Parliamentary debates: Tuesday, 10 March 2026

14:01

I wish to make a ministerial statement. Today, I advise the House that the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Covid-19 Lessons Learned has presented its final report. This is a significant moment for New Zealand: an independent account of one of the most consequential periods in our modern history.

Before I turn to the report’s findings, I want to acknowledge all New Zealanders affected by COVID-19 itself. We think of the families of those who lost loved ones to this disease and of those who are still living with the health consequences of COVID-19 today; their experience is part of this story too, and it will not be forgotten.

I also want to acknowledge and thank the nurses, the doctors, the aged-care workers, our emergency services, and the many thousands of essential workers who kept this country functioning throughout the pandemic. They showed up every single day, often under extraordinary pressure, and New Zealand is a better place because of them. We’re enormously grateful for everything that they did.

What this report asks is whether the decisions made by decision makers were the right ones and whether New Zealanders were well served by their Government. Those are important questions, and New Zealanders deserve honest answers. New Zealanders should be proud of how this country came together in response to the pandemic.

The commission finds that the initial response to COVID-19, starting in February 2020, was balanced and appropriate—Kiwis looked out for one another, communities came together, and that effort saved lives.

But as the response continued, particularly into 2021 and 2022, the royal commission finds that restrictions extended beyond what public health advice recommended. Decisions meant that Kiwis were separated from family, people could not be at the bedside of dying loved ones, and funerals were held without family present; businesses closed, and children stayed home from school for months; mental health services were overwhelmed; and many New Zealanders are still living with these consequences today.

The commission finds that former Ministers chose to keep Auckland in alert level 4 lockdown, against public health advice. Unredacted Cabinet papers obtained by the royal commission also reveal that former Ministers kept an Auckland boundary in place over Christmas and new year against the explicit advice of the Ministry of Health; New Zealanders were not told this at the time. The boundary remained for more than month, preventing some Kiwis from travelling to see friends and family over the holiday period.

The commission also finds that the COVID-19 Vaccine Technical Advisory Group advised against a two-dose vaccine mandate for 12- to 17-year-olds due to myocarditis risks. Former Ministers were informed of those concerns.

14:05

The two-dose mandate remained in place regardless of both workplace environments and extracurricular activities such as sport.

The commission also looked at the economic response through the pandemic. Treasury advised from the outset that pandemic spending should be timely, temporary, and targeted. Despite that advice, the $60 billion COVID-19 Response and Recovery Fund spanned 821 programmes, half of which had nothing to do with the pandemic. The commission finds that economic buffers were depleted, and the debt that accumulated has left New Zealand with less room to respond to future shocks. It finds that a key part of preparing for a future economic shock is to ensure we have prudent fiscal management.

The commission is clear that New Zealanders are still living with the consequences of these decisions today. The cost of living pressures many households face today and the social divisions that have not fully healed—these too are part of the story. The pandemic was an evolving situation, and that context matters, but uncertainty alone does not explain what happened. Advice was given, and in several significant cases that advice was not followed. Ordinary New Zealanders paid the price through longer lockdowns than were necessary, through spending that drove up the cost of living, and through health and education systems still catching up today. The public placed enormous trust in their Government.

This Government is carefully reviewing the commission’s findings, and we expect to outline our formal response to the recommendations of phase one and phase two by July.

I want to acknowledge the families, the healthcare workers, the business owners, and the tens of thousands of Kiwis who gave evidence to the commission. This report exists because of them. To those who grieve what was lost during this period, your experience is part of our national record now. It will not be forgotten.

14:07

I’d like to welcome the second royal commission into the COVID-19 response report that is being presented to the House today and thank the royal commission for the work that they have done.

When we turn our minds back to February and March of 2020, sometimes it’s easy to forget the scenes that we were seeing from around the world, particularly looking at countries such as Italy and the UK, where COVID-19 had taken hold. Health systems were being overwhelmed. Economies were also being locked down, but not for the reasons that New Zealand’s ultimately was; they were being locked down because they couldn’t cope with COVID-19 rather than because they were trying to prevent that. We as a Government were determined to do everything that we could to ensure that that did not happen here in New Zealand.

I would like to thank all of the front-line workers who were involved in New Zealand’s COVID-19 response: our doctors, our nurses, all those in the health system, those who worked at the border, those who managed our quarantine and isolation facilities—all of the essential workers who went to work at a time when there was huge fear and huge uncertainty, putting themselves at risk in order to serve other New Zealanders. To all those whose lives were disrupted, who experienced the pain of a global pandemic, we also acknowledge all of you.

I want to quote directly from the royal commission’s findings—which I note was something the Minister did not do—and perhaps some of the most telling findings of the royal commission. A direct quote sums up what I think is a high-quality report: “Evidence shows New Zealand had among one of the best pandemic responses in the world.” A further quote: “By many measures, Aotearoa New Zealand’s response to the pandemic was enviable. We recorded lower case numbers and fewer COVID-19 deaths per capita than nearly all comparable countries. Our health system did not collapse. The economy rebounded strongly from the initial shock and unemployment rates remained low throughout the pandemic period.” Those are the findings of the royal commission. Those are direct quotes. [Interruption]

I think it would be a good idea for some people commenting here to recognise that it should be a respectful debate in response to the Minister’s statement on the royal commission of inquiry. Apologies for interrupting—the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins.

A further quote from the royal commission is also worth reflecting on: “Ministers and officials often had to work at breakneck pace to keep up with the rapidly changing environment and the multitude of tasks required to manage the response to the virus. The success of Aotearoa New Zealand’s pandemic response, most obviously measured in terms of New Zealand’s low death rates and excess mortality, is a credit to their work and dedication and to the quality of the decisions they took.”

They further went on to say, “Ministers and officials regularly faced a set of unpleasant high-stakes choices. There was no scenario in which New Zealand or any other country could have confronted the pandemic without some cost.” I believe those findings are a testament to the work that everybody involved in the COVID-19 response undertook.

I want to respond specifically to some of the incorrect claims, not borne out by the royal commission’s report, that the Minister has just made. The Minister has made a claim that the boundary was in place in Auckland over Christmas and new year. Aucklanders will know that from mid-December, they were able to leave Auckland. That is a matter of record. Aucklanders experienced that. Where there was some disagreement between the Government and health officials was around the requirement for testing before people left Auckland. We were trying to contain the spread of COVID-19 around the rest of the country for as long as we could. The claim that the level 4 lockdown was extended against public health advice in Auckland is simply factually incorrect. The Director-General of Health attended the Cabinet meeting in which that decisions was taken; the advice he presented on the day was different to the written advice that Cabinet had received several days earlier, and the director-general spoke directly to that at the press conference immediately after the decision was taken. The direct quotes from the director-general at the time confirm that the public health advice was to continue the lockdown at level 4 for a further week.

The Vaccine Technical Advisory Group advice against two doses for 12- to 17-year-olds never went to Ministers, and the royal commission finds that. The findings on the economic—

We’ll see about that!

Well, it’s interesting that the people who set up the royal commission appointed the members and set the terms of reference about questioning its findings.

The argument—[Interruption]

The House will just come back to a bit of order.

The arguments around the Government’s economic response, particularly those put forward by the National Government, contradict the position that they took at the same time. Christopher Luxon’s very first announcement as leader of the National Party—

Point of order. The speaker’s time is up.

That’s largely up to the Chair, but I make the point: please conclude your speech.

No, no, point of order. It is not up to the Chair; it is up to the long, decades-old practice in this House that you have to follow the clock and you’ve got a certain time to speak. His time has expired. His argument expired a long time before that.

There have been numerous occasions just in recent times where I could point to people going well over the clock.

Mr Speaker, I seek an extension of time.

Leave is sought. Is there any objection to that course of action?

Yes!

OK, thank you. That’s it. I call Ricardo Menéndez March.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hiding information!

I’ll tell you what: if that continues, the member who’s calling out will have to spend the afternoon outside the House. Ricardo Menéndez March.

14:14

Thank you so much, Mr Speaker. The Green Party acknowledges the phase two report on the lessons learnt from the response to COVID-19. We also want to draw upon one of the quotes that was already acknowledged in the previous contribution that “Evidence shows [we] had one of the best pandemic responses in the world” and that decisions had to be made under tight time pressures, balancing public health responses and the need to protect our health system with real limitations and infringements on people’s rights. I also want to acknowledge that there are many people who remain impacted by COVID, whether it’s their health or economically. I want to acknowledge many of the front lines where there were health workers or, actually, iwi, hapū, and whānau Māori who were actually protecting and taking lessons from previous pandemics that have happened in the world.

I also want to acknowledge that COVID has not gone anywhere. Hospitalisations are still increasing at the moment, as we speak, and we’re yet to see a comprehensive plan to address this. This is a disabling illness that accumulates damage the more times you have it. I also want to acknowledge that the distributional impacts economically are still being felt. During this period, we saw wealth inequality rise; we also saw child material hardship rise as a result. This is something that the Greens constantly fought to address by increasing welfare support to those who needed it the most and putting an excess profits tax on companies who were making record profits while everybody else was made to struggle due to a pandemic completely outside of our control. To that end, I think it is also time that we work in a cross-party way to address the recommendations in this report. We also call on the Government to bring back fully free rapid antigen tests for people and prioritise increasing air quality and ventilation standards in public buildings and in schools.

We broadly agree with the recommendations, including limiting exemptions to regulatory impact statements, developing standing primary legislation for pandemics with clear powers and safeguards and greater transparency over the data and evidence that decision makers use to justify their actions, especially in regard to restrictions on human rights. While we are not happy about the fact that the Government is choosing to exploit monetary policy decisions from this inquiry, we acknowledge that an overreliance on unconventional monetary policy saw one of the largest transfers of wealth that we have ever seen, along with the inflationary environment impacting low-income New Zealanders the most. Despite the inquiry not being able to undertake fulsome analysis, we are glad to see recommendations relating to greater understanding of the use of unconventional monetary policy. Another recommendation is to improve epidemiological modelling and strengthen data and modelling of public health measures, including their assessment against key social outcomes.

I now have some questions for the Minister. I’d like to ask the Minister if he is aware of any impact that cutting 1,850 jobs in the data and digital directorate of Health New Zealand has on their ability to meet the spirit of these recommendations, including tracking data, contact tracing, and modelling for current and future pandemics. That is my first question.

14:17

I appreciate the member’s comments, and particularly his reflections on the recommendations around the monetary policy advice in the report. In relation to Health New Zealand, Health New Zealand continues to stand up a large number of people who are responding to COVID. We have invested significantly as a Government in testing, waste-water testing, vaccinations, and treatments. That is about continuing to ensure that our health system is able to respond to COVID as it now continues to be a disease that is in the community. Part of that is making sure that that data is there and available to be used in monitoring the disease.

The line of questioning was around the 1,850 jobs in the data and digital directorate of Health New Zealand and whether this has an impact on their ability to meet the spirit of the recommendations. I’ll move on to my second question: will he reverse the job cuts to the data and digital directorate of Health New Zealand to implement the recommendations around improving modelling and data on the social and health impacts of public health measures?

14:18

The report provides a range of recommendations that, as a Government, we will be considering and providing a full response to in July. In terms of Health New Zealand, the last Government merged 20 district health boards together during the pandemic to create Health New Zealand. As part of that, there has been the process of bringing those organisations together to find efficiencies in the back office, with a focus on making sure that we can invest more in front-line workers—doctors, nurses—so we can deliver more for the care of patients, which is exactly what we’re doing as a Government. As per the recommendations, we’ll be considering in full phase one and phase two recommendations and providing a full response in July.

14:19

Would he be able to give further clarity on the process that he will undertake in determining the Government’s response to the recommendations—specifically, looking at what agencies will provide advice and what Ministers or Cabinet committees will be involved?

The Prime Minister has asked me as the Minister of Health to coordinate the Government’s response to both the phase one and phase two reports of the royal commission. I gave an oral update to Cabinet yesterday in relation to the report and the process that will follow. Ultimately, it will be a number of Ministers and a number of departments who will be fully engaged. The report’s recommendations include health, education, and social development. Also, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Treasury, and a number of other ministries will be involved and will require a whole-of-Government response to this report.

14:20

Thank you, Mr Speaker. My following question is: is he is committed to working in a cross-party manner to achieve consensus on how the recommendations will be implemented, and, if not, why not?

The first point I would make is we will be, as a Government, working through the recommendations. There will be some areas which, no doubt, will require consideration across the Parliament. That is something we will be considering as part of our response in July.

Will he, during the process, ensure that he actually reaches out to all political parties so that their response to these recommendations can outlive this Government?

Well, ultimately, this will be a Government response to the report. We will be taking an all-of-Government approach. That will be the starting point. And then, ultimately, Cabinet will be taking a view on that. There will be, no doubt, areas where there will be consideration for that, and we will be considering that as we go through the report, prior to making a report back in mid-July.

Before I call the Hon David Seymour, can I just refer the House to Speaker’s ruling 54/1 in relation to the point of order exchange earlier.

14:21

Well, thank you, Mr Speaker. This commission of inquiry, second report, is important to so many New Zealanders: to those who suffered from COVID but, equally, those who suffered from the then Labour Government’s response to COVID. It was those women who didn’t know they had breast cancer because screening was stopped. It was those children who missed out on learning, that will affect them for their lifetime, because education was put down the society’s totem pole of priorities as COVID became everything. It’s those butchers who were crying on the footpath as they threw out meat, yet again, because their stores were shut while their competitors in the back of supermarkets could continue. It is those young people who observed that the Government added a third to house prices and doubled Government debt with miscoordinated and irresponsible fiscal and monetary policy.

At the height of their arrogance, the Labour Party commissioned a royal commission of inquiry into its own performance and set the terms of reference to exclude those matters from consideration. Just like the response itself, they did not consider the impacts of the response on the rest of society; only that singular goal that increasingly consumed and, ultimately, devastated their Government. It is because of this coalition Government, and I might say the ACT Party—that has campaigned and won a revised terms of reference, with revised commissioners—that all those New Zealanders who suffered will get some truth and some understanding of what happened.

For all those future New Zealanders, who, when something like this happens again—and pandemics have always been with us, so it will—they will have a message in a bottle saying, “You know what? If you’re going to respond to a pandemic, try to balance all the other aspects of New Zealanders’ welfare against the one thing that you are pursuing.” That is the message that comes out.

I have to say—for those who say, “Oh, it was difficult” and “On balance, we did well.”—anyone can quarantine an island, and, if you’re prepared to double the Government’s debt, you can even keep the economy going for a while. We know that. But, the question is: do you have the strategy to exit the lockdowns? The answer, in this report, is: they didn’t. Are you prepared to adopt the technology, such as rapid antigen tests, that will allow people to get on with their lives faster? And the answer is: they didn’t. Can you follow the official advice and use vaccine mandates in a way that does not divide this society? And the answer is that they didn’t. And I know that there will be all sorts of attempts at avoidance and blame-shifting—we even saw it from Christopher “Sensitive” Hipkins with his point of order exchange a moment ago. But—

14:24

I withdraw that comment.

But the truth is that there are more. This is the guy, when he was Minister of Police, crime went up. When he was Minister of Education, school attendance went down.

How does this relate to the statement?

When he was Prime Minister, Government debt went through the roof.

Yeah, come back to the point—to the ministerial statement.

I will, Mr Speaker. If this guy opened a funeral parlour, nobody would die. He can screw up anything—

No—sorry, that’s enough. I just remind the House these are responses to the ministerial statement and should not go broader than that.

14:25

Under Standing Order 365(1)(a) and (b), we won’t be saying at the very beginning that we always believed this inquiry would be deficient. Quotes we said back then: “We disagree with allowing the current inquiry to simply continue as ‘phase one’ in its current form, the current chair remaining in place, and the further extension of [the] report-back period.” Further, we said: “We believe that ‘phase one’ of the Royal Commission is simply a continuation of the current inquiry, which is far too narrow in [its] scope and remains compromised by the current Chair’s direct involvement [and] the previous Government’s administration and direct planning of the COVID pandemic response.” And further: “New Zealand First campaigned on the fact that the current Royal Commission was nothing more than a Labour Party political tool, being used to craft a message through its lack of scope and lack of suitability of the commissioners. We believe the public perception of bias of the current chair represents a reputational risk for ‘phase one’ of the inquiry.” Enough quotes.

Today, there is a serious lack of confidence across New Zealand in our health system and its processes as a result. Here are the questions we wish to ask. This is basic, to start: does the inquiry show that Ministers imposed a vaccine mandate for 12- to 17-year-olds and kept it in place, despite clear warnings from experts that a two-dose vaccine mandate presented risk for young people? That’s the first question. Second: does he agree with the finding of the inquiry that the failure to provide information about the risk of two doses of the Pfizer vaccine to 12- to 17-year-olds was “significant”? Third: does the inquiry show that Minister Verrall was aware of the advisory group’s concerns about requiring two vaccinations for young people? She was aware that they were concerned about that at the time. Four: did the inquiry show that Ministers were aware that the benefits of the 2021 lockdown in Auckland did not outweigh the costs, as compared to previous lockdowns? Five: did the inquiry show that Ministers were not fully assessing the economic and social effects of keeping Auckland in lockdown in 2021? Six: does the inquiry identify shortcomings in the provision of rapid testing of New Zealanders, particularly in comparison to Singapore, which first started using the tests in 2020? Seven: does the inquiry show that Ministers made decisions regarding vaccine mandates without consideration or even any monitoring of the medium-term effects on the health and education workforces?

Now, we’ve got countless other questions, but those are the ones we want to start with today, and to say, at the end of the day, what we’re concerned about here is the alacrity with which the Leader of the Opposition got up and tried to excuse himself in the face—as perverted and biased as it might be—of a shocking report.

14:28

Well, I thank the member for his questions. The first issue was in relation to the risk of myocarditis for 12- to 17-year-olds, and that is an issue that was traversed significantly in the report. The report found two things—firstly, that it was a significant failure on the Ministry of Health not to clearly provide clear advice to Ministers on that particular point. However, also in paragraph 413 of the report, it says: “On 22 December 2021 the Ministry of Health provided a briefing paper to Hon. Chris Hipkins, Minister for COVID-19 Response, titled ‘Policy decisions required for further amendments to the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Vaccinations) Order (No 7) 2021.’ The paper was considered by Hon. Dr Ayesha Verrall, Associate Minister of Health, on 7 January 2022.”

Hiding the information.

Just hold on. I’m trying to listen to make sure that there’s a fair go all round and that the information being given by the Minister can be clearly heard. Anybody who thinks that they’re helping him by yelling out like that is not doing so.

Paragraph 414 says, “Paragraph 23 of this paper stated that: ‘In November 2021, CV TAG has raised concerns about vaccine mandates requiring younger age groups (e.g. those under 18 years) to be fully vaccinated. Consideration should be given to permitting younger people who have had one dose to be permitted to work or undertake other activities covered by the mandate.’ ” The reality is that that advice was provided to the Ministers, and the mandates that it related to continued to stay in effect for some time after that. Concerns were clearly made, and the reality is that the questions around why those decisions were made are questions that would need to be put to the former Ministers.

In relation to the other questions, I think the report outlines, certainly, around some of the Auckland lockdown decisions, advice from the Ministry of Health not being followed and alternative positions being taken to Cabinet; certainly, delays in getting access to rapid testing in New Zealand didn’t support a more rapid and nimble response; and, of course, there are certainly some recommendations which will be considered, around how the issue of mandates and the impact those have on people versus the health benefits—that is certainly an issue that is going to need to be further considered.

14:31

Could I ask the Minister: how many tens of thousands of 12- to 17-year-olds could have been adversely affected as a result of the Government of that time ignoring the advice of people who knew what they were talking about?

Well, the reality is that there would be tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of young people in that age group, and the reality was—as is outlined in paragraphs 413 and 414 of the report—that a briefing was provided to the Hon Chris Hipkins. It was then considered by the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall on 7 January 2022, and that report said that the COVID-19 Vaccine Technical Advisory Group (CV TAG), in November, had raised concerns about vaccine mandates requiring younger age groups to be fully vaccinated: “Consideration should be given to permitting younger people who have had one dose to be permitted to work or undertake other activities covered by the mandate.” The reality is that those mandates did stay in place for some time following that paper being considered.

14:32

Does the report mention any officials who were sacked for failing to advise the Government Ministers of the time, or is it a case where they did advise the Government Ministers of the time and the Ministers who are claiming today to be innocent are denying all knowledge? Is there anybody in the report who was fired for failing to advise Ministers?

In so much as the Minister is able to answer somewhat factually, then he could make a comment.

14:33

The report makes the finding that there was a significant failure on behalf of the Ministry of Health in not being clearer in terms of the advice that it provided on that point to Ministers. The answer to the member’s question relating to the issue of the officials, and who provided what, is not answered in the report.

The Rt Hon Winston Peters has one minute and 21 seconds of his time, if he wishes to—

No—next week.

Thank you. [Debbie Ngarewa-Packer rises to take a call] No, this is a—

On the basis that it takes some people to absorb the information that we’re giving them, I’ll come back next week with it, or the week after.

Oh, that’s very generous of you. The Māori Party would need to seek leave for—

Oh, kia ora. E te Pīka, I’d like to seek leave to take a call.

Is there any objection to that course of action? There appears to be none.

14:34

Thank you. First of all, we all want to acknowledge the enormous sacrifice made by many across Aotearoa during the COVID-19 pandemic. At home and across the motu, we saw marae and iwi mobilise and really feed and care for their whole community. This report is bereft of that information. In fact, it’s really disappointing because it’s framed the whole response, in our view, as everything being successful based on what the State did, and let me tell you how we saw it from our perspective: the State was missing in action.

We had the largest Māori caucus, and yet we still had to endure warrantless searches on marae. We had to endure tikanga that was harsh and that didn’t have any input from iwi across the motu. We had to have tangihanga challenges and we also saw mandates, and they were cruel and harsh on our people. We saw that the supply of resources didn’t arrive.

One of the things that I think that was really disappointing was that the whole role of iwi and the backbone of the COVID response was actually just seen as something extra, versus what it should have been seen as and what we also see in the climate crisis—they are a critical part of recovery. They are a critical part of standing up for the whole community. There were checkpoints, there were community protection measures, there was delivered kai, there were medicines, there was testing, there were protected kaumātua, and vulnerable, vulnerable communities, which is why we didn’t have what happened in Italy. I think that what the coordinated campaign’s done off the back of their own steam is really important, and, sadly, missed in some of this.

So we reject the framing that everything needed to be attributed, and thanked, to the Government at the time. What’s even more disturbing is that there haven’t been lessons learnt from this that we would expect to have seen come through. I think some of the things we know is that Māori and Pacific communities were disproportionately affected, and that isn’t something that’s because of their culture, it’s because of deprivation, and that needed to be acknowledged in this as well as Te Tiriti.

I have some questions that we would like to put to the Minister. The first one is: why does the report acknowledge the success of iwi-led response during the pandemic but fails to recommend permanent resources for iwi and Māori providers to lead future public health responses? As Minister Seymour said, there will be other pandemics.

14:36

Well, the report was an independent royal commission report. I can’t speak to why or why not a recommendation may or may not have been added to the report. As a Government, we will respond to the report’s recommendations.

Thank you. My next question is: how does the Minister reconcile the report’s findings with its ongoing removal of Te Tiriti obligations from the health system?

Well, I’d say those are two separate things.

I’m sorry, I didn’t hear that—apologies.

I’d say that my response to that is those are two separate matters.

14:37

The next question is: does the Minister accept that the delayed access to Māori-specific health data undermined iwi’s ability to protect their communities?

Well, I think there was certainly a need to ensure that during the response to the COVID-19 pandemic, all communities were engaged in the response, and to make sure that the response was as effective as possible.

Does the Minister believe that a Māori-led pandemic response framework is critical and something that should be adopted as a consequence of this report?

We will be responding to the phase one and phase two reports. Cabinet will be considering that and reporting back in July.

Does the Minister believe that a Treaty-based emergency governance that includes iwi decision, given the way that we saw iwi stand up and actually contribute to the success of the COVID response that this nation had, is important to be addressed?

We are focused on responding to the royal commission’s reports. We’ll be providing a full response in July.

14:38

Does the Minister believe that there are future safety issues for communities with inequities in future pandemics affecting Aotearoa?

I think, as the report highlights, the best thing that New Zealand can do to be prepared for future shocks, whether those are economic shocks, whether those are natural disasters, or whether those are pandemics, is having a prudent fiscal management of our economy and focusing on growing our economy so that we’re able to respond to shocks. That is why this Government is focused on making sure we have fiscal strategy, which is about reducing the burden of debt, which is about ensuring we are focused on economic growth and the resilience of our economy in the face of shocks.

We are a small country. We are far from international markets. Our isolation can be something which can be an advantage, but ultimately, at the same time, for all New Zealanders, the best thing we can be focused on in preparation is ensuring we’re running the economy well, keeping debt down, and ensuring we’re focused on fixing the basics and building the future.

That concludes this debate.

to the Prime Minister

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

Yes.

Does he stand by his claim that giving landlords a $2.9 billion tax cut would lower rents; if so, why have rents gone up almost 10 percent in the past year?

Well, I’m very proud of the fact that we actually have seen rents stabilise in this country after having gone up $180 a week under his Government.

Why does he believe that rents going up 10 percent in a year is a sign that they’ve stabilised?

I’d just say to that member: asking me about housing policy, which was an abject failure of his Government, is a waste of time.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. Those were both actually very straightforward questions, about rents going up 10 percent. The Prime Minister’s chosen to not address those questions at all. I think that last question in particular—why does he believe that a 10 percent increase in rents is a sign that rents have stabilised?—is not an unreasonable question.

I don’t think there’s any suggestion it was an unreasonable question. There was a response from the Prime Minister that, clearly, he judged to be in the public interest, and that’s where the public will probably judge it.

Why should everyday New Zealanders believe that the economy’s improving when 70 percent—seven out of 10—of working people received pay rises last year that were less than the rate of inflation, meaning that their pay in real terms is going backwards?

Well, look, we do have an economic recovery under way. That’s evidenced by the GDP growth being 1.1 percent in the last quarter. It’s evidenced with inflation being low at 3.1 percent. The Reserve Bank of New Zealand and the Treasury expect that interest rates will remain low, as will inflation. We’ve got consumer confidence the highest it’s been since 2021. We’ve got business confidence the highest since 2014. We’ve got farmer confidence the highest since 2016. Manufacturing growth, record exports, great growth in tourism, trade surplus for the first time in five years, building consents up 20 percent, construction jobs up 43 percent in the last year, job ads up 10 percent in the last year. There’s still a lot more for us to do, and life is hard, but it underscores some of the conversation we’ve had here in this House today, which is if you don’t run an economy well, if you don’t manage it prudently and responsibly, you end up taxing more, borrowing more, spending more—

Good—OK.

—and causing huge pain and suffering for New Zealanders and, most importantly, damaging the economy.

If the building and construction industry has turned around, why was there $5 billion less activity in construction last year compared to 2023, and 751 construction firms going into liquidation?

Well, as I’ve explained to the member before, construction is very contingent upon something called interest rates, because you actually need to borrow money to get developments done and built. How you end up with high interest rates is because of wasteful Government spending leading to high inflation, which leads to high interest rates. That really hurts a construction industry, and building and construction. What I’m saying to the member is it’s good to see that we’ve got building consents up 20 percent in the last six months, we’ve got construction jobs up 43 percent in the last year. That’s good progress; there’s more for us to do. We want more New Zealanders feeling the recovery. But if the member feels very strongly about it, why doesn’t he support our fast track?

Does he think that the 2,000 New Zealanders a week who have been giving up and leaving the country under his leadership feel that the economy’s turned around?

Well, I’m pleased to report that, actually, New Zealanders returning back to New Zealand was up 12 percent on the previous year. For the last four months, I’m very pleased to say that New Zealanders leaving is less than in any month in the period that he was Prime Minister. [Interruption]

That’s enough.

Does he agree with his finance Minister that struggling New Zealanders just need to be less impatient, or will he admit that his Government’s been consistently making life harder for New Zealanders?

Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Labour leader frequently raises points of order to try and debate matters of fact. He’s just misrepresented the Minister of Finance, and he should withdraw and apologise for it, as you asked me to earlier.

I missed that there was a—it was the description of the member that I took objection to before, on behalf of the House. Was there a descriptor for the Minister of Finance in that question?

Point of order, Mr Speaker. First of all, a member can’t take objection on behalf of another member.

Yes, I’m aware of that.

But second of all, the statements that I make in my question or, if you like, the assertion in my question is no different to any other assertion. If the Government wants to reject it, they can reject it in the answers.

Speaking to the point of order. Unfortunately, the Leader of the Opposition has formed a repeated habit—

No, hang on.

No—a repeated habit of misrepresenting my statements in this House.

No, sorry. A point of order has to be specific. It can’t be a general speech about how the member feels.

The way he represented my statement in his supplementary question was inaccurate, and he should withdraw.

The member might—why don’t you ask the question again and I’ll decide whether you should withdraw?

Does he agree with his finance Minister that struggling New Zealanders just need to be less impatient, or will he admit that his Government’s—

No, I don’t think you can say that. Sorry, unless you can point to a quote that actually says that, you can’t—

It’s what she said.

Beg your pardon? Ms Andersen, are you now sitting in the Chair? Good, because you’ll be sitting in a chair outside the House if you keep challenging like that. You can’t assert something or come to some conclusion about what something else might have meant. It has to be fact.

Further point of order, Mr Speaker.

Speaking to the point of order. I can clear this up.

Just a moment. You might be able to, but I’m hearing from the—

Mr Speaker, if you’re ruling that we can’t make assertions or paraphrase Ministers in our questions, you’ll be knocking out most of the questions in this House, including a significant number of the patsy questions that come from the Government solely for the purposes of attacking the Opposition.

No, I’m not doing that. Standing Orders do it. If you read the Standing Order, you’ll see that that is clearly the situation. Does the member have another supplementary?

No, supplementary question.

Quick, speaking to the point of order.

Supplementary here.

Thank you very much—

Mr Speaker, can I speak to the point of order?

Sorry, no. Mr Peters, we’ll go to the supplementary here. We’re moving on.

We can’t take any more of this.

Beg your pardon?

Can I speak to the point of order?

Look, I know you’re pretty fast on your feet, but you’ve got to be fast to beat this young guy.

Speaking to the point of order. Point of order, Mr Speaker.

No, the point of order’s dealt with.

Well, can I raise a new point of order?

Best be a new point of order.

I wish to state for the record of the House that I have never stated—

No, that’s not a point of order. Sit down.

Just need to be—

That is not point of order.

Has the Prime Minister identified one single New Zealand family that’s received the full $250 a fortnight that he promised them before the election?

I think it’s quite interesting the member is so flippant about the efforts of this Government to help low and middle income working New Zealanders. It wasn’t deeply ideological to lift tax thresholds to help lots of people with lower tax. But what we know is that member spent too much, borrowed too much, for way too long, caused huge amounts of suffering, and he wants to get a go at doing it all again. Not going to happen.

Can I ask the Minister: if an inherited $92 billion debt blow-out was spent on consumption—not production, not wealth creation, and not added value—is it likely that adverse economic indicators will stay around for some time?

Point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, you’ve ruled already that assertions cannot be made in questions. That was just a string of assertions, none of which have a basis in fact.

No, sorry—slightly different. In your case, you asserted that a Minister had said something. Mr Peters asked the Minister a question about those things—quite different. It is hard but the Standing Orders will never cover the whole lot.

I want to thank the member for his question, because it’s very illuminating, which is that the Labour Government was the second-biggest spending—

No, no—

Point of order, Mr Speaker.

I’m giving context.

Wait on. Hang on—just a minute. There’s a point of order.

It’s a Government patsy question from a Minister to another Minister, and he begins immediately by attacking the last Labour Government.

Yes, and that’s right. Before you stood to your feet, I was about to stop it. [Interruption] Sorry? Another one who wants to come and sit in this Chair. There’ll be a whole choir of you outside shortly. I’ll just tell the Prime Minister you—

Supplementary.

Actually, we’ll move on. Rawiri Waititi.

Hopefully the Prime Minister will be thanking me for my question. Will he finally condemn the USA and Israel for their illegal invasion of Iran, which has killed at least 1,205 civilians, including at least 194 children; if not, why not?

As the member knows, I gave a statement in this House last week, the Minister of Foreign Affairs has given subsequent statements, and I’ve got nothing further to add to what we’ve already said last week.

Can he categorically rule out sending any military support to the United States and Israel for their illegal invasion of Iran?

We haven’t been asked. We are not central to the region, we are not central to the issue, and we are a long way away. We haven’t been asked and we don’t expect we will be.

When he said, “We haven’t been asked to.” in a response to a question about Aotearoa joining the strikes, was he suggesting that we would support the strikes if the USA or Israel asked us to?

No.

Does he think it’s very likely that the United States would ask a country called Aotearoa to join a military action?

No, that’s not a question.

14:52 · to the Minister of Finance

What recent reports has she seen on economic policy?

14:53

The final report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Covid-19 Lessons Learned was released today. One of the four key areas it focuses on is economic policy. The royal commission observes that the COVID-19 pandemic was a substantial shock to the economy and the costliest event in terms of fiscal support in New Zealand in the past 40 years. We must learn lessons from the way this event was responded to, because these lessons must inform the Government’s response to the next natural disaster, global downturn, pandemic, or other economic shock. Denial is not an option. Mistakes were made in the economic response, and these mistakes were costly. Those who choose to minimise these errors are not well placed to learn from them.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a question about a royal commission report. The answer was largely the Minister’s opinion on what she thinks about the royal commission’s report, not the contents of that report, with a deliberate attack on the Opposition. Government patsy questions—and you’ve repeatedly ruled this—should not be used to attack the Opposition.

That’s true, but the—

Speaking to the point of order.

Yeah, that’s good—let me speak first—

My primary question—

Hang on—wait on. Let me speak first. Sit down. The question, if you read it, says, “What reports has she seen on economic policy?” Well, certainly there were aspects of that in the royal commission report. I don’t think it was unreasonable for her to comment on that.

What did the royal commission say about Government spending and fiscal stimulus during the pandemic?

Well, it says that Treasury and Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment advice from the outset was that fiscal stimulus measures to address the consequences of the pandemic should be timely, temporary, and targeted. However, the royal commission found that many examples of Government spending, including the so-called shovel-ready infrastructure projects, did not meet these tests. The $60 billion COVID-19 Response and Recovery fund spanned 821 programmes, around half of which were not related to the pandemic, such as conservation programmes, additional public housing places, and school lunches. Many initiatives in the COVID fund extended well beyond the time of the pandemic, and some were baked in, including permanent increases to welfare benefits. As a result, the big increase in Government spending was highly stimulatory and went on for too long.

What did the royal commission say about the consequences of that stimulus?

Well, it says that highly stimulatory fiscal policy, together with low interest rates, led to a surge in house prices in 2021 and 2022. House prices, I acknowledge, also rose in other countries but the commission points out that the increase was far more dramatic in New Zealand. This was avoidable. The commission says that fiscal policy set in 2020 received limited review and adjustment. It says, and I quote, “We are not aware of any sizeable component of the fiscal stimulus programme that was reviewed or cancelled to lessen the stimulus once the undesirability of further stimulus became clear.”

Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table Christopher Luxon’s first announcement as Leader of the Opposition, arguing for the Labour Government to spend more money on the COVID-19 response, after the Reserve Bank had already started to tighten monetary policy.

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

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

What did the royal commission say about Government debt?

Fiscal stimulus comes from increasing Government spending. In the circumstances, increased Government spending had to be borrowed for. As a result, New Zealand’s Government debt rose from 18.6 percent of GDP before the pandemic to 38.7 percent in the 2022/2023 fiscal year, obviously a very significant increase. The royal commission makes it clear that the large amount of debt accumulated during the pandemic means New Zealand is now in a weaker position to deal with the next large shock that comes along. The report concludes—and, again, I quote—“there is a pressing need to reduce public debt to provide a buffer for future pandemics or other economic shocks.” This Government agrees with that conclusion.

14:58

on behalf of the Hon Barbara Edmonds (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by all her statements and actions?

In context, yes.

Does she stand by her statement on 6 March 2026 that “There’s no getting away from the fact that a higher oil price means New Zealanders paying higher prices.”, and, if so, does she expect current overseas events to worsen New Zealand’s inflation?

Yes, I stand by my statement of 6 March, and I also stand by this Government’s decision to unwind proposed petrol tax increases by the previous Government which would have added 12c extra to fuel as well as 10c in a regional fuel tax.

Was Nicola Willis correct on 19 July 2022 when she said that Governments “can’t simply blame these issues on overseas factors. It needs to front up and do its bit.”?

Yes, that was a very wise statement from Nicola Willis, who I also recall at the time was pointing out while we can’t control global factors, the Government can always control its own response, including the spending decisions it makes. I recall, at that period, what we had was both the Reserve Bank making decisions but also the Government choosing to have a highly stimulatory fiscal stance, right when we were also trying to fight global inflation factors. Yes, global inflation played a factor, but no, the previous Government did not take prudent steps to rein its own belt in.

Was Nicola Willis correct on 14 June 2022 that Governments need to stop blaming overseas events and step up and deliver a plan to fight inflation?

Yes, and how prudent it was that, on being elected, this Government restored a single inflation-busting mandate to the Reserve Bank and that we have delivered $43 billion worth of savings to reduce pressure on inflation that can come from stimulatory fiscal policy. How good it is that we are a Government that is committed to a fiscal strategy to see the debt curve bend down and to reduce spending, as a proportion of the economy, and get the books back in balance. Members, of course we cannot control global events, but every Government has the choice about how it responds, and, as the royal commission report lays bare today, the last Government, in responding to an unavoidable shock, made costly fiscal and monetary policy decisions for which New Zealand continues to pay today.

Was Nicola Willis correct on 21 April 2022: “It’s simply not credible for [a] Finance Minister to distance [themselves] by blaming our inflation woes solely on global causes.”?

Yes, and I certainly have not done that and would not do that. What I acknowledge is that global changes in the price of oil do have an impact here at home, but what I have also been is a finance Minister who has recognised that monetary policy needs mates, and the fiscal decisions that a Government makes have an impost on New Zealanders and have impacts for inflation and interest rates. I take very seriously that role, and I think that this would be a point where members opposite might reflect that the decisions made in response to COVID-19 in the independent appraisal of the royal commission of inquiry, along with the New Zealand Treasury, find clearly that they spent too much, they stimulated the economy too much, it led to a massive spike in debt, a massive spike in the cost of living, and we are still unwinding that now. I watched that response unfold. I’ve reflected on the lessons; it’s time that lot did too.

Is it the Minister’s position that no Government can control every factor but every Government has a responsibility to take control of the ones it can, and, if so, what is this Government doing to boost growth and to control inflation?

I wholeheartedly agree with those statements from the Deputy Prime Minister. This Government, while we do not have it within our power to declare peace in the Middle East, is ensuring that we are supporting growth in this economy and that we are doing so through sensible fiscal management, by reducing red tape that stands in the way of investment and development, by having in place an Investment Boost tax policy to encourage new development and growth, to pursue more free-trade agreements, and to encourage investors to come to New Zealand to ensure we are delivering a sustainable pipeline of infrastructure, and we are lifting the achievement of children in schools so that the workforce of the future can be more productive. This is a Government with a clear plan. We are controlling what we can control, but we haven’t sorted out peace in the Middle East yet.

Isn’t it the case that the Minister doesn’t need overseas factors to have a negative impact on the economy; she’s well on her way to doing that herself?

I’d suggest the person doing the most damage to themselves today is Mr Hipkins, who seems to be in a state of fervent denial.

The question and the answer probably matched each other quite well.

15:04 · to the Minister for Tourism and Hospitality

What recent reports has she seen on tourism in New Zealand?

Data released last week shows New Zealand’s tourism sector continues to grow, driving billions of dollars into our economy. The Tourism Satellite Account shows total tourism expenditure in New Zealand is at $46.6 billion for the year ending March 2025. A new travel option that enables eligible Chinese and Pacific visitors to cross the ditch to New Zealand visa-free is also bringing in a considerable boost to tourism with over $210 million being injected into the economy as a result of our Government’s visa changes. These results highlight exactly why tourism is a key part of our Government’s plan to fix the basics and build the future.

How have the Government’s recent visa changes provided a boost to our economy?

In December, we announced that 13,000 Chinese and Pacific travellers had already visited, with 24,000 total requests approved. That number has now almost tripled to 36,800 visits. With average visitor spend at $5,800 for Chinese visitors, that’s an estimated economic injection of $210 million for Kiwi businesses from those who have visited, with Chinese visitors making up 36,200 visits through the new pathway. This visitor spending is going directly into local businesses; it includes shops, eateries, accommodation, and transport, and this is spending that may not have come into New Zealand without these changes. More international visitors mean more customers for our businesses and more jobs being created across the country.

What progress has she seen on employment in the tourism and hospitality industries?

The latest Tourism Satellite Account data shows that now one in nine people are employed in the tourism and hospitality industries. Total tourism employment increased 2.8 percent to over 325,000 people. This means almost 9,000 more people are employed in the industry. This data shows the importance of our Government’s commitment to growing tourism and its contribution to employment growth across New Zealand. More visitors mean more spending on our accommodation, cafés, bars, restaurants, and local businesses, which, of course, gives a significant boost to the economy and supports more local jobs.

What commentary has she seen on these reports?

Tourism Industry Aotearoa Chief Executive Rebecca Ingram has said, “This summer, we have seen changes to our visa settings for China, which has made a real difference, and we have also seen quite considerable activity to stimulate demand.” Napier City Business Inc. General Manager Pip Thompson said, “When visitors are here, staying overnight, and spending, it supports accommodation, hospitality, and the wider CBD.” Greymouth iSite manager Kelly Ashworth describes tourism at present as “Fantastic—great to see. There’s not accommodation available in Greymouth, Hokitika, or Punakaiki … It’s great not just for the tourism industry but for supermarkets, cafés, boutiques, local businesses that we’re lucky to have. They’ve all benefitted—it’s what keeps everyone employed.” Tourism is critical to our economy, and our investments will help to deliver lasting benefits for communities and businesses from one end of New Zealand to the other.

15:08 · to the Prime Minister

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

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

Yes.

Does he share the incoming US ambassador to New Zealand’s priority of “expanding our defence partnership”?

Well, what we believe in is we have our own independent foreign policy. We work with like-minded countries on making sure we keep the Indo-Pacific region safe and secure.

Why is he comfortable expanding defence partnerships with a country that has launched an illegal war with Iran, further destabilised the entire Middle East, and upended global fuel supply?

The question itself needs to be reworded.

Is he comfortable expanding defence partnerships with a country that has launched an illegal war with Iran, further destabilised the entire Middle East, and upended global fuel supply?

I reject the characterisation and the assumptions that are inherent in that question.

Will the Prime Minister rule out providing any resources or intelligence to support the US-Israeli war with Iran?

We’ve canvassed these issues before. As I’ve said, any intelligence that is collected and shared is done in accordance with New Zealand law.

Does he stand by his statement that “Our position is the same as the Australian position.”, and, if so, why does his Government share Australia’s support for the US attacks on Iran?

I don’t understand the question.

Sorry, that’s a statement that the member is making. It’s certainly not one that my very considerable following of this issue could verify. So, I think, reword the question.

Does he stand by his statement that “Our position is the same as the Australian position.”; and if so, why does his Government share Australia’s support for the US attacks on Iran?

Well, it’s the last bit that’s the problem.

I reject the characterisation of that question completely.

Why is his Government unable to articulate a clear position on the illegal US-Israeli war with Iran?

We canvassed that last week. We’ve had statements in the House on that. I’ve got nothing further to add to what’s already been said and discussed.

15:11 · to the Minister of Health

Is the Government’s 24/7 online GP service on track to reach one million patients a year; if not, why not?

The member opposite appears to be confused. There is not and has never been a target for X number of patients being seen through this service. Since the Online GP Care service was introduced, tens of thousands of New Zealanders have received care they otherwise could not have accessed—making a real difference to patients’ lives. The figure of 1 million, which the member is referring to, was not a projected usage target; it relates to survey findings for access to primary care, not to any target for the Online GP Care service. The Government introduced services like this to work alongside our wider primary care plan, to ensure that patients can get the care they need when and where they need it. Uptake of this service will only continue to grow, and I encourage the member to support it.

When will the service reach 1 million users a year, as promised in the fact sheet distributed in the launch?

As I said in the answer to my primary question, the figure of 1 million, which the member is referring to, was not a projected usage target; it relates to survey findings about access to primary care—not to any target for the online GP care service. Ultimately, usage will continue to grow, and we encourage the member to promote it.

Point of order, sir. Sir, if the Minister was accurate and that there was no target of 1 million, that primary question would not have been allowed by the Clerk’s Office. As you know, we are required to provide verification, which we did, and that is why the primary question was allowed. It is inaccurate for the member to dismiss the question by saying, “That isn’t the case.”, when it’s already been verified, through the parliamentary process, that it is.

I don’t have that in front of me. I accept that the question was accepted. The Minister’s answer can’t be dismissed just because of the acceptance of the question by the Clerk’s Office. The reality is that the 1-million patient number will be reached when the 1-millionth person rings the line.

Speaking to that, sir. I accept that, but my point is that if it was inaccurate for us to claim that there was a target of 1 million—as happens every sitting day, if there is something—

I’ll tell you what—I’ll tell you what.

—in a question that can’t be verified, it is sent back by the Clerk’s Office. This was not, because it was verified.

OK. I don’t have that in front of me. I’ll need to go have a look at that.

Who is correct: the Prime Minister, Christopher Luxon, who said he could see this “taking off quite well”; or his own data, which says that the service is only reaching 5 percent of the patients he promised?

The Prime Minister, of course, is always right, and, ultimately, the tens of thousands of New Zealanders are using this service, and it will continue to grow, as people become more aware of the service. But I do note that the policy of the members opposite, in the Labour Party, was to scrap—

No.

—the ability for people to access Online GP Care, which is something, I think, many New Zealanders would be opposed to.

How few people would have to use the service for the Government to discontinue it?

Well, this service is making access available to New Zealanders who otherwise wouldn’t have access. We’re having to promote access, and it is one part of our plan to increase access for primary care; expanding access to urgent after-hours care, Online GP Care; investing more in record capitation for general practitioners; our Primary Care Tactical Action Plan; growing our primary care workforce, with more doctors, more nurses, more nurse practitioners. We have a clear plan to increase access to primary care: it is multifaceted, and it is delivering for New Zealanders.

Just to refer back to the point of order by the Hon Kieran McAnulty, the authentication, I’m reliably informed, didn’t say it was a target; the quote is “It is estimated up to 1 million may use this service in a year.” That makes the question that’s asked perfectly legitimate—when will it be on track for 1 million patients in a year? It equally makes the response from the Minister correct as well.

15:16 · to the Minister for Trade and Investment

What do the latest international trade statistics show about the resilience of New Zealand exporters?

New Zealand’s exporters are winning, despite challenging international conditions. Stats released last week show a robust performance across global markets, reflecting the skill, innovation, and resilience of Kiwi exporters, who continue to compete amongst the best in the world. Exports rose to $29.2 billion for the December quarter compared to a year earlier, up $2.2 billion. Two-way trade also increased strongly, reaching $61.2 billion for that quarter. These results show the importance of opening markets and strong trading relationships, and they show that New Zealand exporters are well placed to navigate ongoing trade disruption and global economic uncertainty.

Which key export sectors are leading this growth?

Export growth has been broad across our key export sectors, but, again, our farmers and growers are punching well above their weight. In the December quarter, meat exports increased by a significant 21.4 percent; dairy exports were up 10 percent, tourism—thank you to the Minister for Tourism and Hospitality for her work—grew by 9.4 percent; transportation exports grew by 7.5 percent; and for our foresters, log exports were up by 3.7 percent. New Zealand exporters are performing well across both goods and services, and across multiple markets, despite these ongoing global economic uncertainties. These results show our exporters continue to compete successfully in a highly competitive international environment.

What is the Government doing to ensure New Zealand exporters remain resilient and competitive as global economic conditions continue to evolve?

This Government is focused on using our free-trade agreements (FTAs) to back exporters by reducing barriers at the border, improving market access, and giving New Zealand businesses greater certainty in tough global conditions. Statistics show exports have grown most in markets where New Zealand has free-trade agreements: the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, in China, in Australia, the UK, and the European Union—growth across each of these markets demonstrates the value of our FTAs in helping Kiwi exporters remain competitive and succeed internationally. As global conditions evolve, the Government remains committed to strengthening and growing our expanding network of FTAs.

What does this export performance mean for jobs and incomes for New Zealanders?

Trade supports one in four Kiwi jobs, and companies who export employ more women and they generally pay their workers more. So strong export performance is important for jobs and drives higher incomes across New Zealand. Over the past year, New Zealand exported more than $114 billion of goods and services, and delivered a small trade surplus. Resilience in our export sector helps underpin regional economic growth, it creates jobs, and it pays Kiwis better wages.

15:19 · to the Minister for Economic Growth

Does she stand by her statement, “Economic growth means more jobs, higher wages and better opportunities for all New Zealanders”; if so, why?

Well, yes, because economic growth means more jobs, higher wages, and better opportunities for all New Zealanders.

Are wages keeping up, when Radio New Zealand reported that 70 percent of workers received a pay rise that failed to keep up with inflation last year?

Well, it’s always the case that family circumstances vary. While some workers will have received pay rises or moved to jobs with higher pay, others will not have received pay rises in the previous year. What our Government is focused on is increasing opportunities in this economy, which will allow more job creation to occur, allow businesses to pay their workers more, and ensure that every New Zealander has more choices about the opportunities they face. I’d point out to the member that one key way we are doing that is with the Investment Boost tax policy, which Treasury forecast will increase wage growth significantly over the forecast period.

Does she expect that wages will keep up with inflation this year given that food prices are up 4.6 percent and economists are now predicting inflation will increase further?

Well, as I outlined in extensive detail yesterday, there are currently a number of issues occurring globally which mean that it is challenging for anyone to give a definitive forecast about what will happen with New Zealand’s annual inflation rate or our rate of economic growth. It is always the case, however—I can confirm for the member—that we want to see people’s wages rising faster than inflation.

How can she credibly say that there are “better opportunities”, when wages are going backwards, New Zealanders are now facing higher prices, and the best her Government can do is to set up an oversight group?

I absolutely reject the assertion at the back end of this question, but what I would also highlight is that when I think about those people who are working on the new housing development in Nelson, fast tracked through the fast-track Act; when I think of the construction workers working on the Auckland port extension, made possible by the fast-track Act; when I think of the workers across the country doing work right now that would not be possible without the fast-track Act, then I think it’s pretty clear that this Government stands on the side of opportunity. I would put to that member that members who opposed that fast-track legislation and the jobs it is supporting right now may be speaking out of both sides of their mouths.

15:22 · to the Associate Minister for Energy

What reports has he received on fuel security?

Obviously, the war in the Middle East is creating considerable pressure on our fuel importers. We do have, however, a reasonable supply of fuel, with 25 days’ worth of diesel, 27 days’ worth of petrol, and similar amounts safely on its way here. However, in 2022, when the Marsden Point refinery was closed down, with the approval of the then Labour Government—

Point of order, Mr Speaker.

You don’t need to. That’s not a line you should pursue, given the nature of the question.

Well, point of order, Mr Speaker. Not only is it a line that he shouldn’t pursue; it’s also factually incorrect. The Labour Government did not approve the winding down of Marsden Point; it was a private business.

Speaking to the point of order, sir, I never said that the Labour Government gave its permission; I said that the Labour Government approved of it in the context of an agreement—i.e., they expressed their agreement. If you have any doubt, I shall table the Cabinet paper where they say that. And why don’t we ask the Clerk to consult the dictionary as to whether “approval” can be an expression of agreement, as opposed to offering a consent or permission?

Yeah, well, that’s a lot to take in. Jenny Marcroft.

Point of order, Mr Speaker.

No—oh, OK.

Mr Speaker, based on Shane Jones’ logic, then every closure of a factory that’s happened over the last couple of years has been approved by this Government. The fact that it happened to happen whilst we were in Government does not mean that the previous Government approved it.

OK, look, there’s also reference to a Cabinet paper in what Mr Jones said to the House. I don’t have that in front of me. I don’t know whether Cabinet ever considered that or not. But the point, I suppose, being made by Mr Jones is that if it went to Cabinet, there clearly had to be some kind of approval for the private sector action in closing the plant.

Speaking to the point of order.

Oh, well, I’m kind of finished.

I can actually, genuinely, in this case, be helpful.

The last person I heard say that was Richard Prebble, and it didn’t work.

Well, in that case, I’ll shut up.

What risks to fuel security does New Zealand face due to the Middle East crisis?

As I’ve said, when the previous Government approved of the Marsden Point closure, sadly we are now reduced to importing all of our fuel and beholden—

The question was about the Middle East. You’re just ignoring the Speaker and making a mockery of the whole thing.

—to the whims of the global market. Twenty percent of the global—

Sorry; hang on. Give it up. It’s about fuel security. Anybody who thinks you can talk about fuel security and not mention the Middle East and the current environment is, I think, wide of the mark.

Point of order. The point is, Mr Speaker, the question was about the Middle East; the answer has nothing to do with it. If you were listening to it, sir, the question was “What reports have you seen about the impact of the Middle East?”; the start of his answer was “the previous Government”. If you’re not going to pull it up, no wonder we are carping on the sideline, sir.

Yeah, well, the sideline’s about to get a heck of a lot further away from where you’re currently sitting.

Roughly 20 percent of the global oil supply, not exclusively feedstock, does pass through the Strait of Hormuz. But more importantly, two-thirds of the crude used by the refineries in Asia which deliver our fuel does come from the Middle East. I say again, because Marsden Point was shut down, these refineries are our exclusive source of fuel, and when the Government said at that point in time, “I do not believe there is a strong case to support continued refinery operations on fuel security grounds.”—I’m right, you’re wrong.

Was 100 percent of the oil refined at Marsden Point imported?

Marsden Point, when it performed at its peak, was responsible for the generation of 70 percent of all products, including carbon dioxide, including inputs to agriculture, including fuel for aviation, fuel for cars, fuel for trucks—

Point of order, Mr Speaker.

Just a minute—just a minute. I think I can help you here. The question asked, effectively, about the feedstock for the former refinery at Marsden Point. Certainly, the member has given us an outline of the production that came from that, but it came from a feedstock and that was the question. Ask the question again—no penalty.

Was 100 percent of the oil refined at Marsden Point refinery, prior to it being closed, imported?

I say again: that essential strategic asset, closed down and approved for closure by the then Labour Government, was a facility that drew its feedstock from overseas destinations.

Was it imported? Simple question.

Which is just what I said.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister has asserted in his earlier answers that the closure of Marsden Point left us vulnerable to imported fuels when he’s just admitted that 100 percent of the fuel that was refined at Marsden Point was itself imported. The fact that we had to ask him that multiple times somewhat illustrates the point—

Debating point—a debating point, which I think you’ve made.

Why does New Zealand have a fuel security plan?

A far-sighted nationalist party, New Zealand First, put it in the coalition agreement. However, it’s important that our wee nation does develop and implement a fuel security plan, and I’ll be the first to acknowledge that all sides of the House have an interest in fuel security—with the exception of the Greens, who do not believe in fossil fuels.

Was it a mistake for the Government to not keep Marsden Point open?

Oh, just a minute. That’s not something that the Minister, with his current responsibilities, can reflect on. Do you have another supplementary? Is there another supplementary?

No.

15:30 · to the Minister for Building and Construction

What, if anything, is the Government doing about the 20,000 job losses in construction on its watch?

Well, we know that the construction sector has had a hard time over the last several years—since the previous Government’s COVID-19 response, in fact—including through high general inflation peaking at 7.3 percent, high interest rates, and high construction inflation, as well, at a 50 percent increase. But over the last two years, through the actions of the Government, we’ve taken steps to fix the economy and make building easier. Inflation is now under control. Interest rates have dropped, therefore building costs have stabilised and confidence is returning.

When he said in a press release that he’d listened to frustrated builders, did they tell him how long it will take them for the industry to recover from his Government’s management of its construction pipeline when it cancelled and scaled back hospital builds from Whangārei to Dunedin while claiming to be focused on infrastructure builds?

The frustration that’s been expressed by the construction sector reflects the fact that their sector was beset by an even steeper boom-bust cycle, as exacerbated by the last Government’s actions, than they had realised. Therefore, the consequence has been that we have had to work all the harder to make construction easier, faster, and more affordable, as well as getting Government procurement actions, yes, across health, but also education, defence, and social housing at the right settings so we can see the increase—which we have, by the way, with a 15 percent increase in building consents, for example, compared with the same time last year.

Are the frustrated builders wrong to hold them to account when the Government has cancelled 3,500 State houses—homes that would have kept them in business, apprentices on site, and kept New Zealand families off the street?

It’s important for New Zealanders in general, but including for the construction sector, that we have a coherent approach to State housing. So it is that Kāinga Ora—and, by the way, also community housing providers, commonly known as CHPs—are given a mandate to build the right type of social housing, in the right place, at the right price. That is exactly what, as a Government, we have been getting on and doing.

Does he agree with the Prime Minister today that there’s good progress for the building and construction sector when, to the contrary, $5 billion less was spent in construction this year than in 2023?

Again, we’ve traversed the history, including in the exchange that involved the Prime Minister earlier in question time. He was quite right to note that, for example, construction job ads were up 43 percent in December 2025. Of course, with 11 fast-track projects touching on construction activity across the country, creating tens of thousands of jobs, it’s clear that this side of the House has a plan to increase construction capacity. We’re getting on and delivering exactly that.

Does he think that the frustrated builders are comforted by his words about a plan to increase construction activity when things like his overseas product rule changes—that he admits are no silver bullet—are happening while 751 construction companies were liquidated last year?

There are a large number of different factors, some of which I’ve already outlined. But, of course, to make it easier for Kiwi tradies to get access to high-quality materials from overseas, as well as New Zealanders, is actually a win for that trade as well as for Kiwi consumers. These are good things, and I’ve been pleased, at least until now, that the Opposition has seen fit to support them. They should know that the sector, as well as Kiwi consumers more generally, with the house price inflation that was seen under the last Government, but also in terms of commercial construction and infrastructure alike—these changes are hugely important and welcomed by the sector. I just hope that the Opposition continue to realise that and support accordingly.

15:34 · to the Associate Minister of Defence

What is the Government doing to support defence personnel into quality housing?

Recently, the Government announced changes to remove barriers that prevent our defence personnel from using their own KiwiSaver funds to purchase their own home. Since 2010, Kiwis have been able to withdraw from their KiwiSaver accounts to assist with the purchase of a first home, so long as they live in the homes that they buy. However, when applied to defence personnel—who are required to live on base, out of their hometown, or overseas on deployment—this is clearly an unfair barrier. I’m happy to say that this Government is removing that barrier.

What feedback has he seen from defence personnel in relation to the KiwiSaver changes?

The feedback has been extremely positive from our defence community. New Zealand Defence Force personnel already sacrifice a lot to serve, often spending large periods of time away from their home towns and away from friends and family in the service of our nation. It’s only right that we make this seemingly small but actually quite meaningful change that will make it easier for them to purchase their own first home, and I do add that the member asking the question provided some of the genesis of the idea that would help our defence personnel, with her initiative around rural farm and home purchases, too.

What else is the Government doing to ensure defence personnel have access to quality housing?

This Government is putting significant investment into our defence estate so that our sailors, soldiers, and aviators can stay in accommodation that is fit for purpose. The Government spent around $138 million on estate regeneration last year, with some $16 million being spent on housing alone. Currently, Defence is planning and constructing a further 77 new homes in Waiōuru, Linton, Ōhakea, and Burnham, with additional homes planned in the coming years.

Why is new investment in the defence estate important?

Much of the defence estate was built during the Second World War and it is currently now no longer fit for purpose—and that’s the polite version. Investing in the defence estate, therefore, is investing in our people. Ensuring that we have an estate that is modern and functional will help us to recruit and retain talent, ensuring that the Defence Force can continue protecting New Zealand’s interests.

15:36 · to the Prime Minister

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

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

Yes.

Has his Government increased or decreased our country’s dependence on fossil fuels?

What we’ve done is actually made sure we’ve got an energy strategy that de-risks our reliance in a dry year and actually, as a result, we’ve taken the risk premium down. It’s been encouraging seeing recent announcements that maybe electricity wholesale prices have come down by about $20.

Does his decision to pour $1 billion - plus of taxpayer money into a new liquefied natural gas (LNG) import terminal instead of, say, distributed renewable energy generation increase or decrease our exposure to and dependence on risky and volatile fossil fuels?

Well, the failed policy of the previous Labour-Greens Government meant that we were making the rather unique transition from domestic gas to internationally imported coal. That’s not good for emissions, but we are also in a place where the risk around the dry year has been costing New Zealand about $5 billion a year since 2017. Building this facility takes that risk premium down, and, as I’ve said before, this will save Kiwis about $265 million a year, or about $50 a household, and will actually protect 2,000 jobs from higher energy prices.

Did his decision to completely remove the Clean Car Discount—which has seen electric vehicle sales plummet from 27 percent in 2023, to 8 percent in 2025—increase or decrease our country’s dependence on risky fossil fuels?

Well, there’s actually a lot that goes into our energy mix across our energy policy and our actions that we’ve got. I’d want to say to the member that it’s been very exciting to see that there has even been a draft approval through fast track for renewable wind in the South Island. That could actually power up a thousand homes and move them into renewable energy, and that’s a good thing.

Did his Government’s decision to cancel $640 million of support to decarbonise and electrify our farmers and growers increase or decrease our dependence on risky fossil fuels?

Again, as I’ve said to the member, the previous policy had led to total failure. It had led to high electricity prices that actually raised up power bills and put jobs at risk. That’s not something that this Government is doing.

What will it take if not new evidence seemingly every single day—like the unfolding war in Iran—that increasing our country’s dependence on risky fossil fuels hurts regular people for the Prime Minister to end up backing down on expensive and, ultimately, resilience-undermining plans, like his billion-dollar, taxpayer-funded LNG terminal?

Sorry, but the member, when she was part of a Labour-Greens Government, caused a huge amount of failure in our electricity market. Prices went up to $800 per megawatt hour. That caused mills to shut down and low and middle income working New Zealanders to lose their jobs. I’m sorry, but the member has no credibility in energy. The good news is—I know the member cares deeply about emissions, and, as I said to the member last week—the October quarter was the lowest level of emissions generated by this country since 2010. That’s good news.

15:41

I move, That the sitting of the House today be extended into tomorrow morning for the second reading of the Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Amendment Bill; the committee stages of the Legislation Amendment Bill, the Public Finance Amendment Bill, the Public Service Amendment Bill, and the Online Casino Gambling Bill; and the second readings of the Local Government (System Improvements) Amendment Bill, the Financial Markets Conduct Amendment Bill, and the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Bill.

15:42

This bill recognises a simple truth: when we set a clear target and maintain a sharp focus, we improve outcomes. In health, clarity matters. Targets drive accountability. They ensure that resources are directed where they are needed most. This bill will make our healthcare system more effective, more responsive, and more transparent. It will enforce the importance of measurable outcomes and consistent performance across the country. Our angle is clear: deliver quality, timely healthcare for all New Zealanders. I commend this bill to the House.

The question is, That the amendments recommended by the Health Committee by majority be agreed to.

I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Legislation Amendment Bill, the Public Finance Amendment Bill, Public Service Amendment Bill, and the Online Casino Gambling Bill.

15:46

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’m in the chair instead of my colleague and friend the Hon Judith Collins, who’s Attorney-General. I’m very happy to, obviously, field any questions or comments that colleagues may have.

The purpose of the legislation is, of course, to improve the transparency in the sense that members of the public, those affected by regulations, will have a clear, accessible, and transparent way of finding those in a single location.

The Rt Hon—oh, sorry—the Hon Dr Duncan Webb. I almost gave you a “Rt Hon” then.

15:47

Oh, that’s all right, Madam Chair.

Not that it’s my place to do that.

Yes. I am planning on a late comeback, but we’ll see how we go.

Look, it’s no secret that this bill is widely supported around the Chamber, but it is, actually, one of those bills which is important—part of the constitutional framework of the bill. I do think, when we come to examine this bill, it is appropriate and I’m glad that it’s Minister Penk in the chair who’ll give us some thoughtful reflections on the bill. The first question that I have—and perhaps I’ll give him two at once because they’re both relatively small ones to kick off with—relates to clause 6, “Section 5 amended”, the interpretation section. The first thing is the introduction, I believe, of a new phrase in the definition of “administering agency” that deals with the various agencies that administer legislation—whether it be local authority, Office of Parliament, the department, and so on. Then it comes up with—and I’d be interested if he could explain exactly what it is—“an instrument of the Crown”. To be perfectly honest, it’s not something that has occurred to me before: how, outside of Crown entities, local authorities, and departments, exactly what this “instrument of the Crown” is. That’s the first thing.

The second thing is almost a drafting point but a little bit more. Throughout the legislation acronyms are used. “PCO” is used quite a lot, and I think that’s one that’s relatively common. I’m not going to suggest that most people don’t know what that is, but “MLI” is also used. Now, MLI refers to minimum legislative information—we know that—but my concern is that MLI is never defined. The use of MLI is in new section 72. It sits there in the title. Now, under the old legislation, I don’t think that acronym was, in fact, used in that way. It may well be that this is a new practice of the Parliamentary Counsel Office, but I think I can confidently say the current Speaker would not endorse the use of acronyms—in fact, he hates them. I’m just curious as to—I know what it means, but, I’ll be honest, when I saw it, I had to go and fish around and just make sure and ascertain that. Is that appropriate to use acronyms like that scattered throughout legislation, which is actually supposed to be assisting in the accessibility of legislation? There’s a couple of questions to start.

15:50

Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the Hon Dr Duncan Webb. I fear he may have talked me up too much in anticipating helpful and clear answers. On the second of those two points that he’s raised: I see that it’s proposed to amend the principal Act, such that in the interpretation section—being section 5 but clause 6 of the bill—the definition of “minimum legislative information” would have inserted after it “ ‘or MLI’ ”, effectively defining that term, albeit that it’s an acronym that is, at least as yet, not as well known as, for example, “PCO”. I take his point around that.

As for the instrument of the Crown, I might benefit from some advice on that point and would look forward to coming back to him.

15:51

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you in advance to the Minister for his, no doubt, very thoughtful responses on this significant piece of legislation, which has huge constitutional importance. I do know that the Minister was, of course, a member of the Regulations Review Committee when we contemplated the initial legislation going through the House, so he is very aware of the importance of accessibility. Indeed, this is a project that started as a result of the 2014 inquiries and then the subsequent change to legislation. In many ways, this piece of legislation recognises an administrative difficulty, if you like, in terms of the Parliamentary Counsel Office (PCO) doing all the legwork to get secondary legislation published.

I had a few questions, also, on the same section, which is the interpretation section, clause 6. It’s a different question about administering agencies. The old definition of “administering agency” means, in relation to legislation, the “department … Office of Parliament … or other organisation that is, or will be, responsible for administering the legislation”. The change notes that PCO is now the point of recognition, and my question is around when new paragraph (b), as inserted by clause 6, of the definition applies. When would you have a situation where PCO didn’t record who the administering agency is? Just so we understand what the scope of that is.

There is also a change in relation to clause 6(3), where there is a repeal of, actually, a string of definitions: “central government entity, Government amendment, legislative guidelines or standards”. A string of those are repealed, and I’m just wondering what the effect of that is, and if there are new definitions of those provisions in clause 6(3), or whether they were deemed no longer necessary.

In terms of clause 6(4), there is a reference to the new definition of “consolidation”. I just wanted to confirm whether my understanding is correct that this is not a reference to a consolidation of proposed amendments that have been approved but haven’t yet commenced. I know that there was some discussion about whether it was worthwhile, the public having access to changes that hadn’t yet come into effect, but being able to access what that secondary legislation were to look like, as well. Thank you.

15:53

Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank Vanushi Walters for her always thoughtful remarks. Actually, if I could initially go back to her colleague Dr Duncan Webb, I can, hopefully, demystify the “Curious Case of the Instrument of the Crown”—it does sound quite Holmesian, doesn’t it? My new understanding, the new knowledge on which I’m relying, is that an “instrument of the Crown” is not a department but might otherwise describe—I’m trying not to use the word “entity”, because a Crown entity is different again. An example of the instrument of the Crown, I’m told, is PCO, the Parliamentary Counsel Office—there’s an acronym, and for our Speaker, who loves acronyms so much, I might just add “L-O-L”, which, of course, means “lots of love”.

In terms of Ms Walters’ points, I wonder if the first of them might have partly been answered by that answer. If not, then she will let me know, surely. In terms of her second point, I do wonder, and I will confirm, and come back to her if it’s not the case, that those various repealed definitions may relate to a part of the bill that is no longer required because there is an intersection between what this legislation had proposed to do with the Regulatory Standards Act, as it now is. I’ll confirm and let her know if that’s not the case—otherwise, please take that as my response for that point.

15:55

Thank you, Madam Chair. I was not fortunate to be on the Justice Committee, so excuse me if there is something that I ask that may have been clarified during the committee. I do hope you’ll be able to answer some of my questions.

My first one is really about an aspect of the bill that we probably generally agree with—this single point of access for primary and secondary legislation. The Greens think anything that makes legislation more accessible to the ordinary person is a good thing. I wanted to know what consideration had been given to whether the single point of access also creates a certain vulnerability. We have seen that ManageMyHealth, and also other health data that’s held by private companies, has been subject to malicious attacks. What reassurance can the public have that legislation—including regulations—that is held and is more available to the public and now more vulnerable to attack will be protected from being undermined?

I also wanted to ask, if I may—this is in Part 1, clauses 4 and 5: I just don’t know what “Imperial legislation” means. For the interest of those of us who are not lawyers and for the public that might be interested, which empire are we talking about, and could you clarify that? I have some more questions later on.

15:57

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the Minister for that initial response. I did have one more question in relation to clause 6(5). This is the one that changes the definition of “legislation website”. It replaces the words “or supporting material (or both)” with the words “and information relevant to legislation”. The full section currently reads “any Internet site maintained by, or on behalf of, the PCO for the publication of legislation or supporting material (or both)”. The wording of the change seems interchangeable to me, so I’m not really sure what the impact of the change to the language there is.

Let me see if I can find my second one—if I can’t, I might just let the Minister respond to that question. No, I have it here. The next one is clause 6(7). In this one, the definition of “minimum legislative information”, after paragraph (c) in the principal Act, there was an initial proposal to insert new paragraphs (ca) and (cb), and (ca) has now been deleted. This was a reference to “in the case of an Act, the date on which it was enacted”, and now, the new version only refers to “secondary legislation, [and] the date on which it was made”. I just wanted clarification on the impact of deleting (ca). Thank you.

15:58

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the Minister; I always find the committee of the whole House stage with the particular Minister in the chair to be extremely enjoyable and engaging. I thought that the Minister’s insertion of “L-O-L” was going to be something along the lines of “Legislative Office of the Law”—but whatever the Minister thinks is appropriate.

My first question is in terms of the definition, in clause 6, of “administering agency”, and I know that there will be a little bit of crossover between what we’re seeing here in the bill—and I’m sure others will refer to it, as well—and what we’re seeing in the Minster’s Amendment Paper 506, noting that in Amendment Paper 506, there is an additional insertion after “Office of Parliament” of “parliamentary agency”. One of the things is that we’re seeing that appearing kind of frequently. I think there is another bill where this did appear, as well.

I just want to double check if in this case, the parliamentary agency also retained the same definition as what has been introduced as part of the Parliament Act—if the Minister could answer that question as a starting point.

I then move on to clause 6(8), which has the new additional definition for agency-drafted legislation and agency-published legislation. Again, we see some of the differences in criteria between what the agency draft/publish and what the Parliamentary Counsel Office (PCO) draft/publish. Can I just check how—considering there are two separate definitions for agency-drafted and agency-published, do we have a situation where it is drafted by the agency but published by PCO? The other way around, I guess, is understandable; it’s more common. But considering that that is now a possibility, is it a consideration that is being considered to have PCO-drafted agency-published or vice versa? Those are my two first two questions for the time being.

16:01

Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, congratulations to the Parliamentary Counsel Office (PCO) for the new website, which I hope we’ve all gone and had a good look at. Good work there. It actually does seem to work quite well. It’s a great example of technical modernisation by this Parliament, in fact.

The second is about that. It’s about this legislation and bringing up to date publication. Throughout the legislation, it talks about legislation being published on a website hosted by and on behalf of the Parliamentary Counsel Office. I guess my question there is about the security of that site. I’d be curious on the Minister’s reflections, because we do know that cyber-security is a massive issue. Whilst New Zealand might not fall if we can’t read our legislation, it still is important that it be sovereign, right? I’d be interested to know when you say hosted on behalf, by or on behalf of PCO, whether it’s in fact hosted in New Zealand, and, if it’s on behalf, whether there is any kind of sovereign risk in that?

The second question to move on is actually about clause 8 of the Legislation Amendment Bill, which inserts section 16B, a matter close to my heart, because it actually is a pointer section. It doesn’t actually do anything in and of itself. It says how to meet legal requirements using electronic technology and there is no definition, or there was no definition, in the Legislation Act as to what an electronic signature, for example, was. It does strike me that the right place for the definition across all legislation of electronic signature or electronic message or any of those things is the Legislation Act.

But we’ve got this curious situation where, tucked away in the dusty and cobweb-ridden depths of the Contract and Commercial Law Act, you’ve got a whole of what used to be the Electronic Transactions Act, and yet it’s not about commerce and consumer law; it’s about the whole of the law. I’d be curious if the Minister could explain to this committee why we didn’t simply put the relevant definitions and provisions in the Legislation Act for all of the legislation, rather than having general provisions in a specific Act, and having essentially a big red legislative hand going, “And if you want to know about this, you’ve got to go all the way over there,” which it strikes me as kind of poor drafting and just, frankly, hard to read. So I’d be curious on those two questions there.

16:04

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m grateful to have a chance to take a call, lest I fall further behind. On that final point, I understand the point the member is making. I presume that he’s right to raise the question of where these general requirements of electronic witnessing and so on may be met, and that we’re not merely pointing to the requirements in the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 that apply only in relation to that type of agreement or pact.

I’m taking the unusual step of expressing this doubt while on my feet and excusing my back, hoping that I’ll be rescued at some point on that. But suffice to stay I understand and acknowledge his point. On his first point in his latter contribution, I would say that cyber-security and other considerations are of course important, but I think properly outside the remit of the legislation. I mean, the legislation is already about legislation, which is confusing enough. This is all quite meta, isn’t it? Certainly, his point’s well made about the importance of the security of that site from a point of view of sovereignty and even just the continuous access, for the reasons that we all agree are important under the rule of law.

I wonder if I can connect that back to a point that was made by Celia Wade-Brown, which I think I understand to be around having a single point of failure in terms of where all the information might be, which could have an implication for, you know, vulnerability in the case of a cyber-attack or other outage, even of non-suspicious origin. I think, if I understand correctly, the mechanism by which the websites would operate, it includes that the sites in question sometimes have an aggregator function and it can sort of point to other Government agency or, indeed, Crown instrument sites. It might be the case that those are under attack, in which case we’re no better off, except to say, I suppose, we don’t have all our virtual leagues in the same basket necessarily, if my understanding of the architecture of those sites is correct.

As for imperial legislation, staying with Celia Wade-Brown, I can only assume that it’s the British Empire, of which this nation and this jurisdiction was once part. But if the commencement date says that any of it comes into effect on May the 4th, then we’ll have to contemplate other imperial regimes that might relate to it.

In terms of agency-published versus drafted legislation, to Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s point, I think it’s the way round that he indicated would be more logical in his mind. Certainly, that would accord with my understanding that it might be that an agency was to draft legislation but not necessarily publish it. Whereas I think—no, excuse me, the other way around. I confused myself, but not as much as he confused me, which is that an agency might publish rules or other guidance that have this particular status in terms of being legislation but not primary legislation, but its publication could be supported on the Parliamentary Counsel Office - governed site.

16:07

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the Minister. I’m still on clause 6 and I’m just looking at subclause (8), which refers to exemptions. I guess my broad question is whether we have the exemptions from publication right. At the moment, we’ve got reference to certain cases where the agencies—the Parliamentary Counsel Office might be exempt from publication and you can accept, of course, that that might need to be the case in certain emergencies, etc.

I think this kind of takes us in a bit of a segue fashion to the Minister’s amendments, which, as I’ve read them, significantly broaden what is almost an exemption. This is when failure to comply does not invalidate secondary legislation. The Minister would have seen that I’ve proposed a few amendments on this, because my concern would be that if you had secondary legislation that was published that subsequently fell off the portal and the website, it would continue to have effect in law, however it would not be accessible to individuals who are trying to assess what the law is. Of course, that is entirely what this piece of legislation is trying to address.

Now, I completely understand that from time to time this may happen and that there may be an error, but the amendments that I would propose to the Minister’s amendment are that we allow a window of time to rectify that error. I’ve proposed 20 days or 40 days, but of course the Minister could insert whichever number of days that he deemed was suitable in terms of rectifying that. My concern would be that if it fell off publication for a long period of time, there is really no legislative directive to correct that. So that’s just one suggestion.

While we’re on the Minister’s amendment, my other concern—and the Minister would have seen that I’ve proposed amendments to the amendment in this regard, as well—was failure to present to the House and what the consequences ought to be in terms of failure to present. Again, this is something that we certainly discussed a fair amount in the Regulations Review Committee. Understanding that there’s a huge administrative burden to be able to present the number of pieces of secondary legislation to the House that need to be, again, I wonder whether the way to address that is allowing a time buffer to ensure, however large it may be, that there is a requirement to present or—and perhaps I’d say controversially—that the secondary legislation is not lawful if it’s not provided in that window.

For that amendment, again, I have proposed a number of different days, including 100 working days after the time required to do so under the House’s rules and practice. So I think I’ve been fairly flexible in that regard, and I’m interested to hear the Minister’s views.

16:11

Thank you, Madam Chair. Ms Walters would surely know that the Regulations Review Committee doesn’t need 100 working days to do anything. But, you know, I understand the point she’s making in her amendment to the amendment to the Legislation Amendment Bill.

I think in the event of failure to present to the House, as with her other proposal around a window of time to rectify if there’s a loss of access, she rightly notes, I suppose, a potential glitch in the matrix, but as she quite rightly goes on to note, that’s no worse a situation than that which we currently face in terms of lack of accessibility. So I’ll consider those amendments in good faith, but suffice to say, I do understand the point she’s making.

As to the point that Dr Webb had made, I understand that his point has been contemplated in the earlier stage of the passage of the legislation. To rework the bill in the way that I think he’s proposing would have taken more policy work and time. I think that’s possibly as far as you’ll get from me as an acknowledgment that he makes a very jolly good point and that’s maybe something that could be looked at further.

Then, finally, just going back to the “Imperial legislation” question, it’s pointed out to me that, of course, UK legislation, being the British Empire, as it then was, includes—more to the point, New Zealand law includes the Bill of Rights 1688, which is New Zealand law that predates New Zealand in terms of New Zealand—much as I hesitate to raise that in the House after question time.

16:12

Thank you, Madam Chair. Noting that we are currently just in the midst of discussing clause 29 of Amendment Paper 506, but there are a few things I do want to go back to. I want to pick up on what the Minister said first. I guess, if you’re looking at the explanatory note of Amendment Paper 506, like the Minister said, there’s a glitch in the matrix if there are things like failure to comply with drafting and publishing requirements, and potentially if it’s in the wrong format. That’s understandable, but can I just check with the Minister in terms of the operationalisation of secondary legislation: for example, when they haven’t been published—now on the single-source website—or have not been presented to the House and then they’re still considered effective, what would happen if someone is non-compliant with that regulation but doesn’t actually know that regulation has happened or taken place? Would that be a possibility?

I do agree with my colleague Vanushi Walters in terms of amendments, but, I guess, in this case, as the Minister will also know from the Regulations Review Committee, something like this—would it often be part of the scrutiny agenda of the Regulations Review Committee where things are not published in the right format or people didn’t sign a signature, etc.? Can I just interpret it as kind of in the same vein: that while they haven’t met the requirement, they’re still nevertheless considered in effect, in which case people still have to be compliant? But what, then, would be the cause or repercussions if people aren’t compliant with that particular legislation? So that’s my first question.

Speaking of compliance, the second question goes back to new section 68A(4), inserted by clause 12: “Administering agencies have a duty to comply with the regulations”. Other than through Regulations Review Committee, what does the Minister think if this particular clause provides additional directions, particularly by the Attorney-General, when it comes to the non-compliance of agency-drafted legislation if it is not published in the right format or it’s being placed in that single source? The specification has been mentioned in the bill, but in terms of the repercussions for non-compliance staying as it is currently. Those are my two questions for the time being.

16:15

Thank you, Madam Chair. In response to Dr Xu-Nan’s second point, in the absence of any particular consequence being outlined for non-compliance with the particular requirements of new section 68A in terms of how law is to be published, I wouldn’t have thought there was any different outcome to that which would currently be the case.

On his first question, which I found really interesting, I think he’s highlighting a scenario in which there could be non-compliance with a rule of which a person is unaware, or potentially, compliance with a rule that no longer exists in a brief moment of time by reason of not having been presented, I suppose, in the first instance, or having perhaps lapsed in a way that Ms Walters has identified. I think he’s asking whether the law or the rule would be said to be effective or not, in that situation. It’s sort of a Schrödinger’s cat of the law in that it sort of both exists, but not at once.

As for the consequence in any given case, obviously it would depend on the particular legal and then factual scenario, but I would express a hope—and I hope I’m not going too far out on a limb to say this. If the central government—you know, State or local government or other authority—were involved in a way that was able to reflect a lenient approach given some degree of uncertainty, then I’d hope that they would do that for the sake of the citizen or other person involved.

16:17

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to ask a question about the status of legislation and what the definitive version is, because it strikes me, under this legislation—and perhaps prior to this, but certainly under this legislation—the legislation now requires publication on a website. So if you are, for example, going to court and you need to know the exact definitive version of the law, you now refer not to the statute book but to the statute website.

Now, there is, of course, tucked away in in the Clerk’s Office somewhere, the copy that the Governor-General has signed—of which I believe there are three—but, in fact, for the general public and anyone using the law, it is now the case that the certified copy of the law is the website, which brings me to the crux of my point, which is in clause 17 which replaces section 72. In replacement section 72(2), it says, “The PCO”—that means the Parliamentary Counsel Office—“must continue to publish the legislation and information by ensuring that, (a) as far as practicable, the legislation and information is at all times able to be accessed at, or downloaded from, the legislation website”.

The words I want to focus on are the words “as far as practicable” because that’s a balancing word. The question then becomes: is that the right threshold? I would have thought “as far as possible” would be a better framing because there’s a price quality trade-off. We know that we could have a more or less reliable provision of information, but what we are providing is not a handy reference; it is the definitive source of what the law is in New Zealand. If that’s the case, saying, “It wasn’t practicable for me to provide the law. The website’s down for a week and we can’t actually get it back up because it’s tricky.”—that’s actually not good enough. “We didn’t have a triple back-up server.”, or whatever it might be.

Am I right that we now have the definitive version being online? Secondly, does the Minister think that if that is how we find out what the law is, it’s OK to have a practicability test?

16:20

It’s a very fine distinction that Dr Webb highlights, not entirely without meaning, if I may say, in my view, but I sense that if we were to say that it must be available as far as or as much as possible, then that would inevitably be read in a way as to mean something along the lines of “reasonably possible” or “possible in the circumstances”. If the circumstances were that the first and second server were down and there was not a third, then that would be a matter of impossibility as well as impracticability. So I take his point, but I’m not sure that we would justify our time and energy as a committee in debating it much further or indeed amending.

16:21

Thank you, Madam Chair. I am just going to go back to new section 16A, inserted by clause 8, which I don’t think we’ve discussed. This is the “References to Sovereign’s birthday”. The question for the Minister is: this feels like we have a moment to potentially make a change that New Zealanders may like, and I looked up why we have the Sovereign’s birthday in June. It turns out the origin of the Queen’s second birthday, or the June birthday, can be tracked back to the dilemma of planning a party around fickle British weather.

So while the Edward VII and then King George VI were both born in November and December, respectively, their birthdays were celebrated in the middle of the year to allow for that. Now, of course, in the middle of June in New Zealand, we’re in a little bit of a different circumstance, and so there is potentially an opportunity there for some thought. I’m just wondering whether the Minister had given any thought to that.

Then a couple of practical questions on new section 16B(2), which sets out when Subpart 3 of Part 4 of the Contract and Commercial Law Act provisions won’t apply, and when that might be the case in terms of the use of electronic technology. Also, in relation to new clause 11(2), which makes reference to the “Chief Parliamentary Counsel must not make a PCO (Parliamentary Counsel Office) notice unless satisfied that the administering agency for the secondary legislation to which it relates has agreed to the notice applying to that legislation.”

The question is: am I correct that this has more or less the same effect as the current provisions in the Act which anyway require agreement between the administering agency and Chief Parliamentary Counsel? So there is, effectively, no change in procedure on that front. Thank you.

16:23

Thank you, Madam Chair. I do appreciate the filmographic references from the Minister, and filmographic is a word that will now be in Hansard. Also his historical references: 1688 makes 1835 and 1840 look pretty recent, so thank you for that background. My subsequent question is really related to new section 16B, inserted by clause 8; I am avoiding the Sovereign. I want to know about—there will no longer be a requirement to retain information in paper or other non-electronic form, as I understand it.

I’m just interested in whether primary legislation and regulations—whether there will be required paper archives. I mean, it’s a wonderful thing when you’re waiting for your turn for House duty to go and look at Hansard. I’m not sure I fully understand everything that I read in there, but it’s there. Again, thinking about either malicious attacks or just mistakes or just data being lost: can I be reassured that there is some way that there will be paper? I’m not requiring any stone tablets to be produced by this Government or any other.

If we just see how technology has changed—I think there are other members in the House that would remember being excited about having a Walkman, and that has been somewhat superseded by other technology like CDs, DVDs. Will there be hard drives that we know will not be corrupted by magnetic, by—goodness gracious—solar flares, all of the excitement of magnetic poles changing, or would we have some paper happily kept? Thank you.

16:25

Thank you, Madam Chair.I think the member is quite right to highlight the possibility of compromise by various means.We somehow dodged a bullet on Y2K, but there are other ways by which, of course, electronic or digital systems can be compromised.

I think in terms of backup, while the detail would be an operational matter rather than a matter for the legislation itself, I would hope that there would be some sort of effective backup, whether or not in hard copy—and one, of course, must always think of the trees—but if not in hard copy, then some sort of cached or other record that’s not vulnerable to cyber-attack or, either way, in which it could be deliberately or accidentally removed from accessibility.

In terms of the point that Vanushi Walters made about the Sovereign’s birthday, the Associate Minister for Emergency Management Recovery has told me there’s no good time in New Zealand at which we can avoid inclement weather for the purpose of celebrating the Sovereign’s birthday—God save the King—so it’s not something that had occurred to me in terms of changing, but it seems to me that any change is as good a time as any, and one’s likelihood is no worse than any other time to have some kind of celebration, accordingly.

As for 11(2), the point that she makes about whether there would be a Parliamentary Counsel Office notice being made, notwithstanding the administering agency for the secondary legislation agreeing or not, there is no effective change to the current rules of the game, so to speak.

16:27

Moving through the bill, the next question is in relation to replacement section 72, inserted by clause 17, which is also the same question I have just for the Chair, for your record. It’s the same in theme, in terms of my question, to replacement section 75, inserted by clause 19, because those two are basically the same but one is from a perspective of minimum legislative requirement for Parliamentary Counsel Office and one of them is for administrative agency.

My question is that, for example, for section 72(2), “must continue to publish the legislation”—I think in general we were looking at the improvement and the digitisation of our legislation, and it does have specific requirements for things that are considered accessible for the New Zealand public. My question is with the update that we’re seeing—two questions—will there be ways for us to be accessible from a disability lens, particularly when we’re looking at the ability for the new legislation website to have better ways for, I guess, speech transcription for those who are blind, in particular?

And whether the way that we’re having a single source, which is also better for accessibility—whether the hyperlinks that are going to be used within that website to link to either revoked, repealed, or previous versions of a legislation, primary and secondary, or if it’s hyperlinked to an agency website that has a secondary legislation, if it’s agency-administered and published, and whether those hyperlinks will also be readily available for someone who is blind or hard of seeing? So I guess those are my two questions from an accessibility perspective.

16:29

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. In terms of the accessibility point, Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s points are well made. Of course, we talk about access to justice or accessibility of the rules being a key tenet of what we would call the rule of law, in general. Of course, in a disability sense, accessibility is no less important, so I take his point about speech transcription. The availability of hyperlinks, it seems to me, is a starting point, notwithstanding any mechanical issues that would need to be overcome in terms of providing those different ways of reaching the law that our agencies in general and Parliamentary Counsel Office in particular—our instrument, as we now know it to be—should make as great a provision as practicable or possible, according to whether Dr Webb’s in the House or not, to ensure that that’s the case for those citizens of New Zealand.

16:30

Thank you, Madam Chair. A few very quick questions from me. Clause 17—so this is the replacement section 72—refers to the obligation for the Parliamentary Counsel Office to comply with that section, even if the legislation is repealed. So this is just a question about whether that’s any change from the current situation. I imagine that there isn’t a removal of repealed legislation, as a matter of course. So I’m just confirming, just to be crystal clear, that there’s an obligation there to keep the legislation up, if you like, and accessible?

The next two questions are in relation to clause 19. Lawrence Xu-Nan has asked one of the questions that I had on disability and access. My view, if the Minister was wanting to make an amendment, is that replacement section 74(3) may present an opportune place to add some language about accessibility for disabled people. But my question is in relation to the little grid that we’ve got in subsection (1), where it sets out when the secondary legislation must first be published—and the language is: “As soon as practicable after the legislation is made”. Did the Minister consider imposing a time period regarding first publication? That’s my first question. The attached question is: do comparable jurisdictions have time-bound directives in terms of when the time frame in which secondary legislation must be published?

I, then, also had a question in regards to replacement section 75(2)(a). This paragraph says “as far as practicable, the legislation and information is at all times able to be accessed at, or downloaded from, an Internet site referred to … free of charge;”. Did the Minister consider making it mandatory that legislation must be downloaded? Now, this is a question that actually attaches to my colleague’s question about disability access, because if you are able to download secondary legislation, then you may well have the tools to be able to apply a voice system or to increase the size of the print, etc., and so that could be quite an effective way of addressing the accessibility issue by simply changing the word “or”, in that paragraph, to the word “and”. Thank you.

16:33

Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you, Minister, for that response. I guess this is something that’s applicable in both primary and, potentially, secondary legislation, from accessibility and also in terms of good legislative practice with the languages, as well, of Aotearoa New Zealand. To give some context, we are seeing, for example, in Canada, legislation is published in both English and French; and, for example, in Wales, legislation is published in both English and Welsh. I wondered, while we’re looking at, potentially, official languages, etc., in this House, whether there is any consideration as part of this bill to also be able to draft—other than settlement bills—bills in te reo Māori, as an official language, which I know that many other jurisdictions do, and in recognition of its official language status. Understandably, it is harder when it comes to New Zealand Sign Language, but I just also wondered, even from a New Zealand Sign Language perspective or, even, a te reo Māori perspective, how are we ensuring that legislation is accessible in recognition of other official languages?

But, I guess, also, in terms of an even broader context—it depends on the response of the Minister. I do have, under the potentially different context in terms of, even, how English and the United Kingdom drafts its legislation in terms of using some of these other languages, as well.

16:35

Just in response to Dr Xu-Nan’s last point: there’s no intention in this bill to look at mandatory drafting in te reo Māori, or, I guess, the equivalent in New Zealand Sign Language. There are, probably, very good reasons for that. I think our country has had quite an interesting history of drafting legal texts in two languages, and trying to reconcile, perhaps, different interpretations of specific words in different languages can cause issues. We have enough of those issues trying to argue about interpretations of a single language in our courts, let alone others. So that might have to be a discussion for another day, but it’s not one for this particular bill.

Just to address one of the questions around access, from Vanushi Walters, I’ve just got some advice here that the bill does support disabled communities’ access to legislation both in-house, published on agency websites, and the features of the new website. Regulations made under the bill will set out what forms and formats legislation must be published in. We anticipate that this will require publication of secondary legislation in machine-readable formats, and so that means that people who are supported by screen readers will be able to use them to read published legislation. The new website will also aim to comply with Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.2, Level AA—and that’s probably a technical term that the member knows more about than I do, but that is the advice provided.

Just in terms of the question around “Should it be changed from”—this is in clause 19, which inserts new section 75(2)(a)—“ ‘accessed at, or downloaded from,’ to ‘accessed at, and downloaded from,’?” I’m not convinced that that change would make a material difference. Of course, there are probably arguments that as soon as you’re accessing something online, through a device, you have actually downloaded that data anyway, so there may well be some technical interpretation questions as to why you have “accessed … or downloaded” as being the option. But we think, with those standards put in place around disability, around accessibility, that having the option to have it read by a screen reader, or the ability to download it, perhaps, in PDF form at some later point, is sufficient.

16:37

Thank you, Mr Chair, and just also to signal to the Chair that my previous question was in relation to replacement section 72, inserted by clause 17, and replacement section 75, inserted by clause 19, in terms of accessibility.

Thank you for that response, Minister, but I guess this is a broader conversation for the House to consider when it comes to publishing in dual languages. Again, other countries—I mentioned Canada, but also other regions, I guess: Canada and also Wales are already doing things like that and they have no issues in terms of publishing in two languages.

I guess my trivia for the day for the committee is, indeed, even in British or English legislation, they currently still use Normandy French because Law French goes back to the courts in the 13th century. That is something that we are seeing, that multiple languages, understandably, are used within the British Empire.

I guess, my second question to this—now I’m moving on to replacement section 73, inserted by clause 19, and I want to pick up on new subsection (1A), which I know is a new addition from the select committee stage. I just want to make sure that the Minister in the chair has the same interpretation for how we look at it, which is, currently, on the legislation website, if you go to the “Versions” tab, you will see the different versions both in terms of primary but also in terms of potentially some of the Parliamentary Counsel Office - drafted and - published secondary legislation. For this particular clause, my understanding is that, under the new website, there is also an obligation for agency-drafted and -published secondary legislation to also have the ability for someone to go back and check the previous versions. I’m seeing nods, which is great, so I’m guessing that has been clarified.

16:40

I’d invite Dr Xu-Nan to maybe just reframe that question in the next call, because I was nodding in understanding of his position, not necessarily in response.

Oh, the nods are from the officials.

Oh, the nods are from officials. Well, look, I’ll take the member’s word that the nods are from officials. So take that as a yes.

I’ll just address the question from Vanushi Walters from before. If I turn the member’s attention to clause 20, clause 20 is the provision which states that secondary legislation doesn’t commence until first published. There are a couple of exceptions to that, but that will, I think, solve or remedy the question of should there be a mandatory requirement or a publication date. I think the fact that the secondary legislation doesn’t come into force until it’s published kind of takes care of that. If the regulator wants the rule to be enforced or regulatable, they should publish it and bring it into force.

16:41

Thank you to the Minister for that response. I’m just looking at the new section 76, inserted by clause 19, which is “Alternative obligations if publication exemption applies”. The first is a general question about exemption. So when I spoke to exemptions more broadly earlier, I talked about the fact that sometimes you might not be able to wait until publication for certain secondary legislation to come into force, and that could be times of emergency, etc. But what about the possibility of having subsequent publication requirements where there is an emergency initially, so you do want the secondary legislation to commence, but in due course you also want it to be published—whether there’s anything that I’ve missed in the current bill that speaks to that; and, if not, whether it would be a useful addition for that to potentially be included.

New section 76(b)—I think this is a brilliant new section of the bill—requires the administering agency to publish details as to the availability of anything that has been exempt. I think that’s an excellent thing so people can try and find a way to access that secondary legislation. I’m just wondering whether there ought to be an obligation to also publish the nature of the exemption, just in terms of transparency.

At new section 76, I just wanted to make one more quick plug for my amendments, which speak specifically to this. Again, I have no issue with commencement beginning on publication date. The issue I pointed to the Minister who was in the chair was that should that secondary piece of legislation fall off a website, it would still be law, regardless of people not being able to access it. So my amendment—and I’ve proposed a couple of alternatives—could go some way to addressing that.

Section 78, amended by clause 21, along with it replacement section 79, amended by clause 23, speak about the official versions of legislation, and then the legal status of official versions. This is where, essentially, the Parliamentary Counsel Office may identify official, electronic, or printed versions of legislation. For all those many people eagerly listening at home, I wonder if the Minister could speak to the effect of having official versions of legislation and what their legal status is, versus the legislation that individuals would be accessing from home via the new portal.

16:44

I’ll stand to be corrected, but my instinct would be that the legal status of any secondary legislation or, in fact, legislation, would be that the Order in Council or the regulation which is signed off by the Minister or the Governor-General is the one that is the final version and has legal force, in the same way that the statute which is given the Royal assent is the final version, but I’ll take some advice if that’s to the contrary.

On the point around exemptions when you can’t wait, again, I’ll take some advice as to whether or not this isn’t the case, but if you combine new section 76(a) and (b), inserted by clause 19, that does require the agency to both make the legislation, or part of it, available in a way which meets the requirements and also publish details as to its availability. A combination of them both may well, in effect, solve that issue of whether or not something has been published. I think the question from the member is: “Should there be a requirement to publish an exempted piece of secondary legislation on the official website at some stage or within a certain time frame?” I’ll grab some advice from the officials on that, but the reassurance from new section 76(a) and (b) is that a similar effect will take place, and it would be good practice, in my view, if we are trying to get all secondary legislation in one place, to have that on the official record at some point. But I’ll get some advice as to whether or not there is a requirement to do that.

16:45

Thank you, Mr Chair. Yes, just to acknowledge the fact that the nod before was from the officials around the consolidation. I think a really important aspect maybe for people who don’t spend as much time on the legislation website—particularly, I think, when we’re looking at it from a judiciary sense—it’s really important for agency drafting and published secondary legislation to be able to track some of those version histories. Particularly when it comes to cases, the ability to quickly go through previous versions is important when you identify the specific timing of whether something has been commenced or is in effect or not. So I think that’s a really fantastic, quality-of-life improvement to the way we look at agency drafting and published secondary legislation.

Moving on to a new part—speaking of consistency—I want to check with the Minister in terms of clause 27, new sections 83AA to 83AC. I’m sure others may also have—I’m seeing nods from Vanushi Walters. I think we’re thinking very similarly in terms of the areas that we want to touch on. I guess my question to the Minister is that IRD—Inland Revenue—occupies a very peculiar space in terms of the drafting of legislation, where my understanding is that it is, essentially, the only department that is able to draft its own bills.

One of the recommendations that was had as part of the select committee stage was for the drafting of relevant Inland Revenue bills to go back to the Parliamentary Counsel Office (PCO) for consistency, as opposed to remaining with IRD. I guess the context of this is while this has been in place since the 1990s, that was at a time when PCO may not have had the capacity to do some of the drafting, which is not necessarily the case nowadays. So I wondered, to the Minister—rather than having that level of consistency approach, which we have seen throughout this bill—why was there the intention to continue this anomaly of IRD drafting its own bills, and then giving, I guess, further directions in effect to it under clause 27, these new sections 83AA and 83AC.

16:48

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ll address the question from Vanushi Walters around that exemption. Essentially, the publication exemptions in new section 76, inserted by clause 19, would, in most circumstances, if not all, I think, be temporary. So, because they’re temporary, they would also be required to be presented to the House. I’m advised—if I can read this correctly—they will be published by matter of process, once the exemption ends, because they are only temporary exemptions. That is, of course, unless they are exempt by the Act under Schedule 3. So that’s, I think, the last bit of answer to that question.

16:49

Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you to the Minister for that response, although it does sound like there may well be cases where there are more permanent exemptions in place. Potentially, the argument still stands, and just to support the question from my colleague Lawrence Xu-Nan, that was a question raised by the Law Commission, as well, in terms of why it was that we had the unusual situation where we have one department that is drafting primary legislation while the rest is done through the Parliamentary Counsel Office.

I am looking at new section 83AB in clause 27. This is a part that regards directions that the Attorney-General may give to support a consistent approach across agencies. My first question is in relation to subsection (4), which specifies the situations where the Attorney-General can give a direction. It says that “A direction may be given only—(a) to 1 or more categories or types of administering agencies”, and then it says, “or (b) to a group of administering agencies”, with the group being made up of “at least 3 administering agencies;”. It just seemed odd to me because, in fact, that would mean that if the Attorney-General wanted to give directions to two administering agencies, he or she would then need to do that separately, as opposed to doing it as a group. So I was just wondering what the logic was in defining that as three agencies.

I’m then looking in clause 29 at new section 83A, “Annual report on legislative practices”, which I think is fantastic, and I look forward to being able to read these. In subsection (2), it says that “A report may include—(a) recommendations for the repeal of redundant or spent legislation or provisions of legislation;” and a series of other considerations, as well. My question to the Minister is whether there was consideration given to making that mandatory. I’ve certainly heard comments from a number of senior academics—and the Law Commission, as well—who have suggested that a broad review of legislation and secondary legislation that should be taken off the books is done, and so if we make it a mandatory reporting consideration under the annual reports, that could go some way to then giving us a methodology to be able to embark on that process.

16:52

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ve just quickly looked up clause 29, which is inserting new section 83A(2), which the member referred to. I think the issue would be that the new section says that “A report may include—(a) recommendations for the repeal of redundant or spent legislation or provisions of legislation;”. If it was “must include”, then, therefore, the report would be legally required to include recommendations on something that it might not have a recommendation on. A report has the option of including a recommendation, but it doesn’t have to do it, or otherwise you’d be requiring it to report on something that it might not be recommending. That’s the reason why it’s a “may” rather than a “must”.

I’ll go back just to round off the question around the publication exemptions to which new section 76 in clause 19 would apply. We had a quick think about how regularly this would apply and to what kinds of rules it could apply to, but they would be very rare and very few and far between. One example that we could think of would be, for example, rules around market access conditions requirements. Those rules would only be made available to the participants to whom they applied and, therefore, they wouldn’t be published. That’s the kind of exemption that would tend to be put in place for that, and there is a list of the exempt Acts under Schedule 3—which I was trying to dig around for. It’s actually the new Schedule 3 in Schedule 2 of the bill, if anyone needs to find it.

Just to tidy up another couple of points, there was a question around official versions. The term “official versions” means that a printout of the website is taken to state the law. That makes it easier to use in court proceedings. If you are presenting the court with a printout of the website, that will be accepted as what is the law. However, courts do routinely use aids to publish legislation, and so using the word “official” makes it easier.

Then there was the question from Dr Xu-Nan about the IRD, and whether we could go back to the Parliamentary Counsel Office (PCO) for consistency. As he reflected, they have been doing this since 1995. There are benefits in having separate policy and drafting responsibilities. The IRD—or Inland Revenue (IR)—although I think it’s been the IRD for a while—has the ability to require particular expertise and dedicated resource. This bill will actually enhance existing systems, which will enable PCO’s and IR’s drafters to collaborate in order to align their drafting practices. IR’s drafters do use PCO’s drafting and publishing systems, and the bills are published on the New Zealand Legislation website. Hopefully, that addresses Dr Xu-Nan’s questions.

16:54

Just moving along, we do have a few more parts to Part 1, and I want to move to a new clause, which is clause 31. Actually, let’s take clauses 30 and 31 together, in terms of editorial changes.

My first question around the editorial changes is this. Assuming that this is in reference to agencies drafting or publishing secondary legislation, I guess that the question here is when we’re looking at new section 86B in clause 31, which is on how the Chief Parliamentary Counsel is able to authorise an editorial change by the administering agencies, I wanted to check with the Minister as to how this interacts, for example, when it comes to the power granted by the Regulations Review Committee when it comes to making changes or seeking changes or disallowing secondary legislation under the Legislation Act, as well.

When we’re looking at consistency and when we have the Parliamentary Counsel Office and the Chief Parliamentary Counsel asking an administering agency to make editorial changes, and then you are getting, for example, the Regulations Review Committee also having the mandate under the Legislation Act to ask the administering agency to make different editorial changes, which department trumps which in those kinds of situations, where you have the possibility of multiple people seeking to make editorial changes. That’s, essentially, my main question on this particular part.

16:57

I’ll have to think about the interaction between the powerful Regulations Review Committee and the Parliamentary Counsel Office’s editorial change ability. Somewhere in the back of my mind is the thought that the threshold for Regulations Review Committee complaints or inquiries into the validity of regulations is relatively high under the Standing Orders. I’d have to rack my brain, and probably more experienced and clever people than me in the Chamber could tell me whether or not issues with maybe a typo or an editorial change in a regulation meets the threshold for the Regulations Review Committee to make recommendations or disallowance motions on them. So I can’t exactly comment on that at the moment, but I will get some advice from officials.

I’ll just address Vanushi Walters’ question previously on the Attorney-General’s directions. That power that’s in there mirrors the whole-of-Government directions that exist in other legislation, and what it’s doing is it’s ensuring that the Attorney-General can’t direct particular agencies about a particular matter. That responsibility is for the Minister responsible for the particular statutes.

16:58

Thank you, Mr Chair. I know that in his inimitable way, Mr Xu-Nan is going very methodically through the legislation, but there is a point that I would like to raise, and it is skipping ahead a bit. It’s about revision bills, which is clause 37, and one of the cornerstones of this piece of legislation is broadening what a revision bill is, because it was the view of the Attorney-General and the Justice Committee that revision bills weren’t being used to full effect. Having said that, new section 96(3) in clause 37 does broaden it quite a lot, and I would actually invite the Minister to express clearly perhaps the Government’s view as to how broadly they should be interpreted, because under the Legislation Act as it stands, for example, it says that a revision bill may also make minor amendments, and in this draft the word “minor” has disappeared.

What I would really like to look at, though, is clause 37, “Section 96 amended (Revision powers)”, new subsection 3(b), in general, because looking at that, there is a risk, on one analysis, that you can do sweeping reforms. It’s clearly not intended, and I’d like to hear the Minster say that, because if you think of a kind of red-tape - focused Government, and you say that you can “(b)(i) make amendments to reduce or avoid unduly onerous or burdensome requirements: (ii) unnecessary compliance costs: (iii) unnecessary costs of administering the legislation: [and] (iv) conflicts [between other legislation]”—particularly those first three—it could look like a reform programme. But we know that that’s not what revision bills actually are about. They may be about when there was an oversight or a slip or, perhaps, something a little more than that; failing to anticipate a future circumstance, which has led to an unnecessarily burdensome requirement, and then, perhaps, you can go back and tweak that by revision or an unnecessary compliance cost.

But I don’t think that this revision bill—noting that it has to be certified by parliamentary counsel, I think the Attorney-General, and president of the Law Commission—they’re actually the people that this guidance is for; to say, “Well, look, when we say that, we’re not saying you can go and sweep in at a ministerial kind of whim, have a reform package, which is changing substantially the regulatory regime that’s been imposed, because, in a political kind of view, it’s unnecessarily burdensome.” But I think if it’s a somewhat more objective view where the reasonable bystander would say, “That’s actually not what was anticipated by the draft of legislation; it’s not its purpose and intent.”, then that’s a different kind of thing.

So I’m inviting the Minister, essentially, to recognise that and give some guidance from the Government. I mean, certainly in the Justice Committee, that’s the discussion we had. There was some concern around this language, and there’s a process around it. But I’d also invite the Minister to just give us his reflections as to exactly what particularly those three items under new subsection (3)(b) refer to in respect of revision bills.

17:02

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ll address Dr Webb’s question in a second, after I’ve had time to recover from a piece of work I did on a revision bill when I was a practising lawyer, and spent many hours trying to go back and forth about what the definition of “minor” could be with a client and whether or not they could have recommended this particular change because it was minor or not. So I’ll address that in a second, once I’ve had some expert advice.

But to go to—I think it was Vanushi Walters’ point, or was it Dr Xu-Nan’s point around editorial changes?

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan talked about editorial changes.

It was Dr Xu-Nan’s point about editorial changes. I said I’d come back to him on the interplay between the Regulations Review Committee. So the editorial changes can only be made if it’s clear that the law doesn’t change. I think it would be highly unlikely, having sat on the Regulations Review Committee, one of Parliament’s most powerful committees, that they would recommend or spend their time inquiring into an issue which wouldn’t result in an actual change to the effect or functioning of the law. But, in saying that, if they were to make recommendations to the Parliamentary Counsel Office about making an editorial change, then the process for which to make that change—it would only be a recommendation—would be administered under the legislation as it’s enacted, or, if it is enacted, when it goes through.

In terms of whether there’s a hierarchy, recommendations from the Regulations Review Committee are just those: they’re recommendations that they often make just in writing to agencies. Of course, they could make a report to the House and they could recommend that the Government look at or address that report, and the Government would have to respond in its normal response requirements under the Standing Orders.

But in terms of the interplay, there is no real hierarchy. It sort of works on a bit of a back and forth between the work that the Regulations Review Committee does and that of agencies, and making sure they’ve got good, high-quality regulation.

17:04

Thank you, Mr Chair. Just to pick up on the revision bill, I think the revision bill aspect is probably the most substantial and—well, all of this bill is substantial, but it’s probably the part that we don’t have certainty from the Minister on in terms of how it’s going to function.

Now, following from what the Hon Dr Duncan Webb said, I do have three tabled amendments on clause 37(5), replacement section 96(3) to (4). In terms of my amendment, I understand where the Minister is coming from in terms of the definition of “minor”, but I think “minor” is an important keyword to be placed back into this particular part of the revision bill. The reason I think it is really important is, though it is outside the scope of the committee stage, a lot of the concern that we have in terms of revision bills comes down to Standing Orders 276, which is on revision bills.

Now, for context, revision bills do go through a much greater process within the House. So, for example, in Standing Order 276, on revision bills, 276(3) states, “Following the bill’s first reading, the question is put, without amendment or debate, that the bill be considered by a subject … committee nominated”; “Following … the committee’s final report”—this is Standing Order 276(4)—“on the bill, the Business Committee determines arrangements for the passage of the bill.”; “Following the bill’s second reading, the House proceeds to the third reading immediately,”; “There is no amendment or debate on the question for the third reading.”

So, essentially, it goes through first reading; truncated, potentially, select committee stage; it goes through second reading; no committee stage; and third reading. So if there is a possibility or if “revision bill” is open to interpretation to something that’s way more substantial, we skip this whole process that we’re doing here right now. And that is a concern.

Part of the submission—for example, the Law Society submission was not just to the select committee but also proposed that a select committee writes to the Standing Orders Committee as part of the Standing Orders review to relook at the way that we balance Standing Order 276 in response to this particular bill and, potentially, a widening scope of this bill. The reason why this, potentially, is also important, I guess, as a point currently is we’re also seeing the ability, using the Standing Orders or various forms of the Standing Orders, to expedite legislative process in this House, as well.

So, I guess, again, for reassurance in the context of how we look at Standing Order 276, I ask the Minister: is there a way for us to have the reassurance that, though it is not specified, the intention of “minor” remains? Otherwise, under the existing process whereby if you do something that’s more than minor to put in an Amendment Paper to a revision bill, which then would potentially still have a committee stage, this, currently, is already allowed. I can see the Minister is waiting to respond, because this is something the Minister possibly has experience in, as he said previously.

So I would ask the Minister to consider my amendment, which is dated to 9 March 4.57.01, 4.57.02, and 4.57.03.

17:08

OK. Let’s tackle the “minor”—or not—issue. It does go back to the example I raised before, and I’ve just dug through my papers and looked for some examples, and the examples raised around these requirements did mention the Valuers Bill. The Valuers Bill was a bill that I did a piece of work on in the past. Essentially, the intention is to avoid those long back and forth debates on whether or not a change is minor or not. You could think of examples of legislation that might be over 100 years old, where the change in updating the language could be seen, by some, to be quite substantial, but, by others, to be actually required in order to make the legislation work.

So in order to avoid that back and forth debate over whether a change is minor or not, bearing in mind that Parliament, or the House, in essence, has the ultimate say over what amendments can or can’t be made to legislation—and that’s reinforced in replacement section 99—nothing in the Act prevents the House from amending a revision bill for any purpose. Now, that comes with the caveat that this place operates on convention and common understanding. And I don’t want to put on the record in the Hansard that the intention is to take out the word “minor”, but to leave it implied, because some enthusiastic young law graduate, at some point, will look up the Hansard and try and make an argument in the court that the things that we say in Parliament, whether it’s at 5.10 a.m. or 10.10 at night, are true and proper intentions of what Parliament intended. Sometimes they are just the somewhat lengthy ramblings of a junior Minister, and sometimes the better way to look at what the intention of Parliament is when it passes a statute is to look at the words in the purpose in the context of the statute. In this instance, I would encourage those who have concerns about the removal of the word “minor” to look at both section 92 of the Act, which sets out the purpose, and look at new section 98, which is around the certification of revision bills, which requires that the certifiers are satisfied that the powers in section 96, which is what Dr Webb pointed to, have been exercised appropriately, having had regard to the purpose of section 92.

I’ll also just finally make reference to those qualifiers in clause 37(5), which is replacing section 93(3)(b)(i), (ii), (iii), and (iv). I think that if you look at the words “unduly” and “unnecessary” in (ii) and (iii) and “conflicts or adverse interactions between legislation”, those do a significant amount of lifting to try and address some of the concerns that Dr Webb had of maybe some nefarious Parliament or House trying to slip through a substantive piece of legislative reform under the guise of a revision bill. I just think there are too many safeguards in the legislation as it stands for that to be a realistic opportunity. Of course, there are the political constraints on that kind of action, which inevitably constrain the House and Parliament and Government from doing all sorts of things in terms of legislative reform, which they technically could do but don’t do, due to convention or due to the political boundaries within which they operate. I acknowledge the member’s amendments, but we wouldn’t support them for the reasons that I’ve outlined.

17:12

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I just have a quick follow-up question—actually two quick follow-up questions—to this. I understand where the Minister is coming from, and there are some very strict requirements currently because of the interpretation of “minor” when it comes to revision bills. To my knowledge, the Valuers Bill is one of them, and there’s only been, I think, two other instances of revision bills that have actually met the threshold.

We already have mechanisms to make some of those other changes—for example, the Statutes Amendment Bill was a really good example of having those consequential changes across the board to different legislation that updates on some of the outdated language, granted that the statutes bill is proposed from a Minister’s perspective, whereas the revision bill is something that can be proposed by the Parliamentary Counsel Office. If the mechanism already exists using a statutes bill, as an example, or even other forms of omnibus bills, like a regulatory systems bill that we have seen a number of times in this House, why then do we need to expand the scope? I do acknowledge, going through the select committee stage, that clauses 38 and 39 have changes made that added additional safeguards, but I still want to know why there is such a variation in the first place.

17:13

Thanks, Mr Chair. Look, I think the member raises a couple of really good points. To have two bills go through in 14 years since the system’s been available is probably not a great reflection of its accessibility and usability. Part of the reason for these changes is to provide a bit more flexibility and scope for revision bills to meet the threshold for certification. I don’t know the ins and outs of the certification process for specific bills, but my guess would be that questions and queries around the word “minor” probably have done some work in knocking some of those revision bills out. This is a way of trying to utilise an existing process to tie up the statute book. Of course, the mechanism itself will be less and less usable over time as we become better and better about keeping the statute book updated by using things like regulatory systems amendment bills and by using things like statutes amendment bills. It could be the case that there would be an argument in the future to amend the Standing Orders to remove the need or requirement for revision bills and remove this part from the statute, but we do have it. It is a tool available at the moment to help tidy up the statute book. If this bill goes some way to encouraging one or two more bills to go through the system and do that, then we think that’s a good thing.

17:15

Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you for that, Minister. I’m now moving on to, I think, probably the last few clauses of Part 1. I’m going to move on to clause 45, in terms of “Confidentiality”, and then I want to move to clause 49, in terms of “Regulations”. Starting with clause 45, we updated this particular part in the select committee stage in terms of the definition of “counsel”. I want to check with the Minister—and this is specifically, I guess, from the Minister’s perspective—in reference to 45(2)(c) under “counsel”. We had a discussion around a contractor or secondee of the Parliamentary Counsel Office (PCO) who’s working under supervision and who is a counsel under paragraph (a) or (b) and how the confidentiality is applied to them.

I guess the question that we didn’t manage to tease out is: for a contractor or secondee to be a part of that, would they also, then, in terms of confidentiality, be part of a confidential network—i.e., a digital infrastructure that is within the PCO? Or, let’s say we get a contractor from a law firm, for example: are they able to have that confidentiality extended to their digital infrastructure? We understand in terms of the specific personnel, but it’s the system confidentiality requirement that we didn’t manage to touch on during the select committee stage. That is my first question. Can I just check if the Minister is going to respond to that and if we need to move on to the next one. Is he seeking some advice?

He’s writing something.

OK. I’ll leave that because the second one is a completely different clause.

Oh, I’ll keep going and just give the Minister a little bit more time to seek some advice and also to jot down some notes. I guess in terms of clause 49, “Section 147 replaced”, and in terms of “Regulations”, there are parts of this that attach on to the new Regulatory Standards Act. One of the things that we haven’t been able to, again, tease out, even as part of that and also in this clause when we’re looking at section 147, is that now the interaction of “the Governor-General may, by Order in Council made by recommendation of the Attorney-General, make regulations”, which is the standard phrase when it comes to regulations, and the process that will be required for that regulation to go through both the Regulatory Standards Act but also the scrutiny process of the Regulations Review Committee. I wondered if the Minister wouldn’t mind just speaking to how this new process will look and will be lined up under these new facets of how regulations could be made.

17:18

Maybe I’ll take one more call, but on the question around confidentiality, I’m not quite sure what the thrust of it is. It might be a technical question around when a contractor is using a system to communicate with the Parliamentary Counsel Office, is the system covered by the confidentiality requirements? I’m just not quite sure what member’s getting at, so if you can just give me a clear steer on what the actual question is and what you’re trying to determine. I’m sure the officials can help me out with that one too.

Then, just on the second one, my understanding is that clause 49, which replaces section 147 with a new general regulation-making power, is, essentially, a form of modernising the regulation-making power. I just need to check my notes on this one too, but in terms of how it interacts with the Regulatory Standards Act and the regulations review process, there would be nothing in here that I can see off the top of my mind that would change how that Act or the Standing Orders apply to the scrutiny of regulations as they are promulgated.

I can talk specifically around regulations review: whenever a regulation or a piece of secondary legislation is published, those regulations are automatically scrutinised by the Parliamentary Counsel Office and the Regulations Review Committee for consistency with the Standing Orders, and, funnily—or a lot of fun for us on the committee—are brought to the attention of the committee regardless of whether they comply or not. So members of that committee will always get a rolling maul of regulations that have been both promulgated and published, and also a check on whether or not they’re consistent with the Standing Orders—or, actually, consistent with the law or not, essentially.

In terms of the question around its interaction with the Regulatory Standards Act, I don’t have anything really to add beyond that it wouldn’t have any different interaction than other regulations promulgated under other pieces of legislation.

17:21

Just on the Minister in the chair’s advice in terms of the clarification, I guess when it comes to contractors, particularly when we’re looking at confidentiality, they will only be invited or be part of the Parliamentary Counsel Office (PCO) system when they are doing the work as a contractor for the PCO, which then will cover the confidentiality. Like, you’re not going to be able to have someone who is working off an external system, for example like a law firm, etc., where other people on that digital infrastructure are able to also access that information, which then wouldn’t be covered by the confidentiality, for example. But I think that there is—again, I’m seeing nods from the officials, so I think that does actually clarify that question. Thank you.

17:22

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendments to the amendments to clause 29 and deleting new clause 29A in Amendment Paper 506, relating to a 20-working day period of non-publication of secondary legislation, be agreed to.

The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendments to the amendments to clause 29 and deleting new clause 29A in Amendment Paper 506, relating to a 40-working day period of non-publication of secondary legislation, be agreed to.

The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to the amendments to clause 41 in Amendment Paper 506, inserting new subsection (4) to invalidate secondary legislation not presented within 40 working days, be agreed to.

The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to the amendments to clause 41 in Amendment Paper 506, inserting new subsection (4) to invalidate secondary legislation not presented within 60 working days, be agreed to.

The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to the amendments to clause 41 in Amendment Paper 506, inserting new subsection (4) to invalidate secondary legislation not presented within 100 working days, be agreed to.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 1, set out on Amendment Paper 506, be agreed to.

In accordance with Standing Order 305(3), I have grouped three amendments from Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan to clause 37(5).

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s three tabled amendments to clause 37(5), amending new section 3(a), (b), and (c) to insert the word “minor”, be agreed to.

17:32

Thank you, Mr Chair. We come to the part which makes, as you well read out, other related changes to the principal Act and changes to other pieces of legislation. If members browse through clauses 52 through to clause 58, they will see that they generally amend schedules in other Acts. So, very, very quickly, they are a range of amendments around transition and savings provisions. If you look at clause 52, it amends Schedule 1 of the principal Act, which sets out the transitional and saving provisions to provide an orderly transition of agency published legislation.

I will draw the member’s attention to, say, clause 53, which amends Schedule 1A, which lists secondary legislation made by royal prerogative to add a reference to orders that establish royal commissions of inquiry.

Clause 54 amends Schedule 2, which provides for the incorporation by a reference. Essentially, the changes clarify how material may be made available for inspection and provide that if the material is available on the internet or an internet site via the internet free of charge, there’s no separate obligation to make it available for purchase.

Clause 55 replaces Schedule 3. We referenced this before, briefly. That’s the schedule which outlines the Acts that are exempt from presentation or from disallowance. It largely carries over the existing schedule, with some amendments to take into account other amendments made by this bill—amendments to Schedule 3 that were enacted after the Secondary Legislation Act 2021—and to narrow some of the exemptions. For example, the publication exemption under the Financial Markets Conduct Act has been narrowed to cover only exemptions published by the Financial Markets Authority. So to the point before, there were some concerns around exemptions. Some of those statutory exemptions have actually been narrowed.

Clause 56 amends Schedule 4, which is a consequence of the amendments that we’ve already agreed to in clause 42 related to secondary legislation subject to confirmation.

Clause 57 repeals some amendments relating to centralised publications that were included in previous Acts, including the Legislation (Repeals and Amendments) Act 2019 and the Secondary Legislation Act 2021.

Finally, clause 58 amends various Acts to promote consistency with the decentralised publication system proposed by the bill. That includes removing bespoke publication requirements, ensuring that instruments that have legislative effect are appropriately identified as secondary legislation, and clarifying the effect of provisions relating to secondary legislation.

17:35

Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you for that breakdown, Minister. I do have a few questions around Part 2, but I’m going to go and start with my first question. I have quite a few follow-up questions. The Minister has rightfully pointed out that, potentially, particularly with clause 52, we’re looking at some of the transitional measures of updating the secondary legislation in particular from the previous requirement to the new requirement. What I want to check with the Minister is around the quantifier for revocation under clause 52(8), which replaces clause 15(5) in Schedule 1—I think I got that correct. For benefit of doubt, we’re looking at page 37, starting with line 23. That might be a more helpful reference.

Which line?

Page 37, starting with line 23, and I will be referring to a few other sections.

So this section talks about “(5) The secondary legislation is revoked on a date specified in the regulations if—(a) the requirements that apply under subclause (2A) have not been complied with;”. And if we’re looking at subclause (2A), which is now page 35, I’m assuming, starting with line 37. On the top of page 36, it also quantifies some of these. My understanding is, under the new requirement for secondary legislation consistency across the board, if they don’t want to be revoked, if they are to be in effect, they need to be updated to the new requirements, which explains paragraph (a)(i) of subclause (2A).

But I want to check with the Minister on paragraph (a)(ii) on the consolidation of secondary legislation that incorporates all of the amendments. That comes down to the question I had for the Minister before in terms of the intention of consolidation. Can I just clarify, if an administering agency who is both drafting and publishing the secondary legislation hasn’t also got their consolidation up to scratch, the whole secondary legislation would also be considered revoked under that new part—can I just check with the Minister.

And also seeking guidance from you, Chair. Part 2 is very technical. That, potentially, will require both the Minister and also officials to kind of go back and forth, so are we able to allow for a moment of pause just while the Minister is getting advice, but also, potentially, from the officials, but also knowing which section I’m referring to?

17:38

I’ll ask the officials to back me up if I’m wrong, but I think we could work through it. So the new let’s call it subsection (5), I think—no, they’re calling them clauses. Anyway, replacement section 15(5) in Schedule 1, inserted by clause 52(8) on page 37—yep. Talking about secondary legislation being revoked—essentially, a sunset clause. It’s sort of a statutory sunset clause that is revoked on a date specified in the regulations if the requirements have not been complied with. Those requirements are the ones pointed out in subclause (2A) by the member. That is that the administering agency must publish in accordance with section 73 and 74, which we have covered off before, particularly in and around the consolidation of secondary legislation that incorporates all the amendments made by every amending instrument.

So my reading of that—and I’ll get the officials to tell me whether I’m right or wrong—would be that the secondary legislation that is proposed or that has been passed or enacted or signed off by the Governor-General or whoever it might be is the thing that is up for grabs; not necessarily every prior amending instrument. If it’s a consolidation, my understanding would be that the consolidation would be the thing which is automatically revoked, not the underlying instruments or initial regulations, but I will actually get that double-checked because unlike my slightly tongue-in-cheek remark before around the Hansard, this one might actually make a difference. I’ll get that checked, but that would be my reading of it: it’s the consolidation that wouldn’t be enforced rather than the underlying regulations. I’ll get that checked.

17:40

Thank you. Advice would be appreciated because, otherwise, I think the ministerial intent would then be even more important in the context of the Hansard, because subsection (5) on page 37 says the “secondary legislation is revoked”, not the consolidation—I mean, previous versions of secondary legislation or primary legislation, by nature of being a previous version, is revoked and is no longer in effect unless it covers for that particular time period.

I guess, to expand on this question that if indeed the previous version of the secondary legislation of the consolidation is revoked, from a judiciary perspective it is also important to know that the current version, the live version, or potentially the official version, is the one and only version that is going to exist, which means any potential cases in a matter of court that challenge a previous version, or a time period that would have fallen in the previous version of secondary legislation, are no longer also covered in some ways if the consolidation is revoked, if that makes sense. I do see nods from the Minister in the chair, the Hon James Meager, so I think that is an important part to tease out.

I’m now going to go on to my next two questions. This covers clause 55 and clause 57 and they are very similar in nature, which is how I’m going to do the two of them in one go. Clause 55, “Schedule 3 replaced”, is where Schedule 3 is replaced with “Schedule 3 set out in Schedule 2 of this Act”, which is really, really straightforward and really clear and accessible. But I guess my question to the Minister is: if the list of exemptions is detailed in primary legislation—[Interruption]. Sorry, just checking, Mr Chair, that everything’s OK? [Chair gives a thumbs up]. Yep, cool. If the list of exemptions for publication, minimum legislative information, presentation, or disallowance under this Act is specified in the primary legislation, it also means that it will require further primary legislation to make any changes to the schedule in terms of exemptions.

I wondered if there was any consideration on why this needs to be retained in the primary legislation, whether there is a provision to allow this list to be altered by Order in Council or it requires further primary legislation to make changes to the list of exemptions. Potentially there is, but I don’t know the intention or the nature of Schedule 2, which is to replace Schedule 3 under this Act in terms of the ability for one to change it.

On to clause 57. This is very interesting—it may not look like it—because usually revocation is done as secondary legislation as well, but not necessarily as part of primary legislation. For example, at the end of last year, the Parliamentary Counsel Office did revoke a number of pieces of secondary legislation, but also as secondary legislation. The reason I know that is because it came up in the Regulations Review Committee just last week. But I’m curious to know that when we’re talking about that particular Legislation (Revocations) Order 2025, by the nature of it being secondary legislation, there are certain provisions that are attached to it, including a self-revocation clause within that revocation.

I wanted to check again within what we are now seeing with clause 57. I understand that when the Acts are repealed, in which case it will require a primary legislative instrument—i.e., the House or a primary bill for that to be revoked or repealed—but in here it also revokes certain secondary legislation, but not as part of what I assume would be a revocation order, which is also in itself secondary legislation. So, I guess, is that the correct order of doing things: to revoke secondary legislation as part of primary legislation? Those two are my two blocks of questions for the time being.

17:45

Well, I find this exciting. I don’t know about every other member—

It is very exciting!

—but Mr Xu-Nan and I share enthusiasm and excitement for regulations review and for the rule of law. Look, I think I understood the last question. If we say there is existing—I don’t like using the word “regulation” because we’re trying to consolidate all the terms. So let’s say there’s existing secondary legislation “A”, there is a regulation “B” passed to revoke “A”, and “B” has a self-revocation clause in it that says that the regulation is revoked on this date if it’s not published correctly. That would therefore say that secondary legislation “A” is revoked if secondary legislation “B” is properly published. If it’s not properly published, it self-repeals and secondary legislation “A” remains in force, if that logic follows.

I think that goes to the point before made around consolidation of secondary legislation. It is the case that if a piece of secondary legislation is needing to be published, which provides a consolidation of all secondary legislation that incorporates all of the amendments made by every amending instrument—if it doesn’t meet the requirements of publication, it is all repealed. So I have to correct that: it is all repealed.

Wow!

However—ha! Lawrence Xu-Nan’s very excited about that—the piece of secondary legislation, which would be being published, itself has to have the revocation clause and the date by which it will be revoked if it’s not published correctly. It has to contain, in itself, “If this isn’t published correctly, it will be revoked by date ‘X’.” It’s not sort of a catch-all statutory provision whereby if secondary legislation is not published by a date, it will be revoked. The default is if it’s not published, it’s not in force, but the sunset clause sort of description I gave it only applies if it’s actually contained within the regulation or the secondary legislation itself, which is what the member referred to in the example we used before.

17:47

Thank you, Mr Chair—and thank you, Minister, because it does clarify it because I think the key definition here, when it comes to clause 52(8) and replacement clause 15(5) of page 37, is “on a date specified in the regulations”. I assume that the date specified in the regulation is to do with the commencement date in itself and not a specified date of a built-in revocation clause. So I think that clarification is an important one because what that means is if a piece of secondary legislation hasn’t met the requirement of subclause (2A), it is not just automatically revoked carte blanche as part of that. It has to have that built-in revocation clause which then limits the number of pieces of secondary legislation that you will have.

Just seeking also the response of the Minister in the chair, the Hon James Meager, on some of my other questions, but I’m actually going to go on to my next question with this particular section, and that is Schedule 4, which is clause 58. There’s only one particular anomaly that I’m noticing, and I find that the way that it’s been drafted quite interesting and unusual. This comes under page 53, Schedule 4, let’s say line 8, which is the Civil Aviation Act 2023. The reason I picked up on this is I want to check with the Minister that section 63(4) is a standard clause that you will see. You know, “An order made under this section—(a) is secondary legislation (see Part 3 of the Legislation Act 2019 for publication requirements);”, but I have never seen this second paragraph, “(b) is not to be drafted by the PCO under section 67(1)(d)(i) of that Act.” Is there a reason? I’m genuinely curious. How prevalent is something like that, and is there a reason why it is specified explicitly that it cannot be drafted by the Parliamentary Counsel Office?

17:50

I’ll get an update on that one because the Civil Aviation Act is very relevant to me and the portfolio I hold.

I’ll just clarify to the member, I’ll get an update on our back and forth around self-revoking secondary legislation. It’s come to my attention that we’re actually talking about clause 52, which is transitional arrangements. So we’re actually talking about the requirements for republishing by, I think, the end of next year, secondary legislation under the current existing provisions. So I’m going to get the officials to provide me some advice that I will read clearly and consistently so that we don’t jump back and forth.

Now, in terms of the Civil Aviation Act, I will get some more advice on this, but my instinct is, having had some experience with the orders that are drafted, that it is possibly to do with a similar situation that the IRD falls under, in that there is particular expertise within civil aviation, in terms of the regulation, it being a regulator there, that would encourage or require those to be drafted by those certifiers or those officials. But I’ll get back to the member.

17:51

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Thank you. Just also to clarify that I’m still seeking and the Minister in the chair is still getting some advice for this—so if an opportunity arises that we close this part of the debate, if the Chair would be so kind as to allow the Minister to respond to my questions in a subsequent section, I wouldn’t mind that, because I think it’s genuinely important for us to get this right.

I agree with the Minister that this is a transitional arrangement, but it still, then, I guess, comes down to, when we’re looking at revocation, if it doesn’t get updated by the end of next year, is it just a consolidation—i.e., the previous version that’s revoked, or the entirety of the secondary legislation that’s revoked if they don’t meet the standard by the end of next year? Again, even though there’s a long period, there is also a lot of secondary legislation, and there is secondary legislation that is not even available, sometimes, on the website of particular agencies. So it would take the agencies a little while. That 20 months seems like a long time, but, potentially, not as much. So clarification would be helpful.

I acknowledge what the Minister said in terms of civil aviation having specific expertise, but that’s also the intention of secondary legislation, which is that, often, people who do draft secondary legislation—particularly when we’re looking at agency-administered, agency-drafted, or -published legislation—do use specific expertise within that agency or within that broader sector, but none of them specify that this clause is not to be drafted by the Parliamentary Counsel Office (PCO). So I’m still curious as to that level of specificity. Has something happened in the past that’s been drafted by the PCO that hasn’t quite gone right, which is why we need a level of specificity? Those are my only questions.

17:53

I’ll answer the question around the transitional provisions. The transitional provisions require all existing agencies’ secondary legislation to be republished. So everything needs to be republished. If an agency fails to republish, regulations can be made under the Legislation Act, which can provide the possibility that the legislation is revoked. However, those regulations haven’t been made at this stage, and, in all reality, it would likely only be made after the transitional period is finished. So, in a sense, it’s a little bit—I don’t want to say it’s a redundant argument, but it clarifies, I guess, the purpose of that procedure to account for the possibility that regulations could be made under the Legislation Act to revoke, and what would happen in that situation. But given the nature of the time that this stuff takes, it’s, basically, unlikely and it’s, essentially, just a housekeeping exercise.

Now, I will seek some further advice, and even if we move on to the title and commencement, I’m happy to address the Civil Aviation Act question that the member has raised. But I will note that it’s an amendment to the Civil Aviation Act to say that “An order made under this section … is not to be drafted by the PCO under section 67(1)(d)(i) of that Act.” So I would have to just quickly look up and see what section 67(1) of the Civil Aviation Act says and what it actually is referring to. Despite my intense passion and love of that particular piece of legislation, I haven’t yet committed them all to memory, so I’ll take a chance to look it up.

17:55

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 2 set out on Amendment Paper 506 be agreed to.