Tuesday, 5 March 2024 - Volume 774 Sitting date: 5 Mar 2024 TUESDAY, 5 MARCH 2024 The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m. KARAKIA/PRAYERS SPEAKER: Almighty God, we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests, we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom, justice, mercy, and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen. Tim Costley: Point of order, Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: Nope, too soon—sit down. SPEAKER'S RULINGS Points of Order—Appropriate Use SPEAKER: Members—this may be helpful for the member—a number of members have raised with me the issue of too frequent a use of the point of order process to raise trivial points of order. In future, when a member raises a point of order, I expect them to indicate the rule or practice of the House that they think has been breached. Raising a point of order without doing so will be considered disorderly. Of course, members may continue to use points of order to draw my attention to their wish to exercise a right given by Standing Orders, such as to seek leave, to make a personal explanation, or to move a motion. PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS Unparliamentary Language—Apology TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to make a personal explanation. SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection for that purpose? There appears to be none. TIM COSTLEY: Last Thursday, in debate, towards the end of the day, I made an unparliamentary remark, which I know some members took offence at. I'd like to apologise unreservedly for this; I did not mean to cause offence. SPEAKER: Thank you. PETITIONS, PAPERS, SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLS SPEAKER: Petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. CLERK: Petition of Chris Hickson requesting that the House ensure that the treaty principles bill does not go further than the select committee Petition of Christopher MacDonald requesting that the House pass legislation requiring all buses older than 10 years to have an additional compliance process between each certificate of fitness Petition of Rasy Sao requesting that the House urge the Government to support the restoration of human rights in Cambodia in the context of the United Nations Universal Periodic Review. SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered papers. CLERK: Report on unappropriated expenses in capital expenditure for the financial year ended 30 June 2023. Government responses: to the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the inquiry into the future nature, impact, and risks of cryptocurrencies to the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the briefing on banks' processes and consumer protections for scams to the report of the Petitions Committee on temporary post-earthquake visas; and to the report of the Standing Orders Committee on the Review of Standing Orders 2023. SPEAKER: I present the annual report of the Commissioner for Parliamentary Standards for the year ending 31 December 2023. Those papers are published under the authority of the House. A select committee report has been delivered for presentation. CLERK: Report of the Regulations Review Committee on the Complaint about the Resource Management (National Environmental Standards for Freshwater) Regulations 2020. SPEAKER: That report is set down for consideration. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of bills. CLERK: Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Amendment Bill, introduction. Appropriation (2022/23 Confirmation and Validation) Bill, introduction. Evidence (Giving Evidence of Family Violence) Amendment Bill, introduction. SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for first reading. ORAL QUESTIONS QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS Question No. 1—Prime Minister 1. Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition) to the Acting Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government's statements and actions? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Acting Prime Minister): Yes, in the context in which they were given. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why has he broken his promise of no new taxes and no increases in fuel tax, given yesterday he announced a driver's tax through hiking registration fees, plus a 22c per litre increase in fuel taxes, albeit on a delayed timetable? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: As the Acting Prime Minister, I made no such announcements yesterday. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why isn't he willing to defend the Government's decision to break the promises the Prime Minister made before the election? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Again, as the Acting Prime Minister, I stand by the things that I say, and I'm very happy to begin by giving that group a lesson in constitutional law in this country about how this Parliament is properly run under the Standing Orders. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Who is correct: Nicola Willis, who said, "We're not increasing taxes. We're making an adjustment to a fee.", or Nicola Willis, who said, "If it looks like a tax and it quacks like a tax, it's a tax."? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, obviously, the first statement she was making was on behalf of this Government, and the second statement she was making was on behalf of the last one. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Speaking of statements made by the last Government, who is correct: Christopher Luxon, who said, "they've got a culture of entitlement at the heart of this Government, right? They think they're entitled to your money. They think they're entitled to waste it.", or Christopher Luxon, who said, "I'm entitled to the entitlements that everybody else has [at the moment]."? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The first statement that he was making was on his behalf, but I do support that statement. With the second one, he was pointing to what happens when you have 30 years of managerial neglect when it comes to Government properties—much of which was the responsibility of that Government over there—that sees millions and millions of dollars of assets wasted because of ideology, and I can recite all of the circumstances of that, which have now cost the taxpayer so much more money than looking after Ministers. But it began with the ideology of a man called Roger Douglas. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: What is the total cost of retrospectively restoring mortgage interest deductibility for rental properties, and how many school lunches would that pay for? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: First of all, that will be itemised with particularity by the Minister of Finance, and on the second question, of course we have always been supportive of the programme for school lunches. But we have to evaluate—which that Government sought a report on—to see whether it was money being well spent, and in July of 2023, they received a very damning report from Treasury saying the converse. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Which best sums up his Government's priorities: tax breaks for landlords at the expense of kids' school lunches, attacking beneficiary entitlements whilst claiming a $1,000-a-week housing allowance he doesn't need, or abolishing an initiative to improve Māori health outcomes in the same week his Government passed a law change that will increase smoking? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, first of all, I'll deal with the last one. The last statement is demonstrably untrue. The law written in— Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Oh, here comes the tobacco lobby talking points. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, not at all—here comes the truth. The law was fixed up in 2018-19, which led to the biggest fall in cigarette smoking in this country's history. We are now a world leader, and that's because the law—that they didn't write; we wrote it. In fact, when they were doing their amendments in 2022, people like Chlöe Swarbrick were saying that it was bound to fail because it was never focused on actual circumstances. Now, let's deal with that one there. On the second issue of calling the Prime Minister of this country squanderous, the Prime Minister on that score would be an amateur compared with what he inherited: hundreds of billions of dollars unaccounted for, over and over again. Hon Grant Robertson: What—"hundreds of billions"? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Going forward, we'll be paying for that, Mr Robertson. We'll be paying for that over the next 10 years—a cost occasioned by that Minister, who threw money around like an eight-armed octopus. SPEAKER: I'd just make the point that that last question was seeking an answer on opinions, which is—you know, you got away with it, but it's not to be a habit. Question No. 2, in the name of Dr Vanessa Weenink. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: Yeah. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Are you suggesting that the member's right to ask a question is now being narrowed that we can no longer ask Ministers for opinions? SPEAKER: No. The point, which I should have made more clear, was that the question itself was asking Ministers to comment on what, essentially, are other people's opinions. Now, that might be useful in most circumstances, but I thought it was just a little bit—given that you outlined some stark choices, it might be going just a bit too far. Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Well, point of order, Mr Speaker. Referencing the ruling that you made at the beginning of question time, can you clarify which rule or which Standing Order you believe I breached in my question? SPEAKER: I think it's 371, and you'll find it's either (a), (b), or (c). It's the— Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Actually, I'll look it up. SPEAKER: There's three parts to it. [Interruption] Well, I think—can we come back to that, because it's a fair point. But we'll move on to question No. 2. Question No. 2—Finance 2. Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on the Crown accounts? Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Well, this morning, Treasury released the Government's financial statements for the seven months ending 31 January 2024. These show that core Crown tax revenue was $800 million below what was forecast in the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update (HYEFU) in December. Core Crown expenses were also lower than forecast in the HYEFU by a billion dollars. The OBEGAL deficit—the operating balance before gains and losses—was $400 million higher than forecast. Dr Vanessa Weenink: Why did tax revenue come in below forecast? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Lower than expected tax revenue is consistent with the economy being weaker than forecast in the half-year update. Since the half-year update, GDP results indicate that New Zealand's economic slow-down occurred earlier and more deeply than previously thought. As a result, the economy will almost certainly be in a weaker position this year than was anticipated before Christmas, and this has a direct flow-on to tax revenue. Dr Vanessa Weenink: What explains the lower OBEGAL result? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The fact that the OBEGAL deficit was $400 million worse than forecast was driven by two factors: one is the core Crown results I've just mentioned, and the other is due to State-owned enterprises (SOE) which are outside the core Crown. The SOE results include a write-down of the Cook Strait ferry project. This follows the Government's decision to decline KiwiRail's request for significant additional funding to address cost escalations in that blow-out project. Dr Vanessa Weenink: How has core Crown expenditure changed over time? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Core Crown expenditure is forecast to be $140 billion over this financial year. That's a lot of money so I went back and I looked at what Government spending was in previous years, and to my horror I found that since 2018 Government spending has increased by a total of 73 percent. That is a 73 percent increase over only six years. Once again, this shows the financial mismanagement of the previous Government. SPEAKER: I'll just come back to the member the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: it's Standing Order 390(1) or (2) that I'd be relying on. I was thinking of the Standing Orders2017. I'm just perhaps a little behind the times from the latest publication but, none the less, the point was right. Question No. 3—Transport 3. TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) to the Minister of Transport: Kia orana, Mr Speaker. How does the Government intend to fully fund the more than $20 billion of proposed National Land Transport Fund spending across the next three years as outlined in the draft Government Policy Statement on land transport 2024-34? Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): The member has answered his own question in his primary, but to help the member, page 29 of the draft Government policy statement (GPS) on land transport 2024 to 2034 outlines the answer to his question. Tangi Utikere: Will all projects in the Government policy statement on land transport be fully funded for the entirety of the project, and, if not, why not? Hon SIMEON BROWN: The GPS which was released yesterday outlines the projects that we are prioritising as a Government, including the roads of national significance and major public transport projects. We've also outlined a range of funding and financing tools to be able to deliver this infrastructure, and we expect that those new tools will be used. Tangi Utikere: Why is he and his Government determined to make it more difficult for hard-working Kiwis by introducing a new drivers' tax by increasing motor vehicle licensing fees by an extra $50, when he and his Government promised no new taxes? Hon SIMEON BROWN: We said we were not going to increase the fuel excise duty (FED) and road-user charge (RUC), and that is what we have delivered in this GPS. We have not increased FED and RUC during this term of Government, but the reality is—the reality is—that we need to ensure that we set out the funding parameters to be able to deliver the infrastructure New Zealanders need, and that is why we have outlined FED and RUC increases from 2027. Tangi Utikere: Does the Minister stand by his statement that registration fees are just a "one off fee that people pay", and, if so, does he expect people to only register their car once in the vehicle's lifetime, or would he like them to pay the additional $50 drivers' tax every 12 months? Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, people register their vehicle once every 12 months, and as part of that they pay a contribution. It's a payment they make once a year, and, as part of that, there is a contribution to the National Land Transport Fund, and, on this side of the House, this Government will ensure that that money is going to building and maintaining the roading network, not cycle bridges across the Auckland harbour. SPEAKER: Just wait—just wait. All right. Tangi Utikere: Is the Minister actually committed to addressing the cost of living pressures when he cancelled the proposed 12 cent increase to fuel excise duties, only to nearly double it with a 22 cent increase? Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, we are committed to the cost of living by making sure that we axe the Auckland regional fuel tax, by making sure we have no fuel excise and road-user charges in 2024, 2025, or 2026, but we are outlining how we will sustainably fund transport investment going into the future. That's what this GPS is all about. Tangi Utikere: How will an 18 percent decrease in funding to council subsidies to public transport services, a 34 percent decrease in funding for public transport infrastructure, and a 49 percent decrease in funding for walking and cycling improvements have a positive impact on meeting New Zealand's climate change commitments? Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, on this side of the House, we are focusing the National Land Transport Fund on its core purpose, which is to build and maintain the roading network, and people who fill up their cars with petrol, who pay road-user charges, want to ensure that the money they're paying is going back into building and maintaining the roading network, less potholes, and making sure we have the roads for the future to unlock economic growth and productivity across New Zealand. Question No. 4—Prime Minister 4. Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) to the Acting Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements about educational achievement in schools? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Acting Prime Minister): Yes, in the context in which they were delivered. Hon Marama Davidson: Has he seen evidence from the recent Programme for International Student Assessment study, which shows dropping achievement can be explained by the number of students coming to school hungry? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Most certainly we're aware of that report. It is a misnomer. The reasons why there is so much massive failure at school is to do with truancy and a whole lot of other reasons—for an education system that began, in 1877, making school attendance compulsory. If you start there, you might start getting the education system fixed up. Hon Marama Davidson: What is his response to findings that achievement for students in food poverty are up to four years behind their peers who never miss a meal? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Again, the report that that member would have been aware of, commissioned by that former Government and reported on in 2023, under sections 24 and 25, does not find any such outcome in the way that member mistakenly is implying. Hon Marama Davidson: Does he accept findings in the recent independent evaluation of the school lunches programme that it contributes to happier and healthier students, which is likely to result in better school outcomes? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It was a report that also said that there was "improving [nutrition] intake, particularly for those 7.3 percent of ākonga with least access to sufficient food at home". It went on to say, "However, the evaluations have found no impact on attendance", and with respect to Māori, "who make up around 48 percent of students receiving the programme, [they] have not benefited on most metrics, such as school functioning (e.g., paying attention in class), health, and mental wellbeing (with mental wellbeing worse off for those in the programme)." Now, those are the screaming facts that Māori want to know about. Hon Marama Davidson: Will he commit to improving student wellbeing and school achievement by keeping the healthy school lunches programme beyond 2025 and expanding it in the future to more learners struggling with food poverty? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, that member will be aware that the very programme itself had a finality about it, and that's the issue we're talking about right now that Mr Seymour is addressing. Mr Seymour is addressing whether we're getting value for money or, as we're told by so many teachers at our schools, there is such massive waste. And our job is to ensure that when we make available programmes like that, they do work. So a very sensible, rational evaluation needs to be done now rather than a screaming reaction that says that every cent spent is spent well. And it's not the case at all. Go and ask the teachers, go and ask real Māori, who know down in the schools what's going on. Ask somebody who's been in a classroom, not somebody who's forgotten what it's like. Question No. 5—Children 5. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT) to the Minister for Children: What recent announcements, if any, has she made regarding the Government's commitment to crack down on serious youth offending? Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This morning I announced that we intend to have a pilot for a military-style academy for youth offenders operating from the middle of this year. The approach to serious and persistent youth offending over the past six years has clearly not been working, and something needed to change in how we respond to this group of young people to help them turn their lives around and break the cycle of offending. That is why I'm proud to work with this Government in delivering on its promise to create youth offender military academies. Dr Parmjeet Parmar: How will these academies differ from previous approaches to address youth offending? Hon KAREN CHHOUR: The Military-style Activity Camp Programme, or the MAC Programme, was run between 2010 and 2016 in partnership between Child, Youth and Family and the New Zealand Defence Force. An evaluation of this programme showed positive results with improvements in the attitude and motivation of the young people to address their offending. However, it also found that a lack of robust support once each young person left the programme meant improved outcomes were not realised to the extent they might have been. That is why this pilot is going to have a focus on rehabilitation and take a trauma-informed approach alongside the military-style component to ensure these young people receive the full wraparound support they need to turn their lives around and reduce the risk of reoffending. Dr Parmjeet Parmar: How will the military-style academies operate in practice? Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Oranga Tamariki will lead and deliver the programme, working alongside other Government departments to ensure a multi-agency approach and a well-rounded programme that is not just focused on discipline and structure but works to address the underlying cause of offending. We will also work with community providers where they have the expertise and experience in working with young people who often have multiple and complex needs. While on the programme, young people will receive counselling, drug and alcohol treatment, mentoring, and cultural support that they require. Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What other actions is the Government taking to address serious and persistent youth offending? Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Alongside this pilot programme, the Government is looking at legislative changes to enable stronger consequences for young people who are committing crimes. These changes include looking at establishing the military academy programme as a stand-alone sentencing option for judges, and a new young serious offender category to enable stronger sentencing powers and monitoring requirements. As I've said before, we cannot continue with the previous approach. We owe it to these young people to do everything that we can to help them. This is not just about having consequences for their actions but actually showing them that they have it within themselves to turn their lives around and giving them the tools to encourage them, that they need. Question No. 6—Transport 6. Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai) to the Minister of Transport: Will his draft Government Policy Statement on land transport contribute to emissions reduction targets and reduce transport costs for people; if so, how? Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Yes. As the member knows, the emissions trading scheme (ETS) is the Government's key tool to reduce emissions. As the member well knows, the transport sector is covered by the ETS and the ETS caps emissions. The Government Policy Statement (GPS) 2024 is about delivering transport infrastructure so Kiwis can get where they need to go quickly and safely without being stuck in congestion. This Government has delivered on its commitment to not raise fuel excise duties (FED) or road-user charges (RUC) in this term. Hon Julie Anne Genter: How can people choose to avoid paying ETS prices and higher prices to use cars when his draft GPS cuts funding to public transport services, public transport infrastructure, walking, and cycling—basically every alternative to using a car? Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, there's significant investment in public transport in this GPS. There's over $4.4 billion going into public transport services and public transport infrastructure. We've got a range of major public transport projects that we're going to invest in: completing the City Rail Link, for instance: a project started under the last National Government—we're going to complete it during this term of Government; the Eastern Busway, which we're going to ensure the regional fuel tax money continues to invest in; we electrified the Auckland rail network. This is a Government which backs public transport, and this GPS continues to support public transport in New Zealand. Hon Julie Anne Genter: Does his draft GPS provide lower or higher targets for funding for public transport services and infrastructure than the previous Government's draft GPS? Hon SIMEON BROWN: In terms of the draft GPS, if we're comparing to the last Government's draft GPS in 2023, this is a much better document because what it will do is it will focus on value for money from our public transport sector. Now, the actual targets are slightly lower but we will get better outcomes because we'll be focusing on making sure our public transport services are operating reliably. Hon Julie Anne Genter: Under this draft GPS, can local councils put in bus lanes on local roads as part of an upgrade or regular maintenance and renewal of a local road? Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, as the member will know as a former Associate Minister of Transport, following the draft GPS, councils will be putting forward their regional land transport programmes. That will then feed into the national land transport programme (NLTP), which will be outlined later this year, which will clarify those issues. I encourage the councils around the country to read the document, put forward their regional land transport plans which feed into the NLTP. Hon Julie Anne Genter: Is he denying that in the draft GPS there is a specific provision that says local road funding, maintenance, and renewal cannot be used for multimodal improvements, and that includes bus lanes? Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, when it comes to maintenance and renewal funding, we are focusing that on exactly what it says it will do: about fixing potholes and renewing our roads. That's why we are ring-fencing the pothole prevention funds to make sure we are actually achieving the long-term rates of renewal needed on our roads. The last Government left the current state of our roads in a declining state. This GPS is about actually improving the quality of our roads so people can get around where they need to go, quickly and safely. In relation to the member's specific question, local roading improvement activity class is an activity class available to councils to invest in their local roading infrastructure. Hon Julie Anne Genter: How can people in New Zealand expect to have frequent, reliable bus and train services to give them an alternative to driving a car when he is cutting funding for public transport and making it harder for local councils to make public transport reliable and on time? Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, that side of the House thinks throwing more money is the solution to every single problem. Well, they had six years and they spent $228 million on "Auckland Light Fail". Aucklanders didn't get anything, but taxpayers spent hundreds of millions of dollars. Hon Julie Anne Genter: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Point of order. Hon SIMEON BROWN: On this side of the House, we're about delivery and delivering the infrastructure, public transport infrastructure, and services needed. Hon Julie Anne Genter: Mr Speaker, I just ask you to reflect on the Minister's answers because I have asked quite specific questions and each time— SPEAKER: Yeah. This is the sort of thing that is— Hon Julie Anne Genter: —this is deflected by attacking the previous Government, which I was not part of. SPEAKER: Yeah, this is the sort of point of order that's winding people up a bit. The Minister had not finished an answer, and I think while you may not be satisfied with the direction of his answer, I would like to hear it before any judgment is made. Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, Mr Speaker, on this side of the House, it's not just about how much money is thrown at a problem; it's about actually making sure we get the outcomes that New Zealanders expect. And that's why we're proud of the record: when we started the City Rail Link, we're going to complete it. That side of the House spent hundreds of millions of dollars on "Auckland light fail" and didn't actually get anything started—not 1 metre of track delivered. We're focused on getting the outcomes New Zealanders need. Helen White: Point of order. The Minister has now had a long period of time where he has not addressed the question, and in fact it is quite obvious that he is attacking the previous Government and not answering the question. If it is possible for him to simply sandwich his answer with one end of it—[Interruption] SPEAKER: When a point of order is being taken, regardless of what the rest of the House might think of it, I want to hear it in silence. Start again, and make it a point of order. Helen White: Mr Speaker, my concern is that the question is not being actually answered and there is a long period of time where the answer is irrelevant and is out of order, where the Speaker is not intervening. So, in fact, crime is paying, sir. SPEAKER: Well, those are your opinions; they are not mine. He very clearly said that this Government sees outcomes as more important than money spent. In other words, getting value for the dollar. Not for me to explain that. That's how I heard it, that's how I judge it. Hon Julie Anne Genter: Can I just ask for some clarification? SPEAKER: Clarification? It better be a clarification, because that was not—with all due respect—a point of order. Hon Julie Anne Genter: The Minister has repeatedly referred, using a pejorative term, to the previous Labour Government's project and I just wonder if the Speaker could reflect on whether that is part of answering the question in good faith, to refer to a project in a pejorative way without—he's calling it "Auckland light fail", so it just doesn't even seem like that's a good-faith answer from a Minister, to be honest. SPEAKER: I'm sorry, I think the member should really stop there. The member was asking about why funding had been cut. What the Minister suggested is that past funding perhaps hadn't been as well used as it could be. I don't think that's unreasonable. Hon Chris Bishop: What reports has the Minister seen, if any, in relation to advocacy by the former member of Parliament for Mt Albert—and, indeed, the current member of Parliament for Mt Albert—about Auckland light rail, and how did that project stack up against that advocacy? SPEAKER: Simeon Brown—as long as he can do it within the bounds of ministerial responsibility. Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, I have seen reports of a former member for Mt Albert advocating for the Auckland light rail project prior to the 2017 election, saying it would be completed by 2021. Despite six years in Government, nothing happened. SPEAKER: That's interesting, but not particularly helpful to the order of the House. Question No. 7—Agriculture 7. JAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First) to the Associate Minister of Agriculture: What update, if any, can he provide on the coalition Government's commitment to wool? Hon MARK PATTERSON (Associate Minister of Agriculture): Let me be very clear: this Government is committed to bringing back New Zealand wool. New Zealand was quite literally built off the sheep's back. New Zealand is still a world leader in quality wool. We're the largest exporter of strong wool, accounting for 20 percent of strong wool traded globally. However, the value of New Zealand wool exports has shrunk from $750 million in 2004 to an estimated $390 million in 2024—a dire situation where it literally costs more to shear a sheep than the income received. We acknowledge the need for revival for both the prosperity of our rural communities and our farmers and to achieve the wider Government objective of doubling the value of our exports. Jamie Arbuckle: What policies has the Government committed to? Hon MARK PATTERSON: As part of the New Zealand First - National coalition agreement, we have committed that we will back our farmers, our primary sector, and regional New Zealand. We will direct Government agencies to preference the use of woollen fibres over artificial fibres in Government buildings. Where practical and appropriate, we'll back the sustainable, natural product. No longer will rural schools be forced against their will to put in synthetic carpets. This initiative has garnered widespread support, notably Greg Smith, CEO of Bremworth carpets, that says—and I quote—"This has the potential to be one of the most significant changes in the wool industry since synthetic fibres were introduced two decades ago." Jamie Arbuckle: What other incentives can the wool industry look forward to? Hon MARK PATTERSON: Other initiatives that the wool industry can look forward to is that we are absolutely committed to working with farmers at the farm gate in their rural communities, not, like the last Government, from Wellington ivory towers— SPEAKER: No, that's not—no, no, talk about your Government and your programme. Hon MARK PATTERSON: Not from Wellington ivory towers. The Minister of Agriculture has announced a woolshed tour, commencing in April, where we'll be engaging with farmers from Northland to Southland to outline the opportunities and to seek their feedback. I've been travelling across New Zealand engaging with industry, and I'm incredibly excited at some of the innovation that's going on within the manufacturing sector. I'm aware that, to date, farmers have not been well informed. Since the disestablishment of the Wool Board, the sector has lacked cohesive leadership. A national roadshow will be occurring across the next three months that will help to shape our thinking of how we revitalise this critical rural industry. Question No. 8—Media and Communications 8. Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour) to the Minister for Media and Communications: Does she stand by all her statements? Hon MELISSA LEE (Minister for Media and Communications): Yes. Hon Willie Jackson: Why does she refuse to back the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill, a bill that is supported by the whole broadcasting industry? Hon MELISSA LEE: The Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill is currently being considered by the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee. I said in Parliament last week I'm waiting for the select committee to report back. The Government will consider these latest developments in terms of the wider media landscape. It is inappropriate for the Minister to intervene or interfere. Hon Willie Jackson: Why does the Minister refuse to take a position when the advice from her own officials suggests that the media is under pressure, revenue is declining, and, without intervention, the Government will be under pressure to fund public news content? Hon MELISSA LEE: I could ask that member the same question. In relation to the Warner Bros. Discovery announcement last week that came as a bit of a shock, the industry is actually facing difficult issues. However, I am very passionate about supporting a thriving media sector in New Zealand, and I have been talking to my Cabinet colleagues and I will be taking a paper to Cabinet in coming weeks. The honourable member's Government had six years to solve these problems— SPEAKER: That's enough. No—that's fine. Hon Willie Jackson: Oh, that's good that the Minister is— SPEAKER: The Hon Willie Jackson will start again—without the extra comment. Hon Willie Jackson: Apologies. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I ask the Minister, given— SPEAKER: No—"given" is not a word. Try a question word. Hon Willie Jackson: Yep. Thank you, Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: That's all right. We'll get there in the end. Hon Willie Jackson: Thank you—thanks very much. Can I ask the Minister: what are her proposals to support the media sector, to support Newshub; is there a strategy, is there anything, given every proposal the previous Government put up, she opposed, including the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill? SPEAKER: Well, how on earth can that question be answered without some political content? I just warn you that your question creates a degree of lenience on my listening to the answer. Hon MELISSA LEE: As the member knows and I have just answered, I am passionate about supporting a thriving media sector. The honourable member, actually, and his Government had six years to solve the problem, including passing the Fair Digital Media Bill that the member says the whole of media supports. He could have passed it. He failed to do it. It is still at select committee. I will have to wait for that to come back. Having said that, the previous Government wasted $20 million on the failed merger of TVNZ and RNZ, which achieved fat zero. Hon Willie Jackson: Why, at some of the darkest times in New Zealand media history, has this Minister disappeared from the media, refusing to be interviewed by National Radio, refusing to be interviewed by the Television New Zealand Breakfast show, refusing to be interviewed by the AM Show—why has this Minister disappeared from the national media? Why hasn't she— SPEAKER: Good—that was a question. That was a question. Hon MELISSA LEE: Obviously, that honourable member isn't reading the news or watching the news or reading The Spinoff. I have been available, doing interviews, and I have made public comments and answered questions when I head through the House before question time and also on the way to caucus, like every other Minister is available for media. However, I have also received questions or requests for interviews in relation to the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill, and I felt that it was inappropriate for me to intervene, and I will wait until that is reported back to the House from the select committee. Question No. 9—Transport 9. Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill) to the Minister of Transport: What recent announcements has he made about transport investment in New Zealand? Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Yesterday the Prime Minister and I released the draft Government policy statement (GPS) on land transport, announcing that we're delivering on our campaign and coalition commitments to reintroduce the successful roads of national significance programme with 15 projects across the country to enable people and freight to move around quickly and safely. Grant McCallum: What does the Government policy statement mean for Northlanders? Hon SIMEON BROWN: The draft GPS brings great news for the people of Northland, who have been faced with cancelled projects and a growing infrastructure deficit. Our coalition Government prioritises a range of priority roads of national significance, including an alternative to the Brynderwyns as part of our coalition agreement with New Zealand First, the Whangārei to Port Marsden Highway, and Warkworth to Wellsford. Tom Rutherford: What does the Government policy statement mean for the people of the Bay of Plenty? Hon SIMEON BROWN: The roads of national significance are some of New Zealand's most essential State highway corridors. They boost productivity and improve safety. We've listed two significant priorities in the Bay of Plenty, including Tauriko West State Highway 29 and Takitimu Northern Link stage 2, which was scaled back and delayed by the prior Government. Katie Nimon: What does the Government policy statement mean for the people of Napier? Hon SIMEON BROWN: The Government has also listed the Hawke's Bay Expressway as another road of national significance, increasing resilience in the Hawke's Bay. This critical priority was especially highlighted during the recent cyclone where the two-lane road was one of the only roads available for people to use. Four-laning it will make a huge difference for the people of the Hawke's Bay. Hon Chris Bishop: What does this announcement mean for the good people of Wellington and the Hutt Valley? Hon SIMEON BROWN: Great news for the good people of Wellington and the Hutt Valley. After years of delay, we are prioritising the second Mount Vic tunnel and, as the member will be very pleased, Pētone to Grenada is on track. James Meager: What does the Government policy statement mean for Cantabrians? Hon SIMEON BROWN: Great news for Cantabrians—we've listed the Woodend bypass. I acknowledge Mr Doocey, the local member of Parliament, who's advocated for that road, targeting one of the most dangerous stretches of road in New Zealand. We've also prioritised the second Ashburton bridge as a road of regional significance. While the previous Government talked a big game about transport, we're actually going to get on and deliver. Question No. 10—RMA Reform 10. Hon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform: Does he agree with the statement made by the President of the Resource Management Law Association, who said about the Government's proposed approach to fast-track consenting that "There are likely to be high risks of judicial review if a decision-making process lacks transparency and results in poor environmental outcomes"; if not, why not? Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): Broadly, yes. But the statement presupposes that the decision-making process will lack transparency, when our intention is that it be very transparent, and also presupposes that it will result in poor environmental outcomes, when our intention is that it result in good environmental outcomes. Hon James Shaw: What advice has he requested or received on any potential litigation risk from the proposed settings, including judicial review risk in Waitangi Tribunal claims? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, legal advice that Ministers receive is, as the member knows, privileged. Hon James Shaw: How does he justify the proposal to have ministerial decision-making over complex environmental matters rather than having final decisions sitting with independent hearing panels who are able to robustly consider all the evidence? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The bill hasn't been presented to Parliament yet. As the member will well know, it's part of the Government's 100-day plan of action, and I think we're up to day 97, so the member does not have long to wait. Hon James Shaw: Did that address the question? SPEAKER: Well, I think in so much as it can. He said the bill is not introduced to Parliament yet. Hon James Shaw: Will the proposed new legislation override the environmental protections contained in many of New Zealand's key pieces of environmental legislation, including the Conservation Act, the Wildlife Act, the Reserves Act, and the exclusive economic zone Act? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The fast-tracked consenting regime will allow Ministers to refer projects to panels to make conditions upon which those projects will take place, in accordance with the variety of statutes that the member has mentioned. Hon James Shaw: Will the approximately 100 projects included in the listed pathway include projects for which consents have previously been declined or referred for reconsideration due to environmental risk, including the Te Kūhā coal mine and the Trans-Tasman Resources seabed mining project? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, maybe. The member will just have to wait until he sees the bill. Question No. 11—Corrections 11. MIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa) to the Minister of Corrections: What recent announcements has he made about access to rehabilitation programmes? Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Corrections): On Sunday, I announced that the coalition Government has taken the first steps to ensure prisoners on remand can access the rehabilitation and reintegration support they need to turn their lives around. As part of the 100-day plan, we're taking steps to make it explicit in the Corrections Act 2004 that prisoners who are on remand and convicted of a crime will be provided with the rehabilitation that helps address the causes of their offending. Mike Butterick: How many more people are there on remand now than there were 10 years ago? Hon MARK MITCHELL: The number of people on remand has increased by 146 percent over the last 10 years, and remand now represents almost 45 percent of the entire prison population. This announcement will ensure that these people are receiving access to vital rehabilitation. Mike Butterick: Who will benefit from these changes and how many prisoners are likely to benefit? Hon MARK MITCHELL: Remand-convicted prisoners will benefit from the provision of offence-based rehabilitation, including rehabilitation related to violent and sexual offending. The advice that I've received indicates that at any one time, nearly 1,400 prisoners may benefit from this rehabilitation. The biggest benefit, though, will be for the public in that more violent offenders will be receiving rehabilitation while inside, with an aim to improve public safety. Mike Butterick: What other changes will the Government make to strengthen rehab access? Hon MARK MITCHELL: As part of the Amendment Paper which I've sent to the Justice Committee for consideration alongside the Corrections Amendment Bill, the proposed amendment sets out a clear expectation that remand-accused prisoners will be provided with reintegration and other non - offence-focused support while in prison. This includes alcohol and drug treatment, as well as educational or behavioural skills programmes. Dr Tracey McLellan: Is the Minister confident that Corrections is currently resourced to meet its existing obligations to provide rehabilitative services, as set out in the sentenced prisoners management plan, as provided in section 51 of the Corrections Act? Hon MARK MITCHELL: It's well known that Corrections, for the last six years, has suffered with a lack of front-line corrections officers, who, by the way, do an outstanding job in keeping the public safe. But the good news is that Corrections has received 2,108 applications since the new recruitment ad started on 4 February 2024 to 21 February 2024. This is a huge increase—almost four times—compared with the 550 applications when the previous Government campaigned in February 2023. Two weeks ago, 156 new staff began their training as corrections officers—I believe the largest cohort that has been seen in recent years. Dr Tracey McLellan: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That was all very interesting, but the question clearly said about funding—is he confident that it is funded to provide all of these services? It's not about personnel. SPEAKER: I think you'll find it started with the word "yes". Is that correct? Well, I misunderstood. Do you want to add more? Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yes. Question No. 12—Education (Partner Schools) 12. Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour) to the Associate Minister of Education (Partnership Schools): Does he stand by his statement that the previous Government had committed to the school lunches spending programme "without commissioning any robust empirical study to evaluate its effectiveness"; if so, how does he reconcile this with the New Zealand Healthy School Lunches pilot/Ka Ora, Ka Ako interim evaluation on the Ministry of Education website? Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Education (Partnership Schools)): Yes, I certainly stand by that statement and I can very easily reconcile it with this interim evaluation, which itself says a larger group of schools is needed to assess whether there has been any improvement in attendance patterns over the longer term. So I think when a study itself says that it couldn't reach the conclusion asked, that is almost by definition not robust. Hon Jan Tinetti: Does he, then, acknowledge the other reports—the many other reports—that have been done on the Ka Ora, Ka Ako programme have increased the numbers of schools, have had the voices of 10,694 secondary learners brought into the research, and the final report—or the most recent report—which shows that, thus, in specific schools and kura, we found the programme contributed to increased attendance. Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: There's been five studies in total commissioned by the Ministry of Education. None of them have done a robust, statistically significant comparison that has been able to find that the programme has increased attendance at school—those are the basic facts. I know that the former Minister probably thinks that she commissioned reports that are good enough for the taxpayer, but this Government is in favour of actually doing robust analysis when we go out and spend their money. But, unfortunately, I read again from the Treasury: "However, the evaluations have found no impact on attendance, and ākonga Māori, who make up around 48% of students receiving the programme, have not benefited on most metrics, such as school functioning … health, and mental wellbeing". Unfortunately, the former Minister went out and spent nearly 350 million bucks, and she can't say whether it worked. Hon Jan Tinetti: Does he stand by his statement on Checkpoint: "The Treasury got on to that and also pointed out that they were wasting around 25 percent of the food that they had."; and is he aware that it was never 25 percent, and that the Ministry of Education told the Education and Workforce Committee that food wastage had halved from 12 percent in the beginning to 6 percent? Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Unfortunately, there's a wide range of ways that the food is being wasted. For example, an email received just today from a high school says, "We have a volunteer group in town who picks up all unopened lunch packs to distribute amongst the elderly and needy in town. The quality of lunches has dropped off to such an extent that the elderly people no longer want them. A lot of food is being wasted—money as well." Unfortunately, in many places, 25 percent wastage would be an improvement. Hon Jan Tinetti: Does he stand by his statement, also on Checkpoint, that "Cuts of 30 to 50 percent are in the ballpark."; and, if so, what does he say to Christopher Luxon, who said in the election campaign, "We are supporters of the program and it will continue to improve each and every year under our National Government"? Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: I absolutely stand by my statement and what I'd say to Christopher Luxon—and the Prime Minister, for that matter—is that we are going to keep improving it: first of all, by wasting less money, and, second of all, by making sure that it's going to the students most in need in a way that we can demonstrate a difference. Hon Dr Megan Woods: You're cutting it. Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: And I just heard Megan Woods say, "You're cutting it.", and that's why she didn't get the finance job, because, you see, when we say we're cutting it, we mean we're going to spend less money to get more results. That's what this Government needs to do—that's what anyone in finance needs to do, and that's why Megan Woods didn't get the job. Hon Jan Tinetti: Why does he think—[Interruption] SPEAKER: Wait a minute—OK. Hon Jan Tinetti: Why does he think it is appropriate to prioritise tax breaks for landlords and property speculators above providing healthy and nutritious lunches to children in our poorest community? Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: I actually don't have responsibility, as Associate Minister of Education, for the Budget process. But I'm a helpful sort of a guy, so let me just lean into this one for the member's benefit. The Government is not making such a decision—the Government is having to make the most it possibly can in a range of policy areas because, after six years of this lot doing less and less with more and more taxpayers' money, this Government now has to do more and more with less taxpayers' money and try and pay down the debt besides. If only that Government had been a bit more fiscally responsible, this Government would be having an easier time. Thankfully, we're up to it. Hon Nicola Willis: Can the Minister confirm that the outgoing Government provided precisely $0 in funding for the next financial year for the school lunch programme, an enormous fiscal cliff; and can he also advise whether he has considered an approach to that problem, like that suggested by the member Tinetti, that he simply appropriate it because New Zealand doesn't have a debt problem, as she told Mike Hosking. Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Yes I can—[Interruption] Yes, I can confirm—[Interruption] SPEAKER: Just wait. Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Yes, I can confirm that there is a major fiscal cliff in the funding of pharmaceuticals that this Government must now—oh, wait, sorry, Mr Speaker, that's my other portfolio. You see, they're leaving so many fiscal cliffs around, sometimes even I can't keep up! Back to education: the fiscal cliff around school lunches is such that this Government has to actually find money to continue something that the Opposition said we were trying to cut, and that's why we've got to do it better and smarter in a more targeted way that benefits the kids who really need it, where these guys failed. Hon James Shaw: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I just want to draw your attention to Speaker's Ruling 205/4, which says, "Ministers should not bring another political party, which has not been involved in the questioning, into an answer.", as a longstanding rule that you shouldn't be using patsy questions to attack the Opposition. SPEAKER: That is true. But the question from the first question, the primary question, strayed quite a way along the track. As I've said before, and other Speakers have said before me, when there is a political aspect to a question, that's where the answers are likely to go and that's where there is slightly more lenience. But we are not then using the question time to directly attack a previous Government. The Rt Hon Winston Peters—this will be interesting. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister, could he, in the interests of education, find a copy of the Andy Williams song "Lonely Street" and send a copy to that party over there so they can feel a bit more happy about life? Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: I have no responsibility—that would be my good friend and colleague the Hon Paul Goldsmith, the Minister of arts and heritage, who I am sure can give him a hand! However, what I will say, as Associate Minister of Education, is that our job is an education system where people feel they can go to school and be equipped to make a difference in their own lives—that's what makes people happier. URGENCY Hon SIMEON BROWN (Deputy Leader of the House): I move, That urgency be accorded the first reading and referral to select committee of the Road User Charges (Light Electric RUC Vehicles) Amendment Bill, the remaining stages of the Legal Services Amendment Bill, the introduction and passing through all stages of the Business Payment Practices Act Repeal Bill, the remaining stages of the Land Transport Management (Repeal of Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill, and the first reading and referral to select committee of the Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Amendment Bill. The Government is moving urgency today to progress some of the final pieces of legislation that are part of our 100-day plan. SPEAKER: Would the member give slightly more reason for the urgency? Could I ask that when members leave the House, they do so without conversations on the way through. Hon SIMEON BROWN (Deputy Leader of the House): These bills are part of completing our 100-day plan and progressing some legislation also to select committee, as a number of these bills are required to be passed by 1 April this year. Hence we are according urgency to them through the House today. Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour): Point of order. Mr Speaker. I thank you for asking the Minister to give a little bit more information. The Speakers' rulings do require a level of particularity about the individual bills themselves. The statements Mr Brown's made just simply don't go anywhere near meeting the Speakers' rulings requirement. SPEAKER: Well, that would be your assessment. I will ask him to add some more to meet that particularity requirement. Hon SIMEON BROWN (Deputy Leader of the House): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Road User Charges (Light Electric RUC Vehicles) Amendment Bill is required to be put into legislation by 1 April. This is an issue that wasn't dealt with by the prior Government, and so we're having to deal with that at pace. The remaining stages of the Legal Services Amendment Bill—that bill is part of our 100-day plan and is a commitment within our coalition arrangements. The introduction and passing through all stages of the Business Payment Practices Act Repeal Bill: the legislation that is repealing needs to be repealed prior to that Act coming into force. I believe that is in late April. The remaining stages of the Land Transport Management (Repeal of Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment bill: that is part of our 100-day plan. And the first reading and referral to a select committee of the Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Amendment Bill is part of our 100-day plan. SPEAKER: Thank you. A party vote was called for on the question, That urgency be accorded. Ayes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 54 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6. Motion agreed to. BUSINESS PAYMENT PRACTICES ACT REPEAL BILL Introduction SPEAKER: I understand the Government has the intention of introducing a bill. CLERK: Business Payment Practices Act Repeal Bill, introduction. SPEAKER: This bill is set down for first reading presently. ROAD USER CHARGES (LIGHT ELECTRIC RUC VEHICLES) AMENDMENT BILL First Reading Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): I move, That the Road User Charges (Light Electric RUC Vehicles) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. SPEAKER: I think you need to present a legislative statement. Hon SIMEON BROWN: Sorry. I present a legislative statement on the Road User Charges (Light Electric RUC Vehicles) Amendment Bill. SPEAKER: The legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website. Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): I move, That the Road User Charges (Light Electric RUC Vehicles) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Transport and Infrastructure Committee to consider the bill. Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Oh, those are some words we haven't heard much of! Hon SIMEON BROWN: At the appropriate time, I intend to move the bill be reported to the House by 14 March 2024. The committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting expect during oral questions, during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196. This piece of legislation is being brought to the House as a part of the Government's commitment to ensure that all vehicles that use our roads are paying their fair share and contributing towards the upkeep of our roads. In 2009, the previous National Government exempted electric vehicles and plug-in hybrid vehicles from paying road-user charges, to encourage their uptake. This exemption was always planned to end when electric vehicles hit around two percent of the light vehicle fleet. We've now passed the 2 percent mark for electric vehicles in the light vehicle fleet and it is only fair that those vehicles now start paying their fair share to contribute towards maintaining our roads and the upkeep of our roads. Transitioning electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids to road-user charges is also the first step as part of the National Party and ACT Party coalition agreements to bring all vehicles into the road-user charges system. This transition is about fairness and equity, ensuring that all road users are contributing to the upkeep and maintenance of our roads, irrespective of the types of vehicles that they choose to drive. With the increasing uptake of electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids being brought into the road-user charges (RUC) system, this transition to road-user charges means that these vehicles will now be contributing towards the maintenance of our roading system, like all other road users. This supports the coalition Government's commitment and priority of building and maintaining our roading network and we've also outlined those priorities in the draft Government policy statement on transport which we released yesterday. This bill smooths the way for the entry of light vehicles into the road-user charges system when the current exemption expires at the end of March. It brings light electric vehicles into the road-user charges system, as it was going to be a large and complex task for the New Zealand Transport Agency. To ensure that this integration proceeds smoothly I'm proposing a set of legislative amendments to the Road User Charges Act 2012 and a range of regulations that sit under it: the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 and Land Transport Management Act (Apportionment and Refund of Excise Duty and Excise-Equivalent Duty) Regulations 2004. These amendments will also ensure that all light electric vehicle owners are paying a fair and comparable amount for the use of our roads. When electric vehicles are brought into the road-user charge system, owners of plug-in hybrids could potentially be taxed twice if we didn't make this change, and that's why we're making sure that there's also a lower rate for plug-in hybrids than the full RUC rate which will apply to electric vehicles. Whether you drive a plug-in hybrid or an electric vehicle owner, at the moment you're currently exempted from paying road-user charges, and this means that there's a fair transition for those vehicles. So, for light electric vehicles, they'll be paying a cost of $76 per 1,000 kilometres, but there will be a lower rate for plug-in hybrids, acknowledging the fact that they also use petrol or diesel as they travel on our roads. This is to ensure that we compensate for that difference, to ensure that they're not paying twice as part of the system. This bill addresses this issue by creating the ability to set a reduced road-user charge rate for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (EVs). A reduced rate, as I said, reflects that they already contribute towards the National Land Transport Fund through fuel taxes on petrol. The Government has decided that the reduced rate should be set at $53 per 1,000 kilometres. The rate offers plug-in hybrid EV owners a 30 percent discount on the standard light vehicle rate of $76 per 1,000 kilometres, to account for the petrol consumption that they use. The last Government consulted, back in 2022, with the public on a rate for plug-in hybrid EVs. They proposed as part of their consultation a 20 percent reduction of the full rate for EVs. We think it's fair and equitable to increase that to 30 percent, acknowledging that the 20 percent was based on the average of those vehicles—on what the manufacturers estimate their fuel consumption to be. But when you look at what they actually use, we've taken a more conservative approach, and that is why we've increased that to a 30 percent reduction based on the light road-user charge rate. Setting the reduced rate at this level may incentivise some plug-in hybrid owners to change the way that they use those vehicles—operate more based on the battery, less based on petrol—and those will be decisions that users of those vehicles will make. The reason we needed to also put in place this reduced rate was, if we hadn't, the reality for plug-in hybrid EV owners is that they would have to go and seek a refund from the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) for any petrol excise that they used. So they'd have to pay because they effectively use two fuels motoring those cars—they have a plug-in battery which fuels that vehicle and they're considered an electric vehicle so would be required to pay a road-user charge under the legislation; they also pay for petrol. So if we hadn't made this change, they would have to pay the full road-user charge and then they would be able to recover their petrol excise by putting a claim in to the New Zealand Transport Agency. This process of applying for and obtaining a refund would be time consuming, there would be risks in terms of how accurate it would be, and there would be a huge amount of time and additional resource required at the New Zealand Transport Agency by effectively doubling the number of refunds that NZTA would have to process per year. Therefore, the Government believes it is a fairer way to reduce the required RUC rate for those vehicles to 30 percent of the full RUC rate. The bill also exempts very light electric vehicles from road-user charges. Those are vehicles under 1,000 kilos. There are only a few of these vehicles on the roads. We don't think that it's necessary to put a road-user charge on those vehicles but, at the same time, the Government has outlined our intention to move all vehicles to a road-user charge over time. One of the things that this debate has highlighted is the variance in terms of what different types of vehicles pay, based on the type of fuel that they use. If you drive an electric vehicle, a plug-in hybrid, a diesel car, a petrol vehicle, or hybrid, the system is based, currently, on the type of fuel that motors the vehicle rather than how many kilometres that vehicle operates on our roads. So, at the same time as progressing this bill through the House, we acknowledge that there are variances and that we need to move all vehicles to a road-user charge where they are paying the same amount based on the kilometres they travel and the weight of those vehicles rather than the type of fuel that they use. We see this as a temporary measure that we're bringing in now while we also undertake the significant piece of work necessary in order to move all vehicles to a road-user charge. This bill will go to a select committee and whilst I acknowledge it will be a short select committee, I think it is important that the particular issue around whether or not the plug-in hybrid rate has been set at the right rate is examined by that select committee and whether the additional discount over and above what the last Government proposed is the right place for that to sit. So I look forward to seeing what the select committee advises us based on that. To support the transition, the Government is also giving those owners of light electric vehicles and plug-in hybrid owners a two-month transition period by which they will have to buy their first RUC license, and that period begins on 1 April 2024. So this is an example of a piece of legislation that we're bringing to the House due to the fact that the last Government did not deal with this problem. Prior to the election, we said all vehicles should be paying for the use of the roads. The last Government acknowledged it but did not make any preparations for this transition. So here we are in this House putting this legislation to Parliament. We believe it's a fair way to deal with this challenge but also we believe that there is further reform that is needed to make sure that there is a fair and equitable way for all vehicles to be paying their fair share. I commend the bill to the House. TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Kia orana, Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to take the first call for the Labour Party on this bill. I thought the Minister was generally doing OK up until the last sort of minute of his contribution, where he decided to take a swing at the former Government. I really feel the need to respond to that because the new Government has had opportunity to place on its legislative agenda this particular bill. It has, effectively, waited for the clock to run down at the expense of members of the public and the community to be able to have an adequate say on the provisions contained within this bill, and so that is rather unfortunate in terms of the use of urgency. I heard a colleague mention, when the Minister said that this was going to be referred to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, that "Well, finally we actually have a Government that is prepared to refer something to a select committee." So I look forward to hearing submissions as part of that particular select committee, albeit for what is a relatively short period of time—and we'll come back to that in a moment. This is a bill that will seek to make some changes that will align with, effectively, the road-user charge (RUC) exemptions scheme for some vehicles that will come to an end on 31 March—so not too far down the track. It does, as the Minister has indicated, set a set rate, which is a differential rate, for plug-in hybrid vehicles alongside those that might be defined as light electric vehicles as well. It's pleasing to see that the bill in its current form does also provide an exemption for what are very light electric vehicles (EVs) and the payments that would be, effectively, attached to those in the form of RUCs wouldn't be applicable. I'll put the Minister out of his misery and say that we are prepared, on this side of the House, to support this through to select committee—albeit a very, very short process indeed. The concern that I have with the truncated select committee process is that I've already—and I'm sure members around the House will have—received some feedback from constituents around this. The Minister has talked about the consultation that was undertaken by the previous Government. What we have in front of us is a copy of the departmental disclosure statement, which identifies at 3.6 that there was that consultation; that there were a range of matters, actually, that stakeholders and others were consulted on. But it also identifies that the submissions on this bill were rather mixed. I think that's even more of a reason as to why a select committee process should allow for the full range of individuals and collectives to submit in and feed in to that process. I get the point, Minister, in that the date that you're aiming for here is 1 April. While that might lead to some sense of urgency, I do think it is unfortunate that the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, if the House does agree to a truncated select committee process, will have to turn its mind to that rather quickly. Because I have one of my constituents who said not actually just—look, he has no problem, actually, with moving to a RUC approach for his vehicle, but he has some concerns about the weight variance and perhaps there should be a different rate when it comes to those that weigh less than one tonne. The threshold in this bill is setting it at 3½ tonne. Sure, that will mean quite a quite a lot to many people, but when we're looking at incentivising use of EVs and plug-in EVs around urban areas and the like—I think of Palmerston North—actually, it's perfectly suitable for someone to use a motor vehicle that weighs much less than the 3½-tonne threshold that's there. So it's unfortunate that members of the community won't be able to necessarily easily feed into this process. I'll end my contribution by just touching on the fact that what would be helpful is an undertaking from the Government that there is going to be some incentivisation in terms of the uptake for electric vehicles. Yes, we've heard from the Minister about the 2 percent of fleet being the particular target, or threshold, and that that has been achieved. But I really do start to question the motives of the Government when they, effectively, remove the Clean Car Discount, when they effectively remove other rebates, when they are not seeming to incentivise the uptake. Just because it's 2 percent doesn't mean that we should stop there and not go any further—far from it. So on this side of the House, we will support this through to the next stage, which will be a truncated select committee process, for which that is rather unfortunate. But I'm sure we'll have a few more things to say about that. Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I heard the Minister say in his speech that the previous Government had done no work on this, and I have to say that is patently untrue because, obviously, they'd all gone out and done some consultation on it, firstly. Secondly, I think it's really important for this House to consider the outcome of bringing in this particular legislation at this time. Now, obviously, it was a previous National Government who removed road-user charges for electric vehicles (EVs) as a kind of incentive tool. It didn't really have the desired effect; our uptake of electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids was very, very low. Back in the day when Simon Bridges was the transport Minister who brought in that incentive at the time, I, as transport spokesperson for the Greens, brought up the fact that Treasury had given advice that if you are to provide a financial incentive to increase the number of electric and low-emissions vehicles coming into the country that it would make more sense for that incentive to be at the point of purchase or registration of the vehicle. Which is why, later on, we developed the policy—alongside best practice international evidence about what works—of the Clean Car Discount and Clean Car Standard. And the reasons for this are really kind of clear and obvious, right? Once people have the sunk cost of the car, they have an incentive to use it as much as possible. And what really makes the difference is the upfront purchase price of the car. So if we can provide a rebate at the point of purchase, then that has a much bigger impact not only on what consumers choose but on what is on the market here in New Zealand. We saw a huge transformation when the Clean Car Discount was brought in, massive increase in import registrations and use of pure electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids, and that has a positive consequence for our overall emissions as a country and the amount of oil we rely on to get around. Now, obviously, this Government had campaigned on ending that policy. They don't, and still do not have—they did not at the time have an alternative policy to support the increase of electric vehicles into the country and on top of that, now they're bringing in road-user charges for electric vehicles. Now, the Minister's statement claimed this was fair and balanced and people paying their fair share, yet in answers to written questions to me he makes it very clear that what is proposed in this bill is not electric vehicles paying their fair share, it's electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids paying significantly more—more than double a comparable car—for the use of the roads. So in answers to written questions—and members opposite can look up the New Zealand Herald article reporting on this which links to the answers to the questions—I asked: if you were driving a pure electric vehicle on a return trip between Wellington and Auckland, how much would they pay in road-user charges under this proposal? It's $98.80. How much would a plug-in hybrid Prius pay? So that's a plug-in electric vehicle, one that also uses fossil fuels when the electric battery runs out. That vehicle on the same exact trip would pay $94.78. The proportion of road-user charges would be $72.80, and $21.98 in petrol tax. So they're paying both petrol tax and road-user charges because they'd be using petrol as well as paying the road-user charges. So we have a pure EV and a plug-in hybrid Prius paying $98.80 for a trip, $94.78—nearly $100—and a conventional fossil fuel Prius would pay, in fuel excise duty, $42.92 for the exact same trip. So that is less than half the price. So there's clearly problems with the current road-user charges categories that they don't take into account that light vehicles—light diesel vehicles and light pure electric hybrid vehicles—should be paying the same as a comparable petrol car and yet they'll be paying more than twice that. So the combination of this Government's policies and actions—to get rid of the Clean Car Discount, to probably water down the Clean Car Standard, they've indicated they will do that, and to now overcharge electric vehicles and plug-in hybrid vehicles—will be that we will get fewer low-emissions and zero-emissions vehicles into the country— SPEAKER: The member's time has expired. CAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This was a well-signalled policy. As the previous speaker, Julie Anne Genter, has just said, this was signalled by the previous Minister of Transport Simon Bridges, when he was in that role, that at 2 percent of the fleet this exemption would be removed, and that time has come. It is fair that everybody pays their fair share, including a reduced rate for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. A two-month transition is also a good time for people to get prepped for this. As someone who's a diesel vehicle driver myself, I understand how streamlined the process is when you're actually purchasing road-user charges, so I do not believe this will be a huge imposition on people who have previously not needed to deal with this because of the type of vehicle that they drive. I look forward to hearing more submissions at the select committee about this and finding ways that people in the public think we can improve the income stream to pay for our roads, because there is no free lunch, and particularly when it comes to roading, which has been underfunded, by no small amount in the last six years—but I am glad to hear that Labour is supporting this bill. The coalition agreement also provides an investigation mechanism into electric road-user charging, and when that is worked through, I look forward to hearing about that, but for the time being I support this bill. Thank you, Mr Speaker. ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): I was actually going to start with exactly the same words that my colleague Cameron Luxton has, which is to say that this has been well signalled, it's been well expected, and we've heard from the Labour Party member Tangi Utikere as well that in fact they were working on exactly this thing. Why has it been so well signalled? Well, because—and we actually have to do something here—the existing rebate arrangement expires on 31 March. So if you actually want to continue that in some way, as seems to be the suggestion that the member from the Green Party, the Hon Julie Anne Genter has said, you'd actually need to pass some form of legislation anyway. So to me, this is very much about something that has been anticipated for some considerable period of time. It is about fairness; this is about contribution. We've known that there was an arrangement for electric vehicles (EVs) to not be liable for paying anything at all towards the roads for a considerable period of time. That was always going to come to an end, and now is the time that that will come to an end, when the current exemption expires on 31 March. I think there might be some debate around the level of discount. I think the Minister, the Hon Simeon Brown, has suggested that—around the level of discount for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) and whether it's 20 percent or 30 percent or whatever—and we will look forward to hearing people's views on that, and also, as the member Julie Anne Genter has pointed out, on actually what the level of charge ought to be and what is fair and what works. There is a very sensible exclusion around very light EVs. I took the opportunity to have a look at what the weight of EVs is, and even relatively small vehicles like a Fiat 500 electric vehicle are 1,400-plus kilograms. So that kind of vehicle would still be caught. You've got to have a very, very small vehicle not to be caught by the 1,000 kilograms. Also, there is an exclusion, which I don't think we've heard about, for electric off-road all-terrain vehicles, so they are not being penalised. I think we will need, as a select committee—and I will speak on behalf of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, as the chair of the committee—to look at the recent consultation and see what sort of advice we had through that. We will need to call for submissions immediately because the time frame that we've been given is to report back by 14 March—i.e., by next week. And so members of that committee can expect a very, very truncated submissions process and a very quick approach to getting those submissions in front of us and hearing from people. We also heard from the member opposite about EVs and incentives and he questioned the motive around that. Now, I don't see that as being a fair question, because on this side of the House there is clearly an intention to roll out EV infrastructure right around the country. So that clearly says we want to see more people using EVs. It's a matter of what the price arrangement is so that they're paying a fair price. Julie Anne Genter asked why we are doing it at pace. Well, it's always been around 31 March. That's the time the exemption expires. It's got to be done by then. Look, maybe it could have been done earlier in the legislative programme of this incoming Government; maybe it could have been done by the past Government. It hasn't been, it needs to be addressed, and it needs to be addressed now, and that is exactly what we are going to do. She also questioned, again, the incentives for the use of EVs, and, as I said, I think the Government has said we are going to be supporting the roll-out of EV infrastructure, and I am going to be interested in the exploration of the costing around an EV trip versus a PHEV trip versus a petrol car trip. So I am very happy to support this and to commend this bill to the House. MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Matarau—Te Pāti Māori): Tēnā koe e Te Pīka. Tēnā tātou katoa. If I may, Mr Speaker, just to acknowledge this is the first time back to the House since the tangi for Efeso: anana, tēnā tātou katoa. Ka tū au, just to speak to this pakē road user charges. Te Pāti Māori do not support this Government's transport agenda. Our policy would see the use of both accessible and efficient free public transport: free for tamariki, free for students, free for community service cardholders, and made free for everyone within five years. Our policy also ensures that urban planning and infrastructure allows for safe cycling and walking paths; cheap, accessible public and active transport; and prioritising regional and rural Aotearoa. We know that cars and private transport will always be a reality. We know that most of us rely on petrol and diesel vehicles to get around to support our whānau. This is why it's necessary to bring down the costs of electric hybrid cars. We must make electric hybrid cars an affordable option for our whānau. In reality right now, for many in Tai Tokerau and for many Māori across the motu, it's just a bit of a pipe dream, to be honest. This bill works directly against that. That is where this bill comes in and the whakaaro behind our position today. We understand that the road user charges exemption is set to end in April. We also understand that this bill is setting a transition phase for that. However, we also understand the bigger picture behind not extending this exemption. For example, this Government has campaigned to build 15 new roads and are pledging $500 million to fix potholes. The one pothole they cannot fix, however, is the $24 billion pothole in their budget. Road user will end up paying for their reckless policies—regos are to be put up by $50. This money will go towards funding 50,000 roadside drug tests, which they will be making back by increasing fines—how does that work? The cancelation of cycleway and walkway projects will contribute to road congestion, and, by extension, the increase of congestion charges at peak hour traffic. This Government is taking the option away from people to use reliable public transport, forcing them to sit in traffic and then for them to pay for it because the Government cannot plan more than three years ahead. By disincentivising electric vehicles while at the same time cutting public transport, this Government is fuelling climate change. The Government has put sustainable transport options out of reach, making it harder for our people on lower incomes who already spend their income on transport to pay more to catch the bus. It makes no sense to justify more road user charges to maintain roads and fix potholes with a policy platform that will lead to more congestion and creating more potholes. So I'm looking forward to seeing this go to select committee. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Tēnā tātou. GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): Thank you, Mr Speaker. As I've been driving around the roads of Northland, observing the state of those roads and observing the number of electric vehicles and hybrids, along with all the other users on the road, it's become apparent to me that all people using the road should pay their fair share. It's important that we have a fair transition to eventually go to a situation where we have a road-user charge applicable to everybody. On that basis, I commend this bill to the House. Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): I'm happy to take a call on this bill and signal not only Labour's support, as my colleague the Labour spokesperson for transport Tangi Utikere did, but also set out some of the questions that we think are really important to explore as we go through that. I would like to signal that given the importance and the complexity of this, I do think that four weeks at the select committee is a very light period of time in order to get the expertise to come to bear on what are important questions. We heard the Minister who introduced this bill making wild claims that no work has been done on this in the previous Government and then in the next breath talking about the work the previous Government had been doing around road-user charges (RUC) come 1 March 2024. So this is a long-term piece of work, and indeed there was a piece of consultation that went out, I think, two years ago around what the future of the road-user charge would be So we have before us today a piece of legislation which really deals with that gnarly issue of the definition of what it is. So the primary piece of legislation that we're looking in has hard-wired into it definitions of what electric vehicles are, and this was legislation, of course, that was put in place before some of the technology that we have today—before we had purely electric and plug-in hybrids and had the plethora of technological options that we have today in the fact that we do have decarbonising transport. What I really want to stress is that when Labour was doing this work, we saw this very much as a suite of policies, extending this exemption out for the light vehicles through to 1 March 2024 being part of how we did drive that massive uptake of electric vehicles in New Zealand that is going to be needed to meet our emissions budgets, to reduce our carbon, our greenhouse gas emissions. We saw it as sitting alongside things like the clean car discount so that we could ensure that more New Zealanders could have access to not only lower emissions but lower-cost forms of transport. That was really important. Also, that sat alongside the work that we were doing around electric vehicle charging and the massive boost that we gave to the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority in terms of how it rolled out our charging infrastructure around New Zealand. These all need to be seen as an interrelated package that needs to go together, and when this bill goes to the select committee, our members will be asking questions—what will removing this now do to the uptake of electric vehicles? How will that sit alongside the targets that sit inside emissions budget 1 but also the work that's been done around the second emissions reduction? How are we going to achieve those targets, which the Government is saying it is committed to achieving? What are policy implications from a greenhouse gas emission perspective of this piece of legislation? The other thing that I'd like the Government to consider as this bill goes to the select committee is that this is a piece of legislation that is looking at definitions, which, as I said, is one of the gnarly pieces in the policy work in this area. We know that 44 percent of our energy-related emissions in New Zealand comes from the transport sector and 20 percent of all of New Zealand's greenhouse gas emissions come from transport, and the bulk of vehicle fleet, light-duty passenger vehicles, are the vast majority. Heavy vehicles only make up 4 percent, and this piece of legislation is only looking at heavy vehicles and light vehicles. But we know that 4 percent of heavy vehicles make up 25 percent of transport's total emissions. And there was work done by the previous Government—in fact, in the consultation that went out on that issue of definitions about the fact that we now have new fuels that were never envisioned when the legislation was written in terms of fuel-cell technology, hydrogen, when it comes to heavy-fleet vehicles. I think we are missing a vital opportunity to think more broadly about how it is. Do we now say we're going to bring in the RUC for the light-vehicle fleet? That time has come. But we should be putting in place, to decarbonise that much more difficult part of our transport sector—the heavy-vehicle fleet—hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles. What do we need to do and what is the future policy work we need to do to achieve what we have all signed up to in emissions budgets 1, 2, and 3. TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you, Mr Speaker—really pleased to stand in support of the Road User Charges (Light Electric RUC Vehicles) Amendment Bill in the name of the Minister of Transport, Simeon Brown. Quickly, in 2009, the previous National Government exempted electric vehicles (EVs) and plug-in hybrid vehicles from paying road-user charges to encourage their uptake. This exemption was always planned to end when EVs hit around 2 percent of the light vehicle fleet, and, right now, New Zealand has reached that target. This transition is about fairness and equity, ensuring that all road users are contributing to the upkeep and maintenance of the roads irrespective of the type of vehicle they drive. I commend the bill to the House. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this Road User Charges (Light Electric RUC Vehicles) Amendment Bill. I will begin my contribution with a brief comment about the select committee referral. This is something that my colleagues and I will be seeking to debate, and it's something that the chair of the committee—a hard-working committee and a hard-working chair—has brought to the attention of the House, given that he has commented that he will need to open submissions almost immediately, because it has been proposed in this House by the Minister that the committee would be reporting back on the 14th. It is Labour's position that that is not enough time to delve into some of the issues which need to immediately be addressed within this bill. So I will come to the reasons for that in my speech, and then I'll be asking for a call on the motion when the Minister moves it. So just to quickly recap about what this bill seeks to do, as the Hon Dr Megan Woods has said, it redefines and checks in with the definitions of things like electric vehicles (EVs). This is meaty policy work. In an environment where the technology around this is changing constantly, it is for the committee to give itself an assurance that the definition that we create today in the legislation is fit for purpose not only now but in the future. What is drafted currently is backwards-looking. It deals with the problems that we have had now, and the Government work on this—which the Minister has had the benefit of speaking to today—was done broadly since 2021, but we need to ensure that the advances in technology are captured within the definitions here. It also sets a differential rate for plug-in hybrids and an exemption for very light EVs. But one of the things that the committee will be asked to deal with is whether those weight ratings are appropriate, given the kind of policy problems that the House is being asked to solve here about everyone paying their fair share, when large vehicles only make up a very small proportion of New Zealand's transport fleet. So what needs to happen next? Well, the questions that the Labour members have addressed in our speeches on this side of the debate have not had an opportunity to be addressed. They are about what the impact of this policy will be on New Zealand's transport fleet as a whole. That's something that the select committee needs time to delve into and understand, because the impact of this policy decision will take us away from, essentially, what was a subsidy of users of electric vehicles in order to incentivise their uptake and their use. That was a decision to expand the number of electric vehicles which were being imported into New Zealand, alongside other policy decisions like the Clean Car Discount. Those were incredibly effective. They meant that New Zealand had one of the highest rates of increase of uptake in electric vehicles in our fleet in the world, and when we take away those options for people, it means that we will see an ongoing effect over several decades in terms of what is available not only in the primary vehicle purchasing market but also for the secondary vehicle purchases, which is most New Zealanders. Many New Zealanders will not then have the opportunity, if newer vehicles aren't coming into the country through things like corporate fleets, to be able to buy them in the secondary market, and it will have an ongoing effect on the emissions of our vehicle fleet as a whole when people hang on to their older vehicles that do not use EV technology. So we need to give ourselves some assurance, as this House, that this isn't having a long-run effect on our emissions profile over time, and those numbers aren't available for the House today. They are unlikely to be made available to the select committee in a four-week process. We need the time to be able to delve into the impact of this decision on coming generations. There's also some work to be done on what the Government members have presented to the House as the 2 percent of the vehicle fleet being sort of a goal of the EVs represented within that. That certainly doesn't represent the number of EVs in the vehicle fleet. That would be a good idea. We still, I think, have a general agreement in this House that it is good for our transport fleet to reduce in its emissions profile and also to become less dependent on foreign offshore oil. Those are good things, and so we need some assurances at the select committee level about how we continue to incentivise the uptake of ordinary people buying primary or second-hand cars to purchase EV vehicles. Those are the sorts of things we will need to delve into. We will also need to understand the implications for, say, those hard-working taxi drivers in Manurewa, in my electorate, for whom this will completely change their business profile. For those reasons, we'll be seeking calls on the motion to refer this to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. DAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth): I'm very pleased to stand and talk to this particular bill. I think it's very pleasing, as a country, to think that we've got up to 2 percent of these types of vehicles at the level here that are traveling upon our roads. But it's also of no surprise to any of us that we think it's only fair and reasonable that they actually now start to contribute to the cost of our roading itself. The fact that we're looking at moving this to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee—it's absolutely appropriate that they do take calls of submissions from the public about the rate at which those particular vehicles pay—whether it be the $53 for the hybrids or the $73 per thousand kilometres for the electric vehicles. So I'm very supportive of this bill moving to the next stage. A party vote was called for on the question, That the Road User Charges (Light Electric RUC Vehicles) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. Ayes 102 New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 20 Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6. Motion agreed to. Bill read a first time. Bill referred to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker— ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): No, there's a—I think you may be anticipating another process. ARENA WILLIAMS: Oh, yep. INSTRUCTION TO THE TRANSPORT COMMITTEE Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I move, That the Road User Charges (Light Electric RUC Vehicles) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 14 March 2024 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside of the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196. It is worth noting that the need for this bill before 1 April has been known since 2021, when the previous Government extended its previous expiry date. The previous Government also consulted on the changes that we are making, at the start of 2022. However, they left us with responsibility for making the policy decisions and drafting the legislation, which we have done at pace to allow for maximum possible time for the Transport and Infrastructure Committee to consider it. On that basis, I ask that the House endorse a report-back date of 14 March 2024 for this piece of legislation. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to that motion. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Oh, the question is that the motion be agreed to. ARENA WILLIAMS: Labour opposes this motion because the appropriate amount of time for the select committee to consider this bill is the ordinary length of time, which is six months. The reason for our opposition to the 14 March report-back date is that this bill contains a number of technical changes to the definitions which would apply to the vehicles in question. It also contains some ratings about weights, which the committee should be hearing from experts in order to balance the policy decisions which are being set out by the Government. On this side of the House, the Labour members do not oppose the work that the Government is undertaking on this and we appreciate the need for pace. However, six months is the appropriate time for the select committee to come to what could very well be a consensus-based position on the appropriate way to take this forward. Because Labour members also see the need for an appropriate way for road-user charges to be levied on light electric vehicles and heavy electric vehicles, but what is in the bill currently may very well need the House to revisit it and use House time again to consider what has been set out in the bill. The only other opportunity to do that would be in committee of the whole House stage. At this point, it would be inappropriate to do that because Government members do not have the benefit of the advice to take to that committee stage in order to propose amendments to some of those technical changes like the definitions and like the weight ratings. There is no ability for Government members to do that currently. We need the select committee process to be able to do that, and four weeks is not a reasonable amount of time to get the information that we need to be able to do that technical work from the officials or from the public, who should be able to be involved. There is also some opposition to, then, the need to be sitting without regard to Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196. If there was an appropriate amount of time given to these changes, then there would be no need to disregard those long-held Standing Orders, which allow members to conduct their electorate work—their important constituency work—alongside the work that they are expected to do in this House. Essentially, you have Opposition members who are technical experts in this—and I tip my hat to the Hon Julie Anne Genter, who will be asked in the select committee stages to weigh in on a number of technical matters which she knows about. But she is being asked, as are my colleagues in the Labour Party, to give up what would otherwise be spent representing the constituency work when that is purely because the Government has not allowed enough time in its legislative agenda to progress these changes in the normal democratic way. The Labour Party is proposing that the Minister reconsider the motion and put a six-month report-back date in it. Then we will be happy to vote for it through to select committee and to participate in a completely bipartisan way. It is impossible for us to do that on the current motion, and so on the current motion we will have to oppose it. Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Firstly, I just want to clarify: I'm pretty sure that I heard the Minister, the Hon Simeon Brown, recommend a report-back date of 14 March. That's only nine days from now. It's 5 March today. So that's not a four-week select committee period; that's less than a week. And it's really difficult to see how the public who will be affected by these changes and also other technical experts will be able to develop a submission and submit to the select committee, and for the select committee to have enough time to deliberate and report back. I don't see how it's physically possible. So the Green Party would be opposing that motion. And, while I fully support the Labour member Arena Williams' suggestion for a normal select committee report back date, which would be six months, at the very least four weeks would give the public and the select committee more time—some time—to be able to properly consider what has been put forward. And, again, this is because the bill deals with highly technical matters that have to do with specific vehicle weight classes, and it is really important to get this right—this change is going to have far-reaching implications. I understand the Government may have set some time frames of its own that it wants to keep to but, given that the bill has only had its first reading today, to recommend a report-back date of next week seems completely farcical and unreasonable, and even though we didn't support the bill at first reading, if it is going to go to a select committee, at the very least we should have four weeks to report it back. I think nine days is simply way too short to consider everything that needs to be considered from the public. One of the issues that I raised in my first reading speech was the significant discrepancy between what electric vehicle users and plug-in electric vehicle users will be paying on the same trip as a comparable car—that is, a fossil fuel car like a conventional Prius hybrid. According to the Minister's data that he has given us, they'll be paying more than twice as much. I think that there is an opportunity through the select committee to ensure that the rates that are set and the bands of vehicle they apply to are more fair. But I don't see how that can happen if the select committee has to report back in just nine days. Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I signalled in my substantive contribution on this legislation some of my questions that I would like answered. As my colleague Arena Williams has pointed to, Labour is supporting this bill. This is policy work that we started, but there are still really important questions that need to be considered, and nine days simply is not long enough to consider those. One of the things that I am going to point the House's attention to is in the departmental disclosure statement wherein it talks about the external consultation that happened on the policy document that underlies the legislation we're examining today. There were over 3,000 submissions; they were far from unified. In terms of what a nine-day select committee period will do to the number of people that we already know have an interest in this policy area and will expect, and rightfully expect, that there will be a legislative process that they can feed into. It is not an unfounded expectation of people who take the time to lend their expertise into a ministry-led consultation on a particular policy area to understand they're also going to get a chance at the select committee stage. The pressure and unrealistic expectation that this nine-day time frame puts on those submitters is not something that Labour can support. The people that have expertise in this area that we need to hear from need longer, and it's just undoable and not realistic. The second area that I'm concerned about is the kind of advice we need to get to make proper, informed decisions about whether the balance is right between the various technologies. Other speakers have talked about the modelling around—what we need to do is see the modelling and talk to officials about the modelling that is settled on the relative rates for battery electric and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. The fact that we have the seeming anomaly that has been released from the Minister of Transport that you could, by driving a plug-in electric vehicle—a hybrid—end up paying more than if you were driving a petrol car or a diesel car, a vehicle that ran on fossil fuels. It seems counterintuitive, and members of this House, as good legislators, need the time with officials to understand that modelling, to understand the thinking that lies behind it, and to look at whether there have to be changes made. We get there needs to be a balance. No one is saying this is easy policy work, and that is precisely why nine days at select committee is simply not acceptable, not doable, and not going to achieve the best outcome that we need for New Zealand. We know we're here having to alter definitions in the primary legislation because we have hard-wired in technology definitions into our road-user charge (RUC) legislation. This is a rapidly moving field. Are we capturing everything? Are we setting ourselves up for the conversation we also need to have about heavy vehicles that I signalled in my first contribution on this legislation? Do we need to make this more fit for purpose so that we can come to think about what we have to do to incentivise the kind of technologies that we're going to need to address 25 percent of transport emissions that we have in this country? The other thing that I simply do not believe that we're going to have enough time for over nine days is to see the necessary modelling, either from the Ministry of Transport or from the climate commission, around the impact that this change, given that this is happening in a different policy context than the previous Labour Government went out and consulted in, is going to have on emissions, and, in particular, Emissions Budget 1 and Emissions Budget 2. There is modelling that needs to be done. When the Labour Government went out and consulted on the 1 March phase-out of RUC exemptions, we had a Clean Car Discount. We had other measures in place that were driving the uptake of electric vehicles (EVs) and, arguably—well, actually, demonstrably; not arguably—were driving the uptake of EVs at a far greater rate than RUC exemption ever had. I, as a legislator, need to know what impact this is going to have on Emissions Budget 1, what impact it is going to have on Emissions Budget 2, because this matters. This is why Cabinet requires climate impact statements on Cabinet papers. We have to understand that. The Government that is leading this, the National Party part of that Government that is leading it, signed up to the Zero Carbon Act. The National Party that is leading this say that they're on target to meet Emissions Budget 1 and Emissions Budget 2. If we're going to make those claims, we have to hear from the experts. As responsible legislators, we need more time than nine days so that we can receive that modelling. That modelling is wholly dependent on various variables—there we go, various variables—that will come in in terms of what that modelling will look like, what will the fleet be in 2030, what will the fleet be in 2035 as a result of this policy action. This matters. We are talking about a big chunk of New Zealand's greenhouse gas emissions. We are talking, in our light vehicle fleet, about something we simply have to decarbonise, but I don't know how we're going to achieve that. As someone whose vote is being cast in favour of or against legislation, I want the opportunity to hear from the experts and to know what those implications are, and nine days is simply not acceptable. It's not just about us as the politicians that will have to sit there and hear it. This is about the submitters. This is about those people who, rightly, think that they're coming back to have a place in a legislative programme. They gave their expertise in terms of the first initial consultation document that came out. I think it is, frankly, rude of this House to say, "We'll take your expertise at that policy consultation stage, but, look, we're on a bit of a rush for a hundred-day plan because we've got a marketing gimmick as a new Government and we want to get it through, so we're not interested in your expertise coming to bear on the legislation." So let's respect those people that give their expertise freely, and let's remember that our legislation in New Zealand is better because we do have robust consultation and that we have consultation that happens at a policy level and then we have it that happens at a legislative level. That is what is being denied, and it is also not giving the officials, I would put forward, the opportunity to do the modelling, to prepare the evidence that members need to see to understand what it is they're voting for. CAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's not really a pleasure to take a call on this move, but I appreciate the opportunity to outline my opposition to the motion put up by the Minister in relation to this bill. I wanted to cover a few procedural aspects of this bill which I don't think have been covered by previous speakers. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): I will just note there's been some speakers on this—we're not debating the substantive bill. I think the previous speaker, Megan Woods, very skilfully ensured it was about timing, and I'll be looking for the same skill set by subsequent speakers. CAMILLA BELICH: I don't pretend to have the same skill set as the previous speaker, but I'll do my best to raise some valid points in relation to this incredibly short nine-day select committee process that has been proposed by the Minister. Now, select committee processes are something that I think the entire Parliament is proud of. It's something that is notable when people visit other jurisdictions or, when they come and visit our Parliament, they often come and visit select committees. The reason for that is because of how important the select committee is in taking and listening to the views of everyday New Zealanders and providing those views to decision makers, to legislators, and then seeing those changes and issues either adopted or addressed or reflected in the subsequent pieces of legislation. So I don't think this is a trifling matter. It is fundamentally important to the design of our democracy to have a meaningful select committee process and that is even more important because of the fact that we do have a single House; we don't have an Upper House which is taking the opportunity to scrutinise the legislation once it's passed and that gives, in my view, more constitutional significance and importance to the select committee process. This nine-day proposal that has been put forward by the Minister would mean that the report back was on a Thursday which was a non-sitting day. I think this should be mentioned because this also provides issues for not only members who will be on the select committee and doing their due diligence to consider any submissions that may be made during that very short period of time but also my colleague Megan Woods spoke about the officials, and it's also important to remember that parliamentary staff, who are part of our select committee, do the majority of the work to report back the committee's views. It is an incredibly short period of time, nine days, and I don't think sufficient to consider what is really taking into account new technology and new pieces of technology within the road-user charges system and trying to adopt those. Often we have changes that are made to legislation—I haven't gone back and done a calculation of it, but it is something that I may ask the Parliamentary Library to look into, which is the length of time spent at select committee and the shorter select committee processes and the likelihood of amendments coming up in the future, and I surmise that if you were to look into that, you would undoubtedly find that when legislation is not given its full process, then often there will need to be amendments and further House time taken up by fixing errors that are in legislation. So I think that is actually a really significant point to raise. The other point I wanted to raise is on the structure of the legislation and what indeed it seeks to change. Now, this is not a simple one-line, one-clause bill. It actually has amendments to a primary Act—which is the Road User Charges Act 2012—and then it looks to change secondary legislation, and then my reading of this piece of legislation is that it inserts brand new schedules which would require scrutiny. So it's concerning when there are—I don't think there's necessarily a justification when it's a simple repeal bill or if it is on a simple one line that's maybe, you know, a very easy concept for people to consider. This is a complex piece of legislation that looks at primary legislation, secondary legislation, and it also inserts new schedules. So those are all important reasons for having a longer select committee process. I note in the Minister's motion he refers to: "despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196." The main Standing Order, as I understand, in relation to report back, which isn't mentioned, which I appreciate it's not necessarily required by the motion, but the Minister, in a way, I feel should mention the Standing Order 303, which is the time for a report back. That is set at six months. Now, that is, obviously, a substantially longer time than nine days and would give the committee a significantly longer period of time to look at the legislation. And we know what happens when select committees don't meet the report back times. There's a very, very serious process that they have to go through which involves writing to the Business Committee, which is the committee that is in charge of this House, and putting forward clear reasons as to why they are not likely to meet the report-back date. So that is a very serious procedure that they have to go through, and I think that the fact that has to go through the Business Committee justifies our attention at this stage and I'm glad members are taking the opportunity to debate this particular motion because the converse should also be true: if you want a shorter select committee process, you should be able to back it up with reasons. I did listen to the Minister's reasons and, to be fair, I wasn't convinced at the need for this incredibly short report-back time, because we're not talking about a report-back time which is half as long, three months. As previous members have talked about, we're not talking about a month, we're not talking about two weeks; we're talking about nine days, including non-sitting days. So that is very, very significant, I think. I'm also aware that other members have ideas about how this might be improved and I haven't had a look at it yet, but I do understand my colleague Duncan Webb has tabled an amendment to this motion which he'll be seeking to speak to, which undoubtedly will increase the amount of time—I'm looking to my colleague to confirm that: that is correct, he's confirmed—that the select committee would be able to look at that. So I think that nine days is too short. We've talked about the staff that it would impact, and I wanted to note that we are in a situation, an environment, where the Government has been looking for cost-cutting measures. We haven't heard that Parliamentary Services is exempt to that. So placing extreme requirements by this House on staff members in that type of environment I think is very concerning. We don't want to be in a position where the report is not of the standard that we would expect, and we don't want to be blaming staff members retrospectively for missing a submission or not reporting something as eloquently as we would like when the reality is that this House is placing them in a situation which is untenable for them to be able to complete their job with that incredibly short report-back time. So I think those are all of the procedural elements that I wish to raise on this bill, but I would just reiterate that I would urge the Government and Ministers to reconsider a longer report-back time. As members have said, we do actually support the content of this bill but we're in a situation where we've had urgency—there is a select committee process here, but it's not long enough. I don't think we should start with no select committee and then think, "Oh, aren't we so happy, we've got nine days." We actually should start by looking at the procedure as it's outlined in Standing Orders and the Standing Orders that we always usually look to like Standing Order 303 and working back from there, not starting on the basis of no select committee. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): I move, That the motion be amended by adding the words "but not on Saturdays, despite any Standing Order to the contrary." I move this amendment because I am aware that good legislative practice requires the full attention of members, and this Government has been pressing us rather hard. It's under Standing Orders: committees can in fact meet at any time, other than when the House is sitting, and under Standing Order 48, which talks about the House—I'm assuming that extends to committees not meeting on a Sunday. So what we have, by this instruction, is the ability for the chair of this committee, the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, to call a meeting at any time, including a Friday after the House has sat, which, under the select committee Standing Orders, is set aside, essentially, as a day of pause, perhaps for constituency work. But not only that, it could also, under the general Standing Orders, call a meeting for the Saturday. Whilst you might still set Sunday aside for a day of rest, it is my contention that given the fact that, for example, we'll more likely than not be sitting to midnight on Wednesday night and sitting extensively on Thursday, the committee will then also quite likely be sitting on Friday, notwithstanding that it is a sitting week, and then quite possibly Saturday. That's just not good legislative practice—not only that but it's actually not good for the health and wellbeing of parliamentarians. So I have moved this amendment—and I won't speak to it for a great deal longer—for, essentially, both those bases: so that the quality of scrutiny given to this piece of legislation is up to the standard that the New Zealand public can deserve, so that members of Parliament can have some respite from their legislative duties and come back to it fresh, at the appropriate time. Now, I gave a nod when perhaps I shouldn't have, because this motion as tabled does not in fact extend the time, but I would suggest that if the House is happy with this amendment—and I hope it is. I have never been to a select committee that met on a Saturday, but, then again, I've never been through a period of urgency such as this Government has imposed upon us. As my colleague Megan Woods said, this bill is substantive and important. It's closely linked to our climate goals—emissions deserve the full scrutiny of the select committee. How we are going to truncate that into the period of time—nine days, I believe—that we have, without sitting in truly extraordinary circumstances, such as sitting on a Saturday, I don't know. So my amendment is a very brief one. I would suggest that when the leader of the House, or Ministers in charge of legislation come to these select committee instructions, it would be appropriate not only to say, "We can include this" but also to rule out days such as Saturday, to rule out meeting after 6 p.m. on a non-sitting week, when people are in their constituencies, perhaps, and try and have some family time. Show that we can achieve both those objectives: the objective of good quality legislative scrutiny, not scrutiny by exhaustion, and also looking after our members so that they can return to their important legislative tasks and their important constituency tasks with the appropriate degree of energy and attention. So I won't trouble the House any longer with debate on that amendment, but I do hope that the Minister will seriously consider it. It would be extraordinary to sit on a Saturday, and it's not really not much of an ask for the Minister and the Government to rule that out on that amendment. TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Kia orana, thank you, Mr Speaker. I do want to take a call on this referral motion. Can I thank my colleague the Hon Dr Duncan Webb for tabling an amendment. What I take from his contribution is that he has done so within the context of the House currently sitting under urgency—something that members of this House are becoming very familiar with, unfortunately—but also that the ability for the select committee perhaps to fully scrutinise in a way that is appropriate would be better served by, effectively, this House issuing, as part of an instruction of the referral, a requirement for the select committee to not sit on a Saturday. Whilst that might improve the referral motion, I still have some fundamental concerns about the very short time frame that this bill is seeking to have in front of a select committee. I did touch on that in my contribution earlier and did indicate that I would be seeking a call to speak to that later. The House is in a circumstance at the moment where it will, as we understand it, sit in urgency. It'll sit through till midnight tomorrow after commencing at 9 a.m. in the morning, with the possibility of Thursday and, who knows, possibly into Friday. Now, my colleague Dr Webb talks about the wellbeing of parliamentarians, and I think that is a very salient point: that there would be members of this Parliament who would then potentially roll into a Saturday to hear submissions in a rather discrete period of time. So I'm supportive of Dr Webb's tabled amendment because it basically will allow for a committee, if it is a nine-day period still, to still use its time more effectively. I think, actually, members of the public would think that's the same view. I also make the point that the House is in urgency. Part of the urgency motion that the Minister moved is the repeal of the Auckland regional fuel tax. Members of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee no doubt will be involved with that particular item. So, again, it's not simply about members re-diverting their attention from being in the House or being in select committee, but the nature of items that have formed part of the urgency motion are such that there are dual responsibilities to members on the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. Certainly while members may be subbed off, as a member of that committee myself, I would like to hear the submissions that are presented; those who will avail themselves of even a truncated period of time to speak to the submissions, to raise the issues and the concerns. So while I am supportive of Dr Webb's tabled amendment, I still think that the nine days in total is still completely inadequate and unsatisfactory. So, on the one hand, certainly support the amendment, but the substantive motion still is significantly deficient. Because we are talking about a piece of potential legislation, as my colleague Camilla Belich touched on, involves primary legislation. Not only that, it includes secondary legislation, and that it also inserts some new schedules as well. And that happens from time to time: members opposite; members on this side of the House will know that. But by allowing a simple nine-day window for these matters to be addressed and actually for people to get organised and to submit to the process, I think, is shutting the door on these individuals. Let's remember that this is a bill that, yes, the Minister earlier talked about had been signalled by the former Government. This is a Government that has decided to leave it very, very late in the piece towards its 100th day—that's what the Minister indicated in terms of his explanation earlier this afternoon. But this is also something that has only recently come to the attention of the House that it's going to be on the Order Paper in terms of being dealt with under urgency. Now, that means there are people out in the community who will not have known that this was actually something that is going to be scrutinised by the Parliament. Yes, there's an argument for saying, "Well, you know, things were due to expire at the end of March.", but there are people out in the community who undoubtedly will not know. Actually, even with a nine-day period of select committee—where usually it's months, as we know—this will probably go through that process of "the House is of that view" and still there will be people who would have liked to have submitted on this bill who will not have even known that it's actually made its way through the House or to a select committee. So to say that we're going to refer this for nine days is completely inadequate. The only explanation that we have heard in this House as to why the nine days is related to the 100-day plan for this Government. That is the only reason. Camilla Belich: Arbitrary. TANGI UTIKERE: Now—it is arbitrary. So surely there are opportunities that need to be made available. I want to just note that the departmental disclosure statement that I have touched on previously—there is a lot, I think, being relied on the fact that there was public consultation back in 2022. A lot has happened since 2022, and there might be individuals outside of some of these particular freight and trucking sectors where this is what it said: most submissions were received from the freight and trucking sectors. Now, there will be people like my constituent who sent an email through to me recently, who indicated that, actually, he doesn't mind having to pay a road-user charge for his electric vehicle but he has real concerns about the weight variance. And this is the absolute mechanism by which those concerns would be aired. Now, my concern is that by, effectively, truncating that period, you are shutting off the opportunity for many to want to be able to contribute. So I won't go on any longer except to say that I think Dr Webb's tabled amendment is a sensible one in the circumstances. But that certainly, in my view, does not override the unfortunate circumstance that the substantive motion of nine days' referral to the select committee is currently before the House. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): In the absence of any other speakers, I will go to the question. The question is that the motion be amended by adding the words "but not on Saturdays, despite any Standing Order to the contrary." A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 54 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6. Noes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the Road User Charges (Light Electric RUC Vehicles) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 14 March 2024 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside of the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196. Ayes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 54 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6. Motion agreed to. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Legal Services Amendment Bill. LEGAL SERVICES AMENDMENT BILL In Committee Clause 1 Title CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, the House is in committee on the Legal Services Amendment Bill. We start with clause 1; this is the debate on the title. The question is that clause 1 stand part. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): You know, it's traditional, in amendment bills, to be a little more descriptive than the "Legal Services Amendment Bill". In fact, I know there are a couple of Amendment Papers which suggest descriptions that might be more apposite. It may well be that simply removing funding for section 27 reports would be one of those, because, of course, that's what it does, and it would be good just for the legislative record for that. But if you want to have something a little more descriptive, you would say what this bill really does. Of course, it does a number of things, but one of the things it really does—and I'm hoping to have perhaps a more substantive discussion with the Minister later—is it makes sentencing harder for judges. So my tabled amendment which is marked "B", actually identifies that by inserting it in brackets: "this legal Act is the Legal Services (Making Sentences Harder for Judges) Amendment Act". I say that because these section 27 reports—and in another speech in this House, I pointed out that Justice Joe Williams of the Supreme Court said that context is essential. You can call these cultural reports if you like, but what they actually are is just contextual reports, placing the offending in the context of family, of community, of culture, and, importantly, and I'll come to this a bit later, of victims. If judges don't have that information, it makes sentencing harder. Actually, judges will still try and do their best. They will still try and glean the information that they can from wherever they can, and that's going to be a challenge. The regulatory impact statement points out that, in fact, the likelihood is that this bill will have the exact opposite effect of the Government's intention, in terms of sentencing being more effective and more efficient and more cost-effective. That's just another way this is making sentencing harder for judges. So my suggestion is that we just call it what it is. I'm hopeful. I'm not confident, but I'm hopeful that sentences won't inappropriately increase, but it's hard to say what will happen. I'll tell you what will happen: sentences will bear less relationship with the identity of the offender and the offending, because the judges won't know, because it's going to be harder for them to get that information. So this is a situation in which the title of the bill, the "Legal Services Amendment Bill", it's just not really good, and I'm surprised the Parliamentary Counsel Office has it there. I'm loathe to criticise them, but it would be nice to have had something a little more descriptive. Now, the Minister may want to table his own amendment, which doesn't have quite such a pejorative suggested addition, but nevertheless gives the reader—someone flipping through the statute book, as we all do—a much better indication of exactly what's going on. But I do think that my proposed amendment, the "Legal Services (Making Sentences Harder for Judges) Amendment Act 2024", is an accurate description of what's going on now. Now, I won't use my full time, because I'll come back to a number of other amendments I have and questions I have for the Minister in the wider debate. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I'd like the opportunity of speaking in support of the amendment made in the Hon Dr Duncan Webb's name. I do agree with the honourable member that the Minister might want to consider some alternative wording, but it's important that he responds to the premise in the proposed change, which is the fact that this bill should reflect what it does, and that is making the work of judges more difficult when they are weighing up how to deal with someone who has offended. I think it's really important to note that there have been some good comments made publicly in relation to this bill making it a lot harder for judges. One in particular is justice advocate Sir Kim Workman. He specifies that when a judge reads the report—this is the section 27 report—that they actually realise that this person is not only an offender but a victim, and that the circumstances that they've been brought up in have not been always within their control. The other aspect of it is that if you put a person in prison for an extended period of time, you can almost guarantee they will emerge as more dangerous and more of a risk to public safety than they were beforehand. So those were the words of Sir Kim Workman, specifically in relation to what the job of the judge is and the ability of that judge to have all of the information available to them when they make that decision. The problem that we are addressing with this amendment is that if we take away some of that information that is made available to judges, then you narrow the scope of how the judge can weigh up what's the best way to not only prevent this person from reoffending but also prevent more victims from being created within New Zealand. So I think it's only right that we should hear from the Minister to understand his rationale for the fact that this bill narrows the scope, narrows the availability of information that is laid before judges when they are making those very important decisions for our community. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): Well, I thank the two members for their suggestions about names for this legislation. The Government has named it the "Legal Services Amendment Bill" because it amends the Legal Services Act, and we think that's appropriate. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): I invite the Minister to perhaps use his creative instincts—I know that he holds a related portfolio. I know there's another tabled amendment in the name of my friend Ginny Andersen, because this tabled amendment also goes to the heart of the purpose of this bill. This about legal aid, and legal aid is for poor people, and this is removing access to funding for reports from poor people. So rich people can have them because they can pay; poor people can't. Now, that sentence is perhaps a bit lengthy. I think no good drafter would be quite that verbose, so that's why the proposal in this tabled amendment is to call the Act the "Legal Services (Removing Access to Reports for Poor People) Amendment Act 2024". In a nutshell, that's what this Minister is doing. I'll be quite frank—I find it a repugnant thing to do. But let's call it what it is. People who can't pay for these don't get them but people who can do, and access is a good word to use here because it ties in with the concept of access to justice, a concept that doesn't seem to be one with which this particular Minister of Justice is particularly familiar. The suggestion that this isn't about access to justice because it's an evidential report of some sort makes no sense. This is as much a legal service as anything else, and so let's just call it out. This amendment bill removes access to these important sentencing reports for poor people. So, Minister, I would challenge you. Unless you can be a little bit more poetic in there perhaps, let's call it what it is—stuff the poor people; they can't have these reports. This bill should be called the "Removing Access to Reports for Poor People Amendment Bill". Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to take a call in support of the tabled amendment to the title of this bill. I was going to suggest that it be the "Non-legal Services Amendment Bill" because by taking away access to section 27 cultural reports, there is a large group within our society who are not going to be able to access section 27 cultural reports. I want to support and endorse the comments of my colleague who has spoken previously to me because, as I highlighted in my contributions in the earlier readings of this legislation, I pointed to the fact that affordability is a particular issue for many in the justice system. I pointed to the fact that who will this disproportionately impact, and what we know from the regulatory impact statement and what we know from commentary regarding this is that this will disproportionately impact Māori, who are, sadly, disproportionately represented in the criminal justice system. To support that, I want to refer to an article where the Law Society said that the withdrawal of funding "will significantly limit access to justice". So I'm speaking to my point that this might be the "Non-legal Services"—the Minister is just yawning there. I'm sorry if I'm boring you, but this is important for us to discuss and debate this afternoon. What I was saying was that the New Zealand Law Society Te Kāhui Ture o Aotearoa said that the withdrawal of funding "will significantly limit access to justice. … With funding for these reports removed, the only way a person facing sentencing will be able to access them is by paying privately. Those who can afford this would then have a greater level of representation in the Court than those receiving Legal Aid. That is a significant breach of fundamental rights." So I support the tabled amendment—sorry, if the honourable member can just point me to; oh, there it is—where the proposal is that it be called the "Legal Services (Removing Access to the Reports for Poor People) Amendment Bill". Can the Minister please speak to the points that we have raised about how he believes that this change will not impact on those who cannot afford to pay for section 27 reports? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I thought I'd better take a call on this amendment, given it's in my name. I'd just like the record to reflect also that I really didn't get any answers back from the Minister in relation to our first suggestion to the fact that giving judges less information—I still think it's an important point if this bill is proceeding through all stages under urgency and there's no opportunity for members of the public to be able to submit, I think the very least the Minister could potentially do is to have a go at answering some of the questions that we're putting forward, or at least explaining as to why these ideas aren't being taken up. It's pretty tough for members of the public to watch legislation being made at pace without any open, democratic access to submit or have a view put forward on these ideas. So, from this side of the House, we would heartily encourage the Minister to engage on these questions, because the general public do want to have some answers because it directly affects them. To the point of my proposed amendment, which is that this Act replace clause 1 with "This Act is the Legal Services (Removing Access to Reports for Poor People) Amendment Act 2024". This goes to the point that if you want one of these section 27 reports going forward after this legislation has passed, then you have to pay for it. So it is a fiscal barrier to people accessing justice. If there are key factors that need to be brought to the judge's attention, the most effective way of doing this is through those section 27 reports. And by putting a fiscal barrier in here and requiring anybody who wishes to have one of these to go and privately fund them, that is not fair. It is not fair to New Zealanders, and it is not fair in order for the full ability to understand how this person's rehabilitation—understand how this person can stop offending, that is prevented from even happening because if they are unable to pay for this, then they are effectively being denied justice. As the Government, to deny people access to justice is pretty fundamental. So I believe that the Minister does need to explain why he is placing a fiscal barrier to those New Zealanders who are unable to pay for these reports and therefore preventing them to receiving fair access to justice. I think it's also important to note the implications of this bill for certain demographics within New Zealand. As we do know, there is a disproportionate representation of Māori within the criminal justice system. These reports do provide a real opportunity for people to be able to have a range of factors brought to the courtroom and brought in front of the judge, and you are disproportionately affecting one demographic within New Zealand, and that is also unfair. We know for a fact that it is already difficult for Māori to access justice—we have many reports demonstrating that. And it is my view that this piece of legislation adds to that weight against iwi Māori and weights against their ability to access justice and get fairness in front of our courts. I understand that there's some political posturing going on in terms of saying you're going to be able to save taxpayers' a bunch of money, but, at the same time, if you're chucking up their petrol taxes a whole heap, why don't you just give Māori fair access to justice? CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Ms Andersen—narrower, please. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): Members are raising the policy issues of this bill, and I'm very happy, and the Government is very happy, to debate the policy merits of this bill, which will be appropriate in the clause 4 debate that we have. What we're doing at the moment, for those tuning in to listen to Parliament, is simply a very brief debate on the title of the bill. The title that the Government has given the bill is the "Legal Services Amendment Bill", and that is because it is a bill that amends the Legal Services Act, and that makes perfectly good sense. We can use up an hour or two of time coming up with silly names on the other side of things, but if we want to debate the substance of the bill, we can move to clause 4, and I'm very happy to answer any questions on the bill at that point. But, in terms of the title, we've got an obvious title. It says what it does, and I don't think I need to engage in a long exercise of creativity, such as Duncan Webb suggests. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Well, before we do move on—I mean, it was a little dismissive of the Minister, which is disappointing. But in terms of the tabled amendment by the Hon Ginny Andersen, I do want to make it clear—and, look, it's kind of circular: "This amends the Legal Services Act so let's call it the Legal Services Amendment Bill." It's still not descriptive—we know that there's many amendments to that Act, and they're indistinguishable from each other. But this is about poor people, because this is about payment for reports, and these reports cost between about $1,800 and $2,500 each. As I said in an earlier debate— Joseph Mooney: Used to be 800 bucks—they've gone up a bit. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: As I said in an earlier debate, your children are fine if they get into a bit strife because you can no doubt afford on your MP salary—as can I—these reports. But here, this is saying what it really is: this is saying that poor people don't get access to justice and they don't have access to these reports, because whether it's $800 or $1,800 or $2,200, that's too much for a lot of people out there who are on very low incomes indeed. So I'm pressing on this one because I think it's a really important point. I do want to put on record that these reports, you know, they're not $10,000 reports—they're not some forensic scientist's report; they're a report about family context, victim context, cultural context. They have been recognised as really useful and they've been recognised not as making for lower sentences, but making for better sentences—these are sentences that are a better match for the offender, for the whānau, for the offending, and for the community. So let's call it what it is: it's the "No Access for Reports for Poor People Bill". JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): I move, That debate on this question now close. A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close. Ayes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 54 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6. Motion agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The Hon Ginny Andersen's tabled amendment to clause 1 is ruled out of order as not being a serious amendment. The Hon Dr Duncan Webb's tabled amendment to clause 1 is ruled out of order as not being a serious amendment. A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 be agreed to. Ayes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 54 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6. Clause 1 agreed to. Clause 2 Commencement CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): We come now to clause 2. This is the debate on clause 2, "Commencement". The question is that clause 2 stand part. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Well, I must fiercely but briefly express surprise and dismay that those two tabled amendments were ruled out of order, because they were very descriptive and very apposite. They might have been firmly worded, but they were not joke amendments; they were serious. So I'm actually very surprised and disappointed about that. But I have also suggested an amendment because—I'm assuming the Minister, the Hon Paul Goldsmith, believes in access to justice for all. Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Well, we'd hope so, being the Minister of Justice! Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: You'd hope so—that's right, Willow-Jean Prime. I'm sure he knows his Magna Carta and the clause that's still in force in New Zealand: that the courts will do right by all, rich and poor alike. So I'm assuming that he'd be happy for this little amendment bill of his to be deferred from coming into force until we have finally reached that goal of doing right by all, regardless of whether you're rich or poor. He is smiling at me. I do believe he's nodding, and at last we are at one! My proposed amendment, which I think has been marked by the Clerk as "C", says, "Let's defer this for Order in Council, and once this Minister, who has such lofty goals of equal access to justice for all, can certify that there is equal access to justice in New Zealand for all, regardless of means, that's a great date on which to bring this into force, because this bill, this funding, won't be needed." In fact, you could probably put a Legal Services Repeal Act in and, if we got to that lofty goal, we'd probably vote in favour of it. It's a wee way off, to be fair, but we're happy to wait. So my proposal is that we don't set a fixed commencement date. It's a little unusual to have a deferred commencement date. I'm familiar with the caution that the Clerk and the Parliamentary Counsel Office have around executive powers being able to wait. But, if the objective here is to get rid of something that's not needed, let's wait until that day arrives, when everyone, if they do find themselves in a bit of strife and are needing one of these reports, can in fact get it. I'm sure the Minister can't want a world in which some people who have wealth will get a better justice outcome than those that don't have wealth. And, if that's the case, I'm sure he doesn't want this in just now. I must say—putting it in within 14 days—I am a little concerned that this is just a little bit of posturing around getting stuff done and being able to say, "Look what I've delivered to you."—a kick in the guts for the poor, because that's what it is. And, if that's the kind of delivery this new Government wants, it's really disappointing, because rushing it through and having a 14-day commencement clause is just really unseemly haste. It reflects very poorly on the Government. And, of course, I do want to say this because this hasn't gone to select committee. I'm saying what a lot of other people would say: taihoa; just hold your horses; there is no massive urgency here. And certainly the papers that I've read from the department give that sense: let's just slow this down a bit, because there are other options; there's a whole lot of administrative abilities that the Minister and the Legal Services Commissioner have which could equally easily be used to ensure that quality reports are given, by qualified people, at reasonable prices, when they're required. You don't need legislation for that. That's one of the first rules. So let's not get this coming into force in 14 days from, essentially, today if the Minister has his way with the legislation as it appears on the Order Paper. Let's just wait a little. Let's wait for the day when we reach the goal that he and I agree on: that we have equal access for all, whether rich or poor, regardless of means. So I hope he will support that amendment. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I'd just like to make a brief comment in relation to clause 2, on the commencement. The point I'd like to make is the fact that 14 days is just not enough. It's a sweeping change to access to justice, and that period of time after Royal ascent for this to become law in New Zealand is just undemocratic. There is simply no opportunity for the people directly impacted by this bill to be able to have their voices heard. So my suggestion to the Minister is not only to take a look at the amendment that has been tabled in the name of the Hon Duncan Webb but also to think about what additional consultation should be undertaken as a Treaty partner and also as the Government doing right by the people of New Zealand. In particular, I'd like to point out that we know, through written parliamentary questions, that the Ministry of Justice has not undertaken, commissioned, or received any research about the impact of section 27 reports on reoffending. So, given the fact that there has been no evidence base to demonstrate that what is being done through this passage, surely that warrants a slowing up of the passage of this legislation. Surely as part of a fair, democratic process and as good lawmakers, we should have some understanding about the impacts that this law will make in our community. How can we even possibly understand what that impact is when the very ministry responsible for doing this work has come back and publicly stated, through the written parliamentary questions system, that there has been no research done to demonstrate what the impacts of section 27 reports are on reoffending. So, for that reason, I think it is really important that we hear from the Minister what the pressure is here, what the huge rush is to make this bill law immediately, to bypass public submissions, to bypass any kind of thorough or rigorous assessment as to what it's going to do. It kind of looks like it's just a tick box for the 100-day plan. It kind of just looks like this Government wants to look tough and say they're doing some stuff. But really, when you go to that next level and say, "Why are we bypassing a public submissions process? Why has the ministry not had the ability to do any rigorous research or assessment of the impact of this law change?", it does kind of look like window dressing to me. So, really, for the Minister to speak to the point as to why this bill is being pushed through so quickly under urgency—why is it being enacted 14 days after the Royal assent? And what is the rush to bypass some of the fundamental facets of our democracy? Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Mr Chair, and for the contributions of the two former Ministers. We're debating the clause about when this Act would come into force, which will be 14 days after the bill is passed. That is to give people some notice and to have a process for applications or requests for approval for funding for these reports to be approved by the commissioner before the two weeks, so that people have some time to get the applications in, if they are currently under way, and they can be approved up until two weeks from when this bill is passed. So that's the two-week period. In terms of people being prepared, well, I'm sure all members of the House are conscious of the fact, when we talk about democracy, that this was something that was very well flagged during the election last year and throughout the year—widespread concern about the increase in money being spent on this, going from $40,000 to $7.5 million in a short period of time. Mr Webb suggests that we should never bring in the commencement of this legislation, and that doesn't surprise me—in terms of a Government that was prepared just to sit on their hands while all this money was spent and other legal aid meantime struggled. In terms of the debate, it isn't about the urgency in the House or the select committee process, but I would make the point that the cultural reports were introduced in the early 2000s, about 20 years ago. They were supposed to be oral reports. At some point, around six years ago, a change occurred and they started to be funded out of legal aid. There was no select committee process or Government decision around that change—it just occurred—and the funding went up very, very substantially. So that is why we are keen to make that change in a timely fashion in order to deal with the issues that we are concerned about in this bill. Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you very much for the opportunity to make a contribution. My colleague the Hon Ginny Andersen talked about the next layer, which, thankfully, the Minister actually touched on, which was the sorts of practicalities of it starting within two weeks—sorry, making sure that the Royal assent is 14 days, or two weeks after. He said for those people to get their application in in that time, before that period ends. My question to the Minister with respect to that is: is there flexibility, or is the Minister and the department of a mind, where there are unforeseen circumstances within those two weeks, or, where there is a known backlog in a District Court, whether or not those who are affected by that backlog have some grace here to make sure that they get their application in in respect of the time line that the Minister has just described? I think that's important. We know that in many of our courts around the country, there are significant challenges there. There have been backlogs, and we just want to make sure, for absolute clarity from the Minister, given the fact that this hasn't gone to a select committee and we need an opportunity to flesh out a number of the matters—and I pick up on the words that the Minister has just used in his contribution, saying that those people can get their applications in within the two weeks and that the commencement date is 14 days after the Royal assent. Given that he said that people can get their applications in before then, we're seeking clarity here—just a bit more clarity—about whether or not that impacts on those who, for whatever unforeseen circumstances, can't get it in in that time or, through a court process, it's delayed, and whether or not there will be any flexibility given to the consideration of their application within what would have normally been the 14 days before the Act comes into force. Then, of course, without crystal-ball gazing, there are challenges that happen in certain places. We've had a bad bout of weather here in Wellington yesterday, which I thought was going to shut the city down. But there are these kinds of occasions, and the second part to my question for the Minister is whether or not there's any flexibility here, because, obviously, once this goes through, that's that—that's 14 days. That's where I agree with my colleague the Hon Dr Duncan Webb about whether or not we can come up with an agreement to buy some time here for those who are currently in the system and—what I expect, and as the Minister said—for those to put their applications through. I suspect there's going to be a flood of them. I suspect there's going to be plenty of them, and will there be enough time to process them, with the strict 14 days that we are debating here in this particular clause? That's my question to the Minister. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to endorse all the other contributions that members on this side of the Chamber have made in this section of the debate, and I want to talk to a few new points. I see that the Minister is taking some advice there, so I just do want to make sure that he picks up on the points that I want to make around the commencement date. I fully endorse the comments that have already been made about reasons and concerns and questions that they have about the commencement date. What I want to focus on in particular around the commencement date is that this legislation is being rushed through under urgency. It hasn't had the benefit of a select committee process. I know from reading numerous reports that there are many organisations who are opposed to this proposal by the Minister who have not been consulted and who have not been given an opportunity to participate in this debate on the proposals that are being put forward here. This is not good lawmaking, and I would just point out that the New Zealand Law Society, the Māori Law Society, the Bar Association, and several defence lawyers are all seriously criticising this move by the Government and the Minister. Now, what I want to identify in terms of commencement is how ready the justice system for what are going to be the perhaps unintended consequences, although I think that the Minister should be aware of the potential consequences of this, because I'm reading from the Newsroom article about this proposed change. Now, why I'm saying that we need to consider a delay in the commencement of this legislation is because I ask: are our prisons ready for the number of people who could potentially have longer sentences, with more going into prisons in the first place and for longer—because we simply do not have the information. The departmental disclosure report and the regulatory impact statement are bereft of this information. However, what I want to point to in the Newsroom report is that officials carried out data analysis in December to estimate the added costs of incarceration. I don't want to focus on costs; I want to focus on the number of beds. We know that our prison system is already stretched. It said, for example: "For those currently serving a sentence of over two years' imprisonment, an additional 136 beds would be required. For those serving a sentence of two years' imprisonment or less, an additional 120 beds would be required. And for those currently serving a sentence of home detention, 124 beds would be required." My questions to the Minister are: is he confident that our prison system has the capacity and the resources to be able to deal with an increase, which is the likely effect of this decision that he is making today, and which this clause proposes is ready to go—up and running—in 14 days? So can the Minister please stand and explain to us that he is confident that the corrections system, the prisons, and the justice system are going to be able to deal with these types of projected numbers? Can he confidently say that to the committee this afternoon? Mr Chair, I have a further contribution, but it is different to this issue, and I would like to have a response from the Minister on this particular issue before I move on to my next point on the commencement date and the ability of the judiciary to do their job in such a short time when he is fundamentally changing their processes. So I would like to take a call on that, once I've had answers to those questions. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): I'm happy to tell the member that, yes, I am confident that the corrections system will be able to handle this change. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I'm glad the Minister of Justice was able to stand here and say he is confident that they are going to be able to provide these additional prison beds for those who are likely to have different sentencing outcomes in the absence of this report. The second point I want to make, and question I want to ask, is: is the Minister confident that the judiciary is prepared for these changes, which are proposed in this section to be implemented, to commence in just 14 days? Now, the reason I ask that is that what we have heard from several who have commented on these proposed changes is that the lawyers and the judges still have an obligation to have this information but they would have to get it in more painstaking ways. They anticipate the filing of Oranga Tamariki, medical, school, police, national intelligence application records to detail a defendant's deprivation, harm, and disadvantage, and so they'll have to engage cultural experts, psychologists, alcohol and drug therapists, as well as engage with whānau and family who may have literacy deficits and are intimidated by the courtroom. Counsel will need to spend more time obtaining data, and the courts may be given raw data which is voluminous and time-consuming to review. My question to the Minister is: is the judiciary prepared for this change to take effect in just 14 days' time? Retired District Court Judge David Harvey agreed, saying "judges had an obligation under the principles of the Sentencing Act to consider relevant background factors, so would have to source information previously found in [the] section 27 report[s] in different ways." My question to the Minister is: what consideration has he given to those judges who are required under the legislation to give consideration to these things without the very tool that provided that to them in a more efficient, effective, and fair way? That is what we are debating this afternoon. Can he stand up and please give us, the committee, the confidence that he has given consideration to that, that he believes that the judiciary are going to be able to efficiently and effectively, and in a way that upholds justice for all, deliver on their responsibilities under the legislation. What retired Judge Harvey is saying is it leaves the "question mark over the quality of rehabilitation, given that [this is] a large focus of the section 27 report. The fact of the matter is … as a result of all of this, the courts are going to be deprived of information which they could rely on in the past that would assist in a proper rehabilitative [and a] proper sentence that fulfils the purposes and principles of the Sentencing Act." So, I repeat again, my questions are: do you believe, can you tell us that you have confidence, that in just 14 days' time, the judiciary and our justice system are going to be able to provide fair access to justice for all and proper sentencing in accordance with the principles in the Sentencing Act? I mean, the whole driver behind this Government's push for the removal of section 27 cultural reports is costs and funding—I'll get to that when we debate that in another section. This is about whether the system is ready for this change to take effect in just 14 days given it's being passed under urgency, that there's been no consultation with major organisations and bodies that have known opposition to what is being proposed, we have those who have served in the judiciary saying it's particularly unworkable, going to be more time-consuming, and cost more. So can the Minister please answer those questions? Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): Very happy to answer the question. I am confident that in the 14 days after this bill is passed and before the Act comes into force, the—I cannot speak on behalf of the judiciary, of course, but what I can say is that they will continue to have many tools available to them to understand the background of offenders, and within 14 days. That is sufficient time for this change to be made. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. Just in relation to the commencement of this bill, I note that in the very brief legislative statement that we have received, it specifies that this bill supports the Government's priorities to restore law and order. I was just wondering if the Minister of Justice would like to say: is he relying on this bill alone to be able to restore law and order to New Zealand, or are there some other things that he's doing? In particular— CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Can I ask the member to relate this to the commencement date, please. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Yes. Yes. So is he expecting law and order to be restored to New Zealand 14 days after the commencement of this bill? HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): I'd like to ask the Minister of Justice about the practical implications for those involved in these cases, because you've not only got the judiciary but you've also got lawyers involved in the cases, who, if you're bringing this in in 14 days, have already been well on the way down a case. So what they will have done is made decisions about how they're going to run that defence or that case or that plea. This presents a situation, from what I can see, where the information's still relevant to the court finding, but the written report, that they would usually use as the way of achieving this, won't be something that is available to them unless they're willing to pay or their client is willing to pay for that. So they will have to look at other means and they will have to structure that. What I would expect the Law Commission, the Law Society, and the various law societies to do is to actually talk about the role that the judges and the lawyers would play and the way they would do this in a structured and fair way to everyone. So everybody needs this time to adjust to a different system because they still need to take into account these factors. Now, one of the concerns I have is that it seems like we're replacing a report, which is seen as expensive, with oral evidence. Oral evidence is not cheap. It is often something that is going to require costs on behalf of the witness—it may be an expert witness, which is going to really blow out the costs. You also have to consider the cost of the judge themselves and the staff around that, because they're going to have to consider in the way that the case is being heard, and they're going to have to decide how involved they get. So in many of the jurisdictions, the courts will take a more active role if, in fact, that isn't being done by anyone else. So has there been any consideration of running a trial in this, where you could just do this in one place and set it up against the other system and look at the consequences, so there weren't unintended consequences. What I'm concerned about is the blowout of cost, the delay, the impact on the various players, including, actually, the victims of this. Because what we have, very clearly, in the provision itself, is an issue over really looking at that rehabilitative nature—what is the situation like for that individual? It's not just about culture in the narrow sense; it's about community, it's about the placement of those people, it's about the chances of reoffending in those alternatives. So if, in fact, we're going down this pathway, has the Minister considered doing a trial—which I'd be in favour of a lot of legislation doing—extending out this for a little while, while that trial took place? I'm sure you could get more cooperation across the committee to look at that kind of scenario. So, like, do a trial of this, don't do the whole thing, and measure those consequences, but also give a chance for the lawyers themselves, and the psychologists perhaps, who are involved in this work, and the judiciary to make plans as to how to provide justice in the situation where these reports are no longer relied upon. Thank you. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to ask a question about the commencement date to the Minister of Justice—and I thank him for his engagement on this section with my colleagues. But this is a significant part of the bill because it is so swift to make a change which will have a deep impact on people's access to justice, particularly access to justice for Māori, who are most impacted by the section 27 changes that the Minister is proposing. My question about the date is: has the Minister considered transitional and savings provisions in this bill that relate directly to this very fast commencement date? The Hon Peeni Henare touched on this earlier: there is no provision in this bill that the Minister has proposed, and so it relates to the commencement clause because it would be inserted, usually, after a commencement clause, and that is when an amendment would be relevant there. For example, with changes to the extent to which the disbursements are incurred in relation to a report or a statement, whether they are written or oral statements presented in court, of a person called by an offender under section 27 of the Sentencing Act—if there are those in train now, can the Minister give the committee some assurance that those will remain in train and that those will be funded? How many of those are in train now? How many witnesses or expert witnesses do we have appearing at the moment who will be affected in the next 14 days? And is it relevant to create a transitional provision to save those processes which are before the courts now, that are being considered now and should therefore be saved? Also, has the Minister considered extending the commencement date specifically for those situations which are already in train now, where reports are being written, given that those are something which a judge has overseen, has had an involvement in asking for; that counsel have also been involved in asking for; that Parliament should respect the convention of not interfering in? And given that those have already potentially been ordered, does the Minister know how many there are that are in train, and will he make a provision for those that exist now, so that Parliament isn't unduly interfering in business before the courts that exist currently? Thank you. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): No, I haven't considered extending the period beyond 14 days. But what will happen is the two-week time frame is to allow for legal aid providers to be advised of the change. Requests up until commencement could still be approved by the commissioner. Requests approved before the date will then be paid in the date. So requests that have been approved by the commissioner within the 14 days will be paid. Requests can be considered up until the 14 days. CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Just for members' awareness, we are starting to drift into debates which could be better placed in other clauses, so I'll take another call, but I'd just remind members to stick to this particular clause. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Kia ora. Thank you, Mr Chair. I do hope, in terms of notifying legal aid providers within 14 days, the Minister's not using NZ Post, because that might not quite work. That's probably for the Minister for State Owned Enterprises. I do want to talk about commencement and that 14-day period because, as the Minister has just pointed out in terms of that, within that period the legal services agency will have to formulate the notice and what it means for various providers and send it out. This is the point I want to make about the commencement date: providers will have to adjust their practice accordingly, and, in particular, legal aid providers are generally very busy criminal practitioners, and they will want to do right by their clients, and this will create an enormous bulge of work. The reason for that is that what essentially legal aid providers—lawyers—have been doing is subcontracting this bit of evidence, saying, "We need cultural report evidence; I'm really busy, it's not really my area of expertise. Please can you find out about the family circumstances, the cultural background, the victim's circumstance and what the relationships are, and get back to me and I can present it to the court." Now, these practitioners with 150 criminal files on their desk will have to do that themselves. That's not something they're geared up to do within 14 days. These are cases where the reports haven't been commissioned yet and won't be commissioned yet. These are cases that are in train; might not yet have gone to trial so a sentencing report isn't appropriate yet. What will happen is that the burden of this work which will fall upon them will mean they can't possibly satisfy all of their clients and do right by them. So in fact the kind of impact of this, the ripple effects of this will be felt in the legal profession in terms of how they properly serve their clients for six, nine, 12 months, depending on how quickly you can sort out the court backlog. Because the lawyers can't just say, "Oh look, I'm too busy, I can't possibly do your sentencing report. You know, I can't possibly talk to your mum, talk to your brothers and sisters, talk to your kaumātua about what your cultural background is.", and do all of that work, and then get all of those bits of evidence in a presentable form— Helen White: Call the witness. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: "Call the witness," as my friend Helen White said; call the witnesses orally, if necessary, perhaps get letters from them to present to the court because informality is generally OK in those situations. That's all work that this commencement provision doesn't allow for. This is going to be a bomb of work that lands on these practitioners because there's no phasing out. It's just a guillotine where the funding for these reports is stopped but the need for them doesn't and these hard-working criminal practitioners, and I must say the Crown as well—no Crown solicitor I have spoken to thinks this is a good idea because they also want to see this done; they want to see this evidence. So it may well have an impact on the Crown's work as well. I know the Minister came to the Justice Committee and said you want to work on the backlog. This is going to exacerbate it because we don't have a transitional phasing in; it doesn't commence in a period of time for practitioners and judges, prosecutors, and defence lawyers to have time to adjust their frameworks to it. So I'm interested as to whether you've talked or thought about that bottleneck of work that will hit the legal profession as a result of the quick commencement. JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): I move, That debate on this question now close. A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close. Ayes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 54 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6. Motion agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The Hon Duncan Webb's tabled amendment to clause 2 is ruled out of order as referring to an indeterminate in length and not providing sufficient certainty. A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 2 be agreed to. Ayes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 54 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6. Clause 2 agreed to. Clause 3 Principal Act CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): We now come to clause 3. This is the debate on clause 3, the "Principal Act". The question is that clause 3 stand part. No one's going to take a call? A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 3 be agreed to. Ayes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 54 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6. Clause 3 agreed to. New clause 3A CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): We now come to new clause 3A. This is a debate on the Hon Dr Duncan Webb's tabled amendment inserting new clause 3A, replacing the definition of "legal services". The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb's tabled amendment, inserting new clause 3A, be agreed to. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this, although I will just note that I'm surprised that my commencement amendment order was ruled out. I thought I drafted that very carefully. I clearly need to lean on the Clerks a bit more. Hon Paul Goldsmith: You'll have to work harder. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Oh, I will, Mr Goldsmith. I will. In terms of this tabled amendment, look, I just want to make sure that the Minister's objective is achieved, because he seems to be saying, "No legal aid money for sentencing reports." But, as I said earlier in the House, lawyers will now be completing these reports. What a professional person was doing for $1,200, probably $80 an hour, lawyers will now start doing for—you know, legal aid rates are pretty abysmal, but for $120 an hour, because it's part of the work of a lawyer to advocate at sentencing, to gather the evidence, and to present it in as compelling way as they can. Now, if the Minister doesn't want that to happen, then he's going to need this proposed clause 3A, which says that lawyers aren't to do that work. Now, this is really about me saying that if you're going to do this amendment, get it right, because that's what's needed here. So, ultimately, what do you want, Minister? Do you want the lawyers to do this work? Do you want them to spend hours at the highest rate doing this work, or do you want these reports not to be put before the judge for poor people at all? Because that's certainly the narrative that I've heard from you. So I'd invite you to consider this amendment and respond whether your policy is achieved by lawyers doing the work rather than experts, or by the work not being done at all. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I'd just like an opportunity to speak to the proposed amendment, and I'd like to commend my colleague on taking some initiative to strengthen the bill—a very short bill, really. So having a clearer description of legal services and also what's covered in there would actually make it a lot clearer for those who are able to access these services. It's really important that people understand what they are entitled to in terms of access to justice. I think that on this side of the Chamber, you know, there is a real concern that there has not been adequate consideration given to the reduction of available legal services that this bill inevitably will create. So what we really need to be clear on—and the Minister is able to speak to this—is that this bill, effectively, removes legal aid funding for a report or a statement, whether it be oral or written, for a person, and that section stops that information from being heard from not just someone who's an expert but also potentially from family, whānau, or community, that might help that further offending. So we really want to see a clearer definition in that space, and the proposed amendment provides some very clear language in that space that enables you to spell that out. Also it spells it out in relation to anything other than legal aid, including legal advice and representation, and that type of assistance that would enable people to be able to have some confidence when going through the judicial system that they have that expert advice and have been given a way of understanding what can be, for some, a really confusing, foreign, and quite a difficult process to go through, whether victim or offender. So in terms of making access to justice paramount, in terms of removing barriers to people accessing justice, I'd be really interested to hear the Minister's views on including this new clause 3A within the Legal Services Amendment Bill. HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): I want to just take the point a little bit further from my friends who've talked about the concerns they've got about what this will lead to. One of the concerns I raised is because I saw what happened when there were closing-down actions by this legislature of the role of various people in the Family Court. So in that situation, what we saw when we closed down those avenues was others spring up that were way less efficient for the system. So what we ended up with was a whole lot of people told they shouldn't have lawyers in the process and the process got clogged up by a much less focused approach So these reports, while not necessarily your cup of tea, Minister, need to be replaced with something because of the nature of the objectives. What I am concerned about is that if this is going to happen, that there is sufficient direction in the legislation so that that happens in a way that is efficient. So what I've heard the Minister say outside of this Chamber, and I think in in the Chamber in question time, "People just do oral reports." I'd like to know from the Minister—I really would like to know—what does he think that looks like? If somebody does an oral report, does that mean they're bringing in a professional to do it, or does it mean they're bringing in a whānau member to do it? And how is it going to be constrained so that it's focused in the right way, and not just become a complete mess of a long amount of time in front of a judge who's trying to get information out of someone who may or may not be articulate or focused on the issues that the judge needs them to focus on? So I'd like to know about that—how is this practically going to work as far as the Minister's concerned? Has he talked to lawyers about how this will work in that area and what it will look like? And whether, in fact, there will be an issue with equity in that case—whether if you're paying for someone who's going to be focused in that way and know what to do, versus you're not paying for someone and it's a whānau member who turns out best of motives but might not have been through this process a lot of times, might not be using any kind of checklist that it may actually be an issue. So I'd like the Minister to tell me, has he talked to people about this? Because there's no ordinary process for this legislation. Who has he who has he talked to? How does he see the system working in replacement? Does he see the judges taking control of it; the lawyers taking control of it? And what is the place of the oral participation? Who does he expect to participate and how does he expect to do it? And if that is a member of the public—so a whānau member, for example, or a community leader—then isn't the cost being borne by the party for that actually quite a significant cost? Does he know how much it will be in comparison to the cost being borne at the present time by the taxpayer of what has become a very standardised, focused written report? Thank you. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Look, this is clause 4 of the bill, which is the substantial piece in relation to changing the legislation. So it will be worthwhile just outlining what the Government is seeking to achieve. So the broad issue, if I could cast people's minds to a website that is a company led by Harry Tam, a former gang-member, which is touting for business in these cultural reports and saying, "Come to us, get a cultural report.", and, "We've managed to get discounts off sentences of up to 35 percent."—I think was the figure that they referred to. That sort of touting for business for these reports was something that has led over the last six years to a very steady and substantial increase in the outlays for these reports: starting off about 40,000 in 2017 and stepping up to a million and then to 2 million and then to 3 million, and by the time we got to 7.5 million last year and the and the graph was going up like that [Motions a steep incline]. So the trajectory was clear: if we didn't do something about it, we'd be heading for 10 million and then 15 million as the as the industry, the cottage industry, developed. A member asked me who had we talked—well, one of the people that I talked about was the previous Minister of Justice, Kiri Allan, who accepted that there was a problem with this cottage industry developing and that we'd have to do something about it. Now, in the previous Labour Government that would have meant not doing very much, and maybe getting a report and thinking about it, and in 10 years' time maybe considering it. This Government is much more focused and determined to deliver change in a timely fashion, and so we indicated through the campaign that we were going to change that for two reasons. One, because we were concerned about the continued growth of money being spent on these reports, and given that there are many other opportunities for the background of offenders to be considered in such as pre-sentencing reports and many other factors that have been around for a long time. And secondly, we're also concerned about the broader context of very significant discounts being given to sentences over the year. Now, of course everybody in this House will recognise that we should take into account the background of an offender and the challenges that they've had in their upbringing. There's obviously a very strong connection between a deprived background—being a ward of the state, for example, coming from a gang family, and many, many the other elements that are very much to be considered in the understanding of and the sentencing of prisoners. But of course, at the same time, no society can function effectively if people aren't held personally responsible for their actions, and in particular for serious crimes. So there is always an interplay between a background understanding and characteristics of an offender, and also the reality that no society can function if people aren't held responsible for criminal acts. So that that balance between the extent of discounts being offered in this category is an area that we as a Government are concerned about, and there will be further legislation down the line restricting the ability of judges to have a combined total set of discounts more than 40 percent—and that's for future legislation. But the purpose of this legislation is to deal with that rapidly increasing amount of money being spent on what has been described on both sides of the House over the past as a cottage industry. And that is what we're trying to achieve. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Point of order. Mr Chair, just for clarity: the Minister suggests we were looking at clause 4, I had understood we were looking at—supposed to have been 3A. CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): That's correct. This is the debate on your tabled amendment 3A. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Thank you. That was really for clarity. That is my point of order. Minister, I have a question, and the question is: how many reports did Harry Tam provide under this legislation? Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): While I believe that my colleague is probably wanting to have a backwards and forwards with the Minister, which is the purpose of these committee stages— CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Do you want to do that? Hon Paul Goldsmith: Well, I can answer the question. I mean to say, I don't have that figure right in front of me at the moment. There were some and there is an amount of money that's been referred to in the past. The website in particular that I was referring to said that they've conducted "many, many" reports. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): In respect of that, I would challenge the Minister, because either he has not got good advice on the floor of the House, or his written parliamentary answers perhaps need revisiting. Because I asked him that exact question and it was framed as "Please identify the names of the providers and the amounts that were provided to them in the preceding 12 months". And his response was, "We do not keep figures of who gets this money in what amount. All we know about"—all he knows about—"is the amount, the global amount given for these reports across the Legal Aid Budget." So, Minister, I would ask you to either revisit that and be clear to the House, because I put it to you that you have no idea how many report Harry Tam has provided or how much. And it's just your reckon, and it's the kind of laziness with the facts, especially around these important reports that the National Party uses to attack other good practitioners who do prepare these reports, and you slew them by calling them a cottage industry on the back of someone who you don't know has provided a single report. All you know is that he's touting for business. So I would put it to you that you either revisit your written answer or you clarify on the floor of this House that you don't know. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I was listening to the Minister's answers and I have some further questions for the Minister, particularly regarding this, you know, we heard about this cottage industry. We heard about some of the report writers that the Minister named and is taking particular exception to. He talked about some of the effects of the reports that have been written and the effect of that on sentences given, and questioning, you know, whether that was appropriate, and also hinting that they intend to bring in further legislation around that. My question to the Minister is: did he give any real consideration to other options in the regulatory impact statement provided by officials that could have addressed some of those concerns that the Minister had without just wholesale removing—completely scrapping the report funding for section 27 reports? Because to quote one of these articles, "To scrap the report funding completely as a retrograde step and if the information that was usually in those reports is presented to the courts, it would blow out sentencing times and judge times." The options I refer to are: did he consider imposing a cap on the amount of legal aid funding available for section 27 reports? And option 4: did he consider introducing an accreditation system for section 27 report writers? Also, did he consider option 5: amend the Sentencing Act 2002 to introduce a threshold for provision of section 27 reports based on the seriousness of the offence? CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Can I bring the member back to the amendment clause 3A. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Why—I, yes, and I am asking the Minister questions based on the answers that he gave to an earlier contribution. It just raises further questions for me because what the Minister was, I believe, using to justify what they are doing and opposing the suggested amendment, in fact speaks to some of the options that were put in the paper. So my question is: did he give those options? He talked about cottage industry, he talked about Harry Tam, he talked about the quality of the reports, he talked about the outcomes on the sentences, I'm asking the Minister: did he consider—did he give due consideration to any of the other options? And can he tell us why he thought none of those were relevant to the issues that he was raising. JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): I move, That debate on this question now close. A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close. Ayes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 54 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6. Motion agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the Hon Duncan Webb's Tabled Amendment, inserting new clause 3A, be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 54 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6. Noes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. Clause 4 Section 99 amended (Secretary to refer claim to Commissioner for decision) CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): We come now to clause 4. Clause 4 is the debate on clause 4, amendment to section 99 of the principal Act. The question is that clause 4 stand part. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): This may be the bit where the Minister stands up and gives a soliloquy. Hon Paul Goldsmith: I can do it again. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Well, I didn't understand it the first time, so perhaps I would the second time, Minister. Who knows? Look, Minister, I do know that you have the interests of the justice system at heart. I guess I really would like to understand from you how you think this will impact the wider justice system. Of course, we're all grown-ups here. We've all read the regulatory impact statement and the disclosure, and we know that you've received advice which is contrary to the course of action that you've adopted: that the status quo, in fact, was as good as what you're doing now and other options were presented to you. Look, this is essentially an introductory contribution in the sense that I would invite you to do more than say "It's in our hundred-day plan", because New Zealanders are not naive. They know that when you come to a question like this, it's tough. You've mentioned the work of Kiri Allan before you and the fact that there was inconsistent quality and value in these reports. We agree that we need to make sure that the best possible advice is delivered to judges and that the best possible value for money is given to the Legal Services Agency for its legal aid spend. We agree. But what we know is that what you're doing here is a very blunt tool. I accept that you went to the hustings and you won—and you went to the hustings with a whole lot of proposals. But I put to you that you would satisfy your election promises by addressing the flaws which perhaps exist in the current system and not simply cutting out the entire liver of the legal system and not just the little cancer that was touching on it. Because that's what you've done: you've taken out a fundamental part of our criminal justice system—just thrown it away—and it's going to really affect people. So I would invite you—I know there's a little joke that you spoke a little earlier in a general sense when perhaps it was inappropriate. But I'd invite you now to just respond to that: why you feel the need simply to do exactly what you promised, where a more nuanced and kind of grown-up approach would actually be better for everyone, Minister. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Mr Webb, for the opportunity. The broader context of this, of course, is in the election last year with—all members across the House were out talking to many, many New Zealanders; knocking on doors. The very clear message we got on the doorstep was the number one issue of concern was the cost of living. Number two—consistently—around most parts of New Zealand was a concern around law and order, and that is why there has been a commitment in this Government to restore law and order as one of our key priorities. This bill forms one very small part of that broader agenda, and so there are many other pieces of legislation and Government decisions that are being made in that broader context. Such as changing the focus to reduce the prison population by 30 percent—which the previous Government focused on regardless of what was going on into the community—and switching our focus to reducing the number of victims of crime. A second one is the gang legislation that we'll be discussing later, and there are many more to come. This bill is a very focused one which is dealing with a small area of the legal aid spending and the judicial process where, through the sentencing part of the legislation, there are a whole lot of things that judges need to consider—and the background of the offender is very much part of that in a number of elements of the sentencing law. There is one particular clause, clause 27, which is talked about in the context of cultural reports. This was introduced in the early 2000s and, for a very long period of time, it was supposed to be an oral report to give some background—generally from family members—on the background of the offender to be considered. Then, about six years ago, it became available for legal aid funding and there has been a very steady increase. So does the House—just so people understand: in 2016-17, there was $38,000 spent on these reports, and then if I go every second year it just continually upwards. So 2019-20, it was $1.5 million; 2021-22, it had gone up to $5.6 million; and it kept on accelerating. So 2023, it was up to $7.2 million and it was just taking off steadily. This last year, it's dropped a fraction, and that is clearly a reaction to the public pressure that National and our coalition partners who were also concerned about this were raising. So what we were concerned about was an industry was developing whereby all these reports were being written. Now, previous members have said, "Well, did you consider doing other things?" Yes, we did. You could consider regulating the industry, and that would be a very Labour Government thing to do: to regulate the industry and get some regulator in to decide whether these reports were good reports or bad reports, and probably requiring an MA in history or criminology or something for the report writers, and you could set up a system to regulate it and we didn't think that that was a very clever thing to do. Another thing you could have done was to repeal section 27, full-stop. Some people were advocating for that and we decided not to do that. We have left the section on the book, but we have decided that our focus is not to allow this industry to keep on growing and growing and growing. Because of the fundamental cost—and $7.5 million might not seem like a lot to members on the other side of the House, but in the context of legal spending it's quite significant and we think that money could be better spent elsewhere in the system. So that was the purpose that we're trying to achieve. TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central): Kia ora. My questions refer back to the Minister's answers that he provided on clause 3A but were supposed to be for clause 4. I wanted to ask, firstly, whether the Minister could tell us more about who he understands to be preparing cultural reports? Because I didn't get an answer to that. The Minister spoke specifically about Harry Tam preparing cultural reports, so my question is around understanding why that's a problem. Why is it a problem that somebody who understands the cultural backgrounds that a lot of people who are being sentenced have experienced—whether they're born into gang whānau. I would remind the Minister, you don't get to choose which family you're born into. If you're born into a gang whānau, well, there's nothing you can do about that. So I want to understand why is it a problem that Harry Tam is trying to make sure that people have more reasonable and more effective sentences that actually address the cause of the crime, as opposed to somebody creating these reports who has no concept, no reality, of what a majority of people who are incarcerated go through and what their backgrounds and upbringings look like. So what's the problem with that? The reason I want to know that too is because I've heard senior members of this Government talking a lot about Harry Tam, and it seems to me like there's a real beef with him as an individual. To me, this bill is consistent with this Government's approach to cracking down on gangs, but not actually speaking to the people who have mana in that area. You can talk to people who are leaders in that space who have been helpful in achieving the goals of this House. You look at the influential gang leaders who supported the Government in making sure that more members of their community were vaccinated during the COVID-19 lockdown. You can look at the woman chapter of the Mongrel Mob, who are working to address violence that has happened through the State system and addressing those. There's a whole lot of good stuff that is also happening, and you could talk to them and ask them whether they think that some of these rules will actually be effective. Because you can't make rules about people and expect them to follow those rules without actually talking to them in the first place. My third question was just repeating the question that Willow-Jean asked around the accreditation system and whether you considered whether there could be a system whereby particular people were able to prepare these section 27 reports, as opposed to just throwing the baby out with the bathwater altogether. Something else that you mentioned in one of your answers was that section 27 cultural reports are a very small part of the legal aid distribution. I wanted to understand a bit more why it's being targeted under urgency. Is it because those reports are ones which support minority communities? Because it seems like this Government's got legislation going through this week that targets gang members, again. That's 8,000 in our country—8,000 people out of 5 million people. Again, this is a bill that targets a very small portion of the legal aid fund, and what I'm trying to understand is what is the rationale behind your approach to law and order when it affects such a small number of people? Particularly when the small number of people that are impacted are minority communities—communities that are already overrepresented in our justice system: Māori, Pacific people, poor people, and people who are born into gangs or are in gangs. Those are the people who are being targeted by these law and order moves. So those are my questions and I hope that you'll be able to address them. Thank you. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): Look, the only thing I'd say to that member is, of course, Māori are disproportionately victims of crime as well, and they have as much interest as anybody else in society of ensuring that we restore law and order and that there are consequences for serious crime, and that people are held to account for their actions, because everybody in New Zealand has an equal interest in ensuring that we are able to live in a peaceful and safe community. So I don't accept that different groups in society don't have an interest in ensuring that we live safely and peacefully in our communities. In so far as this bill has an impact on any particular group of New Zealanders, it certainly is aimed to benefit all New Zealanders. So that is our focus there. CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, the House is suspended for dinner and will resume at 7.30. Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.