Tuesday, 11 February 2025

TUESDAY, 11 FEBRUARY 2025

TUESDAY, 11 FEBRUARY 2025

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.]

Speaker’s Rulings

Member Conduct—Hon David Seymour

SPEAKER: Honourable members, on Monday, the Hon David Seymour drove a vehicle on to the steps of Parliament. He stopped when a security officer intervened. I commend that officer for his actions. His long experience in the role would have given him the necessary judgment to deal with the difficult situation. I doubt he would ever have expected to have to tell a member of the House not to drive a vehicle on to the steps of the building, particularly given that it was a repeat of the 2003 event, and in light of the enhanced security arrangements that Parliament has since put in place.

On consideration of this matter, it is clear there are no Standing Orders that could reasonably support a referral to the Privileges Committee. I’ve expressed to Mr Seymour my strong displeasure in his actions and my concern in his belief that MPs should be able to do what he did as a right; they do not. Mr Seymour has sent me a letter about the matter in which he says, “Please accept my apologies for any offense this may have caused.” The question of possible prosecution, as was the case in 2003, is a matter for the police and not in the hands of the Speaker.

New Zealand’s Parliament is one of the most open and accessible in the world and I hope that we will continue to have that situation for many years to come.

Urgent DebateS

Health New Zealand Chief Executive—Resignation

Director of Public Health—Resignation

SPEAKER: Members, I’ve received a letter from the Hon Peeni Henare seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 the resignation of the Chief Executive of Health New Zealand and the Director of Public Health. This is a case of recent public occurrence involving ministerial responsibility and I accept that it does require immediate attention of the House. Following oral questions, I’ll call on Mr Henare to move that this House take note of a matter of urgent public business.

Obituaries

Dame Iritana Te Rangi Tāwhiwhirangi

BENJAMIN DOYLE (Green): Tēnā koe e te Pīka, I seek leave to move a motion without notice and without debate, That this House express its deep sorrow and aroha at the passing of Dame Iritana Te Rangi Tāwhiwhirangi.

SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

Motion agreed to.

Points of Order

Speaker’s Ruling—Member Conduct

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition): Point of order, Mr Speaker. I appreciate that the ruling you gave at the beginning has moved on somewhat from then, but you didn’t sit down, so I didn’t want to interrupt with the point of order while you were on your feet. The statement that you just read regarding David Seymour’s actions yesterday omitted one piece of information which I think there is public interest in knowing, and that is whether in fact you or your office had told David Seymour and the organisers of that event, prior to that event, that it was not acceptable and that permission had not been granted for that Land Rover to be driven up the steps of Parliament. David Seymour’s comments to the media at the time was that he understood that you had given permission. If it’s clear that you hadn’t given permission, then that in itself is a material piece of information.

SPEAKER: Well, I’m not sure exactly what was said because I haven’t looked at a great deal of the media on this, other than the short snippets of the whole event that have been published in various places. What I can tell the House is that the organisers of this event asked some time ago if they could bring the Land Rover here and, as they put it, reenact a 1948 happening where the Land Rover was apparently driven up the steps of Parliament. Now, there is a good cause here and it was my view that I should investigate that, prior to actually just saying no. We could not find in any of the records of Parliament, or other archives, any reference to that particular event and I’m surprised that in the last couple of days, if such photographs or otherwise existed, then they would have come to light. So perhaps that was just a bit of urban myth. In any event, they were told they could come and have a photograph taken in front of the steps but most definitely not drive the vehicle up. Now, what was conveyed to Mr Seymour at the time is not something I can know.

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I think the reason that’s important is Mr Seymour is on record—and you will have read this if you have been following the recent media coverage—effectively, saying that members of Parliament should be able to do whatever they want unless there is a specific rule that says that they shouldn’t. I disagree with that characterisation; I don’t think that’s in keeping with the standards that the public should be able to expect of members of Parliament. But if in fact the organisers, at least, were told that that was unacceptable—the Land Rover was still in their control at the time he did that—then that may well give rise to further questions that may well be within the realms of privilege. Because if he was told that he was not allowed to do that and has done it anyway, I think it would be very difficult to argue that there isn’t a question of privilege there.

SPEAKER: Well, clearly, there’d be a need for considerable investigation along those lines. My own view is that the public will make their own determination about the appropriateness or otherwise of the action, and that’s something that all of us can remove ourselves from if we wish but, in the end, the public makes that judgment and is often a lot more harsh that we might be. But I’ll consider further the points that have been made by the Leader of the Opposition.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): I raise a point of order, e te Pīka. Thank you. I would just like to bring to the Speaker’s attention, please, Te Kāhui Mōuri and the concern for the public and mana whenua on the danger that that vehicle could have had and the breach of the tikanga around those pou. Now, those pou are about duality, they are about respecting opinions and the rights of everyone’s opinions, but they are precious to the mana whenua and there is a tikanga around protecting these pou as well that I think that the Speaker needs to consider in his investigation address as well.

SPEAKER: Yes, well, the simplest thing would be to expand the current prohibition on vehicles coming on to the forecourt—other than those that are authorised to do so for the pick up and drop off, essentially, of MPs and other persons who are visiting here—to a complete blanket ban, and we wouldn’t have this trouble. That would be something that Parliamentary Service Commission could consider. My own view is that it would be an overreach on the situation. It would be likely to have quite an adverse effect on the openness of the New Zealand Parliament. But I appreciate the points that the member is making and will certainly take advice on that.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER: Just a right of reply, please. Just a reminder that the hīkoi—

SPEAKER: Well, you don’t normally reply to a point of order, but anyway.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER: OK, apologies. I’d like to bring up another issue, and that is that the hīkoi were told and reminded they were not to be anywhere near the courtyard, the steps. There is, and it does seem to the public, a double set of standards for this particular Minister, and I think that’s wrong.

SPEAKER: Well, the first point is that, yes, you’re right. The organised hīkoi were absolutely true to their word as to how they would conduct that very reasonable protest that was undertaken late last year. There have been other protests, though, where people have been asked not to advance on to the forecourt and they have, and we’ve let that slide because it was all very peaceful and otherwise. I think it would be unfortunate if we said that when people are doing something like this, raising money for a very good cause, Parliament can’t in some way be accommodating. So I take your earlier point, and I’m most certainly conscious of the contradiction that you’re pointing out with your second point.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Further point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: The Hon Chris Hipkins—sorry, the Hon Chris Bishop was next; there’s a line-up of people there.

Urgent Debate—Ruling

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): Point of order. Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a separate matter in relation to the ruling on the urgent debate. You’ve ruled that the House should set aside its business for the matter of the urgent debate, but in the business before the House, looking at the questions sheet, there is no question from the Opposition or, in fact, any member about the matter you have ruled that we should set aside the business of the House for, which is a little bit unusual.

The second point I’d make is that the Minister and, in fact, the Government—well, certainly the Minister—is not responsible for the employment of the person that you are talking about, that the debate is now going to centre on for over an hour. Health New Zealand is responsible for their employment. I suspect you’re not going to change your mind in terms of having the urgent debate, but, perhaps, for the future, I’d invite you to reflect on that.

SPEAKER: A lot of people often give the Speaker sage advice; others just give advice. I’ll take it all onboard. Thank you.

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition): I’m somewhat surprised the Leader of the House is unaware that both of those issues are dealt with. First, moving backwards through them, Ministers are responsible for operational matters—

SPEAKER: We don’t need to cover this. You had another point, I think?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: My other point of order relates to the issue of the Land Rover on the forecourt. I’m being very careful; I don’t want to draw you into this debate. But questions of ministerial responsibility are likely to come up later on, and I think it would therefore be useful for the House to know whether David Seymour or his ministerial office communicated with you in any way about that event before it took place.

SPEAKER: No, they did not.

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

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

SPEAKER: Three petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.

CLERK:

Petition of Christopher Ingram requesting that the House require licensed premises to display warning signs to alert pregnant women of their risk of a FASD baby if they drink alcohol

petition of Fluoride Free New Zealand requesting that the House stop water fluoridation

petition of Clive School requesting that the House undertake a review of the Ministry of Education’s criteria for school transport provision for tamariki in Aotearoa.

SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered two papers.

CLERK:

Government Superannuation Fund, Actuarial Valuation at 30 June 2024

Government response to the report of the Petitions Committee on the petition of Jennifer Bolton.

SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House. Six select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.

CLERK:

Reports of the Justice Committee on the:

Arms (Shooting Clubs, Shooting Ranges, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill

Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill

reports of the Petitions Committee on the:

petition of Aaron Hendry

petition of Denis Orme

petition of Shubhanyu Chandra

petition of Wayne Jessop.

SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for second reading. No bills have been introduced.

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 have confidence in all of his Ministers?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, and I’d take my line-up over his every day of the week, because inflation is beat, interest rates are falling, and exports are rising fast thanks to our farmers and growers competing so well on the world stage. New Zealand had a team that spent six years wasting money; now they have a team that’s actually fighting for Kiwis so they can get ahead and build a bigger, better economy with higher incomes and more jobs. That means promoting more tourism, more investment, more infrastructure, more farming, more fishing and mining, and we’re doubling down on all of that so we get this economy moving.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he stand by his comment that David Seymour has not breached the Cabinet Manual, given the Cabinet Manual says that Ministers must conduct themselves in a manner appropriate to their office, “are expected to act lawfully, and are seen to uphold the highest ethical and behavioural standards, including good judgment”, given recent revelations that David Seymour intervened in a police murder investigation, referred a sexual abuse survivor to an ACT Party lawyer rather than to the police, and, just yesterday—potentially illegally—attempted to drive a Land Rover up the front steps of Parliament?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is he therefore confident that driving a Land Rover up the front steps of Parliament is a lawful activity?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Ultimately, that’s a decision for the Speaker, and he’s addressed that today.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Well, does he agree with Christopher Luxon, who said of Ministers involving themselves in police matters, “This would not be tolerated under a National government I lead. New Zealanders expect Ministers to hold themselves to the highest standards.”; if so, what happened to those standards?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I said yesterday, I made my position clear: he wrote the letter before he was actually a Government Minister and before the Government was formed.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How can New Zealanders have any respect for his leadership when his own soon-to-be Deputy Prime Minister called him “ill-advised” for questioning his decision to undermine the separation between politics and the judicial system?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, I made my position on the letter clear yesterday. He wrote it before he was in Government and before he was a Minister. This is a Government focused on economic growth.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Has he asked David Seymour if he has ever received political donations from Philip Polkinghorne; if not, why not?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No, and I have nothing else to say on it.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Given David Seymour has refused to answer publicly whether he has received donations from Philip Polkinghorne, and the Prime Minister is the only person who can judge whether there is a conflict of interest with regard to David Seymour’s interventions in the case, why hasn’t he asked him?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Because the Minister was not a Minister at the time in which he sent the letter. He was an MP outside the Government and not a Minister—it’s very simple.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The issue of whom people have received political donations from is material to conflicts of interest now, presently, regardless of whether the donation was received before they were a Minister. The receipt of a political donation from someone can cause conflict of interest. The Prime Minister is responsible for managing Cabinet conflicts of interest. If he is not asking Ministers that question, he’s not doing his job.

SPEAKER: Well, I just want to make the point that the question starts to border on that interface between the Prime Minister and the leader of a party, and I think that’s one that the House has wrestled—[Interruption] Yes, it does, because it happened when the Prime Minister was Leader of the Opposition and Mr Seymour was a leader of another party. At the moment, I’d like to take advice as to where exactly that fits into the arrangement, so I’ll come back to you in a few minutes.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Well, while you consider that, Mr Speaker, you might like to consider the fact that there are Ministers in the current Government who have exempted themselves from decision-making processes concerning donors where the donor gave them the money before the last election and before they were Ministers. The Prime Minister is the Minister responsible for enforcing standards around conflicts of interest. If the Prime Minister has already decided that Ministers who received donations before they were Ministers should exempt themselves from decision making, then the question that I asked him is absolutely within order.

Hon Chris Bishop: Speaking to the point of order.

SPEAKER: The honourable Chris Hipkins.

Hon Chris Bishop: Bishop.

SPEAKER: Bishop. Yeah—you look so alike!

Hon Chris Bishop: All of Mr Hipkins’ points would be true if it were the case that Mr Seymour is making a ministerial decision or, indeed, the Prime Minister is making a ministerial decision now; that is not the case. The matters being traversed in this question relate to, from memory, 2022—which, last time I looked, is well before 27 November, when Mr Seymour assumed his ministerial warrants. There is no conflict of interest to inquire about, because Mr Seymour was not a Minister at the time the things that we’re traversing were discussed.

Hon Judith Collins: I noted that Mr Hipkins referred to Ministers and Mr Seymour receiving funding or funds from certain people. That implies that they’re receiving it personally. I think the point needs to be made, doesn’t it, and clarified if people are receiving funding to their parties, not to them personally. It’s quite a different situation than the conflict of interest situation that Mr Hipkins has raised.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Judith Collins is 100 percent wrong. There are Ministers in her Government, of which she is part, who have declared political donations, donations to their parties, and exempted themselves from ministerial decisions on the basis of those donations.

Hon Chris Bishop: Speaking to the point of order.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: He’s one of them.

Hon Member: You’re one of them.

Hon Chris Bishop: Yeah, absolutely. Speaking to the point of order.

SPEAKER: Yes, I’ll call you, the Hon Chris Bishop.

Hon Chris Bishop: That of course is correct in the way that this Government has taken the advice from the Cabinet Office—in the way that the previous Labour Government took advice from the Cabinet Office—where Ministers are careful to recuse themselves from decisions where they have a conflict of interest based upon advice. That is wholly different to what Mr Hipkins is essentially implying through his questions. Mr Seymour is a Minister in this Government, but we are not talking about an active ministerial decision where a conflict of interest may arise. We are traversing something that happened two years ago—and in relation to the particular matter—where he was the MP for Epsom. We are not talking about a ministerial decision. There is no conflict of interest.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I think the member is deflecting somewhat from my question, which was whether a donation was received by David Seymour in his political capacity, whether he received a political donation. He’s trying to then divert that on to other things. It is a simple question as to whether a political donation was received. It’s absolutely acceptable for the Prime Minister to be asked that. It’s also very acceptable for the Prime Minister to be expected to know who is funding his Ministers.

SPEAKER: I think there are a number of points on both sides that are of interest in a case like this. I’d refer members to Speaker’s ruling 180/1, and I’ll read these words, but I’m also not particularly reaffirming this today; I just want to take a bit of time given the points that have been raised. The bit that I would call attention to is “Although the Prime Minister is not answerable for statements or actions taken purely in a non-ministerial capacity, such as those taken as a party leader or in a personal capacity, the Prime Minister can be asked about how such actions or statements may or may not affect his view of a Minister’s judgment and his confidence in a Minister.” So the questions were along those lines. I think that where we get to a bit of trouble is the specifics of the question, and that’s what I want to have a bit of a think about over the next 24 hours.

Hon Judith Collins: Mr Hipkins has done it again. He has actually slurred all the Ministers by saying the House is entitled to know who is funding his Ministers. Now, actually, we’re funded by the taxpayer, just like everybody in this House. We are not funded by particular people, and I think it is quite wrong for him to get away with implying otherwise.

SPEAKER: Yes, and in the grand scheme of things, I probably didn’t pick that up, but I think it might be worth just—Mr Hipkins, it might be worth withdrawing that part of your—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: I think it was very clear, from the context of all of the issues I’ve raised, I was referring to political donations. Very happy to clarify that.

Hon David Seymour: It would be the easiest thing in the world for me to just stand up and say that there’s been no such donation to me, but I’m not going to do that. I would urge all members of the House to think very carefully about the implications of every member declaring every possible donation, or not, at every point of questioning. If you really want to go there, then we could have a very different type of politics.

SPEAKER: Hold on. That was supposed to be a point of order, not a statement. I think we’ll move now to—have you got further supplementaries?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: To the Prime Minister: why hasn’t he demanded a resignation letter from David Seymour, particularly given that David Seymour himself said in 2023 that Ministers interfering in judicial decisions should be “prepared to resign the post if the Prime Minister thinks that’s in the best interests of New Zealand”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I don’t know how to make it any clearer to the member than what I’ve said before, which is the Minister wrote the letter while he was an MP, before he was a Minister, before he was in this Government. I’m just reminded of the words of the Canadian songstress Alanis Morissette, who said, “Isn’t it ironic?”, because let me give you four names: Michael Wood, Meka Whaitiri, Stuart Nash, and how about Kiri Allan? [Interruption]

SPEAKER: That’s enough. Thank you. We’ll go into a period of silence now while we have question No. 2.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Tēnā koe e te Pīka. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: That includes everyone on the Labour front bench.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

2. DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, and in particular, our action to unlock growth in regional New Zealand. Whether it’s farming, fishing, mining, or forestry, our Government backs our primary industries to lift incomes and create opportunities in regional New Zealand. That’s why it was actually really great to see the Tairāwhiti mill is set to reopen in the coming months under new owners, adding value and creating quality jobs in our regional economy. It’s that kind of investment that we need to see a lot—a lot—more across New Zealand, and that’s why it’s been so disappointing to see members opposite come out against everything that we’re doing to unlock growth and power up this economy in regional New Zealand.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he believe that his Government’s main purpose is to serve the wealthy at the expense of tangata w’enua and ordinary New Zealanders?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: How will his “golden visas” improve the lives of ordinary New Zealanders when there is no expectation that the profits earned will be invested back into our communities?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Because investment into businesses helps them grow, which enables them to pay higher wages and incomes and offer more jobs, which in turn get spent in the economy, which actually drives more economic growth.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What incentive do overseas investors have to look after our environment when they are only required to stay in Aotearoa for 21 days every three years?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Before the last Labour Government made some very restrictive changes to the active investor visa, this was a country that benefited by $2.2 billion from investment coming from these people into New Zealand. Under the changes of the “no” Government of Labour—the one that ran the economy into the ground—there was $70 million raised over 13 projects in a two-year period. We want the $2.2 billion, and the $1.7 billion that followed once those investors got comfortable in this country. So we welcome investment to this country. It’s necessary for regular New Zealanders, everyday Kiwis, to be able to get ahead—because capital matters.

Hon Chris Bishop: Would the Prime Minister encourage some of the recipients of these investor visas to philanthropically donate funds to encourage the Māori Party to take Economics 101 courses at regular universities?

SPEAKER: No, sorry, we’re not having those questions. You do that again, that’ll be goodbye.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Prime Minister whether the essence of the Te Pāti Māori questions remind him of the relationship between Te Pāti Māori and the Waipareira Trust’s so-called charitable donations?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what it does remind me of—

SPEAKER: Sorry, just a minute. That’s a matter that’s currently under very significant police investigation; it won’t be brought up in the House.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he agree that our justice system treats wealthy people better than it treats poor people?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he agree that our name suppression laws can be abused by the wealthy and people in power?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No, we have a justice system that we want to make sure the public have great confidence in. That’s what we keep perfecting.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Should an upcoming election ever be used as an excuse to grant or extend name suppression?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, I’m not clear where the member’s going with their line of questioning. What I’d say very clearly is that this is a Government that’s about restoring law and order. We’re doing a great job doing exactly that.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: Just a moment. I just want to make it clear that questions that seek to, effectively, question a decision by a court are not appropriate in this House.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Why does the Prime Minister of the Cook Islands have to consult the New Zealand Government before a visit to China, but the New Zealand Government doesn’t have to consult Māori when they try to rewrite Te Tiriti o Waitangi?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, in answer to the first leg of the question, it’s important, given the 2001 joint declaration that Helen Clark signed with the previous Cook Islands Prime Minister, that, actually, we do expect amongst our friends and particularly Realm countries that we actually have transparency and consultation on major issues around defence, security, and foreign affairs. [Interruption] The Cook Islands is a great country and we love the Cook Islands people, but we need to make sure we have transparency, and we’ll work our way through that issue.

SPEAKER: I’m sure that all of the commentary coming from some parts of the House is very exciting for the people making that commentary, but it’s not much good for the rest of us, so please button it back a bit.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on the cost of living?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Last month, Statistics New Zealand reported annual Consumers Price Index (CPI) inflation of 2.2 percent for the December quarter. That was the same rate as the September quarter and well within the Reserve Bank’s target range of 1 percent to 3 percent. I feel for those New Zealanders who are hurting from the period of rampant inflation across 2021, 2022, and 2023, when prices were at times rising more than 7 percent a year and when the real value of people’s wages and people’s savings were being eroded. The current Government cannot remake that history—it happened—but we can assure people of our commitment to responsible spending and price stability.

Sam Uffindell: Why is price stability important?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Having low, stable, and predictable inflation helps people and businesses make better decisions around spending, savings, borrowing, and investment. It means price rises don’t get out of control, and that helps the economy to grow. As I’ve said many times, a growing economy means more jobs, higher wage growth, and a better standard of living for New Zealanders. Inflation also leads to arbitrary redistribution of resources, often away from those with the lowest incomes. That is why price stability is so important, and why we must avoid the rampant and unpredictable inflation of the recent past.

SPEAKER: Well, “concise” is a good word for people to consider when answering questions.

Sam Uffindell: How are wages growing in relation to prices?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, Statistics New Zealand has also recently released information on wages. As I said, annual CPI inflation in the December quarter was 2.2 percent. In the same period, according to the quarterly employment survey, wages rose 4.2 percent. Now, everyone’s circumstances are different, of course, and many people are still doing it tough. But it is true that with inflation now under control, on average, wages are now rising faster than prices.

Sam Uffindell: What is happening to mortgage interest costs?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, mortgage rates are falling now that inflation is back within the target band, and that is starting to flow through to people’s back pockets, because half of mortgage lending is either floating or is fixed for six months or less. Infometrics has estimated that by the end of this year, households will have another $45 million to spend every week due to lower mortgage interest costs. Now, that is good news for families who in recent years have suffered both a cost of living crisis and the high interest rates required to bring it under control.

Question No. 4—Prime Minister

4. 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, and particularly our action to go for growth. We know that better days lie ahead, we know that inflation is down, that interest rates are falling, and that confidence is steadily coming back. Our farmers and our growers are powering up our regions, and our exports are growing fast. We know there’s a lot more to do to ensure that economic growth takes flight and that Kiwis get ahead. That’s why fast-track applications are now open and it’s why we’re making New Zealand a much more attractive place for investors to make quality investments here. It’s why we’re holding an investor summit to be able to bring this money to New Zealand so that it helps everyday Kiwis. And, sure, we’re going to keep making these changes and keep our economy moving because, actually, that’s how Kiwis get ahead.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: What responsibility does he take for the fact that 13,000 jobs in the building and construction sector have been lost during the time he has been Prime Minister, particularly given industry statements that his Government’s decision to slash house building, pause or cancel major infrastructure projects, and cut Government investment are to blame?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’ll just say to that member: I don’t think he understands economics, you know? That member is like the arsonist that lit the fire and now criticises the fire brigade for putting it out, right? It’s all a bit convenient just to forget recent history. What happened? Inflation went up because spending went up. Inflation went up; interest rates went up. He put the economy into recession and the consequence was unemployment. If he cared about working people, he would have managed the economy well, but he didn’t. [Interruption]

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Supplementary—

SPEAKER: Just hold on. All right, we’re quiet now. Away you go.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How will his Government find the skilled workers needed for major infrastructure projects when they finally work out what they actually want to build, given that many of those 13,000 skilled workers who lost their jobs have already left the country?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, they’ve left the country to go to sectors that that member doesn’t support. Think about mining in Australia, for example. But what I’d say is that the Infrastructure Commission’s latest pipeline actually had, I think, $148 billion worth of work. We have $33 billion in the transport Government policy statement over the next three years. So we are getting the economy moving. We’re going to build infrastructure, not just talk about it—like Auckland light rail and harbour crossings and a bunch of other kumbaya and mush from the muppets on the other side.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he think the fact that 70,000 New Zealanders have left the country since he became Prime Minister—equivalent to the population of Napier—is one of the reasons over half the country think that things are heading in the wrong direction?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I can tell you the recipe of tax more, borrow more, spend more, put the economy into recession which, actually, that member was responsible for after six years of economic mismanagement and illiteracy—but we are working and doing everything we can to make sure we build out a great future for our kids and our grandkids. And that means modern, reliable infrastructure. So do you want to support fast track or not? Tax relief for working New Zealanders—but you didn’t support that. You didn’t support cancer drugs. You’re not supporting New Zealand at all.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If New Zealand is back on track, why are company liquidations in the building and construction sector up 41 percent, up 55 percent in hospitality, and a whopping 79 percent in transport, all under his watch; or will he now admit that under his leadership, the country’s being derailed?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Ha, ha! Oh my goodness! What I’d just say to that member is we know that it’s a tough time for New Zealanders. We know that they’re going through economic pain—thank you, Labour! Thank you, Labour, for running the economy into the ditch! But don’t worry, we’re fixing it. We’re pulling it out. We’re going for economic growth.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: What’s Nicola Willis more likely to replace this year: the interisland ferries or him as Prime Minister?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’m incredibly proud of a great Minister of Finance and an awesome Minister for Economic Growth because we actually have some green shoots appearing in this economy. We have inflation down. We have interest rates down. We have confidence up. We had exports in December up 17 percent—that’s brilliant news. We’ve got some of our farming sector starting to come back very strongly. So we care about where this country’s going. We don’t just go trash it and then criticise. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Can I just say to those who might be viewing or listening who are thinking of writing to me to explain that I need to do something about the level of barracking going on in this House: when questions like that are asked, naturally there’s going to be the sort of response that you might even get in some kind of family squabble.

Question No. 5—Infrastructure

5. CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki) to the Minister for Infrastructure: What recent milestones have been reached in the new fast-track consenting scheme?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister for Infrastructure): Well, I’m proud to tell the House that, as of last Friday, the coalition Government’s fast-track approvals scheme is officially open for business. I want to acknowledge the Hon Shane Jones, who did so much of the heavy lifting with us on this very important job. People are now able to apply into the approvals scheme if their proposed projects have significant regional or national benefits. We can at last get moving on growing our economy and sorting out our infrastructure deficit, housing crisis, and energy shortage, and I encourage all members to go to this following great website: www.fasttrack.govt.nz.

Catherine Wedd: What level of interest has the fast-track approvals scheme seen so far?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: A huge amount. I’m advised that literally thousands of people have visited www.fasttrack.govt.nz since Friday and there have been more than 10,000 page views. Expressions of interest for potential expert panel members have also been received, and if anyone is interested in being part of that, they should contact the Environmental Protection Authority. I can also confirm that applications for both substantive projects and referrals are under way, and officials are working through these. Members can expect updates regularly in this House, in accordance with the Act. When I go around the country over the last few months, the level of interest in utilising fast track is truly unparalleled and I’m looking forward to getting on with those projects around the country.

Catherine Wedd: What other milestones have been reached so far in the new fast-track approvals scheme?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Last week, we announced that retired Environment Court Judge Jane Borthwick has been appointed as the fast-track panel convener, Helen Atkins and Jennifer Caldwell as associate conveners. These expert panel conveners will be tasked with approving or declining projects, alongside the panels that they will appoint; they’ll be able to request reports from relevant agencies. All three of these panel convenors have vast experience in resource management law.

Catherine Wedd: Why is the fast-track approvals scheme so important for New Zealand’s economic growth?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, fast track is about enabling major investments in growth, in renewable energy, transport, aquaculture, housing, aquaculture, and mining. We are a country blessed with abundant natural resources and plenty of land. We are bigger than the United Kingdom—they have 70 million people; we have 5 million people. It’s time that we cut through the red and green tape that’s made it hard to take advantage of our abundant natural resources and start going for growth, because only growth provides the living standards and the incomes that New Zealanders need and deserve to get ahead in life.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister whether this matter is so transactional and so transformative that the Labour Party has actually accessed the website over a thousand times?

SPEAKER: No—that’ll do.

Hon Chris Bishop: Well, far be it for me to comment but—

SPEAKER: No, no, no, sit down—sit down.

Hon Chris Bishop: Are you sure?

SPEAKER: Yeah, absolutely certain.

Hon Chris Bishop: Why not? I’ll give it a go!

SPEAKER: I’ll tell you what: it’s either sit down or walk out. You choose. Question No. 6—can I welcome back to the House the Hon Marama Davidson.

Question No. 6—Prime Minister

6. Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Thank you, Mr Speaker. And thank you, Mr Speaker, for supporting leave for treatments. My question is to the Prime Minister. E tautoko ana ia i āna kōrero me āna mahi katoa?

[Does he stand by all his statements and actions?]

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes. And I also just want to join with all of us across Parliament and welcome the member back to Parliament, and we wish you very well with your recovery.

Hon Marama Davidson: Thank you. Why didn’t he just attend the Government pōwhiri in Waitangi on 5 February and then travel to Ōnuku Marae, like other members of his Government?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I had a series of engagements on the 5th, including with Ngāi Tahu leadership, to discuss how we work together to advance the interests of Māori.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he stand by his statement, “There was a lot in Justin Tipa’s speech that I fully agree with. I thought the principles of what he talked about I could fully identify with,”; if so, how does he identify with Justin Tipa’s statement, “a National Party that fails to take leadership on matters of fundamental importance to the identity of our nation is not worthy of its own name.”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In answer to the first leg of the question, yes.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he stand by his statement, “Despite tension, despite frustration, we still show up and actually engage in a process, in a conversation, on this day.”; if so, why does he keep avoiding significant events like the Treaty principles bill first reading, the arrival of the hīkoi to Parliament, and Waitangi?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In answer to the first part of the question, yes. I thoroughly enjoyed my time at Ōnuku Marae. We had a very productive and constructive set of conversations.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he stand by his statement, “Part of the history of modern New Zealand has been our struggle to understand the intentions and expectations of those who signed the Treaty,”; if so, how does he respond to Te Aroha Rountree, president of the Methodist Church of New Zealand, who said, “Tangata whenua do not struggle to understand the expectations of our tūpuna … our tūpuna intended and expected for their partner, the Crown, to act in good faith in their dealings with Māori,”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In answer to the first part of the question, yes.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he still stand by his statement, “Māori ceded sovereignty to the Crown.”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes.

Question No. 7—Housing

7. Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) to the Minister of Housing: Does he agree with Chris Bishop, National spokesperson for Housing’s statement on 27 September 2022 that “We will build enough state and social houses so that there is no social housing waitlist”; if so, is the Government on track to eliminate the social housing waitlist?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing): Yes, I often agree with myself. The goal of any Government, as indeed it is of this Government, should be to reduce the social housing wait-list as much as possible. One way to reduce the wait-list is to build more State and social houses. That’s why, in Budget 2024, we allocated $140 million to fund 1,500 new places to June 2027. Kāinga Ora will also be delivering an additional 2,650 housing places to June 2026. There are also many other ways to reduce the housing wait-list, including increasing land supply, making it easier for councils to fund and finance infrastructure, reducing consenting costs, increasing housing supply, increasing competition in the market for building materials, and removing red tape. Around half of the applicants on the social housing wait-list—listen up, because I don’t think members know this—are living in private housing, so anything we can do to make rents or housing more affordable puts downward pressure on the wait-list. In response to the second part of the question, we are on track. Since we came to Government, the social housing wait-list has declined by around 5,000 households. This is great progress. If it was the case that simply handing billions of dollars to Kāinga Ora was a way to reduce the wait-list, we would have seen better results over the last six years. Despite record debt by Kāinga Ora and billions of dollars given to the organisation, the social housing wait-list quadrupled.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Does he consider stopping the expansion of the State housing stock and reducing funding to community housing providers to only 750 social houses a year to be in line with the pledge to “build enough state and social houses so that there is no social housing waitlist”?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The member’s question is completely factually inaccurate. We have funded more social houses than the last Government did. For example, the Kāinga Ora and social housing build programme stopped as per the settings left by the last Government’s Budget in May 2023. There were no social housing places funded beyond June 2025. It was a fiscal cliff bequeathed to us by the last Government. So the member’s assertion that we have reduced social housing funding is, in fact, completely inaccurate. The truth is the opposite: we have increased it.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Outside of Kāinga Ora and community housing providers, how many social houses has the private sector built over the last 10 years?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, as the member knows, the private sector does not typically build social houses. The social—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: You just said they were the answer!

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, of course, building houses and improving the affordability of housing is part of the answer. Members need to understand the way the housing market works, which is that when rents are high and people can’t afford the private rental market, they end up in social housing. So all the things the Government is doing around freeing up land and making it easier for builders to build will help our housing market at every section, from first-home buyers, from people moving houses, from people in social housing, from people who might otherwise need a social house. We are focused on using every lever at our disposal in the housing market to improve affordability. Part of that—part of that—is supporting Kāinga Ora and the community housing sector to build more social and affordable houses; very important.

Hon Nicola Willis: Has the number of New Zealanders waiting on the State house waiting list increased or decreased since the Government was elected, and how does that compare to what happened to the State house waiting list under the last Government? [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry, that’s just too much. [Interruption] No—sorry, calm it down. I’m going to have to do something because otherwise I’m going to upset myself if I don’t.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Simple numbers. The wait-list—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just a minute—hang on. We’ll just go into complete silence and then we’ll see where it goes from there. Away you go.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Simple numbers. The wait-list has declined by around 5,000 since the Government came to office. That compares to an increase of around 20,000 under the last Government. Let me make this point: 50 percent of people on the social housing wait-list need a one-bedroom house. Kāinga Ora’s stock: 12 percent of the houses owned by the Government are one-bedroom units. We are really focused on gearing up the system to build simple, low-cost, affordable social houses for people in need.

Rt Hon Christopher Luxon: Could the Minister explain whether the number of people in emergency housing has gone up or down since this new Government was elected?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: One of the things—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Hang on. Wait on.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: One of the things that this Government is very proud of is that over the last 14 months or so, around 1,900 children in emergency housing motels have been moved into social and affordable housing. It’s a totemic achievement, and the Government is very proud of the fact that there are thousands of children now living in social houses who were previously living in cold, dark, dank motels. That is the legacy bequeathed to us by the outgoing Government.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. For the umpteenth time, it is allowed in this House to interject, but what’s coming from over there is a disorganised rabble, all shouting at the same time—and from the backbench as well—over their own colleagues. No one can hear a thing on this side of the House, let alone the rest of the debating chamber.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order.

SPEAKER: Sorry, are you speaking to the point of order?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I absolutely object to Winston Peters describing us as disorganised; we’re very organised on this side of the House.

SPEAKER: Well, it’s not something for which I’m going to ask him to apologise and withdraw, but the level of—it’s not interjection; it’s just barracking and it just sounds terrible. I get letters and letters about it—or emails, whatever. People need to ask themselves: “How am I presenting myself to the public of New Zealand while sitting inside the House of Representatives?” Rare and reasonable—fair enough. But not the constant barrage, which, actually, in the case of the last question, started before he’d even begun his answer.

Hon Nicola Willis: Does the Minister consider that the State house waiting list would be longer or shorter if 100,000 KiwiBuild houses had been delivered?

SPEAKER: No, I think we’ll leave that one.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Is it his intention to reduce the social housing wait-list not by building houses but instead, as front-line providers have stated is the actual case with emergency housing numbers, by manipulating the numbers?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: No, that’s not the intention. We will build more social houses. I’ll tell you one thing we have done is really try to get to grips with the way in which the register interacts with people who are actually building the houses. To give the House a simple example: when we came into Government, the way in which the Ministry of Social Development’s (MSD) list was communicated to Kāinga Ora and the community housing providers—they basically had to provide people one by one to the community housing providers in an incredibly inefficient, time-consuming process that sucked up enormous amounts of energy. There have been a whole bunch of operational improvements to the way the register operates so that it’s easier for people on the register to communicate—or easier for MSD to communicate—with Kāinga Ora and the community housing providers. Simple operational things like that have made a difference in the operation and housing of people off the register.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Does he agree with Andrew Crisp, chief executive of the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, who said that “both the register and people that apply does not represent effectively … severe housing deprivation”; and, if so, how can he stand in this House and celebrate numbers going down when he knows, from front-line providers and his own ministry, the need is actually growing?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Two points. Firstly, he’s not the chief executive; he’s left. Secondly, he is right. The register is imperfect, and I think members opposite who’ve been Ministers of Housing before would acknowledge that. The register is an imperfect measure of housing need. There’s no doubt about that. There are people in housing need who aren’t on the register, and it’s quite possibly the case that there are people on the register who haven’t been checked up on in the last few months or years who don’t necessarily need to be on the register, for example. In fact, the last Government commissioned a report by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet into the social housing register and the way in which it operates. It was done by Grant Robertson’s implementation unit, and the report is available online. I encourage the member to go and read it because it’s a pretty sorry tale of how the register operates. I’m not pretending that it’s a perfect measure of housing need, but it’s what we have, and it’s what we have now, and we’re comparing who’s on the register now in the same way that the last Government did, and we’ll continue to do that.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Can he assure the House that no Kāinga Ora houses or land will be sold to any donors to either of the three Government parties?

SPEAKER: I don’t think that’s a reasonable question.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Yes or no?

SPEAKER: No, it’s not a reasonable question for the Minister to answer. That would imply that the Minister is aware of how other parties are funded. That’s not a reasonable question, nor is it in the bounds of ministerial responsibility. Question No. 8—

Hon Chris Bishop: I still want to address it, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: No. I’ve said it’s out.

Question No. 8—Immigration

8. Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill) to the Minister of Immigration: What recent announcements has she made about attracting more global investment to New Zealand?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Immigration): I was delighted to announce that—alongside the Prime Minister, the Minister for Economic Growth, and the Minister for Trade and Investment—this Government is modernising visa settings to incentivise migrants to invest in New Zealand. We have revamped and simplified the rules so we can attract a much broader range of migrants to share their connections, their invaluable expertise, their knowledge and skills, and invest in our businesses. By attracting foreign investment, this Government will boost economic growth, create more jobs, and foster long-term partnerships to help us ensure a prosperous future for all Kiwis.

Dr Carlos Cheung: How will these changes attract more investment to New Zealand?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: From 1 April, this Government will introduce two new investment categories under the Active Investor Plus visa to encourage foreign investors to contribute to New Zealand’s economy. The Growth category focuses on high-risk investments like Kiwi start-ups, with a minimum of $5 million for three years, while the Balanced category targets lower-risk investments, requiring $10 million over five years. By simplifying requirements and removing barriers like the English language test, we will encourage a broader range of investors to contribute capital, expertise, and networks to turbocharge our economic growth.

Dr Carlos Cheung: How do these improvements help to grow New Zealand business and communities?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: New Zealand is back open for business and back open for investment. Investors will not only bring capital but also valuable international networks, expertise, and new technologies. These contributions will help businesses grow, create jobs, and provide young people with opportunities to develop new skills. We are a Government that is saying yes to growth, yes to opportunity, and yes to a more prosperous future for all New Zealanders, because when we attract international investment, we are investing in our futures: better jobs and stronger communities.

Dr Carlos Cheung: What feedback has she seen?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, I received overwhelmingly positive feedback. David Cooper from Malcolm Pacific said the offshore market was ready for our changes and the timing “couldn’t be better”. Immigration lawyer Mark Williams said, “We welcome the changes announced yesterday by the Prime Minister. … We believe the new … settings will create significant investment [and] interest” to dramatically increase the amount of foreign direct investment as a result. And the cherry on the top, former Labour Minister for Economic Development Stuart Nash, who launched the visa in 2022, coming out to congratulate us, to say, “We got a couple of things wrong, I admit that.”, but this Government has “done a really good job on this.”

SPEAKER: Question No. 9—[Interruption] Oh, when everyone’s ready. [Interruption] Time for a bit of a quiet from the Government side as well.

Question No. 9—Prime Minister

9. CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: E tautoko ana ia i āna kōrero me āna mahi katoa?

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

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Prime Minister agree that his Government’s decision to cut funding for school lunches by up to 75 percent per child has reduced the quality of those lunches?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I think what’s important is that we actually are expanding access for 10,000 more kids, and the money saved is actually going into delivering better resources in education and healthcare.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister aware that his Government’s choice to stop contracts with local providers and procure school lunches from a large corporation has cost approximately 2,000 local jobs in communities, as well as a reduction in the quality of this food?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I’m excited about is that any savings made are being redirected to our kids so they get a better education and they get better healthcare.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister aware of how many of these lower-quality lunches procured by his Government are now ending up in landfill as a result of them being inedible? [Refers to school meal packs on her desk]

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. Mr Speaker, since when, in the Standing Orders, is a member allowed to bring their lunch to Parliament, let alone having taken it from a schoolchild? Since when?

SPEAKER: You may well raise a question—[Interruption] I’m speaking. You may well raise a question about where they came from, but, generally, the use of aids when it comes to making a point is not approved of in the House, so I’m sure that the member won’t make too much use of those items in front of her.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Shall I repeat the question, Mr Speaker?

SPEAKER: Well, you didn’t start it.

Chlöe Swarbrick: I’ll repeat the question: is the Prime Minister aware of how many of these lower-quality lunches procured by his Government are now ending up in landfill as a result of them being inedible for our kids?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I just encourage the member to direct the question at the relevant Minister.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Will the Prime Minister—will the Prime Minister [Interruption]—

SPEAKER: No, hang on, just wait. It’s your colleagues who are making all the noise.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Will the Prime Minister, then, commit to eating the same lunches that he is forcing on our school children, like one of these three that I have brought for each of the leaders of his Government, and, if not, is there one standard of acceptable food for parliamentarians and another for our children?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well I’m more worried about which children are missing out on those lunches that you’ve nicked them from.

Hon David Seymour: Is the Prime Minister aware that the people delivering the Healthy School Lunches Programme, the School Lunch Collective, are highly qualified and skilled in delivering food, unlike Chlöe Swarbrick; and, if he knew that, would he be surprised to hear feedback that we’ve received, such as, “Received our first lunches from the new lunch programme today and the students and staff were very impressed! Lunches arrived on time and they were nice and hot and students said they were filling and had flavour.”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I appreciate what the Minister is doing to make sure that we deliver better healthy lunch programmes and also free up cash that can be spent on education and getting our kids educated. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Wait.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister’s—

SPEAKER: No, no, hang on. Just wait, and then I’ll give you the nod. Now we can go.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister’s stated obsession with growth always going to come at the cost of our children’s wellbeing?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: It’s because of our children’s wellbeing that we want growth; that’s actually how they access higher-paying jobs—more jobs; higher incomes—and how they will be able to afford the things that they want to do and live the dreams that they have.

Hon David Seymour: Is the Prime Minister aware that yesterday, the school lunch programme achieved 100 percent on-time delivery in every region, with two exceptions, where, in one case, 95 percent delivery was achieved, and, in the other case, 92 percent on-time delivery was achieved?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I wasn’t, but that sounds fantastic.

Question No. 10—Biosecurity

10. MARK CAMERON (ACT) to the Minister for Biosecurity: What recent announcement has he made in his portfolio?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Minister for Biosecurity): Last month, I released a media statement highlighting just how important our strong border and wider biosecurity system is for New Zealand. In January, Germany confirmed an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in cattle for the first time in 40 years. The risk to New Zealand is low, but we take it very seriously because of how devastating this disease would be for our primary sector and for the New Zealand economy. Biosecurity New Zealand staff are being increasingly vigilant at the border to make sure we keep it out. It has been a busy summer for Biosecurity New Zealand. While most of us were enjoying a Christmas break, staff rapidly stood up an incursion response in Auckland when a single oriental fruit fly was detected in a trap. This comes on top of the ongoing response against highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) at a poultry farm in Otago. This shows that biosecurity doesn’t take a holiday.

Mark Cameron: What updates can he give on the current incursion responses?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Rapid action on behalf of the farmer and Biosecurity New Zealand to stand up a response and restrict movements is paying off in Otago. Tracing has not detected any HPAI-infected chickens beyond the farm where the disease originated. Given we have now had enough time to move through two incubation periods, our focus has shifted on to decontamination of the affected property to avoid any reinfection. The fruit fly response is still ongoing, with surveillance traps being checked each week. So far, there have been no more detections. Movement controls remain in place and Biosecurity New Zealand staff have reported positive engagement with the public.

Mark Cameron: Why is this work important?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: New Zealand’s robust biosecurity system, and the relative freedom from pests and disease that it protects, is a massive part in our farmers’ competitive advantage. It underpins a $53 billion export industry, showcased at lunchtime by those lovely, lovely lamb chops that many of us partook in for National Lamb Day.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Wasn’t me!

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Well, you should have got some. Well, I’ll happily eat that tomorrow. HPAI and fruit fly are severe threats to the poultry and horticultural industries. Doing all we can to keep them out and acting quickly and decisively to eradicate them, if they are found, supports those industries and New Zealand’s standard of living. I want to thank all the members of the public who’ve worked with us during biosecurity incursions and have had to stand in those annoying but necessary biosecurity lines at the airport. This work is vital to our economic prosperity.

Mark Cameron: What other work is happening to strengthen our biosecurity system?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Our system is already very good, but the Biosecurity Act hasn’t been updated in quite some time, and we have some work to do to make sure that it’s as fit for purpose as possible in this modern day and age. We consulted the public at the end of last year and we’ll be working through options in the coming months. I’m also focused on signing an FMD, or foot-and-mouth disease, operational agreement with the livestock industry. This will lock in the detail for how cost-sharing and shared decision-making will ever work if we have to respond. This work is critical for the economic success of this country.

Question No. 11—Immigration

11. Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister of Immigration: What projections, if any, has she seen on the amount of money expected to be invested through each category of her Active Investor Plus visa for the next three years, and what is the projected cost of these new residents using the public health system over the same three years?

SPEAKER: I’m advised that this answer may be slightly longer than the usually long answers for this topic, but it is a question that has quite some detail in it.

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Immigration): To the first part of the question, we looked at the previously successful Investor 1 and 2 visas. In 2019, 217 applications were approved and $1.1 billion was invested into New Zealand. I’ve been advised that there are already over 50 investors who are ready to apply on 1 April. This represents a minimum of $250 million to grow our economy and bring in highly valued skills, expertise, and networks to help our businesses grow. In response to the second part of the question, we have not done modelling on health costs, for the same reasons the previous Government didn’t do modelling when they introduced the visa in 2022: because it is a very small number of multimillionaire investors who are all required to meet the rigorous acceptable standards of health for a resident class visa. I’m also advised that under Investor 1 and 2 in 2019, the average age of people who applied for this visa was 36, hardly in the range of having to worry about modelling health costs.

Hon Phil Twyford: Did she share with Cabinet the Australian Productivity Commission report that found their investor visa was costing Australia more in health than it was bringing in?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: What I did do was chat with my officials about why the Australian system was not successful. Firstly, it targeted $15 million, which was far too much for the market, which is why nobody applied for that end of the visa. The second part as to why the visa was not successful—and I think the Australians would be first to admit that they did not do a good enough job at tracking the money, which is why they closed down, in my understanding, that visa, but nothing to do with the reasons that the member has articulated.

Hon Phil Twyford: Does she agree with venture capital investor Andy Hamilton, who said, “what I know from investor migrants is they’re inherently risk-averse and conservative and if they’re able to just put their money in a passive investment, they will. And I think that misses the opportunity for us to leverage that money for the good of New Zealand.”?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, what I can say of the 50 people who have already put in interest with some of the lawyers and immigration agents that I’ve spoken to is that the vast majority of those are invested in the higher-risk growth category. What I would also say to that member is that, yes, there are many migrant investors around the world who have a lower risk profile to start with, but we know from evidence that that changes over time, and if we want to grow the number of people in New Zealand who are prepared to invest in our companies over time, then we have to have different settings for different risk profiles. The fact that the member doesn’t understand that shows why we’ve only had 30 applications in the last three years who’ve been approved in principle.

Hon Phil Twyford: Will she require these investors, once resident and able to use New Zealand services like health, to be NZ tax residents and, therefore, pay income tax in New Zealand, rather than overseas?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Once again, the member misses the point. These people are multimillionaire investors with tens of millions of dollars in venture capital funds to invest in New Zealand businesses to help grow our economy. Now, if the member is so hung up on health costs, the question has to be put by the public to that member why on earth they approved 212,000 resident visas under RV21 with almost no health requirements at all, even though they were warned by their officials that it would have a huge impact on our health system. But here the previous Minister is worried about 219 multimillionaires. I think he’s barking up the wrong tree.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Minister saying that, when you go from a $2.2 billion successful policy down to a lousy $70 million, it might be time to change policy?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I think that the Deputy Prime Minister has hit the nail on the head. In the last almost three years, 31 applicants were approved in principle, with a total of $70 million invested, compared to $2.2 billion in the two years prior to 2020. We had a golden goose that was absolutely destroyed by the previous Government and that was replaced with a lame duck, and this Government is making sure we’re bringing back settings that will invest in New Zealand businesses to help grow our economy, create more jobs, and more prosperous economies.

Hon Phil Twyford: Why do wealthy people applying for her investor visa not need to meet English language requirements but hard-working migrants on other visas do?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, can I just say that the member really does need to do his homework in Opposition. Most migrants coming into this country on work visas do not need to pass an English language test. The only reason they might do is if they are lower-skilled migrants who are potentially going to be exploited. And this is to protect them. Multimillion-dollar investors coming into New Zealand are not required to speak English, for two reasons: firstly, it’s insulting that we ask them to sit a high school test to show that they can speak English when they’re worth millions of dollars—frankly, it doesn’t really say, “Welcome to New Zealand”—and secondly, in the words of Michelle Dickinson, or “Nanogirl” as we know her very well, actually we have people in our businesses who speak Mandarin; we don’t need them to speak English. We just need them here to help grow our businesses, and the member should do well to understand that. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just take your time, Mr Twyford. The House appears to be in no hurry today, so take your time until it’s quiet.

Hon Phil Twyford: Why was she able to deliver a new visa for wealthy foreigners in quick time but she won’t even start work on the parent visa that National promised in the election campaign until the middle of this year?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, once again, the member has his facts wrong; it seems to be a trend. We’ve already started work on the visa, and I look to announce that visa later this year.

Question No. 12—Housing

12. DAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth) to the Associate Minister of Housing: What recent announcements has he made about Māori housing?

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Associate Minister of Housing): Hurō, e te Māngai! [Hurray, Mr Speaker!] Last week, I announced that $200 million in funding will be used to accelerate the delivery of 400 affordable rentals by Māori housing providers in areas of high need. Housing need for Māori is well documented and partnering with land-owning entities to deliver affordable rentals is a win, win, win—whānau, communities, and the Government. This mahi will also tautoko whānau to focus on other important matters like getting tamariki off to kura and acquiring structured literacy and numeracy skills. Kia ora.

David MacLeod: How many homes has this Government approved through the Māori housing programme at the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Since coming into administration in November 2023, including this recent announcement, this Government has enabled the delivery of around a thousand homes for whānau to be built across the country through the Māori housing programme. The delivery of these homes will complement the delivery of 1,500 social housing homes by community housing providers by the end of June 2027 and many Kāinga Ora homes by the end of June 2026, as announced in Budget 2024.

David MacLeod: When and where will these homes be delivered?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: These 1,000 homes are intended to be delivered by Māori housing providers by end of June 2027. In terms of where: the developments are focused but not exclusive to high-needs priority rohe against the backdrop of severe housing deprivation and acute shortage of quality affordable rental homes. Priority regions include Te Tai Tokerau, Te Tairāwhiti, and the mighty Waikato.

David MacLeod: How does this impact on Government priorities for housing?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: We know from the 2021 housing economic survey that around half of Māori households spend more than 30 percent of their disposable income on housing costs and more than a third spend more than 50 percent. Māori are overrepresented in the cohort of whānau struggling to get into warm, safe, and affordable homes. These Māori housing projects will go some way towards addressing that inequality of opportunity. This mahi sits within the Going for Housing Growth renaissance, led by the indomitable “Manu Pīhopa”—Minister Bishop—and the “Manu Pūtea”—Minister Willis.

Questions to Members

Question No. 1—Health Committee

1. Hon JO LUXTON (Labour) to the Chairperson of the Health Committee: How many submissions, if any, have been received on the Gene Technology Bill?

SAM UFFINDELL (Chairperson of the Health Committee): I’ve been advised by the clerk of our committee that the number of submissions received by a committee is confidential until the submissions have been tabled by the committee, as the act of tabling is the act of receiving them, and until the decision to table has been taken, it is a matter before the committee. Submissions are open until Monday, 17 February.

Hon Jo Luxton: Will the request of an extension period by agricultural stakeholders, DairyNZ, Beef + Lamb New Zealand, the New Zealand Meat Industry Association, and the Dairy Companies Association of New Zealand be brought before the Health Committee?

SAM UFFINDELL: It is not for the chair to decide on a matter such as that. The committee had unanimously determined that the submission period will be open until 17 February. That is longer than an eight-week period. That is where we stand on that. Thank you, ma’am.

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

Hon Member: Great chair—excellent chair!

SPEAKER: Points of order are heard in silence. Point of order, the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: I think it could be that the member didn’t hear the full question. I think the question was very clearly within the purview of the chair, which is whether the matter of the request for extension would be brought to the committee. That is a decision for the chair, so I think it is reasonable to ask him to answer that.

SPEAKER: Well, I’m aware that in these circumstances the chairs of these committees take advice from the Office of the Clerk about the nature of the question they’re given. Indeed, I’ve just been given a little note here which says that the chairperson is not responsible for extensions. Any such request is confidential to the committee. So the confidentiality of the committee would be potentially breached given that the organisations the member listed in her question would have their confidentiality breached, effectively.

Question No. 2—Social Services and Community Committee

2. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Chairperson of the Social Services and Community Committee: How many submissions, if any, have been received on the Oranga Tamariki (Responding to Serious Youth Offending) Amendment Bill?

JOSEPH MOONEY (Chairperson of the Social Services and Community Committee): The committee has tabled and released 5,342 submissions.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Will he enable the committee to consider extending hearings for organisations that have had their submission time cut to five minutes, like Te Kāhui o Ināia Tonu Nei Charitable Trust, VOYCE - Whakarongo Mai, Te Whakakitenga o Waikato, Ngāpuhi Iwi Social Services, Te Hunga Rōia Māori, Cooper Legal, Kick Back, and the individual submitters who wanted to speak to their submission but were unable to due to the decision to limit the time for oral hearings?

SPEAKER: The question can’t stand because the chairperson is not responsible for that. That’s a committee decision—he himself does not enable something.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order. The question was whether the chair will call a meeting, which is entirely within the purview of the chair and he’s entirely able to answer that question.

SPEAKER: No, the question was “Would he enable”. We can go on for ever about these things, but they have to be done appropriately. I’ll tell you what, I’ll give the member a chance to ask the question a different way.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Sure.

SPEAKER: But if it doesn’t comply, it’ll be over.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Would the chairperson call a meeting of the committee to consider extending hearings for organisations that have had their submission time cut to five minutes, like Te Kāhui—

SPEAKER: That’ll do—that’s enough. You got the essence of it. The list was there before.

JOSEPH MOONEY: Decisions on matters of timing are a matter for the committee, not the chairperson alone. I would remind the member that proceedings in committee which are excluded from the public are confidential to the committee until it is reported back to the House.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. That response did not address the question. In fact, the response made it the suggestion that the member had breached confidentiality, which is not the case. The House deserves an answer that addresses the very straightforward question as to whether the Minister will be calling a meeting for that purpose. We recognise we can’t ask for a yes or no, but a response that addresses that question is required.

SPEAKER: Yeah, look, I think a different response could come. The question simply was, “Will the chairperson call a meeting to discuss the extension of submission times?”

JOSEPH MOONEY: The member asking the question is a member of the select committee, and the member is entitled to put that to the select committee for consideration if they so choose.

Question No. 3—Social Services and Community Committee

3. Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Chairperson of the Social Services and Community Committee: How many submissions, if any, have been received on the Social Security Amendment Bill?

JOSEPH MOONEY (Chairperson of the Social Services and Community Committee): The Social Services and Community Committee has tabled and released 3,533 submissions.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Why did the chair not call for an additional meeting so there would be enough time for full submissions, full 10-minute submissions, from organisations like the Child Poverty Action Group, Coalition of Community Law Centres Aotearoa, Disabled Persons Assembly, and the Salvation Army, and the individual submitters who wanted to speak to their submission but were unable to due to the decision to limit the time for the oral hearings?

JOSEPH MOONEY: I would refer the member to Standing Order 390(4), which is that matters of the committee in private are confidential to that committee until it reports back to the House. But going beyond that, the committee is determined to hear as many submitters as possible. In fact, yesterday, we had more time available for submitters than there were submitters available to make oral submissions.

SPEAKER: Thank you. That concludes the questions to members. We’ll take a short pause while members who have other duties leave the House quietly and without discussion on the way. [Interruption] We’re not having those discussions in the hallways; just keep moving.

Urgent Debates

Health New Zealand Chief Executive—Resignation

Director of Public Health—Resignation

Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Tēnā koe. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I move, That the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance.

If National’s idea of leadership is chaos, confusion, and empty promises, they’re on track for a clean sweep in health. But the real losers here are everyday Kiwis. There are some givens in our community. Kiwis who are unwell expect to get healthcare. Kiwis who need to see a doctor expect to be able to see a doctor. Kiwis who need emergency healthcare expect and deserve to get it.

The same can be said if you are one of the 90,000 workers in our health sector. In Te Whatu Ora, you should be able to expect two things: one, that there is a clear health plan, something that you can focus on, something you can deliver and hold yourself accountable to. The other thing they expect is clear leadership—clear leadership—and we are not seeing that from this Government. We’ve just seen, in the last few days, that we have received the resignation of Margie Apa, and just in recent hours, in the recent day, another resignation of another senior health official in Dr Jones.

This is a problem for New Zealanders. This says that under this Government, the leadership is walking away from the most important and critical sector of our country: the health sector. And what do we know about leadership? It’s that it starts at the very top. What we know is that this Government has continued to change and undermine the leadership of health in this country and has left it in chaos. We know that Margie Apa’s resignation and Dr Jones’ resignation are only two of the high-profile ones. We know that there are so many more in the health sector who have already walked away. And where do they go? Well, we know a large amount of them have gone to Australia. They’ve gone to Australia, and they’ve gone overseas to look for health opportunities because they are not cared for, they are not respected, and they do not have the leadership they deserve here in their own country. We know that leadership starts at the top.

What we can say is that, sadly, for Margie Apa, her leadership was undermined from the very start from when this Government came into power. They made it very clear that they did not back Margie Apa. The former health Minister was asked whether or not he had confidence in Margie Apa and her leadership, and he made it clear that he didn’t. In fact, he tried to brush off his responsibility as the health Minister, simply saying, “Oh, that’s for the board to worry about.” I come back to the point: health and leadership starts at the very top.

Then what happens is Mr Reti, the former Minister, appoints a commissioner in health—another person who will not publicly back our senior health official and continually undermines our senior health official. That simply is not good enough for New Zealanders or for the large health sector workforce. Not only did the commissioner undermine Margie Apa; he also did it publicly. He did it in select committee hearings, he did it through the media, and refused a one-on-one conversation to support Margie Apa in the important role that she had to lead our health sector.

What we know is that the national health system is on its knees. It’s in chaos, and what we have not seen from this Government or the leadership is a plan for where they’re taking the health sector. We’ve had a change of Minister, and in this time, for the most critical sector in New Zealand, the Minister has yet to spell out a plan and has yet to even back his leadership to make sure that the health sector has the leadership that it deserves.

In fact, there are so many more questions, but we want to focus on the reason for this urgent debate, and that is that Mr Simeon Brown, as the Minister of Health, has failed to support the leadership. What we know is that Kiwis have a long memory. They’ll look at this current Minister and this current Government and know that they aren’t getting the services that they need and they deserve. What we know from this Government is that, so far, the plan is this: underfunding, understaffing, and, now, we see, from the very top, resignations in our leadership, continually undermining the health sector in this country.

What might Kiwis be able to expect from this Minister? Well, if this continues, the question must be asked: will he resign? If the leadership cannot get on with the important job of leading the health sector in this country, it comes back to the point I made earlier about the leadership starting at the very top. What this country is not seeing from this Minister, or this Government, is that leadership.

There was large bluster at the beginning of last year about making health amazing and bringing it back on track. Well, this Government has failed to do that, and now we see with recent resignations that they will struggle to have the leadership to be able to do that now and into the future. People like Margie Apa and people like Dr Jones aren’t easily replaceable. We know that their leadership for this country through the COVID pandemic was absolutely critical in the world-class response that this country had in responding to COVID and the pandemic. Margie Apa has led health initiatives across Auckland, the biggest city in this country. She’s made sure that they received the healthcare that they deserved in her time leading that particular region. She then steps into the job of leading this country, and she did a fantastic job. In fact, by my reckon and in my time as an associate health Minister, she was instrumental in making sure that Kiwis got the healthcare that they deserved.

Now, did Margie Apa get the support that she deserved? The answer is no. Did Margie Apa and her leadership team get the support that they deserve from this Government? The answer is absolutely not.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: They were used as a scapegoat.

Hon PEENI HENARE: They were used as a scapegoat. Eventually, this Government will run out of people to blame for the state of our healthcare. They will continue to run out of people to blame, because leaders in the health sector are walking away from the sector that they’re most passionate about because of a failure of leadership from this Government.

Now, we’ve heard a lot from this Government—looking back and blaming Labour and blaming past Governments. We stood up during a difficult time through COVID-19. Furthermore, we provided a clear direction for the health sector. We provided leadership for the health sector. And what have we got from the other side? Cuts, underfunding, understaffing. What we’ve also seen in recent times from this Government is a flip-flop on targets in health. They told the country, “We’re going to give you timely healthcare.”, and then, all of a sudden, they realise, “Oh, it actually requires strong leadership; we’re not going to be able to deliver on that.” We see a turn-back or a wind-back on their promises to this country with respect to healthcare.

Once again, this starts at the very top. There are questions that Minister Brown must answer for Kiwis today. What is the plan? Why doesn’t he back the leadership of our health sector? Why isn’t Mr Brown providing a plan to this country to bring our health sector back to a world-class health sector that our country deserves?

For the last part of my contribution, I want to acknowledge Margie Apa, I want to acknowledge Dr Nicholas Jones, and I want to acknowledge all of the healthcare workers in this country who are doing it tough. They have a Government that doesn’t back them. They have a Government that continually pulls the rug out from underneath them to provide healthcare for this country. I want to acknowledge Margie Apa and Dr Jones for their leadership through difficult times in this country. My hope is that in their new endeavours, their new chapter, they receive the support that they so richly deserve as leaders of our health sector in this country.

What we need to hear from this Government is a clear plan on where they’re taking our health sector, because, right now, we have a workforce right up and down this country that is extremely unhappy in their roles, not clear on who’s coming and who’s going. We have a health sector that are told that they cannot actually hire more people, despite being clearly stressed in their job. We know, for example, that in one region alone, very close to this House, there are over 600 vacancies—600 vacancies. We have to ask the question: are Kiwis getting what they deserve in health? From this Government, the answer is absolutely not.

Finally, to those who work hard in our health sector, I say thank you. Thank you for working hard in our communities. Thank you for continually looking after Kiwis every single day. This Government won’t back you, but I can tell you what will: the Labour Party.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health): Well, it took him till minute eight in that speech to actually get to the point of acknowledging and thanking Margie Apa for her service, which shows his priorities actually when it comes to this debate.

Of course, as I said on Friday, I do thank Margie Apa for the job that she did as the first CEO of Health New Zealand, and I do wish her well into the future. I do acknowledge her, and the team that she has been part of for the work that they have done, and the decision that she came to last week, as announced by the commissioner, that she would depart from her role four months prior to the end of her contract. That is a decision, ultimately, that she made.

Ultimately, what we’ve heard from the Opposition, though, is basically them trying to provide a lecture. What they need is a mirror, because actually they’re the ones who put our health system into turmoil. They are the ones who decided to restructure our health system during the middle of a pandemic. So stop lecturing and have a look in the mirror to the decisions the Opposition made when they were last in Government.

Let’s go through their track record when it came to the health system. The first point I’d make, because it talks about what they stopped, and what we restarted, is, firstly, you can’t manage what you don’t measure. What was the very, very, very first thing the Labour Party did when they were elected in 2017? They removed the health targets—the health targets which demonstrated to New Zealanders whether or not they were getting the timely, quality access to healthcare that they deserve. The first thing they got rid of was those health targets. Shame on them. Look in the mirror. That was the very first thing they did. And what happened when they stopped measuring? The results started going backwards.

In 2017, if you turned up in an emergency department (ED), 90 percent of people were being seen within six hours. When the last Government left office, when we started recording again, it had dropped below 70 percent. Shame on them. When it came to seeing a specialist for your first specialist assessment, 99 percent of New Zealanders were seeing their first specialist assessment within four months. That had dropped below 70 percent over the time that they left office.

Tom Rutherford: They’re quiet now.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: A shame—yeah exactly, where have they gone now? There’s not a lot being said from the Opposition now.

When it came to elective surgeries, those critically important planned surgeries, which matter so much to our communities, particularly to our elderly, when we left office in 2017, 97.3 percent of New Zealanders were getting elective surgeries within four months. When they left office, it had dropped to 62 percent. Shame on them. When it comes to immunisations—and we know how important immunisations are to our children, and to our tamariki—when we left office in 2017, 92.4 percent of New Zealanders’ children were being immunised at 24 months. When we came to office, it dropped to 77 percent. Shame on them.

You can’t manage what you don’t measure, so I’m proud of the fact this Government has restored those targets. And yes, what they do is they demonstrate the state of our health system, the turmoil that it was put in under that last Government, and the need to improve. We’re not hiding from the fact that there are significant challenges. I hear New Zealanders when they say to me, “It’s taking too long to see a doctor.” I hear New Zealanders when they say, “It’s taking too long to get that specialist assessment.” and “It’s taking too long when I go to ED with my child.”, so this Government is focused on putting the resource back into the front line, rather than into the bureaucracy.

They spent three years reallocating the bureaucrats behind closed doors, merging 20 DHBs into one, focusing on positions, and job descriptions, and all of that bureaucratic thing, rather than on the targets and the outcomes, which is what New Zealanders—when they wake up in the morning—care about when their feet hit the floor. They care about “Can I see my GP? Can I get into an emergency department? Can I make sure that I can get elective surgery if I need it?” That’s what they care about. What the Opposition care about is bureaucracy, and bureaucrats; and I find that appalling. They don’t care about our front line; they care about bureaucracy, and that’s not something that I’m going to stand for.

So what have we done? We’ve invested another $16.68 billion additional into health services. We’ve hired thousands more nurses. We’re focusing back on front-line service delivery for Kiwis. That’s what we are doing, and that’s what my expectations are for Health New Zealand to be delivering against. I will back the front line every single day, because they are the ones who work hard; they are the ones who deliver. But what I won’t stand by is bureaucracy, bureaucratic processes, and constant centralisation, which is what that Government did.

Here are some questions for the Labour Party to answer. Why did you remove the health targets? Tell me why. If you’re elected at some point in the future, will you remove them again?

Hon Member: Why?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Answer the question: why did you remove them? Why did the Labour Party decide that in the middle of a pandemic it was the right time to restructure the entire health system? Tell me why. Tell me why you did that. Why do you think that bureaucracy was more important than health outcomes? Tell the public why—tell the public why. Why did you think that a co-governed bureaucracy was absolutely necessary at that time? More focus on bureaucracy, and co-governance, rather than the outcomes that New Zealanders deserve, and the New Zealanders need.

I thank Health New Zealand staff; I thank the leadership for what they are doing. They have a difficult and challenging job, and they are focusing on the delivery that New Zealanders deserve, the delivery that New Zealanders need. My focus as Minister of Health is to ensure that those five health targets are the priority for every single person working at Health New Zealand; from the CEO down to the person right down the bottom of the organisation. Whatever layer they’re in—the five health targets are our core priorities. We expect them to be delivering that. We’ve invested a record $16.68 billion additional into health. That is a record investment into our health system. It’s above inflation. It’s about making sure we’re addressing those core health challenges, but we expect that money to be going to front-line services, and front-line delivery, and we expect them to be focusing on delivering against those targets.

Whilst we’ve heard from the other side of the House where they’ve talked about underfunding, that’s fake news. They’ve talked about understaffing—more fake news. They’ve talked about leadership. All they’re focused on is the bureaucracy. We’re focused on the front line, and on delivery. I will be relentless in my focus on the five health targets and making sure New Zealanders can access their GPs. I don’t stand here unconscious of the challenge in front of me, and in front of this Government, because we know how important this is to every single New Zealander. But I can tell you something for free: to the Labour Party, just focusing on the bureaucracy ain’t gonna fix it. That’s what they spent six years doing. I say to them: shame on them for focusing on the bureaucracy, rather than focusing on everyday mums and dads, children, our elderly, and delivering the health services.

The facts speak for themselves, and we will keep demonstrating that the facts speak for themselves. The facts show they failed, and we are going to turn those numbers around, and deliver for New Zealanders.

HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): Thanks, Mr Speaker. I stand here sad at the news that we have lost one of our best from the health system. Margie Apa was the best of us. After 27 years of delivery of health services across the system, we’ve lost a Pacific leader, we’ve lost a wahine Pasifika, and we’ve lost the CEO of Te Whatu Ora. That’s shame on us for the way that we did not look after her, for she was a woman who maintained her composure.

She came before the select committee. She was under scrutiny and the eyes of New Zealand were upon her as she led a system that was to bring together a joined-up approach, an innovative way of delivering a new health system. Margie Apa said, “This role has called on all of my 27 years of experience in health policy, planning, and funding, operations, and people leadership. It has also called upon all my experience both in hospitals and as a funder of primary and community services. There is progress we have made together. We are delivering more care to more people, both in our hospitals and in our community and primary care sector.”

She was unifying the healthcare sector: 80,000 staff, multibillion-dollar budget. Te Whatu Ora was bringing through reforms that would see efficiencies, that would see a way by which we could cut the bureaucracy, but Margie Apa knew what was at the heart of our workforce, and that was quality delivery. Because we have a workforce that is stressed, we cannot turn our back on what our nurses and what our unions are telling us. They are telling us very clearly they need to be resourced better. We need a dollar into the health system that genuinely funds a public health sector.

Margie Apa was the lady with the heart, and she worked alongside Riana Manuel to establish that mahi tahi that has been called “co-governance”. No, no, no, you cannot say that Te Aka Whai Ora was all bureaucracy. Those kaimahi were based in Tai Tokerau. They were based in Tairāwhiti and in Taranaki. They were in the regions. There was only a tiny, tiny number of kaimahi in Wellington and Auckland. Te Aka Whai Ora were connected, they were local, and they were listening and working alongside Te Whatu Ora. But no, it’s for nothing—for nothing. You didn’t even give them a chance. And that’s the crying shame of where we’re at in the health sector.

This year is about accountability—absolutely. You can’t keep blaming Labour. This year is about putting your neck on the line as the Minister, somebody who’s new to our sector, and saying, “This is what I’ve done”, because, as somebody from the health sector, I look forward to seeing what you can produce as the Government. We have changes that have come wave after wave for our sector. We have seen the sacking of the Te Whatu Ora board, doing away with Te Aka Whai Ora, bringing in a commissioner who said of his CEO just recently in The Post—the commissioner was quoted as saying that he wanted a chief executive who could build a team and lead a team that has got serious implementation capacity; that can, instead of writing about what they’re going to do, actually do it. Meinga, meinga! Shame on the commissioner to dare undermine Margie Apa, that taonga that has delivered so much for her people, whether it’s DHB, whether it’s Ministry of Health, and then ka eke ia ki te taumata. [she stepped up.]

She came forward, a wahine Pasifika to lead our waka hauora, and then we get a commissioner that undermines her publicly. Meinga, meinga! Shame on that—shame!—because, ultimately, if your chair, if your commissioner, does not have your back, well, then who does? We do. We back Margie Apa. We back all of the kaimahi on the workforce, because they deserve better. We need to fuel our health sector properly. We need to acknowledge that public health services are a right for all New Zealanders, and we need to have an equity lens whereby all of us, no matter where we come from, if we’re at the bottom of every socioeconomic statistic—aka Māori and Pasifika—we’re going to get funded for it.

TODD STEPHENSON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I firstly want to pay tribute to Margie Apa, who resigned just four months ahead of the end of her contract. She took on what I would describe as probably one of the most challenging roles in the New Zealand health system, and I’ll talk about that in a moment. I think it’s also important to inject some facts into this debate. Dr Nicholas Jones did not resign. His secondment actually ended, and he has returned to the Hawke’s Bay, and, again, I want to pay tribute to him for his leadership of the national public health system. They are both people that have contributed to our health system.

I want to acknowledge the new Minister of Health, Simeon Brown, who I think did an excellent job of talking about this Government’s health priorities. I do have to agree with something that a member of the Opposition said, that Margie Apa’s leadership was undermined from the very start. Yes, it was. That’s what you do when you put someone into the role of combining an organisation during a pandemic. She was given an impossible task, and she did it to the best of her abilities, but when you decide to make such radical changes, in the middle of a pandemic, that were not well thought through, you were actually setting someone up for a very, very difficult job, and she did her best under very, very difficult circumstances.

The Minister also reflected on getting rid of health targets. Well, we have a saying in ACT—and, in fact, in many organisations—“What gets measured, gets done”, and when you start to stop measuring the public health outcomes and services that Kiwis expect, things do slip away. We heard from the Minister a number of very unfortunate statistics that went backwards around elective surgery, immunisations, etc., under the last Government.

This Government is here and committed to cleaning up health. That does mean bringing in some people into new leadership roles, like Professor Lester Levy, who took over as the commissioner, but it also means tidying up some of the other messes that were left in health. One obviously very dear to my heart is Pharmac and the massive fiscal cliff that was left in Pharmac, which would have seen medicines—many of them cancer medicines—not continue to be funded. Again, this Government had to come in and clean up that mess.

The Minister also made an important announcement around Dunedin Hospital last week. Again, a project that had just been left to run off the rails. Well, again, this Government has delivered some certainty to the people of Dunedin, and, in fact, the people of the South, where I’m from. That will actually go ahead and will actually be delivered in a responsible way and in a timely way.

Yes, health is very important to Kiwis, and they are not getting the health services that they expect, and that is a real shame, but we’ve got to be completely transparent that we’ve actually got to front up to these challenges, not bury them away, not try to just reorganise things, bring in more bureaucrats. We’ve actually got to say that Kiwis deserve world-class health services supported by wonderful front-line healthcare professionals—and we have many of them, our doctors, our nurses, and our other front-line staff. That’s who we’re backing to actually start to turn things around.

It’s very convenient for the Opposition to just blank their minds of the mess they made in health over an extended period, but we’re here to try and actually bring in some reality to that. It’s very good to see that the Minister will be continuing to focus on the five health areas that the Government has put in place and actually measuring and making sure we’re delivering against those.

I do want to thank everyone in our public health system that’s working very, very hard today, who worked very, very hard, actually, over the holiday period. We know it’s tough out there, but we’re here to make the tough decisions, the right decisions, and actually turn around this health system and actually have it deliver for Kiwis. Thank you.

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is always a privilege to speak on behalf of New Zealand First, and I’d like to begin my contribution on this health debate today, acknowledging our new Minister, Mr Simeon Brown, as he takes over leadership of the health portfolio for our Government. We know that health is challenging for so many Kiwis. He mentioned, in his contribution, for Labour to look in the mirror. I think that’s a really important point that I will come back to in just a moment.

Firstly, I start off, though, with an acknowledgment of Margie Apa’s service. While we respect the dedication throughout the tenure of her leadership, her resignation underscores, in fact, the impossible task that she faced. It was a task that was doomed by systemic dysfunction, which was inherited from the previous Labour Government.

Hon Shane Jones: Regime.

JENNY MARCROFT: That’s right. No leader could thrive under Labour’s poorly designed health reforms—the centralisation of a health system. That structure that was put in place in the middle of a pandemic, where health resources were already stretched, basically hit breaking point, so you ended up with a system which could not be put together properly. In fact, they ignored right from the get-go Heather Simpson’s report. She did not recommend joining 20 DHBs into one.

Hon Shane Jones: Very clever.

JENNY MARCROFT: Very clever woman. In fact, a previous Labour person, Heather Simpson—they ignored her, her advice. That was outrageous for them to do that, because combining those DHBs right across into a central health system in the middle of COVID created so many problems for those on the ground dealing with COVID at the time. I happened to be working in a primary health organisation. We had massive problems trying to get information through from the central control, because they were so busy trying to put a new system together at the same time as trying to inform the health sector.

With Labour in Government during the middle of a pandemic—they were unprepared for the pandemic in the first place. There was a lack of pandemic planning—that centralised management of COVID that was being thrust into primary care, in particular, with minimal notice, in fact, in some cases, with less than a week’s notice. GPs were not prepared. They were already stretched. There had not been a change in the capitation model for over 20 years. They were already stretched; their business models were already breaking.

The care of COVID patients was transferred into primary care with very little warning and time for the sector to prepare. The software system, the Covid Clinical Care Module (CCCM) system, for referring patients centrally for weekend clinical cover, was not there. It was not ready. The same software system, the CCCM, was not ready for the clinical management of those COVID patients. The N95 masks, testing capability, and equipment—the PPE—when they were told to go and pick it up, there was no supply for them. Left hand, right hand, they didn’t know what they’re doing. All at the same time, they were restructuring the entire health system, so half of the workforce were busy trying to build a new ship while the other half were busy trying to deal with the COVID situation. There was total disconnect in the national messaging.

There was a disconnect also between what was happening centrally and what was happening on the ground locally in small communities. There was not an even distribution of resourcing to the health and the community providers. There you have it: during that time, our healthforce workers on the front line were under such great pressure while the system was being redesigned. Those health reforms disestablished an already stretched sector, and that continues today. Is it any wonder? Is it any wonder there’s great fatigue in primary care—there’s great fatigue in terms of GPs being able to get all the patients that need to go and see their doctor? No, not at all. It really is important that Labour takes accountability for what they did in the middle of a pandemic. Look in the mirror.

They removed the health targets, as the Minister outlined today. Those emergency department wait-list times increased during their tenure in Government. Elective surgeries were pushed out. Immunisations went off the charts because suddenly people weren’t getting their kids immunised. We have, throughout this Parliament, put an additional $16.8 billion into the health system, into the front line, where it’s most important. I’d like to finish my contribution now, as I’ve just noticed, as you have—thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. First of all, I’d like to do a big mihi to Margie Apa for her commitment and contribution to our health, and also recognise how hard it has been not only with a task to transform health in such a short amount of time but then to come into another Government that just wants to dismantle everything that had been created, based on years and years of research and health academic experts’ advice.

Sadly, what we have here is an interesting quandary where we have a Government previously that tried to fix things and a Government previously that’s trying to fix things, and in the meantime everyone else in Aotearoa is still being caught up in a backwash of poor health, poor backup, poor investment, and, sadly, seeing the absolute decline of anyone or anything here that represents a solution.

I guess the sad part about having this conversation is that recently I was beside a parent in the health system, the public health system, and was really grateful for the expertise, the support, and those who really went above and beyond, given some of the facilities that they’re working in. The sad part about the debate that we’re having at the moment is that everyone’s pointing their finger at each other and no one has addressed the real big issue: what the heck are we going to do to provide a solution? Is it really the debate here that it is the wrong guard, or are we going to have a deterioration where we see that the public health system is going to be replaced by privatisation? It’s a real concern.

We have, for example, a Minister that I’ve never known in this sector. In all my years in iwi and all my years working in health, I’ve never actually known—I have seen him in part of the kaupapa that were anti-abortion, anti-trans, anti-takatāpui. That worries me, that we actually don’t have the experience. As fresh as the blood can be, if the blood is going to be pouring all over the public health sector, then I’m really concerned about what it is that is going to be left. Where is the transformational change that our people are looking for? How are we going to make sure we keep the hospitals open—because Dunedin sure as hell ain’t happy with this Government. How are we going to make sure that the A & E lines and the waiting lists are going to end? How are we going to make sure that our ageing people in Aotearoa can sit there and rely on the health system, not be unclear on if this Government is indeed going down the track of privatisation?

I want to be really, really mindful of the debate and what we’re discussing here. Shane Reti made it known that privatisation wasn’t something on his agenda, and I guess we took on that road, saying, “OK, well, we understand that, Shane.”—you’re now gone. We have leaders of coalition parties saying that privatisation should be the only way, and I’m really concerned for middle to lower income earners here in Aotearoa. What does that mean? We had David Seymour recently say we need to get past the squeamishness—I mean, that’s an interesting comment coming from him.

The reality is that we have, sadly, a Government that is leaning and edging towards a whole lot of slashing and cutting for the purpose of moving Aotearoa New Zealanders into privatisation of healthcare, and that move will absolutely devastate the struggling families. It will devastate families who are already crushed by skyrocketing rents, who are already struggling to pay and afford groceries, the soaring power bills. Imagine those of our whānau with tamariki who are trying to get into doctors but they’re unable to pay the fee. Privatisation has proven time after time in other countries that it does not work for those who have high needs, for those such as Māori who have high inequities, for those who live in low socio-economic areas with complex social health issues, and it’s really concerning for us that we are not hearing anything other than it is Labour’s fault.

There has been absolutely no plan, there is no assurance, there is no clarity for all of us here in Aotearoa and those of us who just want to be able to live here with peace and dignity and to be able to make sure our elderly, our tamariki, can get the care that they deserve, that our regions, our rural regions, get the hospitals that they deserve, that we’re going to retain the nurses, that we’re going to retain the doctors.

I do have a real sad concern that as we see the leadership and the management leave our system, we don’t have anything from this Government assuring that the economic growth agenda does not include the privatisation of our health sector. Kia ora.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): No public servant, no civil servant should ever be named in this House, let alone in the way that has happened to Margie Apa. I too would like to acknowledge her and to commend her for the answers she gave us on the Health Committee. She was across her work. And do you know who she is? She is the fall gal. The fall guy was Dr Shane Reti. The fall gal is Margie Apa.

This is the work of a Government that has underfunded the health system and has left it in chaos and is, quite frankly, out of its depth. What do they do? They put in a commissioner to do their dirty work, because it’s easier to not take accountability when you have somebody doing chop, chop, chop, cut, cut, cut as a commissioner. That’s exactly what’s happened here, so it’s great to have the opportunity to acknowledge Margie Apa and also, actually, all the health professionals who have really been the meat in the political sandwich, who have worked tirelessly, many of whom, as we’ve heard, are leaving in droves to go to Australia.

This Government manufactured a health crisis that was called out by my colleague the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall, who noticed the $529 million held back in the books that was to pay for nurses, midwifery, allied staff, and so on. “Cooking the books”, she called it, and quite rightly so. It has taken that forensic work by Dr Verrall, who could not get information in front of the committee without a real push and pull, to be able to show that while the Government is saying it’s funding health, actually, in all the regions, the funding has been dropped by 6 to 14 percent. That is enough money to leave the lights on and that’s it.

Hon Shane Jones: Got all the information from her cousin—inside information.

INGRID LEARY: The people in Dunedin: 35,000 people had to march to get the Dunedin Hospital. It still doesn’t have pathology. Actually, Mr Jones, great to hear your interjection, because it was a meeting from New Zealand First with Minister Jones and the Mayor of Dunedin on 6 November—that doesn’t appear anywhere in Minister Jones’ diary, I might add—that may have had something to do with this about face from this Government on the Dunedin Hospital. But I tell you, Minister Jones, it’s too late. Dunedin knows that this Government doesn’t care and we also know that pathology remains a massive headache for us and will be more expensive, not being in the building.

We’ve seen broken promises, we’ve seen a workforce in crisis, particularly in the mental health area. There are 650 mental health vacancies; 130 of those are psychiatrists. The Wairarapa doesn’t have a single resident psychiatrist, and yet it has New Zealand’s highest suicide rate. What is this Government doing about that? What is this Government doing about Whakatāne, where there’s an obstetrics crisis, where midwives are publicly saying that babies’ lives are at risk because of the decisions this Government has made that is requiring women with more complex pregnancies to travel 1.5 hours to Tauranga. There’s issues over the ambulance service. They have gone public with that and that is shameful.

My question is: what is the agenda here? What is the agenda when the person who is going to be the next Deputy Prime Minister is publicly touting privatisation of health? What is the agenda when the current Prime Minister either lacks the leadership to shut him down or says—around the sale of State-owned assets—“Not this parliamentary term.” Well, let’s make sure they don’t get back for another parliamentary term, because I’ll bet that we will be seeing the sale of those assets and I’ll bet that there is a privatisation agenda. It’s exactly what happens in the playbook of the right: run down services, underfund them, blame the workers, blame the chief executives, and then introduce the private sector. And we all know the impact of that: higher costs for all New Zealanders and particularly for those who cannot afford to pay.

I’ll spend my last moment just responding to Minister Brown’s vacuous accusations about the health targets. Those are empty goals. He says that what gets measured gets done. Well, that’s correct if they’re correct measurements. In fact, the targets of this Government have no deadlines, they ignore GP and primary care, they were gamed last time, and there were virtual emergency wards set up to game the targets. I’m wondering if, perhaps, peer support is intended to do the same thing in mental health.

They are not focused on parts of the health system where they should be—for example, in screening. There’s no point reducing the specialist wait times if it’s taking longer to get screened for something like cancer. It is much better to measure things that come from the Health Status Report, which is the report that we got for the first time last year. I’d like to see Government targets around that, but instead, we just see this Government kicking people to the kerb, and that includes Margie Apa.

Hon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, I, first, want to join other members of the House to acknowledge our very hard-working health professionals—tens of thousands of Kiwis—who get up and go to work every day, who work all shifts of the day or night to serve New Zealanders in their time of a health need. For someone who’s recently had two parents in the public hospital at the same time, their support was exemplary, the care they received, and I want to thank you and thank them for that care.

I want them to know that this is a Government that has their back. We want to strip out the dozens of layers of unneeded management and consultants, to return decision making to the front line. That’s what the former health Minister Dr Shane Reti did when he regionalised Health New Zealand and brought in the four health regions.

I want to acknowledge Margie Apa. On Friday, I gave Margie a call, when I heard of the news, to thank her for her service. I really enjoyed meeting Margie most Mondays in officials’ meetings. Margie worked very hard with me to set up this new role as mental health Minister, and I want to thank her for all that support.

Really, she did get given an unwinnable position. Peeni Henare took the first call where he talked of leadership. Where was the leadership, in the middle of a pandemic, that took an ideological review to ram through reforms that went from 20 DHBs to zero in the middle of a pandemic? Their own Heather Simpson review said to go from 20 to maybe eight to 10, yet these guys knew best. For them, leadership is about centralising: Wellington knows best. Already we’ve shown leadership about returning decision making as close as it can to the regions and the front lines.

The new health Minister, Simeon Brown, talked about the leadership of reinstating health targets, and that last contributor, Ingrid Leary, used the term that this Government had “manufactured” a health crisis. Well, I’ll tell you what: if you’re a Kiwi trying to get into a health service and you’re waiting too long, you don’t want to hear from the Opposition that your wait is manufactured. Your wait is real and the reason you are waiting is because of the botched health reforms of the last Government. There’s a lot for us to do, and Margie Apa, in my time of being the Minister for Mental Health, has contributed to that work in repairing the botched reforms.

Ingrid Leary wants to talk about the vacancy rates for mental health professionals. She forgets conveniently that they ballooned under the last Government. The Auditor-General criticised the last Labour Government for not having a mental health workforce plan; it beggars belief. Then again, it was that Government that spent $1.9 billion that no one could point to where it went to in mental health, and the Auditor-General said it made no material improvement; so did the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission.

I want to thank Margie Apa for her work, working with me on New Zealand’s first mental health workforce plan that is already delivering real results: more psychiatry places, more psychology places, training more peer support workers as well. That’s what this Government will do in health. We won’t talk a big game but will focus on the bureaucracy of health; we’ll talk about the front line, because when we talk about the botched reforms, never forget that when we got into Government and lifted under the hood, those 20 DHBs had never been integrated. They were still working in silos with a whacking big layer of management on top. All their reforms had done is put more management roles in at a cost to the health system.

That’s why we are backing Simeon Brown, our health Minister, who will actually get more money from the health system to the front line because, ultimately, that is what Kiwis will judge us on: how timely they get the support they need. I want to thank Margie Apa for all her help in supporting me over the last year.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just want to note that we’ve heard from the new Minister of Health and we’ve heard from an Associate Minister of Health, and we’ve heard a lot of complaints and a lot of looking back. In this urgent debate, I would have really thought it was an opportunity for them to showcase their leadership and their plans forward, given the vacuum that’s been created with all of the recent resignations.

Fourteen months into Christopher Luxon’s so-called National-led Government, we have seen another tranche of chaotic changes to the leadership at Te Whatu Ora Health New Zealand. First, we had the firing of the initial Minister, a perfectly nice man who was doing a perfectly good job in his own way; then we had the clearing out of the whole Health New Zealand board with the installation of a commissioner that was imposed upon them as the next silver bullet; and then not only have we lost the chief executive, Margie Apa, but also in recent days we have heard that Dr Nicholas Jones, who is the Director of Public Health, has also decided to end his secondment early—however you want to put that—and return to his job now.

Much has been said today about leadership and the importance of leadership, but I just want to acknowledge, as someone who’s been around the health system for a number of years and has worked with various professions—including nurses, most recently—that health leadership happens in all aspects of the health system. Clinical leadership and leadership is actually part and parcel of working in the health system but, importantly, they need to be supported.

It’s all very well for Minister Matt Doocey, who has just taken his seat, to talk about returning decision making to the front lines and various other rhetoric around that, while also dragging their heels on Care Capacity Demand Management (CCDM) and various other things that were supposed to do that. I don’t trust this Government to back CCDM; I think they’ll scrap it. I think the years of implementing a programme to do just that, to support people on the front lines, will just be scrapped by this Government because it will require investment in the health workforce, and we have already seen them shut that down.

Margie Apa was dedicated to what she did and she was excellent at what she did, and the public have, quite rightfully, been quite vocal over the last few days about what has happened most recently in our health system and in general. “Things aren’t getting any better” was a comment made by Dr Deborah Powell, the national secretary of the Resident Doctors’ Association. “Things aren’t getting any better, despite the loss of a board and the imposition of a commissioner. So someone has to wake up to the fact this isn’t the problem. The problem is funding.”

Earlier on, we heard our brand new, minted Minister of Health very loudly exclaiming to us that in the health budget, there was a record $16 billion investment, over and above. That is just rubbish. When you include health funding as a per capita, the per capita investment that this Government made to the health system in 2024 was a reduction. It’s all very well glossing over big numbers—and the health system is a thirsty beast—but glossing over big numbers when you don’t actually put it on a per capita basis is misleading and it does not give me any confidence in this Government.

Nicholas Jones, as I said, was the Director of Public Health, and also did a fabulous job, but his departure coincides with significant job cuts aimed at addressing financial challenges, and that shouldn’t be a sentence that we say in this House. We shouldn’t literally be here debating about which job cuts and what we’ve got to miss out on and what health outcomes and what health services people miss out on because of the self-imposed system whereby the Government has reduced funding and restricted funding, and now we have to make do. It’s disingenuous to talk about big numbers. It’s disingenuous to talk about the $529 million that was held back when we found that they were cooking the books.

There are many other things we could talk about, but let me just take the rest of my time by saying that this is the old playbook: run down health, wait for public expectations to wane, wait for people to be so scared they don’t want to know what’s happening next, and then flog the whole lot off. That would be a very sad day—and not on our watch.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement

Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement

Debate resumed from 30 January.

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): Well, it’s great to be back, speaking in the House today. This Government is energised, focused, and ready to take on the challenges and the opportunities that 2025 holds. I am very proud to be part of Prime Minister Luxon’s Government—a Prime Minister who is getting New Zealand back on track and ensuring, overseas in particular, it is known that New Zealand is open for business. The Prime Minister has been very clear in setting 2025 as a year for driving economic growth—a year where we don’t just recover but actively strive to build a brighter, stronger future for New Zealand and New Zealanders. And we are not starting from scratch.

Last year, this Government put in significant effort to lay a foundation for growth, focusing on what matters most to hard-working New Zealanders. We delivered tax relief, putting more money in the back pockets of hard-working families—the first time in 14 years Kiwis felt a difference in their household budgets. We eased the burden on early childhood education costs, with over 65,000 families making FamilyBoost claims. In just the first 15 days of this year, nearly 22,000 FamilyBoost claims were paid, providing immediate financial relief for parents. We took decisive action to get spending under control, cutting wasteful spending where it didn’t deliver value for New Zealanders. We have seen inflation come down, an encouraging step in terms of us getting economic stability back.

We know there is still more to do, and we know that times are still very tough for New Zealanders; 2025 must be the year we not only recover but we also thrive. It is time to be bold and it is time to for us to say yes—yes to a growing economy, yes to higher wages and more jobs, yes to supporting our small-business community and key exporting sectors such as our farmers, yes to backing innovators, and yes to a country where every Kiwi has the opportunity to succeed. New Zealand can have this future where hard work is rewarded, families get ahead, and New Zealanders stand proud on the world stage. A growing economy can make all this possible, which is why that is our top priority this year.

The Prime Minister has asked me to lead our energy portfolio for this country. Unlocking New Zealand’s untapped energy potential is critical to driving that economic growth. Access to affordable and secure energy and electricity is this Government’s priority. New Zealand is brimming with untapped opportunities in the renewable energy space, from wind to solar to geothermal. The possibilities are vast and this is exciting for New Zealand, but we must harness this potential. We are advancing Electrify NZ—our plan to double the country’s renewable generation has started.

How about fast track? We are going to add another 3,000 megawatts of new renewable energy capacity, boosting New Zealand’s electricity generation by almost 30 percent, removing regulations and making it easier to build. In parallel, we’re also progressing legislation to enhance energy and electricity security, including a new offshore renewable energy permit regime to unlock more opportunities for offshore wind. Secure and affordable energy will not only keep our households warm, our businesses moving, but it will create more jobs, it’s going to increase economic growth, and it’s going to increase productivity across this beautiful country.

Another area I have responsibility for is climate change—not only that, but in terms of the context that Electrify NZ will support our country to deliver on our climate commitments. Last year, we released our Government’s second emissions reduction plan. Our plan shows that we can grow the economy and deliver our climate commitments—effective policies that can lay the foundation to meet net zero targets as early as 2044. This is the year that we are building momentum. We’re looking at the Climate Change Response Act to reduce unnecessary regulations and reporting, ensuring that that Act will operate more efficiently so we can focus on actually doing the doing and implementing actions to reduce emissions. We’re also looking to establish better emissions trading scheme market governance so we have better, credible markets to drive that climate transition.

This Government understands the importance of making our communities and businesses and economy more resilient to a changing climate. We recognise that climate change poses significant risks to our infrastructure, environment, and way of life, and we are committed as a Government to proactively making sure that we ensure the ongoing sustainability and security of this country. The effects of weather events disrupt livelihoods, they strain emergency response systems, and it highlights the urgent need that we have as a country to be more prepared and adapt to the impacts of that changing climate. This year, we will advance legislation to establish a clear framework for climate adaptation, addressing the critical challenges posed by extreme weather.

Another of my areas of responsibility is local government. A strong and well-functioning infrastructure network is essential for driving economic growth. It gets our businesses and households moving. Addressing New Zealand’s long-term infrastructure deficit is critical to unlock productivity, attract investment, and improve connectivity. That is why this Government is taking decisive action to close that infrastructure gap across this country. Last year, we established a framework for regional deals—a partnership between central and local government to ensure that we deliver critical infrastructure and unlock economic potential across this country. These regional deals will foster collaboration between central government and local government, working together jointly to accelerate long-term vision realisation in our regions and cities, and this is critical to accelerate economic growth and productivity. This year, this Government hopes to have the first regional deal agreed to, and we hope to make progress on other deals too.

Last year, we also took decisive actions to implement Local Water Done Well, ensuring that control of water assets is returned to local communities. We believe, on this side of the House, that local councils supported by a strong framework are best placed to manage water infrastructure effectively and sustainably. As part of that policy, the first two new bills were passed in August, providing councils with the certainty and clarity of a pathway to develop their water service delivery plans. These plans will prioritise high quality, financially sustainable water services that are due to be submitted to Government later this year. In the months ahead, we will continue to work with councils to implement this programme. Additionally, we’re committed to passing the Local Government (Water Services) Bill, further reinforcing our approach to locally managed, well-funded, efficient water services.

My fourth responsibility is revenue and taxation. A well-designed tax system is essential for driving this country’s economic growth. As revenue Minister, my focus is on improving fiscal sustainability by simplifying tax, reducing compliance costs, and addressing integrity issues so businesses and individuals can invest and innovate and contribute to our economy. We need to drive that economic growth agenda.

We’ve made economic growth and productivity one of the six pillars of this Government’s tax and social policy work programme. We’re currently doing work on the foreign investment fund rules that lead to double taxation and encourage investments and talent to stay away from New Zealand. We want to attract more of this talent to this country. We want to retain that talent and not drive it away, so we’re exploring potential changes in the rules to ensure no one is disadvantaged against other taxpayers. We’re also progressing work in regards to the tax exemption of employee share schemes to support start-ups in the tech sector as part of the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2024-25, Emergency Response, and Remedial Measures) Bill.

In conclusion, we look ahead, for this year, with a commitment to economic growth. That commitment is unwavering. Our agenda is jam-packed with actions to drive economic growth, to create jobs, and to ensure that every New Zealander has an opportunity and, importantly, the certainty to get ahead. We’re not just talking about growth; we’re going to deliver it. We’ve got a clear plan. We’re decisive, relentlessly focused, and we’re going to make New Zealanders enjoy the rest of this year and make them valuable.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader—Labour): There was so much faux enthusiasm in that speech and exaggerated energy. Clearly, those members have been told to come to the House to lift the energy and to make out that everything is OK, but we on this side of the House and in the rest of the country know that is not. Meanwhile, the coalition is falling down around Simon Watts, but he’s still rattling off the lines, just like his Prime Minister does. I think in the first few minutes, we heard “back on track” and we heard “open for business”, “driving economic growth”, and “brighter, stronger future for New Zealanders”. Just like his leader, just like his Prime Minister, he can’t deviate from the key lines. In fact, he read that whole speech word for word, and I don’t even know if it was a speech that was uniquely written for him. I think it was probably just the key lines that were given out to everyone as a guide as to what to talk about in their speeches.

Anyway, we have the faux enthusiasm, and we had the over-exaggerated energy from Simon Watts, but the reality is that across the country, morale is low. I don’t recall ever having seen it this low before, even during some of our darkest times, including the pandemic. We’ve lost over 10,000 jobs in the public sector, which that side of the House seems to want to celebrate. There have been 13,000 jobs lost in building and construction. We’re not hiring in our health sector, despite the demand and the need for more health workers. We’re losing nursing graduates to overseas. We’re losing record numbers of New Zealanders going overseas because that side of the House have not taken care of what is fundamentally important to New Zealanders, and that is just ensuring that they have jobs to go into.

It’s not just because of the job losses that morale is low; it is the divisiveness that’s being caused by that side of the House. I, ultimately, fundamentally believe in New Zealanders and the fact that we are good people, and we all believe in New Zealand being the fair and safe place that we can raise our children in, but that Government has just shot an arrow into that belief. What we’ve seen is divisiveness caused mostly as part of their absolute attack on Māori, whether it be the Treaty principles bill or the undermining of te reo Māori, even the undermining of Māori names for Public Service agencies, and we have seen this done time and time again, but particularly in light of the Treaty principles bill. It is not heartening to hear National and New Zealand First stand up and say that they won’t support that bill past second reading, because they allowed that bill to go to first reading. They allowed that divisiveness to be caused amongst New Zealanders. Luxon did not have the leadership to stop it getting past that first post, and here we are, having this horrific, horrendous debate when we should have made more progress than what that side of the House have allowed us to do.

Morale is also low because New Zealanders were promised by that side of the House that the cost of living challenges that they faced would be addressed, that all of their problems would go away, and that they would no longer struggle to put food on the table or pay their rent. But has that changed? No, it hasn’t. New Zealanders are still struggling with the cost of living. They are still struggling to pay what are even higher energy bills, and are still struggling to pay what are even higher rates bills. They are struggling with the everyday costs of living, including some costs that have been imposed by that side, like more expensive public transport, which was made cheaper by this side of the House when we were in Government. They are struggling with their rents, despite a promise from that Government that if they gave landlords a tax cut of over $2 billion, then that would help with the cost of rent for New Zealanders. Well, it hasn’t helped, and rent continues to go up.

Morale is still low for New Zealanders, lower than I’ve ever seen before, because that Government is delivering stuff that nobody actually asked for. I don’t recall, in the election campaign, the Government or the political parties that now make up Government coming out and saying they were going to give a $217 million tax break to the tobacco industry, that they were going to get rid of our world-leading smoke-free policy. I don’t think anyone asked for the tax breaks for landlords, and I certainly don’t think that any New Zealander expected or asked for the privatisation agenda that we’re starting to see become more and more apparent in the conversations, discussions, and policy agenda that that side is revealing.

It’s sad, because the leadership from the Government has seriously been lacking. We’ve got a coalition Government that can’t agree. In fact, they come out publicly speaking against each other, with the most recent example being with David Seymour and his ill-advised letter to support Mr Polkinghorne and his contradictory position compared to Prime Minister Luxon. Then we also have a Prime Minister who is not willing to bring or pull his Ministers into line when they misbehave, when they behave out of step, and when they do not abide by the rules that are in the Cabinet Manual. There is clearly a lack of leadership coming from Luxon, and you can see it in his own colleagues whenever he stands up to speak already. We can see that there is a lack of trust and confidence in the Prime Minister, and it is only a matter of time. Now, the election is supposed to be at the end of next year, but let’s see if we even make it that far.

Kiwis are feeling disheartened. They are feeling disheartened because this country has not been put on any kind of track. In fact, it has been derailed from the track that it was on. The promise to take New Zealand and New Zealanders forward has not been honoured, and, instead, we see New Zealand and New Zealanders falling backwards. We have a leader who not only is demonstrating his lack of leadership with the way he manages his own coalition, but we see his lack of leadership in the fact that he will not show up to integral occasions that this country expects their Prime Minister to show up to. He did not show up to Waitangi for Waitangi Day. Why did he not show up? Because he did not want to face the criticism that was going to come his way for the lack of leadership and the divisiveness that he has allowed to occur.

I think it’s really important that we do talk about what Kiwis want, because we didn’t see any type of vision in the statement that came from the Prime Minister or any reference to what New Zealanders want. There was just an attack on the Opposition and the blame game played again for what he assumes or asserts that the previous Government didn’t do earlier.

Kiwis want to be able to feed their whānau—a pretty simple ask. They want to be able to pay for the roof over their heads, they want to have a job and they want a job that has good working conditions and pays well, and they want to live in communities that support and care for each other, and all of these things are things that we have not seen delivered by that side of the House. New Zealanders want to know that things can be better, because at the moment, they are feeling disillusioned and there is a lack of hope across the country because of the political agenda that this Government has brought to the table and put on New Zealanders, and I say “put on New Zealanders” because not everything they have put on the table was campaigned for before the last election. As I said, these were not things that New Zealanders asked for.

We are seeing some changes in the way New Zealanders are thinking with regards to their politics. Now, we certainly don’t put all of our energy towards polls or pay too much attention to them, because, ultimately, we know that the only poll that matters is the one that happens in election year, on election day. However, there have been a few polls that have come out this year, and they are not speaking in favour of the Government on that side of the House. I think that that is a clear indication that the New Zealand public is not happy with the performance of that Government. They are not happy with what that Government has been doing for, against, or on behalf of them as Kiwis.

I think it also speaks to the fact that Kiwis can see that they do have an Opposition who has been listening, that they do have an Opposition that is unified, that they do have an Opposition that is ready to lead. Already, not even 1½ years into the term of that Government, Kiwis are looking somewhere else—and it certainly isn’t to that Government—going into 2026.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Regional Development): It will take me 110 minutes—sadly, I only have 10—to list the achievements that my small contribution over the last 15 months represents to the success of our Government.

Let me start with fast track, which is traceable back to the coalition agreement agreed to between my leader and the leader of the National Party: 149 projects. Well, there’ll be no more clutter, no more ideological bum fluff from my opposition—no, straight down the guts. We won’t have these grandees, self-appointed, trying to block development, squash initiative, ruin entrepreneurialism, and, quite frankly, imperil regional fiscal solvency.

I am astounded, however, that there’s a tiny group who live in concrete houses who don’t want us to extract sand in Tai Tokerau. This group is led, I’m told, by a person called Juliane Chetham, who happened to be appointed under the old fast track on to a body of decision makers that turned down a valuable piece of infrastructure in the Bay of Islands. Why is that person able to pursue an obvious conflict of interest under our fast track? Such amateurs and such inappropriate behaviour will be ruled right out—right out of court.

Let us think about the ways in which fast track is going to boost Te Tai Poutini. Fast track is going to boost Otago. Fast track is going to actually do something practical as we adapt to climate change. Now, as you know, I’m largely a doubting Thomas about all the shrillness to do with climate change, but I am a man of fidelity, and I will remain faithful to the position of the Cabinet that we must find ways to adapt in terms of climate change challenges. To do that, we need to rescue projects out of the bog, out of the bureaucratic thicket, so they can be approved in a remarkably short period of time.

The last politician who brought a profound idea forward as to how we might change the electricity settings in New Zealand sits on the other side of the House, and I was his colleague, and something of a fellow traveller. The energy electricity settings: we’ve got various reviews under way. The people that have promised to ensure we don’t have another wicked winter—now, they’re on notice. If we go through a set of problems, where we’ve been promised and assured by the barons of the electricity sector that we won’t have the most expensive power prices this coming winter—in the event that they cannot deliver, I look forward, along with my colleagues, to ramming changes through to finally tame the beast that represents the unaccountable forces inside our electricity sector.

Of course, mining will generate royalties, and those royalties will be made available at an acceptable percentage to the regions where the mining activity takes place. In that respect, I have to acknowledge the former Minister of Energy who encouraged me to ensure that we shared the spoils of mother Nature’s bounty as we open up these massive vistas of utilisation, rescue our current account deficit problems, and ensure that we don’t rely on the Congo and other such places, and, by the way, the party I belong to will never ever agree to buying Congo carbon credits.

There are other parties who want to imperil our fiscal solvency and commit such fanciful, dangerous, life-threatening ideas, but we want to use our own resources: gold, coal—coal before gold. Coal will be available and used in New Zealand well towards 2050, and if it comes to pass that from time to time we can create wood pellets without a Crown subsidy and we can move on from coal, let the market make that choice. We should be agnostic, and we should also accept that we’ve got no place for this intellectual conceit that I hear from the gremlins sitting over there that, somehow, by outsourcing responsibilities to the banking sector, they can stop China and India creating coal-fired power stations—a level of intellectual ideological conceit that is bringing our economy down to its knees.

But wait, that is all about to change because we have a member’s bill, and that bill will tame the excesses and the luxury beliefs of the people who sit in these irrelevant sustainability units riddled throughout the various banking sectors and the 200 financial institutions where directors face criminal liability and where climate obligations are so onerous they can hardly meet these compliance standards.

The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, by the way, is consulting about this madness, which I hope turns to be a discretionary activity and is not an enforceable obligation upon our commercial companies. It is wrong to outsource the responsibility for changing the weather to Westpac. It is wrong for financial institutions to indulge in changing regional industries so that they can please the small number of people that, along with themselves, create chemtrails as they jot off to other places, including the UN. That’s why that bill is going to tame that excess which was passed in 2022—in the event that some unkind members on this side of the House blame me for that perfidy.

In relation to water storage, it was extraordinary to see the Labour Party member gushing enthusiastically about Waimea. They voted against the Waimea dam.

Hon David Parker: No, we did not.

Hon SHANE JONES: They voted against the Waimea dam, and it took New Zealand First to rescue the scheme. Water storage is now the new green. We will be dedicating out of the Regional Infrastructure Fund a substantial—actually, I need to correct myself. The first regional water scheme that was both funded and successfully consented was through the fast-track legislation, which is why we’ve borrowed fast track from Labour and made a few modest improvements—which is astounding that they cannot agree with it. But time will pass and they will be agreeing. Water storage is the new green. We will have much more of it, and I look forward to replicating the extension of the marine farming permits till 2050.

There are far too many permits and consents required in New Zealand. The vast majority of them are an imposition on our economy and they represent no way of increasing environmental positive outcomes. Market gardeners, hear from me: I will support the work that was left off by David Parker after the courts struck him down. You should not be hobbled by unrealistic nutrient and water standards, reducing your ability to feed the citizens of New Zealand. Also, those of you in the agricultural sector: we don’t want you to be blighted with unnecessary permits and consents. We want a Resource Management Act system where there is more latitude and more flexibility, because unless we have that, far too much money will be spent on servicing the deadweight costs of unnecessary regulation.

Tomorrow, I am introducing new policies for the fishing industry in the broadest set of changes since the quota system of 1986, I will have very sensible things to say about the sad presence of cameras on boats—a massive intrusion and reflection of State surveillance of industry, which our party is diametrically opposed to—and, of course, I may make a few remarks about a dolphin that doesn’t exist, otherwise known as the Māui dolphin. It was a contrivance, a fiction, put together by some underemployed academic down in the South Island, where all the Māoris were fighting with each other over the ownership quota.

In respect of the purpose of our Regional Infrastructure Fund, I want to assure New Zealanders that not only is it well run but it is going to deliver concrete opportunities to improve local infrastructure, whether it be water or community energy, as was announced, and I want to say to Māoridom as well that the bill which you are jumping up and down over will never pass. Focus your energy and intention on economic empowerment, and stop believing in the shrill, green rhetoric that, somehow, Māori can solve the problems of China, Russia, and India with some mātauranga Māori and stop them from generating coal-fired power stations. Come back to the kūmara vine and take responsibility for solving our own problems at the kitchen table, and then you’ll have the support, Māoridom, of Matua Shane.

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mā te oranga o te taiao ka ora ai te iwi, mō te takitini, kāore mō te torutoru anake. It is with the wellbeing of our environment, of our natural world. That is how we will look after the people for generations to come. Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Tēnā tātou katoa e te Whare.

I firstly must acknowledge the aroha from across the House that I was very privileged to receive in noting my return back to Parliament after some time away on medical treatment. It is a really human and beautiful thing to be able to share collectively when we are watching another member of this House going through tough times, and I hope we continue to see that. I am really grateful and received goodwill messages from right across this House. That is what our people of the country love to see as well. I do acknowledge that. Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me that.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Kia ora, on behalf of the House.

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: It is also my first day back in Parliament after many months away, so I am, naturally, feeling a little bit nervous about whether I remember how to do this job, but also deeply grateful to be able to come back to this House, to be able to come back well and stand in a job that I am so honoured and so passionate and get to continue to do, especially where I can respond to the Prime Minister’s statement.

While I wasn’t here in the House, I am taking this opportunity to raise the visions and the issues of the Green Party and what we offer to Aotearoa that directly contradict the Prime Minister’s vision, the Prime Minister’s statement that he laid before us in this House here today. I want to offer another saying to this House: Whatungarongaro te tangata, toitū te whenua; whatungarongaro te Kāwanatanga, toitū Te Tiriti. [When people disappear from sight, the land remains; When the Government disappears from sight, Te Tiriti remains.] We have just come back from an incredible week up in Waitangi to celebrate Te Tiriti o Waitangi. People and Governments come and go. Governments rise and fall, but our whenua endures, and the Treaty remains eternal.

I had a little bit of a scour through the Prime Minister’s statement. I’ve got the pages right here in front of me for my notes, and I failed to find any mention of Te Tiriti in any part of his statement. That’s a real shame, given what we have just experienced on the ground as the Green Party in Waitangi and across the country—the absolute excitement and kotahitanga from communities for a positive vision where Te Tiriti actually upholds the work of protecting people and planet for all of us here today and for our mokopuna to come. It’s a shame that the Prime Minister’s statement was not able to pick up on the fact that the leadership in kotahitanga, the leadership in pulling people together, people of all diverse walks of life, people of all diverse backgrounds are showing that leadership, are showing that they are streaks ahead of this Government and of the Prime Minister’s statement when it comes to us working together on the foundation of Te Tiriti being a document that promised people to take the best care of each other.

Unfortunately, the Prime Minister’s statement is devoid of a long-term vision for mokopuna to still be able to endure, to still be able to enjoy our whenua, our healthy oceans, our healthy, thriving rivers, our natural world, our ngahere, our soils, to still be able to enjoy our clean air. I saw in the Government’s statement some stuff about—well, basically, “drill, drill, drill; mine, mine, mine; degrade, destroy, destruct our environment.” It was something like the ruthless pursuit of trade, “unleashing the economy”, and rolling back a culture of no. How about a culture of yes to protecting our taiao? How about a culture of yes to Te Tiriti bringing us together? How about a culture of yes to ending poverty and making sure our tamariki in schools, for example, get quality, healthy, and on-time lunches? These are the yeses that the Green Party has always fought for and has stood for.

I saw in the Prime Minister’s statement a reiteration of what they are doing in the fast-track legislation and their pursuit of constantly degrading the environment for generations to come, the very short-term thinking, the short-term thinking for the benefit of their wealthy few. We know, we have seen, time and time again, that the destruction of our environment has never once led to wealth distribution for people who need the support the most, for people who are struggling the most. We have not once seen polluted rivers end poverty. We have not once seen destroyed oceans end homelessness. We have not once seen ruined soils uplift everyone’s lives. This country, Aotearoa, of all countries in the world, surely must be able to come in line with what we are hearing from the people on the ground.

My uncle from the North, Minister Jones, has just finished minimising the power of community by trying to say that it’s only a few voices trying to protect our environment, trying to protect our rivers, trying to protect our earth from mining, drilling, and exploitation. How dare he? I heard you; I heard those people. We have been working with those strong, powerful movements on the ground for decades. They are generations in strength, those voices who understand how important it is to protect our taiao for mokopuna, to make sure that everyone is living a life with dignity.

This country does have enough. It does have enough to be prosperous without ruining and destroying the thing we’ve got going for us. It certainly does have enough to end poverty. We have unveiled plan after plan, election after election, to do exactly that. We certainly have enough to end homelessness. We have unveiled plan after plan, election after election, to make sure everyone has a home, and we don’t need to destroy the prospect of snapper being in our harbour for my grandchildren to do it. We don’t need to destroy the notion of kōura swimming in our seas to end homelessness and end poverty.

This is the vision that the Greens have always put forward and those visions are actually echoed from the power of community. Generations who have relied—and Mr Jones is from the Hokianga like I am. He knows that our whānau had been dependent on our thriving Hokianga harbour for hundreds of years. He knows like I do that the degradation that we have seen just in the last couple of generations has actually meant that it’s hard to find mullet and flounder—flounder that I grew up enjoying in the Hokianga. The more we unleash the pollution extractive activities that this Government is championing, the more we deny our children those legacies of our beautiful taiao.

I wasn’t sure if I’d remember what to say, but I did have some things to say. I wasn’t sure if I’d remember what it felt like to be in this House and feel the importance and the privilege of speaking on behalf of communities who understand where our prosperity really is, who understand that right here in Aotearoa without relying on a few wealthy mate foreign investors, we have what it takes—we have what it takes. The beautiful vision for all of our children being fed, having homes, having whānau, feeling safe, and community connections being strong across our different-lived realities.

Did we see all of the different whānau who turned up for the hīkoi for Te Tiriti. The communities and the people are showing kotahitanga in action and it is something I failed to see in the Prime Minister’s statements and all of his big visions about “drill baby drill, mine baby mine, wealthy few mates”. That’s what can sum up the Prime Minister’s statement.

I’m really proud to be able to stand here today and address directly how that is a harmful and dangerous vision for our mokopuna—for all of our mokopuna—and that the Greens understand a better future is possible with what we have right here. We can see everyone living a beautiful life. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s encouraging to hear, on National Lamb Day, that there’s an increased optimism and positiveness amongst our farmers, who are the backbone of our national economy. God bless our farmers. Compared to this time last year, look at where we are now. We’ve got falling interest rates, lower inflation, and I look at the other side of the House; they’ve got their heads down. They should be up, smiling. These are everyday Kiwis who are going to pay less in their mortgage costs, and that is a very good thing.

We are focused on turbocharging—or setting the foundations to turbocharge—economic growth in New Zealand, and hard-working Kiwis might wonder what that means. Well, let me tell you what it means. It means increasing employment opportunities, higher wages, increased innovation, and new business opportunities. Growth is forecast to reach 2.1 percent of GDP this year, according to Treasury, and businesses will be excited about that. Consumer confidence is rising. These are clear signs of economic recovery. We know it’s still tough out there, but we know there are green shoots—there are blue shoots—and we are in for a growing country, a growing economy.

We will continue to cut the red tape, that enemy of red tape, which burdens countries and communities and businesses and saddles them with costs and time obligations and takes money out of the pockets of hard-working New Zealanders—the endless and needless bureaucracy which we have seen across New Zealand. We are going to inject urgency, and we are going to get on and build the infrastructure our country deserves. It’s very exciting to see 149 fast-track projects helping to address the infrastructure shortages that we have, and we have some significant deficits. It is very good to see that we are taking a proactive, forward-looking approach to addressing these critical shortages.

I’m proud to be part of a Government that helps New Zealanders keep more of what they earn by providing tax cuts for the first time in 14 years and that rolls out FamilyBoost to support low- and middle-income families with early childcare costs. We’ve worked hard to reset for better outcomes for Kiwis. Whether you’re a farmer, an entrepreneur, or an investor, the National Party and this Government is looking out for you. We’re focused on attracting more international investment, and I heard that was scoffed at, unfortunately, by earlier speakers in this House. We need more investment in this country, and if you look at OECD reports, New Zealand is very bad at getting money into New Zealand. We are not an overly wealthy country and when you look at who we would like to compare ourselves to, we are falling behind. We need more capital coming into New Zealand, and it’s very pleasing to see the steps taken by this Government, this year, to help make that more of a reality.

With inflation now under control and interest rates coming down, and wages rising faster than inflation, we expect the unemployment rate to start to decrease. It has been increasing—

Hon Ginny Andersen: When?

SAM UFFINDELL: And we hear the snipes from the other side, as if they had nothing to do with the economic catastrophe that this country finds itself in now! Like they had nothing to do with the healthcare crisis that this country also finds itself in, which our very hard-working Minister Simeon Brown is cleaning up.

We know that one of the best ways to lift our productivity is in the regions, to ensure we have the skills and the workforce we need. We have worked very hard to make sure that we are getting our immigration settings right. We continue to advance trade agreements, and the Hon Todd McClay has done a fantastic job of getting around the world, getting out there, putting forward New Zealand’s case, and then bringing home new opportunities for our farmers, for our growers, and for New Zealand businesses. It is a very good thing.

I’m also very excited to see reform in the science sector, and we’ve been clear that we need to unlock growth in the science and technology sector. We need to back this, because this is a key area where we are going to get economic growth. There’s a lot of Kiwi ingenuity out there, but we need to make sure that we have the rules and regulations in place. We need to make sure that we continue to roll back the red tape and bureaucracy that stifles innovation, soaks up time and money, and makes it really hard for Kiwis to get ahead. If you’re setting up a new company and you can look at the other places around the world where you could get ahead—you’re a global labour force; companies can move around—we need to make sure that we are competitive compared to other countries, to keep them and to keep the workers here in New Zealand.

I just want to talk about Tauranga for a little bit, because I was very happy to see a number of items in the fast-track schedule—a number of very important items—and the first one I’m going to talk about is the Port of Tauranga, which has been stifled for years. It is absolutely insane.

Grant McCallum: Disgrace.

SAM UFFINDELL: It is a disgrace. It really is a disgrace. This is the biggest port in New Zealand. It is where we get our goods out to the world. It is how Kiwis get money back. They have to get it out there in the world, and then they get the funds back. We’re at capacity. When I first went for member for Tauranga in 2022, we were already two years away from capacity. Over 2½ years later, we’ve hit that mark. We’ve hit that mark and we’re still no better off. We have had minor adjustments. It’s still tied up in the Environment Court. That Government, that Minister over—I’m not going to call him out on it. I won’t; I’d feel a bit mean doing that. The previous Government had the opportunity to deal with that. They had the opportunity and they squandered it.

Tom Rutherford: Never visited.

SAM UFFINDELL: “Never visited”, I’m hearing from Tom Rutherford—“Never visited”. We did hear that as well. I’m very curious, Mr Rutherford: how many people do you think we’ve taken to the Port of Tauranga since we’ve been the local members?

Tom Rutherford: Nearly double digits.

SAM UFFINDELL: Nearly double digits. We understand, and our caucus understands, how important the Port of Tauranga is. We need those wharf extensions. We need that third berth. We need that dredging. We need the ability to put us on the map to make sure that our trade is able to get out there in the world. We need to support our businesses, support our growers, support our farmers, and support the Port of Tauranga.

There are some other big infrastructure changes happening, hopefully, in our area. We have the Takitimu North Link Stage 2; State Highway 29, including a new bridge, the Ōmanawa Bridge—much needed. We have some hydro dams also in there, in the Kaimais—very exciting. We have some wood chip factories on the schedule. All of these are creating fantastic regional jobs. We also have a number of housing projects on there, and I desperately hope, as I know Mr Rutherford does as well, that we can get a few of these over the line. We are at capacity in Tauranga. We need more houses. Tauranga City Council needs to provide more houses. Western Bay needs to help with that. We’re at capacity, so we need the infrastructure. We need this all ticked off.

One of these projects, Te Tumu, is a huge plot of land that goes out from where Pāpāmoa ends. You fly over it and you see a big cut—it just stops. You’ve got all this beautiful beach down there—all this opportunity. Twenty years, they have been dithering about on this, trying to get the council to rezone it, trying to get the infrastructure in place, trying to get all the parties in there to agree to access. This has got the potential for over 6,000 houses, to house over 15,000 people. Twenty years, the developers have been wanting to go on this, and here we are stuck with some of the most expensive housing in New Zealand.

It is a disgrace. And we wonder why we are so poor when people have to pay so much of their money towards accommodation costs. Do you know who it hurts the most? The people who that party pretends to represent. And it hurts. It hurts them tremendously. We’ve got a number of housing projects on here, and I desperately hope that we get all of them over the line and that they get the support they need from local and central government to get them built quickly, because Tauranga and the Bay need that housing. We need it desperately.

We’ve got a lot of other big industries coming along there. We’ve got the Rangiuru Business Park. We’ve got a quickly expanding kiwifruit sector. That’s going to help deliver more jobs and money for New Zealand, but it needs the workforce that they need there—

Cameron Luxton: Hear, hear!

SAM UFFINDELL: I’m getting heckled by the other member in the Bay of Plenty! This is good. I am very proud to be part of a Government that is unshackling the burden of red tape and bureaucracy that has stifled economic growth, stopped housing development, and stopped any sort of sensible infrastructure development, as we continually say, “Oh no, I don’t think we can do that. No, it’s too hard. No, no, that person might get offended. We just can’t do it.”

It’s not good enough, and if we want to stay as a First World country that can deliver First World healthcare and education and have a country that our children want to grow up in, we need to grow up really quickly and we need to start delivering that country for New Zealanders. We need to grow our economy, and our Government is focused on that. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

TODD STEPHENSON (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s great to be back in the House. Hopefully, my summer tan hasn’t quite worn off yet because it was only a few weeks ago that we were actually on holiday in this beautiful country. It’s always a great time to reflect, when you’re on holidays, and I was lucky enough, of course, to be down south in beautiful Queenstown and the surrounding areas, spending time with family and friends and getting to really reflect on the year.

I am excited to be back in this House, and I am excited to be speaking in support of the Prime Minister’s statement and of course giving our full-throated support to this Government and ACT’s contribution to it. What I did learn over the holidays was that Kiwis are still doing it tough. I mean, you can’t turn around the mismanagement—the economic mismanagement—of the last few years in a matter of days or months; it is going to take time. We know Kiwis are hurting. Prolonged periods of high interest rates have affected Kiwi households and budgets but I’m proud that we’ve started to make some inroads on that by getting inflation under control.

I’m also really pleased that ACT is actually looking to the future. We really do want this to be a country of hope, a country where people do want to bring up their children and, actually, a place where Kiwis can live and thrive as they want, actually doing the things that they want to do, whether that’s with their families, whether that’s in business, in education. That’s really what ACT wants to see for this country.

When I was down south, obviously I also reflected on the different industries we have down there. We have tourism which is, in Queenstown now, starting to see a real resurgence which is great because obviously we employ a lot of people in the hospitality and tourism industry and it’s great to see that coming back. As I ran into different international travellers, I would always make sure I tried to get them to part with as much of their money while they were in the country as possible because I knew that was good.

Then I thought further south to our rural and farming community in Southland, where I grew up. The Southland farmers had a really tough year, particularly spring last year, but again, I know that as a Government—and particularly as ACT—we are making sure that we’re actually going to get rid of some of the burden on our rural communities and actually deal with some of the red tape and regulation that they face so they can get on with continuing to be the most efficient farmers in the world and delivering our amazing produce and exports to the world.

Then I thought again about the other things we’re really going to be focusing on this year: deregulation. Again, for the first time, this Government has a Minister for Regulation, and his focus is actually cutting red tape, and that’s to allow businesses and other organisations to actually get on and deliver what they’re best at. That’s going to be exciting to see.

Over the last couple of weeks, we’ve seen the launch of the first of the charter schools. That’s really saying, “Actually, let’s do things a little bit differently.”, because we want to invest in kids’ future because, actually, education is a way to help some of the productivity issues that we have in New Zealand. That’s going to take a while, but let’s get on with it; let’s not muck around, let’s actually get these schools open and kids going to them, which is really great.

Then the other thing I discussed with people over the holiday was health. Again, we’ve talked a bit about that today in this House, but we are going to be continuing to focus on health. ACT are very focused on what we’re responsible for around Pharmac—more medicines and making sure we get those to Kiwis quickly.

Then the other thing I had some discussions about was equal rights and, really, the place of the Treaty in modern New Zealand. Again, I’m very proud that ACT has opened up this discussion and that we are actually having a conversation about what the Treaty should mean and could mean for bringing us together and going forward.

I’ve got a lot of hope for this year. I know that this Government’s going to be very, very focused on delivering the things for Kiwis we have said we would do. That includes continuing to ensure that we are getting value for money, for services that they are paying for in their taxes. I know that our Ministers are going to be working very hard in the preparation of the next Budget because we’ve got to be very, very careful with taxpayers’ money and ensure we’re actually delivering services that people need.

I look forward to continuing to contribute as part of the Government on this side of the House, and I look forward to 2025.

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise in response to the Prime Minister’s statement because it gives me a chance to talk about ACT’s policies, which are pushing New Zealand in the right direction.

We campaigned that, when in Government, we would cut back on the red tape and stupid policies that were stifling the good life that Kiwis expect, and that is what we are doing: the restoration of 90-day trials, the repeal of the so-called fair pay agreements, consultation and work being under way on the Holidays Act, and a nationwide roadshow for improvements to health and safety law, which is being led by our wonderful Minister Brooke van Velden. These all show ACT’s commitments to creating a better regulatory environment for Kiwis and their businesses so that our entire country can flourish. This delivers on ACT’s promise to rein in the costs that we all face simply to supply to each other and to do business with each other.

We are cutting the unnecessary red tape in the building sector. As a licensed building practitioner, I know how tough it can be, with delays and regulations hampering building efforts and ratcheting up the costs. That’s why, with ACT in Government, we have introduced legislation to improve recognition of products from overseas so that buildings can be built efficiently, effectively, and at a more affordable price. I’d like to give a shout-out to Minister Chris Penk for his solid work in this area, because this coalition Government has delivered regulatory relief for earthquake-prone buildings, and we will continue to push for better regulation of our built environment.

I’d just like to also say to those in the building sector who are doing it tough: many of you, like me, will remember the 2008 crash when so many skilled tradies went to the wall or left the industry. I hope that this time the members who are in this House take the lessons which the last Government has left us—that loose fiscal and monetary policy might feel good in the boom, borrowing and spending like it doesn’t belong to you, but when the crash inevitably comes—because it will come—the result lies on the workers, the tradies, and the families who carry the pain for the profligacy.

With housing, ACT has also pushed to create a better rental market for Kiwis. We have ended what has felt like a war on landlords with tenants as the collateral damage. The rental market thrives on confidence, and providing housing from one person to another, with the confidence that fundamentally underpins people’s ability to rent out and let out to each other. We expect—all of us expect—to treat each other with respect. We should treat our properties with respect, and when someone doesn’t feel like they can defend the ability to manage and maintain their property and that they will receive the rent—which is another part of respect; paying your rent—what would make someone want to invest and let out a property and take that risk?

With ACT in Government, the respect for property rights is returning. We’ve brought back interest deductibility for residential rental properties, which will ease the pressure on rents. The basic law of supply and demand says that when supply is low and prices are driven up, you’ll get more supply. Interest deductibility encourages investment and development so that more houses can be built for the rental stock. The Residential Tenancies Act has also provided great news for our rental market. The introduction of pet bonds allows for tenants to have their animal companion with them without being a burden on their landlord. Bringing back the 90-day, no-cause termination means that landlords will have the ability to take opportunities with tenants that they might not otherwise without facing terrifying risks.

ACT is driving real change. We know that the economy has been hard for some Kiwis, but we are committed to continue the change that New Zealanders need. Everyone in ACT—Ministers, MPs—are pushing hard to see these changes to get New Zealand back on the horse. To name just a couple more, Nicole McKee is providing anti - money-laundering reform, Simon Court is doing reform in the Resource Management Act, and my friend Laura McClure’s member’s bill is aiming to allow for the mutual termination of employment. We’ve been hard at it, and ACT will continue to push real change as part of this well-functioning and happy coalition Government.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Wellington’s economy didn’t just hit a pothole under this Government; it’s in the ditch, the wheels are off, and the engine’s on fire. This Government has made it incredibly clear that it does not care about people’s jobs. As unemployment reaches record highs, we see not only 10,000 jobs gone in the public sector but 13,000 jobs gone in the construction sector, and 70,000 New Zealanders packing up and moving to Australia.

If this Government wants to stimulate growth and wants to get things going, it is most certainly not doing that to the Wellington economy. In fact, the price we pay for tax cuts for landlords is the Wellington economy being driven into the ground, and it continues to have a high level of uncertainty, and that is what causes so many problems in our local economy going on.

I feel sorry sometimes for Chris Bishop, who holds himself up as being a proud boy from the Hutt, and Nicola Willis, who talks a lot about being a proud Wellingtonian, because so many people in this region know that their hands are all over the downturn in our local economy that hurts local families, has caused local businesses to close, and continues to hang like a shadow over our region. In the first three quarters of 2024—we haven’t got the fourth quarter yet—we saw 163 company liquidations. We saw restaurants, bakeries, family businesses—longstanding Wellington institutions—shut their doors permanently. Martha’s restaurant, cooking beautiful Myanmar food over 25 years in Wellington, closed its doors last month, never to open again—a great establishment. Pandoro bakery had been working and operating right across Wellington for over 30 years. Again, another local business closed its doors.

What this Government’s economic plan for Wellington is is to fire the workers, close the businesses, and then act surprised when the tills stop ringing. To top it all off, we have no certainty about the ferries, a completely important critical link between the North and the South Islands, fundamental to the local economy, and we have absolutely no certainty about where that is taking us. It is this level of uncertainty that causes ongoing economic strife in Wellington, because it is the threat of more cuts, it is the fact we have no certainty around the ferries that causes property prices in Wellington to decline as much as 25 percent. It is those middle New Zealanders who bought a property for which, now, they are paying a mortgage that is worth more than the value of their property—that hurts so much. Those families who now don’t get free public transport for their children, who get lower-quality lunches in schools, who have to pay higher rates for their local council and have all of those increased costs are the families that are struggling under what National promised would be a better life. It has, most certainly, not delivered that.

We look at the polls and start to see people open up their eyes and realise that they voted for change, but it was not this type of change that New Zealand families voted for. Most New Zealanders wanted a better opportunity, and those in Wellington are still suffering hard with no hope of it getting better in the future. We only need to look at things like Callaghan Innovation. Over 500 jobs through NIWA, GNS Science, and Callaghan—science and research jobs—have gone in Wellington. Here we have a Prime Minister and a Government who’s talking about productivity and innovation and trying to be a smart economy while firing our top research people in the Wellington region. It is absolutely ludicrous. That is the area that we as a Labour Government invested in and that needs to be continued to be invested in. Shutting down Callaghan Innovation is not how you get productivity going in the Wellington region, and it’s not how you get productivity going in New Zealand.

The construction industry is an interesting one as well, because when this Government came into power, they looked at a range of different construction projects, and a lot of them they paused, they cancelled, or they re-costed, and that change had a massive impact on those workers. As already stated, 13,000 construction workers have gone over to other countries and have taken up jobs, and it is economists such as Bernard Hickey who have noted that that has been a key factor in driving down this economy and increasing the slow uptake of getting inflation under control. It is those decisions that have further entrenched the recession that New Zealanders are experiencing now.

One interesting one, to take an example that’s impacted significantly on the Wellington region, is the project of RiverLink. When in Opposition, Chris Bishop was a big proponent for this. In fact, he was with a sign yelling for Melling, he loved it so much. Now, you would think that as he is now the Minister of Transport and the Minister for Infrastructure and the local MP, we might have seen some shovels in the ground when they were meant to be started last year, but, no, we have not seen that. The only information that we can get—because media have asked questions and had no answers. I’ve asked questions, written parliamentary questions. There’s no clear answers: “It’s not in the public interest.” “That’s commercially sensitive.”

That project was paused, and the workers, who were still being paid, by the way, because contracts had been signed, were told to re-cost it and bring it in at under a billion dollars. I understand, from local contractors and local information, that a key bridge, a cycle and pedestrian bridge, that connects the Western hills into Melling Station is now not funded. That is a critical link. The regional council, the Wellington Regional Council, has said that that train station is not operable. It’s not feasible to operate that train station without having that critical link that the Government refuses to fund. Here we have a big interchange being put in for the primary purpose of reducing traffic congestion, and one of the consequences of this is that it will be, potentially, removing the railway station, which would be obviously quite a good way of also reducing congestion.

It is really concerning that the three parties that were in that agreement—which are the Hutt City Council, the Wellington Regional Council, and Waka Kotahi—have now gone their separate ways, because the Wellington Regional Council said, “We can’t wait any longer for decisions to be taken around costings. We will go ahead already with the flood protection work.” That is under way, but there is still no certainty for local people in the Hutt as to what is happening with this critical piece of infrastructure. There is no clarity about what it will cost the taxpayer. The other question that no one is able to answer is: how much are the daily costs of those contracts that were signed? All of those contractors have deals. There has been speculation that that fee is within the millions per day or week, because there are fees being paid out by Waka Kotahi without any shovels in the ground. For a Government that talks up productivity, for a Government that talks up infrastructure and getting our local economy going, why on earth would you not proceed and get a critical piece of infrastructure, such as RiverLink well under way? I don’t know.

The other big factor we need to look at for the Wellington region is our healthcare services. It’s incredibly concerning that the threat of privatisation still hangs. It was great to finally get an answer out of Shane Reti about what’s happening with the Awakairangi birthing unit, because after six months of answering questions, he answered questions two days before he lost his job to Simeon Brown. Now we understand that there is an empty unit which was promised to be used for a special-care baby unit over a year ago. That unit is still empty, and it is still costing the taxpayer for it to be rented out. And we await—I understand that the Minister’s seeking a special briefing so he can understand why there is an empty unit that was meant to be used as a special-care baby unit, which the taxpayer continues to pay a lease for. There are many midwives, midwifery groups, and advocates within the Hutt Valley who would love to get an answer on that one.

To wrap up, New Zealanders deserve a whole lot better than the load of absolute rubbish we have, driving our Wellington economy into the ground at no regard whatsoever for jobs, not only in the Public Service but also in the construction sector. This has caused a downward spiral of jobs going, shops closing, and there being real concern about certainty in our local economy. For a Government that’s meant to be so amazingly great on the economy, they are dismally failing Wellington, and Wellingtonians know it.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. We’ve heard in the Prime Minister’s statement that one of the key aspects is economic growth. I would actually like to address an adverb and an adjective that the Prime Minister used first. We have heard that particular adverb being used consistently, and that is “ruthlessly”.

This is concerning from an etymological level, because if you look at the Cambridge Dictionary, “ruthlessly” is defined as “not kind to someone or something and causing pain.” It is synonymous with cruel, cold-bloodedness, and heartlessness. That was an adverb that the Prime Minister proudly used over and over again. From a linguistic perspective, the Prime Minister could have used “determined” or even “tenacious”, but, no, the Prime Minister used “ruthlessly in pursuit”. That is the leader that we have for this country, and that is the direction that we are seeing this Government taking in pursuit of that economic growth: of causing people and the planet pain.

We have heard, in the statement by the Prime Minister, about privatisation, but I want to give an example of when privatisation or commercialisation goes wrong, in a state that is unsustainable and inequitable, and this is around retirement villages. We have heard from the people who are living in retirement villages of the pain and suffering and the sheer profiteering that is being caused, where those companies profit and, basically, prioritise profit over the lives of our seniors. This is incredibly concerning. A couple of things: this is one of the reasons why we are having the Retirement Villages Act review, and we have yet to hear from the Government on what that is going to look like.

We have heard, from the residents, of the way that they are being treated unfairly, of the way that they are being removed at the sign of early-onset dementia, of any sort of inconvenience to those companies. We are hearing from people who have given up their life savings in order to get a spot in these retirement villages, where they are not owning those properties but are licensed to occupy and, at the smallest change, they get kicked out with no chance of recuperating their capital. In fact, they don’t even get any capital gains from the money that they put into these requirement villages. On top of that, they’re also getting up to a 30 percent deferred management fee deducted from that.

To give an example, if you were paying 10 years ago for a retirement village apartment or a condo or a house at $1 million and 10 years later you want to move, not only do you not get the capital gains from the increase in value of that; in fact, you get up to 30 percent deducted. You will only see $700,000 back of the $1 million that you put in, which means you won’t have the money to buy something else, because everything else is no longer affordable.

On top of that, we are hearing from people who are being roped in by means of the contract by the retirement villages, that they are not paying their capital until another tenant has been found. We’ve heard stories of people whose parent passed away and those retirement villages are asking them to continue to pay management fees and not giving them capital until they find a new tenant, which could be one year down the track. These are our parents; these are our elders. When you have a loved one pass away, at your most vulnerable—this is how these profiteering companies are treating our people.

I want to give a shout-out to the Retirement Village Residents Association for the ongoing work that they’re doing, despite the fact that these people should be retiring and enjoying their life. Instead, they have to come up and fight these companies. We have allowed the Government to cruelly and heartlessly profit off the bookends of our lives, from early childhood education to retirement villages. Our elders and seniors have given a lot to Aotearoa. Frankly, the least we can do is ensure that they live in dignity and not be profited off. Thank you.

CELIA WADE-BROWN (Green): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. I respond to the Prime Minister’s speech and I want to make three key points. The speech was dominated by “growth”, “growth”, “growth” and “no”, “no”, “no”. First of all, this negative coalition Government has already said no far too often: no to environmental protection for our taonga species, be they birds, bats, or, dare I say, frogs; no to safeguarding iconic sites like Bream Bay from extractive industries; no to decent wages and benefits; and a resounding no to local government and the four wellbeings that they look after. This isn’t leadership; this is neglect.

Secondly, let’s refute the outdated belief that GDP growth is going to solve all our problems. High GDP per capita means very little when wealth is concentrated in the hands of a wealthy few while the majority struggle with the cost of living or even homelessness. I’m going to quote from the UNICEF’s 18th report card on child poverty in OECD countries: “Notably, the countries that managed to reduce child poverty are neither the wealthiest nor the countries that experienced the strongest economic growth … Conversely, the greatest leaps backwards occurred in some of the richest members of the OECD and the EU. … If sufficient political will is present, governments have a variety of policy tools to protect and promote the well-being of children.”

Thirdly, the Prime Minister and Minister Willis are enthusiastic about having many more tourists. Unchecked tourism growth—overtourism—is not sustainable. We’re already seeing the strain: overcrowded landmarks, crumbling infrastructure, and environmental damage. Talk to the people of Lyttelton who couldn’t get on their buses because of the numbers of cruise ship passengers. Talk to the people in Paihia who couldn’t get to the toilets because of the queues for the toilets. A system that prioritises profit over protection is failing us. We need to shift from fast tourism—quick, shallow, high-carbon visits to the same few places—to slow tourism that immerses visitors in our regions, supports local economies, and protects our natural taonga.

The new Te Urewera Heartland Ride, presumably a grandchild of the first Ngā Haerenga Great Rides, is a shining example of iwi-led, sustainable tourism. The proposed Te Ara Tipuna, a 500-kilometre trail for walking, cycling, and horse riding from Ōpōtiki to Tai Rāwhiti, is led by Ngāti Porou. They didn’t rush the project through the disruptive fast-track process; they lodged a proper resource consent, focused on environmental and cultural protection. That experience will enrich both locals and visitors.

The Green Party champions regenerative tourism that gives back more than it takes, supporting local businesses, ensuring fair wages, and protecting our natural and cultural heritage. We need partnership between central government and local government to provide infrastructure. That might be railways, it might be boardwalks, it might be cycle trails—it would be really good to finish the Five Towns Trail in the Wairarapa—or it might be toilets, but the most important piece of our infrastructure that tourism and other parts of the economy rely on is our natural capital. When I was in Waitangi last week, unlike the Prime Minister, I saw kina barrens brought about because of overfishing by the boats that Matua Jones says don’t need cameras.

Tourism operators want quality, not quantity, and the Prime Minister’s approach of leading a war on nature lacks the positive vision we need. Let’s build nature-positive tourism, let’s empower local government, and let’s do it together: tangata whenua and tangata Tiriti.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker, and can I just say it’s lovely to see you back in the Chair. I missed you at the end of last year—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Oh, thank you.

Hon JAN TINETTI: —so it’s lovely to see you back. I’d also like to take the opportunity to welcome back two wāhine toa to the House as well—Marama Davidson and Lemauga Lydia Sosene—who have had their health issues as well. Being a fellow survivor, I just take my hat off to them for their battles that they’ve been through and being back, and it’s wonderful to see them here.

That being said, morale is low at the moment in this country. I think I heard earlier today Carmel, our deputy leader, talking about how she’s never seen it so low. I feel exactly the same. I go out into the traps at the moment and I see that low morale, and what I’m seeing breaks my heart.

I think that there were people that tuned into the Prime Minister’s statement hoping that they were going to see something different, wanting a sense of hope that was going to come from that statement. All they saw was a weak leader who talked jargon and had no vision for this country. Actually, this country has never seen such a shambolic and incompetent and divisive Government. They are leaving this country in a state, and I know that there are many people worried about the mess that’s going to need to be cleaned up at the end of next year.

One of the areas that this Government talks about is ensuring equity for our people, and they talk about some of their great achievements. Even today, I was just so perturbed when I saw them talking about—and it was in the Prime Minister’s statement—the number of people who have exited emergency housing. But where had they gone to? I have seen babies living in tents—a beautiful four-month-old with a young mother living in a tent because emergency accommodation was not available to her. I have seen people living in cars, like I have not seen since 2016, and that side over there today were going, “Yes, we’ve done it. We’ve got them out of emergency accommodation.” Why aren’t you asking what is happening to those people? Why aren’t that side over there hanging their heads in shame and then asking the questions about where those people are and why four-month-old babies are living in tents and not having access to emergency accommodation?

It’s easy to say that you can get people out of emergency accommodation if you just take them off the list and get rid of them into cars, tents, and garages. That’s what we saw in 2016 and what an awful situation it was. I fear that we’ve got back there in record time, because I see it. I’m not even an electorate MP and I see it coming through my office doors because they can’t get help anywhere else. They have been to lots of different places and they cannot get that help, and they are not feeling they are being supported by this Government at all.

What worries me is the impact that then has on our children and on education. I’ve seen what that can do and how that can put young people back by years and years and years in their education, and yet a lot of that is put back on the teachers in the school without looking at that holistic view of everything that happens in a young person’s life.

We’ve seen lots of non-delivery and broken promises from this Government. Right at the start of the school year, we are seeing broken promises and non-delivery. One non-delivery, of course, is all the rural bus runs that have been cut. Even yesterday, I spoke to a few Northland principals who are very concerned about the number of children that are having to walk along dangerous rural roads to get to school, and they know that those young people are at real risk of not getting to school or being injured in some horrific way because those bus runs have inexplicably been cut. I’ve spoken to principals in Hawke’s Bay whose bus runs have been cut. I’ve spoken to principals on the West Coast of the South Island whose bus runs have been cut. Right in the rural heartland of this country, young people and their families have been completely disregarded.

We’re also seeing non-delivery in the famous school lunch programme. We’re seeing schools that are really struggling to feed their kids, and this Government had no regard for the delivery of those lunches. What did they think was going to happen when they cut the cost by $5 per lunch? Did they think that this lunch programme would suitably feed all of those kids? They were kidding themselves. What has happened is that that has been put back on to the schools to make up the difference. We’re already hearing of educators who are, out of their own goodwill, giving back to that lunch programme to make sure that their kids are being fed. You would think that the cost of living would be the highest on the agenda at the moment, but taking away those lunches, as they’re doing at the moment, and not having any regard for the nutrition of those lunches is disgraceful.

They’ve also taken away many jobs. They don’t care about people’s jobs—with rising unemployment. We’re seeing so many people who were delivering those lunches now out of work—some of those people that I got to visit when I was Minister were proud because it was the first job that they’d had for quite some time. Suddenly, they are now out of work and not able to find new work because of the employment situation in this country—a really disgraceful outcome that this Government has put in place.

Another thing that this Government is doing is opening the door to privatisation. Now, we’ve heard many speeches here about the privatisation throughout the health sector and the growing thought that this Government is looking to privatise in that area, but one area that seems to be overlooked is the privatisation already in the education sector—ECE, early childhood education, being the first off the block with the regulatory review that happened there at the end of last year and was reported back. Really, all that that regulatory review did was say that it would make it easier for businesses to operate early childhood centres at the expense of our children’s education and their safety in this country.

Now, when there have been similar situations overseas, there have been catastrophic consequences. When you do not put the health and safety of young people at the centre, there will be catastrophic consequences. That’s not saying that that’s a “maybe”; that is a “will be”. There are regulations for a reason. Now, there always should be a review of regulations, but always put the needs of a young person at the centre so that we never ever put them in danger or in a situation where their lives will be at risk. If you don’t think that that is a possibility, have a look at the cases that have happened in the UK, have a look at the cases that have happened in some states in the US, have a look at what has happened in some places in Australia, where we have seen terrible outcomes of when a similar regulatory review has happened. All that does is make it possible for businesses to operate easier, so it is profit before our kids.

Let’s go back to the buses and the privatisation area: we also see that where there have been some buses that have been completely cut—and we’re talking about maybe 20, 30, 40, 50, and, in one case, 60 kids that have been impacted—communities have only coped by businesses stepping up and paying for the buses. That should be a given—all kids should have the ability to be able to get to school, and it should not be given out to corporates or businesses to be able to provide that transport for those children. That is something that the Government should be providing and there should not be a question about that.

This Government is backwards-looking and has no plan for the future. There are so many issues that this Government is causing within the education space that I worry about the future of our young people and our Kiwi ingenuity, which we have always nurtured through creative thinking, which many teachers are now telling me they don’t have the ability to do any more because of this Government’s focus on narrowing our curriculum. That is a scary space to be in. This is a shambolic, incompetent, and divided Government.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Well, thankfully the fanciful and far-fetched fiction flowing forth from the former Minister Jan Tinetti is finished. We heard concerns around the school lunch programme; this is from the same member that just recently put up a post online decrying the deplorable state of these school lunches with a picture of said lunch, only for it to be revealed that the lunch she posted a picture of was from when she was the Associate Minister of Education a couple of years ago. I think listeners will take with a large grain of salt any commentary from that member on education.

This Government, though, is squarely focused on improving outcomes across the board and it is a pleasure to get up every day, and I see that in members on this side of the House, as part of this Government; a spring in their step as they stride forward, confident that we are making a positive improvement in the lives of New Zealanders up and down this fine country.

Now, we inherited an incredibly difficult situation. The economy was in a mess, the cost of living was through the roof, and inflation was at record high levels. Now, you can’t turn that around overnight but we have made amazing strides in that space. Government expenditure coming under control was a key part of that. Doing that helped to bring inflation down. Inflation is now back within the 1 to 3 percent band; 2.2 for the last two consecutive quarters now. That’s led to interest rates coming back. All of these factors flow through to a lower cost of living for Kiwis.

Is the job done? No, it’s not, there’s more to do, but rest assured that we are squarely focused, ruthlessly focused, on delivering that for New Zealanders because we understand that that’s important. I hear that as I travel around the mighty Waikato, the wonderful electorate that I am very proud to represent. I hear from families in those wonderful communities of the difficult challenges they’ve been facing over the last couple of years, but I also hear a level of optimism—optimism that, actually, things are coming right. We have turned the corner and positive future scenarios for them and their families are squarely in sight, so that’s encouraging.

Over the last year, it’s been a strong focus on that cost of living aspect, and getting rid of some of the red tape and bureaucracy to help unlock our businesses and farmers is another key piece of the puzzle for helping to drive success. You can look at that in the transport sector and again, in the Waikato, we have a lot of growth opportunity there, a lot of transport projects under way at the moment, and we’ve been inundated with a sea of orange for many years—cones galore.

That’s just such a clear symbol of how far we’ve gone in overcomplicating things. We have lost sight of the fact that every rule, every piece of bureaucracy or compliance we put in place, should have a lower cost than the benefit it provides. We’ve lost track of that and, actually, we’ve got that balance totally wrong, such that now people in their day-to-day businesses, in their day-to-day lives, are encountering frustration after frustration, cost after cost that does not deliver a tangible benefit to them or their communities or, indeed, the economy.

We are cutting through that and, as I say, it’s a pleasure to be part of that. In the Waikato, we’re seeing that tangibly. The Telephone Road intersection a great example of that. Simeon Brown, the transport Minister at the time, agreed that we needed to reopen that intersection and it’s going to happen. It was a ridiculous decision to close it. It’s getting back open. Great outcome for the local community there.

We’re committed to extending the Waikato Expressway. The plan is to go all the way through to Tauranga; four lanes. A massive economic benefit to the upper North Island region. That golden triangle will absolutely thrive off the back of that. I know my colleagues in the Bay of Plenty region, as well as those in the Waikato region, are very firmly committed to seeing that through as well, and we’re hoping to be turning dirt on that next year. A great outcome for our region in the Waikato. Alongside that, the prospect of a third medical school at Waikato University is another very exciting potential opportunity in the Waikato.

When I look back over that last year, there have been challenges. It hasn’t all been easy and I’ve heard from constituents echoing some of their concerns around the difficult situations they’ve seen, but, as I said, there’s that positivity that underpins that things are improving—we are helping this country get back on track and they feel that things are coming right for them.

When we look forward now to 2025, this Government has been very clear the focus is squarely on economic growth, helping to get the economy firing again; charging so that we can succeed, so that there are more jobs available for Kiwis; that they are higher-paying jobs; that businesses can be encouraged to innovate; that new entrepreneurs can start new businesses; that the compliance framework around that is minimised to encourage success, to encourage innovation, to encourage that nimble number eight wire mentality that always used to underpin how New Zealand got on and succeeded in the world. Yet it feels like we’ve suffocated that number eight wire in red tape over the last number of years.

It’s encouraging, as I say, to be a part of a Government that is getting back to basics and removing that for the success of our country. Government expenditure is going to be a part of that. There is still too much waste—too much waste. There are a lot of wonderful programmes going on, lots of interesting things happening but, actually, getting back to basics is critical for our success. We need to reduce that expenditure further. That red tape and compliance can be cut back further as well.

It’s exciting to see fast-track applications cutting through the red tape in the resource management space. There are a number of projects in the mighty Waikato that I’m very much looking forward to being a part of; those developers, those business owners that are very excited about what the potential of fast-track legislation means for them. It’s about unlocking the opportunity for New Zealand because that tech, that innovation, that development, that infrastructure—all of those things that will help to drive a stronger economy in New Zealand—will help make lives better for all Kiwis. In the Waikato, we’re very excited about that as well, because, actually, when you have a strong economy, you can afford to invest in health, in education, in law and order, and in the environment.

All of these things that we hear from the other side are very important, and indeed they are, and we agree with that, but, actually, you cannot fund them without a strong economy, and that is the fundamental premise of why we are driving so firmly for economic growth in this country. We want better outcomes. When I think about my young children and the thousands of other young children around the wonderful Waikato and across the country, I want them to have a fantastic future and that means a strong educational platform. I am so pleased to see the changes that the education Minister, Erica Stanford, has been implementing to help ensure that we focus on teaching the basics brilliantly, that we just get back to delivering quality education to set our young Kiwis up for a successful future so that they can go on to whatever success looks like for them. Having that firm educational base is absolutely vital to that, and I am so pleased to see a raft of changes in this space that will help deliver on that as well.

Again, in health, we’ve seen a number of targets established last year that have been well traversed. I’m confident the new health Minister, Simeon Brown, will continue to drive firmly for success in achieving those outcomes as well. We see far too often, and in rural communities like the Waikato, access to health can be a challenge and that shouldn’t be the case, but it has been. We are working on fixing that, and that, in part, again comes from having a strong economy, because we have committed a record investment in health expenditure under this Government. We have to be able to pay for that, and that is where the economy comes in. We don’t just seem to hear that echoed from the other side. There’s no understanding; it’s simply spend more on the environment, spend more on health, on education—not so much on law and order; that doesn’t seem to be an issue for them—but, actually, to do all of those things, we must have the economy to afford it.

It’s simple, and we see that in businesses and, sadly, businesses have had a tough time over the last number of years now. Last year, unfortunately, we saw a number of businesses go into liquidation. That just reflects the difficulty of the situation we inherited. Again, confidence levels suggest that the future is looking brighter for those businesses and we look forward to supporting them, enabling them to get on and succeed, as well.

So 2025 is going to be a great year for this Government, and I’m very pleased and very privileged to have the opportunity, as the chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, to make a contribution to that with a broad array of trade work that is coming before our committee. The trade Minister has been very busy offshore. We have new agreements with the United Arab Emirates, with the Gulf Cooperation Council as well—both coming before our committee, hoping to be implemented this year in the coming months—which will provide massive opportunity. Ninety-nine percent of goods are going in tariff-free, once that’s up and running—huge potential for our economy. We’re still driving firmly for doubling the value of exports, as well. It’s all about that economic growth, and that comes in large part from export success.

It’s going to be a great year. This Government has bold plans. We’re going to say more “yes” and get on and deliver for New Zealand. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Members, we are now at the dinner break. The House is suspended until 7.30 p.m.

Sitting suspended from 5.59 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members, the House has resumed. We are on the debate on the Prime Minister’s statement, and it’s a Labour Party call—and can you clarify, is this a split call or a full?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): It’s a split call.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: A split call, OK.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Prime Minister talked about a relentless focus, he called it, on lifting incomes and creating opportunity, but I ask: for whom? He said—and I quote—“In 2025, we will take action to end the culture of no”. I would really like him to say “yes” for once to disability communities across Aotearoa New Zealand.

In 2024, this Government cut access to disability support funding and devastated disabled people and carers. They denigrated carers, accused them of misusing funds, with no evidence. They gutted Whaikaha and moved Disability Support Services to the Ministry of Social Development—again, with no evidence that that would lead to improved outcomes for disabled people. Providers are now under orders from this Government, through Needs Assessment and Service Coordination services, to turn away disabled people from getting support, to cut costs. Residential homes have a freeze placed on them. Disabled people who’ve worked for upwards of five years to find a place and finally got one are told that they’re now back in square one. They’ve quietly axed the Accessibility for New Zealanders Bill after much hoo-ha on that side when they were in Opposition, and stopped the Enabling Good Lives roll-out as well. All of this has led to unquantifiable, unmeasurable suffering for disabled people and carers.

This report, though, A Thousand Cuts, looks at the quantifiable, cumulative impacts on the financial incomes of disabled people and how they’ve been detrimentally impacted as a direct result of decisions that this Government has made. The main ones they talk about are indexing benefits to the Consumers Price Index (CPI) and not wages. We, of course, made the reverse change in 2019, and that, when we index benefits to wage growth—the Children’s Commissioner at the time said it was the single most effective thing a Government could do to lift children out of poverty. They’ve changed it back to CPI. In other words, the gap between average wages and benefit levels will cumulatively increase year on year.

Now, why is this important? For a number of different reasons, but 50 percent of people on jobseeker benefits have a health condition or a disability that means that they can work limited hours or cannot work. With this policy, this Government this month, in February this year, is expected to save around $670 million at the expense of low-income households over the next three years from when they made the change.

Cutting school lunches and bringing back prescription charges will disproportionately impact disabled people. I want to read a quote from a person that’s been laid out in this report. Carers are also affected by prescription charges being brought back. A lady in her 50s admitted to hospital because she had stopped taking her heart medications: when she was discharged, she came back in saying that she would get them now as they are now free. She said although she was working, her husband is disabled and they struggle to get by. Her health is the lowest priority. And then, of course, they’ve brought back charges for public transport, which was either free or half-price for those under the age of 24.

What is the impact of all of this? A carer not in paid work whose children use public transport to get to school will incur a cost of just under $2,500 a year due to this Government’s decisions. A sole parent on minimum wage who has a child with a disability and uses public transport will face an increased cost of over $5,700 a year because of this Government’s decisions.

What else have they done? Thousands of New Zealanders leaving New Zealand. Jobs—they don’t seem to care about jobs; that’s dropped off the radar: 33,000 more people unemployed after this Government has taken office. Cuts to front-line services as well. Why? To fund $14.7 billion in tax cuts, and about 2 million New Zealanders get nothing, or $2 a week, because of that. Only 3,000 get the $250 a fortnight that the Prime Minister promised willy-nilly to almost everyone on the campaign trail—$2.9 billion in tax cuts for landlords; $216 million to one tobacco company.

They’re failing the economy; they’re failing people. I haven’t even touched on how they’re failing the environment. If I was this Government that’s taking New Zealand backwards, I would not be so proud, because their decisions have made life harder for everyone except those who are wealthy and sorted.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. David Seymour wants to privatise the health system [Interruption]—yes, he does. He started to lay the groundwork—and we’ve heard him do this on a couple of occasions—by suggesting that people just need to get over their squeamish feelings that they might have about privatisation. I don’t know who he’s been talking to, but everybody that I’ve spoken to since he said that was not squeamish about it; they were outraged, and rightly so.

We shouldn’t be surprised, because David Seymour’s libertarian drive for privatisation is deeply rooted in that belief that private ownership and market competition are just simply more efficient and effective than Government. On this side of the House, we know that health is a public good. Reduced access and inequalities and inequities are absolutely what would be on the agenda and on David Seymour’s agenda if he had his way. Private companies prioritise profit, by definition, over public good, leading to reduced access for lower-income individuals and marginalised communities, because they are always the people that suffer the consequences of that largesse and that libertarian view.

Healthcare, as I said, is a public good because it benefits all of society. A healthy population contributes not only to economic productivity; it contributes to the growth—the mythical, magical growth that everybody’s always after—stability, and overall societal wellbeing. It might be really easy for us to sit back and think, “Well, it won’t happen because it’s only David Seymour suggesting it. David Seymour’s not the boss.”, but after 14 months of this Government looking more and more like Prime Minister Christopher Luxon is not the one calling the shots, I wouldn’t be too sure.

In all the talk about going for growth that we’ve heard—relentless talk, an awful lot of talk, and not an awful lot of plans being laid out. In all the talk about going for growth, Mr Luxon forgot the one area in which there has been real growth. Anybody know what that is?

Hon Members: Unemployment.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN: Unemployment—the growth in unemployment. There are 33,000 more people unemployed. Māori and Pasifika unemployment is double the national rate, and that is shameful. And yet there is still no plan. We’ve heard nothing concrete—just slogans and vacuous statements. Mr Luxon likes to talk a big game, and we’ve all heard him talk a big game in the media, we’ve heard him talk a big game in the House, all over the place, but the numbers don’t lie. There are 12,000 fewer people working in construction than when he became Prime Minister, and that is scandalous. We all know that that is an industry that once it ebbs, it’s incredibly hard to get back up on its feet.

The Government likes to celebrate the fact that it’s tackled the cost of living. Remember they used to talk about the cost of living all the time, but back in the real world for people—which is most of us who aren’t lucky enough to be wealthy and sorted—the prices continue to climb. Everyday prices for everyday ordinary people continue to climb. That’s insurance, that’s rates, that’s energy, transport, and, as my colleague has just also listed, a host of things that absolutely hit people in the back pocket and impact on their quality of life. It’s all very well having listened to the Prime Minister’s statement, and yet again we heard a lot of rhetoric, but the crux of the matter is this Government is taking people backwards—taking the country backwards. We know that because that’s what people are telling us on the ground. That’s certainly what we’re hearing everywhere we go. As they say: people are never wrong.

We’re supposedly halfway through this Government, they would lead us to believe. I don’t know if anybody would like to bet on the Government lasting their full distance, but we’re supposedly halfway through this Government, and already they’re failing on the economy. It’s a simple fact: the cost of living has simply dropped off the radar. I haven’t heard anybody talk seriously about the cost of living crisis for a long time. They seem to have just let that go. They’re opening the door to privatisation and they’re going to use health as the stalking horse to start that up. They simply don’t care about people’s jobs because most of them are wealthy and sorted. We’ve got the ferry debacle—“Nicola no boats”, no ferries; goodness knows when that’s going to be resolved—and $2.9 billion in tax cuts for landlords, tax breaks for tobacco, and shamefully reversing what was our world-first smoke-free legislation, including the world’s first smoke-free generation, which should have been something that we were all proud of. The Government is taking us all backwards. It’s full of broken promises and bad choices.

CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki): There’s a lot of negativity on that side of the House—a lot of “no”. It’s time to be positive. It’s time to say, “yes”.

I’m proud to be part of a Government that is backing regional New Zealand—that understands that economic growth is created in the regions, created in rural New Zealand. As the MP for Tukituki, representing regional New Zealand, I’m getting feedback all the time from so many people across Hawke’s Bay about how wonderful it is that finally we’ve got a Government that is backing the regions, focusing on community, taking bureaucracy out of Wellington, and investing back in the front line and investing in infrastructure, roads, renewable energy, housing development. It’s just so good. It’s so positive. There’s no doubt that Hawke’s Bay has benefited from this, and I’m super excited about all the things that we have done in the past year for Hawke’s Bay.

Let’s start with horticulture. Hawke’s Bay is the fruit bowl of New Zealand, and I do like talking about the fruit bowl of New Zealand. We do grow the best produce in the world. Actually, I was just out in an orchard yesterday with some little red pears, Piqa red. They’re fetching a high-value premium over in the markets in Asia, because that’s where we want to go. We want to double the value of our exports in the next 10 years, and we’re not going to do it by selling that produce to ourselves. We need to ensure that we are improving our trade deals and improving our export markets across the world. Recent forecasts actually show that the New Zealand apple industry is about to hit $1 billion for the very first time, and against the odds, following the cyclone. Our Hawke’s Bay growers are so, so resilient. They have not been held back. In fact, horticulture has now surpassed forestry as the third-largest exporter for the first time.

There is so much potential when we have a Government that backs our growers and backs our farmers, and backs our primary industries—a Government that backs economic growth, jobs, and opportunity. On this side of the House, we are enabling our growers to grow. We’re cutting the red tape and allowing our industries to grow and create jobs and ensuring we have the Recognised Seasonal Employer (RSE) workforce that we need so we can pick our fruit at the optimum time and get it off to market—thanks to a very amazing immigration Minister, who came to Hawke’s Bay this time last year and listened and then acted.

That is it: we are a Government of action. It’s not OK to be leaving millions of dollars of export quality fruit to rot on the trees. It’s important that we futureproof our RSE scheme. This means that we can create more permanent jobs for New Zealanders and create opportunity in our regions. We’re supporting overseas capital. We’re saying, “We are open for business here in New Zealand”, so that our businesses have the confidence to invest and employ people. We’re backing science, innovation, biotech, so we can grow our apples faster, so that we can create pest resistance, so that we can reduce our emissions—this is all good stuff—and we are supporting water storage so that we can grow our crops and we can produce more.

Water is the lifeblood, it’s the lifeblood of our regions, and that is why our Government has announced funding support for water storage in Hawke’s Bay. I was so excited—$3 million for the Tukituki water storage scheme. This has the potential to provide over 22,000 hectares of irrigation and environmental flows so that we can get the water going in the rivers in the dry summer months, so we can increase those flows. It will unlock economic potential, forecasting up to $300 million of GDP impact, and create over 3,000 jobs. This is huge, unleashing so much economic potential in the regions—very, very exciting for Hawke’s Bay—and we do need water storage.

It’s exciting that we’ve got a Government that is saying yes: yes to our future generations; yes, we will build infrastructure this country so desperately needs—which brings me to the Hawke’s Bay Expressway; the four-laning of the Hawke’s Bay Expressway. This is the first road of national significance to start, and it has actually started. We’ve got shovels in the ground. We’ve got diggers on site. We’ve got hard hats. You can actually see things happening. It’s not ideological; it’s not dreaming up big ideas of light rail in Auckland. It’s actually getting things done, and it’s driving more productivity.

There’s actually a really good story to it, too, because we’re recycling the silt from the cyclone to create the foundation to be able to build the four-lane expressway later this year. Hawke’s Bay is super, super excited about that, because this means that we can get our apples to port faster, our wine to port faster, and off to the markets, driving more productivity in this country, but it also means that people can just get around a bit faster and safely as well.

Which brings me to the speed limit—this is another wonderful thing for our region. There were so many people going on holiday over the break, travelling across the Napier-Taupō road and being so frustrated by the 80 kilometre per hour speed limit. When we’re driving along these big, straight flats, actually you could be going 100. Well, news: we are putting those speed limits back up to 100, which is really exciting. The amount of feedback when we announced that was just huge for Hawke’s Bay—lots and lots of very, very excited people that can’t wait to drive 100 kilometres per hour back along State Highway 5 between Napier and Taupō, but also State Highway 51 between Clive and Napier obviously going back up to 100, as well. That’s very exciting, not only for driving productivity but just ensuring that we can get from A to B a lot faster, and just a bit more of a common-sense approach.

Just over a week ago, we had our new health Minister come to Hawke’s Bay—he’d been in the job for about five or six days—and he announced over $60 million into healthcare in Hawke’s Bay: a new radiology department, a new cancer treatment machine. This is huge for Hawke’s Bay, because Labour had talked about that cancer treatment machine for a very long time but never actually delivered. Well, we are delivering, and this means a lot for cancer patients in Hawke’s Bay. It means that they can get the treatment in Hawke’s Bay without having to travel to Palmerston North. This is huge. We are a Government of action, not just dreaming and not just ideology. We’re actually getting things done.

Education: this is something that I’m very passionate about. We’ve got our wonderful education Minister right here, and I must say, dropping my children off at school after the school holidays and talking to the teachers about the new structured literacy and structured maths programme was super exciting, because they are really excited about this programme. They’ve seen the benefits of it. They’ve seen the benefits that structured literacy and structured maths creates.

We need to lift performance in education. It’s not about lowering the bar; it is about lifting our children up over that bar. That’s about getting back to the basics in the classroom—an hour of reading, writing, and maths each day—getting back that focus and that engagement, and just simple policies that have been introduced, like banning cell phones in schools. This is such a great policy that I just get so much feedback on all the time from teachers and principals, who say, “We’re actually seeing the students engaging. They’re actually learning, and they’re actually talking to each other.” This is the type of thing that is simple, it’s basic, but it’s going to get our children ahead.

Finally, just quickly, I wanted to touch on our gang laws that we brought in, because, in Hawke’s Bay, we have one of the largest populations of gangs in the country. I’ve been talking to police in the region and they’re just so happy that they’ve now got this tool kit where they can crack down on the gangs. They have the ability to be able to stop gangs from consorting. They can actually do something when they’re wearing gang patches. We don’t want to see gangs intimidating our communities. We want safer communities in Hawke’s Bay. This is really important for our families and our children.

There is plenty that our Government has done in the past year, and we’ve got plenty more to do to get New Zealand back on track.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): We are facing some serious problems in this country: the economy is in recession; unemployment is going up; productivity is down. There are those who like to say it was all the fault of the previous Government, entirely ignoring world trends, but I’d like to point to a world trend: that most economies that we compare ourselves with, having experienced inflation, have, in the last year or so, recovered—are now back into growth. Minimal, but it’s there.

In this country, we are not, and the reason we are not is because of the facile slogans and the empty rhetoric of the Government that is simply not delivering. They are crashing and burning through New Zealand. There’s a Prime Minister who thinks he only has to order something and it will make it come true but who will not do the hard yards to actually do the work; a Minister of Finance who is full of cheap debating tricks and no solid policy to work with and for New Zealand to ensure that we do the best for everyone here. That Government is creating chaos. It is absolutely shambolic. It is breaking promises, and it is taking us backwards.

I want to focus on the bad choices that Government is making in tertiary education. It’s a mess. The reason it’s a mess is because they appointed a Minister for Tertiary Education and Skills who had one objective in mind—a personal objective only—and that was to get the Southern Institute of Technology back. Instead of looking at Te Pūkenga seriously and soberly, and noticing that it was beginning to work, that Minister decided to take it apart no matter what—take it apart no matter that her own officials said it would be best to have regional groupings of polytechnics; no matter that her own specialist group of advisers said, “Put together regional groups of polytechnics.” Instead, she has charged on with her own plan—the sheer arrogance of ignoring the evidence and ignoring the advice of her own officials and ignoring the advice of her own specialist advisers, all because she had one simple idea in mind. The sector is in despair over it.

Now she’s put out some consultation around workplace learning, and the sector is rejecting that, too, because the models that the Minister is offering—now the Minister for Vocational Education—involve charging the industries more. It’s a shame. There is a shambles being created in vocational education. That Minister did nothing for the universities, and the universities have been taken off her and given to someone else who might actually do something about it.

We’re just starting to hear today that funding is going to be removed from the universities. This is a huge problem. If we are to get New Zealand’s productivity up, if we are going to seriously address some of the problems we need to address in this country, then we need to have something like about 80 percent of New Zealanders with a trade, a diploma, or a degree. Yet that Government is taking apart the institutions that will help us all to have a trade, a diploma, or a degree. It is facile and short-term thinking. It is creating huge uncertainty in the sector.

The previous speaker, Catherine Wedd, lauded the science reforms and said it was taking science forward in this country. Tell that to the scientists at Callaghan Innovation, who have no idea what they are going to do after 30 June this year. That Government has created massive uncertainty in the science sector. We have lost around 500 scientists. That’s our future that we’ve waved off overseas—the expertise we need so that we can create the innovation we need in this country. That Government has taken funding away from blue-sky science, and while they were at it, they sort of knifed the humanities and social sciences in the back. That blue-sky science is exactly what creates the opportunities for innovation that we need to grow this economy.

That is a Government that doesn’t care. It is engaged in a whole lot of short-term thinking. It needed some money to pay for its tax cuts, so it took and took and took from exactly the sectors that needed long-term secure investment to ensure that we could grow. It is a chaotic Government, a Government of shambles, a Government of broken promises, and a Government that is simply taking us backwards.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Our country was promised to get things back on track by the Government. We have to ask ourselves the question, and when we see the public, do they feel like they’re back on track? They don’t. Does the Birkenhead community feel like they’re back on track when last week they experienced a stabbing in their main street and, today, an armed robbery at an ATM? Is that back on track when they were made a promise by this Government that law and order would be their top priority and they have not been able to deliver on it?

There will be a number of MPs across the House who will be freaking out at the moment because they know what the public is telling them and they know the promises that have been broken and also the risk to the seats that they hold.

It’s good to see the Minister for the South Island in the House this evening. In fact, actually, he’s delivered a more significant plan for the South Island, in a number of weeks in the role, than the Minister for Auckland has in the 18 months that he’s held that particular position.

The reality of this Government is that they are failing in this economy. The cost of living—[Interruption]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Too loud. I cannot hear the person who’s speaking.

SHANAN HALBERT: The cost of living has absolutely dropped off the agenda of this National Government. In fact, Aucklanders have been left behind. They were promised $250 a fortnight in tax cuts. The average family only received a mere $50. Under this Government, Aucklanders have endured rising rents. In fact, the Minister of Housing tried to say that rents in Auckland had gone down.

Now, which Aucklander that any of us knows feels like their rents have actually gone down? No one. No rents have gone down. The Government promised their tax cuts for landlords would bring down rents, and the Infometrics quarterly economic monitor for Auckland showed that rental affordability decreased over the year to September and that new dwelling consents are down 12 percent. We know that they’ve put more than 2,000 houses under Kāinga Ora on hold in Tāmaki Auckland alone. They’ve stopped building. They’ve stopped delivering for our largest city in this country.

What I have seen from the Minister for Auckland is, despite my number of written parliamentary questions and despite Official Information Act requests to the Minister, I haven’t seen a plan. I haven’t seen any deliverables. The only thing in the two papers that he has delivered to Cabinet is that he held the role of Minister of Transport, he held the role of Minister of Local Government, and through those work programmes, he was delivering for Auckland. When public transport has increased significantly for Aucklanders—it’s gone up—and when registration fees have gone up and when toll fees are coming in and congestion prices are coming in, life is getting more expensive for Aucklanders.

This wasn’t the promise that Aucklanders were sold under the National Government in the last election. The question for Aucklanders is: who is our champion? Is it the Minister for Auckland who is now the Minister of Health? When is his time going to come around in order to deliver measurable outcomes for Auckland alone? How is he going to get on top of the infrastructure deficit that we experience? He absolutely hasn’t delivered for our largest city in this country. He’s cut $564 million from our transport and infrastructure programme in the city. Since he is the health Minister now, and listening to the debacle of question time today, what he did talk about is the leadership in the health system.

Now, can I remind the House that, once upon a time, we had a Minister of Health called Jonathan Coleman, who appointed Lester Levy—

Hon Matt Doocey: From Northcote.

SHANAN HALBERT: —that’s right—and who also appointed Dale Bramley. How did that go? How did that go, and how have we found ourselves back in this cycle?

For Aucklanders, for the people of Birkenhead and Northcote, this Government hasn’t delivered. They’re asking questions of yourselves—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired. Thank you.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s amazing how many of us can sit through over 20 minutes’ worth of ramblings from the Prime Minister outlining his vision for Aotearoa and not see a single mention of the words “poverty” or “inequality” in his so-called vision for growth, but make no mistake, because the things that we will see growing in our country are not going to be the pockets of those doing it the toughest. This is not my opinion; this is from advice the Government has received on their own bills, and their own policy intentions.

The growth that we will be seeing in this country is a direct result of the Prime Minister’s vision. Is unemployment growing? Is material hardship for children growing? Is the number of people declined for hardship grants for food growing? The number of benefit sanctions pushing people into deeper poverty—growing. Rents—growing. All of this comes at the expense of our communities, who have been promised an economy that supposedly will work for everyone. If you look and scratch behind the surface of the rhetoric of the Prime Minister, what you will find is an economic plan that will make the rich wealthier at the expense of basically everyone else.

Again, it doesn’t take a lot of searching, even on Google, to see what the Government hasn’t planned for our communities. If we take the Social Security Amendment Bill that is currently in the Social Services and Community Committee, we’ve been constantly warned by officials about the fact that this bill will literally put our poorest at risk of homelessness because of the way that the policy is designed. People cannot eat your GDP growth; because we have been in the past in areas where we have seen rapid, so-called economic growth. Those are the John Key years. What did we see during that time? More people living in motels; more people struggling to get by.

Economic growth and GDP growth does not tell you who’s actually benefiting from a so-called growing economy. You can actually have a growing economy that depends on making the rich richer, on increased house prices, that does not rely on actually supporting everyday people who are simply trying to do their best. Economic growth—in the simplest way possible to explain to people—is just money moving around. It does not tell you whether you actually have children that are currently living in households that are cold and damp, whether they are going to be living in good homes. If so, the John Key years of the past would have delivered a drastic decrease in wealth inequality and poverty, and we did not see that. We will not see that either under this Government.

The Government finds it easier to go back to the rhetoric of beneficiary bashing to scapegoat some of our poorest people to then justify policies that will simply make inequality worse. The Government is relying on increased rents and house prices to actually drive that economic growth. Why do we know that? Because the Government is creating visas like this investor visa category that relies on investment coming into the country, so money flowing in, but with no tangible measurements about how exactly we’re going to see the benefits of that investor visa trickling down to everyday people. I say trickling down because the trickle-down economics that this Government is reheating—the Government effectively reheating their own nachos from previous Governments—has not delivered any substantive changes for everyday people.

I want to make it really clear: when the Government and the Prime Minister specifically talks about growth, he is not talking about everyday people. He’s talking about lining the pockets of corporations, lining the pockets of multimillionaires. This will come at the expense of communities that are currently being gentrified, of people who are being pushed out of their local communities because of increased rent prices. We’re seeing that across the country, not just in places like Auckland and Wellington. In fact, many of our regional cities are seeing massive increases in rent prices, and people who are aging in those cities are wondering whether they’re going to be displaced by corporations and for-profit investor companies that are simply going to create homes for profit, not for people. Again, this is so clear when you talk to people at the front lines who are helping some of our most vulnerable. It’s clear to me that the Government members have absolutely no interest in actually connecting to the people on the ground who are struggling to make ends meet.

I want to take us back actually just to Monday where we were having, again, public hearings on the Social Security Amendment Bill. I saw one of the Government members publicly in that hearing asking someone about literally a made-up scenario they made about a beneficiary that they created in their heads who was refusing to go to work. They actually admitted they didn’t even know that person. They heard it from someone else, potentially, and this speaks about the attitude that people have towards those struggling to make ends meet. They would rather create an imaginary person in their heads who simply complies with the political narrative they’re pushing than actually go out and talk to people on the benefit about what their aspirations are.

If they were hearing submitters, none of them actually would have supported the narrative the Prime Minister has pushed around people on the benefit being bottom trawlers. They’ve actually been talking about how they want an income support system that treats them with respect and dignity. I looked at the Prime Minister’s statement; you could find nothing about people doing it the toughest. Like, people are not going to be lifted out of poverty because we had multimillionaires on visas coming into the country. People are not going to be lifted out of poverty if you literally defund and strip Kāinga Ora of their ability to deliver homes for people who are on the social housing waiting list. No matter how much economic growth we see, those benefits are not going to be trickling down to everyday communities. We’ve been here before and we’ve seen the impacts of trickle-down neoliberal politics that have simply delivered more hardship.

I think, particularly when we see the Prime Minister’s statements followed up by, obviously, his Ministers in later weeks talk about the vision they want for our tourism sector, for immigration, it’s really clear that the wellbeing of workers—for example, our migrant workers who have helped us to, for example, build more homes, including public housing—is not at the forefront of the Government Ministers. This Government would rather, for example, scrap language requirements for millionaires, while creating more hurdles for everyday migrant workers to access residency visas, particularly those on low wages who are most likely to be exploited. The Government would rather simply label them as low skilled, and forget about them, treat them as expendable commodities, instead of members of our communities who deserve to actually be treated as human.

Again, we’re seeing more stories than probably ever before about, say, for example, disabled children facing deportation in this country simply because of how they were born. I think to me, that reeks of a narrative of a lack of regard to people who do not comply with this Government’s vision of an economy for the multimillionaires. I feel for the communities on the ground who at the end of this term—because I do genuinely believe that we’re heading towards a one-term Government—will be wondering who was this economic growth for?

It certainly wasn’t for everyday people. It certainly isn’t for the kids in schools that are facing lower quality school lunches, who are setting them up to fail in education. It certainly won’t benefit children living in poverty; their families are now wondering why this Government is far more interested in measuring school attendance than whether they actually have the bare essentials. We have a child poverty reduction Minister who’s literally far more interested in measuring school attendance than whether kids have enough. It’s almost like the priorities are upside down. You can’t send kids to school without the bare essentials and expect them to thrive. It doesn’t take a lot to know that. It doesn’t take a lot of reading or academic knowledge to actually understand the basics that help our kids thrive in school and in their homes.

My message to the Government is pretty clear: turn those priorities upside down or get out. Make way for the people that are out in the communities, working hard to support their communities, to have what they need to thrive, to ensure that they’re treated with respect by Work and Income, to ensure that they actually are listened to when they’re telling the Government that bills that they’re putting forward would literally make their material realities worse. If we had a Government that actually listened to those doing it the toughest, we wouldn’t be having more benefit sanctions. We wouldn’t be having cuts to benefit increases. We wouldn’t be having a defunding of Kāinga Ora. We would be literally doing the exact opposite; taxing the wealthy few so that everybody can be looked after, so that we can have quality public services like hospitals and primary care services, instead of playing with the idea of privatising the very same services that keep our communities alive and thriving.

I just want to reject everything the Prime Minister outlined in his statement and ask the question of him: who is going to benefit from the so-called economic growth that he’s championing?

Hon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Look, the problem with socialism is you eventually run out of other people’s money and that’s exactly what happened with the last Labour Government. They ran out of the hard-working Kiwi taxpayers’ money. They sent our debt as a country ballooning over $100 billion. Every year, we will spend over $10 billion a year servicing our debt alone. Our third biggest expenditure for this Government—more that we will spend on two police forces. That is the failure of the last socialist Government that was a failed socialist experiment.

Madam Speaker, like you, I can remember a time in a Prime Minister’s statement not long after that Labour Government came into power a few years ago, where they were very emboldened and one by one, the Labour MPs got up to declare themselves proud socialists. I’ll tell you what, we won’t hear them do it this term, because they know their socialism failed their Government, but most importantly failed this country. The reality is the situation this Government finds itself in now is a hangover. We’re having to deal with the hangover. And hangovers are not nice. Hangovers are uncomfortable, but they dined out on their champagne-socialist values that have forced this country into a hangover. That’s why, on this side of the House, we know actually the value of a competitive economy—a competitive economy that values growth.

Why that is is because, unlike the last Government, who feels like they know best and will run the country with Kiwi taxpayers’ money out of Wellington, blow the budgets, turn every indicator around for the negative, we know exactly for New Zealand—we’re a small trading nation; we need to get out there and compete with the rest of the world. In fact, when you look at other countries around the world, those with competitive economies, they are the ones with good jobs and incomes. Countries with competitive economies actually have a higher level of environmental standards. Actually, countries with competitive economies, their people have better living standards. That’s why we focus on a competitive economy, because, in fact, if we can grow our economy, that actually will help us as a Government return investment into the public services that Kiwis want us to deliver: $16.8 billion into health, the biggest funding injection ever.

Clearly in the Prime Minister’s statement, it outlined five key areas where a very important area for Kiwis is mental health. For this year, in 2025, we’re ambitious for mental health. We’ve implemented for the first time in New Zealand mental health targets, five targets that will reduce wait times, train more mental health professionals, and invest more in prevention and early intervention.

Shanan Halbert: What about OutLine?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: OutLine? Shanan Halbert says, “What about OutLine?” Well, what about OutLine? How much did you fund them in the last Labour Government? Zero; zip; de nada. When you’re in Opposition, you’d be the lion you want, but when you’re in Government, you were a lamb. You sat over here and kept quiet. You did nothing. Now you’re in Opposition, you think you’re a lion.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, don’t bring me into the debate. Thank you.

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Thank you, Madam Chair. There’s $16.8 billion for health, five new targets because we spend $2.6 billion on the mental health and addiction ring-fence funding.

We need to know that’s spent wisely. That’s why we’ve created the first target for those with mild to moderate mental health issues to be seen within one week for primary mental health services; those who need more complex care and specialist services to be seen within three weeks. Scotland’s got a target of 18 weeks; we’ve set a target of three weeks; and 95 percent of people with mental health issues going into the emergency departments to be assessed, transferred, treated, or discharged within six hours. We’ve set a target of training 500 new mental health professionals every year and ring-fencing of that $2.6 billion budget—25 percent of that to go into prevention and early intervention.

That’s how we’ll lift the system, not do what these last lot did, who talked a big game about transformation. Remember that slogan? The $1.9 billion they traded round like a trophy and ended up becoming a millstone round their neck because no one at the front line saw that money. They didn’t know where it went. The Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission said despite the $1.9 billion, they could not see any material difference. Who could spend almost $2 billion and make no gains? They could, and that’s what they left this country: bankrupt and going backwards.

That’s why we’ve brought in the targets, and already from the front line we’ve seen that is turning around the deliveries and that will drive down waiting times. It’s also about accountability because that’s how we hold myself as the first mental health Minister and this Government accountable, by setting clear standards and holding us to that. Unlike the last Government; when you look at health, they deleted, they cancelled, they stopped every target in health, and everything went backwards, and shame on them.

The next thing the Prime Minister talked about in mental health for this year is the rolling out of the multi-agency response to 111 calls. Why’s that important? In your time of need when you call 111 for a mental health crisis response, you should get a mental health response, not necessarily a police response. The police will always respond when there’s a risk to the individual or others, but in fact it should be a mental health response. In 2017, the first thing the Labour Government did when they came into power was cut the Co-Response Team mental health service. We lost six years in that space and that’s why this Government is taking it seriously, and we’ll be rolling it out to ensure people in mental distress get a timely response.

The Prime Minister also spoke about delivering more mental health professionals this year—more psychologists, more psychiatrists—and what we did was start off with a plan. That mightn’t sound like much because a lot of people talk about plans, especially the last lot, but the reason was the Auditor-General actually criticised the last Government for not having a mental health workforce plan. We delivered in our first year. In fact, no extra funding was needed because we found available funding already in the workforce baseline funding, as well. That will double the amount of psychologists over four years; increase psychiatrists by 50 percent.

Not only that, we announced a $1 million fund to fund 80 new peer support workers, and I’ve already started rolling them out round the country. I opened the new peer support service in Auckland’s emergency department on Friday. They’ll make a real difference when you come into an emergency department in a time of need, and you’ll have someone of lived experience who will be there to support you and engage you as well.

Of course, let’s not forget Gumboot Friday. Who funded Gumboot Friday? The public loves it and Labour hates it. Typical. I tell you what Gumboot Friday does: it delivers support for an extra 15,000 young people. And I tell you what: you look at the stats of Gumboot Friday; they can respond. They have hundreds of counsellors outside the publicly funded mental health system who have capacity ready to go, and they can sometimes see young people within 24 or 48 hours.

Then another initiative that the Prime Minister spoke about was the innovation fund: $10 million; we’re happy to top it up more. That was actually not new money; that was money sitting in Wellington. Who would believe, with all the mental health needs, the last lot left money sitting here not doing anything with it? We’ve got it out to the front line—funded Sir John Kirwan’s programme for education and schools; Mates in Construction; Youthline. We’ve also funded the Mental Health Foundation with that as well.

The Prime Minister has talked about getting more money out of Wellington to the front line and that’s what we’ll do this year: drive down waiting times, train more mental health professionals, and invest more in prevention and early intervention.

Hon MARK PATTERSON (Minister for Rural Communities): It’s a great honour to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to reply to the Prime Minister’s speech—2025 is not only going to be a good year for our rural communities; it is going to be a great year.

The stars have absolutely aligned, and I have got great news for Nicola Willis. The cavalry is coming and, as usual, they’re coming over the hill wearing Red Bands. This is going to be a massive year for the regional economies of New Zealand. The big growth engine primary sector is really starting to crank, and that is fantastic news for our rural communities. Dairy prices are looking like they’re going to be at record levels. The kiwifruit and hort sector is absolutely booming—it’s on a tear. Beef prices are at record levels. Lamb and mutton prices are $2 a kilo higher than they were at this time last year. Economists are seriously underestimating the magnitude of this upswing and the confidence that is coming from it. So, Nicola Willis, you can start to sleep at night.

Let’s not forget this is what we do really well in New Zealand. Essentially, our economy has been built on our ability to turn grass into protein. Our farmers, our pastoral farmers in particular, are the rock stars of world farming in that regard, and wasn’t it great today, those of us that got to enjoy the National Lamb Day celebrations out on the lawn and those magnificent lamb cutlets that we had out there? This country has got a massive heritage in sheep farming. This country was literally built off the sheep’s back and it’s great to see a day like this—that encourages everyone to come together over the barbecue, over some chops, and just celebrate that great heritage and the hard-working men and women that are involved in that industry.

The primary sector makes up a massive 80 percent of our export earnings. This is an incredible statistic. What happens in rural New Zealand matters: $1 spent by farmers is $6 that permeates around the wider communities, not only into our small towns and our rural communities but into our provincial towns and into our cities. That will eventually, Nicola Willis, end up in Treasury coffers as well as our tax take is swelled. And, Ricardo Menéndez March, that’s how you deliver public services in this country.

That’s complemented as well by a Government that understands farming. Do not underestimate this key component in this recovery: a Government that understands farming, primarily because so many of us are farmers or have been brought up on farms and understand that you cannot hobble this industry with unnecessary red and green tape. Resource Management Act reform is at the core of a lot of what we are doing, and boy are the primary sector grateful to have us here.

Our rural communities also welcome the focus this year, the renewed focus, on tourism. Tourists, as nice as Auckland and Wellington are, do not come to New Zealand to visit Auckland and Wellington. The destinations they want to come to are Wānaka and Waitomo, to the West Coast, to Martinborough, to Russell, to the Catlins. That’s where New Zealand’s competitive advantage is. That’s why people from all over the world—high-value tourists and backpackers—will come so far: to see something so special, and that is primarily in rural New Zealand. Those digital nomads, we welcome them with open arms. Just saying that Lawrence has free Wi-Fi if they’re listening.

My key focuses this year are two things: water and wool. The thing that I get asked about most when I’m out and about is “What is happening with wool?” I’m absolutely delighted to have that delegation and been entrusted by Minister McClay in that. The first thing that we’re doing is making sure that Kāinga Ora reopen their tenders so we can reverse that fiasco—we will have more to say on that soon. To quote Chris Bishop: “We will be the most pro-wool Government there has ever been.”

More good news: the price of premium strong white wool has nearly doubled since its nadir in December 2022. There is a long way to go, but we are determined to do our bit to contribute to doubling New Zealand’s export. An export that once was the backbone of the New Zealand economy, still about $500 million—we want that figure to be in the billions. There is a big swing back tonight. Natural fibres. Wool is biodegradable, it is flame-retardant, it is by some measure carbon-negative, it is anti-allergenic. There is no microplastics or those toxic P-F-A-Fs—PFAFs—that are becoming of increasing concern.

This is not only about carpets and insulation. There is an incredible amount of innovation going on. There is filtration with New Zealand wool in the space station, NASA is using it; in medicinal and bandaging; in acoustics; and the Holy Grail, which is the pigments and particles, breaking it down into its component part. This is the game-changer. There was a major investment announced just before Christmas for a commercialisation of that in Christchurch. There is a lot going on.

What am I particularly doing? I am in the process of re-establishing industry leadership that foundered with the end of the Wool Board, bringing key stakeholders together in what is a disparate leadership structure. Pathways to market: the auction system has completely failed to connect growers with end consumers and value. I am challenging those supply chain participants as strongly as I can to change that game, to reimagine how we take New Zealand’s strong wool to the world. We are on a burning platform and there is no time to waste.

One of my big aims is to re-establish a New Zealand manufacturing base that has been decimated, to fully capture the value for New Zealand, for jobs in regional communities, and for growth. In the woven and the spun sector, there is capital becoming available. We remain available, through the Regional Infrastructure Fund and the Sustainable Food and Fibre Futures fund, to stand by the industry’s side if projects that fit those criteria come forward. I’m cajoling them as fast as I can to bring those forward. That talks to the Regional Infrastructure Fund, that $1.2 billion fund that we fought so hard within coalition negotiations to get, and that’s where the water storage comes in. Kānoa is sitting on 17 water storage projects on their book at the moment. We are out there preaching the gospel of growth. We’ve been out in regional growth summits right around the country.

We haven’t had to wait for the Prime Minister’s speech; we’ve been out there doing it, and water is going to be a key focus of that. For me, it is a major opportunity for New Zealand. It offers diversification into higher value and higher production, into horticulture mainly and resilience from climate change or—what is it?—wild weather, as Shane might call it, or volatile weather. We have no shortage of water in New Zealand; we just do not have water at the right place at the right time. We can do something about it. We are going to be doing something about it. Tukituki was the first cab off the rank and we look forward to many others to follow.

We also are totally on board with the growth train with our colleagues over here at National, getting that back on track, and we have been a key driver within this coalition. Fast track was our initiative that we took in to coalition negotiations—those 149 projects, plus the tsunami that are coming in now that it’s been opened up to wider entry. Aquaculture permits: extending those out to 2050, giving that industry so much certainty and the ability to attract major, major investment into our regional economies. It’s the Māori economy that stands to benefit most, I might point out, through that.

We are the champions of mining. We are facing the reality that we do need these key minerals, that we are rich in these resources, and it is time that we took a different view to this. There’s no point impoverishing ourselves to end mining and feeling good about taking minerals from the Congo in far worse environmental and labour conditions. We have got those minerals here, we will utilise them, and that is a major opportunity for this country and, of course, the Regional Infrastructure Fund with the potential that it shows for New Zealand.

We did inherit an economy in a mess. We had a primary sector under a tsunami of regulation and punch-drunk. We are here to sort out the mess, and 2025 will be the year that we start to see that delivered. Thank you.

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato): Tēnā rā koe e te Pika, otirā tēnā rā tātou e te Whare. Madam Speaker, before I deliver my first speech for 2025 in response to the Prime Minister’s statement, if you would please allow me to take the first time out of my speech to commemorate and acknowledge those who have recently passed on.

Kahurangi Iritana Tāwhiwhirangi: the matriarch of kōhanga reo, the holder of endless knowledge. Mei kore ake ko koe, kua kore tēnei reanga o Te Kōhanga Reo. [If it were not for you, there would be no Te Kōhanga Reo generation.]

The term “kōhanga reo generation” that I have coined so much was inspired by wāhine like Iritana—not just the physical representation of kōhanga but being at the feet of our surviving elders, who yearned to teach us knowledge that was once on the verge of extinction. From a child who has been through bilingual, mainstream, and kura kaupapa education, tēnā koe, te kōhanga, te rūruhi ki ngā mokopuna. [thank you, the matriarch of all grandchildren.]

Kahurangi Tariana Turia, who continues to whisper in my head constantly: the bravest of them all, who crossed the floor, who walked so I could run, who I marched for in my first ever hīkoi—at two years old in my pram for the takutai moana. I vividly remember watching her at the Parliament forecourt in 2004. Yet 20 years later, we had swapped exact positions for the Hīkoi mō te Tiriti. E oti haere atu koutou, kōrua tahi. [Depart all, together.]

Our party must be strong and healthy to carry on your legacy. Ka ora tonu mātou, āke, āke, āke. [We will live on, for ever.]

This speech is in response to the Prime Minister’s statement. Straight to the point: within the first 20 minutes of his speech, he did not mention the word “Māori” once—not even once. What kind of message is that saying as a Prime Minister to this country? The Prime Minister needs to be responsible, accountable, and most of all inclusive of the country they serve, no matter who voted them in or not.

At the end of this Government’s first year of being in power, we saw the largest protest this country has ever seen, with all walks of life attending to stand in solidarity for the founding document of this country. More than 300,000 signatures arrived at the steps of Parliament in opposition to the Treaty principles bill, which is in fact more votes than the ACT Party received. This shows how many citizens the Prime Minister is ignoring. The only thing this coalition has done in relation to the Treaty is appoint people to the Waitangi Tribunal who literally said it shouldn’t exist.

In 2025, our job as Te Pāti Māori is to do everything in our power to ensure our people can embody tino rangatiratanga in their everyday choices, to be self-determined on a day-to-day basis in the decisions that they make from the health to the education, groceries, where their tax money is going, the protection of the environment, local government decisions, and the justice system.

I’m going to briefly touch on all those aspects, breaking down what barriers are right in front of us, to break down whether it be through policies, research, and how the general public can engage outside of Parliament.

Something that vividly stood out for me in the Prime Minister’s statement was—and I quote—“If you work hard and you are prepared to work hard, you can get ahead in this great country of ours.”, which instantly brings me to our tax system. What does the Prime Minister say to the 98 percent of all hard-working people of New Zealand who work hard but can’t get ahead, who pay 22 to 33 percent in tax, yet the top 2 percent of the wealthiest people in this country who earn an average of $39 million per year only pay 9 percent in tax? If we really want to talk about inequities in this country, we have to start by talking about how unjust and unfair our tax system is. The top 2 percent—311 households, to be exact—need to pay their fair share, just like the rest of the 98 percent of New Zealanders in this country.

When I think of health, I think of how this Government disestablished Te Aka Whai Ora, the Māori Health Authority, in the first 100 days and intends to privatise our healthcare, which literally means if you can’t afford it, you can’t access the medicine you need. Everyone has the right to healthcare. Every person in this country has funding allocated to their NHI number. The funding must follow the patient, not get lost in transit or swallowed in bureaucracy.

When I think of whānau getting groceries and basic necessities like kai at the end of their shop looking at the receipt with the additional cost of $50 of GST, I see how this Government rolls in $3.4 billion on average from GST on kai yet doesn’t want to tax the wealthiest 2 percent their fair share. This is completely unacceptable, and this is what our member’s bill seeks to address in this exact issue.

All of last year, I constantly heard the Prime Minister yapping on about Māori children failing in NCEA as he stared down our way, yet he never mentioned the kura Ngā Tapuwae who had a 100 percent pass rate at excellence in NCEA. This didn’t just happen overnight; champions, like Iritana Tāwhiwhirangi, who helped shape these education systems that work for us. We have self-determined our own systems that work for us. The only problem is we’ve only ever been given 1 percent of the education budget, no matter who’s in Government. This must change immediately.

This is what tino rangatiratanga and mana motuhake is about: creating our own pathways for success. And the proof is in the pudding: a 100 percent pass rate and the number one school in the country.

I think of local government like Māori wards that this Government called for a referendum on straight away. As I asked Minister Simeon Brown eight continuous evidence-based questions, he did not care to answer once. With that being said, local government elections are coming up, e hoa mā. Put your hand up and put yourself right at that decision table.

When I think of our taiao over the holidays, swimming in my own pepeha Waikato River but with the fear of swimming in a whole river of arsenic, like those of my constituents in the Coromandel and Hauraki region in Ōhinemuri, such is the potential aftermath of mining in that region, or the many approved fast-track mining and development projects in Rotowaro, Mangaharakeke Pa, and Hauraki who are still awaiting hapū consultation.

The solution to climate change—whether you arrived here yesterday or your tūpuna did centuries ago—is the attitude of kaitiakitanga; that must be at the forefront of our country. This is what our country is known for worldwide.

When I think of housing, with more than 38.9 percent of people in my electorate of Hauraki-Waikato living in a damp house and more than 90 percent of them living in an intergenerational household. Everyone in this country must have access to a warm, dry house and the right to live in a papakāinga if they wish.

When I think of our justice system, the raw reality of tamariki Māori being racially profiled and legislation such as the gang patch law that shows no evidence that this actually stops crime, like the 12-year-old boy who was stopped by police for simply wearing a T-shirt representing his boxing club. Laws like this show no change in our justice system.

When I think of values in this country and online hate, I believe no matter which party you are, every MP would receive this at some point. As a 22-year-old, the fear of opening my work computer sometimes daunts me, from seeing not-so-nice emails. However, my mama reminded me—she even put it in the Excel spreadsheet—that out of all responses received for my haka in this House for Te Tiriti, 8 percent were negative, and 92 percent were positive or in support. With flooding messages from across the country, the globe, and nearly every continent—89 percent who are not of my race. Just because I’m proud of my race does not make me racist.

This year, 98 percent of New Zealanders are relying on us; 92 percent of the world is in support—295,759 people who I am responsible for in Hauraki-Waikato, who brought me into this House to be a voice. Which leaves us with the 2 percent needing to pay their fair share, the 8 percent just being pure haters, and our people are counting on us to remove any barriers, legislation, law or misconceptions and bring transformative policies, bills, and a voice for us moving forward.

Now, my name is Hana-Rawhiti, not Hana Kōkō [Santa Claus], so I can’t promise you the world, but if you can hear me right now and your values align to this kaupapa, we hear you too. Nō reira tēnā rā tātou e te Whare.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It’s a privilege to rise to speak on this on behalf of my electorate in Southland and, of course, on behalf of the National Party. I should say that when I speak of Southland, I’ll speak of the South because I represent good chunks of Otago and Southland. When I think of the year of going for growth, the South will help make this happen in a very big way. I think of the words of Sir Tipene O’Regan, who has said, referring to the name traditionally for Southland, Murihiku, that it’s the tail of the whale driving the country forwards, and that’s exactly what the South will do for this country.

We are a region which is a powerhouse in the primary sector. We’re a powerhouse in farming. We are a powerhouse in the tourism sector. We are a powerhouse in generating energy for the country. We are a powerhouse in the arts and culture. We are a powerhouse in manufacturing. This is an incredible region that just gets on with it and gets it done and makes stuff happen and doesn’t say a whole heck of a lot about what it’s doing a lot of the time because it’s just busy working. We are a proud, proud region that delivers a lot for this country and I’m proud to be a representative for it.

This Government is relentlessly focused on economic growth. It is economic growth that delivers better lives for all New Zealanders. It is economic growth that provides opportunities for our young people to stay here in New Zealand and to see a future for themselves in this country. It is economic growth that will allow us to build the houses that our people need. It is economic growth that will allow us to pay for the health services that we need. It is economic growth that will allow us to pay for the education that this country needs.

I just want to touch briefly on that education point, because this is incredible, the work that this Government’s doing and our Minister Erica Stanford is doing for the future of New Zealand, for the future of our young people who will be the ones who take New Zealand into the future. This structured literacy and the structured mathematics programmes that are being delivered around the country right now and that are going to be rolled out to children across the country are going to make a massive difference to all children—to children who have neurodiversity, to children who do not have neurodiversity and who are neuronormative.

Hearing that last speaker, Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke, just made me think of the fact that for the first time, high-quality, structured literacy and numeracy resources are going to be provided in te reo Māori—for the first time in this country—by this Government, and that is a very big thing. Having worked in the court system and in prisons around New Zealand, I know from personal experience that up to 70-odd percent of people who go through that system have challenges reading and writing. If we can help get them the resources so that they are able to read and write—structured literacy is a way that has been proven to work—that is going to make a dramatic difference in their lives. It’s obviously not the only thing, but it is a very big thing, and I’m very pleased to be part a Government that is doing that.

The year for the South has also kicked off with a great announcement from the new Minister of Health, providing certainty around the Dunedin Hospital. That will be built and we’ll futureproof it for growth, and that is a great announcement for the South, to provide confidence for the people of the South. We were always going to do it, always going to provide a great hospital for the South, but the time needed to be taken to look at that carefully, and it’s great that we’ve had certainty provided at the beginning of this year on that.

This Government has been doing a lot of work to roll back regulatory overload on the primary sector. That, as well as having the knowledge that it has a Government that is backing the farmers, and also a significant uptick in the dairy and meat prices, is showing real confidence. There’s real confidence growing—

Hon Damien O’Connor: And wool.

JOSEPH MOONEY: And wool—absolutely. Wool is something that I, certainly, with Minister Mark Patterson, hear regularly, as do other members—

Mike Butterick: Magic fibre.

JOSEPH MOONEY: I hear that it’s a magic fibre, as Mike Butterick says—it’s a magic fibre. It’s a fibre that’s helped build our country and helped build a lot of our houses and a lot of our woolsheds and a lot of our infrastructure around New Zealand over the last six decades, really, you could say, and more.

We also had the National Lamb Day today, and I just want to say that I take my hat off to the people of the South who made this happen—oh, there they are. They’re standing up, and we have them in the gallery right now. The people of the South are responsible for bringing this, and it’s a long and strong and proud tradition dating back to when the very first shipment of frozen meat went out of the port of Otago at Port Chalmers to London in 1882—1882. Since then, lamb has had a significant contribution to the economic wellbeing of this country and will continue to do so long into the future, and I just want to shout out to all of our sheep and beef farmers around the country.

I should say that the South has the Edendale Fonterra plant. This is the oldest dairy-processing site and the first dairy-exporting processor in the world, established in 1881. Today, it is now the largest fresh-milk dairy processing plant in the world—in the world—and that is right there in Southland. Southland alone collects 2 billion litres of milk annually, which is the same as the entire Australian market. We are a very big contributor to the economic wellbeing of this country, but this is not all we do.

We also produce fruit in Central Otago, which I’m very proud to present with my colleague Miles Anderson. We are the biggest cherry growers in the country. We are the fruit bowl, certainly of the South Island. We have a competition with Hawke’s Bay about who is the fruit bowl of New Zealand, and water is very, very powerful with that. Central Otago is incredibly important—that’s part of my electorate as well. It’s not just that; Southland also has the most engineering firms per head of population of any region in the country. In Southland, manufacturing employs 15 percent of the workforce and contributes over 13 percent of regional GDP.

Not only that, but if I touch on arts, culture, and film, I should say that as the chair of the Social Services and Community Committee, this is something of particular interest to me. Arts and culture contributes over $16 billion to New Zealand’s GDP, so over 4 percent of the total economy. Queenstown Lakes District is the second-most creative city in the country, ahead of Auckland—I’ll just say that we are ahead of Auckland, according to Infometrics’ Creativity Index—and growing. Te Atamira, established in Queenstown three years ago, now has almost 2,500 visitors a week. But that’s not all: we have incredible arts and culture right across the region.

I’ll just give a quick shout-out to Gore, which is also in my area, the Eastern Southland Gallery features the internationally renowned John Money Collection. We have very well-renowned people from all over the world who have heard of it and come to it. Not that many New Zealanders necessarily hear about it, but a lot of people around the world have, and it’s also home to one of the largest holdings of work by New Zealand artist Ralph Hōtere. Not only that, Gore is also New Zealand’s country music capital. We have the annual Tussock Country Music festival, the Mataura Licensing Trust New Zealand Gold Guitar Awards, and the New Zealand Country Music Awards. It’s all going on in the South.

But it’s not just that. If I can just touch on mining, this Government will lean into mining. We don’t want all of our young people going to Australia to get high-paying mining jobs and leaving the country. We can mine responsibly, and if I remind the House that gold helped build New Zealand, it helped build the South. In fact, Central Otago gold built Dunedin. It built the first university in New Zealand: Otago University. This is a—

Hon Member: Great university.

JOSEPH MOONEY: It is a great university. We have a lot happening in terms of this. There’s also technology. Technology is growing. In fact, I was in the United States last year at a conference—the National Conference of State Legislatures, where the 50 states come together and have a meeting—and the two biggest things they were talking about were artificial intelligence and the energy needed to run it.

We have opportunity in technology. There’s an opportunity for New Zealand to again have higher paying jobs where our young people don’t have to go overseas, and they can create these opportunities here in New Zealand. If I focus on Queenstown, it now has Technology Queenstown, which has a goal for technology to be a billion-dollar sector in that region, and a lot of great stuff is happening right across the region, again.

Just one of the last things I’ll touch on is tax bracket adjustments. Now, people have been saying that they’re tax cuts. Let’s just be clear about this: these were tax bracket adjustments, for the first time it had been done in 14 years. People on the minimum wage were almost going into the 33 percent tax bracket, and that wasn’t right. This Government moved to fix that, and there’s more money in people’s back pocket.

This is a challenging time, but we have some great shoots on the horizon in terms of green shoots for the economy, green shoots for our education, green shoots for health, and green shoots for the young people of New Zealand that have got great opportunities here in New Zealand. Come South—that’s where it’s happening.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): This is a five-minute split call.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. In 1993, people voted me into this House, and people in New Zealand voted for MMP. I hope there’s far less people disillusioned with me than there are with MMP.

People don’t know what is going on in this country. They cannot believe that the tail is wagging the dog, that we are driven by the tyranny of the minority when they were trying to get rid of the tyranny of the majority by getting rid of first past the post. I don’t know quite what we stand for or where we are going. As a nation, we’ve always stood for collective responsibility and now we seem to be determined to focus on individual rights. My experience of New Zealanders and our country is that’s not going well for us.

People are wondering what’s happening. Even the Prime Minister admits that life is getting a lot harder for more people in our country. Do you know why that is? Because this coalition Government has driven our economy into recession—into a recession. These are the so-called great economic managers. This is the steepest downturn in the economy since 1991 when another National Government brought in the “mother of all Budgets” and almost destroyed the economy then.

People are confused. People are out there; they voted for change, and they haven’t had anything delivered to them. What this Government seems to be determined to do is to take from the past all of that stuff that got us to where we are and then to deny the future. Just as in agriculture, what got us to where we are won’t take us to where we need to be, so too for many other economies and many other communities around our country. What we’re lacking is leadership. What we’ve replaced it with—or this Government has—is populism, responding to reaction from people who were grumpy. They were under pressure. We’d had COVID; we’d had a number of things happen internationally. We’d had the Ukraine war; we’d had inflationary pressure. People were disgruntled and they got rid of us. Is what has replaced our Government committed to the collective responsibility to all? Well, it’s a bunch of selfish politicians over that side who want to deliver for their mates or want to deliver for a few of the sectors in this country.

We hear about growth. We presume that it might be growth of wealth. I guess we could all aspire to that. Well, your health is your wealth, and if you’ve been under pressure from some health ailment or some disease or some unfortunate incident that you may have had to face up to or an accident, you understand how important health is. And if you don’t have healthcare, you don’t have any wealth, I’ll tell you what.

This coalition Government has set about, as my good colleague Peeni Henare said, a systematic approach to the healthcare system in this country: firstly, to underfund, not even keep up with the inflationary pressures, not even deliver on the assets that we had planned for and funded. To underfund, then to understaff—put more pressure on individuals who are doing their very best to carry out healthcare for New Zealanders—and then to undermine; to undermine the credibility of the public health system that has been the hallmark of our country. Working together, looking after one another, ensuring that health is the wealth of this country through a properly funded public health system.

This is all leading to one inevitable outcome: the next thing they will do—and the Prime Minister said not this time, but next, maybe—is privatise our public health system. They’ll look to privatise our ACC system and, just as New Zealanders are facing up to huge increases in electricity costs—it’s been warned. Because the last National coalition Government privatised the electricity system and handed over to their mates the opportunity to charge as much as they can for poor, hard-working New Zealanders who are going to be squeezed through the electricity prices.

Up and down this country, people are wondering who we are as a nation, what we stand for, and where we’re going. They are disillusioned, they want to get rid of this coalition Government that they just voted in, and help is on its way because Labour will front with the policies and the principles that are needed at the next election.

REUBEN DAVIDSON (Labour—Christchurch East): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak on the Prime Minister’s statement debate, and I have to start by saying that this Government is choosing to leave people behind.

They came in claiming they were elected to solve a cost of living crisis, and since then, and those great claims, they’ve insisted on keeping wages low. They kept wages lower on the minimum wage than was suggested, but, at the same time as keeping wages low, they’ve driven up insurance, rates, rents, and as well as driving up those prices, they’ve made cuts to ferries, cuts to hospitals, cuts to the First Home Grant, cuts to funding for our disability community, cuts to free prescriptions, cuts to half-price public transport. And where did the money go? Landlords and big tobacco. The message was “survive to ’25”. Well, the message back from my constituents is that we got here and you are making it harder. This Government is making it harder because it is choosing to leave people behind.

This month, thousands of children across Aotearoa are going back to school—thousands of them without uniforms, without shoes, without stationery, without lunch. There are children in Christchurch, reported in The Press, who are taking to school a lunch box full of empty food wrappers because of the stigma of shame that comes from not having the food in the house that they need to take to school for lunch. That shame, that stigma, should not sit with those children who go to school; it should sit with this Government and this House who have made the choices to leave people behind. That shame should sit with our Prime Minister, a Prime Minister who said that they got it and also said that they were wealthy and they were sorted. Well, that’s fantastic for him if that’s the case, but my message back to the Prime Minister is that these children and these people who are struggling across New Zealand now haven’t fallen into this poverty; they’ve been pushed, and this coalition Government is doing the pushing, because this Government, every day, is making the decisions and taking the choices to leave people behind.

Recently, the Prime Minister has talked about this Government being a “yes Government” and previous Governments having been “no Governments”. Now, I don’t see it as simply as that. This Prime Minister certainly wasn’t leading a Government that said yes to attending Waitangi this year. This Prime Minister, in fact, said no to attending Waitangi. There were members of this House, a large number of them—and not only from Opposition parties—who said yes to being able to attend Waitangi in the North Island and Waitangi Day celebrations in other parts of New Zealand as well. It can be done.

I think we should think back on this very simple argument of the yes and the no, and I think the way that we should actually look at it is “can” and “can’t”, because when we were in Government, we showed New Zealand we could be a team of “can”. We could build more homes, we can lift wages, we can have record low unemployment, and we can have healthy school lunches. This coalition have proven to be a bunch of “can’ts”, because we can’t have the jobs, the ferries, the hospitals that New Zealanders deserve, and that is pitiful.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Five-minute call—Vanessa Weenink.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a privilege to stand to speak in reply to the Prime Minister’s address earlier this year. As a proud member of the Banks Peninsula electorate and representing that wonderful place, there is extraordinary opportunity for economic growth in our region. Banks Peninsula is an absolute gem in the tourism hub of Canterbury. It also supports farming and fishing and manufacturing and many other sectors.

Driving economic growth is important, and it’ll be one of the things that our region will be able to support the Government’s ambitions in. However, at the core of why we’re doing this—we shouldn’t forget the why of this—we’re not just going for growth for growth’s sake. We’re going for growth so that we’ve got more resource to be able to spend and invest in the things that we need.

When we talk about education and the importance of that, we know that investing in the way that our children learn is absolutely important, and that’s why our literacy resources that are going into schools are incredibly important—

Hon Member: And so well received.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK: And so well received. That’s why when we are feeding our children well with these new school lunch programmes and aiming to feed more—and it astounds me to hear from people on the other side, who’ve clearly never eaten mince in their life, who say that it’s uneatable and that it’s indigestible. Well, I’m sorry; they’re just plain elitist. Those meals are perfectly fine. They are perfectly fine and well balanced and nutritious and hot, and those people on the other side have also never had to eat a heated-up ration pack and know what that tastes like. They’ve never had to feel the pain of being out in the cold and feel what it’s like serving their country in any other way.

They can sit there in their high and mighty positions, looking down on people who are saying that these—actually, the feedback that we’ve had about the school lunches has been really great. Actually, people really like them. The kids have actually found them really good, and when they’ve gone around to the schools and interviewed the children there, the children have been really disappointed. When they were interviewed, their story about how they actually really loved the school lunches didn’t end up on the news. That didn’t get into the news because that wasn’t the story that that side are trying to tell. They’re trying to make an agenda that’s not true.

We are creating growth so that we have more money to invest in our social investment policies. When it comes down to it, that is the best approach: using data to actually decide where we should put resources to wrap around people, to invest in them, and to make sure that those people that are in prison have got those education programmes that help them to get out of that terrible cycle. Those are the kinds of programmes that we are investing in because we know that it is worthwhile.

We’re investing in infrastructure that leads to even more growth and more prosperity, and another reason why we’re going for growth and why we want to grow incomes is that anyone who’s done anything in public health knows that raising incomes is one of the best things that you can do to improve health outcomes. Almost everything else is what falls by the wayside. Absolutely everything else is useless. Getting on with it and making sure that our economy grows is absolutely vital.

When we talk about everything that’s happening in the health system, that’s the downstream effects of things that have gone poorly. That’s the downstream effects of where people haven’t had enough money to be able to keep up with preventative things. That’s the downstream effects of having really, really terrible inflation rates that are driving interest rates that mean that people don’t have enough money in their bank accounts to do all the things that they want to do. We’re fixing the economy. We’re making sure that those interest rates are coming down. People will start to feel that in their back pockets, and improving the tax brackets makes a difference.

When we are talking about going for growth, we understand implicitly—and we have it deep down in the bones of the National Party—that this is about our need to have more money to invest in ways that are smart and invest in ways that support people, and that is done in a responsible and social investment way and in ways that are actually driving our country forward. Every single thing that we do is about improving the lives of New Zealanders through the services that we deliver, because we’ll have more money to be able to spend on those.

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): Mr Speaker, thanks. It is a great honour to rise and speak in support of the Prime Minister’s statement, and I’m privileged to follow on from my fellow Christchurch MP, Dr Vanessa Weenink. It is a great privilege. We are on the verge of great growth and potential, and of course this is going to be across many sectors of New Zealand.

We’ve already seen a change in our economic output. We appreciate it is tough times, but just in The Press earlier this week, independent economists indicated that, since our economic management has come into play, lower mortgage rates mean that households will have, combined, another $45 million a week to spend. Also, calculating the falling mortgage rates in the last quarter has put an extra $8 million already, and with $200 billion of mortgages about to be refixed, that is going to grow even more; it’s actually equivalent of 1 percent of consumption all at once. This is going to make a huge impact on everyday New Zealanders, something that the other side don’t want. They don’t want everyday New Zealanders to have their own money. “If they have money, they should be taxed” is their strategy.

We need to, as a country, do things wiser. We need this growth, as a lot of my colleagues have said, and the benefits that come from it. We need to do things smarter, and this is something that I talked about extensively in my maiden statement in this very House. I referred to some of our great scientists here in New Zealand, one in particular who worked on combating agricultural pests, which saves New Zealand between $300 million and $500 million annually. His work has made New Zealand more productive, and we need more things like that.

We have some great scientists here in New Zealand, and once again, I mention productivity because it is so important. We can do more but use less. This makes economic and environmental sense. It’s climate action in action. That’s one of the reasons why we’re ending the nearly 30-year ban on gene technology. Biotechnology is not just about growth and economic growth. It’s all about greener growth, growth that helps our farmers not only be competitive on the international stage, but it means they’ll be able to continue to lead the world in their efficiencies and keeping our greenhouse gases as low as possible.

Once again, it comes back to producing more by using less. Of course, there are many examples of biotech here in New Zealand. We’ve seen some ryegrasses which would require less water, less nitrates, and of course would produce less greenhouse emissions. These are some of the things that we have at our fingertips. A former Federated Farmers national president, Dr William Rolleston, said, “Some of this is the best science since Rutherford split the atom.” Of course, this Government has announced the largest reset of our scientific system in more than 30 years, which will boost the economy. It will benefit the sector and, also, the country as well.

There are some great examples of tech in Christchurch—Christchurch is a great place—and I’ll just mention some in the mighty Ilam electorate. We’ve got companies like Tait Communications, a global leader in designing and manufacturing of communication solutions, employing hundreds of people and exporting 95 percent of their products. They invest heavily in R & D. This is a great example of New Zealand’s potential to excel at high-tech industries. Another great example is the Christchurch Engine Centre. They’ve just recently invested a further $150 million to increase their facilities so they can—[Interruption]

Andy Foster: That’s confidence.

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL: Exactly. They have got the confidence, with the new Government, that they can overhaul more engines, and of course most of that goes to export dollars, once again employing hundreds of people.

That’s not all. We have some great start-ups in Christchurch, and we are a Government that’s behind start-ups and some of this tech. We’re making important changes to the foreign investment because one of the biggest problems is getting capital to these great, great start-ups, we’re changing the visa laws, we’re enabling more talent to come and support that sector, changes to the tax threshold for when it comes to employee share schemes—these are things that we need to do, because, as I said, we have some great homegrown talent here. We need more of it.

That’s why we need to get the education sector going. We’re seeing our children fall behind on the international stage, so that’s why we’re introducing teaching the basics brilliantly, because, if you don’t teach the basics brilliantly, it’s like building a house without a foundation: you can do the flash stuff for a little bit, but then it’s all over. It is going to be a great year for the country, and I look forward to 2025.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Why is it that the Government is in trouble? Why is it?

Hon Member: We’re not.

Hon DAVID PARKER: They are in trouble—they are in trouble. So many of the people that voted this Government in a year and a half ago no longer support them. Why is it the Government is in trouble? Well, it’s partly, as the Hon Damien O’Connor said, because they’re split with division. They’re creating divisions in society—not just within their own Government but also in society—but it’s mainly because New Zealanders have no confidence in their management of the economy, because they know they’re mismanaging it.

We’ve heard time and again the other side saying, “Oh, we’re in trouble. It’s tough for New Zealanders.”, and that that’s because they inherited bad inflation and they’ve got inflation down. Inflation in the quarter ended December 2023 was 0.5 percent. Multiply that by four quarters, and it was already at 2 percent. Inflation was already tamed by the time the Government changed.

What did Nicola Willis do? She said, “Oh no—no, no, no. We’ve got to be tough. We’re going to change the mandate of the Reserve Bank. We’re going to take employment out of it.”—notwithstanding that employment is in the Federal Reserve objective in the United States and the Australian objective. She told the Reserve Bank in New Zealand, even though inflation was already coming under control, to go harder, and what did they do? They did like they were told and they went harder.

She talked the economy down, she got the Reserve Bank to squeeze even harder, and then she imposed austerity at the same time. As an incoming Government, they reversed the increases to road-user charges and fuel excise duty, which was needed to build the roads. The road-building programme couldn’t proceed, except through borrowed money, and then they brought forward a Budget where they borrowed for tax cuts—borrowed for tax cuts.

Now, you hear them say that they’re great managers in the economy. In the last 25 years, 15 Budgets have been Labour Budgets and 10 Budgets have been National Budgets. Of the 15 Labour Budgets: 11 surpluses, four deficits.

Andy Foster: Thank you, National.

Hon DAVID PARKER: No, that’s Labour: 11 surpluses, four deficits. National had 10 Budgets: three surpluses, seven deficits. They always do it—they always do it. They bring forward unaffordable tax cuts, they use it as an excuse to drive down Government expenditure, they pursue an austerity agenda that squeezes the pips out of the economy, and what happens? Unemployment goes up, and unemployment has gone up; people leave the country—tens of thousands of people have gone to Australia—and what else happens? What else happens is you go into recession, and we’re in recession.

Under this Government: higher Government debt, more borrowings, lower growth, more unemployment. This—

Hon Damien O’Connor: What about the cost of living?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The cost of living—well, inflation is under control, but it was by the time we left Government. [Interruption] It is—it is—but one of the reasons why, since then, it’s gone further from having inflation being under control to being recessionary is that they’ve just squeezed it too hard.

Now, it’s not just the individual silly decisions that make people lose confidence—cancelling ferry contracts, for example, was a big blue; cancelling Project Onslow before they finished the cost-benefit analysis was another big blue—it’s that New Zealanders have no confidence that things are going to get better under this Government. That’s why unemployment would be even worse than it is now if it hadn’t been for the tens of thousands of people who have gone to Australia. Unemployment is up, but, worse than that, there’s 32,000 fewer people in employment in New Zealand than was the case when these guys took over, and some of them have left the country.

I remind the House that, contrary to the repeated platitudes from the other side, in the last 25 years, there were 15 Labour Budgets, with 11 surpluses and four deficits, and 10 National Budgets, with three surpluses and seven deficits, and they’ve done it again. Remember how they used to—I’m out of time, Mr Speaker.

Hon JENNY SALESA (Labour—Panmure-Ōtāhuhu): Mr Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to contribute to the debate on the Prime Minister’s statement. Boy, it’s a hard act to follow on from the Hon David Parker, but I will try. I’m here to represent the good people of Panmure-Ōtāhuhu. We have just over 75,000 people in South Auckland, and the Prime Minister, when he made his statement, made several references to economic growth and its importance to our country. I agree; it is really important to see our economy grow, but, unfortunately, this is not the case. We are, right now, in recession, and this coalition Government is making a lot of choices that are not necessarily the right ones to ensure that our economy grows and that we get off of this recession.

Unfortunately, this National-led Government is steering our country off track. They campaigned on getting New Zealand back on track, but the reality is that our public services are under attack, thousands of jobs are disappearing, unemployment is rising, and, unfortunately, it is rising especially for Māori and for Pacific. The majority of my constituents in Panmure-Ōtāhuhu are Māori and Pacific, and so we are feeling the downturn of this economy. In addition, ethnic communities are still waiting for some promises to be delivered that were campaigned on by this National-led Government.

Now, this Government may not like evidence, but we know that fully privatised healthcare, something that the Associate Minister of Health has discussed, is something that is most extreme in its form in the United States of America.

Hon Chris Bishop: Also not true.

Hon JENNY SALESA: The Commonwealth Fund reviewed healthcare systems, Minister Bishop, including Australia, New Zealand, the UK, and the US, and they found—this research was only last year—that private healthcare systems ranked last, the very last, in administrative efficiency, while New Zealand ranked third. The question is: why is it that New Zealand is now considering looking at the US as a possible system to follow, when the US healthcare system is expensive, it is complicated, it is dysfunctional and broken?

This is a country I lived in for 10 years, and I myself know just how expensive it is. If you don’t actually have private health insurance, if you don’t work, you’ll be out of luck. It is actually only those who work full-time and have private health insurance that are able to access healthcare services in an equitable way. The question is: if we do actually look at privatising our healthcare system, who will benefit the most from privatisation? Certainly not everyday New Zealanders. The only winners are likely to be private corporations and those who are looking to make a profit off of people’s health, off of people’s ill health, and off of their wellbeing. Is this the kind of future that our country should be looking at? Is this the right kind of action that we should be looking at: to dismantle the public healthcare system that has served New Zealanders for many, many generations? I don’t believe so. And I believe that, with the assistance of ordinary New Zealanders, we can ensure that our public healthcare system remains public.

The cost of living issue was also something that this National-led Government campaigned on. Has it been addressed? Well, we’re experiencing the steepest economic downturn, as our former Minister for Trade spoke about before, since 1991. Yet, despite this, the cost of living relief has vanished from the Government’s agenda. Families are still paying more for groceries, they’re still paying more for rent, for mortgages, while wages are stagnating and jobs are disappearing.

We have over a million ethnic communities in New Zealand, most of them living in Auckland, and many work in healthcare, construction, essential industries, and many are small-business owners. They contribute a lot to our economy. The promise was made by the National Government that they will have a five-year renewable parental visa to reunite families. Now, our ethnic communities are still waiting. Fifteen months later, this promise has still not been delivered on. They want action, not just words.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): I move, That this debate be now adjourned.

Motion agreed to.

Debate interrupted.

Bills

Arms (Shooting Clubs, Shooting Ranges, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): I present a legislative statement on the Arms (Shooting Clubs, Shooting Ranges, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon NICOLE McKEE: I move, That the Arms (Shooting Clubs, Shooting Ranges, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Shooting clubs and shooting ranges throughout the country play an important public safety role in the New Zealand firearms regime. They provide spaces where individuals can learn how to safely operate firearms in a controlled environment as well as practise and compete. Clubs and ranges are mostly run by volunteers who give up their time to ensure that clubs and ranges can continue to play this crucial public safety role.

However, legislative changes introduced in 2020 placed a heavy regulatory burden on these volunteers. While some of these changes have been positive, others went beyond what is necessary to ensure public safety. I’ve heard from club members and range operators that this regulatory burden is too high and may force some to consider closure. This bill simplifies the regulatory requirements for clubs and ranges to reduce the burden on operators while maintaining safety requirements. We will be helping these places to stay open, which is in the interests of the public. This bill represents a shift to a more collaborative approach to working with clubs and range volunteers to ensure regulation is fit for purpose while also ensuring the safety of club members, range users, and the public.

I’d like to thank the Justice Committee for its thorough consideration of this bill. The committee has made several amendments to the bill, and these have resulted in a stronger piece of legislation. I also thank all the submitters for taking the time to submit their thoughts on the bill. We had 558 submissions from a range of individuals and organisations, and I really appreciate all of them for taking the time to share their views with the committee. Among those views were many from people who have had lifetime or lifelong involvement with firearms.

Consider the following from 79-year-old retired Royal Navy officer Phil Cregeen, who said, “All the local clubs I have participated in have been well run by volunteer members without any assistance from local authorities or Government agencies. During shooting activities on these ranges, safety has always been a paramount consideration, and I have never witnessed any behaviour that raises concern for those present or the general public.” The Hamilton Pistol Club said the bill was “a meaningful step in reducing the punitive over-regulation that has encumbered club operations since the previous changes to the Arms Act.” The Egmont Pistol Club stated, “While the amendment bill gives credit to clubs as sources of instruction and good practice, the original bill treated clubs with suspicion and mistrust with an overarching regime of regulation.”

I have noted all the changes the committee has made to the bill in my legislative statement, so, for now, I will discuss only the key changes that have been made to the bill since it was introduced. The first is in relation to the certificate of approval for pistol shooting clubs. As introduced in clause 5, new section 38D will allow applications for a certificate of approval made by a pistol shooting club to be made by an authorised person, if the club is a body corporate, and an authorised representative, if the club is not a body corporate. The committee noted that under the bill, pistol shooting clubs are required to be incorporated societies. The committee has, therefore, amended the bill to make it clear that only a person authorised by the pistol shooting club can apply for a certificate of approval on the club’s behalf.

The second change relates to temporary non-pistol shooting ranges. This amendment is to clause 5, proposed section 38XD. As introduced, this section allows for non-pistol shooting clubs to organise shooting activities at a temporary non-pistol range so long as they notify the commissioner of that activity. This is intended to allow for a small number of one-off events per year, such as a club fund-raising event.

The committee has amended this provision to ensure it does not exclude individuals who are likely to be experienced in running safe shooting ranges from being able to operate a temporary range. The bill now specifies that shooting clubs and shooting club members can operate a temporary range. It also allows operators of certified or enrolled shooting ranges to operate a temporary range. The committee has also made a change to the definition of a “temporary non-pistol range” by inserting a definition for a “shooting event” to clarify that an event can last no more than four days, as this was ambiguous in the bill as it was introduced.

The third key change relates to enrolment for non-pistol clubs and ranges. For non-pistol ranges, the bill replaces the approval requirements with a new system of enrolment. This is intended to support clubs and ranges by reducing compliance where there is no clear public safety benefit.

The committee has made three changes to the enrolment system. The first is to require non-pistol shooting ranges to declare that they have range standing orders in place when making an application for enrolment. This was originally intended to be in the regulations, but I welcome its inclusion into this bill as it’s an important safeguard to ensure public safety.

The second is another tweak to the application process and requires non-pistol range operators to declare that they have obtained all necessary territorial authority and regional council consents to operate the range. This is for the sake of clarity, as shooting ranges are already required to obtain the relevant consents under resource management law.

The third is to insert transitional provisions to ensure that any pending applications for approval or certification under the current system are treated as applications for enrolment once the bill is in force. I welcome this change as it avoids clubs and ranges having to needlessly begin the application process anew.

That brings us to the end of the substantive amendments, and I want to once again thank the Justice Committee for its careful consideration of the bill. The committee’s work has made refinements that support public safety and will help reduce the burdens placed on shooting clubs and shooting ranges. I will note, though, that after reading the Opposition’s differing views, it’s become quite clear to me that none of them have a real understanding of the firearm laws—mostly implemented by the Opposition—and I invite the Opposition to learn about this portfolio so their future contributions can have relevance.

I thank the community of submitters, from all sides, for participating in this stage of the Arms Act reforms. I believe the changes we have made here will increase trust and confidence, support better community outcomes, and be a positive for volunteers, participants, and communities alike.

In closing, this bill forms the second phase of the Government’s broader programme of firearms reform. It will help ensure that clubs and ranges remain accessible places where people can be educated on the safe use of firearms in a controlled and low-risk environment. I commend this bill to the House.

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

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This bill’s intent is clear: it’s to turn back the clock to a version of firearms law that was in place at the time of the 2019 Christchurch terror attack. We oppose this bill for four main reasons: firstly, it compromises the safety of the New Zealand public and front-line police officers; secondly, it weakens police powers; thirdly, it removes national standards for rifle and shotgun ranges; and, fourthly, in other matters, it transfers power to Nicole McKee, which enables her to determine what is a prohibited weapon in New Zealand.

First of all, it’s important that we understand the incredibly poor process and complete lack of policy analysis that is undertaken in this bill. It’s quite unlike any bill I’ve ever seen in my history as a policy adviser and even as a member of Parliament.

In 2019, there was, effectively, self-regulation, or no regulation at all, of shooting clubs and shooting ranges. The current Part 6 of the Arms Act took effect in 2022 after the Parliament passed the Arms Legislation Act in 2020. Part 6 has not been in place long enough to make an evidence-based assessment of its impact, and we have heard that directly from officials.

The Minister quoted several submissions. However, the submission that the Labour Party stands by strongly is the one made by the Police Association on behalf of approximately 98 percent of sworn police officers. It highlighted that there had been no evidence provided by Ministers to the Justice Committee of problems with Part 6 of the Arms Act or of any club range closing because of the new Act or associated regulations. The Police Association described this bill as putting politics over safety, and we agree with that assessment. The Government’s independent advisers could not justify the proposals, either pointing instead to anecdotes and assumptions or even the Minister’s lived experience in the regulatory impact statement. Basically, we are changing the law based upon the reckons of a gun lobbyist.

The Ministry of Justice’s regulatory impact statement noted that “the current legislative requirements have been in place for approximately a year, so there is little evidence of any positive and negative impacts of the requirements.”, and that “due to the anecdotal nature of what we have been told, it is difficult to assess the scale and significance of the issues experienced by clubs and ranges and the associated risk of closure. The proposals under consideration are therefore based on an assumption that the risk is of a scale that warrants regulatory change.” I do find it quite ironic that this is the same party that has introduced the Regulatory Standards Bill.

In the Regulatory Standards Bill, to be passed later this year, it states that no law should be passed without showing what the problem is that is being solved, whether the benefits outweigh the costs, and who pays the costs and who gets the benefits. It seems like the ACT Party has contradicted its own legislation between this bill and the one to be passed later in the year. What a stinker of a coalition deal this one is!

Labour members stand by the principles in the current Arms Act, which are that the possession and use of firearms is a privilege, not a right, and that everyone who uses firearms must act in the interests of personal and public safety. The safety risks associated with this bill are concerning. The Minister of Police has diverted from answering questions about its real impact upon police front-line safety while police have been outspoken about the dangers it poses. We have grave reservations about the impact not only on police but also on small business owners and rural landowners, such as farmers and forestry companies. These groups are frequently confronted by offenders with firearms sourced from the black market through a diversion from licensed firearm owners. These firearms are then used during aggravated robberies and illegal hunting.

Police have also warned the Minister of Police of gang members practising their shooting skills on unregulated shooting ranges. The public safety risks of unregulated clubs and ranges were highlighted by the royal commission of inquiry into the terrorist attack in Christchurch—currently still subject to a coroner’s inquiry. The royal commission found that the terrorist was able to practise rapid-fire techniques in an unregulated rifle range.

This bill would allow landowners to let criminals or extremists use their facilities. For example, in late 2024, there were media reports of a police inquiry into offending by initiated Comancheros gang members who practised military-style firing on a farm in Northland—effectively, an uncertified shooting range. This bill attempts to give the impression of regulatory oversight, but, in fact, it undermines the ability of police to monitor and enforce public safety in New Zealand, and that’s the truth. There are no compliance tools of any substance. For example, there are no penalty provisions for refusing to access or inspect ranges. The public and law-abiding users of shooting ranges will have no confidence that the range is operating safely or even correctly. ACT is the tail wagging the dog in this coalition agreement once again.

Number two is the weakened police powers. The proposed enrolment system appears to return the system to pre-2019. It will largely be voluntary to allow safety practices by the shooting governing body, with absolutely no oversight by police and no ability for police to enforce the rules unless breaches are drawn to the attention by a third party. The proposals will, effectively, limit police inspections of clubs and ranges to once every five years; at the first application of enrolment or certification, and in five yearly applications after that. The reduced ability for police to carry out inspections undermines the ability to enforce safety within our communities.

This bill increases the opportunity for unsupervised shooting at ranges by people without licences. It creates multiple loopholes for gang members and extremists, like the Christchurch terrorist, to exploit and practise their shooting skills without any police oversight in New Zealand. It also increases the opportunities for supply of ammunition to criminals who unlawfully hold firearms. Ammunition is a form of currency in the criminal underworld. It also creates dangerous precedents for many landowners who will find pop-up shooting ranges over their back fence. There is no ability for police to enforce safety measures or even inspect the facilities. This is quite simply a Wild West approach to firearms regulation in New Zealand.

Police are, effectively, locked out of doing inspections of either pistol ranges or non-pistol ranges for five years. Pistol ranges and rifle ranges do not have a track record of self-reporting problems to police. Further, in June 2024, Parliament’s Petitions Committee questioned the ability of operators of shooting clubs and ranges to monitor or even screen for criminals and extremists who use the facilities and noted police and security agencies needed oversight of club internal processes, which still does not occur.

Thirdly, there’s a lack of national standards for rifle and shotgun ranges. This bill undermines public confidence and consistency of safety standards at shooting clubs and ranges, because it removes the current adherence to a national standard or a road code; one map for all gun ranges. This is at odds with pistol ranges that must use the guidance issued by the Commissioner of Police; so, two separate rules, and we’re unsure quite why. Non-pistol ranges will be able to set their own standards, and police will have no ability to inspect them against the operator’s rules. They should at bare minimum be required to adhere to the ballistic safety guidelines in the police shooting range manual. Rifles and shotguns still present a serious safety risk despite suggestions that the bill says that pistols are a more serious safety concern. Police have publicly stated that 70 percent of firearms seized from criminals are the so-called A category, or non-prohibited firearms such as ordinary hunting rifles and shotguns.

I’ll conclude by saying that if this Government was serious about public safety—it talks a lot about public safety—it would do four things. One, it would require all non-pistol ranges to use the guidance, which is the shooting range manual issued by the Commissioner of Police. Secondly, it would enable police to inspect any shooting range, both pistol and non-pistol, with a minimum seven days’ notice to inspect compliance with police shooting range manual requirements. Thirdly, it would defer the changes under the other matters section till the Arms Act rewrite is complete, as the proposals have no relevance to shooting clubs and ranges, and this bill is not the appropriate vehicle for a power grab by the Associate Minister of Justice. Fourthly, it would extend the implementation date of this bill, as requested by police themselves, to a minimum of six months after Royal assent, and potentially longer, to wait until the current Arms Act rewrite is complete so that oversight of shooting clubs and ranges is considered within the broader context of the wider firearms regulatory system.

This is a bad coalition deal. It gives the ACT party base voters what they want, but it deprives New Zealanders of public safety, and shame on this Government for supporting it.

SCOTT WILLIS (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. To begin, I want to acknowledge the inimitable Dr Chaz Forsyth, Deerstalkers Association national life member, past national secretary, and Otago branch stalwart.

Chaz passed away Monday evening, 20 January 2025. Chaz was a tireless advocate for the ownership and safe use of firearms in Aotearoa. I met Chaz while sighting in a rifle at the Leith Valley Rifle Range near Dunedin many, many years ago. I really enjoyed Chaz’s cheeky humour and his concern that we all pay attention to what the rules were and what the protocols were at the rifle range. He was a researcher, a writer, a presenter of submissions. He submitted on this bill and he was an executive member of the Council of Licensed Firearm Owners. An altogether good bloke. I had numerous conversations with Chaz over the years, including most recently on this bill. We didn’t always agree but we did share a passion for getting out into the bush.

This bill is a solution in search of a problem. A proposed solution that appears to be based on anecdote from a small lobby group rather than any evidence or address any real need. As we’ve heard, it’s one of those weird coalition agreement things that this Government seems fond of. It doesn’t need to do it but it’s agreed to do it so it’s going to do it. We have to question why this bill is being proposed in the first place. It is odd that this bill is being put forward in the name of Minister Nicole McKee, rather than in the name of the Minister of Police, Mark Mitchell, who if we wanted a bill of this nature we’d expect would be in control of it.

Shooting clubs and shooting ranges are important in providing safety and education roles for some licensed firearm owners, but we do not accept that amending Part 6 of the Arms Act 1983 will meet any legitimate need of licensed firearm owners or provide greater safety and reassurance to the general public. There is no evidence that this is going to provide safety or reassurance to the general public. It’s a simple fact that reducing the regulation and inspection requirements for shooting clubs and ranges presents a risk to society.

The purpose of the Arms Act 1983 is to promote and impose controls on the safe possession and use of firearms and other weapons, but this bill will roll back safety measures and reduce community safety. It’s the inverse of what is required. Reducing police oversight, such as limiting inspections to every five years and removing the commissioner’s ability to cancel club’s approval based on failure to comply with improvement notices, poses significant risks to the safe operation of non-pistol shooting clubs.

The New Zealand Police Association in their submission opposing this bill said that there is no documented evidence of a need for the proposed changes in this bill. The Police Association does not see any necessity for it. For some reason, members opposite, the Government, is supporting something from a minor party, but this does not make any sense. There is something fishy about this.

Firearms can be dangerous and lethal in the wrong hands or when used inappropriately, and other risky activities have safeguards. If we think about agrichemicals, for example, farm safe certification requires washdown areas. That’s an acknowledgment of the risks that we face from chemicals. I’ve got a friend who is a farmer who was hospitalised with something that nobody could diagnose, but it looks, when he lost all his hair and had an operation on his lung, that he was probably suffering from a cocktail of chemicals because he wasn’t mixing them correctly.

There are reasons why we need safety and we need certification and we need constant checks. It matters for our health. Trappers need to be registered and to have permissions from the local public health unit to be able to use cyanide, and they need to hold a Controlled Substance Licence. There are reasons why we need controls, and there are reasons why we need to make sure that people understand the risks of using dangerous chemicals, poisons, and firearms when they are out in the community.

The New Zealand Certificate in Forestry Operations is necessary to work in forestry. That’s training and guidance. If we think about the New Zealand Army, here are individuals who use firearms as part of their training and it is something that they are expected to be able to be competent in. They have very serious protocols around firearms use. Here’s a thought experiment for the members opposite: what if we contracted or subcontracted management of firearms ranges to the army? Would they loosen controls, as the Minister seeks to do, or would they tighten them, dealing as they would be with the general public rather than trained troops? Which would they do? I think I would like the members opposite to consider that thought experiment, because I suspect they’d agree that the army would not be of a mind to do as the Minister has done and loosen regulations around the use of firearms and access to firearms on ranges.

Many people, including the New Zealand Police Association, oppose this bill and do not see the necessity for it and suspect there is something else at play here. Rather than public safety, rather than concern for licensed firearms owners, rather than concern for firearms ranges, shooting ranges, there is something else at play here. This bill is not needed. There’s no documented evidence for the necessity for this bill. The regulatory impact statement says exactly the same thing. The Minister claims that clubs and ranges are being forced to close due to the regulatory burden, but, again, there is no evidence whatsoever. Only two clubs and ranges have closed since the new legislation, and not because of the legislation.

This bill is simply another example of the ad hoc-ism, the dangerous “She’ll be right” attitude, a BYO approach to writing gun safety standards from this Government. It’s yet another example of poor legislation from a Government that doesn’t know where it’s going, doesn’t care about the damage it does as it blunders along with a confused soap salesman dancing to two different, clashing tunes. It is embarrassing to see such poor legislation put before us in this House with no purpose than to boost someone’s ego—

Hon James Meager: You haven’t read it, Scott, and I’m about to explain why.

SCOTT WILLIS: I’m being asked whether I have read it. Of course I’ve read it. I’m reminded of how this Government is rushing legislation through and doing damage to our society through their poor legislative process. This bill is shameful, and I’m afraid we can’t support it in any way, shape, or form.

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s very clear that a lot of members in the House have not actually read the bill and just get up and read whatever debate notes were provided to them by their leader’s office or their research unit.

Let’s start at the top, where Ginny Andersen got up and said that this bill gives powers to Nicole McKee. Well, of course, if you read the bill, you don’t see Nicole Mckee’s name anywhere in the bill. What you do see is a reference to a responsible Minister and for members opposite who know anything about Cabinet and Government, you know that regulations made by responsible Ministers are made through Cabinet. I don’t understand where Ginny Andersen’s getting her ideas, apart from the fact that, like a lot of other members, she hasn’t read the bill.

Mr Willis, then, started off very kindly, I think, acknowledging the passing of Chaz Forsyth. I didn’t realise that Chaz had passed on, so my thoughts go out to his family. Chaz, of course, authored a number of papers on firearms safety and incident rates and accident rates, and if members go and read those papers, what they’ll find—very, very clearly—is that the incident rates and accident rates at pistol ranges and non-pistol shooting ranges are far, far, far, far, far lower per bullet fired than any other situation in New Zealand. It is not the pistol shooting ranges and the non-pistol shooting ranges that are the problem; it is the lack of care taken and the lack of thought taken by people when they go out and they hunt in environments that they’re not familiar with.

That’s one of the reasons why this legislation is important, because it gives people who are hunters and gives firearms owners a place where they can operate, where they can practise their sport, where they can hone their skills, where they can sight-in their weapons in a safe, well-regulated environment.

Mr Willis talks about risk. Well, what’s the risk when you cannot access non-pistol shooting ranges, because they’re shutting down, because they’ve become too hard to operate, because the regulations become too onerous? What happens when you can’t access them? Well, you go and you then sight-in your rifle, or you go and you sight it in at the river, or you go into a paddock in a back block. What’s the risk then? What’s the risk to the general public then when you’re going and sighting-in your firearm down at the river? I’d say the risk is much, much higher than doing it in a non-pistol shooting range.

I’ll point Mr Willis to the part of the bill where he’s talking about, and the members opposite talked about, there being no powers for inspection. Well, I think members actually need to read the bill, actually need to read what the select committee went through, because if they actually went to new section 38XJ, where it talks about “Inspections of shooting clubs and shooting ranges”, it says “the Commissioner may—(a) enter and inspect”, and then they’ll talk about, “Well, it’s only once every five years.” Then you’ve actually got to go to new subsection (2) of that clause, which says, “Unless there is a change of circumstances that may affect its safety, an inspection” can only be taken once every five years. Of course, in any circumstance where the Police have become aware of an incident that may affect the safety of the shooting range, they may inspect.

That is why it’s important to actually read the bill and read what it does before we spread misinformation out there in the public and say that there are these swivel-eyed loonies—which is what they’re being characterised as by the Opposition—out there, firing six shooters and going around doing whatever they want in an unregulated environment. That is not true.

Scott Willis: All exaggeration.

Hon JAMES MEAGER: The exaggeration has come from the other side. This bill is about sensible, common-sense firearms regulation, which allows people to go in and practise their sport in a well-regulated space. Mr Willis, I’ve been to a pistol shooting range, and it is one of the most tightly regulated places in the world. They go above and beyond what they’re required to do in terms of the safety of the people that are visiting there to participate in the sport and the safety of themselves, because they want nothing more than the ability to be able to continue to practise their sport, and they want to run a zero-risk attitude towards these shooting ranges. For the members opposite to lead off and to say that this is anything other than sensible changes to a sport which is well participated in across the country is, I would say, slightly misleading.

Look, we’ve traversed a lot of the content of the bill already in the Minister’s opening speech. The committee did consider a number of submissions from a number of well-qualified organisations, including the Police Association. We understand that they disagree with some of the aspects of the bill, and I’m sure they would have liked to have maintained the responsibility for the Act, but part of what we feel, on this side of the Government, is that those who make the rules should not be the ones that also enforce the rules. There’s an inherent contradiction there, so it only makes sense that the policy-making process sits with the Ministry of Justice, and then it’s up to the Police to then enforce those rules. I think that is a comfortable place to sit, and I would suggest that in 12 to 15 years’ time, if there ever comes a change of Government, that will not change and that will be a long-lasting change, because it’s one that makes sense.

There’s plenty more to come on this bill as we traverse it throughout the night. I support the bill. This side of the House supports the bill. It’s good, common-sense changes that support the hunting and shooting community in New Zealand, which I’m proud to represent. I commend it to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): This debate is interrupted and set down for resumption next sitting day. The House is adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.