The Bill would allow for building materials and product systems that meet international standards equivalent to those of New Zealand to be approved here. The Minister for Building and Construction would be able to recognise, in whole or in part, overseas standards or groups of standards or overseas standards certification schemes by notice. This would remove the need for designers, builders and building consent authorities to verify the adequacy of a standard or robustness of a standards certification scheme.

The Bill would provide for a new regulatory instrument (the building product specification) to be published. This would streamline the citing of international standards that can be used with the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) acceptable solutions and verification methods, to demonstrate compliance with the Building Code. As long as an overseas product complied with an equivalent standard for its specific purpose, the building would comply with the acceptable solutions and verification methods, and must be accepted by building consent authorities. This change is expected to reduce the process to recognise overseas building products standards or specifications, from 2 years to 3 - 8 months.

Building consent authorities would still need to assess proposed building work for compliance with the Building Code to ensure that products are being used for their stated purpose. Building consent authorities would not be liable for reliance in good faith on the building product specification.

The Bill also proposes to mandate the acceptance of products certified overseas. Currently the Building Act allows the chief executive of MBIE to recognise overseas certification of building products. However, due to certain requirements, the chief executive has limited ability to proactively recognise schemes. To address this the Bill provides that the chief executive may, by notice, recognise 1 or more, or 1 or more groups of, building products or building methods certified under an overseas product certification scheme. This would require building consent authorities to accept recognised overseas products as establishing compliance with the Building Code. This change would increase the range of products that can be used in New Zealand. A Government press release gave the example that recognising Australia’s WaterMark scheme would open the New Zealand market to over 200,000 plumbing products.

The Bill is with the Transport and Infrastructure Committee with their report due back 26 March 2025.

The two amendments to the Courts (Remote Participation) Act are as follows. Firstly, a new section has been added which creates a “presumption” (allows the court to assume) that a victim of an offence and their support person are entitled to observe all or part of the trial and sentencing for the offence, by the use of audiovisual or audio link; unless a judicial officer or a Registrar determines that the use of this technology is not in the interests of justice. This amendment also preserves the ability of the court to control how the proceedings are conducted, enabling them to impose conditions to protect the integrity of the court process; for example, requiring victims to not share access links or record proceedings.

Secondly, the use of audio links, such as telephone conference calls, has been authorised for criminal proceedings where the defendant is not required to attend. This attendance criteria takes into account that judges need to see the defendant to assess their credibility and comprehension of the proceedings. Audio links can also be used for civil and Family Court proceedings, provided the judicial officer or Registrar is satisfied that the parties will be able to effectively comprehend and participate in the proceeding.

The use of audio links will enable those who do not have access to audiovisual technology to have the option to participate remotely. For those in more isolated areas, avoiding the cost and effort of traveling to court will be a welcome benefit.

The third amendment enacted has been to the Criminal Procedure Act, to make permanent a temporary change made during the COVID-19 pandemic. This clarifies that in criminal proceedings, remote participation by the media and the public is consistent with the principles of open justice - that the courts are transparent and open to scrutiny.

Submissions received by the Justice Committee included concerns around the use of audio links. Situations were envisaged where participants could be pressured by people not visible to the court, or have access to material without the court’s permission. However, the Justice Committee proposed no changes and the legislation was unanimously supported by Parliament.

Prior to the Amendment Act changes the only grounds for dissolving a marriage or civil union was that the relationship had broken down irreconcilably, with the means for establishing this being that the parties in the relationship had been living apart for two years. Statements from the legislation’s first reading in Parliament described victims of family violence as feeling bound to their abuser and unable to move on with their life, in what for them was two years of being in limbo.

The Amendment Act provides that a marriage or civil union may be dissolved on the ground that the applicant is a protected person under a protection order made against their spouse or civil union partner. The two-year separation requirement for dissolution is also removed, and the parties do not need to be living apart at the time an application for dissolution is made. Protection orders include final protection orders made under the Family Violence Act 2018 or the Sentencing Act 2002, and a registered foreign protection order.

For an application for dissolution to be granted, a Registrar, or Family Court, must be satisfied that the ground of family violence is established. Any appeal rights in respect of the protection order must also have been exhausted or have expired. This addresses points raised by submissions to the select committee regarding temporary protection orders, whereby a respondent who has been served a protection order ‘without notice’, could have their marriage or civil union dissolved without having been able to defend the order.

The changes have been given 12 months, from Royal assent, before coming into force. This is to give the Family Court, legal profession, and advocacy groups time to prepare for the change, and for secondary legislation and the courts management system to be updated.

Notwithstanding the genuine need for the MEPV in such cases, the changes also target the misuse of the system, including migrants falsely applying for an MEPV, and offshore agents charging a premium for non-existent jobs - with both scenarios counting on the MEPV to provide open work rights.

The Government’s changes retain the key elements of the MEPV, including its six-month duration, however, the ability to apply for a second MEPV of six months has been removed. The view held is that six months is sufficient for migrants with in-demand skills to find work.

The definition of migrant exploitation has been updated to specify that it must be linked to a genuine employment relationship. Where a migrant arrives in New Zealand to find that no job exists or the job offer was not genuine, these will not be covered by the MEPV. It is considered that other protections exist for these situations.

The changes also clarify that lawful employment terminations such as redundancies and non-payment of final wages due to liquidation are not considered migrant exploitation for the purpose of the MEPV, except where these occur in exploitive circumstances or do not follow proper process.

The tightening of the MEPV settings is intended to reduce the opportunity for migrant exploitation, just how this works for those caught out by unscrupulous employers remains to be seen.

To resolve the issues with the current OFT regime the Bill would amend the Land Transport Act 1998 to introduce new device approval criteria for their use as a screening tool, as opposed to evidentiary testing.

With OFT devices used as a screening tool, drivers who return a positive test for a specific qualifying drug will then need to undergo a second test. Where two positive roadside tests are returned, the driver will be prohibited from driving for 12 hours. A positive test will require a sample of the oral fluid to be laboratory tested before any infringement notices can be issued. Drivers refusing to take a screening test would be issued with an infringement fee and demerit points on the roadside, and prohibited from driving for 12 hours.

Oral fluid testing for drug driving is used overseas, including in Australia, and the Government’s stated intention is to bring us into line with Australian legislation. The findings of the select committee report are due back on 20 December 2024.

• Do you have the right trustees, both now and on your passing.
• What happens on your death (is your will up to date), should the trustees change if you pass away.
• Who should benefit under the trust, in what proportions and is that recorded.
• If you make a distribution to your adult children and their relationship breaks down what happens – are risks mitigated.
• In what circumstances should the trust be wound up.

A will sets out how your assets should be dealt with in the event you pass away. A trust can survive beyond your death, hence it is important that they continue to function and operate as you intend - and it is better to sort this while you’re here.