’ll do is we’ll change the legislation to make it easier for working New Zealanders to buy a car, get to work, do the job, live their life, and have a happy future.

I’m just going to take a question from the Hon Julie Anne Genter, the transport spokesperson for the Greens—and it will be related to a clause and a question.

Yes—thank you very much, Madam Chair. We put forward a range of tabled amendments this morning, so I just want to clarify that most of those are proposed amendments to Amendment Paper 444, which is the Minister of Transport’s Amendment Paper, which, as I understand it—and maybe I’ll just clarify with the Minister in the chair, James Meager—was tabled yesterday in the evening. That’s my understanding. The chair of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee was saying that it had been around longer than that, so I’m just wondering: did the chair of the select committee get earlier access to the Amendment Paper, because we only got it last night.

Anyway, so it’s specifically new clauses 5A and 8A, and we’ve proposed a range of changes to the fees, and so that’s particularly from 1 January 2026. My question—my main question, aside from when was the Amendment Paper tabled and when did the chair get access to it—is: the Minister has repeatedly, in this debate, referred to this policy improving affordability of cars for low-income New Zealanders. I just wondered if the Minister had done any distributional analysis of who these changes were most likely to affect, because by my calculations, the changes in the new clause 5A in Amendment Paper 444, new subsection 2(b)(i) and (ii), what they show is that with the change in the fees, the benefit to the new vehicle industry who are bringing in polluting vehicles above the target is twice that of the used vehicle sector imports. That means that, actually, there’s a disproportionate benefit to new vehicle importers. Low-income or even medium-income New Zealanders are not buying brand new vehicles, so if the policy intent of the bill is to help those on low or medium income, I want to know: why is the change proposed in the Amendment Paper giving double the benefit, or tax break, really—penalty break—to brand new vehicle imports as opposed to second-hand vehicle imports?

Throughout the debate and throughout the regulatory impact statement, the problem that’s been laid out has been focused on access to the second-hand vehicle market. We have a lot of brand new vehicles now available at affordable price points that are low-emissions or zero-emissions, therefore below the target, but there’s a disproportionate benefit given to new vehicles. I just want to make this point in this debate—maybe the Minister could listen and understand the point and respond to the question—if we want to increase the supply of second-hand, low-emissions vehicles or zero-emissions vehicles—electric vehicles (EVs)—then we’re not going to do it by importing second-hand vehicles directly from Japan; we’re going to do it by importing more brand new EVs here and those being sold on second-hand in the market. That’s how we address that issue. The way we get more second-hand, affordable EVs is by importing more brand new EVs, and this policy, this Amendment Paper, is working against that aim by encouraging and rewarding the polluting brand new vehicles industry and encouraging them to keep importing higher-emissions, brand new vehicles which will be on the road longer and mean that we’re not getting those second-hand EVs in the market.

That’s my question, and would the Minister consider some of our tabled amendments to Amendment Paper 444, which we put on the Table. There’s a whole range of them, in my name and in my colleague Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s name, that would go some way to ensuring that the brand new vehicle importers who are bringing in high-emissions vehicles pay the price of that.

Oh, sorry, there’s one more question—I did mean to ask this earlier in the debate and I didn’t get to it, which was: has the Minister got any evidence, do they have any guarantee based on these changes, that savings will be passed on to consumers? How do we know they won’t just be banked by the industry so that they can make more money as opposed to bringing in lower-emissions vehicles that New Zealand desperately needs?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have checked with the officials, and I’m advised that the Amendment Paper was released at approximately 3.48 p.m. yesterday, and that includes the reference to the regulatory impact statement. Then I’m also—well, I’m not even advised of this, I can remember this. The substance or the content of the Amendment Paper was indicated by the Minister after Cabinet made their decisions on Monday, and that was, I think, reported on relatively widely at that point.

In terms of the member’s point about the best way to get more EVs—yep, you could take money from freezing workers and farmers and tradies and give it to lawyers and doctors to run around the town in their brand new Teslas. Or what you could do is you could drastically reform things like the Resource Management Act, improve our education system, improve our exports, grow our economy, lift incomes, and make sure that people have the wealth and prosperity that they need to be able to make choices in their lives so that they can afford to choose the vehicle that best suits them. So long as we are pouring costs on working New Zealanders, they are going to be the ones that are priced out of any electric vehicle market, whether that be used or new. It will be a luxury, which is the domain only of the rich and wealthy and probably of the 123 people that sit in this Chamber. In terms of making it easier to buy electric vehicles, the best thing you can do is make sure that you have a country which has the opportunity and growth and prosperity for all New Zealanders to have the incomes that they deserve so that they can make the choices for themselves.

Finally, in terms of the amendments that the member’s put forward, I’ve had a quick thumb through. Many of them don’t seem to be consistent with the aims of the Government policy, so we won’t be supporting them at this stage.

Then, finally, “Can the Minister provide any guarantee that those savings are passed on?” Well, they’re not savings, they are the avoidance of cost that would be passed on. While I can’t guarantee what any individual vehicle importer or operator will or won’t do with the price of vehicles in their market, what I can guarantee is that the ongoing situation where there are basically no second-hand vehicles available, even under existing standards in the likes of the Japanese second-hand market means that the cost of second-hand trucks and vehicles and work vehicles has gone through the roof—to the point of $10,000, $15,000, $20,000 for some people who are just trying to buy a flatbed truck so that they can chuck your heat pump or your washing machine on and deliver it to your house so you can live a comfortable, luxurious, perfectly nice, comfortable life while they drag their butts around town every day, every week, making our lives easier. I think that we should be proud of the work that they do.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that the Hon Julie Anne Genter’s tabled amendment to the Minister’s amendment inserting new clause 5A, new section 177(2), set out on Amendment Paper 444, to amend the 2026 charges to $37.50 and $75 be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to the Minister’s amendment inserting new clause 5A, new section 177(2), set out on Amendment Paper 444, to amend the 2026 charges to $30 and $60 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Julie Anne Genter’s tabled amendment to the Minister’s amendment to clause 6 set out on Amendment Paper 444 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Julie Anne Genter’s tabled amendment to the Minister’s amendment inserting new clause 8A, new section 182(2), set out on Amendment Paper 444, to amend the 2026 charges to $30 and $60 be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to the Minister’s amendment inserting new clause 8A, new section 182(2), set out on Amendment Paper 444, to amend the 2026 charges to $24 and $48 be agreed to.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 444 be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment deleting clause 4(1) be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4(1) replacing “(ii)” with “(iv)” be agreed to.

Arena Williams’ three remaining tabled amendments amending clause 4(1) are out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4(2) deleting clause 4(2) be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4(2) relating to targets adjusted for vehicle make and model be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 4(2) inserting the words “including vehicle weight and class adjusted targets” be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to insert clause 4(3) relating to data integrity and quality be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to insert a new clause 4A to require an annual impact assessment of the standard be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to insert a new clause 4B to require monitoring and reporting on compliance and market impacts be agreed to.

Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to insert a new clause 4C to implement an equity review of the standard is out of order as being outside the scope of the bill.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to insert a new clause 4D to require an annual review of clean vehicle system outcomes be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to insert a new clause 4E to require monitoring and reporting on importer participation in the system be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to insert a new clause 4F to require an access review relating to clean vehicle availability be agreed to.

Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 5 relating to determining weight-adjusted targets by Order in Council is out of order as being not in the correct form of legislation.

I’m just going to read out the next vote, and then I’m going to swap chairs while the Clerk is taking the vote—just so you know what’s going on.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 5 relating to a quarterly summary of clean vehicle activity be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 5 relating to reporting on light vehicle fleet changes be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 5 relating to reporting on affordability and availability of light vehicles be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 5 relating to transparency reporting on the clean vehicle credit system be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 5 relating to reporting on fleet transition and vehicle market trends be agreed to.

Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 5 relating to equity and affordability reporting is out of order as being outside the scope of the bill.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to insert new clause 7A relating to establishing a class of small-volume importers be agreed to.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 6, replacing “4 years” with “3.5 years” is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The Hon Julie Anne Genter’s tabled amendment to clause 6, replacing “4 years” with “2 years” is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to insert new clause 7A relating to regulations to support small-volume importers be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to insert new clause 7A relating to regulations to support low-volume importers be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to insert new clause 7A relating to regulations to support occasional importers be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to insert new clause 7A relating to regulations to support smaller importers be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to insert new clause 7A relating to transitional arrangements for low-volume importers be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 8(1) to delete “or a light vehicle importer who imports used vehicles” be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Julie Anne Genter’s tabled amendment to insert new subclause (1A) in clause 8 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Julie Anne Genter’s tabled amendment to insert new subclause (2A) in clause 8 be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 8(3), new section 180(3), to insert “the transferor must satisfy themselves that the transfer will not disincentivise the transferee to import clean and efficient cars and” be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 8(3), new section 180(3), to insert “the transferor must be satisfied that the transfer is enabling the importation of efficient, clean light vehicles and does not have an impact on the emissions of the transferee’s vehicle fleet, and” be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 8(3), new section 180(3), to replace the words after “must be” with “made on conditions set by Order in Council after 1 January 2027” be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Julie Anne Genter’s tabled amendment to clause 8(3), replacing “2 credits” with “1.5 credits” in each instance be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to insert new subclause (1A) in clause 9 be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to insert new subclause (2A) in clause 9 be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 9(3), new section 184(3), to insert “the transferor must satisfy themselves that the transfer will not disincentivise the transferee to import clean and efficient cars and” be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 9(3), new section 184(3), to replace the words after “must be” with “made on conditions set by Order in Council after 1 January 2027” be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 9(3), replacing “2 credits” with “1.5 credits” in each instance be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to insert new clause 10 relating to the annual publication of credit system ratings be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to insert new clause 10 relating to an annual statement on the clean vehicle system be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to insert new clause 10 relating to the publication of future settings for the clean vehicle system be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to insert new clause 10 relating to an annual outline of clean vehicle system changes be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to insert new clause 11 relating to the quarterly publication of total charges be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to insert new clause 11 relating to the quarterly publication of clean vehicle activity totals be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to insert new clause 12 relating to a minimum notice period for changes to credit system settings be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to insert new clause 12 relating to a required notice period for operational changes be agreed to.

Members, we now come to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 10 to 12, “Consequential amendments to Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Standard) Regulations 2022”. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Well, welcome to Part 2, and I’m glad to see that Mr Menéndez March never skips leg day, with the amount of up and down there—congratulations on those votes.

We come to Part 2, “Consequential amendments to Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Standard) Regulations 2022”. It makes amendments to the regulations to align with all the amendments made and agreed to in Part 1. It’s such a small part that it’s almost worth reading it out word for word. Clause 10, “Principal regulations”, provides that “Sections 11 and 12 amend the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Standard) Regulations 2022.” Clause 11 lets us know that regulation 3 is amended, and that’s the interpretation section. It says that “In regulation 3, definition of ‘expiry date’, replace ‘3 years’ with ‘4 years’ ”, and that’s quite helpful because that aligns with the change that we’ve just made in clause 6. Then, of course, we’ve got clause 12, which amends regulation 17, “Procedure and requirements for transferring carbon dioxide credits between accounts”, and it says, “In regulation 17(3)(b), replace ‘3 years’ with ‘4 years’ ”. They are three very straightforward clauses that give effect to the change made in the previous part.

There are some amendments on the Table that I think are worth very quickly traversing. As I mentioned before, those amendments that are inconsistent with Government policy won’t be supported by the Government for, I think, obvious reasons. There is one from Arena Williams at 3:15:20 p.m. on 19 November that seeks to replace the term “4 years” with the term “3 years and”—what looks like—“1 mouth”, but I assume it’s “1 month”. The issue with that is it then means that the statute, which will say “4 years”, would be inconsistent with the regulations, which would then say “3 years and 1 month”. For consistency’s sake, you would keep the statute consistent with the regulations, otherwise the chair of the Regulations Review Committee would be all over us like a hot rash, and we wouldn’t want that.

There are a number of other amendments to Part 2 that Arena Williams has put forward. I actually think it’s just worth putting on the record for the public what some of those amendments contain, just so that they know the extent to which the Opposition is taking this very, very seriously, I’m sure. One of those amendments is to replace the term “4 years” with “1,095 days”, another amendment is to replace the term “4 years” with “26,280 hours”, another is to replace the term “4 years” with “156 weeks”, and I think that one of the ones that is most impressive in terms of the mathematical ability of Ms Williams is the one lodged at 3:15:25 p.m., which is to replace the term “4 years” with “94,608,600 seconds”. Now, we won’t be supporting those amendments, because we think not only are they quite frivolous but they are—well, they’re just quite frivolous.

I’m sure there are some worthy amendments somewhere that are running around, but in terms of those ones, we won’t be supporting them at all.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I am taking my first call, and I want to go straight to clause 12. I’d also like to preface my contribution to say that the reason I haven’t been in the Chamber is that I have been upstairs working furiously through the regulatory impact statement (RIS), which is an incredibly important document to enable us to scrutinise what is a highly technical bill, and it is a bill that includes an amendment this morning that has quite a few changes in it. Without the RIS, we have not been able to do that effectively.

Clause 12 gives us that opportunity to do it, because clause 12 has a fundamental impact on the system in that it, basically, moves the system from annual compliance to multi-year smoothing. It encourages importers to bank and skim compliance obligations, and that does raise questions which we have not been able to interrogate properly because we’ve not had the regulatory impact statement to support that, and there are a number of other things. We will move through it, but other colleagues, including my colleague Helen White, has been doing the same thing—and I understand Tracey McLellan has, too—and so we want this opportunity to be able to ask questions. There are 14 specified risks that have not been able to come out.

Now, just to give members some context to this, I worked on this bill late last night. I looked for the latest update of the RIS. I couldn’t find it anywhere online. I was watching the proceedings in the committee of the whole House this morning and I was about to come down to contribute very early, and I heard the Minister quite glibly say, “Oh, there’s one on its way.” When we look at the 18-page document and we look at page 3, there are even annotations in red on the side of the document that make it almost look like a draft. It has been produced in a hurry. I went and checked with the Clerk of the House to make sure it wasn’t anything to do with me not being able to find the document and they confirmed that even though this is dated a few days ago, there can be issues with the links, and they could not confirm that the RIS would be available. Now, I can say hand on heart that I have not seen it until this morning.

I just want to point out, first of all, that although the Minister has said that clause 12 is technical, given some of the issues, the impact of it is not technical and is worthy of scrutiny, because what it does is it amends regulation 17 of the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Standard) Regulations 2022, which is around credit expiry and use. Regulation 17 governs how credits expire, how they can be applied across years, the hierarchy of credit usage, and transferability rules, and what can happen is there can be penalty interactions. There can be a retroactive application to existing credits, which is really unusual in regulatory design, and it’s quite easy for the Minister to sort of say, “Oh, this is just about regulations.” when we know that regulations are worthy of scrutiny, particularly in a rushed process like this, and particularly where they could have a retrospective impact. That is what has been raised in the RIS because credits previously set to expire in 2025-26 now suddenly remain valid until 2028 or beyond, and so the fact that it does have retrospectivity is a problem. It’s also potentially inconsistent because it’s not amended precisely to reflect the new section 178(3) of the Land Transport Act 1998, and so there could actually be statute or regulation clash grounds for challenge.

That makes it administratively weak under law, and so I’m going to ask some questions specifically on that. Then—if I may, Mr Chair—I may take another call just to point out the 14 specific risks that have come up in the RIS, now that in the last couple of hours we have been able to actually see it, and some of them have quite a lot of public interest.

My first direct question on clause 12 is: has the New Zealand Transport Agency Waka Kotahi run system simulations to ensure that amending regulation 17 will not cause credit accounting errors? This goes to the amendments that my colleague Arena Williams had suggested, which were to get much more precise modelling so that there could actually be some evidence base, because at the moment we are having to rely on the Minister’s assurance that all his numbers stack up.

The second question: how will regulation 17 deal with multi-year bridging credits, especially those generated before 2026? Does the retroactive application of the extended expiry breach any principle of regulatory predictability, and is he concerned about that? Has Crown Law confirmed that extending the life of existing credits is legally safe, and is it consistent with the zero carbon Act budgeting framework?

My fifth question is: does the Minister accept that regulation 17’s amendment, effectively, weakens the constraint that the Clean Vehicle Standard was designed to impose year by year? So that is looking at one of the first risks that has come up in the RIS, and my colleagues will be asking more detailed questions. But that is around the gaming of the system, essentially.

There are 14 risks. There’s the gaming of the system. There’s the surge of high-emitting vehicles, which has been mentioned. This one—I think is maybe why the Minister was trying to get us out of the House so quickly—is a specific risk that mentions potentially higher fuel costs for New Zealanders of $115 million. There is the potential for increased national emissions. There are perverse incentives—now, Julie Anne Genter managed to ask a question about that, but without having the analysis of the RIS and being able to interrogate further, it is absolutely a valid point. I should think that she and my colleagues should be given the chance to actually look at what is the real risk of those perverse incentives and what will the outcomes be. Are they medium risks with high impacts—in which case, should we be taking this gamble?

We have other risks around reduced fuel savings and our emissions reduction pledges. We haven’t even touched on equity and fairness—and that seems to be a continual theme in this House—for communities that are going to be impacted by this. The Minister himself has tried to suggest that this is helping ordinary New Zealanders and that it’s only those who are in a privileged position who are going to going to have to worry about it, but, in fact, the RIS would suggest the opposite, and this side of the House is very interested in equity and fairness, particularly when it’s hidden in regulations.

We see a risk around the declining value of credits. Now, why on earth would we have a regulatory system that purports to support a bill that actually makes the value of credits decline, which ultimately could also lead to higher vehicle prices? It flies in the face of what this Government has said it is trying to do, and I can provide a couple of quotes from some of the Ministers who have talked about our emissions trading scheme and how we’re wanting to meet our climate targets. I mean, Christopher Luxon said, post-Cabinet in April 2024, that “We remain absolutely committed to meeting climate targets.” and Simon Watts said on Radio New Zealand that “New Zealand will not step back from its climate commitments.”, and yet we see, hidden in the regulations and the impact of the regulations through the lack of modelling and through this Amendment Paper, which was dropped at the eleventh hour and which is very, very technical, and we did not have the facility of the RIS to be able to understand what its impact was, including with the regulations—we are seeing a bill that is flying in the face of our climate commitments and what the Government says that it intends to uphold.

We also see risks about the slower uptake of lower emissions and about the potential restriction of the supply of vehicles that have cleaner emissions, and also there is a risk created by the undermining of the system by the provision of interim relief. There have been no questions on that, because we were not able to look at the RIS and understand that that actually was a risk. How big is the risk of that interim relief?

This comes down to the incomplete modelling. We do have technical questions not only on the RIS but also just to pinpoint on clauses 10 and 11, as well, which may sound quite technical, but they have only come to our attention and they are the result of the architecture of the regulatory system that Part 2 of the bill brings into place.

Although the Minister might like to look bored and act like this is all very technical, I think that New Zealanders will understand that this has been so rushed that we’ve had the most important document, really, for our ability to scrutinise properly, as the Opposition, dropped on to the Table during the debate. We now have the opportunity to get some real answers to the Minister about the modelling and about the unintended consequences of some of the maths that we are seeing come up through the RIS.

Thank you. Before the Minister takes a call, as well, I do take the point about the late publishing of the RIS statement. That is noted, but I want to encourage the committee to actually focus on this particular section of Part 2, as well. We do have a Minister here who can answer your questions, and so if you have been going through the RIS and you do have questions, I would ask you to focus on those questions and, hopefully, they will encourage engagement from the Minister.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Just in response to the member Ingrid Leary’s 10-minute contribution, she raised a number of questions. I’ll get some advice on some of the specific ones, but a couple that were mentioned in there were around whether this is inconsistent with the Act. I’ll point the member to—and I should have done this at the top, actually—Amendment Paper 444, which actually does make some amendments to Part 2, as well. That Amendment Paper does directly cross-reference to the Act to ensure that consistency, and so that should resolve that.

In terms of retrospectivity, there is no retrospectivity in the bill. The changes will apply to current, valid credits as at the date of commencement. It doesn’t reach back in time to credits which may have been used or not used, or cashed in before that point.

In terms of the risks mentioned in the regulatory impact statement, they are related to the Amendment Paper, and not to the change in clause 12, which actually refers to clause 6 of the bill. The Government’s position on this is that the benefit for New Zealand consumers outweighs the risks, and it is, therefore, a change worth making.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I just wanted to first of all take up the point about retrospectivity. Am I right, Minister, as I understand it, that with regard to the price for the credits currently, if people hold a lot of those credits, they will plummet in their value in the time period dramatically, from over $60 to $15? If I look at page 16 of the regulatory impact statement (RIS), at paragraph 51, I get the following statement: “However, 2,895,929 of these credits available for offsetting were issued in 2023 and under current settings, will expire during the period where their value is reduced.” That is a whole lot of credits where the market assumed certainty, and now that won’t be the case. They will be holding credits of much lesser value during that time. I’d like to have an answer to that question.

I wanted to note that when I was going through the RIS, I thought it was deeply ironic that the key vehicle importer stakeholders got this policy detail and they were able to provide comment on it, and that is seen as shaping the view. We haven’t been given that same respect and neither has the New Zealand public, and that is a lobby group. That is a group with power, and I’d like the Minister’s comment on that part—that is at paragraph 45 of the RIS. Why would the Minister consult with a lobby group that is an importer of vehicles, get comment, and shape policy in that way—is that a safe thing to do? What kinds of checks and balances are in the system with regard to that?

Can I ask the House to bring your questions to the very specific—

Thank you. To go to the impact on clauses 10, 11 and 12, and look at that, I think that very relevant in the RIS are the paragraphs starting at paragraph 48, which are about credit deficits and credit surpluses, and that will result in additional fuel costs and emissions in 2050. That’s an incredibly important point, and it relates to this part of the bill in that way.

That’s the part that I was quoting from in terms of the change in value of those credits, and so that’s important. We don’t know a lot about those additional fuel costs, and this is the bit that probably most alarmed me in what I had read. If we go through, at paragraph 52, it said that “The key rationale for the Standard is the fuel savings and emissions reduction it provides. Modelling estimates that by suspending the charge rate of the Standard as per Option 4: New Zealanders would spend an extra $115 million on fuel between 2026 and 2050 with this proposal, $69 million of which would be spent in the first 10 years; The transport sector would produce an additional 83 kilo-tonnes of [carbon dioxide equivalent greenhouse gas] emissions between 2026 and 2050, of which 28 and 23 kilo-tonnes of [carbon dioxide] would be produced in emissions budget periods 2 and 3 respectively.”

I’d like to know what work has been done on that, but this was the bit that got me: “Due to time constraints, this analysis was unable to model the impact on fuel savings and emissions reduction for reducing the charge rates for Options 2 and 3. However, it is likely … the extra fuel costs and additional emissions would be similar, or [higher or] lower than what is estimated for Option 4 above.” Due to time constraints, we don’t actually know—we haven’t modelled the fuel savings. Is that correct?

I was also interested in this little footnote about how—[Time expired]

Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, just with regard to the question around retrospectivity, the bill doesn’t apply retrospectively. For something to apply retrospectively, it would say that it would reach back into the credits or charges incurred by an individual prior to the commencement date and say, “We’re going to retrospectively hit you with a penalty or provide you with a refund for those credits.” It applies from the day going forward. So if you cash in your credits today, it will be at the price before the bill passes, and if you cash the credits in on the day after its commencement, it will be at the new price. It doesn’t apply retrospectively, and that’s not what that means in that situation.

Just on the question around why a Minister would consult with the people involved in the industry to see whether this is a good idea, well, that is the way that Governments and Ministers make decisions. They consult with experts and people in the industry to determine whether or not the policy change is worth pursuing, what impact it might have, and what the costs and benefits are, and I would encourage the member to talk to her colleagues about the tens and hundreds, if not thousands, of industry advocates, association groups, NGOs, lobbyists, organisations, and unions that Ministers, for decades and decades, have consulted with in order to make sure that their policy lands in the right space.

Finally, again, the member brings up for, I think, the third time in this debate the fuel savings, or the opposite of fuel savings. As she has pointed out, the officials estimate that the temporary charges will reduce projected fuel savings by $115 million, and, as mentioned twice before, that is offset by avoiding about $264 million in net charges being passed on to consumers in higher vehicle prices. By my very quick fifth form maths, that makes a net benefit to consumers of $149 million in the system.

Before I take the next call, I’d just remind people that this is Part 2, “Consequential amendments to the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Standard) Regulations 2022”, and I do understand that you people have the regulatory impact statement (RIS) now. But if people can relate their questions about the RIS to this very specific part, the committee would appreciate that.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. My comments relate to Part 2, clauses 11 and 12. This part extends the ability of the people who have credits for those credits to remain credits, and in the regulatory impact statement it says, in paragraph 57, that there’s a risk here in stockpiling of credits.

Earlier in this debate, the Government went ahead and amended the bill so that the charge rates are lower for 2026 and 2027, they massively reduced the charges for bringing in more polluting vehicles, and, at the same time, now—in this part, in clauses 11 and 12—they’re extending the period of time that people can hold credits for two years beyond that, up until 2028, or four years after they get the credits. I don’t understand how these two working together don’t completely undermine the goal of encouraging and supporting the industry to import more low-emissions and zero-emissions vehicles.

I guess my question is, will the Minister consider my amendment and—hold on. I don’t have the exact—we have some tabled amendments that would change it to two years rather than four years, and this is clauses 11 and 12. It would be helpful to understand from the Government’s point of view how we’re going to achieve the goal of reducing emissions from the vehicle fleet when the combination of these two changes is to make it easier for the industry—and particularly the new vehicle industry—to bring in more highly polluting, brand new vehicles which will be on the road for 20 years and, therefore, will still be putting out emissions in 15 years’ time, higher than what they would have been if we have had effective policies to incentivise more low-emissions and zero-emissions vehicles.

We’re falling behind the rest of the world. Our targets in 2026 are lower than that of China, the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, South Korea, the EU, and Australia, and so we’re falling behind Australia on this and we have a much lower charge rate because of the amendments that were just passed in the previous part of this bill. What is the rationale in extending the credits to four years as opposed to two? Doesn’t that mean that there can be stockpiling of credits over the next two years, which then, again, slows the uptake of lower-emissions vehicles, and it means having more highly polluting vehicles coming into the country in 2027-28 than would otherwise be the case—and it doesn’t appear that any real modelling or climate impact has been done to see what that impact is.

Finally, the Associate Minister of Transport said just now in his contribution that it’s completely normal—this is how his Government does it—that they consult with industry. Did they consult at all with the Climate Change Commission or any independent climate policy experts to get a balanced point of view, and not simply the point of view of the industry in whose interests it is to continue profiting off higher-margin, higher-polluting vehicles? That is completely at odds with New Zealand’s interests in reducing fossil fuel consumption, which saves money for New Zealanders and helps us meet out climate targets and which is a non-negotiable—it’s something that we have to do. Yeah, those are my questions.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, the questions that the member Julie Anne Genter is putting relate to the substance of the policy, which was dealt with in Part 1, particularly around clause 6. Just for the clarity for the committee, Part 2 provides consequential amendments to the regulations, and, therefore, I’m happy to take questions on whether or not amending regulations is the right thing to do or why we’re amending the regulations, but the purpose of the regulation amendment is to align with the changes already accepted by the committee of the whole House in Part 1. That that is where the substance of the policy was discussed and debated at length, and I’m not sure what more can be said on a part that we’ve already progressed through.

Now, in terms of how you reduce emissions in the vehicle fleet, well, you ensure that it’s part of the comprehensive and capped emissions trading scheme (ETS) system, whereby emissions budgets are set for five-year periods where there is a sinking lid for emissions over time. Therefore, if the market or consumers or drivers choose to drive more vehicles or longer kilometres and that increases the number of vehicle emissions, then that will decrease the emissions available for other sectors to emit through New Zealand Units (NZUs), and so, over time, the balance of NZUs drops in the ETS—

It’s a fantasy.

It’s not a fantasy. It is quite literally how the law works that was put in place and supported by subsequent Governments, and if previous Governments wanted to change that law, they should have changed it. They should have bought millions of carbon credits and shredded them. But they didn’t, because they believe in the ETS like we believe in the ETS, and we think it’s the powerful and comprehensive tool to meet our emissions reductions and make sure that we meet our obligations across the world so that we can have a balance in the needs of working New Zealanders, who get out there everyday, drive their vehicles, go to work, clean their offices, grow the fruit and veggies, pour the lattes, put together the bicycles, clean the roads, sweep the streets, and do all the things that they do, grinding every day, day in, day out, so that we can come here to Parliament and debate some very sensible amendments in the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Standard) Amendment Bill (No 2).

I move, That debate on this question now close.

I’ve been listening to the debate, and this is quite a narrow part in Part 2, but there are amendments that I understand may not have been addressed, so I’ll look forward to hearing some of those.

Kia orana. Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s my pleasure, as Labour’s transport spokesperson, to take my first call on Part 2. Madam Chair, I agree with you that there are some amendments here—one actually is in the name of the Minister of Transport—that I do have some questions about.

Essentially, Part 2 looks to incorporate the vehicle, I guess, by which the changes from Part 1 can be given effect to. I have had a chance to look at the regulations—the 2022 regulations—and the impact if the committee was to, effectively, take on board the amendments in the Minister’s Amendment Paper 444. What I find interesting is that the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, in its report, didn’t really make changes to any of the aspects in relation to Part 2. A lot of the changes from the select committee were in Part 1—or all of them were—and in Part 2, it’s as it was when reported back.

The select committee, after hearing from the community, determined that no changes were required for Part 2. What we now have in front of us, though, is an Amendment Paper in the name of the Minister that, effectively, makes some changes, and so that is what I would like to focus my questions to the Associate Minister of Transport on.

In particular, I want to look at clause 11. Clause 11 is, basically, looking at this issue of the expiry date and the definitions, and we’ve heard many times in this House that definitions are important. While the select committee saw no need to change, effectively, what is defined as the “expiry date”, what was already in clause 11—which is amending regulation 3—was the replacement of the term “3 years” with “4 years”. That was put before the select committee, and the select committee by majority agreed to that, but what we now have is a potential change from the Government to, effectively, modify that.

The first question I have for the Minister is, given his reference to the regulatory impact statement (RIS)—and I’m not going to go into the RIS, but there has been a reflection that has been made about the fact that in that document, there is clearly an annotation in the column that indicates that this is some feedback from industry participants. Now, it’s really interesting, I think, for the committee to get an understanding of to what extent industry participants have actually informed the Minister of Transport’s desire to make this change. We haven’t heard about the—well, we have heard some of the rationale behind changes to clauses 11 and 12 in Amendment Paper 444, but what we haven’t actually heard from the Government is to what effect there was any consultation that was taken by the Minister. Did industry participants have any impact on the Minister’s desire to bring this proposed change to the committee? I think that that is entirely reasonable to expect a response on.

The other one is in relation to the definition around the date. Clause 11 in Part 2 talks about the replacement of the term “3 years” with “4 years”. Now, we’d just assume that is in relation to a financial year or a calendar year, and it would be helpful if the Minister—perhaps that is already identified in a definition in the principal Act, but we have previously talked about the applicability of when things would kick in and when they wouldn’t.

My final question is on the proposed change in Amendment Paper 444 to clause 12. This is in relation to regulation 17 of the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Standard) Regulations, where there would be a change around how things could be transferred between accounts. Yes, this bill will give an ability for changes to be made between different credit holders—and that’s why it’s in the bill now—around the difference between the used vehicles and the new vehicles. But, Minister, is that simply just an indication that the transfer is purely transactional, or are there other considerations that we should read into that, because the committee didn’t see a need to initiate a change in this space, and given that the Government has a majority on the committee, it could have done that if it wished to. Now, we have had this change landed yesterday, and it would be helpful to understand what actually is the rationale behind the transfer component. Is that purely a transactional thing that gives effect to the earlier provisions in Part 1, or is there a little bit more to be read into that?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, the reason that there are new clauses 11 and 12 on Amendment Paper 444 is because the Amendment Paper also amended clause 6, and the committee of the whole House has just agreed on that, amendment to change section 178(3) of the principal Act to no longer refer to “3 years” or “4 years” but to instead refer to—and the member can read it. It’s under clause 6. The purpose of replacing clauses 11 and 12 is to update the wording in the original bill to refer to the expiry date in section 178(3) in both clauses 11 and 12 to reflect the amendments that have already been made. The purpose of these two clauses is to update the regulations to reflect the substantive policy decisions that have already been made and discussed in Part 1.

Further to the member Tangi Utikere’s point, it’s—I don’t know what the point, really, is that he’s trying to make. Simply because a select committee agrees or doesn’t agree, or recommends or doesn’t recommend something, it doesn’t mean that the committee or the Minister can’t put amendments forward, and if the member thinks otherwise, then I assume he’ll be asking his colleague to withdraw her amendments, because I don’t think the select committee considered, for example, whether they should replace the term “4 years” with the term “94,608,600 seconds”. I think that if the member wants his colleague to withdraw all her amendments based on the idea that the select committee didn’t refer to that, then I’m happy for him to do so.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I really appreciate having the opportunity to take my first call on this part. It is about the definition of “expiry date”. This is an important reflection of the policy positions that the Government has taken here around extending for those importers who hold large accounts, either in deficit or in the positive, about how they can use those and how they can transfer them, because this extension further kicks down the road their ability to continue to, essentially, rest on the market conditions that were at play a couple of years ago, when there was strong uptake, consumers were able to claim the rebate, and there were also better economic conditions, and so a number of importers have sort of bank credits from that time.

The impact of that, though, is that for the period to be extended, the current requirement for importers to more stridently balance up their accounts by looking for more products to import that are cleaner materially changes. The information is not available to us as to who that impacts the most, and so in the information that’s been prepared by the Government on this extension from “3 years” to “4 years”, it’s not clear which importers are impacted by this extension, or whether they are large importers or small importers. My guess would be that the larger importers are benefited by this, and I would like to know from the Minister whether this has a material impact that is financially positive for those importers who will have a detrimental impact from the reduction in price.

It’s well understood now, following on from Part 1, that those accounts that many of the large importers have—perhaps, say, you might imagine Toyota in your mind when you’re considering this. They will be in positive now, but, effectively, if there is $6 million in their covered account, that was in the positive, but now it is worth $1.5 million. That is a substantial reduction, but to be able to use it out for an extra year might have a material impact on their financial position, and so I’m asking the Minister to help us to understand whether those things are meant to balance out, or whether this is simply something for the benefit of those large importers that doesn’t actually impact on their financial position overall, and whether they continue to suffer a detriment because of this policy.

It is not retrospective; it is retroactive. It has a retroactive effect on assets that have been accrued by those importers, and they have an account on a spreadsheet that they can see on a screen somewhere that goes from a value that is a high value now and that will drop down to, essentially, a quarter of what it was when this comes into effect. But they will be able to use it for longer, so what impact does that have on their financial position?

The other question I have about this extension from three years to four years is this. The Minister has noted one of my amendments which makes it clearer about what exactly the extension applies to and the time period it applies to, because that year-by-year accounting, at the moment, has a material impact on any given vehicle that was imported and on how you’re offsetting it and what transaction you can offset it against. That has an impact on changing economic conditions, because if we expect, in the next year, more people to be buying cars that can offset against what exists in the account of any given importer now, or traded by any given importer now, then the time needs to be clear, and that setting of four years doesn’t seem to me to be very clear when you have a number of these transactions happening on any given day and there is a need to account for each one.

I’ll bring the Minister’s attention to page 3 of the regulatory impact statement—which was presented last night—and the policy aims that the Government says it has around the stability of the system and the predictability of the system. It goes to the broader point that the law should be known and knowable. If the setting is four years, it’s quite difficult for people to predict exactly when the account should occur. This would have been a legitimate point to raise in the last amendment to this, as well, because in that formulation of years there is still some vagueness around that, and it would be useful because it does make a material difference to when consumers buy products and when these transactions occur.

I’ll take the points in reverse order. The idea that amending the term “4 years” to “94,608,600 seconds” would provide individuals with clarity and certainty is an interesting one. It’s not one we support, and assuming that Amendment Paper 444 is accepted by the committee of the whole House, it would also be inconsistent with the decision of the committee of the whole House. So it’s up to the Clerk, of course, but it may well be out of order for being inconsistent with that previous decision.

The points the member raised are all very interesting in terms of the substance of the policy and the regulatory impact statement, etc., but, unfortunately, the committee has already determined the question of what the substantive policy is or should be when it considered Part 1. Clauses, 10, 11, and 12 amend regulations to give effect to decisions that we have made in Part 1. The analysis of the clause is amendments—if you’re looking at the bill—changing the term “3 years” to “4 years”, or, if you’re looking at Amendment Paper 444, changing the definition of the “expiry date” to align it with the new meaning under section 178(3). That is what this Part 2 of the bill does. It amends regulations to give effect to the substantive policy, which we have already discussed.

For completeness, in the time I’ve got left, and to make sure that I haven’t inadvertently missed out anything that members may have raised in the past three or four contributions: again, consultation was undertaken with the Motor Industry Association and the Imported Motor Vehicle Industry Association. It was technical to understand the impact of any temporary changes. They are best placed to answer questions on technical matters and the impacts on industry. My instinct is that they probably did not express a view on the framing of the wording in clauses 11 and 12 to make it consistent with the amendments in clause 6. I’ve addressed the part about “year”.

Finally, the select committee’s recommendations by majority recommended that a further review of changes to the standard will be made, which is what the Government is doing, with a report back by June 2026. To, I think it was Ingrid Leary’s—no, it might have been Helen White’s points around the price of credits, I am advised that the maximum trading price of credits will reduce in 2026-2027 in line with the charges, but the Government policy is to extend the life of credits to 31 December 2028 so that no credits expire during the reduced charge period.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that the Minister’s amendment to Part 2 set out on Amendment Paper 444 be agreed to.

Arena Williams’ tabled amendments to clauses 11 and 12 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The Hon Julie Anne Genter’s tabled amendments to clauses 11 and 12 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendments to clauses 11 and 12 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that the Minister’s amendment inserting the new Schedule set out on Amendment Paper 444 be agreed to.

Members, we now come to our final debate, which is clauses 1 to 3—“Title”, “Commencement”, and “Principal Act”.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Clauses 1, 2, and 3 are “Title”, “Commencement”, and “Principal Act”, and I couldn’t have said it better myself, Madam Chair. This part of the bill does three things. It sets out the title of the bill—or the title of the Act, to be fair. The Act title will be the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Standard) Amendment Act (No 2) 2025. Clause 2 sets out the commencement date of the Act. That commencement date will be 1 January 2026. That is required so that we can the system in force in time, and we won’t be accepting any amendments to change the commencement date for that very purpose. Clause 3 outlines the principal Act. It lets the public know what the Act is that this bill amends, and the name of that Act is the Land Transport Act 1998.

Now, I know that there are a number of amendments on the Table, some of which make an attempt to possibly improve the bill, and some of which are frivolous and quite rude, really. There’s one there from 3:15:04 which says, “In clause 3, after ‘1998’, insert ‘, widely agreed to be an arcane tangle of Byzantine regulations which is difficult to amend’ ”. I mean, the public can take what they want from those kinds of amendments.

If I look at other kinds of amendments like, for example, the one done at 10:50:28 for the removal of clean car standards—that’s not what it does. The one done at 10:50:29, which says, “No clean car standards.”—that’s not what it does, although it’s quite clever by replacing clause 2 with “No clean car standards.”, and so I’ll give you points for trying.

There’s one there from 10:50:31, which is trying to insert an additional line at the end of clause 1 saying that “This Act forms part of a series of amendments to the clean vehicle system.” I’m not sure that I’ve seen that at the end of a title before. It’s certainly novel, but it’s not something that we would support.

Another amendment by Arena Williams to replace the commencement date was lodged at 10:50:32, and we don’t support that, as I’ve mentioned before. One from Arena Williams, from 10:50:33, is trying to change the commencement date to be a date set as determined by Order in Council. We don’t think that’s necessary, as we prefer the certainty of having it as 1 January 2026. Similarly, with the 10:50:34 amendment, we’d prefer “2026”, rather than “2030”.

There’s a further one from 10:50:35. Arena Williams would like to say that the Act “may be brought into force in stages by Order in Council”. I think that would only increasingly complicate the system, and we want to have legislation which is clear so that people have certainty about these kinds of things. Then there are a couple of other amendments by Dr Xu-Nan which mimic, I think, Arena Williams’ amendments, as well.

Just in general, we don’t support those amendments. We think that we’ve got it pretty bang on with those three very short, concise amendments, and I look forward to their passage after some rigorous debate.

Madam Chair, I’d like to take my call after our spokesperson just to signal—since the Minister himself has brought up what’s unusual and what’s usual in the titles of bills—that my comments and questions will be around how the purpose of the original bill relates to the title. It is a technical question, and, therefore, I think it’s more appropriate to lead with our spokesperson with his questions, and then come back to that, if I may.

So you’re standing up to speak to tell me you don’t want to stand up to speak just yet?

OK, I’m happy to continue, Madam Chair. OK, I will do this, and I apologise to my colleague. However, the Minister himself—

Point of order, Madam Chairperson. The clock seems to have reset to five minutes.

Thank you, and I need to point out to the member that she did resume her seat, and so the call has ended.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It might be that the member Ingrid Leary gets her way after all, but we’ll see. I want to comment on—and I don’t intend to make this a lengthy call, but who knows? We have no issue with the principal Act, and, obviously, that’s pretty straightforward in our mind, but the two that I do want to ask questions of the Minister around are the title and commencement.

First, we have the title. The Minister has said that he’s not prepared to entertain any of the proposed changes there. We all know that what’s really important is that when bills progress through this Parliament, they are named so that those who follow them, if they choose to, might be able to actually ascertain what the bill is about. This is going to be called the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Standard) Amendment Act (No 2). I would have thought that’s quite embarrassing for the Government, because it indicates that there was a “(No 1)” and that they’ve failed to deliver on what it was they wanted to achieve on the first time out.

I know that the former Minister of Transport Simeon Brown is in the Chamber today, and this may be feeling as though it’s a déjà-vu moment for him, because we spent some time previously when we were looking at the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Standard) Amendment Bill “(No 1)”—

Every time we come back, it just gets better.

Oh, he says that it gets better. Well, maybe his replacement is doing the jobs that he himself failed to do, and now he’s moved on to another area to stuff that part up in our country, but anyhow—

That’s not very parliamentary.

Oh, I withdraw that comment, Madam Chair. The—

And apologise.

And apologise. The interesting thing is that it would be good to actually have the name of a bill that really did indicate what it was. While the Minister might not like some of the suggestions that have been put forward, there are some opportunities there, I think, to really signify what it is that this bill is about.

I’ll move on to the commencement date. There are many opportunities when it comes to the commencement about it coming into effect either on a particular calendar date or on the day after Royal assent. Given that a lot of what is contained in this bill is already timebound—i.e., the figures that are set in terms of what people would have to pay are tied to particular calendar years or are tied to particular aspects in time—why not just have this as an Act that comes into effect the day after Royal assent? It’s a very straightforward question for the Minister. Maybe it’s just that it’s trying to keep it clean so that it kicks in from the new calendar year, but from my recollection, there’s nothing in this bill that really provides—if it was to come into effect the day after Royal assent, what is going to be the implication, if that is the case?

These are, effectively, changes to a regime that comes in at a particular point in the calendar year. It might be that there is some sort of indication of trying to give more time to the industry—but just those two clearly discrete questions.

I do have a technical question for the Minister, and let me preface this by saying that we’re in the same situation we were in yesterday, where we had an amendment that was purporting to amend a principal Act, but when we looked at the purpose of the principal Act, it was quite different. So my question is different from my colleague’s question, because this is not really about whether there is confusion over the title. Given the impact of what this does in statutory interpretation in judicial review court cases and so on, whether the title is sufficiently clear to be able to give effect to that principal purpose is a legal question under section 5 of the Interpretation Act. The courts would normally look to the title, as has been said, to get an understanding about what it’s about, and in this case it’s very clearly a bill that is quite substantively different from the original bill.

My questions to the Minister are whether he thinks the title adequately reflects the bill’s effect on New Zealand’s trajectory with our emissions, whether the Parliamentary Counsel Office gave advice on whether a more descriptive was appropriate, and whether there were any concerns raised about a possible mismatch between the title and purpose that could affect the interpretation under section 5 of the Interpretation Act, and I’ll add to that question a question as to whether the Minister actually sought that advice. If the Minister didn’t seek that advice, I do think that opens up a serious question about whether he should then look to the amendments from Arena Williams to see if there is a suggestion in there that would better suit the purpose and better suit the statutory interpretation in section 5 of the Interpretation Act that courts would look to.

Otherwise, what we are really doing is kind of creating sloppy law. We’re not providing certainty to the courts. This is the Minister’s opportunity, I guess, to put on the Hansard how aligned he thinks the amendment bill is to the original one so that when it comes to interpreting the purpose, given the title—if he’s not prepared to change it—at least the courts or counsel can refer to the Hansard to help them interpret what the relationship is between this amendment bill and the original Act.

The Interpretation Act was repealed in 2021, and maybe the member can ask her colleague, who was in Parliament at that time. The title does what it says: it calls this Act the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Standard) Amendment Act—that’s what it does. In terms of its relation to the principal Act, it amends the Land Transport Act. We need to amend the Land Transport Act in order to amend the Clean Vehicle Standard because the Clean Vehicle Standard is contained inside the Land Transport Act. If we were to try and amend another Act, we wouldn’t be able to amend the Clean Vehicle Standard, because the Clean Vehicle Standard wouldn’t exist in another Act.

We won’t be entertaining any changes to the principal Act, nor will we be entertaining any changes to the title, because the title perfectly describes what the Act does: it amends the Land Transport Act in relation to the Clean Vehicle Standard. It is the second time that a bill has done this in this term of Parliament because we are a busy and effective Parliament that responds to the needs of industry, and where we can make things easier for New Zealanders, we will.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 1, inserting “and Transition”, be agreed to.

Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 1 to insert the words “This Act forms part of a series of amendments to the clean vehicle system.” is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

Arena Williams’ remaining tabled amendments to clause 1 are out of order as not being objective descriptions of the bill.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 2, replacing “2026” with “2027”, be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 2, replacing “1 January 2026” with “1 July 2026”, be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 2, replacing “2026” with “2030”, be agreed to.

Arena Williams’ remaining three tabled amendments to clause 2 are out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 2, replacing “1 January 2026” with “on a date set by Order in Council”, be agreed to.

Arena Williams’ four tabled amendments to clause 3 are out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Standard) Amendment Bill (No 2) and reports it with amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

The bill is set down for third reading immediately.

on behalf of the Minister of Transport: I move, That the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Standard) Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time.

Today, we are taking a very big step towards making sure the clean vehicle standard actually works to the benefit of New Zealanders, particularly those hard-working New Zealanders that get out of bed every day, get in their car, and go to work to make sure that we have a great little country. The changes in this bill are about bringing the standard back to what it was meant to be: a practical, affordable way for New Zealanders to spend less on fuel and to reduce their emissions. The standard was supposed to give New Zealanders better access to more efficient vehicles by causing manufacturers to prioritise our market for the supply of their best vehicles with the latest technology. But right now, under current conditions, the key thing the standard is doing is driving up costs for importers and therefore costs for New Zealanders. Almost 86 percent of importers are in a net charge position, and the average net charge per vehicle for those importers is $1,226. These charges risk being passed on to consumers—ultimately, those who are consuming vehicles most likely in the lower end of the market.

This is happening because under market conditions, importers simply aren’t earning enough credits to offset charges. The system isn’t working as intended, and we risk consumers paying the price. This bill is the first step in fixing that problem. The legislative process we’ve just been through today, and throughout the Transport and Infrastructure Committee and since early August, has improved the steps we are taking in this area. When introduced back in August, the bill made four practical changes to the standard to improve flexibility and reduce compliance costs, and those changes still stand. They are, first, to allow the Minister to recommend uniform carbon dioxide targets—and this came up in the committee debate stage. It allows the Minister to recommend uniform carbon dioxide targets but it also continues to allow them to do variable weight targets. Second, it extends the life of emissions credits from three years to four. Third, it retains the option for importers to borrow credits from future years. Four, it enables credit trading between new- and used-vehicle importers.

Now, during the select committee stage, industry submissions made it very clear to both the select committee and to Government that these changes alone are not enough. With the current market conditions in place, the standard is too tough, and where those charges cannot be fully offset by credits, we risk them being passed on to consumers, making things more expensive. In response, the Government has, by Amendment Paper, added two further changes during the committee of the whole House stage, which I’m very happy to say the House has accepted. First, to make temporary charge reductions for 2026 and 2027. With the reduced rates, we can expect that most importers will now no longer have to pass charges on to consumers. The second change made in committee was for an extended expiry date for credits earned in 2023. This, on the other side of the balance, protects credit-holders from financial loss due to those temporary charge-rate changes. Both of these changes provide immediate relief while we work towards a more durable solution in the long term.

Ultimately, with this system, any system we have in place needs to support New Zealanders to upgrade to newer, cleaner vehicles that cost less to run and support our environmental goals, but they cannot add unnecessary cost to working New Zealanders. I want to take this final opportunity, before we move on to the next speakers, to acknowledge the very many people that have progressed this bill to this stage: to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee and members, to those who submitted on the bill and took the time to make their voices and contributions heard, to the representatives of the vehicle industry for their willingness to continue to work alongside Government and officials for the best outcome for their consumers—and thank you, as well, to officials and parliamentary staff who worked on the bill and to the officials who supported myself during the committee of the whole stage.

With saying that, I commend this very pragmatic bill to the House and look forward to seeing it enacted forthwith.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Kia orana, Madam Speaker. Look, it’s a really sad day when the Parliament has to progress through urgency a bill that has gone through a select committee and then had a very truncated process in the Parliament. The Labour Party will continue to oppose this piece of legislation, as we have done up to this point and through the committee stage, because it is yet another example of the Government stepping away from leadership in this space and doing the right thing.

In essence, what this bill will do is it will water down those policies that really do make a difference in our communities. The changing of this piece of legislation is purely because the Government were not able to put in place any change to the regime that had been put in place to make any real difference. Throughout this whole process, many have been saying that this does feel like déjà vu, because it was just last year that the former transport Minister was progressing the same law change here in the Parliament to say that things were going to work out and it was going to work, and it didn’t. So that’s the prime rationale behind the Government’s inability to be able to deliver in this space.

The Parliament has just gone through a committee stage that is an absolute shambles on behalf of the Government. Now, a lot has been referenced around the regulatory impact statement (RIS). We accept that in urgency, you would expect to have some information coming perhaps late to the piece. What we do not accept, however, is that the documentation that the Government relies on as one key piece—one key ingredient—in determining how they will approach things is not actually made available to members of that committee until the committee stage was well under way. Yet we had the Minister say, “Oh, well, it’s coming. It’s coming. It’s coming.”

I don’t blame the staff here on the precinct; I do not want that to be an indication at all. As soon as they got that information, they made it available to members in this House, and it really is an indictment on the Government that they are not wishing to make that information available to outline and to consider and scrutinise the real risks that this bill might bring. It is absolutely shoddy.

Not only that, but the very RIS that was made available to members looks like some sort of internal document with comments in the column about the fact that the motor industry had said that this term means that and all of those sorts of things. That is absolutely shabby—absolutely shabby lawmaking on the part of this Government, and they expect to put the Parliament into urgency to ram through legislation, yet they’re not prepared to do the hard yards and the work to make sure that the people of this House are able to scrutinise legislation so that we can end up with better legislation. We are doing this on behalf of the public because of the truncated period.

The other thing is it’s very disappointing—and I accept that Mr Foster referred to this in his contribution late last night—that the Transport and Infrastructure Committee seems to have made its decision to report this bill back much sooner because of the Minister’s reckons and the Minister wants this to happen. Well, that should not be what drives a truncated select committee process and further adds to what is a sham process from a shabby Government around stuff that is not going to head in the right direction.

To be very clear, the other part of that, of course, is this Amendment Paper that the Minister apparently has been talking about all week. Well, it was only made public yesterday. This is an Amendment Paper that was only made public yesterday that outlined the near 80 percent reduction in fees that would be payable, alongside some other things. How the Government expects members of this House to be able to adequately scrutinise what it is that they’re putting up in a time of urgency is extremely questionable indeed.

We will continue to oppose this bill, because there are a number of changes in it that really don’t serve a positive purpose. The suggestion of extending the lifespan of carbon credits from three years to four years is a prime example of how the Government is prepared to simply water down the standard and how it can be applied to those within the industry. The removal of restrictions in terms of being able to transfer credits between those who import new vehicles and those who may have used vehicles is a further watering down of the standard that was in place. The opportunity to not just tinker with the weight adjustment sort of threshold for vehicles but to basically completely wipe out that entire provision is unfathomable. We all know that heavier vehicles lead to heavier emissions, yet this is a Government that is not prepared to even entertain the thought of maybe having some sort of not a transitional phase but looking at how the actual threshold could perhaps apply differently to those different members of the vehicle fleet based on weight. So this is a Government that is really turning its head in a backward sense and is not prepared to confront the real issues that they face. Of course, they need to take responsibility for this.

Every year, we are starting to see a continual delay of meaningful action on the part of the Government. As costs continue to increase, as emissions continue to rise, particularly in the transport sector—we all know there is a significant component of emissions that can be attributable to the transport sector—the Government needs to be doing something in this space, and what this bill does is the complete opposite. It actually sends a very clear message that this is a tax cut for car dealers rather than the Government prioritising where it can support households to actually enter the market to ensure that they are on a journey to assist with the emissions profile of this country to make a real difference. It’s on that basis that the Labour Party will continue to oppose this bill.

Members, it is time to suspend for the lunch break. The House will resume at 2 p.m.

The House is resumed. For those who watch these broadcasts and might not understand why there is no prayer today, it’s because there was a prayer on Tuesday. Technically, we are still in Tuesday because the House is sitting in urgency.

I present the Estimate of environmental expenditure 2025/26: Method and results, reported by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. I just have two quick matters to raise. The first one is that I did note as the leader of the ACT Party was walking out that he was wearing an ACT Party pin. I just wanted to note that we genuinely take issue with the fact that wasn’t picked up. The second thing is—and this is a genuine attempt to clarify the ruling—

Sorry, just a minute. Sorry, there are people engaging in conversations while a point of order is being taken.

The second matter that I wanted to raise is just a genuine attempt to clarify the ruling you made in relation to clothing designed to convey a political message being unacceptable. I genuinely am seeking clarification as to the scope of that. It’s a matter of whether you are telling us—in which case, I’m quite happy to follow with my colleagues in relation to that—that you deem any flag to convey a political message. For example, do flags in relation to another State convey a political message or, in this case, does it only apply to the Palestinian flag? Otherwise, it’s hard for me to be able to provide adequate guidance, as the Green Party’s musterer, as to whether it only applies to the Palestinian flag or whether, for example, other flags including the American flag or Israeli flag also would apply when it came to rulings on pins of flags conveying political messages. Thank you.

Thank you. I’m going to come back to you with a better outline than clearly was provided in the first case. We come now to the interrupted debate on the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Standard) Amendment Bill (No 2). The debate is resumed.

New Zealand has an incredible opportunity in electrifying its economy and particularly electrifying its vehicles. Most of our electricity generation is already renewable and we have huge scope for increasing the capacity. But we don’t actually need a huge increase in capacity to handle electric vehicles because electric vehicles can be charged off peak, so it helps pick up the excess supply that is already there.

Since coming into office, this Government have taken just about every possible step they could to discourage the transition to electric vehicles, despite saying they’re in favour of electric vehicles and having electric vehicles being pretty much the only policy they were relying on to help reduce emissions from transport in the medium to long term. The first thing they did was axe the feebate, known as the Clean Car Discount. That policy is objectively incredibly successful at supporting the uptake of zero-emissions vehicles.

Indeed, during the submissions to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee on this bill, we had Isuzu New Zealand come in and hold this graph up as an example of why we didn’t need standards or a feebate, saying, “Look at how we had mainly internal combustion engine vehicles being imported and suddenly there was a big increase in electric vehicles, in hybrid electric vehicles, and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.” Well, ironically, what the graph shows is the success of the Clean Car Discount and then the Clean Car Standard which came in after it because it’s precisely at the time that policy was announced that you see the large increase in low- and zero-emissions vehicles coming into the fleet and the point at which it was repealed by this Government, which led to an increase in internal combustion engines being imported as a percentage of the fleet.

There is no good excuse. The Government will point fingers to excuses, but here, in their own regulatory impact statement—which was belatedly provided to the House this morning in what looks like draft form—there is a graph called “Figure 5, International Comparison of Electric Vehicle Sales”. As you can see in this graph—which people at home might not be able to see, but I’ll explain what it says—it shows that New Zealand’s percentage of electric vehicle (EV) sales, as a percentage of car sales, rapidly declined from 2023 to 2024 by 70 percent. During that time, globally, EV sales increased by 15 percent. They are now higher in Australia—last year they were 25 percent—and they’re higher in Canada. They’re higher in the United Kingdom—the United Kingdom and Australia obviously being left-hand drive countries like us—and they’re much, much higher in China.

We’re in a context where the world is rapidly adopting electric vehicles and we stand to benefit from that, and we have a Government that is taking every step to make it harder to get electric vehicles. They increased road-user charges for electric vehicles to a point where they’re being charged roughly double what an internal combustion engine might pay for the amount they drive on the roads. Of course, this was all thanks to the previous transport Minister, Simeon Brown, who seems firmly committed to increasing carbon emissions and is in total denial of climate change or economics.

You don’t even have to care about climate change to think that electrifying our vehicle fleet is a good idea. It makes economic sense, but we do need policies to show leadership. Otherwise, New Zealand gets taken advantage of by the motor vehicle industry, which is, you know, people building cars in other countries. There is no question that fuel-efficient technology is a little bit more expensive and they can’t mark up the vehicles as much. The reason the vehicle industry spends so much money and such effort on driving demand for utes in their advertising—not for work purposes but, you know, as a sort of lifestyle option—is they are high margin for the vehicle industry. What is good for the vehicle industry is not good for New Zealanders. We waste more money on imported fossil fuels just to get around and it’s the vehicle industry that benefits, not to mention we pay the health costs of that and we will pay the climate cost of that.

Yet again—and we’ve seen it with the tobacco industry and this Government, and we’ve seen it with oil and gas exploration and this Government—at every turn they seek to subsidise and make it easier for vested interests and polluters to make more money at the expense of public good, at the expense of our health, and at the expense of our future and our climate. That’s what this Government is all about. They try to pretend it’s sensible, but the reality is they are only listening to vested interests and they are ignoring the objective benefits that New Zealand can get from good public policy.

All around the world we have seen what is effective at driving fuel efficiency. It’s not, as the member Simon Court claimed in the second reading, just the vehicle industry naturally improving efficiency; it’s been Government policies in other countries, like in Germany, Japan, the EU—even the United States at some points has put in place fuel economy standards. In the case of Japan, they’ve actually regulated and mandated that every car manufacturer uses the most efficient technology, and when that happens, we get more efficient vehicles. So, it’s really the vested interests who are looking to maximise their profits, not to increase the public good.

Everyone in the world benefits from fuel efficiency, and electric vehicles are roughly twice as efficient as fossil fuel vehicles. Even if an electric vehicle is getting its electricity from a coal-fired power plant, it is lower emissions than just burning diesel or just burning fossil fuels in an internal combustion engine. Internal combustion engines are only about 12 percent efficient. They do not convert that energy well into forward motion.

We get enormous benefits from electrifying, but what this Government fails to understand is we need leadership. The Government is there to be the responsible party, providing the incentives, and those are price incentives at the point of purchase of a vehicle, which is what the feebate did. It was incredibly effective. It’s also taking other steps like Government procurement. By focusing on procuring electric vehicles, the Government would help hold up the demand for electric vehicles, and then that flows through to the secondhand market. We’ve had it laid out in the regulatory impact statement that officials say we’re not going to get enough secondhand EVs from Japan. Well, that’s why we should be facilitating the importation of more brand-new electric vehicles now, because most New Zealanders are not buying brand-new cars. Most New Zealanders do not buy brand new cars; it is businesses that primarily do that, including Government.

Why are we watering down the standard and providing an incentive for the new-vehicle importers to import more polluting vehicles? That just means we’re going to have more second-hand polluting vehicles in the market in five to 10 years from now.

This isn’t about protecting consumers. It is about protecting vested corporate interests and it is to the detriment of our economy, of our people, of our health, and of our climate, and is a classic playbook. Whether or not the Government is openly corrupt and supporting these interests or whether they’re just totally incompetent, it doesn’t matter, the outcome is the same: New Zealand loses out. New Zealand loses out from political parties that focus on culture wars rather than sound public policy that is going to deliver for New Zealand. If we go out there and talk to the average person on the street, most of them understand the concept of the feebate and they agree with it.

Of course, we heard repeatedly from the Minister in the chair, James Meager, that supposedly the emissions trading scheme (ETS) is going to solve this problem. Well, we have decades now of evidence that the ETS does not result in efficiency gains. It’s right here in this graph. We had an ETS; it did not result in improving fuel efficiency. It did not incentivise EVs. It has to be at the point of purchase of the vehicle. That worked. Even vehicle importers themselves have said this. You know, we had Simon Lucas of Simon Lucas Mitsubishi who said that the removal of the Clean Car Discount caused sales to—and I quote—“collapse by 80 to 90 percent”. If we go out there and talk to renewable electricity providers, to charging providers, they all say they can’t make the numbers work on increasing chargers or increasing supply because demand has been cut off. It is Government that supports demand through policies like an effective Clean Car Standard, which works really well with an effective price incentive.

New Zealanders watching at home, it’s very clear: if they want a Government that is going to show leadership and support them to get the benefits of cleaner vehicles, of lower fuel bills, of cleaner air, of quieter vehicles, then we need a Government that is going to show leadership and not simply cave to the interests of a polluting industry. It is a sunset industry. We will become a dumping ground for polluting vehicles. We already are until we get a change of Government, and the Greens have demonstrated practical policy.

Well, thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s been an interesting—well, I suppose it’s one day, but—couple of days listening to the contributions coming from the other side. The amount of times I’ve heard the “clean vehicle discount” used as a phrase, and I know that’s the official phrase, but in working New Zealand we called it a ute tax for a reason. It was a clean vehicle discount for the wealthy, and it was a ute tax on the workers, the farmers, and the producers.

Well, we have scrapped the ute tax and today we will be scrapping the other side of the supply and demand equation. We will be getting rid of this abhorrent way of influencing the market that has not provided the goods that were promised. All we’ve seen is cars stacked up in importation hubs, unable to be sold because New Zealanders don’t actually want what the demand influencing - other side thinks they do.

ACT is the only party who has consistently stood against this, and we will see it gone if we ever can. It adds costs without the benefits. We have an emissions trading scheme; we don’t need this sort of market manipulation. Thank you very much.

Thanks, Mr Speaker. Look, it’s been interesting listening to the Opposition, because the Opposition has asked us for evidence. I think that was you, Mr Shanan Halbert, wasn’t it? The Opposition said that the Government has bowed to industry pressure. Well, that’s nonsense. Actually, what the Government has done is it has listened to evidence. It’s been quite clear both in the Transport and Infrastructure Committee and also to the Minister very clearly that the system as it is set up with the assumptions that are set up behind it was not working and so it needed a change and that is precisely what we are doing at the moment. We’re not doing away with it. We are changing it.

We’ve also been told that the last Government did not even consult with the industry on the scheme—

That’s not true.

—and the assumptions so they got the settings wrong. You’ve had your turn—you’ve had your turn—Julie Anne Genter. The Opposition’s position is bizarre. When they are faced with a scheme that quite clearly is not working their approach is to say, “Let’s double down. Let’s keep on doing it. Let’s do even more of it.” It’s that situation of saying, “We’re going to keep the beatings going until morale improves.” It doesn’t work.

If you look at what the regulatory impact statement (RIS) says, the objective of the clean vehicle standard is to increase fuel efficiency, to reduce emissions, and to do so “without placing a net cost on to consumers”. It is failing that element. That is the problem with the current scheme. Without changing, vehicles will be more expensive. That’s what the RIS says. These guys on the opposite side keep on quoting the RIS; that’s what the RIS says. The RIS says that without change, vehicles will be more expensive, some models will not be available, there’ll be more limited opportunities, and some manufacturers might even abandon the New Zealand market.

What it also says is that—and we’ve had the concept of dirty cars being talked about by the Opposition—New Zealanders will tend to hang on to their vehicles longer, so they will become older and dirtier as a result. So that, from the Opposition benches, would be an own goal.

The Opposition has also said that Government is incentivising higher emitting vehicles. That’s completely untrue. What we’re trying to do is take away those distortions to the market. It’s not putting an extra tax on them—sorry, it is simply not putting an extra tax on them. The Opposition, meanwhile, has also been busy trying to spend that extra tax revenue, ignoring the fact that the whole scheme was not supposed to raise any tax at all. It was supposed to be net revenue neutral.

The Opposition’s also criticised the speed of the report back and the legislation and the RIS is very clear about the reason for that as well, because this scheme, the new charges, will come into effect on 1 January next year, so we have to act with some speed. That is exactly what we are doing.

The Opposition said that we risk becoming a dumping ground for dirty cars. The RIS, again, says that the risk really is that New Zealanders will hang on to their older cars longer, so they will be more polluting as a result. The simple reality is that Kiwis are voting with their wallets, with their feet, and they are buying the vehicles that they want to, not the vehicles that the Opposition wants them to buy. I heard Helen White saying that we, the Opposition, can lead the way to what Kiwis want to buy. We can drive this industry the right way.

That’s really scary. The words, “I’m from the Government and I’m here to help.” are some of the most scary words—scary words—in the English language we’re often told. But they’re taking it one level further. “I’m from the Government and I’m here to tell you what to do.” That’s what they want to do. They want to take choice away from New Zealanders.

The one thing the Opposition have not contested is that the scheme as it is set up does not work. They’ve railed about it, but they have not contested that. It doesn’t work because Kiwis are not buying as many electric vehicles (EV) as predicted when they designed the scheme without consulting the industry.

Now, the Opposition then says it’s the coalition Government’s fault for cutting the EV Clean Car Discount. What they haven’t acknowledged there is that by agreement—and they were part of this as well—the EVs and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles entered the road-user charges system, so, obviously, they were less attractive than they were once they got to 2 percent of the market.

They’ve also ignored, as we’ve already heard from my friend Cam Luxton, is that the Clean Car Discount was being paid for by our hard-working farmers; our hard-working tradies, through the infamous ute tax; and also, by hard-working taxpayers everywhere. By the end of 2023 when we got rid of that system, $579 million had been paid out to subsidise Teslas and the like; $290 million of that had come from the hard-working farmers and tradies; and $302 million had come from the hard-working taxpayer. That is not a sustainable scheme.

Tradies and farmers would under their model, if they had what they wanted, pay three times—not just once but three times: at the border, through the clean vehicle discount, on the purchase of the ute, and through the emissions trading scheme charges on fuel.

This bill was about softening the scheme a bit. It was about trying to make it work. The majority on the select committee could see that when the bill was introduced it was only moving deck chairs on the Titanic. This is about clearing, giving the industry and New Zealand car buyers some breathing space. The Minister’s amendments do not cancel the scheme. The industry’s actually said it doesn’t want the scheme cancelled, but it does want time to be able to work it through, make it workable so they don’t end up with a very, very large bill. This makes the Clean Car Standard realistic.

Finally, over time it is a good thing to have a lower emission vehicle fleet. Technology is improving. The Hon Julie Anne Genter talked about Government supporting high fuel use vehicles, but the reality is the biggest funding challenge for the transport system, the land transport system, is the improving efficiency of vehicles across the fleet.

What that means is there is less money available to put into roads, public transport, etc. That is continuing, regardless of what Julie Anne Genter says there. That is good for the environment, because that’s technology improving. It’s good to reduce those fuel import costs. But what we have to do is to manage the transition, to be realistic about what vehicles are available—we can’t magic vehicles in; we don’t make those vehicles—for Kiwis and Kiwi businesses with all our diverse vehicular needs and the vehicles we need to buy now. I want to finish off just by saying thank you to all the people involved. I commend this very sensible bill to the House.

We’re in urgency so the Government can get more dirty gas-guzzlers into the country through the most inaccurately named Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Standard) Amendment Bill. Nothing says “climate denial” more than this—urgency for more climate pollution. We’ve had, from this Government, cuts to the methane targets; we’ve had, from this Government, opening up oil and gas; we’ve had, from this Government, the desire to open up coal mines. Yesterday, at the Boston Consulting meeting, the Associate Minister for Energy talked about the need for oil and for gas and for coal, and half-threatened the gentailers with making them buy more coal to fuel our nation, assuming we were going to have cheaper power.

I had an opportunity to visit West Wind this morning, where there are 62 wind turbines and 143 megawatt installed capacity; Mill Creek, nearby, has another 26 turbines. There was a lot of discussion about the chaos in the political space around sending signals about the electrification of our nation. When we cut demand, such as cutting the Clean Car Standard, we are sending a signal: “Don’t worry about building that generation. There’s not going to be the demand for it.” When we send a signal that we’re not going to invest in new renewable electricity generation and we’re going to invest in more gas, we send a signal to that sector that we don’t really care about electrification—don’t necessarily invest. The sector is really concerned by the inconsistency—by the chaos of this Government’s direction in electrification. This bill is doing exactly that; it is saying, “More dirty gas-guzzlers.”

We’ve seen demand for clean cars that has plunged off a cliff, as my colleague Julie Anne Genter pointed out, when the Clean Car Standard was taken away. That’s a really clear signal of Government action causing more climate pollution—a really clear signal. The Minister seems to have assumed that it’s hard to get a supply of low-emission vehicles. Well, it’s hard to get a supply when you say, “We don’t want them.” It’s really hard to get a supply when you say, “We don’t want them any more.” When Polestar brought all of the vehicles into the country for the Clean Car Standard, then had to sell them at a discount—a heavy discount—and made losses because of this Government’s just tanking the market, well of course there’s not going to be the supply, because people don’t trust us any more. We have lost trust. That’s the problem.

If a country like Ethiopia, with a fleet that’s only one-third of the size of New Zealand’s fleet, has as many electric vehicles (EVs) as we do, why the hell can’t we get the EVs here? It’s because we have a Government that is fossil fuel focused—that’s the only reason that we can’t get the EVs here. Sixty-three percent of new cars sold in China last year were EVs. We’ve heard from Cameron Luxton that only the wealthy buy EVs. Well, my son—my youngest son—his first car bought was a $5,000 Leaf. This is what happens when we bring EVs into the country; they move into the second-hand market, and people move into EVs—and they don’t go back.

The question also is about tradies. Now, my electrician has a number of EVs—he only drives EVs, and his team only drive EVs. Some of the farmers in the deep South have replaced their vehicles with EVs or with e-bikes, because so many people in rural Aotearoa understand the electrification journey—but this Government doesn’t. This Government is full of climate denial. They want a dumping ground—a dumping ground for the most toxic, dirtiest vehicles you could get from around the country. This bill gives us laxer standards than China, the UK, the USA, Canada, and South Korea. It is shameful. It moves us further from our climate ambitions, puts us further in line for $24 billion of cost—

The member’s time has expired.

This amendment bill addresses industry concerns that the clean vehicle standard is misaligned with the vehicles that New Zealanders actually want to buy, and the industry cannot meet the target until more no-emissions vehicles are produced at scale. The changes in this bill improve workability, provide regulatory certainty, and keep the standard credible while supporting our shift to a lower-emissions fleet. Once again, common sense trumps ideology. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Labour’s continuing to oppose this bill, obviously, for obvious reasons, because it takes New Zealand backwards and we shouldn’t be surprised about that, because almost everything else this Government has done has in some way, shape, or form just taken us backwards. Ten points, at least, for being consistent and for having another congruent day in this House when we just edge ourselves a little bit back to the future.

It’s a shame, though, because this is the very time when we should be speeding up and moving forwards. This was the time where we started to make some of the gains and started to actually reap some of the rewards from the earlier policy settings that would have just afforded us some real gains in that direction. When we think about the infrastructure that would have been due to come on board—because the more electric vehicles in the fleet, the more demand there is for charging infrastructure, the more demand there is for the technology advances, for the talent, for the good jobs, for all the other good positive things that go with that. But no, this Government has said, “Why don’t we just chuck the other side of this demand and supply equation out? We already got rid of the Clean Car Discount and now it’s time to chuck the other side out.”

I commend Cameron Luxton from the ACT Party for at least being honest and being the only person on the Government side of the House to stand up and say that they just didn’t like the whole thing. They just don’t believe that the State has any role in directing future direction. I fundamentally disagree with that, but at least they’ve said the writing on their particular tin, because an active State does play a role. Almost nothing good in history has happened without the impact or without the direction at some point, rather, some point through a process of a good active State, whether that’s through investment, whether it’s through incentives, whether it’s through just really good savvy policy or funding appropriately. To say that the only good policy and the only good direction is for the State to take five steps backwards and have no input into the future direction of New Zealand is just nuts.

New Zealanders, I believe, do want cleaner, cheaper to run vehicles and they want a Government, fundamentally, that treats climate action as if it’s something that’s real, not something that’s optional. For every Government backbench MP that walks around their electorate waxing lyrical about the merits of doing something in the space of climate action and has the audacity to then come into this House when they have an opportunity to not vote for something that does the opposite, that is the definition of hypocrisy. Those MPs need to be exposed for having two faces—on one side in their home electorates, talking to groups and organisations and sympathising with the need to do more in the climate space and then coming here and doing absolutely the opposite and doing nothing to help what should be a collective task.

The bill weakens the clean vehicle standard; it simply does. The bill makes it easier for importers to delay progress and harder for us to meet our emissions goals. Rather than pushing for cleaner cars, which was the direction that we were heading in—it’s been said before and it’s worth repeating—it simply responds to industry pressure for looser rules. It does so for no other reason than a temporary need to do so. There were other opportunities to provide the relief that was required without having to go down this path.

Extending the credit life slows down the transition. Credits were meant to drive year on year improvements—as perfectly acceptable in the design of these policies, of this suite of policies, of these dual policies. Extending them from three to four years simply lets those importers push obligations into the future and that just doesn’t really make any sense. It doesn’t make the obligation go away. It doesn’t actually do what I think the Government thinks it’s going to achieve and provide the relief that they think it’s going to achieve. It just means that we’re going to have to deal with this in some other way in the future. If you give people more time to comply, they’re going to use that extra time and not necessarily turn their minds to adjusting the types of behaviours or the settings that they’re involved in to make that work, and emissions stay higher for longer.

The credit trading rules encourage higher emitting used imports. We’ve heard several contributions about that throughout this bill’s progress through this House—this bill’s unusual progress through this House. Allowing credits to move freely between new and used importers, the so-called two-for-one rate, absolutely risks tilting the market towards older, less efficient vehicles. We know that that will happen. The regulatory impact statement (RIS), the various iterations of the RIS—the one that we eventually got late last night but wasn’t available to us today till it was tabled at the committee of the whole stage, and the one that was prepared in regard to the first iteration of this bill—spells that out. You know, there are some things that are just basic, and we should have taken them into account.

On this side of the House, we certainly believe that good policy shouldn’t create loopholes that reward the highest emitters. This is another example of a bill and a piece of policy that’s doing just that. By removing the weight adjustments without strengthening the targets makes compliance easier, but certainly not cleaner. That is a fact. Taking away the weight adjustments without also targeting the overall targets just makes it easier for heavier and higher polluting vehicles to meet the rules—meet the rules. The Government has removed, essentially, the stabilisers and loosened the rules at the same time—so it’s a bit of a double whammy.

Overall, this bill slows decarbonisation, as many of my colleagues have already said throughout earlier iterations of readings, and leaves families worse off. So even if you’re not incredibly passionate about climate action, even if you could barely muster any enthusiasm at all for the concept of climate action, everybody in this House should be exercised to some extent about making life a little bit easier for household budgets and for looking out for the long-term affordability of a vehicle fleet. Particularly for people that have very few options. Particularly for people who rely on the fact that new electric vehicles may, and do, gravitate down to the used market and therefore become much more readily available for people in that price band.

The outcome of that is that over time, eventually, if you maintain this, you know, if you stay the action, maintain the course, keep the faith in the policy settings that were designed well, then the outcome is benefit and common good for everybody. But no, this bill is all about lowering those expectations, lowering ambition, lowering pressure on importers, and lowering New Zealand’s pace of change.

Actually, there are lots of things this Government could be doing if they wanted to face the concept of lowering. They could be lowering unemployment, they could be lowering the cost of living, they could be doing all sorts of things. They’re not choosing to do any of that; they’re just choosing to lower our expectations and lower ambitions in this particular sphere. We could have, and we can still have delivered cleaner vehicles, lower fuel costs, and a transport system that actually meets our climate goals. All it would have taken was a little bit more ambition and a little less knee jerk reaction, as evidenced most graphically through the way that this bill was handled at the committee stage.

At the committee stage, due to report back in December, the chair of the committee clearly has a conversation with the Minister. All of a sudden, we have to report it back to the House that day. We come to the House; we come prepared for a committee of the whole House stage to find that the Government itself isn’t prepared to be able to conduct those proceedings effectively or well. So therefore, there’s no other graphic example of the fact that this is all completely knee jerk, not well thought out, and here we find ourselves.

This bill weakens the standards; it slows decarbonisation and leaves us further behind. For those reasons, Labour absolutely does not support this bill, and we are, in fact, proud to oppose it.

I’m a big fan of electric vehicles; I’ve got two in our household, and I welcome the pragmatic changes that we’ve made to this bill to ensure a fair, efficient, and balanced sustainable clean vehicle system. I do welcome the review of the scheme. I think there are some really fundamental flaws with the scheme, and I welcome the Minister’s six-month review of it. It’s going to keep costs lower, which Ryan Hamilton knows is really key for his electorate, and all of our electorates around the country, with the cost of living pressures. With that, I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you. I got myself in a bit of a hot water in an earlier session on this bill, and it was because I talked about the impact on children. I don’t want to repeat the mistake, so I think I’ll just stick to my children and my grandchildren. I said at that time—and I’m being now quoted in the Herald as talking about my “hopeful” grandchildren because I don’t have any, I just want them. I want them to be in an environment where they don’t get asthma. I have a niece who grew up in an area of Auckland where there’s a dip, down in Freemans Bay, and she has had quite bad childhood asthma, and I don’t want that to be repeated.

What we have here is a bill that—and I want to focus on this one issue, because I think it’s a good thing to contribute in that way. I think it’s important that we actually think about the realities for our communities.

I represent Mt Albert, and it has an area in it called Wesley now—that’s in the new boundary change. It’s right down in the dip by the motorway, and it’s had a lot of State housing, so the houses have sort of stopped for a while, so they’re not necessarily as well insulated as they would be, because the Government has decided not to rebuild that area—there was a big plan to rebuild it. They are in the area most impacted by that motorway.

I went in and had a look at a report from the Department of Public Health at the University of Otago. It was released in July of 2022, and it was talking just about the pollution that is the impact—that is clearly accepted by everybody here—of greater emissions; it’s something that’s going to happen. So there are two types of pollutive material. There’s one called particulate matters, and then there’s the nitrogen dioxide, and that’s the big one from cars. There’s $15.6 billion of damage done by pollution in this country, and a fair part of that is from nitrogen dioxide, from the emission of petrol and diesel cars—3,300 deaths per annum in Auckland alone. Sorry, in Auckland alone it’s just over 900; it’s 3,300 deaths per annum across the country. It’s 13,100 hospital admissions. That’s a lot of people. It’s contributing to childhood illnesses, it’s contributing to premature deaths.

That was one of the reasons why I was incredibly proud of being on the Transport and Infrastructure Committee when we brought into place the law which had this that’s being reversed today, and it had a subsidy to electric vehicles. I, too, shared some of the scepticism about a subsidy on first, brand-new electric vehicles, and I worried—just as Minister Bishop is worrying—about the impact on families who couldn’t afford those vehicles. But I was quickly convinced that what happens is those vehicles run through the market. Wealthier people buy them and they run through the market and you end up with a lot more electric vehicles. And that’s what happened. That’s why Scott, my friend Scott Wilson, who talked about his—

Willis.

Sorry—Scott Willis, who talked about his child being able to buy a $5,000 Leaf. He could do that not because it was a first-hand vehicle but because it was a second.

As I said in my last speech, I do respect that it’s different if you’re a tradie. I do respect that it’s a very different thing, and I do respect the need for choice. But I think it’s a myth to suggest that that overrides everything else. When you weigh death of children in my area with great amounts of choice which is unnecessary—

Not your area, it’s their area.

—when you weigh that—and you do have to weigh it—guess which wins? For the Labour Party, it’s actually making sure that we clean up our environment and that pollutant side too. And, actually, it is my area. I am very proud to represent the area, but I also live in the area of Mt Albert and I have for a long time.

It’s incredibly important to me that this isn’t a political football that gets misrepresented as some sort of attack on working people, because it’s the working people in those houses. It’s the working people who need to have safe housing, they need good jobs, and they need clean air in New Zealand.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. This bill is practical and it’s affordable. The importers are currently having to pay more, and that, ultimately, lands on the consumers, who are the tradies and the farmers. This bill takes the pressure off Kiwis still dealing with the fiscal spoon of medicine that the last Government dealt up to them. If the members of the Opposition want more Kiwis using electric vehicles or hybrids, then guess what? They need cheap, abundant power. They should have voted for the fast-track bill, because there’s a shortage of renewable energy, and that’s in large part due to the rash decision to ban oil and gas and a complete failure to plan. I commend this bill.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s good to rise today to speak on the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Standard) Amendment Bill (No 2). I’ve been listening to the contributions across the House, and particularly very keenly to Government members and the contributions that they’ve made, because, in fact, it is the Government that has called us in, in urgency, for what they believe is an urgent bill. This land transport amendment bill seems to be urgent to this Government and the legislation that they have to put through. How is this an immediate priority for the average New Zealander that is sitting at home, dealing with the economic mismanagement of this Government and, in fact, the cost of living crisis that they promised—they promised—to clean up? But they just haven’t been getting ahead. It’s a dismal, dismal failure.

In listening to the contributions from the other side of the House, I was intrigued to hear one of the National Party MPs say that he owned two electric vehicles, and when questioned by Opposition members as to whether he received the subsidy, there was no answer—no answer. Opposition members continued to ask, “Did you receive the subsidy?”—no answer. I’d take that as meaning that that particular National Party MP did indeed receive the subsidy for his electric vehicles—

Does he need it?

But he received it, and the importance of that is that the Government is advocating from a cost perspective that suddenly this impacted on the cost of working people.

I remember that in this legislation when it was initially put forward before our Transport and Infrastructure Committee under the last Government, one of the goals there was to really clean up the fleet of cars that New Zealand receives at the very bottom of the world. Everyone acknowledged that we had a problem because of our proximity to where cars and vehicles were made across the globe. It took a while for them to get their way via Australia and then back down to Aotearoa New Zealand, and so it’s not an easy task in that sense.

By influencing the market, the intention was to be able to create a cleaner fleet of vehicles that were available to New Zealanders—those that can afford them, like the National Party MP. He might be able to afford it up front—or two, in fact—with the subsidy, I’ll say. But, in turn, New Zealanders do tend to buy second-hand cars, and that is normal for the average New Zealander. So second-hand and third-hand cars became cleaner over the generations that they were passed down, and that’s an important part. By changing this back, we, in fact, continue to hold and grow the number of dirty cars.

When we think about the emissions contribution that our transport fleet makes in Aotearoa, it was 43 percent at the time that we discussed it—43 percent of emissions came directly from our transport fleet. That’s a significant amount, and so we needed to make tweaks in the ways that we could in order to reduce the emissions in different parts. For those of us who live in Tāmaki-makau-rau Auckland, unless you’re a tradie, it’s unnecessary, really, for us to purchase utes as our primary vehicle. It’s very difficult to get around through congestion in a large vehicle in Auckland. We tend to be one passenger per car still, and that is largely problematic for us and it’s the reason why we experience such significant congestion.

If the argument of the Government members today is that this is about reducing costs, then I’d put it back on them that, actually, things have become more expensive in transport under their watch. What we’ve seen is road-user charges (RUCs) go up. What we’ve seen is the introduction of congestion charging, and—don’t get me wrong—we support that. But it’s still an additional cost to the average worker that is driving from A to B. Warrants of fitness have gone up. Driver licensing is no longer free. As an alternative, the cost of public transport is double what it was two to three years ago, simply—well, I blame that one directly on Simeon Brown, because he cut $1.2 billion out of Auckland to save for road projects outside of Auckland. So poor old Auckland Council has had to actually prop up and ensure that people can use our public transport fleet, and that was something that I raised within the debate on the congestion charging legislation that was before us.

This is quite a backwards move, and I come back to the point that, within urgency, the role of this House is to consider legislation in a timely way. We’ve heard about the issues within the select committee process, but it was also disappointing today that we didn’t have a regulatory impact statement on the Table. We had a Minister answering our questions and waving a regulatory impact statement that none of us had access to, and all he could say was, “Well, it’s available on the website.”—no. We knew we were going into urgency at least 48 hours ago. Why has that information not been made public and available for us—the Opposition—to do our job?

What’s he hiding?

Certainly, what are they hiding, and we’ve seen that over consecutive weeks. That is of concern, not only to myself but particularly to our communities out there. They’re wondering what the heck is going on with this Government, because it just doesn’t seem focused on the things that matter. It hasn’t created a response to the cost of living. Instead, here we are, in urgency, sitting until Saturday, debating the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Standard) Amendment Bill (No 2).

Our view is very clear. We laid that out in the dissenting view. The bill prioritises short-term convenience—that is a symptom of this Government; the “short-termism”—and the convenience for importers over meaningful emissions reduction. Extending the carbon credit lifespans from three years to four years undermines annual accountability and it will slow decarbonisation. There are new trading rules between new and used importers, despite a two-for-one ratio risk, incentivising more used, higher-emitting imports. The bill creates loopholes that allow older, less-efficient vehicles to remain dominant in the market, instead of shifting the fleet. This is a missed opportunity to strengthen the clean vehicle standard, and this particular bill before us today, in urgency, is weakening just that.

I don’t know what the Government is focused on or where the Government is focused, because for the average person, this isn’t going to make a difference, but particularly to our future generations, with global warming and—yes—with climate change happening, actually, the little decisions that we make today will count for a better tomorrow. But, instead, for the National Government, the National MPs, the ACT Party MPs, and the New Zealand First MPs in the House today, this is their priority. This is how they’re responding to the needs of New Zealanders when they’re stuck in a cost of living crisis.

Because of this Government’s economic mismanagement, they haven’t been able to change a thing. They’re putting up an argument today that it’s going to save New Zealanders money—what a load of whatever—when, in fact, their Government has increased costs in transport every single way that we look at it, whether it be RUCs, whether it be the warrants of fitness, or whether it be public transport. This is a terrible bill, and I do not commend it to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The rules imposed by the previous Government were ridiculous. They were too stringent, and they caused unnecessary costs. This bill’s about reducing the cost of living, which the people on this side of the House are relentlessly focused on, and it’s about backing our farmers and tradies and reducing the import fees on their loved workhorses, like $1,000 on a Hilux over $1,400 on a Mitsubishi Triton. I commend this bill to the House.

on behalf of the Minister for Media and Communications: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I present a legislative statement on the Telecommunications and Other Matters 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 Telecommunications and Other Matters Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee to consider the bill.

I’m pleased to introduce this bill on behalf of the Minister for Media and Communications. This is one of two telecommunications bills that make targeted changes to support competition, foster innovation, and help stimulate economic growth. The Minister sought for these bills to be associated, but the request was not successful. This omnibus bill will ensure that overseas telecommunications providers are explicitly subject to telecommunications regulatory obligations, where relevant, to create an even playing field between our home-grown telcos and those offshore.

Like many of us, the telecommunications regulatory regime did not anticipate that we would be buying mobile and broadband services that aren’t in New Zealand, but the market is evolving quickly and it is expected that more and more telecommunications services will be delivered to New Zealand by offshore providers. The fact that our telecommunications legislation doesn’t explicitly capture these providers creates uncertainty for the telco industry, regulators, and, of course, consumers. While existing telco providers operating in New Zealand are committed to complying with our telco law where it applies to them, this gap could create problems for us in the future, particularly if a regulator ever wanted to enforce a breach against a provider that was not cooperative.

This bill makes it clear that telecommunications providers that offer services to Kiwis can be subject to our telco law. This has two main benefits. One, an even playing field supports competition in the New Zealand market. It means that a Kiwi company won’t have more regulatory costs than an offshore company that might be able to skirt beyond the rules. Two, it also provides an additional layer of consumer protection for Kiwi consumers, because it will be clear to anyone retailing to New Zealanders that they must comply with relevant consumer protection obligations in the telco Act.

The bill also creates a bespoke enforcement mechanism to address non-compliance by using radio spectrum licensing. While our preference is to use existing enforcement mechanisms for breaches of telco law, which means that action is taken through the courts, some offshore providers may not be willing to engage with these processes. This new power is intended to be a last resort, and the bill includes a number of considerations before the power can be used.

We welcome new innovative technology providers, particularly ones that provide high-quality connectivity services for New Zealanders. This bill is about making sure that our regulatory regime, which is about promoting competition and protecting consumers, keeps up to date with the rapid pace of change in the market. I encourage members and the public to have their say on this bill through the select committee process, and in the meantime, I commend the Telecommunications and Other Matters Amendment Bill to this House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a privilege to stand and take a call on the Telecommunications and Other Matters Amendment Bill, and it’s a privilege because we know that connectivity is absolutely critical. We know this is an important part of our resilience across New Zealand. We are vulnerable to ever-increasing changes in weather patterns, and that resilience of connectivity becomes critical in those times of response, but it’s also critical for us so that we can take our place on the world stage. There are opportunities across New Zealand, opportunities that often look like jobs and industries that can continue to grow. Now, these can and should be able to be based anywhere in New Zealand, and connectivity is often the barrier that allows that to happen or not.

We know that the world seeks us out. It seeks New Zealand out for our innovation, for the kinds of things we can create, for the kinds of products and services we can provide. So we should do everything we can to remove the barriers that isolate us and instead do what we can to enable New Zealand and New Zealanders to deliver to a world that is waiting. So Labour does support the efforts to modernise the regulation of the telecommunications sector.

New Zealanders, especially, as I’ve said, in those rural areas, are increasingly reliant on extraterritorial communications or telecommunications infrastructure, such as our low Earth orbit or LEO satellite services, and we’re seeing those both from Starlink and also from Amazon Web Services with Project Kuiper coming online here in New Zealand, ahead of many other parts of the world. We need to make sure that these providers are subject to the same regulatory obligations as the companies with greater physical infrastructure here as well. And we need to make sure that those who live in rural or remote places are not left behind as a result through their use of the kinds of technologies, and in many cases the only kinds of technologies, that are available to them by virtue of their geography.

This bill is part of a programme of regulatory reform to ensure that the environment the telecommunications sector operates in is fit for purpose and in line with changes that are occurring, and occurring rapidly, in the market. This bill amends the Telecommunications Act 2001 to ensure that overseas telecommunications providers who provide services to end users here in New Zealand are subject to the regulatory obligations regardless of whether they or the infrastructure they rely on is based in New Zealand or not. If we’re talking about low Earth orbit or higher, then often a large part of that infrastructure is not based here in New Zealand.

These regulations include the telecommunications development levy, minimum requirements for emergency calls. We need to make sure that those dangerous black spots where you cannot seek the support or assistance that you will often need—need to be able to provide that for us. The bill also amends the Radiocommunications Act 1989 to create an enforcement mechanism to provide that radio or spectrum licences may be revoked, suspended, or restricted when or if telecommunications providers do not comply with their obligations.

Now, as the introduction speech from across the House alluded to, the Minister for Media and Communications asked for this bill to be wrapped into the other Telecommunications Amendment Bill that had its first reading last week, but the proposals in both bills are qualitatively different. I must admit there were two reasons I was surprised that the Minister asked to associate the bills: the first because the area and scope of each bill is so different, and the second because for a Minister who promised immediate action 18 months ago and has done next to nothing since, I would’ve expected keeping the bills separate would’ve at least kept up the premise that he’s busy and doing things in this portfolio space when, in fact, he is doing very, very little.

I think, because we support this bill, it’s important to come back to why. We support this bill because it’s critical that we keep New Zealanders connected. It’s also critical that consumers are on a level playing field. So we will support this bill to make sure that happens, but we do expect to see more from the Minister in this space.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Green Party is supporting the Telecommunications and Other Matters Amendment Bill. We also note that there could have been an opportunity to have this bill grouped with the other telecommunications bill that is in front of us, but we agree with the previous speaker that there are two distinct issues here that we need to address.

In relation to this bill, we support it, and we note that it is important that Parliament is able to adapt as new technologies emerge and key services change the way that they provide things like internet to our communities. For example, we’ve got services like Starlink, which can provide internet in some parts of our country. While I acknowledge that right now, through gaps within the sector, Starlink has become a relatively big player when in areas where perhaps there is little internet access, there is now a gap because there could be—and providers that, effectively, don’t have to set foot into the country for people to be able to access those very same services. Those providers may be owned by billionaires who may not always be seeking to represent the best interests of our communities.

I think it is important that this bill helps us create regulatory requirements that, basically, bring those in line with providers that would be operating, literally, physically onshore. Some of these include contributing to telecommunication levies, where the provider meets existing liability tests and legislation; complying with relevant retail service quality requirements, for example—and this is an important part—complying with Commerce Commission codes or the requirement to join a dispute resolution scheme. This is where there’s a new obligation seeking to be established in the other telecommunications amendment bill. That part will, in my view, help support consumers as well, and I think it’ll be important to see in the select committee how this could be tested out in complying with obligations of the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Act, including those relating to interception capability and network security.

The bill also has some related enforcement mechanisms being put in place, and we think that this will be useful to also test out at the select committee stage. The reality is that telecommunications services are becoming more and more essential for people to, literally, be able to move around their daily lives. Access to the internet would have been seen as a “nice to have” a few decades ago, but nowadays, literally, as our Government moves to digitise more of its Government services, access to things like the internet are, literally, essential services. I think the legislation that we had previously would have not adequately recognised this nor would have anticipated that many of these telecommunication services, as I mentioned earlier, would have been set up in a way that meant some of these internet providers, for example, would not have to set foot in the country. Yet what we do have is, for example—say that you’re a person on income support, living in an area that’s deprived of internet through ordinary means.

These services could provide a lifeline for people to have the means to, literally, survive. That is power that, therefore, is handed over to, often, corporates that would be running these telecommunication services. Having these regulatory frameworks and requirements being placed upon them is important, because it’s critical that these corporations are subjected to the very same requirements that telecommunication providers onshore would. That’s critical, as well, because when it comes to contributing to telecommunication levies, we know that some of these providers, like Starlink, are owned by people who have a huge amount of wealth, who clearly have huge amounts of resources, and they should be contributing through those levies. We should not be creating them to be exempt from them. It will also be interesting to evaluate, at the select committee stage, how much these levies are likely to provide to the country. So we also look forward to further analysis being made and unpacked at that stage for us, to be able to evaluate the benefits of this bill.

The Green Party is supporting this bill because we recognise the need for us to build cross-party consensus to modernise our legislation in light of new technology and services. We look forward to our colleagues evaluating this in the select committee.

What an exciting time we live in. Who would have thought, only a few years ago, that this little device [Holds up cellphone] could connect to a satellite in the sky, and, actually, anywhere in New Zealand, you could send a message and soon you’ll be able to speak on it. It really is an exciting time. It’s great to know that, today, I think, we’re going to have cross-party support to send this bill to a select committee so these issues around overseas providers of telecommunications technologies can be looked at. It’s really great.

We have already heard that we have a company like Starlink, for example—we have a very high uptake of Starlink connections per capita in New Zealand. That is because of our unique geography, but it does mean that more and more New Zealanders have access to very fast internet regardless of where they live in the country. We are going to soon also have the ability for Amazon Leo, which will be launched next year. I really am looking forward to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee looking at this, so let’s get the Telecommunications and Other Matters Amendment Bill linked back up with the other bill we passed in the House. I commend this bill.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First in support of the Telecommunications and Other Matters Amendment Bill. As the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister for Media and Communications, it is a pleasure to stand to speak to this bill, acknowledging the Minister’s contribution in the first reading of this bill.

Now, this bill is really important, because it provides clarity to ensure that overseas companies who provide telecommunications services to New Zealanders are, in fact, subject to our telecommunications laws and obligations, regardless of whether they or the infrastructure they are using is based in New Zealand or overseas. The bill will provide a mechanism to also address non-compliance or any breaches of that. It’s an omnibus bill; it amends three pieces of legislation, the Telecommunications Act 2001, the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Act—also called TICSA—2013, and the Radiocommunications Act 1989. These amendments are primarily targeted to satellite providers, but they could in fact apply to future types of delivery that are yet to be developed.

Some have mentioned Starlink. Currently, there are about 7,000 active satellites in their constellation. We’ve seen remarkable growth in New Zealand—a significant satellite market uptake here. In 2024, the Telecommunications Monitoring Report noted that satellites serve around 50,000 rural customers; 19 percent of all rural connections are via satellite, and it’s the fastest-growing broadband service in New Zealand at the moment.

We’ve heard about Amazon Leo, and although there is no start date yet for it, they’ll be launching about 3,000 satellites into their constellation when they begin operations. While there’s no confirmed start date, as I mentioned, it is expected to be a major competitor to Starlink, which will provide excellent competition for price and also performance—so that’ll be good competitive pricing for customers in New Zealand.

If overseas providers are delivering services to New Zealanders and to New Zealand households, they need to fulfil their obligations, and there are three obligations under telecommunications. One is that if they have a gross income of more than $10 million, they need to be contributing to the Telecommunications Development Levy. That levy contributes towards the 111 system and also to the relay service for the deaf, so it’s important that they contribute as a levy for that. The second obligation is that they need to be part of the Telecommunications Dispute Resolution Scheme. Over the last three years, every year, about three and a half thousand people have laid a complaint for some problem with their telco service. Starlink currently doesn’t—there’s nowhere to go for people to complain, so bringing them in under this obligation would be a good thing for those who have a Starlink service. The third obligation is relating to regulations for emergency calling, and including our overseas providers simply makes absolutely logical sense given the essential nature of telco services.

Finally, the bill provides clarity for the overseas providers’ obligations under the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Act, or TICSA, and it makes it explicitly clear that New Zealand legislation applies, and the overseas provider must follow lawful intercept and security requests under TICSA. For these reasons, I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to speak on the Telecommunications and Other Matters Amendment Bill in this first reading. This bill is an omnibus bill, as has been described earlier, and it is bringing together a range of modernisations to bring communications Acts into the modern era. I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Obviously, we’ll support a bill that brings a bit of equity out there. It’s a fair-paying bill. It’s going to ensure that our rural communities are all set up. So, obviously, Labour will support this type of bill.

I think the real question is how useless the Minister for Media and Communications really is—so useless that he can’t even turn up to actually speak on his own bill. The other question is how useless is Jenny Marcroft, but, I mean—

Point of order, Mr Speaker. It’s not appropriate for a member to call out whether a member is in the House or not in the House, as the case may be, as Willie Jackson just did.

Yeah. Can I ask the Hon Willie Jackson to refrain from talking about the absence of members in the House.

Oh, OK. Thanks, Mr Speaker. OK, well, the real question, then, is how useless is the member for New Zealand First, because she was speaking on the wrong bill. So I’ve just got to ask that question.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. That is unparliamentary, and we take offence to those types of comments.

Just to clarify, you can’t take personal offence on behalf of somebody else.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. I take offence at being called useless. I think that’s something where the member clearly was looking in the mirror at himself.

I’ve got a mind to make you both withdraw and apologise, to be honest, but I’m going to call it a draw and go back to the Hon Willie Jackson.

Oh, thank you. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Please refrain from calling people useless, Mr Jackson.

Yes, Mr Speaker.

This bill is really important, because in terms of broadcasting—and I want to talk about this in a broader sense, and this is a bill we’ll support, obviously, because they’re both part of a programme of regulatory reform to ensure that the regulatory environment of the telecommunications sector operates in a fit-for-purpose way. So, obviously, we’re going to support the bill.

I question and challenge what this Government is doing in this area. We’ve got a spokesperson for broadcasting here who has challenged this Minister to come up with something, to do something, in terms of broadcasting. Still on the Order Paper, we’ve got the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill. If you really want to help broadcasting, do something, actually do something, for media outlets out there, now, the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill, which I actually championed in terms of this House, when I was the broadcasting Minister, looks after communities, makes sure that big companies pay their way instead of taking news from the local newspapers. This useless lot on the other side, they’ve got their local newspapers, who’ve been ripped off by big corporate companies, and they don’t care. The Minister of broadcasting doesn’t care, despite giving assurances to the broadcasting world that—

Point of order, Mr Speaker.

—the digital bargaining bill was on the line. Oh, useless again. OK.

Just bringing the member back to the bill, it’s the communications bill—

Sit down. I will determine whether he is on par with the bill, is that understood?

Thank you, Mr Speaker. For that member, she should know, having been a spokesperson for broadcasting, that the media people around the country are crying out for support. The little people that that member and these members on the other side purport to represent, they are all losing their jobs. The journalist and media industry has halved in the last few years. Newspapers have closed up everywhere. Why? Because this useless Government is doing nothing. All they’re doing is amending bills like this, which anybody could do. You don’t even need a broadcasting Minister to amend these types of bills. A blind man could change these bills. But here’s the question. Do something for the people. We had the digital bargaining bill, we had Newshub close down, and we had all these journalists knocked off or lost their jobs because of this useless broadcasting Minister, who didn’t come up with a plan, didn’t come up with a—

Mr—

Come back to the bill?

Come back to the bill. I’d be grateful if you came back to the bill.

I was coming back to it, Mr Speaker.

Yeah, come back to it right now.

OK, just for you, Mr Speaker.

Just for me—just for me.

The bill also amends the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Act 2013—

Oh, he’s reading it. This is great.

—to ensure that the existing provisions of that Act apply to network operators who provide services to New Zealanders—who’ve been ripped off by this Government, ripped off by this Minister of broadcasting, who has done nothing in terms of providing a strategy for journalists, for media people. All he’s done is taken funding off Radio New Zealand. What’s happened in Māori broadcasting? No funding. Why? Because you’ve got a useless Minister for Māori Development—

Back to the bill.

Oh, I’ll come back to the bill, Mr Speaker.

Try reading some of it. There you go.

But the bill ensures that both domestic and overseas providers operate on a level playing field. Now, we all agree with that, don’t we? We all agree with that. It would be a better a playing field if this useless broadcasting Minister could actually do something for our media people, for our journalists all over the country. Shame on him and shame on this Government. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Well, that was an incredibly long five minutes.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Not only was it long, it was abysmal for someone who should know better. The only thing the former Minister can broadcast is hot air. I am glad to stand in support of the Telecommunications and Other Matters Amendment Bill. Telecommunications is very important. We saw with the previous National Government the introduction of the ultra-fast broadband programme, and by 2033 it’s projected to add $163 billion to our economy. That highlights how important telecommunication is. But we need a level playing field and that’s what this bill does. I commend it to the House.

Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. I think we can all agree that no matter what I say, I’m going to look calm and collected—though I agree with everything that the Hon Willie Jackson said. Heoi anō rā, e tū ana au ki te tautoko i tēnei pire; I do stand in support of this bill, because, at the heart of it, this bill is about connection and, of course, ensuring good quality governance of excellent connection.

I want to talk about a place in Ikaroa-Rāwhiti I haven’t been to for a very long time: my house. Where I live, I live up a dirt road on a farm—where I actually do drive a Personal All-Terrain Vehicle, actually, whānau. Heoi anō, where I live on Maraehara Road, there is no cellphone coverage, and recently, landlines have been disabled. Some might say that’s the price of living in paradise, and while I agree we live in paradise, it is also a significant safety risk—you know, to not be able to ring 111. So over the years, we have become increasingly reliant on the internet for things such as Wi-Fi calling to stay connected and continue to make phone calls.

It’s also appropriate that our marae—symbols and hubs of connection throughout Ngāti Porou—provide connectivity for whānau through providing internet services, particularly in our rural areas. The issue of connectivity became absolutely undeniable during Cyclone Gabrielle. Not only were we physically cut off with roads closed in and out, stopping delivery of food, etc., but all telecommunications were gone. The only means of communication we had were (1) me physically going around knocking on people’s doors to tell them what the civil defence plans and instructions were, and (2) good old Radio Ngāti Porou—Te Reo o te Iwi, who’s been bringing people together for years.

While disconnected, there was no EFTPOS, we couldn’t access online banking, so I just want to acknowledge the local businesses, particularly supermarkets, who showed the locals goodwill by offering them credit. Then came saviours by way of our own iwi and iwi from across Aotearoa and whānau from across Aotearoa, some not even related to those of us cut off—they came and provided aid through the provision of Starlink.

So there we were: we were back in business and we were back connected. Whānau were able to contact their relations around the world to say, “Kei te pai mātou. Kei te ora mātou.”—we’re OK. We’re alive. We’re safe. We are cut off, but we don’t mind being isolated off the East Coast. It became the norm throughout the East Coast. We had marae, we had fire stations, we had community hubs with satellite dishes outside, keeping us all connected.

While we love that service, we all know that fairness is the Kiwi way, and this bill will clarify that although offshore, these services being provided for in Aotearoa must be subject to the same regulations as domestic providers. That includes paying levies to help support ongoing development and—one of our favourite words up the coast—infrastructure, which is sorely needed throughout Ikaroa-Rāwhiti.

Of course, in a time of increased cybersecurity awareness, of course there has been some scepticism about what’s going on with all these satellite dishes. Who’s watching us? Who’s in control of us? The stronger enforcement powers enable—

You’d be surprised.

Oh, what’s that?

I said you’ll be very surprised who’s watching you.

No, I wouldn’t—I wouldn’t. After sitting in this House with you guys for two years, I would not be surprised.

The increased security is something we do support. But like I said, at its heart—and the reason I support it on behalf of Ikaroa-Rāwhiti—is that this is about connection. It’s about keeping people connected in a quality way through quality infrastructure and providing quality governance. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. This bill ensures that telcos based overseas will be subject to New Zealand’s regulatory regime. It strengthens oversight. I commend this bill to the House.

The question is, That the Telecommunications and Other Matters Amendment Bill be considered by the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee.

on behalf of the Minister of Science, Innovation and Technology: I present a legislative statement on the Meteorological Services (Acquisition and Policies) Legislation 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 Meteorological Services (Acquisition and Policies) Legislation Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee to consider the bill.

It’s a pleasure to bring this bill to the House on behalf of the Minister of Science, Innovation and Technology. The purpose of the bill is to allow for MetService, a State-owned enterprise—or SOE—to be acquired by Earth Sciences New Zealand, a Crown research institute referred to in the bill by its legal name: the New Zealand Institute for Earth Science Limited. The bill also will require Earth Sciences New Zealand to publish its access policy for observational weather data.

The bill brings our two Crown-owned weather forecasting companies back together. It will provide more connected weather forecasting and investment for the wellbeing and safety of New Zealanders, protect our infrastructure, and support the growth of our economy. Weather forecasting provides many economic, social, environmental, and cultural benefits to New Zealanders. It’s an input to many of the goods and services we enjoy. Accurate and timely weather forecasting allows for safer travel and personal pursuits, more informed farming, and better decisions on how and where to build infrastructure.

For example, farmers rely on short- and long-term forecasts to plan irrigation and protect crops. Knowing when rain or severe weather is coming can mean the difference between a good harvest and safe animals on the one hand, or a costly loss. Further, airlines rely on accurate and timely weather forecasts for route selection and safer air travel. Weather forecasting is also relied upon heavily in the built environment—for example, in terms of building site selection, resilience and design, worker safety, build scheduling, and project budgeting. Of course, as cricket fans know, the reliable way to know if rain is forecast for a particular area is to check Cricinfo for an upcoming one-day international, T20, or test match.

Bringing the nation’s two weather forecasters together was a key recommendation in the weather forecasting review. I acknowledge our colleague and friend, the Hon Judith Collins, for some of her early work in that regard—of course, brought forward subsequently by our other colleague and friend in this space, the Hon Dr Shane Reti.

We expect to address a number of identified problems as a result of the review now leading to this legislation, including uncertainty during severe weather events due to inconsistent messaging from having two Crown-owned weather forecasters. This has created increased risks to public safety, infrastructure, property, and the economy; next, a lack of integration between climate science, forecasting, hydrology, and coastal hazards—resulting in fragmented weather forecasting advice; and, finally, inefficiencies within the weather forecasting system, as evidenced by duplicated effort and investment. [Maureen Pugh takes the Chair]

This change will provide a more connected weather forecasting system that brings climate science, forecasting, hydrology, and coastal hazards together to provide truly integrated advice. The change will deliver economic benefits by providing holistic weather forecasting that individuals and businesses can rely upon. It will also improve understanding of hazards, strengthening our ability to plan for and build resilience against severe weather events. Madam Speaker’s own electorate is all too familiar with the dangers associated with heavy and severe weather events such as flooding.

Put simply, we are creating a weather forecasting system that meets the needs of New Zealand now and into the future. Key features of the bill include that it is relatively short but technical. It’s designed to enable the acquisition of MetService and improve transparency around weather data policies. But I would like to take this opportunity to summarise some of its key features.

Specifically, the bill: (1) removes MetService from the State-Owned Enterprises Act 1986, allowing it to be acquired by Earth Sciences New Zealand; (2) exempts the acquisition of MetService by Earth Sciences New Zealand from Part 3 of the Commerce Act 1986—a relief to us all, I’m sure—(3) requires Earth Sciences New Zealand to publish its access policy for observational weather data; and (4) includes standard provisions to make the transition smooth and protect existing agreements. For example, the acquisition won’t give anyone the right to cancel a lease, end a contract, or speed up obligations just because the ownership changes.

Following the acquisition, MetService will cease to be a State-owned enterprise and will become a wholly owned subsidiary of Earth Sciences New Zealand. Bringing MetService and Earth Sciences New Zealand together is a broader part of the organisational changes we are making to our science, innovation, and technology system. These changes to the weather forecasting system are part of the biggest science system reforms in over 30 years, creating scale, efficiency, and alignment across our science organisations so that they deliver greater benefits for all of New Zealand.

This bill is about more than integrating organisations. It is about building a weather forecasting system that protects lives, strengthens our economy, and ensures that New Zealand is ready for the challenges of a clang—changing climate. And a changing final paragraph. I commend this bill to the House.

Madam Speaker, thank you. It’s a privilege to take a call on the Meteorological Services (Acquisition and Policies) Legislation Amendment Bill. I just would like to acknowledge, it being Movember, the member who has just taken his seat’s attempt at supporting Movember. It’s evident we’re under urgency, because I had hoped that it would have advanced since the last bill, but it remains more of a suggestion than a Selleck.

The bill at hand today: the purpose of this bill is to allow for the acquisition of the Meteorological Service of New Zealand Limited—we know it as the MetService—by the New Zealand Institute for Earth Sciences Limited, or the NZIES, and to require the NZIES to publish its access policy for observational weather data. That’s what this bill sets out to do. MetService, as we’ve heard, is the designated provider of severe weather forecasts and warnings for New Zealand under the Meteorological Service Act 1990, and is currently a State-owned enterprise. Its purpose is to help us all stay safe; to help us all make informed decisions based on timely and accurate weather forecasts, including during severe weather events. We have seen—and even in the last bill talked about—some of the impacts those can have.

Now, it’s important up to make it clear that reform was required in this space, but cuts are cuts and I will continue to call them out when we see them. It’s important that we talk about what’s really going on across our science sector and across our science community, because whilst we can talk about alignment and whilst we can talk about “going for growth”, what we need to see in this sector is that that growth and that talk of alignment is actually matched in budget and is actually matched in investment, and is actually an investment into these important fields of work and expertise.

Instead, what we’re seeing at this point in time is a huge number of job losses. We’re seeing bigger investments in redundancies at Callaghan Innovation of $11 million than we are in some really important areas of our science sector and science community, so let’s not kid ourselves when we talk about “going for growth” and when we talk about investing in innovation and when we talk about investing in research and development. Let’s not kid ourselves that what we’re actually seeing here in real terms is cuts—cuts to the sector that drives discovery, that drives our science, that drives our innovation. Let’s not dress all of that up and disguise those very real cuts, those very real job losses in our science sector, that will mean that we continue to lose many of our best and brightest overseas, where the opportunities are.

This is not just me calling this out. This is a number of people across the sector, including the recipient of the Prime Minister’s Science Prize, who has had some fairly blunt things to say both about the Prime Minister and particularly about the science budget, or the lack thereof—the reprioritisation of funding into things like roads rather than into critical areas of science, where it could make a real difference for all New Zealanders. There’s a suspicion that this is a Government that wants to silence science rather than invest properly in it to see the kind of innovation that New Zealand needs and that New Zealand deserves.

What this bill also does—to come back to it—is it amends the State-Owned Enterprises Act 1986 to remove the listing of MetService as a State enterprise. It also exempts the acquisition of MetService by NZIES from Part 3 of the Commerce Act. One of the other things that I think we need to keep a close eye on is that it amends the State-Owned Enterprises (Meteorological Service of New Zealand Limited and Vehicle Testing New Zealand Limited) Amendment Act 1999 to repeal certain provisions in the Act that will become redundant when this bill is enacted. Now, I said that very quickly, so you may have missed that “Vehicle Testing New Zealand Limited” is in there too. For a Government that’s also started talking about wanting to sell some things off, I think we need to keep a very close eye on anything that starts to move the areas in which some of these State-owned assets sit—starts to move some of that legislation around. So we do support the bill, but not a Government that disrespects and underfunds science, and that is what we’ve got at the moment.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. As we have heard, this reform is part of the biggest science system reforms in 30 years. The Green Party supports this bill, but we support it with concerns. We want to express some concerns, because of course we have seen a Government that is not favouring science, despite a reform that we heard and we understand is making some good progress in some areas. But as my colleague Reuben Davidson has just said, there are very real job losses in our science sector. We are experiencing a brain drain at the moment. The bigger picture is that these reforms are probably transgressing all of Vannevar Bush’s five fundamentals—that stability; we want stability in the science sector.

At the moment, we’ve got hyper-contestability—full cost funding, politicisation of science and priorities, and defunding. And that is a problem. That is a problem, because if we politicise science, we lose the true value of it for society. We also see that there’s a lack of expertise and experience because we are seeing a loss of capability because of the job losses, because of the defunding of our science sector. We are losing people. We are losing some of our youngest and brightest, but we’re also losing some of our most experienced, at this point in time.

That’s another concern. We don’t think that the Government should operate or direct the laboratories funded. What we’re seeing is an ongoing erosion of independent governance. There we see some institutional independence at risk, and we also must ensure that we’ve got accountability, but we’ve got, at the moment, overheads, lack of transparency, in what’s happening in our science system. So while this merging makes sense, we are seeing a whole range of other issues in the science sector, because the Government has decided, in its wisdom, that science is not a priority, that science does not need the funding despite the most radical reforms in 30 years—it’s got to find the money to do that from within the sector, and it’s got to try and retain stuff that have no job security, because they don’t know what the hell is going on.

This is where we see the disjuncture between what the Government wants to do—it wants to do the reform of the science system on the cheap. We are one of the countries that invests the least in our science system. We also know that investing in our science system gives us, for every dollar invested, between $8 and $20 back, boosting our economy. But in going for growth, this Government doesn’t value that, because when science disagrees with their desires, such as cutting the methane target, then it is ignored, and this is the real problem that we have.

While it’s nice to think that we might need to understand what the weather’s doing for cricket games, we also need to know what the cost of reducing our methane target is for our climate commitments, for our climate targets. We also need to know what impact importing dirty cars has for our climate commitments; this is evidence that we need as well.

This is a bill that we will support, but my concern is that this is part of the breakdown in our science system, the de-funding of our critical science system that is sending our youngest, our brightest, and our most capable scientists overseas at a time when we need them the most. That is my concern and that is the concern of the Green Party—that this Government only respects science when it does its bidding, and rejects it when it doesn’t. That is a concern. That’s the politicisation of science that we cannot afford in this country. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m taking this call on behalf of ACT to support the Meteorological Services (Acquisition and Policies) Legislation Amendment Bill. It was very interesting to hear that speech from the Green member Scott Willis. The member thinks that the weather forecast is important only for cricket matches, but the member forgets that our economy is reliant on agriculture and dairy and that the weather forecast is really important for these kinds of industries. That is why we are so focused on ensuring that our weather forecast system works the way it should.

The other point I want to highlight from that member’s speech is that the member thinks that the science should not be politicised. I fully agree with the member that science should not be politicised. It is this Government that has established the Science System Advisory Group, to see how we can align science to improve innovation in our country and to contribute to our economic growth.

Now, coming back to the bill, actually, this is a bill I would say is not anything that is debatable, in a sense, because it’s a really good move. We know that earlier this year, it was announced that the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) was going to acquire MetService. It’s really good to bring these two entities together, our national service and our research institute. That gives a lot more credibility and authority to the weather systems we have in our country. I also want to highlight this: because of the Science System Advisory Group’s work, our CRIs, our Crown Research Institutes, are being merged into public research organisations. One of the newly formed public research organisations is Earth Sciences New Zealand, and now, because NIWA has become part of this, basically, that is NIWA’s new identity. Now this newly formed institute is going to acquire MetService.

We believe in improving efficiency and improving productivity, in the ACT team. We believe that by doing this, we will be avoiding duplication. We will be merging capabilities. We will be merging data, expertise, and technology. That is going to work really well for the safety of people and also for economic activity in our country. So the ACT Party is supporting this bill and commends this bill to the House. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, thank you. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to address the Meteorological Services (Acquisition and Policies) Legislation Amendment Bill. I’d like to sort of reflect a little bit on what some of the Opposition speakers have said to us—both from Labour and from the Greens—in support of this bill, because I don’t think it’s just simply a rationalisation.

Who remembers the surface pressure map? You know, the lined one on the—yeah? I used to go in my twenties and look at this thing, pick up the Herald, because that was the only place you could get it, so I could see what the tropical cyclones were going to do, hitting Fiji and providing waves for us. Well, they’re a little bit more sophisticated these days at the MetService. They’ve got great research and I really, really enjoy having discussions with them—maybe I’m a little bit of a nerd. But in terms of the sophisticated meteorological software and services they provide—and you start to combine that with what NIWA does; I’ve had some time to work with NIWA. NIWA have developed the land-based kingfish farming production at Bream Bay, and if you’ve ever been on the RV Tangaroa vessel and looked at the oceanographic capability that they have, you can say, “Wow, this is an amazing, amazing group of people adding to the value of our research and science in New Zealand.”

A lot of people, though, if you asked them, wouldn’t know the difference between MetService and NIWA. Isn’t NIWA the guy that comes up on the TV and gives us the weather every day on TVNZ, and that’s it? So why are they doing the weather and why is MetService doing the weather? A lot of people won’t understand these nuances. On top of that, we have Geological and Nuclear Sciences Limited coming together to form this new institute, which is called the New Zealand Institute for Earth Sciences. Well, I think this is actually more a case not of rationalisation; this is a case of synthesis, synthesising these skills, recalibrating so that we can focus on some of the major issues confronting this country right now around hazards, around climate change, and all those sorts of things.

We’re getting smart here, and this is the right way to work with our science institutes. It is focusing on the challenges of today—and interesting we used to focus on nuclear sciences; I’m not sure that’ll be part of the new challenge going forward. I think that this merger makes complete sense, and if we can get this recalibration, then we’re going to get our scientists focusing on the research domains and equipping us to meet those major challenges. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call on the Meteorological Services (Acquisition and Policies) Legislation Amendment Bill. This is bringing together the organisations that make sense to come together under one organisation, which is the earth sciences, bringing together MetService into this. It brings all of our capabilities in the earth and atmospheric sciences together, and I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker—an opportunity to speak about something that will affect all New Zealanders. This is a bill that looks technical, it looks like a rationalisation, or, as New Zealand First has said, a synthesisation. This is about really important services that New Zealanders all need. Aucklanders were affected by the Auckland Anniversary floods—

Auckland Council ignored the warnings.

—and, later, Cyclone Gabrielle had a huge impact on our regions—on growers, on farmers, on people, and, ultimately, a loss of life and limb. It is incredibly important for councils around the country that responders have access to timely and useful data.

I hear Mr Simon Court on the other side saying councils had that accurate and up-to-date data. In fact, what we have learnt from the two reports into the response to those disasters, particularly the Auckland Anniversary floods, is that councils did not receive some of that important weather data in a timely fashion, and it would have changed the way that the response was dealt with. So to be able to rationalise our weather services like this is incredibly important for those locally elected representatives who need to respond quickly, and to all of us in this House who have responsibility for our regions and for making sure the people on the ground can ready themselves, ready their families, and respond to severe weather events that will happen more in future because of policies that we’re seeing that are supported by someone like Mr Court.

There’s broad support for this merger in the sector—largely our meteorological services in New Zealand have made supportive comments publicly, and that’s important when you consider a history over the years of a competitive environment for these services and a very limited ability to work together and to cooperate because of the way that these things have been structured. It’s important to acknowledge just how much it would have taken for many people in the sector to be able to come around this and get behind this, but that seems to be what has happened here, and that’s a really good thing. It should give all of us some comfort that the goodwill going forward is going to allow this merger to occur in a way that will be cooperative and collaborative. Things like joint unlimited access to the technology, to the super-computer, to both of these organisations’ assets that they are bringing into the merger is a really good thing, and we should see a result from that that will benefit all New Zealanders.

The only points that I wish to raise at this reading, before we consider this further, are that we do have concerns here, particularly around not only the funding of science but also in terms of how these amendments are being done to the State-Owned Enterprises Act. It is very simple in this Act, and it sets out here just how a Government that is so minded would be able to carve off State-owned assets from the protections of the State-Owned Enterprises Act 1986, and simply take them out of a schedule and move them into another ownership structure. In this case, it is one where those are largely going to be enjoyed—publicly, they are going to have a public benefit. But it sets out very baldly, in what is a very short Act, just how quick and easy it would be to privatise assets like this that have enjoyed the protections of the State-Owned Enterprises Act since the late 1980s in New Zealand.

One thing that’s particularly striking is around the removal of the provisions of the Commerce Act from a merger like this. It’s very simple. It looks like, on page 11, at clause 29, a simple provision that allows Part 3 of the Commerce Act not to apply to an acquisition like this. What does that mean for New Zealanders? It means that these two entities can be merged without any thought of the impact on the downstream consumers or the people who buy their services. In this case, there is a strong rationale for that, but you can imagine an instance where the Government has taken ownership and retained ownership of the State-owned enterprise that is this critical to New Zealand’s ability to respond, in this case, to disasters and severe weather that could occur where you would simply need to take it out of any oversight of the Commerce Commission and to be able to roll this up.

It is very quick, it’s very painless, for a Government moving fast, and a reminder of Geoffrey Palmer’s comments that we have one of the fastest legislatures in the West to be able to do something like this to assets which have been built up over many generations of New Zealanders in their tax dollars. It is something that we must do soberly and we must consider very, very carefully. That is why Labour has expressed reservations about the support here. We’re keen to work this through and we’re keen to ensure that this is a robust process which makes sense for everyone who uses the services and for those responders who need this information into their weather events.

Excellent. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. This bill brings together two Crown-owned weather forecasting companies—brings them back together. It will provide more connected weather-forecasting and investment for the wellbeing and safety of New Zealanders, protect our infrastructure, and support the growth of our economy. Therefore, I commend the bill to the House.

Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. The Government’s objective is to bring meteorology, climate science, hydrology, and oceanography together to create a stronger, more connected—

Speak up—we can’t hear you!

—weather forecasting system to improve New Zealand’s resilience to severe weather events. I must make the point that the heckling coming from that side is so ironic, because it lasts longer than their speeches. If you want to have something to say, at least have the decency to make a decent contribution. Hoi anō rā [However], for now—

I assume that comment was not directed at me.

OK. Well, I’m just happy to have made that point, Madam Speaker.

Point of order—point of order.

It’s quite a disgrace to these bills, I think—

Point of order.

—when people take more time to interrupt quality contributions—

Point of order.

—than they do to make their own.

Point of order, Madam Speaker. I think—

Is that a point of order?

It is. Thank you, Madam Speaker. The fact you couldn’t hear me for five calls for a point of order shows that the member who is speaking—if she could just realise that the microphone is very live, and it’s very loud, and that’s why people are maybe saying, “Can you keep it down a wee bit?”

Speaking to the point of order.

It’s not a point of order, and so there’s no need to speak to it.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Now, given the objectives I’ve just outlined, why would we not support it? In particular, why would I not support it when that’s exactly what a holistic Māori worldview has had mai rā anō [since the beginning]?

When I worked in the broadcasting industry, thankfully we didn’t have to say, “Here are the meteorological reports for the day.” It was as simple as saying, “anei ngā tohu a Tāwhirimātea me ngā tai a Tangaroa” [here are the cues of Tāwhirimātea and the tides of Tangaroa]; here is what’s happening to the wind; here is what’s happening with the tides. We know in te ao Māori, we’ve got Tamanuiterā; we’ve got Te Uira, the lightning; we’ve got Hinepūkohurangi, the mist. These are concepts that we have been living with for a long, long time. For millennia, our ancestors lived by the moon, the tides, the stars, and even behavioural patterns of the birds and animals: planting, harvesting, fishing, diving—my favourite—hunting, travel. Life was determined by these connections with the elements. Now, while there are still many who are still very proficient in our maramataka Māori, the majority of us simply grab our phones—those of us who are not familiar with isobar patterns—and check what the long-term MetService forecast is.

Therefore, as I said, I’m standing on behalf of the Labour Party to support this bill. This bill also presents an amazing opportunity to continue the work started by the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, who worked with iwi, hapū, and whānau to establish Te Kūwaha: working together to integrate and embed mātauranga Māori with modern science, to ensure quality monitoring processes that fit with our country. Through internships also provided through that programme, they have built not only Māori capability but, vice versa, they’ve had access to mātauranga Māori to supplement the science.

As you know, Cyclone Gabrielle has obviously had a massive impact on Te Tairāwhiti, and I want to acknowledge all the emergency response people that we have out there. But that definitely emphasises the importance of quality monitoring.

While I support this, I do really think we can take considerations of the solutions that these might provide for weather-affected communities, particularly those in the area of Ikaroa-Rāwhiti. There are a lot of dispossessed people but they want to stay on their whenua, so how can we utilise this science to support that, rather than just find reasons why people have to leave—how can we find reasons to support people and stay? This is also an opportunity to think about how this quality new organisation can support research that will help inform insurance companies in flood-prone areas so that they can not only stay there but also have better consideration to be insured. There are some communities within Ikaroa-Rāwhiti now deemed uninsurable, and I think that is a positive opportunity that this bill could support.

So, as I’ve said, I think this bill has the opportunity to absolutely complement mātauranga Māori, and I commend the bill to the House.

It’s a pleasure to be able to rise and speak on the first reading of this bill. You know, we focus on innovation and growing our economy. That is what this bill does. It helps to drive productivity, higher value jobs, and better living standards for New Zealand. I commend it to the House.

The question is, That the Meteorological Services (Acquisition and Policies) Legislation Amendment Bill be considered by the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee.

I present a legislative statement on the Game Animal Council (Herds of Special Interest) 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 Game Animal Council (Herds of Special Interest) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

I made a submission to the Standing Orders Committee yesterday about the value of legislative statements, and I said that they were originally intended to allow Ministers the opportunity to put forward the policy intent of the bill and to no longer have to read from their speech. It would be remiss of me not to try and attempt to put my money where my mouth is and, rather than read my second reading speech, point to the thrust of what the committee came out with in their report—some of the highlights, and some of the lowlights, to be fair, in some of the submissions—and talk about why this bill is an important piece of the hunter-led management conservation framework.

First, can I just start by acknowledging all of those submitters who did submit on the bill at select committee and the work of the Environment Committee in managing the bill through. They’ve come back with a report and the commentary, which doesn’t recommend any substantive changes really, but it does provide some relatively good insight as to the views and thoughts of individuals out there, both in the hunting sector and in the wider conservation sector. I say wider conservation sector because, of course, hunters are part of our conservation efforts. Hunters are one of our best conservation tools. They are the ones that are out there day in, day out, repairing the tracks, resetting the traps, and taking care of species—whether that’s deer, whether that’s goats, whether that’s possums. They’re the ones out there on the ground and doing the work, and they’re the ones that should be acknowledged and appreciated for that work.

I want to acknowledge all our hunters that took time out of their busy days, their busy work schedules, to make submissions on this bill to emphasise the value that hunter-led conservation has in our wild animal management framework, and to emphasise how important an approach like herds of special interest is to more effectively and sustainably managing game animals in New Zealand. Our game animals, while they are introduced species, they are valued introduced species. They form a part of our culture and our society, and they have done so for many, many decades now. They are important as a food source to many of our whānau and families on the land who go out there and just want to bring a bit of venison off the back blocks. They are an important economic tool for our international tourism operators and our international guided hunters, who raise, at last count, I think, $280 million from the international community, in terms of economic value, and they are important to our conservationists.

Again, as I repeated at the top of the speech, if you look at what the achievements have been of the Fiordland Wapiti Foundation and the Central North Island Sika Foundation up in the Central Plateau, but also the New Zealand Tahr Foundation in and around my part of the world, central South Island, and also on the West Coast; if you think about what the Rakiura Whitetail Trust has been doing down with the Department of Conservation and with locals down in Stewart Island; and if you think about the proliferation of these community-led organisations around the country, you can only come to the conclusion that by including hunters in our conservation efforts, we will get better conservation outcomes.

At the same time, we will be able to better manage our herds for lower numbers but healthier herd numbers. That’s going to be more venison taken off the land. It’s going to be lower deer numbers. It’s going to mean better conservation outcomes. All I need to do is point those members who are going to get up in about six minutes time and say that these are invasive species that need to be completely eradicated, totally forgetting that many of their own supporters rely on these animals for daily food, they rely on them for their cultural and social values, and they actually rely on them, and the people around these animals, to take care of the environment.

If they actually took the chance to read the departmental report and they go to the part of the departmental report which actually responds to questions about how effective this kind of management has been down in Fiordland, particularly through the Fiordland Wapiti Foundation—I will take them to the particular page so they don’t have to spend too much time trying to chase it because they clearly haven’t read it. It’s page 20 of the departmental report. It actually asks, “What do the results show?” Well, I can tell everyone what the results show. The Fiordland Wapiti Foundation, for decades and decades, have been implementing a community agreement, which is basically a herd of special interest in everything but name. I will take you to the exact point which says, “What are the impacts? Overall, vegetation monitoring results in the Wapiti area indicate a reduction in deer browse impacts in alpine areas and signs of improving regeneration in forested catchments”. I can say that again if the members would like me to. I can point to another point, which is that “In 2024, the proportion of browsed plants in the Wapiti area had significantly declined to 8 percent, meeting a newly established target. In managed areas, outside the Wapiti area, i.e., the area, which is not being managed by hunter-led conservation, browse increased from 10 percent in 2016 to 2018, to 16 percent in 2022.” In the areas outside of hunter-led conservation management, the biodiversity is in a worse state than inside the area which is currently managed. If that is not proof that this is an idea that is worth pursuing and worth enforcing, then I don’t know what else is.

Finally, in the time that I’ve got left, I wanted to address some of the disinformation, misinformation that is being put out there by proxies of the Opposition in the public. They are saying things like, “This bill will set up, in the future, things like sanctuaries for stoats.” Well, if that’s a way to disparage our hunting community, I don’t know what is. The thing that this bill does is it puts in place a management tool and a management regime, which allows our most effective conservation tool, our hunters, to get out there and better manage our wild animal management system. The final one I’ll leave on, and I won’t say which organisation made this comment, but they disparagingly said that “All our hunters do is go around flying in on helicopters and staying in their luxury lodges.” Well, I think that was a mistake that that organisation did because the resulting response from hunters around the country was to send in examples of the luxury lodges. I can tell you, I flatted in Dunedin for about 10 years, and compared to some of the accommodation that our hunters were filming and showing us they were staying in, I think the student accommodation in Dunedin was luxury lodgings compared to some of the hillsides and windswept environments and bivouacs and lean-tos that our hunters put themselves into as they go out day and night to collect food for their families and to do what they love doing, which is to hunt and to be out in the outdoors and to enjoy our natural environment and to do their bit for conservation.

That was my attempt at putting aside the written speech. Let the legislative statement talk for itself. Let the commentary from the select committee speak for itself. I commend this second reading to the House and look forward to its passage as quickly as possible.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for this opportunity to reply to the Minister for Hunting and Fishing on the Game Animal Council (Herds of Special Interest) Amendment Bill. You will see, anybody who’s looked, that the bill itself is very little, one page at the back here—

Great committee of the whole House coming up, ha, ha!

—yes—so there’s not very many clauses, so you will not be hearing from me a long speech that reads out bits of the Act or the bill, because it is very short. But it is important to set some context here about how our conservation legislation works and how our Department of Conservation works and also our approach to mammals. We know—well, most people in this House will know—that a third of New Zealand is in some sort of conservation estate. Of course, most of that is in the best island, Madam Speaker, and I will bring you into this debate a little bit because a lot of it is around where you live.

I’ve always liked you, Rachel Brooking.

Well, that’s right. It’s the best part of the world. The Minister and I can agree on that, I’m sure.

Aren’t you going to run some defence for Dunedin’s student flats, Rachel? Come on!

I’ve been asked—by a Minister, no less—to speak on Dunedin flats, and I will get to that at some point, I can assure the members in the House—

What, the flat you’re in—your flat?

No, we never shared.

—because I know that they are looking forward to that part of my contribution, but for now I’m going to stick—

There’s no connection between the two, by the way.

—to the conservation land that does not include the area of North Dunedin that the Ministers are referring to, wonderful though that part of the country is as well.

But we know that we have all of this conservation land, most of it is in the South Island, and a huge amount of that, therefore, is in the takiwā of Ngāi Tahu as well. Within that conservation land, there are different types of land. We hear a lot about stewardship land. This bill is not applying to stewardship land, but it’s important that I mention stewardship land because, of course, all of that conservation land that we have, some of it became conservation land through different changes of Government departments in the 1980s and 1990s as well. Some of that land is not pristine land, and there’s not an intent to preserve all of that land at a most pristine level forever, and that is why it’s called stewardship land. That means that that categorisation, different things can happen on that land compared with other higher-status land.

Now, the most high-status land, of course, is that that is in the national parks. The national parks have their own piece of legislation as well, being the National Parks Act, as well as being relevant to the Conservation Act that talks about the different plans and the different rules that are required on these different types of conservation land. But the national parks are very precious. And, Madam Speaker—again from your part of the world—you’ll know that some of those national parks, there were great campaigns at the turn of the last century to hold pieces, pristine pieces, of New Zealand’s ecosystem intact for future generations. Hence, we have the National Parks Act, and we look after these pieces of land in a very special way.

Now, before I get on to Dunedin students, I do want to talk about my Dunedin-made earrings, which are of pekapeka. It’s important to note that Aotearoa New Zealand does not have any indigenous terrestrial mammals except for a couple of species of bat. Of course, we have wonderful marine mammals and—

Are bats birds? Can bats be Bird of the Year?

Bats are manu. Bats can win the Bird of the Year, and it was very good that they did—should have been the manu of the century, but that’s a digression, I admit. I will not go down there.

What I’m talking about is the importance of national parks and that New Zealand does not have mammals, and so much of our biodiversity, our flora and our fauna, has evolved in a different way from the rest of the world because we don’t have these mammals that lots of the world has that eat the undergrowth.

I heard the Minister, in a question and answer earlier this week, talk about the protection of the canopy—that is something that a marsupial causes problems with, the possums. But the mammals, the ungulates, cause the problems with undergrowth, so that is one of the reasons why the National Parks Act says that “introduced plants and animals shall as far as possible be exterminated:”. That, of course, means that the Department of Conservation has not been wanting to protect these introduced mammals, the ungulates, that eat—

Understorey.

—the undergrowth, the understorey—thank you.

If this is a short speech.

So what this bill is doing—I made no promise of a short speech. I just said that I wouldn’t be reading from the bill. That is all, Mr Court.

This is a big issue, and this is what the submitters submitted on.

We heard from the Minister. He invited us all to go to the departmental report. I’d like to report to the Minister that whilst we have looked at the departmental report, it is a different situation than earlier this morning where a huge amendment had come through late in the piece and the regulatory impact statement to that had not been available for some time, and there was some argument in the Chamber about this. In this case, there has been a select committee process, and I was very pleased to hear from many submitters, submitters who are hunters, submitters who are conservationists, submitters who are hunters and conservationists—a whole range of people. They all came from, I believe, a very good place and all do truly want the best for our national parks and all that nature within them. We don’t need to be directed to different places in the departmental report, from the Minister, because we did hear the submissions about the negative regenerative growth.

The Minister says—well, the departmental report says it improves by the hunters doing the maintenance rather than leaving it to the Department of Conservation that we all know has had its funding reduced and reduced and reduced. There is another way of coming at this issue and saying, well, could the funding to the Department of Conservation be increased, and could this be a priority—

Magic money tree.

—work programme for them. And then it’s—oh, then it’s the magic money tree, we hear from the other side. But how long does that argument go on that it’s just the magic money tree and that we should be making concession after concession for actors who are not there just for the conservation of our natural and indigenous biology, to come into our very special conservation land and do the management of it? Where does this stop? I haven’t heard an answer from the Minister about that, and of course we’ll be asking questions in the committee stage. But I invite members opposite to tell me about the sort of funding that they’re going to have for the continued monitoring of any of these groups, the hunting groups, that are doing conservation, to make sure that in fact there is better regenerative growth in the areas that they manage, and what learnings there will therefore be for what other groups can be doing that do not require an introduced mammal to be there eating up the undergrowth.

I think it’s important to also note—before I move on to Dunedin flats—this language around high-valued introduced animals. We’re being told that there’s this real tourism focus, that we need them for tourism. Then, the next moment, we’re told, “Oh no, it’s food for your whānau.” These are two very different arguments, and they haven’t been clearly articulated by the Minister about what is the actual driver for this change.

I want to also acknowledge the New Zealand Conservation Authority submission that is worried that this is another way to get the New Zealand Conservation Authority out of decision making. Of course, Ngāi Tahu, in their settlement legislation, has a role on that conservation authority and others, so that is a highly pertinent point to the great South Island, where most of this conservation land is.

Of course, in the fine electorate of Dunedin that has all the student housing, I’m very pleased that there’s now a healthy homes standard about—hopefully, it will be much better than all of those hunting shacks.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is my pleasure to come to talk about the Game Animal Council (Herds of Special Interest) Amendment Bill because I am a hunter and I’m from the South Island and I’m also a conservationist. I’m not one of these people that is going for growth to have the access to trophy heads in the South Island. In fact, I find that odious. I think we need to get rid of these ungulates in our bush, and that’s part of what I hunt for.

There’s also a value in wild meat, but I’m aware and we heard through the select committee of many hunters who were very, very concerned about the impact of this bill and who opposed this bill. We also heard from hunters who supported this bill, and Roy Sloane from the Fiordland Wapiti Foundation gave a great presentation.

The problem with the hunting support for this bill is that it doesn’t actually reveal the evidence or respect the evidence that we have of hunter management of our ungulates, because we have an escalating pest-damage crisis across the South Island, and that’s because hunters are not good at managing our ungulate problem. They’re clearly not good at managing the ungulate problem. And personally, I know of people who have used their horse trailers to transfer fallow deer from one place to another. There is the transfer of tahr to different parts of the Southern Alps that have happened not quite accidentally. We’re seeing pests in places that can only have got there with human intervention.

While we do have some hunters—many hunters—who are caring about our bush, our communities, and who are conservationists, we also have some irresponsible hunters and people who like to hunt, who are quite happy to feed the populations, to reinject populations. We’ve got wallabies now in Otago.

This is a crisis of pests not just in our national parks but also in our farmland, where we’re seeing pigs coming back. We’re seeing the loss of lambs. It’s a wider thing than simply having what’s claimed to be managed herds in our national parks. But the idea that we can manage herds in our national parks is not only dangerous; it’s a way of taking away from the whole value of our national parks. We are concerned there has been no publicly available inquiries, reviews, or evaluations that have informed or are relevant to the policy that’s being given effect to in this bill, and no further impact analysis has become available for any aspects of the policy to be given effect to by this bill.

We’ve heard from the Minister and we’ve heard from the Government that this bill is about economic growth. What does that mean? The only way you can make money out of this is by inviting, probably American, guided hunters into our national parks to shoot deer that have essentially been raised to be there for them. And you know, as a New Zealander, I find that inappropriate. I find that hope to get some money from people who really are coming here simply to shoot animals is just the wrong way to go about it. I don’t think we should be supporting that type of tourism in this country.

If that’s the type of economic growth that we’re talking about, I’d like to see some numbers, because at least the Government could try and justify it, because we know it is quite unlikely that there’s going to be anything meaningful in that. And what we’ve heard from the Fiordland Wapiti Foundation is that that’ll bring some money back for them to continue to do some work, which is great in that little area. What we have is a conservation estate that has been defunded and defunded and defunded. So the defunding of our conservation estate is one key factor that has given rise to the rising ungulate numbers.

Rather than giving access to our conservation estate and our national parks to hunters, why don’t we invest in our conservation estate to protect our national parks, to remove the ungulates, to support the biodiversity, to support our biodiversity that’s so essential for our climate response, not simply for respecting our unique habitat.

We are concerned. We are concerned that this bill is simply something that this Government wants to do to please a small portion of the New Zealand community, and it is going to do damage even to those hunters, because this bill will not stand in the next Government. Any investment that’s made now, any hope that a small group of hunters have that they’re going to have a free ride, is going to be swept away in the next Government. Rather than working with our hunting community and the different parts of our hunting community, many of whom are doing good things, this is running roughshod over a process. It is not building consensus. It is simply saying, “We want to do it and because we can do it in urgency, we’re going to push it through—push it through.” This is the problem with the Government in general, and it’s probably why we’ve all had enough, and in 2026 we’ll get rid of them.

What we’re really concerned about and what we’ve seen in the Fiordland Wapiti Foundation is that this is also presenting a real challenge for other pest control, because they don’t want 1080 drops. They don’t want 1080 drops because the deer might eat them. Then that might not be a good thing if they’re bringing people in to hunt trophy animals. So that makes it more expensive. DOC’s work to control possums in the national park becomes harder.

Here comes another problem: if we have the Minister for Hunting and Fishing, the Hon James Meager, being able to designate herds of special interest areas in our national parks but the cost of maintaining those national parks falls on the conservation Minister, how do we manage that? Is the Minister going to dedicate some funding to support the conservation estate? Is the Minister going to dedicate the money we need to properly fund the conservation authority? Is the Minister going to properly fund the Department of Conservation?

These are questions that we should be getting a response to, because ultimately this is pushing a problem on to another budget and creating greater expense for people who are working their hardest, who are doing their hardest to reduce the pest numbers—reduce possums, rats, stoats in our conservation estate, as well as reducing the number of ungulates, and reducing the damage that is happening in our bush.

We oppose this bill. We oppose it because it is simply the wrong way to go about managing our conservation estate. And not only that, it is simply a way of rushing a process, which is typical of this Government, to do poor legislation, to push it through under urgency—urgency in a way we’ve never seen from any other Government; as everything starts falling apart, trying to make it work. It’s a sad day when we have such ridiculous, dangerous—dangerous—bills through the House under urgency.

We will oppose this bill, and we will remove it in 2026. It’s going to have a very short life. It’s a very short bill; it’ll have a very short life. Less than a year—

The member’s time has expired. I need to put the question. The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I look forward to agreeing to the motion. This bill is a very short bill, overriding the considerations from section 4(2)(b) in the National Parks Act. It’s doing something that is removing a roadblock. I put an alternate view into this report to make sure that it’s on the record that I think that the threats that we’ve heard from the other side of the House tonight, saying about how this has got a short life, are exactly why we need to make sure that the intent of this bill is carried out.

At the Environment Committee, we heard hyperbole which was ridiculous—introduced animals are going to be thrown all around the country with this bill. It was insane. The Game Animal Council is a fantastic organisation advising, informing, and educating the hunting sector. It should be encouraged to be able to use tools like herds of special interests to get good outcomes for the taxpayer, the hunters, and our bush. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I rise to support this bill on behalf of New Zealand First. It’s a very sensible bill—a very sensible bill. It does clarify the inherent tension between the Game Animal Council Act and the National Parks Act, and it allows the Minister to designate herds of special interest to be managed within a national park.

Look, hunting is almost a Kiwi birthright. It’s a cultural treasure for so many New Zealanders. It puts meat on our table, and I think that, actually, across the House, people would understand that, or at least they should. It is also the tourists that come in for these trophy heads. I heard Scott Willis over there before, and it seems to have offended his sensibilities, but they would be some of the most high-value tourists that come into this country. This is a very, very high-end tourist.

Oh, come on, Mark.

We need to drive some economic growth here, Scott, otherwise, we’re going to have to be making some pretty hard trade-offs. This is but one way that we can attract those very high-value tourists.

There are some challenges with this, and we will have to manage them, and the Minister will have to oversee this carefully. The farming community, particularly, will be looking that these herds are managed. We did hear the example of the Fiordland Wapiti Foundation and how this this model was essentially working in practice now. We think it’s a sensible bill. It’s well worth doing, and New Zealand First support it.

I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Statutes Amendment Bill.

Members, before we go into committee, I wonder if those who are present would like to join me in welcoming to our Parliament the chairman of the Chinese People’s National Congress, Chairman Zhao.

The House is in committee.

Members, the House is in committee on the Statutes Amendment Bill. Statutes amendment bills are bills that consist entirely of minor and technical amendments across the statute book. They are drafted with cross-party consultation and support and there is a strong convention that they will be supported unanimously. There are special procedures for statutes amendment bills. Standing Order 313(2) provides that if any member objects to a clause standing part, that clause is struck out of the bill.

Therefore, at the end of the debate on each part of this bill, rather than asking for those in favour and opposed to the question, I will ask whether any member objects to the relevant provisions standing part. We come first to Part 1, which is the debate on clauses 3 to 7, “Amendments to Accident Compensation Act 2001”. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Madam Chair, I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question.

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

OK. I am very pleased to be leading the Statutes Amendment Bill through the committee stage. This bill plays an important role in the ongoing maintenance of our statute book. Statutes amendment bills are legislative vehicles that make small, technical, and non-controversial amendments to a number of Acts. These changes are intended to improve clarity, correct errors, update terminology, and ensure our legislation remains current and fit for purpose. These bills allow amendments to be made that would not usually receive sufficient priority to be progressed individually.

I want to emphasise that the Statutes Amendment Bill does not make substantive policy changes. Instead, it serves a housekeeping function, ensuring that the laws we rely on every day continue to operate smoothly and as intended. Each of the amendments in the bill has received unanimous cross-party support, and it’s a good demonstration of all parties working together.

The bill as reported back amends 41 primary Acts administered by various Government agencies. The key changes made by the Governance and Administration Committee include clarifying in the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act 2009 that address verification is not required as part of a standard customer due diligence process but as part of an enhanced customer due diligence process. This change will provide clarity to reporting entities, to avoid unnecessary and burdensome over compliance.

It includes clarifying in the Privacy Act 2020 that the six-month limitation period for a complainant to bring proceedings in the Tribunal starts only when the Privacy Commissioner or Director of Human Rights Proceedings has made final decisions about all related complaints and matters and has notified the complainant about those decisions under relevant provisions in the Privacy Act 2020.

It removes references to audio link in the Oaths and Declarations Act 1957 and replaces the term “in writing” with the term “in a document”, inserting new section 2A and 2A(1A) to make it clear that in cases where audiovisual software includes the option to turn off a camera, the camera must remain on. This change will improve the accessibility of oaths, affirmations, and declarations while ensuring the person is visible to the person administrating it.

The committee also recommended removing the amendments to the Racing Industry Act 2020 and the Conservation Act 1987 from the bill. The amendments to the Racing Industry Act are no longer required as they are included in the Racing Industry Amendment Bill, and the proposed changes to the Conservation Act are being considered as part of other pieces of work.

I commend the Governance and Administration Committee for their hard work and dedication, which ensured that changes made through this bill are minor, technical, and non-controversial. I welcome the deliberations from the committee on this bill, and I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s been a long Tuesday, I think we can all agree, and it’s still going. It’s a privilege to be able to contribute to the Statutes Amendment Bill. I enjoyed being able to engage with this bill on the Governance and Administration Committee, which looked at this bill, and did go through many of the different parts and sections with officials during our select committee stage. I think that was relatively thorough, but as you mentioned at the beginning of this committee stage, this is a special type of bill. It is by its nature less contentious.

We do have questions in relation to many of the parts, and they might not be the substantive contributions that maybe we would make on policy issues and other bills, but genuine questions that we have for the Minister around how the bill works. If they are a little bit technical, because this does cover 42 different primary pieces of legislation, then hopefully she’ll be able to get advice, and we understand that that may be necessary, but we do have a few questions.

The first part that I wanted to start with was Part 1, in relation to the Accident Compensation Act, and the changes that have been made there. So this is in relation to clause 4, which amends the Code of ACC Claimants’ Rights, which is a relatively significant part of the Accident Compensation Act, and anyone who’s dealt with the ACC legislation will know that the ability for claimants to be aware of their rights and also for these to be clearly set out is very key.

So, essentially, my reading of this particular section is rather than the current requirement which requires publication in a newspaper in Auckland, Hamilton, Wellington, Christchurch, and Dunedin of the changes or when an ACC bill of claimants rights’ is put in place, this will now be changed to publication on one of the corporation’s main websites. So I imagine that the reason for this is to update the way that people engage with information, so rather than in the past, people, say, looking in the newspaper to see what news has changed in relation to ACC, they may be checking the website.

The question I had for the Minister in relation to this part is has there been any advice around whether there would be a notification of any change on that website or if it would be, say, with a media release or, say, a heading on the website to signal that there had been a change to the ACC claimants’ rights? Has there been any assessment of whether that would be sufficient to actually let people know in these important areas that there has been a change to the Code of ACC Claimants’ Rights? Because I imagine, when this was originally enacted by Parliament, the reason that those major centres were, in fact, chosen was because that would allow people to be aware that this Code of ACC Claimants’ Rights had, in fact, been put in place. So that was the first question that I had for the Minister.

The other change, I think, has just been to repeal the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion Act 1960. I did look at that and I did understand, from my quick analysis of this Part 1, that perhaps that’s been removed because that is no longer on the statute book. When you look at the legislation website, you’re unable to click through that link. So I just wanted to double check that my understanding was correct, that the reason that that has been removed from the list of relevant statutes is because in fact it perhaps is no longer valid. Those are my questions on Part 1.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the member for her work in the Governance and Administration Committee on this bill. In the first instance, I think, a lot of the feedback that came back—I agreed with all of it, and I thought that with the contribution from across the Chamber, we got the bill in a really good state.

I thank the member for her question. I haven’t received advice about how ACC will notify the different individuals of the change, but my expectation is that that would have to be ongoing. There would have to be some way of being able to tell people that there’s a change in the way that we are letting people know that they can contribute in some way. I think doing it through the internet means that we’ll get more contributions, but there are still those people who look for it in the newspapers. I cannot answer your question directly, but I will take it on board and say that I do expect that there will still be some notification, even if it’s on the internet, that things have come up or will be popping up. I will make sure that our officials are aware of that.

In regard to the second point, on clause 5, you are absolutely correct. It was a technical amendment because that piece of legislation had been repealed. It was just a tidy-up because we can’t refer to it anymore.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I wasn’t lucky enough to sit on the Governance and Administration Committee on this bill. I had a chat to the Clerk, who did inform me of the special nature of this bill and the fact that if I thought there could be improvements, it certainly ran into some procedural difficulties. Nevertheless, I do think, in terms of how the bill works and its operation, it’s a good opportunity. There’s really quite a lot in this bill and, as was identified, some non-contentious amendments, but, nevertheless, they do have some significant law changes.

I really just want to talk about one clause, and that clause is clause 7, because it relates to a really important thing, which is consultation requirements for levy setting. The question, basically, is this: how do we make sure that people who pay levies have their say? Because, in fact, it’s a requirement that appropriate levy payers are consulted in respect of proposals to impose new or increased levies. Look, I get it—going away from public notices in newspapers, which have limited circulation, and to the internet is understandable. One of the challenges is that there are people out there—lawyers are one of them—who actually get the paper and go through the notices for this very reason, because it’s understood as a repository of notices of consultations and other important legal matters that is easily and publicly available in one place. The challenge with putting it on a website is that if you want to understand what’s going on, not only do you have to go to the ACC website, in this case, but you actually have to find it on the ACC website. Were I to propose an amendment, it would be to that. ACC, like many Government departments—the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, IRD—have circular emails. If you are paying ACC levies, they’ll have your email address, and they often send updates on operational changes and how to comply with obligations and how to stay safe—all great stuff.

I guess there’s two things I would like to know, in an operational sense, as to how this lands. Will the consultation be easily found? I think that’s really important. Will it be there on a regular consultation page that, essentially, you find from the front page of ACC? Because, many a time, you come to find a consultation document, and you’ve got to click through many levels, and sometimes it’s just impossible to find. I guess the other thing is will ACC be using other tools to make sure that affected people actually know about levies? Because levies—they’re not quite a tax, but you’ve really got to make sure you’ve got legitimacy, and consultation is not just about getting the details right around the edges. It’s about having a legitimate process where people have been genuinely asked, and I just am a little concerned that if we just put it on an internet site—either ACC’s or their agents’—a lazy person would simply tuck it away in the background there. I’d be interested in the Minister’s comments in terms of how that will operationally land.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Dr Duncan Webb, for your question. As the member will be aware, the Statutes Amendment Bill is making small, technical, non-controversial amendments. If the member was wanting to get really into this and the operational side of it, I would have thought he would have gone along to the select committee process, but he hasn’t. I’m not—

This is his right—to do that here. He has the right to do that here.

It may be his right, and it’s my right to also speak to what he’s talking about, so I’d suggest that the member just be quiet or at least—[Interruption]

Order!

—take the stand himself. Nevertheless, what I will say is that when we are modernising the Act so that we can look at the internet, a part of the reason why we’re doing that is because people aren’t buying the newspaper. When you look at the accessibility in finding it, one of the things that the member actually said was—he actually said it’s all in one place and so it’d be easier to find. I dispute that, actually. People are finding it quite difficult, and I would have thought that putting it on to the internet, where people have more access—that they know that they can go to a site and they’ll be able to look it up and find all the information in one place instead of trying to look through certain newspapers and find copies of those newspapers.

This is modernising it. How the agency, how ACC, goes about doing it and informing people—I would expect that they would inform people because it’s a change, right? As a Government agency, they would be expected to do so. But to be fair, I have not got into 42 different Acts and the operations behind every single clause that’s in there. I will answer what I can on the minor and technical and non-controversial amendments that have been made here to the best of my ability, but I am not the Minister for ACC and therefore the operational side of how they work would probably be better directed to them.

I hope that the member would agree that, actually, internet access for some of these will mean that we will reach more people rather than less, and it’s modernising for the modern age.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have a very short question on that note to the Minister, and potentially this will cover other questions later on in terms of other amendments when it comes to the digitalisation of some of our legislation when it comes to consultation.

Looking at clause 7, updating from a “daily newspaper” to “Internet”—and I agree 100 percent with the Minister that it will give more availability—would “Internet” in this case also include other forms of, I guess, website or things like social media? The reason I mention that is because social media now, in terms of advertisement, plays a similar role as daily newspapers, and we just heard a really good example yesterday in the debate on the stalking and harassment legislation where the select committee uses social media to open up for things like consultation. So that’s my only question—whether we can actually interpret “Internet” in that way.

That’s a really good question, and I thank that member for that. I think the answer to that will come down to the different agencies and also whether or not they have a social media presence. If you think about it, some of them will; some of them won’t. But I think when we talk about using the internet, it’s actually about trying to access as many people as possible.

My expectation as a Minister is that if we’re going to use modern technology, we should use it to reach as many people as we can. That would be the expectation. Otherwise, why change it? We’d just stick to newspapers. But I think that’s a very good point, and I would encourage all of the Government’s agencies to use all of the means possible, because all we say is “the internet”. We don’t say “the website”; we say, “the internet”. So, in my view, that opens it up for use everywhere.

Members, we come now to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 8 to 12, “Amendments to Anti-Money Laundering and Counter Financing of Terrorism Act 2009”. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, just in terms of the Minister’s earlier, original speech, she did observe that this is a non-contentious bill and that it’s bundled together because they might not get the legislative attention they need. I must say it’s surprising to see this being done in urgency, because I think that is the definition of a non-urgent bill. Having said that, we are here in urgency, and one of the jobs of an MP—all MPs—is to scrutinise. So that’s exactly what we will do as we go through these various parts.

I want to talk about clause 9 because it’s actually a really unusual clause, because clause 9 deals with occasional transactions. The original section 5(1) identifies a number of transactions which are one-off transactions which raise red flags, and therefore kind of fall within the anti - money-laundering regime. Then, further paragraphs carve out things, and one of the things they carve out was cheque deposits. Now, in 2009, a one-off cheque deposit was unexceptionable. I can understand that’s why it was carved out, because if someone gets even a large cheque, sells a car, gets $20,000, it could be paid for by cheque if you were a trusting person back in the day, and you deposit it—a transaction which is occasional but doesn’t really cross the threshold of suspicious.

However, where we’re revisiting this definition, which is what we’re doing, by adding “made at a registered bank or non-bank deposit taker.”, which is a strange addition because they’re the only places at which you could deposit cheques, anyway, the fact of the matter now is that you can’t actually deposit cheques at a bank. If you are going to somewhere which accepts cheques, you’re doing something which is truly odd. It may be that you could make a special arrangement or there may be non-bank deposit takers out there which will, essentially, take your cheque and, essentially, buying it off you at its face value and then clearing it through a unique system, because there is no clearing system for cheques any more. Cheques are gone. So I would have thought that if someone’s bandying about with a cheque for $20,000 now, that is a red flag.

In fact, I’m interested to understand why we are making provision for cheques deposited at a registered bank or non-bank deposit taker when that is not a system that actually exists, and someone going around with these negotiable instruments is, in fact, I would have thought, something which the police and their financial team would want to know about because it’s a suspicious transaction.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the member for his comments and for his question, because I admit, when I first looked at it, I thought very much the same thing. But, actually, there are banks that still honour bank cheques, and what has been the status quo is now actually just being tidied up. So the whole reason for this is because there are still bank cheques out there that are still being captured by these, as well.

I’m sorry, members, but the time has come to break for the dinner break.

Kia ora, everyone. The committee stage is resumed.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just following on from my colleague Duncan Webb’s questions to the Minister, which were, I believe, around clauses 8 and 9, I wouldn’t mind moving on to clauses 10 and 11 in Part 2. These are also in relation to the changes that are proposed under the amendments to the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act 2009. The question in relation to clause 10 is just really a very quick question—both in relation to subclause (1) and subclause (2). They seem to be just reorganising the same information. I can’t recall specifically discussing that or the rationale for that, but if the Minister has anything to add, I’d be interested in that.

Then, in relation to clause 11, which makes changes to section 40 of the Act, I do have some more substantial questions for the Minister, because, in this particular part, there appears to me to be more substantive—I’m not saying it’s substantive in the sense that it goes against what the bill is trying to achieve through making minor and technical amendments, but there is a few changes to a couple of things. The first thing I noted was essentially there’s a carve-out, as I can see it, for law firms. When I looked at the original bill that this is replacing, it appeared to me that there wasn’t a carve-out for law firms. I could be wrong on that, but I wanted to know specifically why law firms would have a longer period of time to report suspicious behaviour than other entities. In a way, I would have thought it was the other way around because, I think, law firms are often used to being able to identify suspicious activity. Of course, there’s a carve-out there for privileged information. I suppose a possible reason could be that they are assessing whether the information is privileged and whether they can make that disclosure. I just wondered if there was any further explanation that officials could give as to why that was put in place. That’s my question in relation to clause 11.

Now, in clause 12, there is an additional extension of the period of time—in fact, a doubling of the reporting entity’s period of time—that they have from 10 days to 20 days. Again, it’s a doubling of the time. It’s a longer period of time. I imagine there’s a public interest in having these things reported as soon as practicable, and I don’t know if there was a particular instance that led to wanting to make this period of time longer, but I will be interested to know the rationale for that.

Essentially, those are my questions. Why is the law firm specifically carved out? Why the extension? The other question’s more minor—whether there is any information the Minister has?

Thank you, Madam Chair. In relation to the questions for clauses 10, 10A, 11, and 12 in Part 2 on the anti-money laundering: the amendments have been made because the current provisions are unclear as to what needs to be gathered. As a result, the enhanced customer due diligence is being undertaken everywhere. This is the issue that we’ve had with kids no longer being able to open bank accounts because they cannot provide a letter or a bill that has their name on it and, therefore, they don’t meet the criteria.

Clause 10 was about removing unnecessary customer due diligence in areas where there is no risk—for example, kids trying to open a bank account. But I really like what the Governance and Administration Committee did, which is they basically confirmed that we don’t need to have the minor customer due diligence there but rather have enhanced due diligence where it’s need. So the select committee made a change at that stage, and I’ve accepted it. I thought it actually made it quite tight.

In regard to clauses 11 and 12, which is extending the time frames from three to five working days for the law firms for the carve out, also for the extended time frames for the prescribed transaction reports from 10 to 20 days, this is actually to get better, more well-informed reports, instead of having rushed reports. It allows more time so that the agencies can produce something that is more meaningful.

At the moment, it’s being rushed, and it’s not very high quality. If we’re to really go after the criminal assets—or not criminal assets but the criminal intent, I should say—then having really good, prescribed transaction reports and the extended couple of days’ time frame for the law firms means that they can not only do their due diligence but also come up with some really good quality reports.

Thank you, Madam Chair—couple of different points. The first relates to clause 10A, which talks about due diligence according to the level of risk involved. My reading of it—and I’m happy to be educated about the Act itself—is that there is no real expansion of what level or risk is. I know that this is going to be administered by the Department of Internal Affairs, and they can give guidance and so on, but there’s always a danger when it’s just guidance rather than legislative direction.

Obviously, things like where the funds come from, who the customer is—if it’s a kid, it’s less risky, but there’s still some risk there—the length of time that the customer has been a customer, and all kinds of other matters would contribute to the level of risk. I think that when we’re debating this—and this debate is taken as some guidance as to legislative intent—I’d invite the Minister to talk about what kinds of things would be relevant to assessing the level of risk. The danger is always that people who want to make life easier for their client or customer kind of downgrade the level of risk and say, “Well, I’ve known you for a long time, so you selling me gold bullion isn’t risky at all.” So I’d be interested to know that.

The other question is about clause 11, which talks about suspicious activities, and it has a couple of exceptions. It says in section 40(1), in clause 11, “A reporting entity other than a high-value dealer or law firm must, as soon as practicable but no later than 3 working days …”. I’m really interested in high-value dealers, because if you look at the definition of high-value dealers and you see what they deal in, it seems that bullion, fine art, jewels and jewellery, luxury motor vehicles, and luxury boats are the kinds of things, and these are things that are absolutely the stock and trade of money-launderers. The other thing about it, particularly things like jewels and bullion, is that it moves quickly and is largely untraceable. Cars might be one thing—a bit easier to track down—but if you’ve got someone with a million dollars’ worth of gold bullion, it’s actually not that much gold. If you wait a long time to report it, then you’ve got a problem. So I’m interested in why high-value dealers are put alongside law firms, because law firms deal with known parties, with bank accounts, and with electronic money transfers mainly, whereas high-value dealers are dealing with tangible movable goods, which would seem to me to be an entirely different level of risk. So I’d be interested to know why high-value dealers are put alongside lawyers and law firms in that respect.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Unlike the previous Government, this Government actually wants our agencies, especially in the anti - money-laundering area, to be able to take a risk-based approach on activities. They haven’t been able to do that, and this is the importance of having a single supervisor that will give guidance to how businesses will operate. We don’t need to put everything into legislation. What we actually need to do is allow businesses to get on with doing business and to do it as unhindered as possible. So the risk-based approach means that those agencies will take all things into account. At the end of the day, they are the ones that are going to have to report suspicious activity reports, prescribed transaction reports, and they will understand what it is that they have to do with guidance from the Department of Internal Affairs. And I will note that guidance has been minimal if at all from the three supervisors over the last 12 years. So moving to the single supervisor to provide guidance is freeing up businesses to be able to get on and do business.

In regard to the other businesses that are beside law firms, I think the member might have actually answered his own question about why we have got these high-value businesses alongside the law firms. It’s because they are dealing with high-value commodities, those that are transacted, as the member himself pointed out, in useful money laundering. This is why they have been brought in. I commend the member for answering his own question.

Members, we come now to Part 3. Part 3 is the debate on clauses 13 to 15, “Amendments to Armed Forces Discipline Act 1971”. The question is that Part 3 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We’re moving on from money laundering to the armed forces, and a relatively old—well, I wouldn’t say old; I wouldn’t want to offend anyone who was born in 1971, but a statute which has been on the books since 1971, which is a reasonable period of time.

I looked at this part, and I was interested in clause 14, which is the operative part of this Part 3. I did look it up to see what the deletion was. The deletion is limiting the Armed Forces Discipline Committee, which is a committee I actually hadn’t heard of before.

I was unsure as to why that was the case, and I’d be interested if the Minister had any insight into: is the Armed Forces Discipline Committee working as it should be? Is there a reason that this section requires, as a minor and consequential change, to be deleted? Obviously, it’s been in place for a significant amount of time.

The second quick question I had in Part 3 was in relation to clause 15, and I did look at this as well: when you look at this particular section, section 117ZA(2)(b), it actually doesn’t really make sense to have “wider” instead of “under”. I wanted to ask the Minister: was this change made in the 2009 changes to the primary legislation, which I understand—I could be wrong—was when section 117ZA was put in place, and is that, in fact, so minor and inconsequential that it was in fact a typographical error? So that’s my question to the Minister on Part 3.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Clause 14 is really just fixing a historical oversight, and it’s removing any inference that the power identified in section 87A(2) rests with the Armed Forces Discipline Committee. In other words, the committee does not have such a power. It’s fixing that. I think that actually might have come about because this bill was first introduced under Labour, and I think it was one of the things that Labour had picked out, so I’m carrying it on because it was picked up. The changing of the word “wider” to “under” is just fixing a grammatical error.

Members, we come now to Part 4. This is the debate on clauses 16 to 18, “Amendments to Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Act 2021”. The question is that Part 4 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have two quick connected questions for the Associate Minister of Justice, just noting that the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Act 2021 doesn’t actually have a definition as far as I can see in the primary legislation for historical information. Can I just check with the Minister to what extent is any information considered historical? The reason I ask that is under clause 17 in Part 3, a person does not need to confirm their identity to request access to historical information, but if that historical information is still referring to another person who is alive, I wanted to check how that’s going to work. Does that mean that anyone can actually then request that kind of information? That’s all.

I hope this answers the member’s question. Please let me know if it doesn’t sufficiently, and I’ll get further advice from officials.

My understanding is that us inserting “for non-historic information” after “in respect of a request” is to clarify the policy intent. It’s only to obtain evidence of identity when accessing non-historical and historic register images.

Oh, OK.

Yes. You can’t sort of put a time frame on what is historic; it’s the capturing of the information that’s there.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks for the Minister’s comments. I just acknowledge that, yes, my understanding is a lot of this work was done under a previous Government and has come through, and I appreciate that it won’t be the Minister herself who’s been drafting this, but I appreciate her being able to access the advice through officials and just to clarify some of those instances. But, yeah, I do appreciate that this is a piece of work that has gone on through at least two different Governments now and that it’s a regular way of updating the law. I appreciate the purpose of that, and please don’t think these are directed at her as an individual—but I very much appreciate her candid responses to our questions.

In Part 4, I just had a couple of questions. When I looked at this section, I think it may have related to some of the comments the Minister made earlier in relation to getting rid of barriers in place for people who are wanting to access information—and so this may be another area that she may have been thinking of, as well. This particular section, when I looked at clause 17(1), “Section 88 amended (Person must confirm identity to access information under this subpart)”, the part that was being deleted—and that’s always of interest, of course, because usually with the minor and consequential amendments the reason that you would delete something is that either it’s no longer relevant or it’s duplicated, or something like that. But when I did look into this, this particular section, I think, refers to a lot of the historical information that is actually held online that people may be able to access, and so I just kind of wondered why that would be a deletion entirely—but hopefully the Minister can elucidate on that. I understand that that intention was easier access to information, so hopefully that’s consistent with that goal, even though it is deleting that.

Then the second question I had on this part is really in clause 18. This is replacing a particular clause, and it’s really saying that the identity may be confirmed “(if required)”, in brackets. There’s slightly unusual drafting there, and I just wondered why the advice was that this be put in the bill, because, as I understand it, the intention was to require fewer checks in relation to identification to allow that information to go ahead. I appreciate it’s a tiny part of a much bigger bill, but if the Minister did have any information that she could share with the committee around how those jigsaw pieces work to achieve that aim, I’d be grateful.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I think this answer might also help with the Green member’s earlier question as well. The drafting of sections 88 and 91 of the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Act 2021 has introduced an unintentional shift in policy where evidence of identity requirements are being applied to all records, regardless of their historical or non-historical classification. The amendment clarifies the original policy intent and makes it clear that an evidence of identity check should only be required when accessing non-historical records and historical register images available online.

For the next clause, clause 18, it’s the same reasoning, which is that the drafting of those sections 88 and 91 in the 2021 Act has introduced an unintentional shift in policy direction.

Members, we come now to Part 5. Part 5 is the debate on clauses 19 to 21, “Amendments to Building Act 2004”. The question is that Part 5 stand part.

Just a brief question on this part, because it is a relatively short part. It appears that waivers and modifications under section 67 of the Building Act relate to the building code, and then 67A, I think, relates to swimming pools, in that there’s a separate regime—I think under a separate Act, actually—for swimming pools, and that’s reflected also in the section 177 amendment in the Statutes Amendment Bill.

I’m curious as to why the words “the building code” are removed, because I’m assuming that section 67 waivers or modifications or the applications for determinations are still under the building code and seems to be a kind of retrograde step to no longer refer to waiver and modifications and determinations under the building code, because it simply lacks clarity. Even if section 67A is about swimming pools, section 67 is still absolutely about the building code. So I’m just wondering why there’s the removal of the words “building code” in those clauses.

Thank you, Madam Chair. For both clauses 20 and 21, I’m advised that these are consequential amendments that should have been made in 2017, but they were missed.

Members, we come now to Part 6. Part 6 is the debate on clauses 22 and 23, “Amendment to Burial and Cremation Act 1964”. The question is that Part 6 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, we’re dealing with all of the quite interesting Acts in this bill, and this one is from 1964. When I—

Great year—great year.

“A great year.”, Grant McCallum says. Obviously, this Act has been in place for quite a period of time.

Now, this was actually quite interesting, when I looked into this particular clause. It appears to me that in clause 23—which is the only operable part, really, in Part 6—that, essentially, what this is doing is making sure that a certificate on the cause of death can’t be entered if there is a suspicious reason for that particular death. That seems to me like it’s quite a serious matter, and I just wondered maybe—obviously, it’s such a small part of the Act, and I have gone back to the Burial and Cremation Act 1964 to kind of make sense of this provision. But the question I had, really, is that this appears to be a bit of an operable change in terms of making sure that a really important thing—a certificate as to the cause of death—is not given in inappropriate circumstances, and considering that this has been in place since 1964, what has arisen for this change?

I did look at whether there had been some further amendments to the 1964 primary Act, and I think that there was a 2018 change to a change that was brought in in the 2016 Parliament. But I suppose that the question I have—and I’m slightly hesitant to ask the Minister for fear of her response. But does that mean that from 2018, we’ve had a bit of a hole in the law in terms of the nature of how—these are very serious matters, and very important matters for families, of course—certificates as to the cause of death were or could have been issued in inappropriate circumstances?

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s not the 2018 amendment. It was the Coroners Amendment Act 2016. That one actually repealed section 13(1)(b) of the Coroners Act 2006. This is a consequential amendment, because that subsection was actually replaced with section 14(2)(f), but the reference was not updated at the time.

Members, we’ll come now to Part 7. This is the debate on clauses 24 to 35, “Amendments to Conservation Act 1987”. The question is that Part 7 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m sure my friend Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan will have something further to say. I’m just curious for a clarification here as to the need for this amendment, because it appears to me, if I’ve got it right, this creates an infringement offence called “Taking indigenous freshwater fish without authority”.

I think that the short name for indigenous freshwater fish is whitebait. At least, that’s the general view. Although there are, of course, other freshwater fish, the most fished freshwater fish is whitebait. I haven’t managed to trawl through the statute book, but it was always my understanding that it was already an offence to whitebait out of season.

Having had a chance to have a quick look at some of the other sections—26ZHB, “or an authorisation”, and so on—I understand that they’re essentially saying that where the season is open, you can go and get your whitebait providing that it’s, essentially, for personal use or even for sale, but within set rules: location, timing, and so on. Now, am I to understand that whitebaiting out of season to date has, in fact, not been an offence and this is the first time that we need this because there’s a gap? Or have I got that wrong? If I have got that wrong and it is already an offence to take indigenous freshwater fish without an authority, why do we now need this? That’s the question there: just, essentially, what’s the gap that we’re filling? Was there a gap? If there was, that’s surprising. If there isn’t, why do we need this section?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m a little, I guess, surprised by the member’s question, especially around the indigenous freshwater fish, because in 2019 the then Labour Government put through the Conservation (Indigenous Freshwater Fish) Amendment Act 2019. This amendment here in clause 34 relating to Part 6A of the principal Act is addressing the gap in the infringement regime that should have been amended by the amendment Act. The previous amendment omitted to amend Part 6A of the principal Act, which is dealing with the infringements. There is now a gap in the infringement regime as a result. So the penalty is actually consistent with other lesser offences under the principal Act.

Just while I’m on my feet, Madam Chair, I think I might just speak to clause 35 amending section 59 as well, because I expect a question on that. The amendment that we’re making there is to seek to align the Conservation Act with the Fisheries Act and remove any potential legal uncertainty that may be there. So the proposal that we have for that section is also just clarifying the status quo.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Minister, for the clarification. Just an initial comment for the member who said that 1964 was a very good year, I would have assumed that for that member, 1974 would have been a much more appropriate year—i.e., because you look so young, just in case that was lost.

Now, just to the Associate Minister of Justice, in terms of clause 34, to clarify, the Minister’s saying that the “person must not take indigenous freshwater fish” is already in existence, but the infringement aspect wasn’t there, so hence this particular clause is adding 51CA(1) to add the infringement part of something that is already not allowed under section 26ZHB. That’s my first question.

My second question is just on clause 35, amending section 59. I really appreciate the Minister’s clarification, but I want to check in the current legislation, because this part in the principal Act refers to fisheries officers and honorary fishery officers. By deleting “to exercise powers in relation to freshwater fisheries”, is it because the current legislation actually has now inadvertently limited fishery officers and honorary fishery officers to freshwater fisheries only, but then by removing it, fishery officers and honorary fishery officers—because I know that they often also patrol harbours and coasts, etc.—they’ll actually now be able to exercise the power in saltwater environments. Is that why that bit was removed?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just answering the last part of your question, Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan, the description of fisheries officers’ powers aligns with the Fisheries Act 1996. So we’re looking for consistency there.

And, yes, the offence for clause 35, creating an infringement offence, is to match the existing offences currently in section 26ZHB of the Conservation Act.

Thank you, Madam Chair. These changes to the Conservation Act 1987 are probably some of the more substantive changes in this bill, so I think that’s probably the reason that there are a few more questions on these changes. I thank the Minister for her earlier answers, too, because there were a few questions that I had that she’s now addressed in relation to this. Of course, the next part is also focused on Conservation Act changes as well.

The question that I really had is: the Minister said that these changes, especially in relation to offences, were to be put in because there was a gap in the piece of legislation that had previously been passed by an earlier Parliament—and I accept that. I just wanted to check whether—because another thing that I thought was that, obviously, in the last Parliament, the Resource Management Act was repealed, and there were a number of consequential changes to lots of different pieces of legislation as a result of that repeal, and, of course, there’s a number of references to the Resource Management Act in a number of additional statutes, not just the primary piece of legislation. I wanted to ask, was the reason for some of these amendments needing to be put back in place partly as a result of that subsequent repeal, and then the fact that the Resource Management Act is now—until it is again repealed, which we understand it may be by this Government—the primary piece of legislation? That’s specifically in relation to clause 33.

The other question I had is just in relation to these fines, and can I just check with the Minister that these fines that have been imposed—because these are quite significant fines in this Act. It’s essentially making someone liable, if they’re convicted in respect of offences under this Conservation Act, for a term of imprisonment “not exceeding 2 years and a fine not exceeding $100,000”, and also to a further $10,000 fine. I just wanted to clarify: is that new, is that a rewording, or is that filling the gap and making this particular offence that is under the Conservation Act consistent with existing law? I’ll refer to my colleague Dr Duncan Webb, who I would say is more experienced in criminal law, but this does appear to be an unusual provision to have within a statutes amendment bill and also in the Conservation Act. I’m sure that there’s a very, very logical reason for that, but I just thought, because it is a substantive restriction on liberty, that we should probably make sure that we have that exactly well clarified in this type of bill.

Another question I had was in relation to clause 32 and whether these responsibilities that are put in place in relation to the Fish and Game Council—in relation to their focus on sustainability and the impacts of fishing—are not new provisions thought up under this Act but are somehow adding consistency or restating the policy reasons that are already in place within this new section, section 7, which comes after section 17M(6). I’m just wondering if the Minister did have some more advice and if she might be able to just assure the House, really, in relation to these provisions.

Thank you, Madam Chair. My understanding is that clauses 25 to 32, which were in the draft, have been removed. It could be that I’m looking at something different but maybe the member could just clarify a little bit.

In relation to the other questions that the member asked, she made a comment about these being potentially substantial changes. They’re not. We’re basically clarifying the status quo, and with regard to the infringement offence, the offence already exists. We are simply creating an infringement offence, and I think an infringement offence is much better for a person to be able pay—an infringement or a fine—than having to go to the District Court. So that’s why there are changes there.

Members, we come now to Part 8. Part 8 is the debate on clauses 36 and 37, “Amendment to Conservation Amendment Act 1996”. The question is that Part 8 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a very short question for the Minister on this part. My understanding of Part 8 is that the replacement sections we’re looking at in clause 37 are already in existence in the current legislation and this part is just a tweaking of the numbering. But based on what was in the introduction section, what did pique my interest is that this section has not gone live because it requires an Order in Council, but everything else in this Act has gone live almost 30 years ago in 1996. I was just curious, with this update, is there an intention by the Minister or by the Government to potentially put through an Order in Council to make it happen?

Thank you, Madam Chair. My job, or my role, in this is not about the implementation of things but rather fixing an error where we’ve got two parts that are numbered the same.

It’s good to see officials here who are able to help the Minister out if she doesn’t have the details at her fingertips, and I can perfectly understand why that’s the case here. The question as to why we’re amending an amendment Act is actually really relevant. The other thing is this: it strikes me that the substance of these sections are exactly the same; no person should act as a sports fishing guide; a person must not act as a sports fishing guide unless they hold a current sports fishing guide licence; unless he or she holds a current sports fishing guide licence.

I’m perplexed as to why we are—because all this is doing is updating wording, which is actually a revision task rather than a statute amendment task. We’re doing a really odd thing, which is amending an amendment Act. One question: why couldn’t we just use a revision Act if we just want to modernise language. But the other one is: why aren’t we just amending the Conservation Act? If we wanted to make it an offence to not have a sports fishing guide licence or to use a gaff on freshwater fish, all of which is fine by me, then why aren’t we just amending the Conservation Act itself? I see you’ve got some advice here, so it would be useful to know that.

These are minor, technical, and non-controversial amendments. We’re not going into amend whole entire sections. The whole point of trying to get cross-party support on these statute amendment bills is because of the minor technical and non-controversial nature of them. We are renumbering clauses.

Members, we come now to Part 9. This is the debate on clauses 38 to 41, “Amendments to Coroners Act 2006”. The question is that Part 9 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the Minister. I’ve been listening intently, understanding the exercise of this legislation, particularly as the Minister has already answered in terms of Part 6.

In terms of Part 9, I’m interested in clause 39, “Section 14 amended (Deaths that must be reported under section 13(2))”. What is helpful is that in that section—in the principal Act—it lists all the different reasons, and right at the end it describes and categorises different illnesses and why they must be reported, and I’m just curious, Minister, as to what advice you received from—

Can I just clarify please, member, which particular section you’re referring to?

Section 14—it’s clause 39, “Section 14 amended”.

Kia ora.

What I’m interested in is that it lists deaths that must be reported. In terms of the list, I’m curious and what I want to understand—and the Minister’s explained a number of times that they’re minor technical amendments and they’re non-controversial, and there is cross-party support—is what was the advice to the Minister in terms of the amendment. Secondly, in terms of unnatural deaths, what I just read was that sometimes when medical staff have to give a clear reason as to the illness that leads to the death, they have to make a call in terms of describing how that person passed away. I just want to understand very quickly what advice has been given to the Minister in terms of that.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This amendment that we’re making here is just correcting a missed consequential amendment. My understanding is that Labour put through a piece of legislation in 2018—I might be wrong there, but it’s effectively the definition of a doctor’s certificate in the Burial and Cremation Act 1964 was repealed by the Burial and Cremation Amendment Act 2016 and replaced with a new definition of “certificate of cause of death” in 2018. All we’re doing here is aligning the wording so that it matches and is consistent.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just another short question for the Minister. For clause 41 amending section 132: this particular section 132(2)(a) I think currently—please correct me if I’m wrong—the reading is that it is an exclusive list and there are six items on that list. I want to check with the Minister on whether that should be more of an inclusive list, i.e., by framing it as “which may include the following items that will allow the chief coroner or associate coroner to have more flexibility.” Or does the Minister think that those particularly named six items—subparagraphs (i) to (vi), including the two that have just been added here—are actually sufficient and those are the limitations that we want in terms of practice notes?

I call the Minister, the Hon Dr—the Hon Nicole McKee. I’ve promoted you!

Thank you, Madam Chair. For the member Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s question around a more inclusive list, if we were to delve into that, we would move out of the minor, non-technical area there. Especially with the Coroners Act, it becomes quite subjective with two different people, so we’re not looking at that. We’re just making these minor amendments.

Within that amendment to section 132(2) in clause 41, the first amendment is clarifying that the Chief Coroner may issue practice notes to improve the consistency of decision making and conduct. Currently unclear in the current legislation is whether it is sufficient to enable the Chief Coroner to issue such practice notes.

We’re basically making it really clear that the Chief Coroner can help by issuing these practice notes, but in regard to those six items on the list that you’re talking about, that becomes more than minor, and hence we’re not even delving into that here.

Just a really quick question that follows on from my colleague Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s question. So in clause 41(2) it actually repeals section 132(2)(b)(v). When I looked up section 132(2)(b)(v), it says that when a coroner issues practice notes, they may have regard to determining whether a person is appropriately regarded as an expert in a particular area. I just wondered if that is a direct repeal. Maybe it is a consequential and minor amendment, but it wouldn’t be unless that came up somewhere else earlier in the legislation or whether it’s duplicated somewhere. So I just wondered really whether this is a repeal because that’s no longer necessary or if, in fact, for some reason it’s drafted so it is included earlier in the legislation and so that is why it’s being repealed. So the question is why is that particular section being repealed?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m advised that the changes we’re making, we’re making to clarify the law. We’re already having practice notes delivered by the coroners, so it’s already happening in practice, but it isn’t clear as it should be in legislation. The second amendment that is being made in clause 41—amending section 132, which authorises the issue of practice notes relating to expert evidence—to section 132(2)(a) is to correct a drafting error.

Members, we come now to Part 10. Part 10 is the debate on clauses 42 to 44, “Amendments to Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003”. The question is that Part 10 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act is an Act that’s dear to my heart, and, certainly, if Andrew Bayly was here, he would know what I’m talking about. Don’t worry, David Seymour, you can still get your lattes. Obviously, clause 43 deals with new section 9CA, which is about the inquiries, and the inquiries are affordability inquiries. The rule is that records about affordability inquiries have to be kept, and, I think, they have to be kept for seven years. That is so that if, down the track, someone defaults and they say, “Oh my goodness, they should never have lent me this money.”, then the bank can produce the analysis that they did and say, “Here you go. You can see that we went through and checked out whether it was affordable or not.” Then, it says here, that “To avoid doubt, the lender is not required to keep records about inquiries when an application is declined or withdrawn.” Obviously, if you go to a bank and you get halfway through the application process and it’s pretty clear that they’re going to turn you down or you get finance elsewhere and you say, “It’s all right. I don’t want to be your customer.”, then you can see why this would apply.

I guess, my question is: would this also apply where there’s an existing customer and the inquiries are about, for example, a variation of an existing mortgage? When people are a bit hard up, for example, they often go and ask, “Can I have a little bit more money to tide me over? I’ve just been made redundant. Can I draw another $10,000 down to get me through while I find a new job?”, or, “Can I please reduce my payments, extend my term, or go interest only?” and so on. Those variations also have affordability testing around them as well. Given that they are a customer and it’s about affordability and whether or not the bank should extend them either additional money or some variation to their credit contract terms, if the application is declined—“No, we’re not going to let you go interest only, even though you’ve just lost your job”—it would strike me that there’s a good argument that those affordability testing information and records should be kept. Whereas, if it’s a person who’s not a customer and never becomes a customer, it’s quite a different situation. Just to avoid doubt, can you confirm that this relates only to loan applications and not variation applications for existing customers?

Thank you, Madam Chair. This change that we’re making is—the reason why we’re doing it is because the current wording is inaccurate and it’s inconsistent with the requirements of section 9CA(2) of the principal Act. So we are merely giving a clarification of the status quo and there is no policy change here.

Thank you, Madam Chair. A quick question to the Associate Minister of Justice on clause 43, the new section 9CA(10). I understand that the lender’s not required to keep records about inquiries when an application is withdrawn, but for an application to be declined, surely the lender would want a record of that in case that person applies again or makes another inquiry, because then they can go “Oh, this person has been declined multiple times.” So I just want to check in terms of the rationale of including “declined” as a part of that.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The reality is that we don’t keep a lot of papers—or we’ve been required to keep a whole lot of papers—for people who have been declined. Once they’re declined, they don’t need to enter into that system, so there’s no need to keep the paperwork.

Thank you. Just moving on to another section, which is clause 44, amending section 35, which is about disclosure. This is more paperwork, of course. Disclosures are the documents that contain the key terms of the lending arrangement, which is provided to the borrower and the guarantor. In section 35(2), this section that’s being amended, it says, “after ‘specified’, insert ‘the same address for the purpose of subsection (1)(b) or’ ”, and that relates to electronic addresses. It allows financiers to provide a single set of disclosure documents when borrowers or guarantors provide the same address, and when it’s a postal address, you can see that. If you’ve got two borrowers who might be partners, to send one envelope with one name on it and another envelope with another name on it is a bit silly. The section actually talks about “information systems”, and so what they say is that where the person has specified the same information system, you can send them the same electronic set of documents. That’s actually quite problematic, because an information system—parliament.govt.nz all goes into the same information system. Were my colleague Camilla Belich to be my guarantor, and we both—

Ha-ha! Oh, wow.

Ha-ha! Well, I would guarantee you any time—I trust you. The point being, if I was the debtor and she was the guarantor, and we both provided parliament.govt.nz addresses with our first names, that is the same information system, so in fact it should say something quite different. It should say “the same email address connecting to the same information system.” If we both agree that the appropriate email address is “camilaandduncan@xtra.co.nz”—that’s an unlikely address, but there you go—that would be OK because it’s just like our joint letterbox. But an information system is not the same as an email address or a unique email address, and that’s a common error in this kind of email service and email notification framework. There’s a real danger there. The danger, of course, is that I’m a rogue, and all the disclosure documents are sent to me, and I don’t hand them on, and my guarantor never fully understands exactly the extent of their exposure.

My question there is whether, in fact, the same address should not be clarified to be the same email address for the purposes of subsection (1)(b) and so on and so forth. It is actually quite a problem, and what people don’t understand is that there are some ratbags out there who use rules like this to deceive people—often parents and the like, in fact, and spouses—to enter into either joint arrangements or guarantee arrangements in quite dishonest circumstances. Those disclosure rules are really important.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The change in clause 44, section 35(2) is really just clarification to ensure that we have consistency across all legislation.

Members, we come now to Part 11. Part 11 is the debate on clauses 45 and 46, “Amendment to Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Act 1995”. The question is that Part 11 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is a question that relates to this Part 11—and apologies, I’m going to slightly jump the gun and also say the same question applies to Part 12, so if the Minister answers this question, it covers both of these parts for me.

In both this particular legislation and the next one, I can’t find a definition—nor in sort of any legislation—on what “certain persons” is defined as. Just want to check the Minister’s clarification on how to define that?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I will presume that there is such a definition, because in law, we need to look for consistency—so I’m going to suggest that there will be one in there, and it will be one that will be more recent. If you have a look at some of these horrid words that were being used—so we’re always looking for consistency in the statutes amendment bills: how do we fix up these small errors? And so that phrase of wording will have been captured from somewhere, in order to create that consistency.

I call on Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan, just to finish off his questions.

Just one little thing, thank you. I wholeheartedly agree with the Minister, but if the Minister, maybe, or the official through the Minister, wouldn’t mind, just to satisfy my curiosity—which legislation will be able to find the definition in? That’d be fantastic.

That was going to be my question, too. But I did just want to add to the Minister—I think she maybe is turning around to ask her officials, but I did look in the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Act for the definition. I did look in the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act, which I know is the next part. And I did also look in the Crimes Act, and I know the Crimes Act is a very long Act so it may be that I’ve missed it in there, but it would be, I think, very helpful if the Minister could come back with where that definition of “certain persons” is. I just want to add my voice to the Minister’s concern that she raised around these words and isn’t it regretful that this House put those words into legislation. If the officials who are assisting her tonight—I think a good focus of this House would be to make sure that no words like this continue to exist in New Zealand’s legislation because they certainly are very offensive and regretful to be included in our statute book.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is actually quite an important point because the list in Schedule 1 to the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Act is the trigger for when the police can get a DNA swab. It lists the offences which if you commit, you’re obliged to give—and it can be forcibly taken—a bodily sample to go on the DNA register. Everything that’s been said about the outdated titles is true, but if you go to the schedule that’s being amended, it gives you the name of the offence and then the corresponding section in the Crimes Act, and it’s section 138. In fact, the correct section—there is no such crime as “sexual intercourse with certain persons”. It’s just not a crime. So to say, “If you are convicted of the crime of sexual intercourse with certain persons, then you must give a bodily sample,”—there is no such crime. You will not have to give a sample.

Section 138 is in fact the offence of sexual exploitation of persons with a significant impairment, and you can see how that corresponds with the outdated language in the earlier section. It is of a concern to me that, whilst there would be a stretch, it is conceivable that a court could say, well, that old section has been replaced by the new section—the old section 138 has been replaced by the new section 138, and so it actually means sexual exploitation of persons with a significant impairment. But if we have an imaginary offence of sexual intercourse with certain persons, no court, no judge, is going to give an invasion of the person, taking a bodily sample, on the basis of the commission of a crime which simply doesn’t exist.

I would suggest that the Associate Minister of Justice might want to get her officials to actually clarify what they mean by “sexual intercourse with certain persons”, because there’s no such offence and I’m concerned about that.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This amendment is to take out really foul language and replace it—I mean, it’s as simple as that. I’m not going to get into detail about what it actually means, because I think it’s quite disgusting. But I think, also, when the member speaks to whether or not we should just have “impairment”, not everybody who goes through this is impaired, as such. So I suspect that’s why “certain persons” rather than “impairment” has been used. Officials are on notice to have a look at “certain persons”, and if we move on past this section and I get that answer, I will address it when I’ve got that answer.

Members, we come now to Part 12. Part 12 is the debate on clauses 47 and 48, “Amendments to Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act 2004”. The question is that Part 12 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I know that some of the language we’re traversing is similar to Part 11. I just wanted to agree with the Associate Minister of Justice in relation to the modernising of the language in Part 12, as well. What I did want to get—and this is a genuine, good-faith question to the Minister—is whether she, in now using gender-inclusive language in Part 11 and Part 12, thinks there’s a genuine benefit to using gender-inclusive language throughout all legislation. It seems to me like this is a genuinely, really good way of addressing really outdated language, but what I’m aware of, though, is that there is still none the less debate more broadly as to whether using gender-inclusive language in legislation is genuinely beneficial. I think that in this case, in Part 12, it definitely is.

I know that we’ve touched on some of the more kind of graphic terms in Part 11 and Part 12, but I did want to ask more specifically around the benefit and the intent of using gender-inclusive language and the rationale behind that, because I think that’s a genuinely good part of the modernisation of the language. If the Minister wanted to elucidate as to what that means in practice, that would be useful for the committee, and whether she, in her role as Minister, is also intending to explore just any other means to utilise gender-inclusive language for the purpose of legislation to better capture population groups.

Thank you, Madam Chair. In answer to the Green member’s questions, I think where we can use inclusive language as part of modernisation that we most certainly should, and there’s an opportunity here to do that. I’ve also just been given some information about the “certain person”. It’s not defined in legislation; it’s determined by the context of the law in which it’s used. The reference being replaced in Schedule 1 is a phrase summarising what section 138 of the Act is about. The “certain person” refers to the persons described in section 138, which is the impaired person and person with significant impairment. I hope that answers the questions.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the Associate Minister of Justice for that clarification. I’m sure the officials are giving me the advice that they have; I hope that it meets the requirements when it comes to getting bodily samples.

In terms of the amendments to the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act 2004, a strange little thing is thrown up here—in particular, clause 48, the definition of “specified offence”. It replaces the very old frame of “defiling idiot or imbecile woman or girl” with “defiling certain persons”—still using “defiling”, strangely, but anyway. The interesting thing about this is that that phrase and a whole lot of other ones are actually offences under the Crimes Act 1908, right? The purpose of those clauses are that it’s a schedule saying “These things are not clean slated.” Now, the Crimes Act 1908 stopped in 1961 when the new Crimes Act came into force. So the prospect of anyone still alive having committed an offence—how long ago is that?—65 years ago is extremely remote.

The other thing is this: in exactly the same list, it says “the following cannot be clean slated:”—and members of this committee might be interested in this—“including unnatural acts”, and those are the old acts against homosexuality. So we’ve got a very strange situation where we’ve got crimes from pre-1961 which cannot be clean slated, including crimes against homosexual, you know, acts, that can be expunged. So I’m very surprised that when we come to do this Statutes Amendment Bill, we didn’t look at the old offences pre-1961 and say, “Well, let’s put a line through those. They’re essentially spent and offensive.” Rather than doing that, we’ve got a simple modernisation of the wording, but we’ve still got a problem that pre-1961 offences, including offences which are no longer offences and which we have agreed should never have been offences, cannot be clean slated. I find that quite problematic.

I see a member’s bill right there.

Members, we come now to Part 13. Part 13 is the debate on clauses 49 to 57—“Amendments to Crown Entities Act 2004”—and Schedule 1. The question is that Part 13 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I was pleased to see some amendments to the Crown Entities Act 2004 because this falls within the area for which I am spokesperson for our party. Unfortunately, there is not much substantive changes to comment on in here and I think most of the changes speak for themselves.

I just do have a very quick question for the Minister in relation to clause 57, and that is: is there a more effective way of describing, essentially, which schedule we’re referring to? Because if you read through this, and this is kind of more of a drafting question, but I do think because this is minor and consequential amendments, that is worth raising within that context. Throughout Part 13, we talk about existing statutes that we are amending. Then we get to clause 57 and it states that amendments to other legislation are set out in Schedule 1. Now, the first Schedule 1 I looked at was actually in relation to the Archives Act, and of course, that was wrong. It’s the Schedule 1 that is in this Act which sets out a number of additional name changes to public entities. And so I just wonder if there was a clearer way of showing that the Schedule 1 we’re actually referring to is the Schedule 1 of this Act and not any of the forementioned other enactments which we are amending.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll take some advice from officials on that. Clause 57 isn’t within my pack because it wasn’t changed. But if your point that you’ve raised is relevant to any changes, I’ll take advice from them on that.

Members, we come now to Part 14. Part 14 is the debate on clauses 58 to 65, “Amendments to Defence Act 1990” and Schedule 2. The question is that Part 14 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a very quick question on Schedule 2—this is in clause 65. In terms of the definition of regulation 3, I want to check why—and I feel that other members in this Chamber who are wing commanders may be better at answering this question—why the leading aviator classification includes an aviator classification and an air force cadet.

As we did with the earlier clauses that we spoke about, it’s trying to be gender neutral and inclusive as well. It’s bringing this up to date in terms of known use of certain words in modern legislation and in the workforce. It’s modernising for our future and being inclusive while doing it.

Members, we come now to Part 15. Part 15 is the debate on clauses 66 and 67, “Amendments to Electoral Act 1993”. The question is that Part 15 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I find this one a little bit tricky, and I just really want to be sure that we’re not doing something we don’t want to do. The amendment to section 3(1) in clause 67 sets out the definition of “candidate” in the Electoral Act. In general, it makes it that “candidate” includes a constituency candidate and a list candidate, and, if I’ve got this right, what this does is it distinguishes constituency candidates and list candidates for certain purposes set out originally in Part 6AA and Part 6A of the Electoral Act, but it appears now to say that list candidates are not candidates for the purposes of Part 6B, as well. Part 6B is about the provisions relating to loans and the obligation to disclose loans, and section 214BA makes it clear that candidates must keep records of loans.

I’m not entirely clear as to why list candidates, and I presume it’s list-only candidates, because if you’re a—although if you’re a list candidate and a constituency candidate, could you say, “I’m having a loan for my list candidacy but not my constituency candidacy.”? I don’t know. But are we carving out list candidates from all of the regulation around loans, and, if not, what exactly are we doing with this particular section, because if we are carving list candidates out—and I can see that the Minister is getting some advice there—that would be really, really useful to know.

My advice says that it is “Consequential only. No policy change.”, but I’ll give you a bit more, Dr Webb. We’re amending the definition of “candidate” to include a reference to Part 6B. This is a consequential amendment to ensure consistency with the new candidate loan provisions added into Part 6B of the Act by the Electoral Amendment Act 2022. Part 6B was updated previously, and this update amends the definition to reflect those updates. So it is consequential only, and, as my advisers have just told me, there is no policy change.

Members, we come now to Part 16. This is the debate on clauses 68 and 69, “Amendment to Employment Relations Act 2000”. The question is that Part 16 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is another one of my favourite pieces of legislation to look at, so I’m pleased to see it here. I have to say, though, that I’m struggling a wee bit to work out exactly what the change will be in clause 69. That is partly because when I look at the primary legislation which is amending section 233B(6)(g), I look at that section and I try and look for the parts where it says, “replace ‘section 28B of the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992’ with ‘section 191 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015’.”, and it might be the website I’m looking at, but it seems like that change has already been made in the legislation I’m looking at. Maybe I’m totally wrong—probably, that’s the most likely thing—but I was just trying to work out what the change was, and I couldn’t. I don’t know if the Minister could look at that.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We’re replacing the reference to section 28B of the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 because it’s been repealed. It was repealed and replaced with section 191 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015. We’re updating the Act so it doesn’t refer to a repealed piece of legislation and, instead, we’ve put in the new piece of legislation.

Thank you to the Minister for that explanation. It was just that in the version that I looked at, it appeared like the change that’s in this legislation was already made on the New Zealand Legislation website. I know that’s not a perfect website, and I know that if I was a better lawyer or if I was still a lawyer—I actually can’t call myself a lawyer, because I don’t have a practising certificate—I’d go and get the statute book out, and I’m sure that that would be correct. I just wondered, maybe, as we move on from this part, if officials could just check that that’s the case. Obviously, it’s no big deal if it’s already been made and the change is exactly identical, but it’s maybe just something to note.

Thank you to the member for looking at that and for raising it. Officials will have a look at it, but even if there’s a word that’s different in what you’re looking at, we need to make sure that there’s consistency. I back my officials with the information, but what I will say is if there is something different, they will bring it to my attention while we’re in the chair, and I will stand up again—even if we’re past this—to explain further if there’s anything else to add to that.

Members, we come now to Part 17. This is the debate on clauses 70 and 71, “Amendment to Heretaunga Tamatea Claims Settlement Act 2018”. The question is that Part 17 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is a little unusual. I mean, I have been around a couple of years or so now, and using a Statutes Amendment Bill to change a Treaty settlement Act—and it’s not the only one—is a little unusual. It does look like a technical amendment. The key bit seems to be that there’s a marginal strip—it’s unclear how large it is—that ceases to be a marginal strip under Part 4A of the Conservation Act. It’s unclear to me if that is perhaps going to the iwi or not. But, I guess, there’s just a couple of things I’d ask: what does this actually do, other than change the designation of a marginal strip, and is this something that’s come out of, essentially, consultation with the iwi around implementation of their Treaty settlement and just a wrinkle that’s being ironed out and needs legislation? I just think it would be good for the record to kind of put that down, because it’s a little unusual to see, essentially, a change to a settlement, presumably in favour of the iwi, I hope—that’s the kind of assurance I’d like—in a statutes amendment bill.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, the member is quite right that there are two Treaty settlement bills within here that are having amendments. That is, of course, with the approval, in writing, that we have received from iwi who are wanting us to make these changes for them.

In relation to this particular one, the Heretaunga Tamatea Claims Settlement Act 2018, I’ll first start off with “What is a ‘marginal strip’?”, and then explain that to our viewers. A marginal strip is a piece of Crown-owned land generally about 20 metres wide that is reserved along the margins of waterways and are generally retained by the Crown through the Department of Conservation when land is disposed of.

This proposed amendment is to remove the requirement for a marginal strip of a deferred selection property and replace it with a smaller, tailored esplanade reserve vested in Hastings District Council. This is to account for an error when the property was valued and enable a planned housing development to proceed.

Members, we come now to Part 18. Part 18 is the debate on clauses 72 and 73, “Amendment to Housing Act 1955”. The question is that Part 18 stand part.

I will start, and other people may have questions. Thank you, Madam Chair. Can I just check—I agree with the change, that probably, we don’t use pounds anymore, as prescribed under Land Transfer Act 2017. Now, I think, by just checking online, the current registration fee is $243, possibly. But I wondered, in the current legislation, it’s £1, and there’s nothing that suggests that the application of this bill is retrospective. What would that mean for the people who, up until now, have paid the registration fee that is above £1? Can they get a refund?

I thank the member for their question, but, no—there’ll be no retrospectivity throughout this. It’s modernising, right? We’re moving from the pound and modernising. May I just come back to the member about Part 16? The change in clause 69 has already been made as an editorial change by the Parliamentary Counsel Office. That was done to fix up an incorrect reference, and it was made on 18 July of this year, so Part 16 is redundant.

Members, we come now to Part 19. This is the debate on clauses 74 to 76, “Amendments to Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007”. The question is that Part 19 stand part.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair. Looking at the original Act—I’m bringing it up on my laptop—it feels here that we’re adding a few additional criteria in which someone could basically be refused a licence, and that the registrar could be able to consider.

I’m curious as to how she sees particularly clause 75, amending section 17(c)(iv), playing out in relation to being basically related by employment or association to a person who has a conviction “for an offence of a kind” referred to in to in paragraph (a) of section 17 of the principal Act, which basically then paragraph (a) in the original Act is just any conviction, New Zealand or otherwise.

Is the Minister concerned that this particular provision in subparagraph (iv) could be used in a way that could weaponise, for example, quite historical convictions—to give an example, on substance use? So if you have someone who’s related by employment to someone who has had a conviction on substance use, that could prejudice them from being able to become licensed.

If so, what is the policy objective to basically have the registrar be able to consider someone who may have had a conviction for, say, substance use, in relation not just so much to the person trying to get registered, but in relation to someone they may have been related to by nature of employment or association? Because of the way that subparagraph (iv) connects paragraph (a) in section 17 is so broad, I’m just curious as to why it wasn’t limited to quite narrow, specific types of convictions that genuinely, for example, may prejudice someone from being a good immigration adviser.

The member asked me what the objective of the amendment is. Basically, the reason why we’re doing the amendments, both at clause 75 and clause 76, is to clarify the existing requirements that the Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007 require. So it’s updated the legislation to align with what that 2007 Act requires.

As to what they look at, that’s getting into operational matters. That’s not for me to determine whether or not substance abuse could be used or not. But what I will say to the member is we do have the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act, so after seven years there is the ability, depending on where they’re applying and who they’re applying with, to not have to disclose some past offences that they may have.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I was just trying to find the Immigration Act on the little electric machine there but couldn’t see it.

The Immigration Advisers—

The Immigration Advisers Licensing Act. I’m just curious whether this is a new provision, because what it seems to be saying is that in terms of this fitness to practice test—which is common across all professions—who your employer is a relevant question. So if you want to become an employment adviser, you need to get licensed, and in doing that you’ve got to show what your criminal past is or is not and other things as well—whether you cheated at law school, that sort of thing; just the usual.

It’s quite unusual to say it is relevant to whether you are an honest person whether you’ve been unlucky enough to be employed by a dishonest person, because that’s kind of tainting an employee with an employer’s misdeeds. I guess my question is whether—if that’s the existing law, I’m surprised. I didn’t think it was. If it’s an addition, to say: “Whether or not you’re a good person depends in part on whether or not the person you work for is a good person”, that’s a little problematic. If you have misbehaved—your conduct, as an employee of an immigration adviser, is directly relevant. If you’ve been dodgy or dishonest, that’s relevant. But if you’ve just been a good employee and your employer has been engaging in modern slavery and all sorts of other horrendous things, you can’t really visit that on an innocent employee. So I’m interested to know exactly what this is intended to do.

Thank you, Madam Chair. One thing I will note is that this isn’t a new requirement; this is clarification. We’re clarifying the existing requirements that are in the Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007. We are amending it so that there is clarity around what sort of information can be gathered, and the licensing and fitness required for the licensing of an individual. We’re amending section 18, which is clause 76, to clarify that an application for licensing as an adviser must include the applicant’s aliases and foreign names. That’s so that we can make sure that the right people are in the jobs of being advisers and that they are looking to give good advice to those that are wanting to immigrate here. So it’s really just clarifying already existing requirements that come under the 2007 Act.

Thank you. I just have a subsequent question, because it does seem to me like the way that we are replacing section 17(c) with the language, particularly—and I go back to subparagraph (iv). Basically, in paragraph (a), it says that somebody could be refused because they have any conviction, whether in New Zealand or in any other country, for an offence of any kind other than those referred to in section 15 and 16.

Now, in section 15 and 16 of the Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007, the nature of the convictions someone can basically be rejected from becoming an adviser for are in relationship to offences that have to do with the Immigration Act 2009 as well as the Immigration Act 1987 or the Immigration Act 1964. So most of the provisions in sections 15 and 16 have to do with people who have basically made an offence in relationship to immigration Acts, but the way in which this is now written is that it would broaden the scope of the consideration to effectively any conviction.

If you have an employment relationship to someone who has any conviction, then basically now that would be considered by the registrar. So this seems more than just simply aligning things to the Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007, but broadening what the registrar can consider. Can the Minister please confirm that the changes that she is making to section 16 do not broaden the range of convictions that a registrar is able to consider when it comes to taking matters into account in relationship to someone’s fitness for licensing.

If this is effectively broadening the range of convictions that the registrar can consider, I’m concerned, then, that more analysis could have and should have been done, so that clarity would be useful, to just ascertain as to whether now we’re just taking basically any conviction from someone who the person is related to by nature of employment or association.

Thank you, Madam Chair. To the member from the Green Party, this is the Statutes Amendment Bill that’s making minor technical and non-controversial changes. When you start to look into areas like section 16—which we have not delved into; we’ve delved into 17 and 18—I believe that that would have been no longer small or minor, and therefore that was not considered as part of the Statutes Amendment Bill.

When looking at and addressing the members’ concerns around past history and convictions within an Act, I’m sure that the member would agree with, when it comes to immigration advisers, making sure that we have the right people that are there, not ones that want to exploit migrant workers. I’m sure the Green Party would not like to have people who do that sort of thing with them. So making sure that we have the right people in the job means being able to have a look at their past convictions, means being able to have a look to ensure that they are, in fact, the right person for the job. So what I can confirm to the member is we’re not changing anything here. We’re clarifying the process to strengthen it and tidy it up.

Members, we come now to Part 20, the debate on clauses 77 to 83, “Amendments to Incorporated Societies Act 2022”. The question is that Part 20 stand part.

Thank you, Mr Chair. This is a very interesting change that has been made to the Incorporated Societies Act. When I was looking at this change to try and assess what was happening and if I did have any questions for the Minister, I was struck by the fact that we are adding in provincial ordinances to the Incorporated Societies Act. And I have to say, I was not aware of exactly what the definition of a provincial ordinance was. I’m not sure if that shows my naivety or my age, but I looked up the definition in the Incorporated Societies Act—couldn’t find it. But I was not dissuaded. So I googled “provincial ordinance”, and I discovered that perhaps the oldest piece of legislation that we have discussed in this statutes amendment debate tonight is the Provincial Ordinances Act 1892 which outlines the provincial ordinances that are still in force.

I’m assuming this is correct, but it appears from what I’m reading that there are a number that are still in place, and, in fact, any relevant ones will be included now in 2025 in the Incorporated Societies Act. And just for your interest, some of the ones that appear still to be in force are the Auckland Building Act 1858, the Auckland Loan Act 1863, the Gas Company Lease Act 1863. Most of them do seem to be—well, there seem to be actually quite a number of them.

The question I really have is: am I correct? Are these provincial ordinances that were passed under this very, very old piece of legislation—in fact, this Act was passed by the General Assembly of the New Zealand Parliament, which is obviously not what we call ourselves these days. So am I correct in the fact that there are provincial ordinances made under that very old statute still in place that we’re in fact upholding and including now in the incorporated societies legislation?

Thank you, Mr Chair. Yes, so this amendment is clarifying that a body corporate or other association formed or incorporated under a provincial ordinance specified in regulations made under that principal Act can be re-registered under the principal Act as an incorporated society. Who knew!

Members, we come to Part 21. This is the debate on clauses 84 to 85, “Amendment to Inquiries Act 2013”. The question is that Part 21 stand part.

Thank you, Mr Chair. In terms of these statutes amendment bills being simply clarification, it’s pretty well entrenched. It’s just been a few occasions where I think it’s at least arguable that they’ve gone a bit beyond that—and, you know, the immigration one we’ve talked about before kind of expanded rather than clarified.

This is another one where the Public Records Act—sorry, the Inquiries Act; this is the interface of the Inquiries Act with the Public Records Act. The original phrasing in section 33(4) of the Inquiries Act simply says that “for the purposes of Part 3

This is quite important, because previously if an inquiry said “Operation Burnham: this is top secret or this is confidential—this is secret information”, the Chief Archivist could generally make a judgment about that, and doesn’t actually have to keep stuff which is classified—classified forever. He or she could say, “Well, in my view, 10 years has passed and there’s a high public interest in this coming out, so I’m going to release it, or I’m going to release it in part”—or whatever. But all of a sudden, in new subsection (4A), it says that “must act consistently with the order” means that “if the order forbids publication of any thing described in [the sections]…to that thing as restricted access records as defined in [the section]”, then they’ve got to do that.

I’m concerned that this is actually making things more secret, in overriding what historically has been a wide discretion of the Chief Archivist to make a call on when things should be declassified. We can see from things like Operation Burnham that sometimes there’s a significant public interest in that declassification—because I think we sometimes miss how important our archivist is in both not just keeping and caring for our public records but also in making sure that they are made public when it’s appropriate to do so.

So because the section says, you know, “replace subsection (4)”, but then it introduces an entire new subsection (4A), which doesn’t just explain what “act consistently with the order” means, which is the new concept, because we’ve moved from section 33, “take into account any order” to “act consistently with the order”, and that’s a significantly different thing. I’d be interested in the Minister’s comments on that.

Thank you, Mr Chair. This amendment is to more clearly enable the relevant department to review or change the public access settings to historical inquiry records. That is the objective of this change. It’s not creating anything new—it’s just clarifying what is already the status quo. I note that the member thought that there could be files hidden. One would actually be a bit more optimistic than that and think that there would be files opened.

Members, we come now to Part 22, the debate on clauses 86 to 88, “Amendments to Juries Act 1981”. The question is that Part 22 stand part.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Just quick questions for the Minister on this—I understand this is just purely deleting a few sections. I couldn’t see why those particular sections—I did look at section 14C(1)(d) and 14C(1)(c), and they did appear to still be in the primary piece of legislation. I could be wrong about that. I’m interested to know what the Minister’s answer to that is.

Unfortunately, there’s not really anything more to say about this apart from that it’s a particularly interesting section that it’s amending, section 12A. This is the section that allows you to be given leave to not attend jury service, and, interestingly, the provision that allows you to avoid jury service if you are dead. I did not realise that it was required for that to be put down specifically in legislation, but, there you go—if you do check out section 12A(1)(e)—

It would be a hung jury!

That’s right. Yes, that’s potentially something you could say about that. Anyway, to the Minister: what was the reason for removing those sections?

The amendments to section 12A and 13 are to correct a drafting error. A replacement summons is issued under section 13, not under section 14C(1)(c) or (d) as currently indicated in the Act.

Members, we come to Part 23, the debate on clauses 89 to 98, “Amendments to Land Transfer Act 2017”. The question is that Part 23 stand part.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Here we go again with public notices, section 220, inserted by clause 93. What it does is, essentially, provide that we’re—because land transfer information can be a lot of data. For example, a subdivision plan, if you’re subdividing a large area, not only is it just a lot of diagrams and words, but the document itself is data heavy. It’s usually done on some computer design system. So what this does is enable the provision of the data on an internet site. The problem is it doesn’t explicitly require the publication of the exact internet address where the information can be found.

I would suggest that, really, rather than simply saying it’s available on an internet site or our internet site—so you could have a surveying company saying, “Full details available on our internet site.”, but that doesn’t actually take you much further, you then have to go and navigate your way to it. What you really need is the actual internet address: “The full details can be found at www.”, etc., etc., etc. At the moment, it doesn’t actually give notice; it just says it can be made available. But this is about notice, and notice should be given of the internet site on which it is available—it’s essentially a guide or a navigation tool. If we don’t have that, you can simply have a note: “Full information available on an internet site.”, and that is going to be exactly what isn’t needed. Again, this gets around the problem of having these long public notices in newspapers about marginal strips and the like, that we’ve just been talking about.

It really is important in these situations to not just say it’s available somewhere but to say exactly where it is required. If the Associate Minister of Justice is going to say, “Well, obviously, you have to provide not just notice that it’s available; it’s made available on an internet site.”—but exactly where that information is. Amended section 220(2)(b)(ii) does say, “give sufficient detail to enable the person to understand what sort of further information is available on that site.” So it probably should just have a subparagraph (iii) underneath it saying, “provide the internet address of the web page where that further information is available.”

Thank you, Mr Chair. To the member the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, clause 93, amending section 220, is inserting a new subsection to allow for some information on the matter to be published on the Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) website instead of all information. So it’s basically allowing LINZ to pull out what is the relevant information, because sometimes the information that they do have is so fulsome that in putting it on the site, you end up losing the relevant information. So it’s basically saying that they can put in that relevant information that is needed—this is a technical amendment—provided that the public notice can clearly identify where to locate the additional information on the website itself. So, basically, they can come up with a part of—this is the crux of whatever information they want to share, and to get the fuller information, it’ll be “Click this link here.”

Thank you, Mr Chair. I have a question for the Minister regarding clause 90, which is inserting “registered owner”. Now, my understanding of this is that this clause pertains to the Crown not being liable for compensation should there be loss or damage resulting from a breach of trust by the claimant. I understand that the registered owner part was dropped off between the 1952 drafting and the 2017 drafting, and now it’s just kind of being added back in. Can I check: what happens then if people try to make a claim for compensation to the Crown between 2017 and now? Would that mean that their claim for compensation by the Crown, by registered owners, then would stand, because it’s technically not in the legislation?

This amendment, at clause 90, amending section 61(1)(a), is a minor clarification where losses arising from a breach of trust by a registered owner are not covered by the Land Transfer Act 2017 compensation regime. That’s consistent with the position under the 1952 Act and the model Act drafted by the Law Commission. Because of this omission, the extent of the Crown’s liability in these circumstances could be misinterpreted if this is not made explicit.

Sorry, just one quick follow-up. That would mean that it got picked up, but there hasn’t been an instance at this stage? By clarifying this particular bill, it will hopefully clarify all of that?

Yes. It was inadvertently admitted, so we’re just putting it in there for that clarity.

Members, we come now to Part 24. This is the debate on clauses 99 and 100, “Amendment to Local Government Act 2002”. The question is that Part 24 stand part.

Thank you, Mr Chair. So I’ve looked at this particular change. It does relate, I believe, to the next part, which, obviously, technically we’re not allowed to discuss, but the Minister may like to make a comment about this particular change. So, essentially, as far as I can see, this is in relation to the audited accounts of a local body authority. This particular new section 29A, inserted by clause 100, means that the amount of rates written off needs to be included in the annual report, which details the financial statement of the local body authority.

That appears to be a new change. However, my suspicion is that it might have been just moved from a different enactment which we discussed in Part 25, so just clarifying that that’s correct. It may avoid the need for some questions in Part 25.

That’s correct. For both this part and Part 25, which is the next one, it’s a transfer of a section from one Act into another Act to group like provisions without changing the effect of the law, and that’s for both Part 24 and Part 25.

Members, we come to Part 25. This is the debate on clause 101 and 102, “Amendment to Local Government (Rating) Act 2002”. The question is that Part 25 stand part.

Members, we come now to Part 26. This is the debate on clauses 103 and 104, “Amendment to Maritime Transport Act 1994”. The question is that Part 26 stand part.

Thanks, Mr Chair. This is about maritime insurance, which is a matter close to my heart. I can see what’s going on here, but it strikes me there’s a bit of a slip, and so I want to draw it to the Minister’s attention. Under section 363, ships have to have certificates of insurance—that’s all good—and the Director of Maritime New Zealand can demand, through their agents, to see those certificates of insurance. All well and good so far. Then, in 2014, there was a new section inserted, which was section 363A, “Certain ships to have bunker oil certificates of insurance”. This is ships which have fuel tanks of a certain size—I think that’s the case—1,000 gross tonnage or more, and because that bunk oil is actually an environmental hazard, they need to be properly insured.

Then section 364 was about regulated offshore installations that had to have certificates of insurance. I think they were like oil wells. Now, this provision that we’ve got in front of us—wherever it is—deletes section 364. It says, in respect here—I’m just trying to find it. [Camilla Belich hands a copy of the bill to the Hon Dr Duncan Webb] Here it is, thanks. Sorry. It says, “delete ‘or section 364’ ”, which is the right thing to do. But the problem is this: that was done in 2013, and, in fact, section 363A was added in 2014, so you’re getting rid of a redundant section, but you’re not enabling the new section, section 363A. No longer does the Chief Executive, or the Director, of Maritime New Zealand have the ability to see certificates of insurance in respect of bunker oil.

It’s actually quite a gap, because that’s as important as certificates of insurance for other vessels as well, and, arguably, more important, because there’s no greater environmental hazard than bunker oil in ships. So I’m wondering whether that’s a bit of a slip. In fact, if you were going to catch all the slips—yes, you get rid of the redundant reference to section 364, but, in fact, you should have included section 363A as a new reference in that clause.

The only slip that I see is where a member with a law degree says that he doesn’t understand why we are removing a section that has already been repealed, because this is a technical amendment that is referring to removing something that’s actually not there. It’s as simple as that.

Members, we come now to Part 27, the debate on clauses 105 to 108: “Amendments to Motor Vehicle Sales Act 2003”. The question is that Part 27 stand part.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I have a starting question on this regarding clause 107, inserting new section 88A. Now, my understanding in terms of the “Continuation of approval of assessors” is it’s to bring the end of term in line with that of adjudicators. But just checking, in terms of the principal Act, the appointment process, as far as I can see, between adjudicators and assessors is a little bit different.

I just want to check with the Minister that if the appointment process is different, what’s the rationale behind lining up the end of term process? For example, as far as I can see, the Minister appoints the assessor, but it’s the Governor-General, on advice from the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Justice, who appoints the adjudicator.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I have not made any amendments to clause 107. Amendments have been made to clauses 106 and 108. Can the member just clarify for me, please?

This is clause 107, inserting new section 88A. I’ll just double check—this is the copy I’ve got from today. Yeah, so clause 107, inserting new section 88A, “Continuation of approval of assessors”.

Thank you. I have it down as clause 106—but we’re there. I’m looking at clause 107, inserting section 88A. What I’ll say is this amendment is to include the standard end of term provisions for assessors. The Tribunals Powers and Procedures Legislation Act 2018 introduced standard end of term provisions for members of tribunals administered by the Ministry of Justice. But the assessor position was actually overlooked. The amendment just corrects that omission. I hope that answers the member’s question.

Members, we come now to Part 28. This is debate on clauses 109 to 118, “Amendments to New Zealand Geographic Board (Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Act 2008.” The question is that Part 28 stand part.

Members, we come now to Part 29. This is the debate on clauses 119 and 120, “Amendment to Ngāti Rangi Claims Settlement Act 2019”. The question is that Part 29 stand part.

I just thought it would be useful—again, because it’s a claims settlement Act—for the Minister to speak briefly to this. It’s the Ngāti Rangi Claims Settlement Act 2019, and I can kind of see—and I did have a look at the Act itself—that as part of the settlement, I think what the original Act said was if a contract is reached or an agreement is reached within four years, then the land is transferred to trustees.

I guess there are two—firstly, it’d be nice to have an assurance that the iwi are all on board with this; I’m sure they are, but it’d be nice to hear it from the Minister. Also, the other question is: has that four years expired already, or are we still within that four-year period and just extending it by another three?

Thank you, Mr Chair. I assure the member that I have been informed that we have received from Ngāti Rangi, in writing, their agreement to make these changes.

The redress provides Ngāti Rangi and the New Zealand Defence Force with a period of four years to enter the binding agreement for the transfer of Defence land at Waiouru for the purposes of commercial housing arrangements. The four years is a statutory deadline, as the legislation provides the necessary provision for the New Zealand Defence Force to be able to transfer the land to Ngāti Rangi if the opportunity comes to fruition. Accordingly, it needs a statutory amendment to change that time frame.

Why were seven years chosen as being appropriate: this is the time frame that the parties asked for both New Zealand Defence Force and Ngāti Rangi. They agreed to the seven-year time frame and they’re both jointly confident that this will be sufficient enough to get the job done.

Members, we come now to Part 30. This is the debate on clauses 121 to 123; amendments to the Oaths and Declarations Act 1957. The question is that Part 30 stand part.

Thank you, Mr Chair. As a member of the Governance and Administration Committee, I have seen much of this, but a question has occurred to me about how we’re going to manage the change. During the pandemic times, it was OK to have the audio, and I think it’s correct to ensure that oaths and affirmations have the audiovisual. But it occurred to me that sometimes submitters to select committees are intending to do the video and we also have the audio as well, but, when the line is bad, they’re not able to actually use both, and they often turn off the video so that we can actually hear them properly. I just wondered, and, presumably there’s no intention to make exceptions, but they would just have to find a better connection somewhere else. I’d like the Minister’s clarification.

I thank the member Celia Wade-Brown for her work on the Governance and Administration Committee. There were some very good changes that were made to the Statutes Amendment Bill with cross-party help and support, so I thank the member for being on that committee. Yes, it’s really critical that we can modernise the way that people are heard, but when it comes to oaths and declarations, if we only have the audio—and this is what the select committee picked up—you may not actually be dealing with the right person. Having the declaration made where you can see the person and hear the person is what this change is all about—enabling that.

When it comes to bad connections, what we’re trying to do within the justice system at the moment is slowly upgrade—well, not slowly; I’m trying to do it quickly—the audiovisual connections within courts, for example. Other Government agencies will be looking to do similar. Just for the oaths and declarations, I think the committee made a very good point of saying, when you’re trying to verify who a person is, you need to be able to see them as well. That’s why it’s important that that change that the select committee made has only been made to the oaths and declarations and not to the overall presentation of, say, evidence that may be required, especially where there is mixed connectivity occurring.

Thank you, Mr Chair. This was, as the Minister has said, one of the substantive changes that was made at select committee, and our thanks go to the Minister for also agreeing with this change. I think that it does make this a wee bit stronger.

When we were originally analysing this particular change, we did have some concerns that it would lead to a situation where there could be more coercion. I was reminded of my early days practising law, when, as the most junior person in the office, I was always set out to do the oaths and declarations, and all of the other evidence and affidavits—and I can see that other lawyers in the House are looking, with knowing eyes, at me. It’s not the “funnest” job in the world, but it is a very important job.

One of the key aspects of it is ensuring that you don’t just go through the motions of an oath or a declaration but that you actually ensure that the person who is taking the oath or declaration understands what they’re doing and is undertaking that oath without coercion and actually has capacity—I don’t want to spend too much time going over this, because I think we’re all in agreement—to make that declaration. There are special roles under the Oaths and Declarations Act, which outlines who can undertake that particular type of work.

Obviously, technology means that things have moved on, but I’m proud that the committee agreed to make this particular change, and that the Minister also agrees, because I do think it upholds the integrity of oaths and declarations. They should never be something that can be done entirely online, and I don’t think this an area where we can think of AI making a substantial contribution. There are some legal tasks, and our society is really built on the ability to verify people’s ability to undertake an oath or declaration.

Although it can sometimes be quite a boring job to take these oaths and declarations, it is really important, and I think this has made it stronger. I wouldn’t like to see this further watered-down, and I think, probably, with the original proposal, it was too much of a substantive change. I don’t think we did get submissions from the New Zealand Law Society on this, but I hope, if they’re watching tonight—undoubtedly they are, as committed legal eagles—that they do agree with how this has been changed.

I don’t really have too many more questions for the Minister, but I just wanted to acknowledge that that change was made. I think this upholds the integrity of the Oaths and Declarations Act—I hope so—and I hope we don’t have to make further changes to it.

I thank the member Camilla Belich for her contribution there, and I totally agree. For the person who takes the oath and declaration, it is important to be able to see the demeanour of a person who takes a declaration, and not just to hear their voice but also to look at whether their eyes are moving sideways. This is why I think it was so important, the change that the select committee made. It actually strengthens that proposal, and, again, I just commend the committee for the work that they did there.

Members, we come now to Part 31, the debate on clauses 124 to 134: “Amendments to Privacy Act 2020”. The question is that Part 31 stand part.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to start by just checking with the Associate Minister of Justice on clause 126, which amends section 27. Essentially, it’s saying that information privacy principals 5 to 12 aren’t applicable to an individual who is holding information for the purpose of that individual’s personal or domestic affairs. Recognising that for those particular principles, a lot of the time it does refer to when an agency holds personal information, but from a different perspective, how would that work when that person is holding personal information for individual use or domestic affairs? It’s like placing their personal—well, not so much personal information, but I guess their personal information, on a social media platform. How would that work in terms of them retaining the privacy of that information? In the age of social media, sometimes one could argue that you’re putting stuff on there for personal use, but some will argue that while that’s why you’ve put it on there, it’s now available publicly. So I just wanted to check in terms of the breadth of individuals’ personal or domestic affairs.

Thank you, Mr Chair. The proposal in clause 126, which is amending section 27(b)(ii), is really just to correct an omission. This personal information was never intended to be within the scope of a complaint to the Privacy Commissioner or proceedings in the Human Rights Review Tribunal. This proposal restores the policy position in the Privacy Act 1993 that was intended to be retained in the Privacy Act 2020.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m sure my friend Rachel Brooking will have something insightful to say shortly. I just want to talk about both clause 131 and clause 132 because these relate to the Privacy Act. Clause 131 relates to the procedure after completion of an investigation relating to access to personal information, and then clause 132 relates to the procedure after completion of other investigations. The Privacy Commissioner has looked into something, and the question is, well, what do you do next?

One of the things the commissioner must do under the current framing is to seek for the parties to resolve the issue by settlement, mediation, or whatever, if the investigation shows the complaint has substance. So that’s a mandatory direction. What these two amendments do in clauses 131 and 132 is insert “and [the commissioner] considers it appropriate to do so”. So no longer is it that if the complaint has substance, you must seek to resolve the issue; it’s that if the complaint has substance, you can, if you want, seek to resolve the issue, and that’s a significant watering-down of the rights of people who are the subject of privacy breaches and other investigations.

I’m a little concerned because these provisions relate to steps that the commissioner is required to take if the complaint is found to have substance. In particular, under the current section 91, they’re required to seek settlement of the complaint, or seek an assurance that the breach will not reoccur—that’s subsection (4). This amendment would make that subject to the discretion of a commissioner. The question is whether it’s appropriate once it’s been established that the complaint has substance that such a discretion exists, and that’s the same in the respect of situations where there’s another investigation in respect of some other matter, as well.

Thank you, Mr Chair. To the member, I say that this particular change will give the Privacy Commissioner the discretion to use best endeavours to settle or seek assurance across all complaints he receives, providing consistency across the Act, and the commissioner is not required to seek settlement or assurance where the conduct of the parties to a complaint would render this effort futile or a waste of resources. Sections 77(1) and 83(2) already give the Privacy Commissioner the discretion to decide whether to use best endeavours to secure a settlement or assurance while he is investigating a complaint.

Thank you, Mr Chair, for allowing me to make a contribution in this committee stage. I want to note that the Minister is answering all the questions, and thank you for doing that.

An earlier question from my colleague from the Greens was about clause 126, and the Minister’s answer referenced 132(a). I note that the select committee report also references 132(a), and I would like the Minister to tell me if I’m right or wrong: that this seems to be one of the more substantive parts of these changes to the Privacy Act, and it is to enable that six-month period to be widened to include any related—if there is more than one matter going on, then the six months goes from the end of the final matter. So that seems to be a good change to be making. So, one, if I’m right if that’s the major policy change here.

Two, if she could explain how that relates to the changes at clause 125 and also clause 126. So if we go back to clause 126 which we talked about earlier, the wording is changed around from the principal Act and it’s now about whether or not “(ii) received by the individual unsolicited; or (iii) created by the individual.” If those changes relate to the changes at clause 132.

Further to that, going up to clause 125. This is the replacement of subclause (1)(e) and some of it is very similar. So you “believe on reasonable grounds that B is subject to privacy laws of a prescribed country…”, but the bit that is new is this: “and the disclosure is not precluded by any limitation or qualification prescribed in respect of that country under section 214(3);”, and 214(3) doesn’t change. That relates to “A country may be prescribed…” based on the type of foreign person or the type of personnel.

I was just wondering if the Minister can tell me if these changes relate back to clause 132(a) or if they’re totally different and it’s a different sort of tidy up.

Thank you, Mr Chair. The member may not have been in here when I just answered the question more recently on clause 126, so I’ll just abbreviate and answer again.

No, I was.

OK. So what these are are just small, minor technical amendments on clauses that affect—there’s no rolling effect of one will affect another unless there is a change that specifically makes an effect on a different clause, if that makes sense. So with clause 125 for example, that amendment clarifies that information can only be disclosed when consistent with section 214 of the principal Act. The Act requires that information shared with prescribed overseas countries—countries with broadly similar privacy protections to New Zealand—are subject to any limitations imposed when the country is prescribed.

However, the wording of IPP 12(1)(e) does not mention this and creates uncertainty. That’s why we’re making the changes to clause 125, because of that uncertainty.

And then, of course, clause 126 was correcting an omission and the proposal restores the policy position in the Privacy Act 1993 that was intended to be retained in the Privacy Act 2020.

And then clauses 131 and 132 is giving the Privacy Commissioner some discretion as to the best endeavours to settle or seek assurance for that settlement.

So the only time that you’ll see the rolling effect is when we make one change that actually influences or has a minor or non-technical amendment to something else. But really these are all just tidy-ups—individual tidy-ups.

Just further to that—thank you, Minister. I was in the Chamber for that discussion of clause 126 and I might have misheard the Minister. So the point is that 132(a) is the most important change and then everything else is some unassociated other tidy-up, or it could relate to 132(a). I think I just heard the Minister say that those changes to clause 125 and clause 126 not related to the change at 132(a) and they are their own separate tidy-ups, is that correct?

Correct. Clause 125 is a clarification, clause 126 is correcting an omission, and clause 131 and 132 is giving the Privacy Commissioner discretion.

Members, we come now to Part 32, the debate on clauses 135 to 139, “Amendments to Public Service Act 2020”. The question is that Part 32 stand part.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Another one of my favourite Acts to look at, the Public Service Act. I looked at some of these changes in detail, and I’ve kind of satisfied myself in relation to some of the questions I had around clause 139; I think I understand that. I’ve looked and there is a definition of an interdepartmental venture. There are boards; it was actually quite interesting seeing the different interdepartmental venture boards that are outlined in the Public Service Act, so I won’t ask the Minister about that. But I did want to ask about clause 137(2). This is a change to Schedule 3 of the Act, specifically a change to clause 16(1). Now, it’s, maybe, a slightly minor point, but essentially, as it currently stands, the commissioner is required to give the Minister a briefing every three years. Now, this bill changes that to “in every 3-year period after 7 August 2020”. which seems a bit unusual.

Additionally, it won’t be news to anyone in this House, although, it is still Tuesday, which means we have suspended time in some manner, that we, in fact, have missed a three-year period after 7 August 2020—in fact, two three-year periods now. The question I have is: why make this change where it appears to give retrospective duties in the past to the piece of legislation—and I might be misunderstanding this, and the Minister may want to clarify—which are unable to be met by the commissioner due to the fact that 7 August 2020 is now over six years ago?

I thank the member for her question. I’m advised that this change—replacing “every 3 years” with “in every 3-year period”, following the commencement of this section—will clarify the time frames for agencies to deliver their long-term insights briefings. So it’s clarifying the preferred interpretation of the clause, and I understand it will not affect time frames to deliver the first briefings.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I have such a minute and pedantic question. I hope the Minister is able to prove me wrong in terms of my interpretation. I just want to check—“after 7 August 2020”, for me, implies after that, which means 8 August 2020. The Royal assent for this bill is the 6 August 2020. Does that mean 7 August gets skipped altogether? I think that one day, at this stage, is now inconsequential, but I would just like to check my interpretation by the Minister.

I don’t believe that there’s an issue there. That’s not been pointed out to me at all. In fact, I’ve been told that it will not affect time frames to deliver first briefings. I think the key words here might be the commencement of this section. I am understanding that there will be no effect to the time frames.

Just a follow-up. Thank you to the Associate Minister of Justice again. I echo the comments of my colleague Rachel Brooking, we’re very grateful for the Minister engaging with us in good faith when answering these questions. The answer in relation to the long-term insights briefings, those are currently due to be repealed, in the sense that there will be a requirement to have, as I understand, one long-term insights briefing done by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet now, and the rest of the—I always forget the exact number, but it’s over 20; maybe somewhere between 20 and 34—long-term insights briefings that are required to be done will be abolished by the Public Service Amendment Act that the Government is currently putting through.

I know that the policy question is not for the Minister to ask in that debate; that’s for the Minister for Public Service. But just maybe if the officials could clarify that because there is substantive change happening to long-term insights briefings under a bill that is currently due to be reported back to the House from select committee shortly: will these changes still be drafted in the way that will make them longstanding? We don’t want to see, of course, these come back in another Statutes Amendment Bill straight away; we would like to make sure that they were able to at least survive the passage of the changes to the long-term insights briefing. So not really a policy question, but a technical question: due to that change, are these provisions still fit for purpose? I appreciate that this bill went through the select committee prior to that bill. So that’s really why I’m asking that question.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Yeah, it’s a good question to ask, but we’re dealing with the bill that we have here. While there’s another bill that might be under way, it hasn’t gone through the process of the House. We are dealing with an issue that we found that has, of course, got cross-party support, so we will fix this here and, should there be any other changes in any other legislation, we would all hope that the transitional provisions would pick up any changes that would need to be made in the future.

For those on the edge of their seat in anticipation, there are 10 more parts left to go of this.

We are up to Part 34. This is the debate on clauses 143 to 147; amendments to the Radiocommunications Act 1989. The question is that Part 34 stand part.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to really thank the Minister for that previous response. The Minister is absolutely right; the commencement date is the day after the Royal assent, so everything does line up, which is a huge reassurance. Thank you, Minister.

I’ve got two questions for Part 34. The first one is to do with clause 147 subclause (1). It’s actually very helpful that we’re now allowing for an electronic address of the person in cases when they are not there. But I guess while that closes one loophole, I’m still curious to know what happens if we don’t have any of those when we’re issuing an infringement notice: neither electronic nor physical means. Are there any other mechanisms that it could be using?

My second question is for subclause (2), “Replace section 128B(3)”, and I’m specifically looking at subclause (3)(b). I’m specifically looking at this clause, and I wanted to ask the Minister to help interpret it, which is, what does “first enters an information system that is outside the control of the Secretary or the authorised person.”, mean? Does it mean the moment that the secretary or the authorised person presses send and that is no longer in their control? Or the moment that the person who is being served receives that in their inbox, so to speak?

Thank you, Mr Chair. Sorry to the member, I just missed the beginning of the second part of that question, but I can answer the first part and invite the member to try again for the second.

The first part is making an amendment to include that an infringement may be sent to a person’s electronic address. The member said, “Well, what if they don’t have an electronic address?” Well, there are other means, which is by sending it by mail. There could get to a point if they do not collect it that they end up having bailiffs serving upon them, so there are always other ways. This is modernising the Act; recognising that there are faster, more efficient ways to serve people.

I’m sorry, I missed the member’s second question.

No, you’re all good, Minister. My second question: in section 128B(3)(b) there’s a line that says, “is to be treated as having been served at the time the electronic communication first enters an information system that is outside the control of the Secretary”. I want to check what is the “moment”? Is it the moment when, for example, the secretary or the authorised person presses send, or the moment when the person served receives it in their inbox?

Thank you, and thanks for your patience in repeating the question a second time. I am going to make a presumption that it is when the person presses send. My reasoning for that is because you will not be able to know when an email has been received, so my thoughts are it would have to be on the send.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I think my first question has probably been answered, because it’s when it enters the information system, but we all know of cases where mailboxes are full and it never quite gets delivered. But I suppose you’re saying that the sending is what is important, and if somebody’s mailbox is full, then perhaps you would say that that is their problem, not the sender’s problem.

If you could hold your thought on that for a moment, I have a different question, which is on clause 147(3)(a), and it’s about when it would have been delivered in the ordinary course of post. With the relatively recent changes to the post, rural delivery is received five days a week, but you’re terribly deprived—for once—in towns and cities, with it arriving only three times. So I just wonder whether there is an unintended consequence, where there is a difference between people who are living rurally and people who are living in towns.

Thank you to the member for that question, and they’re really good points that have been made. I think it would maybe even require a member’s bill to be thought of, because the issue that is raised is probably more than a minor and small technical issue that needs to be raised. I think that the effect of the postal service would have implications over many Acts as well, so I understand the reasoning for that member’s question.

I’m just going to go back to the first comment that the member made about the sending, and what if a mailbox is full. As a person who has had a full mailbox just recently, I have been contacted by people to say, “I’m getting replies that your mailbox is full.”, and I think that there is the ability for that notification to go back to the sender. What happens then, I’m not sure; I’m looking at the smaller amendments that allow the person to send it electronically in the first place.

I’ve just been corrected. Part 33 was actually removed at the select committee, so there are now only eight parts left.

Part 35. This is the debate on clauses 148 to 150, “Amendments to Real Estate Agents Act 2008”. The question is that Part 35 stand part.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m just curious here because this is another occupational regulation Act. We’ve seen the Immigration Advisers Licensing Act already, and section 74 deals with when the complaints framework need not proceed, so you can, basically, kick out a complaint. Some of the traditional ones are that it’s frivolous or the vexatious, but the language has somewhat changed, and I’m just curious as to why this change is necessary. At the moment, there’s already a power to refuse to consider a complaint under section 74(3)(a) if the complaint is inconsequential or concerns—I forget the exact word, but “inconsequential” is the core concept—and all of a sudden, we’ve got a change coming to the House to change it to “is not sufficiently serious” to warrant further action.

I’m kind of perplexed as to why someone—and, presumably, it’s the Minister of Justice; this is one of your tribunals, I think, Minister—in the Ministry of Justice tribunals unit has said, “ ‘Inconsequential’ doesn’t work for us any more. We want something that’s not sufficiently serious.”, and they would seem to be two sides to the same coin. So I’m just curious to know why it was considered consequential to get rid “inconsequential’ and to now use “not sufficiently serious”, and whether that issue was serious enough to warrant putting “not sufficiently serious” in there.

I like the member’s humour. This change is ensuring that the language reflects the intended lower threshold contemplated for the provision, without diminishing the impact that the circumstances surrounding the compliant may have on the complainant. The current language is seen as being inflammatory to complainants and it is detrimental to the authority’s relationships with consumers and stakeholders, and so they asked for a change.

Members, we come to Part 36, the debate on clauses 151 and 152, “Amendment to Search and Surveillance Act 2012”. The question is that Part 36 stand part.

I did have a read of the Search and Surveillance Act, and this just looks like a clear drafting error; because there’s not going to be many situations where someone who has had their house searched and a weapon seized is then asked, “Can we destroy your weapon?”, and they consent and say, “Go for it.” I get that.

My question is this: have we been destroying weapons that have been seized without the consent of a person from whom they were seized, in breach of the section to date; or have we been, kind of, recognising parliamentary intent rather than parliamentary words and destroying weapons, in breach of the section?

I think that question is for the Minister that handles the Search and Surveillance Act. I’m here to talk about the Statutes Amendment Bill, and replacing “does not within 30 days consent” with “does not within 30 days object” is merely what we’re doing here. The process of whether or not firearms or weapons are destroyed actually belongs to the Minister of Police, to answer that question.

Members, we come now to Part 37, the debate on clauses 153 to 160, “Amendments to Secondhand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Act 2004”.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Another Act which has quite the quaint title and harks back to maybe a different time—although, I’m sure these days with the focus on reusing, and I’m here with my colleague Rachel Brooking, who is very much focused on that, but this is very much something that should be kept up to date and modernised in order that we can have effective secondhand dealers in New Zealand.

I have one question in relation to this particular change, and that is: I’ve looked at section 77A of the original Act, which is not mentioned here apart from to say that 77AA is inserted underneath it by clause 156 of the bill—and the question I have is: in reading those two provisions together, they seem, on the face of it, to be a little bit contradictory, and I’ll tell you why I think that, and I’d be interested in the Minister’s thoughts or her officials’ advice. You may not have this in front of you, so I’ll let you know what section 77A says, and then everyone can read section 77A, inserted by clause 156 of the bill. Essentially, section 77A(1) states that “All Licensing Authorities acting together may issue practice notes, to apply to all of them, as they think fit.” So that’s quite a wide power that is given in 77A. If I’m reading this correctly, 77A stands—and this would be the normal drafting, that we would have 77AA after that; that provision then says a more prescriptive requirement that “All Licensing Authorities acting together must set requirements as to the manner in which photographs [are] required to accompany applications under sections 8”, etc.

My question, really, is: do those two sections fit together? Because 77A seems to be slightly wider and less prescriptive than 77AA. So I don’t know how well these licensing authorities in relation to secondhand authentication of photographs get on, but perhaps if there was a disagreement that one group may rely on 77A, and one may rely on 77AA. It appears to me inconsistent, but I’m sure that there is a reasonable explanation as to why this drafting is more robust than I initially thought it appeared.

Thank you, Mr Chair. The proposed amendment being made here would facilitate the introduction of electronic filing in the future by enabling the licensing authority to set authentication requirements for photographs that can be complied with electronically—so modernising it, setting up for a future file of these photographs, and allowing them the ability to prescribe what that would look like.

Members, we come now to Part 38. This is the debate on clauses 161 to 163: “Amendments to Serious Fraud Office Act 1990”. The question is that Part 38 stand part.

Members, we come now to Part 39. This is the debate on clauses 164 and 165, “Amendment to Taxation Review Authorities Act 1994”. The question is that Part 39 stand part.

Members, we come now to Part 40. This is the debate on clauses 166 and 167, “Amendment to Wages Protection Act 1983”. The question is that Part 40 stand part.

Thank you, Mr Chair. This is another piece of legislation that I feel affection for, the Wages Protection Act 1983—a particularly good year, I might add, and also the year of the Wages Protection Act 1983. It’s a very important piece of legislation that essentially means that wages for workers are not able to have deductions made from them in an unreasonable way. That goes back, really, to the foundation of the trade union movement, which was set up to allow workers to work together against employers who would essentially make regular deductions from their wages for things like accommodation and food and transport. Many workers, before they had any protections, would find themselves in a state of servitude, which, of course, is very objectionable. They would be working but never making any money, because all of the deductions from their salary would go towards funding other things that their employer would say were required. Of course, that was addressed before 1983, but the Wages Protection Act carries on a very noble aim of making sure that wages are in fact protected.

One of the key tenets, as I understand it, in this legislation is that all deductions must be not only consulted on but consented to prior to a deduction being made. Many of these things that we do consent to in our wages that are permissible deductions are things like—well, maybe KiwiSaver’s not a good example, because it’s opt-out. You do have to consent to things like—for example, if you’re in a staff social club, it would be contrary to the Wages Protection Act for your employer or, say, the president of the social club to deduct that from your wages without your permission. That is really the fundamental purpose, as I understand it, of the Wages Protection Act. There are many other important parts—but, of course, I’m not sure that going through the history of that would make a good question for the Minister.

My question is—this is a very important piece of legislation. The section that this bill is amending appears to make it clear that it may be possible to deduct—I’m sure that this is not correct, but I just want assurance from the Minister that what this is saying is not that you may make deductions if they’re reasonable, even if the employee has not been consulted. I’m sure that, on reading that full section, which I hadn’t had time to do today, that would not be the case, but just on the general reading of clause 167 as it is listed there, I just want that assurance that that isn’t the purpose of this particular change.

It’s not the purpose of this change. In fact, the purpose of it is the opposite. When that section was inserted, the corresponding amendment to section 11 to allow for the recovery of wages deemed to have been deducted unlawfully under section 5A was overlooked. This insertion actually allows—where wages have been deducted without the consent or knowledge of the wage earner—either the wage earner or the labour inspectorate, acting on behalf of that worker, the ability to apply to have that money returned.

Members, we come now to Part 41. This is the debate on clauses 168 to 173, “Amendments to Water Services Act 2021”.

Mr Chair.

The question is that Part 41 stand part. I call the eager Rachel Brooking.

I’ve stood on all sides of this House talking about variations of the water services Act and I will come to a reference to some recent amendments in a moment, maybe.

My first question is about clause 169, amending section 25 of the Water Services Act 2021: what is wrong with the “the”s? That’s my question. The change here is that “the drinking water supply” is being changed to “a drinking water supply”. I just want to know what the problem is that this change to the “the”s is going to rectify. I note, of course, that there are a lot of references throughout the Act to “a drinking water supplier”, but, of course, that’s the entity rather than the actual supply. So that’s my first question.

I have second question; it’s a very easy yes or no. It’s just that it seems that at clause 173, the amendment to replace “changes” with “charges” is a simple typo because all the other references to “c” words with an “h” in them in that section are “charges”, not “changes”.

And then, I guess, my final question is relating to clause 171. This again appears to be a typo issue because the word “issue” is in the heading in relation to compliance orders, whereas in the text below, it’s talking about “serving”: the service of a compliance order. I have a small point on that, that the Minister might or might not be able to comment on, and that is that amendment to section 120, where I think this drafting error was made, looks to have been inserted on 27 August 2025. I’m happy to be corrected on that. I’ve just been looking at it on my phone and I’m wondering if this is a case of—I can recall speaking on some large Amendment Papers to this legislation—this coming through an Amendment Paper at a late stage or if it has always been in there and nobody picked it up.

I’m going to work through them one by one and please feel free to stand up if I don’t get them all. I’m going to start with clause 169, section 25(3): the “the” and the “a”. It’s all about consistency. So as you mentioned, “a” is throughout the bill, so all they’re doing is changing “the” to “a” to have consistency. It has no policy implications at all.

In regard to clause 173, amending section 200(2)(c): yeah, that’s fixing human error—“charges” and “changes”, it’s as simple as that. Clause 171, amending section 120: you may have raised a point that’s actually been raised by another member earlier this evening on another clause, where there has been consequential amendments from other pieces of legislation. If that is indeed the case here, like I think it might be, then this just means that this is no longer relevant because it’s already been sorted. I’m of the understanding that the Parliamentary Counsel Office have made some changes to legislation that has gone through during the time that this bill has been going through its process. Just recalling that this bill was initially started under Labour, so it has been sitting for quite some time. So if it has been updated already, it will be inconsequential to this.

Members, we come now to Part 42. This is the debate on clauses 174 to 176, “Amendments to Wildlife Act 1953”. The question is that Part 42 stand part.

Thank you for this. Section 175 is about the notice for open season for game, and subsection 15(5) that’s being amended here says, “At any time during an open game season declared under subsection (4), the notice published in respect of that season may in like manner—(a) be amended; or (b) be revoked and be replaced by a new notice.” So my question is: why do we need to replace “during”—so, that’s during an open game season—to “before”, to include “before” as well? The rest of the subclause is about changing a notice, so why would you be changing a notice before the notice period? I’d understand it if this clause was about initiating a notice, but it’s not about initiating a notice, it’s about changing a notice. So I’m just not quite sure how the sequencing of this works and why it is that you need to add in the “before” to the “during”. That’s one question. I’ll let you answer that.

Yes, this is actually just clarifying because the notices currently can only be issued once the season starts. Basically, depending on what the notice is, the notice could have clarifications about where a person can go or what they can do, so it seems reasonable to be able to issue a notice before the season starts so that a person understands what their requirements are instead of waiting till season opening or opening day and then finding that they’re actually breaking rules and didn’t know about it. So, that’s why we’re making that change.

Thank you to the Minister for giving that explanation of the earlier notice to start with. That makes sense. Then, at section 176, in replacement section 66A(3) of the Wildlife Act—there’s an (a) and (b)—we can see the change in the bill is that “(3) A person commits an offence and is liable … to the penalty … if [they]—(a) contravenes subsection (2); or”—and this is the new part—“(b) wilfully gives false information or provides false evidence under subsection (2).” The introduction here is of this wilful false information, so my question to the Minister is: have there been problems with people giving false information that has led to this amendment?

That’s a really good question. I thank the member for asking it. I would say that no, that’s not the reason for the amendment. The reason for the amendment was because that offence was actually accidentally removed during the Wildlife (Powers) Amendment Act 2017. There is an issue with when rangers turn up and then they get given the wrong information—purposely too—by some people who are trying to evade, especially if they’re poaching. We’re actually just putting back in an offence that was accidentally removed back in 2017, just to give those rangers a bit more power and a bit more teeth.