Wednesday, 18 December 2024

WEDNESDAY, 18 DECEMBER 2024

WEDNESDAY, 18 DECEMBER 2024

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/prayers

Karakia/prayers

TEANAU TUIONO (Assistant Speaker): E te Atua kaha rawa, ka tuku whakamoemiti atu mātou, mō ngā karakia kua waihotia mai ki runga i a mātou. Ka waiho i ō mātou pānga whaiaro katoa ki te taha. Ka mihi mātou ki te Kīngi, me te inoi atu mō te ārahitanga i roto i ō mātou whakaaroarohanga, kia mōhio ai, kia whakaiti ai tā mātou whakahaere i ngā take o te Whare nei, mō te oranga, te maungārongo, me te aroha o Aotearoa. 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.]

Petitions, Papers, Select Committee Reports, and Introduction of Bills

Petitions, Papers, Select Committee Reports, and Introduction of Bills

SPEAKER: No petitions have been delivered for presentation. Ministers have delivered two papers.

CLERK:

Budget Policy Statement

Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update 2024.

SPEAKER: I present the report of the Appropriations Review Committee entitled 9th Triennial Report. I’d like to take this opportunity to thank Ian Fitzgerald, Felicity Cuzens, and Will Peet for their work, and their advisers Kate Wilkinson, Eugenie Sage, and Poto Williams. Those papers are published under the authority of the House. No select committee papers have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. There are five bills that are to be introduced.

CLERK:

Customs (Levies and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, introduction

Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Amendment Bill, introduction

Regulatory Systems (Tribunals) Amendment Bill, introduction

Regulatory Systems (Occupational Regulation) Amendment Bill, introduction

Regulatory Systems (Courts) Amendment Bill, introduction.

SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for first reading. The House comes to oral questions.

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition): Does he stand by all his Government’s statements and actions?

Motions

Vanuatu—Earthquake

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister): Point of order, Mr Speaker. Apologies, Mr Speaker. I apologise to the leader of the Labour Party. Could I move a motion in this House on the situation in Vanuatu?

SPEAKER: Is it a ministerial statement or—

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, something like that, yes. Take it any way you like, but something has got to be said now.

SPEAKER: All right. Can you tell us, is it a Government motion or a ministerial statement? I think we’ll make it a ministerial statement by the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Hon Chris Bishop: It’s a Government motion.

SPEAKER: OK. A Government motion, then, by all means. Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I move, That this House send its condolences and best wishes to the people and Government of Vanuatu following yesterday’s devastating earthquake.

I note the Government’s announcement that New Zealand will do all it can to help Vanuatu at this difficult time, in keeping with the very close ties between our two countries. I note that this offer of assistance will include the deployment of New Zealand military planes today; the first this morning to undertake surveillance and assess the damage, and another one, once the airport is open, to transport a search and rescue team and deliver relief supplies, and possibly a third one this evening. I note the Government’s readiness to respond to any further requests for assistance from Vanuatu that might be received from them.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Can I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for those comments. Mr Deputy Prime Minister, I read in the paper this morning that the reason that the airport was closed in Vanuatu was that there were problems with contaminated fuel. Is that the reason why New Zealand relief aircraft have not been able to land in Vanuatu until now?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I tell Mr Parker—

SPEAKER: Just hang on a minute, sorry. Look, you need to be clear about this. It’s a Government motion. The member may speak to the motion but it’s not a ministerial statement, which has the question and answer attached to it.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Point of order, then. Can I just clarify what is the status of the statement and what rights people have in response?

SPEAKER: Yes, you can speak to it.

Hon DAVID PARKER: I can speak to it. Well, point of order, Mr Speaker. Does the Minister have a right of reply at the end?

SPEAKER: No, not on a Government motion.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Right. Well, in that case, sir, I would endorse the Deputy Prime Minister’s statements. I’m sure that the House would be interested to know when it is that New Zealand aircraft are likely to be able to actually land and take assistance to the people in Vanuatu. I wish the members of the New Zealand Defence Force and supporting agencies who will likely be working through the Christmas period—I thank them for their service on behalf of New Zealand and the assistance that they are giving to the people of Vanuatu.

Motion agreed to.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

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

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, I do. And absolutely, what a year. Inflation is down, interest rates are down, tax relief has been delivered, fast track delivered, confidence is rising, growth is coming back, crime is falling, police are on the beat, gangs are on the run, phones are gone from class, and kids are getting back to school. We don’t need a year of delivery. Every year this team delivers. And that’s what we’re doing—we’re getting New Zealand back on track and cleaning up Labour’s mess.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why are he and Nicola Willis the only people surprised to learn that when you slash jobs, the bill for unemployment benefits goes up, the tax take goes down, and the economy stalls; or is this one of the economic lessons from the last 35 years that he thinks he needs to relearn?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: My goodness! The member has no economic credibility. I mean, this was a Prime Minister that increased spending by 84 percent, drove up domestic inflation, drove up interest rates, put the economy into recession, and that raises unemployment. And he has the audacity to stand up and ask us questions on economics. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: I’ll just remind everyone that we will be coming to a fairly boisterous debate later in the afternoon, but we don’t want to get there too quickly, because there’s a lot of other business to be done before that.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does his definition of “delivery” include an announcement about an announcement with no budget, no build specifications, no builder, no concrete time frame, no actual ships, and, if not, what exactly has Nicola Willis actually delivered when it comes to the Interislander?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, Nicola Willis is going to go down as the best finance Minister this country has ever seen, because by God what a mess she has picked up. She is cleaning house and she’s getting the job done. And she has delivered a value-for-money, reliable, sensible ferry solution of rail-compatible ferries. And our great Minister for Rail’s got a limited window to try and improve upon it, otherwise we’re going to get new ferries in 2029. Don’t you worry about it. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: I couldn’t hear most of that answer because of the loud noise coming from both sides of the House. So for that reason, I won’t ask the Prime Minister to repeat it. But when a question is being asked, even on the last day where we’re all a bit excited, please don’t talk behind the person asking the question.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does his definition of “dumb stuff” that he said he was going to cut include spending nearly $14 million on the administration of the flailing FamilyBoost scheme that’s only paid out $16 million so far, and is helping fewer than half the families he promised?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Isn’t it ironic? The Labour Party used to care about working New Zealanders. This is the same party that actually opposed tax relief for low and middle income workers for the first time in 14 years. It’s now getting all petty about a FamilyBoost programme designed to help working families with early childhood costs, which are incredibly high, thanks to the last Labour Government. We’ve got 100,000 people eligible, we’ve got 60,000 that have actually claimed, and we’ve got about 42,000 that are actually settled. When you talk to people, they say it’s a simple process: get on myIR. And I appreciate the member raising it, because we want as many people as possible getting their money back.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If it’s such a simple process—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Wait on—wait, wait.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: —why is it costing almost as much to administer—

SPEAKER: No, no, hang on. No. When I start speaking, please stop. Would you mind asking the question again, because a lot of people were talking over the top of you, probably including me, but I have every right to.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If it’s such a simple system, how come it’s almost costing more to administer than it’s actually paying out to families?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’d just say to that member: don’t you want to help low and middle income working New Zealanders through a cost of living crisis? That’s what we’re doing on this side. We’re making sure we actually help people. How have we helped them? Inflation relief, interest rate relief, tax relief, FamilyBoost, Working for Families credits—that’s what you do when you care about working New Zealanders, unlike you lot.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why did his Government cut funding for childhood immunisation services, despite warnings that those cuts would lead to a whooping cough epidemic, and given that that whooping cough epidemic is now a reality, will he admit that that was a mistake?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’d just reject the characterisation of that question, because we’ve had a very good uptake, having inherited very low immunisation rates from the last Labour Government. I’m proud of the work that we’ve done in partnering with iwi to drive immunisation rates with Māori under-two-year-olds. That’s great work. Actually, we have a whooping cough epidemic in this country, and the task for parents—and we’re making it as easy as possible—is to go get your kids vaccinated, and get yourself vaccinated, as well.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Which of the following best reflects his Government’s priorities: $3 billion in tax cuts for landlords while cutting first-home buyer grants, $200 million in tax cuts for tobacco companies while the number of daily smokers increases for the first time in recent history, real-terms cuts to the minimum wage while directors’ fees increase by up to 100 percent, or saying that he wouldn’t borrow for tax cuts, only to increase Government borrowing by a record amount?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, look, given I’m getting economic questions from a leader of a party that famously said, “We will absolutely need to increase debt.”. After having taken the keys to the car, driving it at great speed, and putting it in the ditch because of the economic mismanagement and vandalism, we’re hauling it out of the ditch and we’re getting it turned up the right way, and you can criticise as much as you like, but, actually, you had your go and you screwed it up. [Interruption]

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Mr Speaker—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: We’re now silent.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is the reason Andrew Bayly faced no sanction for calling someone working late “a loser”, he defended Penny Simmonds’ claims that disability support workers were ripping off the system, and his Government passed law changes stripping away workers’ rights because those actions actually reflect what his Government thinks, which is that Kiwis who work hard for a living are losers and—to use his own words—“bottom feeders”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, let me just look and compare and contrast the record of this Government versus—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, just a moment. Enough—the man had hardly stood up and the noise started. So just button it back.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: It was the way he stood up.

SPEAKER: I’ve got an immediate response, and I’m biting my tongue off. The right honourable Prime Minister.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am very, very proud of this Government’s record with working New Zealanders, because—let’s go through it. Wages grew slower than inflation for 13 quarters in a row under a Labour Government. They’ve had four quarters of wages growing faster than inflation under this Government. This is a Government that gave low and middle income working New Zealanders sensible tax relief for the first time in 14 years—not an ideological issue at all; just sensible common sense. This is a Government that reduced the Auckland regional fuel tax. We got rid of the ute tax. I can tell you that average rents since we’ve come into power are stable and not up $180 per week, as they were under the Labour Government. Inflation is down, interest rates are down, tax relief is being dealt to, and we have supported New Zealanders—low and middle income New Zealanders—through a cost of living crisis created by that Government.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: So why does he think he’s the most unpopular Prime Minister in New Zealand’s history, and what does he think Nicola Willis is more likely to replace next year: the interisland ferries, or him, as Prime Minister?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Oh, I mean, that is a bit rich, isn’t it? Isn’t that a bit rich? How are the conversations with David Parker and Kieran McAnulty working out, son?

SPEAKER: OK, so it is the last day of Parliament. There’s normally a high degree of levity and excitement around the place, but that question has sort of soaked it all up. So we’ll just calm it from here.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

2 CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: E tautoko ana ia i ngā kōrero me ngā mahi katoa a tōna Kāwanatanga?

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

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, and especially our action to pass fast track yesterday. I saw, last night, that one very brave Green MP acknowledged he’s been listening at question time, saying in the House, “The Prime Minister wants to tell us that we should be supporting [fast track] because of the renewable energy projects, because of the housing projects”, and I couldn’t be more pleased that my message is finally cutting through to some Green Party MPs. And it’s not too late, because fast track might now be the law—thank you, David Parker, for the inspiration—but there’s still just so much more growth and development to come. So, once again, and not for the last time, I call on all those Green MPs who actually care about climate change to back the projects, back the economy, and back renewable energy and housing for working New Zealanders, because we need to grow this joint.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Prime Minister stand by his statement that “We’ve set ambitious goals for ourselves.”, and, if so, can he please outline for the House what exactly is ambitious about his Government’s goals to decrease emissions and persistent child poverty by just 1 percent?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’d just say, on the point about emissions, I’m very proud that our emissions reduction plan 2, delivered by an excellent climate change Minister, who is actually managing to deliver net zero six years earlier and keep our economy growing—well done. I’m very, very proud of that. We’re on track to deliver net carbon zero 2050, as we’ve committed to doing. The means may be different by which the Green Party may wish to do it, but we don’t want to total our economy. We actually want to make sure we grow our economy, we want to make sure we get things built in this country, and we want to support low and middle income, working New Zealanders.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Can the Prime Minister confirm that his Government has cut services for vulnerable children and whānau, increased benefit sanctions by 133 percent, and cut 9,000 jobs from the public sector, with 1,500 more to go at Health New Zealand, while setting aside $2.9 billion in tax cuts for landlords, in just this year alone?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’ll pick one of those things, which is that I am very proud of the obligations that we have put around the unemployment jobseeker benefit, and that is entirely appropriate. We want to have a safety net, we want to support people when they need help, and that is funded by your fellow citizens and fellow taxpayers. But there are also obligations: meet with your case manager, put a resumé together, and show up for the job interviews.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is there a job for every New Zealander who is currently unemployed and on the jobseeker benefit?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We are working hard to make sure we get off welfare and into work. But what we’re not going to do is what the last Labour-Greens Government did, which is have low unemployment at 3.2 percent and yet 70,000 more people on the jobseeker benefit. We think there’s a better pathway for people, which is a life of work, and that’s why we’re doing everything we can to get the economy growing; to support low and middle income, working New Zealanders; and to make sure we get people off welfare and into work, which is great for them and their families.

Chlöe Swarbrick: What is a better—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just hang on. Just wait; there’s a lot of noise from both sides of the House that doesn’t need to be there.

Chlöe Swarbrick: What is a better use of public funds: $3 billion in tax cuts for property speculators, or funding essential services that all New Zealanders rely on?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what’s not acceptable is increasing spending by 84 percent, borrowing more, taxing more, spending more, hiring more, and—on every account—delivering worse outcomes under a Labour-Green Government. That’s what we saw over the last six years. We’re not doing that; we’re making sure there is maximum value for money, that we are getting resources moved from the back office to the front line, and we’re investing for growth.

Hon David Seymour: Did the Government cut taxes for landlords or simply restore the very consistent and sensible tax policy that was the case for the first four years of the Labour-Green Government?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I am proud of what we have done to make sure that we stabilise rents for renters. Isn’t it interesting: since this Government came to office, average rents have not increased. They went up $180 per week; that causes huge pain and suffering on working New Zealanders. This is a Government that, by restoring interest deductibility—a legitimate business expense—by removing the brightline back to two years, and ensuring we get the balance right between tenants and landlords, has ensured that we actually have rental stability in this country.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, sir. Thank you very much, sir. Just for the clarity of the House, if a Minister makes an incorrect statement today, when are they expected to correct that: by the end of today’s sitting, or will they have to correct it in the first sitting day back next year?

SPEAKER: Well, it’s the first opportunity that they—where the House is sitting, first opportunity after they know or are able to confirm that there has been a mistake in something they’ve said.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Can the Prime Minister confirm that since coming to office, rents have increased at double the rate of average Consumers Price Index inflation?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Labour and Greens quoted that number at me last week, and I just would say to you that, since we came to power, our rents have been stable. If you take the full year, which is including the period of a Labour-Greens Government, rents are up as you’ve talked about. But you’ve taken an annual number, rather than the number from when we came to office. That’s what we measure ourselves against.

SPEAKER: Question No. 3, Rawiri Waititi. Can the member just wait while the House, seriously, goes into silence. Please go ahead.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

3. 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.

Rawiri Waititi: Does he agree that the poor economic outlook in the half-yearly fiscal update is a consequence of his Government’s decisions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: It is a consequence of economic mismanagement and vandalism over the previous six years, but this a Government cleaning it up, and haven’t we made tremendous progress? Inflation is back under 3 percent for the first time in a long time. We have had, actually, three interest rate cuts after having, I think, 12 interest rate rises. We have business confidence, farmer confidence, consumer confidence, and more Kiwis thinking New Zealand is heading in the right direction.

Rawiri Waititi: Does he agree that it would be unfair to judge his Government for the poor forecast of the half-yearly fiscal update because one year is not long enough to influence any significant change?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, our Government is taking responsibility for the challenging economic conditions we’ve inherited, and that is why our plan is so important for the future of New Zealand. What we know, and as we heard from Katie Bradford last night, is that if we allowed Labour to carry on running the show, it would actually be a lot worse with respect to our deficits and our surplus. What we know is that the shadow Minister says surplus is a moot point. We know the current leader of the Labour Party, the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins, says we absolutely need to increase debt. Taxing more, spending more, borrowing more, hiring more, and non-delivery has led us to this position. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just a moment. There’s a member on my left who is commentating on every answer given. Commentary is not required and not allowed under the Standing Orders. Rare and reasonable interjections.

Rawiri Waititi: Why, then, did his Government decide to disestablish Te Aka Whai Ora, because the authority was unable to unwind 182 years of oppression and unequal treatment in only nine months?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Sorry, can you ask the question again?

Rawiri Waititi: So why did his Government decide to disestablish Te Aka Whai Ora, because the authority was unable to unwind 182 years of oppression and unequal treatment in only nine months?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Because we don’t believe that creating big bureaucracies and massive centralisation is the way in which you improve outcomes for Māori. We are fixated on actually improving outcomes. Despite the much-vaunted Māori caucus and a Labour-Greens Government advocating for Māori, outcomes for Māori went backwards, and so we are determined to make sure that we take them forwards. The fact that Te Pāti Māori hasn’t had a conversation about why nine out of 10 young Māori students heading into high school are not where they need to be in mathematics is shameful.

SPEAKER: One more.

Rawiri Waititi: Thank you. Fine choice. What does the Prime Minister say about the economist Bernard Hickey’s statement that “Treasury reports public service spending cuts to pay for lower taxes for landlords are shrivelling the economy, lifting spending on benefits, pumping up public debt & will put 20,000 more out of work”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I reject the characterisation that interest deductibility is a tax. Interest deductibility is a legitimate business expense, and the reality is that we have actually seen stable rents across this country since this Government came to office versus increases of $180 per week on average. The measures we’ve taken—interest deductibility, brightline test readjustment, and getting the balance right between tenants and landlords—have made a difference in the rental market.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Prime Minister’s message to Te Pāti Māori and some of its supporters something that’s totally alien: that shortly, they’ll have to get off their backside and do some work?

SPEAKER: I don’t think that’s something the Prime Minister has any responsibility for.

Rawiri Waititi: In short, what does the PM say about the Government’s austerity policy driving the economy into a deeper and longer recession, that means it will have to borrow $20 billion more over the next four years than it stated six months ago?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’ll just say there is no doubt if we carried on with the previous lot, the economic mismanagement would be worse. But this is a Government that has found the right approach, because we know carrying on the programme as it was—spend more, tax more, borrow more—put us in this mess. What we know on this side is that we are finding a balanced approach through it by making sure that we actually move resources from the back office to the front line, we get value for money for every dollar being spent, we deliver tax relief to low and middle income working New Zealanders—who that side should be caring about but don’t seem to any more—and, importantly, we’re laying up the conditions for future growth.

Question No. 4—Social Development and Employment

4. Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she stand by her statement that “This Government is absolutely and deliberately focused on supporting people into employment, and the way we measure our success is to have 50,000 fewer people on the jobseeker benefit by 2030”; if so, does HYEFU 2024’s jobseeker forecast of a 36,000 increase by 2026 since she took office mean this target is on or off track?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Yes, absolutely. Our Government is committed to having 50,000 fewer people on the jobseeker benefit by 2030 and achieving this target is a priority for our Government. Jobseeker numbers have been rising steadily since 2022 and are expected to peak in January 2025. The forecast has always been for the numbers to get worse before they get better. When jobseeker numbers started increasing during the global financial crisis in May 2008, there were around 85,000 people on the equivalent of jobseeker benefit; our starting point was 190,000. Unfortunately, we’ve inherited a low-growth economy where unemployment was forecast to increase above 5 percent. Treasury now forecasts this economic downturn to be longer and deeper compared to the Budget update. That’s why our Government’s work is to rebuild the economy and support more job seekers into work.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: How can her target to reduce jobseeker beneficiary numbers by 50,000 be on track when the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update forecasts there will still be 204,000 people on jobseeker benefit in 2029, and her target for 2030 is 140,000 jobseeker beneficiaries?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Very simply because, unlike the previous Government, we’re not willing to sit back and watch the numbers grow. So what we have done in the last 12 months, in addition to setting target, we’ve got now 70,000 people in case management; we’ve got 2,100 with job coaches; we’ve introduced phone-based case management; we’ve introduced a traffic light system so jobseekers know where they’re at. Our Government isn’t sitting back and watching the numbers increase; we are taking every opportunity with an active welfare system, and I’m so proud of the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) front line, they are working incredibly hard to get more New Zealanders into work.

SPEAKER: OK, brief answers are quite good ones.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Has she spoken to her finance Minister about the record numbers of people on benefit, and her beneficiary reduction target being at risk, given it is the economic conditions and job losses en masse that are putting her target at risk, or will she solely rely on sanctioning beneficiaries to get her numbers down?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I would like to go through that list of all the things we’ve done in the last 12 months, but you have said to keep my answers brief. So what I would say is: our plan is working. In the last five months, we have seen over 30,000 New Zealanders on the jobseeker benefit exit into work despite very challenging economic conditions, and that’s what I’m proud of.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Is she concerned that MSD themselves have decreased some of their own targets for getting people into jobs because of the worsening economic conditions, and how can she then assert that her 50,000 jobseeker reduction target is still achievable?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As I said in my answer to the primary, the jobseeker numbers were expected to peak in January 2025. Unfortunately, because the economic conditions are going to be worse, deeper, for longer—because of the record we have inherited—the jobseeker numbers will be higher than we anticipated; actually, not as far as we would have expected, so we’re on track. We’ve got a challenging, ambitious target, but for not one day will we shy away from helping more Kiwis into work.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: What does she say to the New Zealanders who will be accessing welfare support this Christmas, Christmas 2026, Christmas 2027, Christmas 2028, and Christmas 2029, given the economic outlook is so bleak that the unemployment rate will not even be back to 2023 levels by 2029?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I have this simple message for New Zealanders this Christmas: it is challenging when someone loses their job, it’s challenging for them and their families. Unfortunately, one of the realities when you have high inflation, high Government spending, high interest rates, and a recession: unemployment follows. What I will say to New Zealanders is this Government is unwilling to destine young New Zealanders to 18 years on welfare if they go on to a jobseeker benefit under 25. We are doing everything to help them into work.

Question No. 5—Finance

5. DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast) to the Minister of Finance: What recent announcements has she made on Government finances?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Can I say in advance the draft answers to these questions are very dry. A year ago, I found myself talking about sausages, and I do not intend to repeat that mistake. Yesterday, I released the Budget Policy Statement, and in it I set out the Government’s response to a review of operating balance indicators, including the contribution of ACC. Among Government entities, ACC is distinctive. It is a long-term, levy-funded scheme whose funding is driven by the need to have assets matching the expected lifetime cost of outstanding claims. Those assets are currently around $50 billion, and mismatches between ACC’s assets and its outstanding claims liability are intended to be reduced gradually over a 10-year period. It’s not a pay-as-you-go scheme that results in annual costs to the Crown or annual revenue for the Crown.

Dana Kirkpatrick: How do ACC’s results affect the operating balance indicator?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: OBEGAL—the operating balance before gains and losses—was previously the Government’s key operating balance indicator. ACC’s contribution to OBEGAL has grown in recent years from a billion-dollar deficit in 2021-22 to $4.1 billion in 2023-24. Its deficit is forecast to average around $4 billion per annum over the forecast period. Having ACC in the Government’s headline operating indicator gives too much weight to the point-in-time position of a self-sustaining, long-term insurance scheme which should have no impact on tax and spending decisions elsewhere in Government.

Dana Kirkpatrick: What change has the Government made in response to these issues?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Government has decided to look through ACC’s deficits or surpluses when setting and monitoring its short-term fiscal intentions. These deficits or surpluses do not matter for short-term fiscal policy. The simplest way to look through them is to take ACC revenue and expenses out of the OBEGAL. That is what we’ve done by creating a new measure called OBEGALx, which is simply OBEGAL excluding ACC. People who are attached to OBEGAL—and who knows if members opposite have made their mind up on that, because they haven’t made their mind up on borrowing tax, or anything for that matter, but if they are attached to OBEGAL, that measure will continue to be reported as a fiscal indicator.

Dana Kirkpatrick: What reaction has she had to this change of indicator?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: This change has been well signalled, and I think people understand there is an issue that needs to be addressed. For example, I saw a report from the BNZ yesterday that said, “the Government introduced a new fiscal balance this HYEFU called OBEGALX, the X standing for ‘excluding ACC’. The rationale for this is that ACC is a self-funding Crown Entity which is [currently] running a significant deficit. The view is that fiscal policy should not be adjusted to compensate for what should be a self-correcting ACC deficit over time. We agree with this stance.”

Question No. 6—Regional Development

6. ANDY FOSTER (NZ First) to the Minister for Regional Development: What updates can he provide to New Zealanders on actions the Government has taken to restore prosperity to the regions?

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Regional Development): Our Government is focused on growing the economy. After a long period of an absence of a development strategy and far too much influence from the woke-riddled Wellington belt, we are now turning our attention to the ideas and the energy within the regions. As evidence of that, a sum approaching $200 million has been ring-fenced to boost climate change adaptability and, also, geothermal developments. This technology reflects a report that lay gathering dust—moulding—over the last four or five years while Marsden Point was, sadly, closed down by the other side of the House.

Andy Foster: What can the Minister report on the regional summits he has held across the country?

Hon SHANE JONES: Unheralded popularity. It’s important that we acknowledge that when Wellington-based advisers venture out into the regions, the practical effect of ideas conceived in Wellington offices strike reality. The summits have been an opportunity to meet and greet people. Occasionally, there have been one or three protesters as I’ve sought to engage with garden-variety Kiwis, but the days of those mung bean - meddlers are over.

Andy Foster: What steps has the Government taken to support the development of regional aquaculture?

Hon SHANE JONES: The most recent report on primary produce export revenue shows there’s an enormous future waiting for development in regional aquaculture. A sum of over $600 million was recorded this year, in terms of export revenue; a small but growing proportion of the $2.2 billion which is sourced in the regions in terms of fisheries revenue. Obviously, aquaculture is now going to enjoy an amazing growth period because for the next 20 years there will be no need for any more resource consents; they have been guaranteed. No more meddling from the Department of Conservation, no more interfering from unwise decision makers and regional councils. Certainty, confidence, and growth is about to hit regional New Zealand in the aquaculture sector, despite the best efforts of narrow-minded critics.

Andy Foster: How is the mining sector helping to support New Zealand’s regional revitalisation?

Hon SHANE JONES: Without a doubt, Taranaki will enjoy a boost with offshore mining opportunities. Sadly—

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Take it to your backyard, then.

Hon SHANE JONES: No, that’s enough from the kūmara munchers—not going to have any of that today. Without a doubt, there is a vista of opportunity that will be delivered upon through science, technology, and economic rationalism. There may be a small group of ill-informed critics, but they will be marginalised once the triumph of science through the fast-track legislation emerges with clarity. As a final point, OMV, an international gas and oil explorer, announced at 6:30 a.m. this morning they are no longer withdrawing from New Zealand; as a consequence of the advocacy and the confidence instilled by this Government, they are staying to salvage the oil and gas industry in New Zealand. And on your behalf, New Zealand, I claim a little credit for that.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Is maintaining the rail freight connection between the North and South Islands by ensuring we have at least one rail-enabled ferry important for the economic prosperity of the regions, particularly in the South Island?

Hon SHANE JONES: That’s a very important question and despite my willingness to put the member right, the man to my right is the appropriate person to respond to it.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Supplementary? [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just wait until everyone’s quiet. OK.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Will he speak to the Ministers for rail, finance, and transport to ensure they understand the regional development and prosperity implications of not having a rail freight connection between the North and South Islands before decisions are made on ferry procurement?

Hon SHANE JONES: It’s beyond cavil; rail is important to the regions and, as the member is aware, all options will be exhaustively inquired into. But we want to see a massive improvement in the quality of management and leadership in KiwiRail; then, consequently, we’ll look at backing options that are full of common sense.

Question No. 7—Transport

7. GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland) to the Minister of Transport: What reports has he seen on State Highway 1 through the Mangamuka Gorge?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Well, I’ve seen some great news. State Highway 1 through the Mangamuka Gorge will officially reopen to traffic on Friday morning, reconnecting the Far North with the rest of New Zealand after an extensive closure caused by severe weather in August 2022. More than a thousand workers have worked on this project to clear slips, improve the resilience of a critical route to support economic growth. This reopening is a result of their hard work and comes just in time for Christmas.

Grant McCallum: What works have been delivered to ensure the Mangamuka Gorge route is reopened?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, so much work—a significant amount of work—has been done to complete and to strengthen the Mangamuka Gorge. This includes the installation of 1,337 piles; use of over 10,000 cubic metres of concrete; more than 5 kilometres of road has been repaved; and 50,000 square metres of asphalt installed, which is around the size of seven rugby fields, I am told. These critical works have addressed 36 slips to increase resilience on this critical route and get Northlanders where they want to go quickly and safely.

Grant McCallum: What will the reopening mean for locals, businesses, and tourists in Northland?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, it’s going to mean a lot for all of those people, including for the great MP for Northland, Grant McCallum. It will restore a vital reconnection for residents, freight operators, and visitors. With around 1,300 vehicles using this route daily, the improved road will ensure safe and more reliable travel. Northland has had a tough time with road closures and the opening will provide a major boost to local businesses, especially during the holiday season, which is crucial for Northland’s economy.

Grant McCallum: What message does the Minister have for Northlanders and those visiting the region this summer?

Hon Matt Doocey: You’ve got a great MP.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Oh, well, yes, they do have a great MP up here—

SPEAKER: Well, hang on a minute.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: A very merry Christmas—

SPEAKER: No, no. Wait on. Think about the question. I don’t think that lines it up at all. It’s about “seen on State Highway 1 through the Mangamuka Gorge.”

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Which is in Northland.

SPEAKER: Your endorsing tourist activities in the Northland—it’s not part of your ministry. We’ll move on to question No. 8.

Question No. 8—Finance

8. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by all her statements and actions?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Yes, in the context in which they were given or made.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How can New Zealanders take her financial management seriously when she cancelled the ferries, costing the taxpayer hundreds of millions of dollars, undertook creative accounting to make her books look better, and has delivered the highest debt in decades?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I want to begin by wishing the member a merry Christmas, but I then want to say it is a not a question to string together a set of assertions, and, a year in, she should have worked that out. Actually, our position has remained, which is that we are going to be a Government that is careful about New Zealanders’ tax and how we spend it. We are a Government that is going to drive growth, and we are a Government that has been consistent in our position that we want to see New Zealanders getting tax relief and we want to see the debt curve burn down. That member, on the other hand, within the space of two radio interviews this morning, managed to want more borrowing, less borrowing, more tax, less tax. She needs to make up her mind.

SPEAKER: Before the member resumes her questioning, I just want to say this. I’ve cut off one question because it was getting out of order. I will cut off other questions if people don’t want to listen to the answer. That was a constant commentary from a large number of people on my left.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: What evidence, if any, does she have that a strategy of cuts would lead to growth?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: That’s not our strategy.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she agree with Christopher Luxon, who said, “Nicola Willis and myself understand economics. We understand Budgets. We understand numbers.”, and, if so, can she point me to some evidence of this, because I can’t find any?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes, I do agree with the Prime Minister, and what I put myself through this morning—

SPEAKER: No, with all due respect to the member from a seat not too far from where I live: keep quiet.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: And what I put myself through this morning was the endurance battle of reading the transcripts of Chris Hipkins and Barbara Edmonds as they tried to explain what their policy for the economy would be, and across the course of several interviews, they demonstrated no understanding of economics whatsoever.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Going from the first supplementary question that you were asked, how can the Minister be responsible for the greatest debt ever when 80 percent of the Crown debt incurred here, at this point in time, was incurred under Labour?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Deputy Prime Minister makes a very good point. As I shared with the House yesterday, net core Crown debt went from $57 billion to $175 billion during the six years of the Labour Government, and now their position is that somehow that’s our fault.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Talk about denial.

SPEAKER: Hang on, they’re asking a question.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is her Christmas present for Kiwis higher debt, more borrowing, no ferries, fewer jobs, more Kiwis moving overseas, and no growth?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No. This Government’s Christmas present to Kiwis is inflation under control for the first time in three years. Our Christmas present to Kiwis is official cash rate reductions, meaning cheaper mortgages. Our Christmas present to Kiwis is tax relief for the first time in 14 years, including FamilyBoost payments for kids in early childhood education. And here’s the best present of all: next year we will deliver a growing economy with more opportunities and more choices for New Zealanders. That member may have lost sight of the importance of that, but I know that Kiwis will welcome it.

Question No. 9—Mental Health

9. PAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn) to the Minister for Mental Health: What recent announcement has he made regarding faster access to mental health and suicide prevention support through the Government’s Mental Health and Addiction Community Sector Innovation Fund?

Hon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health): More good news for mental health. Today’s announcement continues to deliver on the Government’s commitment to faster access to mental health and addiction support. I’m pleased to announce the first three recipients of the Government’s Mental Health and Addiction Community Sector Innovation Fund: Youthline, the Sir John Kirwan Foundation, and MATES in Construction. Youthline will receive funding to expand its Counselling Your Way programme, which is an eight-session structured intervention programme for young people aged 16 to 24. The Sir John Kirwan Foundation will receive funding to scale up Mitey, a free early-intervention preventative initiative that trains teachers to support children aged five to 13. MATES in Construction will receive funding for its community workplace-based programme, which aims to enhance the wellbeing of the construction industry workers and to build resilience within the industry. This extra funding will help expand its programme in main centres and into small regions around New Zealand.

Paulo Garcia: Why was a matched-funding approach chosen for this fund?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: This fund will allow organisations who are already receiving philanthropic funding to scale up their innovative ideas and help deliver more Kiwis with faster access to mental health and addiction support. The first three organisations being announced today will share more than $2 million from the mental health innovation fund, with this being matched with an additional $2 million in philanthropic funding, meaning the total investment in new mental health services announced today doubles to $4 million.

Paulo Garcia: Why is the Government partnering with NGOs and community groups?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: I’ve firmly become of the view that some of the ideas and solutions to the mental health issues in New Zealand are already in the sector; they just need to be listened to and backed. That’s what we’ve done today with the Government committing to get money out of Wellington and into the front line of NGO and community services. On this side of the House, we know Wellington doesn’t always know best. That’s why we’re backing hard-working NGOs and community organisations who are primed for growth and ready to respond to more timely access to mental health support among Kiwis.

Paulo Garcia: How will this announcement support the Minister’s priorities for mental health?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Today’s announcement will support my four priorities as New Zealand’s first mental health Minister: to increase access to timely mental health and addiction support, to grow the mental health and addiction workforce, to strengthen the focus on prevention and early intervention, and to target 25 percent of investment towards prevention and early intervention.

Benjamin Doyle: What does the Minister think the value of takatāpui and rainbow-specific mental health and suicide prevention organisations is, like OutLine Aotearoa?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: For that member, he will be happy to know that out of the $5 million for the mental health and addiction innovation fund, we’ve only announced $2 million of that. There is still $3 million available this year. And, equally, applications will open for next year’s $5 million fund, again committing to delivering faster access to mental health and addiction support for all Kiwis.

Benjamin Doyle: Does he think there are some instances where criteria for funding should be based on the unique and significant needs of marginalised communities, like takatāpui and rainbow; if not, why not?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: I’ve always been very clear that the mental health and addiction innovation fund is no silver bullet. It’s no surprise that every fund has criteria. Some services might meet the criteria for this fund or they mightn’t, but I’ve been very clear as the mental health and addiction Minister that I’m going to try new things. This is one thing I’ve tried, and it’s already delivering.

Question No. 10—Children

10. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister for Children: Does she stand by cuts to community provider contracts; if so, why?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): For one last time this year: there has not been a cut to the overall amount Oranga Tamariki is spending on contracted providers. There are contracts that will expire and not be renewed, some that Oranga Tamariki has decided to reduce, and others that will be increased. Oranga Tamariki spent more than $500 million with providers last year, and I’m advised we’re on track to do so again this year. However, unlike in the past, Oranga Tamariki is no longer accepting underutilisation and under-delivery, and it’s making sure it’s actually getting what it is paying for. This is what taxpayers expect and deserve when the Government is spending their hard-earned money and, actually, it’s what most vulnerable children and young people deserve too.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Is she seriously saying that cutting Stand Tū Māia’s contract in April next year—an organisation that provides specialised trauma treatment and intensive wraparound family support for thousands of highly vulnerable children and their families, with a waiting list of over 450 children—is the right thing to do?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Oranga Tamariki have two contracts with Stand Tū Māia, plus pay equity: integrated outcome agreement, originally $18.77 million per year; services in schools, $1.34 million per year; pay equity uplift, which was $5.18 million for the year. And Oranga Tamariki has reached a resolution with Stand Tū Māia and legal proceedings were withdrawn. The terms of this resolution are confidential to all parties involved and Oranga Tamariki is still having discussions with Stand Tū Māia about future procurement.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Why didn’t she go back to the Minister of Finance to ask for extra money when Stand Tū Māia has been told the reason their contract for last resort services to thousands of children has been cut is that there is no more funding left this year?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: To be perfectly frank: that is the reason why we’re in this problem in the first place, because spending more money seems to have been the solution to all the problems. But we’ve seen it actually isn’t. Outcomes got worse; children were suffering because nothing was based on outcomes. It was based on output, and we’re not going to do that any more.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Will there be more cuts to community providers delivering front-line services in the next financial year?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: It’s normal process to go over contracts when they’re being renewed. If they are providing the service that is required of them and that is required of the priority spaces which this Government is doing, then they will continue. If they are not providing the service that they’re supposed to, if they are underutilising and if they’re not providing the service they should, then they won’t continue.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Is it true that despite all the word games, in fact, she has broken a promise to the people of New Zealand that front-line services would not be impacted, when across the country we have seen cuts to vital services for our most vulnerable children and whānau?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I campaigned saying that more money does not fix a problem. What fixes a problem is actually making sure that we’re delivering the outcomes that are needed for our most vulnerable children. The outcomes have not got better over the last six years. They will get better when the focus is clear and precise that we need to concentrate on children and young people in care and children that come to the attention of Oranga Tamariki.

Question No. 11—Regulation

TODD STEPHENSON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and merry Christmas to you. My question is to the Minister—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: No. I’m going to take supps off him if he keeps that up.

11. TODD STEPHENSON (ACT) to the Minister for Regulation: What recent announcements has he made regarding regulatory sector reviews?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation): Today, I released the early childhood education, or ECE, regulatory review report, the first major report from the Ministry for Regulation. The report makes 15 recommendations to modernise and simplify regulations across ECE so that service providers can get on with what they do best: providing safe, high-quality spaces for children to reach their potential. The ministry has recommended removing, changing, or merging approximately three-quarters of the 98 licensing criteria for centre-based services, simplifying the system so it focuses on children’s welfare and education instead of paperwork. I’ve accepted all 15 of the review’s recommendations for regulatory changes, ranging across licensing workforce compliance and regulation. In order to promote innovation, quality, and growth, I’ll be taking a paper to Cabinet in the new year with the intention of implementing these recommendations.

Todd Stephenson: How did the Ministry for Regulation form these recommendations?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: The Ministry for Regulation went out and listened to people who use and operate and regulate early childhood centres. The terms of reference were based on a paper agreed by Cabinet on 5 June, and over the following six months the ministry analysed nearly 2,300 submissions and written feedback; met with parents and caregivers, providers, and workers; visited 16 early childhood centres; and conducted a series of structured interviews and workshops with agencies that engage with or regulate the sector. I want to thank everyone who’s been part of this. It’s been done in less than six months. I think it’s a fantastic piece of work that the sector’s long been calling for.

Todd Stephenson: Has he received any feedback from the early childhood education sector?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: I most certainly have. To spare the House’s time, I will refer to only two. One, Kelly Seaburg, Director of Advocates for Early Learning Excellence, says, “For once the sector feels like we are working with the various ministries to create meaningful change, rather than having continuous change that have had unintended consequences foisted upon hard-working ECE teachers.”

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: What did the teachers say?

Hon Peeni Henare: What about kōhanga reo?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: And yes, many teachers and kōhanga reo were consulted as part of this review. What’s more, it means “providers can focus on what matters most—teaching and supporting New Zealand’s children to grow and thrive early and be successful in school, by removing unnecessary administrative burdens that are not linked to quality or safety. In turn, parents will have an even greater level of confidence in the system and what it is delivering for their whānau.” That was Cathy Wilson, the Chief Executive of Montessori Aotearoa New Zealand. I’d love to go on—

SPEAKER: No. I—

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: —we even consulted the unions—but I won’t.

SPEAKER: No, there’s absolutely no need. The member’s done very well.

Todd Stephenson: What other announcements has he made regarding other regulatory sector reviews?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Last week, I announced the third sector review—following the second, which will report shortly, into the importation and regulation of agricultural and horticultural products. This third sector review I have to say some members of the Government who will remain nameless weren’t initially enthusiastic about or didn’t see the value in because it’s into the hairdresser and barber industry. The sector is regulated under the Health Act. What we’re going to be doing at the Ministry for Regulation is going into the salons and the barbershops of this country, and listening to people who are absolutely sick and tired of being overregulated. Once we hear what they say, just like we have with ECE, we’re going to get rid of the red tape that holds them back.

Question No. 12—Commerce and Consumer Affairs

12. JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What recent proposal has the Government announced regarding credit and debit card fees?

Hon ANDREW BAYLY (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Christmas is off to a fabulous start for Kiwis: I’m pleased to say that surcharges are about to be “sleighed”. The Commerce Commission has today released a draft proposal to significantly lower card fees. The commission estimates that Kiwi businesses and consumers will save $260 million every year. Even a Christmas grinch can get excited about the level of savings.

SPEAKER: Yeah, well, I’m struggling.

James Meager: What are interchange fees, and how have they been wrapped up in higher costs for consumers?

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: Interchange fees are the fees businesses pay to accept Visa and Mastercard transactions. These fees are typically passed on to consumers through higher prices or surcharges.

James Meager: What is the Minister’s expectation for these “Christmas come early” proposals for consumers?

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: It does not take three wise men to know that the existing card fees are confusing and painful for customers. That’s why I’m thrilled that the Government is delivering a Christmas gift of good cheer and lower prices. I’ve expressed to the commission the urgency of this work. I expect the commission to have finalised the new caps for card fees by mid-2025 so it can be implemented soon thereafter.

James Meager: How will this proposal benefit Kiwis?

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: To put it simply, lower fees mean businesses will have reduced operating costs and consumers will get more jingle for their jangle. Mr Speaker, I wish you and the House a very merry Christmas and happy New Year.

Motions

No Confidence in Speaker—Leave Declined

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Point of order. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to move members’ notice of motion No. 5 in my name—a motion of no confidence in the Speaker.

Hon Members: Grinch.

SPEAKER: Wait on! There’s a point of order in place. Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There appears to be objection.

Bills

Secondary Legislation Confirmation Bill

Second Reading

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): I move, That the Secondary Legislation Confirmation Bill be now read a second time.

This bill is an auspicious bill in the sense that it signals the beginning of the end of every parliamentary sitting year. And what can I say? Bring it on. Every year, we have to pass this bill to confirm legislation that would otherwise be revoked if not confirmed by Parliament. Can I just say, as I introduce the bill and make some brief remarks, we should probably do something about that. It’s always struck me as slightly strange that every year, at the tail-end of the parliamentary year, we have to come together at 3.05 p.m. on a Wednesday before Christmas, where everyone’s looking forward to the end of the year, and pass a piece of legislation just to confirm things. Anyway, it is what it is.

This relates to legislation made between 1 July 2023 and 30 June this year. It relates to seven Acts: the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act 1997, the Commodity Levies Act, the Customs and Excise Act, the Food Act, the Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001, the Social Security Act 2018, and the Tariff Act 1988—seven Acts. We have to confirm the commodity levies for kiwifruit, as well as those for mussels, oysters, and salmon. We may as well rename the bill the “Great Christmas Dinner Act 2025”. Sounds like a great meal—mussels, oysters, and salmon.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: God, that was worse than the sausages joke.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Ha, ha! Can I thank the Regulations Review Committee, and I see the chair is in the House, the Hon David Parker. I started my parliamentary career on the Regulations Review Committee. Maybe, sometime in the long distant future, I will complete my career on the Regulations Review Committee in a perfect piece of symmetry, by no means implying—“by no means implying”, he says, accidentally realising what he’s done—that the Hon David Parker’s career is coming to a circular end. It is a very good committee—underrated. I understand they went through the legislation from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, the Ministry for Primary Industries, the Ministry of Social Development, and Customs, and I want to thank the committee for their work.

I hope this won’t take up too much of the House’s time. It is, as they say, a relatively pro forma piece of legislation, and maybe one day in the future, we’ll change the law so we don’t have to do it. But that day is not now. We have to do it, otherwise these things will be extinct. I commend the bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): The Labour Party will be supporting this bill. This bill does perform an important function. There are levies that are imposed by regulation, some of which are in the nature of taxation. It is the remit of Parliament to impose those sorts of costs upon society, and, therefore, the regulations which bring them forward have to be confirmed by year end, otherwise they lapse. It doesn’t take a lot of parliamentary time, it doesn’t take a lot of select committee time, but it is an important check on the ability of the executive to increase the costs on society, the most important of which, probably most years, is adjusting the excise and excise duties, the equivalent duties, on alcoholic beverages and tobacco products. That should be done every year so that they keep pace with inflation and don’t decline in real terms. None the less, it should be confirmed by Parliament because it is in the nature of a tax. All of these instruments should be confirmed, which is why we’re supporting the legislation.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. In this case, we are not supporting this bill and made our concerns noted in the first reading. We do take the point that traditionally these bills have been relatively technical and non-controversial; we don’t think that this is the case, actually. We do think that the Government has used secondary legislation to update some things but also to advance a political agenda due to its inclusion of reduced excise for heated tobacco products in this bill, and we think that’s actually not the way to go. This has been well canvassed. Our communities have long had issues with the fact that the Government is doing this, particularly when we’re already seeing that in the bigger scheme and bigger picture of things, the health of our communities is being undermined and that public health overall, when it comes to issues around smoking, is being undermined. We don’t think that this is the way to go.

I also want to note the social security changes, particularly the changes that mean that benefits will now be changed to an index with the Consumers Price Index (CPI). That, actually, is also problematic because when we start adjusting things to CPI when it comes to benefits and relationship to the economic forecast that we have right now, those things will lead to lower increases to income support rather than if we adjusted those to wages, or whichever was higher, which is actually the Green Party’s preference when it comes to how we deal with some of these adjustments.

On the whole, like I said, while we acknowledge that, overall, a lot of these changes are necessary and technical in nature, there are components to this bill that we just simply cannot get behind. And, therefore, the Green Party won’t be commending this bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This bill is set down for third reading immediately.

Third Reading

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): I move, That the Secondary Legislation Confirmation Bill be now read a third time.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Secondary Legislation Confirmation Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 102

New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 15

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Appointments

Inspector-General of Defence

Hon CHRIS PENK (Associate Minister of Defence) on behalf of the Minister of Justice: I move, That, pursuant to section 7 of the Inspector-General of Defence Act 2023, this House recommends to Her Excellency the Governor-General the appointment of Brendan John Horsley as the Inspector-General of Defence for a term commencing on 26 January 2025 and ending on 30 November 2025.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, and Merry Christmas to you and all members of the House. The role of inspector-general was set up in response to the inquiry into Operation Burnham and related matters, which recommended independent oversight of the activities of the New Zealand Defence Force. The inspector-general’s functions and powers, as detailed in the Act, would enable the office to operate in a way that is consistent with the recommendations of the inquiry. The functions of the inspector-general are to investigate (1) incidents that have occurred in the course of activities of the Defence Force and any subsequent acts or omissions of the Defence Force in relation to those incidents, and (2) to assess and identify potential improvements or additions that the Defence Force policies and procedures governing the activities may make.

The inspector-general must have regard to the activities of other oversight bodies and is expected to consult and cooperate with other relevant people and agencies in the course of exercising the functions of the office. Those include the Secretary of Defence, the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, WorkSafe, the Human Rights Commissioner, and the Independent Police Conduct Authority. The inspector-general is appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the House of Representatives.

Mr Horsley has held the office of Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security since June 2020. In that role, he is responsible for overseeing the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service, SIS, and the Government Communications Security Bureau, GCSB, to ensure that they act with propriety and operate lawfully and effectively. He was the Deputy Solicitor-General, criminal group, at Crown Law from 2014 to 2020 and had responsibility for the professional leadership and supervision of the Crown prosecution network. He was also the first national director of the Public Defence Service in 2011 to 2014.

I am proposing that Mr Horsley concurrently hold the appointment as Inspector-General of Defence, in which capacity he will provide experienced and expert oversight of the role until I am in a position—or perhaps a ministerial colleague is in a position—to confirm a longer-term appointment. I anticipate that that will take place in late 2025.

In conclusion, colleagues of the House, Mr Horsley’s experience will be invaluable in overseeing the establishment of the new office.

SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I stand on behalf of the Labour Party to support and endorse the recommendation of the Government for this appointment. Mr Horsley brings significant experience to the role. As already mentioned by the Minister, his track record and his career speak for themselves, so we won’t labour the point too long other than to say that we support this appointment.

The Minister has also highlighted the pathway that has been trod by Operation Burnham and the significant hard work of a working group led by Lyn Provost to make sure that we can come to this point and make this appointment. I thank the Minister for explaining the process moving forward after having set the date for Mr Horsley’s appointment. We look forward to working with the Government on that particular appointment when that time comes.

We thank the Minister, we wish Mr Horsley all the best, and, on behalf of the Labour Party, we say to all of our New Zealand Defence Force personnel, current and former, all the best, merry Christmas, and happy New Year.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): I rise on behalf of the Greens to also support this motion appointing Mr Brendan John Horsley as the Inspector-General of Defence, noting, as others have noted—the two speakers before me, the Hon Chris Penk and the Hon Peeni Henare—that he has significant experience—for example, in his role within intelligence and security and other statutory bodies as well. He has been the Deputy Solicitor-General, director of the Public Defence Service for the Ministry of Justice, a member of the Commerce Commission’s litigation team, and a solicitor and Crown prosecutor. So he has significant experience there.

I just acknowledge the role that was established in response to the findings of Operation Burnham and the importance of those findings as well to make sure that we have parliamentary oversight and that there is ministerial responsibility in relation to defence matters. These things are incredibly, incredibly important. I would just like to highlight, for those listening at home as well, that there’s two essential functions, as I understand it: an investigation function with appropriate supporting powers to scrutinise in response to issues that have occurred; and an assessment function to assess processes, procedures, and policies, and identify gaps to prevent issues from occurring in the future. This is a good thing—transparency and accountability—and I join with others around the House wishing all the personnel in our defence forces a merry Christmas.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Broadcasting (Repeal of Advertising Restrictions) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed from 17 December.

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’m prepared to accept one. This is the process we’re going to follow: I’m going to put the question, I’m going to announce the result, and, at that stage, any member can ask for a personal vote. When we were debating this call, we were up to call No. 4—the ACT Party call.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Point of order, Madam Speaker. Thank you very much. Just to clarify the process: if a party chooses at the point when you call for a party vote, they could indicate a split vote at that point?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is my understanding.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.

LAURA McCLURE (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise in support of the Broadcasting (Repeal of Advertising Restrictions) Amendment Bill. It is the last day of Parliament, and I want to wish everybody in the House a really lovely, merry Christmas, and those viewers back at home. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a privilege to stand on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to the Broadcasting (Repeal of Advertising Restrictions) Amendment Bill. Thank you, Madam Speaker, for noting that this bill raises an issue of conscience and that a personal vote will be made, should people wish to do so, because, of course, for elected members, that personal vote provides a bit more freedom, in fact, to express the views of our constituents, the views of our communities that we represent.

New Zealand First stands on a conservative platform, keeping the best regulations and, in fact, avoiding the unintended consequences of deregulation. I’ll just go back to the time when the regulations in section 81 were made in the Broadcasting Act 1989—New Zealand has quite a strong Christian foundation; we have a history of it; we have heritage around Christian values. At the time, a boundary was drawn around carving out the days that are meaningful for religious observance, so having a personal vote is important. These boundaries that we draw around our working lives and our special celebrations are important, and we would be all the poorer without them.

In the last decade, we’ve seen a great migration in the way Kiwis engage in media. There’s been a migration from mainstream media to new, emerging media, a migration from traditional linear broadcasting to digital. However, there is some good news—there is a bright spot. Radio audiences have remained pretty stable. Now, the way advertising has shifted from traditional media to large global platforms—we’ve seen that migration. Digital advertising, now, is around $2 billion a year, with about $1.8 billion going offshore to big tech. This has had a massive implication on the mainstream media’s advertising revenue streams.

That shift in revenue to the global platforms means that media-business models are no longer viable. The old media that we grew up with is no longer able to operate and flourish under market forces. They need to find new ways of engaging the eyes and ears of New Zealanders, so these old media entities are in financial flux. The digital paradigm has completely flipped that media model on its head, and the legislation that applies to old media does not and cannot apply to big tech, which is situated offshore in Silicon Valley.

There is a reality that so far has evaded a workable arrangement by any nation, and this is a global problem that is being looked at. However, that issue now sits at the OECD level, and it’s not something that New Zealand is able to lead. What new media tends to do is extremely clever. These big tech giants use the connectivity, the fibre, and the internet—all that infrastructure—that was paid for by Government with our ultra-fast broadband roll-out investment. Also, we contribute to that as well by paying our monthly internet bills.

Now, until we find a satisfactory solution to our old media / new media dilemma, until that can be engineered, and until the question of trust in news is addressed and we return to more rigour in our journalism—and we are seeing some green shoots of that—the migration of audience from our old media to our new media will continue, and this is putting a strain on our mainstream media.

However, in terms of this bill, it’s extremely unlikely that relaxing advertising rules on Christmas Day, Good Friday, Easter Sunday, and Anzac Day morning will make the slightest difference to the difficulties overall that New Zealand media organisations are facing. Whilst the case may be able to be made that a little bit of revenue—it’s predicted about $6 million, inside this bill—might go and be generated for some of these media entities in a deregulated situation, a counter case can also be made that the same amount could be spent on either side of the days that are currently restricted.

In conclusion, I understand the media entities’ argument that this will level the playing field, but it’s the public and the audience that we need to hear, should this go to select committee. The repeal of section 81 will not necessarily make or break traditional media. There are those bigger factors at force, such as the influence of big global tech, which I spoke to earlier. Whether or not advertising on Christmas Day or even Easter Sunday will make a jot of difference is anybody’s guess. If this bill does go through to select committee, New Zealand First is very keen to hear from submitters. Thank you.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise in support of this first reading of the Broadcasting (Repeal of Advertising Restrictions) Amendment Bill and I look forward to it coming to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee. I heard, through another committee today, that it’s not just about revenue but about the ability to contract for other services that were previously limited because of this advertising restriction—for example, with the Cricket World Cup for TVNZ. I look forward to what this could do for the sector, and I commend the bill to the House.

REUBEN DAVIDSON (Labour—Christchurch East): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, it’s a real privilege to rise and take a call on this, the Broadcasting (Repeal of Advertising Restrictions) Amendment Bill, because I think you’d be hard pushed to find someone in this House who doesn’t agree that our local media sector is in crisis. The inaction to do anything about that is, ultimately, a threat to our democracy, because we’ve seen such rapid shifts, changes, and closures across our local media sector just this year.

I just want to take the time—and I think it’s important that we do, rather than rushing out the door—to acknowledge that, across this year, we’ve seen, starting at 28 February, Warner Bros. Discovery proposing to close Newshub; on 7 March, TVNZ announcing 68 job cuts, including the end of midday and late-night news bulletins, as well as programmes like Fair Go and Sunday; on 9 April, Newshub confirming their closure plans, which resulted in more than 200 job losses; and, on the same day, in relation to the 68 TVNZ cuts, then media Minister Melissa Lee is reported by Radio New Zealand as saying, “If only I were a magician.”

Well, on 24 April, Melissa Lee lost her role as Minister for broadcasting, and Paul Goldsmith was appointed Minister. Now, on 2 July, he put out a press release saying that the Government was taking action to support the media sector. Since then, Newshub closed down; TVNZ announced a further 50 jobs to save a further $30 million; Radio New Zealand reported that the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill is “in limbo and not ready.”; NZME announced plans to close 14 regional community newspapers before Christmas, resulting in a further 30 job losses for the media sector; and, this week—this week—the Minister for broadcasting wrote in and announced a repeal totalling 73 words. If he’d written a word a day, he could have done it in two months, not eight.

It’s a fact that there are more solutions between the biscuit tin and between legislation sitting, waiting, and wanting at the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee. There are more solutions sitting in those two places than there are coming from the Minister.

Now, the Minister wasn’t in the House last night to speak to the introduction of the bill, and we were surprised. He wasn’t at select committee this morning to hear from NZ On Air, to hear from RNZ, and to hear from TVNZ, and I thought: “This is how the industry feels.” They want engagement, they want to talk about the issues, and the Minister is simply missing in action. This is at a time when the largest and most powerful media companies to have ever existed have out-of-proportion influence over the local media content that New Zealanders can access.

This is a little bit like that scene from Austin Powers when Dr Evil proposes a hostage fee that is so not adjusted for inflation that he is laughed out of the room, because this repeal—at best—proposes an additional $6 million in ad revenue. Now, if you can find a single person in the media sector that agrees with that statement, I’ll buy them a round of drinks. And that round of drinks is actually what media commentators are suggesting this legislative change is, occurring eight months after Paul Goldsmith was appointed the Minister of broadcasting. about all it’s going to stack up to be.

This is a woeful, woeful, embarrassing bill. It shows a complete lack of engagement with the industry, a complete lack of understanding for exactly what is at stake with the losses that we are seeing across our media sector, and a blatant disregard for the threat to our democracy that the inaction from this Government to look after our local media presents.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): Mr Speaker, my apologies for the previous speaker, Reuben Davidson, who was wanting to be the Grinch that stole Christmas! It is actually a good day in this House—that we’re here debating the Broadcasting (Repeal of Advertising Restrictions) Amendment Bill—and it’s a good day because National will be supporting this bill through to select committee.

I just want to pick up on a couple of things that previous members have spoken about. Firstly, my colleague Minister Goldsmith is working very, very hard and diligently in this portfolio. He does have COVID, which is why he wasn’t able to be at the select committee, but let’s come back to the facts of the industry. The facts of the industry are that it has been under a huge amount of change, not just in the last couple of years, but since the iPhone, the media landscape has significantly changed. That member was part of a Government, and Labour had six years in which they were actually able to enact changes, and what did they do? They didn’t make any changes at all.

We inherited the media bargaining bill which is before the fantastic and hard-working Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, and we’re working through that, but let’s be under no illusion: the media bargaining bill is a very small solution to a much bigger challenge, which is the upending of the media business models, and it’s incumbent on the organisations in those sectors to innovate and create new business models that will enable them to sustain and create vibrant business models in the future.

As I said, that is one such component of this landscape, but we are here debating another important bill, and this bill, I think, does away with the restrictions that were in place, which may have made sense back in 1960s and 1970s New Zealand but, frankly, don’t make sense in a modern New Zealand and going forward, particularly with the upending of the media sector, as we’ve seen. I certainly want, and most of my colleagues I hope would agree, a country with fewer regulations, not more, and so we welcome this bill taking away the unnecessary burden that will enable these companies and those who wish to advertise on these days.

Just for those at home—those two people across New Zealand who are live streaming this speech at home—this bill will allow advertising on Anzac Day, on Sundays, on Christmas Day, Good Friday, and Easter Sunday. It is without further ado that I commend this bill to the House, but I do want to take the time to do two things. The first is to say that I look forward to hearing submissions on this bill as a member of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee. We’ve got other committee members here in the House, and this bill will get a fair hearing at that select committee.

Finally, I just wish to say a very special, merry Christmas to all those members from across the House, no matter which party you’re from. Thank you to the staff, who diligently work and serve this Parliament. Thank you to my team back in the Northcote electorate. Thank you to my colleagues. It’s been a wonderful year—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Why are you filibustering?

DAN BIDOIS: I’m not filibustering. This is the only time I’ve spoken in the House this week. This is my opportunity, Kieran McAnulty, to say some departing thoughts before I head back on to my flight to Auckland to spend Christmas with my family and my son, Noah. I’d like to wish you all a very special, merry Christmas. Take a good break and come back next year to work hard to get our country and our economy back on track. Thank you.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you. I would like to extend my Christmas greetings to everybody in the House, particularly Dan, who has a small baby. There are people in this House who’ve got small babies, and I would like to extend my absolute sympathy to you this Christmas! Ha, ha! It’s always an interesting situation when you’re exhausted and you’ve got that level of pressure on you, so kia kaha.

What I want to talk about is this bill. I want to talk about it in a wider context. The bill, unfortunately—I’m going to support the bill, but the bill is, basically, going to produce $6 million in an industry that is absolutely on its feet. I agree with my colleagues: this is an industry that is vital to our democracy. It is incredibly important that we have a thriving media and that it isn’t all about algorithms and social media. What we have done is we’ve left a playing field that’s very uneven between the two parts of that industry, and it’s really not a very good sign that this Parliament has not been able to get this moving faster or find solutions that are much wider.

We did have some good policy progressing, while we were in Government, and I urge the Government to look at its own view of that policy but also to accept, maybe for the first time, that not everything is something that you leave to the market, because this is what happens when you’re just totally hands off and there are no rules. What you have is big businesses actually ruling the roost and doing exactly what they want, because it’s a cowboy world. What we have is an industry of good people, who are dedicated and intelligent and want to do the best for our democracy and want to actually make sure that New Zealanders get what they need out of their media and who will help people to understand what’s going on in a very challenging world.

We are not helping that at the present time. We have got stuck because we now have a Government that is very committed to this idea for everything, “We’re just going to get rid of regulation. We’re going to get rid of rules.” Well, there’s a place for these things. It’s all about balance. I want to fix things too. I don’t want regulation for regulation’s sake, but this is a really good example of where leadership involves actually making some rules, making it fair for people, thinking about the contribution that people make to this community, and fostering it.

I would urge this Government to consider, pretty quickly, its responsibility to get a plan, because I accept there isn’t one at the present time that they are happy with, but they had better get a plan, because, actually, we’ve got a whole lot of people who are relying upon free and good media—quality media—in this country. We have people who are really wonderful at their jobs, who are using them hand over fist. They are not able to bring New Zealanders the news that they need, the culture that they need, and the information perspective they need, because we are not doing our job in this Parliament anymore. We are not finding new, creative, interesting, pragmatic solutions to the new problems that we face. Those problems may not have been there 20 years ago, and $6 million of advertising funding is not going to cut it; it’s simply not. I wish it was, but it’s not.

We have to rethink our politics and our world and become pragmatic, but we also have to drop an ideology that’s, perhaps, as old as the previous regulation or part of this legislation. It’s so old, it needs to be chucked out. We need a Government that’s prepared to lead. Please do so. The voters voted for you to do it. We are the Opposition, so all we can do is advocate for that to happen. Please do so. Pick up the mantle. Lead as you should. Merry Christmas.

TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): Mr Speaker, merry Christmas. I’m just reflecting on the speech we’ve just heard from Labour’s Helen White, and I’m contrasting it with what we heard from Labour’s Reuben Davidson and trying to work out where we stand here. On the one hand, we’re hearing, “We need to act. We need to do something. We need to take a step forward.” On the other hand, we’re hearing, “Don’t do anything. Don’t take a step forward.” We’re hearing, “This is terrible; it’s too much.”, and then we’re hearing, “It’s not enough.”

Let’s just boil this down to first principles. Let’s just think about what this is saying. This is taking a 1989 law which said we don’t want to have advertising on particular public holidays and on Sundays on free-to-air media. At the time, that was with an intent to preserve some of the more community, social content, which was considered non-commercial programming at the time. Of course, as we know, over the last 35 years, culture has evolved, programming has evolved, and media has evolved, but what hasn’t evolved is the legislation that walks hand in hand with that, and that’s why the change is needed.

I err more towards what Ms White was saying—that we actually need to do something. We need to take a step forward, and we need to think about what happens now. I remember growing up in the 1980s and the 1990s, and you’d set the VCR to record. There was always a war movie on on Christmas Day—don’t ask me why but there was—and you could record it with no adverts. It was fantastic. It was great. Now, that makes no sense to a lot of people out there—what’s a video, and why would you set it, and how did all this work?

The point is that media has evolved. In fact, we have a tradition in our family. Our Christmas movie is Top Gun. I went to watch it on Netflix the other day, and it wasn’t on, so I’ve introduced my daughter to Saving Private Ryan as a new Christmas movie. The point is that we now watch things on demand. I remember that when Dad was still around, at 5.50 p.m. every Christmas Day, he’d walk through to the lounge because we had to see the Queen’s message. These days, of course, it’s the King’s message. It was the only time and the only way you could watch it. Gran would be there with her brandy on the couch, and this is what would happen.

The point is that we have moved on from 1989, and so the legislation needs to now. Even if people want to watch TVNZ programming—and one of my other daughters and I love watching Taskmaster together, and we watch it on demand because life is busy and I don’t have a lot of time to sit around watching TV. When we can, we grab those moments, and we watch it on demand. If you want to watch the cricket highlights from the great test in Hamilton—and well done to the Black Caps; what a great victory it was to finish Tim Southee’s career—you watch it on demand. It’s all there. You can get the full replay.

Steve Abel: He doesn’t have figures like Tim Costley, though.

TIM COSTLEY: Oh, you’re a generous man, Steve Abel. The point is that we have moved on, and these offshore corporates are taking the advertising revenue that goes with programming. Why would we go and place what now seem like arbitrary rules on top of our free-to-air media, local media, New Zealand media? Why would we restrict them when not everyone else in the market is? Surely we believe in one rule for all. Surely that would be a guiding principle for what we do.

I am in support of a bill and a mechanism that applies that principle, which says, “Let’s put everyone on an equal playing field. Let’s give the Kiwis in media a chance. Let’s give them a chance to nudge forward so that we get some of that great Kiwi programming.” I take the point that it’s $6 million—but it’s $6 million. I tell you what: go and talk to those that work in this industry.

Today, in fact, this very day, is the final ever Kāpiti News publication, the last newspaper for the Kāpiti Coast. Friday will see the last ever Horowhenua Chronicle. Those are two great publications. Here are Kiwis in media who are directly impacted, ultimately, by the amount of advertising revenue that can keep Kiwi media afloat. Well, translate that to visual media, translate that to television, and translate that to programming and to advertising. This is why it makes a difference.

This might not be the panacea, the fix-all, for New Zealand media, but it makes a difference. It’s a logical thing. It puts everyone on an even playing field. It gives Kiwis a chance. It will, I hope, keep some more Kiwis employed. You can still watch the King’s message online. You can watch it delayed. You can watch it when you’re ready. You can go and find a great Christmas movie like Top Gun online. I’ll be doing that with my daughter this Christmas, but this bill is the right step forward.

Can I just take the last couple of seconds to wish everyone, particularly those in Ōtaki, Horowhenua, and Kāpiti, a merry Christmas. I am thinking of those who have lost their jobs with the closure of those two papers today. To everyone in the Ōtaki electorate, I say it’s a privilege to represent you. I look forward to a strong and productive 2025. Merry Christmas. I commend the bill to the House.

A personal vote was called for on the question, That the Broadcasting (Repeal of Advertising Restrictions) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 94

Noes 29

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana Marine Protection Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 117

New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 6

Te Pāti Māori 6.

Motion agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The question is, That the Broadcasting (Repeal of Advertising Restrictions) Amendment Bill be considered by the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee.

Bills

Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana Marine Protection Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 13 November.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): I call the next speaker, which was call No. 6, which is a split call for Te Pāti Māori.

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato): Tēnā rā koe e te Pīka, otirā tēnā rā tātou e te Whare. E tū ana ahau ki te waha i ngā kōrero mā Te Pāti Māori i te rangi nei.

Mōkau ki runga, Tāmaki ki raro, Mangatoatoa ki waenganui, ko Pare Hauraki, ko Pare Waikato, ko Te Kaokaoroa-o-Pātetere ki Te Nehenehenui.

E mua i taku tīmatanga o tēnei o ngā pire, ka tika me mihi ki ngā mana whenua o Hauraki whānui. Nōku te maringa i tae ā-tinana atu au ki tētehi o ngā marae i tērā wiki, arā ko Ngahutoitoi Marae. Ngāti Tara, Ngāti Tokanui, Ngāti Tāwhaki anō hoki, ngā hapū, ētehi o ngā hapū o Hauraki.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker, indeed greetings to all of us in the House. I stand to give voice to the statements on behalf of Te Pāti Māori today.

Mōkau to the south, Tāmaki in the north, Mangatoatoa in the centre, the Hauraki Plains, the Waikato basin, and Te Kaokaoroa-o-Pātetere to Te Nehenehenui.

Before I begin on this particular bill, it is appropriate to acknowledge those who hold the mana over the land in the greater Hauraki region. It was my good fortune to attend in person one of the marae last week—i.e., Ngahutoitoi Marae. Ngāti Tara, Ngāti Tokanui, and Ngāti Tāwhaki are the hapū, several of the hapū of Hauraki.]

I was privileged to be in Hauraki last week, as it is my electorate base in Hauraki-Waikato, and to meet with the mana whenua and meet with the local iwi marae within Hauraki. So nōku te maringa nui. [So it is my great honour.]

This bill seeks to contribute to the restoration of the health and mauri of the Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana. The bill introduces two new tools called high protection areas and seafloor protection areas.

Te Pāti Māori notes concerns from the Hauraki Gulf Forum, a statutory body responsible for promoting conservation management of the moana, and this statement by the forum’s co-chair Nicola MacDonald: “Years of collaboration with successive Governments with iwi, communities, and industries have been undermined.” Regarding existing Treaty settlement arrangements, we also note concerns raised by Te Ohu Kaimoana, which has opposed this bill in its current form, citing that the bill—I quote—“prohibits … and inappropriately imperils [those] customary rights … affirmed to Iwi/Māori, (and … poses a [significant] threat … to customary rights recognition and protection [across] all Aotearoa).”

We support the existing tools and arrangements currently utilised by the iwi, but they are often underutilised by central, regional, and local authorities. The Hauraki Māori Trust Board iwi management plan and other tools should be brought to bear upon any discussions regarding the restoration of taiao, including under the Fisheries Act.

Finally, in their recent submission to the Environment Committee on the bill, the Hauraki Māori Trust Board said—I quote—“The iwi of Hauraki, through many submissions to Parliament since 1869, have opposed attempts of Government to take greater control of Tīkapa Moana and placed limitations of the exercise of tino rangatiratanga over our taonga for the iwi of Hauraki. Tīkapa Moana is an integral part of the tribal territory over which our iwi exercises mana and tino rangatiratanga, which has never been extinguished or annihilated.”

Te Pāti Māori supports aspirations for the protection and restoration of Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana. Te Pāti Māori does not support efforts to undermine the protection and restoration of the moana, and while the bill may have started with the right intentions, it has landed in the wrong place. Therefore, Te Pāti Māori oppose this bill. Tēnā rā koe, e te Pīka.

STEVE ABEL (Green): Tīkapa Moana—the Hauraki Gulf—is one of Aotearoa’s most valued and loved coastal areas. It has sustained people, culture, and identity for generations. It is a taonga tuku iho—a treasure passed down through the generations. It once had flourishing shellfish, kūtai, and scallop beds over thousands of hectares which helped ensure that the water was clean and provided kai for all. It was a food basket. It contained some of the earliest areas settled by tangata whenua Māori. It is critically important to local iwi, and it is critically important to all New Zealanders; that’s why the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park was established 24 years ago.

We want to acknowledge the mahi of mana whenua, activists, organisers, and local community continuing to keep up the pressure to get us to where we are and how we must continue to fight to get this bill right, because, sadly, last month it was revealed the Government will be making last-minute changes to allow a type of fishing known as ring netting to take place in two of the new high protection areas—zones which had been explicitly designed to exclude both commercial and recreational fishing and provide a safe haven for marine life to recover. It is an affront to all of those who have advocated tirelessly for the gulf that this coalition have allowed themselves to be lobbied at the last minute by the fishing industry to allow fishing in high protection areas.

Sadly, this Government is pushing their exploitative regime into these high protection areas, into public conservation land, overriding water conservation orders and our outstanding natural landscapes through the Fast-track Approvals Act. Now, this high protection gulf agreement, which was a mark of multipartisan agreement on the need to protect this magnificent gulf, is under threat.

Marine protected areas are places where activities such as fishing and mining are limited. They are essential for ensuring marine species and habitats thrive. There is no reason that this bill needs to be amended to allow a handful of fishers to contribute to the 57 percent decline of key fish stocks in the gulf, a 67 percent decline in seaboard birds, and a 97 percent decline in whales and dolphins. Commercial fishers will still be able to operate in over 90 percent of the gulf outside the high protection areas. The Government’s most recent amendments will allow commercial fishing in 52 square kilometres of the gulf’s high protection areas. Aotearoa’s ocean protection remains pitiful, frankly, and this bill is one step—in its original inception—towards saving the gulf from the brink of ecological collapse.

Recognising customary rights by enabling authorised customary fishing to continue to occur in high protection areas, supporting Māori culture, knowledge, and learning as well as kaitiakitanga in the marine area—it was an unanimously supported bill at the Environment Committee. Many members on that side of the House spent months listening to the concerns and support of our communities. Can this Government not be bold enough to commit to the bare minimum of not allowing commercial fishing in areas explicitly designated for protection? Today should be a day of celebration, a celebration for the hard work of communities, but, sadly, New Zealand First have ruined what should have been a happy story for the National Party at the last minute by allowing Shane Jones to lobby the Minister of Conservation after he himself had been lobbied by the fishing industry. It is not too late, though, for the Government to follow through with actual protection and not put forward these damaging amendments.

The Department of Conservation advice said that changes would be incompatible with the purpose, will undermine biodiversity outcomes, and create significant equity issues. I urge the Minister of Conservation to reconsider. I urge the National Party to step up to your better instincts. This important and historic bill offers the best and perhaps the last chance to halt the decline of that taonga in the Hauraki Gulf—that magnificent thing that we should all treasure and we should all care for. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I had the privilege of chairing the Environment Committee towards the end of the select committee process into this piece of legislation. I wasn’t on the committee, nor did I chair it during a period of time when most of the submissions were being heard, but, as the member Steve Abel has just indicated, there were a lot of submissions, and that is an indication of how important the gulf is to so many New Zealanders.

It is the most intensively recreated piece of marine space in our entire exclusive economic zone, and it has been for decades deteriorating, and I’m sad to report that degradation continues today. Now, Steve Abel made the very good point that the Environment Committee reported back to this House unanimously in support of this legislation. Subsequent to that, there has been indication that Cabinet want to make a change to just two of the high protection areas to allow a small number of individually named fisherfolk—I think five or six. Now, we’ll have an opportunity during the committee of the whole House to discuss that potential change that may be introduced by the Minister.

Today is not the day for that debate, in my view, but I think it’s important just to remember the evolution of this bill and how it came to the House. It was in, literally, the dying days of the last Government that the bill was introduced and sent off to a select committee. At that stage, at first reading, the bill had unanimous support across the House, in the last Parliament. I thought that was a very good indication of intent and desire, cross-party, to improve the gulf, because what was being proposed was legislation that would see the protected area in the gulf—largely through a new concept of high protection area; a concept that has not been available to us in the past—go from a very meagre 0.3 percent to just 6 percent. That would be, undoubtedly, the largest attempt, or the most significant protection attempt in the history of the gulf. It was something that, personally, I was very proud of.

Is this piece of legislation perfect? No. Is this piece of legislation going to achieve everything for everyone? No. Is this piece of legislation going to keep commercial fishers happy? No. Is this piece of legislation going to keep recreational fishers happy? No. Is this piece of legislation better than nothing? Absolutely yes.

I think that we should, in the words of Raewyn Peart from the Environmental Defence Society, who is an acknowledged expert on the gulf and the history of the gulf—she’s said in a very good thoughtful piece that we should not in this Parliament let the perfect be the enemy of the good. It’s my desire and hope as the member for Coromandel, which encompasses a very big part of the gulf, that this House does pass this legislation.

I want to put on record that I am in favour of more protection, not less, and I know that there are many members of this House that share the same view that I have. The gulf is deteriorating; all the indicators, all the science, point in the wrong direction, and we have, I think, an obligation to make good and do the best we can while we have that opportunity, as members of this House.

Now, I also want to make it clear that at first reading I was concerned and suspicious and unsure what a high protection area might mean, particularly for recreational fishers that fish on the eastern seaboard of the Coromandel. I made my concerns and questions clear in my first reading speech but since then, the concept of high protection areas has been made clear. It’s a new type of reserve; it’s a new type of marine protection of the sort that, as I said before, we have not had an opportunity to implement. I think it’s worth a shot. I think it’s worth a try because, as I say, we do need to do a lot more to protect the gulf.

I think that, on this side of the House, we support this legislation. We’ll look forward to the debate in terms of the committee of the whole House, and it will be very interesting to see which members of Parliament—and for what reasons—support protection of the gulf and which do not. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Unusually, I don’t disagree with most of what the previous speaker, the Hon Scott Simpson, just said, and I wish the member for Coromandel a very merry Christmas. Look, this is a really important bill that many people have worked on for a very, very long time, and of course it represents a large area that is important to our largest city, but also the member’s constituents in the Coromandel, and further south in the electorate of one of the previous speakers as well, and, of course, further north.

I was very pleased, when I was the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries, to work with the then Minister for Conservation, the Hon Willow-Jean Prime, to get this into the House before the end of the last Parliament. In this term, I’ve been very happy to be part of the Environment Committee, making way for my conservation and oceans and fisheries spokespersons on that committee, but also spending a good amount of time with the submissions, and on a site visit as well, which was very useful indeed.

However, it is concerning that, whilst the select committee was unanimous in its support for the bill and in the discussions that we’ve heard about from the chair of the select committee, the Hon Scott Simpson, there wasn’t a New Zealand First member on the select committee, and somehow everything seems to have changed since the select committee reported back. We don’t know all the details of those changes yet. The chair of the select committee has said, “Well, we can have that debate during the committee of the whole House”. Of course he is correct: there can be a debate during the committee of the whole House, but whether or not questions are answered is a very different matter.

The member just said that there’s going to be individually named fisherfolk, and that these are going to be commercial fishers. We’ve heard from Ministers some ideas about how they’re going to be feeding people who can’t otherwise afford kaimoana, but nothing in the press releases that I’ve seen demonstrates how that will be done.

Of course, there could already be Amendment Papers in front of members so they can go away over the Christmas break and think about them, but there are none. When I last checked about an hour ago on the legislation website, there were no Amendment Papers explaining what the Minister’s intentions are. It’s very upsetting that this legislation could be turned on its head at this late stage and that the only opportunity for scrutiny of the benefit to private individuals—again, it appears—seems to be in a committee stage of the whole House. This a very dangerous precedent that this Government is getting into. We’ve seen it with the fast track last week, and then it seems like we’re going to see this with this bill when it’s in committee stage. I implore the House and the Government to not take that approach. If the changes are so important and if they are significant changes that are going to give benefits to individuals, then, at the very least, put it back through a select committee process. As I say, I don’t know what it’s going to be.

I want to again thank all the people who’ve been working for over a decade to protect this beautiful taonga, this important part of our ecology. We’ll leave it there.

MIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak in support of the Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana Marine Protection Bill, and I concur with others that have spoken on this. This has been a long time coming, it’s a major win for the environment, and it’s been multiple years in the making. It’s a major win as it’s about contributing to the restoration to the health of the gulf by establishing new marine reserves, seafloor protection areas, and high protection areas.

I would just take a moment to acknowledge all the submitters that submitted during the select committee process, and I would also acknowledge our fellow Environment Committee members as well as thanking the ministry advisers and committee staff for all of their hard work. In farming parlance, the gulf’s overgrazed and the best remedy is to shut the gate and let it recover—and this is what this bill seeks to do by creating 19 new protection areas. I commend it to the House.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Thank you for the call. Can I again express the Labour Party’s support for this second reading of the bill.

As others have said, there’s been a long, long history to this. Civil society action actually gave the impetus to break an impasse because Governments couldn’t seem to make progress, despite the fact that the Hauraki Gulf has been declining in quality for some decades, and the causes of that are well known. There’s both population pressures because the Hauraki Gulf is adjacent to New Zealand’s largest centre of population. There are land-use pressures coming down from the Firth of Thames—a huge sediment load from some of those rivers. The Piako River is—there’s an old post about 100 metres from the mouth of the river which marks where the mouth of the river used to be. That is the amount of accretion of land at the mouth of the river caused by sediment flows. There are complex issues that need to be resolved.

There are also very complex Māori issues relating to multiple overlapping iwi and hapū interests. The people who, from a parliamentary side, gave this a kick along were the Hon Eugenie Sage—the then Green Minister of Conservation—alongside the Hon Stuart Nash, who was the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries in the 2017 to 2020 period. They made significant progress with the non-Governmental group Sea Change, which was a collaborative process that brought the parties together and tried to chart a route through to protecting more of the gulf. Substantial parts of the gulf are already protected, but substantial parts aren’t.

This advances the protection through these new highly protected areas. I had a role in this for a couple of years as the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries and tried to advance it myself. As the Hon Rachel Brooking said, we are somewhat weary about the changes that are being made to allow more fishing in the highly protected areas. In respect of the reference that is made to people catching fish who need to catch fish to eat, I think we have to be careful that we don’t create different standards of access to the recreational fishery. That would be a big step in New Zealand that we’ve so far avoided and would lead to conflicts within communities that I think are best avoided.

That said, we do support the bill. I haven’t much to add except at the committee stage when we’ll be looking at the detail of these changes to the protected areas, which do worry me. Until we see them, we really can’t comment on them in detail.

KATIE NIMON (National—Napier): It’s a real pleasure to rise and speak on this bill. I have been on the Environment Committee, I was part of all the hearings, and I think it’s a really very nuanced issue as we did all vote unanimously.

We do feel very strongly that protection is required, but one thing of interest and of note is the variety of submissions that we heard, most of which we heard in Auckland, some of which we heard remotely. There is a lot of care for this area, but there are so many different people that are involved, and that was something that became very apparent to us through this process.

I do believe that we have come to a good place. I look forward to what we hear in committee stage and where we get to with this bill, and this is very good. I support this and commend it to the House.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Many members in the House today have discussed the importance of Tīkapa Moana—the Hauraki Gulf—to Tāmaki-makau-rau Auckland. I acknowledge the words and sentiments that have been shared in this House this afternoon on this particular bill. Everybody acknowledges the cultural, the economic, and the environmental contribution and value that this area really places not only for Auckland but for our country as a whole. We all agree that it needs protection, and, in fact, the terms that have been used are “high protection”—or one of my colleagues from across the other side said that he wanted more protection, not less.

I just don’t know how we reconcile that with what Aucklanders have called an absolute betrayal, when the Minister, Minister Potaka, added in commercial fishing at the eighth hour before the first reading. That has created a level of uncertainty. This is after decades of people advocating and campaigning to protect Tīkapa Moana, knowing that it needs this level of protection. To hear today in speeches as well that there’s still some uncertainty here about what will come next—whether that be for Māori, whether it be customary issues, whether we are discussing surprise amendments that may or may not come. I just really urge my colleagues in Government to step up to be incredibly responsible about the decision that you are making, moving forward, because high protection—high protection—does not include commercial fishing. It absolutely doesn’t.

I also call on my next-door neighbour, my friend and colleague the Minister Simon Watts. He has been an advocate over many years for the protection of this area. He understands how important Tīkapa Moana is to North Shore people and the level of support that we must provide to protect this area.

Labour introduced this bill. We got it off the ground. I was there on the day that Chris Hipkins announced it, alongside Rachel Brooking and Willow-Jean Prime and Helen White. We absolutely believe in this. We know it’s timely. We just don’t believe that it includes commercial fishing.

Without further ado, can I wish you a Merry Christmas. Meri Kirihimete ki a koutou katoa. Tēnā tātou.

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I take great pleasure to rise and speak in support of this bill. I do just note I do come from a landlocked electorate and I am speaking on marine protection, but I think kind of everybody in New Zealand appreciates the importance of protecting our marine space. Of course, this bill is a crucial step towards the safeguarding of the health of this invaluable ecosystem, which has suffered significant decline due to human activity over decades. It probably is one of the most populated recreational areas and, of course, we’re leading up to that Christmas period where we’ll be extremely busy and there’ll be a lot of pressure on the ecosystem of the gulf.

Now, this bill is the outcome of decades of work with input from a wide range of parties. It was a great privilege, as part of the Environment Committee, to actually hear from a lot of these communities and their views, and I appreciate not everybody’s going to be happy with this protection area—of course, some people want to continue fishing, others might not think we’re going far enough—but this is a very highly targeted way to protect our ecosystem.

We saw great evidence in the select committee about kina barrens and other things that are plaguing the gulf, and I think it’s really important that we can extend the protection of the gulf since so little of it is currently protected. This bill aims to rectify that, and it’s a great privilege to be part of the journey of this bill to make sure that we can have that protection. I think, really, the goal of this legislation is clear and that’s to kind of make sure that we can protect our biodiversity, ensuring targeted and appropriate management of our fisheries, and I think that’s really key clear.

Of course, it hasn’t been without its challenges. There have been some unique protection areas that we are putting forward here. But I just really want to thank the select committee for the work putting it through and also the officials from the Department of Conservation and also from the ministry of fisheries and their advice as we went through it.

We had a great time looking at the gulf and hearing from the local communities, and it was a great introduction for me in Parliament. This was the first bill we really considered in the Environment Committee, and so, therefore, I commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a second time.

Adjournment

Sittings of the House

Sittings of the House

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister) on behalf of the Leader of the House: I move, That the sitting programme for 2025 be:

January 28, 29, and 30;

February 11, 12, 13, 18, 19, and 20;

March 4, 5, 6, 11, 12, 13, 25, 26, and 27;

April 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, and 10;

May 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, 15, 20, 21, and 22;

June 3, 4, 5, 24, 25, and 26;

July 15, 16, 17, 22, 23, 24, 29, 30, and 31;

August 12, 13, 14, 19, 20, and 21;

September 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, and 18;

October 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 16, 21, 22, and 23;

November 4, 5, 6, 11, 12, 13, 18, 19, and 20;

December 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, and 18,

and the following dates are to be scrutiny weeks:

June 16, 17, 18, and 19;

December 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5,

As we close out the year here in Parliament, I want to thank everyone who makes this place work: our security team, Dignitary Protection Service (DPS), VIP drivers, messengers, Hansard, select committee staff, cleaners, Copperfields, library staff, IT, tour guides, travel, finance, and everyone in the Parliamentary Service, the Parliamentary Counsel Office, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Cabinet Office, and all of the private secretaries advising Ministers and drafting legislation. Thank you, and merry Christmas to you all, and I really hope you all have a fantastic summer with your loved ones.

Thank you also to everyone supporting us in our offices here at Parliament and all across the country. And I’d like to give a special thank you to Katja Kershaw from my own electorate office, who is finishing up after 13 years serving the people of Botany. Katja, can I say thank you for your support—thank you for your support of me and the community over so many years of service.

Can I just say to all the families and the partners of all of the MPs here in Parliament: merry Christmas. You make the sacrifices that allow each and every one of us to be here, and we want to say thank you to you.

Mr Speaker, can I say thank you for your very thoughtful and measured refereeing of this place—

SPEAKER: Yes, take your time.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: —and after the year that you’ve had, I know that Santa is not the only big jolly man with an extensive naughty list.

Now, to my colleagues across our Government, I want to say thank you to all of you for your hard work, for getting our country back on track. There’s no doubt about it: New Zealand has elected us to actually get on to the issues that they care deeply about, and that is rebuilding the economy to reduce the cost of living. It’s about restoring law and order to keep Kiwis safe. It’s about delivering better public services like health and education. Twelve months is a very, very short time, and yet so much has happened, because when it comes to the economy this year, Kiwis have seen inflation down to 2.2 percent, down from 7.3 percent; they’ve seen three interest rate cuts after 12 rises; their wages are rising faster than inflation for four quarters in a row, after 13 quarters of declining real wages; there is tax relief for 3.5 million New Zealanders for the first time in 14 years; and business, consumer, and farmer confidence is at its highest levels in recent times.

On the law and order front, we’ve had total victimisations down, after violent crime was up 33 percent and retail crime doubled. Gang patches are banned, ram raids are down 60 percent, and the foot patrols are up 30 percent.

In our schools, we’ve had an hour a day each of reading and writing and maths. Phones are banned from classrooms, we’ve got structured literacy and maths in place to teach our kids the basics brilliantly, and school attendance is up six points.

In health, we’ve invested a record $16.7 billion more. We’ve rolled out 26 new cancer treatments as part of 54 new medicines helping 175,000 Kiwis, and we’ve hired 2,900 more nurses.

Now, that’s a lot of progress represented by 160 actions in our quarterly action plans alone. We know, on this side, there’s a lot more for us to do, but we are incredibly ambitious for this country, and on this side of the House we are energised by the challenge ahead of us.

Now to my colleagues on the other side of the House. To the Leader of the Opposition, Chlöe Swarbrick—there actually is a comma between those two statements—Marama Davidson, Rawiri Waititi, Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, and everyone in the Opposition, I do want to wish you all the best for Christmas, and I hope that you have a safe and a happy time with your loved ones.

And to all of my haters over there who say I use too much management speak, well, I don’t know how I can be any clearer. What I would say to you is that we have some big goals to chunk down so that we can grip up the deliverables and benchmark our key performance indicator (KPI) targets, and I make no apologies for that.

Labour could do with some KPIs, because when they spend a year in Opposition ostensibly working on policy, the three things that they come up with are: (1) not joining a security agreement; (2) building a hospital that they’ve already failed to deliver and build; and (3) working up some new taxes that they’ve actually been talking about for over a decade. You’ve got to wonder what they are doing over there each and every day.

Now, if Labour was in charge of Santa’s workshop, I can tell you the elves would be charging consultants’ fees, the sleigh would cost $4 billion, and the reindeer would be working from home.

I have to say, the most troubling part of Chris Hipkins’ recent Labour conference must have been the flight back to Wellington—yup, first because he was pulled in for a check-in for excess luggage; in fact, six years of excess luggage he’s been carrying around. Then he was in the lounge and there was no room at Kieran McAnulty’s table for him, and he was turned away from David Parker’s. And you know what? Then, during the safety briefing, flight attendants had to intervene because he instinctively started blowing into the mouthpiece for more inflation.

We have also seen some interesting news from Te Pāti Māori over the last week. They have committed to pulling in $200 billion through a capital gains tax—or about half the size of the New Zealand economy. We don’t just have a Grinch who stole Christmas on our hands; we actually have a Grinch who’s actually stealing every Christmas three times over for the next 500 years.

Now, to my friends in the Green Party—Julie Anne, no need to get up. I saw recently that there’s a new Green MP that has a member’s bill to liberalise the use of parody, and I just think it’s just great—it’s just great—to see the Greens live those values by being a parody of themselves each and every single day. I have to say, if you folks weren’t so opposed to it, we would have happily—happily—added Darlene Tana’s resignation to our fast-track list.

To my friends in the media: can I just say thank you for always holding me to account and for always being so fair and balanced! I wish you a very happy and safe holiday—please do take as long as you need.

Now, back to the colleagues on this side of the House. Can I just thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his work out in the world this year, but also for providing some very good humour here at home in this seat next to me. And I have to say, I have appreciated the supplementary questions the Deputy Prime Minister often asks me, even though they’re sometimes, frankly, more difficult to answer than the Opposition’s. But, I guess, on the bright side, by the end of this parliamentary term, everyone in this House is really going to know a lot about Sir Apirana Ngata.

Shane Jones, he’s been mischievous this year, but we’ve worked out why—we’ve worked out why. He’s the first person to get on the naughty list so that he can get a lump of coal!

I saw a lovely headline. It was an absolutely lovely headline about David Seymour finding love, and while I know David and Winston’s working relationship has been stronger than so many predicted, to be honest, I did think it was still quite a bold description of their relationship.

Secret Santa with ACT this year was a disaster, though. They wouldn’t stop taking credit for every present. Sorry! But, seriously, to all my ACT colleagues, can I say merry Christmas and may your dinner tables be devoid of woke food!

Now, turning to my own National team, we have the aces in the places. To my deputy leader and the greatest finance Minister ever, Nicola Willis: the turn-around job you are tasked with is immense, and, frankly, there is no better person to execute it.

Chris Bishop—what a massive year. By the numbers: 149 fast-track projects, 700 long blacks, 50 park runs in the Hutt, and a beautiful brand new baby.

Dr Shane Reti, with the impeccable bedside manner that seems to soothe everyone except Ayesha Verrall.

Simeon “Roads, Roads, Roads” Brown—more than just his boyish good looks.

Erica Stanford—transforming our education system so we can give our kids the best possible chance for the future.

Paul Goldsmith and Mark Mitchell—making this country safer, delivering consequences for crime, and bringing the focus back to victims.

Louise Upston, who wants the very best for Kiwis and is therefore determined to get people off welfare and into work.

We’ve got Judith Collins—relentless for science and innovation, whether it’s AI, space, or gene technology.

Todd McClay—or “Trade McClay”, as I’ve been known to say—truly relentless in the pursuit of opportunities for Kiwi businesses abroad.

Tama Potaka—the man with shirts louder than Shane Jones’ interjections—you are doing an incredible job.

Matt Doocey, our very first Minister for Mental Health—and DPS thanks you for being my body double in Christchurch.

And Simon Watts, who is delivering net-zero six years earlier while still growing our economy.

I just want to acknowledge all of our Ministers outside Cabinet, our team of whips led by Scott Simpson, and all of our MPs: thank you for managing what’s been an incredibly large workload.

Can I just close by wishing every New Zealander a very merry Christmas. On a serious note, it truly is a great privilege to do this job. I get to talk to New Zealanders about their challenges and also their aspirations, and that makes me more determined to come back to this place to make sure we realise all the great potential in this fantastic country of ours.

I want to say, finally, to everyone that’s actually working in our hospitals, and our police, our lifesavers, our firefighters, thank you for the work you’re going to do over the summer keeping us safe. And can I say to everyone, merry Christmas and bring on 2025.

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition): The most revealing thing about that speech was who didn’t stand up for the Prime Minister’s contribution. I did see on Facebook this morning a very cruel meme that compared the Prime Minister to the captain of the Titanic, and I actually thought, “Hang on a minute, that’s really, really unfair. The captain of the Titanic had a ship, which this Government hasn’t. He also had a crew that were loyal and followed all of his instructions; this Prime Minister doesn’t have that either.”

I did think, if it wasn’t Titanic, what would an appropriate movie be for the symbol of this Government? And immediately, for some reason, that movie that I used to enjoy when I was much younger, Weekend at Bernie’s, sprung to mind! We have two men propping up this dead old guy and trying to pretend that he’s still alive. But then I decided that wasn’t actually appropriate for this Government, because it turns out the old guy is the one propping up the younger ones in this Government.

Then I thought maybe it could be that movie How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days, but the bad news for Nicola Willis and Chris Bishop is that he’s still here and doesn’t appear to be willing to give up just yet. The Terminator would be a good way of describing what Nicola Willis has done for the economy, but probably not a good description of the current Government. I thought maybe it’d be best to liken them to a cooking show, because first we had Lester Levy and now Nicola Willis, but I’m not so sure that that’s an appropriate analogy either. We could have “Dude, Where’s My Car Charger?”, because there doesn’t seem to be very many of those being delivered so far.

I actually think that, for a New Zealand Government, you need an iconic Kiwi film, and I thought a really iconic Kiwi film that kind of describes what this Government is doing is the good old Kiwi film Goodbye Pork Pie, because they seem to be doing to the country what that crew did to that Mini as it went through the country, flogging off bits here and there, ripping pieces off the car, and by the time it gets to the South Island, there’s not much left—although, in their case, they’ve got nothing to take the car to the South Island at this point, because the interisland ferries are barely operating.

There was a certain uncanny resemblance with a character in Austin Powers that shall not be mentioned, but, actually, I think the most appropriate movie to compare this Government to is Back to the Future, because that seems to be where they are taking the country.

Let’s catalogue the decisions they’ve taken this year, starting with the $2.9 billion tax cut they gave to landlords whilst cutting the support for first-home buyers; repealing smoke-free legislation while giving over $200 million in tax breaks to tobacco companies; cancelling the interisland ferries with no viable replacement strategy—I could spend the rest of my speech just talking about the various yoga positions the Government have demonstrated over the last week when it comes to their potential alternative; the Dunedin Hospital thrown into limbo by this Government; a hiring freeze in our health system when it is under so much pressure.

They promised they weren’t going to cut front-line services. How’s that working out for those front-line services that are having their funding cut, that have got hiring freezes in place, or in many cases are actually having to lose staff? How do the health workers who are being taken off medical duties to sit on reception desks feel about the promise of no cuts to front-line staff? They promised that they weren’t going to borrow for tax cuts. How’s that one working out for the Government’s accounts as the level of borrowing increases by the day? They forgot the cancer patients in this year’s Budget, one of the most reprehensible things this Government have done. And then, of course, there’s the way they treated the entire disability community.

When confronted with the reality of their cuts, their first decision was not to back down but to attack the people who care for those with disabilities and accuse them of rorting the system. They brought forward perhaps the most divisive debate on race relations this country has seen in a generation. They’ve seen record numbers of New Zealanders in this past year giving up and leaving the country. Remember when John Key stood in the Wellington stadium to decry Kiwis leaving? You’d need more than the Wellington stadium now; it simply would not be big enough.

They’re reviewing the gun laws bought in after the 15 March terrorist attack, and that’s after they cut support for all of those victims. They’ve made it clear—or they haven’t made it clear but everyone else has made it clear, including the Commissioner of Police—that they’re not going to hit their target for recruiting more police. They’ve changed the goal posts on child poverty reduction targets after it became clear they weren’t going to meet them. They promised to continue building State houses, in Opposition, and then they basically cut funding to build any new State houses. They got rid of free prescriptions, got rid of half-price public transport, got rid of free early childhood education for two-year-olds, cut the school lunches programme, cancelled school bus routes, cut $3 billion from climate funding.

The list could go on but, actually, the damage they’ve done to the building and construction industry deserves particular mention. I want to mention, as we head into Christmas, the 13,000 people in that industry who have lost their jobs in the last year because of the decisions of this Government: stopping State house builds, cancelling school upgrades, cancelling hospital upgrades, even putting roading projects on hold while they figure out what they want to do instead. All of that has ground the building and construction industry in New Zealand to a halt. But their priorities say everything, don’t they, because while they won’t build any more State houses, they’ll spend seven million bucks on a couple of new ministerial offices for their staff. Of course, then they’ve got their drivers tax. What happened to Nicola Willis’ problem of no new taxes? Oh, that sort of seemed to disappear pretty quickly, the drivers tax being one of the first ones.

Day by day, Kiwi see fees, levies, and other taxes being increased by this Government that said that it was going to reduce the cost of living pressures on Kiwi families. Then, of course, when of course we’ve got the lowest minimum wage increases in some time, less than the rate of inflation. But I guess that’s what you get from a Government that calls working New Zealanders “losers” and a Prime Minister that thinks that those on low incomes are “bottom feeders”.

They’ve cut the pay equity task force because they don’t think women should earn the same amount of pay as men for the same amount of work. There are 22,000 more New Zealanders on a jobseeker benefit under this Government. They said they’d prioritise the parent visa category in immigration. Nothing from them on that yet. They campaigned on bringing down rates and yet rates are increasing at record levels because of the decisions that they have taken.

They’ve walked the police back from being involved in family harm incidents, despite the fact that we know that’s one of the contributing factors to levels of violent crime in the community. Their boot camps have been an absolute failure, as everybody told them they were going to be. Remember Nicola Willis campaigning on the app tax and saying how horrible it was and how it’s going to crush the economy? Turns out that’s quite a good idea now that they’re in Government and they’re happy to claim the extra revenue from that.

The list is quite a long one, but I do want to spend the remaining two minutes that I have saying a genuine thanks to the people who keep this place operating.

To the Chamber and gallery staff, who do a fantastic job of keeping this place operating, and to our interpreters, the cleaners, the building team, the Bellamys and Copperfields staff, and to all of our security guards, a very, very warm thank you to all of you for everything that you do.

To the team at the Parliamentary Service, to those who work hard for all of us here on precinct and in our electorate offices who are often the front line for those accessing democratic services: a very warm thankyou to you, wherever you are in the country.

To the many volunteers and supporters that make our democracy tick, to the news media and the parliamentary press gallery who do a fantastic job of holding us all to account: thank you for all of your work. Then, finally to all of the whānau and families of all MPs—

Hon Shane Jones: Valedictory!

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: —who make huge sacrifices—well, his family makes a sacrifice every day just for being his family. To all of our families, who make enormous sacrifices for us to do the jobs that we do, a very warm thank you to all of you. I hope you get a fantastic Christmas break.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green): As we’ve just seen, these speeches are supposed to be light-hearted. Unfortunately, though, this Government leaves anyone with a heart feeling pretty bloody heavy.

What I remember from Sunday school is that the point of Christmas is supposed to be about love, but love is so abstract in this building. In fact, I’d say—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order, Mr Speaker. We are at the end of the year, and we’re headed for Christmas and there should not be a case where someone can get up and swear in this Parliament like we just heard.

SPEAKER: To be honest, there was so much noise going on I didn’t actually hear what the member said. All I could hear was something about Sunday school, which is not really going to line up with the idea that she’s swearing.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: What is the swear word that’s being accused?

SPEAKER: Well, you tell me. What did you say?

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: I can start the speech again if you’d like, Mr Speaker? Politicians file in here and use fancy words and actively distance the people that they say that they are supposed to represent. It makes people feel crazy, because it is crazy. I know that these end-of-year debates are supposed to contain a few good jabs and jokes. Political party leaders, as our Prime Minister aptly demonstrated, are handed speeches by their staff members to make us all sound a little bit funny and perhaps—maybe—like normal people. We come in here and we deliver them and we wait for the clock to tick over, and that’s that: the parliamentary year is over. The game shuts up shop.

But this game sucks. The people out there know it, and the people up there in the gallery and members of the media know it too. Right now, you win this political game not necessarily by improving society, not by doing what the evidence says will mean that people and planet are healthier. Right now, you win the rules of this game by getting the most media cut-through, by dominating the headlines, by saying the most outrageous—and, at times, offensive—things.

Now, there’s not a whole lot of time nor space for thorough consideration, for people to properly tease over the substance—or lack thereof—in the sound bites. There are so few instances where people in this House actually have to sit here and listen to each other. The last time that that happened was during the official abuse in State and faith-based care apology, where the Prime Minister apologised on behalf of all Governments who had come before for their hand in perpetuating the neglect and the torture of hundreds of thousands of people.

That same day, I got an email from Aaron Hendry, who runs Kick Back’s outreach service The Front Door, a project on Auckland Central’s Karangahape Road with the key aim of ending rangatahi homelessness. As the news notifications were dinging on Aaron’s phone about the official apology, he was working to try and house two State care - experienced and State care - neglected young people. While the Prime Minister made promises in here about how those horrors will never happen again, out there in the real world, his Government’s decisions to limit access to emergency housing meant that two young people were sleeping rough on the street. I don’t have anything funny to say about that.

Children are homeless because of the decisions that are made in this place. Prime Minister, I frankly do not understand. I don’t understand why your Government has knowingly and actively made choices to put more kids in poverty and to pour fuel on the climate crisis fire. Prime Minister, your Government tells us that your top priority is economic growth and prosperity. But your very own Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update released yesterday showed us that your Government’s decision to mercilessly cut public spending is actively deteriorating that growth and that productivity that you say that you care about.

This Government tells us that it’s all about the economy, while threatening the vital ecosystems that underpin life as we know it. Where do you think that economy comes from? The Government is making more people unemployed, then punching down on those beneficiaries. The Government tells us that it cares about localism, then it strips away local decision-making. The Government is enabling mining in conservation land and commercial fishing in high protection areas. Where I come from, words mean things. But in this place, you cannot say that somebody is lying if they are lying. In this place, you cannot say that something is racist if it is racist. We can get up here at the end of the year and we can make jokes, but we cannot call a spade a spade.

But, at times, we have rare moments of clarity, where daily politics is put aside and something bigger than all of us is pulled into sharp focus. Unfortunately, a lot of times this year that has looked like tragedy and we have had our fair share of that this year. I am here without my friend and co-leader, the Hon Marama Davidson, who is in the middle of cancer treatment. I have never met a stronger person—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Six minutes to get to Marama.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: —and Marama demonstrates that strength through love and through service, Mr Deputy Prime Minister.

The day after Valentine’s Day, Faʻanānā Efeso Collins stood in this Chamber—actually directly from this seat—and he declared that there is a saying in Samoan: “E le tu fa’amauga se tagata.”—“No one stands alone, no one succeeds alone,” and, for me, no one suffers alone. Just a week later, the utter devastating shock as we lost him. Efeso passed as he had lived, actively serving our communities, literally in the middle of a charity run. I want to acknowledge members across the House, particularly our friends in Labour and Te Pāti Māori, for the aroha that you wrapped around us that day and in those following weeks. We will never forget that.

This year, our nation also lost our Kiingi, Tuheitia Pōtatau Te Wherowhero VII. Kiingi taught me that ignorance is not a reason to be fearful but an invitation to learn and to participate; that kotahitanga requires all of us—all of us—not to run away from discomfort but to sort through it and to sit with the mess of our humanity and our experiences and our trauma to find our shared strength.

Just this past month, we lost the Hon Nikki Kaye. She was respected across this House because she stood so strongly for things—she even crossed the floor to do that. Some things, she knew, were far, far bigger than partisan politicking. Politics does not have to be this cynical game. Politics can and should be about regular people working together to solve the big issues.

Prime Minister, your Government has a multibillion-dollar revenue problem, but your Government has painted itself into the corner with promises to not fix the tax system that you know, personally as well as politically, rewards property speculation and robs us of investment necessary in our infrastructure. There is not a reputable economist in this country who would argue against a capital gains tax—so do it.

Prime Minister, you yourself have acknowledged that your Government’s decisions have inflamed race relations in this country—so stop it. Prime Minister, during the election you said that the policies of one of your new coalition parties targeting the rainbow community were “on another planet”, but those same policies now underpin your coalition agreements. And your support on the Treaty principles bill didn’t even cost your coalition partner a bottom line.

Mr Prime Minister, has selling out on everything that matters been worth it for the price of power? If the estimated 100,000 people that this Government has managed to mobilise against their attacks on Te Tiriti o Waitangi tell us anything, it is that your power, Mr Prime Minister, will be fleeting. Despite the coalition’s best attempts to divide and conquer this country, I have never seen the people more unified to uphold our founding agreement. People understand that Te Tiriti o Waitangi protects all of us; that it is a shield against giant multinational corporations exploiting Aotearoa; the final safeguard against unfettered greed; but more than that, our guidebook to a fair, just, peaceful today and tomorrow.

In the coming year, as more and more people twig to the fact that they are not crazy but that this system is, we will continue to see the growing power of people. Activists will grow into organisers. Organisers will channel that energy into redistributing power and knowledge and resources. Democracy will work as it should for the people, by the people.

We want to acknowledge and thank the people behind the scenes who make this place work: the cleaners, security, the Office of the Clerk and the House Office, the library researchers, maintenance team, IST, payroll, HR, Copperfields, and everyone in the Green Party parliamentary team. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I bring you good news and bad news. The good news is that my staff are far too busy to write a speech full of jokes. The bad news is I’m going to do them off the cuff. I’m a little indignant to say that this is my 11th adjournment debate speech. I’ve been here so long I can remember when Chlöe Swarbrick was actually fun. I can even remember when she talked about the environment, unlike that speech which made no reference to it whatsoever.

I never forget in these speeches to thank the many people who make this place work: those in Copperfields, those who do the cleaning, the messengers, the librarians, and the security guards, who have a tougher and tougher job as years go on. We are so fortunate to be served by a group of people, including our Clerk, who are completely committed to upholding the integrity of this House and its principles.

I want to also thank those who work in my office, the offices of ACT MPs, and Government Ministers right across the parliamentary precinct for their wonderful service, including our extraordinary teams in the electorate offices of Epsom and Tāmaki. We could not do it without you.

I want to thank those in the parliamentary press gallery who are doing their job well and giving the Government a good run—there we go; we got that over quickly. [Interruption] Yeah, tell them it’s a joke, just in case.

I also want to thank those people who sit around me as my colleagues. The people in the ACT caucus are an extraordinary group of people who come to this place with a set of beliefs that are not the usual politics—that we will take someone else’s money and give it to them or make some rules that will restrict someone else’s freedom. They come here to stand for something that is more abstract and in some ways more simple, and that is human freedom, even though it so often runs against every principle of politics of “what’s in it for me?” And I’m so fortunate to sit with a group of like-minded MPs who stand for those principles.

I’m also grateful to our coalition partners. It’s been a pleasure to work with Christopher Luxon as the National leader and Prime Minister, although I’ve got to say, Chris, you said that it was a little bit difficult playing Secret Santa because ACT claimed the credit for every present. Now, let’s just clear this up. You see, I actually thought it was a game of pass the parcel because there seemed to be a layer of blue wrapping over all the pink wrapping that we’d been trying to give the public.

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: See—off the cuff, brother. I also want to thank my two fellow Northlanders Winston Peters and Shane Jones for their collegiality, working through a range of issues and making sure that this Government is dangerously united, dangerous to all our partners who thought it would be so easy. What I can see is an Opposition that is still going through the stages of grief. Man, they pick some tiny issues—tiny minds, tiny people, and tiny issues—while we’re dealing to the serious issues that New Zealand has faced, from this side of the House.

I’m particularly pleased to see that New Zealanders will go into this Christmas with a little bit of hope. Because for far too long, it wasn’t just the fact that the Government spent too much money. It wasn’t just the fact that inflation was going up. It wasn’t just the fact that interest rates were rising and it was so hard to make ends meet. All of those things were true, but there was something much worse. There was a pervasive sense that they had a Government of “Hakuna matata”, who thought that it was all going to be OK. It means no worries for the rest of your days. Well, that’s the truth but it wasn’t the reality for anyone else. It was only the truth for that Government.

The real hope comes from having a Government that understands that there is no magic money tree at the bottom of the garden and that the only way we’re going to make this country a success is to unleash the ability of each and every New Zealander to succeed on their own terms. Only when people are recognised as thinking and valuing beings with the opportunity to make the most of their future will we be able to succeed as a nation. That’s what this Government believes.

I look at some of my colleagues. Many have been mentioned already. I look at the work that Brooke van Velden is doing, the youngest Cabinet Minister in 40 years and taking to it like a duck to water, going out and listening to people about health and safety for three months so she is formulating policy informed by the experiences of everyday New Zealanders. I have to say it’s been a bit of a surprise for some of the public servants to get out there and do it, but we’re making policy in a different and better way. And that’s before you get to the fact that we’ve had a small minimum wage increase. Our minimum wage is one of the highest in the developed world—I think it’s the fifth highest—compared with the median wage, and yet that cost is put on to so many small businesses. Finally, they’re seeing relief. And Brooke van Velden tells them it’s five months before it comes in. She told them this year, not next year, so they can be prepared. And that’s before you get to ending the personal grievance culture in our workplaces that stops productivity and holds back people that are trying to make that difference in their own lives.

I look at Nicole McKee, what she’s doing with anti - money-laundering, and simplifying one of the greatest problems that people come to us with when it when it comes to red tape and regulation. And she’s making the courts go faster, because justice delayed is justice denied. And she’s finally bringing justice to those licensed firearm owners who were vilified by the previous Government totally undeservingly and completely ineffectively.

I look at Andrew Hoggard. Isn’t it great to have a real farmer in Parliament? And I can tell you, without breaking too much confidentiality, the number of times in Cabinet committee discussions that Andrew Hoggard’s said, “Well, I can tell you how to run a farm.” He always comes out with pearls of wisdom that are of value to the Government. Having people like that in Government is hugely important to the quality of policy—that we’re able to wait in terms of significant natural areas, with split gas approaches to methane, getting rid of farm environment plans and upgrading the Resource Management Act, so you can actually do something in this county and actually build some wealth.

I look at Karen Chhour. Karen Chhour could make more excuses than anybody else in this Parliament, I dare say, but she makes none. She gets up and she changes the world to make it better for the next generation instead of one unending victimhood whine, as if this is just like bad weather and we can’t make tomorrow better than today. That is what Karen Chhour is doing, and that is why she annoys the left so much—because they know it’s true. They know it’s true.

Then there’s Simon Court. His assistance to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform, in respect of replacing the Resource Management Act and that campaign with a regime based on property rights, has more potential to unleash this country and its resources and its wealth than perhaps anything else the Government is doing.

I was so proud of launching seven charter schools—among other things I have done myself—up and down New Zealand, from all different cultural backgrounds, with so many different pedagogical approaches, but what they all have in common is that we are connecting communities with children and opportunity to do things better. We know what we’re doing is not working. People that continue to defend the system on behalf of the unions need to get with the programme. Children deserve an education in the way that works for them, and that is what charter schools, among many other Government policies, are delivering.

Perhaps this year will be known for being the year that ACT put on the agenda an issue that nobody else wanted to talk about, except for the overwhelming majority of the New Zealand public, and that is the simple question: what does our founding document really mean? Does it mean that we are a combination of two collectives where for ever and a day we’ll be recognised based on who our ancestry was and given rights based on our ancestry? Or are we indeed a liberal, democratic society filled with thinking and valuing individuals who are able to make the most of their time on Earth without discrimination, without being categorised, boxed in, or called something because of who their ancestors were?

That is our dream—a dream of a country filled with thinking and valuing individuals who each have that right to use their time on Earth to make the most of their life, to make the greatest difference they can for themselves and those they care about without having to suffer through other people’s beliefs or prejudices, as long as they’re not harming anyone else. Only when we realise that dream, can we overcome the very real problem that so many of us face, from education, to economics, to health, or the economy.

Mr Speaker, I wish you a very happy Christmas, and thank you to everyone for your great work in 2024.

SPEAKER: That will be the last time we have that soccer hooligan - type counting. I call the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister): Well, what a bunch of copycats! Can’t even think originally.

We’d like to begin with a special acknowledgment to the many hard-working, often forgotten staff that keep the Parliament going. Thank you especially to the cleaners, security, Parliament and Beehive staff, Hansard staff, and others who work within the House, library staff, and, of course, thank you, Mr Speaker.

New Zealand First has had an extraordinarily good year in Government alongside our coalition partners, National and ACT, and we thank them both for it. Coalitions are not easy, but you shake hands and try to make things work, and we’re doing extraordinary well.

We inherited an economy that was far worse than Treasury ever knew, and they should have known it. Some members there do, but the rest are trying to deny it. Now, what was extraordinary today, of course, was Mr Hipkins couldn’t go the full distance. The bell rang a warning for a minute to go, and he sat down. And then, of course, Chlöe got up. Chlöe got up because she thought she was in Hollywood, and she began to swear—at the very beginning; it’s all in the Hansard—and then she gave us all the evidence why—

Hon Willie Jackson: Hop off your notes, Winston.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, these are just little handwritten notes I put down there, Willie. Unlike you, I can write my own speeches.

Then she gave us all the evidence of why for 54 years, since the Values Party in 1972, they have been waiting to get in a Cabinet—54 years and they’ve never been inside Cabinet. Now, you got to say their high point came this year. You watch the next election, and that goes for Te Pāti Māori sitting on the left-hand side of them as well.

Rawiri Waititi: You’re going down. You’re going down.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh no, no. Listen, sunshine, I’ll be around long after you’ve gone because nobody wants the “Midnight Cowboy” any more. We came back because we were on a mission to take back our country, and we packed out the rooms in this country during the year. And, at our conference, we had over 900 people listening to our convention speech—900. And we didn’t go and defraud the Charities Act, we didn’t defraud the electoral system—all of which is coming for you, sunshine, next year. You’re not getting away with breaking the laws of this country, even if some authorities think they can help you. So stand back and watch. When you declare war on us, you get a reply that’s coming next year. So you have a good Christmas, because you’ll need it, sunshine—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Slow down the commentary.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —and your big, loud mouth is not going to help you any longer.

He’s got some idea that if he opens his mouth and lets the wind blow his tongue around, he’s going to make some sense. Unbelievable. Never seen the likes of it.

Māori have been coming here since 1867, and since 1867, those Māori leaders have all respected this Parliament, and up turns this crowd over here—so arrogant, so much in rebuttal of all the past respect. And here he is. He can’t even shut his mouth for five minutes.

Rawiri Waititi: No kūmaras for you!

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Look, we know what you are—we know what you are—and your supporters will know even better. Of course, now in the leadership of Māoridom, they are starting to question the very privilege of Te Pāti Māori. Out there where the real Māori work two and three jobs a day, they are sick and tired of people like that.

Back to my point: we came back to stop the division and the separatism, and what they hate over there is that, for the first time, they’ve been confronted. They’re being confronted by a party that’s got a record win for Māori, a record they can speak about for day after day after day, and they can’t show me one thing they have ever done for the Māori people. Not one.

Rawiri Waititi: Sunset.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, tell me what it is.

Rawiri Waititi: Sunset—100,000 turned up here the other week. Did you see them? Did you hear them?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Tell me what you’ve done for Māori—not a word, not a mutter, not a syllable, not a sound. All bulldust. Mr Speaker, I’m enjoying this.

SPEAKER: I know you are, but I’m not.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: As Elvis sang, “If you’re looking for trouble, you’ve come to the right place.” We’re going to expose you for what you are. This party is a party of frauds. They’ve broken the Electoral Act, they’ve broken the Charities Act, they’ve made tens of millions on the backs of their people, and, now, out there in the Māori land in Northland in particular and in Auckland, Māori are asking: “How come they made $60 million, and it’s all in somebody’s pockets?”

Now, can I ask you this question: why doesn’t your party chairman practise law? Let’s start. He declared war upon us, and do you know why he doesn’t practise law? Because he got convicted of forging and uttering, and he was told, “You’ll get off, but don’t ever apply for a licence to practise law.” People don’t know that. You’re hearing it for the first time. Well, Judith Collins knows, and I know. But you tell your leader that when you declare war on a party called New Zealand First, there’s going to be repercussions.

SPEAKER: Just hold on—hold on.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: He can’t shut his mouth. He’s got away with it all this time. He’s got a famous name. Every time he does it, I regret that he’s just spoiled that name. People like Ngata, Pomare, Buck have got nothing to do with him. He thinks he’s a genius; self-made man and all that. He’s in this Parliament and he’s wasting our time. He’s got a contempt for this place. The standards of this Parliament have been dramatically deteriorated because of Te Pāti Māori. They come in there, sometimes in bare feet, no respect for the institution, no respect for their colleagues. And you think you’re going to get away with it—no. Māori people will take you out of this place because they, more than anyone I know, when they go on the marae, they respect the traditions. Every serious Māori I know respects the traditions, and this is the marae for Parliament and for the whole country. [Interruption] And there they go, all talking at once—all talking at once.

The next thing is—you know something?—we’ve been overseas about 112 days this year, but I’ve spent more time in Parliament than all those put together. I’ve been overseas 112 days, but I’ve spent more of them in Parliament than all of those Te Pāti Māori all together. What a disgrace—lazy, idle.

Rawiri Waititi: Oh, did you find something—did you find something?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: And here he goes—he’s still talking. You know something? We expect, when we come here, to serve people. The people are, after all, our masters. They expect certain standards, not the kind of behaviour we see over here where they don’t even turn up at Parliament, don’t even turn up at select committees, don’t even do their jobs properly and they’re getting away with it.

Now, Labour knows that. There are a whole lot of hard-working people in Labour that must be tearing their hair out because they’re being dragged down by that party over there and they know that if they’ve got any hope in the future, they’re going to have to get rid of them. Now, you know that, don’t you? I can feel it. Oh yes, you do. You must be waking in bed at night trying to think, “How on earth can we get rid of these people over there to ever make it back here?” A very famous song was sung by a guy called Andy Williams. The song’s called “Lonely Street”. And I kind of think you guys better start listening because all the words are feeling where you’re going. You’re going to have to find a place somewhere where somebody is feeling like you because “Lonely Street” is where you’re going—and they deserve to.

The fact of the matter is, it’s been astonishing recently the number of senior Māori—iwi chiefs and leaders—who on the quiet are ringing up and saying, “Can we see you privately?” It’s true. I’ve had that feeling before, Willie. It used to be your mother. She’d call up: “Winston, can I see you privately?” She knew that the best way of getting the job done was to come to the party where we’re not all talk, we’re all action.

Hon Willie Jackson: Point of order. I—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, you won’t speak till the House goes quiet for a point of order.

Hon Willie Jackson: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Just wait till I call you. Point of order, Willie Jackson.

Hon Willie Jackson: Thank you very much. Look, I don’t like to interrupt people—he’s very much on target today—but I don’t think my mother should be brought into the debate. I know that the Minister had a relationship with my mother—a good relationship—but I don’t think she should be brought into the debate. I take personal offence at that, and I’d ask the Minister to apologise.

SPEAKER: Well, I’d just make the comment—

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I’m very willing to apologise.

SPEAKER: Hang on, I haven’t called you either. Hang on—I’m allowed to respond to his point of order.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, he asked for an apology and I’m giving it. It’s a matter of time here.

SPEAKER: No, but hang on, this is how it works, right? Everyone in here speaks through the Speaker. I know it’s an odd concept; it’s certainly been laid to one side in recent times, but that’s how it works. I just want to say, I also knew your mother. She was a very fine woman, and I don’t think that what Mr Peters was saying was in any way impeding on her integrity; I want to make that point from the Chair. The Rt Hon Winston Peters, the member has taken offence. Would he like to make a comment?

Hon Willie Jackson: Just speaking to the point of order.

SPEAKER: Well, no, you’ve made the point of order.

Hon Willie Jackson: I’ve made my point of order, but you haven’t asked the Minister to apologise.

SPEAKER: I’m just doing it now.

Hon Willie Jackson: Oh, no, but you intervened on that.

SPEAKER: I’ll tell you what, it would help if you kept up with what’s going on.

Hon Willie Jackson: You’re not going to ask me to apologise are you, Mr Speaker?

SPEAKER: Beg your pardon?

Hon Willie Jackson: You’re not going to ask me to apologise, are you?

SPEAKER: Well, if you like, go for it, yeah. No, look, sorry, this is getting ridiculous. I have just asked the Rt Hon Winston Peters to respond to your concern.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I have no difficulty in withdrawing and apologising. I didn’t mean any offence at all. I just happened to admire someone who used to do projects because she understood who in Parliament might help her get the job done. But if that causes offence, well, I’m apologising, I’m very, very sorry.

The reality of it is, of course, that here we are going into 2025 in a terrible shape as an economy, not because of anything we’ve done but because of what we inherited and, worse still, the lack of understanding in 2023 of just how bad that economy was. I’ve seen times like that in the past. I can remember David Caygill as the finance Minister. He reported in 1990 a $89 million surplus, and it ended up a $3.2 billion deficit. That sort of forecasting won’t do any longer. And I can say without being immodest, so to speak, one party set it out last year that we’re in a far, far worse situation. It’s horrifying to be proven right—horrifying to be proven right.

Can I just say to all my colleagues over here on this side, I think we’ve done a very good job in the last 12 months, and it hasn’t been easy at all. What’s not been so easy at all is how quickly certain people up there have forgiven the people who in the last three years took this country right off the rails, and the fact that they don’t actually publish the facts, so to speak. Or, worse still, that you’re in Parliament, and all of a sudden in December they discover there’s a party called New Zealand First and a leader called Winston Peters. I’ve been on Morning Report more times in this last two weeks than in the whole year, and as for Checkpoint—never been asked once. I don’t think I’ve been on for four years.

But I’m not going to worry about that because the reality is we’ve got a bunch of very bright young people, who’ve got that on social media. And, I’ll tell you what, they know that we can say to you to hang on because help’s on its way.

SPEAKER: I call Rawiri Waititi. [ACT member stumbles while exiting Chamber]

Hon Member: Rawiri, did you push him? Don’t push him.

RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): I didn’t push him; maybe one of my tīpuna did. And just listening to that “tipuna” over there, I’ve got one word to say: ka aroha—ka aroha [how sad—how sad]. E kai i ō rongoa, e koro. [Take your medicine, old man.]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, tēnei rā te mihi atu rā ki a koe. E mihi atu rā ki ngā kaimahi katoa o tēnei Whare. E mihi atu rā ki ngā kaiwhakahaere i roto i ngā mahi katoa kia tarea anō hoki e tātou te whakatutuki i ngā mahi. Koutou kei roto i tēnei Whare, e ōku hoa i roto i ngā mahinga katoa, nei rā te mihi atu rā ki a koutou i tēnei rā.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker, I thank you. I would like to acknowledge all of the staff of this House. I acknowledge the managers within each respective department that enable us to do our work. You who are in this House, my friends within every undertaking, I would like to acknowledge all of you today.]

The year 2024 has been a hard year for our people. The actions of this Government have attacked te iwi Māori on all fronts. However, unlike any of the decisions made by this Government this year, Te Pāti Māori have consistently remained mokopuna-focused, so today I would like to speak to our mokopuna—sorry, Mr Peters, you are well out of that group that I am addressing now.

Nō reira kei aku mokopuna [And so to my grandchildren], in the House this year, they debated your past, your tīpuna, your whakapapa, and the tapu of Te Tiriti o Waitangi was challenged by those that had no mana to do so. In the House this year, they debated our present, removing the current mahi progressing Aotearoa forward and continuing to undermine Te Tiriti while subjecting us to harsh realities of a Government that only supports the rich. In the House, they debated your future, the future of your language, your whenua, your oranga, your descendants, and your rights as tangata whenua.

But all was not lost. This House forgot their place, which has no mana to rewrite ours. This House forgot we have come too far as a country to sit back as they attack our mana motuhake. We took to the streets in our thousands. Ultimately, the House forgot the power of the people, so this was the year of kotahitanga. I want to mihi to all of our people—tangata whenua, tangata moana, tangata Tiriti—who rose above the attacks of this Government because they know the Aotearoa we want our mokopuna to inherit.

As I stand here, I want to tell our mokopuna about the many people who stood up to protect their whakapapa, who stood shoulder to shoulder to unite on a hīkoi from both ends of Aotearoa that saw 100,000 of our people converge on the lawns of this very Parliament. We may be the minority in Parliament, but our movement is the majority across Aotearoa. Toitū te Tiriti.

I want to tell our mokopuna about the many whānau who marched for you: our working class whānau and public servants who marched that were made redundant, that were forced to sit in a space of job insecurity and had benefits removed while Government offered tax cuts to the rich. Our tangata hauā, our whānau with disabilities and health issues who use their voices because the health system continues to fail our most vulnerable communities.

Our gang whānau who marched with their patches—they now are policed by the very system that persecutes them every day. Our kaiako, our educators, our learning support kaimahi, our whare wānanga who marched, who have been subjected to funding cuts and unfinished rebuilds but carry the tremendous responsibility of educating this entire generation. Our creatives who marched who are the most under-resourced and underfunded but work overtime to tell our stories and be the light we turn to for inspiration to keep moving forward. Our lawmakers, our tribunals, our legal experts who continuously advocate for justice in a year full of unjust decision-making.

Our kaitiaki of our taiao who have fought against the tirade of attacks on our whenua, moana, wai, against marine and coastal area legislation, fast track, and every other decision to destroy Aotearoa. Our takatāpui whānau who marched, who continue to be persecuted by this Government for being who they are; they are whānau. Our babies in State care, or should I say State carelessness, who deserve better than boot camps. Our survivors of abuse in State care, who continue to witness the apologies to our kids in the system.

Our incarcerated whānau, whose trauma for Government profit trumps the cost of that decision to our whakapapa. Maybe if the Government cared less about three strikes and more about the three articles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, this year could have gone differently. Our iwi leaders; our Māori wards; our Māori movements; our indigenous brothers, sisters of Palestine, of Kanak, of Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa, who marched too; our tangata moana, tangata Tiriti, who rose up and marched alongside, who educated one another, who understood that this wasn’t a single issue but a shared responsibility to rise up for the Aotearoa our mokopuna deserve. Our tangata whenua, whose pakeke have already marched for our existence and empowered our resistance, and to our mokopuna, our babies, who have inherited this hīkoi, we hope that one day you won’t have to hīkoi any more.

This has been a hard year and has come at significant cost to our people, but our hīkoi demonstrated kotahitanga we have never seen in Aotearoa before. For that I am proud. For that we as a country should feel proud.

I wish you all a restful holiday season and the time to heal from the many punches of 2024. Be kind, look after one another, travel safely on the roads like one big waka kotahi. Make this a Tiriti Kirihimete: as a whānau, do your submissions, enrol to vote, get on the Māori roll. We have a big year to look forward to: Rātana, Waitangi, Te Matatini, koroneihana. We are approaching the light at the end of this racist tunnel that we have been subjected to this year. Kia kaha.

Finally, I would like to leave you with the words of the late King Tuheitia, who called for unity in the year he knew his people would need it the most: “In this storm we are strong. Together. The wind in our sails is called kotahitanga, and with that we will reach our destination.”

I see I’ve got a little bit more time here. This House needs a bit of festive cheer—OK, Mr Speaker?

SPEAKER: It’s long been established in this debate that this is what we could expect—it better be good.

RAWIRI WAITITI: OK.

Mokopuna, are you listening?

On your whenua, truth is glistening.

A terrible flight, our Tiriti rights,

Marching on stolen Māori land.

This year ain’t been pretty,

Toitū Te Tiriti,

A three-headed goose,

But we know the truth.

Marching on stolen Māori land.

In the Beehive, they can build a front man,

Act like he’s not a racist clown.

He’ll say, “Will you join me?”

I said, “No, man,

“Our mokopuna will make a stand.”

Aotearoa, can you hear me?

The polls are up,

Te Pāti Māori

Tīpuna-fed, Tiriti-led,

Marching on stolen Māori land

Marching on stolen Māori land

Marching on stolen Māori land.

Merry Christmas. Winston, where are you? Merry Christmas, e koro.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Kia orana, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call in this adjournment debate as Labour’s chief whip, but firstly, Mr Speaker, I want to acknowledge you and your team of presiding officers—the Deputy Speaker, Assistant Speakers, and temporary Speakers—for their service to the House this year. I also want to acknowledge the staff—

SPEAKER: It didn’t feel like that earlier today!

TANGI UTIKERE: You didn’t give me a call. Also, I want to acknowledge the staff who have supported all members from all sides of the House this year. To our electorate and community officers and off-precinct staff and to those here on precinct, thank you for the work you have done this year. Can I also thank my own whips’ team and the other whips, musterers, and matarau from other parties. Thanks for the work you all do to ensure things run as smoothly as possible.

It feels like it is the last day of school. Everyone is itching to be set free and let loose from this place for some well-deserved time away. The question, of course, though, for this time of the year is: who is going to be on Santa’s naughty and nice lists? And the sad reality is that the naughty list is very, very long and full of members from the benches opposite this year. Of course, the Prime Minister, Christopher Luxon, makes the top three, but it’s possible that David Seymour and Winston Peters edge him out for the top two slots as, let’s face it, they are the real ones who are running this Government. David Seymour makes the list for the Treaty principles bill—enough said.

Now, we all know what that political chameleon Winston Peters will get for Christmas: a new train set. And, on Christmas morning, Winston will roll out of bed and open his new present, and when he realises that his new toy won’t actually have the necessary batteries that it needs to make it work, only then will the penny drop and he realise the importance of rail-enabled ferries. Over the break, the newly minted Minister for Rail may also do some “Cruising on the Interislander” in the hope that he will discover that the South Island actually exists, because no one else on the Government benches knows it exists, based on their inability to invest in the Mainland.

Nicola Willis must be on this year’s naughty list. Last year, she was on it as the Grinch who stole Christmas when she cancelled the $551 million interisland ferries. None of us would have thought that, one full year on from making that call from the captain’s chair, there’d still be no solution, no plan, and it’s clear that she had not been making her list and checking it twice. So she makes it on to the naughty list for a second consecutive year. The member should hang her head in shame. She might be on it again next year. If that’s the case, she will be subject to her own Government’s “three strikes and you’re out” approach.

I want to move to traffic lights, in particular the traffic light system implemented by this Government, which is confronting thousands of Kiwis who are doing it tough as we head into Christmas. Now, the Prime Minister says all that those who are on benefit need to do is show up. Isn’t it unfortunate that his own Minister failed to face any sanctions earlier this year for failing to do exactly that, and that saw a bill discharged from the Parliament? How embarrassing. For that, Louise Upston is on the naughty list and may very well receive a lump of coal for her misdemeanour under the Christmas tree this year.

On coal, the Government has shown that it is not concerned about taking action in the climate space or on protecting the environment. The passage of the terrible fast-track bill yesterday attracted protests, including some disruption to the Parliament. And we don’t condone such disruptions, but I do note that Simeon Brown was jumping yesterday, trying to pull a banner down from the gallery. Now, we all know that Simeon has been named by one as the politician of the year. And couldn’t we hear the gnashing of teeth, the sniggering that that accolade brings from members within his own caucus, let alone on the front bench over there, but all that demonstrated yesterday was that there are still some things that Simeon needs a leg up for—although we did learn that this year Simeon Brown does have a driver’s licence. And he went to some lengths to actually prove that.

So, as folks are moving around the country this summer, waiting in queues for their electric vehicles (EVs) to charge, they can reflect on the fact that the transport and the energy Minister’s focus was on spending time proving that he actually does have a driver’s licence, rather than failing to meet his own Government’s self-imposed target to roll out more EV chargers. And he has delivered less than half of the 670 chargers that he promised. That is another big fail. That will be one of the many things on the minds of Kiwis this summer as they reflect on the shambolic year that this Government has had. They clearly are continuing to take our country backwards, and Kiwis are well and truly aware of that and they have cottoned on.

Mr Speaker, to you and to all members of the House, a very merry Christmas and a safe and relaxing summer break.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): Can I start by echoing the words of others and thanking the people who make this place work: our staff, particularly my office, the best ministerial office in the Beehive; the officials; the House Office; the Parliamentary Counsel Office; Chamber staff; select committee staff; Hansard; Copperfields, which I’ve tried to go to less this year than in previous years—

Cameron Brewer: More McDonald’s.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: —well, that’s right, some more McDonald’s, and crayfish—reception staff; security; VIP; the cleaners; and of course you, sir, and all of your team.

It’s been a cracker, 2024. It’s been a tough year for many. It’s been a great year for the Government. In stark contrast to years gone by, Ministers in this Government have actually got things done. Simeon Brown, Nicola Willis, Mark Mitchell, Paul Goldsmith—it’s been a pleasure to work alongside this team, and, of course, our coalition colleagues David Seymour and my good friend and colleague Matua Shane—we’ve worked together on fast track and it’s been a great pleasure.

There’s a few achievements that have gone unnoticed and unreported, and I thought I might comment on a few of them. Simeon Brown has had to sell precisely zero shares in Auckland Airport. In fact, he sold zero shares in the entities he’s responsible for, in stark contrast to the last Minister of Transport. Paul Goldsmith’s been very well behaved. He has not had to disclose secret meetings at Astoria like the last Minister. Mark Mitchell has not leaked secretive Cabinet material to his donors. Simon Watts has not leaked secret tax plans to the media. Erica Stanford was not referred to the Privileges Committee. And not a single National Party MP defected to Te Pāti Māori—or indeed anyone from New Zealand First or the Green Party.

Now, I’ve talked about fast track. We’re particularly proud of fast track. We had 149 projects—

Hon Shane Jones: Great bill.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: —that were included in the bill. We laboured—we laboured—over that, over those projects, didn’t we, Shane? We really did.

I thought it might be interesting for the House to hear what projects didn’t make the list and ended up on the cutting room floor. We had an interesting project submitted: the “Remutaka Job Centre for Former Labour Party Leaders”, submitted by Mr C Hipkins of Upper Hutt. We did decline this project; we weren’t confident it would be built in time to fulfil its primary purpose.

We received an application from Miss M Woods. This was titled the “Wigram Mayoral Candidates Training Centre”. We also declined that one for the same reason.

We had a project called the “Hutt Valley Mass Training Facility for Labour Party Opposition Police Spokesperson”. This was a high-quality submission submitted by Mr Mark Mitchell, but it was declined as some people are, unfortunately, beyond help.

We had a proposal to fast track an e-bike trail on Waiheke Island, strongly supported by everyone in the Green Party, but, unfortunately, not even the advocacy of the local MP, Ingrid Leary, was enough to get that one over the line.

There was a submission from Auckland Central, from D Parker, and it had strong supporting affidavits from Phil Twyford, Helen White, and Arena Williams of Hobsonville Point, and it had attached to it a copy of Capital by Thomas Piketty. This was a fast-track proposal for an unusual thing—for a wealth tax. But, very unusually, we also had counter-proposals against the submission from many other members of the Labour Party caucus. It was very difficult for the fast-track panel to make of what to do with this.

There was a submission against a local project. Now, we had a number of submissions for local projects from local MPs, strong advocacy—very unusual to receive a submission opposed to something in their local electorate, but Julie Anne Genter took the cake. She made a submission on letterhead—Julie Anne Genter, the MP for Rongotai—against the Mount Victoria Tunnel. I found that astonishing.

But there was a submission in favour of car parks outside here, in Tamatha Paul’s electorate office in Wellington.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Not a high note—not a high note.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Oh, well, speaking of Carmel Sepuloni, who’s being very noisy, there was an application for resource consent for Treasure Island from C Sepuloni. This also had a supporting affidavit from Chris Hipkins, asking for the resource consent period to be extended indefinitely.

Jokes aside, it has been a busy year in the House. We’ve had 93 first readings, 60 bills reported back from select committees, and 60 third readings. Ministers have answered 87,000 written parliamentary questions. Thank you to everyone who’s had a great year.

CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Tuatahi māku he mihi aroha ki taku hoa, a Luke Crawford, kua wahangū i tēnei rā. E Luke, e chief, moe mai rā i nāianei. Ka nui rawa atu te aroha ki tō whāna.

Heoi anō, hoki mai ki a tātou.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. Firstly for me is a compassionate acknowledgment of my friend, Luke Crawford, whose voice has been silenced today. Luke, chief, rest in peace now. A lot of love to your family.

However, let’s return to us.]

Let’s get in the spirit. Mere Kirihimete ki a tātou katoa. What a privilege to stand and take what will be the last call for the Labour Party in 2024.

In preparing for this speech, I had a lot of unsolicited advice. “Keep it light-hearted,” they said—and I’m glad everyone else got that memo today. Willie Jackson said, “Remind them they’re a pack of maniacs.” I said, “I’ll leave that to you, Willie Jackson. I want to be on the nice list this year.” Peeni Henare suggested a haka, but, Mr Speaker, I cannot risk expulsion. And someone said, “Why don’t you sing?” I said, “I couldn’t possibly. I’m just going to share my ‘Reflections of the way life used to be, reflections of the love you took from me’.”

Now, e te whānau, in spite of some of the attempts of members opposite to take the love away from us, they have failed, and it’s still been a great year for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti. I said to Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, “I will bring your light to this House.”, but Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, you—you—have been “You are the sunlight of my life and I’ll always be around”.

Rawiri Waititi: Oh, here’s the Tikitiki RSA.

CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL: Oh, you know it. Had I known that tungāne was going to bring a guitar, we might have rehearsed.

The reflection of Ikaroa-Rāwhiti is your kaha, your tenacity, and your view beyond recovery into intergenerational prosperity, and that’s something for which I’m here, behind you, all the way. E hoa mā, soon we will all be “Rocking around the Christmas tree at the Christmas party hop”.

When we are enjoying the embraces of our loved ones and the spoils of our hard work, let’s spare a thought not only for those who are less privileged than us but for the hard-working people here, seen and unseen, who work very hard to make us all look and sound good—a much easier task for some than others. But I will not name names.

I think that in spite of everything, a lot of the feedback I get—and I’ve talked about it in my Treaty principles bill, pai kōrero—and in spite of all the cuts, I must say that I actually think it’s been a fantastic year to be Māori and a fantastic year to be a New Zealander. We’ve heard the hīkoi acknowledged, and I just want to mihi to everyone who came together, i raro i te whakaaro kotahi.

On thanks, I do want to thank my team. The “IR Babes” they name themselves—the “Ikaroa-Rāwhiti Babes”—and that, you are. Also the team here in the House: as I’ve acknowledged, you do a great job of making us all look and sound good.

I also want to acknowledge the other MPs throughout Ikaroa-Rāwhiti: Dana Kirkpatrick, Katie Nimon, Catherine Wedd, Mike Butterick, Chris Bishop, and, of course, “Chippie”. Tēnā tātou katoa.

My final thanks go to my whānau, immediate and extended, and to my darling, Russell, or, as you all call him, “Aww, Russell!”. I have feelings too, you know, whānau.

At my maiden speech, my brother said, “Do you know what? There were people from National who came to that bloody thing”—oops, pardon me, Mr Speaker. He goes, “Those buggers, they all like each other.”, and it’s true. It’s true, whānau. There are friendships across this floor, so I really do want to wish you all a merry Christmas and a happy New Year with your whānau and loved ones.

But we are still in the Opposition, so we have a gift for you. From the Labour Party to you all—don’t bother playing, because there ain’t no rhythm here, tungāne.

In the first year in Government, the Nats forgot Kiwis:

$12 billion borrowed, jobs down the gurgler, tens of thousands leaving,

One “a loser”, straight lies in Dunners,

Seven Luxon houses, tax breaks for landlords—

Where are the birds?

Forty thousand marched, three strikes is back, tobacco, and guns,

And no plan to replace the ferries.

Mere Kirihimete, everybody.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (Minister for ACC): Well, Mr Speaker, I’m very conscious that as the last speaker in this debate, I stand between you and the formal adjournment for this year—and what a year it has been, but I’m in the business of winning votes, so you’ll be pleased to know I’m not going to sing, because that would be a very bad and vote-losing thing.

I want to join with others, Mr Speaker, in congratulating you, your presiding officers, and thanking you for your patience with us around the debating chamber as we have worked our way through what has been a very busy year. Chris Bishop made the point about how many bills have been passed and how many questions have been asked and all that sort of thing, and I think we’ve actually collectively as a Parliament achieved a lot.

I want to be just serious for a second or two, because I think that at times like this at the end of the year we have an opportunity just to reflect a little bit about our place in this place and our place on the planet and the globe, where we are in the privileged part of the world here at the bottom of the South Pacific.

I had the opportunity during the year to meet with Peeni Henare together with the Speaker of the Ukrainian Parliament, for instance—now, there’s a population under great stress this Christmas. I had an opportunity to meet with Peeni Henare and the elected leader of Belarus, who is in exile and whose husband has been detained for 2½ years and she hasn’t had any contact with him, doesn’t know whether he’s dead or alive. Those sorts of conversations, notwithstanding all the light-heartedness and the good nature that we’ve seen in this debate this afternoon, put into perspective the world we live in and our place in it.

I just want to reflect for a moment on the fact that nobody comes to this Chamber with bad intentions, in my view. Nobody comes to this place wanting to make things worse. We may disagree and have strong views strongly expressed, and sometimes sung, about how to achieve the making of things better, but we all have that objective. This is a place where strong views should be strongly held and strongly expressed, but with respect to each other, in my view.

As we conclude this debate and this year of action, activity, and democracy in our small, intimate, and, some would say, imperfect little democracy, I want to wish colleagues from around the House—from my own party, from our coalition partners in New Zealand First and in ACT, and from the other parties in the Opposition—a warm summer welcome to the beautiful Coromandel, where you will receive sand, sunshine, and sanctuary and you will be most welcome at any time to come and spend time and money in that beautiful part of the world.

I want to complete this debate by, as I say, thanking all the people who make this place work. At times, to the members of the public who don’t understand the intricacies of Parliament, it probably looks very chaotic, but there is a system, there is a structure, and it does, in its own quirky, weird, Kiwi way, work, and I think we can collectively be very proud of that. So, merry Christmas, everybody. Thank you very much for your help, corporation, and support, and have a safe, enjoyable, and relaxed summer period. Thank you.

SPEAKER: I’m going to make my contribution very short. Unfortunately, the audience seems to have left and I don’t want to drive out those who remain.

Look, can I just make the comment that the start of this debate today was certainly robust, and one of the great strengths of this country’s democracy is the ability to have those “slap ‘em down, drag ‘em out” debates where people can say what they’re thinking. It’s very important, and I get a lot of letters, as Speaker, complaining about the way people deal with each other in this House, things that are said, actions that are taken. I think it is sad that more people don’t appreciate, just as my colleague Scott Simpson has said, that so many other countries in the world live oppressed lives, simply because they don’t have an environment like this where different views can be so openly and receptively both made and received.

This year’s been a hard one in many ways for a lot of people outside of this place, but also for those in it. I think starting the year with the death of Efeso Collins had quite a sobering effect on the whole of the Parliament and I want to, on behalf of the Parliament, offer his family, once again, our condolences, our close thoughts for their first Christmas without him. The same is true for all of those families of other former members who’ve left us during this year.

I want to acknowledge the party leaders and senior people in all parties because of the work that they do—the extra work that they do—and the time that it takes. Parliament has sat, by the time we finish in the next couple of minutes, for about 575 hours this year. Most people would say, “Oh, that’s nothing; I work 2,000 hours a year.”—but not as intensely as this place does. Those hours are concentrated over just a few small days—three days out of 30 weeks. That, of course, is just a small part of the work that all members of Parliament do, and particularly the part that the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the leaders of other parties, and the spokespeople do as well. It’s very time-consuming.

As we come to the end of the year and we reflect on what might have been achieved by us individually, as members of this House, I think we should also be very proud of the fact that whether we are winning or losing, we’re part of a dynamic democracy that we all need to do our best to protect.

Can I acknowledge all of those who’ve been mentioned who make this place work. It’s a huge workforce here—about a thousand people—and they are the sort of engine room of democracy, if you like. In particular, I want to make a mention of our security staff, whose job is becoming increasingly difficult. I also want to mention the cyber-security staff who are constantly looking at the many attacks that can come on our systems, and, of course, that is also a very direct protection of democracy as well.

I need to acknowledge the close staff that I work with: the Chief Executive of the Parliamentary Service, Rafael Gonzalez-Montero, and all of his staff—great people to work with, willing to listen to what MPs need to serve the people they represent; also Dr David Wilson and all of the staff in the Clerk’s Office. He has been complimented earlier by the leader of the ACT Party. I would echo those comments: a great guy to work with and a man who has an enormous breadth of knowledge about how systems should work.

I need also to mention Andie Lindsay, who is the secretary to both of them. Andie is one of those people who knows where all the bodies are buried and, worse than that, where all the bodies are about to be buried, so I mention her with great fondness!

Can I also acknowledge my own closer staff: Laree Taula, who does a lot of work in my office to keep me in the right place at the right time, which is not an easy function. Also to Roland Todd, who sits here day in day out, listening to everything that you’ve got to say and just gently taking it all in. It must be enormously frustrating at times, Roland, that you can’t stroll on to the floor and give everyone a bit of a strop up and put it in the right direction. But thank you very much for your work.

With those comments, can I wish everybody here a very merry Christmas and a happy New Year. I’m sure all of your party leaders have told you to take time off and to look after yourselves and your families. I’d echo that comment. I’ll see you in 2025.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 5.58 p.m.