Parliamentary debates: Wednesday, 27 May 2026

09:00

Tēnā koe, good morning, Mr Chair, and thank you for the opportunity. Yes, as I stated last night, Labour is supporting this bill, but we do still have questions we want to ask the Minister of Internal Affairs in terms of official advice.

Minister, with regards to Part 1, “Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Act 2021”, we did receive written submissions, and also oral submissions, and a submission from Mr Rāti Sinclair asks a question in regard to the presentation of historical information. Mr Sinclair, through his submission, understands the significant regulatory changes in this bill in terms of tidy-up. He had a question in regard to Māori and in terms of Te Tiriti. What he was asking us is, in terms of whakapapa and historical information, what engagement or what advice from officials was sent through in terms of cultural assessment, in terms of when the changes happen through certification or citizenships regarding births, deaths, and marriages? We did touch on that very lightly in terms of the details that are recorded and changed.

What he was asking about, overall, with Part 1, is the Māori cultural content that does not have iwi or hapū oversight, or any engagement in regard to the new provisions. He understood the exercise, but through his submission was asking officials what kind of engagement has been held with iwi Māori or hapū in regard to the new changes and the new provisions. I put forward a question to the Minister in terms of officials’ advice: what engagement was held and were there any questions that were received in terms of the historical records and the commitment to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and particularly around the tino rangatiratanga over whakapapa, taonga, and data? That is a question that I have for the Minister. Thank you.

09:03

Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, the question is about historical information regarding Māori cultural content, and there was no specific engagement with Māori as that information was already available, because nothing within this part is any form of significant change that requires broad consultation.

Thank you for that clarification, Minister van Velden. In terms of the new sections that are in these specific provisions, for health and safety reasons, Mr Sinclair pointed out that it was important to put forward his submission and raise his concerns. I just wanted to check that the specific tests in terms of the provisions that are being provided, the advice from the officials—and I know you’ve answered it, Minister, but I just wanted to put forward what Mr Sinclair had put in his written submission.

09:04

Is it possible that the member could be a little bit more specific? I haven’t read Mr Sinclair’s submission, and I’m not sure which particular reference she is referring to.

Yes—thank you, Minister van Velden. I’m happy to put that forward. As part of Mr Sinclair’s submission, he raises Māori cultural content that could be shared internationally without iwi and hapū oversight. One of the things that comes up through his submission is the importance of having the different conversations—which, of course, is the officials’ remit in terms of checking with communities when there is an overhaul, and when there is a tidy-up of specific sections by way of Part 1.

It is important that we have recorded the engagement or that submitters have had the opportunity to raise their questions with regards to their concerns. One of the things he raises with regards to giving the chief executive the power to declare things like the changes to RealMe online identification is that it is important for the iwi Māori members of our community that the personal data that is recorded or submitted by people like Mr Sinclair or iwi Māori representatives, that they have a clear understanding of what the bill is trying to achieve in terms of tidy-up and in terms of updating the information—if that would help?

09:05

Yes, I’m very happy to help the member and the submitter. Look, when it comes to the information regarding historical information, I don’t believe that there is anything that required broad consultation in these parts of the amendment bill for the very reason that, currently, section 90 of the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Act lets this information be published on a website run by the Registrar-General, but not on external sites.

Historical information under this Act is things like births or stillbirths that are more than 50 years ago; people born over 80 years ago; marriages, civil unions, notices of intended marriage that are more than 75 years old; name changes for people born outside New Zealand who were born more than 100 years ago; and deaths of people who died more than 50 years ago or who were born more than 80 years ago. All of this information is already available; it is simply a data-sharing arrangement so that people don’t have to scrub the internet for the information but can just simply get it directly. It’s not providing more or new information, it’s simply making information sharing a bit more straightforward for people. It’s hardly a controversial changes—it’s just a minor tidy-up.

09:07

Thank you, Minister van Velden. I appreciate the explanation that you have provided, and I don’t think Mr Sinclair is trying to be controversial, but it is helpful to understand his point of view.

For the next question I have—that’s Part 1—I wanted to go to Part 2, Mr Chair?

Well, no, we’ll be voting on Part 1.

OK—that’s all the questions that I have.

09:08

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m really pleased to be able to take a call on the repeal of the Boxing and Wrestling Act 1981. It was something that I didn’t get to mention when I last had a call on this in the second reading, and I was very regretful about it because I think it’s a really interesting look into New Zealand’s history to look at the Boxing and Wrestling Regulations. Obviously, you can see that the Act is older than me, and the Boxing and Wrestling Regulations are in 1958, which is certainly older than many of us in the House, Mr Chair. At select committee—

That may be out of order, actually, Ms Belich.

At the Governance and Administration Committee, we did receive submissions on the Boxing and Wrestling Act revocation. The officials at the Department of Internal Affairs and many would see these as antiquated provisions, but the submissions that we received were that they did form a framework under which boxing and wrestling and related activities could occur.

There was a change made at select committee; it may not be obvious when you look at the bill, but if you go back to clause 2, you’ll see that under the Boxing and Wrestling Act provisions, we had recommended at select committee that these do not come into place until 1 April 2028. The reason for that is because there was quite strong advocacy that this particular area of, essentially, organised fighting or exercise which forms either boxing or wrestling—and we did have some advocacy from other martial arts as well—should not be left without a framework.

There is a review happening, and so we were pleased to hear at select committee that there was a review. The intention, really, with the change of the commencement date for this part was to mean that the review, hopefully, would have been able to have taken place, and more up to date regulations could have been put in place. My question to the Minister of Internal Affairs is: does she have an update on the review that Internal Affairs—oh, sorry, I think it was the *Ministry for Culture and Heritage, which I think is not the Minister’s department, but, obviously, is related to this legislation. I wondered if she could get an update from her colleagues on that review and whether it is, in fact, tracking that there could be different regulations in place by 1 April 2028.

I just want to acknowledge that this particular advocacy by people from this particular sport was really influential on the committee recommending—I think it was unanimous—a later implementation date. So thanks to them for making this very compelling submissions, and it would be good to see if the Minister does have an update, because that will, obviously, let the House know whether this change is going to be workable.

09:11

Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, I’m very pleased to see that the Governance and Administration Committee took this part quite seriously, because I have to admit, when the officials originally said we’d like to repeal the boxing and wrestling provisions under the law, it did raise some questions in my mind. But I was told, with quite a lot of confidence, that there would be barely any impact on boxing and wrestling in New Zealand, given the fact that the legislation is so out of date and essentially obsolete that more up to date and stringent rules come from international federations that boxing and wrestling legislation doesn’t match up with. It’s really good to see that, outside of legislation, there is genuine concern for standards within boxing and wrestling that are happening internationally, and here in New Zealand, even external to outdated regulations and rules like we have here.

However, I also do take the point that there is quite a lot of concern in our community about leaving a blank area, and the fact that the Ministry for Culture and Heritage is doing a review of all combat sports I think is a good thing, especially when we’re seeing some newer, scarier variants emerging in our community. I especially know this because I’ve been seeing it in Glen Innes, in my electorate, as well, so I’m really pleased to see that this review is taking place.

In terms of that review, I haven’t had an update myself on where it is at this point in time, but I’m very happy to inquire, and, potentially, the member might like to put in a written parliamentary question to the relevant Minister herself, as well. Across this House, I think we’re probably all in agreement that we’d like to see the results of that review. I also do acknowledge, and I agree with, the time frame that the committee has put in place here about extending that repeal so it’s not just at the end of this bill going through the House, but that it does actually line up with that Ministry for Culture and Heritage review, which would give space for a potential new regulatory regime to be ready when this one is repealed.

The committee can only be amazed that combat sports will be coming under culture and heritage, but that’s the Chairman’s prerogative to make that comment.

09:13

Thank you, Minister van Velden, for making those comments, but also the relevance in terms of the provision in Part 2. We did hear from the New Zealand Mixed Martial Arts Federation, who made a written and an oral submission with regards to combat sport. What they raised, in terms of both of those submissions, was the importance that there needs to be an updated replacement—by whichever ministry—to really understand what those athletes and the organisations have to do in terms of a combat sports commission.

The issues that they did raise were to support, in terms of mixed martial arts—so I know I’ve heard the comments that it’s a sport, or a combat sport, that many citizens of our community don’t participate in, but it is important that, once the regulations are covered, there are specific components such as clear accountability, exemptions, integrity, and health and safety at various events that are held in the community. I just wanted to check—and I know the Minister’s already made some comments in terms of the officials’ advice—when that work takes that direction of travel, is there any clear direction for those in the sporting community, such as the New Zealand Mixed Martial Arts Federation, who did raise some safety concerns around training, around organising, and especially to have those issues raised around their concerns and the support? There are still people in our community that are interested in this sport and they may be looking at international bodies in other countries just to recognise how those processes are streamlined.

In terms of the repeal, what work will the officials carry out? I just wanted to check in in terms of when the Minister or the new culture and heritage gets official advice.

09:16

Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, I tend to actually agree with the sentiment that the member is raising—that you’ve got different pockets of the community in society that are participating in different parts of sport, who are concerned about how they’re regulated here in New Zealand. The point that I would raise, though, is that the Boxing and Wrestling Act, which is being repealed here, sits outside of mixed martial arts. This doesn’t actually cover mixed martial arts—that’s a different part of our regulatory environment. This is simply boxing and wrestling, which is why I think it is important that the Ministry for Culture and Heritage is actually doing a review of all of the combat sports.

If I may go so far to say that potentially the member might like to support the idea that is coming from this Government of having more amalgamation of Government departments, because it seems kind of weird, I think, in some respects, that we’ve got Culture and Heritage looking into mixed martial arts and other combat sports, and the Department of Internal Affairs is being responsible for boxing and wrestling. If you were trying to establish a new form of combat sport, well, I would hope that in the future you have one Government department rather than having to figure out which one it even is.

To that point, I don’t specifically know where the Ministry for Culture and Heritage is up to in terms of that review, because that does sit outside the scope of the work that I am responsible for. I do hope that we see progress in that area, and this law and the time frames that have been put in place by the Governance and Administration Committee allows for that work to progress before this one repeals, but it doesn’t actually touch mixed martial arts.

09:18

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Thank you, and, look, I appreciate the Minister of Internal Affairs’ reply with regards to the various combat sports and the understanding and the interpretation, but what this committee needs to go through is to hear from the parts of our community that are involved in combat sports. I don’t believe that we are at that point yet. We know that this Act is being repealed. However, there needs to be work in the community, whether the public sentiments are the same, and so that’s a conversation outside this bill. Thank you.

To that point, I think I did make it quite clear that this bill is quite specific about boxing and wrestling, rather than mixed martial arts. I can take the position that that is outside the scope, but I also acknowledge that there will be people within our community who are not necessarily seeing the specificity of this bill but looking at all of combat sports. They should be given an assurance that there is a review happening under a different ministerial branch, not this one. This is simply a repeal of an outdated law.

Part 2 agreed.

09:20

Out. Do not comment on Speakers’ rulings—height of arrogance.

Tim Costley withdrew from the Chamber.

Mr Chair, thank you for this opportunity to ask the Minister of Internal Affairs some questions on the Regulatory Systems (Internal Affairs) Amendment Bill. This bill actually covers a whole lot of different primary legislation, but I do want to ask the Minister questions on clause 23, which amends section 27. This amendment changes the wording around searching the charities register, and it seems to me that it will remove references to broader regulatory controls. In my opinion—and this is actually from a person who didn’t sit through the select committee process and is just my reading of this legislation—the changes seem to narrow the statutory frameworks governing searches. Minister, are the substantive protections being moved out of primary legislation?

My concern is that the public transparency and privacy protections may become less explicit. As we know, in terms of charities, a lot of our NGOs and our charitable organisations—there are a lot of voluntary people that are the people that work through those charities. My concern here is, Minister—and please alleviate those concerns—does this mean that if there are less statutory controls around privacy of information, would people be able to search and get the detailed names, addresses, of our volunteers?

Another question I have is: why is the Government or the Minister reducing statutory protections governing searches?

Another question is: did the Minister or her agency consult the various NGOs and charitable organisations that will be affected by this particular change, and why move these protections from primary legislation into regulations or administrative practices, Minister? Those are my questions for now.

09:22

I thank the member for her interest in the Charities Act. I believe I can go some way to alleviate the concern that the change here is to restrict access to information by changing parts of the Charities Act relating to the searching of the charities register. The regulations will no longer specify the purposes for which people can search the charities register. However, this is not to restrict search; it’s simply to make accessible searching easier for people and better align with how people are currently searching the register. It will enable better access rather than restricted access and meet people’s expectations of open data.

When it comes to things to do with privacy, this change does not change what information is available on the charities register. The Act itself has more important mechanisms for limiting privacy risks, such as section 24, which prescribes the set of information that must be available.

09:24

Thank you, Mr Chair. I just have a quick question on clause 22A around the establishment, functions, duties, and powers of the board and the insertion of the section: “The functions, duties, and powers of the Board are not affected by any vacancy in the membership of the Board”. Obviously, there’s five on the board, and I’m just curious what would happen if there were multiple vacancies at one time—whether that would actually have any impact. It just talks about “any vacancy”, and I’m assuming you can get away with one, but if you’ve got a board of five and you’re starting to see two and even three, there could be significant impacts, especially if—like, I’m not too sure what the quorum is, but I assume it would be three. I’m just wondering what would be the impact—is there an impact?—if there’s actually multiple vacancies at any one time on the board.

09:25

I do want to follow up. The Minister, in answering the question that I posed, referred to clause 24, which actually repeals section 28. My concern for this particular repeal is: repealing the search purposes—would it actually make data mining easier to do? Would it make harassment campaigns of some of our NGOs—I’m actually concerned about particularly ethnic communities, as our ethnic communities spokesperson. I’m also associate Pacific peoples spokesperson. Would it make searches for ethnic communities or Pacific people easier to then harass them? Would it make religious minorities, in terms of doing some data searches—would it make it easier to then harass people for religious affiliations? What are the protections after this will be removed by this particular bill? Are those legislative protections still going to be there or would it make it much easier for people to be harassed in the future?

09:26

Thank you very much for that very specific question. Look, I don’t believe that this would do this, because it’s only the names of officers that are available on the register rather than their contact details. There’s a lot of information online for people who would like to harass in any circumstance, but this I don’t believe would go any way to helping facilitate that, above and beyond what would already be available on the internet for people. It’s horrible that harassment happens at the best of times, but you’ve already got—and I won’t list them—a range of other areas where people can go to find that information, external to the charities register.

For Mike Davidson and his comment about what would happen with more than one vacancy on the board, the intention behind this is that it’s possible, in the future, that when it comes to people being placed on the board or somebody has left the board unexpectedly due to their own personal circumstances, you could end up with a lack of members on the board or one fewer members than the law specifically stipulates, due to no fault of anybody’s—the circumstances for the board, but the board themselves finding themselves outside the law. It is meant as, I guess, a temporary measure to allow a new board member to take place, but that the board itself would not find itself outside the law because a member had to leave for their own personal circumstance.

Members, just before we move on to the next part, I just want to explain that when we are sitting in committee, often, because of the acoustics of the place, we don’t hear all the calls surrounded by people. That’s why, for the benefit of the doubt, often we’ll go to someone who we may have missed. That’s just to explain as to why the benefit of the doubt will go to those calling. On the other hand, there is no justification for any member, who has been made a judgment by the Chair, to make any comments, derogatory or otherwise. Just to explain what happened, just in case anyone is in any doubt for the future.

09:29

Thank you, Mr Chair. Just with regards to clause 30 and the amendments to the Citizenship Act, I wanted to go to new section 24(3A), in terms of subsection (3), which, it explains, “does not apply to a New Zealand citizen by descent who later acquires New Zealand citizenship by grant in relation to the certificate that confirms their citizenship by descent”. I wanted to clarify: in terms of “by descent” and then “by grant”, have the officials confirmed that there have been a lot of queries in terms of those who receive citizenship by descent and then they are provided with citizenship by grant? I’m just thinking of scenarios in terms of officials’ advice.

My first question is: were there many cases that have come through in relation to that that prompted that change, or what other advice has been given to the Minister by the officials?

Secondly, can the officials confirm that there were many queries? I’m thinking of Pacific communities where there are different international arrangements that, when people receive New Zealand citizenship by descent and then they would apply or their circumstances change. I’m thinking of when a young person receives citizenship by descent through their parents, and then they marry another person who doesn’t have New Zealand citizenship, but then they go through the process and receive it by grant. Were there any of those scenarios explained to the Minister and prompt advice from the officials? That’s my question.

09:31

Thank you very much. I cast my mind back to the original conversations. Look, I think in part this has less to do with how many cases there are of this occurring and more to do with the fact that, with modern technology, this part of the Citizenship Act is now, in some ways, out of date. If I walk you through what this means, there is a difference between citizenship by grant and citizenship by descent. If someone is eligible for citizenship by descent, they can then go on to claim citizenship by grant. However, under the current law, if you have that certificate of citizenship that says you’re a citizen of descent, and then you become a citizen by grant, you then have a different document to hold on to.

In the older days, those certificates were then requested by the department to be handed back because they were now null and void and you needed a new certificate. But now, things are happening online. There’s not actually a certificate, necessarily, to give back. I don’t know how this is supposed to act out in the modern environment where someone is giving back an online version of an old document. This is really just to clear up the fact that that rule no longer applies; that if you were in the process of going through citizenship by descent to grant, you no longer have to give back the old document because it doesn’t really exist in a physical format.

09:32

Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you to the Minister of Internal Affairs for engaging with our questions on these matters. My question is going to be on clause 31 and Schedule 1, but I just first wanted to thank all of the Parliamentary Counsel Office staff and, of course, the public servants in all the different departments and agencies. This amendment bill goes across a very wide range and we have been given excellent advice, in general, to improve and modernise. I’d also like to thank the Governance and Administration Committee members.

However, I do have a question to the Minister about the amendments to the principal Act to update gender references. If I can draw the Minister’s attention to Schedule 1 where it talks about replacing “his or her” with “their”; replacing “he” with “the Minister”; replacing “he considers that he has” with “the Minister considers that they have”. We really support this removal of binary language, but I would just like to ask the Minister: how does she feel that this matches up with the more recent—and, in our view, egregious—attack on non-binary persons from the coalition Government?

I’ll leave the Minister to choose whether she answers that.

09:34

Thank you very much. Look, I think these are very, very different things, but I’ll give you some form of clarity of why I support this. I stand before you as a woman, and this current law says that I am a man. I think by having a gender-neutral term, it allows a Minister in the future who is a man or a woman to appear in this Chair and both be responsible for the law.

09:35

I just wanted to thank the Minister of Internal Affairs for her earlier comments to my questions. What I understood is that we’ve gone from a previous system and now pretty much everything is online and there is no requirement to give that certification back—if I’ve got that correctly—because you’ve gone from descent, then you go over to grant.

I just wanted to check with the Minister that now that the departmental records have moved online, there is an assumption made that citizens in Aotearoa have access. My question is: what happens when the certification has changed, the communications are online—and I know that there’s a RealMe verification in all those things. I wanted to ask via the Minister to the officials: how easily have online communications been updated, but how easy is the access to our communities? What happens when you don’t have the RealMe identification? Because you have to go through quite different steps. Now, unless I’ve got that incorrect, I just wanted to check, because the communications of many departments—if not all departments—have shifted to online. I am just asking around the accessibility when individuals in the community—whatever their queries are under this provision of citizenship by descent moving to grant. I just wanted to check that that is easily accessible by community members.

09:36

Yes, I would assume it is. Because anybody, at any point—no matter where they live in the world, if they have a phone, if they have access to a library computer—can create an email address and therefore have email contact with the department.

09:37

Thank you. My last question on this matter—I just wanted to check: are there any fees attached with that in terms of when your online access, whatever certification you require, and you need to check that, are there any fees attached with that? Thank you.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Yes, look, for the member—I’m actually getting really breathless standing up so often, so I apologise.

The Minister’s welcome to remain on the seat. There’s no obligation to stand. Sorry, I should have been—

OK. Look, there’s no specific fee attached to that above and beyond the citizenship fees.

09:38

Thank you, Mr Chair. I have a few questions around the electronic identity verification changes. Obviously, this is something which I’m sure most people wouldn’t question needs to be updated in terms of the way that we are looking at electronic IDs, which is something I know is part of the Government’s policy programme and just follows a different way that we, I think, are moving to being able to have digital IDs. However, these changes are to an existing 2012 Act, the Electronic Identity Verification Act 2012, and I just had some specific questions. I’ll just go through those and I appreciate the Minister of Internal Affairs might want to take a moment or get some advice before responding straight away, and it may be that other members have questions to allow her to do that.

The first question I have is in relation to new section 52A, inserted by clause 36, when there are kind of substantive changes in terms of what a participating agency is. I wanted to ask the Minister in terms of these changes—because this is a relatively substantive new section which has been put into the Act—what is the impact of being a participating agency?

The second question I had on new section 52A, and it talks about the chief executive’s powers, and that is, essentially, for them to revoke a participating agency’s power—it seems a relatively powerful power that this amendment is giving to a chief executive. I just wondered if the Minister had had any advice on how that process would actually work in practice, in terms of revoking or replacing a participating agency with another participating agency, in terms of if there’s a process laid out. It may be that that’s policy work to come, but I thought I would ask if any had been done to date.

Two further questions: clause 5—so 52A(5)(b)—talks about publishing a list of the participating agencies. And I just wondered, in terms of the current practice, whether this was, in fact, happening at the moment, and this was, almost, putting into place the legislative tool to recognise that, or if this is actually going to be a new list that doesn’t exist at the moment. So that was that question.

And then the final question I had, at this stage, in relation to Part 5 was clause 39, which goes through and gets rid of sections 73 to 75 in the primary Act. When I had a look at these yesterday, I saw that they were mainly relating to pre-commencement electronic identity forms, I assumed, and I just wondered if the Minister could answer whether this is correct or not: that the reason we don’t need these pre-commencement provisions is because something that was pre-commencement would have been in prior to 2012, and, obviously, that’s a long time ago, so, potentially, those IDs are now defunct. I wasn’t sure as to why we were kind of getting rid of those transitional provisions and I was wondering if that, possibly, might be the reason, but the Minister may want to clarify that. Thank you.

Look—

Mr Chair?

No—the honourable Minister. The Minister will be speaking from the seat, so just a slight change.

09:42

Thank you. Look, in terms of the latter part of the member’s comment regarding clause 39, the member pretty much has it correct that the transitional provisions are no longer really needed because the agreements and credentials are no longer active for the older parts—for the electronic credentials that were issued or applied before the commencement of those sections. So that’s quite easy.

In terms of the overall changes to the Electronic Identity Verification Act, the rationale behind this is that there’s not actually any big policy shift here. It’s to do with the process that it takes to get through Cabinet. And, look, I don’t understand, really, why this was the case in past years that when the department had gone through quite a lot of thinking about whether or not a particular agency met the standards that the department thought were sufficient for a new organisation to be part of this Act and to be authorised, it then needed to go through, potentially, up to an eight-month Cabinet committee consideration and Cabinet in order for that process to happen. Now, this just allows that to happen at that department level where there was no additional information actually being sought by Cabinet or being required by Cabinet, but this just allows the system itself to happen more efficiently.

09:43

Mr Chair, thank you for allowing me to ask the Minister a question about clause 34. So, Minister, it seems to me that this particular clause is about administrative efficiency and the changes that are being proposed will change the control of who accesses New Zealand’s verified identity information via RealMe. I think the main concern that I’d like to ask the Minister about is: are there safeguards to ensure that efficiency is not going to be at the cost of people’s privacy, public trust, Māori data rights, or democratic oversight? So my question to the Minister is: does the Minister agree that this change, in clause 34, is not just a technical change, but that it is a shift from democratic and regulatory oversight to departmental oversight? We have, in just the recent past as well as over the years, seen various data breaches occurring in various Government agencies, what does this change mean moving forward?

The other question I would like to ask the Minister is: should there be an approval process, before the Minister decides which agency will be an agency that will be having the departmental oversight over RealMe - type data and private data; and how would she have oversight over all of these different agencies as a Minister, given that it will all be transferred to various Government agencies in the future?

09:46

Look, Mr Chair, very happy to take this contribution. I believe I’m probably one of the strongest members within this Cabinet and Government who cares about people’s privacy and security and information security. So I take the point that it is something that this Government should be taking very seriously, especially when it comes to individuals who live and work within this country and how their information is secure, whether that’s in the Government or in third parties. I would love to have that sort of discussion outside of this forum because, unfortunately, that sort of policy is outside the scope of this bill, which is mainly dealing with minor and technical changes.

And to give the member a form of assurance about what is actually happening here: there is not any information that is being deleted in regards to what Cabinet had already been receiving as information to walk through the process. The department itself goes through quite a rigorous testing, which requires any participating agency or those who wish to participate, to ensure that they have an established privacy policy and that they are checked for any breaches under the Privacy Act over the previous five years before they are given approval. That information has been, at the moment, sent to Cabinet to be signed and ticked off. Whereas that is becoming an unnecessary, burdensome step. It is clear that we do need to take privacy and information security quite seriously, which I do as a Minister, however, this is simply a procedural step that is being removed, not a removal of a requirement of privacy policy.

09:48

Thank you, Mr Chair. This is a relatively long part and covers, quite a few changes to the Film, Videos, and Publications Classification Act and the regulations made under the Act. I guess the thing I want to acknowledge at the top of that is the shift in the language away from “film and literature”, which sounds a little old-fashioned to a classifications review board. So, obviously, the intention through this part is to ensure that we are modernising some of the language and mechanisms that would have been relevant when they were finished back in 1993.

But there’s a couple of specific questions in here. The first—and excuse me, I’m going to be looking between two things here, so hopefully I can keep up—is under clause 47D, which is around the revocation of appointment of a labelling body and it talks here about the Minister having the ability, “at any time, by notice in the Gazette, to revoke the appointment of a body or an organisation as the labelling body”—that makes sense. The notice needing to “specify the date on which the revocation takes effect, which must be at least six months after the date on which the notice is published in the Gazette.” And then there’s a reference here too: “Before making a notice, the Minister must give the labelling body an opportunity to be heard.” That’s good intent and a good intention, but I guess the other two points are very specific about time frames, mechanisms, and identifying the parties. That third one is open to a lot more interpretation and is a lot more open-ended.

I’m wanting to get some clarification around exactly what “opportunity to be heard” means in this instance, just to ensure that whilst those first two parts are very clear in how they would function, that third part, like I say, a lot of interpretation potentially there, and that runs the risk that that labelling body either may not be sufficiently heard, may not be given the sufficient opportunity to be heard, or could feel that they had not been heard. The more open-ended description in this part of it could mean that gauging whether they had been given the opportunity to be heard or not was more difficult for somebody ultimately trying to make that decision, or if that person or entity was to raise an issue with that, it’s harder for people to decide whether they’ve had the opportunity to be heard or not. I’m just wanting to ensure that that point had been picked up on and that there’s a plan in place there to address any potential concerns around that third part of the process. Agreeing that part one and part two there make sense, but just the open-endedness of how it’s spelt out in part three, if the Minister could answer how that will be addressed.

09:52

Yes, very happy to discuss this one. Look, thank you for the two comments. To the first part about the reference to the change of the Office of Film and Literature Classification, it’s really quite a useful change given that the Classifications Office is—and has been for quite some time—publicly facing going by the Classifications Office, so this is just updating it to be what it has been known colloquially and within professional circles in the law.

To what I believe the second part is really talking about, is about the changes to the determining of the labelling body, and to give a little bit of comfort about what is actually happening here, I was made aware a very, very long time ago now that the official labelling body that has this role in New Zealand was actually hoping to shut down, and no longer wished to do this service for the Government. Because over the last few decades, the number of videos that are being published in a physical format has actually been significantly declining year on year, and so it’s not actually a full-time role for this operation, nor is it an increasing role. It’s actually diminishing over in time as we’ve got more streaming services coming online. People are simply looking at video format in a different form rather than in a physical environment.

This really is an update to the law so that we don’t end up with a regulatory gap; that once this body closes, the Classifications Office themselves can take it up. In the conversations and advice I’ve had from my officials thus far, there is no other body external to the Classifications Office in New Zealand that would be able and willing to take on this work or have the expertise to do so. The Classifications Office is actually used to doing forms of classification, whereas that is actually quite a targeted and niche skill in New Zealand, and so this fills that regulatory gap rather than having a legal requirement for videos to have a label and no one there to fulfil that function.

09:54

Thank you, and thank you to the Minister of Internal Affairs for that answer. It definitely covers off the questions I had on that earlier point. I’m wanting to move down here to clause 51, replacing section 87 talking about the chief censor’s ability to delegate powers. It says here in section 87(1), “The Chief Censor may delegate any of their powers and functions under this Act to (a) the Deputy Chief Censor, except this power of delegation;”. But then when it goes on to speak to the specific ability of what the deputy chief censor then has, it doesn’t, in any place that I can see, explicitly prohibit the deputy chief censor being able to further delegate.

Potentially, what there could be here is a situation where the chief censor has a lesser power of delegation than the deputy chief censor, and so you sort of end up with a weird situation where the chief censor could delegate something, but the deputy chief censor could then delegate further than their superior was able to. I guess what you’re talking about there is the risk that there’s a watering down, and—to continue with the water analogies—a downstream effect or impact unintended, potentially, by the legislation, but more importantly, potentially unintended by the chief censor.

I’m just wanting to get the Minister’s views on whether she sees that as a potential risk or a potential unintended consequence of the bill in its current form, and whether that was something that was picked up on or discussed at any point through the process prior to now. Also if there were any thoughts from the Minister about how that could be addressed or mitigated if it is in fact a risk that the chief censor, ultimately, has less ability to delegate than their deputy, and therefore, that chain of delegation could end up with someone on a third tier able to do more under the instruction of the deputy chief censor than either the deputy chief censor was able to do under the instruction of the chief censor.

09:57

Look, I’m happy to take this contribution. I don’t have concerns about the delegation and sub-delegation because I have actually spent a lot of time dealing with this particular office. I regularly have meetings with the chief censor and the deputy chief censor, as well as overseeing their administrative functions through my accountability function as a Minister. The office itself is not a big office, so the idea that we’ll have three tiers of management also then sub-delegating down administrative functions, I don’t think it’s a risk to the entity itself.

They are mainly a bunch of very highly skilled professionals who are dealing in a very, very difficult situation with very disturbing information most of the time. The conversations I’ve had with the chief censor is that this will help with the efficiency of the office in terms of the administrative functions. However, in terms of the actual information that they’ll be handling, that is all very sensitive and won’t be changing. In terms of this delegation, this is simply to help the chief censor do her work, and help the deputy chief censor help the chief censor do her work. In terms of the actual work that is being undertaken, I won’t go into that detail here today, but I have high faith in that particular entity and would like to give a shout-out to the team there who deal with such sensitive information, and I thank them very much for their service for keeping New Zealanders—and particularly children—across this country safe.

09:59

Thank you, Madam Chair. My question is on clause 83 inserting new section 81A, the meaning of a dwelling. Under subsection (3), it mentions “A building, or part of a building, that meets the criteria in subsection (1) or the criterion in subsection (2) is a dwelling even if it is used some of the time to provide temporary or transient accommodation.” Then, in subsection (7), “Clarifying uncertainty”, it says: “To avoid doubt, a building, or part of a building, is not a home or holiday home (and is therefore not a dwelling under subsection (1)) if (a) it is used to provide temporary or transient accommodation, being accommodation that is ordinarily provided for periods of less than 28 days at a time”. There’s a bit of a difference between “less than 28 days” and “some of the time” over in subsection (3). It does say “such as a hotel or motel” as an example.

My question is really around short-term accommodation like Airbnb, which is often used in this circumstance. It’s probably not used some of the time; it’s probably used more than that, and it’s most likely used for periods of less than 28 days at a time. Therefore, going by this “Clarifying uncertainty” subsection, that Airbnb or that short-term accommodation would not actually be defined as a dwelling. I find this is just actually quite interesting, because instead of actually clarifying uncertainty, I think it creates a bit more uncertainty.

What I’m also concerned about is that this is obviously taken directly from the Natural Hazards Insurance Act, and potentially the way this is written—not only does it affect anyone that uses their home as short-term accommodation solely for that purpose, and not only are they basically not deemed a dwelling under this bill, they’re also not deemed a dwelling under the Natural Hazards Insurance Act. That would be quite concerning when you look at the number of people who are buying properties for this type of investment in short-term accommodation and continue to buy that. I’m just wondering if we’ve created an issue here, but actually then potentially also a bigger issue sitting in the actual Natural Hazards Insurance Act. Thank you.

10:02

Thank you for the opportunity to ask a question. In terms of Part 7, I wanted to raise a question with respect to—it’s quite clear in terms of the residential and non-residential—around the non-residential, in terms of commercial or industrial property, which contributes 60 percent of the total Fire and Emergency New Zealand levy revenue. We did receive a submission from Property Council New Zealand, and one of the issues that they raised, Minister, was in terms of the inequities of the levy regime because there are a number of broader costs facing the industry. For non-residential, they continue to have escalating costs, like local government rates, increasing development contributions, and rising insurance premiums.

Referring to clause 84, but also the provision in clause 92, the mixed-used properties, I wanted to understand, in terms of when the levies under the new provisions were being calculated and seeing what is payable, what considerations or what engagement was fed back through the submission process? Were any of those considerations taken into account, given the pressures of the cost of living rises, in terms of the visibility, but also in terms of the commercial and industrial non-residential section and the levy that has been calculated? I just wanted to understand more on that. What advice was given by the department in terms of landing on what is currently in the provision?

10:04

I’m very happy to take these contributions. Look, I also sympathise with people who are facing increasing costs, not just within the fire and emergency system but across the board, and that’s seeing an increase year on year. Unfortunately, that is in some ways outside of the scope of this law change.

Just to bring people back to what is, essentially, happening here, I was not responsible for the overall law when it was formed and the particular provisions relating to the levy and how that would be defined within the law. However, what I have been responsible for is the fact that quite soon or close to the fact that the new levy would actually take place, rather than just the transitional levy, the Insurance Council reached out to me saying there were still some areas that they believed were missing within the original definitions of the law, which I’ve then sought to tidy up here.

My officials worked with the Insurance Council to identify the areas that were leaving them with concern about whether or not their contracts would be sufficient or whether or not there are still grey areas. I’m very happy to hear that—I believe through the select committee process—they were also brought on board. The Insurance Council and their submission was taken into account. It is really, here, about a technical tidy-up that should have happened the original way when the law was first created, but it’s not here to change any big policy shift or any particular major changes for the costs to households or commercial properties. It’s simply to make the definitions clearer so that anybody entering into a contract or an insurance company creating the contracts from this point forward will actually have clarity about which particular parts of a household property or a commercial property are captured and which parts are not.

To the point that my other colleague raised earlier, much of the language and approach to the definition here is derived from the Natural Hazards Insurance Act and is similar to the approach under the current transitional fire levy. Insurers and brokers are familiar with this terminology, and it avoids confusion and provides confidence that the processes can be streamlined for calculating both the Natural Hazards Commission levy and the Fire and Emergency levy. I believe that this, in some ways, goes to help the insurance industry as they are signing the contracts.

10:08

Thank you, Madam Chair. This part did receive a certain amount of attention at the Governance and Administration Committee, and it almost is slightly like a bit of a plot of a TV series. It’s a situation where, at the moment—and I’d be interested to hear the Minister comment on this—we have a situation in New Zealand where under-18s, although they are prohibited from many other forms of gambling, can currently purchase New Zealand lottery tickets. The change that the select committee is making is to ensure that those under 18 cannot purchase Lotto tickets. There’s a definitional change here, which I think people will accept, because “instant games” is quite a difficult—I don’t really think people really know what “instant games” would mean in a colloquial sense, but New Zealand lottery or Lotto is obviously something that people do understand.

One of the things that we looked at at select committee was the transitional provisions in this, and it’s something that received quite a bit of attention at select committee. We were thinking, “Well, what happens if someone has purchased a Lotto ticket, and they’re under 18, and then they win, and then they can’t bank their proceeds?” It does sound like the plot of an episode of a TV series. What a terrible situation—you’ve finally won the Lotto but, unfortunately, because you’re under 18, you can’t claim the winnings, and the moral greyness around—

Hope you know someone over 18!

Yeah, well, that would be against the law. But, anyway, I think that was quite an interesting thing to look at. The transitional provisions do, as I understand it, make this a little bit fairer. So, at the moment, if you were to purchase—I actually don’t know how far ahead you can buy Lotto tickets; someone else might know that. Can you buy them for games in the future, or do you have to—

That’s how it works.

You can. OK. You can tell that I’m not the Lotto ticket purchaser in my household.

You have to buy a ticket before the Lotto is drawn!

Yeah, of course. That’s a key part of the lottery system. Yeah, it’s not a Back to the Future plot.

No.

No. So, anyway, the situation that we have is that I think the select committee very fair-mindedly said, “If you have purchased a ticket for a Lotto draw, the Lotto draw hasn’t taken place, and you’re under 18, we will not prevent you from having those winnings. That would be just too mean and retrospective law that would be extremely cruel.” However, we obviously—and I think we probably agree across the Chamber—don’t want under-18s participating in gambling, even if you buy a Lotto ticket, and it’s not very likely that you will win—in fact, the odds are minuscule. Anyway, I thought that was an interesting insight into what is obviously a very important bill, but some aspects of the changes are perhaps not as interesting as others are.

Is the Minister happy with that change that has been made on transitional arrangements? I suppose a follow-up question is: is there going to be any public education or training or any note that’s sent out to lottery retailers about this change in policy, with terms and conditions updated? It may be that that exists and this is making it consistent with the current practice.

The other thing the select committee looked at, which I thought was really interesting, was—I can’t recall who it was but some very honourable member decided to look up the Lotto draw date to make sure that the changes come into effect on a date that isn’t the same day as the lottery draw, because, obviously, they were wanting to not have the situation where, I think, the original proposed date was on the same day as the lottery draw. Then, which law is going to apply and do the transitional details apply, and what time does it come into effect? I’m a former lawyer and I know that a lot of my colleagues in the profession could have made a decent fist of spending a lot of time arguing about that if the situation were to arise. But thanks to the scrutiny of the select committee, this has been addressed.

So I wanted to check with the Minister—hopefully, we made the right call in having that alignment. Anyway, it was an interesting area to look at. I would appreciate the Minister’s thoughts on what was probably a slightly more substantive select committee deliberation and changes on this very interesting aspect of the bill.

10:13

Thank you. I’m very happy to take this contribution. Yes, I thank the select committee for their scrutiny of these particular provisions. It’s very important work, and I do believe that the committee have ended up in the right area, and I also support the changes that the select committee has made to the question of whether there’s going to be any form of education for the change. Lotto will be updating their terms and conditions and providing updated information to retailers as well, but I do also just want to caution that it is quite a minor issue, and when talking with Lotto about how many young people are out there buying these products, they didn’t say it was a massive issue. Really, what we’re doing is changing the law, so for a retailer at the moment, some of Lotto’s products are accessible for anyone of any age and some Lotto products are restricted to those over the age of 18. So this is really to clear it up for the benefit of the retailers, so they don’t have to second-guess themselves as to which Lotto product was in or out and what is the age of the individual coming into the store. It’s really simple that it’s over 18 for all the games, but I do understand that there are some kids going out there and buying Lotto tickets. I’ve heard of instances where they’re buying them for their grandparents, and popping down to the store, but, ultimately, this is not something that we believe that children of any age should be participating in. But it’s also much more helpful for retailers themselves. So thank you for the select committee’s work.

10:14

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Minister, for your response. I do want to just follow up on, I guess, the divide we created when it comes to looking at instant games versus lottery for under-18s.

My assumption with the changes to this part is that with instant games, for example, changing to New Zealand lottery means that under-18s will no longer be able to purchase lottery tickets. That’s true, but what instant games like Instant Kiwi and all the other things that you could also get at the same kiosks as you would normally get a lottery ticket as well, and will they be able to be purchased by under-18-year-olds? That is my first question.

I guess the follow-up question is from a gambling and harm reduction perspective. Has the Department of Internal Affairs done any work around the impact that even those kinds of games like Instant Kiwi has? I know that previously in the online gambling bill, we talked Loot boxing, whether it’s the online version or even the physical thing, like trading card games, etc., and the impact that would have on gambling addiction and gambling harm reduction. Has that been a consideration when we were looking at the changes from the instant games to the New Zealand lottery?

10:16

I’m happy to take this contribution. I think I can alleviate the member’s concerns quite quickly. Instant games are already illegal for under-18s. This law change brings everything in line for the twice weekly draws to be also illegal for under-18s, and so to the previous contribution I made, this is simply an alignment issue. Things like Loot and things online are outside the scope of this bill.

10:17

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have two questions on this particular part. I guess the first question is: considering that we are seeing the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Amendment Bill coming through the House as well, was there a reason why this particular provision needed to be included as part of this bill as opposed to being a part of the changes that we’re going to be seeing anyway?

I also want to check—I guess both for clause 119 and also clause 120—on why the investigation is removed, because, presumably, if you’re looking at section 53(1), the definition of investigation, and repeal paragraph (a), which is around commission of inquiry—that will be continuing. Is there a reason why that is going to be removed from the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Amendment Act? Does that mean that under that Act, they are not going to be able to conduct the investigation that is pertaining or relating to the commission of inquiry? Those are the two questions I have for this particular part. Thank you, Madam Chair.

10:18

Look, specifically to the first part of the question with regard to why this is happening when there might be other changes happening through Government, to make it quite simple, Justice overall is responsible for the policy when it comes to the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act. However, I understand that the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) is responsible for some operational part of this particular part of the law. So this is simply to amend something that helps with the operations of the department rather than the overall policy shift. And so, once again, I bring us back to the fact that these are minor and technical amendments to help DIA, overall, do their job. This is, ultimately, why this is occurring.

10:19

Thank you, Madam Chair, for allowing me to ask the Minister a couple of questions. Minister, you stated earlier on today that a lot of the amendments to the primary legislation in this bill, the Regulatory Systems (Internal Affairs) Amendment Bill, are presented as a technical clean-up, but Minister, can you just assure us—Part 9 is about amendments to the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003. Can you let us know why this particular amendment is in this Department of Internal Affairs bill instead of a health amendment bill?

Following from that question, was there an exchange of information between your agencies and the Health Committee about the proposals being made in this Part 9, and were health practitioners consulted?

Part 9 of this amendment also proposes the inclusion of quality assurance of information. Did you also and your agencies consider that quality assurance, serious offences, and inquiry access to various information is something that is taken into account, Minister, and are you able to guarantee and assure Parliament that no patient, no family, inquiry, prosecutor, or regulator will be left in a worse-off position because of this particular amendment that Part 9 makes?

10:20

Happy to take this, and in some ways it also aligns with the comment from Lawrence Xu-Nan before. Ultimately, this is a really minor tidy-up, because the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act itself is not being overall changed in terms of policy. What it is, really, is that within this health practitioners Act, there are references to the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1908, which was repealed, and the Department of Internal Affairs is now responsible for the Inquiries Act 2013. This is updating that law to be in line with what the Department of Internal Affairs is currently responsible for, which is the Inquiries Act 2013. That’s pretty much all that’s changing in this part.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan—you look like you’re a little confused about—

10:21

No, no, no. I just have one final bit just on that. The change isn’t updating it to the new Act, as the Minister is mentioning. The change is repealing it or deleting it. For example, in clause 120, it says, “delete ‘a Royal Commission, or a commission of inquiry appointed by an Order in Council made under the Commissions of Inquiry Act’ ”. It doesn’t say for the purpose of inquiry under the Inquiries Act 20—the year that the Minister mentioned. Even if you’re looking at, for example, clause 120, which is section 61 amended, of the bill, does that mean that if the Minister is satisfied when it comes to disclosure of information, the Department of Internal Affairs can no longer disclose information for the investigation of any inquiry? Is that how we’re meant to interpret it? It’s not a change; it’s a removal.

10:23

The note that I’ve received from my officials is that the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1908 is being repealed because it is redundant; it’s no longer in force. But since 2013, inquiries themselves have been established under the Inquiries Act, which the Department of Internal Affairs is responsible for.

Just to then clarify that the essence of these two sections that are being amended or having sections removed—the Department of Internal Affairs is still able to function under those, even though the original principal Act is no longer there? It is still able to conduct the operational elements of those two sections without that section?

That is my understanding. All inquiries happen under the Inquiries Act 2013.

10:24

Thanks, Madam Chair. It is helpful to understand in terms of this provision, in Part 10, the “Amendments to Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act 2004”. It’s helpful to understand, for donors who are involved in this process, that there has been an update, and it’s helpful to understand—and I was curious about the over-donation. I don’t know a lot about this. We did have discussion and kōrero on select committee. We also had submissions both written and oral to help us understand that better.

I wanted to understand, in terms of clause 122, “Section 47 amended”, in terms of the providers who must obtain and accept information about donors. I wanted to understand through the Minister, because it’s not a huge activity—that is, it’s quite a sensitive area, and the people that are involved. What type of questions or information came through the department when checking out the donors? Because of the sensitivity of this provision, when a donor—in New Zealand, obviously, it is important to have up-to-date information and accessibility. But it is also important, when people do go overseas—as I understand it, and hopefully I’ve understood this well—that there is a period of time that that donor’s specimen, or however you call it, is kept. If the donor is out of the country—for example; I’m just trying to elaborate my example. If the donor provides, and you can only hold that for 10 years, and then the donor comes back into New Zealand, given the information under this provision, is there any contact that is made with that donor because their time—basically, there’s an expiry date? Also, what kind of identification had been requested to improve that provision? I just wanted to ask that question.

My other question is in terms of—it says here in clause 123, “Section 52 amended”, that “Providers must keep track of donor offspring births”, which is another question around is there a level or a number that a donor can provide their specimen? For example, is it two, is it three, or is there a ceiling that the donor can only provide X amount—that information is sensitive and must be kept by the provider? I’m just curious to understand what advice was given from the department to the Minister to consider all of those elements.

We’re just waiting for the Minister to take some advice. Is there another question?

10:27

Yes, I did have a question on this matter. When we were in the select committee process, we received a few submissions that were probably slightly outside the scope of the bill, which are being included in our select committee report. But one of the areas which I’m particularly interested in, if there’s any work ongoing—which, of course, we couldn’t make that particular change in the bill—was the Ethics Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology. Currently, we heard, they don’t have discretion to consider applications for an extension of a storage limit. Often, from the submissions we heard, there isn’t a good scientific basis for that. We were advised we couldn’t make that particular change within the bill, which is why there isn’t a provision on that, but I did wonder, as a part of looking at this—I think we were of the view it should be looked at in the future—whether the Minister has been able to obtain any advice around that.

I think the other comments made by my colleague are also relevant. This is an area of law which does probably need a more substantive change. I think any update that the Minister is able to do within the confines of how this is related to the regulatory bill would be useful for the committee in terms of the nature of the submissions that we did receive on this, which were, compared to other sections, quite extensive.

10:29

I’ll do my best on this section. The advice that I’ve received is that the Department of Internal Affairs itself doesn’t have contact with donors directly, nor does it keep track of overseas donors. When it comes to specific information, I guess, regarding the amounts that people could donate and how that is captured, unfortunately, that would be outside of the scope of this bill, as this is making only small and non-controversial changes. To the point of my colleague who just took a call, if there were to be concerns about that sort of policy, then I suspect there would need to be a wider amendment bill rather than a regulatory systems bill.

This is really just providing a little bit of change in terms of what information people should be able to collect. I take the most basic one, here, about someone’s address being on file; being able to be an electronic address rather than a physical address. I think that’s just helpful, once again, for the modern world that we live in where you may end up with donors who are actually moving around. Not everybody lives in the same house for 30 years; some people who may be donating may, every six months to a year, move address. This makes it easier to keep hold of people who are in that donor system.

10:31

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is another section which applies to a slightly different area which is the Inquiries Act 2013. First question I had is: I was reading the definition of this yesterday and I wondered, because, obviously, we do inquiries as part of the select committee, whether the inquiries that are covered by this change would cover select committee inquiries. The key thing, I think, that might be determinative is the use of the word “government”. So, it might be that would mean that select committees aren’t part of the Government but then, of course, sometimes they are doing work that is supported and suggested by the Government. So I just wanted to have some clarity on that, just because if we are using that word, I think it’s important to know the exact subject area.

The other question I wanted to ask in Part 11 is in clause 125(4). I wasn’t really aware —and I don’t believe it came up in the select committee process—of the reasoning behind the need to change this information. Was there a specific incident that happened that meant that this change was needed and why these powers would be required? Apologies if it was advised by officials—they’ve much better memories than myself—but I couldn’t recall it and, when I was looking over it yesterday, I thought it would be good to know the context of why those new powers were requested.

10:32

Yeah, thank you for that. Look, I think, taking the first part of the member’s contribution first, my understanding here is that this is specifically to do with inquiries under the executive or under the Government, rather than inquiries under the legislative. I would certainly hope that select committee inquiries stay away from being prescribed in law but, rather, are referred to in the Standing Orders. So, that is my understanding of how this falls.

In terms of the rationale for amending the Act, it is actually quite a sensitive issue. One of the reasons was the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care. Now, as part of that report, the inquiry did have to deliver a series of case studies, some of which related to Lake Alice, and had information relevant to a criminal trial that was taking place at the exact same time as the inquiry. That did mean that parts of the report needed to be redacted, but at the time there was no power to redact parts of the report and Cabinet agreement was needed to amend the terms of reference to enable parts of the report to be redacted, to ensure comity between the criminal system or the court system, and the executive.

Now, I think there will be broad support here in this Chamber that this puts in place a procedure that addresses the situation if it were to arise in the future, and will enhance the efficiency of the process but also, I guess, the stress that comes by having such a niche issue play out in real time.

10:35

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a quick question. This is one of the shorter parts in the bill. I just wanted to understand from the Minister of Internal Affairs: is this codifying an existing right, or is this allowing legal aid to more easily be granted when there is a public inquiry? That’s under clause 135 of Part 13.

Look, I think I can also tick this one off. This, essentially, is to promote access to justice by establishing a system that provides a legal service, or that is the purpose of the Legal Services Act. This in some ways is quite similar to a contribution that we had in other parts where it was that that law referenced the Commissions of Inquiries Act 1908 which was superseded by the Inquiries Act 2013, which made those references redundant. So, we are removing those redundant references but not touching the overall policy intent of the law.

10:37

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m curious about this particular part and I think this bill, in particular, because looking at clause 137, section 3 amended, I want to check with the Minister on why has there been a change and a significant increase in terms of the disqualified contract between local authorities and their members from $25,000 to $100,000, excluding goods and services tax? Because if you’re looking at section 3(1) of the principal Act, it talks about: “Except as provided … no person shall be capable of being elected … or appointed to be or of being a member of a local authority or of any committee of a local authority, if the total of all payments made or … made by … on behalf of the local authority in respect of all contracts made by … in which that person is concerned or interested exceeds $25,000 in any financial year.”

What is the rationale behind increasing that from $25,000 to $100,000? Can I just check: when was the last time there’s been an adjustment in that amount?

10:38

Yes, very happy to answer this contribution. Look, you’re right that there is an increase from $25,000 to $100,000 without an exemption. The Department of Internal Affairs has put forward this change because the Office of the Auditor-General supports this change. It considers that having the same threshold since 1982—which answers your subsequent question of when was it last amended—the belief there is that it’s created unnecessary compliance costs for the legal authorities who are required to apply to the Auditor-General for approvals for councillors with interests in significant contracts, because the threshold is so low. These applications require time and resource from the Office of the Auditor-General. But overall, the Office of the Auditor-General does not consider that third party oversight of financial conflicts in local authorities is necessary or appropriate, given that local authorities are autonomous bodies with full legal capacity to manage their own affairs.

That falls outside of this law because this is simply making an update, I believe, with the Consumers Price Index since 1982, but it is to help the administrative efficiency of the Office of the Auditor-General.

10:39

Just one follow-up. Thank you for that, Minister; that’s really helpful and really interesting to hear. Do you have any advice from the Auditor-General on how much initial efficiency, then, it would allow for? What proportion of existing exemptions etc., that the Auditor-General would need to do and how much of that would it remove off their books, as a result of this?

Look, I don’t have any particular numbers with me, but if the member would like to inquire with the Office of the Auditor-General themselves, I’m sure they will get a fascinating insight to the cost reduction that we will be making within that office. But, look, it is mainly a technical change to update the law post-1982.

10:40

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a quick question on this one. This is quite an important change, and it should, hopefully, make it easier for people to have their declarations witnessed as part of local elections.

The question I had, which, hopefully, can be quickly answered is we’ve made this change to mean that the electoral officer isn’t the only person who can take a declaration, also deputy electoral officers, but also a third category of people, which as people who are allowed to take an oath and declaration under the Oaths and Declarations Act. I just wanted, for fullness, if we could find out who that is. I assume it would be JPs, lawyers; but would be good to know the extent of that, to know who is able to witness those declarations, if necessary, and, hopefully, speed up the process of voting.

10:41

Yes. Look, very happy to give this one a go, in terms of what the fulsome list would be. So section 14 of the Local Electoral Act also allows, under section 9, a list of persons who are able to witness declarations, which include a justice of the peace, a notary public, a registrar, and an enrolled barrister or solicitor of the High Court.

Part 14A agreed to.

10:42

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is a very quick question. I just wanted to understand: what prompted the change in terms of decision-making responsibilities of local boards under the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act?

I would require my officials to help answer that. That’s going way back. Sorry, I don’t have that right in front of me.

Do we have another question just while the Minister’s there?

I had a minor question which, if it assists, I can ask, which was: in Part 15, clause 139, we have a situation where we have the Local Government Act 2009 then having a section or a clause replaced by a bill from 2002, and, obviously, the order is unusual. So I wanted to know when did section 150B come in? I imagine there would be a different piece of legislation that would allow section 150B to be in place—surely an amendment to the Local Government Act 2002? So just a question on the timing because the order is a little bit unusual.

10:43

That level of specificity I would require some help with, but to the question that Lemauga Lydia Sosene had, this is a cross-reference error where that section referred to a section that no longer exists. But whereabouts it came from—it’s probably quite a few years old, but we’re clearing it all up now.

10:44

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Minister, for that answer. I just wanted to know, because when I looked it up, it didn’t exist anymore. So I just wanted to know—it must be a technicality being corrected. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. My question to the Minister—I’m just curious. Clause 139B, is to repeal the definition of “publicly notified”, but then it’s clear, within the Act, it still talks about publicly notified aspects. So I’m just wondering, if we’re repelling the definition, how do we then define what is “publicly notified” if we’ve just repealed it?

10:45

Look, I think I can go some way to helping alleviate some concerns here. This is really just making a change to clarify that local authorities can meet their requirement for their agendas to be publicly available by allowing them to be publicly available online. Whereas, at the moment, the law requires them to be sending a physical copy of the meeting agenda to the public libraries under the authority’s control. I would suspect that a lot of people nowadays, who are interested in the meeting agendas of public officials, are probably going to get that information online. So this is clearing up the fact that you need to then send that to the local public library.

10:46

Thank you and thank you for that answer. I guess, I accept that the way things have moved with technology that people don’t, obviously, get the publicly notified information from newspapers and are more likely to get it electronically, but if we were repealing the definition, I thought it would be, actually, wiser to replace the definition with something that is actually more up to date. I think it’s still important that we define what “publicly notified” is, seeing as it still remains in the Act.

Yes, and very happy to answer that too. Very helpfully, my officials have let me know that this does actually rely on the Legislation Act definition of “public notice”, which is defined in section 13 of the Legislation Act, which is where you’ll find your definition.

10:47

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Minister. So just then on to clauses 139D and 139E, which also the Minister touched on a little bit, but can I just check if there has been any advice that the Minister received from the officials that, previously, if you’re looking at a meeting of local authority public notice for extraordinary emergency meetings or availability of agenda reports, since they need to be done either in newspapers or done in public libraries etc., there might be certain grace period that we are allowed, in terms of what is defined as soon as practicable or when it is available—for example, in the previous section 46A. Has the Minister received any advice on what then would be the new expectation, now they can do things electronically, for things to be available for those, both in terms of the meetings of local authorities but also the availability of agenda reports?

Now, is there an expectation that local authorities would then need to have those, because they can now be done electronically, to be more prompt? What would that mean for certain areas that if they do have loss of internet connectivity, etc, where that online option may not be readily available, for the public perception of the update? Thank you.

10:48

Look, to this, I think the public officials that are holding these meetings should be scrutinised in full in terms of when they are holding their meetings and when they’re making their information about them publicly accessible. I would suspect, having known people who do turn up to these public meetings, that if the public meetings were not being notified as soon as practicable, members of the community, for one, would be letting us know as soon as they were aware of this. But as far as I’m aware, there’s no specific issue that has been raised about the timing and the availability of this information. It is simply to clear up that no longer is it a requirement to make a physical copy available in the public library.

Part 15A agreed to.

10:50

Thanks, Madam Chair. Just some quick questions on this as well. When I looked at this, I was wondering on what circumstances that this particular clause, specifically 151 with the new subsection (2A) would apply. I imagine that this is a delegated authority so the Minister of Internal Affairs doesn’t actually have to determine travel documents herself, but quite interested to know what the process would be in terms of managing that delegation alongside the Department of Internal Affairs in respect to passports. I know these are kind of technical procedural matters, but I suppose when people are in need of an emergency travel document of increasing importance to them, so just wanting to know, in practical terms with these changes, what the actual policy will look like in terms of engagement between the public and the State.

10:51

Yes, absolutely. Look, in terms of clause 151, you’re absolutely right: I don’t personally sign off on emergency travel documents. That is delegated down to the Department of Internal Affairs itself. In terms of what the change actually does, the emergency travel documents are something that is currently available through the delegated authority of the Minister of Internal Affairs to the Department of Internal Affairs. What this really changes is that these emergency travel documents can be produced due to an equipment or a system failure that may occur at the department itself. Current legislation doesn’t allow these emergency travel documents to be issued for a production malfunction even when urgent travel is required. This amendment is really just clearing up that people who do need to travel immediately will not be prevented from doing so because a passport itself cannot be printed due to the department and a failure that might happen there.

10:52

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Minister, for responding to the previous question which clarified my question for clause 151. But I want to check in terms of the replacement for—this is clause 150, section 9 amended. When we’re looking at section 9(1A) currently, it is a very short section of the bill which doesn’t actually detail any specificities around the process of how the Secretary of Internal Affairs could determine, or in a manner that the secretary could determine either the passport is lost, stolen, damaged, defaced, etc., etc.

Can I just check, without this particular amendment, what is the current process that the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) has been using to be able to undertake this particular section? I think, for example, section 9(1B), replaced by clause 150, that we’re seeing here is an additional part that we’re seeing, and particularly, I think, 9(1B)(b)(ii) and (iii)—it’s a new section compared to the existing part. Can I just check: does that mean that, currently, DIA is unable to apply to the Minister or done in a way that can cancel a passport if the information contained in the passport has been stolen or otherwise compromised, or otherwise request that the passport be cancelled? Currently, in section 9(1A), it just says that the passport has been lost or stolen. Are those other two options currently not available to anyone who applied to the DIA to cancel their passport? Is that my understanding? Is that the correct understanding?

10:54

Yes. At the moment—and I don’t want to go into too much of the technical detail of how the passport works in case someone who’s trying to get around the law figures out new things about passport security—the way that the law itself actually works is that there is already a process in the Act for cancellation on other grounds. A person themselves can apply to have their passport themselves cancelled, and they make a declaration before that decision is made.

What this is really changing is that, unfortunately, there have been some series of data breaches. A clear example of this is in 2022 when an Australian telecommunications company suffered a data breach that affected millions of customers, and passport numbers were illegally obtained through that data breach, which could have been quite harmful to New Zealand citizens with those sorts of passports and the specific numbers attached to them being used on fraudulent grounds. This allows the Minister, rather than the individual involved, to apply to have all of those passports cancelled.

10:56

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a few questions—there are not too many questions on clauses 153 and 154. In terms of amendments to the Public Records Act 2005 and wanting to just ask the Minister of Internal Affairs, in terms of this provision that is being updated, what safeguards have been put in place and what advice has the Minister received from officials when the means of destroying public archives—it would be helpful to understand, is there an annual report to monitor in terms of the public records? Are there also any records kept in describing the number of instances if that methodology or that method is used, and is there a register that has been maintained or that is maintained by officials that could be or is accessible to the public to understand? And, if not, why not?

10:57

Thank you. I hope my answers go some way to alleviate the concern that the member has. Clause 158 can only be used to destroy a public archive when the Chief Archivist considers that there are no reasonable ways to mitigate the risk of health and safety. The Chief Archivist needs written authority from the Minister to be able to do so. The Chief Archivist must also give at least 30 days’ notice of their intention to destroy that archive. Where the Chief Archivist authorises the immediate destruction of a public archive due to imminent danger to health and safety, they must notify the Minister and the Archives Council as soon as practicable, and any public archive destroyed under this new section must be noted in a register of destroyed public archives.

I don’t expect this to be used very often, but it is also the case that when we’re dealing with some very old materials, there is the possibility for chemical contamination or decay that becomes an actual health and safety risk, and we shouldn’t necessarily be holding on to archives that could actually cause a significant risk to the people working at the archive. But of course, it should be used in only the most immediate of circumstances.

10:58

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just following on from what the Minister of Internal Affairs said regarding—I’ve also got a couple of questions for clause 158, new sections 20A and 20B. Just in terms of new section 20A(2)(b), I understand the rationale with what the Minister is saying, but what’s unclear with this particular part is, when the Chief Archivist must give no less than 30 days’ notice in a manner the Chief Archivist considers appropriate, is that a 30-day public notice before doing anything in terms of the destruction of a public archive? And how would that public notice be done? Or is it that notice to the Minister before that happens? I just want some clarity around that section.

I did want to focus on new section 20B, which is “Sale of public records”, and this is also a new section. Can I check: does that mean that, under the current legislation, we cannot sell public records?

So it’s just a whole package of questions. Under the current legislation, can we sell public records? What is the reason for selling public records? Is it public records as pertaining to a particular person? I’m more concerned about something that becomes the property of the person to whom it is sold and ceases to have the status as a public record or be subject to this Act. What about if you’re selling a copy of a public record? I guess, in some ways, I mean, this might not be relevant to the Public Records Act, but let’s say you’ve got a land document, that’s technically considered about a particular property, etc.—CV, QV, and all of those—that is considered a public record, but if you’re able to sell that, it then no longer becomes a public record under this legislation. I just want to understand a bit more about this divide between public and private records, and what that would mean in terms of the selling. It depends on the Minister’s response; I may have just a few more questions on new section 20B.

11:01

Yes, I’m happy to give this one a go. Look, this is not that dissimilar to what happens in practice now. The Chief Archivist, under the Public Records Act, can authorise the sale of public records under the current law; however, what is silent, at the moment, is what happens to the Public Records Act obligations associated with those records once they are solved. This means that the requirements of the Public Records Act remain in place after the sale of both the purchaser and the Chief Archivist, which creates an issue where sold records are then subject to both private property rights as well as Public Records Act obligations at the exact same time. This is clarifying that, once a public record is sold, it becomes the purchaser’s property and no longer falls under the Public Records Act.

In terms of the earlier contribution about “Would the 30-day notice be a public notice or a notice to the Minister?”, yes, it is for a public notice notified on a website, and the Minister will be updated of that public notice being made.

11:02

Thank you. Thank you, Minister. Just to follow up on that, I understand what the Minister of Internal Affairs is saying, that there is now a bit of a grey area where something is both public and private at the same time after the sale, but, if now we no longer have that and if you sell a public record and it becomes private, are there also, then, certain guidelines for the Chief Archivist on what, then, should be sold? If the public archivist can sell any public record to any private person and then now, once it’s sold, it no longer is public but only private, surely there might be criteria on that, which currently may not exist, because currently they’re both public and private, but under this legislation they won’t be any more. I just want to check with the Minister if there are any guidelines, then, on what could be sold as public record now.

I also just want to check—and I think for the interest of, potentially, maybe, someone from the National Party with a differing view also may want to contribute to their differing view and the questions they may have for the removed clause 162, if there is any interest.

11:03

Yes, I believe my officials have an answer here for you, which is that clause 157 enables the Chief Archivist to require a public office to make copies of the records prior to their sale, which provides an additional safeguard to remove the risk of losing important public records.

11:04

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to touch on quite a relatively significant part of this bill, under Part 18, “Amendments to Public Records Act”. The Minister of Internal Affairs will be aware that the original bill, new section 60A, inserted by clause 162, had an overseas exemption to the maintenance of public records in the same way as it would be in New Zealand. We received quite a few submissions on this particular point, and there are some recent New Zealand examples of where public records have been particularly important in terms of determining exactly what has happened. In Operation Burnham, for example, it was particularly important.

You will see in the Governance and Administration Committee’s report that there is a differing view by the National Party in relation to this clause. I wanted to ask the Minister if she is supportive of the deletion of this provision, for the reasons outlined in the majority select committee report—and so, therefore, will this provision no longer be going forward? I’m sure the Minister’s been advised, but we did have a number of people who were concerned about these exemptions. Though I do understand the reasoning in the National Party differing view that, obviously, we don’t have jurisdiction in relation to what happens overseas, I think the majority of the committee did feel that it was important, where possible—and, obviously, our gold standard would still be to retain public records. I’m interested in the Minister’s reflection on that.

11:05

Thank you very much. Yes, and thank you to the Governance and Administration Committee. I do understand that there were differing opinions on this particular provision. One of the reasons why I support the removal of this particular clause that the select committee is also supporting the removal of, is the fact that it became a much more contentious clause in this bill than I ever anticipated in its introduction.

The purpose of this bill, overall, is to make minor and technical changes, rather than political changes under the law. For that purpose, I believe it is actually beneficial to remove it. If there was to be a larger debate, rather than using a clearing-up method, which this bill is, I think that would be the appropriate avenue to have that discussion on whether or not that exemption should move forward.

11:07

I have just a quick question on this. Readers of this bill will note that there are a number of geographical locations mentioned under the changes to the Reserves and other Lands Disposal and Public Bodies Empowering Act. We’ve got Evans Bay in Wellington, we’ve got the Hokianga, and also river protection in Taumarunui. These, at first glance, seem unrelated, and I just wondered if the Minister of Internal Affairs could give a very brief explanation as to, essentially, what these changes to these not very widely known pieces of legislation or provisions are actually doing in practice.

11:08

Yes. Thank you. Like a couple of other parts of this bill that we have traversed, the majority of changes in this part are in reference to removing sections that refer to the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1908, which is now obsolete and has been superseded by the Inquiries Act 2013. That’s redundant and can be repealed. Section 61 of the Reserves and other Lands Disposal and Public Bodies Empowering Act relates to a dispute over a slip which is now resolved and doesn’t need to be specified in the law. Section 110 of the Reserves and other Lands Disposal and Public Bodies Empowering Act relates to boundary allocations that can now be made under the Local Government Act, rather than this particular Act. Section 129 of the Reserves and other Lands Disposal and Public Bodies Empowering Act is no longer required, as the entities it refers to no longer exist.

11:10

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a few quick questions. Part 24 covers a number of areas that will be particularly interesting to many members of the public, including dog control, which is a huge issue, and freedom camping, which has also been another issue, and also amendments in relation to impounding. But my specific question for the Minister is there seems to be some changes in relation to the Dog Control Act that remove publication in the newspaper, and I just wanted to asked the Minister what the effect of those changes will be, and obviously noting that I think these have been put in at the Governance and Administration Committee as well.

I was just wanting to know—obviously, newspapers, in terms of their physical publication, are being read less frequently than they were in the past, certainly less so than in 1996, when this Act came into place, but the change in relation to removing the requirement in relation to newspapers circulating in the district of the territorial authority, does that remove all notification requirements to be publicly notified, or is it simply removing the term “newspaper” and replacing it with something else? Apologies that I was unable to ascertain the answer to that question myself through going through that section. It was mainly in relation to dog control. I know dog owners are very passionate about making sure that they find their dogs when they’ve been unfortunately lost, and we do know that dog control is a really important part of many local authorities’ work, so just some reflections on what the change would actually do would be helpful. Thank you.

11:12

Thank you. I do note that this one was looked at at length by the select committee, but for everyone’s benefit here, this is really aligning the requirement for a public notice or a public notification with the Legislation Act 2019. Part of this is not reducing the fact that a public notification itself needs to occur, but the method in which it occurs could change. It’s really up to a local council to make an effective call on whether people within their jurisdiction engage with traditional news media or whether or not they would be better off putting their issue for public notice online or whether or not they did a mixture of both. But at the moment, the requirement for a public notice in the newspaper does pose an additional cost and burden on some jurisdictions where there’s not that much benefit to the publication in a newspaper.

The question is that Schedule 1 stand part.

The question is that Schedule 2 stand part.

The question is that Schedule 2A stand part.

Schedule 2A agreed to.

The question is that Schedule 3 stand part.

The question is that Schedule 3A stand part.

Schedule 3A agreed to.

The question is that Schedule 4 stand part.

The question is that Schedule 5 stand part.

11:18

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to ask the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs a few questions on this part, which is in the context of an Act which makes changes to not only the way that the regime for administering prudential conduct and conduct within financial institutions will work, but also the role of the Financial Markets Authority. This is an important part of the Act because it will maintain prudential oversight and oversight of actual conduct within those institutions which are meant to administer financial services and credit to consumers. My first question is really about the choices that have been made to move some of the conduct functions over to the Financial Markets Conduct Act. There is considerable interest in this because it is going on alongside reorganisation of the Commerce Commission. It also walks back some of the consumer protections that were introduced by the Labour Government and then were further amended at the end of the Labour Government and then further amends those. That was in response to industry feedback that those prudential and conduct requirements had gone too far.

I want to ask the Minister about his overall view and whether the Finance and Expenditure Committee’s consideration on these points was close and had taken on the feedback. There was also the context of many of the submissions to the select committee being directly about the issues that were related to the ASB and ANZ litigation. He will remember, in his time as chair of that committee, that many of those submissions were about that particular point, and we constantly had to ask officials and delve deeper into what the actual changes for the Financial Markets Conduct Act would mean. It put the committee in a difficult position, because it was very difficult to draw out some of the industry feedback and some of the consumer representative feedback about what those changes would mean.

At a high level, I want to start there. I particularly invite the Minister to make some comments around the changes from the last Government that were introduced in 2020, versus 2022 around these changes, and then how his changes perhaps go further than those 2022 walk-backs. Those 2022 changes were in response to pretty widespread and widely commented upon rules that the lenders at all levels of the financial markets said were getting in the way of making easy consumer loans. I’m interested in whether he can clarify for us the intention of further changing the Financial Markets Authority’s (FMA’s) power in responding to financial conduct in the market. We’ll also get onto some questions around the FMA’s powers of designation that arise in this part, but I’ll invite him to take that call first.

11:21

Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, the transition of oversight for consumer credit, as the member has rightly said, moves from ComCom, the Commerce Commission, over to the Financial Markets Authority (FMA). The FMA has, for some years now, had an expanding remit, and we believe that that is the appropriate place for this to be and that they’ve got greater tools and ability to get stuck into some of these issues around consumer credit and the likes.

Transitioning lenders to the FMA’s licensing model streamlines the approach to regulation for financial services and ensures that the FMA is able to supervise and regulate conduct effectively. Members have raised in the past, “Oh, will there be a lack of expertise?” No, because the 35 or 40 staff from ComCom that are working in and around the consumer credit sector will largely be transferred over to the offices of FMA, so that expertise remains. FMA has more tools to deal with it, and that is the appropriate place for them to look at some of these issues and shortcomings around consumer credit.

11:23

Madam Chair?

Camilla Belich.

Thank you, Madam Chair—Arena Williams—the question—

Oh, sorry! Arena Williams.

—I want to raise with the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs just very briefly—he’s made the point that appointments and expertise are the key thing in the reorganisation of those two entities, and I’ll come back to that once we get to the designation powers. Just to move a bit more chronologically now, I’m at page 31 and at clause 51. I want to ask the Minister—one of the issues that the Finance and Expenditure Committee worked on quite carefully with officials was the removal of clause 51(1)(c), which was the services acting as mobile traders. The advice that the committee received on this was that this wasn’t needed because this wasn’t a widely spread practice in the New Zealand market for credit.

But the Minister will recall that the law change in 2017 or 2018—the provisions that gave rise to the Conduct of Financial Institutions legislation—and the changes in the law that required responsible lending, many of those were directly linked to this issue. The public response to the idea that in South Auckland and West Auckland and in vulnerable communities there were trucks that would drive around neighbourhoods and offer goods for very, very high levels of interest—often poorly disclosed or not disclosed to vulnerable clients—gave rise to some of these responsible lending rules and a wider responsible lending regime.

As the committee understood it, this is not a practice in the New Zealand market currently, but how has he considered the need for regulation like this in the future? I ask him that because, even in the last year, with the changes that were made in 2022—and I’m not having a political go at him about this, because this was not his Government. The changes that have been made to responsible lending have changed the practice of neighbourhood lenders—small credit companies setting up shop in your local town square, perhaps next to the bakery, next to the hairdresser, next to small vegetable and fruit retailers—offering credit loans that are above 20 percent and much higher than the personal loan rate at a bank or, indeed, a credit card. I’m asking him about how he anticipates the change in the market for lending services if we remove this provision that sort of singled out and, indeed, was intended to single out, ring-fence, and highlight the conduct of mobile traders.

11:26

Thank you to the member—thank you, Madam Chair. I think it’s important to keep in context when the member—and she rightly has, over the years, been a champion as far as more sunlight on the likes of mobile traders. We know through the Finance and Expenditure Committee that she was well exercised on that, and rightly so.

I suppose if we go back to the guiding principle of the fact that this regime will fall under the auspices of the Financial Markets Authority (FMA)—as will all the wider remit of consumer credit and its oversight—and the FMA, with its expanding remit, will have a renewed energy and focus on these issues. If there are issues—which there are—that continue, particularly in vulnerable communities, the member and the committee can take comfort that the FMA will take on this remit and these responsibilities with renewed vigour and with a big mandate.

They’ll also come in with a new chair and a new chief executive, so I think the member can have absolute confidence that as far as mobile traders and anything that’s questionable in the consumer credit space, the FMA will be over the top of it. It has a wide remit, and it will have the tools to implement those penalties as it sees fit.

11:28

Thank you, Madam Chair. That is really helpful. It’s also helpful to hear the Minister’s intention to continue to monitor that with the Financial Markets Authority (FMA), and I have also heard them express their interest in meeting with not only mobile traders but to use their new powers under this Act to be able to take proactive investigations. That is a good thing that is widely called for by the sector who represent say the financial mentors. That is a good thing, and good for the committee to take note of.

Can I then ask him about clause 51(2)? There is a lot in this section, because what the definition of “consumer credit contract” means is that some credit contracts can be defined by regulation, and some can be sort of called in by the FMA, but there is a provision that excludes “buy now, pay later”. This was extensively submitted upon; the Minister will not be surprised about this. It was something that organisations like Christians Against Poverty highlighted as something that the Minister needed to take note of personally and ensure that there were adequate protections around. Earlier in this term, the Government made a decision to exclude “buy now, pay later” products from unfair contracting terms. By including them in the definition for consumer credit more clearly, it would be clearer that some of the provisions that affect consumer credit contracts can apply to them.

Just to give you some context—what are we talking about here? “Buy now, pay later” products are a type of financial arrangement that allow consumers to access goods or services on the spot by paying for them at a future date. The issue at hand here—and it is one for the House because it is a political judgment—is whether that is a contract for consumer credit.

The system works by having the payment be made immediately, and then the person who has paid for that enters into an arrangement where they will pay that back. They don’t enter into a traditional credit arrangement. They’re not signing a credit contract and they’re not signing up for a credit card, but the question here really is whether his definition of consumer credit contract goes far enough to enable Parliament to have a view on whether that is a consumer credit contract, because it’s being left to the Public Service to decide whether it should be, and if it is left to the Public Service, does it have the powers it needs to call in some of these products?

The products that we are talking about do seem, to me, and to most of the people I talk to, to represent a form of credit. They’re a product which, when it was first marketed, was predominantly marketed as something for young people to buy things online with, but it has now vastly expanded from that sort of consumer credit to one that we would more often associate with ordinary bread and butter consumer credit, and it is bread and butter that they are buying. Groceries, liquor, and petrol are now all available on “buy now, pay later” products. That seems to be more like a consumer credit card, and so having some of the provisions around consumer credit contracts associated with those products would make sense.

I want to also ask the Minister about the October 2022 Cabinet decisions to bring “buy now, pay later” contracts within the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act and whether that will be given effect to by this, because that was an important decision. There has been some back and forth, particularly around the status of the products offered by Zip, Afterpay, particularly in the New Zealand market because they have a growing market share. I also seek his views on where the FMA’s temperature will be on those kinds of arrangements—that I think are credit arrangements—given that these are also products which are, helpfully, competing with the banks. They provide more competition for a market of credit for consumers, and perhaps there is more information available because of these new technological tools for the consumers who use them. But, obviously, if they are competing with banks, they should not then be subject to a completely different kind of competition regime making completely different kinds of regulations.

I was trying to bundle all of my questions about “buy now, pay later” that are relevant to consumer credit contracts into that question, just while the Minister takes advice. I’d just finish with this. The financial mentors’ association FinCap submitted really useful advice on this to the Finance and Expenditure Committee that they had prepared after the then Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs Andrew Bayly had commented publicly that he would be keeping a watching eye on these products and their operation in the market. That advice is widely publicly available. Their finding is that this is being used by more and more vulnerable consumers for more and more everyday sorts of consumer-essential products, and it meets what they would consider to be the definition of a product which should be regulated.

11:33

Thank you, Madam Chair. The member Arena Williams does well to raise the issues around “buy now, pay later”, and she is right that that was the Cabinet paper that she quoted from, I think, October 2022. The primary question was, I think, why this bill doesn’t further improve protections. There are protections already in the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act, and, as the member has indicated, the regulation of “buy now, pay later” has only taken effect since September 2024, and so the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) and, eventually, the Financial Markets Authority (FMA) will continue to monitor. I want to give every assurance that the effectiveness of the regulations that are in place around “buy now, pay later”, and whether the existing regulation that the previous Government put in place and that has been in effect since 2024 is having the intended outcomes—I suppose, to answer in short, “buy now, pay later” is regulated. It is under watch, and it will continue to be under a close watch thanks to MBIE, and it will also, soon, be thanks to the FMA.

11:34

Thank you, that’s very helpful from the Minister, and it’s helpful to hear that he is also keeping a watch on that. That will provide some reassurance to those financial mentors and advocates who are seeing this every day.

I want to put to him, then, some of the findings of the report, given that he does have a watching brief on this. Minister, are you aware that consumer harm following the September 2024 regulation that you’ve roof-rinsed shows that hardship has continued to increase for users of “buy now, pay later”, and the level of consumer protection provided by the September 2024 regulation has been criticised by financial mentors in that it deals with the most significant harm that was caused, but it’s contributing further to consumers facing financial hardship and overcommitment?

The particular finding that I want to draw his attention to is the affordability exemption that is causing consumer harm. Essentially, what this is is financial mentors in the community—and all of us local MPs will know some of these people who operate in our main streets or at the citizens advice bureaus or at the library, depending on what day you’re there. They provide free or very, very cheap financial advice to people through trusts. Some of them receive funding from the Government, but some of them do not. They are raising this issue with the Government where they are seeing “buy now, pay later” representing more and more of a share of someone’s income—whether that’s wages, or payments from the Ministry of Social Development—because they are spending what they can get on “buy now, pay later” and preferencing the paying back of that kind of credit above other sorts of credit, which will be more damaging to, say, their financial scores or debt in the future because it will cost more because of the interest payments. But they will preference “buy now, pay later” products because of the way that the digital service works, where they lose that one lifeline for essential products if they don’t make the payment quickly.

The particular criticism is that the affordability exemption under the September 2024 regulation means that “buy now, pay later” providers can choose to be exempt from the obligation to undertake affordability assessments. Minister, if they were explicitly included in your new clause 51(2) as operators who are offering a consumer credit contract, then we would do away with that unfairness in the system. They would have an obligation to undertake affordability assessments on the condition that they engaged in credit checking and reporting, and “buy now, pay later” providers have currently chosen—some of them—to have some sort of system for dealing with hardship in the background digitally, but they are not required to.

My other question on this, which I think the Minister will be interested in, is not what you would expect from every Labour MP—it is more in line with his ideology. If we have “buy now, pay later” providers here who are competing with larger lenders and those larger lenders charge more and their prices for their products are higher, then should we make sure, as the Government, that there is an even playing field for these providers, too? They are rapidly gaining market share. There are, broadly, two of them that are doing that in the New Zealand market. Should they not be subject to the same requirements that other lenders providing the same sorts of services to other consumers are?

In other words, has he built a moat around two favoured providers of these services in the market and is he assisting them with a level of competitive conduct in the market because of these regulations—which is not fair to other providers. Is it fair that small lenders in the market—who deal with the very vulnerable consumers and are subject to the fairness checks and the affordability checks, and are doing everything, in their opinion, right—are competing with these online giants, who are largely multinational-owned and have a presence here in New Zealand, but are of a very different structure from them. Is there more that he should be doing with his competition hat on, and not his regulatory hat on, to ensure that there is a fairer distribution of conduct and prudential requirements, essentially, or not prudential requirements, but conduct requirements—prudential requirements in the old sense of what that used to mean with regard to the Reserve Bank—for the “buy now, pay later” providers? There are two questions in that.

11:39

Just reflecting on the “buy now, pay later” issues that the member Arena Williams has rightly raised, they are not explicitly mapped out in this piece of legislation. That terminology is not part of this statute, but, as I’ve said, she and the committee can take every assurance that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment—and it’s soon to be the Financial Markets Authority, as well—will continue to monitor their practices very closely.

If I can just take the committee back to where we were with consumer credit, I think we got to a situation where the rules were so tight that bankable young people—middle-aged people, even—were struggling to get credit and were having to show Netflix and KFC receipts and everything else. We think that we’ve hit the sweet spot here. As far as the obligation on lenders, there remain plenty of obligations on lenders around the affordability to the borrower, and they are also supported in the non-binding guidance that is the Responsible Lending Code, but we do not believe that regulations, as such, should tell lenders how they should meet this obligation in every case. So we believe that we’ve hit it right in the middle where access to credit for those that can afford it is there, but there are plenty of safeguards that we’ve ensured remain, and the watchful eye of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. For now, the Commerce Commission and, soon, the Financial Markets Authority will continue to watch over the practices of lenders.

11:41

Thank you. Before I move on to section 53 at page 32, I just want to clarify with the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: is it the Minister’s position that this is the right policy? This was sensitively discussed; I am not trying to make a political point here, but the difference between the October Cabinet decisions, the September Cabinet decisions, and the position at the beginning of this programme is vast. The change that was proposed for “buy now, pay later” initially was to bring them into the regime, and that is why I ask him about the competition part of his role, because when industry does submit on these rules, it doesn’t make sense to the traditional credit industry that they would be subject to these checks and an international service provided by two providers in New Zealand would not be.

There are different strokes for different folks on why you would change this. The industry’s concerns are not my concerns, but that is why I would suggest there was a change in position during that period, and I just want to clarify with the Minister whether it’s his ongoing position that he’s not revisiting the “buy now, pay later” rules, given that he said, “These are under a watching brief. We’re interested in what changes the consumers will face.” This does make a difference. There is some uncertainty in the market at the moment around how the unfair contracting terms and affordability provisions will continue to affect this, because it’s growing. More and more of us will experience using “buy now, pay later” services and non-traditional credit lines like this. It’s not just “buy now, pay later”; it’ll be the next thing in a minute, so we must make sure that our provisions are futureproof.

All right, I’ll move on to clause 53. I just want to clarify with the Minister: this was something that was back and forth, and we didn’t have the benefit of submissions on this point. Can he clarify for the committee how many operators of mobile trading businesses operate but don’t offer credit products? Were there businesses that weren’t offering credit under this business model, or were there parts of some businesses that weren’t operating under this business model but were still then subject to oversight? The oversight of these businesses was not just about the credit; the public interest in that sort of 2016-17 period was also about the very high prices. Regulation didn’t always used to sit with this kind of commercial arrangement between the provider of mobile services and the householder, they would drive up to their house and offer goods—was regulated by the Commerce Commission. The Commerce Commission was not only interested in the credit arrangements but was also interested in the prices and the conduct and in the, sort of, representations that were made by the sellers to people.

We’ve now taken out any licensing requirements here, but what exists in the gap? Is it now a complete lacuna where we have mobile traders who are trading without credit licences and do not have any oversight—in which case, we’re sort of back to where we were in 2016-2017 for those products that weren’t credit products. Or is there another regulatory mechanism that he can assure me to have faith in, because I do like his assurances. Go on.

11:45

As has been established, mobile traders are subject to the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act (CCCFA), and that oversight that took effect about 18 months ago continues. Strengthening up that piece of legislation is not part of this, but, in saying that, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) already has a statutory duty to provide advice on the CCCFA as part of its regulatory stewardship. MBIE is also the statutory monitor for the Financial Markets Authority (FMA), who will soon have oversight of consumer credit.

Talking about mobile traders, they remain a big part of CCCFA, the monitoring of them continues, and as I’ve said earlier, I believe that the sunlight that will go on to their practises and behaviour will be more pronounced with the transition of consumer credit and its oversight from ComCom—affectionately known as ComCom; the Commerce Commission—to the FMA with its broadening remit. We have every confidence that consumer credit is going to be more under the eye of the public and the regulators than ever before.

11:46

Thank you, Madam Chair. That’s really helpful. I just want to get the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs to clarify. He said mobile traders are subject to the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act (CCCFA). That’s right insofar as they offer credit contracts, but my question is: this provision before it was amended seemed to say that they were still subject to licensing arrangements for their businesses and then they had some supervisor who was responsible for their conduct.

It also relates to my question at clause 54, inserting new section 389(4A), which is broader than the mobile traders. The mobile traders is one question for him, but the exemption of services that are outside of a licence—given that we’ve now made some changes at the Finance and Expenditure Committee which remove, say, mobile traders, are there other services which he anticipates will offer a service that is not within the regime of the CCCFA? So they’re not credit contracts but they are a service that is provided, or an insurance contract, because, say, a business like a vehicle seller will be subject to licensing arrangements both for its insurance and for its lending side of the business. But what is he thinking of when we’ve removed the mobile traders—what sort of businesses is he intending to have services that are exempted, or is that now superfluous now that mobile traders have been removed in their entirety from this part?

This was one of the things that didn’t have the benefit of being submitted on at the service level but is particularly important to, say, the financial mentors when they are seeing the effect of this from the market completely changing away from mobile traders but now the re-emergence of corner store lenders, and not only corner store lenders but businesses that have built in credit to their line of sales—like, say, the car sales, and particularly the small car saleyards, which use a range of different techniques to upsell credit to consumers alongside the things that they are actually buying, not just loans for the cars but also for particular services that give the whole transaction a much greater cost.

One example for the Minister was that, very recently, I helped a constituent who, over the life cycle of her vehicle, were she to pay the entire cost of the vehicle, the car, that was a $7,000 car, would’ve cost her about $30,000. That, very simply, didn’t seem to meet the requirements. We were able to enlist the help of a financial mentor to help deal with that, but that’s lending products and insurance products being sold on top. Is there another sort of service that he is intending to exempt in new section 389(4A), inserted by clause 54?

11:50

Just to reiterate, mobile traders continue to be subject to the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act, and they will also be part of the licensing regime of the Financial Markets Authority (FMA), as well, given that they will be treated formally as lenders.

The mobile traders that we know of provide credit contracts, and so when one provides credit contracts, they are regulated. I, again, want to give every assurance to the member that my role is a double-edged sword: it’s Minister—some see it as contradictory, almost, but Minister of Commerce and of Consumer Affairs, and the member in the Chamber can take every assurance that we, this administration, are all about finding a sweet spot when it comes to lending and borrowing where those that can afford to borrow and are bankable can access credit, but those that are out there in the marketplace and exerting predatory behaviour—that we have got the tools required and the oversight required to unleash fury on them if they are caught breaching their responsibilities.

The FMA, under a new chair and under a new chief executive in 2027, will be looking at this widely, and they have every intent—they tell me—to be taking their consumer credit watchdog responsibilities very, very seriously. You will see the profile of consumer credit under FMA and the resource of consumer credit oversight only grow as we continue in this difficult post-Iranian war—well, current Iranian war—environment, and all the inflation and all the pressures, cost of living pressures, that many have found themselves under. So we have every confidence that these people will continue to be protected as they should be.

11:52

I move, That debate on this question now close.

I think there’s a couple more clauses to cover. Arena Williams.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just moving to clause 56A—I’m at page 33, middle of the page—just the repeal of section 506(4). The Minister made an announcement recently at the competition conference in Auckland about increasing penalties for conduct of interest, which was the conduct around section 36 of the Commerce Act, but I want to ask him about how this interacts with that.

The principle here is that nothing in this Act should give rise to where you have two regulators, the Commerce Commission and the Financial Markets Authority (FMA), looking at a particular set of conduct—that there should be one pecuniary penalty for that conduct, but that also relies on criminal penalties also being available. I want to ask him whether this provision in this bill that’s before the House now was considered in light of proposed changes to other pecuniary penalties. Stacking penalties—which our regime doesn’t do and didn’t do at this time, when he repealed this—is a feature of other law, like, say, the EU competition law, where penalties are much higher, which we could have used as a model and, indeed, much of his vision for fair trading penalties seems to draw on.

Is this the right temperature? Is this in line with his temperature now, where we don’t have stacking penalties and have explicitly changed the way that penalties will work? Stacking penalties, just for clarification, is where a corporate entity has engaged in antitrust conduct; they’ve been found to be liable for both civil penalties and for criminal penalties, or for pecuniary penalties that are payable to the State. In jurisdictions like Europe and the UK, they stack up. You might be liable for one antitrust offence, for a number of different penalties that will result in the tens of millions of dollars of penalties—or, in the case of Google in Ireland, US$6 billion payable to the State, which was more than their corporate tax take over several years. So the size of the penalties and the stacking is an important question here. That seemed to be where the Minister was going, so I wanted to clarify whether this provision is in line with that, and whether he considered the penalties that the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act gives rise to in this Act, which was drafted before his time as a Minister; whether he had advice and whether he could increase the penalties in line with his other increases in the penalties in the Fair Trading Act.

I’m also interested in the procedural requirements at clause 53. These just change the requirements relating to the exemptions and exclusions in the Act. I just want him to comment on how this will affect penalties when a group is excluded for one sort of conduct—so for one sort of credit contract—and, say, a neighbourhood lender is offering one sort of product and won’t be liable for penalties in that context, but whether they will be liable for other penalties in another context. Minister.

11:56

Well, I’m reliably informed by my officials that what Ms Williams just raised—we are repealing section 446N of the Financial Markets Conduct Act. This requires, currently, the Financial Markets Authority (FMA) to obtain the Commerce Commission’s consent before commencing proceedings, and given that the ComCom will be handing over its consumer credit responsibilities to FMA, it makes no sense, and hence the repeal.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 2 set out on Amendment Paper 505 be agreed to.

No.

The question is agreed. The question is that Part 2—

Noes have it; party vote.

I’d already put the next question.

Point of order, Madam Chair. I’d like the vote to be recorded accurately. We called for a party vote. We can do this now or we can do it later, retrospectively. Either way, the vote will be recorded accurately.

Yeah, there’s no need to get threatening, Mr Kieran McAnulty. I did not hear you. I heard something. If you are going to call for a party vote, I need to be able to hear it. I’m just asking for a bit more volume, that’s all. Mr Clerk, a party vote is called for.

12:00

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll bring the Minister to clause 61(1). The definition of “financial markets participant” is a policy choice and a political choice. Throughout this bill, it is about who is subject to the terms of the regime to ensure that people behind the scenes of any lender are subject to the right kind of professional client care, the right kind of professional standards, the right kind of record keeping, the right kind of safety requirements. So this isn’t just about those people who offer contracts for credit to consumers, but it is also then seeking to further define those people who have some role in that. This is particularly important for larger financial institutions, because we’re not interested in the cleaner and the office ladies, but we are definitely interested in people who are one step behind the people making the arrangements between the consumer and the person offering credit contract—

What about the office boys?

James Meager wants to include the cleaner and the cleaning lady. OK, we are interested in them too, but we do not want them subject to financial market conduct regulation. OK, clause 61(1)—I’m on page 34 at the top. So the group of people in between—there are values and judgments to be made here, and there are also different people involved in different parts of the transaction. So we’ve aimed to go on both sides of the transaction: the credit contract is entered into by the offer of the credit contract and by the person taking out the credit contract. But then, on the back end of the arrangement, we have those people who are responsible for training, assessing, and making sure that the standards within, say, the bank, are upheld and that the appropriate kinds of checks and balances on the person offering the credit contract are in place.

Then, on this side of the contract, post contract, we also have people like the debt collector, the repossession agent, people who are involved when things go wrong, or when those people involved with things that go right and the debt is resold for a different reason, or different people enter into the arrangement because they have bought, say, the business that took on the credit arrangement that was entered into by a different person. All of those people are intended to be captured by the Minister’s definition. But I want to ask him: this is a reasonably significant policy choice, what did he consider in removing, say, some of those people within larger financial institutions who might not have a directly customer facing role but might have a very significant role in assurance for, say, the board who are involved in oversight of quality and safety within the system. Those people are excluded. Also, the people on this end in, say, a repossession context, you have a number of people who might be considered to be involved in the life cycle of the consumer credit contract who don’t seem to be captured by this definition. What about them?

This was one of the things that fell by the wayside in the committee room because the committee was very much taken up with the litigation question. But this is still really relevant because it is a different sort of position than you might expect from the original Conduct of Financial Institutions Act regime which was designed to keep to everyone, which was a much broader-brush definition, which was designed to capture any participant in the process. Minister, really welcome your assurance on how far you intended to cast the net there.

12:04

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to—for those that are joining on their crystal sets this morning, this afternoon now—give some context as to where this bill has come from, what it intends to do, and how far reaching it will be. As the chair of Finance and Expenditure Committee, Ryan Hamilton has said, this Government is engaging on a “Holy Trinity” of financial service reform, and this Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Bill is a key part of that. It is an omnibus bill, which of course amends the 2003 Act, which was under the Clark Government. In fact, every Government since then has amended the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act (CCCFA).

Good speech.

I think, Mr Meager, this is one of the most amended pieces of legislation outside a couple of others that we’ve seen. As part of an omnibus bill, it also amends the Financial Markets Authority Act. So it amends—given that the transition of credit oversight and credit watch will go from the Commerce Commission to the Financial Markets Authority (FMA) from 1 July, all things being equal, it amends the definitions, clause 51, to extend the coverage of the FMA Act to all CCCFA activities; so that FMA has access to all of the regulatory powers and procedures under the FMA Act. So this is very much a functionary outcome of transitioning those powers and oversights from the Commerce Commission to the FMA, and then that includes adding CCCFA to the definition on financial markets legislation. So as far as a catch-all and everything else, this—clause 51—is all about ensuring that the FMA has the tools required to get the job done.

12:06

Thank you, Madam Chair. That is helpful. Moving on to clause 64—I’m at the top of page 35. The question that I have for the Minister again relates to this insertion of interpretation provision of a credit contract—the former Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs will have an interest in this because it vastly changes the sorts of discussions the previous Government was having about what is a contract for credit. This provision that is being inserted here, particularly at clause 64(d)(ii), is an exclusion, which is a different sort of approach than what case law has provided us so far, because it excludes what most New Zealanders would see as credit arrangements if they don’t have an interest charge and if they don’t have credit fees. So that, on the face of it, does include, say, “buy now, pay later”.

It also includes things like arrangements for paying later for essential goods and services, which now some businesses do and it’s becoming a more prevalent retail practice, where stores will have an in-house credit arrangement—little “c” credit, not defined credit arrangement—with consumers to buy products that remain valuable for a period of their life cycle, like, say, whiteware. It also applies to some arrangements for the sale of phones and televisions through phone plans. So with this exclusion, is the Minister confident that excluding not only—you know, having this exclusion is the reason why you need a deliberate call-in power for “buy now, pay later”, but what is the next thing? What is the next arrangement where digital technology changes the market for consumer credit and makes it easier to market a new product to young people, that first starts out as a way that you can buy make-up and vapes and phones, but then turns into a very large, very widely used consumer product like “buy now, pay later”. Because these products will evolve and emerge, and they are unlikely to have the traditional kind of interest charges and contractual arrangements on paper that our generation are used to.

But they will continue to have terms which ensure that people are constantly paying them back, and paying them back in a very timely way, in the way that some “buy now, pay later” providers have been criticised for almost gamifying the way that they present their credit information to people. Essentially, it’s the first thing that you pay off because the way it pops up in your eyeballs when you use your phone means that people prefer that sense of being able to pay it off and gamifying and using it regularly. Have we just created a provision which we will need to come back to and constantly create these exemptions as new products emerge? That is the opposite of ordinary competition and consumer law, because competition and consumer law is meant to prove to us—we the Government, “us”— prove to the regulator that you are a useful, responsible, and ordinary kind of credit product, and that you exist in the market along the same terms as other products—that you are subject to the same sorts of real issue requirements of the products—and then exemptions come if there is a particular case for doing that. This seems to be going the other way, and the other way to most jurisdictions, which are now looking at these products and saying, “Actually, we have an emerging trend here, where more and more people are getting into personal debt.”

Is the Minister concerned about the level of personal debt in New Zealand being increased by this sort of provision where more people can take on these ad hoc credit arrangements alongside their credit card debt, alongside their personal lending, and alongside their car loan? None of those things are married up under a provision like this and are unable to take each other into account even if you wanted to, and even if you developed the digital tools, you still wouldn’t have any sort of requirement to consider some of those ad hoc arrangements for whiteware, for phones, alongside other sorts of lending. Until you get to the financial mentor stage and then they’re going through your bank receipts, and they are telling me, they’re telling local MPs that for many of the earners in the lowest quartile, up to 30 percent of their income is going straight to debt servicing—much of that to products like “buy now, pay later” and ad hoc arrangements with retailers for whiteware.

I’m just going to wait for an answer from the honourable Minister, but I was going to just say there was a lot in that question.

12:11

I won’t ask you to repeat it, Madam Chair. Look, she rightly raises, if we stand back a bit: will this increase unscrupulous lenders and lending, and will it increase unaffordable borrowing? I’ve got news for the member: there’s a new sheriff in town and—it’s not me—that is the Financial Markets Authority (FMA) and they will take oversight with a new chair and a new chief executive of these consumer credit responsibilities from 1 July. They will have a watchful eye and all the tools in their extensive tool kit, and those being transitioned over with this omnibus bill to ensure the job can be done. So sunlight is on this.

As far as her concerns around definitions, this is all about aligning definitions in the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Act and aligning them with the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Bill (CCCFA). As per clause 64 that she referred to, what that amendment does is the replaced part of this definition irons out some inconsistencies with how credit contracts are defined under the CCCFA. So we see this as legislative hygiene and, again, another consequence of moving that credit consumer responsibility from the Commerce Commission to the FMA.

12:12

Short question—Minister, will you duel me at dusk? No, that’s not my question.

No, that’s not a question. No, the Minister doesn’t need to answer that question.

My question is about the consequential amendments—I’m at clause 70—[Interruption]

Hang on, I’m struggling to hear the actual question now.

There hasn’t been one.

It’s coming.

I am at page 35, clause 70. I just want to ask him about the consequential amendments to do with this part. The arrangements between the Commerce Commission and the Financial Markets Authority (FMA) mean, as was rightly pointed out, that licensing will fall to the FMA; I just want to ask him, for those holders of licensing arrangements with another regulator who falls under the ambit now of FMA, what is the status of the licences? What is the status of their other arrangements? Do they fall away? Are they still in operation? What is the mechanism by which the Minister intends to notify people who are moving to FMA as their primary regulator? There will only be one licence under his new regime, which is a good thing. So how will it be clear to holders of old licences that they have new provisions that apply to them?

The consequential amendments set out in this clause don’t have any specific arrangements for the applicability of licences going forward. So this must be something which is going to be dealt with in regulations, because licences are a creature of secondary legislation. So could he just confirm: what is the status as soon as this bill comes into law for those licences that no longer apply and no longer have legal effect?

Just while the Minister is taking some advice, the relevance of this is because a move to a single licensing regime is also a part of the wider reforms here. It is quite a big change for some of these providers of services. The biggest change will be for some of the smallest providers, though. People who offer these types of credit contracts as one-man-band car dealerships will be some of the ones that go from having five licences to one. So a regime where a piece of legal documentation which was duly enforced ceases to be enforced is something that will be relevant to those holders, especially because many of them are small-business owners who are not going to be checking their messages from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment.

12:15

Thank you, Madam Chair. The member needs to—and also the committee—have every assurance when she talks about car lenders and the issues that we continue to see in that sector around our car finance; not everyone, but there are some practices that continue to raise concern and raise eyebrows, that the Financial Markets Authority (FMA) as a priority will have a spotlight on that particular part of the market, i.e. car financing. So watch this space, and those that are practising unscrupulous behaviour: be mindful and be on notice because the watchdog is going to have their sights fairly and clearly on you.

Those lenders that the member raised in clause 70, as we near this “Other amendments” section, those that are certified now by the Commerce Commission will be granted an FMA licence. So that comes across, and FMA is engaging the sector already and has been for some weeks and months as this transition has had some inevitability about it and they are helping lenders with that transition. But their certification comes across the Commerce Commission to the FMA.

Arena Williams. I believe there is one more clarification here—really, really briefly.

12:16

Yes, just a brief clarification. So is it the case that people who were licenced under the Commerce Commission for services that are outside the remit of the Financial Markets Authority will just no longer have any licensing for that thing? Is that a lacuna? Is there no regulation that applies to, say, a trader who was trading with vulnerable consumers as part of their business but was not offering a credit contract or an insurance contract? I think that’s what he’s saying. I think it’s empowered by the regulations rather than this bill, but it would be helpful if he could clarify that.

The reason why that is important is because in the example of a mobile trader, they still provide whiteware to consumers that is worth $300 at the shop in Manurewa, but having driven up the road to their home, also in Manurewa, it will be valued at $1,200 over the life of the contract. Part of that is the price; part of what is being regulated there is the price, not just the credit arrangement.

12:18

I suppose I will just reiterate what I said last time: anyone, any lender that’s certified now, they will be granted a Financial Markets Authority (FMA) licence. So if they are certified now, that moves across to the FMA.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 3 set out on Amendment Paper 505 be agreed to.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 1 set out on Amendment Paper 505 be agreed to.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Schedule 4 set out on Amendment Paper 505 be agreed to.

12:25

Thank you, Madam Chair. This bill has had many ways of referring to it, and so I want to propose to the Minister some different ways that he might consider renaming it. The title, Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Bill, speaks to the original intent of the bill, which was cross-partisan, to ensure that stricter protections were in place for consumers in their credit arrangements, that ordinary people getting lending from then corner-store lenders knew that they were getting a fair deal and that their contracts would be relatively pro forma, and that the same sort of trading and professional requirements would be in place whoever they went to, whether it was there, whether it was the bank, whether it was the car lender.

This bill is a departure from that. Not only does it step back a number of key provisions, but it also had a role in undermining New Zealanders’ sense of trust in what the Government was willing to do to accommodate the wishes of some of the biggest lenders in New Zealand, who are meant to, and do profess to, have consumers’ best interests at heart. The decisions around this walk back things like directors’ liabilities and duties to ensure fair conduct within their institutions. It removes the penalties for directors and senior managers trying to take due diligence, to ensure that lender compliance with the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act and attendant personal liability are walked back. These are changes that will have a long-lasting impact and go beyond the sensationalist part of what this bill intended to do in the first place, and let me remind you, because my intention is to change the bill’s name to the “Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance (Forgiveness of ANZ and ASB Debt) Amendment Bill.”

This was a bill that was introduced to the House with the intention of reaching back in time, in the period 2015 to 2019 when lenders had gotten it wrong and were now in the position of owing thousands of customers, who were ordinary New Zealanders, debts which had accrued at that time—crystallised debts that existed between customers and their lenders. And this bill made it explicit that it applied to a live litigation between ANZ and ASB, which is now, for the most part, with the first hurdle being decided, and in one case, settled. It only backed away after significant public pressure and legal criticism. That legal criticism was that when we undermine the rule of law in this way, consumers do not benefit, and that everyone should have the consistent ability to know the law and for it to be knowable, and anyone should be able to follow it in the same way.

What was changed during that 2015 to 2019 period was that the banking association—I have it here: the submission to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment on the discussion paper, section 99(1)(a) of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003, that began to seek to change the Government’s mind. This is dated December 2016, and they said, “These penalties are too harsh. They will result in thousands of dollars being owed to consumers.” But the reason for that law at the time was because the Key Government had decided in 2014 that it was fair to do so, that you needed strict penalties to be in place for the banks to ensure that they kept their records very clear and that their disclosures were—

We’re having a history lesson here. We are on title and commencement, and I think the member has mentioned the title once.

That’s right, Madam Chair, and I’m trying to find my Speakers’ rulings which ensure that the debate on the title and commencement is a wide-ranging debate. And the only provision—

It’s getting a little wide-ranging—OK?

It’s important that we are able to have this wide-ranging debate because this is the context and indeed exactly what the law said was the forgiveness of that debt. That has been changed. This bill will go down in history as the bill in which Christopher Luxon’s Government attempted to forgive the debts of ASB and ANZ. It is known widely in the market and in industry as the ANZ and ASB debacle that has been managed by two commerce Ministers and now a third, and will be a stain on this Government’s record for consumers—a Government that professes to be able to have harsher penalties, just a few weeks ago, for credit and for offerors of consumer services when they get things wrong. And yet this flies in the face of that. This was a bill that was designed to forgive those debts when they actually mattered and when they had actually crystallised.

Will we be back here in 10 years again debating a very similar thing? I hope we have learned our lesson. This is why we should rename the bill “Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance (Forgiveness of ANZ-ASB)”, so we never forget what exactly this cost New Zealanders in terms of their trust in Government.

12:30

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m very pleased to take a call or two here in this part of the debate. As my colleague noted, this is the title and commencement, and it is the time to stand back and say what this bill actually does and how can we give it a title which appropriately and accurately reflects that. Certainly, the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Bill is not a particularly descriptive title.

It could be, with the allusion to the New Zealand Banking Association’s advice to the Minister of Commerce, the “Lobbyists Writing the Law Bill”, which seems to happen a bit around here. Luckily for them, the Government changed, because no Labour Government would ever let a lobbyist simply hand them the draft of how they would like the law to be changed, and for it to then be done and appropriately put into law.

Now, the public outrage around that was entirely appropriate, when you’ve got litigation for hundreds of millions of dollars halfway through, and to have a piece of legislation which then purports to put a halt to that litigation is absolutely in breach of the law. So maybe we should call it the “Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance (This Government Doesn’t Care about the Rule of Law) Bill”. We might not get away with that, so I have tabled some amendments on this matter. My suggestion that I’ve tabled is that clause 1 be deleted and replaced with “This Act is the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance (Letting Big Banks Off the Hook) Act”.

Frivolous, Madam Chair.

Well, you might say that, but the fact is that’s still what you’re doing, because whilst the ANZ-ASB litigation, which was already filed, can now continue, the fact is that this bill does stop people bringing legitimate claims against banks that haven’t already been filed. And we know—because I saw the analysis—that there are likely other banks out there that have fallen foul, but they haven’t had lawyers to arm up and file a class action. Well, they now can’t, so there are people out there who have been, essentially, excluded from bringing their claim, because that’s a Government that looks after big banks and doesn’t look after consumers and ordinary people whilst this country is facing a cost of living crisis.

Tough on some things, but not tough on banks—soft on banks. Maybe it should be the “Soft on Banks Bill”, because that’s what this Government is. Or perhaps we should call it—because this is the other offensive thing about this bill, and my other amendment suggests that we delete cause 1 and replace it with, “This bill is the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance (Retrospective Changes to Remove the Rights of Consumers) Bill”, because that’s what it does: they are stealing the rights of consumers. They are depriving them of rights, which are vested, where a wrong has occurred, where they have a right of action and the banks owe them money. Now, they might not have gone up to the banks and said, “Repay the interest you wrongly deducted.”, but now, once this bill passes, they can’t.

Look, once more, this is changing history. This is not changing the law in the future; this is changing the law as it applied in the past, and that is why it is a breach of the rule of law. The National Party used to pride itself on following the rules. Now, it doesn’t care about the rules. It’s ruled by that party, by the National Party, and not ruled by a responsible Government. That is, retrospective changes absolutely undermine the idea that people can live their lives in a predictable way and rely on the fact that the law is fixed and that if they have rights, they can go to the court and vindicate them. But no, this is a Government that says, “If we don’t like that, we’ll just change it. We don’t actually care.” So that’s why we should call this bill the “Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance (Retrospective Changes to Remove the Rights of Consumers) Amendment Bill”.

That is the kind of thing that this Government does, because it really doesn’t care about consumers. It cares about looking after its big mates. We’ve seen that across the House, where we’ve got climate change looking after Fonterra and Z Energy, we’ve got banking and finance legislation looking after the big banks—and that’s exactly where this Government looks to its friends: not the friends of consumers; the friends of big business. That’s why we should change the title of this bill.

12:36

Thank you, Madam Chair. Speaking to the amendments on the Table, I want to further invite the Minister to consider the title “Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance (Buy Now, Pay Later) Amendment Bill”. This is a serious amendment which I am proposing to him, given that the peppered history of decisions made by his Government in 2022 related to the status of “buy now, pay later”—

2022?

—2024, related to “buy now, pay later”. “Buy now, pay later” is an important part of this bill. This was an opportunity to get, at least, greater clarity around the arrangements for “buy now, pay later”. When I refer back to the September 2024 Cabinet paper, the Minister wrote to Cabinet: “I [have] heard concerns from BNPL providers that complying with [the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act’s devolved fee provisions, which are in sections 41 and 44A, would constrain] how they calculate and charge default fees to an extent that could put their businesses in jeopardy.”

This was a Minister who was concerned and had heard from two players in the market who tried to compete with other lenders, particularly those lenders who focus on more vulnerable consumers, so have higher interest rates. He was worried that this would cost them their business, and so the exemptions around “buy now, pay later” and the provision in the bill, which basically removes them and then requires some calling-in power for the Financial Markets Authority to regulate them at all, is a move to make widespread changes to the “buy now, pay later” regime in New Zealand. This is different from Australia. It is different from European jurisdictions. It’s different from the UK. We are an outlier in the way that we are treating this kind of lending simply because it was a decision which was made, policy wise, frankly, around a Cabinet table which was divided on this.

One of the biggest contributions that this bill will make is a legacy of cheap lending to young people that was not even showing up in their credit score until it was too late—until it was a big, scary debt that had been sold to Baycorp or another kind of provider, or was being weighed up in the family accounts by a financial mentor, who was giving advice on how to choose between Weet-Bix and the rent. This is a serious problem for young people in New Zealand, and this bill is, frankly, peppered throughout it with decisions about policy which change the “buy now, pay later” provisions. “The CCCFA’s default fee provisions limit default fees to reasonable amounts directly related to costs incurred by the provider due to the default.”—that is a provision which this Minister has chosen to exclude from “buy now, pay later” providers. “Buy now, pay later” providers don’t have to play by the same rules. They are excluded by this Government’s policy decisions, and it is peppered within this bill. There is no other place in the world where they have this much free rein. I am not suggesting that this bill will be called the “Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance (Buy Now, Pay Later - Free Ride) Amendment Bill”. I am suggesting that we be clear that this bill makes serious changes to this regime which will have long-lasting effects.

Let me be clear: we will be back here debating fairer rules for “buy now, pay later”—under a National Government or a Labour Government. This is a fringe view that Ministers on that side of the House are barracking me about that the ACT Party campaigned on and held your Ministers to. This is not what you believe, let alone what most New Zealanders believe. This is unfair and we should be clear that “buy now, pay later” will have an impact intergenerationally. More and more young people are using this product, which, frankly, is a credit contract, but this Government doesn’t have the guts to say it’s going to cost us all.

Personal lending in New Zealand is greater than Government debt. If we are worried about the debts that we owe, we should be worried about the personal debt that is accumulating at the household level. Household resilience and debt is an intergenerational crisis. It will affect all of us. We all owe more because of bills like this, which make it easy for internationals to come here and lend cheap credit to vulnerable young people. This Minister hasn’t taken a stand. His party hasn’t taken a stand, but this is not what they believe in. They should have done it in this bill. They have failed to do so. We have given them amendments, which they should have done. The Minister should respond.

12:40

What we are seeing here is a relitigation, particularly around us rightfully fixing the retrospectivity aspect of this legislation. We are seeing a relitigation of Part 1, which we missed out in this committee of the whole House because there was no one in the Opposition to take a call. And so we’re relitigating Part 1, that didn’t happen, and that was 31 pages of a 46-page bill, so they missed two-thirds of it just like that.

Just on the title, this is a piece of legislation from 2003, the principal piece of legislation that has remained with its full title through successive Governments as the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Bill through three major overhauls by successive Governments. The name has always remained the same, and it will continue to. On the commencement, 1 July, as the most effective commencement date, was nominated by the Commerce Commission and the Financial Markets Authority as the most pragmatic commencement date—1 July 2026. Let’s get on with it.

12:41

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s two tabled amendments to clause 1 are both out of order as not being objective descriptions of the bill.

Oh, that’s rubbish!

Be careful, Mr—

Point of order, Madam Chair.

You can make a point of order, but saying, “Oh, that’s rubbish!”—

Well, I thought I should make a point of order to perhaps give some more content to a, perhaps, slightly intemperate remark.

Yeah, I think you should withdraw the remark—

I withdraw that—

—but I don’t need any further context. This has been discussed, and the two amendments are both out of order.

Well, Madam Chair, I’m entitled to put it to you that they are not out of order, and in particular, I would take issue with the clause—

Dr Webb, I’ve ruled your two tabled amendments out of order.

Well, I don’t want to ask to recall the Speaker on the matter of a title, but I—

That is totally up to you, but, Dr Duncan Webb, I’ve ruled that your two tabled amendments are out of order.

Could you enlighten me as to why calling a bill the “Contracts and Consumer Finance (Retrospective Changes to Remove the Rights of Consumer) Amendment” is out of order and is not an accurate description of the bill?

I have ruled your two tabled amendments out of order, Dr Webb, and I’m going to carry on with the voting. Thank you.

The question is that the Minister’s amendment to clause 2 set out on Amendment Paper 505 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 2 be agreed to.

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

Progress to be reported.

12:49

I seek leave of the House to alter votes cast on behalf of Te Pāti Māori, Tākuta Ferris, and Mariameno Kapa-Kingi on the Instruction to Select Committee on the Summary Offences (Move-on Orders) Amendment Bill.

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

Those votes were cast in favour of the instruction, but should have been against.

The record will be corrected accordingly.

Thank you very much.

12:50

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s great to finally get to speak on this. I think it was getting close to being the third time of being the next speaker up and having an interrupted debate. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First, and also as a member of the Governance and Administration Committee, to speak to this bill.

Our Public Service has a proud heritage of being internationally highly regarded, and we want to keep it that way. Being a public servant should be the noblest of titles because it’s about serving your community, your public, and looking after the collective and individual wellbeing of our fellow citizens, but our hard-working taxpayers want to see value and high-quality services. They expect advice to be professional, knowledgeable, considered, and balanced—and behaviour, likewise. Every day, we as MPs are privileged to work with many outstanding public servants: the whole team at Parliamentary Service, the Office of the Clerk, and our fantastic advisers.

There’s been a bit of focus recently on reducing the size of the public sector, but I do want to remind you that under the last administration, the Labour Government, the core Public Service ballooned from 48,000 to 63,000, so even with whatever cuts have been proposed, it will still be larger than it was at that stage by some margin. The wage cost a couple of years ago was $6.1 billion, so it’s material. We’re not talking here about teachers, health professionals, police, etc., we are talking about the people who work in the offices and so on. The thing is that services under the last administration got worse despite that increase in services. More people doesn’t necessarily make for better services; sometimes they can get in each other’s way.

There are three particular changes in the bill that I wanted to talk about. The first one of them is the removal of the diversity and inclusion requirement. Now, diversity is important. It’s important, we often hear, that our Public Service looks like us, but discrimination is not acceptable. The bill is quite clear. We focus on the best person for the job, and the public servants themselves say that this is critical. The 2024 survey of core Public Service workers had an extraordinary return: 44,737 respondents. That’s a 68.5 percent return rate. Only 44 percent of public servants are confident that their own colleagues are appointed on merit. That’s condemning. That needs to change. Hopefully, with this bill passing, over time, we will see that number changing and improving. That will be important.

The second thing that’s really important in setting the culture of the Public Service is the appointment of Public Service chief executives. The legislation here removes clause 4 of Schedule 7, which currently means that the Public Service Commissioner can actually recommend not going to the market again and say, “Look, just reappoint this person for a further period of time, maybe five years plus five years.” We can currently just reappoint; this bill will mean that that is no longer possible. You’ll have to go to the market through a process. The problem is that we have this bill here that is saying this in one direction—“You must go to the market.”—but we’ve got another bill, which will be considered today, in local government, where we’re doing the exact opposite. At the moment, in local government, you’ve got five years, plus you can add another two without going to the market; we’re going to be saying five years plus another five years without going to the market. The question, really, is: why is the public sector so different to the local government sector? There is a real issue there and there’s complete inconsistency between these two bills, and we will be looking to address that.

The third thing I wanted to mention is long-term insights briefings (LTIBs). Long-term thinking is really important. We heard very, very clearly, from all the advice we had, that regardless of whether you have LTIBs, the public sector is thinking about the long-term issues. It’s really, really important, but it’s also really important for us as governors, as parliamentarians, to be exposed to that long-term thinking and to be able to debate that and to respond to the LTIBs that are brought to our attention.

The first one of those that I ever read was from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and it was in the days before the current occupant of the White House arrived. They warned about a less stable, changing world, the need for greater resilience, and questioned, perhaps, the way in which the market and the rules-based order had been operating and whether it was always going to be that way. I think that has been prescient.

Now, currently, every single agency is required to—or a large number of agencies are required to—produce an LTIB. Some of those are excellent, some of those have got big things to think about, but some of them don’t have as many major issues, and they kind of feel like they’re a little bit of makeweights. It’s also a two-stage process, which is quite expensive. The bill will now be requiring only one LTIB, to be done by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC). We had quite a lot of discussion about this in the select committee, and we are really encouraging DPMC to consult all the agencies widely to see which agencies have really important things that need to be brought to the attention of Parliament and to the attention of the public, and that they believe need discussing. That’s really important. There is real value, potentially, in bringing all these together and trying to work out what the connections between them are, but it’s really important also that we don’t lose the important bits of these things.

The select committee has also recommended monitoring the value of that single LTIB, and I think that is very, very important. So, Madam Speaker, those were the three things I particularly wanted to draw your attention to. One of those will be followed up with by the Local Government (System Improvements) Amendment Bill later on today. I commend this bill to the House.

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

to the Prime Minister

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

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

Yes.

Does the Prime Minister stand by his statement yesterday that the official in his office who received the briefing notes from Z Energy and Fonterra “left a while ago”, and, if so, when exactly did that official leave?

In answer to the first leg of the question, yes.

Can the Prime Minister confirm that the official who received this until-now secret briefing note was his former chief policy adviser?

Well, as I have said, and I’ve addressed this issue in recent days, I don’t think it’s appropriate that I identify specific members of staff. All I said is that the staff member left a while ago.

How is it credible for the Prime Minister to not know that his chief policy adviser—

No, sorry, you can’t make an accusation in a question. Ask a question.

Is it credible for the Prime Minister to not know that his chief policy adviser was meeting with the largest company in the country actively lobbying to change the law in their interest?

Point of order, Mr Speaker. I just ask for you to reflect on whether it is helpful for the reputation of the House for members to use their privilege to identify a specific person who is not in a position to defend themselves, and ask what exactly the public interest is in doing that.

Yes, I’d ask the member to refer to—in her cubbyhole there, or whatever you call it—Speakers’ ruling 57/1, which makes it very clear that it is inappropriate for—well, it doesn’t make it clear; it says, basically, I think, have some consideration of that.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. I was listening carefully to Chlöe Swarbrick’s question. She did not name the individual; she described a job, and there is a difference here. Somebody occupying a very senior position within the Prime Minister’s Office having their position named is totally consistent with the practices of this House. Naming the person concerned by name would be something that is done very, very rarely, but naming somebody’s position, particularly when it’s the chief policy adviser to the Prime Minister, is absolutely consistent with the practices that have been followed in this House.

Well, it would be—

Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker.

Oh, well, away we go. Yes, Steve Abel.

Speaking to the point of order, in your rulings, Speakers’ rulings 57/1 and Speaker’s ruling 57/2, it does allow the naming of officials. As the leader of the Labour Party pointed out, Chlöe, our co-leader, didn’t name the official, but the point is that the office of the official has been named. It is not calling into question the conduct of the official, but the extent to which the Prime Minister was not aware of the conduct of their chief policy adviser.

Yeah, well, I’ll come back to that in a minute.

Speaking to the point of order, the Prime Minister has answered the question and been clear about the intent in terms of individuals. Anyone in this House would know that if you use particular titles, it is very easy to then identify people, and so it has the same result as the intent of not naming an individual, by that connection. It’s pretty obvious.

Speaking to the point of order.

Final point.

My point, Mr Speaker, is what the Prime Minister knew when. I very intentionally am not naming the person, who—just for the sake of the knowledge of the House—has actually been named this afternoon in a publication from Stuff.

So the question that comes—[Interruption] Thank you. Are you finished? Yeah. The question that comes to mind is, firstly, Speakers’ ruling 57/1 makes it clear that while a name can be given, people should bear in mind that public officials do not have the opportunity to defend themselves in this House. I would go further and say that by naming a position, it would be a stretch of the imagination to suggest that people couldn’t work out who that person was. The question then becomes is it absolutely necessary for that to be part of the question for the information to be sought from the Prime Minister, and I would say that in this case, it doesn’t.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. I think we need to be very clear here. The motives and the conduct of the position that has just been named are not being questioned by Chlöe Swarbrick’s question; it’s whether the Prime Minister was aware of the actions that person was taking that’s being questioned. The Prime Minister is being questioned, as is absolutely acceptable in this House. The motives of the individual concerned—named—have not been questioned; what’s merely being pointed out was the fact that they were in a senior job in the Prime Minister’s office.

And if it were that broad and was asked exactly as you’ve just asked, that would be fine, but I think that throwing in the person’s position, effectively, names that person. But we’ll see where we go.

Is it credible for the Prime Minister to not know that one of his most senior staff members was meeting with the largest company in the country, who was actively lobbying for a law change in their favour, which they ultimately got?

Well, I reject the characterisation of that question. [Interruption]

There’s only one person speaking when a question is being asked.

When exactly did the Prime Minister learn about these secret meetings and documents that his office held and received from Z Energy and Fonterra, and how can he be certain that it had no influence on the law announced last week, which fulfils exactly what those corporate lobbyists had been asking for?

Well, in answer to the second leg of the question, there’s no doubt about it: Ministers felt strongly about this issue, as did many politicians, I suspect, before the last election, and I can tell the member that certainly in the first 100 days, Ministers were up for exploring legislative options at that point in time. We have done a sensible thing here. The content of the actions that we have taken is that climate change frameworks are pulled together by previous Governments; they’re administered by the State, not by the courts or by businesses. We’re not interested in running a duplicate system. We believe in having certainty in the system, and that’s the principal issue about the merits of the actions that we’ve taken. That’s what this is about.

Can the Prime Minister confirm whether the until-now secret briefing papers from Fonterra and Z Energy were passed on to Ministry of Justice officials, and if he doesn’t know, does he think it might be his job to find out?

The Prime Minister can answer one of those questions.

Well, as I’ve said in answer to the first leg of the question, there is no record or recollection of the interaction from 2024. Ideally, there should be. There hasn’t been, and, as a result, my office has asked Ministerial Services to remind staff of their obligations.

14:10 · to the Minister of Finance

What recent reports has she seen on the economy?

I’ve seen reports and commentary about what Budget 2026 should deliver. Tomorrow, Kiwis will see what a responsible Budget that secures New Zealand’s future looks like. It will be a Budget that strengthens New Zealand’s resilience in a more uncertain and volatile world. The Government’s fiscal strategy has underpinned the approach we have taken when putting together this year’s Budget. We remain committed to putting debt on a downward path towards 40 percent of GDP, and to returning the books to surplus by the 2028-2029 fiscal year. Just one more sleep to go.

Why does the Government place importance on reducing debt and returning the books to surplus?

Because New Zealanders work hard for their money and they expect the Government to treat taxpayer dollars with care and discipline. Families across the country sit around their kitchen tables every week making difficult decisions about what they can afford and where they need to prioritise. Government should be held to the same standard. There is an alternative approach where Governments just spray the money gun around, borrow more, and hope for the best, but New Zealanders have seen where that leads: higher inflation, bigger interest bills, and, ultimately, more pressure on households. This year alone, New Zealand is expected to spend around $9 billion servicing debt. That is more than four times our operating allowance and it is now one of the Government’s largest annual expenses. It is taxpayer money going towards interest costs before we build a single classroom, fund a single operation, or repair a single road. That is why this Government is focused on disciplined spending, getting the books back in balance, and bending the debt curve down.

What approach has the Government taken in Budget 2026 to support New Zealanders while maintaining fiscal discipline?

This is a responsible Budget that invests in the things New Zealanders need while also keeping the country’s finances under control. The Budget reflects disciplined choices and clear priorities. We are continuing to invest in front-line services and critical infrastructure, while also asking Government agencies to find savings and focus spending where it delivers the greatest value for taxpayers. That means investing in areas like public infrastructure, health, education, law and order, and defence, while reducing lower-value spending and ensuring Government spending becomes more sustainable over time. This Budget recognises that easy choices are gone. It reflects careful prioritisation and responsible trade-offs, because if we want to invest in the future, we also have to make sure the country can afford it. To quote one commentator, “No lollies this time, just stronger foundations for the decades ahead.”

Why is responsible fiscal management important?

Because New Zealand is a small trading nation and we do not have the luxury of pretending debt doesn’t matter. We rely on international confidence to keep borrowing costs manageable and to support jobs, investment, and growth here at home. If Governments lose control of spending and debt, the consequences flow quickly through the economy: higher borrowing costs, weaker investment, and less resilience when future shocks arrive. This Government believes responsible economic management is about making sure New Zealand is stronger and better prepared for the future, not leaving the next generation with bigger taxes, bigger interest bills, and fewer choices.

14:14 · to the Prime Minister

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

Yes.

Did the staff member in his office who received the briefing from Z Energy and Fonterra leave his office before or after he responded to the Official Information Act request that didn’t contain the information his office had received?

I’m not sure.

Why hasn’t he asked?

Well, I’ve been very clear in the last few days, there is no record or no documentation from that interaction from 2024—[Interruption]

Just a moment. Wait on—sorry. It’s an important question, so we’ll hear the answer without anybody else adding to it.

The member is more than welcome to put it in a written question, but I’ve been very clear that there is no record or no documentation from that interaction in 2024. There ideally should be—absolutely. That is why my office has asked Ministerial Services to go and make sure that staff understand their obligations going forward. But this was a Cabinet decision, and it was a Cabinet decision on a matter of policy about not wanting to have a parallel system determining adherence or not to our climate change frameworks. That is a State responsibility, not a court or a business responsibility.

When was the Official Information Act request in question sent to the person who asked for the information?

If the member puts that in writing, I can get him an answer.

When he said yesterday that the person had left his office “a while ago”, does he regard “a while ago” as within the last few weeks?

I stand by the statement I made yesterday. The reporting is wrong.

Why can’t he tell the New Zealand public why his office withheld a briefing that he had received from Fonterra and Z Energy asking for a change to the law—in their favour—that his Government has subsequently agreed to make?

Well, I reject the characterisation of the way the member is presenting that question. This is an issue that was well understood and socialised before even the election in 2023. Many Ministers in the newly formed Government had very strong views, actually, that legislative action was needed, because we are not going to tolerate having a parallel system where climate change frameworks are administered by courts. That’s as simple as it is. It doesn’t get any simpler than that. We made the right decision with the intervention and the actions that we have taken around that legislation because we are not interested in having duplicate systems—end of story.

If the Government had already decided, after the election, that it was intending to change the law in favour of those who were defending themselves in court, why did he make no effort in his office to record the information around lobbying from those very same firms?

Well, as I’ve said in recent days, there should have been a record of that. In this case, there isn’t—there is no record; there are not documents from that interaction in 2024. Yes, there should be; yes, Ministerial Services are advising all staff about their obligations and reminding of them of those obligations going forward. But this was a Cabinet decision, and that’s important, because this point of policy is an important one to get right and to correct.

If he thinks that there should have been records kept, why hasn’t he asked his office about the records they have, like when the meeting took place, who held the meeting, when they left, and when the Official Information Act request was responded to?

I’ve already addressed that with my previous answers to the member’s questions.

14:18 · to the Associate Minister of Education

What recent announcements has he made about charter schools?

Last Friday, I released figures that show that, contrary to some commentary from education unions, charter schools are actually cheaper to open than equivalent State schools. These figures show a new primary school with 100 students would receive $400,000 or thereabouts as a charter school, but roughly $640,000 were it a State school. Similarly, for a secondary school, $950,000 in set-up costs for a State school, but only roughly $480,000 for a charter school. This follows information about the costs of running the schools once they are set up: for a primary school, around $8,800 for a State school, but around $8,300 for a charter school; and at secondary level, $11,000 for a State school, and $10,700 per year for a charter school. This should finally put to bed the incessant but incorrect claims that charter schools somehow cost more to the taxpayer than State schools. They cost less, and the students who choose to attend them are just as worthy of a State-funded education as any other student in New Zealand.

Are charter schools proving popular?

Yes, indeed. The demand is growing rapidly. There are currently over 1,600 students enrolled, up from only a few hundred on day one last year. There are now 17 charter schools today, and by the start of next year there will be 21. They cater to a range of students with a range of different interests. There are schools that support autistic and neurodivergent kids, and schools that provide outdoor immersion alongside the New Zealand Curriculum. The original seven schools alone have seen their rolls triple from 200 to 700. You see North West College in Henderson, which is having to move to a bigger building, as has Twin Oaks Classical School in Greenlane. Despite only beginning in term 3 last year, they are literally bursting at the seams.

Three times the cost.

The other thing charter schools are doing is listening comprehension. You heard what I just said, giving the figures showing they are cheaper, but Damien O’Connor, the former member from the West Coast—

No—that’s enough.

—is baying on that they cost more. Listen carefully or rewind the tape.

That’s enough.

What have attendance levels been like at charter schools?

Well, more very good news. They are already proving their worth. We are seeing attendance at charter schools slightly exceeding that of State schools, which I have to say has also been improving in every term but one that this Government has been in power. People may have seen on One News last night that Māori attendance at charter schools is 68.5 percent regular attendance. That is at or slightly above the level of average State school attendance. Just sit on this for a moment: charter schools are getting Māori students to attend at the same rate as the New Zealand average. That is the professed dream of many on the other side of the House, but the people on this side of the House and those running charter schools are making that dream for Māori a reality.

14:22 · to the Minister for Social Development and Employment

Has she announced or introduced any reforms in the past fortnight that will see any low-income families worse off; if so, how many families will be worse off because of these reforms?

Last week, our Government announced a review of social housing, which will deliver a fairer, more effective, and more efficient social housing system. The changes will mean that around 111,000 families will gain increases between $10 and $30 per week from the accommodation supplement. We are also making changes to temporary additional support, so it is just that—temporary additional support and not a top-up for housing. It was never meant for that purpose. This will be an average reduction of $10.82 per week for about 45,000 households. We are fixing the basics so we can deliver better housing support to those who need it the most.

Is it correct that the temporary additional support payment is one of the last lifelines for people who can’t cover basics, such as keeping the power on, prescriptions for life-saving medication, or keeping a roof over their head; and if so, what is her message to families who may not be able to afford these essentials as a result of the reduction in the temporary additional support payments?

Well, as I said in my primary answer, temporary additional support is meant to be just that. What it has proven to be over many, many years is a top-up for housing. By increasing the accommodation supplement for those in private housing, we want to ensure that the housing support products are doing their job, rather than a temporary additional support that was never intended for that purpose. That’s why we have undertaken this change.

Does she stand by her statement that “Our Government is focused on targeting financial assistance to those most in need.”; if so, how would she describe the financial situation of those who rely on the lifeline that is temporary additional support for things like life-saving prescription medicine?

Well, as I said, and the number I’ve seen previously is that about 95 percent of the temporary additional support is used for housing, not for the other items the member mentions. It is used for housing, which is why the change that we are making in the review of social housing that we announced last week for Budget 2026 quite rightly puts the housing support where it should be, which is in the accommodation supplement.

Was it a tough choice to cut accommodation support for thousands of low-income households by $42 a week on average while Ministers are still able to claim $1,000 a week in ministerial entitlements for a property they already own mortgage-free?

Speaking to the first part of that question, which is around the review of social housing, we’ve been really clear about the fact that, unfortunately, social housing isn’t reaching those who need it most. What we do know is there is a large number of people in private rentals who have been struggling. We want to ensure that the incentives are right and that they have additional support with the additional $10 to $30 a week for those in private rentals, and we want to ensure that, actually, the incentives are in the right place for them to get ahead.

Was it a tough choice to proceed with policy changes that would, according to her own ministry, leave those very same families she talked about with “less money available for spending on other necessities such as food, clothing, and transport”; and, if it was a tough choice, how does she justify people struggling to make ends meet as a result of these reforms?

Well, I think the other point to make is that the temporary additional support is meant to be that—it is meant to be temporary—and for areas where there are challenges around food or other costs, that’s where we have hardship grants. I don’t want the member confusing two different items. We are talking about the temporary additional support. As I said, about 95 percent of that has been used for housing. That is why we are doing the review of social housing and making this change in Budget 2026 to ensure that, where the housing support product is, it is being utilised more effectively. Equally, where households are challenged by food, then the appropriate place to seek assistance is Work and Income through food-hardship grants.

What’s the difference between Green MP Wade-Brown’s accommodation or McAnulty from Labour’s accommodation as opposed to yours? What is the difference? The answer is none.

Oh, good. Thank you. There’s no need for the Minister to respond.

14:27 · to the Minister of Housing

What announcements has the Government made about improving social housing?

Last week, I announced Cabinet has agreed to a multi-year programme of work to reform social housing. Social housing should be there for those who need it for the time that they need it, but where people can move to independence, the system should help them do that. The system is currently not fair, it’s not targeted to those who need it most, and it’s trapping people in dependency. It also costs the Crown around $5.5 billion dollars per year, and that number is growing. The system is broken and not sustainable, so we are changing the system through three key shifts.

Is the current system fair?

In my view, the answer is no. Similar households can receive very different levels of support depending on whether they’re in a social house or a private rental. Take two sole parents in similar situations—they can have considerably different financial outcomes, with the family in a private market rental receiving accommodation supplement being $65 a week worse off compared to a comparable family in social housing. On average, social housing tenants on a main benefit have $105 more per week left after housing costs compared to their equivalents in the private rental market receiving the accommodation supplement. I think most reasonable people would look at this and say that it’s not an equitable situation. Many people struggle to afford their housing costs, not just people in social housing.

You know it’s a subsidy for landlords, Bish!

Well, actually, it’s not like that. There’s—

You know it. You said that in a debate with me three years ago.

—and there’s been extensive economic evidence to the contrary.

Hold on. Wait on. Sorry, Mr Bishop.

I’m just responding to the—

No. Well, the person who is calling out across the House like that, that is disorderly. Please don’t do that anymore.

I’d invite the member to look at the screeds of economic evidence that’s been conducted by Governments, both red and blue, in the past and of all different stripes—by academic economists and others—that indicates that the accommodation supplement, whilst not perfect, is a form of income support that goes to people in relation to their housing costs.

Does the current system prioritise those in most need?

The current system does not necessarily prioritise those most in need. It is an expensive intervention by the Government. The Government’s view is, therefore, that it should be targeted to those that need it most. The current system is currently letting down some of the most vulnerable people it is designed to help. The social housing assessment system overweights immediate affordability challenges, which is an issue that many New Zealand households face. Quite often, the difference between someone that gets into a social home compared to one that doesn’t is nothing, which shows the arbitrary nature of the social housing system. It’s also the case that some people on the register are arguably in greater need than some people in social housing. As I said in the House yesterday, 29 percent of households in social housing have sufficient income to manage a lower-quartile private rental and modest expenses. There are over 1,000 people in social housing who pay market rents. So, in other words, they earn enough to pay the market rent for the area they live in. This Government’s view is that we can do a better job targeting social housing for those who genuinely need it.

What steps is the Government taking to support greater independence?

Social housing should be a safety net. Thirty percent of social housing tenants have been there for over 10 years. Households in social housing are expected to spend a further 16.7 further years on average; this number has gone up from 12.4 years in 2017.

How many of them have disabilities?

Many, and that’s part of the problem—many—and the system treats them badly. That’s part of the problem. You’ve neatly highlighted through your intervention, Carmel Sepuloni, precisely the problem with the system: what we have inherited is a social housing system where a man in New Plymouth was living in a motel—a studio apartment motel—with his son for three years, because the social house he was allocated to was not ready and it took nine months for ACC to do the ramp and it took another nine months to get the resource consent. Exactly the situation that member is talking about is precisely what this Government is trying to fix. Disabled people are poorly treated by the system, and that’s precisely what we are trying to fix through the social housing reform programme. [Interruption]

We’ll just have a little bit of silence from everyone, until I call the Hon Barbara Edmonds.

14:32 · to the Minister of Finance

Fa‘afetai tele lava, Mr Speaker. Does she stand by all her statements and actions?

In their full context, yes.

Does she stand by her statement that she expects Crown entities to “reflect on the Government’s overall objectives”, including to make headcount reductions; if so, why?

Yes.

Does she expect Fire and Emergency New Zealand, a Crown entity, to make headcount reductions because of her Budget?

I need to be careful not to step too deeply into the portfolio of another Minister, but I don’t think I would be alone among New Zealanders to say that Fire and Emergency New Zealand is an entity that could do a better job of converting public money and levy funds into results, not only for the people it serves but, actually, the people who work for it.

What support will there be in Budget for Mary, who has 15 years of IT experience but cannot find a job after more than 50 applications, as reported by media?

Well, obviously I’m not in a position to comment on the individual circumstances of Mary, nor do I expect that the member—Ms Edmonds—is either, because we do not know the full story of her background, circumstances, or experiences. What I can say is that I feel for any New Zealander who is working hard to get a job, who is doing their very best, and is struggling to do so. That is a challenging position to be in, and that’s why, when we deliver the Budget tomorrow, one of the things I will be very pleased to be able to confirm is that we will be creating many more jobs in this economy over the coming years.

Well, then what support will there be in the Budget for Benj, who was made redundant in the last round of cuts in 2024, and has applied for 130 jobs but is still out of work?

Point of order. Mr Speaker, if you listen to that question very, very carefully, she’s inviting the Minister to breach the longstanding convention about the Budget secrecy, and she’s doing it openly in front of this House, and no one’s opposing it.

That’s a view. I just heard it as a question about a person who’s been—

No, she said, “What support is there in the Budget for this case?”

No, wait—wait.

That’s what she said.

That might be right, but I’m sure the Minister is well capable of answering what is essentially a hypothetical question.

Well, again, similar to my previous answer, I’m simply not in a position to comment on the particular circumstances that Benj has been experiencing, although I can express empathy and sympathy for that situation. To see what’s in the Budget, the member just has one more sleep to go.

What support will there be for young people across the country, including in Ōpōtiki, where 43 percent of youth are not in employment, education, or training?

Yes, there will be things in store for those young people quite specifically. It’s also the case that one of the most reckless things a Government can do to young people is spend so much today that we end up having to tax those young people more tomorrow. That is the member’s approach; it’s not mine.

14:36 · to the Associate Minister of Health

What recent announcements has she made about funding for road ambulance services?

Last week, the Minister of Health, the Hon Simeon Brown, and I announced that Budget 2026 will provide $35 million over four years to strengthen road ambulance services, delivering immediate improvement for patients and front-line staff. This is on top of an additional $77.7 million that has been invested since 2023, which brought total funding for road ambulance services to $452 million for this financial year. I’m pleased that this increased investment means there are now record ambulance staffing levels and faster response times for the most serious emergencies, and that it contributes to the New Zealand First - National coalition commitment.

What will this increased funding support?

The funding, announced last week, will provide for the establishment of two ambulance hubs in Auckland, with one already confirmed for South Auckland; deployment of an electronic patient clinical record system, which means better access to the information front-line staff need; additional training and support for ambulance communications centre staff; and additional clinical welfare checks for patients. This investment is further demonstration of this Government’s commitment to ensuring New Zealanders can access timely, quality care when they need it most, by investing in the right tools and approaches to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of services.

Will there be additional funding for road ambulances?

I’m pleased to say: absolutely. This funding announced through Budget 2026 will be in addition to an increase in funding from Health New Zealand and ACC for road ambulances to meet demand and cost pressures. The total funding package will be finalised following contract negotiations in the coming months. However, once finalised, the increased funding from Health New Zealand and ACC will support additional front-line ambulance crews and 111 call handlers, strengthened recruitment and retention of ambulance volunteers—particularly in rural and high-deprivation areas—and an enhanced clinical hub that will provide clinical advice over the telephone and support more patients to resolve care needs without an ambulance response.

How will these investments support front-line staff?

These investments are about making front-line staff’s lives better. They’re delivering more staff, more training, better tools, and more volunteers. Staff I’ve spoken to have already told me that the two new ambulance hubs will be game-changers. We’re talking tangible, practical differences. Our support for front-line emergency services doesn’t just extend to investments. The New Zealand First - National coalition agreement committed to creating new offences to protect our front-line responders. Assaulting first responders or prison officers is in the Crimes Act Amendment Bill, currently with the Justice Committee, and it delivers on our commitment to protecting those who are doing so much to protect New Zealand.

14:39 · to the Minister for Social Development and Employment

Does she stand by her statement that “The Government believes that the welfare system should be a safety net for those who need it most”; if so, why?

Yes. The social safety net is there when New Zealanders need it the most, but the system should be firm, fair, simple, and sustainable. That’s why the Government has announced a review of social housing that will ensure we deliver better housing support for those who need it most. That’s also why we’ve made changes to temporary additional support—to ensure it is temporary and targeted. We are ambitious for all New Zealanders. That’s why we are focused on fixing the basics and building the future so as many Kiwis as possible can share in that success.

How is she providing a safety net for those who need it most when she’s cutting temporary additional support, which is for people who need immediate help paying for the basics?

The temporary additional support is intended to be exactly that: temporary. What we have seen for far too long are significant proportions of that being used on housing, which is why the review of social housing very carefully ensures that the accommodation supplement, which is the housing product that supports people, is increased $10 to $30 per week and we don’t use the temporary additional support for housing.

How many more struggling families will have to choose between rent, power, or food as a result of her cuts to income support?

I reject the assertion that we are cutting income support. We are making a change in the way that social housing is delivered. I’ve been clear about the fact that temporary additional support was never intended for housing and shouldn’t be. What we are doing is ensuring that the temporary additional support is exactly that—temporary and targeted.

Why is she cutting the safety net from young people when youth unemployment is sky-high?

I reject the assertion in that question. Our side of the House has great aspirations for young people to ensure that they are in education, training, or employment, rather than being stuck on a benefit for 21-plus years. That is not living a life of opportunity. That is not sharing the success of this great and mighty country.

Was the Salvation Army wrong when they said her changes mean “increased debt, greater stress, and harder choices about how to get through the week in terms of the basics such as food and heating.”?

No, because what we are very focused on is ensuring that, across the board, we have a financial system that is delivering for all New Zealanders. As I said in my answer to the primary question, the social safety net must be firm, fair, simple, and sustainable, and that is ensuring that we target support to those who need it the most, and when it is temporary, it should exactly be temporary.

Who exactly does she think needs a safety net: people who do not have enough income to pay for their rent or private landlords?

As both my colleague and I have talked about in the review of social housing, the current system is inordinately unfair for a range of reasons. Those who require social housing the most, often, are the ones that miss out. Those who are in very similar circumstances and who are in private rental should not be hundreds of dollars worse off. The incentives for people to shift their circumstances are completely wrong. That is also one of the reasons that we have made changes to the temporary additional support, because there is no incentive at all to change and to provide people’s circumstances.

Does the Minister agree that increasing rents for social housing tenants is fair, when, in the Far North alone, 2,241 Māori are experiencing severe housing deprivation?

Absolutely, because a review of social housing will mean that people who are currently on the social housing register and who have significantly higher needs than those currently in a social house will get a chance of getting access to it. My colleague spoke about the thousand people in social housing who pay market rent; no one in this House should argue that they need it more than those who are in the Far North who are currently in severe housing hardship and who don’t have access to that support.

What does the Minister say to the more than 12,000 Māori in the Far North and Whangārei receiving main benefits who will hear her describe the welfare system as a “safety net” while their housing costs increase?

It is absolutely a safety net, and that is always what it was intended to be. Our side of House believes that we should be providing support in times of need for people who need it, but, actually, we want to see people improve their circumstances. The temporary additional support does nothing to incentivise people to be in work, to work more than they are, or to improve their circumstances. That is fundamentally what is wrong with a temporary additional support and the significant percentage of it being used for housing. Our side believes that people can, and do, lift themselves up, and we want them to share in the success of this beautiful, amazing country we all live in.

Would she expect criticism if she introduced a policy of further improving the terms for those in State houses at the expense of lower accommodation supplements for everyone else, and if she would, how is it possible for the same people to criticise levelling that very playing field?

The member makes a very good point, and that’s why the review of social housing has been very, very carefully considered, to ensure that we provide support to those who have the highest needs, and, actually, for those in very similar circumstances we need to have a much more level form of treatment. That is why this Budget puts an enormous amount of investment into the accommodation supplement, which is the primary housing support product, an increase of $10 to $30 a week into the accommodation supplement, when it hasn’t been changed since 2018.

14:46 · to the Minister for Māori Development

What assurances, if any, can he give Māori that te reo Māori revitalisation and Māori broadcasting are strengthening under his leadership, when concerns are being raised about reductions and a lack of new investment across sectors supporting Māori development?

14:47

He taonga te reo—the language is a treasure—and part of the DNA of New Zealand. I can assure the member and other commentators in the Opposition that the Government remains committed to the active protection and growth of te reo Māori across various portfolios, like Minister Goldsmith, in Culture and Heritage, where there is that outstanding commitment to Te Matatini; Minister Stanford, in kura kaupapa and other Māori language entities and schools; and, of course, under my leadership, there have been no reductions in the baseline funding to the four Māori language entities, and there has been considerable new investments in various iwi and Māori entities, such as the supercritical geothermal hot gas investment that Minister Jones has been leading with Kānoa, and, of course, some of the investments in agribusiness. I look forward to Fieldays. Kia ora.

That’s very good, but we’ll just tighten those answers up a little bit.

Can the Minister identify one significant new initiative secured under his leadership since 2024 that has expanded supports for te reo Māori or strengthened Māori broadcasting rather than simply maintaining existing programmes?

As we know, there was significant support given to Te Matatini, in a time-limited fashion, by the previous Government. Under Minister Goldsmith, in the Culture and Heritage portfolio, with the support of the exemplary Minister of Finance, we doubled down on that and said, “No, there’s another $45 million to $50 million for Te Matatini.” I look forward to Te Matatini coming to the home of Te Matatini—[Interruption]

That’s enough.

—Waikato. Kia ora.

There is a member down in the back corner of the House who really needs to contain his contributions to the House. He’s looking around at the moment, but there is no mirror, unfortunately.

As someone who understands the role that Māori media plays in normalising te reo and strengthening identity, I ask the Minister what measurable evidence can he point to that these sectors are stronger today—

Point of order.

I know what the point is, but make the point of order.

That boastful preface to that question should not be allowed.

Speaking to the point of order, sir, if the rule is that there is to be no commentary before a question, that should be evenly applied, not just to members of the Opposition but to Government Ministers, as well.

That’s quite right, and there have been a number of those this afternoon.

Supplementary—so it’s a rephrasing of the question?

Yeah, it’s the same question, but you’re going to ask a question rather than preface it with—

Tēnā koe. What measurable evidence can the Minister point to that these sectors are stronger today than they were in 2024?

It is a bit ambiguous what specific sectors the member is referring to, but might I start with geothermal and the extraction of geothermal to help reduce the cost of electricity to ordinary Kiwis, including Māori. For the absolutely phenomenal support given to geothermal and, of course, fusion technology—OpenStar, again—by the Regional Infrastructure Fund and Minister Willis: e mihi ana ki a koe. And those Puku pies—lovely. In relation, particularly, to the broadcasting agencies and Māori the broadcasting space and te reo Māori: again, there has been no reduction in the baseline funding for those entities, and indeed there was time-limited funding under the previous Government that wasn’t necessarily committed to baselining that investment in Māori entities. It’s pleasing to see that some of the Māori broadcasters are now being owned by Manukau Urban Māori Authority and Te Whānau o Waipareira. Kia ora.

The answers to questions need to be far more concise than we’ve been getting for the last few supplementaries.

As the Minister, has he inherited any fiscal cliffs in the funding track for Māori broadcasting?

Yes, and with the exemplary support and scaffolding of the Minister of Finance, we continue to support a variety of sectors, including Māori Development, in a material and fiscally prudent way.

Supplementary?

[Sighing] The Hon Paul Goldsmith.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. I’m not sure I—I’m a little bit hurt by that tone.

I’m delighted that you’re so sensitive.

Can I ask the Minister: is it the case that the single biggest investment this Government has made in the arts sector has been the funding of Te Matatini, because we recognise the power of waiata, kapa haka, and all the wonderful things that have been developed through that programme?

The answer is yes—āna—and I absolutely tautoko the direction of travel that the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage has for supporting Māori arts, culture, and heritage. He and we are building the future.

Question No. 11. Before I call Ginny Andersen, I’ve been advised that the answer to this question may be slightly longer than usual, although it would have to be long to top some of the answers today.

14:53 · to the Minister of Education

Does she stand by her statement, “we believe in choice for parents and we believe in accountability in the system”; if so, why did she lodge Amendment Paper 583 without consultation with home-schooling families?

Yes. I lodged the Amendment Paper in line with the advice that I received and carefully considered at the time. I have acknowledged that the vast majority of home-schooling families do a great job, and we back their choice to educate at home. The Ministry of Education and Education Review Office advised in late 2025 and early 2026 that they held increasing concerns that some children were not receiving an adequate education and that there was very limited oversight. Once an application is approved for home-schooling, the Ministry may have no further contact with a student unless a complaint is received. The Ministry advised that some form of regulation was required to ensure that all children educated at home received an adequate level of education. In response, we had to move extremely quickly to draft and introduce an Amendment Paper to the education legislation that had already been introduced in November to provide for these appropriate checks. Subsequent feedback received from stakeholders, MPs, coalition partners, and those in the education sector show that the issue is more complex than anticipated, and we will now take time to get this right, which is why we are intending today to refer the bill back to the committee of the whole House to remove the amendments relating to home-schooling and consider them in future legislation. I want to thank the home-schooling community for their advocacy.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. I think there’s a couple of Speakers’ rulings that are relevant here, with one being that when it is on notice, there’s an expectation that the Minister has been given the appropriate advice from officials to answer the question. They signalled to you that it was going to be a long answer, but, unfortunately, the second leg of this—and, specifically, why there was no consultation with home-schooling families—was not actually answered. Now, if we look at Speaker’s ruling 199/5, it makes it clear that when there is a two-part primary question on notice, both legs must be answered.

Yeah, well, I took it that the—well, I don’t know if it was an announcement today by the Minister, but the announcement, certainly, to the House this afternoon that the bill was being withdrawn, or that the clause was being withdrawn, was probably an answer to the question about consultation.

Why did she try to bypass the concerns of thousands of affected families without consulting any of them?

I’ve already answered that in my primary answer, which was why I did it at length. We received quite late advice from the Education Review Office and the Ministry of Education—[Interruption]

Just a moment.

—that raised serious and increasing concerns. We had to move extraordinarily quickly in order to get a Cabinet paper drafted—through Cabinet committees, through Cabinet, drafted—in order to get it included in the bill that was before the House. If we hadn’t done that, it would have been another couple of years down the track. We wanted to move at pace to make sure that we were protecting the very children that I was alerted to in December last year.

Why did it take thousands of families writing to her and political pressure from across the aisle for her to do, at the eleventh hour, what she should have done in the first place?

At this point in time, I want to thank those home-schooling families who contacted me, but I also want to thank the coalition parties, who agreed to make this change, and, in particular, the time that was given to me by New Zealand First, who met with me last night and again this morning to discuss and help put in place solutions to the issues raised by the home-schooling community.