Wednesday, 31 July 2024 - Volume 777 - New Zealand Parliament (2024)

WEDNESDAY, 31 JULY 2024

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

KARAKIA/PRAYERS

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): 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. Āmene.

[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.]

POINTS OF ORDER

Leave to Table Documents—Correspondence with Speaker

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table a series of documents, being correspondence between yourself and the ACT Party whip, dated from 25 July—last Thursday—to today in which you appear to give a green light to racial harassment in this Parliament.

SPEAKER: I beg your pardon? Say that all again. I could hardly hear you. Speak into the microphone.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I seek leave to table a series of documents, being correspondence between the ACT Party whip and yourself, dated from 25 July—Thursday—to today, wherein you appear to give a green light to racial harassment in this Parliament.

SPEAKER: Well, you're asking the Parliament to make a judgment in this case, or you're asking the Parliament to accept your judgment, in which case I certainly don't, but none the less you've sought leave—

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition): Point of order, Mr Speaker. Speaking to that point of order. What we've just seen from a Minister in the Government is an absolutely outrageous attack on the Speaker of the House. Now, I appreciate you're being very restrained in your response to that, but you would be well within your rights to censure David Seymour for this. This is directly questioning your ruling as a Speaker and your authority as a Speaker in a way that I've not seen in the time that I've been in this House. And it's a senior Government Minister, who will shortly be deputy Prime Minister, who's doing it; it's utterly unacceptable.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order.

SPEAKER: Point of order—well hang on a minute, it can't be a new point of order, so are you speaking to the point of order?

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Speaking to the point of order. Thank you for your clarity. We also would like to express our deep concern at this senior position abusing the role to sit there and actually say that your ruling was wrong. Te Pāti Māori received that ruling and we stand by your judgment and indeed your years of professional experience to be able to give that judgment, so we would ask that we are able to carry on.

SPEAKER: Carry on with what?

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: With business as usual—sorry, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Right. Well, I'll tell you what, I'll put the leave. Leave is put, is there any objection? There is objection.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: You should have objected too—what kind of a Leader of the House are you? [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just a minute—

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister): Point of order, Mr Speaker. If we're going to have a plea for decorum in this House, then you cannot have someone saying, "You should have objected too", because what Mr Hipkins is saying is that you personally, as Speaker of this House, should've objected to what is going on. Now, with the greatest respect, I think he should get a better fix on Standing Orders before he so prematurely gets to his feet.

SPEAKER: Look, I appreciate the tensions that naturally—

Hon Willie Jackson: Stand up for your people.

SPEAKER: Yeah, Willie, we don't need that, thanks very much. I'm OK to look after myself in many ways. I think my view is that leave was sought, the House has expressed a view that the leave is not sought, and therefore it ends there.

PETITIONS, PAPERS, SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

SPEAKER: A petition has been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.

CLERK: Petition of Kevin Moran requesting that the House urge the Government not to list Sams Creek Mine in Schedule 2 of the Fast-track Approvals Bill.

SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee. A paper has been delivered for presentation.

CLERK: Network for Learning Limited Statement of Intent 2024-28, together with Statement of Performance Expectations 2024/25.

SPEAKER: That paper is published under the authority of the House. No select committee reports have been delivered for presentation; no bills introduced.

ORAL QUESTIONS

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Question No. 1—Finance

1. KATIE NIMON (National—Napier) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen about tax relief for New Zealanders?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Associate Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: This morning, I saw a report that tax relief is finally arriving for hard-working New Zealanders, who've waited 14 long years. The good news is that tax relief arrives today. The report goes on to say, "Overall, 83 percent of Kiwis—94 percent of households—will benefit from the tax package", which comes into effect today. The report is titled "Promised Cost of Living Relief is Here", and it came from the Minister of Finance's office this morning. On this side of the House, we're very pleased to be making sure Kiwi workers can keep more of what they earn.

Katie Nimon: What other reports has the Minister seen about tax relief?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: On behalf of the Minister of Finance, I've seen another report this morning which outlines that voters in Northland and Christchurch are pleased to be pocketing a bit more of their hard-earned cash through tax relief. The Radio New Zealand report quotes a woman as saying, "Every little bit helps.", and another woman saying, "I think anything that puts more money into New Zealand families' pockets is a good thing." It goes on to quote a man as saying, "I see it was targeted at the right people." These people are right. Responsibly funded tax relief is needed, and it is targeted at low and middle income workers.

Katie Nimon: Has the Minister seen further support of reports about tax relief?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: On behalf of the Minister of Finance, yes. I've seen another report this morning from a commentator talking about tax, who said, "Bracket adjustment is a legitimate thing to do, and I think it's a sensible thing to do."—a very wise and sensible comment, a view that I think the House would do well to listen to. That supportive comment was made this morning on Breakfast TV by none other than the Leader of the Opposition, Chris Hipkins.

Katie Nimon: Has the Minister received any fresh updates on how much interest there is from hard-working New Zealanders in tax relief?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: On behalf of the Minister of Finance, yes, indeed, I have. More good news. I received an update this morning from the Treasury, which shows the tax calculator has hit a new high of 591,414 visits, as Kiwis find out how much they will be getting in long-overdue tax relief. The numbers are going up every minute. New Zealanders are clearly very interested in tax relief, which is very unsurprising given they haven't seen it for 14 long years. We are delivering on what we promised as part of this coalition Government.

Question No. 2 to Minister

SPEAKER: I would just remind members that yesterday, I reinforced with whips and others who were at the Business Committee that the display of party logos in the House in any form is not a permitted activity and hasn't been for some time. There are people displaying party logos at the moment. My advice is that they should remove those logos, in any form that they might have them, in order that I don't have to take stronger action to raise the standards that so many in this House want to see raised. Question No. 2, in the name of Todd Stephenson.

TODD STEPHENSON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker—

SPEAKER: Good, and I'll stop him right there. You can go ahead with your question when you've got rid of the logo.

Todd Stephenson: Well, Mr Speaker, a point of order, then.

SPEAKER: It's not a point of order; I'm ruling.

Todd Stephenson: We'll, I would just refer you to a ruling Speaker Mallard made in relation to pins in the House.

SPEAKER: That's good. I've made a ruling, a new one, yesterday—nothing. So if you want to deliver your question to the House, remove the pin.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Mallard clearly ruled that pins were exempt from that ruling in 2018. If you are seriously saying that you're not going to let people ask and answer questions in this House because they're wearing a pin—as they've been allowed to for year after year—I think more and more people are going to ask what your priorities actually are.

SPEAKER: They may well ask all sorts of question about priorities. All I'm saying is that I've been put under the pump today, being told that I need to maintain standards here in the House. One of them is the ruling that I made yesterday that we don't wear party logos of any type in the House. So there's an obvious next step in this. I don't want to take it, but that's up to the members.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Point of order, Mr Speaker. Are you seriously saying that under Standing Order 90(1), you are going to kick a member out of the House for being highly disorderly for wearing a lapel pin?

SPEAKER: No, it would be for challenging the Chair or the Speaker, which is quite a different matter, as has been pointed out by others in the House already today. So, look, if the member thinks the wearing of his pin is more important than the delivery of his question, that's his choice, but it's the way things are going to be. So we'll move on to question No. 3, in the name of the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins.

Todd Stephenson: No, sir—sorry, sir. I've taken my pin off.

SPEAKER: Well, you're a bit slow.

Todd Stephenson: No, you didn't call me.

SPEAKER: Well, I didn't—listen, don't make things worse. So in my extreme good nature, I'll allow you to ask the question, but I notice that others in your party are not following your example and I would suggest that they should start. And if they don't, well, then, I've got to go back to where I was before—question No. 3. Question No. 3: I call the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

3. Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government's statements and actions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, and especially our action to deliver tax relief starting today. Governments of every stripe have delivered tax relief, going back many, many years—National Governments and Labour Governments. Why? Well, I think the member summed it up perfectly this morning, when he actually said, "Bracket adjustment is a legitimate thing to do and I think it's a sensible thing to do." I'd just say, if he keeps saying sensible things like that, he could join the National Party and finally let Kieran McAnulty have his time in the sun! I'm proud that, after 14 years, this Government has done this sensible thing, the practical thing, the common-sense thing, and actually delivered tax relief to working New Zealanders—with the cost of living—starting today.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why did his Government remove the financial sustainability priority in the Government's health policy statement?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, again, I read that from the member. I saw he had a go at it this morning. I'd just say to him that the letter of expectation is incredibly clear about financial performance, as is also the Government policy statement. I would just say to him that, I think, if you're just looking at Politico, that's probably not the right way to go about it.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Who advised him and Shane Reti that Health New Zealand moving into deficit in April this year was due to "back-office bloat" when the chief executive of Health New Zealand said that it was a result of hiring more nurses?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I'd just say, it is ironic—it is ironic—after six years, that member has the audacity to ask about a question about the healthcare system that he presided over and ran into the ground. So I want to be really clear: there are way too many layers of management, there are 2,500 management back-office function people that are there, and there's a big division between the front line and the decision makers. Again, there has been financial unreliability in the reporting for some time; we are now fixing that. We're putting a commissioner in and putting the controls in place that that member didn't do.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked the Prime Minister who advised him of that. He hasn't addressed that. He spent a lot of time attacking the last Government. I asked him who advised him.

SPEAKER: Well, with all due respect, you took the point of order before he actually had concluded. Even though it was a lengthy answer, I think we'll give the Prime Minister another shot.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: All I'd just say to that member, as I've said publicly, Health New Zealand's problems have been financial unreliability and poor performance and poor financial reporting for some time. It has been unreliable and inconsistent. It was in March that we started to understand there was a rising deficit, and, as a result, we took action with the commissioner last week.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: He did say it was in March when he took advice.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: That's interesting, but from who?

SPEAKER: Well, that's not necessarily what you can extract; it's like asking for a yes or no.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: All right, then. Well, in light of his last answer, why did he say that he first became aware of financial problems at Health New Zealand in October 2023, when his health Minister said that he first became aware five months later, in March 2024, a claim that he has now just repeated?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I have said to the member, the financial performance and monitoring has been incredibly poor and unreliable. We had a letter, which we released, in the middle of March, saying that they were on track for delivering a surplus. That very quickly deteriorated into a deficit between that period and the appointment of a commissioner. You would remember that there was an annual report before this Government came to power, in October, saying that there was a potential deficit in health. We've had a surplus, a deficit, a surplus, a deficit. What we've got is poor financial reporting. Why is that? It's because the previous Government did not actually merge into one entity the 21 district health boards, and just whacked 2,500 people over the top of it.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How does he reconcile that statement that he just made, with the statement Shane Reti made yesterday: "We were getting monthly … and quarterly reports from Health New Zealand and the Ministry of Health … And … they were predicting they were on task for the savings target."?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Because they were. If you look at the letter that the Minister of Finance released, as of, I think, 20 March or somewhere around that window of time, they were forecasting a slightly smaller surplus, but then they projected a deficit going forward, in one month. That speaks to the financial performance, the unreliability of the data, and the poor controls in place. It's because the previous administration had a botched restructure, didn't know how to run anything—we saw it with Te Pūkenga, we've seen it now with Health New Zealand, we've seen it with disability services. The previous Government didn't know how to run things; we do know how to run things. We're sorting it out.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why has the Government frozen relocation costs for overseas doctors, driving many to abandon their job applications, when we've got understaffed hospitals, like Dargaville, who can't find doctors at all?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, there is no hiring freeze. As that member well knows, and it is not new and I acknowledge that there are challenges with recruiting health workforce in rural settings, but that is a function of a botched health merger We are doing everything we can to home-grow doctors as well as open up our immigration settings to do so. But I just remember when that member was in Government, thinking about Rāwene Hospital, which had the same problem about finding rural workforce. That is work that we're still working hard on.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. As with many of his answers, almost the entirety of the Prime Minister's answer has been about things that he alleges happened under the last Government. The freeze on relocation costs is something that has recently been imposed under his Government, and I asked him why they did that. I didn't ask him about the previous Government's recruitment efforts; I asked him about his Government's recruitment efforts.

SPEAKER: I know, but it might be perfectly reasonable, in explaining why, to go into reasons that would go back in time, and the Standing Orders do allow that.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Yeah, but he didn't.

SPEAKER: Well, once again, you were on your feet pretty quickly. He was still talking at the time that you called your point of order. Would the Prime Minister like to add to that answer?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I said, there is no hiring freeze.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I didn't ask the Prime Minister whether there was a hiring freeze, even though there are reports that there is, but I asked him why Health New Zealand has frozen relocation costs for overseas doctors. It was a pretty straight question.

SPEAKER: Well, then, ask it again.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Very good. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Why has Health New Zealand frozen relocation costs for overseas doctors, driving many to abandon job applications, when we've got understaffed hospitals, like Dargaville, that can't find a doctor at all?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I have said to that member, we have worked and will continue to work on making sure we get workforce into the New Zealand healthcare system. We are growing our home-grown doctors. We have got open immigration settings to bring doctors from overseas here. We have made good progress. There are 2,900 extra nurses in the system than there were 12 months ago. We know it's challenging getting workforce into rural settings, but we'll continue to work hard at it.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How many doctors' salaries could the Government fund for the over $200 million in tax breaks they have just given to tobacco companies?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, I would just say that it is very rich from that member who actually created a situation and is now criticising us for trying to solve the problem. We have a put a record $16.7 billion into the healthcare system—much more than the previous administration was planning in your fiscal track documents at the election.

Question No. 4—Prime Minister

4. RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori ) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government's statements and actions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, and especially this Government's action to abolish the broken lending regulations associated with the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act (CCCFA). We know that those regulations have been an absolute nightmare for Kiwis having to explain to their bank why they're subscribed to Netflix or justifying how much money they're spending on cat food. Our Government is serious about getting rid of the jungle of red tape, so good news: from today, 11 pages have been shredded in regulations around the CCCFA. It means people get access to liquidity, and will also protect on predatory lending.

Rawiri Waititi: Does he agree with the Minister for Regulation that the Government's job is to protect property rights?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: The Government's job is definitely to protect property rights and it is also to make sure we improve outcomes for Māori, non-Māori, and every New Zealander.

Rawiri Waititi: Does he agree that article 2 of Te Tiriti o Waitangi guarantees Māori full, exclusive, and undisturbed possession of their lands, estates, forests, forestries, and other properties so long as they wish to retain them?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes.

Rawiri Waititi: Why, then, is he amending the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act to make it possible for the courts to recognise Māori rights over their foreshore and seabed as guaranteed under Te Tiriti o Waitangi?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what we are doing here, as we have explained, is we're taking—

Rawiri Waititi: Yes, you're taking all right!

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No, no, excuse me, would you like to hear the answer? I've been respectful to you; I expect respect the other way. So what I just say to you is we are passing an amendment to section 58 [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just quiet for a minute. Quieten down. It's a serious matter so we'll just hear the answer in silence.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Thank you. Look, the Government's amending the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act to clarify the test for customary marine title. We are very proud of the legislation that, actually, a National-led Government passed in 2011, that actually legitimately recognises Māori customary title and also balances the legitimate use of coastal areas for all New Zealanders. Unfortunately, under the court action, that threshold has been lowered. All we are doing is restoring it back to what was intended by this Parliament in 2011.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Prime Minister, does he agree with that brilliant legal scholar Sir Āpirana Ngata's version of the Treaty—

Rawiri Waititi: He wasn't here when the foreshore and seabed was taken.

SPEAKER: Hang on, just—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: When I'm speaking you keep quiet, all right?

Rawiri Waititi: Or what?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Or what? Or you'll be gone in five minutes, that's what!

SPEAKER: Sorry, we're not having this. Question time is a question and answer; it's not a debate time. So Rt Hon Winston Peters will start his question again.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I'm asking the Prime Minister, does he agree with that brilliant legal and Māori scholar Sir Āpirana Ngata's version of article 2 of the Treaty of Waitangi or the Te Pāti Māori radicals' version of article 2 of the Treaty of Waitangi?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I would say is we are making sure that we get the balance right by restoring the intention of the legislation that was passed in 2011, which recognises Māori customary rights and also protects the legitimate rights of all New Zealanders. That is what is happening here. The courts have lowered the threshold and we are just restoring it to what it once was.

Rawiri Waititi: By over-ruling the Court of Appeal judgment that "Far from recognising and promoting customary interests, [the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act] would in many cases extinguish those interests.", is this Government seeking to extinguish Māori rights and interests over our foreshore and seabed?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No, what we are doing is making sure that we ensure that the legislation that Parliament passed that balanced, quite rightly, the customary rights of Māori and recognised those appropriately, and also protected legitimate interests of all New Zealanders, is actually the legislation that's in operation.

Rawiri Waititi: By over-ruling the Court of Appeal judgement that "Te Tiriti had been breached by Crown failures to protect customary rights and interests, [and] MACA would entrench and perpetuate those breaches," is his Government seeking to entrench the theft of our foreshore and seabed?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No, absolutely not. The Court of Appeal ruling changed the nature of the test and it materially reduced the threshold. What we are doing is making sure that we can recognise Māori customary rights and also protect legitimate rights of all New Zealanders. This legislation, as it was in 2011, I would be very proud of because it was a National-led Government that put it in place and it struck a balance and we should be proud about it. We're just taking it back to that interpretation.

Rawiri Waititi: If no one owns the foreshore and seabed, what gives the Government the right to consent to and profit from coastal marine farms, seabed mining, and deep-sea oil drilling?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I'd just say to that member, what we are making sure is that we are balancing economic, cultural, and environmental interests across New Zealand. We know that we need to grow our economy, we know that we need to build more renewable electricity and energy, and that's why we're wanting to pass fast-track legislation. I'd love you to support it.

Rawiri Waititi: Is he afraid that iwi and hapū holding customary title over the foreshore and seabed would be a barrier to his Government's seabed mining and oil drilling agenda?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, I'd just say to the member, those that have already settled under the current legislation, their rights are protected. But going forward, we are rebalancing and going back to the original intention of Parliament with the original Act. It recognises customary title for Māori and it also protects legitimate interests of all New Zealanders.

Darleen Tana: What is his response to the more than 150 signatories of the open letter by ActionStation Aotearoa to "stop the Treaty Principles Bill and ensure it is withdrawn prior to the select committee process"?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I think there has been a lot of misunderstandings. Let me be clear, we are not touching the Treaty. The Government has no plans, has never had any plans, to rewrite the Treaty of Waitangi. We're going to continue to honour the Treaty and honour all Treaty settlements.

Darleen Tana: What does he say to the statement in the open letter by ActionStation Aotearoa that the proposed Treaty principles bill, "misrepresents the collective guarantee of Māori tino rangatiratanga into something it is not (and never could be) by erasing the inherent rights that Te Tiriti affirms and protects"?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I've said to the member—I don't know how to be any clearer—we're not touching the Treaty of Waitangi. We respect and honour it and that's what we'll continue to do.

Hon Chris Bishop: Is the Prime Minister surprised that Te Pāti Māori now appears to be arguing for a radically different position from that advanced through the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act in 2011, which they had a hand in devising and passing?

SPEAKER: Well, he may be surprised, but it's not something he's got responsibility for. We move now to question number—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order, Mr Speaker. This is in no way challenging your potential ruling, but if somebody's been away from this House for 110 days, how did they get back into the cycle of being entitled to a question that passed, in the way that Darleen Tana just did?

SPEAKER: Well, that is the way in which Parliament operates. There's nothing unusual here. There is a [Interruption]—sorry, there is a process and there is a roster—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I know the process.

SPEAKER: Yeah, so, well, look, if the member goes back and has a talk to his whip, his whip will show him the roster and the roster will indicate that Darleen Tana has one supplementary on two days of a week and can choose to use both those supplementaries on one day, as anybody else can as well. Thank you—

Hon Member: Aw, fragile—fragile!

SPEAKER: Hang on—enough!

Hon Chris Bishop: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker, without challenging your ruling, it is a bit odd that Ms Tana has been, up until, I don't know, 10 days or so ago, a member of the Green Party and, therefore, the Greens have been using her questions, essentially her proportionate questions. It is a bit odd that very soon after her expulsion she's entitled to two supplementary questions almost immediately. I think it does strike many of us as slightly strange.

SPEAKER: Well, I'll tell you what strikes me as strange: it strikes me as particularly peculiar and very odd that the Leader of the House, who is a major player in the Business Committee, does not remember that the Business Committee approved the roster that gives her these questions.

Question No. 5—Prime Minister

5. CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government's statements and actions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, and especially our efforts to abolish the Auckland regional fuel tax. I was so pleased to see reporting yesterday confirming that the Auckland regional fuel tax has been fully passed on to motorists. The previous Government didn't care about working New Zealanders, frankly, who were trying to drive to school or drop their kids off to school. And that's why they were so happy to soak them up with taxes to pay for speed bumps and cycleways. We axed the tax. We're getting Government focused and back on the basics.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he stand by his joint statement with the Prime Ministers of Australia and Canada on 26 July that the protection of Palestinian civilians is paramount and a requirement under international humanitarian law, and, if so, what exactly is Aotearoa New Zealand under his Government actually doing to ensure this protection?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes, I do stand by those statements and I'm proud of the work that we've done with the two Prime Ministers to generate now what is three joint statements. What we have been doing is we've been calling for a ceasefire since this conflict started. We're asking for Hamas to release the hostages; we definitely need to see that. We're asking Israel to meet all of its obligations. We've actually supported the UN remit to actually broaden the participation of Palestine within the UN. We've put $17 million of humanitarian aid in, and we continue call for the two-State solution.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he think that the genocide convention is a crucial instrument for the prevention and punishment of genocide, and, if so, why has New Zealand, under his Government, neglected to join South Africa's International Court of Justice (ICJ) case against Israel despite how he joined Ukraine's case against Russia in 2022?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, they're different situations. What I'd say to you is—

Chlöe Swarbrick: How?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I'd say to you is they're different situations and we respect the ICJ rulings and we'll continue to do so.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he agree with the Minister of Immigration, who said, regarding this country's failure to grant visas for families of New Zealanders currently in Gaza, "It is not a visa issue; it is a border issue.", and, if so, is he aware that the Palestinian Embassy in Cairo estimates that since October over 100,000 Gazans have crossed into Egypt?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what I'd say to the member is that Immigration is prioritising individual visa applications. Successive Governments, previous Governments and our Government, look at each conflict on its merits. For example, Labour said yes to a special visa for the Ukraine, but said no to a special visa for Sudan, for example. And so what we've done is we're looking at the situation in Gaza. It is different. There are real challenges around documentation, there is limited consular support, the borders have been, effectively, closed, and we will continue to access each individual case and process it on its merits.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can the Prime Minister confirm that every New Zealander in Gaza, contrary to what the questioner said, has been assisted out of Gaza by Foreign Affairs and other embassy work around the world in this country's interests?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes, as I understand it, consular support services got Kiwis who wanted to leave out very, very early.

Chlöe Swarbrick: How is the situation in Gaza different, as the Prime Minister keeps saying?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I said, we look at each conflict on its merits; subsequent Governments have done that. In this case, the situation in Gaza is different. People have very limited access to documentation, there is limited consular support, and the borders have been effectively closed. That's why we're doing on a case by case basis.

Chlöe Swarbrick: How can he justify his Government's failure to impose sanctions on Israel for its illegal occupation of Palestine while supporting sanctions against Russia for its illegal invasion of Ukraine, and is this not just a double standard regarding whose rights Aotearoa New Zealand is willing to uphold under his Government?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Look, I would say to that member, I think our Government has been very clear. We've been calling for a ceasefire. We've been calling for Hamas to release hostages. We've been calling for Israel to meet its obligations. We've been putting aid money in. We joined up with other leaders of other countries to make sure our voice has more impact as a result, calling for those things. We want to see the parties get around the table, actually pick up the Biden proposal and actually get it done, and get back to a two State solution model.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave of the House to table a letter from NGOs, academics, and community leaders calling for action on Palestine to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, dated 27 June 2024.

SPEAKER: Has that letter been sent to the Prime Minister?

Chlöe Swarbrick: I am not yet clear on that. It's not available publicly.

SPEAKER: Well, how do you mean it's not available? It's either sent to him or not. Is it some new letter that no one's seen before?

Chlöe Swarbrick: I don't know, Mr Speaker. I've been asked to table and release this letter to the Prime Minister.

SPEAKER: Well, that's not the way to do things, sorry.

Question No. 6—Climate Change

6. Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) to the Acting Minister of Climate Change: Does he agree with the Prime Minister, who said, "we are very confident we can grow the economy and deliver on our emissions targets and goals", and, if so, how is this consistent with the Climate Change Commission's independent finding released yesterday that "there are significant risks to meeting the second and third … budgets"?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Acting Minister of Climate Change): On behalf of the Minister of Climate Change, yes, I agree with the Prime Minister. We welcome the Commission's advice but note it is based on older data and does not take into account the Government's draft emissions reduction plan No. 2.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: What are specific initiatives, and what are their emissions implications, that have been introduced since the data used in this report was closed off?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: The data in the report from the commissioner lacked the information that was in our second emissions plan, and so he was not able to use that information. You'll see a number of our plans for agriculture, for transport, and for other policies that have been included in that plan that's been consulted on.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: What replacement policies will his Government put in place for industrial decarbonisation to put us back on track to meeting emissions targets, given the now scrapped Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry Fund is expected to deliver projects that would account for 17 percent of total emissions reductions in the first budget and 35 percent of emissions reductions planned in the second emissions budget?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: On behalf of the Minister of Climate Change, of course, the previous Government had a different plan to what this Government has. The previous Government was intent upon spending on corporate welfare. This Government is spending $2.6billion on various climate initiatives.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Is he concerned that the Climate Commission's analysis shows that the scrapping of the Clean Car Discount and agricultural emissions pricing have elevated the risk of not meeting the first emissions budget, which, under the previous Government, we were on track to meet?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: On behalf of the Minister of Climate Change, the Government is on track to deliver the first two emissions budgets. We are investing in electric vehicle charges and we are investing in low-emissions public transport. The commissioner's report did not have this data available.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Will he advocate to retain the ban on new offshore oil and gas exploration, given backtracking on this policy could, according to the commission, potentially impact our ability to meet emissions budgets and the 2050 targets?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: On behalf of the Minister of Climate Change, we are on track to deliver the second emissions budget, which takes into account reversing the oil and gas ban. As we know, gas is a transitional fuel. We are not going to let the lights go out in New Zealand.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Does the Minister think it is fair that emissions prices may need to rise upwards of $300 a tonne, according to the commission's report, if the emissions trading scheme (ETS) is left to function on its own without complementary policies in transport, energy, and agriculture, and, if so, what would the impact of this be on New Zealand households and their budget, given the analysis shows that raising the ETS price to $200 a tonne would add 40c a litre to petrol?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: On behalf of the Minister of Climate Change, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on ETS pricing.

Question No. 5 to Minister

SPEAKER: Can I just go back to the leave request from Chlöe Swarbrick. Under Speakers' rulings 165, you can say the document is not available to all members, and if you have permission of the writer to table it in this way, you can put the leave.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green): I seek leave of the House to table a letter to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs from a number of NGOs, academics, and other community organisations calling for this Government to do everything it can to act for Palestine.

SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is none. The document can be tabled.

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

Question No. 7—Housing

7. Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam) to the Minister of Housing: What recent announcements has been made about making it easier to build houses in New Zealand?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing): Many, including the coalition Government's granny flat policy; but specifically, earlier this month, proud to announce the Government's Going for Housing Growth policy, or at least the first stages of it, allowing our cities to grow both up and out. Housing in this country is too expensive because we've made it difficult for our cities to grow. Fixing our housing crisis will improve our economy, improve intergenerational equity, decrease material hardship, and it will help the Government get the books back in order. We will be setting housing growth targets through this plan, making councils make more land available for development. We're going to improve infrastructure funding and financing and incentivise councils to grow.

Dr Hamish Campbell: What specific changes have been made as part of this Going for Housing Growth announcement?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I announced earlier this month six changes we'll be making as part of pillar one of this plan. Firstly, the establishment of housing growth targets for tier 1 and 2 councils. Secondly, new rules requiring cities to be allowed to expand outwards at the urban fringe. Thirdly, a strengthening of the intensification provisions of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development. Fourthly, new rules requiring councils to enable mixed-use development in our cities. Fifthly, the abolition of minimum floor area and balcony requirements. And, sixthly, new provisions making the medium-density residential standards rules optional for councils. These six changes are just the start. There is much more to do around infrastructure funding and financing and incentives and across the broader resource management system more generally.

Dr Hamish Campbell: How will the Government's housing growth targets work?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The targets will apply to 24 city, district, and unitary councils across New Zealand, including Auckland, Christchurch, and Wellington, as well as Tauranga, Hamilton, and Dunedin. They will require councils to "live-zone" feasible development capacity to provide for at least 30 years of housing demand at any one time. Our aim is to flood the market with opportunities for development, drive down land prices and the cost of housing. We also need to have confidence that the demand for housing is not being understated by councils or that the amount of available and feasible development capacity is not being overstated. We'll therefore be introducing a range of new requirements to better understand how councils model these things for their plans.

Dr Hamish Campbell: What impact does he expect the Government's abolishment of minimum floor areas and balcony requirements to have?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, the abolition of these requirements will have a positive impact and allow for more affordable housing. Some councils set minimum floor area and balcony requirements which can significantly increase the cost of new apartments and lower the supply of lower cost apartments. They can make some developments uneconomic or push the cost of housing outside the reach of first-home buyers. For example, in 2015 in the Auckland market, the balcony size requirements increased the cost of an apartment by $40,000 to $70,000 per unit. Now, there are some people in the media who've expressed concern about "shoebox apartments" or "slums". And I say to them this: it is true that smaller dwellings won't be the right solution for everyone, but one thing is definitely true: something that is smaller than a so-called "shoebox apartment" is a car or a tent or an emergency housing motel room. And this Government is focused on fixing the mess we inherited from the last Government.

Question No. 8—Health

8. Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his decision to appoint a commissioner to Health New Zealand, and does he agree that "challenges with the operating model and governance of Health New Zealand had been identified from the early days of its establishment, in large part deriving from a lack of transparency from the Board"?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Yes. I also agree with the very next sentence from the same Cabinet paper, which reads: "The Ministry of Health had advised regularly that it did not have assurance that the Board was able to exercise its functions effectively…". Other officials, including the Auditor-General and the Treasury, have outlined concerns about the board's performance. The difference is that this Government has actually acted on those concerns. We took action by appointing a Crown observer, a board member with financial expertise, a new chair was appointed, and, finally, appointing a commissioner. These appointments have been instrumental in getting to the bottom of the consequences of this botched merger. With the help of the commissioner and the front line, this Government will get Health New Zealand back on track.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Has the Minister been advised that a decision not to fully fund pay equity from the centre was a cause of the deteriorating financial position for Health New Zealand in financial year 23-24?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: I have been advised that pay equity will be funded from the centre and it was not a significant contributor to the deteriorating financial performance of Health New Zealand.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Had he not been advised that the deficit in March was due to a change to the processing of pay equity at all?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: That was not one of the key factors that was contributing to the financial deficit of Health New Zealand.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Has the board rejected the claim that the Treasury secretary asked the Health New Zealand board for information on productivity and the financial year 23-24 financial position at a meeting on 23 February this year?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: There were challenges getting important information from the board to the Ministry of Health, who is the steward. On 4 April, the chair of Health New Zealand wrote to the Director-General, who is the steward of the health system. The title to that letter was "Regarding arrangements relating to sharing of board papers"; the first sentence is, "We have recently begun providing you with board papers."

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Why won't he give a direct answer to questions about the lead-up to an important decision he took when he is busy accusing others of a lack of transparency?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: There are a range of decisions that that question could relate to. I stand by the decision to appoint a commissioner to address the terrible financial situation that that previous party left.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is Dr Curtis Walker, former Health New Zealand board member and former chair of the Medical Council, correct when he says, "As the political pressure has come on the Government, they have been increasingly desperate in [their] casting about [for] misinformation."?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: Dr Walker is correct when he said he first became made aware of the deteriorating financial position at Health New Zealand in March.

Question No. 9—Justice

9. TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Justice: What actions is the Government taking to ensure real consequences for crime?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): This Government is taking a range of actions to restore real consequences for crime. We know that in recent years, those consequences have diminished. And with tougher laws and by bolstering the resources for the front line and by setting defined targets, New Zealanders now have a Government that is taking the safety of the public and the needs of victims seriously.

Tom Rutherford: What progress has been made on the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, yesterday the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill was progressed by Parliament through the second reading. Gang membership has increased by 51 percent in the previous six years, and in the same time, violent crime has gone up by 33 percent and retail crime by 110 percent. This is a significant piece of legislation that provides police with more tools to deal with gangs, who have been allowed to peddle misery in our communities for far too long.

Tom Rutherford: What commentary, if any, has he heard on the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I was astounded to hear this comment: "I want you to ask yourself: would you rather be walking down a dark alley and see a patched member or a police officer? For many people in New Zealand, they would feel safer alone with a patched member than the police." And that comment was made by a Green MP in the House last night. And to our police, who put their lives on the line to protecting our communities, that comment must feel like a kick in the guts.

Tom Rutherford: Does he believe that police are a greater menace to society than gangs?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: No, I do not. And the very suggestion is repugnant. And, apparently, the Green Party aren't sure.

Tom Rutherford: What impact will the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill have on restoring real consequences for crime and when?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill does four things: it creates a criminal offence for displaying gang insignia in public, which often causes fear and intimidation; it gives the police the power to stop gang members gathering in public; it creates a non-consorting order that can be imposed by the court; and it gives greater weight to gang membership in sentencing. The Justice Committee recommended the commencement date of 21 November, and the impact of this will be felt well before Christmas.

Question No. 10—Children

KAHURANGI CARTER (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Minister for Children and asks: does she stand by her statement regarding cuts to Oranga Tamariki that "There will be no financial impact and there'[ll] be no impact on the frontline services. This is a guarantee"?

Hon Karen Chhour: Mr Speaker—

SPEAKER: The member is displaying a badge that I've, in earlier sessions, said would remove people from participating in question time. I don't want to cost the Greens a question, but I'd suggest that another Minister from the Government might now answer the question. Ask the question again.

KAHURANGI CARTER (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does she stand by her statement regarding cuts to Oranga Tamariki that "There will be no financial impact and there'[ll] be no impact on the frontline services. This is a guarantee"?

Hon Karen Chhour: Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: No, another member from the Government will answer it; you're not answering it wearing the badge. Simple as that.

Hon David Seymour: Mr Speaker: yes.

SPEAKER: No, no. No, I'm sorry, you're out too. So, none the less, carry on. I'm just making it very clear: if ACT members want to stand up displaying their party badge, they're not going to be recognised. The Government needs to prepare to answer from some other Minister who is complying with my ruling.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): Point of order. Mr Speaker, I understand where you're coming from, and we did have a discussion yesterday at Business Committee about this issue. But in the interests of making sure that the honourable member from the Greens gets an answer to her question about this very important issue, can I suggest we take the time to perhaps discuss the issue of the lapels further. Because I think, respectfully, everyone is on board with the idea that members should not be able to display party paraphernalia on boxes and—

SPEAKER: I think it would be a good idea if you stopped right now, because it's not a point of order; it's a challenge to a ruling. And the member knows that there is a way in which you can go about that. So, Kahurangi Carter, some other Government Minister, I hope, will answer you.

10. KAHURANGI CARTER (Green) to the Minister for Children: Does she stand by her statement regarding cuts to Oranga Tamariki that "There will be no financial impact and there'[ll] be no impact on the frontline services. This is a guarantee"?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) on behalf of the Minister for Children: Yes, in the context in which the comments were given.

Kahurangi Carter: How does she justify cutting the Oranga Tamariki team Tākai, which has served as a core pillar of prevention support in early years parenting, and will next week be shutting down—even their website—losing a valuable and world-leading resource for young whānau and support workers?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: On behalf of the Minister, the Government has been clear that we are protecting front-line services, and we are also clear about the requirement to support families in need.

Kahurangi Carter: Does she stand by her statement that "It is important that we act decisively and honour the courage of these victims and survivors by making sure that something like this never happens again.", and, if so, why is she implementing a $120 million cut in funding for service providers, which will significantly impact front-line care and prevention for children at risk?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: On behalf of the Minister, I stand by the comments I've made in the context in which they are given; and also that this Government is committed to ensuring that funds that are provided on behalf of and given by taxpayers are delivering outcomes that we expect them to.

Kahurangi Carter: What does she say to the 400 front-line Oranga Tamariki service providers, including early years and teen parent services, counselling, and family and sexual violence services, whose contracts have ended on 30 June and have not had clear direction on when or if their contracts will be renewed?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: On behalf of the Minister, I understand that it is challenging for organisations that are in a period of time waiting for confirmation of contracts, but our Government is committed to ensuring that the tax that is paid by hard-working New Zealanders goes to services that are getting the outcomes that we expect and need for New Zealanders.

Kahurangi Carter: What does she say in response to Nikki Hurst of the New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services, who says, "Some of the things that will be winding up, there is no comparable service available in that community."; and how, if at all, will Oranga Tamariki be filling the gaps in front-line care and prevention that these contract cuts will create?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: On behalf of the Minister, our Government is committed to ensuring that services deliver the outcomes that New Zealanders expect, and that we continue to evaluate programmes to ensure we're able to deliver the outcomes expected. And I would say to the person that the member has referred to that this is a Government that is listening, we are a Government that is committed to delivering for New Zealanders, and that is our focus.

Question No. 11—Tertiary Education and Skills

11. Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour) to the Minister for Tertiary Education and Skills: Does she stand by all her answers to oral question No. 10 on 30 July 2024, and oral question No. 5 on 8 May 2024; if not, why not?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for Tertiary Education and Skills): In answer to the first and second parts of the member's question, the answers are yes and yes.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Does she stand by her statement to the House that she doesn't recall being advised by Te Pūkenga that her directive to cease restructuring would result in additional costs of $53 million in 2024?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Yes, I do, but I did look back, as I gave an undertaking to, and I can confirm that on 8 December 2023, I received advice from the Tertiary Education Commission (TEC)—which is a different entity to Te Pūkenga—which noted that certain financial risk may result in Te Pūkenga achieving a worse deficit than the $93 million forecast for 2024. However, I'm pleased to advise the Speaker that my letter of expectation on 5 December 2023 and clarification on 20 May 2024 reinforcing the need to progress financial sustainability initiatives has ensured that the deficit to date is tracking considerably better than the deficit forecast, not worse.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Is the Minister asserting that the letter that was sent to her on 8 December 2023 by Te Pūkenga does not include an amount of $53 million that she has directly cost them and the taxpayer?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: The briefing that I was referring to was from TEC, but I am happy to go back and have a look if there is another letter. I certainly found a briefing from the Tertiary Education Commission asserting that there may be risks that would make the deficit worse, but, as I advised, the work that has been done by this Government has made the deficit considerably better than that forecast.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Does she stand by her statement to the House on 8 May 2024 that "I did not direct Te Pūkenga to take actions. I cannot direct Te Pūkenga to take actions."?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Yes, I do. I cannot and did not direct Te Pūkenga to take action. I can, however, express my views and inform them of the Government's policies, and in my letter of expectation on 5 December 2023 and clarification on 20 May 2024, I advised them of those expectations.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: How is this consistent with the letter from Te Pūkenga to her on 8 December 2023 that said: "In addition, the direct instructions issued by you to him on operational matters caused him and me significant concern."?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: I will go back and have a look at the letter, but I am advising that my briefing that I got from the tertiary education advised of some risk of deteriorating financial situation. It is a matter of fact that that has not occurred and that the actions that this Government has taken have improved the financial situation of Te Pūkenga considerably. These actions should have been taken four years ago; they are happening now.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Is she aware that giving direct instructions to the chair and the chief executive of a Crown entity is a breach of the Crown Entities Act and the Cabinet Manual?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: I am aware. I cannot and I did not direct Te Pūkenga to take action. I can, however, express my views and inform them of Government policies, and what a good thing I did, because it has saved the country millions of dollars.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: When is she going to ask the Prime Minister the $53 million question—to put her out of her misery and fire her?

SPEAKER: Question—we're moving to—[Interruption] We'll wait for quiet. Question No. 12, Dan Bidois.

Question No. 12—Mental Health

12. DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote) to the Minister for Mental Health: What recent announcement has he made regarding the Mental Health and Addiction Community Sector Innovation Fund?

Hon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health): Today, I announced that applications will open for the Government's new $10 million Mental Health and Addiction Community Sector Innovation Fund. The fund will support new and innovative initiatives that are focused on increasing access to better mental health support. The fund has an emphasis on innovation and delivering scalable solutions, and in doing so, we'll increase the access to mental health and addiction support. This fund was inspired from listening to grassroots organisations who are already delivering for their communities.

Dan Bidois: Why is the Government establishing such a mental health and addiction innovation fund?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: That's a very good question. This Government is committed to getting money out of Wellington, out of the bureaucracy, and investing in our hard-working NGO and community mental health providers who are already delivering. The fund will support innovative community providers of mental health services to scale up their already successful operations so they can reach more vulnerable Kiwis without putting more pressure on the publicly funded mental health workforce. I firmly believe the answers to many of the issues we have in mental health are already out there in the sector and just need to be backed by this Government. I'm proud to be part of a Government that has listened to the innovative ideas and to the people behind these ideas, that has resulted in the development of this fund.

Dan Bidois: Who will be eligible for funding in this fund?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: The innovation fund will be open to NGOs and community mental health and addiction providers, including iwi-based and other kaupapa Māori providers across the motu. The fund provides access to Government-matched funding up to $1 million for innovative projects and initiatives that will improve mental health outcomes in this country. To be eligible for funding through the innovation fund, providers will need to demonstrate that their initiative is scalable, increases access to mental health and addiction support, delivers a positive social return on investment, and uses a workforce outside the publicly funded mental health workforce.

Dan Bidois: How can organisations apply for the fund?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Very good question. The request for proposals for the first round of funding will open today on the Government procurement website gets.govt.nz. I expect the first contracts with providers to be in place by early November. I'm advised that since the details went up on the Government procurement website, there have been over 300 inquiries—and some of them from Australia—from interested providers within the mental health and addiction sector, all with innovative ideas on how to lift the performance of the mental health and addiction system. I'm proud to be part of a Government that takes mental health seriously and is investing in it through Budget 2024.

GENERAL DEBATE

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

No doubt today we're going to hear speeches from the Labour Party, the Greens, and "Te Pāti of radicals" about how they think our Government is racist colonisers and anti-Māori because we've restored democracy to local ratepayers.

But first, let's have a look at this pointless, ill-informed, nonsense article that Arena Williams, Labour MP, had published in the NZ Herald today about the Cook Strait ferries. [Holds up newspaper] There it is.

Hon Willie Jackson: Oh good on you, good publicity.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, no, no. Not all publicity is good—not all publicity is good.

Arena Williams: What are you holding up Cabinet with? Tell us what your plan is?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The headline should read—

SPEAKER: That's enough.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The headline should read—but in her shouting over there, she knows enough to think she is right, but doesn't know enough to know she's wrong.

She says, "A reliable Cook Strait ferry connection is an invaluable strategic asset for New Zealand." Well, we all fell out of our chairs. Too many people in the Labour Party don't understand what a strategic asset was if their future depends on it. And it does.

Here's the real point. Here's the party that allowed the shutdown of Marsden Point, allowed the Ned Kelly,s to commit economic sabotage by drilling holes in the pipes and filling them with concrete, and abandoned our greatest and the most essential strategic assets our country had. That's what a strategic asset looks like, and what's she doing about it? Nothing.

What Miss Williams doesn't mention in her article is the fact that in 2020, when yours truly was the Minister in charge, we insured a cost of no more than $400 million was set for replacement ferries. No more than $400 million for two ferries.

Hon Willie Jackson: Well, you mucked that up.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh, Willie says we mucked that up. Isn't it unbelievable. Once Labour took over—

Arena Williams: Is that realistic? You told Cabinet it would cost $400 million.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, no, no. You've got it in the article, honey, don't worry about it. Once Labour took over, they allowed the project to bloom to guess how much? To $3.2 billion.

Arena Williams: Under which SOE Minister? You were the Minister!

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Miss Williams, where's that in the article? See what I mean? Not even there. And the cost was meant to be $400 million for two, had blown to $551 million in one year, but here's the point: only 20 percent of the whole project was for the ferries. How perverse can you be and come into this House and say you know something about economic management? What Miss Williams is saying is that they may as well have made it $10 billion and let us sign the contract. The level of economic mismanagement by Labour of a simple ferry replacement is just astonishing. And you could almost rest your case there, but here's my point: why would the NZ Herald publish a story like that? Why would the NZ Herald publish a story like that and not ask the Labour Party transport spokesperson whether they agreed to such drivel? What's going on with their society?

You know, they used to represent—the Labour Party—the workers, the gold miners, the coal miners, the labourers, the foresters, the fishery guys, the hard-working blue collar battlers. But over there now they wouldn't know what a worker looked like if they fell over one. And you can see the way they lie and sit down there—ask them to turn their hands down, there are no veins showing. You know why? Never done any physical work. That's their problem, and it shows. They used to represent those workers, they used to understand. But I want to tell the Labour Party [Interruption] The Labour Party can shout and shout—

Hon Member: Show us your hands Winston, are they steady mate?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Listen, sunshine, I've done more work than you've ever dreamt of doing, and more jobs than you ever thought of doing. Which is the reason why we are more sympathetic to the ordinary people than their party. And here's the real point: the Labour Party doesn't realise—

Rawiri Waititi: You wouldn't know what work is, you've been in here for so long.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh no—look, Mr Waititi, you wouldn't know what work looked like either. We all know about your background. You're all talk, mate. It's all show-off, loudmouth—

Rawiri Waititi: You've only been pushing paper, all your life.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Take your hat off. Come on, give us a look at you.

Rawiri Waititi: You take it off—you come and take it off.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Take your hat off. Go on.

Rawiri Waititi: Take yours off! Ha, ha!

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Hey, sunshine, I'm not going to have a duel of wits—I'm not having a duel of wits with an unarmed opponent. What a waste of my time.

SPEAKER: Righto, we'll get back to the debate.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Yes, it's going fine. You know, the Labour Party's entire election strategy—and I've found out from inside information—is the sort of jilted boyfriend or girlfriend or the divorced person who says, standing back after the divorce, "Don't you miss me yet?" That's their whole plan for next year. That was put to them as a proposal. All you'll do is wait and say, when it's all the two years have gone by, "Don't you miss me yet?" And they'll all come and vote for Labour. That's how bereft of opinion and ideas they have got.

Now, these three parties are in a race to the bottom, and if an MP from any one—

Hon Members: Time's up!

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is that five minutes up?

SPEAKER: Yep.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. I want to move an extension of time. Ha, ha!

SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection?

Hon Members: Yes!

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): Today is a great day for Kiwis—31 July—because for the first time in 14 years New Zealanders are getting tax relief. The National Party campaigned on it, the ACT Party campaigned on it, New Zealand First campaigned on it, and together these three parties have come together in a coalition—the first three-way coalition in Cabinet in New Zealand MMP history—and we have come together and we have delivered fully funded tax relief for New Zealanders that comes into effect today. It's a great day for Kiwis—83 percent of Kiwis will be better off; 94 percent of households will benefit. And there are many people—mainly on the other side but including a few commentators in the media—who said it couldn't be done. They'd never be able to deliver it, the books were too bad, economic circ*mstances, lots of different excuses. Well, we have put them wrong and delivered it: fully funded tax relief, because we know that over the last many years fiscal drag has pushed many people into higher and higher tax brackets. And alongside a cost of living crisis driven by excessive, profligate spending, New Zealanders have been worse off.

Now, the response between the two sides of politics has been indicative of philosophy and priorities. On this side of the House, our starting point is people should keep more of what they earn. It's their money—it's their money. Generally, they know best how to spend it. The response from members opposite, on the Labour benches and beyond, has been to come up with a series of rinky-dink, dumb policies, all of which have been based upon the idea that the Government can spend money better than individuals.

Remember the cost of living payment? Remember Grant Robertson's big idea in the 2022 Budget? Everyone got very excited in 2022 because at that point inflation was over 7 percent—double what it was meant to be—and Kiwis were facing pain at the pump and everyone went, "Oh, maybe"—I remember in the National Party we were thinking, "Maybe, just maybe, for the first time in 12 years, we'll get tax relief. Maybe they'll gazump us. Maybe they'll nuke us by actually doing tax relief." We were genuinely quite worried about it. We were a little bit concerned. That would really have taken the wind out of our sails. But no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. The Labour Party's never seen tax cuts they didn't want to oppose, and Grant Robertson turns up to the House in Budget and says, "Oh, I've come up with this grand plan." Outside the allowances, wasn't counted, special rules were added for himself, billion dollars in cost of living payments—free money handed out.

Well, that's sort of OK up to a point, until we worked out dead people got it. Investment bankers in London suddenly found themselves getting a couple of hundred bucks richer to go out on a Friday night, living in London, working at big magic circle law firms. And then, of course, we found out about the stories about the French backpackers who are currently watching the triathlon or about to watch the triathlon back in France, who'd come down here on a working holiday back in 2009 or 2010, and earned a bit of pocket money, who'd registered with the Inland Revenue Department (IRD), gone back to France, and 10 years later found the good old New Zealand taxpayer had deposited a couple of hundred bucks in their bank account via the IRD. Remember the cost of living stuff?

Then we had all the rinky-dink fuel tax cuts that were temporary, except they weren't actually temporary—they kept on going. This is an example of the major difference between the two parties. Our starting point is let people keep their own money. The response from Labour is to dream up ever more stupid ways to fleece more and more money off New Zealanders.

Well, today that stops. Today the tax relief kicks in. But what is ongoing is this Government's constant desire for fiscal discipline and a determination to get Government spending under control. The size of Government is too large. The Government spends too much money. The Government spends too much money wastefully. That is why we have put a stop to stupid Labour programmes like Lake Onslow, like industry transformation plans. That is why these massive doorstops that once we abolish, no one even knew we'd gotten rid of them because no one bothered to read them, other than an army of public servants creating them. We have stopped the waste—well, we are stopping the waste, I should say. And as part of our ongoing desire for fiscal restraint, we will get this country back on track.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Government has made it so clear whose side they're on, and it's not on the side of children living in poverty, renters, or workers who struggle to make ends meet. It's on the side of mega landlords, of mining CEOs, and those already raking in millions. No amount of empty platitudes from the previous speaker, Chris Bishop, will hide the fact that this Government's own advice has warned them time and time again how much damage their own policies will be causing to the children who are living in cold, damp homes and struggling to put food on the table.

Let's look back. In February, the Government was warned that up to 13,000 more children will be pushed into poverty as a result of benefit changes. And when I asked Louise Upston, Minister for Social Development and Employment, about cuts to benefit increases, she said it's not a cut. But let me tell you, the Government's own advice tells us that it will be a cut, that more children will be plunged into poverty as a result of decisions. Time and time again politicians have told us that child poverty is somehow inevitable, but it is not. It's a result of political decisions made by successive Governments who have failed ongoing generations. This Government is absolutely complicit with children living in hardship.

Now, let's move forward to July. The Government quietly shrank its own child poverty reduction targets, which will see over 20,000 more children experiencing material hardship—a definition that means children will be struggling to actually meet their essential needs. And yet at the same time, this Government wants us to believe that we should join in celebrating tax cuts that will actually benefit those families the least while benefiting the richest New Zealanders the most.

Sam Uffindell: No, that's not right.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: So let's make it clear—yeah, I see Sam Uffindell saying no. It seems like Sam Uffindell needs to read his own Government's advice and realise the facts. But facts, as Chlöe Swarbrick has said, are not enough. We need to actually go beyond the facts into our communities and organise so people on the benefit, renters, and others struggling to make ends meet make this Government a one-term Government, because our communities deserve far better.

They deserve a Government that is willing to make the hard choices, not the easy choices of continuing with a broken system that has given billions of dollars to landlords who are enabling more children to live in poverty—a Government that has seen rents rising at a rate faster than inflation. So while they talk about inflation going down, they ignore the fact that rents continue to be the driving force behind inflation, behind the cost of living, the cost of inequality crisis that we have in this country. The Greens campaigned to end child poverty once and for all, because we know that it is not impossible, that if we put forward policies that will see the wealthiest few paying their share, we can absolutely eliminate poverty in this country.

But again, I see the members sitting to the opposite of me just looking confused and looking angry. They seem to be angry at the facts that are being presented to them, the facts that they have probably read and just ignore because they don't care. They don't care about children living in poverty. They don't care about rents going up faster than inflation. They don't care about the fact that they're celebrating more State housing tenants they kicked out of Kainga Ora homes. They don't care about the fact that they have been celebrating more people losing their income—sorry, what was that?

Tim Costley: Just make the whole speech up while you're going.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: Well, they say "Make the whole speech up." I'm not. The thing is what we are doing here is putting a line in the sand and saying enough is enough. Child poverty doesn't have to be a reality that is accepted. And let's make it clear: this isn't a decision that the National Party has made alone. This is successive Governments that have failed to tackle the difficult challenges that we face, because no amount of passing the ball between successive Governments and passing on the blame will actually alleviate people's hardship. No amount of stunts by politicians to donate their tax cuts to charities will eliminate the fact that they're making child poverty worse.

So the Greens will keep fighting to ensure the wealthiest few pay more tax to make sure that we can end poverty, build enough State housing, and make this a society where everyone can thrive, rather than the Government washing their hands and accepting more children going without. Because that is what's happening. The members opposite to me are enabling more children to live in poverty because of the decisions they have made. They have actively—actively—pushed more children into poverty. No matter what they say, it does not hide the fact that this is in their own papers. This is the reality they're facing, and they need to confront the hard realities that through their own decisions they'll make life harder for those struggling to make ends meet, the people who will least benefit from their tax cuts.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Today was an utter, utter shambles of a demonstration of a Government. If members on the other side are looking for a new job, they might want to try being a bus driver, because, time and time again today, we saw the bus driving and them throwing each other under the bus. Let's start with the Prime Minister, who threw his Minister of Health under the bus. And then the Minister of Health threw the board under the bus. And then, to make matters worse—so that's one, two, three—maybe there's 14 layers of a shambles of a Government, because then you had the 11 ACT members throw their coalition partners under the bus by refusing to move a pin and refusing to ask questions when they are members of the business committee. They know that there is a rule in this Parliament to respect the rulings of the Speaker. So there is one rule for ACT and another rule for everybody else—to show the disrespect. So we have 14 layers of a shambles of a Government, throwing each other under the bus. And those members on the other side know that.

Up and down the country, we heard they were promising New Zealanders $250 worth of tax cuts, and, today, apparently those tax cuts arrive. But are they $250? Go and have a chat to the pensioners who now only get $2.50 a week, to the minimum-wage earners, who get $12.50 a week.

The Associate Minister of Finance today read a whole lot of feedback that he had received about tax cuts. That is the thing with this Government—they are giving with one hand and taking away with another. So I'm going to read some feedback that I've received about this relief that this Government is supposedly giving for the cost of living.

From Ana of Auckland who is a second-year nursing student, a Pacific nursing student—she writes to me, "What is even the point of me completing this degree when I am so uncertain whether I will get a job? A lot of my friends graduated in February and have decided to move to Aussie because they couldn't find a job. I have never been so uncertain about anything in my life, and I definitely, without a doubt, want to be a nurse. I want something that will make my babies and my mum so proud. But knowing this Government has frozen new graduate nurses has made so many of us question: has this all been a waste?" What do you say to Ana of Auckland, that nursing student?

Well, how about Charmaine from Wakapuaka, which is in the South Island, which I understand Simeon Brown is still trying to find. He says about the tax cuts, "They're giving with one hand and taking twice as much back with the other." And he is absolutely right, because you know why? In the last quarter, rates are up 9.6 percent, because of the choices this Government made to unwind affordable water reforms. That's on every single one of your heads. Those council ratepayers cannot blame their councils. They can blame every single one of you in that shambles of the Government sitting on the other side of the House. This Government is so disconnected from everyday Kiwis, and every day, I hear from people saying, "I don't need my $20 tax cut. Please put it towards health; please put it towards housing; please put it towards education."

Again, insurance: another area that has gone up by 14 percent because of the choices made by this Government.

And, just in the last 24 hours, the monetary report for emissions reductions. This was released and basically said that this Government is lumping the future generations of New Zealand with at least a $240 billion bill, coming to 2030. That is what it's been estimated at. But this Government doesn't care. They don't care about the insurance companies and the reinsuring companies on the other side of the world who are looking at New Zealand. They need clear direction, from this Government, that they are serious on climate action. They want to see, from this Government, that they are serious about resilience. Instead, what has this Government done to the Budget? They removed $6 billion from the national resilience plan so it can go and pay for a measly tax cut that won't matter to anybody.

This Government is a shambles. It is 14 layers of a shambles of a Government. Shame on you.

Mark Cameron: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Unfortunately, the ACT Party continues to wear their badges in the House, and for that reason, they're not being recognised. You can't be in contravention of a Speaker's ruling and then expect to participate as you do.

Mark Cameron: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Well, there is no point of order at the moment. There is no point of order.

Mark Cameron: This is not at ACT pin, sir. This is an ANZAC pin, and I would be absolutely disgraced if I can't wear an ANZAC pin in this House to the point that I would remove myself from it.

SPEAKER: Don't grandstand with me. Are there any other ACT members in the House with badges on?

Mark Cameron: No, sir, there are not.

SPEAKER: In that case, point of order.

MARK CAMERON (ACT): Point of order. Can I wear an ANZAC pin in this House? Does anyone take umbrage with that, Mr Speaker?

SPEAKER: No. Don't get clever, because what I've made absolutely clear is it is party logos that are banned, nothing else.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Mr Speaker, thank you very much. For those that have tuned in today, they'll be wondering what's going on. But none the less, I wanted to begin my contribution by really focusing on the things that matter and by congratulating the Black Ferns, who won a gold medal this morning—well done to them. I personally didn't get to see the game, but it was fantastic that we've finally got off the naught and got a gold, so well done to those ladies.

There's been quite a bit of talk about tax cuts, and I'm going to talk about them because, actually, it is a great day today. A lot of people are actually very excited to get their tax cuts: 83 percent of New Zealanders are getting a tax cut today and 94 percent of households are getting a tax cut today, and that really is making a difference. It is a rather dull, dreary winter at the moment, I'd have to say, and to have a bit of sunshine brought into people's lives with a bit of extra money in their back pocket will be welcomed right across the spectrum.

I have heard from a lot of people who have been looking forward to this. The cost of living has really bitten hard on New Zealanders, and it's made it very tough for Kiwis and their families. We're getting inflation under control, and that's a long, hard job to do that, but we are getting there.

Bracket creep is an insidious thing. It's something that successive Governments have allowed to continue on, and I'm looking forward to the day when we can actually have that indexed to inflation so that people are not having a thief in their back pocket by way of bracket creep, which has been happening for a very long time.

Today is also the day that the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act has been—well, what is it: 11 pages. It has been scrapped in the last 24 hours. It's phenomenal, the perverse effect that that had on people who were applying for loans. I had a person in my office who was very upset about the intrusive nature of the questions that were asked by banks when that person was going for a loan. She told me that she felt very embarrassed and ashamed by the questions that were being asked, and I think it was an absolutely appalling piece of legislation. Yes, it was well-meaning. It was there to try and prevent people from pay-day loans, mostly—to stop people from getting in over their heads. But to actually go through people's payment records from the bank about what they were spending, and to question their spending choices—it was really intrusive and totally unnecessary. So I'm very pleased that that has actually gone, as well as there being the updating of the responsible lending code, which was what I was referring to earlier.

But all politics is local, and I want to focus on something in my electorate. The Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) have put forward $20,000 of funding for the New Zealand Veterinary Association, to go towards animal welfare work in the Hurunui area. Despite what the weather is like here today, in Hurunui there is a significant drought going on. There is very little in the way of feed and very little in the way of soil moisture, and stock are under significant pressure. Having that support from the local vet to ensure that there are no animal welfare problems or to be able to get ahead of them is going to be welcomed so much by my constituents.

Farmers are out there in the bad weather, doing their work, and actually, despite what most people think, they love their stock. They really feel very hurt if they are not able to look after them in the way that they would like to, and they can't really get rid of stock that easily. They have gone through, in some cases, and scanned those ewes that have got twins and triplets and have sent them to the works, because the ewes wouldn't be able to raise those lambs and would likely be at risk of milk fever. So this additional help from MPI through the vets will be very, very welcome, and I'm sure that my constituents are looking forward to that.

It is a big worry, because there's very little in the way of snow out in the back country. Now, that may have changed in the last 24 hours, but we all should be concerned about that because that drives the lake levels that secure having the lights remaining on in New Zealand, and given that pernicious ban of oil and gas exploration, we now are very much short of gas to secure our electricity supplies. So, with that, Mr Speaker, have a great day.

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Labour Government that has just been unceremoniously turfed out's anti-car approach led to an imposition on the life of road users and took their eye off the important job of maintenance on our roads.

Earlier this year, the Transport and Infrastructure Committee conducted an investigation, after it was suggested that we examine the extreme costs of building a single raised speed table in Auckland—Williamson Ave, to be specific. Four hundred and ninety thousand dollars. It was gold-plated road improvement. Now, whether this speed-reducing piece of infrastructure was required or not, New Zealanders are rightly shocked at the abhorrent waste of money that led to nearly half a million dollars being spent to build this speed bump. A large proportion of the cost was spent on complying with ridiculous traffic management plans.

The reforms which Minister Brooke van Velden is conducting in the health and safety at workplace legislation will ensure rules are clear, sensible, and proportionate to the risk. This will address some of these issues. But it cannot be right that in a country that is going forward and paving its way in the future of this world, the only way we can achieve lower incidences on the road is by adopting a "slow them down and stop them" sort of mind-set.

Labour's anti-car, safety-ism approach led to wire barriers spreading over the country like the roots of a noxious weed. This Government is grabbing that weed and pulling it out. The misguided Road to Zero policy led to plenty of meetings and policy groups, but the decision to focus on things that slowed us down, in a desperate attempt to achieve a lofty goal, lost sight of the easy wins. Road repairs, scheduled maintenance, resurfacing, fixing potholes all improve road safety. Instead, we got things like raised speed tables, and barriers that get in New Zealanders' way. The ACT Party is here to advance the removal of barriers, freeing our citizens and our businesses, to grow and achieve for the betterment of all New Zealanders.

Last week, along with the local member Scott Simpson, I attended a meeting of over 350 concerned residents who live on State Highway 2 between Ōmokoroa and Katikati. The reason these residents got together was because the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA), under the direction of the last Government's Road to Zero programme, decided to put wire barriers down the centre of their road. This piece of road is a single carriageway, a two-lane road. It is almost as though the last Labour Government forgot that people lived along these roads. It's another case of ignoring rural New Zealand, because highways aren't just for cruising from one downtown to another; for many that are living rurally, a highway is the only way they get anywhere.

The good people who attended this meeting raised many concerns which may have missed the previous Government's thoughts, such as if one has to travel 7 kilometres extra to access their road, that adds a heck of a lot of travel time. In a medical emergency, every second counts. When there's a rural fire, every second counts. God forbid, if a tsunami was to strike the Western Bay of Plenty, there would be a barrier stopping people from quickly escaping to the hills. This is all serious stuff. When it comes to the day to day, people want to be able to exit their properties, and return home after a long day at work without needing to drive, in many cases, and extra 7 kilometres in the other direction just to get home, adding cost and time and taking away from people's quality of life, not to mention the emissions.

As a result of all this lobbying by these local communities, in fortuitous timing, one hour before the meeting in Katikati, NZTA put out a press release, saying, "As a result of community concerns, NZTA will reconsider the options for the section of median barriers along the stretch of road." They further go on to say, "which is getting in the way of many intersections, including Work Road intersection." This news will come as enormous relief for residents I've met. While it is difficult to say exactly what pushed NZTA to make this announcement, it is clear that fierce advocacy and protests from the locals has been effective.

I was contacted by residents tearing their hair out over the prospect of being blocked from turning right out of their roads, and have been privileged to take their concerns further. ACT is getting barriers out of the way of New Zealanders. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki): Look, I'd just like to start my contribution today by referring to the bus drivers that the member on the other side of the House spoke about earlier, because today is a historic day for bus drivers and all hard-working New Zealanders. Today, after 14 years, those bus drivers and the hard-working New Zealanders are getting tax relief—yes, tax relief. In fact, 83 percent of New Zealanders will from today be paying less tax. Because, on this side of the House, we respect hard-working New Zealanders. Kiwis earn their money and they should be able to keep more of what they earn and not have it wastefully spent by ideological projects—$1.2 billion on three waters, Te Pūkenga, all sorts of wasteful spending that doesn't get delivery, doesn't get results; just wasting taxpayers' money.

The previous Government wanted to tax, tax, tax—that's how they thought they would get our economy back on track—and spend, spend, spend. Well, today is about respecting the work of hard-working New Zealanders—the tradies, the hairdressers, the supermarket workers, the nurses, the teachers, who are all struggling to pay their grocery bills, their electricity bills, and their fuel bills. But, now, today, they will be better off and they will be able to afford more as they can keep more of what they earn. In fact, the average household in New Zealand will be getting $102 more a fortnight. That is a significant difference in a cost of living crisis. And a FamilyBoost package—all those families out there with children. Childcare has been going up and childcare costs are expensive.

The other week, I was just at the BestStart early childhood centre in Hastings and the parents there were really, really welcoming this tax rebate. It's just going to make it easier for them to be able to afford their childcare. Parents and families out there are struggling in this cost of living crisis, and today is about respecting low to middle income earning families.

This is all part of our plan to strengthen the economy. We're already seeing some green shoots: 3.3 percent inflation recently announced, the lowest that we've seen in the last couple of year. On this side of the House, we spend money wisely. We get more value out of the money we are spending. We are fiscally managing, we've got discipline and care for New Zealanders, and we are into reducing the cost of living for many, many families out there. Driving productivity; getting the wheels moving again—that's what's going to strengthen our economy.

Let's just talk about the taxes that we have scrapped, actually, since we became the Government and we are being a lot more wise with our money. The ute tax. What a stupid tax that was. It wasn't fair on rural and provincial New Zealand, on our tradies, and on our farmers—scrapped that. Taking agriculture out of the emissions trading scheme—again, punishing our hard-working farmers. Getting rid of the Auckland regional fuel tax. Restoring interest deductibility so we can see our rents go down and more housing supply. Getting things built in this country—all about delivery.

Look, when I get back to the electorate, I enjoy getting out of Wellington and into the real world, into provincial New Zealand. On Friday, I got out of the bureaucracy of Wellington and I got down to central Hawke's Bay. I spent time down there looking at the issues, spending time with our farmers and our contractors on the road, and seeing the huge investment that we're now putting back into infrastructure in this country, into roading, into the potholes, maintaining our rural roads, building State highways. This is what gets people around faster and more efficiently and will drive more productivity for our regions. Our regions have been neglected in the past six years. It is time to put some focus back into our regions like Hawke's Bay, where we've seen our farmers facing an avalanche of red tape, rules, regulation, costs, high inflation, high interest rates—it's been tough out there.

Just on Monday, I was at the New Zealand Apples & Pears Annual Conference with our growers, and they are once again feeling like we're being aspirational—we're being aspirational for provincial New Zealand. No longer are we villainising our farmers and rural communities. And it's about time.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, Mr Speaker. So 14 layers of dysfunction fully on display on the other side here today. In fact, I think we could probably even find more layers of dysfunction over there, especially after the member that's just taken her seat has had the floor.

This is a day that the National Party have been counting down—apparently for 14 years. It seems quite a popular number for the National Party to bandy around, that they've been waiting for, so they can get out there and they can convince New Zealanders, and particularly retired New Zealanders that $2.50 is in fact $250. Because that's what they went on the campaign trail and they promised them. And on that day, they're trying to do the magician thing and convince New Zealanders that $2.50 is what they voted for in October. What has happened?

They've got one Minister that comes into the House, can't answer the most basic of questions that are put on notice, and we've got another Minister that is more interested in wearing the insignia of her gang than defending her Government or her ministerial record. You've got one job in question time as a Minister, and that's to front up to the Parliament and not put the interests of your jewellery or your insignia ahead of that. And nothing is more emblematic than the kind of dysfunction that we're seeing of this Government, than the behaviour that we've seen in the House in the last hour and a half from this Government.

This was meant to be a day when the Government would go out and try and sound as desperately on life support—tax relief—so-called. But what did we see? We saw one part of the throuple more intent on trying to create a distraction to take away from the Government's messaging. There are problems and we are firing up the popcorn machine for the day that David Seymour becomes Deputy Prime Minister. That's going to be an interesting episode for us to watch.

But, if today is tax cut day, let's have a look at the price of those tax cuts. And, specifically, I want to talk about the $3 billion that was cut from climate initiatives to fund tax cuts, interest deductibility for landlords. And we've had the previous speaker stand up with great glee and say that, you know, "we've done great things, we've cut the youth tax."—tell you what they did is they have taken away one of the few initiatives that actually was reducing emissions in this country. And all New Zealanders are going to pay. I want that member to go back to rural New Zealand, to the Hawke's Bay and tell her constituents that the Climate Change Commission has said that the result of this Government's inaction in transport and agriculture climate initiatives means that $300 a tonne emissions pricing is coming. Now at only $200 a tonne that means an extra $0.40 on the cost of a litre of petrol. So we know it's going to be skywards of that. So she talks about scraping the Auckland regional fuel tax; front up to rural New Zealand and tell them you're putting 50-60 cents on everyone's litre of petrol because of the inaction of a Government that you are part—sorry—that that member is part of.

Let's look at what else they're doing to pay for this. They seem to think that they can bandy around with great glee that they got rid of corporate welfare. What they've got rid of, in the Decarbonising Industry Fund, is something that was accounting for 17 and 35 percent of the emissions reductions that we needed to achieve. Have we heard one alternative from this Government of what they're going to do? No. We have a Government that is hell-bent on increasing emissions in this country. They have no idea, they have no plan, and when their Minister comes to the House to answer the question, can't even tell me what a specific initiative is. Instead, what she lists are the very things that the Climate Commission has told us are failing.

This is a Government in la-la land, and they are costing New Zealanders. Treasury has told us New Zealanders are facing a bill of $24 billion because of climate inaction, and that is on this Government and their inaction. This is a Government that should hang its head in shame. It is failing future New Zealanders and taking us backwards.

RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori ):

[Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

I want to also congratulate the women's sevens team this morning with a wonderful, wonderful win, and our first gold medal. So I just wanted to acknowledge the ladies, leading the way, and just to acknowledge the efforts of all of our Olympians over there in France at this particular time.

[Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

Te Tiriti o Waitangi is under threat. Our tīpuna consented to Pākehā settling here. This country was not settled by conquest; it was settled by consent. Our tīpuna consented for Pākehā to govern themselves on the condition that they acknowledge the absolute authority—our full, exclusive, and undisturbed right of our authority over ourselves, our whenua, our kāinga, our taonga, our moana, our ngahere, our reo, our mokopuna, our whakapapa. That the Queen would keep her people in line and afford Māori equal rights and citizenship, and none of that has happened.

We are punch drunk from the racist agenda this anti-Māori Government lead and have been led by the "dark triad". The dark triad are leading an anti-Māori agenda in this House. We are punch drunk. You have been punching Māori since you took office.

Hon Nicole McKee: Point of order. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just wonder whether the Standing Orders 121 on personal reflections count here. There's been accusations made about the Government being racist. I see that as a personal reflection. I just wonder whether or not the Standing Order comes in here.

SPEAKER: This is a general debate. People will say things in the general debate that others might find affects them particularly, but it's not meant in anything other than a general sense. It is not out of order to suggest that a policy has a particular bent to it. Both sides of the House regularly do that, and there is nothing out of order in what I've heard so far.

RAWIRI WAITITI: I apologise if my kōrero is triggering, but we are punch drunk from the racist agenda this anti-Māori Government lead and have been leading and are led, by the dark triad. They've been punching Māori since you took office. The attack on Māori wards—punch. Demolishing of the Māori Health Authority—punch. Removing section 7AA—punch. Rushing through the Fast-track Approvals Bill—punch. Cutting Matariki funding—punch. Erasing te reo Māori from public service—punch. Cutting supply and capability of Māori housing—punch. The establishment of youth bootcamps—punch. Gang legislation that will disproportionately target Māori—punch. Ignoring tribunal and High Court rulings—punch. And yet to come, the Treaty principles bill—punch.

The dark triad, like any abuser, is grooming us. In actual fact, this Government and successive Governments have been grooming us for the past 180-odd years through colonialist tools like divide and conquer. So they embed the theft of our takutai moana with the marine and coastal area bill. The confiscation of 100 percent of the whenua here in Aotearoa. Māori only have less than 5 percent—95 percent of the land is out of Māori ownership. Where has that gone to? Yeah, some of you are going to say, "Oh, you sold it." No we didn't. The majority was confiscated.

Sam Uffindell: Does that include privately owned Māori land?

RAWIRI WAITITI: No. The others were given by land ballot because the soldiers—Pākehā soldiers—got back earlier, right. So our people missed out on the land ballots that they were promised. And the mokopuna are still benefiting from it today.

This marine and coastal area bill is the expansion of the empire that you continue to advocate for. This is a shameful, shameful Government. I've never seen anything like it. And nobody would have seen anything like it in their lifetime, absolutely. I've just laid out all the anti-Māori things that you have been absolutely relentless in this. But will just say to my people:

[Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

Do not allow the divide and conquer tactics. I spoke to one of our iwi leaders today, and they said they went to an iwi hui where Ministers were promising all this money, and our leaders were drunk like alcoholics on the Government's money. These are the tactics that the Government constantly uses: divide and conquer.

[Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

Do not allow this taniwha, with its teeth of silver and gold, to penetrate us, to devour us. We will not allow that to happen. And we put this Government on notice. You are on notice today that we will no longer allow this anti-Māori agenda to run its course any more. Kia ora tātou.

NANCY LU (National): Today is a really good day that a lot of the communities are celebrating all across New Zealand. Let me set the scene: New Zealanders are actually worse off in the last few years, and I say that because I went through to the Stats New Zealand website today and I had a really, really good look at information on Stats New Zealand. This is—please, if I can read: the average cost of housing per week was up 14.5 percent in the year ended June 2023 than one year ago. So the average cost of housing for New Zealanders has gone up 14.5 percent. That includes 4 percent increase in rent, 27.5 percent increase in mortgage, 5.9 percent increase in property rates, 14.1 percent increase in building-related insurance costs.

Costs are going up everywhere, for almost all households throughout the top to the bottom of New Zealand, for almost every New Zealand household. So this is why, when I travel up and down the country, most people are asking me—the number one thing that people ask me is "What is the Government doing with addressing the cost of living problem for New Zealand—

Ricardo Menéndez March: Increasing child poverty.

NANCY LU: —because we are suffering." And yes, members across the House are yelling about child poverty, but what about house poverty? They are struggling; parents are struggling.

So in the year ended June 2023, 8.5 percent of New Zealand's population were in material hardship. That is another 1.1 percent increase than the previous 12 months, and also 0.9 percent increase in New Zealand's population in severe material hardship. All of this has occurred under the last Government, and this is concrete evidence in stats to show that New Zealanders are suffering up and down the country. So when the National Party campaigned on providing tax relief to the hard-working low- to middle-income earners in New Zealand, when we campaigned throughout the country, people voted for it because that's what people wanted and that's what people need.

So what does that mean for New Zealanders from today? Many of my colleagues have talked about what it means for their region and what it means for the hard-working New Zealand Kiwis. I must emphasise: 83 percent of the New Zealanders—and that is 83 percent of people who are listening in and tuning in on TV—83 percent of you will have some support and some benefits from the tax relief that will be effective from today. It will help to increase your personal income. It will help whether you're a family with children, it will help if you're an individual tax earner, it will help if you have young children who are going through the early childhood education.

So, New Zealanders, we do have some really great news for you all. We had a record low of 3.3 percent inflation under the National Government for the last 12 months. We are bringing in tax relief to help our New Zealand families, and this is the first time in the last 14 years. Some of the members before me, in the Opposition, actually talked about what does $2.50 matter for New Zealanders. Well, it does matter, because I have met a family who told me they have to borrow $5 to fill up gas so they can drive to a supermarket to get some food for the family. So $2.50 matters; every cent matters and every single dollar matters. So for those watching on TV, if you have to borrow $5 to go to the supermarket, it does matter. If you have to borrow from your neighbours and your family just to get by the next few days, it does matter. And I have to say it matters also to Yalei and Isaac, who I have talked about in the House, who texted me on the first day that we announced the Budget that they will be getting $116.50 in tax savings every two weeks, amounting to $3,029 for the year.

Today, it matters. It matters to you, Yalei and Isaac. It matters to many of our New Zealand families around the country. Today is a day that is worth celebrating because today is a day where you feel some break and a little bit of pressure taken off you. So, please, families like Yalei and Isaac, go out and take a little time out for you and your family today and celebrate, and please go on to check the tax relief and tax calculator.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Sadly, every one of those dollars being paid out in tax cuts is borrowed. I recently read a book titled Everything is possible, nothing is real. It's about Russia and the lies and disinformation that abound there. But sadly, in this post-truth world, that sort of thing's happening in the United Kingdom under Johnson and in the USA under Trump.

New Zealand politics has never been perfect, but until now we have avoided the extremes that we've seen overseas. But the media reported it now that we're on that slide in New Zealand, because we're told, as we were by that last speaker, Nancy Lu, everything is possible, but in truth nothing is real. National said anything to get elected. They made false promises. Kids could have everything they had under Labour plus more. They said debt was too high. They claimed the post-COVID deficit that peaked at 2.75 percent was massive and they fixed it. But instead they've increased the deficit by billions. And the biggest porky we hear is that they're not borrowing for tax cuts.

So what do the commentators say? Matthew Hooton, former adviser to the National Party: "Nicola Willis will need to borrow $28.7 billion cash over her first four full financial years as Finance Minister." That's up 22.2 percent from the $6.5 billion forecast at the half-yearly fiscal update. Over the same four years, tax cuts will cost $14.7 billion. The numbers don't lie. There's no doubt she's borrowing for tax cuts and then a bit more. Shamubeel Eaqub: "This increase in borrowing chooses to rack up debt for future generations to give tax cuts now." They don't like him, on the other side. What about Cameron Bagrie: "They're borrowing because they've got a mismatch between expenditure and revenue and tax cuts give you less income. It's not hard maths to work out." Former Reserve Bank economist Michael Reddell: "It's not time for tax cuts." But under National: no, no, no, no. Everything is possible, but nothing's real. It's the same old National Party trick: cut revenue, increase the deficit in Government debt, then use both to justify cuts to health and housing and other services. Strangle the economy.

This week, Judith Collins and I, the only two survivors from the 2002 intake—we've been here 22 years. I've been here for 22 Budgets, 11 surpluses under—sorry, 13 years of Labour and nine of National. Under Labour: 11 surpluses and four deficits. Under National, while I've been here: two surpluses and seven deficits. Excluding the COVID peak, the largest deficit we ever ran was 2.7 percent. This crowd have upped it to 3.1 percent. It's probably going to be worse. Everything's possible, nothing's real.

It's the same in health. They said it was a shambles and they'd fix it. They promised more cancer drugs. They got slammed for not doing it in the Budget, so they borrowed more money, then poked it out after the Budget. They complained about a lack of nurses and now they've put a ban on employing more nurses. Everything is possible, nothing is true.

They said you could have lower petrol taxes but more roads. They voted for the zero carbon Act. Megan Woods has covered that. They pretend to reduce emissions and then they reversed the policies needed to achieve it. The number of internal combustion cars coming into the country's doubled. Environmental and economic vandalism! Everything is possible, nothing's real.

And then, to add insult to injury, they say that's why we need fast track. We know that the Labour Party fast track worked, sped up the process, consented wind and solar. It didn't override the Resource Management Act, the Conservation Act, or the Wildlife Act, and it didn't allow Ministers to override conditions introducing the risk of corruption.

The media aren't stupid. Bernard Hickey this week: "'Going for housing growth' means stopping building." Everything is possible, nothing is real. Fourteen layers of bureaucracy at Health New Zealand? Rubbish! Not borrowing for tax cuts? Rubbish! Christopher Luxon giving his tax cut to charity, having claimed his accommodation benefit for his house here at $50,000 a year rather than living at Government House? More spin. Kiwis know the gesture was hollow.

What about child poverty reduction? Well, it's the Olympics, so what are the cartoonists saying? "Next up, Louise Upton, champion of child poverty reduction. Here she is at the child poverty high jump. Let's see how she does it. She lowers the bar. Cracked it." Everything's possible, but nothing is real under this Government.

RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'd like to start with two "F" words, if I may, just in reply to the Opposition member there: fully funded. That's something that I'm not quite sure that that member gets. There are two things that he said that I'd like to pick up on, one was true and one was so false. "Everything is possible, nothing is real." Well, I can tell you, Mr Speaker, that tax cuts today are real, and you can check the tax calculator on your way out, Mr Parker. What's the website? Budget.govt.nz—thank you for that. The other thing he said, which I actually agree with is: "Tax cuts give you less income." We realise this but we also realise that New Zealanders get to keep more of their own income, and that's a big part of our policy.

I wonder if members can think back to 2010 and how old they were, what vocation they were in, what house they were living in. Can they see the faces of their children? It was 14 years ago. That was the last time that tax adjustments had been made. In fact, we would have made them seven years ago, in 2017, but it got reversed by the Labour Government.

Anyway, today is good news. Isn't it amazing that we've increased investment to police, health, and still provided tax cuts in the first eight months of Government? It's incredible. Ninety four percent of households will benefit, 3.5 million Kiwis; an average of $20 per week, per working Kiwi—I'm using a conservative figure here. Some might say that's not a lot, but let's put it in perspective: $20 for an average family, that's a kilo of cheese, a loaf of bread, and some milk.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Ha! A fish and two scoops!

RYAN HAMILTON: It could be some extra mince or a roast for the good man there—Duncan.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Jesus, how big is the roast?

RYAN HAMILTON: Depends. Do you go to Pak 'N Save or Countdown? A roast chicken; how about some good old New Zealand lamb? Slow-cooked lamb, five hours in the oven, on a Sunday afternoon; that's what you can get with your $20. How about some money towards the nappies or the infant formula, which I recall was always a big part of the grocery bill? Or a little bit of a luxury like a flat white, half milk, half cream. Or how about Darryl in Te Rapa who couldn't afford a coffee for a while, and now, on smoko break, as the sun pops out through the dark, foggy Waikato mornings, and the sun warms his face, he can go and sip his flat white, with his extra $3.50 a day. Isn't that amazing?

Some might say that it's not enough, and it's only $20, but, of course, working couples and those with the ability to now be reimbursed for childcare will be even better off. I'm not going to give financial advice, but if we were to take the $20 for those who say it's not enough—and some in the Opposition might like to follow this advice; at your own risk, of course—and put it into an investment fund, like a KiwiSaver but not one that locks it up for retirement, and you did that every week for 10 years at 8 percent, you would have a total of $15,654.55, where about $5,000 of that would be pure interest. My point is that this might seem like a small amount of money, but compounded over time—

Tom Rutherford: It adds up.

RYAN HAMILTON: —it adds up. Thank you, Mr Rutherford.

We are doing a lot of things as a Government and have done a lot of things in this Budget—some big and some small. But we're, hopefully, here for a long time. My point is that the compound effect of the changes that this Government is making is real. The changes will provide enduring social, environmental, and economic dividends to the people of New Zealand. The compound effect of this Government will make a positive impact on the future of this great country.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

MCLEAN INSTITUTE (TRUST VARIATION) BILL

Third Reading

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Kia orana, Mr Speaker. I move, That the McLean Institute (Trust Variation) Bill be now read a third time.

It's a pleasure to discharge my duty as a local MP and to marshal this bill through the House. The McLean Institute is a charitable institute, established in Christchurch in accordance with the will of Allan McLean, who actually passed away in 1907. He was a generous advocate for women, supporting them and their children to be housed long term, and assisted beneficiaries to ensure that they had daily necessities.

The aim of this bill and the McLean Institute is to continue Mr McLean's legacy. The difficulty has been that with the passing of time, the purposes set out in Mr McLean's will have become difficult to give effect to. They've become dated, the language wasn't appropriate to modern times, and the original charitable objectives don't really fit with modern societal norms and language.

So the bill really just needed an update to the terms of the trust, allowing the board to continue to support women and children in need of welfare assistance in a way that takes into consideration today's social challenges, and it also returns the institute's assistance to the original charitable purpose as envisaged by Allan McLean.

The bill is entirely appropriate, and, obviously, I very much support it. It supports the institute to provide temporary, emergency, and transitional housing for women and their children who are in need, and provides women with housing at an affordable cost, where they require assistance to locate or retain suitable housing within their financial means.

It also enables the institute to provide accommodation and other support for young women transitioning out of foster care and their children. It also provides support for women in distress due to mental health or addiction issues, disability, trauma, violence, homelessness, poverty, illness, or long-term disabilities. It's really seeking to enable women to live independently and to participate in their communities and to promote awareness of family violence and the abuse of that nature, which is entirely unacceptable.

At its core, the bill changes the purposes in the trust deed by confirming that any woman and child can be assisted by the trust, making it more accessible, and by removing any suggestion that the previous wording had that women had to be of particular standing or from a particular social class. It also broadens the purpose of the trust to support women who need support for assistance with financial, health, or other situations.

It's members' day today. This bill is not a contentious bill. It's supported across the House, and I don't propose to dwell on the bill any further, other than to say it has been a privilege to make sure that this bill does progress, that the charitable purposes of Allan McLean are furthered, and that the assistance rendered to women and their children will continue as originally contemplated in 1907. I commend the bill to the House.

PAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to make a contribution to the McLean Institute (Trust Variation) Bill. The McLean Institute is a charitable institute established pursuant to the will of Allan McLean, who passed away on 12 November 1907, 120 years ago. The language of Mr McLean's will that established the McLean Institute was couched in the language of 120 years ago. It referred to "women of refinement or education in straightened circ*mstances", along with their children—so women who were going through a rough patch but who were otherwise refined or educated, in line with the time that Mr McLean worded his will.

It is a nice time to look back to, and the will of Mr McLean is an amazing reminder of that time. But the time has passed, and the changes that we are now going through in this bill, which are supported across the House, make the will of Mr McLean more applicable, and the trust that he created more enduring, with today's time.

The institute was established by will in 1904 and by a codicil, an addition to the will, in 1906. Through his will, Mr McLean established the Holly Lea, a property located in Christchurch. The residue of his estate was later settled as well into the institute, the object of which was to make sure that women were given the support they needed at the time they needed it.

The bill now speaks of a little tweak, which has to do with the provision of the will which referred to women and their children in Canterbury now applying to women who are from Canterbury and who may be transitioning elsewhere for various reasons, possibly including family violence or having to relocate their children or themselves away from Canterbury. So the bill includes opportunities to support women in such circ*mstances.

The object of the bill has always been to provide housing—accommodation; temporary emergency transition housing to women and their children. The trust is also empowered to locate, obtain, or help retain accommodation for women, if not to provide for that accommodation themselves in the property that the trust runs and operates. It is very worthy of support from everyone in this House as there will never really be a shortage of women who due to their circ*mstances will be transitioning or moving in and out of a space of relative stability and having to deal with having to source and relocate themselves and their children in alternative accommodation.

The time that Mr McLean created his will and the trust refers to situations where women may find themselves in where they need support. It happens that, 120 years later, in today's scenario, one could say that the need of women for the types of help that the McLean Institute is able to provide has actually become much more expanded, and the need much more in demand—the need has risen. There are many drivers of that: young women transitioning out of foster care, which they may have find found themselves in, along with any children that they may have; providing for women in distress due to mental health situations or addiction issues, disability, trauma, violence, homelessness, poverty, or dislocation. For one of the reasons or another. The McLean Institute also wishes to provide support for women suffering from possibly terminal illness or long term or permanent disablement due to such illnesses.

What the bill seeks to do is to continue to empower the McLean Institute to continue to provide the support that they have been established to provide for women and their children, whether in Canterbury or whether they find themselves in a situation where they have to move away from Canterbury. So it is interesting to note that while the times have changed, the need has not changed, and the need has actually just become more defined and more varied in the need for that application of Mr Allan McLean's desire to help women and their children who find themselves—maybe temporarily or over a long-term period—in need of support, whether financially to retain accommodation or to find accommodation for themselves and for their children.

This is a worthy piece of legislation. Accordingly, in support of the others in this House, we in the Government support this bill. We commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the motion be agreed to.

KAHURANGI CARTER (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise today in enthusiastic support of the McLean Institute (Trust Variation) Bill for its final reading. This bill represents a vital opportunity to enhance our beloved Ōtautahi Christchurch, a city renowned for its resilience, generosity, and deep sense of community.

I want to mihi and congratulate the member Hon Dr Duncan Webb on his work across the House to ensure the bill passed, which allows the legislation to reflect the 21st century and allows the trust to continue the fantastic mahi they do.

In our vibrant city, we have witnessed the extraordinary power of people coming together, especially over the last decade following the earthquakes. Ōtautahi is a place where we care for one another and where kindness and support flow freely, especially towards our most vulnerable members. The journey of our community has been filled with challenges, yet we have constantly risen, like the phoenix from the ashes, creating a resilient and connected environment for all. This is why I choose to raise my children in Christchurch so that they can grow up surrounded by a community that embodies generosity, manaaki, and the spirit of collaboration.

However, even in this strong and caring community, there are people who face significant hardships. It is institutions like the McLean Institute, which has been there for our community since its establishment in 1909. It's amazing. As has been well-canvassed in this House already, in previous readings of this bill, the current trust deed is outdated and restrictive. I don't wish to relitigate what has already been spoken about in this House, but I am so pleased that the Green Party is supporting this change. It is crucial that we update its language and objectives to reflect the realities of today and to ensure that we can effectively support those who require our help.

The House has already outlined extensively the need to change the outdated and restrictive language of the current deed, and I do not wish to relitigate this. However, I do want to draw the House's attention to, and put on record, my strong disappointment with the select committee recommendations to remove rule 5.4 of the Schedule, which would have truly reflected the bill moving into the 21st century. Rule 5.4 of the Schedule specifies that the term "woman" in the deed of trust, should "be interpreted in its broadest possible sense, having regard to both biological sex and gender identity." The select committee recommended removing it. Our trans and takatāpui community in Aotearoa and across the motu are taonga. They're my sissies and the most fun.

Our community deserves to be represented and reflected within the words we, as change makers, pass into legislation. As such, I want to put on record my disagreement with the removal of rule 5.4 of the Schedule, which specifies that the term "women" in the deed of trust should "be interpreted in its broadest possible sense, having regard to both biological sex and gender identity." And it was a lost opportunity to support some of our most marginalised women and their children. Our trans and takatāpui community are such a vibrant, integral, and joyous part of Ōtautahi and must be protected and supported.

This bill not only honours Allan McLean's legacy but also celebrates the amazing qualities of Christchurch. It exemplifies our commitment to supporting one another and nurturing a community where everyone can thrive. Let us embrace this opportunity for positive change and continue to build a more inclusive future together. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (ACT): I stand on behalf of the ACT Party to speak to the McLean Institute (Trust Variation) Bill. This will be a short call because we're looking at agreeing with some of the changes that have been made to the 1909 original trust deed that was implemented. Basically, this bill is looking to modernise the charitable trust and some of the clauses that are within it. It includes flexibility on trustee criteria and being able to remove some trustees if need be.

The welfare and the wellbeing of disadvantaged women in Canterbury will now be captured and it will be captured because they are stated within the amended bill as being eligible to be able to participate with the trust as opposed to what was, and I quote, "gentlewomen or women of refinement", and with children under the age of 10 years old.

Allan McLean's will did want to make sure that we looked after those disadvantaged women and children in Canterbury. By modernising the terminology within the trust, it means that we'll be able to give more access to more women and more children, and on that basis, we do support the bill.

TANYA UNKOVICH (NZ First): Thank you. I stand on behalf of New Zealand First in support of the McLean Institute (Trust Variation) Bill. The member who has introduced the bill isn't in the House, but I'd like to congratulate him on all the work that he's done.

So I will speak on this third and final reading. Just as a bit of a summary: the McLean Institute (Trust Variation) Bill addresses the need to update the charitable purpose and administrative processes of the McLean Institute Trust, which was established in 1907 by the late Allan McLean. Originally intended to provide support for destitute women of refinement or good character, the trust's purpose has become outdated in light of societal changes. Now, this bill seeks to repeal and replace previous Acts relating to the McLean Institute to enable these updates, ensuring that the trust can better serve the needs of disadvantaged women and children in contemporary society. Now, by clarifying the process for future variations to the trust, the bill aims to streamline these administrative procedures and enhance the trust's effectiveness in fulfilling its charitable mission.

So New Zealand First does support this bill, and some of the reasons that we support it is because it is in alignment with our principles. We are committed to promoting social welfare and addressing the needs of marginalised communities. We believe in the importance of ensuring that charitable trusts remain relevant and effective in serving their beneficiaries, and, of course, it aligns with our principles of social responsibility and equity.

I'm actually going to be open and transparent, Mr Speaker. I will continue with reading—I've just this minute heard that my auntie passed away. Literally, just a couple of minutes ago.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Oh. I'm sorry to hear that.

TANYA UNKOVICH: I'm fine, but, you know, you stand and do this. So she was my—and then reading this and thinking about women back in that age, my mother was brought up in that age and my aunt, so it's very nice to reflect on the women of that time, and how hard they worked. And that is what I'm thinking of as I'm reading this, is the women of that time and the difficulties that they faced. So, yeah. And honouring all women of that time.

So I will continue on. I was on the Social Services and Community Committee for this bill and, in all honesty, it was my first experience of going through the select committee and a bill. So it was quite a learning experience for me, hearing the submissions. We only received three submissions and it was an interesting process. I sat and was quiet and made sure I learnt how things worked. So that's why I suppose this bill will always be a reminder to me and a memory of my very first experience in a select committee. So the three submitters were—two of them were very technical kind of submissions and one was, I would call her rather animated. So, again, it was interesting to see that process worked through.

So one of the reasons for this bill is, you know, over time society changes and it's rendered this trust's original purpose actually outdated, hence the need for the amendments to better address the needs of these marginalised groups.

Now, New Zealand First, we are going to support this bill. As I've said, it aligns with our principles of promoting social welfare and ensuring that everyone has taken care of in our community. I think, on that note, I will commend the bill to the House, if I may. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Condolences to the member. The next call is a split call between Te Pāti Māori and the Green Party.

TĀKUTA FERRIS (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tonga):

[Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

The McLean Institute, a charitable trust based in Ōtautahi Christchurch, incorporated in 1909, was established, pursuant to the will of Allan McLean, who wished to provide financial assistance to women and their tamariki who were in destitute circ*mstances. The initial focus of the trust was to provide long-term housing and daily necessities for the beneficiaries. While the trust was set up to support women and their tamariki who were in destitute circ*mstances, the language used at the time had limited who was eligible for support, and it is rare for persons to qualify for support today.

I'm glad to stand today in support of the amendments made to this bill and glad that the McLean Institute may finally progress their crucial, critical work in support of the Ōtautahi Christchurch communities. What resonated with me in particular was the focus that this trust places on to the women and tamariki and their ability to access safe housing. It seems absolutely appropriate, given the current climate and state of liveability within this country, that the amendments to this bill be addressed today in this third reading.

I say this as I have been listening to the responses of the proposed amendments to the Residential Tenancies Act. What seems to be a recurring issue amongst these responses was the challenge that minority, vulnerable, and disadvantaged groups are facing when it comes to housing. One particular response referred to our gang whānau and the absolute challenge our women, our wahine, our mothers and tamariki within this community are facing when it comes to discrimination, particularly around housing.

It is most appropriate that the select committee has approved relevant changes to the trust deed so institutions such as the McLean Institute can commit to helping those that this Government has so far failed to reach. I want to tautoko the words of my colleague Takutai Tarsh Kemp, who in the second reading of the bill acknowledged the mahi of the McLean Institute and the desire we have to see our communities supported and housed well. So we at Te Pāti Māori support this bill and look forward to seeing the wonderful mahi that the McLean Institute can now engage with in their communities of Ōtautahi and beyond.

[Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

LAN PHAM (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Look, I want to start by firstly acknowledging our colleague across the House Tanya Unkovich in your very sad news. Our hearts go out to you at this time—really, really devastating to hear that. Look, it's a really awesome day to celebrate awesome people doing awesome things, especially when it comes to the fantastic people of Ōtautahi Christchurch and the wider Waitaha region. I do want to note, though, my disappointment too, as outlined by my Green Party colleague Kahurangi Carter earlier, about the removal of clause 5.4 of the Schedule, but I don't want that to lose sight of what is at the heart of this bill. What I love about this bill is that it's really, ultimately, about enabling people to help each other, but a little bit more than that: it's about enabling those people, or, in this case, the trust, with the means to help who have the capacity, be it the resources, the money, whatever form that help may take, to help those who have so much less, who actually have the need of such help. Sadly, we know we so desperately need more of that in this world today, and in this Parliament in particular.

The second thing I really love about this bill is the founding history of the McLean Institute trust, in that it originated from its founder, Allan McLean, and the inspiration that he took from his mum in the formation and the purposes of the trust. He talks about—and it's in the guiding materials—her journey of struggling after his father's death and being unable to make a life for herself, to provide for not only Allan but for his siblings and actually falling into poverty.

Now, like many of us, we take so much inspiration from our mums, and I wanted to use the reflection on this bill and also the news that we've just had shared in the House as an opportunity to shout out to my own mum. Her name's Rosalie, and I want to do this because her birthday comes up in a few days and she would be turning 71 this year, as our whānau sadly said goodbye to her, at least in the physical form, 19 years ago when she passed away as a result of skin cancer. She was an incredible woman: a mum of six, a teacher, a social worker, and just a human being who really, truly cared about people, who would go out of her way to love them, to help them and hold them, and to nurture them. I'm reflecting on that because that is exactly the aim and purpose and mahi of this trust, and Te Pāti Kākāriki wholeheartedly support that. I love that Allan McClean took that story, the inspiration from his mum, and turned it into actual action. So we absolutely support the newly proposed purpose.

We really want to shout out as well, as my colleagues have across the House today, to Duncan Webb, who has stepped this through the process, and really want to support the absolute importance of this bill for real women and real children in need in Ōtautahi Christchurch and, indeed, across Canterbury and Waitaha. The changes that are a result of this process will help them to really target that care and help, and we're so glad to see those positive changes. I think, as my final reflection, with this care and love that is in this bill, we need to evolve, and we need to do it more in this House and take our role and our duty of care for the people of Aotearoa more seriously. We'd love to see better outcomes coming out of this very Chamber. Kia ora.

TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): It's a pleasure to speak again on this bill. I've become quite a fan of this bill, and not just because I believe that our country is at its best when our community is at its best and when we are looking after each other and we're not reliant on the Government for everything, but we work together and we contribute what we can—and no better example will we find that back at the start of the last century than that of Allan McLean—but also because, I guess, my ancestors were MacLeans of Duart, and my dad was a good Canterbury man. So if he were here, he'd still love to know that we were—

Hon Nicola Grigg: I knew there was something I liked about you.

TIM COSTLEY: Well, we all have our secrets, don't we?

Now, I want to start by reflecting on some of the notes that we did get back from the select committee themselves when they considered it, and, in particular, on their belief that the changes proposed in this bill were consistent with the wishes of the late Allan McLean. There's a couple of key changes I'd like to focus on—particularly recitals (6) and (10A) in the preamble of the bill and clause 24 of the Schedule itself—but I want to first just reflect on this comment that these changes are consistent with the wishes of the late Allan McLean. Of course, it can be difficult for us to know. As previous members have reflected, it was a different time, it was a different age, there was different language and there were different customs at the time, and different social norms.

So to try and understand whether this is the same and whether we are keeping with that original intent—particularly for those adjoining us in the gallery today and those that may be watching or listening from home—let me take you back. Let me take you on a journey back almost 200 years ago—200 years back—to when the young Allan McLean was just a 14-year-old boy in the Scottish Isles. His dad was working in copper mines and trading between Ireland and Scotland, and, tragically, he was killed in a shipwreck. They managed to get the body ashore, but they couldn't save him. Young Allan McLean, with an older brother, a younger brother, two younger sisters, and his mum, was left to work the family farm to try and make a living.

As we've heard, just four years later, there was crop failure after crop failure. A terrible time struck this family, and so they made the tough decision that the five kids and mum would move overseas. They'd heard about this fantastic country at the other end of the world. A paradise in the Pacific—what better place could there be? Unfortunately, they ended up in Australia, but you can't get everything you want.

But they travelled to Australia and they made a new life for themselves there, and they lasted a few years, working in the goldmines, trading gold, collecting gold, and selling it. They set up their own store at the time because there were no banks and there was nothing else in this area, and they worked hard. They made a living for themselves until disaster struck again. They found out about a plot to kill the oldest brother, John. But they were warned by what's described by the McLean Institute as a Chinese man, who swam across a nearby river to get to the other side to warn them in time so that they could escape, and, indeed, they did.

They made good their escape, and they never forgot that goodwill. In fact, they took this Chinese gentleman by the name of Fan So with them to New Zealand. He became a lifelong companion and lifelong friend and someone they always looked after, and that tells us a little of that character of the McLeans.

In fact, they were known—and I'll read the quote. They were known in Australia for having "loyal hearts, gracious manners, and a real will to work hard." When they got to New Zealand, they were known for their courage, for their steadfastness, and for their faith in others. I looked back through the Hansard from the second reading of this bill to try and find what other values we can learn about Mr McLean, and here are the values that I've found mentioned specifically—and I quote—strong families, caring communities, personal responsibility, loyalty to country, and competitive enterprise. I googled those values because they sounded fantastic. I could only find them collectively in one place, and that place was the National Party website. So I'm not suggesting that he was a foreman to the National Party, but, indeed, he shared the values that a vast number in this House share, and great values they are for every Kiwi.

But he made his money and he made his living there, and I think it's a great story that tells us of him. As he has moved, he retired from the farm into a small cottage in Christchurch, and he said, "I want plans drawn up for this house." They came to him with plans for a four-bedroom house and he said, "No, I didn't say a four-bedroom house; I said a 40-bedroom house.", and they were thinking "Why would this old gentleman want to have a 40-bedroom house at this late stage in life?" He hadn't married and he had no children of his own, and it wasn't until his death and until his will was read that they realised this benevolent intent behind it and that he wanted to set up what we now speak about today as the McLean Institute: to look after others.

So when we think about this bill and when we think about the changes that we're considering, I think we have a real taste of who Allan McLean was. He was someone who cared for others and someone who wasn't afraid to work hard for himself and for his family and who was faithful to those around him but who was also intent on helping others, and we must reflect—as the member opposite did just before—on what it was his mum went with. He was in those dark places, those dark times, with his mum. They were what was known as the dark '40s—the 1840s, of course—when those crops failed, when he lost his dad and his mum was widowed, and when they went to Australia and she saw her son's life threatened and they had to once again flee the country, and hence maybe that's the spring of his intent to look after others.

So we move to the bill itself and the technical changes, and I did just want to reflect on a couple in particular. One of the key ones that is being made here is the change not just to recital (10A) in the preamble, which sort of highlights it, but it's perhaps better captured—in view of the time—in clause 6, where it talks about the fact that although the McLean Institute was incorporated in this Act of Parliament in 1909, from that point on, Part 3 of the Charitable Trusts Act 1957 applied to the institute and the fund. What that really means is that instead of having to come to an Act of Parliament to make changes, it can be done by the trust board itself or it can be done through the High Court, and those specific clauses for each one are set out in recital (24) in the Schedule to the bill, where it sort of goes through them.

If I can just give an example of a modern-day charity to kind of help people to understand what the difference might be, I was the founder of a charity called the Missing Wingman Trust. It's a charity that supports air force families when someone is killed, injured, wounded, or ill—what we call our Kiwi family. I'm grateful for the advice we had when setting it up from, firstly, retired Air Commodore Tim Walshe but also to Tim Foss, the accountant, and particularly to Mark Sinclair, who was the lawyer who gifted his time and his services to help us set up the trust. His guidance was very appropriate, and I am mindful of it today as I read these changes to this trust.

It was set up in such a way that if changes were needed to be made, as can be done now with the McLean Institute, they can be made by either the trust board—for example, we just went from six trustees to seven, in order to bring in a little bit more diversity to the trust. Having the ability to do that as a trust board without having to go through Parliament and without having to make significant variations to the trust deed and register them with the court makes the trust more efficient and it makes it more effective, but it also saves us from having to go through this particular journey that we go through with this unique one because it was founded through an Act of Parliament.

As well as that, there was advice to keep the objects of the trust—i.e., what it is that the trust can do—broad and to keep the definitions of beneficiaries broad. In fact, Mr McLean was very specific in his definitions, and we've heard about some of those. But they were only to look after gentlewomen, or "women of refinement or education in reduced or straitened circ*mstances", and "children not being over the age of ten". He went on to say that it was for "persons of the female sex not being under the age of eighteen [or] children … over the age of ten", and I did hear the comments from members on the other side of the House who were concerned about omissions of this definition or another. I guess the point that I would make as I reflect on this is to ask what's most important to us. Is it to set broad objects and broad beneficiaries, and then to pick good trustees and to trust them to do the job? You don't want to have them hamstrung at every corner.

You'd want people to be able to go out and make good decisions, and I think about some of the families that we've supported through the Missing Wingman Trust—air force families. They weren't the ones you might expect—those that were, tragically, killed in some high-profile crashes or who were injured in air craft incidents—but, in fact, it was those ones that can slip through the cracks. I think of a young woman who had a child that was, tragically, stillborn. Actually, she needed far more support than some of the more high-profile or public ones. I think of a young dad who lost the mum of his three kids, and now he has to give up work and to work part-time to look after the kids as well, and he needed more support than perhaps those we might expect.

So what matters here is that we set the conditions that allow them to thrive into the future. We can't predict the future, but we can plan and protect ourselves from it, and that's what this bill is doing. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. My speech certainly will not be as long as the previous member Tim Costley's speech—you did really well to fill your 10 minutes. As a previous whip, I know what it is like to request your members to fill the 10 minutes. So, well done to you.

I was on the select committee, so I feel like I can talk to this with some qualifications. What I wanted to really acknowledge was the board's representatives in bringing this issue forward and assisting the select committee so that we could understand what it was that they were seeking and needing to do to modernise this and to update it. I want to acknowledge my colleague the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, whose name this bill is in, for bringing it here.

I want to say that for a small bill—you know, we don't get too many private members' bills from outside of the House being brought in here—we actually gave this a lot of time and attention and we thought really hard and asked a lot of the officials and of our parliamentary counsel to help us with this and make sure that we got it right. I think that's because we do want to honour, as much as possible, what the original intent was of the person who set this up, but we understood the challenges that the current board has and that because the courts had ruled that they couldn't do the things that they were being asked to do and wanted to do and, in order to be able to do that, they had to come and get the Act changed through Parliament. That's why we are here today. I can tell the House and anybody who's listening this afternoon that the committee did actually put a lot of time and energy into this and that we agreed unanimously with the recommendations for the changes to be made.

So we hope that now, once this passes, shortly, after a few more filibustering speeches, this will pass, finally, and the board members will be able to get on and implement their deed in the way in which they wanted to. Kia ora, Mr Speaker.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Thank you—

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Ten minutes.

RIMA NAKHLE: Ha, ha! Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think Mr McLean deserves the honour of at least 10 minutes, if not more.

Look, it is a pleasure to arise today and make my contribution in this third and final stage of the McLean Institute (Trust Variation) Bill. This bill is a private bill and I think it's important to just rehash some of these administrative points. But for parliamentary nerds like me—I used to listen from work and from home—this is a private bill in the name of the Hon Duncan Webb. What a private bill is—it's referred to as a private member's bill. A private member's bill is a bill that asks for an amendment to or an exemption from a certain law for the benefit of a particular group or individual. This request needs to be supported by a member of Parliament. In this situation—which is not as common as other bills—this bill is supported by the Hon Duncan Webb on behalf of the McLean Institute Trust.

The bill was introduced in the 53rd Parliament last year. It was introduced into the House on 16 June 2023. The first reading was in June of that year; the second reading in May of this year, in the 54th Parliament; and, as I said earlier, the third and final reading to this noble bill is today.

Now, what does this bill aim to change on behalf of the McLean Institute Trust? Well, very essentially, the purpose of this bill—the McLean Institute (Trust Variation) Bill seeks to update and vary the original trust to better align with contemporary needs and circ*mstances. This involves, in a way, modernising the trust governance, expanding its scope, and addressing legal and practical challenges that have arisen since its establishment. The impact of this variation aims to ensure that the McLean Institute can continue to fulfil its charitable mission effectively. Now, this variation may also allow the institute to adapt to changing social conditions and continue providing valuable support to women in need.

Now, the creation of the McLean Trust—it was established as a result of the will of a Mr Allan McLean. It's heart-warming that we've mentioned his name many times today and in the former two readings on this bill. As was mentioned before, Mr McLean was born in 1822 in Scotland, and he made his way to Aotearoa New Zealand via Australia—just like me. In his adult life, he arrived on our beautiful shores here. Not that this matters—what I'm about to say, but I will say it anyway—Mr McLean became one of the most influential and wealthiest land owners in Canterbury. But what I do take from this point is that his love for his fellow man and woman was so much so that he was well known for his generosity both during his life and continuing beyond the veil of his passing. He was and still is known as a philanthropist.

If you'll allow me, Mr Speaker, I'd like to honour him a little bit more by taking a moment to share the etymology of this noble reference, philanthropy. "Philanthropy" comes from the Greek language: "philos" means love, and "anthropos" means humanity. What Mr McLean has achieved over 100 years past his death is indeed philanthropy. Now, I'd like to delve into the background, if I may.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): You may.

RIMA NAKHLE: The purpose of the Allan McLean trust—it established the trust to create and maintain the McLean Institute, which aimed to provide, as we've heard, assistance to women in need. This institute was specifically tasked with helping destitute women and widows, reflecting McLean's beautiful concern for the welfare of vulnerable members of society.

The formation of this institute—it was formed according, as we said, to Mr McLean's will. It provided for the establishment of a home for women in need. The trust was to use his estate to support and sustain this home, ensuring long-term assistance for its beneficiaries. Now, we've heard that if we were to reference it or categorise that, that's transitional housing—and I would say emergency housing as well; when women found themselves in need.

I'd like to add just a bit of personal experience here. As many of my colleagues across the House know, the business I was involved with before I became an MP was an emergency and transitional housing facility in South Auckland. You definitely see the struggles and the complex needs that people find themselves with when they are in a situation where they need help finding some emergency accommodation, and transitioning from emergency to semi-permanent and then permanent homes. We're talking about needs like blankets for their children, sometimes being taught how to how to cook a hot meal for their little ones.

Again, it warms my heart reading about the late Allan McLean and what he did and how important he felt it was–and actually, how beyond his time he was in bequeathing the amounts needed, and the estate, to form this housing facility, amongst others, that he bequeathed in his will.

I'd also like to tackle what Lan Pham said earlier. We'd like to share our condolences for Tanya Unkovich—I'm sorry for the loss of her aunt. And Lan, as you approach the time of the birthday of your mother, your late mother, I'll be thinking of you as well.

Since the subject of this trust is women, if you'd allow me, Mr Speaker, I'd like to just share a little bit about my mother. As I've mentioned before, my mother was raised in the mountains of Lebanon. She was raised with a lot of love, but the environment was, clearly to me, one of poverty—for different reasons. My mother is almost 71 and she continues to work. She says to me she will tire when she dies. When I delved into that line of thinking—I've learnt from my mother, she says that once you've lived in poverty, you never forget the feeling and you do everything in your power to never be in that situation again.

But also on the subject of women, mum came from a small village—beautiful people. But what I learnt from my mother is that women had to show their society that they're working and they're hard workers, because, if not—and this is very rudimentary thinking—they wouldn't find a good husband. No one would think they'd make a good wife. How far we've come from that type of thinking. But it breaks my heart that my mother feels she needs to continue working because, somewhere in her mind, that thought is ingrained. I love the fact that Mr McLean kind of laser visioned his focus on women, and women in need, but also the fact that women can achieve with a little bit of help.

It's sad to say that Mr McLean didn't have any children. I'm sure the children and their grandchildren, etc., would have contributed amazingly to our society. But I'd like to think that his children are those that he managed to save with his philanthropy, with his help.

The importance of this bill is continued relevance. Updating the trust terms ensures that the McLean Institute remains relevant and capable of meeting the needs of its beneficiaries in today's context. May we always preserve the memory of good, decent philanthropists like Allan McLean. The National Party and I are honoured to commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The next call is a split call. I call Jo Luxton.

Hon JO LUXTON (Labour): It's a pleasure to take a call on this bill. Can I first acknowledge my colleague Dr Duncan Webb for bringing this legislation to the House and seeing its passage through. Can I acknowledge the select committee; my colleague the Hon Willow-Jean Prime mentioned before that they spent quite a long time really looking hard and working on this bill to make it what it is that we have before us today. I'm not part of the select committee, but I have enjoyed listening to the contributions that have been made this afternoon and hearing the pretty amazing and powerful back-story of Mr McLean and what brought his vision to life.

Mr Speaker, it is nice to have some collegiality in the House. Can I say it's actually quite refreshing for a change; we haven't heard that a lot of late. Oh, sorry, Madam Speaker—sorry, Madam Speaker.

From what we have heard across the House, what this bill does is it just simply seeks to bring the purpose back that was envisaged by Mr McLean which is simply to support women and children in need of welfare assistance. It does make another change, as Mr Costley referred to before, where the trust board can make changes, or through the High Court, rather than them having to come back here and have it made through an active Parliament. So without further ado, Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to the House.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise today in strong support of the McLean Institute (Trust Variation) Bill. This important piece of legislation seeks to update and modernise the trust established over a century ago by Mr McLean. The bill before us, today, is a testament to the enduring legacy of Mr McLean's generosity and our collective responsibility to ensure his vision continues to serve those in need.

The McLean Institute was established in 1909 with the noble purpose of providing assistance to women and children in difficult circ*mstances. However, as we've heard from numerous speakers, the language and provisions of the original trust deed have become outdated and restrictive. This bill seeks to address these limitations and bring the trust into the 21st century.

One of the key aspects of this bill is the modernisation of the trust's purpose. The original language, which referred to "gentle women" and "women of refinement", no longer reflects the realities of our society today. The proposed changes will broaden the scope of the trust to assist disadvantaged women and children in the Canterbury region, regardless of their background or social status. This expansion will allow the trust to address a wider range of contemporary issues facing women, including mental health, addiction, disability, trauma, violence, homelessness, and poverty.

Another crucial element of this bill is the streamlining of administrative processes. By allowing future changes to be made through the High Court, rather than requiring an Act of Parliament, we are ensuring that the trust can adapt more efficiently to future needs. This change will save time and resources, allowing the trust to focus on its primary mission of helping those in need.

The bill also updates outdated language and concepts. For example, it replaces the term "unsound mind" with more appropriate and modern terminology related to capacity, aligning the trust deed with current legislation such as the Trusts Act 2019. It is important to note that these changes have been carefully considered to maintain the original intent of Allan McLean's bequest. The Social Services and Community Committee have done excellent work in refining the bill, ensuring that it respects Mr McLean's wishes while adapting to modern circ*mstances.

This bill is not just about updating legal language; it's about preserving and enhancing a valuable community resource. The McLean Institute has been a beacon of hope for countless women and children in Canterbury for over a century. By passing this bill, we are ensuring that it can continue to provide that support for generations to come.

Moreover, this legislation serves as an example of how we can honour and update philanthropic legacies. It demonstrates that the generosity of past benefactors can be adapted to meet the evolving needs of our society without losing sight of the original intent. As we consider this bill, let us remember the values that inspired Allan McLean: compassion, generosity, and a desire to help those in need. These values are timeless, even if the specific circ*mstances of need may change over time.

In conclusion, the McLean Institute (Trust Variation) Bill represents a thoughtful and necessary update to an important charitable trust. It perseveres the spirit of Allan McLean's original bequest while ensuring that the trust can effectively serve the needs of modern society. By supporting this bill, we are not only honouring a legacy of support but also investing in the wellbeing of vulnerable women and children in Canterbury. I commend this bill to the House and urge all members to support its passage. Thank you.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Gosh, it's been quite interesting listening to all the contributions on this bill and listening to people give such colourful examples as we've traversed through the history of the McLean Trust and all of the good work that they've done. I'd like to acknowledge Dr Duncan Webb for ushering this bill through. He was quite excited about it when he was first approached and loves nothing more than a good member's bill.

Labour has a long history of supporting women and girls, and I think it's incumbent upon us whenever we face the opportunity to do something that can advance the needs of women and girls in society, and in New Zealand in particular, that we should grasp that with two hands and do what we need to do and take all opportunities to continue that good work. This bill is entirely appropriate. As many people have said, it allows it to be updated so that it's relevant so that the types of circ*mstances that people may find themselves in reflect the environment of the more modern world, and therefore it's allowed to focus on its core intentions, which was to provide that emergency transitional housing and all of the other social support to allow people to live independently and to allow them to live with dignity. So having said that, I have no hesitation in commending this bill to the House.

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): It gives me huge pride to be the final speaker in this. And I know that the whip's office carefully considered who would give the final speech on this. And, despite the strength of our South Island caucus and the great representation that they have here today on force and the great representation they give the South Island, they chose a boy from Hāwera to give the final speech.

I want to pay tribute to the Social Services and Community Committee for the work that they have done, and these are very simple and sensible tweaks, which National and, in fact, every party, from what I can make out, are happy to support as we put through this passage of legislation.

If we just reflect back as others have done—but I think my role is to kind of wrap it up and to reflect on the purpose of the institute that has served the Canterbury people, the region, and, in fact, the country, Mr Meager—the country, led from the mainland, of course. "The purpose of the Institute is to provide assistance to and promote the welfare and well-being of disadvantaged women residing or located in the Region"—being the Canterbury region—"(and the children in the care of such women), who the Board considers are in need of care, support and assistance due to poverty, ill health or other circ*mstances, whether temporary or long-term."

And when we look at the other provisions of what the institute is focused on and the programmes, projects, and initiatives that they support, we see that they promote and support the empowerment of women—including enabling them to live independently—support women to fully participate within the context of family, whānau, and community; promote public awareness of the problems of family violence and abuse; work to change social norms that support violence against women; promote and provide parental support services; and promote motherhood as a valuable force in our society.

And so their work, thanks to the generosity of the late Allan McLean, continues and, as other speakers have alluded to, is more important than ever before and more relevant than ever before.

And I also want to take this opportunity not only to pay tribute to the late great Allan McLean, who, I think, in the second reading we heard came on the ship Tory. We don't know how he voted, but he did come on the ship Tory to New Zealand. He did wear a plum-purple suit. This has been on record. And, in fact, when we all gave some very considered and passionate and a well-researched—Tom Rutherford, very well-researched—speech, we had people connected to the institute, the Allan McLean institute, the McLean Institute, that wrote a beautiful email to the member for Kāpiti—Ōtaki at least, Ōtaki; I'm still in the 90s, I think—Tim Costley, and said how delighted they were that parliamentarians, us parliamentarians, had honoured the late Allan McLean and his enduring work. So we want to throw it back to those members associated with the McLean Institute as to—don't thank us; today is about thanking you and the enduring work that you do in the great region of Canterbury.

But this is also a time for reflection about philanthropy and the role of philanthropy. And I want to allude to one of his contemporaries, one of Allan McLean's contemporaries, the late Sir John Logan Campbell, described as the "Father of Auckland", member of Parliament, big businessman, Mayor of Auckland, who, of course, bequeathed Cornwall Park to the people of New Zealand. And that Cornwall Park Trust board continues with its work every day since the 1900s, overseeing that enormous gift. And, in fact, Sir John Logan Campbell's vision—he could see that the Auckland region was going to grow and grow and grow. And this space was to provide open space and farm animals to the children of Auckland. And what foresight he had to think that we can now go to Cornwall Park and see those spring lambs and run through the daffodils. And so I want to pay tribute to the Father of Auckland—again, a contemporary.

Simon Court: Really?

CAMERON BREWER: But it's not just, Simon Court, left in the early 1900s, in those Edwardian days, when the greatest generation was born, like my grandparents, although two grandfathers served on the home guard, so I don't know if they were deemed amongst the greatest generation, but they were the same age group.

And it wasn't just the 1900s where philanthropy left off. We look also—today, as we reflect on Allan McLean and his enduring gift to this country—to the late Josie and Julian Robertson, who bequeathed 15 masterpieces to Auckland Art Gallery, worth $178 million—masterpieces including from Pablo Picasso, including from Monet. This is another incredible 21st century act of philanthropy.

And I think we can conclude, here we are 120 years on from Allan McLean's gift, updating the McLean Institute's trust variations and its scope and how it operates and—

James Meager: Modernising.

CAMERON BREWER: —and how—modernising the language and making it relevant to 2024 and going forward. It goes to show that philanthropy can stick and that that philanthropy should continue to be encouraged, because if we can continue—and you'll see this legislation was amended accordingly throughout the 20th century. Now, we're in the 21st century, and it goes to show that philanthropy can stick, generosity can endure, and it can be amended. Its interpretation can be amended to reflect the legal and societal changes.

And I think if there's one takeout message for today, that is, for those that might have wealth, whether it's large or small, and might not have the descendants or an obvious place to bequeath within their family or circle of friends, that they consider philanthropy and that this Parliament be proof that it will endure, and that we, as parliamentarians, past, present, and future, will protect that bequeathment.

And so "be encouraged to give", I think, is the takeout message if we are to make this all relevant to the people that are watching this on Parliament TV, listening to it on Truth Radio, and hearing what is happening in Parliament today. Legacies can last and change lives centuries on. So, knowing that the institute's members and connections are listening, today is a tribute to their work and a plea to New Zealanders and others from overseas that we will honour those that bequeath to our great country.

And so I finish. I finish this historic moment with an ode to the McLean Institute: There was a great—I'll start again.

I commend the bill to the House.

Bill read a third time.

SALE AND SUPPLY OF ALCOHOL (WINERY CELLAR DOOR TASTING) AMENDMENT BILL

Third Reading

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): I move, That the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Winery Cellar Door Tasting) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

When I first proposed this bill, I did so because the current Act isn't fit for purpose for our winery cellar doors—in two ways, which I will explain.

First, right now, if you go to one of our beautiful winery cellar doors that just holds an off-licence, meaning you can buy wine to take home, that winery is not allowed to charge you a tasting fee if you try samples of the wine. The winery bears the cost of the wine itself, the staff who pour it, the excise tax, and all the other overheads associated with providing this service. This does not properly put a value on the premium product. The change in the bill allows wineries to charge and defines a sample as being no more than 35 millilitres—which is, I think, 7 teaspoons.

Second, you'll know that some of our wineries have cafes and restaurants as well. The way the law works now is that they have to hold two different licences, and to make that happen they have to have set up another business, another legal entity, just to charge for tastings. This is expensive and unnecessary. What the bill does is allow a cellar door to share exactly the same licence footprint as a cafe or a restaurant without the need to create a separate business or use a separate building. This change gives winery cellar doors the same flexibility that hotels and taverns already have.

During the select committee stage, a change was made that requires a cellar door to make snack food available when charging for wine samples. "Snack food" is a term that's already defined in regulations, but it's basically things like potato chips, biscuits, and crackers. Some businesses may decide that they want to offer more than that—say, cheese platters for example—which would be welcomed by myself if they chose to do that, but the minimum is defined in the Act.

Winery cellar doors are tourism businesses and they often are quite seasonal businesses. The industry association New Zealand Winegrowers mentioned at the select committee stage that the summer season is the busiest time for many of these cellar doors. What this means, if this bill passes successfully today, is that these important changes will allow cellar doors to be able to start using the flexibility straight away, just in time for the summer season.

This, at its heart, is a much-needed upgrade to the legislation, which is out of date. Now, I read that into the Hansard for a very good reason. Those people that are charged with administering the alcohol legislation, and anyone who knows—and certainly having had a cellar door myself, or a licensed premises, that sometimes it can be difficult when there's a line ball call. I wanted Parliament's intent to be very clear in this piece of legislation so that there is no doubt about where the line falls on this. This is intended to allow wineries to charge for tastings. This has been quite a bone of contention in some jurisdictions about the way in which the law has been interpreted and when a licence is renewed, it's interpreted in a different way. Hence, I wanted that read into the Hansard.

So at their heart, wineries are producing a primary product and then manufacturing it into a consumer product to be sold. As the 6th-largest export good, New Zealand wine is a success, with over $2 billion worth of exports. When I first joined the wine industry, it was around $100 million of exports. There's been a tremendous amount of growth along the way, and that's no small part to the impact that cellar doors have had along the way. We have cellar doors right around the country—I've visited a cellar door in Northland and I've visited them all around the country, right down into the south of Otago, or the south of Central Otago I suppose it would be termed as. But we have some wonderful cellar doors around New Zealand, from really large wineries to quite small ones. We had the one of the largest ones, Pernod Ricard, give evidence that they couldn't charge for tastings on some occasions even though they had a restaurant because they lacked staff, sometimes, to open the restaurant, and therefore couldn't charge for tastings.

So this bill will help them, but also some very small wineries. The one that springs to mind is Tupari in Marlborough, in my patch, who have a vineyard which is about 13 kilometres away from State Highway 1, it's quite remote. So they are able, under this bill, to have—and they already have a cellar door on State Highway 1 right along the cycle trail, the rail trail, which they will now be able to charge for the tastings when the tourists cycle past or come down by the steam train that travels down there during the summer. So this bill will be a great help to them.

There's over 6,000 people who work directly in the wine industry, with 12,000 people in the rest of the economy who benefit from working in or with the wine industry. So it's quite an important industry. But what makes wine different is what the French term as "terroir", which is effectively, in my translation anyway, the place in which the wine is produced and the people that produce it and the methods that they use, the soil that it's grown from, and those various practices. And that's what makes each wine quite different. One is quite different from the other. A Marlborough sauvignon blanc—they're not all the same. Or a Hawke's Bay chardonnay—they are not all the same. The individual influence from the people that grew the grapes, that actually made the wine, really does come through in those wines, and that is what makes a cellar door experience what it is.

People come right around the world just to do this, to go to New Zealand and taste wines. They will travel around those wineries and try lots of wines. If they've come on a cruise ship, they're not able to buy wine and take it back onto the cruise ship with them, so some cellar doors have been reluctant to have cruise ship passengers to visit them because they would have to give too much wine away and not really get anything for it. It may translate into sales when they get back into their home country, but it doesn't really do the cellar door a lot of good. So this bill is absolutely essential for that. That tourism offering goes much wider than the wine industry, and I've witnessed this myself. The halo effect of the New Zealand wine industry goes over other goods and makes it easier to sell those goods because it is seen, internationally, that if you can make quality wine, you have a certain status that you wouldn't have otherwise. So that flows over into our other goods. So this is not just a wine story, this is a New Zealand story.

We have some fantastic businesses, like Rocket Lab and all these tech industries, but it's this industry that comes from the land that reflects not only the soil and the place that it comes from but the people that make it. And so it's with great pleasure that I commend this bill to the House.

JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): As chair of the busy and effective Justice Committee, it gives me great pleasure and great surprise to take this call as the second speaker in this debate on the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Winery Cellar Door Tasting) Amendment Bill, which our committee debated long and hard over the past few months. This is important legislation which addresses a longstanding issue for New Zealand's wine industry and will provide significant benefits for our winemakers, cellar door operators, and the broader tourism sector.

First, I want to commend the member for Kaikōura, Stuart Smith, for his tireless work in championing this bill. He's a bit of a bill good luck charm, I believe. This is not his first time around. And as a former chair of the New Zealand Winegrowers association with deep industry knowledge, Mr Smith understands intimately the challenges faced by cellar door operators under the current regulatory framework. This bill is the culmination of years—and, in this case of this particular House, it is literally years of effort and consultation with stakeholders across the wine and tourism sectors.

At its core the legislation aims to fix what we see is an anomaly in our current alcohol licensing laws that has made it unnecessarily difficult for wineries to charge for tasting samples at their cellar door—that's about it. It's a very, very simple change. As it stands today, before this bill passes, many cellar door operators are forced to give away free samples of their products, as outlined by Mr Smith, which is both economically unsustainable and out of step with international norms for wine tourism. So by allowing wineries to charge a reasonable fee for tasting samples—very small samples—this bill will help put cellar door operations on a more sustainable financial footing.

Now, this is especially important for our smaller, more boutique wineries. Now, there's not too many of them around mid and south Canterbury, but I know there are plenty in and around Queenstown-Lakes District where the member Todd Stephenson lives. There's plenty around the Marlborough district and, of course, Hawke's Bay and other parts of the country. It's worth emphasising that New Zealand's wine industry is actually a major contributor to our economy and our national brand. Wine is our sixth largest goods export by value, earning the country over $2 billion in export revenue annually—$2 billion, Mr Rutherford, how's that?

Importantly, as noted previously by Mr Smith in his contributions, our key wine export markets are largely OECD countries. Now, as Mr Rutherford knows, these are very discerning consumers who associate New Zealand wines with quality and help burnish our reputation for premium products across other sectors.

Now, wine tourism also plays a vital role in our broader tourism industry, which happens to be our second largest export earner. The cellar door experiences are an integral part of New Zealand's tourism offering, attracting both international and domestic visitors to our wine regions. And you only have to look at what's happening in Martinborough and in the Wairarapa to show how valuable domestic tourism in the wine industry is to that particular region. These visitors on average tend to stay longer and spend more, and so they deliver higher economic benefits that ripple through regional economies.

This bill is good for regional New Zealand. So by enhancing the viability and the professionalism of cellar door operations, the bill will help strengthen New Zealand's wine industry. It will encourage more wineries to open cellar doors and invest in high-quality tasting experiences, enriching our tourism product and helping to attract more high-value tourists.

Now, I do want to take the time to address some of the concerns that have been raised in the bill throughout the committee of the whole House stage and throughout the Justice Committee's deliberations. Some members throughout the committee stage have suggested that the bill could be exploited by retailers or bars to circumvent existing licensing requirements. I think the word "speakeasy" was raised throughout the committee stage process. And I had to actually look that up because, like Mr Rutherford, I'm very, very young and I don't think I've ever visited a speakeasy in my life. But I do believe these fears are misplaced. The bill has been carefully crafted with input from officials and the industry to prevent such unintended consequences. It includes a specific definition of a winery cellar door: a common-sense definition that limits the legislation's applicability to genuine wine producers. I think the fears of these speakeasys popping up around the place are misplaced.

The bill also explicitly states that to qualify, a business must be producing and selling grape wine products or selling wine produced on their behalf. Now, I know there'll be members opposite who will argue that this is too ambiguous, but we think it's pretty clear. This effectively precludes retailers or bars from taking advantage of these provisions.

And then, in addition to that, the economic reality is this: it is very highly implausible that anyone would attempt to exploit this legislation to set up some kind of quasi bar operation. The maximum sample size, as outlined by Mr Smith, is set at just 35 millilitres—that's seven teaspoons of wine; about a fifth of a standard glass of wine. So no business could viably operate by selling such tiny samples as their primary offering.

Some members have argued that the bill unfairly advantages the wine industry over craft brewers or distillers. We had some submitters from those sectors who brought their submissions through to the Justice Committee, and some of their concerns that they raised were valid. Why not expand this bill to those industries? The committee's view was that this is a specific bill targeted towards fixing the anomaly for wine cellar door operators, and that if members thought it would be appropriate to expand the bill to other industries, they would be welcome to bring a member's bill themselves. There may well be merit in considering similar provisions, but it would be more appropriately addressed through separate legislation.

Finally, I also want to rebut the suggestion made by members that this somehow will turn cellar doors—c-e-l-l-a-r doors—into mere sellers—s-e-l-l-e-r-s. And I know during the committee stage we had a lot of fun with sellers, cellar doors, and salary, but fundamentally this misunderstands both the intent and the effect of the legislation. Far from diminishing the cellar door experience, this bill will actually enhance it by allowing operators to invest more in creating high-quality, educational tasting experiences by being able to recoup some of those costs. The ability to recoup those costs through very modest tasting fees will enable wineries to offer more comprehensive tastings, potentially including older vintages like Mr Smith, or limited release wines that they simply can't afford to pour for free.

Moreover, the bill includes several more provisions to ensure responsible service and consumption. As Mr Smith outlined, it mandates the provision of water, snack foods, sets strict limits on those sample sizes, and maintains existing host responsibility obligations. In many ways this legislation actually enhances safety and responsibility compared with the status quo; where today wineries can, if they wanted to, pour unlimited free samples with fewer controls. That's the current situation we're faced with. There is a reasonable argument that this bill will actually enhance the host responsibility obligations of those providers.

Now, some members—and we had submitters also raise broader concerns about alcohol harm in our society, and we are very much aware of this. They are legitimate issues that deserve serious consideration. However, I would argue that on balance this is a bill which narrowly focuses on addressing cellar door tastings. It's not the appropriate vehicle for tackling complex social problems. And that may well be in a wider look at the alcohol legislation which, in fairness, has been done over and over and over in time, and yet we are yet to come to a satisfactory conclusion for many members. However, I think that's probably a discussion for another day. But this bill, if anything, will help promote, hopefully, a culture of moderate appreciation focused wine consumption in controlled settings. Cellar door experiences can actually contribute to a more mature drinking culture.

It is also worth noting, finally, just as chair of the Justice Committee, it did undergo quite robust scrutiny through the select committee process. We received approximately 72 submissions from a diverse range of stakeholders. We had submitters from Waiheke Island, we had submitters from the Wairarapa, we had them from central Otago, we had them from Blenheim. It appeared that most submitters happened to come from the places that the members on the committee came from, so next time I'll be encouraging many more from mid Canterbury and south Canterbury with the multiplicity of vineyards that go through that fine region. And we also heard from 12 of those submitters in person.

Throughout this process, those submissions led to the several constructive amendments that we believe will have improved the bill and have refined the legislation and reflect on a pretty collegial process that the committee went through. Just to summarise, those major amendments that we made did include tightening that definition of winery and cellar door, adjusting the maximum sample size from 40 millilitres back down to 35 millilitres, adding those requirements of water and snack food, and clarifying the bill's applicability to remote cellar door operations to cover those operations where the vineyard was not necessarily on the same block or the same site as the cellar door.

In conclusion, this bill represents a sensible, targeted reform that will deliver real benefits to New Zealand's wine industry and tourism sector. It will enhance the financial sustainability of cellar door operations, improve our wine tourism offering, and contribute to regional economic development. Importantly, it does so while maintaining appropriate safeguards and responsible drinking practices. As this is a conscience vote, I do urge all members present to support the legislation. It is an example of pragmatic, industry supported reform that can make a tangible difference to New Zealand. I commend the member for bringing the bill to the House and I commend it to the House.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I won't spend too long on this. Look, whilst the bill's probably well intended, I think it's actually just fatally flawed. To be perfectly honest, I did my best to assist the member in tidying those things up, but Stuart Smith has the uncanny ability that every time he speaks, fewer and fewer people want to support this bill. It's truly quite extraordinary.

Cameron Brewer: Aw, that's not fair.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Well, I mean, one of the things that I find stuck in my craw a little is this quite elitist notion that wine is special, and the beer drinkers amongst us need to understand that the landed—you know, the association with the land is so important, and if you want to go and taste a beer, then go and swill it down at some bar, because it doesn't deserve this kind of protection.

Now, we went through quite a robust process to enable Amendment Papers to be put to the House so that cider and beer could be put not in any special place but just on equal footing with wine, so that when they were brewed or fermented on site, they could have the same licensing regime as wine. It was largely in Mr Smith's hands, because if he had said, "Yes, that's a good idea", the House would have supported it, and I'm sure many of his colleagues would—certainly on this side of the House, I'm confident it would have got a lot of support. But Mr Smith said "No, this is just for wine. I like my wine, I like my vineyard mates, and we're not interested in expanding this to other industries." And there was no rational reason for that. So I'm really quite disappointed in that.

There's scaremongering around, you know—or there's been allegations of scaremongering around "cellar door" and the fact that, you know, craft producers like Pernod Ricard might take advantage the cellar door definition. The fact of the matter is—and look, I mentioned I'm not averse to a glass of wine—there's an establishment in Christchurch called Cellar Door that sells wine by tasting volumes—right?—so the business model is already there. It's a very good, very successful business, and it's a high-end business as well, so good on them. But the suggestion of a business selling small volumes in the inner city with no genuine association with their vineyard is a real one. Time, of course, will tell.

There was an Amendment Paper that proposed that there should be a geographical limitation of 10 kilometres, so that if you're in Waipara or Marlborough or Martinborough, then yes, you could have some distance from the vineyard, but it had to be at least associated with it. But, once again, the member simply wasn't interested in entertaining sensible amendments that would actually improve the bill and further its actual objectives—he just dismissed it out of hand.

So, look, all of the lovely narrative around our wine industry is quite accurate. But the fact of the matter is that this bill creates inconsistencies in our law, and it creates risks and the ability for advantage taking. That's why for myself, I won't be supporting this bill. I think, if a different bill came to came to the House that was better framed, more appropriate, more even-handed, then I would consider it, because I'm not any kind of temperance advocate—

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Far from it.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: "Far from it", says Megan Woods—and that's right. But I do want law which works, that's good, and that's consistent and fair, and this isn't it.

CELIA WADE-BROWN (Green): Thank you. It's a pleasure to rise and support this bill, especially as I was able to hear some of the submitters. I mean, we've got the wine industry from Karikari Estate—I believe is the northernmost—down through to Central Otago. But, of course, my favourite wine region would have to be the Wairarapa with the Masterton, Gladstone, and Martinborough areas.

We heard from Ata Rangi—which is a very excellent, top of the range, especially the pinot noir—that it is very expensive to be able to provide tasting volumes and that they want to be able to be part of the local tourism industry. We heard so much about cycle trails, I do hope we'll be having more regional funding for cycle trails that are proving so successful; Central Otago, potentially the Five Towns Trail, lots in the Marlborough area, the Whale Trail, which will all be excellent. But it's not only cycle tourism, it's also walking tourism. I was delighted to be associated with the Wairarapa Walking Festival, and our sold out walk was the Gladstone Wine & Olive walk which is great but they had to rely on people buying or ordering bottles rather than be able to charge at the tasting level.

Absolutely agree that it was an improvement to include some kind of food, although I would like to see our food industry work on the local, the locavore, side of things as well as the wine with the terroir. It should be that we are very proud of what's produced and we don't just go with a packet of some brand of chips to fulfil—I agree that it would be inappropriate to specify, but I do have some hope for this.

I do support this bill, but I would agree with my colleague who says that it doesn't go far enough. I would like to see a wider approach taken, and I hope that the Minister who introduced this as a member's bill will have some conversations with the Minister for Tourism and Hospitality and think about a more comprehensive approach. First of all, you've got fruit wines; it's not only about the glorious grape. You've got orchards—and I know there are many MPs here from areas which produce fantastic pears, apples—

Hon Louise Upston: Blueberry wine.

CELIA WADE-BROWN: That's one I haven't tried yet. But I'd also like to see—especially where there is a connection with a region. So we're not talking industrial beer so much as the local water, the local hops, the places that make a difference. I know that the Minister of tourism is keen to extend tourist visits wider into the regions and, also, through wider seasons than only the high peak period of the summer. So this would be a fantastic autumn project to bring more people here for food and wine tourism.

I would also like to address the alcohol harm issue, and this is why it went to the Justice Committee, although in some ways you'd think it might go to economic development that included tourism and so on, because amongst the many drugs that are consumed wisely or unwisely in this country, alcohol certainly has got harmful effects. But charging for it, making food available, water available, and that whole host responsibility, I believe will reduce that effect.

So I mentioned cideries, which would include perry as well—just wanted to not leave anyone out of this. There's meaderies; what fantastic honey we have in New Zealand. Whether all of the health giving qualities of mānuka honey proceed into the mead is probably a question for somebody more technical than myself on this matter. Some of you may not know that in the south of Wellington there is a meadery; why shouldn't they be able to charge for tastings in the same way? And distilleries; you may think that gin is the same the world over, but when you start adding local botanicals, horopito, kawakawa, all of those different flavourings, then it becomes a thing of our place. So I really do support this bill and look forward to—just because it's not big enough and broad enough now, in my view, is not a reason not to support it.

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I appreciate taking this call. As a member who is not on the Justice Committee that heard this but someone with a great interest—

Cameron Brewer: He can join.

CAMERON LUXTON: Oh, well—by all accounts, it is a great select committee. But as someone with an interest in seeing New Zealand businesses thrive, I'm very proud to stand and speak in support of this bill. The role of—I think we're calling him "St Stewie", after what he has done for the wine industry. The role of "St Stewie" has been a great benefit to that industry. I can understand the comments that have been brought up across the House about expanding to other types of beverages. But I think keeping it focused—I may call him Stuart Smith—as "St" Stuart Smith has done, is a very good way of supporting a core industry and making sure that this flows through into legislation in a way that's understandable and prompt.

Businesses in New Zealand have had a hard time of it. We closed our borders, tourism suffered. I can imagine cellar door tasting and businesses that are in the background, growing the grapes, getting staff to do it, distilling it—finding the experts to come in and provide that service hasn't been an easy time. So removing barriers is the theme of today in the House.

James Meager: What other changes could we make to remove barriers?

CAMERON LUXTON: Well, I think we have done a lot as a Government to remove barriers, and I'm proud to be supporting a member's bill that would do the same. You know, there's other barriers and businesses that needs support. These businesses—wineries, distilleries, others—are businesses that are employers in their community. Things that remove barriers to trade, such as repealing the restrictions around Easter trading, would be a huge addition to the sectors that need this, as this bill is doing in removing some of the barriers regarding on- and off- licensing. I can see a lot of similarities there: getting rid of this red tape.

Wineries provide, as we've heard, I think, a key role in the business community of the areas where they operate. As we've heard, they're up and down the country, from South Otago and Central Otago to Northland. Acting as a core hub that drives people through tourism to enjoy themselves and then partake in the other amenities of an area is similar to how many businesses in New Zealand who are closed over Easter and find themselves with unnecessary restrictions on their trade—they provide the same sort of hub-like tourism value to the communities which they are in. In the same way we're removing these restrictions and barriers around cellar door tasting, it would be a great thing to have support across this House to remove the restrictions on businesses who are employers and drivers of the local community, when it comes to Easter restrictions on those trading hours.

Also, you can imagine somebody who's come over from overseas, they're going along the rail trail and turning up and saying, "You can't charge me for this? But it's so good. Why wouldn't you charge me for this?" I mean, I can imagine the visitor confusion. It's probably quite akin to tourists coming to New Zealand over Easter and being utterly bewildered that they can't enjoy themselves in the way they would with their friends, family, or people they're visiting, when they go out over Easter weekend and find those restrictions. I think that's a similarity that exists between the existing structure around cellar door tasting and our restrictions on Easter trade. The halo effect, which "St Stewie" has aptly said about this—the way that the—

Simon Court: Soft glow.

CAMERON LUXTON: —the soft glow, which is emanating from that side of the House, is something that expands out and supports a community. So when we remove barriers from business—and especially really silly ones like the inability to charge for wine tasting—we increase the ability of everyone to thrive. Again, I would just draw attention to the fact that there's a specific weekend, in New Zealand's calendar, which has restrictions—

Simon Court: Which weekend?

CAMERON LUXTON: Oh, it's actually Easter weekend. Thank you for asking, Mr Court. Removing some restrictions would act in the same halo effect, I believe, as what "St Stewie" is trying to achieve in this bill.

It's a bill for which I'm happy to say that I've heard expressions of support from all ACT MPs. We will be supporting this bill. I thank you very much, "St Stewie", for what you've done for the wineries—I look forward to doing it for Easter trading.

JAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Winery Cellar Door Tasting) Amendment Bill. I also spoke on this bill at the second reading and I very much support this bill passing tonight. I also, as the New Zealand First whip, hold the proxy votes for our other seven members, and we all would like to see this bill pass.

Hon Mark Patterson: What does it say?

JAMIE ARBUCKLE: The proxy votes say that we all agree. So that's very good. New Zealand First looks at this type of legislation, this bill, as common sense. We are a common-sense party. So this bill, again, is common sense.

I'd also like to congratulate Stuart Smith, who has put this bill through the House. Looking back through the time period that this has taken, 2022, I believe, it got pulled out of the "magical tin" and it's taken until today to actually get it to this point. But it shows, for all of us MPs, the importance of that process and the ability of going through the select committee process and the readings. So that process has been, tonight, completed.

One thing I would like to say is that my wife and I live in Marlborough, and we very much enjoy the wine culture of Marlborough and the ability to get out on our push bikes and get out amongst the cellar doors. As I spoke in the second reading, sometimes those ventures can take us on to some very interesting tours around Marlborough, with a variety of different cellar doors that are available. You've also, obviously, at the moment, got to watch yourself a little bit as you go on that push bike to the first cellar door offering, to the second offering, and if you can remember the third or fourth offering, you've probably done pretty well.

This bill is, as I mentioned, about common sense and it's about being able to charge for samples. That's something we've heard from a number of members, that you would expect when you go to a cellar door that you would actually pay for those samples. As I mentioned, with my wife and I, as you go around those different offerings, you actually feel quite bad sometimes that you don't actually pay unless you buy a bottle of wine and take it on your way. I've got to say, for many years going around some of the local cellar doors, they often used to say to me, "Because you're a close neighbour, we'll just give it to you for free.", but there was actually another reason behind that, wasn't there?

Through the select committee process, we did hear from 12 submitters, but there were 72 different submissions that came in. A lot of those submissions were very, very helpful. As was mentioned by Mr Smith, one of those submissions from one of the wineries was quite detailed in the fact that people come on the cruise ships that come into Picton and they often get on a bus or the steam train, they go out to maybe the Awatere Valley, and, ironically, those tourists, as they get there, they're not charged for that sample. The unfortunate thing with the cruise ships is, also, they can't take a bottle back with them. So that whole offering, apart from the experience—and, yes, there's probably some people who order that wine, but it is a situation, at the moment, where a small charge that can now be charged through this bill makes common sense.

Also, Wine Marlborough, who made a submission to the bill—Marcus Pickens, the general manager, spoke on behalf of the wider Marlborough industry, and, yes, this is wider than Marlborough, but it was very detailed in the benefits the bill would make to a number of the different wineries.

Ironically, this legislation actually makes things more restrictive, and that's actually, in a way, good because, as we have heard, at the moment, it's a bit of a free-for-all. As much as that's probably great for my wife and I as we go around and get all this free wine, there is no need for host responsibility. So, under this legislation now, the ability of having to supply snack food and also water is something, again, that makes a lot of common sense.

We also heard from a number of members about the scope of the bill. I support where we ended up in keeping the bill as it was first presented, keeping it narrow. We hear about beer or gin or cider, and that's a great opportunity for another member to bring that bill to the House and work through the process. We heard from Mr Webb, asking why we couldn't add those to this bill; well, quite simply, those tastings or offerings would (1) be different; and (2) we didn't hear submissions from those people. So, to us on this side of the House, keeping it narrow and keeping it on track is the right thing.

The sample sizes, as well, from that 30-millilitre pour is the standard, but the bill gives you the ability to be able to pour up to 35. We heard from submitters of the efforts and the skill that actually goes into the wine glass and actually pouring that, and by actually giving that extra 5 millilitres in case of someone measuring it to the last millilitre makes a lot of sense. So you can pour up to 35, but the standard is actually 30.

The definition of a "winery" has been changed to the "winery cellar door", which makes a lot of sense. A lot of it ties back to being the land that's occupied by that person, so meaning that you can produce something and then sell it through the cellar door.

One of my portfolios is tourism. Wine tourism is a very important part of the Marlborough economy. When you think of the Marlborough wine industry, it makes up 80 percent of the New Zealand production. It's also 20 percent of the GDP of the Marlborough economy. In the Marlborough region, it also supports one job in every five. So it makes a lot of sense around the wine industry, around wine tourism, but tourism in general, having this ability to actually charge for those samples.

We've also heard that this industry is a $2.4 billion industry. But, as I said in my second reading speech on this bill, that's fast-approaching to be a $3 billion industry and is growing.

It is very much true that this has been a very well-received bill. It was well received when it first came in for the first reading into this House, but it's also been very well received through the election campaign that was recently held. Many people, especially in the Marlborough area, see that this is a very good piece of legislation.

Through the Justice Committee, we heard, obviously, those submissions, we have made those changes that make a lot of common sense. Again, just going forward, I think this piece of legislation is common sense. Again, I congratulate the member for his efforts to get us to the point we are. I would like to commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Members, it is time to suspend for the dinner break. The House will resume at 7.30.

Sitting suspended from 6.03 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members, the House is resumed, and when we suspended for the dinner break, we were doing the third reading of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Winery Cellar Door Tasting) Amendment Bill, and we're up to speech number seven.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I don't think this is so much a competition as I think just this speech is being pushed back. But, look, it's a pleasure to speak on the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Winery Cellar Door Tasting) Amendment Bill. We support this bill. My colleague Celia Wade-Brown spoke previously about the Greens' view around how this would improve the hospitality and tourism industry, and I agree with those assessments that she has made. I want to offer, I guess, a few more reflections, particularly from a drug harm - minimisation point of view and as somebody, as well, who worked in a licensed premise prior to being in Parliament for about seven or so years.

First of all, I want to say that, as somebody who worked in a licensed premise, I wanted to, once again, welcome the amendments at the select committee stage, that I know were canvassed—both at the committee of the whole House and in the second reading—particularly around the provision of snack food and water. I think what this bill shows is how we can evaluate a bill and look at the impacts substances will have in our communities when we do regulations in relationship to access to a drug, in this case alcohol, and whether we can come together as a collective of politicians to actually think of: (a) what's a consistent approach that's been taken and, actually, how we can minimise harm, because the provision of food or snacks and water here is actually about minimising harm. We know, as hosts in licensed premises, that one of the key factors of having things like food and water has to do with ensuring that people who are consuming alcoholic beverages can actually not get intoxicated really fast. Then we can minimise that harm. And, I think, for the for the wellbeing of the hospitality industry, we also have to think of the wellbeing of the people consuming that wine. And those are really, really welcome amendments.

And as I've said in previous speeches, to me, the key reflection is that I wish we could take this very same approach that we have done for alcohol and how alcohol is treated in different venues and apply that to other substances to come from an evidence-based constructive approach, rather than, I guess, just picking which substances we're comfortable regulating, in a way that seems really sensible and collaboratively.

I want to reflect as well on the amendments that the Hon Duncan Webb had been trying to work through. And I do think these are conversations we're going to need to have at a later stage, because the door's been opened now around samples for wine effectively. And I think that there's a very fair conversation we need to have around whether other industries are going to be—not so much disadvantaged, but whether we're leaving behind other industries that could have benefited from this.

And more than anything, again, if we're going to take a drug harm – minimisation approach to this piece of legislation to actually just kind of be consistent about it and to not just make a carve-out for wine and not actually then discuss what other alcoholic beverages we could have included in here. But I do encourage Government Ministers to think about what else they can do to have some consistency on the issue. I do think what the Hon Duncan Webb was trying to do was actually quite generous, in the sense that it was a generous improvement to this bill.

Nonetheless, we do think that the bill in and of itself does not cause any harm and, if anything, again, just provides an opportunity for us to have those sensible conversations in a cross-party way around how we can regulate substances and access to those substances.

And, finally, I just want to say that I really do hope that the businesses that are going to be having those samples continue to hold the wellbeing of our communities paramount. You know, New Zealand continues to have quite a high rate of use of alcohol and alcohol harm, and so I guess my message to those businesses that will now benefit from this piece of legislation will be to continue thinking of how we can centre the wellbeing of our communities when it comes to the consumption of alcohol.

But, as we've said, we do think this bill has merit. And I do, once again, want to welcome the collaborative approach that we've taken with this bill, and I do wish those amendments could have been taken on board, but that'll be a conversation for another day.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's a real pleasure to take a short call on Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Winery Cellar Door Tasting) Amendment Bill. Can I congratulate my neighbour Stuart Smith; it has been a pleasure to be able to provide a bit of support to you throughout the process of this bill and I congratulate you on getting this far and what I hope will be a successful passing of the legislation tonight.

The Labour Party is treating this bill as a conscience vote which is appropriate given that it is about alcohol. I think that, you know, I'd encourage other parties to consider doing the same when it comes to these types of matters. I'm really grateful to be holding some proxies tonight for those of my colleagues who will be voting in favour of this bill.

Hon Matt Doocey: How did they vote?

RACHEL BOYACK: They're voting in favour of this bill, just like I will be, Mr Doocey. So you'll get to see—if you're keen to see who's voting in favour, I can assure you don't have too long to wait, Mr Doocey, there'll be a list coming out later.

So just getting back to the bill, however, can I just make some commentary around why I'm supporting this bill. The first people who came to me in my capacity as Nelson MP to talk to me about this bill were some vineyard operators actually from across the hill from the Marlborough region. They approached me because of their concerns around alcohol harm and, fundamentally, I think there's a real issue when you have a business that has alcohol that's for sale that they're promoting that is actually required to provide that alcohol to people for no charge. I actually think that it is a matter of reducing alcohol harm because if someone can walk into a cellar door and receive—it might only be a very small amount, but for someone who is an alcoholic or perhaps has gone from vineyard to vineyard to vineyard because in some areas in the top of the South they're very close to each other. Actually being able to go and receive alcohol at no charge, to me—I just feel very uncomfortable about that.

So, yes, there is a benefit to businesses that they are able to receive some revenue, but actually it's a very small amount of revenue and I don't necessarily think it makes a massive material difference to those businesses. However, just that feeling of someone being able to walk in and ask for a small sample and not have to pay for it causes me discomfort from an alcohol harm perspective. That whole idea that you actually have to take some time to make a transaction, you have to have some money available in order to actually pay for the sample, those kinds of things are actually the small things that can stop a person from potentially engaging in alcohol harm.

We hear about it in our regions; we have a lot of vineyards in the top of the South and some very, very fine ones, and people do go on these tours around the vineyards with the view that they can have a little bit of a freebie, you know, joy ride around the region on the vineyards, and I just don't think that's something we should be encouraging.

So we know that vineyards want this bill. We know they want this legislation; they've asked for it. I think it's a really, really good bill on behalf of the member, and I know that it will benefit those small businesses and larger businesses who operate vineyards in my electorate because we do have a few located in the Nelson electorate, some very, very fine ones. So I'm really pleased to have supported this bill throughout the process and to be voting for it tonight alongside some of my colleagues. I congratulate Stuart Smith again on the successful passage of this legislation: well done, and I hope that you'll be able to celebrate tonight with a glass of wine. Kia ora koutou.

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour—Māngere): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to take a call on this amendment bill, and I thank you for the opportunity. I do thank the member Stuart Smith for bringing it to the House. However, I come from a community—and I've said in this House before that I do have issues in terms of this specific nature around alcohol. I want to provide the reasons why I hold that view. It's a really mixed view that I bring to the House. I'm not against alcohol as a member. However, in terms of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act, it's really important that I express the views of my community, Māngere, in South Auckland, where, obviously, we have got quite some challenges in our local community. We did have a local winery, Villa Maria, who were a very successful business until recently.

The issue I have with this bill, which I would like to make a contribution on, is the specific distinction around on-licence and off-licence, which is a structural element of the licensing system. I come from a community where we have, as New Zealanders, the opportunity to make clear decisions around legislation. I want to bring forth the voice of my community, where some of our community are not afforded the choice of accessing what this amendment bill is bringing across. So, in terms of the principle of the amendment bill—and I understand, and I've heard some very good arguments for why they're supporting it. I also thank the Justice Committee members that heard a number of contributions. I do want to thank the member Stuart Smith. But, again, I come back to principles where there are issues specifically for people who may not (a) have the resource, and (b) the education in terms of understanding what a winery offers. And I do note that part of the host's responsibility is to provide a snack food option and also free water. Well, I come from a village and sort of snack food doesn't do it for us—snack food in terms of a village is almost like a feast. But I bring that forward because there are some opposing views, which might be small, to this legislation, but from my community, there is a problem with alcohol.

One of the things that I do plead with the House to do is to make sure that whatever legislation there is around the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act—there might be quite a lot of people that support this specific amendment bill. But in terms of definitions and in terms of size of specific products, there are successful wineries around the country—this is their thing, this is their product, this is why they're on the New Zealand map and being successful. But in a community like South Auckland, like in Māngere, we have some real challenges around alcohol. And some of our people, believe it or not, travel in and out of Queenstown, to the Wairarapa, to Marlborough where there are really successful businesses.

The main reason that I am against this bill is that I asked that definitions would be very clear; that the host's responsibility would be also very clear; that when the bill does pass tonight, that there is a real understanding of who will come and access those services being offered in different places around the motu because they're allowed to, because they have the option of going into a winery, tasting the samples—but there are still important measures that the host has a responsibility to partake in in terms of offering that service and that product.

So those are the views that I wanted to put across, and I won't be supporting this bill. Thank you.

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): Madam Speaker—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Because it's call 10, I'm going to take this as a split call as well.

CAMERON BREWER: Oh, well, Madam Speaker, I was hoping for a 10 minute dissertation on the finer points of this bill, but thank you. I'm happy with five minutes and I think those listening to Parliament radio and TV possibly will be as well.

Isn't it interesting? A lot of those members opposite, they know where the bread is buttered and their consciences will subsequently fall into line because they know that this is very popular within the public and within small business that have really been keen on us fixing—

Hon David Parker: This is what they call small beer—small beer. We're not going to be corrupted by small beer.

CAMERON BREWER: —this anomaly. Mr Parker can heckle all he wants, but he will be the first chardonnay socialist, turning up on his bike with his leg in a cast, on two crutches with his $5 pulling in for a $10 pinot noir tasting somewhere out the back of Bannockburn, telling them that he voted for this bill, and perhaps an inch in return. Perhaps they can reward him.

But this is an industry that—as we've read, and Radio New Zealand have reported on—is a $2.3 billion industry as far as the value of wine exports per annum. And I think we saw a big jump—

Dan Bidois: Billion?

CAMERON BREWER: —to $2.3 billion. Dan Bidois is our in-house economist. He's writing this down and he'll dutifully report it back to caucus next Tuesday.

But $2.3 billion. And this is all about the shop window of New Zealand, the cellar doors. As we heard, Dan, and others in Auckland, took part in a wee tour of the Auckland International Airport and their expansion—their $3.9 billion expansion, I know it's the number Air New Zealand likes, $3.9 billion—is that the tourism sector really needs a few pushes. It's going pretty well. It's going pretty well in Queenstown. They're operating in Queenstown this summer season—I understand at Queenstown International Airport at 120 percent, but the rest of Australian tourism coming inbound is operating at about 75 percent.

Australians love to drink … our wine—our wine. Let's get specific on that: our wine. And as we know, many of those exports head across the Tasman. So this enables those cellar doors to open up to all our international tourists—

Carl Bates: That's right.

CAMERON BREWER: —and our domestic tourists too. And whether it be, Carl Bates, the wineries up the Whanganui River—I know you've got fruit wineries there, feijoa wines, mead, everything you want, we've got Gisborne chardonnay, we've got Marlborough sauvignon blanc. And of course, as David Parker, our in-house chardonnay socialist will tell you, we've got the best pinot noir in Central Otago.

Now, there were a few anomalies that we were tested on, weren't we, Mr Meager, in the Justice Committee—our learned colleague from Otago University, law graduate there and chair of the Justice Committee—they did test us, the Opposition, on whether an opportunist could set up a bar in Oxford Terrace; let's just call it, hypothetically, "Webb's Wine Bar".

Hon Member: W-H-I-N-E.

CAMERON BREWER: Yeah, with an "H": "Webb's Whine Bar". And you could go there—in Oxford Terrace, 5 degrees in Christchurch—and test the wine from a certain winery in Central Otago or North Canterbury, they produce wine too. There are seven—Mr Meager told us there were 7 teaspoons to every tasting. And so the Hon Dr Webb put this proposition that we would be lining up 7 teaspoons of wine and trying to make a business out of that, and that was never going to work. And so we have made the intent very clear that this is not for the opportunists, of Duncan Webb setting up a wine bar—although he asked a lot of inquisitive questions—or Leo Molloy in the viaduct.

So I want to finish up, Madam Chair, because you've shortened up my time—but I'll try and take another call throughout the evening—to pay tribute to "Stewie-non Smith", or "Sauvignon Smith" as we affectionately may call him after this. He will be carried aloft, as he should be, for persisting with this wine, for working with small business. Stuart Smith, the MP for Kaikōura, deserves all the credit on this. This is a great day for the New Zealand wine industry, a great day for New Zealand. Thank you.

Tim van de Molen: Point of order. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just wanted to take a point of order just before the member finished because at the start of his speech, you made the call after he'd sought the call that there was to be a split call. My understanding is that the debate happening this evening is not happening along party lines because—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's right. That's correct.

TIM van de MOLEN: So on that basis, there should be no split call at all because a split call is only there to allow for the proportionality of the parties on a normal call basis when parties are taking call by call, since it's a conscience issue—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: As it's a third reading, I will check that out, Mr van de Molen. If someone wants to call for call 11, if there's an opportunity for Mr Brewer to have another five minutes, I'll let him know. No, no—we'll take another call. I'll take a call from Rima Nakhle and I'll come back to that point after I've taken advice.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you for the understanding It was a pleasure to take a call back in the second reading a few weeks ago, and it's even more pleasuresome—if that's a word; English is my second language—

Hon Member: Pleasurable.

RIMA NAKHLE: —pleasurable to take a call in this third reading of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Winery Cellar Door Tasting) Amendment Bill. And I'd like to thank our member the honourable Stuart Smith, the MP for Kaikōura. Thank you very much for shepherding this bill that will bring a lot of joy to many people—those that own and operate those family businesses, those small cellar-door wineries, in places like Central Otago, Hawke's Bay, and West Auckland. Thank you, Mr Stuart Smith for, as I said, shepherding this bill across the House, across the wine groves of Parliament House to this, the third reading, in the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Winery Cellar Door Tasting) Amendment Bill.

Now, in a nutshell, or rather in a grape cell, this bill allows wineries to charge to sample their wines. Many of us in the House—not all of us, and I respect that, but many of us—have been on those little trips with our friends and with our family when they come in from Australia, from Lebanon, or from the States, and we take them to our beautiful wineries to sample our stellar wines. This bill allows us to charge for a sample, and rightfully so. Why should they be giving out litres and litres and litres of their well-produced wine for free?

So it allows wineries to charge for a sample. This sample will be no more than 30 mil, and there was quite extensive kōrero around this subject of how many mils make up a sample size and how many teaspoons, but I'm going to focus on the mils. Thirty mils, and that's what we came to the decision of. And I like that as well, because that also points to how much we are being careful with alcohol consumption. We don't want people sculling things down like there's no tomorrow. But we're going to keep it at that good Goldilocks medium of 30 mil—30 to 35—and charge them for a sample.

It also allows cellar doors to share the same licence as a cafe or a restaurant without burdening them with those extra costs that, at this stage, they do have. If they just want to serve some of their wines.

Carl Bates: We know the cost of regulation.

RIMA NAKHLE: Exactly. We're taking back some of that red tape when they can have more red wine. And Parliament's intention, as Mr Stuart Smith said earlier, is very clear. It's intended to allow wineries to charge for wine tastings. And we created a definition with intention for what constitutes a winery and a wine-cellar door.

The great chair of the Justice Committee—in fact, my favourite chair of the Justice Committee from now and into the future—James Meager, the MP for—wait; I have to say this correctly—Rangitata—is that how you said I need to say it?—pointed to the fact that wine is the—

Hon Matt Doocey: The valleys of Timaru.

RIMA NAKHLE: —sixth largest of—[Laughs] Oh my God! Stop it, please. OK. Yep. My apologies, Madam Speaker—sixth largest exports for New Zealand. And I alluded to this—well, not alluded; I actually pointed to this fact in my second reading speech. And with your indulgence, Madam Speaker, I'd like to, again, just expand a little bit on the pride that I feel, being a wahine of Lebanese background, that the second winery in New Zealand was established by a Lebanese family, the Corban family.

Hon Member: Really?

RIMA NAKHLE: Yes, Corban Wines was established, and they were beaten—they could have been the first, but they were beaten—by only a few months by Pleasant Valley Wines in Henderson. And this is in West Auckland. And Corban Wines was established in 1902. We're talking about a very long time ago—1902—by I'd like to say the name Assid Abraham Corban. Or in Lebanese with the Lebanese accent you'd say, Assid Abraham Arben, which means Eucharist. Assid migrated to New Zealand from Mount Lebanon in the 1890s, and he wanted to provide a good living for his family and make a good and honest start in his new homeland of Aotearoa New Zealand. And so he established this winery, Corban Wines, but Assid himself, like many of the gentlemen from his village in the mountains of Lebanon—it's called Shweir.

He was experienced both in wine making and in stone masonry, because these types of skills were taught from a young age to a lot of the gentlemen that grew up in Lebanon. They were trained in these skills. And so he felt it was an important part of settling himself in New Zealand and assimilating in a positive way, as much as possible, while still retaining his traditions and his links to his homeland, Lebanon. I'd like to tautoko Assid Corban. I'd like to acknowledge him and the Lebanese community that came out. It was harsh for them back in the 1890s. There weren't the luxuries that many Lebanese people have now—Lebanese bread, Lebanese groceries to make our beautiful, flavoursome Lebanese food. It was hard, but they made do, and they appreciated the fact that they had an opportunity to be in such a beautiful and amazing country like Aotearoa New Zealand. So, thank you, and may his memory always live on. The Corban winery was sold some decades ago, but his ancestors have kept the tradition going by opening more wineries. Thank you for indulging me while I just acknowledge that part of the importance of adding to the wine industry here in New Zealand.

I only unfortunately have three more minutes, and I'd like to just touch upon the subject of alcohol harm. And we had a member in the House, a few moments ago, talk about how we need to be encouraged to remember the harm that alcohol does. And, absolutely, I think it's important for all of us to remember the harsh harm inflicted upon all segments of New Zealand society because of excessive alcohol consumption. But here I'd also like my colleagues across the House to also remember the harm that drugs do to families, to people, in particular when coupled with alcohol as well. And that's why I'm so happy with how our Government is cracking down on gangs, getting tough on crime, so that we can make sure that drugs and excessive use of drugs with alcohol does not become more normal than it already, unfortunately, is.

This is a wonderful bill. It makes a little bit of difference that goes a long way for many of our businesses across Aotearoa. I know that businesses in the mighty Hawke's Bay as well, which I pointed to last time I was speaking in the second reading of this speech. Also, we'll be happy with the fact that we're pulling back on the red tape. But, as I said, pulling back on the red tape, we're giving people more access in a restricted and a responsible way to red and other colours of wine. We've got a commitment to responsible alcohol consumption. Thank you, Madam Speaker, for allowing me to share some of those thoughts. And we commend this bill to the House. I commend this bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before anyone else stands up to make a call, I just want to respond. I've checked out the point of order that was made by Tim van de Molen. Yes, it is a third reading, and I have the ability to split the tenth call. It is also the Speaker's decision about how that runs. So that's the advice that I've taken. So, now, we are going to go from speech 11 back to the other half of speech ten, which cannot be taken by Mr Brewer now. Because it's a split call, it can be taken by someone like Paulo Garcia, who hasn't been on his feet before, seeing he's calling.

PAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn): Thank you, Madam Speaker. So 2.9 million visitors came to New Zealand by November 2023—1.2 million-plus were Australians. One can imagine that one of the main objectives of tourism into New Zealand is to try New Zealand wine. The Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Winery Cellar Door Tasting) Amendment Bill allows for a heightened opportunity for the industry to appeal more strongly to the tourism industry—already a more than $2 billion export industry—all and all over $3 billion.

Clearly the tourism space is a space where the industry can grow, and this bill ticks all the boxes. It assists and encourages cellar door owners to run tasting of their products, making quality the focus instead of quantity by charging for 35 millilitre pours. It allows people coming to New Zealand to try multiple types of wine, and that's very important because in the summer of last year I hosted American tourists, and they wanted to try the wine first. They were not big drinkers but they loved their wine, and so tasting was a big part of the activity that they came for, and they did go home with a few of their favourites. And by that time they would have tasted many. The experience of coming to New Zealand and visiting a vineyard is critical to that wine tourism industry.

In addition to ticking the box for making it easier for businesspeople to run cellar doors, alongside possibly running a restaurant with an on-licence, then the reduction of red tape in allowing for off-licences to be sought and secured by the same business without having to establish a separate entity to hold on to an off-licence separately is a big help to the industry. Already it is evident in many places in New Zealand that the tourism industry needs a lot of support in terms of people manning restaurants and hospitality businesses. So it makes it easier to keep a cellar door open with an off-licence, even if the on-licence may not have people at that very day or business day to allow it to operate. So that's helping the business.

And then also the bill already provides for minimising harm, and that is by requiring water and snacks to be part of the offering of cellar doors. It is an experience more than anything else, and the snacks alongside the drinking is something that enhances the whole process. With the current economic times that New Zealand finds itself in it is extremely important to do all we can in terms of facilitating and pushing that the tourism industry is given all the opportunity for it to grow much further. The opportunity for this bill couldn't have happened without our member and friend—Ha, ha!

Hon Members: Stuart Smith.

PAULO GARCIA: —Stuart Smith, right here beside us. And we are very pleased that this has come to the third reading and will pass tonight. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I commend this bill to the House.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I rise today to speak in support of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Winery Cellar Door Tasting) Amendment Bill. This bill introduced—wait for it—by my learned colleague Stuart Smith, represents a significant step forward in modernising our approach to wine tourism and supporting our local wineries. It addresses key issues that have long hindered the growth and sustainability of our winery cellar doors and, by extension, our wine tourism sector.

The purpose of this bill is twofold: to allow winery cellar doors to charge visitors for samples of their own wine and to add an off-licence category for wineries holding an on-licence. In essence, this bill aims to remove unnecessary red tape from the industry, enabling our wineries to operate more efficiently and effectively.

Let me outline the main provisions of this bill. Firstly, it allows winery cellar doors to charge for wine samples. This change addresses a significant issue in our current regulations, where our premium wine producers are unable to adequately value their product during tastings. By allowing charges for samples, we're not only supporting the sustainability of these businesses but also promoting a culture of quality over quantity. Secondly, this bill introduces licensing flexibility. It enables wineries that operate both a cellar door and a dining facility to hold both an off-licence and an on-licence without creating separate legal entities. This change will significantly reduce costs and administrative burdens for our winery owners. Thirdly, the bill establishes clear definitions for "winery" and "winery cellar door", ensuring that the legislation accurately encompasses the intended scope of operations.

This bill carries several key messages that I believe are crucial for this House to understand. Number one, support for local businesses. This legislation directly supports the growth and sustainability of our local wineries, benefiting small businesses and promoting New Zealand's wine tourism. Number two, promoting responsible consumption. By permitting charges for samples and defining a reasonable sample size, we're aligning with responsible drinking practices ensuring visitors appreciate quality over quantity. Number three, simplifying regulations. This bill makes it easier for wineries to navigate licensing requirements, allowing them to focus on delivering quality experiences to visitors. Number four, enhancing tourism. These changes will elevate New Zealand's status as a premium wine tourism destination, allowing wineries to offer more sophisticated and varied tasting experiences. And number five, cutting red tape. By simplifying regulatory hurdles, we're empowering New Zealand's local wineries to thrive, focusing on craft, distinctive cellar door experience, and enhancing our nation's wine tourism appeal.

I'd like to draw the attention also to the report from the Justice Committee—hard-working, strong committee. Their recommendation that this bill be passed with some refinements underscores the importance and broad support for this legislation. They've suggested—

Dan Bidois: Talk us through the refinements.

TOM RUTHERFORD: Talk us through the refinements, Mr Bidois says. Well, I'm going to. They've suggested adjusting the maximum sample size to 35 millilitres—not millimetres, millilitres; got to get that right—and ensuring the availability of snack food to support responsible consumption. These amendments further reinforce our commitment to promoting responsible drinking practices.

It's worth emphasising that this bill is not just about supporting businesses; it's about fostering a responsible wine culture. By allowing wineries to charge for samples, we're shifting the focus from quantity to quality. This aligns with our goals of safe and responsible alcohol consumption, ensuring that visitors have a meaningful and enjoyable experience that centres on appreciation rather than excessive consumption.

Furthermore, this bill represents a significant stride in supporting our local economies and communities. Wine tourism not only showcases New Zealand's exceptional wines, but also brings economic benefits to our rural communities. By supporting wineries through this bill, we're investing in the growth and sustainability of these communities, ensuring they continue to thrive.

In conclusion, the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Winery Cellar Door Tasting) Amendment Bill represents a carefully balanced approach to supporting our wine industry while maintaining our commitment to public health and safety. It will allow our world-renowned wine industry to showcase its products more effectively, contribute more significantly to our local economies, and cement New Zealand's position as a top wine tourism destination. This bill embodies our commitment to cutting red tape, supporting local businesses, and enhancing our tourism sector. It's a win for our wineries, a win for our tourists, and a win for New Zealand. I commend this bill to the House and encourage all members to support this bill through this third reading and into law.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have determined that the subject of this vote will be treated as a conscience issue. In this case, I know there are members who want a personal vote and I am prepared to accept one. This is the process we are going to follow. I am going to put the question, and as I am going to announce the result, at that stage, any member can ask for a personal vote.

A personal vote was called for on the question, That the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Winery Cellar Door Tasting) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 96

Noes 26

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

FAIR TRADING (GIFT CARD EXPIRY) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 29 May.

TANYA UNKOVICH (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I stand on behalf of New Zealand First to support this bill, the Fair Trading (Gift Card Expiry) Amendment Bill. I'd like to acknowledge the member in the House, who is my colleague from the select committee, Dan Bidois for bringing this bill to the House. I think he was actually the second member, wasn't he? It was originally the Hon Melissa Lee. So I just want to acknowledge you both.

Now, I must admit on a personal note, it would be a very rare day that I would personally allow a gift card to expire. The accountant in me never lets a penny go astray or wasted, and, I must say, nothing has changed. Last month, I was notified that I had a small voucher at a company, and off I went very quickly to redeem it. Also, I must admit, it's not something that I would normally give as a gift. So learning about all of these processes and what actually does go on was quite an eye-opener for me.

My mother, on the other hand, was addicted to gift cards. Being the one who would always go and do the Christmas shopping for her, I was always the one who was left to wrap them. So I must admit that I was kind of relieved when she discovered gift cards and I got the instructions: "Tanya, you go to Farmers"—or DEKA, in those days, I think it was—"and get 10 times"—oh, I don't think the clock's going, Madam Speaker; that's fine. Oh, there we go. It is going. There we go.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It blinked.

TANYA UNKOVICH: It blinked, it did.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Carry on.

TANYA UNKOVICH: Power outage.

So the big learning curve for me, actually, was that not everyone's like me. In the select committee, I discovered that not having an expiry date was actually quite a big issue and that there were many consumers who are often left on the back foot when they realise that they have lost their card, they cannot redeem it or anything like that. I then discovered that they needed to be protected.

Now, according to a Consumer New Zealand campaign to end unfair gift card expiry dates, evidence was shown that one in five gift card holders have actually been stuck with an expired gift card.

Now, the Fair Trading (Gift Card Expiry) Amendment Bill seeks to prohibit the sale of gift cards with an expiry date of less than three years after the initial sale date. Now, some people may think, "Gosh, that is a really long time." It was one of the issues that we looked at during the select committee on what a reasonable period of time would be, and we decided and fell on the three-year mark. So, in doing this, this will now give any recipient of a gift card this reasonable period of time in which to spend it and use it.

Now, this bill will have to amend the Fair Trading Act 1986. That is where the rules for gift cards are currently stipulated. The new section 24A will prohibit the selling of gift cards with an expiry date of less than three years. So 24A also defines the terms "expiry date" and also defines "gift card"—believe it or not, this does have to be stipulated in the bill.

It also sets out in the bill that there are a number of cards and vouchers that are excluded from this definition of "gift cards". So whilst I won't go into all of them, I'll just give you a few examples of what will be excluded. The first one is a gift card supplied through a customer loyalty programme—so, for example, if you get a New World gift card which is purchased with Fly Buys; now, I don't know if you can do that at the moment; things may be changing there as well. That is an example that is excluded. Also excluded will be a gift card or a voucher for a time-limited event—so an example would be a festival or a concert, something like that, often which happens during the summer period. Another example of an exclusion, something that is not defined as a gift card, is a card which is used to pay for transport and utilities. So that would be a pre-paid card for public transport or electricity or gas or something like that.

So other issues that we discussed during the committee process was to actually have the word "exp"—shortened expiry—on the card, so that people didn't miss it. It's very easy to see a few numbers there and not actually realise what it is. So, in order to avoid that confusion, we decided to have the word "exp" on the card then with the numbers that would be the expiry date. So one could easily be confused or, if you don't have your glasses on, miss it completely. So that was one thing we decided on during the select committee process.

Now, another thing that needed to be decided on was the transition period. When does this kick in? We decided that there did need to be a transition period. Now, this would be in order to give businesses—small businesses, especially—a bit of time to adjust for especially their accounting processes. This is something that New Zealand First were very agreed on, that this had to be done. The reason being is that revenue recognition is often very different for gift cards. While someone might go in and buy a card, they exchange money, the sale is up front but it doesn't actually qualify for revenue recognition because no goods or services have actually been exchanged yet. So it sits on the balance sheet as a liability for the business owner. Then, once the gift card is redeemed, that is when it is recorded as a sale in the books.

So, as you can understand, business owners would need a bit of time in order for them to perhaps make some adjustments to their accounting processes or even to simply understand what is going on. Some may have to engage a professional in order to assist them during this transformation period.

Now, there could be other issues that could come up—data entry, I'm not sure if there would be any changes to GST reporting, there could be potential cash-flow implications. So this all needs to be taken into account in order to give businesses a good period of time in order to adjust. I believe it was 18 months, actually, that we fell on as a period of time.

So, as mentioned before, look, it would be a rare day that I would allow a card to expire, but the truth is that it does happen. Many people forget they've been given one and many people forget where it was. Just reading through my notes a little while ago, it reminded me that after my late-mother passed away, I was going through her things, and inside a birthday card was a gift voucher that she had not used and had expired. So, on that note, I would like to, on behalf of New Zealand First, commend this bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This call is a split call. I call Ricardo Menéndez March.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. So first of all I just want to acknowledge Melissa Lee for having had this bill drawn from the ballot and then Bidois for taking it on.

I think this bill is just such a good reminder that all the rules in this place are completely made up and, in that same way, we can change those rules. Gift cards are just such a great notion of just the constructs that we've come to create where we've decided to attach a very specific dollar figure to a piece of paper or cardboard or material that in and of itself has value. And we've decided very arbitrarily to allow the market to create rules and let those rules run amok in terms of the expiry dates. One of the things that has been rightfully identified here is that the market alone won't create fair conditions for people—I would say very rarely, but in this case definitely, it's been identified as one of those places where just letting the market decide how to set expiry dates has created an unfair situation for consumers, and that therefore we need some regulation in place to better protect everyday people.

Other speakers have talked about the amount of money that goes to waste, both for everyday people and just for our communities by nature of having these arbitrary—well, for leaving it to the market, basically. I think the ACT Party's differing position in the select committee was just such a rallying cry for me to get in support of this bill. We supported it at first reading anyway, but they just made it so obvious for us, because they believed that this bill would create unnecessary burden for New Zealand businesses. And they also talked about how they believe that the bill takes away businesses' ability to manage their liabilities as well as financial sustainability for the gift card or vouchers programme. And while it's important for Parliament to encourage responsible business practice, they then talk about how we should leave it to businesses.

But look, even with MPs that I don't agree with like Tanya Unkovich on most things, she rightfully pointed out there is a genuine issue here that the market itself isn't sorting. So I think, when so many low-income people, for example, end up having access to gift cards to buy basic essentials such as food or petrol, I think it's really important. Prezzy Cards actually form, again, a way in which low-income people are often supported to make ends meet. But having these expiry dates left to the market isn't useful. The only people who have won under the current system are retailers, who get to pocket the money off those cards that end up expiring.

So the Green Party is and has been supportive of this bill. I think I do want to note the constructive changes that have been proposed at the select committee stage, all which we think have merit. It's mostly around tightening stuff around making sure the language is consistent. I think most important is that there's a level of consequences, particularly for a body corporate who does not kind of comply with this new regime. I think initially this idea that we could have just created this set of rules, only to then leave it effectively voluntarily for the market to sort it would have not been particularly effective. So I think it's good that this has been looked at. I also know that there's a transition period as well.

But I think, again, this just shows—as I said at the beginning of my contribution—how much those rules are made up. I ask, I guess, the Government members that with the same imagination that they had when it came to drafting this bill, that they realise that rules that allow people to live in poverty, rules that allow people to go without housing are also completely made up. Things like setting benefits below the poverty line is a complete made-up rule that successive Governments have allowed. So with the same imagination that the Government members used to come up with this bill that they use those same powers to tackle some of the big, systemic issues that we face. Because I think member's bills, while they can tackle discrete issues, they can also be a really useful tool to actually enable important system change conversations that we deserve to have and our communities certainly deserve, because I'm sure this will actually alleviate cost of living pressures for some people, but the overall systems that create those cost of living pressures remain, despite this bill having merit.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Dan Bidois. Just for the clarity of the House, no, this is actually a full call. So for the clarity of the House, Te Pāti Māori have chosen not to take their split call on this bill, so that call will be given at the end of the debate. So apologies for any confusion. Dan Bidois—10 minutes.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): Madam Speaker—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just for the clarity of the House—no, this is actually a full call. So for the clarity of the House, Te Pāti Māori have chosen not to take their split call on this bill, so that call will be given at the end of the debate. So apologies for any confusion.

DAN BIDOIS: Thank you. Tonight is a good night for this House and for New Zealand for many reasons. For the passage of my colleague Stuart Smith's bill, the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Winery Cellar Door Tasting) Amendment Bill. It's a good day for New Zealand with the announcement of the tax relief package that comes into effect. It is a good day for New Zealand with this bill, that I'm sponsoring, coming one step closer to law. It's also a good day because it's my wife's birthday, and she's watching at home, so I'd like to just say a very special happy birthday to my wife, Courtney: I love you. I'll give her a gift card later on.

It is a pleasure to rise and take a call on this bill—the first call for me in this debate. I'd like to start out by acknowledging the Ministers who have gone before me, who actually brought this bill to the House. Melissa Lee has been mentioned—I would love to acknowledge her contribution. But this bill actually goes way back before her to Jacqui Dean, from the great electorate of Waitaki. She initially brought this bill forward, Melissa Lee then took that upon herself and shepherded this through, and it is my role to shepherd this through the House on their behalf. So thank you to those members past and present.

I certainly want wish to acknowledge Miles Anderson at the moment, the current member for Waitaki—my thoughts go out to him and his family at this time.

It's also a pleasure to thank the select committee that I'm on, the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee. We've got some hard-working members here: Vanessa, Reuben, and other members of the select committee who have—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can we just use the last names of members in the House. Thank you.

DAN BIDOIS: Thank you very much. Reuben Davidson and Vanessa Weenink—great hard working members of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, and I thank them for their contribution.

But this bill is not going to solve the world. It's not going to—you know, it doesn't solve the big challenges that we face, but it does solve a very small challenge for many out there. Many consumers have, no doubt, bought gift cards and seen them expire. It is a small issue. As is often the case when speaking to member's bills, they're not game-changer issues that turn New Zealand upside down and improve it overnight, but they are small improvements. This is, I think, a great example of a small improvement for the country.

So what this bill, essentially, does is change the Fair Trading Act to require that gift cards have an expiry date of three years. This bill really is about consumers. It's around empowering consumers and empowering them to make the best choices that they can, and to make sure that they can redeem the full value of gift cards. My colleague Tanya Unkovich mentioned that, actually, about one out of every five gift cards in this country expire. So this bill seeks to address that by standardising the expiry date and providing an expiry date for which consumers can in fact redeem their cards in the full value.

As a member of the select committee, I just want to run through for the House the issues that the select committee dealt with. The first issue was round encapsulating the true and fair definition of what a gift card is. So we spent much time talking about what is and what isn't a gift card. We got to the point where there were very clear definitions on what a gift card is and what isn't a gift card. For example, Mr Speaker, if you're selling a gift card for charitable purposes, that's not included in this bill. If you receive a gift card for substitution for returned goods—for example, you take your clothes that you got from your birthday back in and you get a gift card voucher—that is not under the definition of this bill. If you go to an event—for example, in the East Coast or great electorates around the country—and you get a gift card or a voucher, those gift cards or vouchers won't be included. If you get a gift card for utilities or for Auckland Transport—you know, using the public transport—those are the types of things that will not be included in this bill. So what we've done is make sure there's a very clear and narrow definition of what a gift card is.

The second issue was around the length of expiry. We did consider varying the length, but I think we've struck a balance—a balance that is right—for three years for expiry. There will be clear rules for businesses around the display of expiry on the gift cards themselves. There's going to be an infringement process for businesses who violate the—

Hon Member: A stiff one.

DAN BIDOIS: Yep, it's quite a stiff penalty, as my colleague mentioned, for not actually adhering to the rules of this legislation.

Finally, we talked about the transition time, and I did want to just mention this for businesses out there who will be thinking about when they have to comply with this. We did consider seriously the submissions that were made from businesses and from business associations who raised concerns about the length of time it will take to get their IT systems up to speed, to train their staff, and to get new gift card stock. So we have put in a transition time of 18 months, which we think is fair and reasonable for businesses to respond to this piece of legislation.

It is very encouraging to see that almost all parties have signalled that they're supporting this bill through the House. The only party is not is the ACT Party. I would encourage members who are good friends in the ACT Party to reconsider. The ACT Party—what is it called? It's called the Association of Consumers and Taxpayers—"consumers". If I think of the great architects of the ACT Party, the Roger Douglases, the Derek Quigleys, the Richard Prebbles, they would really want to support pieces of legislation that empower the consumer. So I would love to encourage my colleagues from the ACT Party—come on, you can come join the waka.

This bill is pro-consumer. This bill is actually free market. Now, most of you—this House, Mr Speaker—doesn't have necessarily the best grasp of economics, but one of the biggest things you learn in economics is that free markets require the power of information and perfect information. This is actually about clarifying information that will help markets improve efficiency. This bill is necessary for proper regulation.

One of the points that was raised by the dissenting ACT Party was around the impact that this will have on businesses. Actually, businesses support this piece of legislation. They support it because it actually helps manage their financial liability. It creates a lower and upper bound on their financial liability for their accounts. So I would encourage once again the great members of the ACT Party, my friends, my coalition partners, to join the waka, to get on the phone to their leader, and to see if we can come to a unanimous unison of perspective in the House this evening.

I just would like to say, finally, thank you to the submitters, for those who took the time to submit. There were some great submissions from various businesses who provided light on their support of the bill, the impact of this bill, and how to make it work in a practical setting. I'd like to thank again these members of the select committee who actually provided some really good frank and cross-partisan commentary. I would like to thank the Ministers once again. We all stand on the shoulders of science, or the shoulders of those who have gone before us. No doubt, it is my role to simply shepherd a great idea that has come before us. So it is on that basis, at the second reading, that I commend this bill to the House.

REUBEN DAVIDSON (Labour—Christchurch East): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand to speak on the second reading of the Fair Trading (Gift Card Expiry) Amendment Bill. Like my predecessor, I would like to acknowledge Melissa Lee; it was originally her bill drawn from the biscuit tin. She did some work to identify the issue, turned it into a bill, and had the good luck to get it drawn before it was then transferred to that speaker who just took his seat, Dan Bidois.

I thought it would be good to start by imagining being promised something of a certain value, only to discover when you go to get it that it's worth less—or it's worthless. I think today is probably a day that most New Zealanders know exactly that feeling because they've been promised $250 and they discover it's $2.15. The relevance, Mr Speaker, is that this bill addresses exactly that issue and—relevance—because we're talking about a three-year expiry date.

In the instance of gift cards, they often do expire too soon so a very well-intentioned gift can end up amounting to absolutely nothing. That doesn't seem very fair, so this bill is our opportunity to change that. And whilst our ACT Party colleagues may have pinned their hopes on something else, we're yet to see what that is. What we do know is that 54 percent of New Zealanders have received a gift card in the last two years and 24 percent of New Zealanders are left with gift cards they can never redeem because they are expired or the business has closed. So what's that worth? Two hundred and sixty seven million dollars in unspent gift cards. That's only one-tenth the value of the gift card landlords are getting, but it's still a lot of money.

So this bill sets out to address that unfairness. I think with the work that we did at our Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee we worked through some of the issues and some of the unintended consequences or points that we could have missed. So some of the reasons it's a good idea: one is that we all lead busy lives. It's very easy to get a gift card, slip it into your glove box of your car—I've got more than one in mine—and discover that it's expired by the time you want to use it. One of the members of our select committee had bought a shared experience but every time they went to redeem the gift card, they were unable to redeem it because of weather—because the shared experience was a hot air balloon ride—and that meant that by the time the weather finally cleared, the card had expired and they could not have that shared experience.

So we had a lot of submissions at select committee from various retailers and also from entities who are associations or organisations that represent the interests of retailer groups. Foodstuffs New Zealand submitted in support of this bill. They were keen for the extended expiry period. They were not keen on an indefinite period, which was one of the matters that we did discuss, and they also identified the need for a really good transition period, so that was taken into consideration.

Booksellers Aotearoa New Zealand noted that where we were heading would align us with the Australian model—a three-year expiry date—and that currently they're selling, usually, with a two-year expiry although they had extended this during COVID. They definitely supported the proposed three years and also talked about how a lot of their retailers honour expired gift cards already to ensure that customers and consumers have a really positive experience.

And finally, Consumer NZ, who are there to look after consumers and do amazing work in that space, had multiple examples and complaints from people who had missed out on what they thought they were entitled to due to unfair terms on gift cards, sometimes terms of expiry of six months or even less. One of their really strong requests, and again, Dan Bidois mentioned this in his speech to the bill—sorry, I think it was actually Tanya Unkovich who mentioned it in hers—was to clearly communicate the expiry date and that it was an expiry date on the voucher, and to strengthen the penalties for effective enforcement; to make sure that there were enough teeth in the legislation to deter retailers or entities from issuing vouchers that were in breach of these terms. So I think it would be fair to say that the majority supported it, with the exception of needing a bit of time for transition, but they're happy enough with the principle of the bill.

I won't go into all of the unintended consequences that were identified or addressed. My time would definitely expire before I could go through those, but I am confident that we did, at select committee, look at those. So I think this bill ultimately is a gift to consumers. It makes sure people have the time to make the most of the gifts that they receive. It's a bill for the 54 percent of New Zealanders who have received a voucher in the last two years, it's a bill for the 24 percent of New Zealanders who have previously missed out, and it's a bill that will probably give New Zealanders more relief than the very small tax cuts that came into effect today. So I commend this bill to the House.

CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki): Look, I rise in support of the Fair Trading (Gift Card Expiry) Amendment Bill, and I'd just like to congratulate members of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee for navigating this bill through, and for Dan Bidois, whose name in which the bill is in, following on from Minister Melissa Lee.

Because this is a fantastic bill. And I must say, I do personally relate to this issue of gift cards because when you have four children that are often going to birthdays—all the time, kind of gets more and more as they get a little bit older—it's a very easy solution to race in and grab a gift card; but also, in return, you often get a lot of gift cards. And so anyway, we've ended up with this drawer full of gift cards which are literally expired. And my husband actually, he was wanting to prevent these gift cards from expiring so he decided to kind of stick them all to the wardrobe so that when you open the wardrobe you'd see all the gift cards, so you would remind yourself that you actually have to go and use the gift card. So you'd think that that would have worked, but it didn't, and we still have a lot of expired gift cards.

So I can certainly relate to this issue, and I'm sure most New Zealanders can. As we've already heard tonight, one in four gift cards are expired and 54 percent of people have used gift cards in the past two years, so we would definitely see a lot of expired gift cards. And so hundreds of families around the country, you know, they run busy lives, as we all do, and so I suppose they do reach out for the gift card option when they're often giving a gift. And I'm surprised, actually, Dan, that you perhaps didn't get a gift card for Courtney today, given it's her birthday.

But consumers need to have time. They need to have time to be able to spend the gift card. I think that's fair. This bill is all about the consumer and being pro the consumer, which is good for business and good for the economy, because we want to support consumers. And I think to children and families—because I must say, if you think about kids and they've got this gift card and they think they're going to go and spend it, only to discover that they arrive at the shop and it's expired. Just the look on the children's faces, they're just absolutely devastated that their gift card is expired. So anyway, this bill is about stopping that and giving more time—giving three years in fact, which is a reasonable period, I think, to enable a gift card to be used. I mean, it allows more flexibility and more protection to the consumer.

Research has actually found—I've read in some of these documents here that we could be losing $10 million a year on cards before they are redeemed. I mean, that is a lot—that's a lot. And a Consumer New Zealand study found that one in four gift card holders end up stuck in the top drawer, as I've already said. Actually, you know, I also got a lot of gift cards and vouchers when I used to do a lot of running events, because I did a lot of running events in a previous career. Actually, a few of them: the Hawke's Bay half marathon, the Hawke's Bay triathlons—actually, we've got the triathlon about to start at the Olympics, it might have already started, so big shout out to Hayden Wilde; hopefully another medal—and the Hastings harriers events, where you quite often get vouchers, and the Hawke's Bay Hundy, and the Mount Maunganui half marathon, the Taupo half marathon—that was a good one, that's next weekend actually; there'll be a few gift cards, I'm sure, that will be handed out at that event. And the Spirited Women Adventure Race, and the Auckland marathon—now, that was a good one, that was a really good one. Running across the Harbour Bridge, I mean, I'll never, ever forget the Auckland marathon.

These events draw a lot of people into the regions and across the country, and often there are a lot of gift cards that, potentially, are sometimes given out in these events because it can be easier to give a gift card for a pair of shoes or give a gift card for a singlet or a running top, or to that effect. So, you know, we're all very, very familiar with the gift card issue. And the fact that we do have a lot that expire, I mean, a lot of those ones that I did win in some of those events have expired.

So you put the power back to the consumer. I mean, if we take a little bit of information from internationally, some of the other countries around the world, in Canada expiry dates are banned, and in the USA, a five-year expiry date is required—five years. Obviously we haven't quite gone that far, we've kept it around the three years, which was obviously seen to be quite reasonable. But here in New Zealand, we've been around the six months or 12 months—I mean, you barely get time to look at the gift card before it's expired. Well, unless it's hanging on the wardrobe, you know, for you to kind of look at quite regularly. But I think that many of us would agree that three years is very fair and reasonable and it is the right thing to do, to stand up for consumers.

We need to foster consumer confidence in our economy, which is what we're all about on this side of the House—you know, strengthening our economy and making sure that we are supporting our hard-working consumers out there. Actually, I mean, I would say it is a great day for consumers here in New Zealand, an amazing day today because historically, in the past 14 years, New Zealanders have not had tax relief. But today, after 14 years, hard-working New Zealanders are getting tax relief. So that is amazing for our New Zealand consumers. And perhaps some of them may go out and they may purchase a gift card, you just don't know.

But it's all about strengthening our economy, and, I suppose, creating more competition as well, because we want to drive more competition. I sit on the Finance and Expenditure Committee—as well as the Primary Production Committee, actually—and we are having a banking inquiry at the moment, which is also going to be, you know, very valuable for our consumers out there because we have one of the most uncompetitive banking sectors in the world. So this will certainly give us an opportunity to inquire further into this sector and hopefully create a more competitive sector in New Zealand so that we can strengthen our economy.

But look, just coming back to the bill, because I think that it is interesting to look at some of the areas which it doesn't cover, so that is: loyalty programs—so it does actually stipulate here that a New World card that was purchased potentially with Fly Buys points, which the member over here has already alluded to, that wouldn't be included. And I think another area which I think is very, very sensible in relation to this bill is not including time unlimited events. So, you know, obviously if you get a gift voucher to, say, Mission Concert in Hawke's Bay—the wonderful, wonderful Hawke's Bay—where we see a lot of events and, often, people are given gift vouchers to these events, but of course they are time limited. So, you know, it's only unfair that you would get a redemption or a further length of time if the event has already passed. So I mean, that makes absolute sense, which, you know, this bill is all about practical sense.

And of course, as my colleague has already said, the card cannot be the ones that are used for public transport and utilities and those types of cards and vouchers are not able to be included in this Act and have the three-year limit; which, again, seems quite fair. And of course, second-hand consumer sales of gift cards—I think obviously if a gift card's been given, you can't then flog it off and then the three years starts; I mean, that's obviously unfair.

So, I mean, a lot of thought has gone into ensuring that we have a very fair and reasonable bill, and they've thought a lot about the gift cards and of course the display of the cards' expiry date—very, very important because consumers need to know the expiry date so they know the exact time frame that they have to be able to go out and use that card. So of course if we were purchasing it that expiry date should be very, very obvious. And as we've already talked about, the transition period will be over an 18-month period of time, which I think is very, very fair and reasonable.

But look, we think this bill is an absolutely fantastic bill for the consumers of New Zealand. It's great to see this one navigated through because it's a very, very important issue that we can all relate to—54 percent of New Zealanders have purchased a gift card in the past two years, but one in four expire. That really is unfair to the consumers; it's unreasonable, and we certainly need to make sure that we get the gift card industry back on track. So I commend this bill to the House.

Hon JENNY SALESA (Labour—Panmure-Ōtāhuhu): E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe, and I'm really pleased to be debating the Fair Trading (Gift Card Expiry) Amendment Bill tonight. This is a really good bill. Overall, it seeks to protect consumers from losing the value of their gift cards due to short expiry periods, and I believe that this should promote fairer and more transparent business practices. I'd like to congratulate Dan Bidois on his bill and to wish a happy birthday to your lovely wife, and I presume that she might be getting a gift card as one of her many presents.

This is a really sensible bill and Labour supports it. It is not always the case, though, that so many of our different parties in the House of Parliament agree and give support to a member's bill, but in this case, I believe it is well-deserved. This bill will put an end to the unfairness of gift card expiry dates.

I remember when this bill had its first reading last year. I recall that many of the members of Parliament who spoke on it shared some of their experiences with expired gift cards. I too have had some experiences of having expired gift cards because I have been given gifts and, unfortunately, I don't have the habit of always looking to see what the expiry date on those gift cards is. So I've also been caught out.

When Consumer New Zealand came to make a submission on this bill—and I was one of the substitute MPs that sat in on this particular day at the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee—they told us that they have received many complaints from consumers about expired gift cards. They actually urged the select committee to consider extending it from three years to a period of five years, and they argued that this would be in order to ensure that consumers do not miss out on what is rightfully theirs.

Now, expiry dates on gift cards have been given the boot in other countries. For instance—and this has been spoken about by other MPs—in most of Canada, they have banned expiry dates on gift cards. In the US and Ireland, they are required to have expiry dates of about five years. In Australia—our neighbouring country—in 2019, they strengthened their laws, requiring gift cards to be valid for a period of three years, and I believe that this is one of the things that we're trying to do with this bill.

We know from research that New Zealanders are leaving millions and millions of dollars on gift cards unspent. They found that more than a third of New Zealanders have at least one unused gift card, and they've put the cumulative value to around about $267 million, which is a staggering amount.

Now, in reading the Hansard of previous speeches on this bill, I feel that it is actually a good idea that parliamentarians—especially on members' bills—come to an agreement and actually put aside our differences, and put aside politics for at least a few minutes when we're debating a bill that we agree on, because it is the right thing to do for New Zealanders. In this context, we are doing what is right for consumers, and I'd like to actually say that I agree with the author of this bill, Dan Bidois, when he said earlier on that the ACT Party, which is the only party in this House who does not agree with this bill—I find it really interesting because "Consumers" is actually part of their name. ACT stands for the Association of Consumers and Taxpayers, so why is it that on this occasion, ACT is not advocating for and not standing up for consumers of gift cards? This law change is a very practical way of making sure that money stays in the pockets of New Zealanders.

Last Christmas, after the first reading of this bill, Consumer New Zealand put together a nice and naughty list of retailers. The nice retailers were the ones in New Zealand who either had no expiry date or an expiry date of five years. The naughty retailers were the ones with only 12 months or less. This bill will ensure that all retailers will be consistent and that they will have a minimum of at least a three-year expiry date. I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Nancy Lu, for the second five-minute call.

NANCY LU (National): I'm very, very happy to stand to support the Fair Trading (Gift Card Expiry) Amendment Bill, second meeting. First of all, I'd like to say a huge congratulations to the National Minister Melissa Lee and senior MP for actually putting her name on this and being drawn from the biscuit tin, from the ballot, and also taking it through the first reading. And, now, it is transferred to the name of Dan Bidois, MP, my really good friend and a really good MP.

So I am so happy with supporting this bill because a gift card, for most people, is a happy thing. You receive it—it could be either for a goodwill or a congratulatory purpose. It could either be in a physical card, or, sometimes, actually, it's a surprise, because your family and friends from a different city or from a different country could send you something online and send it to you as a surprise to your email. And guess what? Most people would have hundreds and hundreds of emails. And, sometimes, if you get an email directly from one of those the gift providers, you may not even realise it's actually a gift from a family member or a friend. So, before you know it, you could be very, very close to a so-called expiry date. So this bill is very helpful for many of our Kiwis and New Zealanders, because (1) it extends the time to at least three years for the gift voucher, gift card, and electronic vouchers. But, also, it allows, actually, consumers to have more time to go through a thorough process—especially now with our cost of living pressure in New Zealand—to really go through and find the item that they really need for their family or for themselves as individuals.

So today is a really good day, not only for the one in every five recipients of the gift cards, to feel happy, and, actually, they can put it into really good use.

Now, speaking of gift cards, I actually have a very personal story to share, and it's something that I have gone through when I first had my first daughter in 2020. So it was my first daughter. It was the first time, obviously, that I experienced something called a baby brain. And, in Chinese, there is a very similar word to it called一孕傻三年. Literally, it means, "As soon as you're pregnant and have given birth, you will be stupid for three years." In other words, you will be forgetful, you will be grumpy, you will be deprived of sleep, you'll be angry with your partner, with your family, with the baby, and everything. And it goes for three years. And when you have two, it goes for six. It doesn't condense into three. So because I now have two children, I am still literally within the six-year period of a so-called baby brain. And so what happened with my first becoming a mother? I was gifted a total value of $700 from my friends and family. They got together, and they wanted to give me something very special but very expensive but something I can actually put into good use. So, for a lot of the mums out there, $700 four years ago could get you a decent car seat. Not anymore. It is actually more expensive now, but $700 for me and my husband then, for our first daughter, Amber—we were very, very grateful for the $700. But we obviously wanted to wait until she was a bit older so we can get the right size and so we know what we're looking for. And, as baby brains hit, you forget about them. Because $700 is so expensive, so much in value, I store them somewhere—somewhere. And, for the life of me, I just could not find them.

I was not comfortable in telling my husband about the $700 until he decided that maybe we should go now and buy the car seat for Amber. And when Amber turned one, I told him the story that I couldn't find the gift cards. He was obviously not very happy, but we still went ahead and got the car seat. And guess what? The minute we buy the car seat, a week later, I found the gift cards in my drawer, and guess what? They've all expired. So I've tried communicating with the shop. It didn't work. So that was very, very stressful for me as a young mum and very stressful for the family. And, obviously, we have just flushed down the toilet the goodwill and the good intentions from our family and friends. So as a young mother who is still experiencing the six years of my baby brain, I really think that extending the expiry date for gift cards will be beneficial for many people, including the new mums out there in New Zealand. So I commend this bill to the House.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This will be a brief call from me, but I do want to extend the congratulations of this House to Dan Bidois for shepherding through what is a great bill here, and to thank everyone for their speeches on this topic. It's been a really genuinely interesting discussion about how we can advance a pro-consumer agenda in New Zealand which benefits everyone, because we're all consumers, we all want prices to come down for ordinary New Zealanders, and we all want to make sure that these kinds of conditions that make people harder for people, that are so frustrating for ordinary people are something that the Government intervenes in and says, "Hey, actually, this isn't the way that we should be conducting business here. We're going to get some sensible rules around this and make sure that everyone's on an even playing field." So it's good to be able to have this discussion. This is a good size for a member's bill too.

I commend the select committee for working through some of what were actually quite technical and difficult issues. I've read the report of the select committee. I've seen the work that has gone into it. It's a great example of where parliamentarians can get around the table and talk about these issues which we all know a lot about and want to make things better for people.

I think that's the attitude we need to be bringing to this. Catherine Wedd, who gave a passionate speech about how we need to make things better for consumers, needs to continue to bring that passion to our work in this Parliament, because these should be bipartisan issues. The idea that a Government can advance a pro-consumer agenda while, at the same time, growing the economy is absolutely the approach that advanced economies around the world at the moment are taking. We've seen the Biden administration working through a huge, huge piece of legislation called the Inflation Reduction Act, which has a number of these initiatives which are about making things easier for consumers, making it harder for the large corporates that exercise a huge amount of market power in their market to be able to take advantage of ordinary people. That's good work for Government to be doing. It's not something that is blue or red; it's something that we should demand of our Government always, and things like this.

We've heard a number of stories around the House tonight about just how disappointing, frustrating, sometimes humiliating, sometimes you can't talk to your partner about letting those gift cards expire, because they make you feel rotten. It really is outrageous that we've had a situation in New Zealand where gift cards could expire in six months or a year for an experience that you couldn't book at the time or for goods and services that consumers have paid for. They're not paying to give a card and for that exchange of the card to be the thing that they think they're getting; they're buying products to be selected at a future date. That's why jurisdictions around the world, as my colleague the Hon Jenny Salesa has said, have set their expiry dates up to five years—in some cases, seven; in some cases, there are no expiries at all—and that would be an appropriate thing for, I think, New Zealand to move to in future, where we can be sure that consumers are always going to be able to get the goods and services that they think they have paid for from these businesses. Protections for consumers in this way are a really good thing.

But there's more we could be doing here. Labour's record on protecting consumers in our monopolistic and duopolistic markets is a good one. We made incredible progress on things like supermarkets duopoly in New Zealand, which were all designed around giving the little guy the best go. The ACT Party have opposed this bill that we are talking about tonight for exactly the same reasons they opposed those reforms when Labour was in Government, because having a swing at big business is not the end of town that they will be going for. But in this bill, we are having a bit of a swing at business, but we're saying that, actually, it's Government's role to make sure that consumers are getting a fair go. There will always be a role for Government in that, to make sure that everyone is able to enjoy the things that they think they're paying for and getting a fair deal when they go through the checkout.

Labour's record on improving things in insurance and lending is also a part of that pro-consumer agenda that New Zealanders expect from their Governments, whether they are red or whether they are blue.

I think there is more that we could be doing here on things like junk fees. Consumers across New Zealand's market are paying extra, more than the ticket price, when they're buying things like airline fees, when they're paying for things like concert tickets, and that is incredibly frustrating for consumers in exactly the same way that having an expired gift card is. You're just reminded constantly that some big corporate is taking a cut that you didn't expect to be losing out on. That's a problem and that's another way that Government can support consumers to be able to get a fair go.

There's also an important piece of work here around the transparency of pricing in New Zealand's market. I put those questions to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs at his Estimates and asked him to continue to focus on that work that Labour began. I'd love the Government to continue that work, and not for it to be something that is relegated to members' bills only, not for it to be something that is popular to do—because a pro-consumer agenda is popular when they are in Opposition—but something that they are focused on in Government. So I commend those backbenchers who are raising these issues and I hope that they are continuing to raise the dialogue with their Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs.

RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is a good day for New Zealand. It's good news after good news. It's a good day for all New Zealanders with tax relief, being 31 July. It's a good day for Dan Bidois' wife on her birthday. It's a good day for the wine industry. It's a good day for Kaikōura. It's a good day for this House as we celebrate this bill going through its third reading in the somewhat spirit of unity—albeit one minor party there. But Mr Luxton, it's not too late if you want to join, my friend, I won't tell your leader. You can come over if you'd be enticed. But it's wonderful. It's not every day that I'll agree with member Menéndez March, member Davidson, and member Salesa. But it's a great day as we come together for what is a pragmatic solution, and which something has been bubbling away for a long time.

I want to acknowledge member Dan Bidois for shepherding this and, of course, the Hon Melissa Lee, who got the bill drawn. In fact, she was quoted—she was so excited—"This bill was put in the ballot such a long time ago, I completely didn't think I was going to get it. I have such bad luck getting bills drawn out of the ballot, it was a bit of a surprise this morning", she said. And then, in talking with her, I realised it was actually the Hon Jacqui Dean's original. So this has been fathered, mothered, shepherded for a long time, so it's' great to see it come to fruition today.

I actually am working on learning some of the te reo and different names, but now I need to learn some Chinese, and I'm keen to learn that baby brain dialogue, so I'm looking to learn that—yeah, very discretely.

It's interesting, one in five recipients lose out when they don't redeem before expiry, which is costing—as has been mentioned—approximately $10 million a year, which would be for our everyday Kiwis. We've all had experiences of losing or misplacing or finding one later and then realising it's too late. I was thinking, coming up, we've got Father's Day on 1 September—it's a month away, 1 September. I feel for Mr Jackson over there. He's been looking a bit sad and grumpy lately, and I thought, actually, for Father's Day we could all chip in and get him a Prezzy Card and cheer him up, because I'm really feeling for him and I want to encourage him because I really like him.

But we've got Father's Day coming up. We've got Christmas—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): The member's not misleading the House, is he?

RYAN HAMILTON: Ha, ha! No, Mr Speaker. But as has been mentioned, in other countries like Canada, expiry dates are banned—they don't even have expiry dates. And it makes sense, right, because cash or money doesn't expire, so why do we put these artificial, constructed rules on these Prezzy Cards? And the US has a five-year expiry.

The honourable member Jenny Salesa was very gracious in not naming and shaming some of the businesses that Consumer magazine did, but I think it's worthwhile acknowledging those that have no expiry date: Apple store; Baby Factory, which would have been very useful to the former speaker if she'd known; Barkers; Bunnings; Countdown, which is excellent; EB Games; Farro Fresh; Foot Locker; Glassons; Hallensteins; JB Hi-Fi, Katmandu, and Macpac. Of course, there'll be many others that don't have expiry or that will have expired but that will still honour the Prezzy Card, and they do a wonderful thing by still honouring it.

Consumer understands some retailers calculate gift card income on the assumption a percentage of shoppers will never actually spend the money. Of the few retailers who publish non-redemption information, they calculate non-redemption rates between 5 and 10 percent. Across a multimillion dollar industry, this adds up to quite a nice little earner. For many years Consumer has been campaigning to end unfair gift card expiry dates. When a gift card expires, the retailer pockets any money left on the card. As has been mentioned, approximately $267 million of gift cards throughout New Zealand have been unused. The retailers have benefited and the consumers have missed out. That's a lot of Subways or DIY tools or clothing or supermarket or food or Glassons—or 67 loaves of bread with an $80 voucher, as member Kirkpatrick had worked out earlier.

I'd like to share a story, but for reasons of privacy, I've changed the names a little bit and the location of the venue, you'd understand. This was, essentially, called the unredeemed spa day gift card. Once upon a time—actually, last year—in the bustling, fastest growing city in New Zealand called Hamilton, or Kirikiriroa, there lived a young woman named Lauren. Lauren was a hard-working nurse who spent her days caring for others. Her friends and family admired her dedication but worried she that she neglected herself. In fact, she's a nurse up at Waikato Hospital, which, by the way, is one of the largest footprint hospitals in the Southern Hemisphere—very busy place.

For Lauren's birthday, her best friend Kari decided to surprise her with a thoughtful gift: a surprise day at the luxurious Tranquil Waters Spa. Kari knew that Lauren needed a break from the chaos of the hospital, and what better way to unwind than with massage, facials, and soothing baths. I've spoken at some length about bubble baths before, but I won't go there tonight—I'll keep on the bill here. Kari purchased a beautifully packaged gift card from the spa. The card promised a promising day of pampering, complete with herbal teas from Zealong Tea in Gordonton, actually, which are organic—in fact, they were told green tea can never grow in New Zealand; they've proved them wrong—fluffy robes, and calming music. The expiration date was a generous two years away, so Lauren had plenty of time to redeem it.

Lauren was thrilled when she received it. In fact, she giggled with a little bit of joy. She tucked the card into a bedside drawer, envisioning the blissful day ahead, but life had other plans. The hospital became busier and busier. The bureaucracy was intense—something like 14 layers, but I digress, noting this was about a year ago and Lauren's shifts grew longer and longer. She postponed her spa day, promising herself she'd go when things calmed down, but months turned into a year and Lauren's spa card remained untouched. She would glance at it occasionally, just to remind herself of the hopefulness and the possibility.

Then, one rainy afternoon, Lauren's friend Kari called. "Guess what?" Kari's voice bubbled with excitement. "I booked my day spa at Tranquil Waters—you should come, too. It'll be our little escape." Lauren hesitated. She pulled out the gift card and checked the expiry date. To her horror, it had passed by a few weeks. The spa's policy was strict—no extensions, no exceptions. She explained the situation to Kari, who empathised but couldn't change the rule. Lauren felt a mix of disappointment and frustration. The very gift meant to rejuvenate her had become a source of stress, Mr Luxton.

In a story closer to home, my wife was given a voucher for Mother's Day by our three children. They had all fund-raised and put the money together and cobbled it together, and she actually lost the card and rang the outfit. They said, "Sorry, you need the card.", and she argued, because surely they'd have a record of the card, but they said, "No, you must have the card." So she kind of relinquished, forgot about it, found the card but then realised that it had expired and they did not honour it. Needless to say, she won't be visiting that venue anytime soon.

Cameron Luxton: So the market worked again.

RYAN HAMILTON: In the fiscal year 2021—talking about the market, Mr Luxton—Starbucks reportedly claimed a staggering $181 million in revenue from unused gift cards and loyalty accounts. This amount represented approximately 1 percent of their total sales and 4.3 percent of their net income. You can appreciate it's the net income, because they've got no cost against the Prezzy Card—it's pure profit. It's fascinating how these unredeemed vouchers contributed significantly to the financial health. And here is the kicker: they actually have a three-year expiry. Keep in mind that gift cards can sometimes linger in our wallets, waiting for the perfect moment to be redeemed. Perhaps we all have a little bit of unspent Starbucks magic somewhere tucked away. We can't regulate out people's choices, but we can extend the opportunity, and that is what we are doing today. We are extending the opportunity.

In the bill, it actually just mentions a few of the key elements: the display of the card expiry date, and I think it's just important to mention that we've added in new section 36WC to the Act, inserted by clause 5 of the bill, to include "(a) the expiry date: (b) the month and year the gift card ceases to be redeemable: (c) the date the gift card is sold and a statement that identifies the period during which the gift card is redeemable:" and "(d) the words "no expiry date" or words to that effect."

As you've heard across this House, this is a pragmatic bill. It unites just about everyone in a spirit of unity and consumer and business logic. I commend this bill to the House.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Five-minute call.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN: Final call—yes, thank you, Mr Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): This is the Te Pāti Māori call.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN: This is the final call on the second reading of the Fair Trading (Gift Card Expiry) Amendment Bill. And just for the member who's just resumed his seat, Ryan Hamilton, whilst I was enjoying his anecdotes and I thought his story was very sweet and lovely, I can also confirm that the leaders of the men's triathlon bike cycle changed positions several times just in the period of time where you chose to rattle off a list of competing businesses or businesses that partake of selling gift cards to fill that 10 minutes. So thank you very much.

I think that everything that could possibly be said about this bill has been said tonight. It's pragmatic; it's sensible. I don't think anybody necessarily disagrees. I think it's been interesting to have some comment from the other side of the House about whether there should be an expiry date at all. And that's something that we or the Government could perhaps—look at in further members' bills or their programme of work.

So, when we think of all of the reasons as to why consumers may get the rough end of the deal here, I think it's a really good bill to bring to the House. And I note that, again, the previous speaker wanted to thank Dan Bidois. And I extend my thanks to him and also acknowledge the fact that I remember both Melissa Lee and Jacqui Dean being very excited and quite animated about this when they spoke about it. And, in fact, it was Jacqui Dean, when she first mentioned it, that kind of got me over the line when I was thinking about whether this was a good idea or a bad idea or what those loopholes might be. So on that basis, I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): The question is, That the amendments recommended by the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee by majority be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Fair Trading (Gift Card Expiry) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 112

New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; New Zealand First 8; Te Pāti Māori 6; Tana.

Noes 11

ACT New Zealand 11.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS (PROTECTION FOR KIWISAVER MEMBERS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. When KiwiSaver—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): You are moving.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN: Oh, sorry, I haven't got the motion. I move—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): So just move the bill.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN: I move, That the Employment Relations Kiwisaver Protection Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Pardon me, Mr Speaker. Thank you. When KiwiSaver was first introduced, it was recognised as world leading. It's fair to say, I think over the years, it has suffered quite a few setbacks. The National Government's 2011 Budget reduced the maximum available tax credit; an employer superannuation contribution tax was introduced the next year, which effectively reduced the contribution; and the minimum employee and compulsory employer contribution was then set at 3 percent, reducing it from the 4 percent that was always intended a year later. And finally, the kick start payment stopped a couple of years after that.

So, Mr Speaker, KiwiSaver has certainly been through a lot and there have been several changes over the years and there are several changes that we should probably make now if we are truly concerned about the state of the scheme and if we are truly concerned that the KiwiSaver scheme actually achieves the outcomes that it was intended to when it was first devised.

But this member's bill before the House today, by virtue of the fact that it's a member's bill, is offering a small but important measure to remove at least one of the barriers that exist towards saving for our retirement and restore some of the glory to what was once a world-leading piece of savings scheme.

Currently, employers and—the crux of the matter is that currently employers are not legally obliged to offer KiwiSaver workers the same terms and conditions as workers who are not enrolled in the scheme. They can effectively offset their compulsory employer contribution in a number of ways, most commonly by rolling the employer contribution into a total remuneration approach or even withholding other benefits or other terms and conditions such as pay increases.

So these legislative loopholes that have been created on purpose, that have been created by design, have the potential now to significantly disadvantage New Zealanders who are saving for their retirement. Quite frankly I think, as has been said by the Retirement Commissioner and several other experts, it is against the spirit of the KiwiSaver Act. It effectively removes an incentive, and as we know, when we think about incentives, incentives are there to prompt behaviour in a certain direction, to provide incentives so that people do the intended behaviour that affects the decent outcome. These moves effectively remove what is a simple and an explicit and a salient incentive, that is the employer contribution made towards retirement savings that is on, over and above, salary and wages.

This bill, therefore, seeks to restore the protections afforded to KiwiSaver members by the Employment Relations Act 2000 before it was amended by the Employment Relations Amendment Act by the National Government in 2008. It aims to ensure that workers can't be discriminated against because they're members of KiwiSaver or a complying comparable scheme, and it does so via a mechanism, a simple mechanism of being able to raise a personal grievance, which is the way that employees can seek redress and rectify that grievance. I'd like to acknowledge the Finance and Expenditure Committee and all of the people who submitted to the Finance and Expenditure Committee and also acknowledge the officials who took that information and garnered the expertise of those people and made some valuable changes and improvements to the bill as introduced.

So there were four main changes made to the bill as introduced. One was simply just changing the title so that it made it explicit that it was to include other complying superannuation funds as well as KiwiSaver. The second was to amend clause 18 of the KiwiSaver Act to clarify what is the interaction between the KiwiSaver Act and the Employment Relations Act when a total remuneration approach exists. And that is that parties can still agree to a total remuneration approach, but not one where the member of a KiwiSaver is paid less than a comparable employee who is not a member if the difference is because the employer has taken into account the employer's compulsory contribution. So that just clarifies the interaction between those two Acts.

Thirdly, the select committee recommended that we replace the transitional provision with a new clause 24, also to clarify that an employee who is a KiwiSaver member would be able to raise a personal grievance if their employment agreement was entered into, or varied after, the effective date, regardless of the date a comparable employee entered or amended their agreement, assuming that that comparable employee is receiving better terms and conditions than the KiwiSaver member. So that just, again, clarifies that whilst there must be an effective date, sometimes things can change before and after the effective date, while after the effective date, that impact people beforehand.

And, also, clause 24—it was recommended that we add that a KiwiSaver member can raise a personal grievance if an employer offers better terms and conditions to a non-member after the effective date because they are not a member. This would apply even if the KiwiSaver member's employment agreement had not been varied after the effective date, which makes sense. I know that's incredibly wordy, but these are really good amendments, and, effectively, they are tidying up what was always the intention of the bill but specifying it very clearly so that there's no confusion.

So this provision is intended to mitigate the potential risk that discrimination could occur through employers giving salaries or wages to non-members after the effective date whilst not varying the KiwiSaver member's salary or wages.

The retirement commission and the retirement commissioner have been quite vocal on various things that need to change with the KiwiSaver scheme. And, again, the intentionality behind this is always to look at ways in which we can improve it for the benefit not only of people but for the economy as well. And I think that it's fair to say that whilst the majority of employers act responsibly when it comes to employees' KiwiSaver membership—and I know that that was an issue for the Government parties in so far as their differing view—it's also fair to say that the retirement commission survey showed that 25 percent of employers do include employer contributions to KiwiSaver as part of total remuneration. So whilst the majority do act responsibly, 25 percent is a sizeable proportion of employers who are rolling up the KiwiSaver contribution in that total remuneration package. And for employees who don't know that or don't know that that's not how KiwiSaver was intended to be, there's not a lot of wriggle room there in terms of negotiating individually to have that rectified. So I think that it certainly deserves a legislative fix and a return to the way it was intended.

The purpose of the KiwiSaver Act was to encourage long-term savings so as to increase individuals' wellbeing and financial independence in retirement. And we know that retirement can be really tough for a lot of people. And we know that most people—most people that swap their labour for wages, which is most of us—are not in a position to enjoy the same standard of living in retirement as in pre-retirement times. Ensuring we get the most out of KiwiSaver is not only good for people and people in their retirement, it's actually really good for the economy. KiwiSaver is an asset of national significance, and we should be doing everything we can to remove any barriers that we come across—there are several of them, but this is a really obvious, salient one—any barriers to participation to keep the effective and simple incentive salient and simple.

And for that reason, I would again like to reiterate my thanks to all of the members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee who worked on this and provided really good feedback and to all of the official officials who very diligently offered suggestions on how this could be improved. I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the motion be agreed.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise in this second reading on behalf of the National Party. This is, of course, a member's bill. I want to congratulate the member Dr Tracey McLellan for having a members' bill come into the second reading. But I do have to say that National opposes this bill. It was, you know, somewhat interesting, because members' days like this are always really interesting because there tends to be two different types of members' bills: those where there is a bill in search of a problem—and some bills go a long, long, long way in terms of trying to find a problem to solve; it's called a ballot-stuffer bill—and there are others that are real challenges that members bring on behalf of constituents, like my colleague Stuart Smith earlier today, a hard-working member of Parliament for Kaikōura, who represented businesses and people in this community, constituents, with a real kind of policy problem, and put the work in to get legislation through the House. Then, the previous one, which was nearly unanimously supported—nearly; so pretty good for Dan Bidois and the bill on—

Tom Rutherford: Gift cards.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: —on gift cards and expiries. Again, it seems, on the surface of it—you know, really? But, actually, that is a serious problem. We've heard example after example after example of why it's a real policy problem to solve, and a member's bill is on the way to fixing it.

Unfortunately, this one, we have 3.25 million New Zealanders that are KiwiSaver members—$93.7 billion invested. So we actually have a very high proportion of New Zealanders of working age population in KiwiSaver. Unfortunately, this is more of an ideological bill, because what it says is that the relationship and the discussion and contract between employees and employers is broken. What it actually says is we can't trust the two parties to negotiate and come up with an agreement that works between them. So the challenge with this—and if there was a problem, it was actually the National Government that fixed it in 2008, which I thought I would just touch on.

In 2008 the National Government amended the KiwiSaver Act 2006 to clarify that whilst compulsory employer contributions must be paid in addition to an employee's gross salary or wages, employers and employees can contract out of the requirement through good-faith bargaining. This side of the House actually agrees that the two parties in an employment contract should have the ability to negotiate themselves. So that is the provision that remains today.

While I say this is a bill that is seeking a problem, in the previous Government, the then Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, the Hon David Clark—there'd been this review by the Retirement Commissioner in 2019 which raised a whole bunch of issues, of which this was a tiny one, an absolutely tiny one. But it was two years later that the Minister then thought "This is kind of interesting", but then actually still did nothing. And that's why it backs up my statement that this is one of those members' bills, unfortunately, that is a bill searching for a problem. It's like a problem-searching missile that's just kind of cruising around, trying to land, and hasn't quite landed it.

So the select committee process—unfortunately, ACT and National and New Zealand First in the Finance and Expenditure Committee report back had quite significant concerns with it. It's actually quite unusual to have a report back from a select committee where the members don't want it to proceed. It comes back into the House, so we're debating it. But, again, it's not a bill that has significant merit, unfortunately. So National won't be supporting the Employment Relations (Protection for Kiwisaver Members) Amendment Bill in this second reading. We don't think it's a problem. We don't think there needs to be a new ground for a personal grievance—actually what it does is just creates another whole area of grievance for the Employment Tribunal. Actually, it has the real risk, if it was to pass, that cases that do need the attention of the Employment Tribunal would be blocked up with something like this that actually has no place to be there, because we believe it is important that an employer and an employee have the ability to bargain in good faith.

That's why we clearly voted against—we repealed legislation like the fair pay agreements that forced mandatory conditions on large numbers of New Zealanders irrespective of their conditions and their circ*mstances. We believe that New Zealanders should be able to have that negotiation to provide what is best for them—because what this bill actually does is limits employees' ability to choose the saving option that suits them best. It also limits the ability of employers to opt for a remuneration approach that is best suited for this business. So, you know, whilst the argument is that employer contributions are an incentive to opt into a scheme, the employer is contributing regardless of the remuneration approach they take—the difference is that there is a perception that the employer is not when a total remuneration package is utilised.

Carl Bates: It's just madness.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: So it is—it is absolutely crazy. Ultimately, it is important that both employees and employers understand, or employers will understand, the package that's being offered, and understand whether or not their salary or wages includes or excludes KiwiSaver contributions—that's part of the negotiation, part of the discussion that an employee and an employer will have. So we don't believe that removing flexibility through this negotiation process is a good idea. Actually it's a bit concerning, because if at the start of an employment relationship an employer and a potential employee can't have an open conversation about how is the salary package made up, what are the components and why, then it is quite concerning that that would be the start of an employment relationship.

So, you know, while we've had bills earlier today in this member's day that have had wide support, unfortunately this isn't one of them. This isn't a bill that has a widespread problem that the Parliament needs to solve through a member's bill vehicle. So that is why the National Party will be casting our votes against this piece of legislation. We do think it is important—of course KiwiSaver is a significant part of New Zealand's savings record, and we want to ensure that when employers and employees are agreeing their terms of their new relationship that they are able to discuss and agree what suits them best. So we will be voting against this bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): This debate is interrupted and will resume the next sitting day. The House is adjourned.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 9.57 p.m.