Parliamentary debates: Thursday, 23 April 2026

09:01

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and talofa. Mālō e lelei.Kia orana. Welcome. It’s great to rise as the chairperson of the Social Services and Community Committee to make some brief comments on our report to the House on our annual review of the Ministry of Pacific Peoples for 2024/2025.

In 2024/25, the ministry’s total revenue expenditure was, essentially, balanced, with revenue of $29.29 million and expenditure only $5,000 less. The ministry reported that changes to its personnel costs were mainly due to vacancies not being filled and ongoing reductions in overall staff to meet the Government’s savings expectations.

The auditor rated the ministry’s financial information and supporting system and controls as good, with some improvements recommended. They did note that the ministry’s management control environment and its performance, information supporting system, and controls did need improvement and recommended that major improvements be made at the earliest reasonable opportunity.

We did look at unemployment and economic development and did note that the unemployment rate for Pacific peoples is 10.9 percent compared with the average rate of 5.2 percent across the entire population. The ministry told us that they continue to work closely with other agencies that have direct responsibility for areas that support Pacific peoples in the areas of unemployment and economic development.

We heard that the savings that it had made were mostly in back-office functions and not in those crucial forward-facing roles. It said that it had invested $10 million towards economic growth each year through initiatives such as the Pacific Business Village, Tauola Business Fund, and the Pacific Business Trust.

One of the ministry’s priorities in delivering for Pacific communities strategies 2025-2028 is a strengthened focus on data equity. The ministry works with other Government agencies in relation to Pacific data, advising what data is available, the quality of the data, and any related issues. I note that that is crucial for ensuring that the right information is in front of decision makers. We did look through other things, including artificial intelligence, Pacific diaspora, performance measures, staffing, and underspending, and those are available to members of the public who wish to look at it. With that, I recommend our report to the House.

09:03

Kia orana, Madam Speaker, and popongi manea to everybody. Warm Pacific greetings to the committee, even though it’s cold outside. Let me start my questions with a bit of context around how many Pacific peoples, myself included, view the role of the Ministry of Pacific Peoples—in particular, Pacific peoples here within Aotearoa New Zealand and around the Pacific. The Pacific is the front yard and the backyard of Aotearoa New Zealand. You don’t go anywhere unless you fly over one of our Pacific Island nations and relatives, so that’s really important.

We have a Treaty of Friendship with Samoa. It’s the only Treaty of Friendship that we have—a very, very important relationship. We have countries which are actually part of the New Zealand Realm—the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau, along with the Ross shelf down in Antarctica—so that points to a very different type of relationship. We also have growing Pacific populations here within Aotearoa as well. There are more Cook Islanders here, more Niueans here. I think now there are more Tongans here within Aotearoa New Zealand, but I’ll let the Hon Jenny Salesa confirm that or deny that in terms of our Tongan population.

It does actually point to the importance of a place such as the Ministry for Pacific Peoples, because when people come and go from the Pacific, it’s just families connecting with families. The border is just this thing that we have to pass through in order to make those connections, and so that is the difference between this ministry and the others, because we need something here within Aotearoa New Zealand to make sure that we can recognise that aspect, which is very different and unique to other ethnicities, in my opinion.

As a part of the review, we did cover a number of aspects. I did want to see where the Minister has landed with these, given that he’s only been in the role for five minutes, but he’s probably been very diligently going through all the different bits and papers and talking with his officials.

One of the issues that came up was around the potential merger of the Ministry of Pacific Peoples, noting that that wasn’t going to happen. The Prime Minister himself did say that that wasn’t going to happen, but I do want to know whether that’s in the plans. It was something that has been considered. There was a considerable amount of media about it and a lot of angst and anxiety within Pacific communities themselves, so I want to know whether that is at all on the work programme, and, if so, why, and, if not, why not? That’s a question I want the Minister to address, and if he could, if he agrees with the context which I laid out as well, to give us those answers within that context.

In that report as well, we did talk about employment figures; unemployment figures as well. That was touched on by Joseph Mooney in his address. I want to know: what is the Minister planning on doing about Pacific unemployment? It is sharply rising. Our people are being impacted. What is the plan there? What didn’t work in the year that we have been reviewing, in the Minister’s opinion, and what will the Minister do to make sure that those unemployment figures are being resolved? What are the plans that are in place? Those are my initial questions.

09:07

Thank you so much, Madam Chair. Talofa lava. Mālō e lelei. Kia orana. Warm Pacific greetings to you all and especially to our Minister for Pacific Peoples. Before I go on further with my contribution this morning, can I just acknowledge the passing of Fata‘ali‘i Kamisi Sepuloni late last week. He was laid to rest earlier on this week on Monday—one of our community leaders and a very strong supporter of our party, but especially his daughter, the Hon Carmel Sepuloni.

When a new Minister takes up a portfolio like Pacific Peoples, communities—our Pacific communities—are entitled to ask a very simple question: what are your priorities for Pacific people, Minister? Now, that question matters because priorities determine budgets, priorities determine staffing, programmes, initiatives, and political attention. They reveal whether Pacific peoples are indeed truly valued by the National-led Government or whether Pacific people are being treated as an afterthought.

Can I at this time just remind all of us in this committee that according to the census figures of 2023 projected forward to this year, there are over 500,000 Pacific people in Aotearoa New Zealand today. Just following up from my colleague Teanau Tuiono, there are more Tongans in Aotearoa today. There are between 110,000 and 112,000 Tongans here now, compared to 104,000 Tongans in Tonga.

In terms of our overall population of this country, 5.5 million, having half a million who are from the Pacific is a big and significant number. This is why the questions we’re asking of the Minister today are important. Pacific people face real pressures today. Right now, unemployment figures are high. Youth disengagement is also high today. Cost of living pressures are experienced by everyone in Aotearoa New Zealand, but more so—we would argue, as Pacific MPs—experienced by Pacific people, because we have such low incomes coming in to our families.

We also experience pressures on health and on education, and we also have concerns about the voice of Pacific people within Government. Yes, we have a voice as parliamentarians—there are six Pacific MPs right now in Parliament. Can I also just remind everyone, all of the six Pacific MPs are on this side of the House. There is no Pacific representation on the Government benches right now, which is why it’s even more important that we ensure what Teanau Tuiono spoke about, in terms of the voice of Pacific in Government agencies, remains. Yes, we have some words from the Government now that they will continue and not get rid of the Ministry for Pacific Peoples—a ministry that, by the way, has been fought for and advocated hard for by so many Pacific people over so many years.

Can I just go back to the priorities, though: we have looked at what this Government has done, particularly to the Ministry for Pacific Peoples. When this Government came in, there was a direction that Government agencies cut staffing by 6.5 to 7.5 percent. But what did we see happen at the Ministry for Pacific Peoples? It was cut by 40 percent—four-zero. What is that about?

My questions for the Minister are: what are your actual priorities, Minister, for Pacific people? What measurable outcomes is the Minster aiming to deliver over the next 12 months? Which Pacific communities and what issues will the Minister prioritise? Would it include youth unemployment? Business support? Language revitalisation? Health? Housing? Education? Anything else, possibly, the Minister could be thinking of? How can the Minister and this Government claim that Pacific people are a priority if, at the same time they might make that claim, they are cutting programmes and institutional capacity within the Ministry for Pacific Peoples to deliver on those priorities?

These are not partisan concerns; these are legitimate questions of leadership we would like to ask the Minister to answer.

09:12

Talofa. Kia orana. Mālō e lelei. Bula vinaka, and warm Pacific greetings to all and to this committee. Thank you very much for the opportunity to say a few words. I wanted to just listen to some of the concerns raised by my colleagues on the other side of the House before I started off.

I was asked to focus first on our priorities. The priorities of this Government for Pasifika people are very clear and they’re the same as our priorities for the whole of New Zealand, which is to have a strong economy that can provide a good standard of living and provide jobs; that’s number one. We inherited some real challenges a couple of years ago with very high interest rates and high inflation, which was adding to the pressure on households, so our number one priority has been to reduce that inflation and those interest rates to help families have more money in their pockets.

Then, of course, as we’re all conscious that we’re in a very topsy-turvy global climate, with fuel prices going up, so what this Government has done is put an extra $50 a week into the households of working families through the Working for Families system to help people. That will help many Pacific communities. So, number one, we want people to be able to look after themselves and their families, in work, in a strong economy.

Our second focus has been to help to ensure that there is a good quality education system that equips our children. If you live in Auckland, like I do, a significant percentage of the kids in our schools—I think 25 percent, comes to mind—are of Pasifika origin. Our future as a country—in Auckland, or across—depends on those children being equipped to succeed in a modern world. The very simple basics of that are encouraging kids to be at school. Again, we inherited a real problem with very low levels of school attendance, particularly for Pasifika kids—I think around 50 percent attending regularly. We’ve had a real focus and priority to grow that percentage. The good news is we’ve made some progress there; up 5 percent—one of the fastest areas of growth. Still a terrible situation and a long, long way to go. That’s number two.

Thirdly, a good quality health system that provides for the health needs of the Pacific community. They are substantial; the Pasifika people across the board have worse outcomes in health, and that is why there is enormous amount of attention and focus here, and we can go into the details.

Housing is another area where this Government, again—I don’t want to over politicise these things, but we’ve had the other side talking about tough conditions for people. During the previous administration under Jacinda Ardern, in one year, house prices went up 30 percent—one year.

I just want to remind the Minister that we’re talking about a specific period in time, and anything related to that at this point in time. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Chair. That’s a useful reminder.

That’s the broader context. I was asked about the priorities; I suppose the point is: where does the Vote and the Ministry for Pacific Peoples fit in this? Because in no way is the $58 million put aside in the Budget for the Ministry for Pacific Peoples the extent of the Government’s commitment to focus on Pacific peoples; it is one slice of that. As the Prime Minister has indicated this term, we’re not suggesting making changes to those arrangements.

What we have done—and the previous member referred to a reduction in numbers—is we don’t make the assumption that separate programmes and separate duplicated programmes on particular things run by the Ministry for Pacific Peoples is automatically the best way to get outcomes for Pasifika people. In the area of programmes for young people who are not in education or school, across Government we have many programmes of varying effectiveness. The previous Government set up a separate programme within the Ministry for Pacific Peoples to do that again.

Madam Chair, I might just go on a little bit longer if that’s all right?

That’s fine, yes.

Our approach is: actually, well, why do you have a different group replicating a programme that is across Government, handled by the Ministry of Social Development? Why would you have two different situations? It’s better to have that within the overall Government programme, rather that separate it. That is one reason why we’ve rejigged things in this Government, and I think that makes absolute sense. Overall, of course, across the public sector, we have made reductions in the number of people employed, because the previous administration very significantly increased the Public Service, and also very significantly increased our deficit. It is not sustainable for us, as a country, to carry on as we were because big deficits have extremely large debt and we have to manage things appropriately.

Just a quick summary of the areas of the Pacific communities budget: $58 million was what we had in the Budget; $40 million of that was for housing and financial capability initiatives, including programmes such as Our Whare Our Fale housing supply initiative; there was $6 million for education, employment, and skills programmes, including Tupu Aotearoa and the Toloa Scholarships supporting Pasifika learners; $6 million for economic development and business support, including services delivered through the Pacific Business Trust—who I’m going to be meeting tomorrow; looking forward to that—enabling Pasifika businesses to scale and create jobs; and $6 million in community, language, and leadership initiatives, including Pacific languages and community programmes.

Again, yes, we have that allocation through the Ministry for Pacific Peoples, but, wearing another one of my hats—for example, arts and culture—there’s a very significant investment in Pacific music and arts and culture through Creative New Zealand and many other places. I remember handing an award to Diggy Dupé, a great Pasifika artist in Auckland at an awards ceremony a year or so ago.

Right across Government, there’s an enormous amount of investment to encourage and support the Pacific communities. Why? Because, as has been outlined before, it’s a very significant part of our demography: half a million New Zealanders. We want them to do well. The Pacific communities bring so much to the complexity, the variety, and the diversity of our community’s workforce, our creative sector, and every element of our lives. Our basic priority, as the Government, is that we want all of those people, as well as all New Zealanders, to do well; to, fundamentally, be able to look after themselves and their families; to have the opportunity to contribute in meaningful work; and to also be able to contribute to our community and to do well. That’s by way of introduction. I’m happy to answer further questions.

09:20

Kia orana, Madam Chair, and warm Pacific greetings to the Minister for Pacific Peoples and other members of the Whare. Actually, often when we hear the warm Pacific greetings salutation, it reminds me of Dame Luamanuvao Winnie Laban because, when she was the Minister of Pacific Island Affairs, she kind of started that phrase as part of her patter of rolling out the salutations, and so it’s great that the Minister and others have continued in that particular vein.

The Minister has just responded on a few things that I want to put some questions to him on. He talked about the Government currently having a strong economy. I think that the experience of Pacific communities all around Aotearoa New Zealand would beg to differ with you, Minister. The economic state that they are experiencing in this country, which you and your Government are leading at the moment, is far from strong when they have to make decisions on a daily basis. Things are going in the opposite direction. Pacific unemployment is extremely high, and I have a number of questions about that that I intend to ask the Minister.

The Minister has talked about the Government’s commitment to focus on Pacific peoples. My question to the Minister is: how many Pacific families have benefited from his Government’s announcement of a $250 payment per fortnight—just one Pacific family would be good, because that would make a huge, huge difference. Minister, you were talking about the Government’s focus—excellent. You’ve got this $250 a fortnight, and that would be welcomed by many, many families—particularly Pacific families—and so to hear about just one from him would be quite helpful.

The Minister has also talked about Auckland and the large Pacific population in Auckland, and that’s true. There are other Pacific communities all around New Zealand, including in my community of Palmerston North. He has talked about having a good health system for our Pacific communities. My question to you, Minister, is: how can that be the case when we look at communities like Palmerston North, where our Pacific communities are finding it really difficult to get a colonoscopy because the wait times are extremely high and inadequate, where the gastro department is, basically, on shutdown, where the emergency department (ED) in our region has the worst stats in terms of waiting times for any ED in the country, and where a mental health facility that was invested in by the previous Government took quite some time to open? How are these decisions and these circumstances making a real difference for Pacific communities all around the country?

I won’t go into housing and about selling off all the land. How can Pacific communities be housed if all the homes that were supposed to be built have been cancelled and all the land is up for sale—that barren land that many people see around the place? Those are my questions in response to the Minister.

Pacific unemployment: now, we are experiencing in this country the highest levels of unemployment in a decade, so when the Minister says that this is a strong economy and that this is a Government that is focused on delivering for the needs of Pacific communities, how can he defend the fact that Pacific unemployment rates in New Zealand are the highest they have been in many a year? Why, Minister, has the Government failed to arrest that trend over recent quarters? Despite the clear evidence of what is, I guess, severe regional disparity in terms of Pacific unemployment as well, the Government seems to continue to rely on fairly generic employment programmes, and so what is the Minister doing and what has he done?

I appreciate that the Minister is new to this role, but what is the Government doing to focus on region-specific, Pacific-led initiatives to arrest the trend in terms of the high unemployment that the Pacific community are facing at the moment—and that is in the context of the fact of the disproportionate impact on Pacific communities. If we look at the figures, a lot of those job losses have historically been in service sectors, construction, and manufacturing, where huge numbers of our Pacific community rely on those sectors for employment opportunities. What is the Minister doing to alleviate that concern, because the trend is looking—well, it’s terrible at the moment, and it’s continuing to look pretty negative, as well.

Those are just some questions around unemployment. The final one, obviously, is youth unemployment. That is of real concern for Pacific communities, and while Pacific young people continue to experience what are unacceptably high levels of unemployment—which runs the risk of long-term disengagement—what is his Government doing to arrest this clear state of inaction?

09:25

Thank you, Madam—

Just a reminder that the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand has got four minutes and 47 seconds—

I’ve got four minutes?

Four minutes and 47 seconds.

I’ll use those four minutes wisely, Madam Chair. Thank you very much.

One of the things that we did talk about that I do want to acknowledge was the fact that there are 500,000 of us here in Aotearoa New Zealand, but those 500,000 are connected to the wider Pacific. I think it’s really important to remember that context, and the context that the Ministry for Pacific Peoples plays in helping the Government to navigate its way around cultural issues and community issues, as well, is incredibly important.

I do want to acknowledge the work that the officials did on my member’s bill, the restoration of Samoan citizenship bill. It went through the House to third reading and actually got the full support of the House, and I acknowledge that we’ve actually got three members in the House who helped to move that through: Cameron Brewer, Tom Rutherford, and Jenny Salesa, who all worked very, very hard on that.

The role that the Ministry for Pacific Peoples played in that—and I would like the Minister’s reflections on that—was in helping to provide that cultural capacity and helping to provide the ability to inform the Government on how to navigate those issues. As a Pacific person who was born here, and who is part of the Cook Island community and who has spent a lifetime going to Samoan events, I’m actually not Samoan, and so having expertise in the Ministry for Pacific Peoples was important to help to inform the Government—and, of course, in this case, the Parliament—on how to best navigate those issues.

It was something that the ministry did successfully, and so my question to the Minister for Pacific Peoples is: what is he doing about making sure that that capacity and that capability is bedded in to the Ministry for Pacific Peoples? I do hear the comments around “Actually, we can outsource it.” Well, I don’t know about that. I think that some things need to be foundational and some things need to be part of the core part of how the ministry functions, and so that’s one question that I would like the Minister to elaborate on.

Also, I’d like some reflections from the Minister on the restoration of Samoan citizenship Act, as well. What is he aware of? We did talk about this briefly in our annual review, and so is he aware of the number of submissions that came through? How many people have been supported, and how many families have been supported, as well? I think that that would help to enlighten the committee and, indeed, the public that this House can actually get some stuff done and can work together. My question here is around that cultural capacity and that skill set capacity, which I think needs to bedded in within the Ministry for Pacific Peoples: what is he doing to make sure that that is there? It is something that’s incredibly important—being able to offer advice to other Government departments, which also have to navigate issues with Pacific peoples. It is a complex area, so making sure that that expertise is in there is incredibly important.

Now, I do want to come back to the issues around unemployment. As others have said: what is the Minister planning on doing about it? The numbers are not good. We have more of our people right across Aotearoa New Zealand getting on a plane and going to Australia. There is some work that the Ministry for Pacific Peoples has committed to. Given that fact, what is the Minister proposing to do? What is the Minister—

Do you want to leave me some time to answer?

You’ve still got some time.

—proposing to do within this particular space, as well? Thank you, Minister Goldsmith.

09:29

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I do note that the warm Pacific greetings that I had from the other side were followed by some pretty chilly comments soon after—

Trying to balance them.

Yes. Yes, of course, it’s blindingly obvious that we have relatively high levels of Pasifika unemployment at the moment, which is something that everybody in this Government is focused on reducing—because we’ve had one of the deepest recessions for New Zealand since the early 1990s. As I’m sure all Pasifika people, like all New Zealanders, recognise, there are big long lags in the economy following events. The big event that we had was an over-stimulus during COVID, leading to high inflation, leading to high interest rates, leading to a recession. New Zealand is suffering the consequences of those decisions.

How do we deal with it? It’s not a little particular programme that’s going to fix it; what fixes unemployment is economic growth. And how do you get economic growth? Well, you get economic growth, fundamentally, from investment—somebody somewhere deciding they’re going to put some money into a new business, start something new, hire some new people, buy a new plant and equipment, and grow something so as to create jobs and wealth and opportunity. And how do you get that investment? Well, some very practical things, like what this Government did, which was change the tax laws so that businesses can expense those investments in new plant and equipment straight off and get the tax relief. Those are the simple things. Bringing in investment from overseas, having a predictable tax system where people feel confident to invest—some of those basics are what this Government is doing, and, over time, that will grow the economy.

There were some comments made about the health system, and I just want to give a couple of stats which show you the difference between talk and an approach where folk think that success is based on what you spend rather than what you get out the other end. That is around immunisation rates. When National last left office, in 2017, 95.2 percent of Pasifika children were fully immunised at 24 months of age—95.2 percent. When Labour left office six years later, that had collapsed to 75 percent, so a whole 20 percent drop in six years—below herd immunity, below the levels of effectiveness that we needed to deal with diseases such as measles and a host of other diseases that cause real problems for health. You can talk about health, and you can talk about spending more money on health and more money on Pasifika programmes, but if the actual outcomes of what you achieve over six years is a catastrophic drop in immunisation rates, I think that’s a problem.

What have we managed to do in two years? We’ve lifted it from 75 percent to 82.6 percent. We’re reversing the problem, but it’s not something that you can fix overnight. When we talk about fixing the basics and building the future in this country, one of the basics in health, for Pasifika people and for all New Zealanders, is getting that immunisation rate back up. When you take your eye off the ball and focus only on, “These are the programmes I’m going to do; this is the money I’m going to spend.”, but don’t focus on actually achieving things, then everybody suffers. I’m very proud of the progress we’re making so far. There’s still a lot more work to do.

Just noting that there’s only six minutes left of the debate and the member has enough time, but the Minister’s got a few seconds left at the end that we’ll allow him to answer, unless ACT is generous and gives the Minister just a fraction of the time at the end. So away you go.

09:34

Thank you so much, Madam Chair, and mālō e laumālie, Minister, and everyone in the House of Parliament.

The Minister for Pacific Peoples has just been talking about basic facts and statistics, so I’d like to begin with some statistics. The number of additional Pacific people who are now unemployed since this National-led Government came into office in December of 2023 is 13,000 people. The number of additional Pacific unemployed in Auckland, where the majority of Pacific people live, since the National-led Government came into office is 5,300. When we talk about basic things that are important to people, one of those things that are most important not just to Pacific people but to, I suspect, everyone in Aotearoa New Zealand is work—is employment.

That is where I want to pick up this contribution, because I want to talk about a programme that we know works, and this is a programme that is still there at the Ministry for Pacific Peoples, but it has been really scaled back—it’s been cut a lot—which is the Tupu Aotearoa programme. The main question for the Minister is: why cut a programme like that, which was effective, the evidence shows that it works, and it assisted Pacific people actually to get employed? For our Pacific people, especially our Pacific young people, employment support is not something that is a one-size-fits-all.

What this Tupu Aotearoa programme did—actually, it was developed by Pacific people, for Pacific people, but, actually, with consulting with young people, consulting with leaders and community, consulting with employers and making sure that it is a programme that works on the ground. It also consulted with our families, our churches, and they found out what the actual barriers for Pacific people are and how we could ensure that we address those barriers so that our Pacific people can find a job and actually retain that job. This is why the programme Tupu Aotearoa matters: because it was built by Pacific, it was culturally grounded, and it provided comprehensive wraparound services around our Pacific people.

It is not just a theory; this is an initiative that the Ministry for Pacific Peoples implemented, and we know it works. In fact, I read somewhere that they were able to place around about 1,300 people into jobs. We heard the Minister in his contribution before saying something along the lines of, “Separate programmes that are run in certain and different ways are not as effective, and the programmes that this Government is now investing in are what is effective or best for Pacific.” But I ask the Minister: is it really? Is cutting—and this is one of my questions, because we know from the annual reviews that $22 million was cut from the Tupu Aotearoa programme—

Two minutes of the debate left.

My question, Minister, is: was that $22 million cut from the Tupu Aotearoa programme returned to the centre and invested in new employment programmes for Pacific, or was it returned to the centre and invested for everyone? This question is particularly important because Pacific have the highest unemployment rate in the country—12 percent. If, indeed, we are focused on ensuring that people actually find a job, get a job, and retain a job, this is an important question.

The other question, Minister, is: why cut an initiative that was actually working? Can the Minister tell us what the reasons and justifications are for cutting this programme? Was there an impact assessment done? Was there any evidence that the programme was failing? Were providers consulted before the funding was cut? Were Pacific communities consulted before the decision was made to cut this initiative? We argue from this side of the House that cutting programmes like this that were effective is not strategic. It is not efficient. It is certainly not consistent with the claim that the Government is actually ensuring that they look out for Pacific people.

09:39

Of course, the member preferred to use all the time to speak rather than to listen. She was on broadcast rather than receive, and that’s fine.

I’ve got 30 seconds left, and I would just make the point that a little bit of accountability and responsibility would be nice to hear from that member and that Government, because the reason why there has been an increase in Pasifika unemployment is purely and squarely at the hands of the previous administration that overcooked the stimulus, leading to inflation, leading to higher interest rates, leading to a recession in this country. If they can’t accept that, then I really think they’ve got a lot to learn.

The reference to cuts in Tupu Aotearoa—cutting the programme—is incorrect. It is being transferred to the Ministry for Social Development (MSD). There have been some savings in that process, but the goal of delivering the fundamental programmes in the community continues. It’s just who’s best to manage that, and we think, rather than having separate management lines—well, I do need to get on to the next thing.

It’s been a very useful discussion, but what I would say as we continue through this Pacific Peoples budget process—just a reminder of what are the four targets that we’re really focused on. One is in health: better delivering healthy housing interventions; second, Pasifika business growth: creating 200 new jobs every year through the particular role of the business trust; three, it’s in housing: collaborating to build affordable homes through the Pacific Building Affordable Homes Fund; and, fourthly, in employment and education: the placements such as through Tupu Aotearoa, which is being transferred to MSD, and also through the Toloa Scholarships. The good news is that, on all of those fronts, we’re making excellent progress.

The time for this debate has expired. The question is that the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the annual financial statements of the Government for the 2024-25 financial year be noted.

The question now is that the reports of the committees on annual reviews be noted.

Madam Speaker, the committee has further considered the Appropriation (2024/25 Confirmation and Validation) Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

This bill is set down for third reading immediately.

Point of order. Sorry, we’re just a little bit confused on this side of the House; maybe we could seek some clarity. The Minister hasn’t moved anything.

Clarity on?

The moving of the bill. We’re just a little bit unsure about what was happening.

Clearly everyone is. We will sort it.

Speaking to the point of order, the House is in an extended sitting, and in that circumstance, when, effectively, the Minister had a requirement to seek a call—in light of the fact that he did not seek a call after what was a significant period of time, the bill should be discharged.

For clarification, the Minister had stood up when I got the point of order, but it’s not a Government Order of the Day—and I had called that the bill was set for third reading. It’s not like I’m introducing an order of the day. We are all good.

09:45

on behalf of the Minister of Finance: I move, That the Appropriation (2024/25 Confirmation and Validation) Bill be now read a third time.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Point of order. The clarity being sought there was that there were members calling out that this is a Treaty bill. It’s now very clear that it’s not a Treaty bill and it is the appropriations bill that the Minister was seeking to move, and on that basis he did not. I ask you to reflect on the earlier point of order that Dr McLellan had originally raised.

The reality is that we have not moved on to another Government Order of the Day; we are still in the appropriations. There is no debate on the third reading, so all I need to do is—the Minister has moved it; I just need to put the question. I’m just putting the question because there is no debate. I’ll repeat the question. The question is that the motion be agreed to.

09:48

I present a legislative statement on the Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu Claims Settlement Bill.

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

I move, That the Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu Claims Settlement Bill be now read a second time.

Tihei mauri ora. Ki te mana whenua o tēnei rohe, Te Āti Awa, tēnā koutou. E ngā rau rangatira o Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu, tēnā koutou. Nei rā te mihi hoki ki ngā wāhi o tō koutou rohe, ko Te Aroha, e mihi ana. Piki mai, kake mai ki Te Upoko-o-te-ika. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[The breath of life. To the territorial authority of this region, Te Āti Awa, greetings to you. To the many leaders of Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu, greetings. I hereby acknowledge the significant sites of your region, Te Aroha, greetings. Welcome, welcome to Wellington. Greetings and thanks to you all.]

It is my pleasure to stand and speak here in the House today on the second reading of the Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu Claims Settlement Bill. I want to acknowledge Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu—a small representation here today for the second reading debate—nearing the end of their settlement journey after beginning the negotiations with the Crown 15 years ago, in 2011. A lot has happened since then. Some of the claims that will be settled by this bill were registered with the Waitangi Tribunal in 1987—a golden year it was.

The Māori Affairs Committee has considered the bill from November last year to March this year. There was a great deal of interest in the bill—it received more than 300 submissions, which is quite a large number for a Treaty settlement bill. Hearings were held here, in Parliament, but also in Te Aroha. I understand discussions were expansive and robust. I’d like to acknowledge the contribution of the submitters and the grace demonstrated by Ngāti Tumutumu Trust during these discussions.

The Māori Affairs Committee notes the impact of the unusually long delay between Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu’s ratification of the deed in 2017 and its signing in 2025. That was due, in part, to litigation about overlapping interests in the Hauraki area and subsequent processes to address the concerns of overlapping iwi. It has been very much a priority for me, as Treaty negotiations Minister, to try and unravel that process and bring a conclusion to it.

While Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu addressed overlapping issues relatively quickly, our initial plan was to have a third reading of all 10 Hauraki iwi bills together; that contributed to the delay so we’re progressing Hauraki bills as they are ready, now. The effect, however, was that there were long periods when the trust had very little to report to the claimant community, leading to some dissatisfaction, as the committee notes, on considering how the impact of the delays can be mitigated, particularly in relation to requirements for trustee elections.

I just want to thank the committee for the review of the bill and their efforts to give their many submissions their due time and consideration. I’m satisfied with the committee’s recommendations, which included an amendment to clause 31 of the bill, sought by the Waikato Regional Council, and agreed to by Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu to enable it, to discharge its flood protection responsibilities. Aside from this, there were only minor amendments to resolve technical issues and to correct reference to Te Aroha maunga in the historical account. This redress is reflective of a robust negotiation and many compromises made along the way. I just want to thank the negotiators and the trustees for what they have achieved and secured for their people.

We will obviously have a fuller debate and discussion at the third and final reading, which is set down for next month in association with Ngāti Tara Tokanui and the Ngāti Hei Claims Settlement Bill, which will be a very, very special occasion for the Hauraki group. I commend this settlement bill to the House. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

09:53

Kia ora. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just want to congratulate the Māori Affairs Committee on the mahi done on this over the last few months, its chairman, David MacLeod, who’s done a good job, and also congratulate the Minister, who needs some congratulations on this because I did wake up yesterday morning and listen to Radio New Zealand and a vote of no confidence was put to the Minister—not from this trust, but from Ruapani—but this is what Ministers have to go through. All Treaty Ministers have a very, very tough road to traverse with Treaty settlements—always they will face division and different views. This Minister is not exempted, nor was Andrew Little, nor were previous Ministers who constantly have to work with hapū within the different iwi—Ngāpuhi being the biggest, probably, problem that any Government will have to deal with.

I just want to congratulate the Minister on getting to this position and mihi to our little ope who’s come here i tēnei wā [at this time]. Ngā mihi ki a koutou e te whānau, i tae mai nei i tēnei wā, i whakarangatira i te kaupapa. E mōhio au he nui te mahi i ngā tau kua pahure, engari kei konei ināianei ki te whakanui i tēnei kaupapa, he mihi nui ki a koutou i tēnei wā.

[Many greetings to you, the family, who have arrived here at this time, who have honoured the legacy. I am aware of the significant work over the years, but we’re here now to celebrate this legacy; many congratulations to you at this time.]

When you look at this type of kaupapa, it’s interesting to look at some of the kōrero that comes out and some of the aspirations that the groups talk about. Despite the settlement process not being fair, in terms of pūtea, in terms of resourcing and funding, still our rōpū come together and come out with great sentiments. It’s appropriate that I read some of those aspirations.

The Ngā Tumutumu Trust “he taonga, he haerenga, he ara whakamua” [“a treasure, a journey, a path forward”] kōrero talks about a future that includes all of us; a future that reflects the voices, hopes and realities of our whānau; a future that acknowledges our history of landlessness, the forced urbanisation of our people, and the impacts of colonisation that took many of us away from our home, and away from each other. During the settlement processes, this is always one of the most relevant areas that hapū and iwi talk about. They talk about, from the respective tribe, being proudly from Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu. They talk about being from that tribe, but never actually being brought up within the tribe, never been brought up within the rohe. When they talk about a settlement, they have to reflect on their reality, and, in many times, their reality, as I’ve said, is an urban reality—brought up in the city. When they talk about a future that acknowledges a history of landlessness and forced urbanisation of their people and the impacts of colonisation that took them away from home, those are real realities for Māori who go through this Treaty settlement process.

Whilst some New Zealanders aren’t able to grasp what Māori are talking about, they only have to read these types of statements to understand how Māori have to grapple with their reality of, say, living in Wellington or living in Auckland, and never having gone back to what we call their hau kāinga, but feeling their hau kāinga—feeling their hau kāinga. I always talked about it, for me, from a Ngāti Porou sense, when we used to go through the settlement process and we went through the processes in the 1990s. The Minister will know, a lot of the kōrero, at the time, was, well, you can’t talk about your iwi if you’re not in your iwi; if you’re not part of your iwi; if you’re living in Auckland, with some, sort, of flash lifestyle and you’re not participating in iwi events in Ruatōria and what not. The response to that, of course, is that most Māori don’t live in their rohe; most Māori can’t participate at hau kāinga level. One of the problems of the process, we always said, was some of those people at the hau kāinga were grabbing the positions and not acknowledging the pan-tribal aspect. There’s been a revitalisation of the reo; there’s been a renaissance in terms of kaupapa Māori, and so these types of settlements go some way to recognising that.

That’s why I like it when I hear that a future that acknowledges our history of landlessness, the forced urbanisation of our people, and the impact of colonisation must be acknowledged. Being Māori is not just defined by where you grew up, the colour of your skin, or how long you’ve been away from the whenua, from the land—you belong because you are all of us. That’s what Māori around the country have to feel. That’s what Māori in Porirua have to feel; Māori in Ōtara—Māori everywhere. The strategy has to be about how we bring our people together, how they have to all feel Māori, even though they might not have grown up as Māori, not growing up speaking Māori, not growing up in the area, but they know in their hearts that they are Māori, they whakapapa Māori. That’s why the line “being Māori” is not defined by where you grew up, the colour of your skin, or how long you’ve been away from the whenua; you belong because you are all of us.

We are rebuilding our waka—they’re saying—we are gathering our paddlers, we are strengthening our direction, and one day, with enough of us paddling together, Ngāti Tumutumu will move beyond the negative impacts of our past and into the prosperous united future our tīpuna dreamed of. He hoe, he hīkoinga, he huarahi mō tātou katoa. [A paddle, a journey, a pathway for all of us.]

I want to congratulate the trust on those types of aspirations, on realising the challenge in terms of what we have to do in terms of te ao Māori, in terms of rangatahi, in terms of realising that the Treaty settlement process, for all its flaws, still is an opportunity to rebuild, to reshape, and to actually take an opportunity in building iwi. That’s where I see this process as being a real opportunity. The redress, of course, is not huge: a settlement package including $5.5 million in financial and commercial redress; the return of 17 culturally significant sites; and additional measures designed to strengthen Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu’s cultural identity and economic base. The iwi will also benefit from redress provided through the Pare Hauraki Collective Redress deed, which addresses overlapping interests across Hauraki iwi.

We all know that there’s been a bit of a renaissance in the Hauraki; they’re finding their way, and this will no doubt help in terms of ensuring a better future for them. The iwi have endured land confiscations, questionable Crown purchasing, and extensive mining operations that stripped them of resources and left them virtually landless. Of course, these types of actions devastate them and, in fact, set them so far back that you wonder if they could ever recover, but the negotiations and the relationship with the Crown, particularly in the last few years—and the Crown has been a Labour Government and a National Government—have been cordial. The signing of the deed of settlement represents a signing of some trust and investment in the future. It’s a step forward, without doubt, for the Hauraki iwi. The iwi’s inclusion in the broader Pare Hauraki collective settlement framework will also strengthen regional collaboration, which is really important in terms of the tribe’s future.

We support this, obviously, and we mihi to everyone who’s been involved, and we look forward to a third reading, where we’re sure all the different whānau and groups will come down and tautoko and celebrate, because these are the types of things that we will celebrate. We’re looking forward to that day—the House celebrating—and having a great kōrero when the third reading approaches. Kia ora anō tātou katoa.

10:03

Kia ora koutou, everybody, and particularly Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu in the gallery today; kia ora. Traveling south from Paeroa, this magnificent maunga rises out of the landscape. You can also come in from Morrinsville and head east, and Te Aroha maunga is a particularly striking geographical site. It is truly beautiful, the ancestral maunga of Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu. One can understand the deep sense of loss that it was for Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu to have this maunga and the magnificent geothermal resources that are part of it quietly stripped away and taken and disrespected, and to have them denied their access to the geothermal waters there, despite promises that access would be maintained.

We got a really strong sense, as the Māori Affairs Committee travelling down there, of how important the recognition of that magnificent natural phenomenon that is the hot water pools there was for Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu. It was gifted by the iwi in 1878 on the condition that the Crown would allow ongoing rights of access to the springs, but by the early 20th century, Māori no longer had free access. In fact, there was a form of segregation that went on there. We saw the separate small block down the hill where Māori were expected to access the hot springs. It was such a glaring example of a segregationist approach by which Māori were treated in this place: denied access and denied the mana and respect that they deserved for a thing that Māori had utilised and was part of their story and their ancestral heritage for generations before the British ever arrived here.

Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu defended the Waikato from British invasion in 1863 in the Waikato Wars. We know it’s Anzac Week; we’re approaching Anzac weekend. We should remember that Māori suffered the greatest losses in the New Zealand Wars, and in fact more Māori died in the New Zealand Wars than in both the First and the Second World Wars combined. More Māori died in the New Zealand Wars than served in the First World War, at a time when the population was about 60,000 in the 1860s. Some of the highest casualties occurred in the Waikato. These were New Zealanders defending New Zealand, and it is right that we have changed the legislation around Anzac Day, which acknowledges that those New Zealanders who were defending New Zealand from British invasion are now recognised as fully as any others who have served our nation.

The consequences of those wars were a completely unjust confiscation, a huge confiscation; 290,000 acres of land in the Tauranga district was confiscated. Then, when part of it was returned, it was returned with individualised title. This is a pattern we see: that land was taken out of collective ownership and then turned into individualised ownership. This is a form of economic colonisation, which had a devastating effect on Māori traditional ownership and land relationships. The economic colonisation of New Zealand is something that we’re getting a greater handle on, understanding just how devastating that was for iwi Māori, and no less so for Waikato Māori.

It’s notable, given this Government’s particular passion for mining right now, that one of the desecrations that occurred on Te Aroha maunga was a goldmine which created lasting toxic pollution, damaged the tapu land, and has caused ongoing distress to Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu. This legacy of boom-and-bust economic exploitation invariably leaves the toxic heritage that iwi Māori have to deal with, long after the miners have packed up, taken their profits, and disappeared. This is one of the examples of a Crown breach and a Crown failing in regard to this iwi settlement.

By the end of the 20th century, less than 3 percent of the land in the Te Aroha block remained in Māori ownership, and my colleague Willie Jackson has spoken about the impact of the marginalisation and the loss of land, the loss of economy and self-determination that is a consequence of this colonisation. The Crown acknowledges the extent of its failure and its breaches of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in this settlement.

It is but a tiny fragment of the harm and loss that was caused that has been recognised and made amends for by this bill today, but it is certainly the hope of this House and this Parliament, as we speak in unanimity on these bills, that it is a positive step in the journey for Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu, towards your self-determination as an iwi.

I note that one of the changes we made in the select committee process was to the wording around recognising the centrality of the maunga in the settlement. In clause 8(1), the “Summary of historical account” has been amended to include “Maunga” following “the lands on and surrounding Te Aroha”. This change was made to replicate the wording from the historical account in the Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu deed of settlement, which provides more prominence to the maunga than to the township of Te Aroha.

It’s a very beautiful part of the country, and I believe for us to truly celebrate and enjoy the exquisite nation in which we live, we must make amends for the injustices against Māori. I cannot, as tangata Tiriti, as a descendant of the Europeans who colonised this land—I cannot—really, deeply enjoy the magnificence of Te Aroha mountain if I don’t have a sense that the original inhabitants and the original kaitiaki, caretakers of that maunga, have their mana and their tino rangatiratanga recognised and acknowledged and upheld.

It is through justice for Māori that we have a sense of wellbeing for the whole nation. We have a sense of the cohesion and the unity of our nation, underpinned by a principle that there is justice for everybody. That is why it is so important that we fulfil our commitment to that founding agreement, Te Tiriti o Waitangi. That is why we support these settlements, as the Green Party, though we don’t accept the characterisation of them as full and final, because they are part of a relationship that lasts in perpetuity. The importance of that relationship between the Crown and iwi Māori is vital for the thriving of us as a whole country.

We commend this bill to the House and we acknowledge your generosity, Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu, in accepting this offering. Kia ora koutou.

10:13

I rise to speak on behalf of the ACT Party in this Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu second reading, and tēnā koutou to the members who have made it here, and tēnā koe, Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu who are listening.

I live in the Bay of Plenty, and we have many maunga that we see. We can see all the way to Tarawera, we can see Pūwhenua, Mauao most famously, but also where we reside we can see Te Aroha—when you know how to recognise it. Te Aroha Maunga is being placed in an appropriate amount of prominence in this settlement legislation because of the deep connection that it has to all iwi of the Hauraki area, but also the connections it has over and represents metaphorically with the connections into the Bay of Plenty. The historic account recounts the connections that Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu has across the Hauraki and Bay of Plenty, and a lot of the settlement is focused mostly in the Waikato side of the hills there.

I have to say, I was pleased to see some of the work that the Māori Affairs Committee—which I’m not on—has undertaken to make sure that important pieces of infrastructure are not burdens on the new landowners but also maintained in a way—this is the flood protection—that can give confidence to homeowners, landowners, and communities that this is a settlement for everybody; to make sure that, as members have spoken about in previous contributions, the harms of the past can be recognised, that harms in the future can be avoided, and that we can work on building this nation together. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

10:15

Thank you, Madam Speaker, I rise on behalf of New Zealand First in support of the Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu Claims Settlement Bill, now at its second reading.

Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu, tēnā koutou katoa. Ka nui aku mihi maioha ki a koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu, greetings to you all. Many kind regards to you, greetings and thanks to you all.].

I acknowledge a small rōpū here today to be part of the second reading as we progress this bill through to its final conclusion—hopefully not too far away—because it’s taken a mighty long time to get here to this point.

This bill is obviously the result of 15 long years of negotiations between the Crown and Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu, so it’s important that we are here today to come in for landing at the second reading. The Māori Affairs Committee, which is probably one of the most enjoyable committees to be on because you learn so much about our history and our Māori history and those early years—that select committee does a great job of panel beating any piece of legislation that comes before them, and it’s certainly done a good job with a recommendation that all of the amendments that have been put through the select committee process be passed.

In 2023, the census estimated around 510 members of the iwi—while small in number, obviously very mighty in mana; and 332 submissions came before the select committee. When you consider how many members of the iwi—510, with 332 submissions, and the Minister noted that there were robust and expansive discussions held through that select committee process. That process is really important, to enable people to give voice to their concerns, of which there were many.

This iwi is one of the original iwi with ancient whakapapa in and around Tīkapa Moana and the Hauraki Gulf. They’ve also been recognised in the broader family of the Hauraki Gulf, the 12 iwi of Hauraki, including Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu, part of the Pare Hauraki Collective in relation to collective redress for those shared interests in the Hauraki region. This bill speaks to those specific iwi matters.

Much has been spoken about Te Aroha Maunga—and, in legislation, words matter. They matter because they will be there for eternity. The committee noted that there was an omission in the historical account, around the reference of Te Aroha Maunga. The “Maunga” has been reinserted, to ensure that that is the correct place it should have been, so it matched up with the deed. That was a good amendment to make.

There were some other amendments around the flood protection assets that are owned by the Waikato Regional Council. Clause 31 has been amended there, with some additional subclauses put in around the Omahu whenua, which would be vested in the trustees of the Ngāti Tumutumu Trust. The Waikato Regional Council owns and maintains several flood protection assets on and adjacent to the Omahu whenua, so those amendments were necessary to ensure that they can continue to do their work around access management and operational powers relating to that particular thing. Rāhiri Tumutumu support those amendments, so it is good that that has been amended at select committee.

Also, there was some differing views that came through the submissions. “What is the correct name of the iwi?”; “Should it include ‘Rāhiri’; should it not include ‘Rāhiri’?” It’s really not for Parliament to make any determinations around that; those are iwi-specific matters. It is not for parliamentarians to tell people who they are.

I want to make a short contribution, because I think it’s important that we move through to the third and final reading as soon as we can. The Ngāti Tumutumu Trust have made some statements about where they move to towards the third reading, and I’d just like to read from that. They’re beginning the important mahi of bringing their whānau together to prepare for the significant milestone, the third and final reading. That reading will be a momentous occasion for them and a chance for all the whānau to travel to Pōneke and stand together in their iwi’s journey as it reaches that historic point.

On that note, I’d like to acknowledge all of those who’ve worked hard to bring this bill forward, the Māori Affairs Committee, the Minister, all of the members of the iwi, and all those who made an effort to make submissions at the select committee. Today, another step is taken as the settlement bill makes its way through the House. I commend it to the House.

10:21

Tēnā rā koe e te Pīka, otirā tēnā rā tātou e te Whare.

Tōia tapotu ki te moana Tainui

Mā wai e tō? Māku e tō

Uia te pou o tōku whare kia tū tangatanga

He kapua whakairi nāku nā runga mai o Taupiri

Ko taku kiri ka tōkia e te anu mātao

E te iwi, whītiki, whītiki. Ngā tai e ngunguru nei, whakarewa, whakarongo mai rā.

[Haul the Tainui all the way to the sea

Who will haul her? I will haul her

Inquire of the columns of my house to stand at ease

A suspended cloud of mine from above Mt Taupiri

My skin is moistened by the cold

To the people, come together, unite. The tides that murmur, rise, listen to me.]

Kua ara pea ahau i te papa o te whenua, kua kite ahau i ngā whetū e tū takitahi ana. Ko Matariki te kairūri, ko Atutahi kei te taumata o Te Mangōroa.

Kei te Whare, kei Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu, nei rā ka mihi ki a koutou. Ko tēnei te reo owha o Ngāti Mahuta, Ngāti Whāwhākia te toro atu ki a koutou i tēnei o ā koutou kerēme kua tae mai ki roto i te Whare Pāremata i tēnei o ngā rangi.

[Perhaps I arose from the land—I have seen the stars standing alone. Matariki is the one who surveys; Atutahi is positioned at the zenith of the Milky Way.

To the House, to Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu, I hereby acknowledge you. This is the voice of Ngāti Mahuta, Ngāti Whāwhākia, extended in welcome to you in this particular claim of yours, you who have come into the House of Parliament today.]

I’d like to acknowledge the time, energy, and resources spent by many in this settlement—15-plus years of this current phase of negotiations. As I’ve mentioned before in many other settlement readings, I can just imagine the many tears, sweat, and blood it has taken for Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu to get to this point.

I want to acknowledge how hard the Treaty settlement processes can be. It is so exhausting that people die to get settlements across the line. As an uri of Waikato and of Tainui, our iwi has spent 30 years in the settlement processes, and we’ve seen the many stalwarts such as Tā Te Kotahi Mahuta and the many different rūruhi tūpuna who have put their mahi on the line. I’d just like to acknowledge your tūpuna, Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu. While this phase has been long, I want to reiterate the point my colleague Teanau Tuiono shared in the first reading of this bill—that Ngāti Rāhiri brought to this Parliament the issue of the land alienation in 1877 under the Native Affairs Act.

Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu, I want to acknowledge your negotiations team; I acknowledge the challenge of keeping your whānau up to date when the processes were delayed and as you worked through to resolve overlapping interests with your wider Hauraki whānau. Ko Moehau te taurapa, ko Te Aroha te tauihu. [Moehau is the carved stern post, Te Aroha is the prow figure.]

Historical grievances covered in this claim include confiscation of land, the Crown’s purchasing tactics, the operation and impacts of native land laws, and the impact of mining. I want to particularly acknowledge the raupatu you too suffered when coming to our assistance in our time of need during Ngā Pakanga. Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu sent men to fight Crown forces in Waikato in 1863. Like us, you were branded as rebels and penalised with the confiscation of your lands.

The settlement provisions within this Treaty settlement include a formal apology, cultural redress, and financial redress: a formal apology from the Crown to Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu for promoting laws and policies that lead to loss of land, damaged the sacred taonga Te Aroha maunga, and undermined your wellbeing and ability to pass on mātauranga Māori to your mokopuna; cultural redress that includes 18 sites of cultural significance; financial and commercial redress of $5.5 million. It also acknowledges the recognition of the broader Pare Hauraki Collective in relation to the Collective Redress Deed.

In particular, I want to acknowledge the restoration of your maunga tapu, ko tōna ingoa tūturu ko Puke-kākāriki-kai-tahi [whose true name is Puke-kākāriki-kai-tahi]. I acknowledge its peaks, Te Aroha-ki-uta, Te Aroha-ki-tai. The mining, proclamation of a gold field in Te Aroha in 1880, and Crown actions have deprived your iwi of control of your own resources.

Hei whakakapinga[in conclusion], in this Treaty settlement process, your whakaaro is to create new taonga that reflect the darkness of your negotiation journey, the struggles faced, and the determination required to emerge into the light. As you have stated: “We are rebuilding our waka; we are gathering our paddlers; we are strengthening our direction one hoeat a time; and one day, with enough of us paddling together, Ngāti Tumutumu will move beyond the negative impacts of our past and into the prosperous united future our tūpuna dreamed of. He hoe, he hikoinga, he huarahi mō tātou katoa.” Tēnā rā tātou i te Whare. Te Pāti Māori supports this bill.

10:25

Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker, otirā tēnā tātou e te Whare.

Tuatahi me mihi atu au ki a koutou, Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu. Tēnei ngā Kākāriki e mihi ana ki ō koutou nei māia, ki ō koutou nei mana, me te roa anō hoki o tēnei o ngā hīkoi.

Kei te whakaaro ake i tau tuatahi i tae mai tēnā ki tēnei o ngā Whare i te tau 1870. Tae noa ki tērā wā, tae noa ki tēnei wā kei konei tonu koutou, nō reira e mihi ana, e mihi ana, e mihi ana.

E mihi ana ki a rātou mā kua mene atu ki tua o te ārai, rātou anō i whetūrangihia, ngā kaumātua i whakapau kaha, i whakapau werawera kia rite ai tēnei o ngā whakatau kerēme kia puta ai ki te ao mārama tēnei o ngā ture.

Mō tēnei, ko mātou anō ngā Kākāriki e tautoko ana i tēnei pānuitanga tuarua. Ko te manako nui he iti ake ngā auheke kia tae ki tōna pānuitanga tuatoru.

Tautoko au i ngā kōrero a tō mātou nei tangata Steve Able. Ki a mātou, ngā Kākāriki, ehara te Tiriti i te kirimana, he kawenata kē te Tiriti o Waitangi. Ko tēnei mea te kirimana e tohu ana anei anō te wāriu o te tāra hei pūtea ki te pūkoro. Kāre mātou e whakaae ki tērā.

Ko tēnei mea te Tiriti o Waitangi he kawenata e whakaora ana mai i te wā i tāmokohia e ngā mātua tīpuna ki Waitangi, huri noa i Te Ika-a-Māui, otirā tae noa ki Te Waipounamu, kia noho ō tātou nei iwi, ō tātou nei hapū ki runga i ō rātou nei mana motuhake.

Ki te taha o te Pāremata, ki tōku nei whakaaro, ki a mātou ngā Kākāriki, me pēhea te tautoko i ngā ara kia ora ai te tino rangatiratanga mō ia hapū, mō ia iwi, mō ia whānau. Tērā te wāhanga anō ki a mātou, nō reira tēnei ka mihi atu ki a koutou.

Me whakaaro nui tonu ai ki ngā hītori o Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu. I tae rātou ki roto i ngā pakanga o te raupatu ki Waikato, nō reira e tautoko i tēnei o ngā mihi a Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke, tō koutou nei māia, tō rātou nei māia kia tae ki te āwhina i ō rātou nei whānau ki te whawhai ki ngā pū o Piritana Nui, ngā pū a te Pākehā. Ka kite anō i tērā, te māia o te iwi.

Nā runga i tērā i raupatuhia te whenua, i raupatuhia tō rātou nei maunga, nō reira Te Aroha maunga, tēnei ka mihi atu, tēnei te mihi atu ki tō koutou nei ata. Kāre anō ahau kia tae ki te maunga, ki a Te Aroha maunga, heoi anō ka whai whakaaro kia tae atu.

E ai ki ngā hītori, he maina koura te mahi ki roto i tērā. Ko ngā para i tukuna ki roto mai i tērā maina e pā ana ki te hapori o Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu. Heoi anō ko te katoa o ngā rawa i ahu mai i ērā maina kāre i tae ki ngā pūkoro o te iwi, kei tangata kē atu. Nō reira ko tēnei ture, me whai wāhi me pēhea e whakatikatikahia ai.

Nō reira me mihi ka tika ki te Komiti Whiriwhiri Take Māori, e mahi ana i ngā mahi ki roto i ngā tukanga a te Pāremata. Ko ētahi wāhanga i hiahia rātou kia paku panonihia ki roto i te ture, te tuatahi i kōrero tahi rātou me te kaunihera ā-rohe, me Waikato, me pēhea te tautoko i ngā āhuatanga o te waipuke, flood protection gates. He whakaaro pai anō tērā.

He wāhanga anō tērā hoki kia noho pū te aronga o te maunga o Te Aroha ki roto i te ture i te mea, ki taku nei whakarongo ki ngā kōrero e huri haere ana i te Whare i te ata nei, kei reira anō te mana nō reira e tika ana kia noho te mana o te maunga, te pū o te maunga, ehara nō te Pāremata, tātou anō e whakarite ana i ngā ture, te maunga kei roto i tēnei o ngā ture. Nō reira e mihi ana ki te komiti whiri take mō tērā o ngā āhuatanga.

Ko te mea i kite au ki roto i te katoa o ēnei momo ture i ahu mai i ngā whakatau kerēme, ko tētahi wāhanga anō mō ā tātou nei tamariki mokopuna, ko tēnei mea te hītori. He hītori anō tērā mō tātou katoa, ō tātou nei rangatahi, kia ākona e rātou ngā hītori kei raro i ngā rekereke i a rātou e hīkoi ana ki runga i te whenua.

Nō reira tēnā koutou e te Whare. Tēnā koutou, Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu. Tēnā tātou katoa.

[Thank you, Madam Speaker; indeed, greetings to us all in the House.

First, I should acknowledge you, Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu. We, the Greens, hereby acknowledge your courage, your power, and the length of this particular journey.

I consider that the first year that this came to this House was in 1870. Right from that time and all the way to now, you are still here; therefore, I acknowledge, thank, and congratulate you.

I acknowledge those who have gathered beyond the veil, those who have become star-like, the elders who expended their strength, that expended sweat to prepare this particular claim settlement, so that this particular legislation see the light of day.

Regarding this, it is us, the Greens, that are in support of this second reading. Our great hope is that the difficulties are few as it reaches its third reading.

I support the comments of our colleague Steve Abel. To us, the Greens, the Treaty is not a contract; the Treaty of Waitangi is instead a covenant. This particular phenomenon—a contract—demonstrates that this is the dollar value for money in the pocket. We don’t agree with that.

This phenomenon, the Treaty of Waitangi, is a covenant that was given life at the time of its signing by the forebears and ancestors in Waitangi, all around the North Island, and indeed all the way to the South Island, so that our iwi and our hapū could retain their own self-determination.

With respect to Parliament, in my opinion, to us the Greens, the question is how we could support the pathways by which the sovereignty of each hapū, of each iwi, and each family can be realised. That is our role, and so I hereby acknowledge you.

Due consideration must also be given to the histories of Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu. They were involved in the wars of confiscation in Waikato; therefore, I support the acknowledgments of Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke: of your courage, and for their courage to arrive there to provide assistance to their relatives to fight against the firearms of Great Britain, the firearms of the Pākehā. You see that—the courage of the people.

It is due to that that their land was confiscated, and their mountain was confiscated; therefore, I acknowledge Te Aroha mountain—I hereby acknowledge you this morning. I have yet to make it to the mountain, to Mount Te Aroha, however, I intend to do so.

According to the histories, the predominant activity there was goldmining. The waste expelled from within that affected the community of Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu. However, none of the assets that came from those mines made it into the pockets of the iwi; instead, other people have them. Therefore, this legislation should include how this may be corrected.

Therefore, the Māori Affairs Committee should be acknowledged, those that conduct the activities within the processes of Parliament. Some of the sections that they wanted to be amended somewhat within the legislation: the first is consultation between them and the regional council, Waikato, on how to support the circumstances of flooding—i.e., flood protection gates. That is a worthy idea.

Another section is the explicit inclusion of the mountain, Te Aroha, within the legislation, because, as I listened to the comments circulating around the House this morning, it included authority; therefore, it is appropriate that the power of the mountain, the provenance of the mountain, does not reside with Parliament—those of us that create legislation, that the mountain is included in this particular legislation. Therefore, I acknowledge the select committee of that sphere.

The thing that I observed within this type of legislation born of claims settlements is a section for our children and grandchildren—i.e., history. That is, history for all of us, our young people, so that they are taught the histories at the feet of those that walked the land.

Therefore, greetings to House. Greetings to you, Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu. Greetings to us all.]

10:31

Tēnā koe e te Māngai. Te mihi tuatahi ki ngā manuhiri o Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu, nau mai, haramai, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. The first greeting is to our guests, Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu; welcome, welcome, and greetings to you all.]

Whenever I stand to talk in a reading of a Treaty settlement, I honestly treat it as an absolute honour. I say that because we have a participation in what is going to be scribed into history, and it’s an important part of history that I’m sure many iwi that have been through the process acknowledge. Clearly, the history that we talk to is not always a good history, and Treaty settlements are put in place to correct those wrongdoings.

What I also like to do when I speak to Treaty settlements is to talk to viewers about who it is that we’re talking about. When we say “iwi”, not everybody’s familiar with where they’re from and that, and I think it’s important that they do. So Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu are of Te Aroha maunga, and I’ll talk to that name specifically, because that was one of the amendments we made within the bill from the Māori Affairs Committee. It is of the Hauraki Plains, obviously. They also have interests in the Kaimai Range, out to Katikati and also to Te Puna, but also the Coromandel Peninsula. Hopefully that gives everybody a bit of a bearing of who this iwi is.

Also, the name is interesting, and I’ve learnt a lot, as I do with every Treaty settlement that I go through. Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu has two specific names, Rāhiri and Tumutumu, and I’d like to just briefly talk to that for people’s understanding. Tumutumu: that name there actually comes from Ngāti Raukawa, a neighbouring or very close iwi itself, and it is said within the settlement—and people can read this here—it traces their origins to Te Ruinga, the son of Tumutumu from Ngāti Raukawa. Also Rāhiri itself: people may be familiar with Ngāti Rāhiri of the Far North, up in Ngāpuhi, and that is indeed the Rāhiri that we’re talking about here.

I’m from Taranaki; there’s actually Ngāti Rāhiri in North Taranaki as well. It’s actually in the Tikorangi area, just north of Waitara. Once again, Rāhiri was a prolific traveller, obviously, and I understand that he travelled through Auckland, the Bay of Plenty, and also down to Ngāti Taranaki. So there are the connections of Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu with regards to this Treaty settlement claim.

The process itself was a good process, as it should be. It was an emotional process. We had the occasion as a committee to have a hearing up at Te Aroha, at the railway station building, which is a lovely building to hold the occasion, but we also had another hearing here in Wellington. As it is for all Treaty settlements that I’ve been involved with, submissions come with emotions—not just the emotions of the loss and the grievance of what has preceded what today is but also the challenges of the present-day situation. It wasn’t surprising to me, because I do see it quite often, that when you have a large grouping of people—when you talk about the membership of Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu, you’re talking about at least 510 members, according to the last census that was held. When you have a large grouping your members, to think that everybody’s singing from the same song sheet is probably a little bit of an impossibility, from my experience. We did have some strong submissions about the process that was there.

The select committee did propose two amendments; they’ve been spoken about by previous speakers. I should mention those, the first one being the name Te Aroha maunga, as I spoke of earlier. In the bill originally, it just spoke of Te Aroha, and, quite correctly, through consultation with the iwi, it was more fitting for it to be Te Aroha maunga. That was corrected in consultation with iwi, and everybody is in agreement with that.

The second amendment that has been proposed is the flood protection assets of the Waikato Regional Council. Clearly, these are assets that the public, including Māori, have contributed to. Flood protection assets are there for the protection of not just public but also private assets themselves, and I’m very pleased to see that the iwi acknowledged the importance of that and made sure that the Waikato Regional Council had the ability to manage those assets appropriately. Thank you to the iwi for that itself.

There were other areas of interest that were brought up through the submission process. Even the name of the post-settlement governance entity: it is actually named Ngāti Tumutumu Trust—doesn’t actually have the Rāhiri in there. It was submitted to us whether that was right or wrong by some of the submitters, but the committee took what I believe is the absolutely appropriate approach: that’s not our business; that is your business to sort out. We left that to them to talk of that, and I’m sure there have been many discussions subsequent.

The relationship between the iwi and the maunga, I spoke about that: Te Aroha maunga. I’m from Taranaki; Taranaki Maunga is significant for me, and it doesn’t surprise me the significance that was placed in the submissions with regards to that there.

There was an interesting one, and perhaps the iwi are not so aware of this, but there was a submission, or should I say a report given back, from the Regulations Review Committee. Now, I’ve been on the Māori Affairs Committee for a short time, but for the Treaty settlements I’ve been involved with, it’s not unusual that this kaupapa, this subject, comes up from the Regulations Review Committee. It’s specifically about a few clauses within this bill—89, 90, and 91—but it actually comes up with other settlements. These are the clauses that Te Tari Whakatau puts into the settlement in agreement with iwi. There is actually a common clause that’s been put in there, and it’s often been raised by the Regulations Review Committee. So, subsequent to this particular clause, the committee has chosen to actually open up a briefing with the Regulations Review Committee to set this straight once and for all. This is to do with secondary legislation and regulations and how it’s used in it. I don’t think there’s any worry about it, about what’s been put in place with previous settlements, or this one here itself. It’s a bit more of a parliamentary process that we have to run through to perhaps make sure we’ve got a clear understanding but put this to bed once and for all.

With that, I’m very pleased to support this through its second reading, and I look forward to the committee of the whole House, which is occurring later on today as well. Kia ora tātou.

10:38

Kia ora, Madam Speaker. I’m honoured to rise to speak to the Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu Claims Settlement Bill second reading. I’d like to acknowledge the iwi and whānau who have come to the House today for this reading, and I really commend you on your mahi getting this bill to its second reading. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

This bill records the acknowledgments and apology made to Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu when the deed was signed, and gives effect to redress in the deed that requires legislation. It’s been a really long journey, as other speakers have spoken to: 15 years of negotiations, and a long-awaited agreement. I hope that this bill acknowledges the past and looks to a stronger future. I know that the journey over the past 15 years speaks to resilience and hope for the iwi. I commend the show of unity and determination from Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu in working with the Crown to get to this point.

This settlement serves as an apology from the Crown on the wrongs committed—namely, the confiscated 290,000 acres of land in the Tauranga district between 1865 and 1868; the retainment of the hot springs near Te Aroha by the Crown, and despite the Crown giving the use of the land back to the iwi by the early 20th century, I’m aware that Māori no longer had free access to the springs or input into the management of the site; the acquisition of the land in Te Aroha and Te Aroha maunga; and developments that continued into the 1960s by the Crown. This included the construction of a road to the summit of Te Aroha maunga and the granting of a mining licence to a private company. Consequences of these actions meant that the site became severely polluted and there was significant damage to the land and maunga. By the end of the 20th century, less than 3 percent of the land in the Te Aroha bloc remained in Māori ownership.

Nothing can right the wrongs of the past, but I hope that this bill brings a degree of closure to the people, and a hope for the future of the iwi, for your tamariki and your mokopuna. We know that the harm caused continued over successive generations. This speaks to many years of socio-economic deprivation and the disconnection from whānau and hapū that they had with their whenua. We know that many people of the whānau of the iwi ended up living outside of traditional lands, disconnected from their tikanga, tūrangawaewae, and whānau, which also came with a significant loss of te reo Māori and restricted ability for the whānau to pass mātauranga Māori on to their mokopuna.

As I speak on this bill, I speak with two simultaneous feelings of immense privilege and pride, and also one of whakamā. You see, I grew up in the rohe of Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu. When I was eight, my whānau moved to the foot of the Kaimai Mamaku ranges. The property my parents purchased on Lockington Road backed on to the Kaimai Mamaku forest park. I feel privilege and pride because your rohe is so entrenched in my memories of childhood. My stepfather was a hunter, so I spent a lot of time in the ngahere, the bush, that backed off from our property. I spent many a day of my childhood swimming in the oceans near Waihi Beach and swimming in the swimming holes and the many awa that flow from the maunga. My parents still live in your rohe, 30 years later, and I consider the shores of Bowentown Beach one of the few places that I truly feel at home. It is this beauty and the incredible memories that bring me to the privilege I have and hold dearly here, that I can contribute a very small amount to a place that I treasure so much by acknowledging the people who are truly tangata whenua of the rohe.

I also feel very whakamā. I feel whakamā, because when I went to Katikati Primary School and when I went to Katikati College, I didn’t know the name of the iwi. I didn’t know the wrongs of the past that were inflicted on you, and I didn’t know the whakapapa of the place where I grew up. In a place that brought me so much taonga and aroha, I grew up not knowing about its history.

From those two places, there comes hope—hope that with a settlement and some redress, your tamariki and mokopuna will learn their tikanga, their whakapapa, and mātauranga Māori. By being able to reclaim sites of cultural importance, create opportunities for rangatahi, and rebuild your iwi presence, there is opportunity and there is hope. It brings me hope that the future of all the kids, whether they’re Māori, Pākehā, or other, will grow up understanding the commitment to Te Tiriti o Waitangi to know the iwi and hapū of that rohe that they are in and learn the importance of knowing that. It gives me hope that the next 8-year-old who moves to Katikati will understand whose land they are living on, that when they go to Katikati Primary and Katikati College, they will learn about the tikanga of the place, the whakapapa.

The settlement is a significant milestone in Aotearoa’s journey in recognising Te Tiriti, but we must go further, and this bill demonstrates that for me strongly. In order to achieve full partnership with Māori, we must ensure that our tamariki and rangatahi have the knowledge and the history of Aotearoa New Zealand, that mātauranga Māori is embedded in our communities. Through the settlement, the Crown seeks to atone for these injustices and rebuild a relationship based on trust and honourable Treaty partnership. I hope this settlement, for your iwi, brings that. I hope this is an opportunity for you to bring your tikanga home, to build a flourishing whānau and hapū within your own whenua for all of the future generations to come. There is an opportunity for reconnection of your people to their whenua, tikanga, and te reo so that the mokopuna of Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu feel connected to their whenua, awa, tikanga, and te reo Māori.

It is a great pleasure to be able to speak on this bill on the second reading. I wasn’t involved in the select committee process, but I know the land so well—walking up Te Aroha maunga. Other speakers have spoken about that beautiful, beautiful place, and I am so pleased that we’ve got to a position through a lot of, I know, pain and acceptance. I hope that this apology will speak deeply to your whānau about the future of hope and the opportunities that lay ahead of us. It is with great pleasure that I commend this bill to the House.

10:47

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Like the speaker who has just resumed her seat, Georgie Dansey, I have also had the good fortune of spending many years throughout my life in that area, and, indeed, now also have the even greater fortune of representing the most beautiful electorate in the country, being the Waikato electorate, which, on its eastern edge, includes this beautiful area of Te Aroha; the mountain, of course, that towers over the landscape from across the Waikato, really, but certainly in that local community; and, indeed, the fantastic people that make up that community as well. It’s a pleasure to be able to make a contribution here in the second reading of the Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu Claims Settlement Bill.

Now, we have heard from the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee and from the Minister. I want to acknowledge the work done in particular from the committee for their efforts. They came and visited Te Aroha. That wasn’t the hard part; it was getting them to leave again that was the hard part, because it’s such a beautiful community, as I’ve mentioned. It was great to have them come up and meet locally there as well and, indeed, to address some of the concerns raised by submitters and also to touch on one of the concerns in particular that I’ve had raised with me around the Te Aroha hospital land continuing to be available for the community, at a price that’s achievable for the community as well. We were able to have those fears allayed, which was fantastic.

It’s particularly pleasing to see this process now reaching the end of what has been a challenging journey over a substantial period of time and to see now the Crown apology, the historical account, and, indeed, the financial redress, that helps to put a line in the sand and acknowledge that there have been challenges but there is opportunity as well. I think that’s always the focus whenever there is a difficult situation—that one works through to try and look at where the opportunity might be going forward. I’m sure we’ll traverse that more in the committee of the whole House stage, in the third reading stage. I do need to keep my contribution limited, so I will commend it to the House. Thank you.

This is a split call. I call Camilla Belich.

10:50

Tēnā koutou katoa. Ko te mihi tuatahi ki a Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu. Ko te mihi tuarua ki tō koutou maunga, Te Aroha; ki tō koutou awa, Waihau; ki tō koutou moana; ki tō koutou marae, Tumutumu. Ngā mihi nui ki ngā tāngata e noho ana i roto i tēnei Whare, me ngā tāngata e kite i tēnei kōrero i roto i te pouaka whakaata, ngā rorohiko, i roto i te Whare.

[Greetings to you all. The first greeting is to Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu. The second acknowledgment is to your mountain, Te Aroha; to your river, Waihau; to your ocean; and to your marae, Tumutumu. Many greetings to the people who now sit within this House, and those that are watching these speeches on the television, on computers, and in the House.]

It is a very significant opportunity for any parliamentarian to be able to speak on a Treaty settlement bill. It’s not an opportunity that comes often, especially to those of us who don’t sit on the Māori Affairs Committee, but it’s always an opportunity to reflect on the history of our country and also of the different iwi and hapū who make up such an important part of New Zealand.

I’ve had a good look at this bill that’s being put forward, and I commend anyone who is watching to look through, especially the historical account. This historical account has been prepared with care and is a very, very difficult thing to read in terms of everything that has happened to this particular group, Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu, over a period of time. I read through it all and I felt a deep sadness that your people had had to suffer through such immense attacks and loss. I know that being here will be bittersweet in terms of moving forward, but I’m also sure that your tīpuna are proud of you for the work that you’ve done, and I’m sure that your descendants will thank you for being able to take this historic step today.

I wanted just to note—I do have a shorter call, and I don’t want to prolong this, because I know that you’ve waited long enough for this settlement—that one of the things that the Crown is actually acknowledging and apologising for is the Acts of this Parliament. I had a bit of a look at where the District Lands Act in 1867 and 1868 would have been done in this very place, in Wellington. The Parliament was moved, as I understand it, in 1865—so we’re standing, really, and apologising for actions that were taken by a predecessor of this House in this place. That is very significant, because the effect of the passage of that legislation, as this bill acknowledges, left you almost landless—“virtually landless” is what it says here.

I want to acknowledge the mana of the land and also of your people, and what I know of Māori, which is not a lot, and what I know of the importance of land, which is a lot less than you know and many other people know. The simple affection that Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu must have for the maunga Te Aroha in order to name it Te Aroha—one of the strongest emotions that you can express—and to have that maunga lost to you throughout such a period of time must have just been horrendous.

It’s not an area where I’ve lived, but I wanted to say how striking it was to me to read through the historical account and everything that the Crown is acknowledging—and I want to also acknowledge the apology, which is really important; I probably don’t have time to read all of that, but I did note it down here that it is a substantive apology and it acknowledges substantive wrongs. One of the things I noticed when I was looking through the information is the thing that Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu did, not only in taking this forward, was also to have a taonga carved for this process by your kaiwhakairo Ben Whittaker. What mana of a people and an iwi to not only go through this substantive settlement process to move your people and this issue forward but to create a taonga to bring to Parliament to acknowledge this. I wanted to acknowledge everyone associated with this process and commend this bill to the House.

10:55

It’s lovely, actually, to be able to stand up and add my kōrero in the second reading of this very important settlement bill. I want to welcome those of you who are in the gallery today. I’m also looking forward to your small but mighty whānau coming in for the third reading, God willing.

I want to acknowledge you up in the gallery—if you don’t mind, Madam Speaker. Jill Taylor, thank you very much for the aroha you showed us around Te Aroha mountain and for the care you all took—you as well, sir, and the chair of the trust, Daniel Braid, in explaining a lot of what came across as kind of nuances to us, but also sharing what your ancestors have been through that has led to this point. It’s something that was very memorable; we started by the railway there, and then we took our little tiki tour around. It’s something that’s tattooed in my memory; it was a very beautiful and special day, and you guys are a special iwi as well—like I said, small but mighty.

I look forward to the third reading where we can celebrate, but of course always underpinned with that reflection on the sadness of the past but looking forward to the positivity that the future can bring. I commend this bill to the House.

10:57

Kia ora, Madam Speaker, and kia ora, Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu—ngā mihi ki a kōrua. It’s lovely to see you here for this second reading of this claims settlement bill. It’s not often that I’ve had the opportunity to get up and speak on a claims settlement bill, but I specifically asked to do this.

For a short time, I was on the Māori Affairs Committee—about nine months—and, in those nine months, I was fortunate enough to be sitting through the process of this particular claims settlement bill, the Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu Claims Settlement Bill. I’d like to acknowledge the Minister—we’ve heard that here before; as the Hon Willie Jackson said, it’s not an easy position. It is a very difficult position to be the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, and you get a bit of raru coming your way. I have to say, to get through to this stage is something to be very proud of with any iwi and any iwi settlement. I’d also like to acknowledge the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, David MacLeod. I think that he has a real heart for this work and for making certain that the mana of the iwi is upheld at all times.

A lot has been traversed in this particular reading here today. We’ve heard about the changes that we made through the select committee process, but I particularly wanted to talk about the day that we spent over in Te Aroha—and I too want to acknowledge you, Jill, and the work that you and Nicola have done in the process. It’s been a long process, and we’re nearly there. It’s a good feeling that we’re nearly there.

It was not that long before the end of last year that we went through to Te Aroha, and it’s not a long drive for me; I live in Tauranga. I’ve often seen the other side of the maunga, but seeing the Te Aroha side and going through and spending that day there, it had a real impact on me. I came away from that day thinking that every member of this House needs to have the experience of sitting through Treaty claims settlements, because it does hit you here. It impacted me so much that I came away thinking about the hurts and the wrongs that have happened to you and to other iwi over time, and how it’s important that we get this process right. It is important that we listen; it is important that we hear the raru. It is important that we sit there and be humble in that process.

Sitting, as my colleague Rima Nakhle said on the other side, in that railway station and hearing the hurt from many different perspectives was something that, as I said, sits with you. It’s something that you can’t leave that situation without feeling that we’ve got to do better and we’ve got to do better, for now, to somehow heal that hurt, but, also, we’ve got to do better for future generations, as well, so that that hurt never has to be there again and we’re not sitting in that situation in another 150 years and having to go through the same process.

I remember my former colleague the Rt Hon Adrian Rurawhe, who gave a very gentle but firm—in the only way that Adrian can do—challenge to everybody in that room that day that this is not the end of the process. This is the beginning. It’s kind of like a transition, and it’s the beginning of a new part of the process. It’s time for new work to be done, to move forward and to repair the hurt. That sat with me that day, too, because I know Adrian has been through his own Treaty settlements and knew the division that can be caused in the process. But we’ve also got to remember that that division was caused hundreds of years ago through colonisation, and now it’s time to put that right and acknowledge that and the coming together. That’s not going to be an easy process, but it’s one that I know that people are up for and that the iwi are up for, and they’ve already started a whole lot of work.

That’s where I’ll go on to the next part of that day, is that we then got to see around—and many of the people that were there that day have already acknowledged the fact that we walked, with members of the iwi, through the Te Aroha domain and heard about the hurt that has happened over so many years. My colleague Steve Abel talked about the separatism that hurt; the resources that the iwi generously allowed people to have and to participate in the resources of the geothermal area that, as an iwi, back then, they generously let other people partake in, only to have it stolen from them and then to be given the small bath house back that they could use.

I can remember asking the dumbest question of Jill that day, because we’d gone round the whole of the domain and we’d seen the pools and we’d seen all the beautiful areas, and then we came on to this—it’s really hard to describe it, to get that feeling; it’s kind of one of those moments you had to be there—but this little tiny shed and they opened the door and said, “This was where the Māori were allowed to bathe.” Also, with people that had skin conditions, they were put into the separate little area. I remember saying, “Oh, was it bigger than this?”—“No, no, no. This has actually been done up since then.” I just could not believe it.

It was one of those moments that I had that I went, oh, my goodness, this is just—what have we done as people, what have we done as a nation, that we did this and created so much hurt and how much this meant to the people, the tangata whenua, the mana whenua of the time and now, and the fact that it’s taken so long and that hurt has just amplified and amplified and amplified over time. That’s what it meant to me that day. I went away and I looked you up and I looked the iwi up on your website, and I started to see your own journey back to restoring who you are as a people and the work that you’ve done in restoring the mauri—or you’re starting to restore the mauri—of the maunga, and the work of restoring the people’s mana and how passionate you are about making this a better journey going forward.

That’s what I took from that day, and I knew that we had to make sure that we got this settlement through in a way—as I’m sure every other member of the select committee did that particular day—so that it’s somehow restoring some of the hurt. It’s not going to go all the way, but it’s going to somehow restore some of that hurt and say—we don’t have a magic wand. We can’t go back to the past. We can’t restore and change direction that past has happened, but we can look forward and we can look forward to how we can make a difference now and how we can support you and your goals and your aspirations for what you want for now, for your people, for your tamariki and your mokopuna, and what you want for all of the future generations that you see in front of you, and how we can help be part of that journey, but not dictate the journey. That’s your journey from now, but we will be there to support and make sure that not only are we standing up for the wrongs that have happened in the past but ensuring that those wrongs don’t happen in the future.

I go back to where I started; I think every member of this House needs to have such an experience. It will change members of this House when they walk through and see firsthand. It’s different than being able to read about it in books. Actually walking through and seeing the hurt, but seeing the aspirations and knowing that we can make a difference in this House, is what every single member of this House needs to experience. With that, I absolutely, wholeheartedly commend this bill to the House.

11:06

Nōku te maringanui ki te kōrero e pā ana ki tēnei pire, te pire whakatau mō te iwi, Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu.

Ki a Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu, tēnā koutou. Tēnā koutou, nau mai anō ki tēnei Whare.

Ki ngā mema atu kua kōrero i tēnei ata, tēnā koutou i te āta whakaaro me te āta kōrero. Ko te āhua o tēnei momo kaupapa, te whakatau o tēnei pire, ko te tino āhua o tēnei Whare. Kua rangona e koutou tērā āhua, tērā atawhai i ngā kōrero katoa. Ākene pea i te nuinga o ngā kōrero.

Ko te haepapa o tēnei Whare āianei ko te tuku atu i tēnei pire ki te Whare i tēnei ahiahi, ka āta whakaaro mā te taumata, ko te ingoa o tērā taumata ko te “select committees”, ā, kātahi ā tērā marama, ā tērā atu marama waihoki, ka haere mai, ka hoki mai ngā iwi katoa.

Te mutunga kē mai o te harikoa mō tērā wheako, te whakanui o te whakatau, te mutunga o tēnei haerenga, ā, ko te tīmatanga o te anamata hou. Koirā te tūmanako, koirā te kitenga, koirā te tino tirohanga o tēnei momo kaupapa.

Nā reira, anō, nōku te tino maringanui ki te tū i roto i tēnei Whare, ā, ka tuku atu i te pire nei ki te Whare.Tēnā koutou.

[It is my great fortune to speak on this bill, the settlement bill for the people, Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu.

To Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu, greetings to you. Greetings and welcome back to this House.

To the other members who have spoken this morning, greetings to you who carefully considered and spoken. The nature of this type of initiative, the settlement of this bill, is the true nature of this House. You have felt that nature, that care within each speech—or, perhaps, the majority of speeches.

The responsibility of this House now is to dispatch this bill to the House this afternoon, at which stage it will be carefully considered—the name of the stage is “select committees”—and then, next month, and the month after, also, all of the iwi will come; they will return.

Such great joy for that experience, the celebration of the settlement, the conclusion of this journey, and the beginning of the new future. That is the hope, that is the vision, that is the true perspective of this type of initiative.

Therefore, again, it is my great fortune to stand in this House, and to commend this bill to the House. Thank you all.]

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

11:09

I move, That the Online Casino Gambling Bill be now read a third time.

Today marks an important milestone in strengthening New Zealand’s approach to gambling harm and consumer protection. The Online Casino Gambling Bill represents a significant and long-overdue step forward. The bill also supports this Government’s coalition agreement.

Before the House reaches its final decision on the Online Casino Gambling Bill, I want to acknowledge the many people who have contributed to its development. I thank the Governance and Administration Committee members for their consideration of this bill, and I thank all those who took the time to make submissions on online casino gambling.

I also acknowledge colleagues across the House for their engagement throughout the bill’s passage, and I thank my officials for their work on this bill. As members of this House will be aware, online casino gambling is already widespread, easily accessible, and currently unregulated. There is no recourse when things go wrong. That is the gap that this bill seeks to close.

This bill establishes a licensing system for online casino operators. It sets out clear requirements for harm minimisation, creates a strong enforcement regime, and ensures that a share of revenue returns to New Zealand communities. This bill allows for a competitive market while also providing Kiwis who wish to gamble with safer regulated options to do so. Licensed operators will have to meet consumer protection obligations, including minimising the risk of harm from online casino gambling. They must identify and assist those experiencing harm, exclude problem gamblers, and must not offer credit for gambling.

This bill allows up to 15 licences to be issued for online casino gambling. Operators from overseas and in New Zealand can apply if they are suitable. They must meet strict criteria, including having a harm prevention strategy and providing information on their business compliance history. Once licensed, they will be able to advertise with restrictions, be required to pay tax, and contribute towards the problem gambling levy. Operators will clearly need to show that their gambling platforms are licensed so that the public can easily see which services are legitimate and regulated in New Zealand. This will require a registration icon or audio mark to be displayed on any advertising and gambling platforms.

The Department of Internal Affairs will regulate the sector, with costs recovered from licensed operators. To ensure the regime is effective, the bill makes clear that operators cannot avoid New Zealand law by being located offshore. The bill gives the regulator strong enforcement tools, including take-down notices, warnings, enforceable undertakings, and penalties of up to $5 million for serious or persistent breaches.

This bill also ensures that New Zealand communities benefit through changes to the online gambling duty. Funding will be returned to communities through the Lottery Grants Board. This reflects the clear message from submissions on the bill. If we are regulating online gambling, benefits should flow back to local sports clubs, community groups, and grassroots organisations. I listened and we are delivering on what matters most to communities across this country. Importantly, this funding will come from an activity that is already occurring rather than from increasing gambling participation. It is not the Government’s intention with this bill to increase gambling, but to make sure it is safer for those who choose to gamble.

The Government will review the regime once it’s been in place. This will consider how well harm minimisation, consumer protection, and community funding objectives are being met. A separate two-year review will look at impacts on other forms of gambling, community markers, and community returns. This review allows the adjustment of any settings that are not working for operators and consumers, and allows this licensing regime to respond and adapt to emerging international trends. A separate two-year review will look at impacts on other forms of gambling and community returns.

The bill enables the Government to set detailed regulatory requirements for how licensed operators may operate here in New Zealand, including harm prevention and minimisation, advertising and marketing restrictions, consumer protections, record-keeping, and cost recovery fees. This approach is consistent with the Gambling Act 2003 and ensures that the regulatory framework can remain responsive to market and technology while giving operators clear and enforceable requirements to plan and operate in the New Zealand market.

In relation to advertising, the intent is to support a safe and well-regulated market; not to encourage increased gambling participation. Carefully controlled advertising allows consumers to identify licensed operators and make informed choices while helping to channel demand away from unlicensed operators. The regulations I’ve proposed will mean operators must not target advertisements at those under the age of 25, unless the operator can demonstrate that the advertisement can be precisely targeted at consumers over the age of 18, and the content of advertisements and promotions must not reasonably appeal to those under the age of 18.

Setting these requirements, including fees, through regulations rather than here in the primary legislation provides flexibility to adjust settings as the market develops and as better information on market size and regulatory costs become available. This approach supports proportional cost-reflective fees over time and gives operators greater certainty by clearly stating compliance requirements and updating them as the market evolves.

This bill is a balanced and practical piece of legislation that will support the Government’s coalition agreement. I commend this bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

11:16

Talofa lava, Mr Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to provide a contribution. Before I do that, in case I do not get any chance today, I do want to just honour our Anzac men and women, and specifically veterans, as we remember them this weekend.

As spokesperson for Labour, I tell members that we continue to oppose the Online Casino Gambling Bill. Yes, while we agree with the regulation in the bill in terms of regulating, we would state that the bill does not go far enough. We’ve heard the statement from the Minister of Internal Affairs, and I do want to acknowledge the 4,837 individuals and groups who submitted; of that number, 3,966 submitters on the first initial draft of the bill raised the issue that there was no community return for our communities who may be involved in online casino gambling.

The reason why, on this side of the House, the Labour team stresses the up to 15 new licences that this bill will allow to be brought into New Zealand is because there is limited information and regulations that do not go far enough in terms of harm minimisation tools and consumer protections.

I also want to acknowledge the officials who worked with the Governance and Administration Committee, and I want to acknowledge the select committee members. We collaborated, we discussed the pros and cons, but we also had the opportunity to hear from submitters across Aotearoa in terms of harm minimisation and what is being brought into New Zealand. In our view, the licences are far too many for New Zealanders to practically understand the controls that, we say, do not go far enough. There was a lot of evidence put forward by submitters, which gave us select committee members the opportunity to consider why this legislation requires very proactive controls.

It is important that New Zealanders understand things like gambling addiction. The difference between online casino gambling and land-based casinos is that land-based casinos, those specific businesses, understand when operations are opened and closed to people. With online casino gambling, those licences that are offshore will be able to do their business 24/7. The issue with that is that vulnerable communities across Aotearoa, at a time when affordability and the cost of living are really hitting vulnerable New Zealanders, some of those choices will not be able to be made attentively by vulnerable New Zealanders who have an addiction to online gambling.

In our view, what the statistics tell us specifically is that things, like controls on advertising, need to go further in term of this amendment bill. We are pleased that the Government U-turned in October 2025; that the Cabinet made a ruling, or a provision, that there would be a community return returned back to the communities across Aotearoa. If you look at the evidence, the Minister stated in some of her explanations, that New Zealanders have to be very careful because addiction is high when it comes to gambling. Online gambling will propose 24/7 access, and the trouble with that activity is that it will be able to be accessed on any device. There are limited controls, and, in our view, for Labour, we want to see those strengthened.

We heard from submitters, such as the Problem Gambling Foundation, that there needed to be very clear words in the amendment bill that will help them help New Zealanders who are very vulnerable to this type of activity. The oral submissions that were made by groups—iwi Māori, Pasifika, ethnic, and Chinese—raised that, with some of the individuals who will be utilising this online casino gambling to do their activity, the problem is it is such a hidden activity. It might not be popular in terms of some parts of our community, but it is important to raise the health issues and the mental ability of some of the consumers who will be using some of those sites.

We are also concerned about the lack of protections that have been provided under this legislation. Labour continues to believe that, for some of the proceeds that will come from these companies, there has to be a mechanism. When the Gambling Act was set up in 2003, there was the authorisation that some gambling could occur, which was mainly written for land-based gambling operations. The online casino gambling legislation, we would argue, still doesn’t provide the assurance that Kiwis will be protected by this bill.

The offshore gambling duty that is proposed in this bill rests at between 12 percent to 16 percent—the gross gambling revenue—and in our submission, it proposes 4 percent. We would argue that it needs to be raised either to 8 percent or over, because that will ring-fence the proceeds for our communities to be returned to the community, which sits between a $10 million to $20 million figure. Labour continues to argue that the controls that are proposed in this bill continue to not go far enough, and we would like to see those strengthened in any future iterations.

One of the things, when we went through committee stage, was to ask the Minister to consider tools such as the self-exclusion register. When you look at the bill and the provisions, what happens is that there’s a number of different dates. Once the bill goes through Royal assent, it will be introduced in terms of what that proposes, and then there are other tools that strengthen the bill, but the dates of the proposal, of the commencement date, is a much later date. The self-exclusion register was one of the tools that we wanted, on this side of the House, to be input from the start of the actual legislation, because there are consumers, or there are New Zealanders, who, once the doors are open in terms of those licences, will come into New Zealand, do their advertising—actually, some of them are already in New Zealand. We have social media influencers, which the Department of Internal Affairs has been dealing with, and they’re also doing non-authorised activity.

We do, again, acknowledge that community return. We heard from communities, groups, and individuals up and down Aotearoa. The fact is that they require those community returns because a lot of them are doing class 4 activity through Lotto and through their organisations. I know we’ve heard from the Minister that the reliance on that revenue is something she would like to see deterred. However, there is no system to replace the community returns to our community.

The last point I wanted to raise in my time left was the distribution system. We heard from a number of submitters, and we support that the community grant system—the current system—will go through the lottery grants system, which is a central system with a number of controls, and also the delays. Labour supports that a local system would be helpful. We heard from Mr Martin Snedden, in terms of the thoughts that he put forward in his submission, and we would strongly support that. So, just as I end off, Labour continues to oppose this amendment bill.

11:26

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party to oppose this bill. The Green Party do support good and sensible regulation that is focused on harm reduction and risk minimisation. However, this bill is not that. One of the purposes of this bill is to prevent and minimise harm from online casino gambling; however, it just doesn’t do that. What it does do is gather revenue. This bill is a money-grab that will create misery. Once again, it’s just another example of this Government valuing profits over people, and to ensure they make as much money as they can, they will auction off the licences to overseas entities that, like this Government, do not care who or what it hurts.

We know from the feedback from other agencies on this regime that there were some serious concerns about the harm that would be caused by this bill. The Ministry of Health stated: “However, it seems from the paper that very little mention of harm prevention or minimisation is proposed for the bill beyond the purpose, with almost all the detail delegated to regulations. While we understand the benefit of regulations in a fast-evolving environment, we think that some more parameters around harm prevention and minimisations need to be in the bill to anchor to the purpose.”

Te Whatu Ora said: “We welcome the intention to regulate online gambling but are concerned that the proposed regulations will increase gambling and lead to an increase in gambling harm. First, we’re concerned that the Cabinet paper does not reflect the potential for harm that online gambling presents. The regulatory impact statement provides evidence and discussion on this, but it is not well-reflected in the paper. We encourage you to make the potential for harm more visible so that legislative proposals can be considered in this context. Specifically, we note that online gambling is particularly harmful as it’s continuous, easily accessible, and easy to hide.”

The regulatory impact statement notes that the number of presentations to gambling harm services, with offshore online gambling listed as a main mode of harm, has increased by 71 percent since 2019—a 1,500 percent rise in the number of adults gambling with offshore providers between 2010 and 2020, and has grown from around 7,000 adults to 105,000 adults. It is known that online gambling poses higher risks of addiction by being available 24/7. It allows gamblers to hide their gambling by moving it on to their personal device and into their homes. It can lack effective safeguards around age verification of gamblers, and we know that if you look at the e-scooters, they’re also meant to be over 18. The amount of younger people under 18 that are actually riding those scooters is because the operator is not there and present when they’re being ridden.

This poses problems with regulations due to the online and remote nature of the gambling environment. Problem gambling among those who gamble on the internet is 10 times higher than that of the general population. It was extremely clear that this bill would increase harm amongst vulnerable people, but it got pushed through without actually fixing that big issue.

From the notes from the regulatory impact statement on the costs: gambling harm treatment providers may experience an increase in direct costs due to increased resourcing requirements. This is showing that there will be increased harm. We assume that these costs will be offset by the collection of the problem gambling levy by licensed operators. You cannot offset harm by a levy. The wider public will experience some indirect costs, namely the cost of gambling harm, which we assume will be partially offset by the problem gambling levy. Once again, you cannot offset the social harm, the costs, the impacts on whānau, financial standing, wellbeing, and mental health, through a levy on offshore operators.

Through the process in the Governance and Administration Committee—which I wasn’t in on; I joined a little bit later—there were, obviously, 4,837 groups and individuals who submitted. Out of that, 3,966 raised issues on the community returns. On the back of that, the gambling duty was increased from 12 to 16 percent, with 25 percent of that revenue ring-fenced for community. I think we all have to accept that that is a double-edged sword, because there are so many great, not-for-profit community groups that do rely on the proceeds of gambling services to survive. However, we must accept that the money coming to them is coming at a cost to the wellbeing of our community who are the ones that are suffering from gambling harm.

During the committee of the whole House, the Minister of Internal Affairs introduced an amendment that would, effectively, remove the ring-fencing of the 25 percent. She did say that there were reasons to do that to make it a more simple process. She said that the amount returned to the community can, therefore, be increased through amendment by Cabinet rather than amended in legislation. I think what she forgot to mention at that time was that it could also be decreased.

My colleague Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan did ask: is the funding from the gambling duty still ring-fenced for the purpose of allocation and distribution for community purposes, and would the removal of the 25 percent mean that the new amount would be less or significantly less than 25 percent?

Naturally, the Minister avoided answering that question properly. She did thank him and said that the funding collected from the duty for the purpose of community returns will be transferred through the Budget process and Cabinet will decide the amount; therefore, it is not required to be ring-fenced. Cabinet had decided the percentage, which is 16 percent, out of the Gaming Duties Act, but this is better flexibility. What we know, through this, is that the Cabinet can actually reduce the amount that was meant to be ring-fenced for community.

Now, I brought in a simple amendment—a common-sense amendment—that would ensure that it could not go below what the committee wanted, which 25 percent of the actual gambling duties, but it was voted down. So you’ve put at risk something that, actually, the community, in their thousands, asked for. We know from this that there are many demographics that are hugely affected by gambling: Māori, Pacific people, young people, and people with disabilities are all more likely to be impacted by gambling.

I just want to quickly touch on just a couple of things that they said, in my short time left. I’ll pick up—which one shall we do? Brain Injury New Zealand, who obviously oppose this terrible bill, said, “We do not believe the bill’s harm minimisation provisions go far enough. Without stronger safeguards, online gambling may cause serious harm to vulnerable groups, particularly those with brain injury.”

It already is doing harm. Jeez!

You may heckle on the sides, but it is clear by what you are saying that you don’t care about the vulnerable people in our community that will suffer by this bill when it gets passed into legislation.

The Salvation Army: they recognise the need for effective regulation, like we do on this side. They were deeply concerned that the bill does not prioritise harm prevention and minimisation, and that the proposed approach to the regulation is inadequate. Once again, this bill will cause harm.

We know that, actually, the consultation and the engagement with iwi was pathetic; it did not exist. The Pou Tangata chair, Rahui Papa, said, “Let’s be clear, this reform will expose more young people to risk. It is gambling harm by stealth.”

The Asian Family Services said, “The substance of the Bill does not reflect the statutory objective of harm minimisation.”

The member’s time has come to an end.

11:36

Let’s be very clear. There are two options when we get to vote very soon: one, we do nothing—we let the current online gambling continue unregulated with no assistance for harm prevention, no money coming back to the community, nothing; or we vote for this legislation. It’s not just GST, it’s not just gambling harm; it is money going to community organisations.

Now, I agree: I didn’t like where the ACT Party started with the bill. That is why we have fought hard, and National has delivered community returns. I held public meetings in my electorate, I met with everyone and every group that would, and we have fought hard for and delivered community returns. By voting against it, they are voting for no money at all to go to our community.

Who was it that asked for a national self-exclusion register? It was the National Party. Who is it that’s delivering money for our community? The National Party. Greens and Labour talk a big game. They’re delivering nothing for our community. They’re opposing the only good things. The National Party are proud to support this. I commend the bill.

11:37

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, this bill recognises that we live in what is an increasingly digital world. It is a world that, in many areas, is a world without borders. Of course, we know that most of us transact business via email rather than by letters. Most of our business is done via online banking rather than going down to the bank branch, and in the retail area, increasingly, bricks and mortar is challenged by online retail. That is true of gambling even more so.

The thing I agree with Mike Davidson on is that he said that it is growing very fast. The Governance and Administration Committee heard that, roughly, New Zealanders are gambling something like $800 million a year, and that is growing very fast. I think even the number used was something like 1,500 percent in a very short period of time. It’s not going to go away. The point that Tim Costley has just made is you can either regulate that or you can leave it alone.

What we heard from Labour and the Greens today is that they’ve focused a lot on harm, but we didn’t hear a lot of that at the select committee. We had a bit of discussion, we made some changes, and the changes we made were very collaboratively done—for example, making it easier to self-exclude; we did that. It wasn’t just the National Party; it was a collective effort. We also said that we can allow regulation so that you can’t use credit to gamble—very sensible as well. But what the Opposition are not recognising is that that digital world is here and it is not going to go away.

What we are seeing is more and more—if you like, it’s the Wild West—of these overseas-owned cowboys, effectively, coming in and encouraging New Zealanders to gamble online. This bill is the sheriff. This bill is the sheriff coming into town to better protect New Zealanders and to ensure greater benefit for New Zealand. What the Opposition—as Tim Costley just said—seems to be saying is that by not passing the bill, somehow all of this is going to go away, but it’s not. It’s just going to get more and more and more, and it’s going to be unregulated. So the question is, do you want the Wild West, or do you want the sheriff? I am on the side of the sheriff, in saying we want to regulate this and do a better job.

What this bill does is to establish a three-stage process—it’s quite a rigorous process—to issue up to 15 licences. Now, we did hear concerns about whether 15 was too many. Some people said it should be unregulated and uncapped which would be even more, but we didn’t really have a great deal of evidence to say what the right number would be, nor did we have a great deal of discussion in the select committee. We got an alternative view from the Labour Party at the end of it, but we didn’t have a lot of discussion within the committee to say, “Actually, this is the number and this is why the number.” So there are a bit of crocodile tears being shed here by the Opposition in that area as well.

Look, the idea here is that if you have a substantial number of licensed organisations, you give some choice as to who people are going to gamble with. I don’t understand why they do it, but if they’re going to gamble, it’s safer to do that in a swimming pool that is regulated than to get into the river that is unregulated, with the alligators. That’s your choice: you have a swimming pool that is regulated—you can choose which pool you want to go into—or you’re in the river with the alligators.

It also allows some education. It also allows the operators to promote themselves so that people are actually going to say, “I know these people, I know they’re regulated, and I will go with them rather than with somebody who is the alligator in the river.” I do note, though, that this House has, in terms of promotion and advertising, said that it’s quite happy with advertising going to greater levels on some of the days which people might find somewhat confronting; I’m thinking of Easter, Anzac, and Christmas. We’ll just see how that goes, and it’s good that we’ve got a review in there.

As we’ve heard, we had a lot of feedback on this. The sports community were really, really quick to get organised. They did a lot of work, they were very united, and they provided very strong and well-articulated feedback. Their issue was community benefit and what they saw as the threat—and it’s an existing threat—that online gambling is there, it’s growing, and it’s an existing threat to class 4 revenue. I’ve been on both sides of this as a person giving grants out, and also as part of organisations which have received grants. That money is essential to many of our sporting and community organisations, and so they were rightly concerned that online gambling and the growth of online gambling, if there was nothing to compensate for that, was going to be a real concern and potentially an existential threat to them.

We’ve had, essentially, a long-term social contract—and it’s in the Gambling Act 2003—that we know that gambling can be harmful. We know that, and nobody would disagree with that, but the contract, really, is that as a result of that, we’re saying that gambling comes alongside community benefits so that the proceeds of gambling go to community benefit.

The problem with the bill—and I completely agree with what Tim Costley said here, is I don’t think any of those in that select committee—ACT is not represented on that select committee—liked the bill as it was introduced, and that issue of no community benefit was a real problem. Our submitters saw this as breaching that social contract. As we’ve already heard, of the 4,837 submissions that we received, about 3,966 of them—so most of them—raised that issue of community returns. As I said, there was real concern about the erosion, or potential erosion, of online gambling eroding terrestrial class 4 gambling.

We heard that message, I think parties across the House heard that message, and obviously, the Minister for Internal Affairs and Cabinet heard that message, and I’d say well done to her for listening and for making the change and for setting aside that 4 percent of gross revenue for community benefit. Actually, I agree: if that 4 percent was higher, I think that would be a good thing because the biggest beneficiary, not only of this but also all forms of gambling, is actually the Government. The Government could think—doesn’t matter whether it’s a red-led Government or blue-led Government—about whether, in fact, it gave more money from those proceeds to community and sporting organisations. That’s a decision that executives can make.

One last thing I did want to talk about was that select committees often get tram lines within which they can look at amendments, and we make quite a number of, I think, very useful amendments. There are three that I want to pick up that were specifically ones that I promoted, and so they’re very much New Zealand First - type ones. The first one of them was picking up the Minister’s change. We knew that Cabinet was going to change it, but we said, “Let’s add to the purpose of the bill.”, and so in the purpose of the bill, clause 3(e) now says that the purpose of the bill is to “ensure that money from online casino gambling benefits the community.” That reflects the change that Cabinet said that it wanted to make. It’s now in the purpose of the bill; previously, it wasn’t there.

Another issue which was raised by some of the submitters, particularly some of the community trusts in New Zealand, was that they wanted to be able to be a part of those 15 licences. In doing that, they’re more likely to give more money back to the community. So not only the 4 percent but they are also—I mean, they are required to distribute their surpluses back to community. That’s a great thing. I said, “Look, can we be part of that?”, and so there are two other changes there which make that more likely. The first of them is in clause 14, which requires licence applicants to disclose their intended contributions to New Zealand. Then clause 19 requires the Secretary of Internal Affairs to consider the scope of the licence applicant’s presence in New Zealand—whether they’ve got staff, a base, or whatever it might be here—and their planned contributions to the community. Those things make it more likely that—we like putting New Zealand first—New Zealand - based organisations are more likely to be party to those licences.

We also made, in that same vein, amendments to ban synthetic lotteries. Why did we do that? To safeguard the Lotto New Zealand revenue, again because that Lotto New Zealand revenue goes to New Zealand community organisations. All of those things are about making sure that more benefit goes not just to the Crown but also to the community. Finally, as I’ve already mentioned, the changes that we made as a select committee to tighten up on harm minimisation, which I think were good.

There is provision, as you heard from the Minister, to review the bill. I think those things are really, really important because we want to see what the impact has been of increasing online gambling—if it does increase, to what degree?—on class 4 gambling. How well does the new system work? How well does New Zealand Lotteries manage it in terms of distribution? How do the advertising provisions work, and how do the harm minimisation provisions work—all of those things are important to review. That’s a good thing.

I think that, notwithstanding the protestations you’ve heard from the Opposition, this bill is a much, much better bill than it started. It regulates a potentially harmful activity, it improves safety, and it provides, now, for community benefit. I commend this bill to the House.

This is a five-minute split call—Oriini Kaipara.

11:46

E te Pīka, tēnā koe. Today, we reach the third and final reading of the Online Casino Gambling Bill, a law that will shape the digital gambling landscape of Aotearoa for generations to come.

On behalf of Te Pāti Māori, and as the member for Tāmaki Makaurau, I rise grounded in the voices of whānau, Māori health providers, and community organisations who submitted in unprecedented numbers. There are 61,000 people across Aotearoa currently experiencing harmful gambling—the same as the population of Rotorua.

For Te Pāti Māori, our compass is very clear: mana motuhake, the right of our people to live with dignity and self-determination; mana ōrite, equity and fairness in all systems; and mana mokopuna, the protection of our children and future generations. When we test this bill against those values, it fails every single measure.

Mana motuhake—protecting the wellbeing and autonomy of our people. Look, Māori are 3.5 times more likely to experience problem gambling harm. That’s not an accident; it’s the result of decades of targeted gambling access in our poorest suburbs and communities already carrying the weight of colonisation, poverty, and housing insecurity. Hāpai Te Hauora, the national Māori Public Health organisation, told us that online casino gambling is one of the most harmful forms of gambling: fast-paced, available 24/7, and designed to keep people playing until they lose everything. They warned that this bill does not uphold Te Tiriti o Waitangi, it does not embed Māori governance, and it does not protect Māori data or Māori decision making. Turuki Health and Māori providers across Tāmaki Makaurau echoed those same concerns. Gambling harm is intergenerational. It compounds stress, poverty, and whānau breakdown. Without strong protections, this bill will deepen inequalities and inequities for Māori.

Mana ōrite—fairness, equity, and community returns. Of the 4,837 submissions, 3,966 raised concerns about the loss of community returns. Class 4 gambling, for all its flaws, at least requires 40 percent of net proceeds to be returned to communities, but this bill allows offshore operators to extract profits with no obligation to reinvest in Aotearoa. The Governance and Administration Committee has recommended increasing the gambling duty from 12 percent to 16 percent—

Did you read the bill?

—yes, I did—and returning 25 percent of that duty to communities through the Lottery Grants Board. That is a good step but it is not equity. It is not mana ōrite, because the truth is offshore companies will profit. Māori communities, and, in fact, all communities across Aotearoa, will pay a heavy price.

Mana mokopuna—protecting our children and future generations. The number of rangatahi aged between 13—13—and 18 who have engaged in online gambling has risen to 52 percent. That is half of all our young people. This bill sets the online casino age at 18—18—years old, even though you must be 20 to enter a physical casino. That inconsistency exposes rangatahi to one of the most addictive forms of gambling at a younger age on a device they carry in their pocket. Problem gambling is not an individual failure; it is a system failure. When that system harms our mokopuna, we have a duty to intervene.

What is next? As this bill turns into law, Te Pāti Māori will continue to hold future Governments to task to ensure they strengthen this legislation. Māori submitters have been very clear about what is needed: a complete ban on gambling advertising, including influencers and images of wealth; a centralised self-exclusion register that’s operational before licences are granted, not in 2027; a higher age limit; mandatory community returns; Māori co-governance; and stronger harm minimisation tools. These are not just policy settings; they are expressions of our duty to protect our people.

E te Whare, Māori organisations, health providers, and community groups have been unequivocal. They have told us that gambling harm is already devastating whānau, and this bill, when enacted, will make that harm worse. They have told us that our mokopuna, our future, deserve better. We oppose this bill.

11:51

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Prior to coming to Parliament, I worked at the front lines with people on the benefit and people experiencing poverty. We served them every day as they came through our doors, often asking for hardship assistance to survive. During that time, I met many families whose lives had been wrecked by problem gambling. Other speakers have noted the issues of intergenerational impacts of problem gambling, and I saw those first hand. Families who had not received help had entered into such high levels of debt that they became homeless, or they were about to become homeless, and they were struggling to receive assistance from the agencies that were required to support them.

During that time, I also experienced what other speakers noted, which was having, as a community organisation, to rely on funds from lotteries, knowing that your ability to serve the community had to come from funds that were directly gathered from harm that was being created as a result of gambling. That was a really, really difficult thing to have to juggle, coming from the community sector. Online gambling does need regulations, and we simply cannot accept the status quo. In scrutinising this bill, we are making a call to vote against it on the merit of the bill itself, not on whether online gambling should be regulated or otherwise.

I think others have spoken about some of the key issues that we have, and I particularly wanted to note how disappointing it is to see that there are no provisions, basically, prohibiting advertising. I think this is a huge misstep by the Government, particularly because, ultimately, we know that the companies that make profits out of creating misery and harm in our communities do target people that they know are more likely to be impacted by the harm that gambling, including online casino gambling, causes in our communities. Prohibiting advertisement would be one way to curtail the impact that these companies have on our communities.

I do want to note the attempts made by my colleague Mike Davidson to protect the funds that go to the communities. I echo his concerns around the fact that with the way that the bill is now written, there are no guarantees that at least 25 percent of that revenue is directed back into the community. That leaves it open for a future Government to basically decrease that and simply take more of that for just revenue gathering for the Government. I think this speaks of a conundrum that successive Governments have fallen into, of having no reliable and, in my view, ethical ways of resourcing our community sectors, including our community sports sectors who desperately need adequate resourcing. A lot of the grants that exist are grants that are, basically, created out of misery that is caused in our communities. You cannot, as Mike Davidson outlined, offset that harm through these means. You should not be pitting community organisations’ ability to survive against harm that is caused in the community.

Something that I raised in the committee stage and committee of the whole House stage, and that I do think deserves further work for the Government to explore, is around the lack of explicit mention of loot boxes in this bill—I think this is something the Government should do further work on—loot boxes, for people who participate in video gaming, particularly computer or mobile gaming. We know that loot boxes are basically a form of online gambling, and they wreck lives. They also target people below the age of 18 particularly. The harm that the loot-box system in video games causes to minors and to families cannot be understated. It’s an area that has not been adequately regulated, and we know from constituency feedback that it causes real financial harm to families. I tried to put in an amendment to add a definition of it so that it would be included in what we considered online casino gambling, but the Minister of Internal Affairs did not support it. If the Minister thinks that this wasn’t the place to regulate loot boxes, I highly encourage her to look at further work that should be done in this area.

I think that, while we all agree in this House that online gambling causes real harm and destroys lives, what we haven’t had cross-party agreement on has been on how to tackle corporates that make profit out of misery. This is why the Green Party isn’t supporting this bill, and calls on the Government to strengthen this piece of legislation.

11:56

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I think context in this debate is really important. At present, there is online gambling taking place in New Zealand, and this legislation creates regulation to say that enough is enough, we need to bring it into line, and we need to have laws in place. We need to make sure we follow a proper process, and then, also, we can provide support to those who are impacted by gambling harm across New Zealand.

This is what this bill does. It says we can know who those people are, we can provide them with the support they need, but also—importantly, as a local sports player in many local teams in my community—it has a community-return component too, which is a really positive step for sporting and community organisations that receive lotteries grants; now they will receive them also from online casino gambling. It’s a really positive step forward. It brings into line where New Zealand needs to go, and so I commend it to the House.

11:57

The characterisation from the Government about what’s going on is really fascinating. They’re talking about regulating an industry that does cause misery; what they haven’t said is that they are regulating it and expanding it at the same time. Listen to the words very closely from the lead Minister of Internal Affairs, who talked about creating a competitive market. Now, that’s a really insightful term there—“a competitive market”—because, yes, there currently is online gambling, but it’s around the margins, and there certainly aren’t incentives at the moment for those operators to be competitive against each other in the way that the ACT Party and this particular Minister would like them to be.

I think the National Party has fallen asleep at the wheel on this one. The Minister for Mental Health has been missing in action, and the crazy thing about this is that the regime to regulate the online gambling space has occurred, the decision has been made—the Cabinet papers show that—and then everyone’s scratching their heads and going, “What are we going to do to minimise harm?”

There was no discussion at the beginning about whether we even wanted this competitive market in our environment, and whether the better opportunity would have been to say, “There is online gambling; what are we going to do to minimise it?”, rather than, “What are we going to do to expand it?” This is what has happened in reality, and that’s what happens when you have a coalition Government that is the tail wagging the dog, with the main party asleep at the wheel. The Minister for Mental Health—who likes to say that he’s the first Minister of Mental Health, and he’s all about creating wellbeing for New Zealanders—is allowing our young people to be at the behest of predatory international gambling organisations who now have a full licence, 15 of them potentially, to operate in New Zealand. That is what is going on with this bill, and that is why we oppose it.

I too would like to thank the 4,837 different people and organisations who submitted to the Governance and Administration Committee. I didn’t get to sit there and listen, but I certainly did read many of the submissions, and I was here for the committee of the whole House stage. That was a fascinating process. On the one hand, we have the reality that this bill is going to allow young people, with their devices being carried around with them 24/7, to be exposed to a new competitive advertising marketing regime on online gambling in their homes and away from harm’s way, and then we have a Minister who did not seem to understand the difference between consumer protection and harm minimisation. I asked her very carefully in the committee of the whole House stage about whether she thought the harm minimisation element of this bill was strong enough. She gave answers that related to consumer protection.

Now, consumer protection is things like making sure you’re not ripped off and being able to put yourself on to a register if you think you might be in harm’s way, but harm minimisation includes being able to protect young people or those who are already at harm from further harm. It means a positive duty of care on organisations that get licences to make sure they are not causing harm.

Those provisions are not in there, and, in fact, we’ve heard already that advertising and marketing—a critical part of this regime—have been relegated to secondary legislation. We don’t even know what that will look like. That means it will be subject to regulatory capture because there is every incentive for those big international organisations to want to make sure that the regime is as narrow as possible. It is very difficult to tighten regulatory regimes on advertising in this kind of space once they have been set. How can we have a transparent conversation when we do not even know what those provisions look like?

It feels to me, really, like this is an ACT agenda, and I’m so sad that the National Party didn’t step up around the mental health side of this. We had a decision that was taken as a fait accompli. We had Cabinet papers that showed officials trying to grapple with harm minimisation and the levy for harm minimisation in the health space, acknowledging explicitly in those papers that a decision had already been taken to create this regime. That is silly. It’s flawed. It’s the right hand and the left hand not really being coordinated, and it shows that this has been led by an agenda outside of health.

Now, when we think about gambling, what is gambling designed to do? It is designed to get people involved in a way that they will spend more money. Why is it that, in this House, we can have very specific debates around details and minutiae about particular alcohol laws over Easter, and yet we do not have a conscience vote and we do not have a health approach on something that is going to open a tsunami of problem gambling and exposure to problem gambling for our young people?

We have a mental health crisis. Our youth have been recognised across the board, including by the mental health commission and including by the mental health Minister, as experiencing a crisis, and as being the front line of what is happening, particularly in the online space. We are having a debate about whether we should be changing the age rules for social media. On the other side of this, we are saying let’s create—not only create; expand—a competitive market for online gambling that our young people will be exposed to 24 hours a day. How on earth does that make sense? It is unintelligent and it is the cart before the horse.

Why were the public not able to have a discussion first about whether we even want this sector here, and if the reality is that we have it here, what are we going to do to make sure we minimise the harm? That should be the first principle. It should not be about a tax grab. It is not our young people’s fault that this Government could not make their fiscals work and looked around desperately to try and find where they could get some revenue from and thought, “Oh yeah, gambling—that’s a good one. Never mind the harm. Let’s get this through quickly. Let’s allow our mental health Minister to go silent. Let’s put it in internal affairs and take the wrong approach and put not only this generation but future generations at risk.” Unacceptable.

I know this. I’ve seen the documents. I have seen the sequencing that things happened in, and I have heard, with my own unbelieving ears, the Minister’s response to my questions on harm minimisation, which showed she did not understand what that meant.

Let’s think about what some of the provisions do. The advertising is being put into secondary regulation. There is risk of regulatory capture there. There is no duty of care anywhere in the bill to try and find some way of capturing the harm that could be happening to young people who are skipping across multiple sites. It is all predicated on the assumption that somebody will go on to a site and, if alarm bells ring because they’ve been on there for a long time, there will be some kind of red flag. But gamblers don’t do that; they go across sites. The Minister was given that evidence in this House and asked the questions. She refused to do anything about that.

The Minister was given the evidence about loot boxes. She was given the evidence about loyalty awards, around spins, and around the very close link with gamification. These are all massive loopholes in this law, because the definition section is not at pace with the reality that is occurring for our young people. Ricardo Menéndez March, myself, and others tried to alert her and say, “Minister, if you are really intent on ramming this through the House, at least put some real protections in for our young people.” But, no, none of that has been addressed, so the harm will continue for those people, and that’s unacceptable.

I recently met with Dr Kelly Feng—who many people in this House know—from Asian Family Services. They are, in some ways, the last cab off the rank to get mental health funding, and it is not because they don’t do an outstanding job—they do. The problem is that they do not know what they do not know about their community. They cannot measure what is not coming through the medicalised door when it comes to gambling harm. Anecdotally, there is a huge amount of evidence and a picture of young Asian New Zealanders, in particular, with gambling problems, but because they do not go through doctors’ doors or Access and Choice programmes, they are not counted. What is going to happen to that community, and how are people like Dr Kelly Feng—who is so committed to serving them—going to be able to provide the tools to be able to clean up the mess and the harm that this Government is proliferating through this unconscionable, immoral, and ill-thought-through bill that they are doing just for a tax grab?

I implore the National Party to find your chops and think about the mental health aspects. Get your Minister to do some advocacy—because he has been completely missing in action—and join us in voting against this bill instead of throwing our young people under the bus.

12:07

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Listening to that speech actually shows that that member Ingrid Leary was not present during the select committee process. People listening to this debate will be under the impression, mistakenly, that online gambling doesn’t currently exist and that the harm isn’t actually happening. The statistics that were quoted by some members opposite, who talked about the harm that is already here and actually affecting our communities, are correct. The previous Government didn’t do anything for six years about this. It has been around for a while. It didn’t just all of a sudden appear, and we’re not introducing the harm. It already exists in our communities—it exists.

This bill actually minimises that. What we’re trying to do is regulate, because otherwise it is out there already. We’re not collecting taxes from those businesses, and we don’t even know if they’re doing any harm minimisation work—they’re actually happening. This bill regulates, tries to provide harm minimisation work, and actually delivers to the communities, who can benefit from the profits. I commend the bill to the House.

The next call is a split call.

12:08

Kia ora, Mr Speaker. As I rise and have been listening throughout this debate, as many people have said—and the previous speaker—we’re talking about harm here. We’re talking about individuals. We’re talking about families. We’re talking about communities. I don’t know of the experiences that members in this Chamber have had when it comes to gambling hurt and harm, but, I know, in my own family, I have a family member who, unbeknownst to many of us, ended up, within their own home, in an online gambling addiction, which caused great harm—in fact, a relationship breakdown—because of the addiction and because of the allure and because of being in the shadows that online gambling creates.

I also have one of my foster boys who got into the pokies a long time ago, and as much as that is harmful—and it is—it was visible and it could be visually regulated, in terms of the fact that he was actually banned. He was on the register, and so he would go to the pokies and his photo was there and he wasn’t able to enter them. Sadly, again, because of challenges, he found the world of online casino gambling, and that addiction has continued. We’ve done work, and, hopefully, there’s a way through it, but it is a challenge.

Yes, emotions are high; yes, people are passionate; and, yes, we must do something about this. But, again, it’s not just words in this Chamber. It’s not just words in the bill, which will become an Act; it’s actually about the lives of young people, the lives of old people, and the lives of all cultures where it happens. Let us pause and remember that.

As the Labour Party, yes, we are going to oppose this, and I want to thank our lead on this, my colleague Lemauga Sosene, who has led us well in terms of not only the select committee process but talking to us as a caucus through why we should be standing up and saying no. Yes, all the way through, it’s been “We must be doing something, we must be doing something—we must find a way through.”, but, in many ways, there have been moments, as this bill has traversed the House, where it has seemed rushed at times. There were changes that were made at the committee of the whole House stage that were made quite quickly. I’m not sure, because of those changes, if we should potentially slow things down and maybe take it back to select committee to unpack it a bit more because, yes, we must change it. But what is the point of changing it if we don’t get it right—if we come back into this House in a year or two and have to play around with it yet again because we haven’t got the settings right, and it actually isn’t helping people and it isn’t helping the harm? We support regulation, we had begun regulation on this, and we must keep leaning in and figuring it out.

Now, we’ve had conversations as well—and I heard a previous Government member speak about the fact of helping communities and putting money back into communities, but the question is: at what cost do we do that? Community returns—yeah, they, maybe, potentially, can come from the dividends from online gambling, but is that worth it when harm is done within communities and within families?

I look at the submission from the Salvation Army. They ran the Oasis programme for problem gamblers from, I think, the mid-1990s until about five or 10 years ago, when the funding dried up for them and they weren’t able to provide that service. The service was so necessary because this is one of those addictions, one of those issues, like many, that crosses. Whether you’re well-to-do, whether you’re rich, whether you’re poor, or whether you’re working class, it crosses through everything. The question for me is: is sustainable wellbeing, in terms of getting a bit more cash into the community, worth it when we cannot be building and dealing with problem gambling issues?

We need to find good policy; we need to find a way through. This is not it, and we cannot in good faith support this bill. We oppose this bill. We suggest, potentially, why not take it back to select committee? Why not pull it apart again so we can get it right and ensure that people, that communities, and that families who are struggling with online gambling will get the help and support they need?

12:13

It is a great honour to rise in support of the Online Casino Gambling Bill in this third reading. Online gambling is in New Zealand, it is widely accessible on many devices, and currently, it is unregulated.

It is surprising that the other side don’t actually want to support this bill. They talk about the harm; they did nothing, for six years, about dealing with the harm of online gambling. This is making sure that it’s a level playing field. Some of that money is going to go towards our community—[Interruption] It’s a pity they weren’t so loud and getting up and talking during the last Parliament to actually do something. This is actually making sure that money can go towards our community organisations and we can help minimise the harm. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House.

12:14

It doesn’t matter what side of this debate we’re on, we all know, in this House, that the harm from gambling is hideous. We’ve heard today from people who have had firsthand experience and we’ve heard from people who maybe have had second-hand experience, but most of us can make a connection to someone or people who have had harm from gambling.

It’s not really recognised alongside the other addictions that we hear about. My colleague Ingrid Leary kind of talked about that, and the way that we even vote upon that in this House. If we have a vote in this House on a bill that’s around alcohol, that usually goes as a conscience vote, but here we’re talking about just as horrific an addiction, in the form of gambling, and we’re not taking that same approach. It’s the same for our support people who help the people who suffer from addictions in society and in the community. They don’t get the same support that other people do—that other groups do. They don’t have the same sort of revenue that comes in to them.

In fact, my colleague talked about Oasis and the good work that the Salvation Army did through their Oasis programme. I think it was for 31 years that they were delivering support for gambling harm. In fact, in 2024, their revenue dried up—so it wasn’t 10 years ago; it was only two years ago that their revenue dried up. We lost a great organisation that supported people.

I’ve seen families drawn and pulled apart because of gambling; I’ve seen mums who are living in poverty and trying desperately to provide for their family who have got hooked into the gambling mode. I’ve seen them ripped apart from their families because of what gambling has done to them. It is absolutely hideous.

Do you know what I’ve heard from the other side? They’re saying that Labour wants to do nothing here, and that is not the case. We want to see regulation, but not regulation that potentially makes it more permissive, and that’s exactly what this bill does. It has the potential to make online gambling more permissive.

Now, nobody is saying—as I’ve heard from the other side today—that online gambling doesn’t exist already. It is getting bigger and bigger all the time, but this bill has the potential for it to become even greater and more permissive. I want to spend my contribution here walking through how that is the case. I fear, from the debate that I have heard here today, that there is not a lot of understanding around what the potential hazards are in this bill.

Firstly, I want to talk about the fact that we have no understanding from this bill of what the harm minimisation will be. We’re concerned that it leaves most of that harm minimisation to the Minister of Internal Affairs, and through regulations.

Now, if we’re talking about land-based gambling—and I’m going to talk about class 4, and that’s the pokies with the land-based gambling—there are responsibilities on the hosts of those machines. They are not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but those responsibilities do exist. They are things like ensuring that they’re checking in on the gambler after a certain amount of time; ensuring that we haven’t got one person that’s stuck at a machine for hours and hours on end; ensuring that there is the right support there, going and having a conversation; and ensuring that there is not an ATM right beside where the gambling is happening. Those host responsibilities are about exclusion as well. The host has to exclude after a certain amount of time. Those host responsibilities happen for a reason: to ensure that our people are kept as safe as they possibly can be.

Now, how can you possibly do host responsibilities with online gambling? That’s a question that, when I was Minister of Internal Affairs, I asked myself over and over again because we didn’t have the technology to do that back in 2021. But guess what! We have the technology, and it’s working in jurisdictions across the world now. That technology exists, through artificial intelligence, to have host responsibilities that would exclude gamblers right from the word go. The Minister knows about this, but the Minister has refused to put this into the bill.

So we open up advertising, and we don’t have the technology that can exclude people that are gambling over and over, and are in repetitive gambling right at the start. But the advertising’s there, luring them in all the time, and that has the potential to be more permissive than what we’ve ever seen in the online space before. I say to the other side: be careful of the unintended consequences that you are putting in place today. That is why we are taking a stance to stand against this bill.

Also, I want to talk about the number of licences, and we’ve heard that here. I do believe in having a licensing regime, but 15 licences for our population makes us as permissive as the UK, which is the most permissive gambling jurisdiction in the world. That’s what we’re doing today. We’re making it more permissive than ever, and we don’t have the moral obligation, with it going to auction. I don’t disagree about how it’s being done, but I’m saying that, with it going to auction and being on the open market, there is a potential that we won’t have people from organisations from our local country being able to win at that auction. Therefore, that means no company that is involved in this could have the moral obligation back to our country.

Let’s take one example of that: Skycity are a provider of online gambling who are offshore currently. They have their online site offshore because they can’t legally run it in New Zealand. They, potentially, might not be successful at that online auction, yet they have a moral obligation because they are a big company linked back to this country. We might not have them or any other New Zealand company involved in winning any of those online auctions. We could have companies that don’t give a damn about the moral fibre of this country winning at that auction. That’s what this bill does, and that’s the problem that we see with it.

I want to see an online regime here. I want to see something that’s going to keep New Zealanders safe, but this bill has the potential to do exactly the opposite, and, to me, I can’t morally vote for it, because I have seen that damage. Once, as the Minister, when I was up in Whangārei, I walked through a library, and the library people were telling me about all of the wonderful free internet that they were providing with their computers. Every single one of those computers—all 15 of them—was on an online gambling site.

I want to see protections, but this bill has the potential to go in the absolute opposite direction. It pains me that we don’t have something on the Table here today that is going to keep New Zealanders safe. That is what you are voting on today—the other side is voting on a bill that has the potential to do the exact opposite of what has been said.

I am never going to be in a place where I am going to put New Zealanders and the people that I see that are unsafe in this area at harm any more, but I am willing to work on a solution, and I am willing to sit down and come to something that is cross-party in this area because I think we owe it to New Zealanders.

I also think we owe it to New Zealanders to have a broader discussion on the community funding. While I agree with what has happened, overall, my heart says we need to look at how we can decouple that community funding and look at other ways, because it is completely immoral that we are propping up our brilliant community organisations on the back of such harm. We need to have that serious discussion, and I hope that we can be adult enough to have that in the next short while. It pains me, but I cannot support this bill.

12:24

I am personally against gambling. I was told that enjoying gambling, drugs, alcohol, and smoking isn’t a path to a stable life in New Zealand. In my ideal world, we should ban any form of gambling, but we need to be realistic. Online gambling does exist. Online platforms are now making global gambling accessible at any moment, exposing more people to harm.

This bill will not stop people from online gambling. However, it does take the necessary steps by closing those loopholes and bringing greater oversight to online gambling. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. I might be mistaken, but I was pretty sure the Greens voted 14 votes, which would make it not 55 votes, but 54.

Mr Speaker, I did say tekau mā wha—

I heard 14.

I think it’s the calculation: it’s 54, not 55.

I’ll just have a look at the maths. OK, the Ayes are 68 and the Noes are 54. The question is still agreed to. Fast maths over there—congratulations.

12:27

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to present a legislative statement on the Building and Construction Sector (Self-certification by Plumbers and Drainlayers) Amendment Bill.

Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

12:28

Thank you. I move, That the Building and Construction Sector (Self-certification by Plumbers and Drainlayers) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

I’d like to start by thanking the Transport and Infrastructure Committee—including, in particular, its chair, Mr Andy Foster—for their careful deliberation on the bill. I’d also like to thank everyone who submitted on the bill at select committee. The submissions resulted in a number of changes that will improve the workability of the bill and, as I shall go on to explain later, regulations that we’ll make to give effect to the scheme.

It’s usual in the second reading, almost as a courtesy, to mention the work of the select committee, and I duly acknowledge the work that’s been done, but, actually, in this case particularly, I do want to make a point of saying that substantive changes to the bill and the regime more generally have actually resulted from really good, thorough, robust discussion, appropriately reflecting the tension—and I use that phrase not in an ugly sense, of course—between the select committee, that which the Minister on behalf of the Government had put forward, and industry, including, especially, through the work of Master Plumbers, etc. I think we’ve ended up with a much better result than that which I would have proposed to Parliament, so I do want to really clearly set out for the record that I’m grateful for the members who contributed to that.

We all know that the building consent system is somewhat slow and inefficient. It can delay and cause increase to cost to build in this country. Inefficiencies are caused by the understandably risk-averse behaviour and limited capacity of building consent authorities—almost invariably councils. A couple of former mayors of Wellington would no doubt have some sympathy for that view, including particularly the fact that they have the unfunded mandate, in local government speak, for the work that we ask them to do in this space.

The system also, though, discourages professionals from taking responsibility for their own work, which is another cause of inefficient behaviour. This bill introduces an opt-in scheme, allowing approved plumbers and drainlayers to self-certify that their work complies with the building consent, without the need for an inspection by a building consent authority—I’m just going to say BCA from now on for that. This will save time and money for practitioners, BCAs, and building owners. It will allow plumbers and drainlayers to get on with the job and to be trusted to do it right.

This bill is about choice. Individuals and businesses will be able to decide if they want to use this pathway to save time and money. They can also, on the other hand, decide to continue to have the building consent authorities inspect their work if they wish. The scheme enables approved professionals to take responsibility for their work, while maintaining consumer confidence that the work will be consistent with the consent and building code requirements. It also helps BCAs to use their resources more efficiently by enabling them to focus on other higher-risk work that deserves their attention.

There are a number of safeguards in the bill to ensure that the work is carried out by appropriately qualified plumbers and drainlayers. First, BCAs will still be assessing their overall building design, including the design of plumbing and drainlaying to ensure that it meets the building code. The Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board will be able to set minimum standards so that only competent practitioners who can cover their civil liabilities will be able to self-certify. These standards must cover a technical competency, experience, ability to meet potential civil liability, and business and administrative practices. In practice, this means that plumbers and drainlayers will still need to go through robust checks before being part of that scheme, so building owners and consumers can be confident that the work will be done right—and, actually, in the event that push comes to shove, so to speak, there would be appropriate recourse and redress.

The scope of self-certifiable work will be limited to the definition set in regulations. Again, I’ll touch more on that shortly, but I do want to assure you that it’s something that I’m focused on getting right—again, with due acknowledgment of the work that’s been done by the select committee, submitters, and so on to ensure that we get to that place. Self-certifiers will issue certificates of compliance, which must be accepted by BCAs as evidence that the work complies with the building consent. Territorial authorities must keep the certificates issued by self-certifiers and make them available to the public. In practice, this will mean that the public can view the certificates as part of a property file. Information from the certificates will also be held on a searchable public register, supporting transparency for the board, future owners, and other interested parties such as insurers and maybe lenders.

The board will also be able to audit self-certifiers and the certificates of compliance they issue, with appropriate powers to discipline self-certifiers where things go wrong. These powers are important to give the board the tools for proper oversight and are a key feature of a self-certification scheme. If an audit finds that something is not right, the board will be able to fine the self-certifier or cancel or suspend their endorsement to self-certify among other possible disciplinary actions.

Finally, there are also broader consumer protections available in the Building Act, including implied warranties and defect remediation periods. I have also announced the move to proportionate liability, which will have appropriate supporting structures in place to support that shift—more on that on another day.

Moving now to changes recommended by the committee to improve the bill, I will point out that they made recommendations that will improve the workability—again, with some further discussions about what the regulations flowing from the Act will need to cover. Because these changes can be found in the report, I don’t intend to go through every recommendation today; others might, obviously, wish to do so. I will instead focus on the key changes, and I will briefly summarise them now.

First, the select committee recommended expanding the professions who can declare that the work is self-certifiable as part of an application for building consent to also include registered architects, chartered professional engineers, and design-class licensed building practitioners—or LBPs. This will allow BCAs to be satisfied that the proposed work is self-certifiable before they grant a building consent, regardless of whether plumbers or drainlayers have been engaged at the time that the consent is lodged. This is a sensible change that will make the process of applying for a consent that includes self-certified work more aligned with how plumbers and drainlayers work in practice.

Next, I appreciate the select committee’s recommendation that the bill explicitly state that a building consent may include both self-certified and non - self-certified plumbing and drainlaying work. This recommendation clarifies that self-certifiable work can be done by a self-certifier while any remaining plumbing or drainlaying work that is not self-certifiable will still be subject to oversight from the BCA. This will allow a self-certification to apply to more building consents while managing the risks associated with higher-risk work—again, seeking to strike a balanced and proportionate approach.

I shift now to the powers of the board to provide oversight of the scheme. I appreciate the select committee’s recommendation to ensure the board has appropriate powers to audit self-certifiers. Auditing provides the opportunity to assess whether the self-certifier continues to meet the minimum standards for eligibility to the scheme between the three-yearly renewal periods for endorsements. The committee’s recommendation will ensure that the board has these powers and can fund these audits through appropriate cost recovery mechanisms. It will ensure that the board can check whether a self-certified plumber or drainlayer is self-certifying in accordance with the expected standards.

The committee also recommended that the board report on its audit activity through an annual report. This means that the number and outcome of practitioner audits and audits of certificates of compliance are transparent. This, in general, will support consumer confidence in the scheme and provide valuable insights into the performance of self-certifiers.

I’m nearly done! The select committee also considered the scope of work that can be self-certified under the scheme. It is important to balance the needs for the scheme to be attractive to both plumbers and drainlayers, as well as consumers, while mitigating the consequence if things were to go wrong. I’m confident that, between the committee’s recommendations in the bill and the regulations that we’re proposing, we’ll end up getting that balance right.

I will just briefly now, in my final remaining moment, take the opportunity to talk about the proposed regulations. Having listened to those concerns and being mindful of the fact that we need not only a system that’s balanced and proportionate and, therefore, has appropriate nuance about where we draw the line, we also need to make sure that it’s workable in the sense that people know what their roles and responsibilities and obligations are. A scheme that is sufficiently clear and simple and will not be the subject of confusion has been a prime aim of what we’ve sought to achieve in terms of where we draw those lines.

I would point out that for a significant number of consents in the rural communities—many of which use on-site systems and can face particular challenges in getting inspectors on site—they wish to be eligible to take advantage of the benefits of the scheme. Similarly, the proposed definitions will allow consents that use sustainable systems, such as solar water heaters, to be within the scope of the scheme.

The effectiveness of the scheme overall depends on ensuring that the regulations are well designed—something that the select committee, quite rightly, highlighted in their commentary. I am confident that we will do this, with thanks again to those officials from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment who have been working with the board; industry groups, including Master Plumbers; building consent authorities; and insurance providers, to make sure that the scheme is attractive to practitioners, encourages strong uptake, and still appropriately manages the risk associated with self-certification. On that note, I commend the bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

12:37

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Good on that Minister and good on the hard-working Transport and Infrastructure Committee, ably chaired by Andy Foster, for taking on the concerns that have come up from submitters and from the industry on this bill.

This is not a technical bill; this is a bill that really impacts on ordinary people’s lives. Just this morning, at 8 o’clock, I received an email from Jenny. It’s full of explanation marks, and it’s titled “Plumbers”. She says, “Who keeps guarantees for 25 years? Who honours it? Make them!” She also says, “Is there a law that forbids companies from producing tax without spare parts available? So frustrating!” Jenny, you’re right.

These are the kinds of emails that we receive every day. Minister, I can see that you receive them too, and that this is one of those bills where it has been hard to turn around a big ship, in the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, that is resistant to the kind of change that people, New Zealanders, these consumers, people like Jenny, are desperately calling for. That is what we are trying to do here. We are trying to make it more affordable for ordinary and low-risk plumbing to be done in residential homes in low-risk situations. I think we’ve made good progress here, but there is more we could do.

The select committee wasn’t able to produce some amendments that have been called for by submitters. I’m going to use my speech not to talk about what we did arrive at—because that was good work, and I hope the chair will talk about that—but about the things that are missing from what submitters hoped we would be able to make some progress on.

Our support for this remains cautious and not unconditional. My third reading speech will be about the big issues in this, which are about who carries the risk and that liability, because underlying all of this is the need that consumers and homeowners should not bear all of the risk; it should be spread between central and local government and between the practitioners, and that should be fair, because Jenny, at the end of the day, shouldn’t be the one who is left picking up the pieces if things go wrong.

But in this speech, let me tell you about the things that I hope we can continue to push out on that are not within the current confines of this bill. Things have been excluded from a regime that is designed to speed up simple work because the official advice has been that those things are not simple. I think that’s wrong. That’s my opinion; I’m not a plumber, but neither are the people who will mostly be paying for this work and neither are the people who want to see this work become more affordable.

The first of these is around the pump systems—pump water supply and irrigation circulation systems. These are really common in some areas like the Kāpiti Coast, and they’re also really common in rural areas and regional areas. They’ve been excluded from what is considered to be simple work. That means that a huge number of houses in large swathes of the country will also be excluded from this regime. That doesn’t seem fair to me. But, also, I was able to go out with a couple of plumbers and to see these systems. These are systems which can be bought from a hardware store at a price which most consumers could afford to do themselves, and often do, but these are being excluded from what plumbers can do because they are not seen as simple by the officials. That doesn’t seem sensible to me. We’ve created an incentive in the marketplace here for me and Cameron to do our own because that will be cheap and is, in fact, legal, but we’ve also excluded the ability of qualified plumbers to self-certify on that work. Why is that? From the layperson’s perspective, that makes no sense, and we weren’t able to hear from officials about why they would also continue to support a regime like that.

There was also a call for solar hot water to be included in this. Heat pump systems and other modern installations are something that plumbers do all the time in New Zealand’s context. These are good things. We should be encouraging them. We should have a regime where it is simple and affordable to be able to install these systems quickly. They are not more risky than other hot water systems. Hot water systems all carry a risk, and they are a serious risk that we should not take lightly: the risk is that they explode. There is no greater risk from hot water systems which are not solar, and those are systems which are included in this regime. The argument here is that the ordinary person on the street who is choosing between these systems will get a quicker route if they do not elect the solar route. That’s not based on risk; it’s simply based on what has been included in a table from officials. That seems like the wrong call to me.

Grey water reuse systems have also been excluded. This is something that myself and Celia Wade-Brown took up with officials quite in depth, because this is something which, also, is important to systems which are more environmentally friendly and which consumers should have a choice to use, should they want to use their grey water in a way which is going to be not only better for their property in that they’re reusing grey water but they’re also saving grey water from flowing out into already overloaded systems. This is an important thing that we should be removing any of the barriers from to enable better, more energy-efficient systems of building. This is something that doesn’t make sense to exclude from the simple works. The idea here is, perhaps, there was a health risk. To quote Master Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers (NZ) Inc. on this: “There’s no toilet waste involved. Risk of cross-connection is very low when installed by a licensed plumber.” We trust plumbers to get these sorts of things right. These are the things that they deal with every day. The risk here is not greater than anything else we’re allowing them to self-certify on now.

Retention and detention systems are in the same category as this. The plumber I talked to told me pump systems are needed for the majority of rural properties. If he’s going to be out doing rural properties, he wants to be able to self-certify them. The retention and detention systems that she does every day have been excluded by this Government—probably because the majority of people who work on these systems and the policy aren’t dealing with those systems all the time. It’s not the systems that most people in Wellington would be familiar with in their usual everyday life, but this is something that plumbers who work in rural areas deal with all the time, and we can certainly find ways of speeding up property connections for rural people at the same time as we do this.

I also want to bring the House’s attention to the views of Master Plumbers around duplicating existing controls rather than targeting the real risk. The idea here is that within a system like the granny flats - enabling system, which is about very small dwellings, all of their work is certified. So everything that I’ve just said—which most of you would have thought, “Oh, yeah, that seems sensible, let the plumbers do that.”—that is allowed if your building is under 70 square feet; that is perfectly fine. If you’re building 75 square feet, it’s not.

Metres.

Sorry, metres—75 square metres. It’s important to understand here that it’s duplicating rules and making it quite hard for the actual plumbers who are doing the work to make sure that they are complying with these rules. The absurdity of also having different rules for a solar install on a small property versus one that’s slightly larger than that becomes very clear in that context.

If we can tidy these things up, if we can make sure that the plumbers actually doing this work are enabled to continue this, then this will be a workable system. We still have to figure out as a country who bears the risk of this bill, and currently the arrangements for this bill really rely on sorting out proportional liability at the other end. We need central and local government to take their fair share of the risk on. Currently, that’s not what’s going to happen, and so we need to make sure that we also do that work around who carries the guarantees, who carries the insurance.

This is something that we support, because it brings down the costs for ordinary people to get this work done at the top end, and then we have to, also, sort out the back end of what happens when things go wrong.

12:46

Thank you. I would like to start by saying, first of all, that the Green Party really supports plumbers and tradies and the essential work that’s done—for domestic comfort, for safety, and for all of the work that they do. I think there’s about 28,000 plumbers registered in this country, or thereabouts, so thank goodness for them, especially with the extraordinary rainfall we’ve been having that has actually exposed a number of issues in past plumbing.

I would also like to say thank you to the chair for the Transport and Infrastructure Committee and my colleagues with slightly different views and experiences. We were certainly enabled to raise issues, have our say, and ask plenty of questions of both the submitters and the officials.

There is a connected bill—and it would be really tidy if they could have come in together, perhaps—about occupational licensing that we do support. A number of the submissions actually made points both about occupational licensing and about increasing the self-certification, and we would, in some ways, have liked to have dealt with those together.

This bill is a tricky one, because you’re weighing up the balance of risk—who takes that risk—and potentially making something cheaper and easier and quicker. I think that people deciding to vote one way or the other can be somewhat of a line call on this. I agree with my colleague Arena Williams that there could be some further improvements.

I just want to quote a couple of things here. I’d like to quote one of the submitters: the Christchurch City Council. They say in their submission: “The self-certification of plumbers and drainlayers is more concerning … [and] The Council”—point 5—“is concerned that most plumbers and drainlayers are not consistently reliable enough to self-certify their work with no third-party overview. The Council observed substantial non-compliant work carried out or supervised by Licensed Building Practitioners (LBPs) after the Canterbury earthquake sequence where there was no third-party overview by persons with no financial involvement (such as a Council).” I think it’s very useful to take what Christchurch City Council has said. This is not a personal opinion; this is an opinion of a large council—and not Wellington, because I thought that would be a bit too close to the bone—to actually reflect that they’re not, or at least at that stage, fully convinced.

There remain some very big questions about what insurance products will be available. The self-certification of electricians and gasfitters is relatively straightforward, because the problems are found straight away or could be tested straight away. Plumbing problems don’t necessarily arise for years. You might end up with a very dry year, in which case the earth cracks, or you might, like we have just now, end up with huge rainfall and scouring and burst pipes and so on that may not have been designed for.

I also would like to echo my colleague Arena Williams’ issues about some of the greener solutions to plumbing. Detention tanks are also used in urban areas, particularly if you’ve got some steep land and perhaps you don’t have an existing or sufficient stormwater connection. They are complex, but they are also sometimes better than a pump system. They would not be included in this work, however much experience—you might have some somebody quite specialised in doing that work. Maybe there should be some way that they were able to be self-certified for that.

The other area is, of course, the reuse of grey water. We’re fortunate—and it was installed by plumbers—we have a system that irrigates our orchard from the washing machine, the washing up, things like that, and it works very well. If somebody routinely installs things like NaturalFlow, should they not be able to self-certify for this?

I think the big question remains about what insurance product is available and for how long they should cover it. Supposing a plumber does some work in the last years of their working life, then—maybe it’s a sole trader—they stop working. Who’s actually going to look after that afterwards so that they’re not going to keep paying from their KiwiSaver into the insurance scheme? I don’t think that has been fully answered yet.

I do agree that there have been some improvements, particularly the fact that you could combine self-certified and non - self-certified in the same consent. Both can be covered. That sort of mitigates the issue of more sustainable solutions—that are still called “alternative” solutions because systems haven’t quite caught up with more natural systems—but I don’t think it’s quite right yet.

A couple of other points. The costs of auditing—I think we really heard both from the Master Plumbers and then from the board. Of course, the board is a different kettle of fish from the Master Plumbers, but we heard from the board that auditing was really important. I think there is still a question in my mind about whether the cost of auditing would only be borne by the opt-in plumbers, in which case it might be quite high and might discourage them, or would it be borne across the whole plumbing fraternity? I do say “fraternity”, because out of those 28,000, I think there’s less than 20 registered female plumbers, which is a bit of a surprise.

We also don’t know quite what’s going to come up in the regulations. I understand that and that regulations have to adapt to new mechanisms. We’re certainly looking at home at whether we do electric water heating for a bach or whether we do the solar water heating. Would that be a change—would we be deciding one way or the other depending on whether it was cheaper with a self-certified plumber? I don’t know how much difference that would make. We would probably be more concerned about the absolute safety of the system than the cost, but that’s our situation.

Finally, it would be really remiss of me in talking about how the Greens support plumbers not to mention, for the sake of Hansard, that wonderful Green plumber Hannah Spencer, who is now a member of Parliament for Gorton and Denton. The Greens support the plumbers, and, at least some, plumbers really support the Green Party. Kia ora.

12:54

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise in support of this bill for a quick speech before we charge off for the afternoon. This is a practical common-sense piece of legislation. It does something that doesn’t normally happen enough in this country, and that’s trust people who are actually doing the work to get on and do it. I’m proud that this Government—and, by the sounds of it, this House—is moving to trust more people actually on the ground getting the mahi done. At the end of the day, when something goes wrong, New Zealanders don’t want to call bureaucracy; they want to call someone who gets their hands dirty, gets in there, and does the job. These are people who we should be trusting.

Before I turn to the substance of the bill, I think it’s fair to say that there’s been some issues raised in this this debate so far about where liability lands and how we can actually make real changes to a scheme to trust people when, currently, you have to go through a hoop set by legislation that requires building consent authorities to oversee and then carry that liability. It’s a big hurdle for us to fix a system without identifying where the liability lands, where that funding, that underwriting, actually comes from, and then give New Zealanders real choices. If we’re going to continue to have councils holding that burden whilst also needing to fund professional indemnity, insurance, and other things, it’s going to make that decision more difficult.

It just shows, though, how slow, cumbersome, and bloody annoying it is when you’re on site to be delayed and delayed and delayed because councils can’t get their A into G and actually get there and sign something off. That’s why we’ve got to call for self-certification for trusted building professionals, just like plumbers, drainlayers, and gasfitters. What we need to be able to do is say that delay is what’s causing the cost. It’s not the underwriting that’s causing the cost. The very fact that we’re trying to get around that cost delay by even having something that may not provide that economic decision as it appears on the surface just shows how much these delays are costing New Zealanders, homeowners, our economy, and our infrastructure. New Zealand across the board cannot go on charging into this century without making sure that we get some of this bureaucracy taken out.

The Transport and Infrastructure Committee, I was not a member on at this particular juncture, but I appreciate the work they’ve done, and the contributions so far have been very good for the House to hear, I think. I was particularly impressed at the Opposition members seeming to want to go further. This is something I can completely get behind—reticulated schemes, bringing on hot water, having grey-water storage. This is fantastic news to hear from the Opposition. I’m looking forward to working hard on producing policies for this election that you can get in behind and support. That will be great fun.

What we need to be doing is making sure that this is not a matter of risk and no risk; it’s a matter of risk and professionalism. If you’ve got a plumber or drainlayer, we can trust, to a large extent, that they know what they’re connecting when they’re connecting pipes up. They’re made at different sizes, for one. They’re different colours. You can see these things. If you’re a professional who’s with this every day, you should be able to identify that. There are risks of grey, black, and stormwater connections being made—it’s acknowledged by everyone involved—but this is a very low risk when you’ve got professional plumbers and drainlayers.

What isn’t required to be constantly overseen is things that are in the realm of professional—just doing the work well. Like water hammers—we don’t need inspectors coming out on site and making sure that the person that’s run the pipes has made sure that there’s not a water hammer effect. That is not a critical thing in a building. A water hammer is when you turn off the tap and the pipes shudder and smack into something and make a big noise in the house. It’s bloody annoying, but that’s not a critical failure in a building. That’s just someone who’s not a professional doing their job right. We don’t need to be getting stuck into the nitty-gritty of people who genuinely, after doing trades, getting registered, doing the professional development, know what they’re doing and can keep an eye on that. We don’t need a council inspector coming out and checking on that.

I think the expansions that the select committee has made to identify the issues at the design stage and say that registered architects, licensed building practitioner designs, and chartered engineers need to be able to be brought into the scheme so that at the design phase, these can be identified as parts of a building that can be self-certified—so we can actually trust the building professionals, the tradies on the ground who deal with the real-world situations. But, actually, they need to be identified up front by the partners in the building industry for the people who are out there getting their hands dirty, who don’t always get the acknowledgment that they deserve, and that is the people who are designing our buildings. They need to be able to get it right so that the people on the ground can get it right. There is a whole ecosystem here. I think that goes to show the amount of stages we have to jump through to be able to get stuff built in New Zealand.

Again, this is a great piece of legislation to try and make sure that the real impact on New Zealand is a more affordable, more responsive, more trusted scheme that says to New Zealanders, says to tradies out there, “You are building professionals. We know that you have been trained to do this. We trust you as we would another building professional, and we’re here to enable you and get the hell out of the way.” Thank you, Mr Speaker.

This debate is interrupted and set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. today.

14:01

Next week, the House will consider the remaining stages of the Local Government (Auckland Council) (Transport Governance) Amendment Bill and the associated anti - money laundering and countering financing of terrorism amendment bills. The hours of Tuesday will extend into Wednesday for Government Business, and Wednesday afternoon will be a members’ day.

14:02 · to the Minister of Finance

Does she stand by all her statements and actions?

In context, yes.

Is unemployment higher or lower since she came into office?

Well, the member knows the answer to that. What is important is that the Government has a plan to build the productive capacity of this economy, and what is definitely true is that the Government’s plan for growth and prosperity can be contrasted against the Opposition’s plan, which so far consists of 16 pages released publicly—much of which just contain graphics and photos.

Is New Zealand’s credit outlook better or worse since she took office?

Well, the Government is grappling with the legacy left to it by the previous regime, which saw debt double, Government spending increase by 50 percent during a six-year period, and wasteful, wanton spending—fiscal largesse that the country and this generation and the next generation to come will have to repay.

Are business liquidations higher or lower since she came into office?

If the member’s point is that the New Zealand economy should be doing better, then, of course, the answer to that is “yes”. Of course the Government wants the economy to grow and to drive higher living standards for New Zealanders, but, as the member, I think, forgets—or is not aware—the legacy bequeathed to this Government from the last hopeless regime takes time to turn around. It is not acceptable for the Opposition to expect immediate improvements when they left the books in such a hopeless state.

No, hang on. That last part of the answer wasn’t particularly helpful to the order of the House.

Are KiwiSaver hardship withdrawals higher or lower since she took office?

Well, they are higher, and people who are withdrawing money on a hardship basis from their KiwiSaver accounts should blame the previous Government for their reckless mismanagement—

No, no. Sorry, sit down.

Take responsibility, for a change!

When a question is started, no one speaks.

Has she found at least one family who has received the full $250 that was promised to them?

Well, many families around this country are better off as a result of the Government’s tax-setting changes and the FamilyBoost scheme that is providing much relief to hard-working Kiwi families at a time of hardship for many.

Is the reason why she didn’t give a direct answer on any of these questions because—

You can’t get upset about the answers. I’ve been pretty clear about the content of answers. If you’re going to make statements like that, there’s a different way of wording it. Just find that different way.

Why won’t she give a direct answer on any of these questions; is that because she knows, on every single one of those measures, things are worse, not better?

I’ll tell you what I do know to be the case. I do know that this Government came to office at a time of great hardship for New Zealanders; I know that this Government’s prudent fiscal management is setting New Zealand up for success; I know that this Government’s record, in comparison to the past Government’s record, compares very favourably; and I know that this Government has a plan for the future of New Zealand, and I know that the Opposition doesn’t.

14:07 · to the Minister for Infrastructure

What recent announcements has he made about strengthening New Zealand’s infrastructure system?

Yesterday, I announced five changes to how we improve assurance of infrastructure projects. We are simplifying assurance by having one tool that is focused on what Ministers need to make investment decisions. We’re transferring responsibility over assurance from the Treasury to the independent, expert New Zealand Infrastructure Commission. Ministers will now get a two- or three-page fitness assessment for business cases seeking Cabinet endorsement. The fourth is we are setting up a dedicated assurance function for asset management plans and long-term investment plans, and the fifth is giving key Ministers more oversight of major projects before they go to Cabinet for decisions. The aim is to avoid projects like the new Dunedin Hospital build and iReX in the future.

Why are changes to infrastructure assurance needed?

There is nothing more frustrating as a Minister than turning up to Cabinet or Cabinet committees and being presented with long, turgid papers filled with business cases asking for billions of dollars of expenditure. The reality is Ministers are not experts in building prisons or building roads, but they are expected—and we are expected—to make decisions about billions of dollars’ worth of investment without high-quality, accurate, and concise information. Unfortunately, the reality has been for New Zealand Governments of successive stripes to let investments move through the system with bad projects gaining momentum until it’s too late. In the meantime, tens of hundreds of millions of dollars have been wasted on business cases designed for phantom projects. It’s clear that the system has been underperforming for all Ministers and Governments of all stripes. This Government is determined to fix it, and that’s what we’re doing.

What will these changes mean for Ministers, taxpayers, and the sector?

It’s good news all round. The changes mean that Ministers can confidently say yes or no to projects and long-term capital plans early, knowing that their decisions are informed by evidence and expert advice. For taxpayers, they mean more projects that meet the needs of taxpayers and represent good value for money. It also means the public can use these tools to hold Ministers to account for decision making. For the sector, it will mean less stopping and starting of projects, because good projects will rise to the top and unrealistic, unfunded projects quickly sink to the bottom. For central government, it will mean they have to lift their game on asset management plans, asset registers, data collection, and reporting, and monitor their assets and their long-term investment plans more accurately and more seriously.

What feedback has he seen on these changes?

Very positive feedback. Infrastructure New Zealand said that “Strengthening independent oversight is long overdue … the public deserves confidence that these decisions are well-tested, properly prioritised, and deliver long-term value.” New Zealand’s lead association for infrastructure asset management professionals, Āpōpō, also welcomed the changes. I agree with both their remarks, and it’s great to see the sector responding to this Government’s clear statement of direction and priorities.

14:10 · to the Minister of Immigration

Do migrant bus drivers deserve clear, practical pathways to residency; if so, will she review the requirements for the Work to Residence pathway for bus drivers so that they can remain in the country?

14:11

Migrant bus drivers who applied for a work visa between September 2023 and April 2024 already have a clear and practical pathway to residence to through the transport work-to-residence visa. It’s clear, because the requirements for residence have been known for the last three years. It’s practical, because it requires a person to only work as a bus driver for two years before they can apply for residence. It’s also generous, because bus drivers are also able to apply for a further two-year work visa. This gives them a total of five years working in New Zealand to meet residence requirements.

Does she agree with Greater Wellington Regional Council’s concerns that without changes to the immigration settings for bus drivers, driver shortages could return as soon as this year?

No, I don’t, and I want to quote the Metlink manager telling councillors to stop fretting when he said that he was extremely confident that there was no risk to the service, that they have good domestic recruitment plans, and they were training people through the system well. Furthermore, I have been advised by my officials that a number of bus companies currently looking to recruit are receiving more applications than they have vacancies from New Zealand residents and citizens, and they’re not having any recruitment issues.

Does she agree with the Bus and Coach Association chief executive, who said that bus drivers don’t need academic-level English to do a good job and that she wanted the Government to lower the requirements, and if not, why not?

It is important, and it has been a longstanding agreement, that a certain level of English is required—

University-level English.

—for residence in this country. It’s not university-level English, as the member is saying; it is literally the base level you need to be able to study at university. It is a long-held policy in this country, since the early 2000s, that a high level of English is required to settle well in New Zealand and to gain residence. That goes for any migrant who wants to come to this country, and that is exactly the same for bus drivers. In this case, when this policy was set in 2023, the residence requirement setting for English was known by the people who came into the country, and there is five years for them to gain that level of English to settle well in New Zealand, as we expect.

Supplementary question?

Supplementary?

Third question here—we always take three.

He’s already had three.

No, he hasn’t. I’m counting.

What is the point of expecting bus drivers to be able to write essays under time pressure, and how is that relevant to the tough job of driving buses?

As I’ve already said, this is not about driving a bus—and certainly, a level of English to drive a bus is very important. What we are testing is their ability to gain residence. We expect, in this country, since the early 2000s, a required level of English to settle well in New Zealand. It may well be the Green Party policy for a low level of English, and if you’ve got a criminal record, and if you’ve got poor health, you can get residence in New Zealand, but that is not the expectation of most New Zealanders.

Does the Minister agree that operators should train and employ New Zealanders as bus drivers, and what steps is she taking so employers do not use immigration as an excuse not to train our own people first?

That is an excellent question, and as I’ve already stated in previous answers, the bus companies are having more New Zealanders apply for positions than they have vacancies for. New Zealand immigration policy is always about putting New Zealanders first and filling skills shortages where we need to. In that respect, we’ve put in place a range of policies to ensure that that exactly is the case.

Why does she expect a higher English requirement standard for migrant bus drivers than for wealthy golden visa applicants?

There is, across New Zealand, when you apply for residence, a set level of English, and it goes for whichever occupation you are in. There is a separate, different visa for our Active Investor Plus Visa (AIPV) holders—or our golden visa holders—and, as I said in the media yesterday, for those, many of them may not spend much time in New Zealand because they are global people with huge access to capital, knowledge, and skills, and they are bringing immense benefit to New Zealanders. In this case, when people are on an AIPV, regardless of what they are doing, we expect them to have—and have done so since 2003, I believe—a high level of English in order to have good integration into New Zealand because they are going to be living in New Zealand permanently.

Will she remind the questioner that protocols and procedures set out by the Government are required to be followed and not dodged, like some people do?

There are important things that are set out in immigration instructions around character, English language, health, and a range of other things that need to be met in order to gain residence in New Zealand, and if anyone is dodging those, then Immigration New Zealand will usually eventually find out and hold them to account.

How can she claim that migrant bus drivers need to have an academic level of English to settle adequately into the country when she does not expect that same standard of wealthy investors who may be settling into the country, as well?

They are two entirely different visa categories, which we treat completely differently. One is an Accredited Employer Work Visa (AEWV); one is an investor migrant programme. With everyone who comes in on an AEWV, we have a set level of English that is required for residence which has been set since the early 2000s and that this Government does not have any plans to change, because it is important for settlement in New Zealand.

Answer corrected at 14.37.

14:17 · to the Minister for Māori Crown Relations

Te Arawhiti: Does he believe that the review of references to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi will improve Māori-Crown relations, and, if so, how?

The review of references to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi—Te Tiriti o Waitangi—is an agreed part of coalition arrangements, and without the coalition we would continue to have the same ambiguity and inconsistency that has pervaded and permeated drafting of these types of references in previous years. Now, Māori-Crown relations will improve more if we have clarity in legislation and practicality in outcomes, and that’s what good kāwanatanga is about. [Interruption]

Just—

You wouldn’t have a clue.

Oh, we’re not going to have that across-the-House stuff any further on this.

Well, talk to him.

No, no. Mr Jackson, I will talk to the whole House. If I talk to people specifically, as I just have, that is to be taken as some warning that the time in the House might be shorter today than on most other days.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. To the Minister, why does he support this review when Cabinet’s own paper concedes there will likely be more litigation, more tribunal claims, more costs, and more damage to the Māori-Crown relationship?

The review and this mahi is not yet over. We have still got to go through a process, including engagement with various groups, iwi leaders, and others, some of which has already been undertaken by my erstwhile colleague “Mete-kōura”—Minister Goldsmith. But, as the member opposite is aware, this was part of the coalition arrangements in order for us to perform good kāwanatanga, rather than having us end up with the parties opposite in these seats.

How does ignoring official advice warning that repealing Treaty obligations would have wide-ranging impacts on Māori interests improve the Māori-Crown relationship?

Might I refer to my excellent colleague Minister Brown’s mahi in the health space. Notwithstanding some of the mahi that has been undertaken in relation to Treaty principles and references therein, the immunisation rate of two-year-old Māori has actually improved under this Government, and he has actually improved a range of other indictors in the health space, notwithstanding all of the gobbledegook, and vague and ambiguous wording that parties opposite had interred in legislation in days gone by.

Is the advisory group wrong when it suggests that references to Treaty principles now have 50 years—50 years—of jurisprudence behind them and that changing them would likely increase legal uncertainty rather than decrease it, and, if so, will he demand that the review be cremated and buried like the Treaty principles bill?

Yes, there have been references to Treaty principles for over 50 years in legislation, but there is a great responsibility on us as coalition partners to review some of the references to the Treaty of Waitangi principles—some of the references to the Treaty of Waitangi principles. But what we won’t do is use the principles of the Treaty or the Treaty—Te Tiriti o Waitangi—itself as a Trojan horse for the type of socialism that that member peddles in this precinct.

The—[Interruption] Just hang on. Everyone settle right down.

Does the Minister agree with past esteemed Māori leaders like Pomare, Ngata, Carroll, and Buck that the Treaty has three articles—they’re not principles—and that New Zealand is a country of New Zealanders promoting self-improvement for everybody, not separatists grifting on the taxpayers’ pocket?

The rangatira has spoken, and he’s also mentioned three outstanding Te Aute College graduates. “Whakatangata kia kaha ”—“Acquit yourselves like men; be strong”. I acknowledge that there are three articles in the Treaty of Waitangi, and there are on the nine versions of the Treaty that adorn my wall in the Beehive—long may that continue, for the next nine years. There’s also a number of principles enunciated through Waitangi Tribunal reports and judicial comments throughout previous years. Kia ora.

Can the Minister name a single iwi or hapū or Māori organisation—just one—that told him that the review will improve Māori-Crown relationships?

What I can do is name a number of iwi leaders who are very disappointed with the performance of the spokesperson on Māori-Crown relations on that side of the House.

Point of order.

Point of order, the Hon—

There’s no addressing of the question.

Wait, wait—slow, slow.

It was a clear question, and he didn’t even come anywhere near to addressing it.

Yeah, think about how you asked it, I think. You can ask it—

Should I ask it again?

Ask it again, yeah.

Oh, thank you very much.

No trouble.

Oh, that’s great. Can this Minister name one single Māori organisation, hapū, iwi—just one—who told him that this review will improve Māori-Crown relationships—just one?

Yesterday, our coalition Government convened the accord hui with Ngāti Raukawa ki Wharepūhunga in Tokoroa. Not once did Kataraina Hodge and Maria Te Kanawa, the chair and the CEO of that outstanding iwi in the heart of Waikato-Tainui—Waikato, Maniapoto, Raukawa; go the Chiefs!—mention the review of the references to the principles of Waitangi. But what they were absolutely enamoured by, they were absolutely energised by—they were absolutely enthusiastic around the outcomes that this Government is actually deploying into places like Tokoroa, which this Government has focused on in the last three years.

Yeah, so that’s none. OK.

The—

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hang on, wait—[Interruption] Hang on, the whole House just needs to calm down.

Why doesn’t the Minister just admit that the real reason he is pressing ahead with these policies is in the vain attempt that the Prime Minister will be able to finally remember his name?

I think—

My name will be here much longer than Willie Jackson’s.

No, no—sit down. Yeah, just so we’re all clear, the question was out of order, and the answer certainly didn’t help order. But we’ll call that a day and we’ll go on to question No. 5.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister was on New Zealand national television—

No, no—sit down.

Couldn’t remember his name.

No, sit down.

It’s a fair question.

Sit down. I just want to tell you, Mr Jackson, I know your name, and I’m very close to using it in a context that’s not very good.

14:25 · to the Minister of Education

What assurances, if any, can she give to the Wai 3553 claimants that her education reforms will not risk long-term harm for Māori learners?

As proceedings for Wai 3553 are currently under way, I won’t be commenting on matters related to the claim, as I wish to respect the tribunal’s opportunity to consider all evidence carefully before reporting. I can, however, give assurances to all New Zealanders that raising achievement for Māori students is at the heart of my work programme.

Will she commit to immediately halting her education reforms until the Waitangi Tribunal completes its inquiry and delivers its recommendations, and she can assure the Wai 3553 claimants that she will meaningfully engage with Māori and the education sector before continuing with these reforms?

I will not be doing that, because, as I said earlier, raising achievement for Māori students—for tamariki Māori—is at the heart of everything that we are doing. After decades of decline and stagnant, persisting gaps in achievement that everyone else has been ignoring, this Government is investing—[Interruption]

That’s enough down the end there.

This Government is finally investing in a bilingual education system more equitably than any other Government that I can remember. That is about raising achievement for Māori students. If you want to talk about the opposite of long-term harm for Māori students, it’s what we are investing today into our bilingual education system.

14:26 · to the Minister of Internal Affairs

What recent announcement has she made about a new Anzac initiative with Archives New Zealand and the National Library?

14:27

Yesterday, I launched Anzac Stories with Archives New Zealand and the National Library of New Zealand. Anzac Stories is a new website providing Kiwi kids access to historically accurate and engaging content created by Archives New Zealand and the National Library from their collections. The stories are of real people, places, animals, and items, and are designed with the help of students from Belmont School in Lower Hutt and Adventure School in Porirua. Anzac Stories incorporates games, quizzes, and facts, and I’d encourage all parents of nine- to 13-year-old children to interact with this website this Anzac Day.

How will this initiative benefit Kiwis?

I asked Archives and the National Library to undertake this project to encourage Kiwi children to be engaged in learning about an important part of our nation’s history and to give them access to the rich collections of Archives New Zealand and the National Library. It is an increasingly digital world. Many of us, especially children, consume information online. While seeing the physical archives and library collection items is wonderful when you do have the opportunity, many of our national records, including our war records, have been digitised. I wanted Kiwis to see the benefit from that work and be able to interact with it, and this fully online resource gives children and their families access to historically accurate archival information in a way that appeals to them.

What are some of the features of the site?

Anzac Stories features written stories supported by quizzes, games, photographs, maps, timelines, and interactive elements that encourage exploration and learning in a fun way. There’s what is called the challenge hub, which holds all of the quizzes and games from each of the stories in one place. This feature was particularly popular with the students who tested the site and resulted in fierce competition to see who could get the highest scores. One of my personal favourite features is the guide to the site, a little white mouse inspired by the New Zealand - born spy Nancy Wake, who earned the nickname “White Mouse” during World War II because she was so difficult to capture. The White Mouse carries the viewer through Anzac Stories, giving useful historical tidbits along the way.

What is the significance of children being able to access and engage with Anzac history?

It’s important for us not to forget our past. Anzac Stories are stories of courage, sacrifice, service, and bravery, and it shows the impact war has on individuals and communities. They have shaped who we are as a nation, and particularly with the Anzacs. The Anzac story should not be forgotten. Anzac Stories will help children further understand New Zealand’s place in history, why we commemorate Anzac Day, and the impact these conflicts had on real people, real New Zealanders. I encourage families and children to try it out this Anzac Day by visiting the home page of the National Library’s website. If I may also take this time to pay my respects to those who have served and continue to serve.

14:30 · to the Minister for Tertiary Education

What actions, if any, has she taken to support tertiary institutions and students impacted by the ongoing fuel crisis and rising cost of living?

on behalf of the Minister for Tertiary Education: Our Government has always acknowledged that many Kiwis have been doing it tough during a cost of living challenge and the fuel crisis. The Government continues to support students through student allowances and loans and other settings, and continues to expect tertiary institutions to understand the needs of their students and support them, including through hardship funds. The Government is working with tertiary institutions to understand their fuel needs.

Is she aware that universities are having to pay out of pocket to help staff through the ongoing crisis, given the Government won’t do anything to help?

On behalf of the Minister, the Government’s been very clear in terms of how the support during the fuel crisis should be temporary, targeted, and time-bound to not create a period of high inflation that we are still recovering from, which the last Government had. We’re clear about the fact that institutions are independent organisations and, if they choose to support their staff, that is a matter for them.

What support, if any, is being provided to regional students, including apprentices who need to travel in a car for their qualification?

On behalf of the Minister, those who are in apprenticeships are, of course, employed and it might be a matter for the employers if they seek assistance. The other thing that we would encourage of tertiary institution providers, as always, is to consider the needs of their students and to make adjustments if they need to.

Is she aware that by not offering any help through this crisis, she is heaping more financial pressure on universities and polytechnics?

On behalf of the Minister, we’re very clear that the fuel crisis that has been imposed on New Zealand by the conflict in the Middle East is having an impact on a number of organisations, and, like many organisations across the country, they’re having to make adjustments based on these sets of circumstances that we have no influence over.

Is she aware that, at the same time, by not funding enough domestic enrolments she is heaping more financial pressure on universities and on polytechnics?

On behalf of the Minister, I’m not sure that I agree with all of the assertions in that question, but we have challenging times facing the country that, in terms of the fuel crisis, are of no making of any decision that this Government or anyone in New Zealand has made, and organisations from one end of New Zealand to the other are having to make adjustments. Tertiary institutions are no different.

How does she expect students to succeed in their studies when they’re facing reduced opportunities and increased cost of living pressures with no extra support?

On behalf of the Minister, on 1 April, 52,000 students received an increase in their student allowance. But I accept that the cost of living and the fuel price increase is having an impact across the country. Our Government maintains that the support that we provide must be temporary, targeted, and time-bound, otherwise everybody is impacted and—

So no support—no support for students.

I want the House to just consider the fact that students are one of the most vulnerable groups. When there are extended periods of high inflation and high interest rates, who does it hurt the most? Students.

14:34 · to the Minister of Health

What recent announcements has he made about expanding the role for community pharmacists?

The Government recently announced that, from June, it will be easier and more affordable for patients to get treatment for a range of common health conditions, with expanded services proposed to be delivered through community pharmacists. Health New Zealand is proposing that participating pharmacists be able to provide funded medicines for children and their families for pain and fever management, oral rehydration, and common conditions such as scabies, headlice, and conjunctivitis. The proposal also covers treatment for uncomplicated urinary tract infections and emergency contraception. This will reduce the need for GP visits for straightforward conditions; mean lower costs for families; and improve access to care, particularly where GP waits are too long.

How will these changes benefit families?

These changes can give New Zealanders a practical and convenient alternative when GP appointments are not immediately available. Pharmacists are highly trained health professionals, so instead of waiting for a GP appointment or paying full over-the-counter costs for medications, parents will be able to visit a local pharmacy, receive a consultation, and access funded treatment on the spot. Pharmacies are among the most accessible health services. Expanding their role will improve local availability of funded treatment and care for these conditions, ensuring patients get timely care while easing pressure on general practice.

What impact will this announcement have on access to healthcare in rural and high - health needs communities?

Well, pharmacies are often among the most accessible health services in many communities, particularly in rural and high-needs communities. Allowing pharmacists to supply funded medications for these common conditions will help in those communities where it’s difficult to see a GP quickly and ensure people can receive treatment closer to their home. To support delivery, Health New Zealand has established a $5 million per year extended pharmacy services fund to help ensure these services are available nationwide.

How does this initiative support the wider health system?

This initiative is about making better use of the highly trained health workforce we have across the country. By enabling pharmacists to manage common conditions, we free up GPs to focus on more complex cases, reducing pressure across the system and ensuring patients receive the right care at the right time. It is a practical, common-sense step to improve access, affordability, and efficiency in our health system. We are fixing the basics and building the future of our health system here in New Zealand.

14:37

Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to correct an answer to question No. 3 today.

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker. In response to question No. 3, I said the transport residence pathway was for bus drivers who’d applied for a work visa between September 2023 and April 2024. I meant to say it was for any bus driver who applied for a work visa before 7 April 2024.

to the Associate Minister of Health

What recent reports has she seen on illicit tobacco?

Last week, Retail NZ released a report outlining their assessment of the emerging threat posed by illicit tobacco. It said that an illicit tobacco market already existed and is only going to grow. Recent customs seizures and media reporting recognise this growing illicit market. This reinforces what the Government has been saying all along. We recognise an illicit market is a real threat to a smoke-free New Zealand. It also reduces revenue collection used to fund Government services, and I’d stress that it allows organised crime groups to line their pockets and expand their reach in our communities. We need a strong proactive approach to addressing this challenge, and that’s what we are currently working on with officials and agencies.

14:38 · to the Minister of Internal Affairs

Has Fire and Emergency New Zealand been classified as a critical customer under the National Fuel Response Plan; if so, what does this classification mean in terms of fuel supply for Fire and Emergency New Zealand under National Fuel Response Plan phases 2, 3, and 4?

14:39

Yes, Fire and Emergency has been classified as a critical customer for the purposes of delivering emergency services. Under the National Fuel Plan phase 2, there is no restriction on access to fuel for Fire and Emergency. Under current proposals for phases 3 and 4 of the Government’s fuel response framework, Fire and Emergency will be prioritised for uninterrupted supply of fuel. As a life-supporting service and critical customer, Fire and Emergency New Zealand are prioritised for fuel to maintain emergency response capability, with supply directed to critical and life-safety activities in line with all-of-Government settings.

How will the classification of Fire and Emergency New Zealand as a critical customer guarantee that Fire and Emergency New Zealand will receive a full allocation of fuel to allow them to undertake standard operations?

As I just said, because this Government has acknowledged that it is very important for life-safety and critical emergency response to continue within all phases of the fuel plan, they are working with the Public Service Commission and the all-of-Government group to ensure that there are supply lines for fuel across this country.

How will the Government ensure that firefighters in rural communities will have access to the diesel they need to undertake standard operations in the event of a prolonged fuel shortage?

I am aware that Fire and Emergency has a representative on the Public Service fuel response plan high-user working group, which is providing advice and highlighting their needs in the all-of-Government fuel planning. It is essential that all of New Zealand, whether that is urban or rural, has access to critical and life-safety - preserving services through all phases of the response. Fire and Emergency is working with that all-of-Government group to ensure that Fire and Emergency will be there for communities in need.

Are Fire and Emergency New Zealand considering deprioritising or pausing certain front-line activities during phases 2, 3, and 4; if so, what are they?

I met with the chief executive of Fire and Emergency and the chair of the board of Fire and Emergency, as well as the chief executive of the monitoring agency, last week to talk about the contingency plans as it comes to different phases of the fuel response. That work is ongoing—there is only a draft plan at this stage—but they are working tirelessly to ensure that the life-preserving services and life-safety and critical services will remain through all phases of the plan. However, it is also still the case that that work is under way, and I don’t want to get ahead of it.

When can the public and firefighters expect to see the full details of how emergency services will operate in phases 2, 3, and 4?

I don’t want to get ahead of the plans that they are making, but I would be absolutely assured that I’ll be seeing that plan—but I haven’t yet seen that plan, and so the public will see that plan once I’ve also seen that plan. The assurance that I would give to the public is that Fire and Emergency has been designated a critical user through all phases of the fuel response. They are working closely with the all-of-Government group for fuel supply and security, and the assurance I’ll give to members of the community is that Fire and Emergency has been prioritised to be there for communities in their times of need.

14:43 · to the Minister for Land Information

What recent announcements has he made about investment in New Zealand’s premium agricultural sector?

14:44

Bonjour, Mr Speaker. Today, I welcomed, along with Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour and Minister for Economic Growth Nicola Willis, a new investment from French fashion house Chanel in New Zealand’s fine wool production. It shows the world now knows New Zealand is open for business. Chanel has invested in a joint-venture company to own a part of and continue to support Lammermoor Station in the Central Otago high country, which produces some of the world’s best fine wool for Chanel’s garments. This is a win-win-win for Chanel, Lammermoor, and New Zealand.

Yeah, not bad. Seven out of 10. Carry on.

How do investments like these benefit all New Zealanders?

Chanel’s investment in New Zealand illustrates how overseas investment opens new doors for Kiwis. The investment was granted under the Overseas Investment Act’s benefit to New Zealand farm land benefit pathway because it is expected to provide substantial benefit to New Zealand. It allows Lammermoor to continue doing what it does best, retaining jobs and livelihoods in the process, and contributing to New Zealand’s export growth opportunities. When we grow our exports, we grow the economy, and that helps to pay for hospitals, schools, and safer communities.

What makes New Zealand an attractive place to invest for companies like Chanel?

As we all know, New Zealand’s primary sector is world class. However, it’s important to have a Government that is outward-facing and courts new investment to New Zealand, and that’s what we’re doing. Chanel plans to build on Lammermoor’s organic status and achieve regenerative organic certification. That would make Lammermoor the world’s first fine-wool producing farm with those credentials. That will boost the value of our export receipts. It also boosts the reputation of New Zealand wool’s high quality and sustainable production. Where there’s a wool, there’s a way.

What changes has the Government made to speed up and encourage investment in New Zealand?

New statistics from Land Information New Zealand show average end-to-end assessment time frames for business and productive forestry. Assessments have decreased significantly under this Government, going from an average of 67 working days to 31 working days in the last 12 months. I would like to acknowledge the work of my colleague the Hon David Seymour in this, who has ensured the new streamlined pathway allows low-risk applications to be processed faster, delivering more investment to New Zealand. As he said, the proof is in the investment pudding. Merci beaucoup.

Why did the National Party Minister of Land Information and the ACT Party Associate Minister of Finance override the recommendation from the Overseas Investment Office to decline the sale of three farms near Clydevale to foreign US investors because they did not the meet the benefit to New Zealand test, and did New Zealand First support the sell-off?

Point of order, Mr Speaker. I think the member knows that it’s not appropriate to provide suffixes in relation to Ministers from a party background. Ministers are Ministers; they are not National Party Ministers or New Zealand First Ministers or ACT Party Ministers. They are Ministers, and they act in that capacity.

That is true. I’m sure that the member will be able to reword his question to comply.

Why did the Minister of Land Information and the Associate Minister of Finance override the recommendation from the Overseas Investment Office to decline the sale of three farms near Clydevale to foreign US investors because the application did not the meet the benefit to New Zealand test, and did the other coalition partner in this Government agree with that sell-off?

I’m not privileged to that information. What I can say is that all overseas applications must go through a benefit to New Zealand test, and they will be assessed on their merits.

Is it now the coalition Government’s policy to override the recommendations from the Overseas Investment Office when assessing the benefit to New Zealand test and open the door to the sell-off of New Zealand farms to foreigners?

No. All applications should be assessed on their merits.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table the Overseas Investment Office report on the New Zealand Dairy Holdings Trusco Pty Ltd as a Trustee for NZ Dairy Holdings Trust application to sell the farmland.

And is it a publicly—

—application to sell the farmland?

—available document?

Not necessarily, Mr Speaker. It is only available under Official Information Act (OIA) request, because the Government has not released this.

Has it been released, as most OIA—

Mr Speaker, it was received under an application of an OIA.

Yes, it’s frequent practice for successive Governments to release OIA documents.

No, it hasn’t. Mr Speaker, with all due respect—

I’ll put the leave. Leave is sought, is there any objection? There is objection. [Interruption] Mr Abel, just wait for the House to give you the courtesy of their silence. Thank you.

14:50 · to the Minister for Resources

Are there any places in Aotearoa New Zealand where mining should not be promoted; if so, where are these places?

14:51

Obviously, we have changed the legislation, the Crown Minerals Act, and introduced the notion of promotion. There are areas, in particular in the Department of Conservation estate, where it is not possible to gain the necessary consents for mining.

Does he think it’s appropriate for prospecting, exploration, or mining permits to be issued inside Te Wāhipounamu UNESCO World Heritage area that is protected for its outstanding universal value as the largest and least modified of New Zealand’s natural ecosystems?

Obviously, any application for a mining entitlement will follow the law. As to whether areas that are not prohibited in terms of extractive activity should be pursued will depend on a case by case basis.

Does he think New Zealanders want to see our most spectacular natural places ruined by mining or does he agree with MP Shane Jones, who in 2010 said of mining that it is “An exercise in destroying New Zealand’s clean, green image and destroying conservation values.”?

Sadly, life is not static. I can confirm, however, that there a host of areas in New Zealand where it would be very inappropriate to mine. Whether or not those places will be permanently off-limits, obviously, waits for a future regime.

Does he accept the expertise of the Department of Conservation, who warn that the Bendigo goldmine is an unprecedented threat to wildlife, or, given his expressions of disregard for native animals such as Archey’s frog, does he think our taonga species should be sacrificed beneath the bulldozers of Aussie goldminers?

On the matter of frogs, obviously, there has to be a balanced approach. On some occasions, it will be possible to relocate species. I hope, however, that they don’t end up like the snails that died under an ancient national regime.

What is his response to the opposition of local community and of existing hospitality, tourism, viticultural, horticulture, and farming industries concerned about Bendigo’s noise, air pollution, water contamination, and the tailings dam containing 18 million cubic metres of toxic waste in perpetuity that is proposed?

There’s always a balance when we seek to extract jobs, wealth, and export earnings in particular areas that are mineral-rich. We can’t have generic denunciatory remarks wiping out all possibilities. It depends on the context.

Why does the Minister, apparently, express disregard for those local businesses and those community concerns, and, indeed, for the opinion of MP Shane Jones, in 2010, who said regarding mining that “It will be a short fillip for foreign-owned companies. The jobs will be scarce, and the degradation in these very sensitive areas will be very long-term—I would think irreversible.”?

I can provide no better answer than to go to the Good Book: “When I was a child, I thought as a child.”

That concludes oral questions. We’ll just take a very short break for people going to other business to leave the House quietly. That means quietly, with no talking.

I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu Claims Settlement Bill and the Ngāti Tara Tokanui Claims Settlement Bill.

15:05

Cool, thank you, and is this part of a split call, Madam Chair, or am I taking a 10-minute call?

Yeah, this is a split call. This will be your call, yes.

Sweet—kei te pai. Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Green Party is still not supporting the Building and Construction Sector (Self-certification by Plumbers and Drainlayers) Amendment Bill.

First of all, let me acknowledge all the plumbers and builders out there in our communities. I want to acknowledge that we need more of them in this House of Representatives—actually, if we’re to genuinely be a representative Parliament—and the Green Party does want to see reduced building costs; more healthy homes being built; and fair treatment for homeowners, renters, and tradespeople. We particularly acknowledge for tradespeople, right now, with the current fossil fuel crisis, that their work is currently harder to actually perform and, particularly, for them to provide for their families. We also acknowledge that for many builders, they’re operating in an environment where there is not a lot of work available in the construction industry. However, in this bill, we’re concerned that the benefits of expanding self-certification outweighed the potential risks of error in plumbing or drainlaying, given most work is not visible after construction.

The risks often coming from plumbing are not limited to the individual property but can result in cross connections between stormwater and sewage, causing pollution of rivers and seas and increasing health risks; overflows can also impact neighbouring properties. According to the regulatory impact statement, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s commissions have had to complete a more detailed cost-benefit analysis of both options, which was due in late March.

I also want to acknowledge that plumbers and drainlayers can already self-certify work in relationship to existing buildings. We respect the oversight of the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board, but note the concerns of some submitters—which were part of the select committee, which I personally did not have the privilege to be part of, and I acknowledge the work of members and the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, which scrutinised this bill. The board having explicit authority to audit and endorse plumbers or drainlayers against the eligibility criteria throughout the life of the endorsement rather than just the application at the time is an improvement in the original bill. The board may prescribe minimum standards that plumbers and drainlayers must meet in order to be endorsed to self-certify work, including minimum standards relating to their ability to meet any potential civil liability. However, as legislators we know what the minimum standards will be.

We also want to note that the Minister has indicated that they will be bringing amendments to the committee of the whole House and that this will significantly expand the scope of the bill, and we’re sceptical about the expansion to commercial buildings. I know my colleagues, who are leading the work on this bill, will be scrutinising it at the committee of the whole House stage.

One of the things that we want to also note our concerns on is the fact that a lot of the details—and critical details particularly—were being left out to future regulations rather than the bill itself. We’re not satisfied that secondary legislation is where these issues should be laid out. This does also seem to be an ongoing trend under this Government where a lot of critical details that we believe should be in primary legislation have been left out to secondary legislation. For example, it’s stuff around setting out exactly what work could be self-certified. More clarity in primary legislation would have been particularly useful.

We’re also concerned that if solar water heating and more sustainable water use, such as rainwater for toilet flushing, required building inspections, but simpler but less sustainable mechanisms can be self-certified, fewer sustainable options will, inevitably, be chosen. We don’t want to streamline the most energy and water intensive forms of construction, particularly at a time where we’ve already been told that compared to other OECD countries, our water usage remains quite high. The recommendation that a consent can include both certified and non-certified work, maybe less, is encouraging for sustainable work.

Just mindful of the time. I want finally to note that there will always be a significant data management role for keeping photographs and other records for work that is self-certified—potentially unfunded. This is in relation to the inspections by the Building Consent Authorities. We also wish to ensure the accessibility of this information is readily available for house buyers.

We will be scrutinising this bill further in the committee of the whole House stage, with my colleagues who have been leading on this bill. I also want to acknowledge organisations like Simplicity Living who have shown us that a better way is absolutely possible. We want to continue scrutinising this bill, and right now, unfortunately, as it stands, we will not be commending this bill to the House, and we look forward to further scrutiny of it in the weeks to come.

15:10

It was a pleasure to be part of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, which helped shepherd this bill to this stage. My wife likes to remind me that politicians talk too much—so, with that, I commend this bill to the House.

15:11

It’s a pleasure also, as a member of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, to rise and take a call, which I can assure the House will be much lengthier than that of the member who’s just resumed his seat.

This is the Building and Construction Sector (Self-certification by Plumbers and Drainlayers) Amendment Bill, and it’s called that because, effectively, it’s an omnibus bill that seeks to amend a couple of pieces of legislation. As my colleague Arena Williams has already articulated today, our position is that we will be looking to support this bill here at its second reading, but we do so with a number of caveats that we wish to explore when the bill does pass—and it looks as though it will—this particular stage through to the committee of the whole House stage.

The bill itself is, I think, a piece of legislation that does reflect Labour’s commitment to reforms that seek to speed up opportunities in terms of housing development but also, at the same time, maintain a level or a threshold that doesn’t compromise safety. That’s certainly something that can’t be compromised, and the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, ably chaired by Mr Foster, did actually hear from folk in this particular regard. I’ll come to those reflections and observations around the select committee’s report in due course.

When we’re looking at this ability to be able to compromise speed and efficiency, that’s fine, but ensuring that safety is maintained is really, really important. If things are not done in a safe way, then things can go wrong, and they can go horribly wrong. There are many, many examples in New Zealand and other countries’ histories where building products or the way in which a particular piece of work has been undertaken effectively fails and goes completely wrong.

We respect the skill and the professionalism of those tradespeople who are licensed to undertake work in this particular space. They are hard-working, salt-of-the-earth folk in communities all around this country. When we think about our plumbers, when we think about our drainlayers, and when we think about all of those job opportunities that are even broader than that, some of these folk who have worked in these areas have been hit hard lately in terms of the up to 20,000 folk in the construction sector who, effectively, have lost their jobs. That’s an important distinction that also needs to be taken.

The select committee itself had a few submissions—we had 22 of them. Four actually fronted up and presented their oral submissions, and you might look at that and think it’s not a huge number. But when we actually reflect on who they were that came and gave oral submissions, they were representative of the industry; they were industry bodies that represented a number of folk for whom this bill will make a huge difference in terms of the work that they do. I think it’s also worth pointing out that this is by no certainty a bill that received the overwhelming support of industry participants. They like the direction that this is seeking to head in.

But they do have—and they did express with the committee—some concerns about some aspects, in many regards, the view that in some instances this bill perhaps doesn’t go far enough. When we’re talking about small-scale works, when we’re talking about routine pieces of work that, actually, there are things that are captured in the bill currently, that’s fine. Many of these industry participants actually shared with the committee, through their representative organisations, that there are many pieces of work—a lot of them actually in the rural community sector, and I’ll come to that in a moment—where they’d like to see this bill actually applied to the work that’s undertaken in that particular space.

When we think about the opportunities of simple work and what’s narrow, there was a very strong push—and I know my colleague Ms Williams touched on this—that what’s included in the provision is pumped and onsite systems like pumped water supply, irrigation, and circulating systems actually are standard all around the country. There’s no difference here; there’s no regional variation in terms of what the expectations or the specs are in terms of whether they’re compliant or not, but these are often the case in rural communities, in rural households on farms and elsewhere where this would make a huge difference. In actual fact, the Master Plumbers themselves said, “Well, if you look at every single rural building basically in New Zealand, you will find that there is a pumped water system.”

What we’re really interested in, as a party, is exploring where the Minister’s thinking is at when it comes to the committee of the whole House stage, because this is what was heard, this is what’s been reflected in the Transport and Infrastructure Committee’s report. While the Minister had indicated to the committee, and again today, that there seems to be an openness to explore some of these options, and obviously there was a conversation that needed to be had with, well, his now Cabinet colleagues around where he was going to land with that. We do hope that when we progress this through the committee of the whole House stage that those are the sorts of things that the Minister and the Government have actually turned their mind to.

When we think about greywater reuse systems, whether they should be included, they are often seen as low-risk opportunities that are governed by standards that are already in existence, they already are at play, yet they’re not included in the bill in terms of whether that’s been captured or not. It’s important that we do consider what the majority of rural properties actually have. This is not saying it’s trying to make it easier, because, at the end of the day, we don’t want a system in place where safety or quality is compromised but there is a sensible middle line and threshold where these sorts of things can be worked through. We look forward to lending our support to that conversation, with the view of making a difference for the community.

The select committee, as I said, in its report, identifies a number of the changes that have been made. One of the places where the majority of the committee did land—and I think it’s a sensible one; certainly the position that the Labour Party supported—was where you have an approach to a building consent authority (BCA), generally a council, to undertake a piece of work in circumstances where you have self-certified work that would be a permissible option under this bill, and when you have non-self-certified work, i.e., the BCA is required to, basically, follow through their normal process.

The bill was introduced to mean that, actually, there was a discrepancy between what work could be covered and what work couldn’t be covered in terms of the overarching need for what you needed to do to get your building consent. What the committee, in response to submissions, has said and where it’s landed is, actually, it accepts that in many circumstances when people go and engage with a drainlayer, and plumber, and architect-others who do fantastic work in this space—there needs to be an understanding and an acceptance that in many circumstances there will be hybrid opportunities where a suite of work will be undertaken that will include non-self-certifiable work, but also self-certifiable work. What the committee has done is it’s made a change to the bill to allow there to be that hybrid nature and to be that flexibility.

One of the other changes that the committee did initiate was not just saying, “Actually, we’ll wait for these self-certified work tradespeople to, basically, when they lodge the application, when the work is done, lodge that with their professional body organisation.”; what’s really at the heart of this issue is a desire to ensure that as members of a professional body and a professional sector, there are opportunities for those organisations who often provide a bit of an umbrella around this to be able to undertake audits, basically, as they’re able to, through the process.

Now, this is going to save people a lot of money as well, because, if you are a homeowner in a rural community or urban community, and you undertake a piece of work or you wish to have a piece of work undertaken, if there are any issues, wouldn’t it be much better that you are informed of that earlier in the process, rather than having to wait until the end of the process to realise that there are some issues that need to be rectified, and the costs associated with that. This is not uncommon to other parts, if we think of teachers’ registration and licensing, if we think of other opportunities in terms of the medical profession and elsewhere, we think that this is a very credible step and a sensible step to make that change.

There are a couple of other matters that the select committee did report back on. We look forward to the committee of the whole House stage because, as I say, there are still a number of issues that do need to be addressed before wholesale support at the end of the day. At this stage, we will support this past second reading.

15:21

One of the issues repeatedly raised by the building sector is that the consent takes too long. There are long waits for inspectors and an excessive number of inspections required for plumbing and drainlaying work. These delays are not just frustrating; they drive up the costs of building and slow down much-needed development. This bill addresses those challenges in a practical way. It introduces an open self-certification scheme, allowing qualified plumbers and drainlayers to sign off their own work. Importantly, this is backed by strong safeguards, including new monitoring, auditing, and disciplinary functions for the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Board. This is a sensible reform. It will streamline the building process, reduce unnecessary delay, and help lower construction costs. It will deliver real benefits for both the sector and New Zealanders.

15:22

It’s a pleasure to rise and take a call on the Building and Construction Sector (Self-certification by Plumbers and Drainlayers) Amendment Bill. Now, we recognise those very real pressures in the building and construction sector: things like delays, bottlenecks, and the cost. That all adds up when you come to build a house in New Zealand. It’s important that we do get that balance right, because, at the crux of it, everyone here wants faster, more affordable building, but speed cannot come at the cost of safety, quality, or consumer protection. Cutting costs is one thing, but cutting corners is another.

I want to speak from a slightly different perspective than some of the members of this House. Having been from a tradie background myself, I’ve spent a significant amount of time on the tools. I’ve done my own plumbing and I’ve done my own drainlaying over the years. I haven’t tried gasfitting, but definitely the plumbing and the drainlaying. I have the old adage: never pay anyone to do something that you can do yourself. It’s one of my mantras in life. Doing your DIY on your own place, it’s a way that you can definitely get ahead. I suppose the same comes to Government, for that matter. Prisons, healthcare system, schools—never get anyone to do something that you can do yourself, because we’ve all seen examples where that has gone very bad, when you sell off assets, and it always ends up with the New Zealand public getting a raw deal.

I recall starting out, doing work experience as a drainlayer at school, and you learn quickly about soil conditions, fall gradients. I recently did some plumbing at home too—well, I actually got my 15-year-old boy to do a lot of the work while I provided direction. I took him down to the hardware store and we bought the PVC piping. That’s actually getting quite expensive at the moment—all types of piping, fittings: all those things that are wrapped up with the use of oil and things like that and the high cost. But anyway, we went to the hardware store and we actually bought a toilet cistern as well. We got that fixed up, because, if any of you know, one of the biggest hits to my ego is if my wife says to me, “Well, if you’re not going to do it, I’m going to go pay somebody to do it.” That really spurs me on to get down there and get the hardware myself and get it all fixed up.

Having said all of that, with all that DIY, compliance is very important. There are very real consequences if something does go wrong. Let me tell this House, when plumbing and drainage fails, it doesn’t fail quietly. It usually gets very expensive and it can be quite hard to find a plumber when you need one outside of normal trading hours. But then also, it affects peoples’ homes, their health, and their wallets. That’s why people who do this work carry such a heavy professional burden and responsibility already. Plumbers and drainlayers are not cowboys; they are trained, they are regulated professionals who take pride in getting it right the first time.

In fact, for those in this House who don’t know, the plumbing apprenticeship actually takes five years—it’s one of the longest apprenticeships that you can do in New Zealand. It’s a great profession. It’s skilled, it’s essential, it’s future-proof. Sometimes, every now and then in this House, someone will yell out, “Oh, the ChatGPT thing!” But there is evidence that people that yell that out for starters are from professions that are probably most at threat from taking on that ChatGPT creep. However, being a plumber, a gasfitter, and a drainlayer, you’re pretty well protected from AI. There’s going to be huge opportunities over the coming years, particularly for young people, to take up those jobs. So a little bit of a plug for the trades there. If you’re thinking of a career, plumbing and gasfitting is definitely the way to go.

But with that pride and professionalism within that trade, after you do your five years, there is still a little bit of risk. This bill proposes to shift more of that risk on to those very tradespeople through that self-certification regime. Now, in principle, self-certification is not a radical idea, but we can see versions of it overseas where it’s working very well. That is why it’s a really good move that we’re taking and I commend this bill to the House.

15:27

Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to rise and talk in support of the second reading of this bill. It will make the system more efficient, giving plumbers and drainlayers the ability to sign off on their own work, which puts them on an equal footing with electricians and gasfitters. This is going to make it easier and more affordable to open the door to homeownership for more Kiwis and supports the growth and job creation in this sector. This is a very positive step from a Minister that has made a number of positive steps in the building and construction space and is doing a great job. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I too, as the previous speaker Sam Uffindell just said, would like to take a call to tell a few anecdotes and discuss a little bit about the submissions in the select committee process about the Building and Construction Sector (Self-certification by Plumbers and Drainlayers) Amendment Bill. One of the good things about plying your wares in this House is that you get to have a variety of topics come before you in select committee. As someone that’s never had much to do with the trades—as my colleague Dan Rosewarne just pointed out—a fantastic career path for a lot of people and a bunch of people who do sometimes very under-celebrated work in our society because it’s not until things go wrong that you commend the sheer skill and all of the expertise involved in getting it right.

It was an interesting bill for us to work on on the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. I would like to acknowledge the Transport and Infrastructure Committee—very ably led by Andy Foster—for looking at this bill. I think my colleague Tangi Utikere said there were four people that came and gave submissions, but the breadth of submissions was a very high standard, very informative, made us take notice, made us make some changes, because clearly this was something that the people that submitted on this bill were very passionate about and very knowledgeable about. It’s one of those bills that you felt much more armed with expert knowledge at the end of the process than you did at the beginning.

Labour will support this bill at second reading. We supported it at the first reading. We acknowledge, as I said, all of the submissions. But I want to be very clear, as other colleagues have done to date, that our support is not unconditional. It depends on the Government getting some of those remaining settings right, and we understand that there’s intention to do that during the committee of the whole House stage, because I think that we were largely on the same page with most things, but there are some things that we want to be very clear that we still have some concern about. They are around insurance, and I’ll go into that in a little bit more detail, but certainly around insurance, around scope, and around basic consumer protections, which I think are really, really important, and it’s incumbent upon us to get that right.

While everybody in this House, I think—and that’s evidenced through the contributions that have been made today—shares the goal of faster and certainly more affordable building, speed can never come at the price of safety, quality, and fairness. In this country, we have had our fair share of examples of that over the years: when corners have been cut, when decisions have been made that allowed or afforded certain practices to happen that weren’t good practice, and when consumers and homeowners and other people bore the brunt of that. We don’t want to see that happen again.

At its core, this bill introduces, as people have said, an opt-in self-certification scheme for qualified plumbers and qualified drainlayers. It’s important to note that that very much is an opt-in. It allows endorsed practitioners to certify their own work as compliant with the building consent without requiring a council inspection for that work. It amends the Building Act 2004 and the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Act 2006.

Like anything where changes are made that involve risk, this reform moves the risk. It doesn’t take risk away; it simply shifts the risk away from councils who would have been going through that process, and on to the individuals and the consumers. When risk shifts, responsibility and accountability shifts as well—it follows—so we have a couple of things that we want to point out.

Before I get to that, I do want to acknowledge that the select committee did make meaningful improvements, and many of them were driven by issues that were either raised via submissions or raised by Labour during that first reading. Just to give you three or four examples—stronger audit powers: the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Board can now audit practitioners throughout the life of their endorsement and not just at the start. That does actually, practically, close a real gap. As my colleague Tangi Utikere said, there should be the ability to have mixed consents so that it avoids that, sort of, all-or-nothing approach that submitters absolutely warned us against, and we took that on board.

The third thing was the broader information signatory so that architects, so that engineers and design Licensed Building Practitioners can now provide declarations at the consent stage, because that actually reflects how projects work in practice. As you can imagine, some of the work that’s done by plumbers is done at a stage where the other work essentially comes up and covers that up. So that’s got to be done sometimes at more than design stage. It’s only fitting that there should be some other signatories to be able to do those declarations—and a public register, because I think if you’re allowing any profession, any trade to check itself, in essence, there needs to be a requisite amount of transparency on the other end of the scale so that a public register so that home owners and future buyers would be able to check certificates of compliance. That just provides that level of transparency. That’s really important, and a good safeguard.

Finally, just also the mandatory monitoring by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE). We think that that’s really critical. If the scheme has any unintended consequences that haven’t been thought of throughout this process, then we need to know that sooner rather than later so that acting in good faith, changes can be made to up those protections. They’re all sensible changes that were made during the select committee process. As I said, we look forward, we believe, to the Minister bringing some amendments to the committee stage to add a couple more as well.

The outstanding concerns, though, that I did preface at the beginning, were the fact that—well, the first one concerns the issue of insurance. We think this is the biggest gap. We’re being asked, essentially, to support a system that places more liability on individual tradespeople without confirming as yet that there’s some sort of insurance product in place for them. MBIE said that one is expected, and that’s all very well, and the board will set minimum standards, but expected isn’t obviously the same thing as available now. We look forward to some more information on that.

The second one was about the scope expansion because the Minister did signal an intention to expand the scheme. As my colleague Tangi Utikere said during the submission process, we heard examples of how that might be good, but potentially to cover work and buildings that are up to three stories high—that sort of pricked our ears a little bit because that’s a significant step up in risk. We are being told that that could happen at the committee of the whole House stage. We’re not a fan of that. Expanding that scope expands consequences, I think, quite obviously. It must be properly scrutinised, not rushed through at the last minute. It would be remiss of me not to express some sort of disappointment that if that’s the order of things, it should have happened sooner.

The third thing is some consumer protection. When councils step back from inspection, homeowners lose that layer of protection. The question becomes, what happens if something does go wrong? What if a practitioner is no longer trading in the mean time? What if defects only emerge years later? Right now, we don’t believe that those pathways are as clear as they need to be for the policy that directly affects people’s homes, which is, you know, as we can all appreciate, often someone’s biggest asset and that does matter, therefore.

In regard to the regulatory uncertainty, we did feel that too much of the detail, including what counts as self-certifiable work is going to be left to regulation. We often see that happen, but it’s incumbent upon us to be able to sometimes push a little bit harder to make sure that the primary legislation reflects that. We’ll be looking to lock in as much of that clarity as possible into the primary legislation.

The unintended incentives are the final thing I want to raise because there’s a real risk that a simpler, cheaper plumbing option becomes easier to approve, while more sustainable systems still face those higher regulatory hurdles. Apart from that, we look forward to the next stage of this process and answering some of those questions. At this stage, we commend the bill to the House.

15:38

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise to take a short call as a last speaker. This is actually about the opt-in scheme to allow qualified plumbers and drainlayers to self-certify. But it actually limits the self-certification to low-risk plumbing and drainlaying jobs by eligible professionals. I think that’s a great thing. Giving qualified plumbers and drainlayers the ability to self-certify their work puts them on equal footing with electricians and gas fitters who have actually had this flexibility for years. I think it is actually something that the industry has actually been wanting.

It’s a common-sense change and it is something that the National Party committed on our manifesto back in the 2023 election, and we are delivering on that promise. I commend the bill to the House.

It’s been an interesting process in that we’ve changed the batting order in terms of which bits of legislation were up. That’s interesting, but thank you for allowing me to make some comment on behalf of both New Zealand First and as chair of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee.

First of all, I just wanted to say thank you to all of the committee members for working through this very, very collaboratively and collegially, as we always do. I also want to thank all the officials who worked very hard on this, but also the submitters. And what was really, really good—we didn’t have many submitters, but the submitters that we did have were really good quality. They were really focused, and particularly the two that I wanted to thank were Master Plumbers and the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Board. We didn’t just hear from them, but we also engaged with them further and we said to officials, “Actually, we want you to engage with them further.” And I know that the Minister also engaged with them further, and we engaged with the Minister, too. So it was a very collaborative process where everybody was trying to make sure we got the best possible result that we could get.

We had some suggestions that we should have got more into this report back and maybe less reliance on the committee of the whole House. Clearly, in our report back, you can see the expectation. It’s not often that we would do this, but the expectation from the Minister is that there will be further changes in the committee of the whole House. The reason that we went down that path was both advice from the Minister but also from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment to say, actually, they don’t have the time, in the time frame that we have to report back, to be able to give justice to that and get it right in the select committee report-back. We’re relying on the committee of the whole House to do some of those things, but we’re very clear in our commentary that that is our expectation and that is what we want to see happen.

We talk a lot in this House about the cost of housing, but just driving down the cost of housing, the value of existing housing, probably will end up being counter-productive, because all it does is make existing housing more attractive, vis-à-vis new housing. It becomes not worth building new housing, because you can’t make the margin on it. The key is to actually make it cheaper to deliver that new housing. That’s not by reducing the quality of that housing but by delivering better value and doing more for less. There are many, many things that this Government has been doing, and this is one of those things, to try and push down the actual cost of delivering housing, because that’s the way that you drive down the cost to the people who are purchasing it.

Look, it’s possible. Just look at the work that’s been done in the area of building new classrooms. We were effectively getting three for the price of two. Look at the difference in the way that Kāinga Ora is delivering housing, where it’s doing it a lot better than it was doing it before. It is possible to get more for less if you’re doing it the right way. This bill is one of many initiatives that this Government is taking to reduce the cost of delivering needed new housing.

There’s been a lot of talk about risk, and, yes, there are risks in buildings. Things go wrong, and that’s one of the reasons, at the moment, we see the cost of building inspection being so high. Why? Because councils are risk averse. Why are they risk averse? Because they’ve been bitten before. We all know about the leaky homes crisis. As a then city councillor, it cost Wellington City something like $150 million—$150 million. Where does that land? It lands on the ratepayer. I don’t know what Auckland’s bill was, but I think it was probably closer to a billion. Those are huge costs, and councils logically are going to be risk averse. In fact, we got to the stage of saying—it was me in particular; that was both as a councillor and as a mayor—“I want to hand back our licence. I don’t want us to be in the business of doing building consent.” Why? Because it’s just a liability.

It got worse because not only was it leaky buildings but also people started saying, “We’re going to have a go at you on seismic issues as well.” When you think about that, in places which are seismically risky, why would a council want to be anywhere near it? There is risk there. We’re not avoiding risk, but, at the moment, that risk has been lying on the ratepayer, and that is a problem, and that needs to change.

A house is, for most of us, the most important and valuable asset that most of us will ever own. For most of the things we buy, we’ve got protections under the Consumer Guarantees Act. You can go and get a repair, you can get a replacement, and you get a refund—whatever it might be. That’s really a lot harder with a house. It’s very complicated. Often when something goes wrong, it might not turn up for 10, 20, 30, or even 40 years. Something may go wrong a long way down the track. That’s why we’ve had this issue of councils being, effectively, the insurer through the ratepayers, which is, as I said, not very attractive. This is about changing that. We’ve already heard about the proportionate liability rather than the joint and several liability that we’ve got at the moment.

The safeguards in this bill: there’s the reliance on the skill and experience required to be an approved self-certifying plumber—I’ll come back to that because not every plumber is approved to do that, not by any stretch of the imagination—there’s the work and support of the board of plumbers, gasfitters, and drainlayers; there’s the disciplinary process they’ve got. They can impose the requirement to hold insurance. They also hold certificates of compliance, so there’s a lot that is done there to back up the self-certifying plumbers. I also note that I don’t know about the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Board, but certainly Master Builders hold a very significant amount of money to be able to back up their master builders if something goes wrong there with their master builders. Of course, they can discipline them as well.

The bill, as introduced, was to allow for approved professional, skilled plumbers and drainlayers opting in. It wasn’t compulsory to self-certify their work. Now, we have the plumbers, gasfitters, and drainlayers with the power of self-certification for certain work. It already exists for the gasfitters and for electricians, but not for the plumbers and drainlayers, so it’s a bit interesting in that area.

The two main submissions, as I said, we heard from were from Master Plumbers and from the board. Master Plumbers have been advocating for this element of self-certification for many, many years. I noted earlier in the debate, before lunch, Celia Wade-Brown’s quote from Christchurch that not all plumbers’ work is of acceptable quality, but not all plumbers are self-certifying plumbers. They have to do at least seven years to get to that point, and they have to meet all those other standards. That is really, really important. That’s a lot of time they have to do that training, and it’s very, very, very, very rigorous. Only plumbers and drainlayers who are licensed and in good standing with the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Board and have done that seven years - plus will be eligible for an endorsement to self-certify. It’s a relatively small number of people, but it’s important. The board’s going to oversee standards, compliance, and enforcement to protect that public health and safety while the building consent authorities still do the really high-risk stuff.

Just to wrap up, the idea is that self-certification will be for simple plumbing issues. I’ve already talked about who’s able to be self-certified. We made a lot of changes as a committee. We expect some further changes in the committee of the whole House. In fact, we want those further changes at the committee of the whole House. I think I will leave it there but just say, again, thanks to all the committee for the great work that’s been done. Thanks also to the Master Plumbers, the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Board, and to the Minister for the way he’s engaged with us in this. I commend the bill to the House.

15:47

I present legislative statements on the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism (Supervisor, Levy, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill and the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Amendment Bill.

Those legislative statements are published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

15:48

I move, That the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism (Supervisor, Levy, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill and the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

I am pleased to speak again today in this House to these two bills amending the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act 2009. The anti - money-laundering and countering of financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) system, which, from now on, I’m going to refer to as the AML system, has drifted into expensive box-ticking that creates delays, frustration, and compliance costs for New Zealanders and businesses. Too often, effort is wasted on low-risk paperwork, while serious criminal activity risks slipping through the cracks. That means unnecessary hurdles for everyday transactions without better outcomes for tackling crime.

These bills refocus the system to be genuinely risk-based, cutting red tape for low-risk customers and businesses while strengthening our ability to detect, deter, and disrupt serious crime. At the same time, maintaining an effective AML/CFT regime is critical to New Zealand’s access to global financial markets. These reforms ensure that we continue to meet international expectations in a way that works better for New Zealanders.

I will start with what the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism (Supervisor, Levy, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill will do, but, again, I’ll just call this one the supervisor and levy bill.

First, we have three very different regulators supervising the businesses that have obligations under the Anti-Money Laundering (AML) Act, meaning that support to industry such as guidance is slow in coming, and it can be disjointed. Second, the system is far too prescriptive, and we cannot adequately adjust requirements to reflect different levels of risk of money laundering. Third, the agencies with functions under the AML Act are not sufficiently resourced to properly undertake their functions and support businesses to comply with ease.

To address these shortcomings, the supervisor and levy bill makes three major amendments to the principal Act. It replaces the three supervisors with a single agency, the Department of Internal Affairs, and provides the supervisor with sufficient powers to successfully carry out its mandate. It realigns the use of secondary legislation to enable a more nimble and agile system for setting and enforcing obligations on industry. Thirdly, it enables the setting and collection of an industry levy to help resource and fund the necessary changes and improvements to the AML system.

An effective AML system requires a unified and consistent approach across the agencies that are responsible for stewardship, regulation, and intelligence. By streamlining the supervisory model, this bill will enable more agile and responsive supervision. It also means that the Department of Internal Affairs will be able to issue timely and consistent cross-sector guidance so that businesses can have confidence that they are meeting the regulatory expectations. Currently, updating AML obligations is slow and resource intensive, relying on primary legislation or new regulations that struggle to keep pace with evolving financial crime. This creates an unnecessary burden for businesses, and it risks gaps in enforcement.

This bill enables the Ministry of Justice and the Department of Internal Affairs, as well as New Zealand Police, to make targeted changes through secondary legislation, such as rules and notices. This allows obligations to be applied more flexibly based on risk, supporting a genuinely risk-based system while retaining regulations where parliamentary oversight, of course, is required. We need an AML system that is sufficiently resourced to make meaningful reform that cuts through red tape for those legitimate businesses, while effectively detecting, deterring, and preventing financial crime.

This bill establishes an industry levy as part of a new hybrid funding model to support the improved operation of the AML system. This is consistent with international practice and will ensure that participants in our financial system and other areas giving rise to money-laundering risk will contribute to the safeguards against financial crime. Levy regulations will distribute costs in a risk-appropriate and equitable way while minimising administrative costs. We will be mindful of the potential consumer impact of the levy where multiple regulated companies are involved with the same transaction.

The intention is that the regulatory relief enabled by this bill, together with the benefits to be co-funded by the levy, will result in overall positive outcomes for businesses and consumers. We will continue to refine the levy in consultation with the industries and the businesses that it might affect. I would like to thank the industry for their continued engagement and their support throughout this process of change.

I now turn to the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Amendment (AML/CFT) Bill. This bill cuts unnecessary red tape. It makes the system easier for businesses to navigate and, of course, comply with. It delivers 25 targeted changes to improve efficiency, support regulators, and maintain New Zealand’s compliance with internation standards. For example, it allows more proportionate due diligence for low-risk trusts, rather than applying the same requirements regardless of the risk. It also removes unintended duplication, such as requiring an international Border Cash Report when one has already been completed. More broadly, the bill improves clarity and proportionality across the system by ensuring obligations, including checks for politically exposed persons, are applied based on risk rather than on rigid rules.

The supervisor and levy bill was considered by the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, while the AML/CFT bill was considered by the Justice Committee. I’d like to thank both committees for their careful and constructive consideration of the bills. I’d also like to thank those submitters who took the time to share their views. The Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee made a series of excellent recommendations, primarily relating to retaining the integrity of the enforcement mechanisms in the Act for new secondary powers introduced in the bill. This is to ensure that regulator parties know where they stand when a rule or a notice is made, and that criminal activity absolutely will be prosecuted.

Another is standardising the consultation requirements and matters to be considered by regulatory decision makers, providing a clear opportunity for affected parties to input into secondary legislation and understand why decisions have been made. As well, they’ll be ensuring that safeguards are in place when the new supervisory powers are being applied. These changes support the policy underpinning the bill and have not altered the intent of the bill.

The Justice Committee made six recommendations on the AML/CFT bill, and I’m going to address three of them. First, the bill clarifies business obligations to provide records. The committee replaced the requirement to act to act “swiftly” with tiered time frames based on urgency, giving businesses greater certainty while ensuring timely access is still available for authorities.

Second, the committee clarified the role of guidance and risk assessments. Submitters were concerned that guidance could take on the force of law. The bill now requires businesses to incorporate risks identified in national and secretarial assessments, making both the status of those assessments and business obligations clear.

Thirdly, the committee recommended introducing a censure as a separate sanction alongside formal warnings, rather than renaming the warnings. The amendment includes a clear framework and appeal rights, aligning with other legislation and giving supervisors a more effective soft enforcement tool.

I’m proud to speak to these bills today because of the difference that they’re going to make to everyone who’s engaging with our anti - money-laundering system. The Government is committed to bolstering economic growth while tackling financial crime. The common-sense, quick-win changes in the AML bills that are presented will strengthen the anti - money-laundering regime while empowering businesses in New Zealand to focus on doing what they do best. I’d like to commend this bill to the House.

15:58

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s not often I get to do a call on two bills at once, so I thank the Minister for giving me a lot of reading material to go through on these particular bills. We are at the second reading now, and it’s the first opportunity I’ve had to take a call on either of these bills.

The call for action in this area has been clear. I think, in the documentation I was looking at in 2022, there was a report done that indicated there needed to be action to make sure that our anti - money-laundering and countering financing of terrorism laws and regulations should be strengthened. I think, even looking back at the time when these particular amendments that we’re making to the original bill were brought in, there was a view at that time that more would need to be done in the future. It’s not a surprising thing to take action on, and, obviously, it’s good for Governments to make sure that when important recommendations are made about significant issues like this, they are followed forward.

I think there are—I could be wrong—four bills, and we’re discussing two of them today. These are not straightforward matters, but, of course, I’m sure all New Zealanders will recognise that, unfortunately, one of the crimes that is sometimes committed—both in New Zealand and around the world—is hiding the proceeds of crime or hiding particular proceeds or amounts of money and purporting for those to be one thing when, actually, they are something else.

I wanted to start with the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism (Supervisor, Levy, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. When this was first introduced—and I think, indeed, today the Minister went over some of the reasons it was first introduced—one point of difference that we had with the Government on this is where the Minister appeared, in some of her comments, to suggest that streamlining this was in order to get rid of a situation of undue bureaucracy. I don’t agree that that should be the right driving intention for these particular changes. The driving force should be that we have the strongest, most appropriate laws in place to ensure that when people do business in New Zealand or when, in fact, people do business with New Zealand companies, they know that we take this type of crime seriously and that we will do everything we can to make sure that New Zealand has appropriate mechanisms to ensure that this doesn’t take place. We don’t agree that it’s necessarily “red tape”.

I wasn’t privileged to be on the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, but the select committee, in relation to both bills, have made some pretty substantive changes since the original bills were introduced. At least one of them had a report-back time of the end of November last year, so I think there will be some questions we do have for the Minister around how these particular changes are going to be implemented. For example, one of the changes brought in by the select committee was that rather than the normal process of having a bill come into force the day after Royal assent, it would come in on 1 July 2026. Well, we are now approaching that much faster than we would have been when this was due for reporting at the end of last year. There are a few issues about whether that needs to be changed—this is, again, in relation to, I think, the first bill on the Order Paper; they’re quite similarly named, so I can’t be exactly certain. Anyway, it’s in relation to the supervisor and levy bill.

The other issue that I wanted to raise is something that we have raised in relation to a few different bills—not just in this area, and certainly not just with this Minister. There are a lot of the substantive provisions in both of these bills that are reliant on regulations and are made to be effective through regulations. Obviously, a concern for us as legislators is the fact that we don’t have oversight of the regulations before the bills are made law, and so, therefore, we can’t balance whether the system as a whole will be effective. That is another thing that was reflected on by the select committee.

Another thing that I’d be keen to raise now and, obviously, ask the Minister about in the committee of the whole House stage is the fact that there has been a change made by the select committee to mean that there has to be consultation with the Minister on changes. Now, these are crimes that we’re talking about, and we do have in New Zealand a relatively usual and, I think, proper space and gap between the operations of the prosecuting bodies, like the New Zealand Police and other agencies like the Serious Fraud Office, and the political decision-makers who make the laws. That has been a change made at select committee—it’s been a suggestion to have consultation with the Minister.

Other things that might be interesting for lawyers, and certainly were interesting for me, were that changes were made to ensure that when a meeting about a contravention happens—this is under the first bill still—that a lawyer has to be present at that meeting. I’m quite interested to find out at later stages of this discussion how that works, because having a lawyer present and being informed of your rights won’t necessarily get rid of all the potential risks. If there’s any doubt, I wasn’t on the select committee, but it appears to me that they have made more substantive changes than many other select committees do, so I want to commend them for that.

There are a few other changes in relation to that first bill, but I notice that I’m almost out of time to talk about the second bill, which is obviously being read at the same time. This has had some rather substantive changes since the first reading. One of the things that might be interesting for the politicians in the House to note is that there was a change from “politically exposed person” and that definition that appeared in the first draft of the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Amendment Bill, which is the second bill to discuss. The language of that has been changed. It was raised as a concern by submitters, so I do commend the committee for doing that, and I’m interested to hear, in due course, from the Minister on how that will affect that.

Another aspect of this bill, similar to the last bill, is the fact that there will be other regulations that will be put in place that will not be subject to select committee review. That’s specifically in relation to the risk assessment. That is significant, and, obviously, we hope that the provisions that are put in place can be reviewed at some stage so we can make sure that those are appropriate, too.

Overall, I don’t think many New Zealanders would disagree with the purpose of these pieces of legislation. These are serious matters. I recall in my training as a lawyer, and when I qualified in the United Kingdom, that one of the main areas that we had to study was to make sure that we were able to effectively identify money laundering. That was a compulsory aspect of it. The fact that we are taking this so seriously and have, in fact, four pieces of legislation to address these concerns shows how complex this can be. These are not victimless crimes. You’ll see in some of the information about how money laundering has been exploited in New Zealand that some people have used their children or children’s identities in order to money launder. That is a despicable crime, not only for the dishonesty associated with the money laundering but, also, for the association of people who have no agency and the potential impacts for them in later life, too.

This is serious. The committee has done a good job at making some substantive changes to both bills. It’s interesting to see them set out here beside one another. Obviously, we will look at the other pieces of legislation, as well, but we do encourage the Government to make sure that the focus is on having a robust regime in relation to money laundering and on making sure that people can have confidence in New Zealand, whether they are doing business here or whether they are an overseas company doing business with New Zealand abroad. I commend these bills to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

16:08

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party to speak on two bills—the associated bills that we’re reading now for the second time. In terms of context, what we have is the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Amendment Bill and the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism (Supervisor, Levy, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. Both bills had their first readings a little while ago—the first one in particular, the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Amendment Bill, which I will now shorten to AML/CFT.

That’s just as long!

Well, I could expand it and just continue to take up more time. Anyway, the first AML/CFT bill was introduced at the end of 2024, and it did go through the Justice Committee at that time. Afterwards, we saw the first reading, at some point last year, of the AML/CFT (Supervisor, Levy, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. It’s also interesting to note that while the two bills cover the same sort of recommendations and findings from the Financial Action Task Force, they did go to separate select committees. At that stage, we raised the concern, particularly when the second bill was read—the AML/CFT (Supervisor, Levy, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, which went to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee—about why that went to that committee when the first one, about which we did have a few questions and concerns, as well, went to the Justice Committee.

At that stage, the rationale that we were given was that upon attending the relevant select committee and select committee process for both of them, it does make a lot of sense when it comes to the first AML/CFT bill in the Justice Committee being more relevant around the illegality aspect, the definitions around the regulatory system but also the use of censure, etc. That was appropriate to be heard by the Justice Committee members, particularly those with a skill in those matters.

But it is unfortunate that once we got to the second bill, which went to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, it was hard for members—who could, of course, sub in from one committee to another. But for those from the public perspective who may not be aware, both committees sit on the same day, so occasionally it was hard for the same members to sub in and out to join both committees, particularly when the second AML/CFT bill was heard in the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee. It was just by chance that I was able to sub in on some of those and was able to hear from both submitters and, also, officials on both bills, which form part of a broader package of AML/CFT reform. That’s kind of the broader context.

I’m going to start first with the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Amendment Bill, which went through the Justice Committee, and then I’ll move on to the second one. Like I’ve said, both of them come as a broader package from the Financial Action Task Force recommendations and the review that they’ve done on AML/CFT. With that particular one, there were kind of two particular areas that are important to note. I want to express the difference between how the bill was introduced in the first reading and what we’re seeing now in the second reading, after the select committee stage, in terms of some of the changes that we’ve adopted as a result of what we’ve done in the select committee, after advice from officials but also from submitters, and I want to thank all submitters on both bills.

For the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Amendment Bill, we had 21 submitters, and the two broadest areas were around the definition of “politically exposed person” in new section 26(1) in clause 10. Specifically, when we were looking at the term that was used, which was “risk management system”, submitters mentioned, rightly, that this particular term doesn’t appear anywhere else in the legislation and that by introducing this term, it might have the counter-productive effect of making it more clear in terms of the requirement from reporting entities. So, as part of that process, we have decided to remove that particular term “risk management system” and retain the existing section 26(1) in the section, which talks about it being in accordance with the level of risk involved. I think that is an important consistency change that we’ve made to the bill to ensure that it is fit for purpose.

Now, of course, we also discussed a lot in terms of how the reporting entities must keep a record and the fact that now, under the new requirement, we are seeing greater accountability, which is really important because, again, AML/CFT is a serious concern. As we see organised crimes becoming more and more sophisticated, our AML/CFT legislation should also be able to keep up to date with the increasing sophistication while at the same time ensure that the compliance isn’t overly burdensome for people who may not be in a position to do the full reporting but, also, in a position where they may not have the resources to be able to comply with a one-size-fits-all model. So I think, again, the flexibility we’re seeing in both bills is really, really important, but in this case, in terms of the reporting, now, the “reporting entity that is required to produce … under this Act or any other enactment would need to do so swiftly.” Again, it’s an accountability and transparency mechanism that we see, which is really important.

Finally, I think, for the AML/CFT bill that I want to address is the questions—and, again, we’ve heard concerns from the submitters around censures. Now, at this stage, there are two separate—well, formerly, under the first reading of the bill, the intention, I think, at that stage was to replace formal warnings with censures, but as we heard from the select committee stage, as people rightly pointed out, when we’re looking at formal warnings, it is in reference to allegations, and “recipients are invited to contact supervisors if the facts stated in the notice are inaccurate or incomplete.”, whereas “censures are typically penalties that follow evidential findings”. So those two are very different and serve different purposes.

One of the things that the select committee did do is we amended to add censures as a new section while retaining the existing formal warning system—again, just to take into consideration both scenarios. So that’s mainly the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Amendment Bill.

I’m going to move on to the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism (Supervisor, Levy, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I think one of the big issues over—well, one of the big changes, which at select committee we didn’t really have to make any changes to because neither submitters nor officials had any particular concern with this area, is the changes in terms of reporting for the supervisors and the requirements around the supervisors.

I think what is important to mention as part of the select committee process and questions that were raised—and I think this is going to be something that, for example, the Regulations Review Committee will continue monitoring—is that the biggest aspect of this particular bill, which is more to do with the financing aspect of it—which is why it went to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee—is that it provides for regulations and codes of practice to be made in the AML/CFT system, which then extends that range of secondary legislation, which, for some, of course, as part of primary legislation, understandably, submitters have concerns around certainty and around requirements, because secondary legislation is not done as part of the introduction of a bill; it’s done much later on.

It is important, then, to ensure that when the agencies are—and, I believe, in this case; I might be wrong, but I believe it’s the Department of Internal Affairs. When they are putting together the regulations and the codes of practice to ensure that a fulsome consultation is done with the relevant stakeholders to make sure that they are fit for purpose and they are appropriate—and, of course, as we know, with the Regulations Review Committee here in Parliament, the Regulations Review Committee will also be reviewing and will be keeping an eye on some of the secondary legislation.

Finally, I just want to address that the broader concerns we’re seeing and how wide-scoping this is when it comes to AML/CFT globally—because, again, this is something that isn’t simply just about individuals but can also be applicable to organisations and companies. An example I really want to address is the landmark case currently that just took place in France where Lafarge, which is a cement company, has been put on record as, or has been ruled to be, financing terrorism in Syria and beyond. This, for example, is now owned by Holcim, which is a company that is also here in Aotearoa New Zealand. So it’s important, when we’re looking at the broader scope of AML/CFT, how we’re able to make sure that that doesn’t happen for both individuals and companies. But the Green Party does support this bill. Thank you.

16:18

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Removing red tape isn’t just about one step or one action; it’s about layers and layers of removal of unnecessary compliance—things that cost New Zealand businesses, every day. This bill is another step in removing unnecessary red tape. It’s about making it easier to do business, reducing compliance costs, and improving our regulatory systems. As part of getting this country back on track, I commend this bill to the House.

16:19

I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Amendment Bill and the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism (Supervisor, Levy, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill—a big mouthful. I think it’s really important, on behalf of New Zealand First, to recognise that our core pillar is around protecting community and country, and that includes the necessary steps that we have to ensure that crime and terrorism do not form or take stronger hold than they already have in the fabric of our society.

When we talk about this bill removing bureaucracy and red tape, this means that we’re producing legislation that is usable, workable, and more effective. It is not simply removing red tape; it is actually making the legislation more effective and more applicable. When people understand the legislation, then we can ensure there’s greater levels of compliance and, therefore, greater levels of accountability for those who breach the legislation.

New Zealand First is very proud of this piece of legislation. We commend the Minister for the hard work that has gone into bringing this piece of legislation together. We do need to ensure that we make it easier to do business. We do need to make sure that we maintain our reputation as a safe and effective place to do business, to live, and to operate. Therefore, this legislation is important that we ensure that we have risk-proportionate legislation, that we apply practical steps to ensure that we’re not duplicating, we are making our legislation clear and understandable. Therefore, we have no hesitation in commending this bill to the House.

16:21

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise as the second speaker for the Greens to support these bills. I wasn’t on either select committee—the Justice Committee or the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee—but I do note the comments made by my esteemed colleague Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan that having those select committees on the same day made it very difficult for members of our Parliament that are incredibly keen to go to every single select committee that they could—so commiserations to Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan and others across the House that wish they could go to as many select committees as they could.

I guess the thing that I noted from that was the complexity with this number of bills. There’s the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Amendment Bill—which has been protracted into the AML/CFT-type legislation—which is just one of four bills that would amend regulatory systems administered by the Ministry of Justice. These amendments in the bill are designed to ensure that anti - money-laundering and countering financing of terrorism legislation remains fit for purpose, which is the reason why it’s divided up into a number of bills.

My understanding is that the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism (Supervisor, Levy, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill—which is the one that went to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, and went to that committee because it was dealing with the financial aspects, as well. It focused on making sure that it provides for codes of practice and making sure that there was that follow-on in regulation. Because this will be a fast-changing and developing aspect of the law, as well, it’s good to hear that the Regulations Review Committee, hopefully, will be paying close attention to this particular bill as well.

Also, noting the case that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan said, as well, in terms of this type of bill, that it’s important that it just doesn’t focus on individuals—and noting that companies and larger organisations can also be involved in financing of terrorism, as well. He did point to the case of the French cement company Lafarge—who is now owned also by Holcim, who are here in New Zealand; so I hope they’re listening, as well—who have been found to be funding terrorism in Syria, so pointing to the important aspect of making sure that we get this legislation over the line, as well.

The other bill that we are discussing today, as well, is the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Amendment Bill. Because I wasn’t on the select committee, I kind of assumed that it was an overarching bill, but I’ve been told that it wasn’t; it is actually part and parcel of the four bills. That one went to the Justice Committee because it was dealing with issues where there are experts on that committee who deal with these issues day to day.

One of the things that they dealt with was what it means to be a politically exposed person. There are very many politically exposed persons in this Parliament, but I guess, within the context of this legislation, it has a very, very specific meaning. One of the discussions that they had was around a risk management system. The point that I took was that, actually, this was the first time that this term had actually appeared in the legislation, and that would cause issues. The committee—my understanding is—decided to change that and take that away. I think that is a common-sense thing to do, to make sure that it is streamlined.

It is important to make sure that these bills do get given due consideration. I do want to commend members across the House for working diligently on this. It does seem incredibly complicated and complex. I’m just picking this stuff up today, but these are fast-moving times. Making sure that our legislation is fit for purpose, making sure that this legislation can get the job done is incredibly, incredibly important. Having that spread across different select committees to actually deal with the very specific issues is incredibly important, as well. I know that submitters would have come to the select committee with solutions and to find particular ways in which this will make it fit for purpose here in New Zealand and beyond, as well.

There was a discussion around the commencement date. I note, as well, that it was different in terms of the context of this bill as opposed to what it was usually as we expect within other bills. The Greens will be supporting both of these bills. Thank you.

16:26

It is a great honour to rise and speak in support of both these bills. It’s great to have support right across the House for them. It is important to protect against crime and also terrorism, but we also need to make sure our legislation is workable and efficient. Therefore, I commend these bills to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Like colleagues across the House, I rise to speak in favour of both of these bills. Several colleagues have raised the fact that these bills went through two separate select committees, so it was a bit of a collaborative effort, but, actually, a third committee was involved, as well: the Regulations Review Committee, and perhaps I’ll be able to speak to some of their contribution down the line.

This is, of course, an extremely serious issue, particularly so when we see New Zealand’s standing or ranking with Transparency International slip in recent years. Certainly, this is one area that, in my view, has given pause to that. What we know is that about $1.3 billion is generated by money-laundering just in New Zealand every year. In 2025, there was a story about $1.8 million being taken from a group of about a dozen people who thought that they were investing in companies, essentially. This is an issue that very much affects everyday people.

I read an article a little while ago that compared how New Zealand was doing in comparison to Australia, in terms of our regulation. There was a phrase they used that said, “Australia is a step ahead but still in transition.” This is very much an issue where countries across the world are looking to develop their legislation, so it’s entirely appropriate that we should be doing the same.

The Minister and my colleague Camilla Belich have run through some of the aspects of this bill, certainly strengthening the scheme but also ensuring that there isn’t overregulation where it’s unnecessary. There are also very practical powers that are included in the four sets of bills, including the increase to powers for Police to freeze back accounts, as well.

I do note that, in terms of the submitters who came to the Justice Committee, one was the Law Society, and they did raise issues about whether the regulation was still too heavy in this space. In 2024, the Law Society released a report on the costs of running a legal practice. The used the financial data of—I believe it was—over 100 practices to identify operational costs and challenges. What the report showed is that the cost of running a legal practice had increased by 15.3 percent, but in the survey responses, many of the responses spoke to the fact that within that, the percent to which they were affected, there was a significant proportion that related to anti - money-laundering and countering financing of terrorism costs. These are costs such as keeping records and conducting risk assessments. While I feel that we have got the balance right for now, I know that, certainly, there are asks from some who are being regulated that we continue to consider whether we do have the balance right.

I wanted to start, as well, by speaking a little bit about the search powers in the bill that we considered. As many in the House will of course know, section 21 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act protects the freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. Now, the bill as introduced allows the supervisor to require any person who it reasonably suspects has knowledge of a possible contravention of the Act or regulations to attend a meeting with a supervisor to answer questions and provide any other information they deem is necessary or desirable. What’s interesting about this is these circumstances, according to the legal advice, are likely to be held to be searches. Coupled with section 46, amended by clause 10 of this bill, it expands the regulator’s powers to enter into dwellinghouses with the consent of the occupier and conduct these interviews. Now, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act said that these searches—so these interviews—are legal, but there were then, of course, questions about whether the individuals being questioned would be required to answer. Thankfully, within the bill as it was introduced, there’s a section that said the individuals don’t need to answer if it would incriminate them.

The select committee did some really valuable work here in that they expressed concern that individuals simply wouldn’t know that they held this right. There was a necessary connector, which was the connector to two things, actually. Firstly, legal advice at this critical time, but, also, the individual seeking the information had to inform them of the rights, as well. That was a really helpful addition that the select committee made.

There’s also a second question around the issue of detention. While these individuals are being required to attend a meeting, there was no power to bring the meeting to a close in the initial piece of legislation. Now, the initial views and advice around this were that it didn’t matter because the interviewers must exercise due care. The select committee actually said, “No. We should have this as an explicit provision within the bill.” Again, the individuals being interviewed are required to be informed of their right to call an end to these proceedings.

Now, at this stage, you might be saying, “Well, aren’t we defeating the purpose of the bill?” We do want these investigators to have access to appropriate levels of information, but, thankfully, the bills as they are already cover this point, as well. The Act provides for the supervisors to require the production of documentation. That’s quite broad, in my view. That information cannot only be obtained through that power but there are provisions about how long individuals have to be able to provide that information, as well.

Some really robust work has been done by the select committee in terms of ensuring the protection of rights as opposed to assuming them. I said I’d mention the role of the Regulations Review Committee because, again, it’s often an overlooked committee, but one who ensure we have clean and tidy legislation when it comes to this stage of a bill or bills being in the House. They pointed, in some of their advice, to a duplication of powers. This was a power to make exemptions to levy requirements—a very, very important part of the legislation. I’m getting some nods from Government members, who, I’m sure, not only agree with this but agree with the important role of the Regulations Review Committee. Their proposal was that you didn’t need both powers. So the two powers: one has some restrictions around when an exemption could be granted; the other one was quite broad. The committee’s recommendation was to include the power with more restrictions, which is really in line with best practice in terms of legislative drafting—so a very important role from the Regulations Review Committee.

I can’t bring my contribution to a close without also mentioning one important thing that the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee—so the other select committee—recommended, as well. This is a clarification, rather than anything else, which relates to Official Information Act (OIA) requests. There was a clause within the initial bill that went to that select committee in clause 36, Schedule 1, new Part 3, section 9(2)(a), that said, “all information that relates solely or principally to the function and that is held by the FMA or the RBNZ is transferred to and held by the DIA;”. They pointed out that, actually, that was quite confusing about who would hold the obligation to provide the information if an OIA request was sought. In my limited time, I won’t read out the language they proposed, none the less to say that I think that it was extremely helpful.

In my final minute, I would just like to make one point about the funding of mechanisms to appropriately oversee fraud, and serious fraud, in particular. I would encourage the Government to not only ensure that we have a legislative framework that is fit for purpose and that has the mechanisms to monitor compliance with that framework but that we also have the court systems to be able to prosecute at a level we should. Now, in last year’s Budget we saw about $100,000 decline in the Serious Fraud Office’s budget, who are, essentially, being asked to have, in my view, a broader mandate and address more serious issues that are hitting our shores—I reference, again, both the decline in our Transparency International rating and increasing rates of fraud across the board. We agree with the legislation, but, again, we’ll be keeping an eye on the Budget later this year; for me, particularly in regards to the budget of the Serious Fraud Office. Thank you.

16:36

It’s a pleasure to rise in support of the combining and coming together of these two different but, fundamentally, same-in-importance bills. Like the coming together of these two bills, it’s lovely hearing the coming together of the commendation around the House of them from all the different parties. I commend these bills to the House.

Dan Rosewarne—this is a split call.

16:37

It’s a pleasure to rise and take a call on these two bills. I wasn’t there for the submission process, but I’ve very much enjoyed just hearing the contributions in the House today. Protecting the integrity of New Zealand’s financial system and ensuring that it cannot be exploited by organised crime or those financing terrorism is absolutely crucial. Let’s be clear: any anti - money-laundering is not red tape, as some have indicated; they’re a front-line defence. They protect our communities from very real harm caused by organised crime, particularly in a country that continues to grapple with the devastating impacts of methamphetamine and a huge amount of financial scams.

We support the steps it takes to strengthen enforcement, close loopholes, and improve the overall effectiveness of the anti - money-laundering and countering financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) regime. For example, we support banning those crypto ATMs that we see cropping up around the country. These machines convert cash into cryptocurrency. They’ve become a clear vulnerability in the financial system—very hard to track the movements within that system. The Banking Ombudsman recently warned of significant scam risks with people being directed to deposit large sums of cash into these machines. We’ve even seen them appearing around Christchurch. In my research leading up to speaking on this bill, there were around about 30 in Christchurch alone. They were cropping up around the country up to around about 200. Closing the loophole is the right thing to do.

But support for this bill does not mean a blank cheque; we still have some concerns. We also support the move to a single AML/CFT supervisor—that role. This is a sensible change. It will simplify what is currently a fragmented system and make it easier for legitimate businesses to navigate. Many of our international partners, including Australia, already operate under a single supervisor model. However, this new supervisor will take on significant responsibilities—functions currently held by both the Reserve Bank and the Financial Markets Authority. That raises an important question: is the Department of Internal Affairs the right place for that role? Because this is not a minor or administrative shift. This is a consolidation of a substantial regulatory enforcement and rule-making power into one single entity.

That entity must be very robust, it must be well resourced, and capable of managing risk at a national and international level. That brings me to a key concern: the growing reliance on secondary legislation. This bill gives significant powers to the chief executive of the supervisor to make rules, set thresholds, and grant exemptions, and to shape how the system actually operates in practice. Some flexibility is appropriate, but we’re concerned that too many critical decisions—decisions about how that risk is defined and managed—will be made outside of that full parliamentary scrutiny. Parliament should not be asked to sign off on broad principles only to have the real substance determined later on down the track, behind closed doors. We want to know exactly what is being proposed in that secondary legislation, because that detail very much matters.

Take the issue of low-risk customers. In principle, Labour supports making compliance easier where risk is genuinely low, but no one wants to see small businesses, farmers, or everyday New Zealanders buried under unnecessary compliance costs. That really needs us to define what is low-risk, and that is not straightforward. Criminals actively look for weak points in a system, they look for the gaps, and they look for people and transactions that appear low risk in order to exploit them. We know, for example, that children’s bank accounts can be used as conduits for that money-laundering. Real estate transactions remain a known vector for illicit finance. These are all things that these two bills do, and, for that reason, we commend them to the House.

16:42

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. This bill introduces a single supervisor for anti - money-laundering and countering financing of terrorism, so we’re sort of bringing things together, which is a really good thing in Parliament. It replaces the current, complicated system that exists at the moment. Many businesses really struggle with the processes that they have to go through—there’s heaps and heaps of complexities that are associated. Ultimately, it’s about making it simpler for the businesses but also ensuring that this reform removes all of the unnecessary bureaucracy that’s happening. It strengthens it up, and also our defences against serious financial crime, and so I commend it to the House.

Kia ora e te Mana Whakawā. Yes, we do support this bill, but we support appropriate regulation. I do think it’s important to recognise that anti - money-laundering legislation and action is actually critical in addressing some of the real problems in New Zealand today. We do know that the gangs have cash businesses, and they desperately need to launder their money. We do know that methamphetamine use has gone up astronomically in New Zealand over the past few years, and a cash business like that desperately needs ways to launder money.

I just want to express some caution around the narrative that we’re hearing across a number of agencies and regulatory sphere when we talk about risk-based regulation. On its surface, that’s a pretty anodyne kind of comment, but what we’ve got to be really careful about is that that isn’t seen as shorthand for deregulation or less regulation, or lower or looser regulation. What it needs to be is effective regulation, and I think we can all agree that that is entirely appropriate.

There is a danger that we search out situations that the participants say are low risk. My colleague Dan Rosewarne identified one. The problem is that, in many cases, they are low risk—children’s bank accounts. Now, of course, we don’t want children to have to have full “know your customer” regulations when they’ve got their $2 a week going into their bank account. But if you know that nobody looks at children’s bank accounts, then those naturally become a target because it is the weakest link. The same goes for routine conveyancing transactions, which is another so-called low-risk transaction. Of the thousands that happen every week, they are almost all fine, but if we have a regime where nobody looks—where there is no reporting requirement for routine conveyancing transactions—then routine conveyancing transactions will be where the money goes. We’ve got to be really cautious that we don’t see the system as static—that we don’t say, “Oh, nobody launders money that way, so we don’t need to look there.” As soon as you stop looking there, money will start being laundered there.

The whole premise of these two bills is risk-based regulation. Look, we agree, in principle, with the idea that you don’t regulate where there is no risk—but be cautious that you don’t look at something like children’s bank accounts, conveyancing transactions, or real estate agents’ trust accounts and say, “Nothing ever goes wrong there, so nothing ever will.” That’s the first thing I would say. Along with that goes the idea that money-laundering regulation is red tape. It’s not. It’s actually one of the most effective and important tools to address organised crime, and I think we need to recognise that. What we should see this as doing—and I think it does, in part—is sharpening the tools rather than blunting them. It shouldn’t be making it less effective; it should be making it more effective.

The other thing I want to talk about just briefly is the levy framework. We can see some justification that entities that process large amounts of money should generally pay the costs of administering what goes on there, but linked to what I just said is that this is actually a law enforcement function. What’s going on here is the prevention and detection of criminal activity. In a sense, this has been outsourced to industry in the sense that if a bank gets a suspicious transaction, they are expected to detect and report that; it’s their job to do it—not the Police’s job, not the Financial Market Authority’s job. They are part of the enforcement network. That’s good and fine—there’s nothing wrong with that. But then, to say that they also have to pay the costs of the people who receive their reports and follow up on them—I think there’s a balance to be struck.

I’m not a huge one for letting banks off the hook, or even lawyers, but this is nevertheless a situation where we’ve got to be a little bit cautious about what we levy for. Levying and other charges is generally about a private good, but the good of appropriate money-laundering regulation is a good that is borne equally by society, because it means that there’s going to be less money-laundering that goes on, and it weakens criminal networks. I think we’ve got to think really carefully about that—about whether, just because someone is doing that activity, they should be paying for the administration of it in the Department of Internal Affairs.

Of course, that’s the other major restructure that this legislation does. Again, we agree that consolidation of the functions is appropriate, but we do hope that this Government will resource the Department of Internal Affairs appropriately, because the functions are not merely administrative. It’s not just a matter of looking through a few spreadsheets and seeing where the money came from. Anti - money-laundering and financing of terrorism in particular is a complex, investigative, and forensic task. The people in the Financial Markets Authority who were doing that were expert investigators. It’s really important that that expertise exists in the Department of Internal Affairs, and that that culture of robust and fair and procedurally sound investigation is carried across into the department. Similarly, the work that the Reserve Bank was doing in administering—and, if I recall rightly, they would administer the suspicious transaction reports, so those skills have to come across, as well.

So, yes, we think that this bill and these two bills together are generally fine. I don’t know that we would have done it quite the same way, but the Labour Party’s not going to stand in the way of small improvements which do the right thing.

We do worry, though—and Vanushi Walters made this clear—that a lot of the administrative power, and it’s substantial, is passed through on to secondary legislation. Broad powers of exemption need to be carefully used. One of the questions is how far down the chain they go. As I understand it, this will be the chief executive’s role to exempt either by way of individuals—you know, that Sharesies gets an exemption for such and such things—or by classes, so anyone who is embarking on this trade or enterprise can get an exemption. They’re pretty significant carve-outs of the legislative scheme and they need to be really carefully scrutinised to be very transparent. The regulation-making powers and the power to exempt by notice and the like raises some alarm bells, and we’ll keep a close eye on it.

But, as I said, the real issue is that we’ve got a massive problem in New Zealand of organised crime, criminal groups, methamphetamine use and sale, and we just want to be really cautious that we don’t actually blunt one of the most effective tools in addressing that serious social harm.

16:53

I commend the bills.

I commend these bills to the House.

I’m going to take the vote on these two bills. I have been advised that I can take the vote on both of them together as long as all parties are voting the same way on both bills. So if anyone is intending to vote a different way on each bill, please let me know now. There is no indication of that.

16:54

I present a legislative statement on the Regulatory Systems (Transport) Amendment Bill.

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

I move, That the Regulatory Systems (Transport) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

We traversed the contents of this bill in the first reading. As tradition in the second reading, we now come to discussing the report back from the select committee, so I won’t go back over old territory. I will make a couple of key comments. First, I’d just like to thank the select committee, the transport select committee—

And infrastructure.

—Transport and Infrastructure Committee; don’t forget the infrastructure part—for their scrutiny of this bill, and the submitters who took the time to make a submission: 41 written submissions and seven oral submitters in total. I think members of the Justice Committee are probably rolling their eyes at the workload there, but it’s all important stuff. I really appreciate the work that the select committee did and the time that people have put into contributing to this bill.

It is a regulatory systems bill, so it covers a number of areas. With the agreement of parties across the House, it amends a number of Acts so we can make some modernisation changes to the system.

I wanted to touch on a couple of points raised by submitters that have been reflected back in the select committee report. The first one is, I think, probably one of the key parts of the bill, and maybe the more popular part of the bill, which is that this is the bill that enables the infrastructure to provide for digital drivers’ licences in New Zealand. Now, ironically, we can already recognise digital drivers’ licences from other jurisdictions, just not our own. What this bill does is it implements that framework so that, later on, the Government can make decisions about what that system eventually looks like.

Just to be clear, for those who made submissions, this bill does not set up digital drivers’ licences; it just provides the framework for them to be implemented at a later date by the Government. I want to acknowledge the submitters who raised concerns about whether or not digital drivers’ licences would become compulsory. That is not the Government’s intention. It is our view that those licences, the physical licences, will remain in play and this is a voluntary step that people can take up if they wish to do so.

For instance, if you’re like me and you end up keeping your driver’s licence in the truck sometimes and you get to the airport, you fly somewhere, and you realise that you’ve left it in your truck and then you have to go and get a rental car, you still can’t get a rental vehicle because you need your physical licence to do so. For forgetful people like me, that may be helpful in the future when you can just pull out your phone, provide your verified driver’s licence, and on the road you go.

I would also like to provide some reassurances to those submitters who raised the idea of this becoming a national ID: that is also not the intention. Of course, there are a number of documents and identification numbers that people hold in this country. Your driver’s licence is one, your passport is another, your national health number, your national education number—there are many, many numbers around that the Government can use to link you with Government services. All this does is provide the framework for allowing the digitisation of those drivers’ licences.

I wanted to address another key concern from submitters. It was around accessibility and the fact that for those who don’t have a driver’s licence for one reason or another, having a digital ID to prove their age or prove their identity can be quite difficult. I just want to reassure them that as part of the digital identity trust framework that the Government has also worked on, there are going to be other options that come forward in the future for a trusted, verifiable digital ID that people can use to verify their age or their identity which doesn’t involve having a driver’s licence, and for that reason, that should be good for those with accessibility issues or people who for one reason or another cannot have a driver’s licence or a passport for that reason.

With that, I’d just like to, once again, thank all those who made a contribution to this bill. The select committee reports a number of other relatively minor but straightforward changes to align some of the search powers, some of the infringement powers in here with equivalent pieces of legislation around civil aviation, and health and safety, and so I thank them for picking up on those issues. It’s one of the best things about our select committee, that you can put it through a process where some things that were overlooked the first time can get picked up, remedied, and taken through the House. With that, I commend the bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

16:58

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to also say a few words at the second reading of the Regulatory Systems (Transport) Amendment Bill. Labour’s going to support this bill at this second reading stage because it’s pretty practical. It’s a system-wide tidy-up, and that’s probably all it could be described as.

I note the Associate Minister of Transport’s comments and note that it was a relatively short speech because it’s a relatively simple, straightforward bill that tidies things up and improves how transport regulation works day to day.

It’s not without some controversy, and there were obviously some people that were concerned, as happens when some things become digitised. It can raise the hackles of a few people that want to be very well assured that it doesn’t overreach and doesn’t impact them in a negative way, and we can work our way through those points as we go on. It’s not transformational. It fixes issues but it certainly doesn’t address those bigger challenges in our transport system.

What the bill does do is it is understood, essentially, as a piece of modernisation work, and a clean-up across land, maritime, aviation, and, actually, even rail. It brings the system into the digital age, which is a good thing. As the Minister has just noted, there are a couple of really practical advantages of having that digital driver’s licence—for example, when trying to rent a car and not having your physical licence on you. It’s also important to note, I think—as many of the submitters were potentially a little bit concerned about—that it’s not compulsory, and that seemed to give assurance to some people that were concerned about that being the direction.

It enables the digital driver’s licence and electronic display of documents like warrant of fitness and certificates of loading, it allows infringement notices to also be issued electronically, and it updates basic systems so that regulators can communicate using email and mobile contact details. That’s not without risk; we’ve certainly seen that in other bills that have come through this House. I remember, in particular, hearing quite a lot of evidence and information when I was on the Justice Committee about electronic infringement notices, and when you dig beneath the surface, it’s certainly not as easy as it sounds at the onset of that conversation. This isn’t without complication, but, as I said, it’s a very simple updating bill. This makes compliance simpler and the system, hopefully, more responsive, which is the aim.

Secondly, it strengthens safety and enforcement. The New Zealand Transport Agency, I suppose as one example, can close an unsafe highway more quickly, which has got to be a good thing. The Director of Land Transport can suspend unsafe operators much more immediately should that information come to light if the system is a little bit more modern, and parts of the system can talk to each other a little bit more readily. Rail and maritime investigation powers in this bill are expanded so that risks can be identified earlier, as well. Those were things that within the transport sector are things that have been advocated for. This is about a system that can act a bit more quickly, particularly when safety is at risk.

The third point I wanted to make is that it updates the penalties and improves some consistency. That’s an important part of any kind of robust system. The land transport penalties are, in fact, increased, and the maritime fines are aligned much more readily with international standards, which is actually also really important. It is important; as long as you have rules and regulations, they do have to remain credible and they do have to continue to be meaningful in a changing sort of world. We’re more than happy to support that.

The fourth aspect of this bill that is probably worth mentioning is that it fixes some longstanding gaps and what, I suppose, can be described as technical errors. It resolves issues around declaring new State highways, it clarifies the use of infrastructure like bus stops when they happen to be within motorway corridors, and it fixes some aviation law issues so that airports—if I’ve got this right—can properly set those charges. These are small but necessary fixes to remove some of the friction that exists within those current systems.

Finally, it aligns New Zealand with international standards, which, as I said, is actually important, particularly through stronger protections for seafarers—as a good example—under the international labour convention. That is something that we have a somewhat checkered history on. It is a proud history in a lot of respects but sometimes the lag between signing ourselves up to things and actually domestically putting in place those regulations in that legislation to enact it could be improved. Overall, the bill makes the system, as I said, more efficient, more modern, and safer. For those reasons, we are prepared to continue to show our support.

Now, when I think about the select committee process—given this is a second reading—I’ve picked out a few bits and pieces of the feedback from submitters. Submitters largely supported the bill as a necessary tidy-up. As I said, many of these measures have been long advocated for from within and it’s widely accepted that the legislation is somewhat outdated. There was strong support for the digital modernisation, particularly from industry, which stands to reason. These are the people that work within the system that not only have to deal with the cumbersome inefficiencies from a lack of digitisation but they’re also the people that need to be able to have that assuredness through something that’s a little bit more modern. Regulators and safety bodies also backed stronger enforcement powers, and the maritime stakeholders, in particular, welcomed those improved seafarer protections.

But having said that, there were also some concerns raised, which is not unusual. The bill doesn’t address affordability pressures in transport, which I think is a shame. There are plenty of other things that this bill could have traversed to have gone in that direction. Submitters emphasised the need for accountability alongside stronger enforcement powers, which is also something to be mindful of, and there were concerns about digital inclusion, particularly for rural and older New Zealanders, which is an issue that is relevant across a wide range of sectors but this one, in particular, is a really salient example, particularly when we’re talking about drivers’ licences of people that, whilst they might not practically end up feeling disadvantaged, there is the perception of feeling as if something is happening at pace or without the requisite knowledge. So we do hope that this is rolled out in the implementation stage in a way that is able to mitigate some of those concerns.

The bill, as I said, doesn’t answer some of the big questions. It certainly doesn’t, in and of itself, reduce emissions; it certainly doesn’t do anything or go any way towards easing congestion; and it doesn’t do anything or recommend anything for anything in the process with aims of improving public transport or having more accessible or more affordable forms of public transport. Those are the types of things that, certainly on this side of the House, the Labour Party will always continue to raise when given the opportunity to talk about a transport bill going through this House.

Whilst it’s practical and, therefore, necessary, it’s a very basic omnibus bill that cleans up some bits and pieces. It can be best described, I suppose, as a bill that may very well tidy up the system but it does nothing for the rising costs of getting around. It certainly doesn’t make life any cheaper. At a time when costs are going up and when the economy has shrunk and people are feeling like they’re going backwards, this bill isn’t going to be the miraculous answer to any of that. But, then, having said that, not much of what’s going through this House at the moment is addressing those problems. Having said that, we will continue our support of this bill and we look forward to the other stages to come.

17:08

Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise to support this bill on behalf of the Green Party. My colleague the Hon Julie Anne Genter was part of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee for the submissions, but I have looked at those that have participated in the report and would like to thank the chair, the submitters, my colleagues, and, of course, the committee staff, who do such a good of scheduling and communicating with submitters in general.

It’s remarkable that a transport bill that actually covers air, sea, and land transport, both road and rail, is agreed on, I hope, by all of the parties in the House, thanks partly to our chair. But, inevitably, that means it is a tidying bill, not a transformative bill. I think we just have to accept that regulatory systems bills are tidying Acts rather than the transformation we really need in transport and a number of other areas.

I’ve got a few notes here from some aspects of the bill. I do think it went through a really good process—the idea that you have an initial chat through Business Committee to see if we’re likely to all agree. Through that process, there were some more contentious items removed, as I understand it. Some of the issues about removing various principles were abandoned when it was seen that we could not have agreement. I think that kind of early engagement might be rather useful on a number of other bills too.

I shan’t be using my full 10 minutes, but I do want to cover a couple of things. It is clear that electronic driver-licensing will be useful. It is very important that we are not making it compulsory, but I recognise that the introducer of this bill said they might forget their driver’s licence. Well, your phone might be flat, you might have forgotten your phone as well as your driver’s licence—these things are possible, and so the question is: how will the system be accessible if you don’t have those things either? But that’s in the implementation stage. This enables the possibility of it, and I think there will be a lot of discussion about how we actually make it work.

I think one of the most important things is the organ donor status. That’s on people’s drivers’ licences but, unfortunately, it has been falling over time, and I would like to see this opportunity of introducing a better system of recording to encourage people to provide that lifesaving opportunity to other people.

The other area that was brought up by some of the communities representing people with disabilities was: do not assume everybody over 16 is going to have a driver’s licence. Be careful about assuming. For things unrelated to hiring a car or showing the police your licence or whatever else you obviously need the licence for, it shouldn’t be assumed that if you don’t have a passport, you must have a driver’s licence.

It was not within the scope of this bill to address how you might have that kind of digital identity for other people, but we did, as a committee, recognise that it was an important issue. There’s a gap highlighted in the current ID options. We’re having to prove more and more who we are. The only time I ever say, “Don’t you know who I am?” is to my phone, because it doesn’t know who I am. I change my glasses, I put my hair up, I wear a different lipstick, and it can’t recognise me. I do think there are some real issues about how we go forward with defining identity.

I would just like to say the investigative powers there were quite interesting. We looked at railway corridors, who investigates railway accidents—and they are usually a combination of something that happened on a road and something that happened on a railway—to what extent is the site secured. All of those issues were traversed in some detail, and I think that will enable safer decisions to be made in the future.

I did want to say something about the seafarers. We have a section about employers’ duties in relation to seafarers of New Zealand ships on overseas voyages, and I understand that there have been a number of improvements made. People are very vulnerable: they’re in the middle of the ocean, they don’t necessarily have communication, they may not even have the same languages, but we should protect their employment rights and their human rights in those situations. With that, I support the bill.

17:14

ACT supports this bill. ACT’s purpose is to make sure that red tape is cut and that regulations, where necessary—absolutely necessary—are fit for purpose and actually encourage New Zealanders to invest, to go about their business, and to lead their best lives. Now, this Regulatory Systems (Transport) Amendment Bill does a lot of those things, but, most importantly, what it does is it secures and protects the privacy of New Zealanders when it comes to electronic driver licensing. The Transport and Infrastructure Committee was very clear that it must be optional, never compulsory, and it must be flexible, because some of us who do lose our wallets and cards regularly do need this alternative option of having an electronic licence on our phone or somewhere else handy. ACT commends this bill to the House.

17:15

I rise as the chair of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee and on behalf of New Zealand First to support this bill as well. There’s only one item that I wanted to touch on. It is the driver’s licence one. We were very, very emphatic that it does need to be an option. We’re making it something that you can do, but it’s optional and not compulsory.

I also just wanted to pick up on the comments which have just been made, mostly by Celia Wade-Brown, around having some other form of identity. We had one impassioned submission from a chap called Runze Liu—that is R-u-n-z-e, for Hansard—and he said, “Look, as a disabled person, it’s very, very difficult to be identified. You can’t have a driver’s licence, and passports are very expensive. We need something.” We as a party would certainly not want to see a universal ID but, rather, something to support those kinds of people, because that is necessary for participating fully in society. I commend this bill to the House.

The next call is a split call.

17:16

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It was only just a bit earlier we had a bit of a call-out to see who wanted to talk to a transport bill, and, naturally, I quickly put my hand up, being someone that loves cycling, walking, and taking public transport and that is very fond of safety platforms as well. Seeing what’s happened with this over 2½ years, I had no idea what I was going to be coming into, but I knew it would be an opportunity to speak to transport, especially coming from Canterbury.

Those of us from Canterbury will know how poorly we’re serviced by this Government when it comes to transport funding. We are 13 percent of the population, produce around 12 percent of the GDP, make up 15 percent of vehicle kilometres travelled, yet we only get 5 percent of the Waka Kotahi funding—5 percent. I think a lot of that is just going into a motorway that will bypass Woodend: a billion dollars to save three minutes, and what will it do? They’re going to put a toll on it, most likely, and it’s going to actually increase traffic going through our local pā. It’s actually really poor when you look at what’s happening in Christchurch, so—

Get back to the bill.

I’m getting back to the bill, but I was excited. I was excited when I got this call to come and talk about transport, considering what has happened over the last few years. I thought maybe someone saw a bit of a te reo sign and were getting upset and were doing more legislation to remove it. Maybe they’re trying to get rid of Waka Kotahi’s name completely. But no—no—it wasn’t about that.

It wasn’t about fixing some of the slowest commutes around our country. In Christchurch, we have the slowest commute—no, it wasn’t going to fix that. In Ōtautahi, we have over 54 percent of our emissions coming from land transport. No, it wasn’t going to fix that. I was actually a little bit disappointed that this bill was just a very simple bill.

Wellington Council will get you moving.

Wellington Council—I tell you, we should be grateful they’re only getting $1 million on our one. What about the price of the Mount Victoria tunnel? It’s going bankrupt the country for the price of an extra Mount Victoria tunnel. It’s crazy, what’s happening with this Government, fixated on their roads. But, no, this bill wasn’t about that. Madam Speaker, I’m back to the bill now—

No, but the member was responding to interjections, so I will let you get away with that.

Thank you. This bill was actually very simple. It wasn’t contentious. It had minor amendments—oh, I haven’t got my glasses so I can’t even read. It’s focused on amending 12 Acts. Well, I’ve still got two minutes, so I better go through them so we all know what the Acts are that they’re amending: the Government Roading Powers Act 1989, the Land Transport Act 1998, the Land Transport Management Act 2003, the Maritime Transport Act 1994, the Railways Act 2005, the Road User Charges Act 2012, the Auckland Airport Act 1987, the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Act 2016, the Civil Aviation Act 2023, the Prostitution Reform Act 2003—have I got the right bill; I think so—and the Transport Accident Investigation Commission Act 1990. They’re just simple changes that were not contentious.

I was actually fortunate enough to be on the Transport and Infrastructure Committee when we did hear some of the submissions, and I was present when the young chap that Andy Foster mentioned spoke. It was a very compelling argument at the time that, actually, there are a lot of people that cannot have a driver’s licence as ID, and, obviously, at that point of time, that was out of scope. One of the things that concerns me, obviously, is that they come along and they talk, it’s out of scope, and nothing happens, so I was very pleased when I heard the Associate Minister of Transport say earlier that they’d picked that up and that issue’s going to be addressed. That’s actually really good to see that. I acknowledge that, because I think it’s really important that when people come to talk to select committees and they actually come with a genuine concern that needs fixing, we don’t just let it fall off the radar; things are actually done to address that.

I would like to acknowledge the work of the select committee and the chair, Andy Foster—you know, hard work to get this one through to this stage, but they did a good job, and we support this bill. Kia ora.

Just before I call the next speaker, I will say that I didn’t want to interrupt the member’s speech, but I was going to comment that I’m very pleased he has a very strong voice, because he had a lot to contend with.

17:21

First of all, I’d like to thank not the previous speaker but the one before—the Green Party member Celia Wade-Brown—for highlighting the concern I raised at the Transport and Infrastructure Committee about the organ donation. We want to know that as we’re moving towards using the digital system, we need to make sure healthcare workers can access the organ donation information.

In conclusion, this bill is about getting the basics right and creating a platform for future innovation and efficiency. I commend this bill to the House.

17:22

Kia orana. Meitaki maata, Madam Speaker. Look, it’s a pleasure to rise, as Labour’s transport spokesperson, to take what will be a full call this afternoon, because it’s important that the Parliament has the opportunity to hear what this member has to say today on the Regulatory Systems (Transport) Amendment Bill.

It seems to be the Transport and Infrastructure Committee’s day today with the legislation currently before the Parliament, and some members have touched on some of the issues that have been raised as part of the process that the committee went through. I want to acknowledge the colleagues who work collegially on that particular committee, most of the time. We had a number of submissions—41—and seven people came and submitted orally in terms of coming to speak to their submissions.

I want to also acknowledge, actually, what is a multitude of officials, in addition to the standard Parliamentary Counsel Office and Office of the Clerk. The fact that this is an omnibus bill indicates the sort of broad nature of officials that were required to support and assist the committee through their deliberations—so the Ministry of Transport, New Zealand Transport Agency Waka Kotahi, and Maritime New Zealand, amongst some others as well.

This is an omnibus bill, which is appropriate because it actually seeks to change a number of provisions. Many of them actually are rather outdated, and when the committee turns its mind to addressing some of those outdated motions, it kind of also has to think about trying to futureproof some of those options for the future, where possible. In some circumstances, that can be done, and in some circumstances it can’t be done, and the select committee’s report does touch on a few of those particular pieces. But, fundamentally, this is looking to update and amend legislation in the areas of land transport, maritime, and aviation.

What was really interesting was that Mr Mike Davidson actually went through the 12 Acts that this bill seeks to amend, and there were a few little chuckles from across the aisle over there when two of those Acts were mentioned. One of them was the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender) Government Agency Registration Act 2016, and the other was the Prostitution Reform Act 2003, and one could rightly, I guess, form the view: what have those two pieces got to do with a regulatory system transport omnibus bill?

Go on, tell them.

I will tell you, thank you, Barbara Edmonds. What the child protection piece of legislation is about is this: this bill will seek to allow for a registered offender to present ID in an electronic form. If an electronic driver’s licence is held by anyone in this country—and this will create the mechanism for that to happen; it’s not saying that will, necessarily, all come in overnight, but it will create the mechanism—it means that in that particular law, if someone is a registered offender, that they could choose to have the electronic copy, which would be required, as opposed to the physical one.

For the prostitution reform legislation, the current legislation requires individuals specified in that Act to present a photocopy of their driver’s licence, which would prove rather difficult if you had an electronic copy. Justices of the Peace and others all deal with these sorts of issues all the time.

The bill, as it currently stands, seeks to amend the provision to allow for an electronic driver’s licence. For the benefit of members opposite there, consistency is important and, hopefully, that is able to respond to any concerns that might exist there.

This is a bill that does seek to address the digital opportunity for modern service. As Mr Foster has said, one of the things that the committee was really keen on ensuring was that this bill still allowed people, for people who choose to, to have a physical driver’s licence in paper form. Even though this might provide for a modernisation in a digital context, it does not mean that everyone will be forced to have only one form of driver’s licence and that’s a digital one. This still provides the opportunity for those that choose to, to have a paper copy if that is how things actually pan out.

That was one of the concerns that I raised in the first reading. They were privacy considerations that the committee heard from submitters about concerns as to: if digital was going to be the only way, what sorts of protections were going to be in place around the protection of their privacy if it was held in a centralised system?

Now, some could argue that, well, that currently exists as an issue, or not, where the data is currently contained in a centralised electronic system. Anyhow, it’s just the physical copy of the driver’s licence that people have in terms of it being on them and being able to present those as well, but this also extends that to allow for the electronic provision of certificate of fitness, warrant of fitness. There will be a time perhaps when we will no longer have windscreens that have a litany of different stickers representing different things. This bill does seek to provide that in that space as well.

It also seeks to strengthen the safety and enforcement opportunities that have actually remained in legislation and on the country’s books for some time. If there were some safety concerns around State highways as part of the network, there was not an automatic right for Waka Kotahi to go and, effectively, close down patches of State highway networks, and so this does provide them the opportunity to do that, but only in circumstances where safety is an issue.

It’s not a broad-brush form of authority where they can just go in and shut down a highway; it needs to be purely related or only related to safety considerations. I don’t think we’ve got much hope with the lack of progress with “roads of National Party significance”, that they’re going to have to shut any of them down, because hardly any of them are getting built in terms of that space: unfunded, no revenue, wanting to toll them, all of those sorts of things. [Interruption] What’s that? Oh, look, they like to chirp over there. I look forward to the contributions that are to come, and to hear about what it is—they’ve got an issue with what I’m saying. Let’s get that on the Hansard so that they can tell us exactly what that is all about.

Now, in terms of the penalty provisions, many of these provisions had not been updated for quite some time. In the maritime space, what’s being sought there is to try and lift the game in terms of compliance so that for those who do need a bit of a deterrent, it means something. Many of the provisions have been updated in that space, which does make a lot of sense as well.

I want to touch on the maritime sector, because the committee had a lot of conversations in this space. What I think is really encouraging is that this bill, in the maritime space, will ensure that the reforms that Maritime New Zealand are undertaking as a result, and in tandem with this bill and this legislation, will bring us into alignment with the Maritime Labour Convention.

That is really, really important. Where we sign up as a country to conventions around the world, there are obligations on signatories. For quite some time, New Zealand perhaps may have been seen or perceived as lagging behind. What this bill does is it brings us up to speed and ensure that, as an international player, we are pulling our weight. That’s an important consideration.

What’s also really important is the protection of the rights that seafarers have. This bill goes into quite some detail—and so does the committee’s report where it references this—to ensure that seafarers have a standard of protection, and that is really, really important. We are a country that is located in the depths of the South Pacific; we rely on seafarers on more occasions than other countries around the world. Ensuring that there are minimum protections and opportunities for the director of Maritime New Zealand to go in and check that these particular standards are being enforced is the right thing to do, and it will ensure that we, as an international player, are continuing to pull our own weight.

The changes in that regard in rail align the investigation powers with those that currently exist comparatively with the Civil Aviation Authority, and so there is some consistency that has been introduced there as well.

Many of these changes, as my colleague Dr McLellan has said, are practical, but they really don’t address aspects that the Government should be turning its mind to around affordability. They have a suite of roads that they want to roll out, they have no money for them, and they’re seeking to reprioritise or “re-sequence” or thereabouts, but they remain blind to the fact that they promised all of these things when they knew they could not deliver.

It’s important that legislation like this does have support, does happen, and is on the legislative agenda, but it’s very clear that this seems to be the priority of the Government, rather than fronting up to the real, pressing concerns that they do have in many of the other transport spaces. We hope that will correct itself come the future with a change there. We’re happy to continue to support this bill.

17:32

There are bills in this House that are game-changing—consequential pieces of legislation that give members of Parliament a sense of purpose about why we are here—and then there are regulatory systems bills. No offence to the Associate Minister of Transport; he’s done a great job. I commend this select committee process, and I commend this bill to the House.

This is a split call.

17:33

It’s a pleasure, again, to rise and take a call on the Regulatory Systems (Transport) Amendment Bill, in the second reading, I might add. We support this bill. It’s sensible, it’s a practical piece of legislation, and it makes a range of technical improvements to how our transport system is regulated. It modernises those outdated provisions, it closes gaps, and it improves efficiency across road, rail, and the maritime sectors.

But supporting this bill does not mean that we think it’s enough, because while this legislation tidies things up around the edges, it does not confront the real pressures that are facing New Zealanders when it comes to transport: the cost, the accessibility, and the long-term sustainability in how people move around their communities. That’s where the Government is falling short. This is a Government, led by Christopher Luxon, that promised New Zealanders relief from the cost of living. Instead, families are feeling more pressure than ever. It’s harder to see a doctor or nurse and everyday costs are rising, and nowhere is that more evident than in the transport space.

This bill introduces useful changes: digital drivers’ licences, electronic warrants of fitness, and more efficient ways of issuing infringement notices. These are all steps in the right direction. They reduce paperwork, they modernise the system, and they make life a little bit easier for everyday people. It also strengthens safety and enforcement by giving the New Zealand Transport Agency the ability to close unsafe highways, expanding investigation powers for rail accidents, and improving oversight in the maritime sector. These are all important changes that will help keep New Zealanders safe.

The updated penalties are also long overdue. Ensuring consistency across transport modes and aligning with international standards is good governance, but none of that addresses the fundamental question facing many New Zealanders: how can I afford to get to work, to school, to the doctor, and to see my family?

That brings me to an issue very close to my home in the community of Waimakariri: the Woodend Bypass. People in my area have waited for years for this Woodend Bypass. It’s a critical piece of infrastructure that will improve safety, reduce congestion, and support economic growth in North Canterbury. Anyone who has sat through traffic in Woodend knows just how badly that is needed.

Now, what are we seeing from the Government? They want to toll it. That did not come up at the last election, and when National was in Opposition, there was no clear indication that communities like mine would be asked to pay extra out of their back pocket just to use that essential infrastructure. Now, after the election, Waimakariri residents are being told that they need to reach into their own pockets every time they use a road, every time they need to take their kids to footy practice, and every time they need to go to the supermarket, and that’s just not on. We are very frustrated—my community is very frustrated. People come to talk to me about their frustration, and they’re very much looking forward to 7 November. They feel blindsided. They feel like the goalposts have been shifted, and these costs do add up.

But I’ll go back to the bill. I’ll go back to the bill, Madam Speaker.

I was just going to suggest the local PR is over.

Transport should be about connecting people, not creating new barriers. We believe in investment that strengthens communities and supports economic growth, and that means thinking beyond just regulatory fixes. It means tackling affordability head-on, and with this bill improving public transport options, it’s going to be easier through this modernisation. It means investing in infrastructure in a way that’s fair, transparent, and does not leave communities feeling like they’ve been misled.

This bill, while useful, doesn’t address all the issues around what we want to address. It does, however, contain provisions that are worth supporting, and we absolutely intend to do that. The move towards digital licensing and electronic documentation reflects the reality of how people live and work today, and so it’s very, very important, and those strengthened enforcement powers are particularly important too. For that reason, I commend the bill to the House.

17:37

Thank you, Madam Speaker. This bill does the complete opposite of what we’re hearing on the other side. This bill aims to increase effectiveness and efficiency. I commend this bill to the House.

17:38

Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Over the recess, I was on the road a lot, travelling in my tourism and hospitality portfolio, and then I had a few days off, and got to have a break, which was very nice. But I got home—

Going to try those five-star hotels.

I’ve never been in a five-star hotel in my life. But I got home and discovered—

This is a cross-party regulatory systems bill, and you guys are sitting there being political and trying to shit on us all day.

17:39

I withdraw and apologise.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m not sure what that has to do with me, but anyway. I’d been on the road and I had a wee bit of a break. I ended up back at home to find some mail in my mailbox that was a bit sodden. There were a few leaflets and pamphlets that had kind of mashed in together, and in that, I have to confess, there was a notice of a parking infringement. This is where I throw someone under the bus, because it wasn’t me who parked my car at the time; it was somebody else who had been using my car, and I will not mention his name.

But, anyway, the point of my story was that it had been about seven days since I’d been home.

You can’t delegate responsibility.

I take full responsibility. It’s a story that I’d like to tell and I’m just wanting to reiterate the point and the fact that once I got home, in the mush of mail, of course, there was an infringement notice for the parking infringement and it was pretty hard to read and decipher. I actually had to contact the council about what the infringement notice actually was.

Anyway, the point of my story is that this piece of legislation—and that now just seems a bit irrelevant, that story. But the reality of it was that being able to have an electronic version, and being able to do that, actually makes a lot of sense because, let’s be honest, mail comes less than it used to. For many of us, we are mobile and on the move, and the fact is I don’t know about you, but I often forget to check my mailbox and see if there’s anything actually in it. Looking at this legislation, for things like allowing infringement notices and reminders to be served electronically, it is very helpful and very handy, I’m sure, not only for myself but for many people—and, Madam Speaker, I did pay the $12 fine, just so you know.

Only $12?

Only $12. You know, come to Taranaki and all of that—here we go.

The other thing about this that we support is just around this—I was looking at new section 61AA, “Agency may close State highways”, in clause 4. Now, again, Madam Speaker, I know that recently you’ve had experience of closed State highways, and I know that what would normally be a 2½ hour journey home took you over 10 hours, I think, because of our wonderful roading network, on which sometimes, when there are weather events, there are major impacts.

The fact is that as I look at this piece here, new section 61AA says, “(1) The Agency may—(a) stop, divert, or otherwise control traffic on a State highway; or (b) close a State highway (or any part of it) to traffic.” It also goes on to say, “(2) The Agency may only exercise the power under subsection (1) if the Agency considers it appropriate to do so for the protection and safety of the public.”

Now, we live in these Shaky Isles and there are many weather events and issues that go on, but also, it is around safety and protection. So to have this in the legislation where it gives a little bit more teeth and a little bit more opportunity for the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) to make quick and important decisions to protect the public, and also make those decisions around being able to close a piece of highway in order to be able to rectify some issues very quickly makes a lot of sense. Those seem like really plain and ordinary things, but they can actually make a significant difference when it comes to the powers and the abilities of someone like the NZTA to be able to do their job and to do it well.

As we’ve heard from many on this side of the House this afternoon, yeah, we do support the bill, but it doesn’t tackle the big issues around affordability. It doesn’t tackle the big issues around emissions reduction. I’m a fairly regular user of public transport, and in terms of addressing the issues of public transport accessibility, it doesn’t go far enough.

It’s a failure of this Government of public transport.

It is. As my colleague and the spokesperson for transport says, it’s a failure. This Government has failed on public transport and we need to do better, not only for this generation but future generations, and change the way we think about how we transit and transport ourselves around our cities, our towns, and our communities.

Now, I think it is good that this legislation is around modernising our digital services, whether it be around drivers’ licences. As the Associate Minister of Transport spoke to earlier, I know there have been moments where I have turned up somewhere and haven’t brought my wallet with me and have failed to have my driver’s licence on me, which is frustrating. Being able to have it digitised but then also making sure that that is protected and it isn’t something that doesn’t become, as was said earlier, a wholehearted ID service for the country but actually just something that is practical and easy in this digital and modern world—when it comes to a digital warrant of fitness, again, I think it is just practical and moving with the times.

The other point I want to make is around how it introduces flexibility for regulators to extend licences in emergencies. Now, this is one of those things that you never think you need to think about until you have to think about it. If we look back on our COVID days—which I don’t really like to. But in terms of our COVID days and what we had to do, and even now with the fuel crisis and what might happen with having to potentially—we hope not. But if we had to shut things down or if people had to have less access to their vehicles, we would be able to get in and do those kind of things. So having flexibility for regulators to extend licences in emergencies, I think, again, is just practical, and I know that this is why they’ve brought this to the House, and we support it. It also makes compliance easier, by allowing the digital display of licences and certificates, and it is reducing that paperwork burden.

I wasn’t part of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee and I haven’t been over all the details of this legislation, but I’ve looked through and we can say, yes, we are going to support this today, but we also leave the coalition Government with the challenge of asking them: what are they doing? This is a regulatory piece of work, but what are they actually doing around the transformation when it comes to public transport, when it comes to accessibility, and when it comes to tackling the bigger issues of affordability?

If we look at things like the electrification of our public transport network, of our personal vehicles, and of our business vehicles—and we know that we’ve gone backwards—we need to make sure we are pushing ourselves to make sure that we do what we can to ensure that New Zealanders have access to transport for the needs that they have, because, often, it is reserved for those who have, and we want to make sure it’s available for everybody.

We support this bill, but we ask that the Government to think seriously about what they can do to make sure we have a more affordable, more emission-friendly to the environment, and more accessible transport and public transport system.

17:47

It’s time to bring this transport bill in to land.

I got it.

I’m glad the Hon James Meager’s got it. Digital drivers’ licences, that’s the one highlight for me in this. It’s about time we got there. I feel like you go to the supermarket, everything’s on your phone; you go to a sports game, everything’s on your phone; checking in for a flight, everything’s on your phone; and whatever we’re doing, and so why couldn’t we have our driver’s licence on our phone? It’s a great step forward—a progressive step from a progressive Government. I commend the bill.

17:48

I commend this bill to the House.

I move, That the Local Government (System Improvements) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

For a significant number of households, council rates has become a major driver of inflation, placing an unsustainable burden on families who are already stretched thin. That is why this Government is taking action to reduce the pressure on rates by getting councils back to basics, by doing those basics brilliantly. This bill is our mechanism to achieve that. In the past, there’s been too many instances where councils have lacked fiscal discipline and spent too much time on the things that most people do not consider core activities of local government. When a council loses focus, it is the ratepayer who pays the price. Instead, we want to ensure that councils are prioritising the most important needs of their communities for which they serve.

To achieve this, we are refocusing the purpose of local government. The concept of community wellbeing has been included in the purpose of local government several times now. Whenever it has been included, generally by prior Governments, we have seen council stretch themselves too thinly, focusing on broad agendas rather than on the immediate needs of the ratepayers. Therefore, it makes sense to remove the wellbeing focus.

We need councils to have a sounder purpose and that is why we are making changes clearly in this bill; that they should be focused on providing cost-effective and good quality local government and local infrastructure and public services. To help them achieve this, we are reinstating the specific core services that they must have particular regard to when performing their role. This ensures that when a council sits down to set its budget, for example, the priority is on the pipes, the roads, and the rubbish—the things that keep a community running.

We also want to make sure that council performance is better measured and, crucially, made public. Current reporting within local government is inconsistent and communicated in ways that make it difficult for ratepayers to see how their council is doing compared to others. That is why we are establishing a council performance measurement framework, where reporting on your council will become easy to access.

This bill supports broader types of data being reported in the future, meaning that we can measure performance on a wide range of data. Last July, we took the first step by publishing council’s profiles and performance metrics. Future publications will build on this, integrating even more detailed insights into how councils are performing. This is about empowering ratepayers to better understand what good looks like and giving them the tools to hold their council to account.

We are also focusing councils on spending ratepayers’ money on core services through a new financial management principle. This means that local authorities must have a particular regard to the core purpose of local government and specific core services when determining their financial management approaches. We have listened to New Zealand ratepayers, households, and communities. These amendments will ensure that councils are focused on what is most important when they are spending ratepayers’ money.

For councils, these amendments will provide direction around where that spending should be prioritised, particularly helping them to invest in vital infrastructure while keeping rates affordable for Kiwi families. Strengthening transparency and accountability is equally important too. To do this, we are rolling out initiatives that will better equip councillors to do their jobs. We are implementing a standardised code of conduct and new standing orders. Both of these factors will be binding on all councils.

We’re also requiring greater information sharing between councils and elected members. These amendments will strengthen the connection between councils and their communities by making public expectations clearer and supporting elected members to effectively represent local communities and local people.

Finally, we are providing further regulatory relief for councils. Some regulatory requirements currently in legislation are outdated or are no longer relevant, having become a financial burden for councils and, by extension, the ratepayer. We are providing a range of regulatory relief measures including modernising public notice requirements, removing the requirement for six-yearly service delivery reviews, extending the maximum length of a chief executive’s second term, clarifying the authority of acting chief executives to fulfil some functions, and removing the requirement for councils to consider the relevance of tikanga Māori knowledge when appointing council-controlled organisation directors. These amendments are intended to reduce or clarify specific regulatory requirements, which will speed up delivery, support councils to focus on their core businesses, and, ultimately, help bring rates down.

I would like to thank the Governance and Administration Committee for its work on this bill, and the 536 submitters who shared their views; their contributions have been vital in ensuring this bill delivers for Kiwi ratepayers who are sick of seeing their rate bills increase. This Government is committed to reducing the pressure on rates and acting on the areas that are identified as drivers of rate increases. This bill will play a crucial part in driving efficiencies in local government that reduce the cost of living struggles experienced by New Zealanders. I commend this bill to the House.

This debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 28 April 2026.