Parliamentary debates: Thursday, 12 February 2026

09:00

Point of order, Mr Chair. In a moment, I intend to move a motion for the committee to report progress in order to seek leave of the House to refer the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety’s Amendment Paper 504 to select committee. The reason that I’m doing that is because it’s a substantive amendment which has only recently been available to members. There’s substantive discussion around the impacts of it, and, in good faith, I believe the best course of action would be to—so that’s just intending that.

So you’re seeking leave?

I’m indicating that I am going to intend to seek leave for that reason. It’s not to disrupt the committee stage; it’s for that purpose.

All right. Well, you seek leave at the—

I seek leave—

No. Well, it’s in your hands when you seek leave.

I seek leave to move a motion without notice to refer Amendment Paper 504 to be considered by the Education and Workforce Committee and to be reported back to the House by 17 March 2026.

The committee can’t do that. What you would need to do is seek leave to report progress to enable to do that, which is actually what you explained.

Yes, sorry.

You’re ahead of me.

Apologies. I seek leave to report progress for that purpose.

Point of order.

Are you speaking to that point of order?

09:02

Well, Mr Chair, I would point out that a point of order was made. The Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety rose to respond to that point of order and wasn’t allowed to speak.

Sorry, I wasn’t aware that you were speaking on the point of order; I thought that you were standing to speak to the beginning of the debate. Did the Minister wish to speak to the point of order?

Yes, I think—

Sorry, the point of order is not really a point of order; it’s just an indication of what you intend to do, so it’s not a true point of order. The member is just going to seek leave, which she’s entitled to do. I’ll allow the member to speak since she’s on her feet.

Thank you, Mr Chair. If the member is allowed to talk about things that she hopes to do in the future as a point of order, I would also just raise to say I’m hoping, in about three seconds, to explain the Amendment Paper, which is minor and technical.

Well, does the member still wish to seek leave to report progress? Alright, so I’m informed that you can actually move that we report progress.

09:03

I move, That the committee report progress.

09:05

Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, I rise to take the first call in Part 2 of this particular debate this morning because there is Amendment Paper 504 in my name in this particular section. I alluded to it last night. I knew that there were going to be some questions, and I wanted to knock it off really early because I knew that there would be some members of this committee who might believe that this is a retrospective law change. I wanted to give absolute assurance last night—and I do again this morning—that this particular amendment is not retrospective.

What this Amendment Paper aims to do is make the application of the new law clearer than it was originally drafted. If a work arrangement meets the gateway test on the day the new law starts, then the gateway test applies from that day forward. These transitional rules are not retrospective. This means that they do not affect decisions about employment status made before the new law starts; cases that were already filed before the new law starts, as these will still use the existing section 6 test.

For the cases filed after the new law begins, the existing section 6 test applies to the time before the new law. The new gateway test can still be used for the time after the new law, and this means that a worker can get a split decision—for example, that they were an employee before the law changed under section 6 but a specified contractor after the law changed under the gateway test. This is not a radical provision, and, in fact, it is making what I believe is the best manoeuvre that we can, that the new law will take effect and people will be able to use the new law in the gateway test, but it is not overriding existing workers’ rights.

09:07

Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety for that explanation. I did say when we first came to this committee stage that there would be questions around that, and I’m happy to receive your assurance that Amendment Paper 504 is not retrospective based on that question. There are a significant number of questions around this Amendment Paper, and that’s why I did seek to move that motion. Even though I accept the Minister’s reasoning that she’s given for putting this Amendment Paper forward, because of the complexity—the law, as specified in here, is complex. That’s not to say that’s the same thing as radical, which the Minister has said that it’s not, but it does seek to determine and crystallise rights for various groups of employees at various points in their cycle. We’re not talking about a small number of people here. We know that there are thousands of people impacted by this law—thousands of Uber drivers around the country that may or may not have put claims in, in order to be properly determined as an employee.

I think that, even by looking at the other sections, it’s a substantive Amendment Paper. I think it would have been, in a perfect world—that’s why I sought to move that motion—a better idea to be able to receive submissions on this, because this is directly affecting and crystallising the rights. I do have a number of questions around it, and I know the Minister may need to receive some advice. It’s something that those of us who are previous lawyers in caucus have studied extensively. I don’t think it’s something that is necessarily as straightforward to determine exactly what the impact of it will be.

The question I have is: if not for this Amendment Paper, then the situation that the Minister describes would seem to me to be the logical impact of her passing of the substantive Act; is this Amendment Paper purely to clarify the fact that this is not a retrospective law, which I don’t see in the law, and I would like the Minister to point me to where that would be? Is it purely a clarification of the way that the law works, or is there something in the law that would indicate that, but for this Amendment Paper, there would be an extinguishment of retrospective rights in relation to employment law? That is a big question, and I can see the Minister has a response to that—I’m also happy if anyone else seeks to give her advice on that.

The second issue that I wanted to discuss was just to clarify that this Amendment Paper applies only, as I read it, to people who have not brought proceedings. That is the part that we’re looking at, subclauses (1) and (2), inserted by new clause 25A. They are people who may fit the specified contractor test but have not brought proceedings in the Employment Court.

The other thing is if we look at subclause (3) we see that specifically there is stated to be protection around section 6 claims. Now, section 6 is a claim around determination of employment status. There are many other—a myriad of—employment claims that can be brought in relation to determination of status. For example, arrears of wages. That would include things like unpaid holiday pay. There are many, many different claims that can be raised to seek to enforce employment rights that are not section 6 claims.

Accepting the Minister’s explanation for this amendment, I put an amendment forward on the Table myself, to actually address that if the effect is as described, it would apply to other claims too, because my understanding is that the claims that the people who are Uber drivers have currently made are not section 6 claims. So this is a big gap in the Amendment Paper, accepting in good faith the impacts that the Minister describes. I want to know why it’s limited to section 6 and if she would consider expanding that, because that seems to be quite a significant thing that has been left out of this Amendment Paper. I have much time left on this call, but I wanted to give the Minister an opportunity.

09:12

Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, I will take the member’s question in good faith. What I have said before, and what I will say again, is that this is a minor change to clarify the law as it was already drafted. It doesn’t substantively change anything.

I did want to provide some evidence to back that by my officials, which is actually from the departmental report that was sent to the select committee. At paragraph 66, it does say the bill is not retrospective. “The gateway test will apply for employment periods following the bill’s enactment. If a worker who was employed before the bill comes into force were to challenge their employment status, the real nature of the relationship test would apply to the period before the bill came into force and either the gateway test or the real nature of the relationship test, depending on whether the agreement meets the gateway test criteria, would apply to the period after the bill came into force.”

My officials have wanted to clarify the law even stronger through this minor Amendment Paper, but it does not, in substance, change the overall intent of what was drafted.

09:13

Thank you, Mr Chairman. Let’s talk about what new clause 25A does. I have a series of questions that I want to put to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety.

Just to be clear, under this provision, any person who meets the new specified contractor definition on the day of the commencement of this law is deemed to be a specified contractor from that day forward even if their working arrangement began before the Act commenced. If the Employment Relations Authority later finds that before commencement they were in fact an employee, the only workers who are protected under this provision are those who have already filed proceedings under section 6 before commencement.

If a worker hasn’t filed proceeding before commencement, their right to have their status determined for the future is extinguished by this law, even if the authority confirms that they were an employee prior to commencement. The effect of this is that if you haven’t filed proceedings by commencement of this bill, you lose your future rights permanently. It’s as clear as that.

From our perspective, that is serious. In spite of what the Minister has said about retrospectivity, it does operate retrospectively in substance, even if it’s framed in the language as “from commencement”. It extinguishes both accrued and contingent legal rights. It creates a hard cut-off that favours those who have legal awareness and access to legal advice. It overrides the finding of the Employment Relations Authority about the real nature of the relationship. It incentivises rushed and speculative litigation before commencement. There’s no doubt that it will disadvantage non-unionised, low paid, and migrant workers.

I have some questions for the Minister that I would like her to answer. Notwithstanding what she’s told us before about the official’s advice on retrospectivity, did they advise that the effect of this provision is to extinguish existing rights arising from arrangements entered into before commencement, and isn’t that in fact retrospectivity?

Secondly, did officials advise that clause 25A extinguishes accrued statutory rights for workers who were employees under section 6 prior to commencement but had not filed proceedings? What is the policy justification for permanently removing a worker’s future employment protections solely because they didn’t commence proceedings before an arbitrary commencement date?

The next issue I want to raise is about access to justice and procedural fairness. What assessment did Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment (MBIE) officials make of how many affected workers would realistically know that they needed to file proceedings before commencement to preserve their rights? I assume that would have been part of the advice.

Did officials advise that this amendment favours workers who have legal representation or are members of the union over vulnerable or migrant workers who may not be aware of what this provision does to their rights? What will the minimum notice period be that workers will have between Royal assent and commencement to understand this amendment and file proceedings?

I want to turn now to the question of the way that this amendment overrides the findings of the Employment Relations Authority. That’s new clause 25A(3)(b). My question for the Minister is: how is it legally coherent for the authority to determine that a person was an employee immediately before commencement, and yet the statute deems them a contractor immediately after? What advice did the Minister receive on the constitutional implications of Parliament directing that authority findings have no operative effect for the future? What kind of position does that leave the authority in? Can the Minister identify any precedent in employment law where Parliament has required and authority finding of employee status to be treated as legally irrelevant going forward?

One the question of incentivising premature and strategic litigation, did MBIE advise that this amendment creates an incentive to file precautionary or pre-emptive proceedings before commencement to preserve their rights? What modelling was done on the likely surge in section 6 proceedings immediately prior to commencement and the impact that might have on the Employment Relations Authority? How does the Minister reconcile this amendment with claims that the bill will reduce litigation and actually improve certainty? I’ll leave it there.

09:19

Thank you, Mr Chair. The previous member, Phil Twyford, actually took a few more questions around the potential for search and litigation, so we’re also interested to know whether the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety received any advice that this could happen. But more importantly, what we are interested in knowing is whether she received advice on who is currently expected to be captured as a result of the provisions of this amendment. Which groups does she expect to be captured as part of this? Which groups does she understand have already filed proceedings and challenged their status and were able to be deemed employees? Would she be able to name, for the sake of Hansard, the groups that she actually expects are currently being captured as a result of this amendment?

I think it’s important to be able to name the groups of people, to give clarity about who exactly the Minister is trying to supposedly not retrospectively affect. I think that clarity would be particularly helpful for the public because I think it’s about bringing it less from the abstract and actually being able to name the groups that she perceives have already challenged this in the court, have effectively won, and now this Amendment Paper deems to sort of say, according to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, that they will not be affected by the bill in front of us. I know that, on top of that, there may be a hypothetical set of groups that may enter into a process between us debating this and commencement, but who already has been affected, and did she receive advice in which she is able to actually name the groups of people that would likely be captured as a result of this amendment?

09:21

Thank you. Look, I rise to take a call in response to the Hon Phil Twyford’s contribution where he queried mainly that if a worker hasn’t filed until after the commencement of this law, does this mean that their right to have their status as an employee will be removed or thereabouts. I just wanted to once again reiterate that the changes to the test apply from the commencement of this law. That’s what happens when a law changes: we change for the period going forward, and the current law or the law that exists today will apply in respect of the period before the commencement. That is not changing with this Amendment Paper.

09:22

Thank you, Mr Chair. It’d be good to get a lot more fulsome answers to the questions by the Hon Phil Twyford, but also just to pick up what my friend Ricardo Menéndez March was saying around particular groups of people. Just to be straight up: how does this impact those Uber drivers? How are they captured or not captured by this? Are some of them now employees or not? At what point can that be determined or not determined as well? Can we get some specifics from the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety on how this impacts particular workers? I did say Uber drivers—they have been in court; how does this impact them? How does it impact those that have been filed as well? Is there any other advice about how this has impacted other specific examples? This amendment did get dropped on the House quite late last night. It is quite abstract. It is important for us to know that there have been concrete examples that have been mapped out, so that people can actually understand the impact of this.

09:23

Thank you, Mr Chair. I will only make a brief contribution, but I do have some questions that I think are very important on this matter of retrospectivity, which has been dropped on to the House. What I want to know is the impacts of the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety’s interpretation currently as it will have on lawmaking in this House generally. I’ll give you an example with the retirement villages—my member’s bill. One of the reasons other parties have said they won’t support it is they were concerned about retrospectivity. What they are saying is that they don’t want to see a bill that is going to pull a whole class of individuals who have signed a contract into a new regime where the sanctity of contract would find that unfair. Now I am hearing the Minister say that from the commencement date that retrospectivity, in this situation, won’t apply because the law comes into effect. Those two concepts don’t reconcile. This is going to be really relevant and significant in the ensuing debate that will happen around the country, around my bill, but also for all other lawmaking in this House.

I’d really like to hear, very clearly, and I’d really invite the Minister to choose her words carefully and to answer the very specific question that I’m about to ask, which is: when somebody has signed a contract and a new regime comes into effect—generally, not just in employment law—does it mean that they are suddenly subject to the new regime and that there is no sanctity of contract? If so, does she have a problem with that? If she doesn’t, then that would fly in the face of all of the rhetoric that we hear from the member’s political party, but the answer to that question, as I say, is going to be highly relevant to other legislation made in this House.

I can give you another example of the Residential Tenancies Act and protections for tenants. When that came through, Labour transparently said this is going to have a retrospective impact on those who have signed those tenancy agreements. We don’t have a problem with that. That’s about fairness. Getting clarity from the Minister about when retrospectivity occurs and when it doesn’t and what it means for all of those who have signed a contract in law, in general, is really important, and also as it relates to the specific example.

09:26

Thank you Mr Chair. And thanks to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety for her answers to my previous questions. It’s not surprising that people have questions around this amendment because, as I said, it’s something that I was only made aware of yesterday, and I’ve said, it was published shortly before that.

It is complicated and I haven’t heard from the Minister around the Amendment Paper that I’ve tabled. I would like to know about that because it seems to me that, if her explanation is correct, then I don’t understand the reason for section 6 claims being the only ones that have been chosen.

As I said, I understand that those are not the most usual claims to be filing. Usually, in unemployment cases, if you are seeking a declaration that someone’s an employee—as happened in the Uber case—a few employees would take that claim and there would be a few, like lead employees, and you would look into their examples, but it wouldn’t be that every single claimant had their particular employment situation analysed, because, of course, they’re almost identical. Mostly what happens is that after those initial kind of headline claims are filed and there’s a determination based on the facts in that particular case, the other claims that then follow are for the remedies that are associated with employment. Those are things like holiday pay, wage arrears, etc. So that’s important.

The other question I have is in terms of the right that is alleged to continue in this Amendment Paper. The Amendment Paper seems to state that the rights of someone to bring a claim in the period of time prior to commencement continue—and that’s the Minister’s response to that. How long is someone able to rely on those rights? In employment law, for example, if you were to take a claim to the authority, that would be a three-month or a 90-day period of time that you must take a claim within.

Does this Amendment Paper change any of the limitation dates that would otherwise apply or does it make it clear that, essentially, once the commencement date starts, that within three months—because that would be the normal employment law rule that people would have to file the claims in order to have any retrospective entitlement due to this Amendment Paper. This is an important thing, I think, to note: even if it is a clarification as the Minister has expressed—so it doesn’t actually fundamentally change the working of the primary piece of legislation—it does clarify that, upon commencement, employees and people who previously may have been considered to be employees due to the test that the Minister has put in, will be, from commencement, specified contractors. That’s regardless of the retrospective question—it’s looking at that status moving forward.

The purpose of the Act is further solidified and clarified, and rights are more clearly extinguished on a particular date because of the passage of this amendment bill. My question is a genuine question that I think is important for the public to know the answer to. It’s very regretful, I feel—we’re not under urgency, but we are in a situation where we are debating this amendment, which we only received this week and will be passed later today. That is due to an extended sitting, and that is due to the way the Government has designed and made decisions around this particular piece of legislation. An important question for the public of New Zealand and for people following along with this, who may have rights extinguished by this legislation, is: what is the limitation date in relation to being able to utilise the rights that are alleged to be protected within this Amendment Paper? I think that is really important.

Another really important question that I would like an answer to is: for the people who have claims already, does this Amendment Paper protect their position as ongoing employees, or does the primary piece of legislation, regardless of the Amendment Paper, mean that if the specified contractor test applies to them, they will considered to be specified contractors after commencement? That is a genuine question and one that I think is really important that we get the answer to.

09:31

Look, I’ll try and respond to as many as I can, starting with questions from the Hon Phil Twyford, who talked about how many workers would be affected by this Amendment Paper. It’s highly theoretical. This will depend on how many workers might have a different status depending on the test as it applies. That is only going to be a subset of workers. Phil Twyford also asked, what precedent is there that Parliament overrules an authority decision? I just wanted to ensure clarity here: the change does not impact the determination made by the Supreme Court. That only applies to those workers. Each employment status challenge is always determined on a case by case basis.

Ricardo Menéndez March then also asked what groups would be affected by this Amendment Paper. It is quite clearly uncertain, as per my previous answer, who will be affected, as that ultimately depends on who raises claims after commencement that covered a pre-commencement part. Ricardo Menéndez March also asked, what specifically is the impact on Uber drivers? I believe this is, essentially, in essence, what Camilla Belich was also asking. Look, the bill is not retrospective, so it will not change the outcome for the Uber drivers that have been determined to be employees—so there is that.

Camilla Belich also asked, what about other claims that could be raised to seek to enforce employment rights, not just section 6 claims? Look, this Amendment Paper is quite limited to section 6 to clarify the change to section 6 and how it will apply to the commencement date. It does need to cover other rights as those are not impacted by the change of the amendment.

Phil Twyford then also asked, what is the period between commencement and when the potential employees need to lodge legal proceedings? Look, I’m hardly going to be giving legal advice here to people on how to lodge proceedings into the authority or the court. The period before commencement will continue to be determined under the previous law, and the bill will commence the day after Royal assent.

Ingrid Leary also asked, when someone has signed a contract and then the law changes, are they covered by the new law and is there sanctity of contract? I won’t get into the specifics of other types of laws that she was referencing, but at the time when they signed, the parties agreed that it was a contracting relationship, or not employment. That is one limit of the gateway test. What is changing is that the test applies if the worker challenges their status after commencement.

Camilla Belich also had a query about whether or not the Amendment Paper affects time limits for filing claims. No.

09:35

Thank you, Minister, for your response to those questions. I want to pick up on the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety’s response just now, as well as the previous speaker, Camilla Belich, and discuss the very real scenario that many have suggested prompted this bill, around the Uber drivers. I have an amendment on this that has just been tabled. One of the things that should be clarified—and I guess the Minister, in some ways, has clarified—is that those who have brought the proceeding in front of authorities are covered under this Amendment Paper and transitional measures. I do think that this Amendment Paper does clarify certain aspects. However, what that would also mean is that any other Uber drivers who are not party to that proceeding would not be covered under these transition measures, and particularly the one we were looking at, the amended clause 25A(1)(b).

My question to the Minister is, how then would she reconcile this Amendment Paper in the context of the long-held tradition when it comes to case law and also common law when we’re looking at, in some ways, a class action law lawsuit? My suggestion—and I want to see if the Minister would be interested—is still a transition measure, but it allows clarity for the whole class of, say, Uber drivers, or anyone else. My suggestion is: after clause 25A(1), which says “This clause applies to a person”, insert “or class of persons”. The same would be applicable to clause 25(A)(3)b, to say that “the Authority determines that the person or class of persons …” That way, it not only covers those who have brought the proceedings the general understanding under our court and our court ruling that that whole class of, I guess, contractors would be treated and considered as employees. I think that is an important clarification to be made here.

In addition to that, it also prevents, potentially, a scramble between now and the commencement date of people bringing proceedings to the authority because of the fact that, what this potentially means—and, again, I’d like clarification from the Minister—is that when someone brings a proceeding to the court, up until the commencement date, the court is still able to rule them as employees, but not post the commencement date. Post commencement date, they will be considered as specific contractors. I think it also potentially creates ambiguity or a lack of clarity in our court system where if someone does bring or further people bring a proceeding in front of the authority, they’re going to have to proportionalise it to ensure that part of it is going to be employees and part of that is going to be contractors, as opposed to saying there has been a class suit on this general theme in the beginning, and therefore everyone within this will be considered. That is a much cleaner and clearer way, both in terms of this bill but also existing common law.

I think that my amendment on this, which has just been tabled, would clarify this particular aspect and potentially reduce some of the burdens further down the track for the authority, but I’m keen to hear what the Minister has to say about it.

09:39

Thank you to the Minister for addressing my question. She didn’t provide any clarity. I won’t labour this any further, but it would be really good to understand, so I will ask it again. When someone signs a contract, and, at a later date, they are caught by a new regime, is that or is that not retrospective? This is really important for our lawmaking, Minister. Can you please answer the question.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I stand corrected. I understand that the Government has taken the third reading off the Order Paper this afternoon. I think that that is a very wise decision from the Government, because, obviously, we are in the midst of trying to determine what the impacts of this Amendment Paper 504 are. I think it would not be prudent or democratic to do it this afternoon, and so, hopefully, some of these questions that we’ve raised have impacted the thinking and I support that call.

Regardless, there are outstanding questions on the Amendment Paper. I haven’t had an answer to the question of people who have filed proceedings and the impact of this Amendment Paper on them. I imagine that the answer is that because it’s drafted in a certain way, it will not impact people who have filed proceedings because it’s focused on another group, but I’d like confirmation of that. The question I had was: because there is not an Amendment Paper that clarifies this situation for those who have brought proceedings, does that mean that the people who have brought proceedings will not move to be a specified contractor if they comply with the test, and will continue as employees? This is a really important question, and it’s important for us in determining our support for this Amendment Paper.

I’m disappointed to hear that the Minister won’t be supporting my amendment on putting in other employment rights under section 6. The entire purpose of section 6 is to determine employment. That is the test in the primary legislation, which is to determine whether someone is an employee or not. So, by its nature, anything that impacts on section 6, which determines who is an employee and who is not an employee, means that there are rights flowing from that which could be impacted. Because this Amendment Paper only specifically mentions section 6, it doesn’t mention the rights that flow from that, and, respectfully, I cannot understand how this will not impact on limitation dates.

The purpose—as the Minister has explained—of this Amendment Paper is to crystallise and clarify when certain statuses apply to individuals who may be currently employees but who, on the passage of this legislation, will be considered to be contractors. Because of that change, of course there are legal implications that flow from it, and I’ll just explain by way of an example. If I am currently an employee, I have rights to take a claim in the Employment Relations Authority, I have rights to appeal the decisions of the Employment Relations Authority and the Employment Court, I have rights to take that to the Court of Appeal, and I can get my rights enforced in the Supreme Court if my appeal is successful. I have rights to holiday pay, I have rights to parental leave, I have rights to annual leave, and I have rights to sick pay. I get ACC as an employee. My employer has KiwiSaver obligations if I opt in to that scheme.

There are all of these rights associated with being an employee, and what the Minister has said that this Amendment Paper does is clarify that on a certain date, someone is no longer, on commencement—if I was, for example, an Uber driver in that position, currently, the Supreme Court considers that I’m an employee. This Amendment Paper says that I am suddenly to be a specified contractor from the commencement date. That means that I’ve got a certain window of time in which to assert my employment rights. They don’t go on for ever—as you’ll be well aware from your involvement, Mr Chair, in the Police Association.

These rights do not continue forever. They have a certain limitation date, and so this will have an impact on limitation dates, and I can’t understand—and I would like the Minister to explain it to me. I really, really would like to know the answer to people who are not covered by this amendment and who have filed claims—what is the impact on them—and also how can it possibly not impact on limitation dates?

09:44

Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, I’ll take quite a few of these questions, starting with Ingrid Leary’s question, once again, about when people sign a contract and they have a later change to the law—is that not retrospective? No, it’s not retrospective, as the new law applies only to the period going forward from commencement.

Camilla Belich has had many questions about claims and whether or not things apply to them. I’m just seeking to clarify here that if a worker brings a claim for minimum entitlements and the employer defends that claim on the basis that the worker is not an employee, then the Employment Relations Authority would necessarily make a declaration as to the worker’s status by using the gateway test, or section 6 if the gateway test is not met.

Lawrence Xu-Nan has an amendment that I wish to speak to. It is specifically talking about Uber drivers who have not yet filed proceedings, and whether or not they will necessarily be covered or not covered. Look, it’s highly theoretical. It is up to workers to decide whether or not to challenge their status. Employment status decisions are always made on a case by case basis, applying the relevant law at the time.

Camilla Belich also has an amendment, which is not necessary as the bill has no retrospective impact, and so it does not impact existing entitlements, although I suspect there will be many other amendments coming. Camilla Belich also asked: does the Amendment Paper affect time limits for filing claims? No. I think I’m ticking off quite few.

Celia Wade-Brown—what are you calling for?

09:46

Point of order, Mr Chairperson. I seek leave to correct a vote cast for Te Pāti Māori on the earlier vote for the committee to report progress to a select committee.

Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There’s no objection.

The vote should have been two in favour, not four in favour.

Thank you.

09:47

Thank you, Mr Chair. I have some more questions for the Minister—no need to draw this out. I think her Amendment Paper 504 improves the situation, from what’s she’s told us, and so I’m seeking to clarify that. One question is: in the situation where claims have been brought before the commencement date, should people who are covered by the definition and who are employees now and who, under her definition, will be specified contractors bring a claim, either a wages claim or a personal grievance—will they be afforded the rights that exist for employees, because I think that that’s what she said.

The second question is this: in the situation where we have employees today, or people who might have the rights that accrue to employees today, and then from the commencement date they don’t enter into a new relationship—this was a relationship between them and their employer, who will now be the contracting party after the commencement date, but with no new arrangement, were any rights that existed for them prior to the commencement date that are not related to any of what the Minister is calling a gateway test—so I assume that there she means something like bringing proceedings, like bringing a personal grievance, because there are other rights. The rights that accrue to those employees include things like being able to bring a claim for debts owed on their behalf to IRD in the form of PAYE, or a straight wages claim where they have been paid under the minimum wage. Those are things where what I think the Minister is meaning to say is that a gateway test wouldn’t be the time that those would crystallise; they exist outside of 90 days.

Do those rights that exist for someone now continue to exist after the commencement date? I think that in the situation that the Minister is describing, the answer is in the affirmative, in which case this amendment is something that improves the situation and it does clarify that situation for thousands of New Zealanders. Perhaps if the Minister could just address that point about taking on the example of IRD debt, that would be helpful.

09:49

Thank you, Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, for that response. I just want to, I guess, prompt the Minister a little bit further: I agree with the Minister in the sense that it is up to individuals to bring a proceeding in front of the authority.

Not on some things!

Not on some things. But in that sense, what this bill and what the amendment has done is not so much allowing for that kind of scenario but actually in some ways pulls the rug under those people, because if this bill didn’t exist or if I didn’t put in an amendment that talks about a class of persons, those people would bring a proceeding in front of an authority and the judge will base on case law—make a determination—and then they will use the current case that the four Uber drivers have brought to the Supreme Court to make a judgment. However, what the Minister has done, with the introduction of this bill—unless I’m wrong, in which case Minister please correct me—is that the legislation would trump existing case law, which means that even though it is the other Uber drivers’ ability to bring it forth, the conditions that the judge is able to rule or the authority or the court is able to rule has fundamentally changed with this amendment and with this bill.

So in some ways that’s not what—while the Minister says that it is up to the individuals, but the conditions for those individuals have changed. So I guess my question to the Minister, again, is: should future—I’m not talking about every class of contractors because we’re specifically talking about those who have already brought proceedings in front of authority and it’s successful but, should additional people bring that forward, are they going to be treated as contractors, now, under this new legislation or are they going to be treated like what is in existence under the case law and under common law?

If not, once again, I do ask the Minister to consider my amendment to change it to include a class of persons so that way any future person will be entitled—which is their right—to the same treatment as their predecessor. And we’re not asking it to be covered for every single contractor in this case. I’m only asking for those who have been successful in determining employment status either before authority or actually in front of the judiciary. I’ll be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about that.

Mr Chair?

09:53

Thank you Mr Chair. Certainly there are a lot of questions left on the table, so I assume that my colleague Carl Bates is standing up to make a detailed contribution. I know he has worked hard on this bill at select committee. I see that the Minister is getting advice so I don’t think we want to move away from Amendment Paper 504 because there are questions on the table, but there are additional parts in the section to cover which I will ask some questions on now.

I just note: it’s not exhaustive, the number of questions on the Amendment Paper, and there has been a little bit of repetition of the same points, so there will be a need to—

Thank you, Mr Chair, I appreciate that, and the number of questions and the complexity of the questions is exactly why—the first thing that I attempted to do in this committee stage was to send it back to select committee so the very good officials from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment will be able to assure the House of the impact of this Amendment Paper, which we’ve only just seen. Not to have those questions answered at the committee stage is concerning in terms of people’s rights. So I appreciate the Standing Orders advice and, of course, you’re always 100 percent correct on that, Mr Speaker, but I would implore the Minister and advisers to be able to answer some of these difficult questions.

There are important sections within the transitional provisions which apply to parts of this Act. For example, we spoke in the previous part about the changes to section 67I, which is the threshold test in respect of remuneration. Now, that is covered in the transitional provisions which are a part of this part, and it has some really interesting facts around when an employee would be covered by the threshold test. For example it appears to say, in these transitional provisions, that people who are already employed by an employer, if they earn over $200,000—which is the new rate—will not be covered by the new provision which prevents them for taking a personal grievance for 12 months.

My question to the Minister is: is this in relation to commencement date? This also says the commencement date is the date in which it commences, in 2025. I think that is a normal drafting thing that will be changed to 2026. So I’d appreciate, if that’s incorrect, if the Minister could correct that, because at the moment it obviously comments on the wrong year. But the threshold in relation to employees, essentially, from my reading of this transitional provision, seems to mean that if you are employed on $200,000, you will be able to take a personal grievance for 12 months, and there’s some conditions in here around restructuring. So if the Minister can just clarify that as well—because it isn’t set out as clearly as it could be in the law—that would be really helpful.

Hopefully, the Minister can maybe respond to some of those previous questions, but I do think that there are some issues in the transitional provisions including exactly when employees—and also how would they be told? So if you’re earning over $200,000 and this doesn’t kick in for a year, this is going to be something that happens, presumably, which is going to go relatively unnoticed until you decide to take a personal grievance. Then you’ll have to look back to this particular Act, and you’ll see when the commencement date is, and then you have to calculate, well, is it a year since that date when your rights actually are extinguished? So what is the communication going to be for people in that position, or is it just going to be something where they feel that they are unfairly dismissed at work or they’re sacked for no reason and suddenly they can’t take a personal grievance?

09:57

Thank you, Mr Chair. To come back to the Amendment Paper 504, the question is: is the Government cancelling debts owed by a few large corporates to IRD? The context for that question is, right now, there are a few companies who have used a model of contracting—for example, New Zealand Post—where the implications of the Supreme Court decision mean that today and in the past, there are a number of people who were working as contractors who the companies did not pay PAYE or other payments on their behalf. Perhaps it’s alleged that they were paid less than the minimum wage where those debts are owing.

My question is not about arrangements going forward, because there’s no question that the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety intends to create a situation where those debts are not accrued after the commencement date, but what I’m asking is: there are debts owed now in the view of the Supreme Court, there are a number of companies which will be booking liabilities for that; is it right that anything that they have set aside that they may be liable for, given the outcome of the Supreme Court’s decisions, no longer needs to be held aside?

I would impress upon the committee that that is a significant issue, though there are not many companies that are implicated by that. There are a number of employees and the debts may be very large. For some companies, the debts may be so large that they have not been able to put aside a contingent liability because it is too large to book for them, because that could go back a few years. It’s understandable that you would want to curtail this from the date of commencement. It’s also understandable that you would want to put some parameters around what sort of litigation that you could bring around that, so that the claims are known and knowable to the Government. But this is not a potential cost to the Government which is being avoided; it’s a potential debt owing to the Government.

So the question is about forgone tax revenues and about what this will mean for those companies that have very large outstanding debts, because those debts have crystallised. I’m not asking about theoretical rights; I’m not asking about those rights that only exist should a claim be brought. I’m asking about the debts that are owed now, have been tested in the court, and have been found to exist.

10:00

Thank you, Mr Chair. There are still some outstanding questions on the table for the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, so I’m hoping that we will get some of those answered. This is genuinely an attempt for us to do the best we can as legislators in a very tough situation of having the relatively complex Amendment Paper 504, not being briefed on it, not having any heads-up about it, reading it yesterday, trying to make the best sense that we can of it, feeling apprehensive about the potential implications of it; feeling that—you know, some of the assurances that the Minister has given have been reassuring that the intention is not to take away, retrospectively, rights from people—

This is still an improvement.

This is—yeah. So that is valuable to us, but we do have questions on the table around the impact of it that, I still think, remain outstanding.

I don’t accept the time-limit question. I can’t see how it wouldn’t affect time limits. I haven’t had a clear explanation. I know the Minister said, I think, that the law and the test for whether someone’s an employee or not would continue, but what I want to know—I suppose, a real nucleus of that question around people who have filed claims is—and what I just want to hear from the Minister is: does this Amendment Paper provide any additional rights that would not otherwise exist for those who have filed claims in terms of them continuing their employment status?

I accept that everything in relation to employment status is a test—it is currently: in common law, it’s a test; in the statute, it’s a test. Under this Amendment Paper, there are tests that apply, but if we step through that and we think, if people meet those criteria—if, currently, under the law they would be an employee and, currently, after this law, they’ll be a specified contractor, there will be people in those categories. What I really want to know—and it’s important for our consideration on this Amendment Paper—is: is there a group of people whose rights are more protected under this Amendment Paper than they would otherwise be?

What I’ve heard from the Minister, and she can correct me if I’m wrong, is that this is a clarification of how the law works, so, actually, there wouldn’t be any additional rights that would be gained from the Amendment Paper being passed. But it was just a clarification that, in fact, there isn’t retrospective wiping of existing employment rights as a result of the primary piece of legislation without the amendment.

It’s been answered.

She hasn’t answered it—and if you know the answer, tell me the answer, because I haven’t heard it. It’s really important for us, as the Opposition, to be able to determine if we are going to support this Amendment Paper, because we want to understand exactly how it works. We’ve suggested, in good faith, amendments to make this better and we want to understand how it works. This is the committee stage. This bill, this Amendment Paper, has not been to select committee. We are not privy to information from advisers. This is our democratic chance to get the answers that we need.

We haven’t heard—and this is not directed at the Minister; this is at colleagues: please allow us to make informed decisions about the laws that we vote for that apply to every single New Zealander in this country. This is an extremely serious matter. We haven’t heard the answers. We haven’t heard the answers in relation to the student employees not being entitled to take personal grievances. These are really important. I understand that committee stages can be long, but this is our opportunity to get answers. We’d appreciate a clear answer on that question.

10:04

Thank you, Mr Chair. I will try to take a call and respond to a few questions. Firstly, to Arena Williams: will the gateway test affect employment rights pre-commencement—and she gave an example about debts owed by an employer to IRD. Look, it’s starting to become ad nauseam, but the bill does not impact tests applied pre-commencement.

Lawrence Xu-Nan, he’s got a tabled amendment, I believe, urging me to consider it, about classes of people to be included in the Amendment Paper. Look, the employment status is determined on a case by case basis. Applying a decision to a class of people, regardless of whether or not they have challenged their status, would undermine the ability of parties to agree to an arrangement that actually does suit them.

Camilla Belich has also asked how employees will be made aware of the threshold changes. Officials will develop and publish guidance to support both employers and employees in understanding their legislative changes and obligations. They do that on a range of different laws when they change. Camilla Belich has also asked for the references to the 2025 amendment Act to be updated to 2026. That’s a yes.

Lawrence Xu-Nan has asked: does the legislation trump existing case law? The bill changes the test and, therefore, the authority in the court will need to apply the amended law to cases filed after commencement.

10:06

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Now, we’ve covered a lot. The Minister has been answering, perhaps, not to the extent that members would like. However, we’ll be looking for new material. I’m also aware that people new to the committee asking the same question is not new material. Helen White.

Thank you; I appreciate that. Actually, it comes out of the last answer of the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, and it has raised, very much, a question. It’s a very practical question. The nature of the people that I’m most concerned about being caught by this new clause is that they are often migrants. They speak different languages, but they’re also scattered, and they have no unions, etc.—they have no collectivity. They have very little access to knowledge of systems. I’m concerned about how much the Minister knows about how difficult it is going to be to inform those people.

There’s a second issue that is of serious concern with regard to that. If somebody raises a claim—so they’re in the position where they raise a claim from now, because, otherwise, they’re going to miss out—there’s been a real fear of retaliation in that situation. We’ve had it where people would raise a claim that they were an employee rather than a contractor, and they would lose their contract. That was very real. I wanted to know whether the Minister had looked at the risk of that and protecting from that risk, which is totally genuine. I’ve seen it happen; because they are on a precarious contractual term, it can just be cut off, so expecting people to go through and raise a claim pre-emptively is particularly difficult.

I want to know whether there was any advice on the nature of the people that are most impacted; and whether there was going to be reach-out in different languages; and whether there was going to be that kind of protection or reassurance, or what safeguards were put in place, for people who raised the claim at this point. This is honestly totally genuine. I’ve had this situation many times. I suspect it’s why a lot of people have never challenged status when they should: they’re living off the smell of an oily rag and the last thing they need is to lose their job because they’ve challenged their status. Putting your head above the parapet is a big deal. So I want to know what the situation is with regard to those two features. I have got a follow-up question on this, but I would very much like the answer to this question before I do. I’m mindful of the time, so I would like to—am I going to get an answer from the Minister now on that? I know that there’s an attempt to make this a back and forth, and I would appreciate the answer to that before I ask my next question.

We’ll just be moving on, then? My next concern is just about payment backwards. If people have been misdiagnosed—miscategorised—as contractors and they are employees, their holiday pay rights don’t stop at six years; they actually go back for the entire term. They have, therefore, often potential rights to large sums of money, and that money is attached to what they have been, rather than what they’re deemed on the day. I want a really practical answer here: do they lose the right to that money if they don’t claim status on that day? Are they able to claim for the time they have accumulated it? We’re often talking about thousands of dollars, and I would like to know whether they can do that.

I’d also like to know whether they can claim a debt, because, in that situation, that would also be subject to back-pay claims. I want to know how much scope there is for them to claim back monies owed in that situation, and what happens to things like holiday pay.

10:11

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Camilla Belich—with some new material.

Thank you, Mr Chair. This is a totally new section that we have not covered at all. I want to ask the Minister about how dispute resolution procedures that are currently in employment contracts will be applied following the passage of this Act. This is in the Schedule, new Part 8—page 13—new clause 28. This appears to say that, if there’s a dispute resolution procedure already in someone’s employment contract and they earn over $200,000, this legislation would actually go into their employment contract and seek to make aspects of that already-agreed employment contract void in respect of dispute resolution procedures. This is because it’s stated in the Schedule, because of the changes that the Government has made to the fact that they can’t bring a personal grievance.

On a practical level, I want to know what that actually leaves an employee with. Say you’re currently employed, you earn over $200,000, you have a dispute resolution clause—which is very, very common in employment agreements—and you have this clause 28, which is, essentially, saying that so long as they are related to personal grievances or unjustified dismissal, they will no longer be effective. What are we going to have? Are we going to have a paragraph that has redacted parts? Will it remain intact but certain parts of it will be ineffective? This seems to be a very unusual clause, and what I would suggest to the Minister is an easier way of achieving what the Minister is maybe wanting to achieve is actually to say that agreed dispute-resolution clauses can continue if they are agreed by employer and employee. I mean, why wouldn’t you be able to have that in an employment agreement?

Obviously, if someone tried to take a personal grievance or decided to make a legal claim, there would be a barrier there. I don’t understand why this provision is necessary. It just seems to me that an easier situation would be to leave the employment contract intact and then just stop any legal proceedings, which would be inevitably stopped by the change in law. I mean, this is very unusual, and as a former practitioner, it would be really difficult to get away with doing anything other than charging my clients to redraft their entire contract and making money for myself as a lawyer and costing companies more money in order to redraft these contracts, which I think is a waste of time. I wonder if the Minister would be open to changing that, because it seems to me an unusual step, and I’d appreciate some answers on that.

10:14

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. Just referring to Helen White’s questions—“Does the individual lose rights to money if they don’t apply on the date?”—I’ve been advised this doesn’t affect the limitation period, and I think that question has been answered before. Also, there was a question, “Has the Minister looked at the risk of someone raising a claim and losing their contract?” I’ve been advised that contract law will apply regarding what happens if a contract is cancelled.

Just responding to the member Camilla Belich—“How will existing dispute resolution procedures in existing agreements apply?”—I have been advised the Act requires employment agreements to describe services available for resolving employment relationship problems. To meet this requirement, some agreements state that an employee may raise an unjustified-dismissal claim. This transitional provision is intended to prevent existing employment agreements that state that employees may raise an unjustified-dismissal claim from being interpreted as contracting back into unjustified-dismissal protection, but to maintain any bespoke dispute resolution agreements.

10:16

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Thank you, Mr Chair, and I will say thank you very much. This is my first opportunity and it’s an area that is in my spokesperson role, but, unfortunately, yesterday, as you know, Mr Chair, I had to attend my auntie’s funeral, so I’ve been very limited in this debate so far. I do to appreciate the ability to be able to contribute to the debate when we’re looking at the transition phases in Schedule 1AA, inserted by the Schedule. Thank you very much for that opportunity.

I really was wanting to follow on from my colleague Camilla Belich’s contribution about the personal grievances. I was very intrigued listening to that, as someone who has worked in employment law, and the take on what happens in that and the confusion that is being caused by clause 28, I think it is, that’s there in this new Schedule 1AA, as it is newly defined. There’s a very quick question that I hope the Minister is able to answer. As I say, it’s following on from that contribution.

How does the Minister reconcile Schedule 1AA’s default outcomes with the Act’s stated purpose of promoting good faith and fair bargaining, especially for those employees with, as my colleague Helen White said, really limited bargaining power? I’m really wanting to understand this whole transition period for those people that, coming through in the personal grievance, might have that personal grievance but also have that really limited bargaining power. I’ve listened very carefully to both contributions here, and I still am not satisfied that we really understand how difficult it is going to be for those people. I really want to have that spelt out.

There is another key area that came from my colleague’s contribution over here: why did the Government consider it was necessary to include a bespoke transitional regime in Schedule 1AA rather than relying on the standard commencement and savings provisions in the Employment Relations Act? I’d really appreciate an answer from the Minister about that, and, as I say, I really appreciate the opportunity, not having been able to be here yesterday, to have my contribution too.

10:19

Thank you, Mr Chair, and condolences to Jan Tinetti and her whānau as well. E mihi ana.

This contribution is based on an amendment that I’ve got on the Table, as part of new Part 8 of Schedule 1AA, inserted by the Schedule. It is around those transitional provisions, because, once you hit that threshold around about $200,000, once this bill passes, all of a sudden you lose rights to the personal grievance system. My amendment is about giving some time for that employee to be able to negotiate some more of their terms, because they’re actually losing out, right? So you get to this particular point, this bill comes in, and all of a sudden this whole system that you used to be able to engage in is no longer available for you, so, surely, there should be some space there for that employee or those employees to actually have a sit down with their employers to be able to see if something can be done, because they are, in my mind, losing out.

My amendment, dated 11 February 7.45 p.m., is: in Schedule “New Part 8 inserted into Schedule 1AA”—which we have talked about—clause 26(2), replace “12 months” with “24 months”. Just to give it that much more breathing space because you are dealing with employees that are operating at that particular bracket that would need a particular amount of time for them to able to negotiate that, and I think that would be important. If the Minister could consider that, that would be good.

Just to reflect back on a number of the comments that we have heard around the committee regarding the Minister’s Amendment Paper 504, it is still not clear on the advice that she received from officials; it is still not clear about how that will impact different people. There have been numerous amounts of questions about that, and there was an opportunity for us to seek leave for the House and actually have a have a better, more fulsome discussion about this at the select committee because it will impact large numbers of workers, so I do want to make that comment.

My question is: will the Minister accept my amendment? You need a bit of time to sort these things out. These are big moves that will be happening, and this will be new territory for everybody, particularly those up at that threshold. Will the Minister consider my amendment?

10:22

Thank you, Mr Chair. Just in response to the member Jan Tinetti, who asked how consistent the transitional provision is with good faith. I’ve been advised the threshold will apply to existing employment agreements 12 months after commencement of the bill, providing an opportunity to negotiate how the threshold will apply. Employers and employees are subject to the obligation of good faith when proposing to negotiate existing employment agreements. If they do not agree to the change—the employment agreement—the threshold will automatically apply after 12 months. I consider this is consistent with good faith.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to insert new clause 21 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendment inserting new clause 21A be agreed to.

We come now to the vote on the Schedule. We’ll just change.

Good morning, members. The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendments to Amendment Paper 504, new clause 25A amending subclauses (1)(a) and (2) be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendments to Amendment Paper 504, new clause 25A, amending subclauses (1) and (3)(b) be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 504, new clause 25A(1)(b) be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 504, inserting new subclause (2A) of clause 25A to clarify that the section is not intended to have retrospective effect, be agreed to.

Arena Williams’ remaining tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 504, inserting new subclause (2A) of clause 25A, is ruled out of order as merely an attempt to criticise the bill.

The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 504, new clause 25A, amending subclause (3) be agreed to.

The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 504, inserting new subclause (5) of clause 25A be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to Amendment Paper 504, inserting new clause 25B be agreed to.

Members, there are six tabled amendments that seek to amend Amendment Paper 504, new clause 25A, from Arena Williams. They all seek to replace the wording of subclause (2). I will now put separate questions on these six tabled amendments.

The question is that subclause (2) read “The person is a specified contractor in relation to the arrangement on and from the commencement date only if their employment began on or after the commencement date.” be agreed to.

The question is that subclause (2) read “The person is a specified contractor in relation to the arrangement entered into on and from the commencement date and not in relation to any arrangements that were entered into before the commencement date.” be agreed to.

The question is that subclause (2) read “The person is a specified contractor only in relation to an arrangement entered into on or after the commencement date, and is not a specified contractor in respect of any arrangement entered into before that date because no retrospective effect is intended.” be agreed to.

The question is that subclause (2) read “The person is a specified contractor solely for arrangements entered into from the commencement date onwards and is not deemed to be a specified contractor for arrangements entered into prior to that date.” be agreed to.

The question is that subclause (2) read “To avoid any retrospective effect, a person is to be treated as a specified contractor in relation to any arrangement entered into on or after the commencement date, but is not to be treated as a specified contractor in relation to any arrangement entered into before that date.” be agreed to.

The question is that subclause (2) read “The status of specified contractor applies only to arrangements entered into on and from the commencement date, and does not apply to arrangements entered into before the commencement date.” be agreed to.

The question is that the Minister’s amendment to the Schedule set out on Amendment Paper 504 be agreed to.

The question is that Teanau Tuiono’s tabled amendment to clause 26(2) be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendment to insert new clause 30 into the Schedule be agreed to.

10:47

Mr Chair—Madam Chair. Sorry about that. That would have been a terrible thing to do to you. I want to ask about the commencement date. I am particularly concerned because we have tried to thoroughly examine this bill as we’ve gone through. One thing that I asked about was the contractor’s notification. I drilled down a little bit while there was another Minister in the chair about the nature of the communication of the changes that were happening, because we have people who speak all sorts of languages. There are, obviously, different types of people in this situation, but a lot of the people that we’re dealing with actually are particularly alienated from the systems that we are running, because they are migrants—they’re new to the country, and don’t necessarily know, and aren’t familiar with, this system. They don’t have the necessary connections in it. They don’t have the language quite often. There may be issues with education. There is a level of vulnerability in this group, and what we have here is a commencement date that is very sharp.

What I heard the Minister talk about was that there was going to be a campaign to notify people. I can’t reconcile that in my head, because how do you notify people that their rights are going to be extinguished—and extinguished back, which we’ve just seen from the denial of some of the amendments that were made to make sure that the rights were retained at least for the period when they would have been deemed to be employees? No, that’s going. They’re stealing lots of money off lots of people, actually. That’s the way I see it, because all of the things that they were going to get are gone as of this law change. There’s a huge amount of money at stake for people—holiday pay, claims for different amounts of money if they were under the minimum wage, etc. All of those we’re stealing from the bottom part of the income stream. These are people who have, perhaps, been on less than the minimum wage. We are stealing money from them, and we should at least inform them, and they should at least have a chance to claim in that time so that they’ve got at least something of a claim in on time.

It looks like we’re doing this straight away, so I want to ask about the commencement date. Given that risk—and I appreciate I’m using language the Minister probably doesn’t agree with, but the facts remain the same: lots of money—lots of money, lots of vulnerability, lots of rights gone, and only if they make a claim is there any chance, etc.

If that is the case—and those are serious consequences—would the Minister look at a date that was advised by the capacity to actually let people know that this was happening so they had a fighting chance? Could we have a date that was advised by that? Has she sought advice about how long it would take for people to become aware of this? I’ve talked about this in the last stage—about is there any analysis of the demographic in terms of languages that are spoken by our contractors? Think about our cleaners, our Uber drivers, etc. Has there been a plan put forward to do that, how long would it take to inform those people, and could we consider a commencement date that made sense of that? If it was, for example, a year out, could we get an education programme into the right places? Remember, these people have no central place to go. They are not members of unions. They are very much scattered populations. So how would we do that, and would the Minister consider giving time?

If she is not prepared to do that, if she’s saying, “Right, it’s just happening straight after commencement, etc.”, then can she explain why? Why would you suddenly bring this in in this way rather than give people a chance to make claims? In other situations, we have always allowed time for people to make a claim, and I just cannot understand why not. So I would like an answer to that question. Thank you very much, Minister.

10:52

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good to be able to take a call on the preliminary provisions of this particular Act. These can sometimes be overlooked, but these are in fact the main operative parts—if we didn’t have a commencement date, then obviously we wouldn’t know when the Act came in—so I think it’s important to give them the attention that they deserve.

This Act—or this bill, and this Act, as it possibly will be—has a number of different commencement dates which are referred to in the transitional provisions. I wanted to know, for clarity, if it might be more prudent to have more of that information contained in clause 2. Someone reading this Act will just simply look at the Royal assent date and think everything comes in, whereas, actually, if you look further into the Act, which, of course, we’ve traversed slightly, we see that there are different dates in relation to different parts—for example, when personal grievance rights apply to certain employees.

We’ve also put a number of amendments up, looking to just extend the commencement date. I think, from the conversations that we’ve had around our concerns about this particular bill, that that is justified, because this is a particular Act that I think would benefit from a longer period of time to allow people to understand their rights. That’s especially so because the committee has just passed an amendment that hasn’t been to select committee and hasn’t had the opportunity of having submissions into the impact of it.

The commencement date at the moment is after the Royal assent. I wonder if the Minister might consider—because that amendment has come in, and that obviously wasn’t part of the original drafting when this bill was put in place—allowing the commencement date to be extended for a short period of time. I think when I asked to get this sent back to select committee, I suggested 17 March, so a very short period of time—just over a month—where the commencement could be delayed.

That would just give the public and officials time to digest the bill as a whole, with Amendment Paper 504 which has been agreed, and if there were any concerns around the bill, it would give the opportunity for that to be addressed prior to the bill actually coming into effect.

I think it would have been preferable to send it back to select committee. I think that would have been easier. But I do think that perhaps having a short delay would allow, I’m sure, the very interested legal employment law, union, business, Uber drivers, gig economy workers—everyone who needs to work in order to earn a living is potentially impacted by this bill, no matter what their particular characterisation of their engagement in work is. I think that that would be something that I would look to.

The other question I had is a technical question around the title. Obviously, the version that we have on the Table refers to 2025. I would be very surprised if this wasn’t changed to 2026 when it actually becomes law, but I wanted to know what is the mechanism for making that change? Obviously, we debate and we agree and we look in detail at the words in front of us when we are passing pieces of legislation through this House. What is the authority for those minor amendment changes that will undoubtedly need to be made to this Act because it still states 2025, and what is the threshold for making those particular amendments? We’ve had statutes amendment Acts which have made arguably more minor changes than that, and they’ve had to be put in place and debated in this House.

I’m sure there’s a really logical answer. I’m interested in what that answer is, but I think, more substantively, the commencement date is something I would like to have some responses on.

In terms of the title, I don’t want to suggest titles which are obviously just making fun of the Act. There is a Standing Order which prohibits me from doing that. As someone who’s looked back through laws, it is difficult to ascertain exactly what law we’re talking about because of the manner in which we describe things like changes to the Employment Relations Act, and the education amendment Acts are also similarly only identifiable really by the year that they are passed, and sometimes you can have more than one in a year. I wonder if the Minister did think is there a way to differentiate this particular piece of legislation?

10:57

Thank you, Madam Chair. We are at the title and commencement debate, and an opportunity for members to sum up their observations to date on this committee of the whole House stage as well. When we started this committee stage, I thought this was a horrible and terrible bill, and as we went through it, through the night, sort of seeing the detail of how horrible and terrible this is for the workers became more and more apparent.

I worry—I worry about the impacts of this bill in terms of the detail that we have heard this morning but also last night as well and how that will impact workers, particularly vulnerable workers. We had wide-ranging debate, with many amendments on this side of the House to sort of try to balance out the rights for the workers. We are seeing thousands and thousands of people leaving the country for better pastures where they have better working rights and conditions—I’m talking about Australia. To see that not being reflected in this iteration of the bill is disappointing. I do know that it’s important for us to put on record on Hansard to note that disappointment.

I do note the conversation—that this is about title and commencement. When you look at the title of this bill—Employment Relations Amendment Bill—it’s quite vanilla. It’s going to be very, very difficult to find it online. There’s nothing in that title that distinguishes it from any other employment-type bill as well. It’ll be difficult for people to find.

I do take the point that we can’t suggest names which will denigrate and are contrary to the policy intent of the bill. So I couldn’t call it the “Punching Down on the Workers Bill”—that would not be acceptable—I couldn’t call it “Punching Down on the Workers Bill”. I couldn’t call it the “Ripping Off the Workers Bill”—that would not be in Standing Orders, so I could not suggest that at all. I couldn’t call it the “Misclassification of Workers and Taking Away Their Rights Bill”, because that would be completely against Standing Orders. I won’t suggest that—that would be absolutely, absolutely terrible. I would never, ever call it the “See You Later, New Zealand; I’m Going Over to Australia Where They’ve Got Better Working Rights and Conditions Bill”, because that would absolutely be against Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings, and I wouldn’t do that—I wouldn’t do that. But I think there is a point that needs to be made that they need to be able to find this bill when they search for it, right, because it’s the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. What does that mean? Perhaps a title which actually might fit within Standing Orders could be the “Employment Relations (Changing Classification and Impacts on the 30-Day Revocation) Bill”. Maybe it’s a bit lengthy. It’s a bit lengthy, but actually it will make it easier for people to find.

I also take the point that others have made around the commencement date. I’m being serious here. Something that should be considered is pushing out the commencement date to January 2027. We did have a long, elongated debate around the Minister’s Amendment Paper. Many, many concerns were raised about how this would impact on workers, whether they are now able to be employees because of court cases, but then all of a sudden, down the track, certain other things might happen as well. None of that was made very, very clear. The Amendment Paper was put on the Table late last night as well.

So having the commencement date stretched out so that people can actually get their heads around what’s happening for them, so they can understand actually what their employment status is at the point of commencement is incredibly, incredibly important. That’s linked to a whole lot of other things that we’ve heard as well. People’s rights and access to the personal grievance system are going to disappear on commencement. People need to be able to understand that. They need to have an opportunity to be able to possibly renegotiate their contracts, and I had an Amendment Paper to that effect as well.

I think there is a strong argument to be made that we need to be looking at pushing out the commencement date, because there are a lot of moving parts here. People are not informed. I’m not convinced by the arguments that the Minister has made or this House has presented that this will be fit to go on a commencement date, and so, on that, thank you, Madam Chair.

11:02

Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise to respond to a number of comments and questions. Firstly, to Helen White, how will people be notified about the changes and would I consider a delay? No, I wouldn’t consider a delay. Officials will be developing and publishing guidance to support both employers and employees in understanding the legislative changes like they do every time the law does change in this space. But the changes in this bill have been well signalled through the ACT and National Party coalition agreements and announcements over, I think, the past two years.

Camilla Belich then moved on to ask about whether it would helpful to move the transitional provisions into the clause about the commencement date. No. The bill is drafted according to standard drafting practice and the Parliamentary Counsel Office has standard practices to ensure consistency of law.

Camilla Belich also then asked if I would consider delaying the commencement. Once again, no. As I previously had signalled right at the start of this debate this morning, the Amendment Paper simply clarifies the intended application of the bill as it was explained in the departmental report during the Education and Workforce Committee that the member was also quite privy too.

Camilla Belich also then asked if I would consider renaming the bill to be clearer about what it does, and that was also Teanau Tuiono’s contribution this morning. No, I think it is actually quite clear. I actually think that in New Zealand it’s quite good that our bill names are sometimes dry because I think that helps us move away from hyperbole and catastrophising issues when they are not. It’s the same as if you change the Education and Training Act. We’ve had multiple of those. They do what they say they do. They amend the Act.

11:04

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 1 inserting “(Change to Existing Employment Rights)” be agreed to.

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

The question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendment to clause 2 be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 2 requiring the Act to come into force six months after Royal assent be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 2 requiring all provisions apart from clauses 1 to 3 to come into force on the day after Royal assent be agreed to.

Members, we have a number of amendments from Camilla Belich to clause 2 that propose to replace the commencement with a specified date. In accordance with Standing Order 315(4), I will put the question on a representative selection of these amendments to test the will of the committee. I’ll read Standing Order 315(4): “Where amendments are proposed that, in the opinion of the chairperson, are the same in substance, the chairperson may select amendments on which to put a question, in order to test the will of the committee.”

The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to clause 2 to amend the commencement to “February 152027” be agreed to.

The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to clause 2 to amend the commencement date to “July 1 2027” be agreed to.

The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to clause 2 to amend the commencement to “January 1 2028” be agreed to.

Members, the committee has voted on a representative selection of amendments to clause 2 insofar as they replace the commencement with a specified date. The will of the committee having been tested, Camilla Belich’s remaining five tabled amendments are ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee. Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 2 is also ruled out of order on this basis.

Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to insert a clause 3 review provision is ruled out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

11:17

It’s a real pleasure to stand in for Minister Penk, who has done a lot of work in the veterans space. This is a small step to more widely and properly recognising all of our veterans and commemorating all of those who have served for our country, whether here or overseas. I know this is a very brief bill, which makes a very significant contribution to our veterans and to those who have served. It also makes some significant changes to recognise those who have lost their lives in incidents that are not necessarily in combat or in war, but maybe in training or in accidents, and I think that’s an appropriate change to make, so I look forward to the passage of the bill through the House.

Helen Clark—oh, sorry. Helen White.

11:18

Those are big shoes to fill! We also have quite different views on China. Thank you for bringing this bill to the House. It’s something I’d like to speak to, particularly in light of the wonderful role lots of us have in our electorates with regards to Anzac Day. It’s probably my favourite duty. I don’t know how many people in this committee would share that view, but I love being involved in Anzac Day. It feels like a very great honour, but the community has definitely moved into a space where, in my community, it has long since recognised the people that we will recognise in this bill.

In my area I have an RSA, but I also have what’s called a Returned Services Club (RSC). The RSC is one that recognises the merchant ship contribution and they’ve done that for many, many years. They are people who meet every Anzac Day in the street outside of that RSC. They have a very creative approach, a very inclusive approach, but I’m always cognisant that I’m standing amongst people who would be different if we hadn’t had the world wars we’ve had, because there are people missing from that community—generations of people missing from it. A lot of people who come to those ceremonies are people who have been very involved and they’ve often lost people in those wars. It is an incredibly bonding thing for a community as old as that one in Grey Lynn and for the Mt Albert community. We also have a school that has just really taken on board the need to remember these things. Mount Albert Grammar has little white crosses outside it—my children went there—and it is a devastating number of their pupils who lost their lives in those wars.

I wanted to ask about the expansion of the group. I’d love to hear from the Minister about why we selected the definition we did for the group that we will now include in our commemorations. What, for example, is it about the merchant shipmen? We’ve also included training in the situation—people killed in training accidents. I think that’s a very good inclusion, but I would like to hear from the Minister about why we drew the lines where we did.

Then I’d like to ask the Minister about the peacekeeping missions that we have had. I used to go to Helen Clark’s LEC—Labour Electoral Commission—and one of the things I really loved about Helen Clark was how seriously she took the lives of the people in service. She was very concerned that there was a careful deployment of people, and she saw the vision of New Zealand as a place where we would be involved in peacekeeping missions. I’d love to hear from the Minister about that work that we do and whether we’ve included the people who do that kind of work in the new Act. How will we be commemorating the work they do, and the value of the work they do at an international level? Because I, for one, am incredibly proud of the way that we have become peacekeepers in the world and the involvement that we have had in that work.

Finally, I would love to know about some of that work in the Pacific and the price that people have had to pay. I’m well aware that there is a case that was brought over the harm that was done by Agent Orange. Madam Chair, I’ll just finish my statement, and I promise I’ll sit down. I’m well aware that people have paid huge prices, and they’ve fallen through the gaps for a while, so I would love to hear a little bit more from the Minister about some of the prices and the risks that people have faced that we need to recognise as serious sacrifices they have made. Thank you. I’d just like to mention that the spokesperson in this role is Greg O’Connor, and he is waiting to ask some more questions.

11:23

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

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

11:24

I want to speak to an amendment that I have on the Table. It’s a very small amendment, but I think it’s an important symbolic amendment. I think it’s a question of interpretation. I took this amendment to the Minister’s office—in fact—

Can I interrupt the member—we are not taking all the provisions as one question—

Oh, we’re not?

—that is the last part. We are still on the title.

I thought we got agreement on that one.

No, we did not. There was objection.

Madam Chair, thank you for the opportunity. This is a bill that has arrived here, and all the speeches to date have been pretty much in support, when we broadly look at the issue. As we’re standing here in the Chamber, we’re looking around what is actually a war memorial. Behind the names here are a lot of very human stories. Every Anzac Day, there’s yet another family we’ll read about who are still being impacted—where uncles and grandparents and various others, their stories have come to light. We tend, as we drive around the country, to see a memorial in every town drive through. Those memorials give some idea of just what impact there has been in those days, particularly World War I.

We’re on the title and commencement of this bill, and, of course, it’s the Anzac Day Amendment Bill. The reason I bring that up is that the name “Anzac” was conceived around that. The very first Anzac Day ceremony was actually held in the Wairarapa, out in Tinui. That was the first time it was ever celebrated. Our minds are locked into “Anzac Day”, and this is what I’m now speaking about. I’m just putting to the Minister that when this was being discussed, because of the broadening of the whole of the issue, whether any consideration was given to actually changing the whole “Anzac Day” name of it? It does almost lock us in to that period, to that time, to World War I. As we talk about, now, these increased number of engagements, what we’re going to do is be reminded of just how many places New Zealanders have fought as peacekeepers, and, latterly, there are more plaques that could go on this wall—East Timor and places like this, because these are places where New Zealanders have actually died.

I’d just ask the Minister, in the discussion around this bill, was there ever any thought, as we are expanding the numbers, whether the term “Anzac” is fit for purpose? Was any thought given to whether we should rename the whole of the Anzac Day Act?

11:27

Thank you, Madam Chair. Apologies—I started quite broadly because I assumed we were going to take the debate as one. If we are to move it through clause by clause, I’ll address Helen White’s questions when we get to them in clause 4.

Just on clause 1, the title clause, my understanding is that there was no discussion around whether or not to change the name of Anzac Day or the name of the Anzac Day Act itself, which would be a different section of the bill. I’m sure the member has some views on it, but I think that Anzac Day is a good, well-understood point of commemoration and celebration of those who have served our country, and I don’t think there’s any intention at this point to make any changes to that.

11:28

I just want to clarify that there is no amendment and there’s certainly no proposal from this side that it be changed. It was merely a query. As the Minister will know, all aspects of any amendment—and this is a reasonably significant amendment to a bill—are considered. I just, I suppose, wanted the reassurance that the thought was given to this—and, certainly, I want to make sure that there’s absolutely no thought that we are proposing anything other than that. It’s just good to know that there has actually been some thought given to it.

11:29

Members, we now come to clause 2. This is the debate on the commencement. The question is that clause 2 stand part.

We move on to clause 3, which is the Principal Act. The question is that clause 3 stand part.

11:30

Thank you, Madam Chair. And, just like that, as though through magic, we have moved to clause 4 almost as though the debate has been taken as one question.

It’s not magic; it’s process, Minister.

It is process, and rigorous, and I appreciate the commitment to it. Now, I’ll just go and address Helen White’s questions that were raised earlier on. The first question was around the expansion of the group and where the lines were drawn. Essentially, the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage and the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee endorsed this approach to broaden the category to recognise that service during a conflict involves more than just those who wear a military uniform. All of the those who serve their country in these circumstances should be remembered and commemorated, and that includes peacekeepers. I draw the member’s attention to clause 4 replacing section 2. If we go to the new subsection (2) of that section 2, it defines warlike conflict as being when an individual serves ”in response to an armed conflict that has occurred, is occurring, or may occur or recur.” I think that quite fairly and squarely would capture those in a peacekeeping role.

In terms of the member’s last question, just around those who served in the Pacific and the ongoing health issues and concerns that many people have raised, that’s a very important issue that the Government is actively looking at, but it’s probably beyond the scope of this short bill to address.

11:31

Thank you. I can see that one of the changes is that New Zealand residents and other persons who served in allied forces in the two world wars is extended, and I’d be keen for a little bit of elaboration on that. I wondered about the issue about United Nations missions, multi-force groupings and organisations—for example, the UN peacekeepers—and to what extent that was a scope that had some discretion in it. We’re going to have strange alliances at the present time. We’ve got things breaking down in our global alliances, so how flexible is that in terms of our troops being engaged in places and with alliances that might not be our traditional groupings? Is that covered by multi-force groupings, for example?

I also am interested—again, it’s very similar: it’s the definition of ”warlike conflicts” and what we get in terms of certainty over that. I would be grateful for your answers.

11:33

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ve followed the debate as best I can, albeit arriving at a time that I was able to. I do want to start by perhaps echoing the words of my friend and colleague the Hon James Meager in acknowledging, number one, the points that have been made around the committee, and he’s answered those very satisfactorily—better, in fact, than I would have done, were I here—but also, of course, just to acknowledge those who made submissions to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee: the Royal New Zealand Returned and Services’ Association (RSA) and other submitters, and all MPs who have taken an interest in the matter, including at the committee of the whole House stage.

In terms of the inclusion of those who have served—and I use that term deliberately very broadly and openly—it’s quite explicitly our aim with this legislation to take it from the relatively narrow, confined, even constrained circumstances that are currently reflected in the wording of the bill, to a place that actually can be much more inclusive, as we stand here in this war memorial that doubles as a debating chamber for our House of Representatives. Looking at the battle honours, there’s a broad range of those, and that’s appropriate. And, of course, at Anzac Day services, it’s the case now that many people are obviously unaware of the legislation—as I was unaware, too, myself, until relatively recently. Of course, we’re celebrating peacekeeping and other ways of serving our nation, however you might describe those. There’s a bit of a tension between wanting to be as specific as possible and, of course, not losing the intent where Anzac Day itself harkened back to that very important nation-defining moment that was that particular campaign and all the mythology, but genuinely also, of course, the practical implications—not to mention the service and sacrifice, and, frankly, the bloodshed of that occasion.

To respond to a point that Mr Greg O’Connor was making—and making well—it seems to me important that we retain that original spirit and intent, and we broaden it out without diluting the fact of those world wars and other conflicts before and since being recognised. On that note, I wonder, Madam Chair, if you’d also indulge me to speak to a matter within the clause that we’re currently considering, and it’s the amendment put forward very thoughtfully by Mr Andy Foster. I do want to acknowledge the point that I understand he’s making through the amendment, which, of course, is to make sure that we acknowledge the service of every New Zealander who has fought, frankly, on the right side of history—and you think of obvious instances such as the Second World War and Sir Keith Park having served, effectively, under the banner of the Royal Air Force, but, of course, serving New Zealand by doing that, albeit with an allied or Commonwealth or partner nation at that time.

To me, there’s nothing in the legislation as we have drafted and as the select committee has diligently considered—and as the RSA has submitted they are comfortable with—that would preclude that interpretation whatsoever. I would respectfully say I don’t consider that amendment to be necessary, even though, of course, I understand the intent that he has in putting it forward. For what it’s worth, we share that desire that we have as broad as possible a conception so that we don’t preclude the service of anyone and, indeed, the sacrifice of anyone who has fought and otherwise worked hard in these situations on behalf of New Zealand, its interests and ideals, across the ages.

11:36

Thank you, Madam Chair. Sorry to get in front of the member with the amendment, but I do have some questions about this particular part of the Act, and particularly the changes that the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee has made. I am quite interested in digging into that a little bit more in terms of the interpretation, where it talks about including warlike conflicts—so language around warlike conflicts. That’s come from the select committee. In the commentary from the committee, it references the type of service that could be included in warlike conflicts—it says here specifically in the commentary, for example, during military training.

What I do want to ask the Minister in the chair, the Hon Chris Penk, because I think it would be useful to get this on to the Hansard, is what other types of warlike conflicts would you consider to be referenced in that section? For example, peacekeeping—somebody may not be in an active war zone necessarily but undertaking some type of military training on behalf of New Zealand in another country. I could understand—and I’m not an expert on this—that there would be a few examples of what a warlike conflict is. So a quick question: I’m just quite interested in whether the Minister has some more examples that he could use to further advance what the select committee has put in their commentary.

11:38

I think it’s, hopefully, been made clear already in commentary in this stage, but also through the excellent deliberation of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, that peacekeeping operations are included. I look across to Tim Costley, who’s served in some of these places, in situations in which he could speak much more meaningfully than I’ll be able to. But I would say, not only conflicts that have occurred—and we could go through a number of examples: I look around and I see variously described conflicts or situations of a warlike nature where conflict may yet to be occurring as well. Deliberately, again, to be as broad as possible, I see in front of me the New Zealand Wars, I see Afghanistan, I see Timor-Leste, I see Vietnam. That is probably the extent that my eyesight will allow, but, hopefully, our vision more generally, in a metaphorical sense, can be back into the past but also contemplating situations, sadly, that will inevitably arise over the years which we don’t know about now. Of course, part of the reason that we’re looking to amend the bill in this deliberately broad way is to capture scenarios later that we don’t know about in 2026, because then we won’t need to come back and amend it every time specifically to add individual conflicts, as has been the case since this bill was originally passed.

11:39

Madam Chair, thank you. Thanks, Minister, for the initial comments you’ve made on the amendment that I’ve got on the Table, which I do want to ask some more questions about, if I can.

The whole intent of this bill is to be inclusive, which I think we all completely agree with. New Zealand First has always been a strong supporter of our Defence Force, a strong supporter of our veterans, and a strong supporter of the memory of our veterans, and also of all of those people who have put themselves at risk in the service of our country.

The thing is, the particular concern that I’ve got with the language that’s being used at the moment in the bill as opposed to what’s in the Act at the moment, is you might interpret it inadvertently as excluding some people who are currently included in terms of the recognition.

In the Act as it is at the moment, it’s got that list of the six conflicts, but it then says, “and in memory of those who at any time have given their lives for New Zealand and the British Empire or Commonwealth of Nations,”. Now, I acknowledge that that might exclude some nations that New Zealanders fought alongside. It was quite explicit when it said that if you’re a New Zealander, if you served in the forces of the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, India, a nation which is in the Commonwealth of Nations, we recognise you.

Now, what we’ve gone to in the bill at the moment is—because all of that existing section is being taken out—“In commemoration of the contribution of … those who have served New Zealand … in time of war and … warlike conflicts”. Now, the interpretation that you’ve taken is—I think, at the very least, it’s important that we get this in the Hansard—that in service of New Zealand includes when you are fighting for or serving in the colours of another nation which is standing alongside New Zealand.

Now, I think of people you mentioned: Keith Park. Now, of course, he would be—if you just said it was purely New Zealand and it wasn’t in the colours of any other nation, and my amendment simply says, “including through service with other nations”. So Keith Park served in the Second World War with the Royal Air Force (RAF), not with the Royal New Zealand Air Force (RNZAF)—in fact, we barely had an RNZAF at that particular point in time—but he served with the RAF.

If you go to Pukeahu, our National War Memorial Park, there are traffic lights there. Those traffic lights have a solider on them. That solider is Alfred Shout VC. Born in Wellington, served in the Boer War under a British command—not New Zealand, but a British commander—went to Australia with his Australian wife, served with the Australian Light Horse, I think it was, at Gallipoli, and was killed and awarded the Victoria Cross (VC). People like that need to be recognised in this bill, and that’s the really important thing.

I think of my wife’s grandfather: born in the Manawatū very close to Ōhakea. He was a flier, joined the RAF, flew bombers, shot down and killed over Denmark. But he was standing side by side with New Zealand services as well. We need to be able to go to Anzac Day and say if we are recognising him, if we are recognising all of these people, that they are explicitly included. My endeavour with that little amendment was to make sure that we are not forgetting those people. We’re trying to include lots of other people—great! But let’s not exclude some people by accident or by interpretation.

At the very least, Mr Minister, I would really like to hear from you that those people are explicitly included. Even if the language in the Act, in my view, is interpretable in two different ways—I think we need to get it very, very crystal clear that those people are in, but even if the Act is not quite so clear, at least people can look back to the Hansard and say, “Yeah, those people are in.”

I might give one other example. New Zealand did not have a navy in the First World War. Any New Zealander, and there was over 500 of them, who served in the navy at that stage, they served in the navy of another nation. In fact, the only naval person who won a VC in the First World War was for serving, in this case, in the British Royal Navy. We need to make sure that all of those people are recognised.

It’s interesting also, when you look at the list of VCs—you just look up the list of VCs for New Zealand—you have to go a second stage to get the inclusion of the people who served in the colours of another nation. First stage just has, I think it’s 22 or 23 who served in New Zealand military forces.

So I think, Mr Minister, that the really important thing here is to make it crystal clear that we are going to continue to recognise those people who have served, who fought, who often died alongside New Zealanders, but in the service of a military of another country.

11:44

Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, I acknowledge the intent of the member’s amendment. I’m very happy to clarify, in the clearest terms that I can manage, that it is every intent of the legislation, and I think tolerably clear in its construction as well—that is to say, its specific wording—that in serving New Zealand we include the likes of Sir Keith Park. Not only a New Zealander, as you rightly point out, arguably the greatest New Zealander—and reasonable minds can differ on such accolades—but to say that he’s a great New Zealander at the very least. To have seen, for example, the pride with which his home town of Thames unveiled a sculpture in his honour of the man himself, which I was pleased to attend last year with my colleague and friend, the MP for Coromandel, Scott Simpson.

It’s clear, of course, that we want to include such people. There’s no doubt in my mind that these great New Zealanders, men and women of the past, and potentially in similar equivalent situations in the future, are included. I note that the wording that we’ve based our legislation on, which was consistent with Cabinet direction, and I’m appealing to the committee of the whole House to agree, is consistent with the Australian legislation.

To me, that’s important in itself, not least of all because this is an Anzac bill. Again, reflecting the original intent and the comradeship in the particular moment in time at which these antipodean nations found themselves alongside each other in the trenches in the horror of the warfare in Gallipoli and other places, including the Western Front and so on. There’s no doubt in my mind that we’re including everyone who was included already before, as well as others.

By the way, I should pivot back to a point I think that had been made by Helen White around the breadth of the discussion, although I apologise to you both if it was Rachel Boyack. It was around New Zealanders having been killed in training in service—effectively in anticipation of warlike situations. For them, and more to the point, I suppose, looking forward for their families, that’s no less of a loss than if they were killed in action on some foreign land or, goodness knows, somewhere else in New Zealand in a conflict or a warlike situation, or any other operation for that matter.

We’re trying to take as broad an approach as possible with diluting the service and sacrifice that was originally contemplated in the Act. Just to reiterate again in the clearest possible terms that I can for Mr Foster: to me, the service of New Zealand very unambiguously does include those who are serving under a different banner—different colours as the member said, albeit that the Royal Air Force colours and the Royal New Zealand Air Force colours are literally the same; symbology adds a single Kiwi in the middle. But you’d almost literally be fighting under the same banner in those situations. They did. We’re proud of them. We respect them. We acknowledge them. We honour them. That’s the intent of this bill, and I’m very clear that they are acknowledged, honoured, and respected in that way.

11:47

I actually think it’s really important that we leave the text as it passed at second reading. I guess I’m speaking against this amendment. There are a couple of reasons for that.

Firstly, it does provide alignment with the Australian legislation. I think that’s important, as the Minister has stressed, given the symbology of the day. Secondly, I’d just like to speak to the point about who New Zealanders serve alongside. In Afghanistan, I served alongside Romanians; I served alongside troops from Georgia, France, Germany, Italy, America—the list goes on.

I don’t believe that Anzac Day is to remember those forces. We remember the conflict that took place. We commemorate the 10 New Zealander’s who lost their lives in Afghanistan, and we acknowledge all that served in that place in pursuit of peace, but this is our special day. If you served the United Kingdom, if you served Britain, you have your day of remembrance on 11 November. If it was in the USA, you have Memorial Day in May. Australia shares the same day, but to a degree, as the legislation points out, have their own unique day—their Anzac Day.

I think it’s important that we are remembering those that served—and there is a difference between those that served in the Royal New Zealand Air Force who were posted overseas through the Commonwealth training scheme and served in Royal Air Force units, but serving New Zealand, compared to those that maybe had moved to the UK some years earlier and were actually fighting for their new country, just as people now move to New Zealand and serve New Zealand even though they were born in another country.

I think we need to make that distinction. The Royal New Zealand Navy didn’t exist, actually, until October 1941, but on 30 September, they were serving the Royal Navy, 1 October they were the Royal New Zealand Navy. It’s the same service. It’s serving New Zealand.

The final reason, to keep this brief, is that I think there was something really special about the way that this motion passed select committee unanimously—not just with all parties that were present and had the opportunity to be there but also that it went back to the RSA and they spoke in support of it. There are important changes that were made to honour our veterans, and I think we should honour them by showing the solidarity and unity of this House in supporting what they want as well.

11:49

Thank you, Madam Chair. In previous debates in the House on this bill, there’s been unanimous support, and we have really spoken in quite broad terms. It’s quite interesting, with this amendment, that it has, probably, raised some issues that, perhaps, we hadn’t thought of.

The first question, I’d just ask the Minister in the chair, the Hon Chris Penk—and perhaps there could be a little bit of back and forth with this one—is that in the discussions—now, this is somewhat symbolic, and it’s been very clear that this doesn’t bring with it any entitlements, certainly any financial entitlements, and it will not impact on other issues that are taking place around veterans’ entitlements, certainly. That’s been an important part of these discussions. However, what does the Minister anticipate will make a difference?

Now, I’ll just give an example—the Tawa RSA, which I attend. Each year, they read a good case study of one of those whose names appear on the wall. Last year, the individual had actually died of illness on his way to the Boer War. There’s always, once you break down into detail—and no one would ever deny that that person should be honoured. Let’s face it, we were actually honouring his sacrifice—the ultimate sacrifice. This is somewhat broadening this out. In discussions, particularly with officials, how does he anticipate this will manifest itself, this change? Will it make any difference? This legislation will be passed—I think there’s anticipation that it will be passed this afternoon—before Anzac Day. Will it make any difference to this Anzac Day or subsequent Anzac Days?

11:52

Thank you. I want to thank the member for the good faith in which he has approached all these questions, and also that of Andy Foster. I do understand Mr Foster’s withdrawn his amendment—hopefully having felt satisfied that the point that he was looking to make, which was an entirely reasonable one, around not wanting to exclude certain New Zealanders in certain ways has proven not to be necessary.

In terms of those who have served—for example, as recognised in what sounds like a wonderful gesture and tribute by the Tawa RSA, and I know that others engage in similar remembrance—it seems to me that there will be nothing tangible that is different on any given ceremony on 25 April this year or any other. The importance is really, I suppose, symbolic. I say that not to undermine the intent of providing something that is meaningful to people. Certainly, the RSA, as an organisation, has been good enough to support this, and, indeed, they’ve suggested other initiatives, which are firmly in the category of recognition as opposed to support. As the member rightly acknowledges, the question of entitlements under the Veterans’ Support Act, more generally, is a separate question from the scope of this bill. But the symbolism of acknowledging those who have served in ways that are not currently recognised is important, in the same way that the symbolism of a silver fern or a cross or a medal or a flag is meaningful to the soldiers, the sailors, and the aviators as they’re serving at that time. I make no pretence of the fact that this bill could be viewed merely as symbolic, but I would argue that that’s important in itself. Of course, if we didn’t have legislation that said that only certain conflicts should be recognised and only certain categories of New Zealanders serving should be recognised, then we wouldn’t need to legislate.

I think the thing that has perhaps offended—certainly caused some consternation in—the veteran community is the fact that we do have legislation but it’s quite narrow, and it does exclude according to the timelines with a bill having passed previously into law and not being updated regularly, and, of course, the certain categories of New Zealanders who we’ve discussed have been excluded, certainly unfairly and almost certainly unintentionally—those who have died in training accidents and so on. For all those reasons, and to answer the question very directly from the member, nothing specific will change. There will be nothing that would have stopped anyone recognising more recent service, just as, actually, we tend to recognise first responders who turn up. I love to see the police—and I know the member himself has a storied background in that service—the St John’s, the other volunteers, and those who serve our community at those services as well.

11:55

Tēnā koe, e te Tiamana, otirā tātou katoa. Tuatahi māku he mihi ki ngā hōia kua hinga, ngā ingoa o ngā whenua kua iriiri i runga i ngā pakitara o tēnei Whare. Nā reira ki a koutou kua wehe atu, hei te tōranga o te rā, ā, a te ata hoki, ka maumahara tonu tātou ki a rātou.

[Greetings, Madam Chair, and to all here. Firstly, I acknowledge the fallen soldiers; the names of those lands hang on the walls of this House. Therefore, to those who have departed, at the going down of the sun, and in the morning, we will remember them.]

I will start by acknowledging our fallen who fought in places that we see on the walls surrounding us. At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. I just want to acknowledge, first of all, that this is personal for all of us here in the House, and how pleased I am that this amendment bill has cross-party support and, in particular, the acknowledgement of non-military service. My kuia, Hiria Te Kiekie Tangaere served in the Military Women’s Auxiliary and herself was presented a British Empire Medal for civilian service during World War II. I want to also thank you, Minister, for your fulsome answers to this question, which, as I said, affects us all personally.

Anzac Day in Tikitiki is where everyone makes the pilgrimage home to acknowledge those fallen. I want to acknowledge, in terms of non-service volunteers, someone who became absolutely symbolic with our RSA, Nanny Kui Ngata, who we lost earlier this year at the ripe old age of 97, and the symbolism that you spoke of, Minister. For a while now, all services have stood together with our veterans at the Waiapū RSA, acknowledging not only the fact that we have fewer veterans with us today but also the service that they provide. I absolutely commend that notion of this bill.

My question for you, Minister, is: while you’ve alluded to the scope of who will be acknowledged in terms of non-military service, will this recognition be retrospective, and, if so, how far back will it go? In terms of ceremony, in terms of acknowledgement and of procedures, how will this be executed? How will the execution, the delivery, of these acknowledgements be practically managed, and how will, for example, RSAs be a part of that process? Tēnā tātou.

11:57

Kia ora and thank you to the member, including for her beautiful and poignant rendition of the “Ode of Remembrance” in te reo Māori, as well as that famous English phrase that we conclude with. We will remember them indeed.

I think one of the beauties of Anzac Days around the country is that they’re each celebrated in a very local way that makes sense for those communities. I see the member for Northland, Grant McCallum, nodding, and goodness knows he’ll have enough different services to get around in his area, and I know he does so diligently. Actually, for the member, it will be up to every community to continue to celebrate Anzac Day in a way that is appropriate for them—of course, celebrating that broader sense of marking or commemorating, not celebrating in a jingoistic way of suggesting there’s anything to glorify or honour the fact of war, except of course that it’s an unfortunate reality of human existence so far.

For that reason, I’d be hesitant to suggest any particular additional or alternate measure that should be taken, but I would just flag, more generally, in this space, the Government is very hopeful of improving recognition in other ways that we can speak to on another occasion, including through the institution of a day in which we can celebrate veterans’ service separate to Anzac Day, because that seems to have a particular meaning and form, and again, to be as broad and inclusive as we can in that endeavour as well.

11:59

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Minister. I just have two short questions for the Minister in the chair, the Hon Chris Penk, regarding this particular bill. The Minister has previously articulated the ability for communities to commemorate Anzac Day in a way that is fit for the community, and also, this bill doesn’t really preclude that.

I guess my first question for the Minister is: if it doesn’t preclude that and communities are still able to do it in a way that is most appropriate to them, what is the purpose that, then, the updated legislation would serve? I guess, from two perspectives, in terms of the changes that we see in clause 4, section 2 replaced, on the commemoration of Anzac Day, is there consideration of additional resources or funding to be provided to communities to be able to commemorate Anzac Day in a way that is important and special to them?

The second question, then, to the Minister is: would the definition that is now presented and those who are included—understanding a broadening of the existing scope would have other effects from the perspective of writing entitlements of veterans in general, or is that something that’s going to be considered separately?

12:00

Thank you. I note that the amendment of Andy Foster’s has been withdrawn, and that probably does make things a little easier. However, in discussing that amendment, some issues arose that would probably be useful to get on to Hansard now, during this discussion.

In my electorate, Lance Corporal Leon Smith was an SAS solider who was killed in Afghanistan, and he is commemorated each year at the Johnsonville Rugby Club. Now, he was a New Zealand - born solider who was killed in conflict in Afghanistan. That’s what this legislation is designed to do, because, previously, where Afghanistan was not recognised—it wasn’t one of the six recognised conflicts—he wouldn’t actually have been officially commemorated.

However, there is another area that opens up, and that is where people immigrate to New Zealand who may have served in overseas forces. I’m just giving an example of Afghanistan, of people who have come here, who were translators, who very much worked with the New Zealand forces, and, under this, will be entitled to be recognised on Anzac Day.

Now, I know it’s difficult for the Minister in the chair, the Hon James Meager, because I presume he wasn’t able to speak, but it would be useful at some stage to actually define—because I can see where this is actually going to perhaps become something of an issue in the future as the New Zealand demographic changes, as more and more immigration arrives from non-traditional countries, and where people may arrive here where, particularly on peacekeeping missions, there may have been some confusion as to which side a person was on in a conflict. Let’s face it: as Mr Costley will know, things are never black and white when you go, particularly, to the modern conflict zones, where alliances can move daily and even more quickly.

I know, again, it’s probably a difficult one for the Minister in the chair, but I think it would be useful to have some sort of clarity as to how those matters may be treated, particularly, as I say, where we have now New Zealand citizens born elsewhere who may have taken part in conflicts, who were part of the New Zealand contingent or may or may not have been. I know it’s going to be difficult to actually now give an answer, but the Minister may like to have a crack.

12:04

I’ll have a crack, as the member suggests. I think if you were reading what will hopefully soon be the new Act and you see that it says, “In commemoration of the contribution of all those who have served New Zealand in time of war and in warlike conflicts”—I think the purpose behind this provision is just to enable us to recognise the wide and varied and many different types of service that people have given over many years to New Zealand.

I think if you keep that definition quite broad, recognising that what this Act does is set up Anzac Day to be a day of commemoration—it doesn’t touch on other issues like entitlements or definitions of veterans or anything like that. It simply establishes Anzac Day as a day of commemoration, to commemorate, as Minister Penk and as Tim Costley and others have pointed out, the genesis of the name of this day as being that formative moment in our country’s history, but also now to commemorate and to recognise all types of service to New Zealand in wartime or warlike conditions. I think if you read it like that, you would be able to incorporate that kind of commemoration.

Of course, as the member Dr Xu-Nan mentioned, communities and individuals have the ability to themselves commemorate those people in the way that they see fit for their community. I actually think the clause is well written. I think it’s been well traversed by the select committee—that’s my view on it. I’m sure if others have another view, they can contribute at some point.

12:06

Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I’m really just wanting to, I guess, reiterate a couple of the points that were considered through select committee that we are looking at here in clause 4. I want to start by acknowledging those that were on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee and those that submitted to it. It was a very collegial approach that was taken to amending this piece of legislation to ensure we can get it fit for purpose to cover all the scenarios we’ve heard about today as well. I think that we have got there with the particular text there.

There are a couple of aspects I want to pick up on, though, in relation to that last piece. I agree, obviously, with the Minister for Hunting and Fishing’s comments around “all those who have served New Zealand in time of war and in warlike conflicts”. That “served New Zealand” piece was critical to the importance of this Act but actually was specifically left more broad than might otherwise be the case with legislation to allow for that sort of flexibility that Mr O’Connor raised, where people may indeed have been born in another country and have been supporting New Zealand’s efforts whilst citizens still of that other country but have now ended up here in New Zealand. In that instance, interpreters, for example, absolutely would be covered under that service to New Zealand in times of war and warlike conflicts.

The other aspect within that that we wanted to make sure that we were capturing—and I think this comes to one of the earlier comments that was raised as well around what tangible difference might this make. For me, it was really about those few people that have made a meaningful contribution but, for the sake of a few words on paper, felt they weren’t necessarily acknowledged or commemorated appropriately in the legislation as it was. Whilst I’m not anticipating at my Anzac services in the Waikato to see any significant change to how they play out—because communities are very inclusive and broadly acknowledge that service, as they rightly should—there will be some individuals who now feel that, yes, they are covered. That’s really what we’re wanting to achieve through the intent of this legislation—to ensure that those in uniform or outside uniform but who have supported our military efforts are indeed acknowledged through this.

Now, the other change we’d heard from the Minister around how this was aligned with the Australian legislation—obviously, an important consideration for us with the Anzac Day Amendment Bill. We did err or vary slightly from the Australians in one regard, and that is on the back page there, the first line, where we have included Australia in there. Interestingly, you might think, being Australia and New Zealand, the first three letters of Anzac, it should be in there, but it’s actually of interest that in the Australian legislation, New Zealand is not mentioned. The original proposal had been not to mention Australia in New Zealand’s legislation to ensure the two align, but we thought, actually, in the spirit of Anzac, certainly from the Kiwi perspective, we were keen to ensure that joint effort was still acknowledged, so we included Australia in there as well.

With that, I think we’ve traversed it pretty well, acknowledging the contribution from Mr Foster earlier as well. Again, I think the wording we have broadly captures the accurate scenarios that he had provided. I’m keen to progress and appreciate the unanimous support of the House on this.

12:09

A question for the Minister, and he may like to consult his officials: where did Police sit on this, given that the police have served in all the modern conflict zones? My good friend Paul Carpenter served up in Bamyam province with the New Zealand Police, alongside military colleagues. So are they catered for?

Yes, that’s why it doesn’t say New Zealand Defence Force.

We’ll just take a pause while we wait for the Minister to answer. I think we’ve had some answers, but we’ll just—

Madam Chair?

Tim van de Molen, are you going to answer on behalf of the Minister or are you taking a call?

12:10

I was just going to make a couple of other observations. I’m sure the Minister is quite capable of answering on his own, but I just wanted to make two quick points there in relation to, first, all those who have served New Zealand. We wanted to make sure that we were being quite broad with that so other services could come under there, but also the additional piece we included is around all those who have died in New Zealand military service or whose death was connected with New Zealand military service—that could be police, for example, or it could be someone in a training accident. As was raised earlier, it could be Customs officials; it could be any number of people that have served in support of that effort. So the intent there was to broaden it just beyond military service.

12:11

I move, That debate on this question now close.

12:12

It’s a bit of a jack of all trades, master of none at the moment, I think, Madam Chair.

You asked for it quite well, Mr Meager.

It’s a real pleasure to step in and take this first call on the Public Service Amendment Bill. So it’s, I think, a very straightforward bill: two parts. It amends the Public Service Act 2020. Of course, that Act provides the statutory framework for the operation of the Public Service, which replaced the State Sector Act 1988—which is a good year since it was the year after I was born!

The bill has two main parts. Part 1 provides the substantive amendments to the Act and Part 2 makes a small number of consequential amendments to other legislation. Currently, the state of the bill will come into force on the day after Royal assent.

Now, the amendments that we’re proposing in Part 1 are because of changes made in the 2020 Act. Those changes that were made five or six years ago, de-emphasise responsibility for implementing the policies of the Government of the day and efficient use of taxpayers’ money. The changes also, in our view, generated excessive prescription, which in some places duplicates other legislation and ends up distracting our agencies from their core mission.

We’ve made some changes to the bill to meet a few objectives. They are to drive improvements in Public Service performance, to ensure the Public Service can efficiently and effectively serve the Government and deliver value for money for all New Zealanders. Thirdly, to create more stability by removing those prescriptions and allowing individual Government agencies more flexibility to express certain policy objectives using non-legislative functions and levers.

We’ll do this in a number of ways. First, we are going to clarify the role of the Public Service and streamline the responsibilities of Public Service chief executives. We want them to focus on delivering policies of the Government of the day in a politically neutral manner. We’re going to reinforce those core principles of political neutrality and appointment on merit to all positions. We are improving chief executive and agency performance management, ensuring capability in key positions, and providing for better management of risks to national security and to issues in the national interest.

I think it’s worth at the moment to just head off a couple of misconceptions that were raised at second reading and try and limit some of the confusion there. Now, some individual members were raising questions or points around the removal of the reappointment provisions. The removal of the option for the Public Service Commissioner to reappoint chief executives without a contestable process doesn’t mean Ministers will be making those appointments, and it doesn’t mean they’ll be politicising such an important part of our government system. The contestable process already exists in the Act. It actually is used in a vast majority of those appointments. Chief executive contracts are very clear that there is no expectation of reappointment. That’s why we have the reappointment process happening quite regularly.

The existing contestable process involves consultation with Ministers on issues that they think should be taken into account when it comes to appointing a chief executive. This is constitutionally appropriate, but it is the Public Service Commissioner who was required to make an independent decision to recommend that particular person. Those chief executives are then appointed by the Governor-General on the basis of that recommendation.

None of this is changing, so there’s no incentive created for chief executives to be “closer to Ministers” or to compromise their political neutrality. They are there to serve the Government of the day and the policies of the Government of the day. If, God forbid, that Government may change in the distant future, they are there to serve the policies of a new Government of the day.

Similarly, the commissioner, when designating key positions that are critical to Public Service performance and having a role in the appointment and performance management of those people appointed doesn’t mean those people will be political appointees. Appointments made under that mechanism must still adhere to the requirements for merit-based appointments set out in the principles in section 72 of the Act, and the people appointed will still be public servants bound by that principle of political neutrality which we are very strong on. So I think that’s probably a good comprehensive overall way to start the debate on this part. I look forward to rigorous and politically neutral questions from members.

12:16

Thank you, Madam Chair. And thanks to the Minister in the chair for his comments on the bill overall. I will respond by making comments on the bill overall as he has invited such an approach at this committee stage.

First of all, so, obviously, I agree with the Minister that we’ve got two parts here. The first part is really on the primary bill, which my colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking has pulled from the dusty shelves outside for me, so we can make sure that we’re all on the same page in terms of these amendments, which are to the primary piece of legislation. Then, I understand, there’s amendments to other bills, which we’ll talk about later.

I suppose the overall point, if we’re starting on this note, is there’s a certain amount of disappointment from the Opposition on the fact that we weren’t consulted around specifically the objects change within the Public Service Act. Now, I understand the practice in the past has been that this should be politically neutral and, ideally, bipartisan. I understand that that will not always be possible, but in terms of the principles that underpin the Public Service, I think everyone in this House would agree that it is within New Zealand’s interests to have those be non-politicised and also to be agreed widely so that we are assured that the main structure and the main piece of legislation which our public servants work under is a piece of legislation that is not a tool of politicians but is actually something that the Public Service can look towards in terms of their contribution that they make to us as New Zealand.

I want to acknowledge all the public servants in New Zealand. They do a great job and it’s been a difficult time, but I have not seen a single example of a public servant in my work that has not wanted to uphold very much their role of serving the Government of the day—yes—but also of political neutrality. It is something which sometimes people, especially those outside the Public Service may struggle with, but those people that work within the Public Service are consummate professionals. I think we can only support them by making sure that this legislation—you know, an attempt to make this legislation bipartisan would have been appreciated.

In terms of these initial parts—and I’m speaking overall but this is in relation to Part 1 as well—the definitions around what the Public Service is to do in the objectives have changed and there’s been a little bit of moving around of the spirit of service to the community. It’s been deleted from some parts and added into other parts. The main thing, though, that came up in submissions around the purpose of the Act was the move away from active citizenship. I think that’s an interesting clause to get rid of, at this point in time. I wouldn’t mind a response from the Minister on the process to make those changes.

As I said, ideally, at least on this purpose section, we could have come together and been involved—been consulted—around what the purposes were, and tried to find some agreement. I note, from the material that is supporting this regulatory impact statement, that there was a constrained consultation by the Minister in relation to getting this piece of legislation put forward. However, there is a significantly long list of ministries and departments and agencies who were consulted about the contents of this bill. I think, for the future—and it’s a request, really, to the House, and those who will be here after us, too—that, in this type of legislation, especially when it relates to the purpose of the Public Service, that, ideally, if you can reach or attempt to reach a position of bipartisan support, that would be helpful.

We are not supporting this bill. We weren’t consulted about the purpose part, but there are other parts that we feel very strongly are not something that is going to be positive for the Public Service. I think those original clauses are something that we could have worked with, in terms of making sure that there was a politically neutral Public Service. I have put some amendments up around that, too, which I’ll speak to, but I just wanted to give the Minister the opportunity to comment on that position of bipartisanship, the Public Service, and just those initial, first definitional parts—especially that deletion of the participation of active citizenship—and see his responses to that, before we get into a clause by clause debate. Thank you.

12:21

Madam Chair, I don’t know if we’re having a clause by clause debate or we’re having a part by part debate, but I look forward to the leave motion asking to do that.

I will address Camilla Belich’s points around consultation. Actually, what I was going to do was read out the purpose of the Public Service that’s being put into the Act and see if anyone has any wild objections to it: “The purpose of the public service is to support the Government to develop and implement its policies, to deliver high-quality and efficient public services and meet the needs of New Zealanders; and supports constitutional and democratic Government; and acts with a spirit of service to the community and in accordance with the law.” Now, I think they’re quite good purposes and good objectives, and in terms of there being anything constitutionally offensive or undemocratic about them, I’d like to hear the arguments for that. I think they’re actually very good purposes.

In terms of consultation, I mean, Government has a legislative agenda and has to implement changes that it sees fit. Of course, that’s why we have the select committee process, so that every member of the Parliament, regardless of the party that they’re in, has the ability to sit on those select committees to input into the questions or the testing or the rigor of the legislation that’s put before them. I think this bill went through a very good and thorough select committee process, and I’m very happy with the select committee report that was produced out of that.

Just in terms of the Act as a citizenship question, it’s an interesting question—and, of course, this, as the member raises, is an interesting time to be in politics, whether in New Zealand or around the world. We would agree with her—and, I would hope, all colleagues across the House—that transparency and public participation are a good part of our democracy, and fundamental to the running of an open and liberal democracy. But at the same time, we do live in a representative democracy. Many individual decisions that need to be made by Government and by our elected representatives do need to be made with the responsibility that we’ve been given by the public to make those decisions. And, of course, the most active thing that a citizen can do, every three years, is to go to the ballot box and elect the representatives that they want to have represent their views in Parliament when it comes to administering the executive or making laws in this country.

Given this, we don’t think having a broad reference in the purpose statement acknowledges that choices of when and how to engage the public will depend on the context of what’s happening and what the Government—or the Parliament, in fact—needs to do on a particular occasion. We consider it’s a better approach to take a principles-based approach, and that your active citizenship principles are already provided by the principle of open government in section 12 and the value of responsiveness in section 16.

Before I take a call, I just want to say that that was a very good overall picture of Part 1 of the bill. What I’m going to ask speakers to do from here on is to be very specific to the clauses, because some of it’s quite technical, and it will be around certain places, so let’s see how specific we can get.

12:25

Thank you. I’d like to talk about clause 11. It is a very interesting discussion about active citizenship. I’d like to start with a comment on that, because, I think, in this House, we don’t do enough of that deep debate that we should do on these things. It’s an extremely important time in our democracy and democracies around the world. I would say that my objection to what the Minister has said is that, while we wouldn’t object to anything in the wording of the clause at the present time, it’s so generic it doesn’t give any teeth to anything. I would object to the view that active democracy just requires someone to turn up and vote. Actually, these kinds of depths of mindfulness of our Public Service to push for active citizenship—they are very important in terms of people responding.

I wanted to ask about “long-termism”, because most of us who come in here become pretty quickly aware that we have a problem in our processes of very short-term thinking, because we’re on an electoral cycle. It’s one of the weaknesses that we have. What this purpose does is it actually leaves aside—[Interruption] sorry, I can see things are going on—that really specific intention of our Public Service to be looking at long-term public interest. In fact, I would have said that I would have been reassured in New Zealand that our public servants are constantly, and the purpose of our Public Service is constantly to take that longer-term view—when we, as politicians on the clock being voted in every three years might be a little bit tending towards short-term gains, and that kind of approach is, in fact, so damaging to the long-term interests of the country.

I’m interested to see why the Minister decided that that part of it wasn’t something that was so valuable in terms of directing and reassuring public servants that that’s where their view is—that they are not on a short clock. Obviously, this resonates later—and there’ll be another part to speak about this—but it resonates with the issue of putting people into a situation where, at a high level, their appointment might be at three years, because, again, it reinforces the short-term security of employment rather than that long-term view. I’ll talk about that later. But in terms of this, I’d like to know: why have we pulled out that principle?

Also, we’ve removed the reference to future Governments. It’s the same thing; it takes people into the future space. Recently, I was doing an exercise—this place is quite challenging, and one of the exercises that I’ve come across that I’ve found helpful in really thinking about things for my own personal growth was to think, “What would you say 20 years on?” These are incredibly important skills—always looking 20 years on. I can see that the Public Service, in this situation, has that skill embedded in it here, of always thinking, “What’s it going to mean for children? What’s it going to mean for the future of our Government, and for future Governments?”, and to actually really look and be given licence to look at those things—versus a word like “efficiency”, which has become very loaded and doesn’t tell us anything, because something might be efficient in the short term, but it’s not in the long term. It’s really important that if we’re going to use a word like “efficiency” that we actually balance it with what we mean by that; otherwise, it can actually get caught up in some very, very dangerous ideas that say efficiency is something that I wouldn’t think it is.

I would really like the Minister, and I genuinely would like to know: how, now, should the Public Service feel about their obligation under this new definition to look long term, to look to future Governments, etc., in their role? Can they be reassured that that’s still something you want them to do? Remember, we are doing this partly for the Hansard. So it’s really important that the Minister spells out if it is still there and it is still important—and it’s really important that we know that in terms of specific answers. Thank you.

12:30

Thanks, Madam Chair. Helen White raises a couple of interesting points—good points. I wasn’t saying that active citizenship, the only way you can do it is by voting. I think it is one of the best ways you can do it, but I was the chair of a select committee where 300,000 people decided to exercise their right of active citizenship and make a submission on a particular bill, and that is probably one of the more extreme versions of activity when it comes to exercising your rights and your obligations as a citizen. But there are a wide range of things that individuals in the electorate can do in terms of becoming an active citizen, and I think I explained before how we think that those principles of active citizenship are provided in other sections in the existing legislation.

In terms of the question around long-termism, it’s an interesting one. Perhaps the member was listening to my speech in the House on Tuesday when I asked members across the House to look at components of the Prime Minister’s statement and identify things that they may well agree to and commit to doing over the long term. In response, I was heckled by saying that it was very sweet and it was the worst speech that the Hon Willie Jackson had ever heard in his entire life. But putting Mr Jackson’s views on long-termism aside, it is, of course, a concept that I think we are all interested in. If you look at the new purpose in clause 10, replacing section 11, you’ll notice there’s a balance between efficient public services and high quality; they have to be high quality and efficient. I think, inherent in that terminology is that trade-off between what the member raised, something that may be efficient now in the short term, might not be effective in the long term. I think when you’re considering that the requirement is of the Public Service to deliver both high quality and efficient public services, that has an inherent trade-off between the two. They can be complimentary, but they can, as the member points out, ask us to look a bit forward into the future.

Now, in terms of long-termism and what we can do to make sure the Public Service looks ahead to the future, there is a package of provisions in the Act that provide a mix of clear requirements for long-term thinking, and I direct the member’s attention to the stewardship principle in section 12, which promotes long-term capability. Our chief executives will be required to provide advice on the long-term implications of policies under what is clause 11, inserting new section 11A(1)(j). Finally, just for another part of that, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet will be providing guidance on long-term thinking and providing long-term insights briefings on behalf of the Public Service. So that and a myriad of other ways encourage the Public Service and New Zealand to think about long-termism.

Of course, we’ve also got to make sure that we have that careful balance between locking in Governments for incredibly long periods of time and staying responsive to the electorate. We do need regular, free, and fair elections to keep us accountable to the electorate. I think having those elections on a regular basis maintains our connection to the electorate, but also allows us to plan three, six, nine, 12 years into the future.

12:34

Thank you, Madam Chair, for allowing me to take my first call on this very important bill. I just wanted to zoom back a little bit into a section that I think we’ve slightly overlooked, which is around clause 5(1)(b) around the deletion of the clause, “acting with the spirit of service to the community,”. Now, I think, as members of Parliament, we should be the ones that really know and really centre that important principle, which is to act in service to the community. It’s something that, sometimes, politicians refer to us and ourselves as public servants, but it is something that politicians have to take into account. But it’s something that we should, I think, also ask public servants to take into account as well, because it’s that spirit of acting in service to the community—it’s a very important principle to keep in mind. So I’m just a little bit concerned about the deletion of it.

I really want the Minister to lay out the rationale for its deletion and whether it’s possible that this has just been deleted from that section but incorporated in other parts of this legislation. I do have an amendment that restores it if the Minister were so inclined to bring it back. I also have alternative suggestions for the word “community” in case it’s that word that the Minister and this Government finds objectionable. I think I had an amendment that substitutes the word “public” over “community”. So, if it’s the word “community” that’s causing the problem, there is an alternative to that.

I also wanted to respond to something the Minister said in his opening statement around the importance of having merit-based appointments in the Public Service. I think that is a principle that we all agree with, and there is certainly going to be—you know, there’s a specific section around that later on. But I do want to ask the Minister at this stage, because he did bring it up in his original statement, whether he believes that all Government appointments need to go through a stage whereby people are interviewed and vetted, where there’s a proper selection panel, where, essentially, the guidelines that are being prescribed by the Public Service Commission should be followed and whether that’s a core part in merit-based appointments and whether that’s something the Government strongly supports.

I want to turn now to the section that we’ve got to, which is new section 11A, inserted by clause 11. I want to look at subsection (g) around “working to improve inter-operability, co-ordination, and collaboration across public service agencies;”. Now, I want the Minister to consider whether it would be possible to change that to “public sector”, because Public Service agencies, I believe, unnecessarily narrows that principle to just the core Public Service itself.

I’ll raise an example of why that’s really important. When I was working at the Climate Change Commission as the waste lead, one of our tasks was to recommend and provide advice for the Emissions Reduction Plan. To do that, we needed access to data around the Government. Now, the data from landfills is held by the Environmental Protection Authority, but it’s also held by the Ministry for the Environment. Because the Climate Change Commission was considered a Crown agency, and therefore not a core Public Service agency, it was actually really, really difficult to access that data. So I’m sympathetic to the idea that we need to improve the workings of the public sector and to make inter-operability and sharing data much more accessible in the Public Service, because it took, like, six months and several meetings to get access to that landfill data that we needed. I mean, we were able to do the work we needed by going to the commercial operators in the end, which was kind of ironic, given that the reason why we weren’t given that data was that it was commercially sensitive.

So, again, just reiterating my points around why was the spirit of service to the community deleted? Does this Government hold to the principle of merit-based appointment and is it something they intend to practise within their appointments? And around a section around changing Public Service agencies to public sector so that the principles of it can be applied more broadly.

12:39

Thank you, Madam Chair. Can I start by congratulating the member on his elevation to the second most powerful select committee in the Parliament, the Finance and Expenditure Committee. Of course, when he makes it to the Regulations Review Committee, we will hold a proper party for him.

Just to address his questions. First of all, around the spirit of service. I think he misunderstands what’s happening in the Act. The concept of the spirit of service is actually being elevated by being shifted to the purpose of the Act. So if the member looks at clause 10, replacing section 11 with new section 11 and 11(b), says the purpose of the Public Service is it “(b) supports constitutional and democratic government and acts with a spirit of service to the community and in accordance with the law.” The removal of spirit of service in other sections is simply a removal of the cross references in order to make that happen.

The second question the member asked was around whether we are committed to merit-based appointments. Of course we are. If you look across the National Party caucus, every one of my colleagues is appointed purely on merit and talent and skill. I can’t speak for other parties, because you control your own processes, but, of course across Government, all of our appointments are merit based. When it comes to putting strict requirements for every single appointment, having sat on the appointment and honours committee, there are thousands, if not tens of thousands, of appointments made across the Government, and there will be occasions where different processes will be needed for different appointments. You could understand where an inquiry may need to be stood up very, very quickly and completed within a short time frame in order to get very important information out to the public on an important matter of public urgency, and the people appointed to those inquiries may need to be, maybe, handpicked or selected for their particular skills without going through a wider tender process. I don’t think it’d be appropriate to put a blanket carte blanche rule across every appointment. Of course, the principle of merit-based appointments is throughout this particular bill and is something that we feel very strongly about.

Just finally, in terms of the member’s question around whether or not we’d change the terminology of “Public Service” to the “public sector”. Look, I understand the member’s frustrations with getting access to landfill data. As with the other former student politician, climate-advising member with some Filipino heritage, I share his concerns with access to Government data. I don’t think changing the terminology of “Public Service” to “public sector” in this bill will address that issue sufficiently, but I admire his commitment to it.

12:41

Thank you. I’d like to remind the Minister in the chair that, as a former student politician, I did work for the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment.

But do you have Filipino heritage?

Oh, no, I didn’t hear the bit about Filipino heritage. I’d also like to ask the Minister if National MPs are elected or are, as he said, appointed. There would be interesting repercussions there.

My main question stems from his answers to Helen White’s contribution. That was a discussion around active citizenship, and the Minister said that when he was the chair of a select committee—so I presume he referred to the Justice Committee—there were many thousands of submissions and that this was a problem. My question is: is this change to the purpose of the Public Service Act that removes the phrase “active citizenship” because of the number of submissions that were made on the treaty principles bill? That is my first question.

I was also interested in the discussion about the removal of reference to successive Governments and that long-term element. The Minister referred to some other aspects in the bill that referred to the long term. He referred to new section 11A(1)(j), inserted by clause 11, and these provisions, though, are narrower in their language than the purpose that’s in the Act at the moment, so it’s about providing advice on long-term implications rather than pursuing the long-term public interest, which are the words in the Act as they are now. Going to the Minister’s point, my question is: is that removal of the long term in the purpose section a diminishment of the need to consider the long term, or is his argument that it’s simply been replicated through other provisions in the amendment bill? If it is a diminishment, is the reason for that diminishment to do with the trade-off that he was talking about—about high quality and efficiency—or is it something else? I will leave those questions there—oh no! I had one last one on that spirit of service to community.

The Minister, just before in response to my colleague’s question, said that spirit of service to the community is now in the purpose section. Even though, when we turn over the page, section 13 is repealed, which was spirit of service to the community, he said that now it is heightened in importance the service to community. If that is the case and if we can confirm that is the case, is the reason for clause 9, “Cross-heading above section 11 repealed”, which was “Purpose, Public Service principles, and spirit of service to the community, simply because, now, section 13 will be repealed, or is it more substantive than that because, actually, there are changes to spirit of service to the community, so it doesn’t need to be in the cross heading. Thank you.

12:46

Thank you. In reverse order, no. It’s administrative. Spirit of service is included in the purpose of the Public Service, and the other changes to that term where it’s repealed and cross headings are removed to reflect the shifting of spirit of service into new section 11 with the purpose of Public Service.

What else did we have? We had quite a few there from Rachel Brooking. The very first question was about National Party MPs. Look, my colleagues are all excellent, but I wouldn’t want to go through each of their excellent selections. But in terms of it being merit based, I can give the member assurances that our selection processes are done at a local level by very talented and very intelligent local members who have the ability to select very excellent candidates. Whether you call that an appointment or a selection is up to you.

In terms of the question around mentioning active citizenship and receiving thousands of submissions. No, I was using that as an example of a way that you can be an active citizen, whether that is by voting in a general election or by making a submission to Parliament or by filling out a petition or by running for Parliament itself. There are many ways to become an active citizen, and the Public Service Amendment Bill, of course, highlights many of those ways throughout, as I mentioned before to a previous colleague.

Finally, is the rewording of long-termism a diminishment? No, it’s not. As I think I explained to Helen White before, there are many parts of the bill and, in fact, the Act, which refers to long-term views needing to be taken by chief executives in stewardship roles and, of course, the lengthy diatribe I went on about the benefits of long-termism, including in this House as well.

12:47

Thank you, Madam Chair, I have some questions, and I note the Minister’s comments around going part by part, but this particular bill is split into amendments to parts of the bill, and we’ve been talking about the amendments to Part 1, so I’m sticking with that at the moment.

I do have some specific questions around the leadership changes in the Public Service that this bill is focused on. You’ll see that there are some associated changes, which focus on having one deputy commissioner as opposed to deputy commissioners in this part. I want at some point—and I think probably this is as appropriate as any—to have some explanation as to how the Minister sees the role of the deputy commissioner and why this change is necessary within this particular bill. This bill also has a focus on a change of the responsibilities of the Public Service Commissioner and, I think, probably a strengthening of those rules, so these questions around leadership of the Public Service are pertinent to the way that this bill will work.

I do have a slight rebuttal to the spirit of service point that the Minister was making, because it has been—the Minister, I’m sure, will agree—reworded in a way that is not as expansive as in the current Act. Although it does still include the spirit of service, it does not include it in such fulsome way as in the primary piece of legislation. The question that I have related to the role of leadership within the Public Service is around new section 11A. If you look at the current Act, we’ve got a purpose clause, and, as far as I’m aware, this is a new section that defines the responsibilities of chief executives and departmental agencies. It has a relatively fulsome explanation of what those responsibilities are.

The question that I have for the Minister in relation to new section 11A, inserted by clause 11—and this is something that comes up in our role as politicians—is: how does this interact with the ministerial responsibility that Ministers have for these departments? We see in this particular section the interrelationship in relation to giving advice and implementing lawful instructions, and I don’t think anyone would object to that when it comes to chief executives. I think the proper way—or my understanding, at least, of the way that responsibility is allocated within the Public Service is we have these chief executives who are responsible for their departments. But in the end, the Minister is responsible, and that is something that has been longstanding and is in fact one of the pillars of our democracy in terms of the way that we hold Ministers accountable in this House for their responsibility for their departments.

This is a new section 11A, or at least it’s proposed in a novel way in terms of this Public Service Amendment Bill. I think that does deserve some comment by the Minister because this is something—many of the changes within this bill are significant, but—

Can you repeat that? Sorry.

The question that I have is 11A, which is a new section within this bill—why are we putting this in, and how does this interact with ministerial responsibility? It goes through in detail the responsibilities of chief executives and what they are responsible for, but it doesn’t, in my view—apart from stating that advice should be given to the Ministers, and that the chief executive should follow Ministers’ lawful instructions—go that step further into the responsibility of the Minister. Now, I would assume that this particular section is not changing anything in relation to ministerial responsibility; it’s simply setting out in greater detail chief executives’ responsibilities, but I’d appreciate some assurance from the Minister given that this is a very longstanding convention in terms of the overall responsibility for departments and agencies, and in fact how we maintain that democratic responsibility for the delivery of public services.

Some quite specific questions around that, and, obviously, there’ll be further questions in areas that we’ve got a very differing view to this bill, but those are important for upholding our democracy—to have on record the reasoning and exactly where responsibility does lie within the Public Service, following these changes.

12:52

Thank you, Madam Chair. There’s probably a lot in that last one, so I’ll try and get through it. I just wanted to touch on another couple points. Just to clarify the question from Mr Hernandez—and he does have his tabled amendment, which he mentioned, about replacing “public service” with “public sector”—the reason that, apart from it not quite solving his landfill data issue, is that we generally view it as unnecessary and inappropriate because the public sector actually includes entities such as Crown entities and local government, which are subject to different statutory frameworks that have different accountability mechanisms in relation to the Minister.

By redefining “public service” as including the whole public sector, you then start running into issues with how the accountability frameworks work in other statutes. For example, Crown entities. You’ve got three or four different types of Crown entities, and the relationship that Ministers have with Crown entities will differ; their relationship is generally with the chair, through letters of expectation or direct from Government policy or whatever it might be, depending on the agency or the entity. That’s different to a Government department, where this is more of a direct relationship, which I think new section 11A, inserted by clause 11, goes on to point out.

Just before I do touch on 11A, I was going to raise Camilla Belich’s question around the reduction of deputy public service commissioners from two to one. There’s a question about whether or not it limits the capability of the commission to deliver on functions and oversight—and it doesn’t. The purpose of a deputy commissioner is essentially to act in the place of the commissioner when they are unable to, and to carry out any delegated functions. It’s our view that you only need one deputy commissioner to do that, so that’s the reason behind that change.

Now for the question around 11A: what’s it doing; why is it in there; and how does it interact with Minister’s responsibilities? I’ll answer the last part first, in terms of if there should be anything in there which outlines more clearly about what Minister’s responsibilities are. I think our view would be that when it comes to the operation of Cabinet and Ministers, that’s probably something that’s more appropriate, under our constitutional make up, to be governed by the Cabinet Manual and in internal political processes. Section 11A is not actually an entirely new section, much of it’s been shifted from existing sections, but it actually applies to the obligations on chief executives supporting Ministers and discharging their stewardship obligations. The purpose of it is to more clarify what the roles and responsibilities of chief executives are, rather than trying to start defining in statute what the—perhaps constitutional—roles and responsibilities of Ministers are, which I think, for very good reasons, are probably kept more in the political sphere rather than the legislative sphere.

Now, I’m sure there’ll probably be more on this quite large clause at some other point, but I think that probably covers off the initial part of those questions there.

Members, the time has come for me to report progress.

Progress to be reported.

14:01

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

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

In answer to question No. 11 yesterday, I said that unemployment had been rising since March 2021. I should have said that unemployment has been rising since 2021.

Next week, the House will have the first members’ day of 2026 and will make progress on the Legislation Amendment Bill and other bills on the Order Paper.

to the Minister for Energy

Does he stand by all his statements and actions regarding liquefied natural gas?

14:03

Yes.

What protections, if any, will be put in place to ensure gentailers will actually pass through any eventuated savings to households rather than simply banking the extra $400 million per year as extra profits?

That’s why we are beefing up the powers of the Electricity Authority. This will make sure that gentailers play by the rules and that consumers get a fair deal. This includes increasing penalties for serious rule-breaking. These changes will mean that power companies will face real consequences if they try to take advantage of customers or distort the market.

What, if any, mechanisms will be put in place to protect against large increases in the levy, given his Cabinet paper says the levy can be annually adjusted?

The levy that is included within the Cabinet paper refers to the mechanism in which we will cover the costs of building the infrastructure. The infrastructure is still under commercial negotiation, so the exact cost is not yet known, but the levy will be based on what that final cost does land at.

What specific mechanisms will be put in place to make sure liquefied natural gas (LNG) is only used in dry years and not as routine baseload supply, which would push up energy costs for New Zealand households and businesses?

The reason why the Government is developing an LNG facility is to provide back-up fuel for electricity generation in a dry year. It is an insurance product for the electricity system. There may be a case to have a secondary benefit in regards to that gas for industry, but its primary purpose is for electricity generation.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked about specific mechanisms to ensure that it would be only run in a dry year. The Minister didn’t address what any of those mechanisms would be. This would be important, because if it is used for other than dry-year back-up—

You don’t need to go into that explanation.

—it does have the potential to increase prices.

The Minister may like to add to his answer.

Has he received any advice or modelling on what investing the up to $2.7 billion in alternatives such as solar and storage, load shifting, energy efficiency, fuel switching, and accelerated renewables—to name a few—as opposed to leasing an LNG terminal, would do to wholesale and retail electricity prices, and, if so, will he release that modelling?

All of the information in regards to the modelling has been released by my officials yesterday. The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment did consider a long list of different options including renewables, demand response, and new thermal plant. All of these were considered; however, none of those, with the exception of LNG, were deemed to be feasible nor to provide the sufficient firming capacity and scale required to meet dry-year needs. LNG is the right option. The maths is simple.

Can I ask the Minister: is there a time that he might take some advice from the very person who shut down the critical energy infrastructure at Marsden Point?

That’s not something that he can comment on.

Point of order. He most certainly can comment on whether he’s going to take that advice from that person. What’s wrong with that? I’m asking: are you going to take this advice from that person with that track record? That’s a legitimate question.

Sorry, I did not quite hear that part about the taking of advice. The Minister may give a brief comment.

Yeah, I have no requirement to take advice from that member.

Does he agree with Karpowership, a company that participated in the Government’s own LNG process, that it would place upward pressure on gas prices, thereby making prices more expensive for Kiwi families and businesses, and, if not, why not?

As I noted before, we are currently in the middle of a commercial negotiation process in regards to the selection of a vendor to undertake the importation of LNG. It is not appropriate for me to comment on a supposition in regards to some of those parties that may or may not be in that process.

Will the Minister be taking advice as to whether overseas investors who may participate in this LNG project could be fearful that their rights would be terminated, as was the case with the cancellation of the oil and gas industry?

In regards to the risks and issues that investors will be considering—one of which will include political and sovereign risk and that is a fair assessment. As a Government, we are taking on board that consideration, and we will be ensuring that those international partners that are looking to invest capital in this country on a long-term basis to support our economic growth will be protected.

Has he received any advice on whether the process outlined in his Cabinet paper, where a delegated group of Ministers make the final decision on the selection of a preferred provider, falls within the usual scope of procurement?

Yes.

14:08 · to the Minister of Finance

What recent reports has she seen on Investment Boost?

Today, the initial results of an Inland Revenue survey about Investment Boost were released. According to Inland Revenue’s survey of over 800 firms, Investment Boost is already changing investment behaviour for the better, bringing capital projects forward, increasing their scale, and lifting productivity across the economy. The survey shows that of those who knew of the scheme, 40 percent of firms that invested said that Investment Boost had already increased their investment. This included 11 percent reporting a significant increase directly because of the policy. This early data shows Investment Boost is working.

What does the survey show?

That early positive impact is expected to get even stronger over time. For example, 49 percent of firms planning to invest over the next five years say Investment Boost is influencing their plans positively, with 14 percent expecting a large increase in investment as a result. More than half said they were changing the nature of their forward-looking investment plans, with many firms reprioritising investment projects or bringing planned investment forward. This is exactly the behavioural change the policy was designed to deliver and exactly what you see when Government backs investment rather than talks it down.

How does Investment Boost work?

Investment Boost was introduced in Budget 2025 to encourage business investment by improving the tax treatment of capital investments. It has been a longstanding challenge for the New Zealand economy that we have had low rates of investment in capital in our firms, and this is strongly linked to our low productivity rates, which underlie low wages in New Zealand. Inland Revenue modelling shows this policy reduces the effective marginal tax rates on new capital investment by around 5 to 6 percentage points, on average, making previously marginal investment projects viable and encouraging more investment to proceed. It matters because it helps drive long-term growth, productivity, jobs, and income growth. We’re well on track to reaching initial estimates that Investment Boost would lift GDP and wages by 1.5 percent and capital stock by 1.6 percent over the next 20 years; in fact, around half of those gains are expected to be delivered in the first five years.

How important is policy certainty to long-term growth?

Of course it’s very important. This Government introduced Investment Boost to help address the country’s longstanding productivity problem, through driving capital investment. We’re clear that we back ownership, investment, and stable, productivity-enhancing tax policies, but a policy like this one only works if businesses believe it will endure, and what businesses want to know today is: will Investment Boost be retained as a permanent fixture of our tax settings to unlock growth through future election cycles, or will it be sacrificed to fund ever-higher spending? Those members opposite owe hard-working Kiwi business people an answer on that question today.

14:12 · to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety

What legislation is she currently progressing?

This week has been a busy week for the workplace relations and safety portfolio. This week, the Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill was introduced to the House and the Employment Relations Amendment Bill went through the committee of the whole House this morning. Both of these bills are a win for businesses and workers by making it easier for employers to hire staff, keep workers safe, meet their employment obligations, and change their staffing mix when they need to.

What does the Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill do?

The bill addresses concerns I heard on my health and safety roadshow that the law is unclear and that WorkSafe is not much better. We’re fixing this. Changes in this bill will make it easier to run a business in New Zealand by helping to ease the cost of compliance while supporting safety outcomes. It does this in two main ways: first, by strengthening the role of approved codes of practice to give businesses access to guidance that is tailored to their own industries and easier to keep up to date, and, second, by requiring WorkSafe to move from an approach of expecting everyone to address every possible risk, towards one in which WorkSafe provides guidance on critical risks a workplace must address to meet their obligations under the Act.

What does the Employment Relations Amendment Bill do?

The Employment Relations Amendment Bill supports business confidence by enabling a more flexible labour market and giving businesses greater confidence to provide new and better opportunities to workers. When businesses have this confidence, they are more likely to create jobs and to take risks on new hires or promotions. In particular, it will ensure poorly behaved workers are not rewarded for bad behaviour, it will support workers’ freedom of choice to not be part of a collective agreement, it will make it easier for employers to give workers a go in high-impact positions, and it provides more clarity around what constitutes a contracting relationship.

14:14 · to the Minister of Police

Does he stand by all his statements and actions relating to supporting Police’s front line?

14:15

on behalf of the Minister of Police: Yes, and in particular my statement, “Our police do an outstanding job.”

Why are there fewer police than what there were a month ago, and when will he now deliver the 500 additional police officers, given that he failed to do that on 27 November last year?

Well, the good news is that there has been an increase in the front-line police officers since we came into Government of 285 police officers—my notes tell me that’s 10,496 police on the beat. The good news is that those police are supported by a Government that backs the police to do their job and to restore law and order in this country, unlike the situation under the previous administration—

No, that last part’s not necessary.

—with a revolving door of police Ministers who didn’t support the police.

That’s enough.

How can he claim that he is supporting the front line when the Police Association reported in February that almost 60 percent of police officers had considered leaving due to insufficient pay and staffing shortages?

Like I say, we support the police and, of course, there are always challenges in a very tough and difficult job, and that’s what they do on behalf of all New Zealanders to keep those New Zealanders safe. We back the police. The most important thing we do is give them the support through extra budget: we’ve had more than $480 million over four years to support the front line in Budget 2025 and an extra $226 million under Budget 2024 to support the extra police officers. This Government backs the police.

Does he agree with the Police Association President, Steve Watt, who says, “You don’t solve this by spending millions trying to attract new people while the ones you already have are burning out and questioning whether they can stay.”; if not, why not?

Well, no, I don’t agree with that statement because what I would agree with is the sentiment that we’ve been pushing hard to increase the number of front-line police officers after a period of real strain. I also support the additional powers in legislation we’ve given the police to go after the gangs, who create misery in this country. After years where we had mixed messages to gangs about sometimes being against them, sometimes being for them, sometimes paying for them to do work for us, this Government has sent a clear message: back the police with tough legislation. That’s the most important thing.

Does the Minister envisage a time when the police front line will be used in moving out the mōnaroas, the criminals, the gangs, the layabouts, and the vagrants blighting Queen Street?

On behalf of the Minister: yes, I can anticipate that time.

Has he considered offering front-line police the same daily rate as Sunny Kaushal, $920 a day, in the next police pay round; if not, why not?

On behalf of the Minister, I won’t indulge in the member’s petty games, but I will focus on the outcomes. The outcomes are that in this country right here, right now, there are 38,000 fewer victims of violent crime, and that’s 38,000 fewer families that have to go through the pain and suffering of being victims of violent crime, and that’s what this Government has been focused upon. [Interruption]

Questions of that nature will always lead to slight disruption in the House.

14:19 · to the Minister of Internal Affairs

What assurances can she give to Māori, and to all vulnerable communities in Aotearoa, that they will not be harmed by the Online Casino Gambling Bill?

My intention for the Online Casino Gambling Bill is and has always been clear: to regulate online gambling in a way that prioritises harm prevention and minimisation. The online gambling market in New Zealand is currently unregulated. The bill will provide greater protections to all New Zealanders and all communities within New Zealand than under the current unregulated market.

Why will this bill enable rangatahi aged 18 to access online casino gambling when existing laws prohibit anyone under 20 from walking through the door of a casino anywhere in the country?

Because currently, anybody of any age can gamble online. The law, when this bill is passed, will prohibit licensed casinos online from advertising to people under the age of 18 or allowing anybody under the age of 18 to use their products online.

How many of the proposed 15 online casino licences will be issued to companies based here in Aotearoa?

I can’t know that for sure, because the licence and the auction has not occurred. The auction will only occur once the bill has become law.

How does she justify allowing 15 multinational gambling companies to operate and advertise in Aotearoa when New Zealanders lost $2.79 billion to gambling in the last year alone, according to the Salvation Army’s State of the Nation report released yesterday?

Quite easily, because the law will put in place a safer regulated market than what we currently have. It does this in many ways, by having strict harm minimisation standards that currently do not exist. In particular, when it comes to genuine addiction and problem gambling, online casinos who currently operate pay nothing to the problem gambling levy. In the future, they will be contributing to harm minimisation by a levy that will force them to contribute to lowering gambling harm for specific problem gamblers.

Does the Minister intend to take a race-based approach to online casino gambling, as the original question suggests?

No.

14:21 · to the Minister of Local Government

What advice has he asked for or received about the risk of more waste-water disasters like that at Moa Point, noting that the water regulator says about a third of waste-water plants are operating with expired consents?

14:22

Mr—[Interruption]

The House will just totally settle itself and the Minister will begin his answer.

You’ve scarpered!

Hang on. Hang on. Does someone need to go out early? [Interruption] Or two of you—perhaps one from either side.

Can we nominate?

If you want to nominate yourself, you’re not going to.

I receive regular advice about the issues across the water network, including on the recent events at Moa Point. It is fair to say that what we are seeing reflects systemic under-investment in water assets by local government. I think that that fact is acknowledged everywhere across this House. That, of course, will be well known to the member, given her experience as a councillor. [Interruption]

A question is being asked.

Why did the Government introduce waste-water discharge standards in December that will allow 40,000 colony-forming units of bacteria per unit of discharge, when some councils, like Bay of Plenty, noted that this represents an 11 times increase on their current consented limit; and will this allow more or less waste water to enter the ocean?