Thursday, 2 May 2024 - Volume 775 Sitting date: 2 May 2024 THURSDAY, 2 MAY 2024 The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m. KARAKIA/PRAYERS TEANAU TUIONO (Assistant Speaker): E te Atua kaha rawa, ka tuku whakamoemiti atu mātou, mō ngā karakia kua waihotia mai ki runga i a mātou. Ka waiho i ō mātou pānga whaiaro katoa ki te taha. Ka mihi mātou ki te Kīngi, me te inoi atu mō te ārahitanga i roto i ō mātou whakaaroarohanga, kia mōhio ai, kia whakaiti ai tā mātou whakahaere i ngā take o te Whare nei, mō te oranga, te maungārongo, me te aroha o Aotearoa. Amene. [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 and humility, for the welfare, peace and compassion of New Zealand. Amen.] PRIVILEGE Committee of the Whole House—Conduct of Member SPEAKER: Members, I've received letters from party whips raising with me a matter of privilege in relation to events in the committee of the whole House last night. There is now a natural justice process to follow, where a member complained about may make representations to the Speaker. I expect to receive any such representations no later than midday on Monday; after that, I'll make my ruling. I remind members that once a matter of privilege has been raised with the Speaker, it is not in order to raise it in the House in any way until the Speaker's made a decision on the matter—Speakers' Rulings 230/4. BUSINESS STATEMENT Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): Thak you, Mr Speaker. Next week, the House will consider the first reading of the Regulatory Systems (Social Security) Amendment Bill, the second reading of the Ngāti Tara Tokanui Claims Settlement Bill, and complete the annual review debates. Wednesday will be a members' day, and on Thursday, there will be a special debate on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee's report on its inquiry into illegal, unregulated, and unreported fishing. Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): I thank the Leader of the House. Could he tell the House when we can expect the fast-track legislation to come back to the House for consideration? Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): Well, the fast-track bill was referred to the Environment Committee on 7 March, from memory, for a full six-month report back. OBITUARIES Sir Robert George Martin KNZM Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Disability Issues): I seek leave to move a motion without notice or debate acknowledging the death of Sir Robert George Martin KNZM. SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I move, That this House acknowledges the death of Sir Robert George Martin KNZM, who was first person with a learning disability or an intellectual impairment to be elected to the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and who was knighted for his lifetime achievements as a disability leader and activism within New Zealand and internationally. As a baby who experienced a brain injury at birth, he spent most of his childhood in State institutions. His experiences led to his activism, advocacy, and a lifelong commitment to break down barriers for people with learning disabilities. It was a proud moment for New Zealand when he was elected to the committee. Many disabled people in New Zealand and internationally are living better lives because of Sir Robert's achievements and commitment, and they will be mourning his passing while celebrating his legacy. I wish for the House to extend their sympathies to his wife Lady Lynda and disabled people both here and internationally. SPEAKER: I'll put that motion. Motion agreed to. PETITIONS, PAPERS, SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLS SPEAKER: There are no petitions that have been presented. There are no papers that have been presented. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation. CLERK: Report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on the petition on Grant Rosoman on behalf of Greenpeace International reports of the Social Services and Community Committee on the petition of Barry-John Murphy and the petition of Donna Bridgeman. SPEAKER: No bills have been introduced. The House comes to oral questions. ORAL QUESTIONS QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS Question No. 1—Finance 1. CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki) to the Minister of Finance: Has she seen any recent reports on fiscal policy? Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Yes. I have seen the latest edition of the IMF's Fiscal Monitor report for New Zealand. Its headline message was—and I quote—"durable and credible fiscal consolidation is needed to reestablish sound public finances, to build budgetary space for priority investments, and to deal with future shocks. … Fiscal tightening would also be an important contribution to completing the last mile of disinflation (especially in economies characterized by excess demand)." Catherine Wedd: Does the IMF's advice apply to New Zealand? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The IMF was in New Zealand recently to conduct its annual review of the economy. It said that New Zealand has a structural fiscal deficit with a higher spending to GDP ratio this year because of the large operating and capital allowances in Budget 2023. It said that in recent years, debt has increased more rapidly in New Zealand than in many other advanced economies, and it said that the Government's fiscal strategy should signal a strong commitment to consolidation. So in answer to the member's question: yes, the IMF's advice very much applies to New Zealand. Catherine Wedd: Does the IMF have any advice about how to implement fiscal consolidation? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes. The IMF recommends gradual, credible, and durable consolidations. It says that these stabilise debt more permanently and increase the likelihood of stronger medium to long term growth. The Government's strategy reflects this approach. Our strategy for managing expenditure is to embed a culture of responsible spending, restore fiscal discipline, right-size the Government's footprint, and improve the efficiency and productivity of spending. A legacy we inherited of elevated and lazy spending will take several Budgets to fix, but the first steps will be taken in Budget 2024. Chlöe Swarbrick: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can the Minister confirm that the IMF also recommended a comprehensive capital gains tax? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I can confirm there are three things that are certain in this world: death, taxes, and the IMF recommending a capital gains tax. Catherine Wedd: Will the Government's fiscal strategy be revised in the Budget? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Government's fiscal strategy, as set out in the Budget Policy Statement, is to return to surplus, put debt on a downward trajectory, and reduce Government spending as a proportion of the overall economy. The Public Finance Act requires the Government to publish a Fiscal Strategy Report alongside the Budget. The Government's fiscal strategy will be unchanged in this report but will contain additional information from the fiscal forecasts and projections. I can promise members that the fiscal strategy will not continue the approach previously adopted of making the books look better by funding $350 million of additional medicines for one year only. Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. Yesterday, we established, and you ruled, that matters of fact can be used in response to a question from the Government's own side. But we also ruled that political commentary on previous policies is out of order, and I would put to you that the last statement in that response would fall into that. SPEAKER: With all due respect, I certainly didn't rule that commentary on past policy was out—I said where it affects a Minister who now has responsibilities, it's not unreasonable for them to comment. I'm not sure that in the commentary just offered by Minister Willis that there was any particular criticism beyond talking about something that was factual reality. Do you dispute that or— Hon Kieran McAnulty: Well, not now that you've ruled. No. SPEAKER: Well, I'm giving you that scope to be able to sort of put your case. Because I do want question time to be as reasonable as it possibly can be so that the public do get answers and that the Opposition can hold the Government to account. Question No. 2—Social Development and Employment 2. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she agree with the Minister of Finance's statement that "Risking higher inflation in the pursuit of unsustainably high employment, just creates the conditions for a more severe hike in interest rates later on to bring inflation back under control"; if so, what does she consider to be "unsustainably high employment"? Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): On matters relating to the Reserve Bank and monetary policy, I have no ministerial responsibility. I have every confidence in the Minister of Finance and her statements. The Government is, of course, keen to remove barriers to work, and see more people shifting off the jobseeker benefit and into work. Judgments that relate to management of the economic cycle and inflation, however, are best considered by the Reserve Bank. Ricardo Menéndez March: Is the Government relying on job losses to lower inflation? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: No. I feel for everybody that is in a position that has lost the opportunity to be in employment. I know that's incredibly stressful for them and their families, which is why we are absolutely focused on supporting more people into work, whether they are newly unemployed or whether they have been unemployed for a period of time. We will work with them to support them back into employment. Ricardo Menéndez March: What percentage of the working-age population would she expect to be receiving jobseeker support at a time when unemployment has risen to 4.3 percent and is projected, by some economists, to go even higher? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Unfortunately, we do know of the incredibly challenging economic times that we've inherited. Treasury have forecast the jobseeker numbers to go up to a 198,500. That is a horrendous number of New Zealanders that will be without their own source of income. So, that is why the Ministry of Social Development (MSD)—we are doing our best to reduce the number of people on the jobseeker benefit, to support them into employment, to give them greater opportunities and choices in life. Ricardo Menéndez March: Will she commit to ensuring MSD supports people receiving a jobseeker benefit as a result of recent job losses into jobs that match their skills and aspirations, and if so, how? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As I said, it's incredibly challenging when anyone loses their job at any time. Unfortunately, that has been happening across the country now for quite some time, and what we do want to see is that New Zealanders are able to return to employment. Unfortunately, in some instances, that will mean they have to look at a different career, a different pathway to provide the opportunity for them to be in work. Families—individuals—need to make choices that are in their family's best interests. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: Is she comfortable with people losing their jobs as a result of increased unemployment being driven to jobs that pay substantially less than what they were earning before losing their job? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As I've said before, I accept that it is incredibly challenging and stressful for anyone who has lost their employment. What we want to see is individuals are given the support where they need it to help themselves return to employment. Not for one moment will I allow that member to suggest that that is something that anyone in this House is happy about. That is incredibly distressing for individuals, and we are absolutely focused—we are absolutely focused on supporting people back to employment. We inherited a cost of living crisis and a state of the economy that was going so far backwards, businesses everywhere were losing staff. Whether its private or public sector, anyone losing a job—it's incredibly distressing for them. We must support them back into employment. Ricardo Menéndez March: Will she commit to ensuring MSD matches people with jobs that align with their skills, qualifications, and aspirations? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I'm not sure that I can say it any more clearly, but for people who lose their job, being back into work is important for them and their ability to put a roof over their head and food on the table. Sometimes that means making challenging choices, but it is about supporting people back into work. Question No. 3—Foreign Affairs 3. Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Does he stand by his criticisms of the critics of AUKUS, including his statement about Hon Bob Carr that "he is nothing more than a Chinese puppet"? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Yes, particularly those comments that highlighted the fact that critics don't know what they don't know regarding the strategic challenges New Zealand faces; that they malign the agencies of State charged with collecting and analysing, for their Government, intelligence that informs our view about the challenging strategic environment in the Pacific; that Pillar 2 is a technology-sharing mechanism and not a military alliance; that the critics were silent like lambs ever since October 2021, when that member's Government started considering New Zealand's involvement with AUKUS—the same Labour Government that sanctioned officials to initiate discussions with AUKUS partners in 2023 but who now act like lions, following the change of Government. And one last thing: as for Bob Carr, it appears we've been late to the party. Here, I refer to an article in the Australian Financial Review dated 8 November 2018 that anticipated my remarks. It says, "How Bob Carr became China's Pawn". Oh, by the way, can I just finish by saying, look, perhaps with his extensive legal knowledge, the member can explain the difference between a puppet and a pawn. Hon David Parker: Is the former leader of the ACT Party the Hon Richard Prebble nothing more than a Chinese puppet for writing his recent article entitled "It is lunacy to join a military alliance aimed at our biggest trading partner"? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: What Mr Prebble is doing is what so many others have done, and which that member and his colleagues, including what former Ministers Andrew Little and the Hon Peeni Henare over there could have done, and including Jacinda Ardern—they could have advised: "We started this conversation way back in September 2021, three years ago." So if they were informed then and they've been silent ever since, it suggests that they've got political bias. But in Mr Prebble's case, he did write a book called I've Been Thinking—and I wish you would do that now. Hon David Parker: Is the former leader of the National Party Don Brash nothing more than a Chinese puppet for writing his article "Why on earth would we join Aukus in any form?" Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The former leader of the National Party—due to his colleagues being here, I have to say he has many, many skills, and they're quite exceptional in some cases. But they aren't in foreign policy. Hon David Parker: Is the Hon Paul Keating, the former Prime Minister of Australia, nothing more than a Chinese puppet for calling the AUKUS pact "the worst deal in history"? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I think that member should watch that former member of the Australian Parliament's body language and not rely so much upon what he's saying now. In short, Mr Keating is making comments that his own Labor Party in Parliament, in the Senate, and in the House of Commons in Canberra don't in any way or shape support; nor do I suspect does the Hon Penny Wong, the Foreign Minister. Hon David Parker: Why can't the Minister understand New Zealanders' concerns about the promotion of AUKUS when, less than two weeks ago, he upped the ante by saying he saw "powerful reasons for New Zealand engaging practically with [AUKUS]"? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Can I tell that member that one of the parts about having a legal training is you make sure you put the rider on it, and that very paragraph closes with the words "when the parties mutually agree that the time is appropriate". We set out very clearly last night that we haven't even had a chance to consider the matters that they began their discussion on or conclude them, or have even been asked by the AUKUS partners to be a part of it, and if that request comes, then we'll have to examine here—and, hopefully, across party political lines—whether we should or not. Now, that's the open environment that we've been operating in the past. Why is the process that Labour started all of a sudden now being painted so foully? Hon David Parker: Why is the Minister blind to the fact that Kiwis saw this as yet another lurch from this National-led Government while they're still reeling from other surprises like the reversal of tobacco controls to fund tax cuts, using fast track to override environmental laws by ministerial fiat, and multibillion-dollar tax cuts for landlords? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, can I just say that I'm not certain who wrote those questions, but it doesn't sound like the member did. Hon David Parker: I did. I'm very happy—I wrote them myself. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, that member's far too clever to make those mistakes. For a start, the first thing we did about the tobacco controls was put the tax up on cigarettes. Was that not noticed last December, or do people just want to run their own convenient argument all the time, followed by so many people up there [Points to the press gallery], who began that in the first place? And the second thing— Hon David Parker: The member's in trouble. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, no, no, the member is not in trouble; in fact, he quite enjoys it. I'm going to have to find a new profession—this one's getting too easy! The truth is that there's no lurch. We were left with a massive fiscal disaster—borrowing like there's no tomorrow, like an eight-armed octopus with no restraint—and we're going to bring this country back to control. We're going to bring our economy, as some leader has said, back on track, and, as a more profound leader said, take back our country. Question No. 4—Health 4. Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam) to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has the Government made regarding fetal alcohol spectrum disorder? Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): Last week at Papakura Marae, I announced that the coalition Government is taking action on fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD). This announcement means that hundreds of New Zealand families affected by fetal alcohol spectrum disorder will benefit from a new focus on prevention and treatment. FASD is a condition which has been under-recognised and under-supported for too long. This announcement changes that. Dr Hamish Campbell: Why was it important for the Government to take action on FASD? Hon Dr SHANE RETI: This announcement was important because we know that FASD is one of the leading causes of preventable intellectual and neurodevelopmental disability. Every day, an estimated five Kiwi kids are born with FASD. It's a condition which significantly challenges lifelong learning and development, and makes things very difficult for families, caregivers, and communities. This announcement offers actions and hope. Dr Hamish Campbell: What are the new initiatives that will be introduced following this announcement? Hon Dr SHANE RETI: Five new initiatives are being introduced as part of this work. These include publishing new FASD clinical diagnostic guidelines and offering training to health professionals on how to use these new guidelines, with an aim to have 30 trained by the end of the year. We'll also be establishing a new community-led FASD pilot programme to support people and families, and we'll promote a national prevention campaign to help raise awareness of its impacts. We will also support people to make positive choices to help prevent children being born with FASD. Finally, we will work to revitalise the expired FASD action plan. Dr Hamish Campbell: Why was this announcement a priority for the Government? Hon Dr SHANE RETI: This announcement was a priority because we are a Government that is laser-focused on improving public services like health and education for all New Zealanders. An estimated five Kiwi kids are born with FASD every day, with significant social and economic impacts. This programme of work supports compelling evidence about the effectiveness of prevention and better diagnosis, and will help improve the lives of many New Zealanders. Our Government will continue to rebuild the economy so that we can afford better public services that support programmes like this. Question No. 5—Children 5. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister for Children: Does she stand by her statement that "Oranga Tamariki needs to get back to its core focus, which is care and protection of our young people"? Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): Yes. I'd like to see a system where every child and young person that is brought to the attention of Oranga Tamariki is assessed and has the help based on their needs, not on everyone else's needs. Oranga Tamariki has grown, it has become too broad in its focus, and we need to get back to its core purpose, which is the care and protection of children and young people. I want to see a system where children and young people come first. Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How is disestablishing the International Child Protection Unit, which investigates cases on cross-border child sexual and labour exploitation, protecting our children? Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I have been advised that there is no proposal to disestablish the international child protection and intercountry and domestic adoption services teams. What is proposed is to bring both teams together under one manager for adoptions and international case work, and it's my expectation that the best interests of the children and young people will be at the forefront of any final decision in the future structure. This work will continue. Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How is cutting the lawyers, who are called on to do things like urgently responding to child safety concerns and abuse in State care, protecting children? Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I am advised that front-line staff roles are not to be considered for cuts, and lawyers are not classed as front-line staff. I am advised that front-line staff roles that are considered to be children's workers are defined in section 23 of the Children's Act, and lawyers are not front-line workers. Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How is a hiring freeze at Oranga Tamariki protecting our children? Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Oranga Tamariki is currently under a restructure proposal. I've been advised that the chief executive has released this proposal on a future structure for Oranga Tamariki. Consultation is still ongoing, and no final decisions have been made. Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Does she agree that services like counselling, social workers in schools, intensive family support, parent programmes, and early intervention protect children? Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Absolutely. But what we need to do when we're looking at a restructure is make sure that all services are actually producing the best results for our young people, and that's what this restructure is about. No final decisions have been made. Hon Nicola Willis: Is there any evidence that the considerable and unprecedented build-up in back-office staff at Oranga Tamariki under the previous Government led to children being any safer? Hon KAREN CHHOUR: It shows that bigger Government departments may not necessarily mean better results for young people. I will refer you to the Safety of Children in Care report, that during July 2022 and June 2023, 519 children in care experienced harm, even though we had bigger Government departments. Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Why, then, has the Minister not confirmed funding beyond June this year to community organisations that provide these services that I just mentioned? Hon KAREN CHHOUR: It is normal to review contracts in an annual process, and I expect that these reviews will prioritise the outcomes for children. Some of these decisions are still Budget-sensitive, and we will find out more when the Budget is announced. Question No. 6—Justice (Firearms) 6. CAMERON LUXTON (ACT) to the Associate Minister of Justice (Firearms): What firearms safety message, if any, does she have for New Zealanders taking part in the opening weekend of duck-shooting season? Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice (Firearms)): For an estimated 60,000 New Zealanders, the opening weekend of duck-shooting season is an eagerly awaited occasion. Old friends and families get together to celebrate this time-honoured tradition and spend quality time with each other in the outdoors. To ensure that everyone has a good weekend, it's important that licensed firearms owners revise the seven basic rules of firearms safety and adhere to them at all times. Cameron Luxton: Are there any particular firearms safety rules that duck shooters should pay extra attention to this weekend? Hon NICOLE McKEE: While all of the firearms safety rules are important, rule No. 2—always point your firearm in a safe direction—is particularly relevant— Hon Ginny Andersen: Especially if it's an MSSA. Hon NICOLE McKEE: —to duck shooting. With multiple hunters sharing a maimai or blind together, while in close proximity, they need to be extra aware of where their muzzle is pointed and remember to always treat every firearm as being loaded. And just in answer to a rebuttal that came from the other side there, we do not use military-style semi-automatics for duck shooting, so perhaps you would like to educate yourself on what's actually being used. Cameron Luxton: What other tips does she have for duck shooters? Hon NICOLE McKEE: Shotguns are used for duck shooting, and unlike rifles— SPEAKER: Just a—[Interruption] Sorry, just a minute. I'll call the Minister a minute—just sit down for a minute. Just think about that question: "What other tips does she have for successful duck shooting?" There is no way there is a "Minister for Duck Shooting" in this country, so I will ask Mr Luxton to rephrase his question. Cameron Luxton: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and can I ask it in a different way, perhaps? SPEAKER: Well, you'll have to be good to get this one over the line. Cameron Luxton: OK, sure. Why is it important to check your firing zones when duck shooting? SPEAKER: No, no, I'm sorry. One more try. Cameron Luxton: OK. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Why does the Minister think that duck shooting needs to have special attention given to it when it involves firearms? SPEAKER: Make it brief. Hon NICOLE McKEE: Shotguns are used for duck shooting. Unlike rifles, they fire a big spread of pellets over a very small area, and so it's important that while they're in the air, we take extra, important security and safety measures to keep each other and those around us safe. Question No. 7—Building and Construction 7. GREG FLEMING (National—Maungakiekie) to the Minister for Building and Construction: What announcements has the Government made around streamlining building consent changes? Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): I have a different category of advice. The Government is making it easier for minor changes to be made to a building consent so building a home is easier and more affordable. It takes far too long to build anything in New Zealand. New data from Stats New Zealand, released in April, shows that it takes around 569 days on average for a home to be built after it receives a building consent. This means that once you account for the time it takes to issue a consent in the first place, it takes nearly 600 days to build a house in New Zealand—especially if there are delays during duck shooting season. In the face of a cost of living crisis, this is simply too long and the Government is doing something about it. Greg Fleming: Why is the Government making these changes? Hon CHRIS PENK: Well, unclear regulations add unnecessary delays to building. For example, Kiwis who need to swap out comparable building products in the event of a shortage will often have to submit a completely new building consent application or wait for that specific product to become available. That's why the Government is clarifying the definition of "minor variation" and introducing minor customisations to the Building Act. This will provide more flexibility, which in turn will help reduce delays and lower the cost of building and renovating. Greg Fleming: What are some examples of minor changes to a building consent that will now be possible? Hon CHRIS PENK: Well, some examples of possible minor variations include replacing one brand or product, such as plasterboard, with a comparable product from a different brand, putting a window where a door was initially planned, or a mirror image of a room's layout to maximise sunlight or to work within a specific landscape. On current settings, any of these changes would likely require a whole new, separate building consent. But, soon, thanks to these changes, Kiwi builders will simply be able to get on with the job. Greg Fleming: And what other changes has the Government made to make it easier to build in New Zealand? Hon CHRIS PENK: So far, the Government has already announced the package of changes that are designed to reduce delays and drive down costs. In the last couple of months alone, we have advised the removal of artificial barriers to the use of overseas building products; brought forward a review of the earthquake-prone buildings regime and extending remediation deadlines while the review is under way; exempted small building products—excuse me, projects—under $65,000 value from paying the building levy; required councils to submit time frames for building-consent applications; and, finally, raised the height thresholds for dam safety regulations from 1 to 4 metres. This is all part of the Government's plan to rebuild the economy so that Kiwis can get ahead. Question No. 8—Tertiary Education and Skills 8. Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour) to the Minister for Tertiary Education and Skills: What actions, if any, has she taken to disestablish Te Pūkenga? Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for Tertiary Education and Skills): I thank the member for her question. I have sent a new letter of expectation in December 2023, setting out my desire that Te Pūkenga cease its centralisation programme of work and focus on achieving greater regional decision making. I briefed Cabinet in February about the issues in the sector, with the result that Cabinet agrees that we take decisions to disestablish Te Pūkenga and consult on a proposed replacement model this quarter, as outlined in the Prime Minister's action plan. I have commissioned from officials, design options and a legislative framework for a new system to put into consultation later in the year. I have met with my ministerial colleagues as recently as Monday this week to discuss my approach, and I have met with industry—again, as recently as this morning I was at Hutt Gas & Plumbing, who have 12 apprentices. As a result of my expectations, Te Pūkenga have started several actions in response to the Government's stated direction. They are decentralising operations, they have put in place regional leaders and delegated more decision making to the regions, they have begun to reduce the size of head office and returned staff to their regions, and they have begun removing Te Pūkenga branding. Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Is one of the meetings she referred to in response to oral question No. 8 on 19 December 2023 the meeting that an attendee described to Newshub as "a total s**tshow"? Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: As I said, I've had a range of meetings. I have had meetings with industry. I have had meetings with colleagues. I have had meetings with polytechnics. I have had meetings with community leaders. In fact, I was in Whangārei recently where I met with the mayors, iwi, chambers of commerce, and industry, and businesses from that area. Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Point of order. It was a very specific question about a particular meeting—as to whether or not it was an "s**tshow", as described by Newshub. So it was a very specific question and I wonder if she could address it—it needs a yes or no answer, really. SPEAKER: I'm sorry; the question that was asked was not at all specific, in my opinion, and the answer that was given was satisfactory—beyond satisfactory—for addressing the question. Hon Chris Bishop: Does she agree that the Te Pūkenga model set up by the previous Government is in fact an "s**t show"? SPEAKER: I think, given my response to Dr Russell's point of order, you'll understand why that question is completely out of order. Hon Dr Deborah Russell: At the meeting referred to in response to oral question No. 8 on 19 December 2023, with the CEO and the chair of Te Pūkenga, did she direct the then CEO of Te Pūkenga to cease the restructuring of vocational education? Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: I stand my all my interactions and correspondence with Mr Strong. Te Pūkenga were not meeting milestones. They had student numbers declining, they had staff leaving, and they did not have a credible pathway back to being financially viable. Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Again, it was a very specific question. I referred to a particular meeting that the Minister herself referred to in oral questions, and I asked whether it was at that meeting that she directed the CEO of Te Pūkenga to cease the restructuring of vocational education. SPEAKER: Well, for a start, the question's got an imputation in it which you can't make. So the question itself was on the edge of being rejected. I'm not wanting to get down the tight lines of how we could go if we kept getting upset about questions and answers, but what I would say is that when the Minister replied that she stood by all she had said at meetings, that is certainly addressing the question. Hon David Parker: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Two points: with respect, I think the imputation was in the prior supplementary, not in that one; and in respect of the question itself, the purpose of the question was to elucidate whether she asked them to cease work on the restructure. A general statement as to whether that person stands by all her statements gives the House no information whatsoever as to whether or not that instruction was given. SPEAKER: Well, perhaps if the question itself had been as simply put as you just suggested— Hon David Parker: Well, it was. SPEAKER: It was not. And I'd suggest you read the Hansard afterwards. It was not. And if it had been, then there might have been a different response. Hon Dr Deborah Russell: May I ask the question again? SPEAKER: Well, yeah, all right. Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Thank you, Mr Speaker. At her initial meeting with the CEO and the chair of Te Pūkenga, did she direct the then CEO of Te Pūkenga to cease the restructuring of vocational education? Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: I had a meeting where there were interactions with both the chair and the CE and TC, who were also there, and I followed up a few days later with a new letter of expectations to Te Pūkenga. Hon Nicola Willis: Is it her view that Te Pūkenga has lived up to the wild aspirations that were held for it as a transformative initiative, or is it more likely that it has missed all of its key milestones and is another episode of centralisation that has failed? Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Certainly it has left a legacy in the vocational education sector that is a disaster, with student numbers falling, financials getting worse, staff leaving, and generally industry feeling that they are not being supported in supplying a workforce. Hon Dr Deborah Russell: What plans, if any, has the Minister made for a new structure for vocational education in New Zealand? Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: I am committed to take decisions to disestablish Te Pūkenga and consult on a proposed replacement model this quarter, as outlined in the Prime Minister's action plan for New Zealand. Hon Dr Deborah Russell: When will she advise kaimahi, ākonga, industry leaders, employers, and other stakeholders of her plans, if any, for the vocational education sector? Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Well, as noted, I will be taking decisions about Te Pūkenga and the replacement for that this quarter, as outlined by the Prime Minister's action plan for New Zealand, at which time we will consult even further with industry on top of the consultation that has occurred now. Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Is it the case that she simply doesn't have a clue what she is going to do in the vocational education sector? Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Not at all. I can assure the member that I have very many clues about what we need to do to get rid of the disaster that is Te Pūkenga. Question No. 9—Social Development and Employment 9. HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori —Hauraki-Waikato) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What, if anything, is she doing to address Māori unemployment which has increased by 1.4 percent to 8.2 percent in the last quarter, at a rate that is nearly five times worse than the national average? Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): It is of course concerning to see the continued increases in Māori unemployment, and the Government's plan to reduce the number of people on the jobseeker benefit will, of course, proportionately, or disproportionately in a positive way, impact on Māori. We want to see more Māori in employment. Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke: What is her view on the impacts that recently announced job cuts at Te Puni Kōkiri and the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) will have on Māori unemployment rates given that increasing Māori employment is one of their key functions? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I just do want to correct: there have been no job cuts at MSD. There has been a round of voluntary redundancies, which are under way and the responsibility of the chief executive. But what I do want to say, repeating the comments I made in the House before: for anyone who has lost a job, whether it was 12 months ago or whether it is today, it is incredibly distressing, and we are doing everything we can to get the economy back on track so that we are in a position where the job numbers are growing and we can support more people into employment. Unlike the other side, this Government will not see the number of Māori on the jobseeker benefit explode by 57 percent. Hon Peeni Henare: They're going up under this Government. Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Not to that degree, 57 percent—57 percent. Question No. 10—Resources 10. ANDY FOSTER (NZ First) to the Minister for Resources: What reports has he seen on New Zealand's resources sector? Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Resources): Recently, my attention was directed to the highly acclaimed publication the Westport News. There, it was evident that they share the view of the Government that mining is no longer an unwanted, dirty industry. In addition to that, it has been made known to me that the Australian pension fund will invest $75 million in the Snowy River gold mining project near Reefton—jobs and wealth coming to Te Tai Poutini. In addition to that, Santana Minerals has raised $31 million for a project in the Otago region, and TiGa Minerals and Metals has been given the go-ahead by an independent commissioner for their proposed mine at Barrytown Flats on the West Coast. Andy Foster: So what actions has the Government taken to rejuvenate this new confidence in New Zealand's resources sector? Hon SHANE JONES: Recently, our Government corrected an egregious oversight left behind by a former Minister—that relates to Resource Management Act changes and streamlining the treatment of coal mining, so it is not treated as a leper. Coal mining is a legitimate part of the economy, and if we do not recover our gas reserves in New Zealand, we'll be powering our energy system with coal. Andy Foster: What further actions is he taking to grow jobs and exports in New Zealand's resources sector speaker? Hon SHANE JONES: Far be it for me to talk about the coalition agreement; however, the Government will remove the ban on offshore oil and gas exploration. Hon Member: Oil spills. Hon SHANE JONES: It will recalibrate—that's enough from the DIY over there. This is about ensuring that the New Zealand economy can rely upon a secure supply of gas for as long as it's possible. The naive wokeism, the juvenile understanding of economics that drove the stigmatisation of the gas industry has disappeared, no longer to be seen anymore. Andy Foster: What announcements is he planning to grow New Zealand's mineral exports? Hon SHANE JONES: Later this month, I shall be going to the birthplace of the Labour Party. I shall be reacquainting the Labour Party with their historical ideological roots, long since abandoned. Because I am announcing— Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order. This kind of rhetoric from that member where he's continually taking swipes at the Opposition, which were entirely unnecessary for him to have answered the question—it's entirely out of order. SPEAKER: Yes, I know, but there are ways in which, I suppose, you can use words that capture people, and perhaps I've been a little captured and not listening as much as I should. I will listen more from now on. Hon SHANE JONES: Of course, I'm talking about Blackball on the West Coast. It's not my fault that the member's ignorant about whakapapa; it's the birthplace of the Labour Party. That's where I shall be announcing the Government's strategy on mining, which will contribute to the export-led growth trajectory. Please don't be a stranger to history, Doctor. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could the Minister tell us what he and his department are doing about the irony of importing so much inferior Indonesian coal while not using our own, and thereby placating our so-called green woke conscience? Hon SHANE JONES: Recently, the CEO of Genesis Energy has stated that because of the parlous situation pertaining to natural gas—destroyed by an unwise foolish decision four or five years ago—there is going to be ongoing reliance on coal. We have coal under our feet. The Indonesian imports will continue to grow for as long as there is uncertainty in the gas industry—worsened by the naivety over there, and, sadly, aided and abetted by my erstwhile colleagues on the other side of the House. Question No. 11—Environment 11. Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) to the Minister for the Environment: How is she ensuring that environmental decisions are being considered across Government? Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for the Environment): In a range of ways. I'm on the Resource Management Act ministerial group, I consult with my ministerial colleagues on matters relating to my portfolio, there are bilateral meetings with Ministers with cross-over portfolio responsibility, I meet regularly with the Iwi Chairs Forum to discuss matters relating to my portfolio, I regularly meet with stakeholders across New Zealand, I'm involved with all ministerial groups that matter for the environment, and we are having appropriate conversations as a Government about the environment. Hon Rachel Brooking: Has she read the submissions from the Environmental Defence Society and Forest & Bird on the Fast-track Approvals Bill? Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: There will always be a range of opinions, but this Government, unlike previous Governments, believes we can both grow the economy and protect the environment. We can build things, we can grow things, and we can protect the environment. Hon Rachel Brooking: Has she asked for advice on any of the submissions on the Fast-track Approvals Bill from the major environmental non-governmental organisations that represent tens of thousands of New Zealanders? Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: It is going through the select committee process, they are making submissions, and they are speaking in the media about their submissions. We are hearing those submissions. Hon Rachel Brooking: Given that she is hearing those submissions, has she raised the environmental concerns of environmental non-governmental organisations to the Ministers responsible for the Fast-track Approvals Bill? Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: The bill is going through the select committee process. Submissions have been made. The select committee will, I'm sure, bring a report back to this Government. Hon Rachel Brooking: Does she agree with the Rt Hon Simon Upton, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, that the proposed Fast-track Approvals Bill poses significant environmental risks because, amongst other things, it deprioritises the environment and the role of the Minister for the Environment? Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: This Government is going to manage both economic growth and protecting the environment. The fast-track consenting process is going through a process. There are submissions being made for and against, and they will be looked at, as they should be. Hon Rachel Brooking: Given that answer around the balance, isn't it therefore the case that she, as the environment Minister, is doing nothing to ensure the environment is being properly considered by the fast-track legislation? Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: No. Question No. 12—Education 12. Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) to the Minister of Education: What advice, if any, has she had on the impact of Ministry of Education job cuts on Māori and Pasifika students? Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing) on behalf of the Minister of Education: Job cuts at the ministry are an operational matter. However, the Minister has received assurances that the ministry is not making cuts that directly impact services to children. Closing the gap for Māori and Pasifika students is a priority for this Government. That's why I'm very proud today: we've announced $67 million in new funding for the implementation of structured literacy—going back to basics. We are committed to delivering better public services, especially for children who are too often let down and left behind by our education system. Take, for example, Maramarua School, which has seen incredible results for their Māori students with structured literacy. In 2021, only 37 percent of their students were at or above curriculum level for reading. By the end of 2023, as a result of adopting structured literacy, it was 68 percent. That is evidence-based results for children who need it most. Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Has cultural competency been removed from professional development priorities for teachers, and, if so, why? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Sorry, can the member repeat that question? I couldn't hear the start of it. Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Certainly. Has cultural competency been removed from professional development priorities for teachers, and, if so, why? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: On behalf of the Minister, we are putting knowledge back into the curriculum and we are adopting a back to basics approach when it comes to the teaching of reading and maths. Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Has the Te Hurihanganui programme team to address racism been disestablished, and, if so, will this work be continued elsewhere? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: On behalf of the Minister, I can't comment specifically about that programme, but what I would say is the single best thing we can do for underachieving Māori and Pasifika students in our school system is develop a knowledge-rich curriculum and go back to the basics and end the 30-year experiment on our children that has involved experiential learning, play-based learning, and other such activity that has failed a generation of children when it comes to literacy. Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: What alternatives will she put in place to bridge the achievement gap between urban, regional, and rural schools after the ministry's cuts to regional service roles? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: On behalf of the Minister, the Minister has made clear her priorities in education, which involve a back to basics approach and teaching the basics brilliantly, including refreshing the curriculum so it is based on knowledge and facts, not nonsense, and adopting structured literacy, which will be a game-changer for children in urban, rural, regional New Zealand and, indeed, of every ethnicity. Tangi Utikere: Kia orana, Mr Speaker. How can Pacific communities have any confidence that her Government is adequately resourced to actually understand the specific needs of Pacific learners and their families when she is reducing resources in an area that seeks to meet and understand that specific need? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: On behalf of the Minister, because, unlike the last Government, we don't measure success in education by how many bureaucrats are hired at the Ministry of Education; we measure it by the results that children achieve. If there was a connection between student achievement and the number of bureaucrats in the Ministry of Education, we would have seen better results over the last six years. In fact, we hired hundreds of extra staff at the ministry, including in the specific areas the member talks about, and children's results went backwards. We are focused on changing the curriculum, going back to basics, and redressing the appalling imbalance in results in our system. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. There is no way that that sort of shouting from the Opposition benches, all in concert so that the answer from the Minister could not be heard, is in any way remotely acceptable. And please, sir, if this is going to go on, I think we need a new set of rules that those who can keep their counsel are allowed here and the rest are just moved from our Parliament for the time being until they learn how to behave themselves. SPEAKER: Thank you for that contribution. I think you're right: that outburst was pretty much uncalled for. There will always be occasions where answers to questions do offend the sensibilities of the side that might be asking those questions. But we should still behave as respectfully as we possibly can. Tangi Utikere: How does the Minister intend to engage with Pacific communities to actually understand the specific learning needs of Pacific ākonga, or does she believe that her one recent meeting with Pacific principals ticks that box? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: On behalf of the Minister, the Minister of Education meets with principals and schools and families at those schools, and students, all the time, every week. As she revealed earlier in the week, she is in constant contact with principals of all ethnicities—Māori, Pacific, European, Asian, and others—right around the country. This is a Minister who gets out and about and does the job and is committed to lifting educational achievement because the single best thing we can do for Pasifika children in this country is have aspiration for them rather than have a poverty of ambition and decide that because they are Pasifika, they are condemned to failure. We have higher aspirations for our Pasifika children. SPEAKER: Right, let's all just take a big deep breath for what I think will be one of the last supplementaries of the week—Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan. Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Thank you, Mr Speaker. How does she expect to achieve her priority of stronger learning support for neurodivergent and disabled students, when the very roles that help to deliver that are being disestablished, particularly the 25 percent cut to Te Pae Aronui? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: On behalf of the Minister of Education, services and roles that directly impact services to children are not being cut. There are changes being made at the Ministry of Education, but the Government's strong investment in a knowledge-based curriculum, delivering the basics brilliantly, going back to basics, will endure, and, I believe, will make a real difference for young people all around the country. ANNUAL REVIEW DEBATE In Committee Debate resumed from 1 May on the Appropriation (2022/23 Confirmation and Validation) Bill. CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The House is in committee for further consideration of the Appropriation (2022/23 Confirmation and Validation) Bill. This is the debate on the financial position of the Government and the annual reviews of departments, Officers of Parliament, Crown entities, public organisations, and State enterprises, as reported on by select committees. There are five hours and 16 minutes remaining in this debate. New Zealand National has one hour 30 minutes remaining. New Zealand Labour has one hour and 46 minutes remaining. The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand has 41 minutes remaining. ACT New Zealand has 39 minutes remaining. New Zealand First has 28 minutes remaining. Te Pāti Māori has 27 minutes remaining. The Government has indicated that the Minister for the Environment will be available today to respond to members' questions. Each debate will be led off by the chairperson or another member of the committee that considered annual reviews most closely related to the Minister's portfolios. These speeches should be a non-political report back to the committee of the whole House from the select committee. The Minister for the Environment is here for 30 minutes to respond to members' questions. Environment Sector DAVID MacLEOD (Chairperson of the Environment Committee): Thank you, Mr Chair. I'm pleased to talk to this environment review for the appropriations bill. The Environment Committee has recently received a number of agencies within the environment sector for this respective 2022-23 year, and I'll now provide a very brief overview of each. The Ministry for the Environment saw James Palmer come into the role of chief executive. He replaced Vicky Robertson in this role in March 2023. The ministry saw a significant increase in revenue of 39.2 percent, accompanied by an equally significant expenditure increase of 33.4 percent for the review year. In recent years, alongside policy development, it has increasingly supported policy implementation. At the time of reporting, the ministry employed 1,010 fulltime-equivalent staff—an increase of 21.9 percent since the previous year. We heard that the ministry has considerable capacity to carry out environmental monitoring, data collection, and analysis, allowing it to provide better-informed advice. They have also completed a review which resulted in a new organisational structure that the ministry hopes will support it to perform its core functions more efficiently. During the review of the Department of Conservation, we heard that DOC manages one third of New Zealand's land area, also that it is the largest provider of visitor activities in New Zealand. In June 2023, DOC had 2,663 staff, working at more than 100 locations across the country. This was an increase of 99 staff since the previous year. DOC's revenue of $661 million was a 9.9 percent increase from the year before, with an expenditure of $607 million, providing a larger surplus than anticipated, which included the receiving of a large bequest of $13.6 million. We heard that DOC feels spread too thin and that it is not currently financially sustainable for the work it is asked to do. DOC is undertaking an in-depth review to provide advice to Ministers on options that would put the department's work on a sustainable funding path. In the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) review, they reported a total revenue of $36.8 million and total expenditure of $38.7 million. This represented an 18.2 and 10.3 percent increase respectively on the previous year. At the request of the Minister for the Environment at that time, the EPA set up a Resource Management Act (RMA) taskforce, focused on sedimentation pollution around the country. The taskforce was created to assist local authorities in their work, not to overrule them. And it spent considerable time building positive relationships with regional authorities. We heard that the taskforce was successful in its work and it has since been absorbed into the EPA's broader RMA compliance scene, which grew in the past three years to 30 staff. In the 2022-23 year, the Energy Efficiency Conservation Authority's (EECA) total revenue was $168.6 million—a 30.2 percent increase on the previous year. And its total expenditure was $147.2 million—a 19.8 percent increase. We heard how EECA supports people and organisations to switch to low-emissions transport technology and fuel. It financially supported 45 low-emission transport projects and helped fund the instillation of 60 electric vehicle charging stations. This included work on New Zealand's first public charging hubs, with multiple high-speed chargers available alongside amenities like bathrooms and dining facilities. There is now roughly one fast charger per 75 kilometres of State highway network. And the last entity I'd like to talk to is the Climate Change Commission, which saw a 26.2 percent increase to their revenue to $15.8 million, and a 45.5 percent increase to their expenditure to $15.3 million. As an advisory and monitoring body, the commission does not implement policy or run programmes. The commission's performance measures relate almost entirely to the quality and effect of its advice and analysis. The commission worked on several pieces of advice, including two to the Government on the New Zealand emissions trading scheme (ETS) unit limits and price control settings for the 2023 to 2027 and 2024 to 2028 periods. With the emissions auctions failing to sell any units in 2023, the commission advised that the ETS may not achieve its goals without substantial change. I trust this brief overview is helpful to the House. Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Mr Chair. I've got a number of questions for the Minister in the chair, the Hon Penny Simmonds. I'll start with a few of them and see how she wants to respond, noting, of course, that there are other Ministers in the Chamber at the moment as well. I note that some of them are Associate Ministers who seem to be leading resource management reforms, and she may want to comment on that—the first round of resource management reforms, amendments to the Act that are all regulations, and that the press release that came out last week did not have her name on it. Secondly, I would like to ask the Minister about waste. There was a huge work programme at the time of this annual review period to overhaul or rewrite the Waste Minimisation Act as being out of date and not good enough for the compliance monitoring and enforcement functions but also for product stewardship, and also the very old Litter Act. We were told, in the hearing—this is at page 55 of the transcript—that there was a live conversation about waste. I would like to know what is happening with this and the associated investment that comes from the hypothecated waste levy. Also in this set of questions, separately, I'm interested in the environment reporting bill. We know that, again, during the phase of this annual report, there was work being done, and the decisions have been made and it has been referred to the Parliamentary Counsel Office to redo that environment reporting bill. It's something that the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment certainly brings to the attention of the Environment Committee members. Where is that at? Then, for this set of questions, I'm also interested in what's happening to highly productive land. We had a discussion at page 30 of the transcript with the Secretary for the Environment about the relationship between national direction, and how often national directions can be inconsistent with each other. Of course, that was a big part of the Natural and Built Environment Act, to get that national direction to be all consistent with each other. That's since been repealed. But James Palmer has said that work is being undertaken that is supportive of our housing imperatives as well, and all that nests together in relation to productive land. So does this mean that we will be seeing houses on highly productive land, are there going to be changes to the rules around the importance of that highly productive land, and what will farmers have to say about that? The Associate Minister might also want to comment. Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for the Environment): Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you to the member. She had quite a lot there, so I'll try and go through bits and pieces, and if I forget any of it that I was writing down, I'll come back to it. You did ask some quite specific questions about the Resource Management Act (RMA) reform, which I will hand over, in due course, to the Minister responsible for that. First of all, can I just note that the fast track does have a Ministers Group, and I am involved in that. There is a process where written comments will be sought from the Minister for the Environment, where they are the relevant portfolio Minister, and I am confident that the environmental considerations across many stages will be considered by approving Ministers—in addition to the environmental protection that will be given through the expert-panel stage of any fast-track consenting. But I will hand over, at the end of this, to the appropriate Minister. You asked also about the waste-minimisation programme. Thank you very much for your questions on that. I know that that's an area of passion for you. It's also an area of passion for me, and it was delightful to talk to the Hon Eugenie Sage yesterday and share some of that passion. So, as you all know, we have been left—or this country has been left—with a number of legacy landfills that are contaminated and are vulnerable to extreme weather events. I was very pleased, I think in February of this year, to be able to announce the $6.6 million of investment to the local authorities to address those sites in Tairāwhiti, in Nelson, in South Canterbury, and also in Southland. We are certainly looking at the range of activities that were within that wider waste-minimisation programme, things like the product stewardship programmes. And you'll have been very pleased, of course, to have seen the tyre programme started in February of this year, with the second tranche of that occurring in September. There are a number of pilots that I have been interested in finding out the reviews of those. I visited, very recently, the palletiser plant for the balage wrap and had a look at the work that's going on there after they received funding to assist them in developing that. I note also that that palletiser can deal with construction wraps, which is another area of priority for us in terms of looking at the waste that occurs from the construction and the demolition sector. So there is still a range of work being looked at in that space—product stewardship and container-return schemes—but, of course, no decisions have been made in those areas. But we certainly have those things on the radar. I think you may have also asked some questions about fresh water, did you? I'm just trying to think back. Perhaps I'll pass over to the Minister for RMA reform if he wants to speak about the question around the fast-track consenting process. CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Would the Minister like a repeat of the question? Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): Yes, that would be good; thank you. CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Rachel Brooking, are there RMA-specific questions that you have? Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): This is making me think back in time. I asked a range of questions. The first question was really about the other Ministers in the House and the role of the Minister for the Environment when the most recent Resource Management Act reforms that we've heard about—what you're calling RMA 1; the press release for that range of changes—are changes only to regulations. There's no change to the statute, and the Minister's name was not on the press release about that. So, the question is: how is it, given that the Minister for the Environment is responsible for all those regulations—noting that some of them have been delegated to the Associate Minister for the Environment, the Hon Andrew Hoggard—that none of them seem to be related to RMA reform? And the wider point on that is the Government's been here now for over five months and surely that work could have been done via the normal regulatory process rather than needing primary legislation. Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): Well, I'm happy to speak to that. I mean, the broader point is how the Government's organising itself when it comes to the environment and the Resource Management Act (RMA). So I think it's pretty obvious—and we're a wee way away from the annual review of the 2022-23 year, but, anyway, happy to answer the question. I am the Minister responsible for the resource management system, including reform of it, that's the point of the Government, so I've got responsibility for the RMA. So, essentially, I, as the Minister, and my office is a bit of a clearing house for what we're doing with the RMA. So we've already done the repeal of the Natural and Built Environment Act and the Spatial Planning Act; we did that before Christmas, as the member knows. The first written Resource Management Bill will soon come to the House, and so I'm responsible for the various different parts of it—of course working closely alongside my colleagues Associate Minister for the Environment Minister Hoggard, Minister of Agriculture Todd McClay, Minister for the Environment Penny Simmonds, and other relevant Ministers, and in relation to the coal-mining changes that Minister Jones was talking about earlier in the House, working closely with him on that. So the bill will be in my name when it comes to the House. The second Resource Management Bill will be in my name, as well. Hon Rachel Brooking: Why is it primary legislation? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Why is it primary legislation? Oh, because that's the most quick and effective way to make changes. Also, in relation to national direction, which I heard the member talking about, one of the changes in the first Resource Management Bill will be changes to the national direction schema and protocols to make it easier to do national direction changes, because that is part of the problem—that it should be quite easy to update various national policy statements and national environmental standards, and it's not. So the member will see in due course— Hon Rachel Brooking: And what are you doing for highly productive land? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Sorry, say that again. Hon Rachel Brooking: Highly productive land. Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Oh, highly productive land, that was the other thing. Well, the previous Government consulted on a range of changes to highly productive land, which we are considering. We also will, in due course, make our own changes to the National Policy Statement for Highly Productive Land (NPS-HPL), because it is not enabling enough of development capacity and infrastructure, in particular. Hon Rachel Brooking: Ha, ha! Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, the member laughs, but that's just the reality. So, in due course, we will come to the House, or the Government will promulgate, through national direction changes, a variety of changes to the NPS-HPL. That's been well signalled and we will do that. So I've got passage of the overall resource management. Obviously, we work closely as colleagues around how all that fits together, but we've got 20 different coalition Government commitments across the resource management space, across agriculture, across mining, across housing, across renewable energy, and there's got to be a bit of a clearing house to bring it all together. And that's the way we do it. Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): Thank you. To assist the Minister for the Environment, I'm on page 255 of that big book, where I'm going to be directing my questions towards the environment ministry's intersection with the Jobs for Nature programme, which I understand is limited, yes, to administration on behalf of other agencies involved. But I was keen to see whether the Minister had received any advice on the evaluation of the programme—which, on this reckoning, is actually something that the ministry drives. In particular, if the Minister has had detail about the ongoing positive impacts of the different Jobs for Nature programmes around the country, and whether or not the Minister herself has been able to visit, for example, Te Nohoaka o Tukiaua, the Sinclair Wetlands, a bit south of—I think it's Mosgiel. The Minister is a Southland expert, not myself. Some of the stories from there—that is, of course, Ngāi Tahu and other and associated iwi and hapū, particularly led by young people, restoring the wetlands through Jobs for Nature funding. With that evaluation, how detailed are the benefits and outcomes? On the ground there, my colleagues and I actually heard about surrounding farmers having a look over the fence and really seeing and liking what they were seeing, and just sort of saying, "Well, could you come and give us a hand? We really can see what you've done there with your wetland, is there any way you can give us a hand with restoring ours?" Does the level of evaluation go into those sorts of positive impacts from her ministry? Then, I've got other stories. There is the Raūkumara Ranges—so that's my other Ngati Porou side that I'm bringing in now. The Jobs for Nature programmes there were particularly—I'm hearing the difficulties that they faced on the ground. I wonder if the evaluation picked up on some of the unique difficulties that have had to have years of work to rebuild trust in the community, around things like pest eradication—of course, we all know the use of 1080 has been a real tough one for our communities to come to terms with. Also, whether or not the evaluation of the Jobs for Nature funding throughout the Raukūmara Ranges includes those sorts of positive, incredible stories that I'm at least hearing on the ground there. And whether or not the evaluation then picks up on where else the funding could go—Te Arawa Lakes is another example that comes to mind. Some of us in the Chamber may understand the weed incursion that can happen on lake beds. We've heard about some of the solutions so far that have not been, perhaps, environmentally friendly. Protection mats, for example, being laid on lake beds. There is Te Arawa trialling out harakeke sourced locally, sourced right next to the lake of course. Harakeke, being used as a fibre and material, is shown to have success on eradicating pests and weed control. I'd like to know whether or not the Jobs for Nature evaluation is able to look at—given some of the benefits that the Minister might be hearing about—what the potential is for other locally-led, generationally impacting environmental protections that are unique to that local area because they require the local knowledge? So I'm wondering if the Minister could speak on any of those evaluations, which I'm seeing should have come through in the nature-based projects. Finally, I'd like to know whether there is an evaluation that includes the scale of how hapū and iwi across the country have been able to build infrastructure at a hapū and marae level—for Jobs for Nature programmes, they've built, social cultural infrastructure—and whether the evaluation makes it quite clear about what will happen to all of that if the funding does not continue. Thank you. Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for the Environment): I thank the Hon Marama Davidson for that question. Look, I have read a number of the reviews on Jobs for Nature. Of course, Jobs for Nature was set up as a result of COVID, when unemployment was high, and to assist people with employment. That was set up with finite funding, ending 2025, but I agree with the member that there have been a number of those Jobs for Nature initiatives where we have seen great changes and, also, as you said, great interaction between the people on the Jobs for Nature and, particularly, farmers, around working with riparian plantings and fencing. I have met with Te Arawa Lakes Trust. I have also visited, up in the Far North, the work that has been done around one of the wetlands areas up there. And so both reading some of the reviews but also getting out and visiting them has been really useful—some of the pest eradication, also. So, look, I am very aware of it. I'm also very aware that the funding was limited through to mid-2025. Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Mr Chair. Going back to my set of questions before, one of them was on the Environmental Reporting Bill and what's happened on that—if the Minister could answer that. It seems that on the waste legislation issue, the Minister has it on the radar and is having plenty of meetings and trips, but this does seem to be one thing that has not been delegated to anyone else and does not seem to be under the purview of the resource management reform Minister. So I would encourage her to do more on that and make some decisions and get it into the House, and if she could say what the timing for that would be, I'd love to hear. Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for the Environment): Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you again to the member for that. I just thought it might be useful if I did read out for the member my responsibility. So, yes, indeed, I have responsibility for the Environmental Reporting Act 2015, alongside the Minister of Statistics; for the Waste Minimisation Act 2008; for the Fiordland Marine Management Act 2005; for the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012. I have responsibility for a number of functions under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996, and I retain a range of functions under the Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Act 1941 and I share responsibility with Minister Bishop around some of the specific things in the Resource Management Act 1991. So I can assure the member there's still plenty of things that I have responsibility for, and, yes, the Environmental Reporting Bill is on our radar. We understand very clearly and had discussions with the commissioner. This is an area where we can certainly improve what we are monitoring and improve then our spend on the environment, and so we are certainly looking at the time frame for that. There had been some work on the bill, but we are wanting to relook at that. There's no doubt whatsoever that better reporting, more consistent reporting, and being sure we're getting the information that we want will help us in, in fact, making sure we're getting the best outcomes from our spend on the environment. So I absolutely take the member's point that it is important that we ensure we get this consistency of reporting. One of the things that we do have to be very mindful of is the pressure the local authorities are under at the moment and ensuring that we do get the consistency of reporting but, at the same time, making sure the financial burden is not too onerous for some of those smaller councils. I have spoken with those councils just to ask them a little bit about how we might manage making sure we're getting the right information, we're getting the consistency of information, but we're not adding an overly burdensome financial requirement for them. So, look, it is a bit of a balancing act, but I absolutely agree that we need to keep it on our radar. It's an important piece of work, and it's something that will help us make sure that we are investing in the right places as we seek to improve environmental outcomes. MARK CAMERON (ACT): Very succinctly, if I can: the Minister might want to bring the Associate Minister for the Environment forward to speak about, very quickly, to catch local nuances, the good work at a local level to do with intensive winter grazing and farm practices—if he's interested to illuminate the committee on all the good work that rural New Zealand is doing. Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister for the Environment): Yes, certainly. I mean, this work probably would have begun about 5-odd years ago, where many farmers in a number of catchments, particularly in Southland, realised that their practices were under intense—you know, people were looking at it and not happy, and there has been a lot of work done by numerous industry bodies around creating what we called, at the time, the farm grazing winter module, where farmers would work out these plans for themselves and enact them. And you saw, over the last few years, much really improved change in farmer practices and outcomes. I recall seeing the previous Minister of Agriculture getting up and talking very highly of the good work that farmers had done in those catchments in terms of reducing the amount of sediment, and, you know, any concerning pictures out there. So, yes, there has been a lot of great work that's been done by farmers. This was all well before any regulations came in, probably proving that we didn't need the regulation to start with. LAN PHAM (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I'm noting that time is quickly running out so I'm just going to get straight to my question for the Minister. I think we had really clearly outlined across the agencies that despite all the great work that's going on across iwi, hapū, farmers, community groups—everything—biodiversity is still going backwards and is in decline. Does the Minister consider that addressing our biodiversity crisis is actually a priority issue for her and the environment, and what is her view on the role or importance of the National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity in addressing that? Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for the Environment): Thank you, Mr Chair. There's a lot of important work going on in terms of the national directions, and certainly we are looking at ensuring that we are clustering that work so that we're not overburdening a range of community organisations in the consultation phase. I do want to make some special comment, again, going back to the question that was asked about the work that the farmers are doing, and it ties in with the questions that the member has asked in terms of the fact that there is great work happening on the ground with hapū, with iwi, with catchment groups, and with farmers. And I want to note that farmers consider that the war on farming now is over, has stopped, and that this Government is recognising that farmers are in fact environmentalists, that changes to things like the stock exclusion regulations, the repeal of the intensive winter grazing, and the three-year suspension on identifying new significant natural areas, of course, related to the indigenous biodiversity—that we want to suspend while we go through that consultation phase again and ensure—I'm sorry; Mr Chair is indicating that my time is up. There is plenty of work under way in this area. Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (Senior Whip—National): I move, That the committee report progress. Motion agreed to. House resumed. CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Appropriation (2022/23 Confirmation and Validation) Bill and reports progress. Motion agreed to. Report adopted. SPEAKER: The bill is set down for further consideration in committee next sitting day. CONTRACTS OF INSURANCE BILL First Reading Hon ANDREW BAYLY (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I present a legislative statement on the Contracts of Insurance Bill. SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the parliamentary website. Hon ANDREW BAYLY: I move, That the Contracts of Insurance Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Finance and Expenditure Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 3 September 2024. The Contracts of Insurance Bill will modernise insurance law and make it easier for everyday Kiwis to get insurance and make a claim. The existing legislation is complicated and dated. Some of it is over 100 years old. It's difficult for consumers to know their obligations, and the system can operate harshly. Let me give you a real-life example: a wife tried to make a life insurance claim when her husband was killed by a truck driver. The claim was denied because the insurers said they hadn't disclosed a former bankruptcy. I think most New Zealanders will agree that this is not fair or right. Well, today, I'm proud to say that this is all about to change. This bill will make it much harder for an insurer to avoid cover or to refuse to pay a claim. The bill makes a really positive change to consumers by shifting the onus on to insurers. I'll speak more about that shortly, but, in summary, there will be no more guesswork for consumers about what they need to disclose. Instead, it will be the insurer's responsibility to ask the right questions. We are also requiring insurance policies to be written in simple terms. This will make it easier for Kiwis to read and understand policies, and we're requiring insurers to pay claims in a reasonable time frame. These changes are all about simplifying the system for everyday Kiwis and giving them peace of mind so they know, when disaster strikes, that their insurer will be quick and provide fair compensation. It also makes a series of commonsense changes that provide certainty and security for the insurance market. This is important because increased risk means increased insurance costs and premiums. This ultimately hurts Kiwi households, and in a cost of living crisis, the Government is acutely aware of the need to keep insurance premiums to a minimum. For insurers, issues have arisen over time that can lead to perverse outcomes and create challenges for insurers to accurately quantify risks. This has flow-on effect for prices and willingness to offer insurance. This bill addresses these issues and make changes to support well-functioning insurance markets for both insurers and policyholders. This bill addresses continuing and longstanding concerns of consumers and industry groups about different weaknesses of the current law. The bill follows a series of different reviews, including by the Law Commission in 1998—1998; I just want to reflect on that—to improve insurance law in New Zealand and will bring our law into line with international best practice. The Financial Markets Authority will monitor and enforce compliance with the new regime. The bill has a number of elements to it. Firstly, some of the key features are that it will make significant reforms to rules about disclosures of information to insurers and insurers' remedies. Secondly, it will enable consumers to better understand and compare insurance policies. Thirdly, it makes a number of other changes of a more technical nature to improve the operation of law for insurers and to consolidate and modernise New Zealand's insurance legislation. I will speak to each of these in turn. The first one is the policyholder duty of disclosure. This bill makes significant changes to the rules about disclosure of information to insurers. Currently, the law requires policyholders to tell insurers everything that is relevant to the insurer's decision to offer insurance and how much to charge in premiums. Many consumers are unsure what insurers want to know, or that this duty even exists. Consequently, consequences for failure to disclose information to insurers are harsh. This bill reforms this duty by ensuring that consumers will need to answer an insurer's questions honestly and accurately, rather than working out what to tell their insurer. Businesses—or, in other terms, "non-consumer policyholders"—will need to make sure risks are presented fairly. If information is volunteered, it must be truthful and not misleading. The bill provides that the issue as to whether a consumer has met the disclosure rules will depend on factors like how clear and specific the insurer's questions were and how clearly the insurers communicated the importance of answering the question. So, for instance, it would be more difficult for an insurer to say a consumer breached disclosure rules if the insurer asked a broad question such as "Tell us about your medical history." when applying for health insurance. The bill also introduces new remedies to ensure that insurers will respond proportionately when policyholders fail to disclose something they should have or when misrepresentation occurs. For example, if an insurer would have charged higher premiums if the consumer had disclosed the truth, the bill provides that the insurer can reduce what it pays the consumer for the consumer's claim. Insurers' ability to void insurance cover altogether and to refuse to pay claims will, in practice, be much more limited. The bill makes other changes to support the new disclosure duties. These include: requiring insurers to notify policyholders of the disclosure rules and the consequences of failing to comply, and whether the insurer is likely to access third party information such as medical records; secondly, providing that, if a policyholder makes a claim, the insurer pay any sums due within a reasonable time; and thirdly, introducing a new duty requiring intermediaries to pass on material information. Unlike many other jurisdictions, New Zealand has no specific legal requirements in relation to the presentation of insurance policies. The bill will require insurance policies to be written in clear, simple language so that people can understand it and compare policies and make informed decisions. Consolidating and modernising the insurance legislation is an important facet of this bill. It brings together five separate pieces of insurance legislation into one—some of it over 100 years old. It addresses issues with existing insurance legislation that have developed over time and can lead to odd or unfair outcomes. These updates and improvements will help a well-functioning insurance market. It is really important that these reforms occur, and they are long overdue and, in many cases—in most cases—will certainly be supported, and are supported, by businesses, by industry, but most of all, in time, by consumers. A secure insurance market is integral to our financial wellbeing and is part of this Government's mission to rebuild the economy. I'm proud to be able to present this bill to the House today. It is an important part of making sure that New Zealanders can get cover, often at a time when they most need it, when there's exceptionally severe issues that are happening in their lives. They need to be able to get insurance and know that the insurance industry stands alongside them in supporting them during those difficult times. I think this bill strikes a balance in achieving that. On that note, I commend this bill to the House. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Kia orana, Mr Speaker. Well, Mr Bayly, it's not a bad bill. It's not as good as my bill, but we had a telephone— Arena Williams: I thought it was your bill. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Well, it basically is my bill, Arena Williams. You know, we had a telephone conversation, and Mr Bayly said, "Go on, withdraw your bill." and I said, "No.", and I did the right thing, because what's happened is that's hurried the Government along and we now have a Government bill. And we're pragmatic—we get it. The Government can steal the march and— Arena Williams: Take our homework. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: —that's right, steal our homework—get it there. I'm surprised you didn't mention the fact that this bill was worked on by me, and before me by David Clark, and before that by Kris Faafoi. This actually is a cross-party matter. We all want good insurance law. Although I was a bit flippant, this bill isn't quite as good as the member's bill that I had in. There are things in it that we don't think it does quite as well. The big change is, of course, the non-disclosure rules, or the misrepresentation rules. It is absolutely right that consumers in particular shouldn't be punished for innocent non-disclosures, so making that clear is a massive leap forward. The old rule that you've got to tell the insurer everything they want to know, even if you don't know they want to know it, was madness, and the example given by Mr Bayly is one of many examples where insurers have quite unfairly and unreasonably relied on that. The reason we have law is so that we have a baseline of good behaviour. So that's good, as well. I don't think Mr Bayly mentioned the tweaks, the adjustments, around business insurance as well. This bill makes a division between consumer insurance and business insurance. That's really good. It also adjusts the rules around misrepresentation for business insurance and modernises them to create a duty of fair presentation, which isn't the same as the old duty not to mislead or not to non-disclose. It's a much better rule, and, again, the remedies are much more proportionate and that's good. It's important that there's still a total prohibition on fraud. I think it's really important to recognise that anyone who, basically, tells lies to their insurer will be out in the cold, so that's always going to be a bright line. We would do things a bit differently, though. I've read the clause on a reasonable time for payment; I don't think it's clear enough. My bill had a presumptive 12-month period, after which the insurer would have to show that they were being reasonable in not paying out on a claim. I think having a bright line after which the insurer has to positively prove that their conduct is reasonable—and sometimes it will be. In places like West Auckland where there's land problems and they haven't resolved them yet, they're probably acting reasonably, but they need to show that. So I think that's one, the delay there. I'm really disappointed that a good explanation of the duty of good faith, which is in the member's bill which is currently before the House, has been taken out of this bill, and at select committee I hope that the committee will look carefully at whether it is useful to include a clear duty of good faith and to articulate it there as well. The other thing—because my time is limited, but I do want to identify it—is the bringing of insurance contracts into the unfair contract terms aspect of the Fair Trading Act. We're going some way towards it, but the carve-outs for exclusion clauses in particular, so any exclusion clause can't be an unfair contract term, and that, to me, seems unnecessary. What it means, essentially, is insurers get a free pass on unfair exclusion clauses, and that can't be right. So we've got to sort that out as well. So look, yes, it's a good bill. We've got a lot of tidying up to do. There's a whole lot of technical changes in there that are important as well, including around life insurance, which is a critical part of our financial infrastructure. I know the Finance and Expenditure Committee, or at least the Labour members, will give this a good working over, and I trust them to do so. Look, you know, I'll be honest, I'm a bit peeved that the Minister's stolen the show, but we're constructive and pragmatic. We'll put our heads down and make this bill good for all New Zealanders, because insurance is of critical importance. Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. First of all, I would like to, again, thank Minister Bayly for bringing this bill to the House, but also an honourable mention, as we have heard, to the Hon Duncan Webb, whose member's bill that this was kind of built on. So I know a few things have already been mentioned, but I want to just kind of reiterate and pick up some of the things—and particularly the scenario that the Minister previously mentioned that when we are looking at insurance and when we're looking at the protection of people of Aotearoa, particularly at the time when they are the most vulnerable, when they need to make a claim on their insurance, that the current system puts an unfair and particularly punishing criteria around their claim, and particularly if their claim was considered to be void. So I think the two key elements when we are looking at this particular bill is around fairness and, to an extent—but, obviously, not to the extent that the Hon Webb has mentioned before—good faith. I think, in this particular case, we are looking at the idea that now consumers will be expected to take reasonable care not to misrepresent as opposed to having their insurance being void, and particularly when it comes to that the remedies for any representation must also be proportional to the breach. I think this is a really important move towards fairness for both parties. I think, as I also mentioned before, that there are two elements to this, not only from the perspective of the consumers but also for small and medium sized businesses, in particular, who have currently been disproportionately and harshly treated. A lot of the time, small businesses function more like individual consumers, whereas avoidance of a contract for large businesses tend to rarely occur, because they will have their advice from brokers and they're usually well informed. So, I think, in this case, that businesses are only required to make a fair representation of risk is really important. One other thing that has also been mentioned as well that I would like to kind of pick up on is around the exception that has been currently carved out for insurances as part of the Fair Trading Act 1986. In this particular case, that will also be, to a certain degree, removed as well. One of the other things that I think will be most beneficial to the people of Aotearoa, in this particular case, is also around that there's a requirement for consumer insurance policies to be clear and in plain language, and also for the insurers to stay take steps to ensure the consumer understands the extent of the coverage and the exclusions that they will apply. So, overall, the Green Party is in support of this particular bill. I think, in this case, what we'll also mention is—and particularly us from Tāmaki-makau-rau Auckland will already know that people are still working through their insurance policy and have still not yet fully received the claims of the insurances as a result of the extreme weather that we saw at the beginning of last year, which is, I would say, more than a year ago and definitely more than 14 months ago, still working through those policy claims and insurance claims as a result of those extreme weather patterns caused by the acceleration of climate change. I think, in this particular case, modernising and updating this particular area would be really, really beneficial going forward. Of course there is going to be a lot of areas that need to be teased through because this is an incredibly technical bill. We are looking forward to this bill going to the Finance and Expenditure Committing and also for people, for consumers, for insurance companies, for lawyers, or for anyone who is interested in this particular bill, to submit and also speak on the bill in that select committee. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am taking this call on behalf of ACT in support of this bill in the first reading. As we have heard, this is an omnibus bill. It looks at various legislation that has components of insurance in that it brings those components together and also modernises it. So looking at the various legislation that this bill is going to bring the insurance components from, it is the Life Insurance Act 1908—yep, 1908; very old legislation—the Law Reform Act 1936, the Insurance Law Reform Act 1977 and 1985, the Insurance Intermediaries Act 1994. It's really important to note that insurance policies actually play the role of safety net in people's lives, and not just individuals' lives but also for businesses. People actually rely on insurance, because they believe that if something goes wrong in their life or in their business, then they have this insurance and they can rely on that insurance so that they are covered for that financial risk that might come because of that problem. But then sometimes what happens is, if they end up in that kind of situation where they have to make a claim, they realise that, actually, they are not covered by the insurance policy that they have been paying for. So it becomes really important that we address this issue. We make it very clear that New Zealanders understand and also the insurance companies understand that it needs to be a fair relationship both ways and. It needs to be a fair relationship both ways, and we really hope that that is what this bill will deliver. In this bill, we have seen that it does make it clear what the duties are of both parties. These are individuals or businesses and also the insurance companies on the side of individuals and businesses, and the bill intends to make it very clear that there should be no misrepresentation or there should be fair presentation of the facts that are needed for insurance companies to provide the right kind of insurance. Also, on the other hand, it says that insurance companies should be providing policies that are quite easy and simple for people to understand. But what does that mean? Those are the kind of things we would like to explore in the select committee process. I am not a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, but I'm sure the Finance and Expenditure Committee will ask all those questions and will come up with a solution there. The other thing that this bill does is that if there is misrepresentation, the consequences should be proportionate to that, and it's not like the whole policy becomes invalid, and it is important to understand what that misrepresentation is and what those proportionate consequences would look like. Again, something that we would like to understand after we have heard from submitters and the advisers, and I really hope that it's not only the insurance companies who will submit on this legislation, but hopefully we will hear from businesses and individuals as well, those who have experienced dealing with situations like this. This also is going to adjust the insurance specific exemptions from unfair contract terms, so that is important as well. Reasonable time: again, the insurance companies should respond within a reasonable time. That is a factor that we have heard. Dr Duncan Webb raised that issue of 12 months and we would like to understand what that "reasonable time" looks like, and then it is about making sure that the intentions of this bill are clarified so that there is no misunderstanding of what that actually means. So this kind of intervention, I believe, is needed. But all these topics or the components of this bill, we need to explore a bit more to make them a bit clearer to make sure that this bill is very clear on what it wants to achieve and how it would achieve those intentions. So we are supporting this bill in the first reading. Thank you, Mr Speaker. TANYA UNKOVICH (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to and support the Contracts of Insurance Bill, which has been proposed by the Hon Andrew Bayly. This bill is a significant piece of legislation, and it's aimed at reforming, modernising, and consolidating insurance contract law. Currently, insurance contracts are governed by the number of pieces of legislation and case law, and, as already mentioned, some of them are as old as 100 years. Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Have you got the same notes? TANYA UNKOVICH: No, not at all, not at all. Even you mentioned it, right? So why not mention it again? Katie Nimon: You can't change the facts. TANYA UNKOVICH: You can't change the fact, so why not repeat it. This bill is going to address some longstanding issues from very old legislation, which have been identified through consultation, review, and other discussions with stakeholders. The overarching goal of this bill is to ensure that insurance contract law operates effectively, which will benefit both insurers and policy holders. It seeks to promote well-functioning insurance markets by enabling consumers and businesses to protect themselves whilst also minimising costs. There are insights from similar reforms in Australia and the United Kingdom legislation, which have also been informed in this bill. This bill addresses many issues, one of them being about disclosure. Being the daughter of immigrant parents who really did struggle to understand when they were paying various bills, I didn't like it when my father would ring and say, "Tanya, what am I paying this insurance for?", and I'd go, "Oh my God, I've got to go and read his bill.", and even I struggled. So as I'm reading this bill I'm thinking this will be so beneficial to people who really struggle, including myself. So this is going to be a good thing. I think of my parents' friends who are still alive. I'm friendly with their children, and they have the same problems now when they're having to go through some of this, and they're having to employ people to help them understand what the documentation says. So amending the law pertaining to disclosure will simplify the insurance process and remove the scope for miscommunication, which can disadvantage many people in the sector. For consumer insurance contracts, which is more of a domestic type of contract, policy holders have a duty to take reasonable care not to misinterpret information. And, once again, I have had an instance when my father didn't quite explain things when he was trying to explain them and it was simply a language thing. So now if someone innocently makes a mistake and does not disclose or just gives incorrect information, then they are not going to find themselves out of cover. For non-consumer insurance contracts, which are more of a business-type contract, policy holders will need to make a fair presentation of the risk before the contract is entered into or varied. Now, as already mentioned, in Part 2 there are clauses that are relating to remedies. Now, remedies are separated between consumer and non-consumer contracts, and I see as I read the bill that it is very specifically itemised on what the remedy would be, dependent on whether it was a reckless, an intentional, or just an innocent mistake. I felt that this was a very good thing, so that there was clarity and specificity around what the remedy would be. It would create stronger boundaries when making decisions on the remedy. New Zealand First is very much a party that believes in levelling the playing field and we feel that this bill will do that, between consumer and business, and also we feel that it will support people in this process. Often it is something that many struggle to do, and so it will be an opportunity for people to have that certainty when they're entering into contracts. New Zealand First is very keen to see this bill move to the select committee. We support this bill to the House. STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Hon Dr Duncan Webb: It's going to your committee. STUART SMITH: May be out of order, but I'll take it anyway. But thank you very much. It's a great pleasure to speak on this Contracts of Insurance Bill, first reading. And it is going to my committee, which I think is a great thing—we're really looking forward to it. For most New Zealanders, their house is their largest asset. And if it isn't, if they don't own a home, it will be a car most likely. So these assets have a lot of their wealth tied up in them, and they need to lay off that risk by insuring it if the worst were to happen. Unfortunately, the insurance contracts are sometimes quite complex, and it is the ultimate in a transaction where you have people that are wanting to, when they make a claim, get the most out of that claim, and an insurance company that wants to minimise the amount that's paid out because they not only want to make money themselves, but they also want to keep the premiums down for everyone else. And let's face it, if they don't protect that and they pay out money unnecessarily, that will be reflected in other peoples' premiums further down the track. Now, it is, as for anyone who's had—certainly me with a Christchurch MP across the way after the Christchurch earthquakes will know a lot about insurance claims. I do from the Kaikōura earthquakes and my colleagues from Tai Rāwhiti and from the Hawke's Bay, they know about dealing with the claims and how difficult it can be. And best will in the world, there's always a crunch when the claims come in. And it's very stressful for the people concerned, let alone then having to go through negotiations or to find out that they didn't answer a question properly or didn't give full disclosure because they didn't understand what that meant, and then have their insurance limited in some way. So this bill goes a long way to correct that. Now, work on the previous bill, which was alluded to earlier by Dr Duncan Webb, that began in 2019—as I understand it. Imagine if we'd had this bill passed before the Auckland Anniversary floods, before Cyclone Gabrielle, how much better off the constituents of Auckland MPs and those in Tai Rāwhiti and those in Hawke's Bay would have been. There would have been a lot less heartache and a lot better result for people. Unfortunately, it hasn't happened. The Hon Andrew Bayly has done a great job. He's picked up what was the basis of that bill and consulted with the industry to find out what were the shortcomings of that bill and to address them. And it's made it a much better bill and a better result for both the consumer and for the insurance industry. And we want the insurance industry to be successful. If they're not, they don't have to be here in New Zealand. Insurance is a privilege, it's not a right. We have to ensure that everybody is getting a fair deal—that's what a transaction is. A transaction is about a fair deal for both sides of the transaction, and that's what this bill is about. And I congratulate Mr Bayly. I think he's done a fantastic job on it and it's really going to make a lot of difference in putting things in plain language but also ensuring that legal obligations are made is not an easy thing to do. It's not a simple thing to write it in a way that would satisfy both parties, but this will ensure, I think, that we get that sort of thing done: simple terms that people can understand so they know what it is they have to disclose. And the example that Mr Bayly gave of the life insurance claim which really seemed to be just trying to find the fine print for the betterment of one side of that transaction is totally unfair and should never happen. And I believe this bill will go a long way to fixing that. I see that Mr Bayly is requiring this to be reported back in September. That gives us plenty of time to consult more widely in the select committee. And I can assure Dr Parmjeet Parmar who, in her speech, pointed out some things that we should look at, we will look at that. We will consider all of those issues before us, and we will improve the bill in that way if it's needed. So, with pleasure, I commend this bill to the House. Thank you. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you for the opportunity, Mr Speaker. We're not quite sure whether to break out into bipartisan kumbaya on this one, because it is a bill that both major parties support, but interested followers of House procedure will be very interested in the process that this bill was introduced in. The Insurance Contracts Bill in the name of the Hon Dr Webb was drawn from the members' tin, and, then, very soon after, the Government progressed the Contracts of Insurance Bill, which is essentially the same bill with the consumer protections removed, and then introduced it into this House. It is an interesting one for anyone who's interested in Standing Orders and procedure, because that would not have been allowed if it was a member's bill. But, of course, the Government is able to introduce this bill before the Hon Dr Duncan Webb's bill is read for the first time, and that has not happened yet. So, saved by the bell, we get to have a cross-partisan conversation about this. Can I acknowledge the Hon Kris Faafoi, who began this work—as the member Stuart Smith has acknowledged—and also the Hon David Clark and the Hon Duncan Webb, beside me, who have not only consulted with the industry but have also considered the consumers at the heart of this protection, because let's talk about who this is for. This is for those people who are affected by the cost of living. Of the average household, that has gone up by 6.2 percent in the year to March. And a big driver of those rising costs and one of the things which is measured in that basket of goods which contributes to that rising cost is insurance, which are up by 17.9 percent. So, when we look at this bill and what it's for, it is about making sure that consumers who need insurance can get it and they can get it at an affordable price and that their living costs aren't affected by undue delay and unfair costs of repair for their properties. That's really important when we consider what this reform is all about. And I acknowledge those Ministers who have been up for the challenge of tackling what is a very complicated area of law, especially in the context of more and more extreme weather events, higher costs for insurance, and the risk of insurance flight from New Zealand where that is occurring—because those costs hurt everyone, especially people on fixed incomes. And I want to talk about the pensioners who I door-knocked in Inverell Avenue. That's in Wiri in the Manurewa electorate and also in the Tāmaki Makaurau electorate. A couple there told me that their home and contents insurance had gone up—it was supplied by AA—by 50 percent in the last year, and so they had made the decision not to continue with the payments of their insurance. And for a couple like that who are on a fixed income, you can understand that the difference between $200 and $300 means that they cannot go on paying that cost. So, you know, what is the flow-on effect of that? It means that in an event like the Papatoetoe cyclone, which very randomly affected households—one household in the street would have lost its roof and all of the contents were completely destroyed whilst their neighbours were completely fine— they wouldn't be able to replace any of the furniture that was inside the house, not the kids' clothes, not the toys, not the beds. They would be completely out on the street, because they didn't have insurance and they weren't able to pay those premiums. And so that's why this reform is really important, and that kōrero that the Inverell Court pensioner shared with me is borne out in the statistics that show that the costs are up 19 percent in the year-on-year increases for insurance for contents across the board. This is something we should all be concerned about. And so it's in that context that I asked the Minister: why has he removed the consumer protections in the Government bill of the last term that were developed to make sure that people like those pensioners in Manurewa could continue to not only afford their insurance but that they would get cover when they needed it and there wouldn't be unreasonable delay. And I urge the select committee—not the ordinary select committee that would consider this, the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, but the Finance and Expenditure Committee. I urge them to give this a good going-over about why those consumer protections that were in the Insurance Contracts Bill. Perhaps they could look specifically at clause 60, "Duty of utmost good faith", and the difference between that and Minister Bayly's bill, which severely limits the duty of good faith for insurers, and they could consider why he has removed those protections for consumers who this reform is for, because if the Government was concerned about addressing the cost of living for ordinary New Zealanders, they would have kept those provisions. I also want to talk about what else the Government could be doing to progress this reform, because people with their insurance contracts cannot compare the cost of their product with other products from their supplier and they cannot compare the costs with other suppliers, because there are no consumer data-rights provisions in this bill— ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The member's time has expired. DAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Steal your bill? I was just thinking, Dr Duncan Webb, I think you might've taken it from other people before you, but I'm pleased that the Hon Andrew Bayly has come along and fixed it. But anyway, we can talk about that. It's on its way to the Finance and Expenditure Committee, and I'm sure the very good chair of Stuart Smith and members the likes of Catherine Wedd and Nancy Lu will grab this and do some good work. Just listening to the last speaker's comments, I agree: we should make sure that we look at the consumer protections aspects of it. It's very, very important, and I'm sure that's going to be part of the submission process that this bill seems to be heading towards. Good to see that there's good partisan support across the House. Maybe this is the beginning of a new way of doing business in this House. So what is this bill all about? I mean, as far as I'm concerned, it's about being fair and reasonable—fair and reasonable on both the insurers as well as the policy holders. It's about simplicity. It's about making sure that we have got that plain English, that we are very clear about what needs to be declared. These are all pretty simple things to think about themselves, although there are many people that are currently caught out on this particular aspect, and, dare I say it, I think this bill's been a long time coming, really. I think it's something that has been observed as needing to be fixed, and I'm pleased that something's happening about it here right now. I find it amazing, some of the Acts that are associated with this, being an omnibus bill, particularly the oldest bill in itself, when you think about way back— James Meager: How old? DAVID MacLEOD: How old? 1906—is that correct? Something like that. That's a long time ago, 1906. I don't think Dr Webb would've written it back then, but, anyway, it is a very old piece of legislation, and there are a number of others that will be affected or will be changed as a result of this good work. So what is the problem? The problem is that premiums—let's talk about that: the cost, the cost of insurance. I'd be surprised if there's a single soul within this House that does not have some form of insurance. Many of us would have many forms of insurance. What is the purpose of insurance? It's protecting the things that are important to us. It's almost a necessity of life. It's almost like paying taxes, etc., all those sorts of things, and eating and other things that one must do during their life. I won't mention the others, but, anyway, the fact is it is an important aspect of one's life, and when we do manage to acquire or when we do manage to possess important things to our lives, insurance is a part of that there, let alone the likes of our persons and our family and the likes. So cost is really important, and premiums, dare I say it, in recent years have gone up astronomically high, if you look at the increases, particularly as a result of many disasters that have happened not just here in New Zealand but around the world. We are all interrelated when it comes to reinsurance and the costs that we are exposed to. We also have the timeliness of claims to be paid out. I'm sure some of us have experienced times where we wonder what the heck is happening here with regards to claims being paid. Also the simplicity: let's talk about that, making sure that not just people that are what you might say well articulated in being able to understand fine print and that—not everybody's like that. We need to make sure that it is plain English and that the fine print, if there is such a thing in the new contracts going forward, is easily understood and that they are well explained by the insurers to those wishing to take it out. So these are just pretty much 101 of the simplicity things that I call should be in place with regards to it. So I'm looking forward to actually seeing this at the select committee that I'm lucky enough to be involved with, the Finance and Expenditure Committee, and the reporting back in September. I'm hoping that we continue the bipartisan or even the partisan support that we have around the House today. So I commend this bill to the House. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): This is a much-needed bill, and it does sound as though we're in furious agreement around the House on the need for the bill and the need for insurance law reform, even if there might be some disagreements about some of the detail and whether the bill goes far enough, in some regards. I commend both the former Minister and the current Minister for working on this issue and ensuring that we finally do get this legislation into the House. I know it has been a long time coming, and many people have worked on it for a long time. I have to say that I am delighted to find that instead of going to the economic development committee, where I had thought it might have gone, it is nevertheless coming to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. I think that's quite important. We do need to have a better understanding of insurance in this country. One of our tasks in the Finance and Expenditure Committee is understanding the financial stability of the country, the way that banks are regulated, and it does seem in some ways that although we look at the supervision of banks quite carefully, no committee and no ministry really grapples with insurance law and grapples with some of the issues around insurance. So this is going to, in some ways, be part of the upskilling of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, to help us to really grapple with many of the complicated aspects of insurance law. There are some issues that are worrying me slightly, and I think we'll need to have a very careful look at them in the select committee. I want to draw the attention of committee members, and the House, to clause 70 of this bill. It's talking about the implied term of the payment of claims. The basic idea is that insurers are supposed to be paying claims in a reasonable time—they can't unnecessarily delay claims, and so on. So, you know, it's implied—of course you pay the claims in a reasonable amount of time, but then we need to have a little bit of a think about what actually constitutes a reasonable time. In some ways, it's how long is a piece of string—we don't quite know what a reasonable time is, and if we look in clause 70, it does talk about some of the factors that can be taken into account—the type of the insurance, the size and complexity of the claim, the compliance with the legislation, factors outside the insurer's control. If I think about my own rohe up in West Auckland, in terms of getting some properties repaired, it depends on the road outside it being repaired first, and that's outside the insurer's control, so that would be an interesting thing to look at. There is also reasonable grounds for disputing the claim, and so on. I guess something that worries me here is that I want to understand what the incentive is on the insurer to get things settled in a reasonable time. It might have been helpful had we considered something that I know my colleague Dr Webb was considering, and that is that insurers might perhaps be required to pay interest if they have delayed the settlement of the claim unnecessarily, or they haven't met it at a reasonable time. Hon Andrew Bayly: They will if someone dies. Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Well, that's a good start, but I don't see why it should just be if someone dies; there could also be other reasons to pay it reasonably quickly. So I'm going to be looking at some of those issues in the select committee. Nevertheless, I'm glad to see this coming to the House. I think when we do the law, we need to make sure that we consider, in all cases, whether something is more friendly to the insurance company or more friendly to the premium holder, to the customer. In general, when we look at those sorts of issues, we look at the relative strength of the parties, and, typically, we might consider that perhaps, if we're looking at a particular clause in this—who does it favour, who does it give a little bit more strength to, or who does it give a little more succour to, perhaps—we might construe stuff in favour of the policy holder. That'll be an issue that we need to have a look at, and it'll be a rule of thumb—it could go one way or the other. Perhaps we might go in favour of the weaker party, but let's see how we go. I'm looking forward to this discussion, and I commend this bill to the House. CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki): Look, I rise as a very big supporter of this bill, the Contracts of Insurance Bill. I just want to take this moment—and this is one of the reasons I am a very, very big supporter—because I just want to remember 14 February 2023: the moment that 11 lives were lost and thousands of lives were changed forever, as Cyclone Gabrielle devastated the East Coast region, destroying livelihoods, homes and businesses and many, many properties. Cyclone Gabrielle and the Auckland Anniversary weather events were the two largest insurance events in New Zealand's history. The most recent statistics from the Insurance Council show 117,414 claims have been made, with a value of $3.75 billion. Cyclone Gabrielle claims have totalled $1.79 billion to date. So insurance is an extremely relevant and concerning issue for the people of Hawke's Bay and families across the East Coast. Just last week, I was given a briefing on the category 3 buy-out process. I just want to acknowledge those 167 families and people who are currently going through the category 3 process with the Hastings District Council, leaving uninsurable land behind. This is an incredibly distressful time. I also want to acknowledge those in category 2, where some families are unable to move on and are still waiting for clarity, and, in some cases, insurance payouts. We are still dealing with this on a daily basis. Many constituents have contacted me with insurance concerns. The Contracts of Insurance Bill is set to change our outdated insurance laws, consolidating them into a single, modern framework that aligns with international standards. Those standards would have helped many people, following Cyclone Gabrielle. Under the new bill, insurance policies will be required to be written and presented clearly. I know, first hand, that in times of crisis we need to keep things simple and practical. People don't need the extra stress of insurance—what's covered and what's not. This change means that during events like Cyclone Gabrielle, you would have been able to understand and access your coverage more easily and efficiently, ensuring people are properly informed of what is and what isn't covered. Another key feature of the bill is the requirement for insurers to pay any sums due, within a reasonable time. Now, this really is a key change because, when disaster hits and you lose your home or your business, you want to be able to get some certainty and clear timelines around insurance. It's emotional enough without having to deal with financial stress and uncertainty. People want to be able to move on with their lives, and, if we can get some more clarity and a better framework around insurance, this is going to help hugely. After the cyclone, I was talking to people who struggled with their claims, and some had their claims denied because they unintentionally hadn't provided the necessary information to the insurers. This new bill will change this, and it will shift the responsibility towards insurers to ask clear and specific questions. This change aims to stop unfair denial of claims and ensure people receive the support they need. By fostering a more robust insurance market, this bill will not only protect consumers and the people who suffer loss but it will also provide insurers with the certainty they need to offer comprehensive and affordable coverage. As my member over here said, it's a two-way street; the balance is crucial for rebuilding and reinforcing the resilience of our community against future disasters. This bill will bring immediate benefits and set a precedent for how we handle natural disasters moving forward. It's about ensuring fairness, transparency, and efficiency in our insurance systems. As we need to adapt to climate change and the reality of more events happening like these, we need to ensure we have a modern, robust insurance framework. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House. Motion agreed to. Bill read a first time. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The question is, That the Contracts of Insurance Bill be considered by the Finance and Expenditure Committee. Motion agreed to. Bill referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. Instruction to the Finance and Expenditure Committee Hon ANDREW BAYLY (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I move, That the Contracts of Insurance Bill be reported to the House by 3 September 2024. Motion agreed to. PRIVACY AMENDMENT BILL First Reading Hon NICOLE McKEE (Minister for Courts): on behalf of the Minister of Justice: I present a legislative statement on the Privacy Amendment Bill. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website. Hon NICOLE McKEE: I move, That the Privacy Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill. The purpose of this bill is to improve transparency for individuals about the collection of their personal information. The sharing of personal information is an essential part of doing business, both worldwide and in New Zealand. It is also important for enabling the delivery of joined-up public services. A range of entities need to be able to collect personal information in order to provide a wide range of goods and services to their customers and users. Protecting personal information is crucial to enabling this. As New Zealand's digital economy grows, businesses and public organisations will seek to innovate and increase productivity through digital technologies, greater use of data, digital trade, and the exporting of services. This will lead to a corresponding increase in the flow of personal information between agencies, both domestically and internationally. The Privacy Act has 13 information privacy principles (IPPs) that govern how businesses and organisations should collect, handle, and use personal information. Together, these principles ensure that New Zealanders know when their information is being collected that their personal information is used and shared appropriately, that personal information is kept safe and secure, and that New Zealanders can get access to their information. At present, under information privacy principle 3, there is a requirement for public or private agencies to notify an individual of a range of matters when they directly collect their personal information. However, there is no requirement for public or private agencies to notify individuals when personal information has been collected about them from a source other than the individuals themselves. This means that individuals are notified when their personal information is collected directly from them but not when their personal information is subsequently collected by another agency. This means there is a risk that individuals may not know all of the agencies which hold their personal information. This is an impediment to them fully exercising their privacy rights under the Act. We have an opportunity to strengthen the principle of transparency in the Privacy Act 2020 by ensuring that individuals are notified when their personal information is being shared between agencies. The first part of the bill will introduce a new information privacy principle 3A relating to the indirect collection of personal information. It is closely based on the existing information privacy principle 3, which deals with the direct collection of personal information. Under the proposed IPP 3A, the agency which indirectly receives an individual's personal information will be required to notify that individual of a range of matters, including the purpose for which the information has been collected, the name and address of the agency that has collected the information and is holding the information, and the individual's rights of access to the correction of any of that information. Agencies would be required to take reasonable steps to comply with the notification obligation as soon as practical after indirectly collecting the personal information. This requirement is, however, subject to several practical exceptions to ensure the efficient administration of certain public functions, ensure individuals are not overwhelmed with notifications, and to protect against other unintended consequences. The bill also makes several technical amendments to address some minor issues that have arisen since the principal Act came into force. The select committee will provide an opportunity to improve on the bill and consider any additional changes as these arise. The changes proposed in this bill will enable New Zealanders to exercise their fundamental rights under the Privacy Act, supporting them to make better-informed privacy choices, with respect to all the agencies that collect their personal information; to hold agencies to account for their privacy practices; and to efficiently exercise their right to access and correct that personal information. In addition to enhancing the privacy rights of individuals who benefit from the protection of the Privacy Act, having a robust privacy regime puts New Zealand in a stronger position when entering into trade negotiations and reduces barriers to trade. On 15 January this year, the European Union reconfirmed New Zealand's adequacy decision a signifier which represents that New Zealand's privacy laws are sufficiently equivalent with EU general data protection regulation. EU adequacy is an important recognition of our efforts to protect individual privacy and facilitate the cross-border flow of information between New Zealand and the European Union without placing more onerous requirements on Kiwi businesses. The changes in the Privacy Amendment Bill will help to further align New Zealand's law with both EU regulation and international best practice. This will strengthen our reputation for being a country with a strong commitment to protecting privacy. The protection of New Zealand's privacy rights is fundamentally important in our increasingly data-driven economy. Successive New Zealand Governments have taken steps to maintain a robust, flexible, principles-based, legislative framework to uphold these rights. The Privacy Amendment Bill, receiving its first reading today, continues with this commitment. I encourage members of the public to have their say on the bill and the new protections that it introduces when the committee calls for submissions. I commend this bill to the House. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Mr Speaker. We support the Privacy Amendment Bill. I must say it sounded very technical when the Minister, the Hon Nicole McKee, was introducing it there, but, in fact, if you think about it, it's just about knowing who holds your information. The prior bill that we were talking about, the Contracts of Insurance Bill, is actually a really good example. Insurers will often gather information from credit reporting agencies, financial institutions like banks, health information from your doctor, and so on, and so they become a repository of a significant amount of personal information that they've got from third parties. Ordinary folk don't necessarily appreciate that they're holding that information, and, of course, we know that, under the Privacy Act and the principles, you are entitled both to know that information is held and to see it and to correct it if it's inaccurate. Of course, if you don't know it's held, all of the other things kind of fall apart. So it's actually a very straightforward addition to the Privacy Act to say that when third parties collect information, unless there is really good reason not to, they've got to let you know that they hold it. And, when they do, it then triggers—essentially, gives power to—all of those other privacy rights. So it's a key plank of an effective privacy law. As the Minister says, it aligns us with privacy law in other jurisdictions, and that's important as well. There's not, really, a lot more to say about this bill. It's a good bill, it enhances our privacy law, and it makes sure that people who do collect information from third parties do right and let individuals know that they hold that information. So it does that main thing, which is give autonomy to individuals in respect of personal information held about them. That's the guts of it. We commend it to the House. JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's a real pleasure to take a very quick call—I'm on my feet today. We are speaking on the Privacy Amendment Bill this afternoon, which, of course, was introduced, actually, in the previous Parliament in the name of the Hon Ginny Andersen. I acknowledge the member here today, who I'm sure will be able to make a contribution on what this bill does before the House. The bill, of course, does, as Dr Webb pointed out, a very, very simple, straightforward thing. It adds a new information privacy principle to the Act—I think there are 13 and this will be number 14: new information privacy principle 3A (IPP 3A). The point around adding the new privacy principle is to make sure that we have some increased transparency in our privacy laws and that we apply similar standards of information awareness around the collection of personal information to information collected indirectly as we do directly. Of course, IPP 3 provides some requirements for agencies when they are collecting information about individuals directly from them, and IPP 3A will be applying similar requirements on agencies to do with information collected from third parties or indirectly. Now, I understand, having read some of the previous documentation around this bill from the previous consultation—and there was a there was a fair bit of public consultation before the bill was introduced into the House—that there were some concerns around some of the additional costs and the obligations being put on agencies and businesses for this bill. I'd like to address some of those because they are serious concerns—any time the Parliament legislates to put another obligation on a business or an individual, we have to be cognisant of the impact that has on their operations. There are several protections in the bill against some of those additional costs and obligations, the first of which is actually in section 22(3), in clause 4, and that is IPP 3AIPP 3A. That says that an agency is not required to take the steps around notification and around contacting the person involved in the information if that individual has been previously made aware of it by another agency. So, for example, if an agency collects information from you or from a person directly and then informs that person that that information may be passed on to agency B, then agency B does not have to then go on to those steps of making that person aware. The second protection against adding on additional costs would be ensuring that the obligation to provide information is reasonable—you must take reasonable steps in the context about making these individuals aware. Of course, that'll depend on the context of how you've collected the information; where it has come from. If you are, say, collecting information from an agency and it's to do with 10,000 people, it may not be reasonable to write a letter to each of those 10,000 individuals and take the steps. Similarly, if you do not have or hold the contact information for those individuals, again, it may not be reasonable for you to go out and have to track that information down. So there are some protections in there around the obligations and how onerous this may be. Of course, there are a range of exemptions under section 22(4) around agencies when they aren't required to comply. That's to do with grounds such as protection of public revenue, being necessary to maintain the law, not prejudicing individuals' health, or risk or threats to life. I'd like to touch on a couple of other points in the bill that we could consider at the select committee stage. I understand that a bill like this is likely to go to the busy and effective Justice Committee, another piece of legislation to go on the agenda of the busy committee and, of course, privacy actually—[Interruption]—Well, that's it; privacy affects us all, actually. So it could go to one of a number of committees, including the Governance and Administration Committee, which may be a fantastic committee to consider this bill. But, as the chair of the Justice Committee, we do look forward to receiving it. We do look forward to looking and seeing whether there are any parts of the bill that could be improved given the amount of time that has passed since it has come in. One that I would like to touch on, and it's formed part of my maiden speech, is this idea of whether we are overly privacy-anxious when it comes to collecting information. There's a question in the bill and in the Act as it exists, as to whether or not we need to create a distinction between information which is collected and information which is created. Because as a previous public lawyer, there were always concerns around, when dealing with Privacy Act requests, people accessing information which has actually been created within an agency rather than collected from that individual. But in saying that, I'm sure that given the support that looks likely across the House, it will come to the Justice Committee and we look forward to considering it then. CELIA WADE-BROWN (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I stand to support this Privacy Amendment Bill. I'm here for the Green Party to support that. We have a strong commitment to scrutinising intrusive personal surveillance, monitoring of electronic communications, and the storage and exchange of personal data, which is covered by this amendment. Controls on privacy of personal information, the aggregation of information, and the exchange between both Government agencies and private agencies are critical to transparency and individual privacy rights. The key purpose of the bill is to improve transparency for individuals about the collection of their personal information. It will better enable them to exercise their privacy rights, whether that information is held by a private or a public agency. The new notification obligation will update our privacy laws to be in line with international best practice. As James Meager said, in the initial consultation, certain private agencies did express concern about compliance costs, but the right to know who holds data about you trumps, in my view and our view, that cost. Now, the detail of balancing the sovereignty of personal data with the costs, the detail of the exemptions to the information privacy principle (IPP) 3A for public safety, security, and international relations—that's pretty broad. I'm sure that those will be teased out at select committee and be subject to the Privacy Commissioner's input, and I'm pleased to see that the Privacy Commissioner has been involved at all stages of the development of this bill. So, in conclusion, we support this bill at its first reading, and it is a pleasure to see multi-partisan—and I would like just to take a moment to remind the legacy parties that it's a little bit out of date to talk about bipartisan in an MMP Parliament. Thank you, Mr Speaker. SIMON COURT (ACT): I just want to thank the previous speaker, Celia Wade-Brown, for pointing out that we do live in a multi-party world. Isn't it wonderful that we have a coalition Government made up of three parties who are taking New Zealand forward? Today, I'm speaking on behalf of the ACT Party in support of the Privacy Amendment Bill. It's going to significantly increase the transparency of data handling practices, by mandating that public agencies inform individuals when their personal information is collected from third parties. Transparency is absolutely crucial for our compliance with international norms and best practices, such as those outlined in the European Union's general data protection regulations. Aligning New Zealand's privacy standards with such rigorous international frameworks will enhance domestic data protection and, actually, set New Zealand up well to operate on the global stage when our businesses are using data that is acquired in the EU, for example. This bill does address a significant loophole in legislation by introducing a requirement for indirect data collection notifications. Now, I'm assuming that what that will mean for many of us is that our inboxes will fill up with notifications from agencies every time they acquire a piece of data about us. But if Kiwis get sick of that, at least they can be confident that they know who knows what about them, as well as all of the other services they're already subscribed to, and, of course, every time they click "I accept cookies" when they go online. We are intending to safeguard the country's data while ensuring that New Zealand remains an attractive location for international business and tech innovation here, by aligning New Zealand's privacy and data collection laws with those of our trading partners. That is why ACT will be supporting this bill, and we trust that it will get a good hearing at the Justice Committee and that parties across the House will continue to support it until it's passed into law. Thank you, Mr Speaker. TANYA UNKOVICH (NZ First): It's my honour to rise on behalf of New Zealand First and support this bill, the Privacy Amendment Bill. This bill aims to enhance privacy protections in New Zealand by amending the Privacy Act. The primary objective is to improve transparency for individuals regarding the collection of their personal information. It seeks to empower them to exercise their privacy rights as well. Now, currently there's no requirement for an agency, whether public or private, to notify an individual if they have received their information indirectly. So that is why this bill is essential to address this gap. Now, my husband may dispute the comment I'm about to say now, but I'm not really— Hon Scott Simpson: Careful, Tanya. This could be dangerous. TANYA UNKOVICH: —yeah, better be careful—a big shopper. I like to say that I've got a black belt in shopping and I know what I want, and— Hon Scott Simpson: Are you frugal? TANYA UNKOVICH: Yes, the accountant in me is very frugal but the Croat in me thinks that money grows on trees, so that's what my father always taught us. I want to go into a shop and buy what I need, and leave. I'm not one to dawdle online and buy online. Hon Member: Especially if they're shoes. TANYA UNKOVICH: No—well, look, apart from food. But recently I did do that, and all of a sudden I'm noticing I am getting emails and text messages from this organisation, and I'm going, "More fool you." And I find if I haven't been on the site, then I'm getting an email or a text message recommending stuff to me. And what this has done is it has really opened my eyes to the power of data and the power of organisations when they have this data, and that is why I really wanted to raise that topic. I consider myself to be pretty tech savvy, but what if someone is not tech savvy? That is how they buy, and get engaged, and get scammed. So, look, I'm very quick to unsubscribe. I'm very quick to take action, but many people are not. So that is why I feel that this is a very timely piece of legislation, as more and more people are in fact shopping online and their information is going everywhere. There are some technical amendments in this bill. I won't go into those. They've already been mentioned. I will say that New Zealand First is a common-sense party, of course, so we feel that this is a very common-sense bill. We acknowledge and support the importance of privacy rights of New Zealanders, especially in this digital age. There's so much uncertainty. So, we're very much in support for that reason—protecting individuals' privacy but also having that balance of accommodating the legitimate use of the information. We support accountability, we support security, we support transparency. Hon Scott Simpson: All of those are common sense. TANYA UNKOVICH: All of those are common sense, and, of course, international best practice. We do acknowledge the need for some exemptions. I often get emails and I go, "How on earth did that person get that email address?", but it is publicly available. So there is the need to have exemptions when there is information that is already publicly available. Otherwise, it would be a reporting nightmare for agencies, so we do need to take that into account as well when drafting this bill. The world of social media and the internet, as we all know, has changed the world and we do need to change with it and protect each other. Hon Scott Simpson: Who owns the data? TANYA UNKOVICH: Who owns the data? Well, this is a very good question. Who does own the data? Who does own our email addresses if they are publicly known? In summary, New Zealand First will support this bill. It's a common-sense bill and it will bridge the gap that we have currently in our legislation. So we look forward to seeing it in this House. Oh, sorry; did I just put you to sleep, Mr Speaker? SPEAKER: No, that wasn't a very smart thing to say, I've got to say! TANYA UNKOVICH: I beg your pardon. Thank you, Mr Speaker. TĀKUTA FERRIS (Te Pāti Māori —Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe e te Pīka, otirā tēnā rā tātou. E tū ake ana ahau ki te whāngai ake nei i ngā kōrero me te anga a Te Pāti Māori mō tēnei o ngā pire, e mea nei ko te Privacy Amendment Bill, ā, kāore anō hoki au mō te tōwai i ngā kōrero, e te rangatira, nō reira kei te tautoko ake i tā tēnā taha, i tā tēnā taha o te Whare e mea nei ko te manaakitanga o ngā kōrero, ngā kāwai kupu o te tangata he mea tapu, he mea whai mana. Nō reira ka tika me ū mō te hunga ka taka ki a rātou ēnei momo kōrero, e tika anō hoki kia whai wāhi te kaiwhakawhiwhi, me te whakamōhio atu ki te tangata nāna anō ērā kōrero kei te puritia e tētahi hunga. Kei roto i te iwi Māori tētahi kōrero e mea ana, "he mana tō te kupu, ā, he tapu anō hoki tō te kōrero". Ā, ki te kohikohi rānei koe, ki te rongo rānei koe i te kupu o te kōrero, te mana o te tangata, ka tika me whakarangatira i taua mana, i taua kupu. Ki te taka mai ki a koe ngā kōrero a te tangata, he mea nui anō hoki tō whakamana i ērā kōrero, me tō manaaki i ērā kōrero. Kei whiua kinotia ki te tangata, ki te iwi rānei, te whānau rānei nō rātou ērā kōrero. Nō reira e mea ana mātou, ko tā mātou ko te toha ake nei i tētahi tirohanga o te ao Māori i te hunga e whakatere nei i tēnei o ngā ture. Kia ahatia? Kia mārō. Kia ahatia? Kia pai ake mō te katoa, ā, kia whai wāhi anō hoki te iwi Māori me te reo Māori i roto i ēnei tū whakahaere. Me te mahara ake anō hoki ko te ōhanga iwi Māori kei te whanake nui i roto i tēnei ao. Kei te whanake nui i roto i ngā mahi hangarau, ā, kei te whātoro atu te iwi Māori ki ngā tōpito katoa o te ao. Nō reira me whai wāhi te iwi Māori i roto i ēnei momo ture, te whakarite mai o ēnei ture, me te horapa ake o ngā ture. Nō reira kāore e kume kia roa ēnei kōrero, engari ko tā mātou e mea nei, āe, kei te kite atu he hāngaitanga ki tā mātou kaupapahere mō te mana motuhake, kia whai rangatiratanga ake te tangata whenua, kia mōhio mai te tangata whenua kei a wai ōna kōrero, nō wai ngā kōrero rānei, kia whai mana ōrite anō hoki te tangata whenua kei pā kinotia e ētahi āhuatanga i roto i ēnei tūmomo whakahaere o te ture. Nō reira ko Te Pāti Māori tēnei e tautoko ana i tēnei o ngā pire. Taku mihi nui ki te iwi nei e āminehia katotia nei tēnei ture i tēnei ahiahi. Nō reira kei te tautoko ake mātou, tēnā tātou katoa, kei raro. [Thank you, Mr Speaker, indeed greetings to all of us. I stand to offer the comments and direction of the Māori Party concerning this particular bill, known as the Privacy Amendment Bill, and I will also not repeat comments, noble leader, and so I support the contributions of each side of the House that assert that the care taken of the information, the trails of data about the individual are sacred, and they have power. So it is appropriate that this should be unyielding for those to whom these types of information will fall, and it's also appropriate that the entity passing on that data be included, and also to inform the person who owns that data that it is being held by a particular entity. Among the Māori people is a statement that says, "The word has power, and data is also sacred." And, if you were to collect, or were to hear the words of information, the dignity of the individual, it is only right that that dignity and that information be honoured. And so we are saying, what we'd like to do is to share the perspective of Māori society with those who are launching this particular legislation. For what purpose? To firm it up. What for? So that it is better for everyone, and so that the Māori people and the Māori language are included in these types of organisations. And I also recall that the economy of the Māori people is developing within this sector. It is developing within the technology sector, and the Māori people are reaching out to all corners of the globe. So the Māori people should be included in this type of legislation, the preparation of this legislation, and the distribution of this legislation. So I will not drag out these comments, but what we are saying is, yes, we see how it reflects our policy concerning self-determination, so that the people of the land have their own sovereignty, so that the people of the land are aware of who has their information, or who owns that information, and so that the people of the land have equal rights and are not adversely affected by some features within these types of processes of the law So we, the Māori Party, support this particular bill. Many thanks from me to the people who have all approved this legislation this evening. So we are in support, greetings to us all, I resume my seat.] Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Labour is in support of this bill. It's something that we brought in when in Government. It's an important bill that goes a long way to addressing strengthening the privacy framework in New Zealand, to make sure that people are well informed when any particular agency is gathering their personal information. It also introduces a new obligation on those agencies to inform when their information is collected, and, in doing this, it brings New Zealand's laws in line with international best practice—and in an increasingly connected world, we need to make sure that that is in line. It improves the real way that transparency of Government works in New Zealand, which is a good thing. We have, according to Transparency International, some of the world's lowest perceived corruptions in ensuring people understand what is going on and where their information is being used, and this bill will go a long way in strengthening it. I guess I'd just like to wrap up with a word of warning that a lot of this work that is critical would be classified by those members opposite as back of office. This is exactly the type of work that is well in line for cuts in the Public Service. If we want to be best practice in the world, if we want high-quality privacy practices and we want this bill to be implemented, then we will be calling upon people whose desks will soon be vacant. As we cut and cull the Public Service, those opposite will slowly learn that the papers and the information that they rely on upon to pass their laws and have their policy made are less likely to occur as quickly and as efficiently as possible. CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): I rise in support—like everyone else this afternoon, by the look of it—of this Privacy Amendment Bill. The bill, as others have canvassed, modifies the Privacy Act 2020, with the purpose to improve transparency for individuals about the collection of their personal information and better enable individuals to exercise their privacy rights. Having a look at a few documents, there's some information and quotes here that might be of interest to our television audience trying to make sense of this piece of legislation. The Regulatory Impact Statement, when the previous Government looked at broadening the Privacy Act 2020, stated: "Currently, individuals are notified when their personal information is collected directly from them, but not when personal information about them is collected from another agency (the indirect collection issue). If no action is taken," and I think this is the key point this afternoon, "there is risk of a widening 'transparency gap' where individuals are increasingly unaware of who holds their personal information. This is due to the increasing rate of which personal information is collected and shared, particularly given the growth of the digital economy". The Privacy Commissioner, Mr Michael Webster, who we had the privilege of meeting and exchanging Q and A with today in the Justice Committee, came out with a statement on 7 September 2023 which backed the changes that we are looking at here on the first reading, and we'll throw it to the Justice Committee, hopefully, when this is passed this afternoon. The Privacy Commissioner's statement read: "Proposed change to Privacy Act will enhance transparency". This quote says the commissioner is fundamental to protecting the privacy rights of individuals by informing them about their how their personal information is used: "We support the amendment for the Privacy Act to have a broader transparency requirement, so the agencies need to think about how to inform people that are collecting their information, regardless of its source and what their privacy rights are." This amendment is also, they conclude, "about keeping up with international best practice. Australia already has it". The implications are, as some have noted, in an era where the value of data is increasingly proposed, this commentator says the bill will create a fresh set of challenges and opportunities for businesses in New Zealand who rely on indirect collection of personal information. This is an important comment for businesses to take on board and who may want to submit on. While the amendments are relatively targeted, this commentator expects that we may have significant implications on businesses, data governance strategies, and ongoing product design decisions. Businesses should start preparing for the proposed changes, they say, well in advance, and should consider, in particular, how the business will discharge the proposed obligations. How will the exceptions apply in practice? So I encourage New Zealand businesses large and small to get their head around this piece of legislation that, hopefully, will pass through its first reading, and then go through a submission process at the Justice Committee. Another legal commentator advises their clients—key takeouts: update your privacy policy, review your customer onboarding and engagement processes, update your information management system, be prepared to deal with individuals without having a direct contractual relationship. The Cabinet paper the previous Government put together in about September last year showed just how extensive the consultation was for this, and it went across the Inland Revenue Department, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, the Ministry of Primary Industries, Police, the Department of Corrections, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Ministry of Defence, Treasury, Accident Compensation, and Waka Kotahi. I commend this bill to the House. Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Mr Speaker, thank you. Oh gosh, what's left to say about the Privacy Amendment Bill at this time on a Thursday early evening? The Privacy Amendment Bill is well known to us. It was one of those things that we were doing the work on in the last Government, so we're very pleased to see that the coalition Government has decided to carry that on and bring it to the House. I suspect that there's not been an awful lot of competition for new bills and pieces of legislation to make their way to this House, so we are the benefactors of that by being able to get this one done. It's an excellent bill. It improves transparency and strengthens the individual privacy rights, as almost everybody has commented on today. But I do want to also take the chance to reiterate that it's almost a little bit ironic that it's yet another example of those really important things that we take for granted—and shouldn't take for granted—and we all value, when we get the opportunity to talk about the importance of these things, and they're done by those very important people who sometimes get referred to as "back-office staff". So that's a little bit ironic. But, certainly, today, Labour supports this bill and I commend it to the House. PAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn): We live in a very rapidly digitising world, with artificial intelligence (AI) assisting a lot of technology. We have AI chat boxes popping up on our screens all the time. Our information is held on our phones. We probably have our passports, our bank accounts, everything on our phones. Everything is online, and it's moving really quickly. This is a fantastic thing and we are happy that in New Zealand we have an adequacy status from the EU's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). It is one of those rare moments when we are happy to be considered adequate, having this status of adequacy, but what it really means is that New Zealand is a fantastic place to be. It is a good place in the world to do business. In fact, the adequacy status that we have is not enjoyed by many countries around the world, and having lived and worked in other countries myself, the enjoyment and the privilege of having a high level of privacy protection in New Zealand is indeed something to be proud of. We enjoy a lot of trade relations with other countries, and New Zealand boasts a high level of technological business in the digital economy, including our video and gaming industries, which are all online. With this, it is important to note that the adequacy status that we have is the fruit of a privacy regulation that was established quite a while ago, with the adequacy status being provided us in 2013—over a decade ago. And looking at the rapid escalation of AI and biometrics and the risks that come along with these developments—risks that have not been accounted for; for example, risks to children and the privacy of children—we have to look forward, and the EU's GDPR has been closely working with our Privacy Commissioner, ensuring that we are looking ahead and making sure that we are continuing to meet our international obligations. There has been a loophole in our Privacy Act, which this Privacy Amendment Bill seeks to remedy, and that is in information privacy principle 3, when agencies acquire our personal information. That personal information would be our names and our addresses, and the purposes for the information being collected, and the rights of our access to and correction of that record, when directly requested of us by agencies, is already protected. However, there is that loophole which this bill seeks to amend, which is when other agencies take our information from what is already out in the digital world. What this bill seeks to do is to ensure that we are notified and made aware when our information is taken from outside in the digital world and not directly from us. So this is an amendment that keeps our own Privacy Act in tempo with the rest of the world. We commend this bill to the House. Motion agreed to. Bill read a first time. SPEAKER: The question is, That the Privacy Amendment Bill be considered by the Justice Committee. Motion agreed to. Bill referred to the Justice Committee. IMMIGRATION (MASS ARRIVALS) AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Debate resumed from 1 May. Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Immigration): I rise to speak in support of the Immigration (Mass Arrivals) Amendment Bill. To be clear, this bill's amendments are focused on excluding members of mass arrival groups from provisions deeming certain passengers to hold visa and entry permission. It will: allow members of mass arrival groups to apply for temporary visas, require members of mass arrival groups without visas to apply for entry permission on arrival, adjust the period of detention for members of mass arrival groups, extend the time of for detention of members of mass arrival groups until a mass arrival warrant application is determined, and set time frames for the determination of mass arrival warrant applications. Listening to the debate last night, it is apparent that many groups have made their concerns known through the select committee process that led the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee to be unable to reach a unanimous agreement on whether to recommend the bill. I feel privileged to speak on this bill because I have skin in this game. Having worked with victims of exploitation, and now as the Associate Minister of Immigration responsible for refugee services, I feel I have a good understanding of both what this bill is seeking to achieve and the reality for those who would likely be arriving as part of a mass arrival. I have worked to protect exploited migrants. I have interviewed them and seen the consequences of the manipulation and the force that is placed upon them, both in this country and on their families in their homes. It is sad to see that there are individuals who would choose to manipulate people that are so vulnerable, but it is a reality. I believe that this bill is necessary to ensure there are sufficient protections in place. Sadly, we are fully aware of the millions of people that are displaced, living in conditions that most of us could not even imagine. The level of desperation that must exist to flee those environments is something that gives you pause to think. We can witness that desperation every day in the attempts we see to find safe haven in countries where they hope there will be a better life—the risks they take, these circumstances they will enter into to flee into an unknown, in sometimes horrific conditions of transport, to try and reach safe haven. It has been repeatedly noted in this House that the risk of a mass arrival reaching our shores is low. We live with a sense of security that we are beyond reach. We are a three-hour flight from any major departure point. We live in a sense of security that it is someone else's problem and it won't happen here. But, as has also been said in the House, this risk is low but it is not zero risk. The reality is that we have been rocked too many times in recent years by events that we thought would never happen here. The fact is that we have to be prepared, and the introduction of this bill shows that New Zealand is recognising the importance of being prepared. We can no longer live with the comfort of hiding under the covers and believing that nothing bad can happen. This bill is a practical and logical step towards being prepared—to provide the foundation from which we can further develop plans, create relevant procedures, train people, put in guidelines, and perhaps even run a few exercises to test our capability. That practical step should be applauded. Having a legislative commitment is essential in this space. It sends a clear message that we know what we are doing and we are prepared for it. It is time that we behave like the grown-ups in the room and be realistic and balanced in our discussions. Much focus last night was placed on the human rights of those arriving and our responsibility towards those who had found themselves as part of a mass arrival. That is the very point of this bill. Just for a moment, I ask those here to consider the circumstances of someone who has placed themselves in such a vulnerable position to travel to the end of the world. Think about what they have likely escaped. Think about their mental and physical condition from the circumstances they have fled, and think about their mental and physical condition that will have been impacted by the reality of the journey they have taken to get here. But also, think about the level of distrust and fear of authority that these individuals will likely have. I would then ask those here to think about those who have not voluntarily taken this journey or who have been deceived in the reason they took this journey, those who may be, at their time of travel, under the influence of others and in fear not only of their own lives but for the lives of those that they have left behind. This is the reality of a mass arrival. These are the circumstances we need to have the legislative authority to deal with. There has been alarm created by the term "detention". There has, in this House last night, been fearmongering about the type of venues that would be used for this detention: "What about our children?" was the cry. New Zealand rallies. If the last few years have taught us nothing, New Zealand rallies. We created capacity and resource when needed, we will do it again, and this legislation makes sure there is the appetite, capability, and capacity to create it. It is a serious matter—not one for jibes and for conflict; it's one where we need to come together so we are prepared. Just for a moment, let's have a sensible conversation. This bill is about protection—protection for those arriving, and protection for New Zealanders from those that have arrived. I have spoken recently to those working and living in the Māngere Refugee Resettlement Centre. The mental health service providers explained the level of trauma that some who arrive here have to work through—and that is from those who have gone through a settlement process, who have been interviewed, assessed, provided support, health checks, and given clear understanding of what lies ahead. What preparation and what intervention is available for those on a mass arrival? Detention is essential for those who likely have a very justifiable distrust of officials and will look to quickly flee, purely because that is all they have known. These arrivals will have need, as has been said before, for healthcare, immediate support, and a safe haven. They need to be given time to build trust, they need translators, and they need legal representation. This legislation provides the time to understand each individual's circumstances and ensure that what is needed for them is in place, so we don't make decisions at haste. We are ensuring that they are protected. We also need to know whether they are in need of other protections—from those whom they travelled with, or from those who sent them here. There is so much that needs to be known, and it is not a quick process. From across the House last night, we heard impassioned words about the high needs and trauma of those arriving, about how detention is the worst thing that could happen, while offering no commentary on what the alternative is. Those who are trafficked or are being exploited need immediate and effective protection, they need time to understand where they are and what is available. That is what this bill is going to provide. This is not a time for emotive rhetoric; this is our opportunity to be calm, sensible, and rational. This is our time to plan. This is our time to demonstrate that we will be prepared and that we have actually understood the reality of what a mass arrival means. I take great privilege in commending this bill to the House. TĀKUTA FERRIS (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Ngā mihi ki a koe o tēnā tātou. E tū ana ahau ki te waha i ngā kōrero mō tēnei pire e kīia nei ko te immigration amendment bill mā Te Pāti Māori. [I stand to convey the statements about this bill known as the immigration amendment bill on behalf of the Māori Party.] The amendments in discussion today will make changes to the Immigration Act 2009, will enable District Courts more time to manage what they consider "irregular immigrants". This is not a new thing for te Iwi Māori. We've been dealing with irregular immigrants for the last 184 years. Currently under the Immigration Act, an asylum seeker can be detained for a maximum of 96 hours without a warrant being issued. The bill will allow refugees deemed as part of a mass arrival to be detained for as long as it takes officials and the courts to process their application for asylum. We all know that our courts are already jam-packed and can barely keep up, so that period of time is likely to be substantially longer than anyone thinks. It would also allow asylum seekers to arrive en masse for them to be put, effectively, into prisons and monitored by electronic bracelet or be held in a facility until they can be processed. This is hardly manaakitanga from a te Iwi Māori perspective. We know how slow the system is already, and we also know how expensive it is to detain individuals. Putting people in cages seems the only solution that this Government can seem to offer at this time and is yet another example of this Government—and successive Governments—using outdated and old-school thinking. Te Pāti Māori opposes this bill and we do so on the basis of a couple of simple ideas. Firstly, the bill is trying to address an issue that doesn't exist. No asylum seekers have successfully arrived in Aotearoa by boat. Well, not since 1840 anyway. And it's highly unlikely that they would ever be able to do so, which, by the way, the Government themselves have acknowledged. My second point is that, given there is no real threat, the Government are therefore fear mongering once again, as they have done time and time again throughout the entirety of their term in Parliament to date. This Government uses fear to control and manipulate public opinion and perception or focus on to irrelevant issues while they work in the background to strip rights from te Iwi Māori, as they have done so with the repeal of the section 7AA Act and the Oranga Tamariki Act, the removal of Te Tiriti o Waitangi provisions from the Corrections Amendment Bill and the suppression of the true history of this country. Or perhaps it is the Government that are fearful, given that they too arrived here nearly 200 years ago on a boat, seeking asylum, seeking refuge from their own land. And perhaps that fear is the knowledge of what their ancestors did to the people of this country, to te Iwi Māori, to colonise by force, to steal from their hosts, to marginalise, despite the consent and the manaakitanga that our people gave to them when they arrived starving, sickly, and, in actual fact, all by accident. The measures in this legislation are discriminatory by nature and unfair towards immigrants. By allowing for the detention of refugees without any time limit, electronic ankle bracelets that treat asylum seekers like criminals, New Zealand will breach the human rights of those in need. It will, too, undermine the ability of tangata whenua to manaaki and uphold the rights of our own manuhiri in our own whenua, Aotearoa. What this Government must do is switch from a punitive approach, switch from the thinking that stains the 1800s, switch from the thinking that stains the 20th century, and instead join those of us in 2024 where progressive and innovative thinking is absolutely necessary for what the future holds. In an era of climate crisis that will produce climate change refugees, beyond a shadow of a doubt, we must be adequately prepared and ready to manaaki whoever seeks asylum here in Aotearoa. So we cannot support this bill, as it seeks to criminalise those who come in the greatest time of need. Ko tā Te Pāti Māori, e kore nei e tautoko i tēnei pire. Kei raro. [The Māori Party's perspective, we will not support his bill. I resume my seat.] JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I'd like to seek your guidance. I don't know whether this is the right time to raise it, and I don't want to interrupt the member, Tākuta Ferris, but I understand that he did refer to matters, in his contribution, which are currently before the Justice Committee and which are confidential to the committee. I just want to get some guidance from you as to what the correct course of action would be. SPEAKER: The correct course of action is that—I'm sorry, I don't know everything that's going on at all select committees, but if there are matters before a select committee that the member has raised in his speech, that is a breach of privilege of the House. While it's not, you know, a terminal offence in any way, I'd certainly counsel him not to refer to matters that are part of the decision making of the select committee. Matters that are before the select committee like the name of a bill, etc.—yes, they can be mentioned, but the deliberations, considerations of a select committee, until they are reported to the House, remain private to the select committee. Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Mr Speaker, thank you. The Green Party unequivocally oppose this bill. Let's begin with the report from the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. We have heard from other speakers saying that they have spoken to a wide variety of people, without any particular substance, but what we do know for sure is that nearly all of the submissions we received at the select committee opposed this bill. That is incredibly significant considering the reason why we have select committees, the reason why we have this democratic process where the people of Aotearoa are able to participate in our decision making and also guide the legislature in our decision making. But just to highlight some of the reasons for their opposition: first of all, from an international protocol perspective, we as Aotearoa New Zealand have an obligation under the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees—the Refugee Convention—and the 1967 Protocol. We also have an obligation under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which we have sought to uphold. This bill does nothing for our international obligations. Also, when it comes to something like this—and, again, I think this is something that members and people and the public sometimes get wrong: there's a clear difference between what is a migrant, what is a refugee, what is an asylum seeker, and who is also at the hands of human trafficking. These are separate things. They are not the same and have been equated as the same through sheer ignorance of some of the members. SPEAKER: Look, that's not a reference you can make. Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: OK, I— SPEAKER: So back it up and apologise to the House for that. Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: I apologise. I will take that back. I do apologise to the House for that. This is not something that I think should be equated. Another angle for this is around the treatment of vulnerable people. Those people who are here on asylum-seeking status are here because they are often at risk in their home country. We're looking at people who have already suffered trauma: children, women, disabled, those from the rainbow communities. They are here in those circumstances, and, like it was said by the previous speaker Tākuta Ferris, we have not been able to extend the manaakitanga to these people who are already fearing for their lives. In the full, independent inquiry into asylum seekers a few years ago, it was said that the asylum seekers are being held and have been held by successive Governments in Mt Eden prison, a maximum security and criminal prison, and the absolute isolation and trauma of having to escape a war or really serious prosecution—particularly, for example, gay men from Iran who would have been executed are being placed in an environment where they are again suffering additional trauma. Let's be clear: this bill is a technical solution for something that potentially may happen in Aotearoa, but what it does highlight is the underlying issue that we have underfunded our immigration system. We have underfunded Immigration New Zealand and we have underfunded the court system to be able to uphold each individual person's human rights in Aotearoa regardless of their status. So, in this particular case, if we're able to just resource those sectors properly and they're able to do the work that they need to do, we have a win-win situation where we can uphold these people and their mana at the same time as being able to fulfil the efficiency and the requirement within the existing legislation. We do not think that this legislation will go any further in helping those who are seeking a safe and permanent home in Aotearoa, and, with that, again, the Green Party unequivocally oppose this bill. KATIE NIMON (National—Napier): Look, it's a great opportunity for me to rise on the second reading of the Immigration (Mass Arrivals) Amendment Bill. I firstly just want to acknowledge that, of course, this bill went through select committee in the last Parliament. I was not a member of the select committee at that time. However, if it were to go forward in front of select committee now, that would be the committee that I chair. Just to acknowledge that regarding some of the remarks from members opposite—not only today but also last night—I just would like to start by pointing out a few things. I wonder if the member opposite in the Māori Party doesn't realise that this was introduced by the previous Government, and so some of the claims that were being made were, perhaps, not relevant to the current Government. What I would like to say, though, in acknowledgment of this particular bill, is that context, information, and time change a lot of things. This is something that, you know, without giving it full consideration or understanding the full depth of the context, perhaps there may be a lack of understanding of why this is so important. And so, of course, I'm going to take the House through some of those points. I think another point to make to the member opposite who tried to talk about us joining them in 2024—I would invite them also to join us in 2024, realising that the rest of the world is catching up to us very quickly. To assume that this is not our problem is perhaps not a good idea. I think that what we should start with is exactly that point. This bill amends the Immigration Act of 2009. Now, in 2009, the likelihood of a mass arrival to New Zealand was far less than it is now. If the House would join with me in recalling—if anyone has worked in any kind of health and safety space—a risk matrix. While something might have a low likelihood of happening, if it has a catastrophic outcome or a high-risk outcome, it in fact becomes high risk. That is exactly what it is that we are dealing with here in this case. What I want to talk to specifically is about what it is that we are aiming to change. I might just make the point that 96 hours is the time, at this point, that is afforded to those who arrive en masse to New Zealand to get all the representation to be before the courts, to deliver on all of the things that are required of them to go through this process. Now, 96 hours—quick maths: that's four days. That's not four business days; that is four days. Now, you can't even get a doctor's appointment, at this point, in that time. Carl Bates: We're fixing that. KATIE NIMON: Yeah, good—well, we are, exactly, and thank goodness for that. But we are fixing this at the moment. And at the moment, to get accurate and fair and appropriate legal support, to be able to have time in front of the courts, and to be able to be treated for the health issues that are, perhaps, very likely for people coming into New Zealand en masse, 96 hours is not enough time. Now, the proposal that we have before us is staged, and it is far more reasonable to expect that members coming to New Zealand en masse would have a fair and appropriate period of time to go through the process that is required of them. But I just want to go back to the point that the issue doesn't exist. This issue does exist for countries like Australia, and Australia is far closer than people sometimes realise. We talk all the time, in a positive respect, about how similar to Australia that we are, but I think this is something that we need to take quite seriously. Carl Bates: We're still superior! KATIE NIMON: Well that's exactly right. New Zealand is still—well, no, look, I won't go there. But the one thing I did also want to make the point on—just going back to members opposite on both today and yesterday's discussion on this particular bill—I just want to talk about the misrepresentation of this bill. It is not what it is being made out to be by members opposite: there are no prisons, there are no cages; those are outrageous claims. The Minister who introduced this bill, Minister Erica Stanford, has taken detailed advice and briefings on this. She's talked at length about facilities like managed isolation and quarantine, facilities that we need to make sure are prepared for an occurrence of something when it does occur. I want to make the point that we can't just assume that it's not going to happen in New Zealand—and when it does, we also don't want to go through the process that is currently before us, without amending this bill, and expect that it is a fair treatment. Members opposite were also talking about the human rights of these people that come into New Zealand if it were to happen. Actually, the human rights of this situation is to have fair treatment, to have ample time to have suitable accommodation, and suitable support for them. I just want to also point out the assertion from the member from the Green Party last night that we have said that this is in preparation for the occasion that it happens—so, you know, not waiting until something happens that we are not prepared for so that we can't treat them fairly. And this is exactly the point. So the bill, obviously, where it first talks about this situation was in 2009. It's now 2024 and we are changing this not necessarily for something that's going to happen tomorrow, but perhaps something that's going to happen in a couple of years' time. It is better for us to prepare for it now rather than dealing with it when it happens in a couple of years' time, if it does. So, look, I just want to focus in on the 96 hours that is currently afforded to asylum seekers if they come en masse into New Zealand: 96 hours to find the legal support, to be treated for any health concerns—not taking into any consideration necessarily what they've been dealing with, if they're coming by boat to New Zealand, you know, all manner of health concerns that can be unfortunately cast upon them during that time. We don't know where they would come into New Zealand. I'm from a coastal region, in Hawke's Bay. Members— Tom Rutherford: I'm from the Bay. KATIE NIMON: Yes, look, we've got Bay of Plenty, we've got Timaru, Rangitata, we've got Wairarapa, we've got Northland—New Zealand is a coastal country. New Zealand— Hon Scott Simpson: What about the Coromandel? KATIE NIMON: Oh, and the Coromandel, of course. Absolutely. Thank you—thank you, members. Absolute perfect point made that New Zealand is a coastal country; a country of a massive amount of coastline, and we need to be prepared. We cannot assume— Tom Rutherford: You've got to take the boat to get to the Cathedral Cove at the moment. KATIE NIMON: Well, that's exactly right, but we cannot assume that what is going to happen is exactly where we plan it to happen, exactly when we plan it to happen, exactly how we plan it to happen. So we need to make these settings suitable for any occurrence when it may happen. Look, I want to talk in regard to the location and type of facilities. This was another item that was raised by a previous member. I just want to remind the member—all members, actually; it's probably a helpful point—that this is policy and law, not an operational dictation. We need to make the settings right so that the work can be done by officials to make the proper preparations on the ground. Tom Rutherford: This is governance. KATIE NIMON: This is governance, not operations, and that is why it is so important for us to do this work. Because we want to make sure that there are the settings in place for a fair process, not to tell them where we're going to set up a facility, what exactly it's going to look like, exactly what cove that we're going to be preparing for it to happen in, or bay. This is the most important thing. So what I want to make the point of, again, is that 96 hours, as it stands—and I'm going to just share this so that it's very clear to all members—an application will have to be made within 96 hours. Now, 96 hours of initial arrest and detention, and the court must determine that the application as soon as is reasonably practical—within seven days, the court considers. Then there is 28 days for determination of the application. It clarifies the responsibilities of members, and it is really important that they are given that opportunity. Look, I just want to make sure that it is reminded to all members that this was deprioritised during 2020 and 2021—obviously during a thing that we had called COVID-19—but was picked back up again in 2022. I think it is very important for me to remind members that this is something that needs to be supported across the House. I understand that there are reasons across the House why they may not be comfortable, but I want to assure all members that this is an insurance policy for New Zealand. We have, in fact, talked a lot about insurance, and this is a perfect example of insurance on an international security scale. It is both about New Zealand and it is about those seeking asylum. It is important that we do this right and that we don't assume that our little corner of the world—our island paradise in New Zealand—is the last place on Earth that anything is going to happen. It is important that we are prepared and we are prepared to support those that need our help. Hon Member: Look after these people. KATIE NIMON: And that's exactly right, we've got to look after every single person that comes to New Zealand in whatever condition they come to New Zealand in. Look, I just want to make sure that it is reinforced that we are being realistic with this bill. The District Courts—and, again, reminding people we have a long coastline; this could happen everywhere and anywhere in New Zealand. Any court system needs to be prepared for this to happen, and we have got to change the settings so that we give them the support that they need. Thank you. Hon JENNY SALESA (Labour—Panmure-Ōtāhuhu): Kia ora, Mr Speaker, and thank you for this opportunity to contribute this afternoon. The Immigration (Mass Arrivals) Amendment Bill was referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee last year, and I would like to acknowledge and thank all of the organisations, the individuals, and NGOs who made submissions on this bill. I'd also like to acknowledge the right honourable Speaker, who was a member of that very collegial select committee. Most of the 322 submissions that were received were opposed to this bill; in fact, only four of the submissions were in favour of the bill. We are committed to an immigration system that serves our refugees and asylum seekers with dignity and with respect and adheres to New Zealand's obligations under international law. Many of the refugee and human rights organisations that made very strong submissions at select committee opposing this bill, I would like to actually say that we hear your concerns. We also heard concerns from people with lived experience, and they were very convincing in the reasons why they were not supporting this bill. There are a number of reasons why so many of the submissions received were opposed, and I want to state for the record—especially for new members to the House—that the National Party was also in opposition to this bill last year. Submissions that were received were concerned about the increase in detention time without warrant. Some noted that the refugee convention and its protocol, which New Zealand ratified, allows refugees rights and entitlements. Some submitters pointed out that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which New Zealand seeks to uphold, states that everyone has the right to seek asylum in other countries. The previous speakers have already covered in some detail the 96 hours and said that it's not adequate time, so I'm not going to cover that again. But there is also the challenge of not having enough refugee immigration and law practitioners. Labour has been very concerned about asylum seekers' processes and procedures for a while, and so we commissioned a review. In 2022, the Government at the time received the independent review by Victoria Casey KC, which found significant difficulties in asylum seekers being able to access and obtain legal representation. Many asylum seekers arrive in New Zealand with not many resources, and, in a lot of cases, are reliant on our legal aid system. Unfortunately, she found that there were only 30 refugee and immigration law practitioners across Aotearoa New Zealand. We are supporting this bill at second reading. However, this is conditional support because we would like additional safeguards in response to the many submissions that were received. We would like to bring additional amendments that we hope the Government would be agreeable to at the committee of the whole House stage. Thank you, Mr Speaker. CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Before I get too far into my contribution this evening, I'd just like to take a moment to reflect on what travel means. I've had the opportunity—the privileged opportunity—to travel extensively over the years, both for work and for play, and on several occasions we've ended up in situations that are somewhat challenging, but by no means as challenging as that which would occur in the context of a mass arrival. On one occasion back in 2001, along with a group of students from across New Zealand travelling to the Hague International Model United Nations, we ended up sleeping overnight on the floor of Amsterdam Airport. Now, that's not the only occasion, funnily enough, I've ended up sleeping on the floor of an airport, and on an occasion, I did end up sleeping on the floor of an airport with my wife and with our children. SPEAKER: That's a fascinating story, but relevance would be a good thing here. CARL BATES: Mr Speaker, I'll pull that to the relevance of this bill. The point I wanted to make is that I couldn't even comprehend the experience that those on boats—I would assume it would be—have endured in their journey to get to New Zealand, and then to arrive and not have a system or a structure to be welcomed by. Essentially, those who oppose this bill this evening are saying "Let's not worry about it, because it ain't going to happen." at the same time as arguing about all of the things that this bill creates as problems when it will occur or could occur. Where this bill provides a framework for us to be prepared to ensure that those that arrive on our shores through whatever means in some mass arrival situation are able to be welcomed in an appropriate manner and supported when they arrive. Those that oppose this bill—let's imagine for a moment that this isn't passed—are saying that we have 96 hours to ensure the legal support is provided. Well, what if that doesn't happen? What does it look like when we don't provide that legal support or aren't able to, because there are only, as I understand it, approximately 40 lawyers throughout the country that have the ability to represent people who arrive in a mass arrival event, and assuming that it was late on a Friday night that this occurred, two of those days are already gone—a Saturday and a Sunday, as my learned colleague and chair of the Education and Workforce Committee has already alluded to. What happens if we haven't allowed for planning for the accommodation because we haven't in our legal structure considered that we would have to look after these individuals who have arrived as part of a mass arrival event in accommodation for up to 28 days, because we haven't considered that it's a possibility? Well, as someone who went through the managed isolation and quarantine process, if we had the opportunity to actually prepare and ensure that accommodation, food, and care for those children—their health and welfare needs along with their mental and psychosocial challenges that I imagine would have occurred on that journey—are prepared for. What if we haven't passed this legislation and haven't had the opportunity to prepare for this occurrence? I can imagine and I can already hear the ringing in our ears of the Opposition then asking the Minister in question time why she hasn't prepared for this scenario. That is what would happen if we do not pass this piece of legislation, and I'd love for the Opposition to get up and to tell me that if we don't pass this bill, they won't have the Minister on in a scenario where there was a mass arrival event and we hadn't passed this piece of legislation and aren't prepared for it. I'd be really keen to hear one of the Opposition—and I'd invite you even to call me on a point of order on this and tell me that I'm wrong, because we know that I'm not. The Opposition has spent a lot of time this evening speaking about lived experience and, at the same time, is telling us that this is a hypothetical that's never going to happen. So let's pick a lane, ladies and gentlemen; let's pick a lane, Mr Speaker. Let's not choose the "let's not worry" approach, and let's ensure that we are prepared for what this could look like. When it comes to whether or not this is likely, there are huge advances in boat technology. In my own electorate of the wonderful Whanganui, we have an organisation called Q-West Boat Builders. A quick visit to their facility would demonstrate to you that it won't be long before the boating technology is there for this sort of occurrence to happen on our shores. I hope, therefore, I've made a very clear case that this is something that we should be addressing and a piece of legislation that we should be passing to ensure that we have a framework to support the individuals who arrive on our shores. Lastly, in relation to the previous speakers, I just want to touch on this idea that we are somehow criminalising people through this piece of legislation. I can't find the word "criminal" in the Immigration (Mass Arrivals) Amendment Bill, and I'm not therefore sure who we are creating as a criminal by simply providing a framework to support them if they were to arrive on our shores. The reality is the current settings are simply not appropriate, and while this may be very unlikely, given the increasingly global trends towards mass arrivals, having a framework in place to support this is critical. This bill allows detention until the application is determined. It allows for the 96 hours of application still to be made—or the application still has to be made within that 96 hours—and for the court to determine within seven days whether or not an appropriate application can be made. [The Hon Andrew Bayly is playing Parliament Video on his cellphone] And I love it, Minister, that you are appreciating my contribution so much that you want to listen to it twice. We'll send you a link to this contribution so that you can hear it, and I will also take you to Q-West builders in the wonderful Whanganui electorate, Minister, when you're there. But coming back to the time frame, there's a 96-hour application. The court can then determine within seven days whether or not it has enough information to approve or otherwise the application, or it can choose to adjourn. Now, there was a suggestion that, then, it would adjourn for some undefined period of time. Well, the bill is very clear that the court "must"—not if, not may, not could, but "must"—determine within 28 days its view on that application. The Minister expressed a confidence, and I understand from this Minister's confidence—I trust her confidence. She's doing a great job in getting immigration back on track. She has confidence that this strikes a balance between the needs of those individuals arriving, being human in providing the space for them to arrive, to engage with legal support, and to ensure that they have that accommodation and comfort during that period to go through the process, and to have a court—in an appropriate period of time—make a reasonable determination on their application. I think that's the sort of New Zealand that we want people to arrive in. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I commend this bill to the House. Hon Rachel Brooking: Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: Well, actually there's a speaking order, but I call on the Hon Rachel Brooking. I'm sorry, but this will be a short contribution. Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will note, given the time that we are speaking at, that I want to endorse everything that my colleague the Hon Jenny Salesa just said before, particularly that the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, which considered this bill—which didn't report back with a track-changed version—was a very thoughtful membership. I know that everybody on that committee would have cared a great deal about both human rights and the manaakitanga that we've heard about. I just want to quickly touch on the Immigration Act itself and that it does define a "mass arrival group" at section 9A. That means more than 30 people who don't have a visa, or are stowaways, who arrive in New Zealand on board the same craft—a craft not being something that is a scheduled international service. "Craft" is then defined as "any form of aircraft, ship, or other vehicle or vessel capable of being … used to transport [persons] to or from New Zealand". So it's a large craft, a range of crafts. The issue that we found was that the 2009 legislation doesn't provide for a mass arrival in terms of being clear about what would happen to those people. So, as my colleague the Hon Jenny Salesa said, the Labour Party listened carefully to the objections that were made at that select committee, and we'll have some Amendment Papers when we're in the committee of the House stage. Thank you. SPEAKER: The time for me to leave the Chair has arrived. The House will resume again at 2 p.m. on 7 May. Debate interrupted. The House adjourned at 5.58 p.m.