Wednesday, 21 May 2025

WEDNESDAY, 21 MAY 2025

WEDNESDAY, 21 MAY 2025

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

Karakia/Prayers

GREG O’CONNOR (Assistant Speaker): Almighty God, we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests, we acknowledge the Queen and pray for guidance in our deliberations, that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom, justice, mercy, and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen.

Urgent Debates Declined

Gaza Aid—Signing of Joint Statement

SPEAKER: Members, I’ve received a letter from the Hon Phil Twyford seeking to debate, under Standing Order 399, the Government’s signing of a joint statement calling for Israel to allow a full resumption of aid into Gaza. This is a particular case of recent occurrence for which there is ministerial responsibility. However, that signing of a statement is not a matter that is of so urgent a proportion as to warrant the setting aside of the business of the House today. The application is declined.

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 Ponsonby Chambers (est. 2023) requesting that the House of Representatives amend section 21 of the Human Rights Act 1993 to recognise of the rights of children under age 16

petition of Judy Anderson requesting that the House inquire into New Zealand Society for the Study of Diabetes advice that GLP-1 drugs can be suitable for children aged 10 to 17, and consult widely with experts on carbohydrate-restricted diets

petition of Right to Life New Zealand requesting that the House repeal the End of Life Choice Act 2019.

SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee. No papers have been delivered to the Clerk. No select committee reports have been delivered, and 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 stand by all his Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Was it worth slashing the future pay of hundreds of thousands of women workers to fund $2.9 billion in tax cuts for landlords?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I resent the characterisation of that question. This is a Government that is not getting rid of equal pay, it’s not getting rid of pay equity, it’s not getting rid of collective bargaining, it’s not cutting the women’s pay, as the member has tried to scaremonger over the last few weeks. We encourage anyone who wants to launch a pay equity settlement claim to do so. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: OK, OK. We’ll get into it right from the start. That general commentary throughout the answer to the question was just heckling, not occasional points of interjection—quite far from it.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Was it worth cutting women’s future earnings to hand $216 million in tax breaks to tobacco companies?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, we didn’t do that either and I reject the characterisation of that question too.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Was it worth short-changing New Zealand women workers to cover Nicola Willis’ billion-dollar ferry blunder?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: It’s a pretty petty line of questioning from the economic illiteracy of the other side. I just encourage you all, look at that front bench alternative and say, “Can any of those run an economy?” No.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Hey, stop pointing, stop pointing, stop pointing. Don’t point with that finger.

SPEAKER: No, that’s enough, thank you. Good idea to slink down low like that. You’re still visible behind that glass.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Was it worth diminishing women’s futures to gift half a billion dollars to tech giants like Facebook and Google?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, I reject the characterisation of that question and I’d just say to the member: wait for tomorrow because this is a Government that cares about working people, women or men, Māori or non-Māori. If that member cared about it, he would have backed our tax cuts.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Was it worth undercutting women’s future wages to funnel hundreds of millions of dollars into private health providers whilst quietly privatising New Zealand’s front-line health services?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Ha, ha! Oh, goodness! I’d just say to the member: what has been fantastic from this Government is that you’ve seen us cut the wasteful spending, lower inflation, lower interest rates, get the economy growing, give tax relief for the first time in 14 years, and, most importantly, wages are growing faster than inflation, which helps working people. Under the last Government, they went up $82 in three years; under this Government, they’ve gone up $1,100 on average.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does it help the Hon Nicola Willis’ Budget that the ferry decision has saved her $2 billion from the blowout iReX project?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, firstly, I just want to thank our fantastic Minister for Rail, because he’s obviously sorted out a hell of a mess that was handed over to us from the Labour Government, and I want to say thank you for that.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why did he just describe paying women properly as “wasteful spending”; and was it worth taking—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: No—OK, OK. Rules apply equally. Absolute silence while a question’s answered. If someone outbursts like that again, they’re out. The Rt Hon Chris Hipkins, please start your question again.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why did he just describe paying women workers properly as “wasteful spending”, and was it worth taking billions of dollars from women workers to rescue the Budget, as David Seymour has celebrated?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In answer to the first leg of the question, that is not what we have done. I’d just say to the member, I think he needs to think very deeply about the questions he’s asking today.

Hon Chris Bishop: In reference to a supplementary a couple ago, is the Prime Minister aware that vast bulk of the New Zealand health system, like general practices, are privately owned?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask you to reflect on whether the first part of that question—regardless of what the second part of it was—is actually in order. Can a Government Minister basically stand up and ask a supplementary question that the very first part of it is designed to attack the Opposition? Speaker’s rulings have previously indicated very clearly that that’s not the case.

Hon Chris Bishop: Speaking to the point of order. This is a debating chamber. Mr Speaker, you’ve previously ruled, I think rightly, that there needs to be a backwards and forwards and an ebb and flow in relation to the issues being discussed. We risk making this place sterile.

SPEAKER: Well, that might be the case in your opinion. But the point that is raised by the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins is a valid one because I have made it clear that the question itself would have stood if it weren’t referencing a previously asked supplementary, which the member, or the member’s party, has no responsibility for. They do for the answer, but not for the question.

Chlöe Swarbrick: What will it take, if not 14,000 babies at risk of starvation in the next 48 hours, for our Government to sanction Israel for its war crimes?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, again, we have called that out. We think it’s utterly unacceptable that Israel is not supplying humanitarian assistance in the way that it should do. I think you have seen the Minister of Foreign Affairs sign a statement with 23 other Foreign Ministers in recent days that I think is entirely appropriate. We expect the free flow of humanitarian assistance to travel through Gaza, and with respect to Israeli sanctions, you have seen us continually increase those sanctions against illegal settlers, as we will continue to do.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Prime Minister agree with world-leading scholars on genocide that Israel is committing a genocide in Gaza; if not, why not?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, those are decisions for others to determine. But what I’d say is that we are very much in the case that we want to see hostages released, we want to see a free flow of humanitarian assistance into Gaza, we want to see an immediate ceasefire, and—importantly—we want to see the parties get round to get back to having a two-State solution in place.

Chlöe Swarbrick: If the Prime Minister does not consider Israel’s bombardment of Gaza a genocide, what would he call it?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’d just say to the member that that is a determination for others to make who are closest to it and who can make that assessment. As I’ve said through the course of this conflict, this is a horrible conflict. It is an utter tragedy. We are asking for Israel to allow humanitarian assistance—

Chlöe Swarbrick: Do something about it.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: —to go into Gaza, and I’d just say to the member that we have done something about it. I’d encourage her to read the statement that our Foreign Minister signed, with 23 other Foreign Ministers, in recent days, calling on Israel to release and enable humanitarian assistance to get through to Gaza.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Will the Prime Minister consider adopting my Unlawful Occupation of Palestine Sanctions Bill as a Government bill to enforce basic sanctions against Israel—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry—sorry. Too much talk during that question. It’s not for anyone to start individual commentaries on a question. Start the question again, please, Chlöe Swarbrick.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Will the Prime Minister consider adopting my Unlawful Occupation of Palestine Sanctions Bill as a Government bill to enforce basic sanctions against Israel for its war crimes, like this House did against Russia for its war on Ukraine; if not, why not?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’d point out to the member that we have increased our sanctions against illegal Israeli settlers—they are travel suspensions and they are other sanctions. But I’d just say to you that the foreign policy of New Zealand is led by our Foreign Minister, and I think he’s doing a very good job of navigating his way and leading New Zealand through this conflict.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the 22-State document that went out 2½ days ago was but a confirmation of the same speech that was made to the United Nations by the Foreign Minister, having talked to the Egyptians, the Turks, the people from Indonesia, and the Palestinian Authority—unlike some, who have talked to no one on this matter?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’d just—

Chlöe Swarbrick: We need actions, not words.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Sorry, but the Foreign Minister is correct. He has joined with 23 other Foreign Ministers in calling out that and saying that humanitarian aid should never be politicised and that they expect humanitarian aid to be flowing freely through Gaza, and I think it’s been a very strongly worded statement of where the New Zealand position is.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote) to the Minister of Finance: What is the Government’s objective for net core Crown debt?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): A key element of the Government’s fiscal strategy is to put net core Crown debt as a percentage of GDP on a downward trajectory towards 40 percent and, in the longer term, to keep it between 20 percent and 40 percent of GDP. Treasury forecasts in the half-year update in December showed net core Crown debt reaching 46.5 percent of GDP in the 2026-27 fiscal year before beginning to decline. The Budget forecasts for debt and other fiscal indicators will be released tomorrow.

Dan Bidois: Has she seen any recommendations for a debt ceiling in New Zealand?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes. Treasury did a very thorough piece of work in 2022 to determine a recommended ceiling for New Zealand’s net debt, taking into account the country’s vulnerability to economic shocks and the need to have fiscal headroom to deal with them. After a lot of analysis and modelling, Treasury’s central recommendation was for a net debt ceiling of 50 percent of GDP. This debt ceiling was adopted soon afterwards by the finance Minister at the time, Grant Robertson, and was a key part of his fiscal strategy.

Dan Bidois: Does she accept this recommendation for a net debt ceiling?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes. The Government has acknowledged that on the grounds of debt sustainability, 50 percent of GDP should be considered the upper bound for net debt. However, a ceiling is not a target. New Zealand needs a healthy balance-sheet buffer, as, in comparison to many other countries, we are a small economy, vulnerable to natural disasters, reliant on commodity exports, and dependent on international debt markets. Debt can rise quickly, as recent history has shown, and high debt means high interest costs. The Government’s objective is, therefore, to get net debt under 40 percent of GDP over time to provide buffers for future shocks.

Dan Bidois: What recent reports has she seen on the 50 percent net debt ceiling?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I have seen at least one commentator endorsing Treasury’s recommended 50 percent net debt ceiling, pointing out that this remains good advice and that New Zealand needs fiscal headroom to deal with economic shocks. At least one other commentator disagrees, saying that high debt is myth and that the other commentator must be talking about the past. It’s a total shambles.

Question No. 3—Women

3. Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister for Women: Does she stand by her answer to oral question No. 4 on Thursday, 15 May that “The initial conversation I had with the Minister of Finance regarding pay equity occurred on 9 November 2024”; if so, on what date did she first inform the Ministry for Women of potential pay equity changes?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG (Minister for Women): Yes, I stand by my statement that the initial conversation I had with the Minister of Finance about the recent changes to pay equity was on 9 November. In relation to the second part of the question, as I have previously stated to the House, the ministry was not consulted during the process of the Equal Pay Amendment Bill development, but it was informed the day before the announcement.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Did she request the Ministry for Women be consulted on Minister Willis’ pay equity Cabinet paper or Minister van Velden’s pay equity Cabinet paper?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: Given the sensitivities of the matter, only a small number of agencies were consulted on the changes—that included Treasury and the Public Service Commission. I received advice from them and was satisfied with that advice. They are, indeed, considered to be the lead agencies and experts on pay equity, and I took that advice.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I know we can’t ask for yes or no answers, but I feel like that wasn’t addressed. All I wanted to know was whether she made the request for the Ministry for Women to be consulted, and I got a whole lot of information that wasn’t relevant to that question.

SPEAKER: It was totally relevant to the question. I was listening for that, because I thought that was where you might go. The Minister just said that there was a small number of agencies who were consulted. That might lead you to a conclusion.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Why was the Ministry for Women not consulted on either of these Cabinet papers?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: As the Minister for Women, I have noted already to the House that I did continue to advocate for women during the development of this policy.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: When she told the House, on 8 May, that the Ministry for Women was not involved in consultation but she was, does this mean that she never consulted with her officials on changes to pay equity?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: Again, as has been made very plain to this House in the Cabinet paper, the Ministry for Women was not consulted. However, throughout the process, I was consulted. I am the Minister for Women. I am responsible for that agency.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I was asking whether or not she consulted with her officials on changes to pay equity once she was informed, which I think is a fair and reasonable question, given, as a Minister, you usually would consult on anything important like that with your officials.

SPEAKER: Well, that might be the member’s experience. What the Minister just said is that the ministry was not consulted and that she undertook the consultation as the Minister for Women. I think that’s a reasonable answer.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: When Minister Willis first told her about pay equity changes in November, did she advocate that savings from pay equity changes go to initiatives that support women; if not, why not?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: Of course I continued to advocate for the existence of a robust and fair pay equity system, and I am satisfied that that is what the Government has delivered.

Question No. 4—Prime Minister

4. Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: E tautoko ana ia i ngā kōrero me ngā mahi katoa a tōna Kāwanatanga?

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

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes.

Hon Marama Davidson: Is he concerned that this Government’s austerity agenda is undermining the wellbeing and safety of our most vulnerable tamariki, considering the serious and systemic failures highlighted in the recent UNICEF report and the Auditor-General’s Oranga Tamariki inquiry; and, if not concerned, why not?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In answer to the first part of the question, we are not running an austerity agenda. This is a Government that’s investing for growth, jobs, and wages.

Hon Marama Davidson: Is he confident that his Budget will address how Aotearoa supports tamariki and their whānau, considering we have the highest youth suicide rates in the world post-COVID, the second highest rate of child bullying, as well as poor physical health linked with food insecurity; and, if not confident, why not?

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

Hon Marama Davidson: What is his response to the findings of the Auditor-General’s inquiry into the procurement and contract management of Oranga Tamariki, which stated, “We did not see evidence that Oranga Tamariki understood how its decisions would affect children and their families.”; and who does he believe is responsible for this oversight?

SPEAKER: Well, the Prime Minister can answer one of those questions.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In answer to the first part of the question, it wasn’t good enough and we must do better.

Hon Marama Davidson: Why should the public trust his Minister for Children to effectively manage her ministerial responsibilities, considering the same Auditor-General’s report also stated, “The effects of decisions on children and their families are still not known.”, given that the core role of Oranga Tamariki is to centre the effects of Government decisions on children and their families?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Because I’ve spent time with the Minister and I know she’s an incredibly hard-working, passionate Minister who’s doing everything she can to improve the performance of Oranga Tamariki. It has been an underperforming organisation for a long period of time, and she has been doing everything she can to lift the performance, as we are finding in many agencies across Government.

SPEAKER: I just tell the member that conflating two parts of a question with the word “given” is not an acceptable way to ask a question.

Hon Marama Davidson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does he acknowledge that failing to adequately fund support services in his Budget will put more tamariki and their whānau at risk?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, the Budget hasn’t been announced—that happens tomorrow—so I think the question is very leading and assumptive.

Question No. 5—Transport

5. RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini) to the Minister of Transport: What announcements has he made regarding rail funding in Budget 2025?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Transport): Yesterday, alongside the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Rail, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, I announced that there is $461 million of funding to maintain and renew the rail freight network in the Budget, alongside $143.6 million to replace and upgrade the Auckland and Wellington metropolitan rail networks. This is all about delivering an efficient and reliable rail network that supports growth and productivity.

Rima Nakhle: What can metro passengers in Auckland and Wellington expect to see as a result of this funding?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: We need to be up front about the fact that there have been years and years of under-investment in the core of our metro rail networks in Auckland and Wellington. These are overdue and critical renewals. There is a big backlog of work. That failure to do the work has made services less reliable, with commuters experiencing disruption. We want metro rail to work in Auckland and Wellington, and that means we need to invest in the tracks and the signals and all of the things that go into making sure the network is reliable and commuters can experience reliable journey times.

Rima Nakhle: How does this investment support the rail freight network?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: This Government backs rail and the important role it plays in our freight networks. It moves around 13 percent of national freight and a quarter of New Zealand exports, complementing our road freight network. This additional investment fully funds the Rail Network Investment Programme—sometimes known as the RNIP—for 2024-27, delivering that, maintenance and network operations, asset renewals, and other improvements.

Rima Nakhle: What kind of projects does he—[Another member calls for a supplementary question] My apologies, OK. That’s OK

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Oh my goodness!

SPEAKER: Sorry?

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: She hasn’t got her question.

SPEAKER: No, take your time. Take your time. You were—

Rima Nakhle: What kind of projects does he expect this additional funding to support?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: This might not be headline-grabbing, like a new railway line or new trains, but it is important that we look after what we have. We need to replace these old bridges, culverts, and other assets on the railway line. A failure to invest in and maintain these assets has led to speed restrictions and other problems on the rail network. When we build our new infrastructure, we need to make sure we look after it as well. So we’re backing rail. Most importantly, we’re backing the maintenance and the renewal work that needs to be done on our networks.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister: does he think it’s possible that all the problems with respect to railways in Auckland, Wellington, and Christchurch can be fixed for $11 billion, as has been prospected by one group in this country?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, I’ve learnt not to rely on economic forecasts and particularly accounting estimates from members of the Opposition.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: So that’s OK, is it?

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Kick him out.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Every bloody day!

Hon Shane Jones: Can the Minister share with the House what was the final—

SPEAKER: Just a minute, one more comment like that, and you’re going. Let’s be very clear: the Government is allowed to refer to situations that they’re dealing with in relation to public commentary on them. That’s what happened there. So I’m being as pedantic as the House might want, but not so pedantic as to make question time completely irrelevant.

Hon Shane Jones: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can the Minister confirm for the House whether he’s been briefed as to what was the final figure associated with light rail escapades in Auckland?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, what started life as a $300 million tram—

SPEAKER: It’s a very, very simple, straight question. So don’t muck it up by turning it into an attack.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The answer is: around $30 billion.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: I was just wanting to know from the Minister: what sort of direct feedback did he have on the announcement yesterday?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, generally the feedback from Wellington commuters at Wellington Railway Station was very positive. However, as always, you can’t please everyone!

Question No. 6—Finance

6. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by her statement in relation to Budget 2025 that “The vast bulk of these initiatives will be funded from savings. As in last year’s Budget, existing areas of spending will be redirected towards higher priorities”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Yes. And the next sentence was: “Without that, new initiatives would have to be funded from yet more borrowing or by yet more taxes. Either would put New Zealand’s economy at risk.” And I would note that Budget savings will also come from the repurposing of funds previously held in contingency for potential future costs.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is giving tech giants like Facebook and Google a $479 million tax break a higher priority than pay equity for 180,000 mainly women workers?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I completely reject the characterisations in that question and would repeat: a pay equity regime exists in law and the Government expects future pay equity claims and future pay equity settlements.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is giving a tobacco company a $216 million tax break a higher priority than ensuring our kids have fresh and healthy school lunches?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I also reject the characterisations in that question, and what I would put to this House is that if a party is unable to identify any savings, then what they are telling New Zealanders is more taxes and more borrowing are on their way.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is giving landlords $2.9 billion in tax breaks a higher priority than additional support for survivors of sexual abuse?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Again, rejecting the characterisations in that question, and noting our Government has delivered a historic package of redress initiatives for those survivors of abuse in State care. We’ve done the right thing, something that the members opposite had the opportunity to do and did not fund.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why is choosing to give money to those who don’t need it a higher priority for her than improving the lives of New Zealanders?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, what I take from that question is that the member’s view is that the millions of New Zealanders who received tax relief in last year’s Budget didn’t need it. Well, I think they did. After the cost of living crisis that your party delivered, they really needed—

SPEAKER: That’s enough.

Question No. 7—Tourism and Hospitality

7. JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland) to the Minister for Tourism and Hospitality: What recent reports has she seen on tourism in New Zealand?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Tourism and Hospitality): International visitor arrival numbers released by Stats NZ last week show a 4.3 percent year-on-year increase. Our international visitor numbers remain at 85 percent of pre-COVID numbers, which reinforces our need to grow demand to New Zealand in the short term. Tourism is a crucial part of our Government’s focus on economic growth. That’s why we’ve made investments through our tourism boost package, including our “Everyone must go” campaign, to bring visitor numbers back to pre-COVID levels. [Interruption]

Joseph Mooney: How will targeting—

SPEAKER: Just wait a minute. Just wait a minute—OK.

Joseph Mooney: How will targeting Australians improve overall visitor numbers?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Our “Everyone must go” campaign with Tourism New Zealand was all about encouraging Australians to pick New Zealand for their next holiday. Visitor numbers from Australia are currently at about 91 percent compared to 2019, so we know that there’s more room to grow. We also know that around four million Australians are actively considering a holiday in New Zealand, and this campaign is building on this momentum, and encouraging more of our Aussie neighbours to visit.

Joseph Mooney: What else is being done to encourage more Australian visitors to New Zealand?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Jetstar is launching three new routes from Australia into New Zealand next month: Sydney to Hamilton, the Gold Coast to Hamilton, and the Gold Coast to Dunedin. These services will add more than 190,000 new low-fare seats between Australia and New Zealand. This will strengthen airline connectivity, making it easier for our Australian friends to come on over.

Joseph Mooney: How will more international visitors support economic growth?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: By investing in tourism, we are creating opportunities for growth as tourism directly supports almost 200,000 jobs and contributes $44 billion to the economy. Every time a tourist comes to New Zealand and spends money at a local shop, buys a meal at a local cafe, and stays in our accommodation, it’s good for jobs, it’s good for growth, it’s good for the incomes of New Zealanders. Economic growth from tourism enables the Government to invest more in public services like health and education. So our message is clear: New Zealand is open for business, and we welcome visitors from anywhere at any time to come to New Zealand.

Question No. 8—Regulation

8. TODD STEPHENSON (ACT) to the Minister for Regulation: What recent announcements has he made on progressing the Regulatory Standards Bill?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation): On Monday, the Government introduced the Regulatory Standards Bill to Parliament. The bill sets out clear principles for lawmaking and regulating so that New Zealanders can be free to live their lives and use their property without labouring under the yoke of some populous, knee-jerk rule that a politician made for convenience a long time ago, and still holds them back today.

Todd Stephenson: Why is this bill a priority for the Government?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: A wise economist once said that “Productivity is not everything, but in the long term, it’s almost everything.”, and it’s the only way to sustainably grow wages and lower the cost of living to New Zealanders. If we want to raise productivity, one of the most powerful things we can do is reduce the amount of time that people spend in compliance activity, or giving up on doing things in the first place, and, instead, allow them to have more time to do the things they want to do: to provide for themselves, their friends, and their family.

Todd Stephenson: How will this bill hold politicians and regulators to account?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: There’s awfully good news for some of the people who’ve been heckling me. If they ever get back to this side of the House, this bill will not—

SPEAKER: No, no, just talk about your own stuff, nobody else’s.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Mr Speaker, I was trying to—it sounds like they want to be in the conversation.

SPEAKER: Yes, it may do to you, but it doesn’t to me. The member will constrain himself to a simple answer, or take an early shower.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Mr Speaker—

SPEAKER: OK, I’m sorry to put that image in the House’s heads.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, Mr Speaker, I’m not a simple man. I mean—it doesn’t give me very good choices, does it? This bill doesn’t ban bad regulation, but it does put on sunlight and expose it. The bill makes it clear when proposed laws breach the principles of good regulation, and allows the public to see who’s responsible.

Todd Stephenson: What role will the new Regulatory Standards Board play?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: The Regulatory Standards Board will be an independent board providing public assessments of whether legislation is consistent with the principles of good lawmaking. It won’t have a power to veto good law, but it will allow voters, businesses, and Parliament to judge whether the rules being put before them are reasonable.

Todd Stephenson: What impact will the Regulatory Standards Bill have on the stock of current legislation?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Unfortunately, New Zealanders—on their firms and their farms and raising their families—produce and suffer under an enormous yoke of red tape and regulation. This has been built up over many decades. But never fear: the Regulatory Standards Bill will require a retrospective review of that red tape and regulation that currently exists against the principles of the bill.

Todd Stephenson: What makes this bill different from past efforts to improve regulation?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: This Government is different from previous ones in that it actually takes action. Many Governments in the past have talked about improving red tape and regulation—this one is legislating it. It’s a core element—not a “nice-to-have”, but a core element of this Government’s programme is to free up productive capacity by reducing the red tape and the regulation that adds cost to what we do, makes people say “no” to doing things they could have done, and deadens our culture, as so many of those opportunities are lost. So to the Opposition: this is your last chance to ask a supp—

SPEAKER: No, no.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: You sure? OK.

SPEAKER: You don’t get to call people for questions. I do, and I might stop that.

Question No. 9—Education

9. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by all her statements and actions regarding pay equity and workforce conditions in the education sector?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): Yes, in the context in which they were made.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Why did she say, “The unified pay scale makes the situation more complicated” in relation to sex-based undervaluation of secondary school teachers?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Because it does.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Is she committed to the principle of pay parity for teachers?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Yes.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Will she ensure that any pay increases primary school teachers achieve through pay equity will be passed on to secondary school teachers who are now unable, under the new law, to make their own pay equity claim; if not, why not?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: That’s not a matter for me, and I think the member knows that.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Is it the case that while there is a strike at the Ministry of Education over a pay freeze and a 22,000 strong petition for support staff to be paid fairly, the Government’s actions will also entrap teachers at all levels into being underpaid?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Sorry, can the remember repeat the question? I wasn’t sure what she was asking.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Is it the case that while there is a strike at the Ministry of Education over a pay freeze and a 22,000 strong petition for support staff to be fairly paid, the Government’s actions will also entrap teachers at all levels into being underpaid?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: It was a very broad question and there was a lot going on in it. But, essentially, we value teachers hugely. We’re about to go into pay negotiations—although it’s something that I’m not allowed to comment on. That will be something that will be worked through by the ministry.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can she recall who brought in pay parity for primary teachers, based on qualifications with secondary school teachers, and how massively it helped a hugely woman-populated profession at that time?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Yes, I can confirm that.

Question No. 10—Housing

10. TAKUTAI TARSH KEMP (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau) to the Associate Minister of Housing: What role, if any, have the Government’s policies and decisions played in contributing to the 53 percent increase in homelessness in Tāmaki Makaurau between September 2024 and January 2025, particularly for rangatahi?

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Associate Minister of Housing): Homelessness is a symptom of a broken housing system and a broken mental health system, and fixing these crises are both important for this Government. Government target No. 8 was to reduce the number of households in emergency housing by 75 percent, and we’ve achieved that in 15 months. One priority was to ensure that children were not growing up in that catastrophe that we know as emergency housing, and our decisions and mahi have led to around 3,000 children leaving emergency housing and coming out of emergency housing over the past 18 months. We’re very proud of that. The December 2024 homelessness insights report states it is not possible to determine the extent to which changes in homelessness numbers reflect broader economic, social, and health contexts or are attributable to policy changes.

Takutai Tarsh Kemp: What specific actions is the Government taking to prevent homelessness among rangatahi Māori, particularly to those exiting State care or youth justice systems, and how will these outcomes be measured?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: As this House has been told in the past, rangatahi-supported accommodation and youth-transitional accommodation continue to be supported. In addition to that, there are a number and a range of services—whether or not those are housing support products, Housing First, transitional housing, and other pathways—for those people, including youths, who have some significant housing deprivation challenges.

Takutai Tarsh Kemp: How does the Minister justify the 2024 Budget decision to cut $40 million from Māori housing providers and $20 million from transitional housing for rangatahi?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: As we will recall, a number of agencies had to ensure that there were appropriate savings that came through Budget 2024 to enable and support ongoing delivery of better public services, such as health, education, defence, and the Police. But it was absolutely enthusing and energising for us to be in Toitu Tairawhiti last week in Gisborne where we saw the mahi—the good mahi—that has been undertaken by the people in Toitu Tairawhiti to construct around 150 new homes, with a priority on single mamas and tamariki.

Takutai Tarsh Kemp: What steps is the Government taking to empower kaupapa Māori and Māori- and community-led housing and support services, such as Mā Te Huruhuru, in Tāmaki-makau-rau, in line with its Te Tiriti o Waitangi obligations?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: This House may recall that recently we announced around $200 million of Māori housing tautoko to build 400 homes right throughout the country. Whether or not that’s up in Kaitāia or in Tūranga and Toitu Tairawhiti, with the good mahi they are doing, and Ka Uruora throughout the North Island and others throughout the country, we continue to be very proud of the mahi that we are doing to support Māori housing and also the mahi that Minister Penk has been undertaking around granny flats and some of the ongoing mahi and good work being undertaken to look at papa kāinga.

Takutai Tarsh Kemp: Supplementary. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just wait for the House to gather itself a bit. Thank you.

Takutai Tarsh Kemp: What is the Government doing to ensure the safety and wellbeing of rangatahi placed in emergency motel accommodation, and when will it invest in safe, culturally grounded, long-term, alternative, led-by-Māori communities?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Let’s get back to some data points. In December 2023, there were around 3,438 children in emergency housing—that moral, fiscal, social, and cultural catastrophe. As of the end of March, there were around 516—many, many of whom were Māori that have left and exited as a result of the Priority One decision that was taken by this Government to expedite those households and whānau who have been living in emergency housing for over 12 weeks. Now, we are very proud of the decisions that we have taken to expedite those whānau and tamariki out of those difficult and exposed lives in emergency hotels, particularly in places like Ulster Street in Hamilton West.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Would the Minister have any idea as to how many homeless Māori the $80 million - plus profits of the Waipareira Trust could house if the money was applied to them properly?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: There is a lot of mahi to do, and we’re getting on and doing the mahi here in this Government.

Takutai Tarsh Kemp: Will the Government commit to increasing funding for Māori housing and wraparound services for providers in Thursday’s Budget, in light of the 53 percent increase in homelessness in Tāmaki-makau-rau?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: As the “mana pūtea” Minister Willis will say, one more version of “Hine E Hine” to come. Kia ora tātou.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: A point of order, please, Mr Speaker. The question was quite specific, and I just wonder if the Speaker can advise, where the member asked “Will the Government commit to increasing funding”, based on a 53 percent increase in Tāmaki-makau-rau—we’re not clear on what that answer was or whether it was actually directed to the actual question.

SPEAKER: I took it to mean that the—[Interruption] I’m speaking. I took it to mean that the Budget’s being delivered tomorrow and that he was not going to be releasing Budget information ahead of the delivery tomorrow.

Question No. 11—Māori Development

11. DAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth) to the Minister for Māori Development: He aha ngā kōrero kua pānui atu mō ngā wātene Māori i ēnei rā tata nei?

[What recent announcements has he made about Māori wardens?]

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister for Māori Development): Nōku te hōnore, nō māua tahi ko Minita Costello, ki te whakapāho i te Hatarei kua hora nei, kua piki ake te pūtea tautoko ki te tohatoha atu ki ngā wātene Māori mai i te $1.2 miriona ki te $2.7 miriona ia te tau. He oati—he oati. I tae mai te Pirīmia Tuarua, a Winitana Petera, me te Pirīmia Christopher Luxon. Ka nui te mihi kāmehameha ki ngā wātene Māori i tō rātou kaha ki te whai i te kīanga kōrero, “Aroha ki te tangata”, heoi anō ki te whakahaumaru hoki i ngā hapori Māori, Kiwi nei.

[It is my honour, myself and Minister Costello, to announce last Saturday that the funding support to distribute to the Māori wardens has increased from $1.2 million to $2.7 million per annum. This is a commitment—a commitment. The Deputy Prime Minister, Winston Peters, and the Prime Minister, Christopher Luxon, were in attendance. Many huge thanks to the Māori Wardens for the consistent pursuit of the saying “Compassion for humanity”, but also to keep our Māori and Kiwi communities safe.]

David MacLeod: How do Māori—

Hon Shane Jones: Māori wardens, go pick up Rawiri!

SPEAKER: Just a moment. Mr Jones, you know that you can’t call out like that during the asking of a question. It’s very disorderly, and you know where that leads.

David MacLeod: How do Māori wardens support safer communities?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Māori wardens, in some way, shape, or form, have supported whānau nationwide for more than 150 years, and now there are over 500 wardens volunteering their mahi to support New Zealanders every day, from engaging with rangatahi around truancy and deescalating conflicts; helping out at various important hui throughout the country, like Waitangi week, Hōkai up in Waikato and in the surrounding rohe; and also managing some very challenging circumstances on the streets of New Zealand, particularly Hamilton. Māori wardens use their longstanding relationships to build and support their communities—what we call manaakitanga. They work alongside Police, Minister Mitchell, and social service providers, and this funding will help with the expansion of their services and, of course, to improve and increase capability.

David MacLeod: What impact will this increased funding have?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Budget 2025 funding will help secure and stabilise the financial sustainability of the Māori wardens, allowing them to align and expand their services to meet whānau and community needs. This means that the already more than 500 wardens—who are volunteers, might I repeat—are able to better support whānau every day, including engaging with our rangatahi, managing some serious challenges and conflicts on the streets, and helping to tautoko various hui.

David MacLeod: When can communities expect to see the benefits?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Very soon. Additional funding is expected to flow from 1 July 2025, and my officials will be working with the respective organisations to get these increased funding arrangements in place.

Question No. 12—ACC

12. CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) to the Minister for ACC: Does he stand by his statements and actions in relation to the Accident Compensation Corporation?

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (Minister for ACC): Yes, especially my statement that the ACC scheme is there to support New Zealanders who have a need for the care and support that ACC provides and that ACC is something uniquely Kiwi and something we should all be proud of.

Camilla Belich: Which of his statements is correct: that “ACC will always be available to support victims of sexual violence”, or that there is a “live and current” question as to whether the Government might cut eligibility for survivors of sexual violence?

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: I stand by both those statements, and, as Minister, my number one focus is on ensuring that the sustainability of this scheme is ensured.

Camilla Belich: Why did he tell The Post that he was considering cutting ACC eligibility for survivors last week, and then this week—only five days later—tell Newstalk ZB that he had “no intention” to shed responsibility for survivors from ACC eligibility?

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: The member is conflating two separate issues. The issue that she refers to in terms of a project called Hikitia! is in relation to an injury prevention programme run by ACC, and there has been no cut to that programme. What ACC have advised me is that they have made an operational decision to pause the roll-out of that scheme while they review the programme.

Camilla Belich: Why is he stopping the expansion of Hikitia! in ACC-administered sexual violence prevention programmes?

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: As the member will well know, ACC is an independent Crown entity, and I, as Minister, stand at arm’s length from operational decisions.

Camilla Belich: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Yes, and points of order are heard in silence.

Camilla Belich: I seek your guidance. In anticipation of the Minister not answering that question, I did check the Cabinet Manual, and in relation to Ministers and Crown entities, it quite clearly states that he is to be involved and to monitor and review Crown entity operations and performance. My question was around the operations of that Crown entity.

SPEAKER: Well, there’s a difference between monitoring and participating in them, so the Minister can give his answer again, just to make it clear for the House.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Thank you, Mr Speaker. ACC, as an independent Crown entity, have made an operational decision, and I stand at arm’s length from that operational decision. They have advised me that they are merely pausing the programme to evaluate it.

Camilla Belich: Is his stopping of the expansion of an ACC-funded sexual violence prevention programme and considering cutting eligibility to ACC for survivors of sexual abuse part of the Government’s broader strategy to save money at women’s expense?

Hon Chris Bishop: Point of order, Mr Speaker. We let the first one go because the answer from the Minister clarified that, but the supplementary just then contained an incorrect assertion that the Minister had intervened to stop a particular programme. As his answer just revealed, he did not. It was an operational decision made by ACC—

SPEAKER: Yeah, OK, that’s all—all gone.

Hon Chris Bishop: —so she can’t ask that.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you very much. If we go back to the first response to the first question, the Minister said that he stood by his comment, and that comment was that the Government was considering a cut. It is entirely appropriate for this question to be asked.

SPEAKER: He also said that the question as it was asked was conflating two different positions, and I think there was nothing wrong with his answer. We’ll progress this by Camilla Belich considering whether or not her question as it was asked was within the bounds of the Standing Orders, and if it’s not, she should adjust it and ask it again.

Camilla Belich: Is ACC stopping the expansion of the ACC-funded sexual violence prevention programme, and he, as Minister, considering cutting eligibility to ACC for survivors of sexual abuse part of the Government’s broader strategy to save money at women’s expense?

SPEAKER: No, the last part of that rules the question out, because you can’t assert that that is what’s actually happening. Ask the question without the last bit on it.

Camilla Belich: Is ACC stopping the expansion of the ACC-funded sexual violence prevention programme, and he, as Minister, considering cutting eligibility to ACC for survivors of sexual abuse part of a Government programme to save money at the expense of a large percentage of the population—namely, women?

SPEAKER: Well, that—just give a brief answer, so we can move on.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Absolutely, categorically no.

SPEAKER: That concludes oral questions. Those who have to leave the House for other business should do so quietly and without having conversations on the way.

General Debate

General Debate

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

Members, spare a thought for Barbara Edmonds. She got thrown under the bus this week by no one less than her party leader. Ouch! You know, it’s pretty hard for Barbara Edmonds, because she is the finance spokesperson in a party where to both the left and the right of her are people who want to spend like an eight-armed octopus.

And so, what she got embarrassed about last week was the Greens. We all remember that the Greens had their departure into a Soviet paradise in a planet far, far away last week, promising billions of dollars of extra tax, billions of dollars of extra debt, and somehow claiming that that would be better for the country. It all seemed ludicrous. And Barbara, to her credit, recognised—

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Barbara who?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Edmonds, the finance spokesperson for Labour—

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, you may not have heard, but the member who was doing her speech was referring to one of our members by her first name only, and my understanding is that that’s against the rules.

SPEAKER: It is, in fact, inappropriate to refer to a member by their first name only. Please comply and refer to the Hon Barbara Edmonds by her full name.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I did immediately correct, but they don’t like this line, do they? They don’t like me talking about this. I suspect there’ll be a few more interruptions, because here’s what happened: the Greens put out a plan to trash the economy. Barbara Edmonds was smart enough to see that she should distance herself a little from that. So in The Post, here’s what she said—she had a special name for what Labour would be doing: she called it—she thought up the phrase—“balanced fiscal responsibility”. That’s what she called it. And what was this new approach to be characterised by? Well, she said that Labour had agreed with the 50 percent debt cap last time they were in power, and they would continue to do so. A welcome piece of fiscal reality when, normally, the members opposite live on “Planet Spend, Spend, Spend, Borrow, Borrow, Borrow, Tax, Tax, Tax.” She went further. She also made clear—she affirmed—that an operating surplus, by June 2029, remained the appropriate goal. So good on Barbara Edmonds—she said it how it is.

So then what happened on Monday? I’ll tell you what happened. Chris Hipkins got Barbara Edmonds and he threw her under the bus. In fact, what he did was he walked back her comments almost immediately, telling reporters he wasn’t ready to commit to the targets—a little bit too soon for him. And then he went further. On the Bradbury Group YouTube channel, just yesterday, he said this: “Look, I don’t think we should read too much into the fact that Barbara, our finance spokesperson”—Barbara Edmonds—“was talking about the policy.” It is very rare that a leader so blatantly and disrespectfully disowns their finance spokesperson and the sensible positions that they take. But that is what Chris Hipkins has done. He has completely thrown her under the bus.

So the question is: why has he done that? Well, what he said was: “Oh, look, look, look: she was referring to the past.” Now, we all know that Mr Hipkins is pretty flexible with the facts, but to claim that she was talking about the past, when her specific words were that she had agreed with the 50 percent cap when last in power, and said she would continue to do so, it is quite hard to characterise that as referring to the past. When she referred to the year 2029, which didn’t even exist in the fiscal plan from the last election, I think we can see that Mr Hipkins was not very artful in his flexibility with the facts this time.

So what is this actually all about? What this is actually about is the fact that the Labour Party and the Greens and Te Pāti Māori oppose every single attempt to provide fiscal responsibility. They have never seen a spending commitment they couldn’t walk past. Their addiction to spending remains in overdrive. We saw it for their six years in Government, and New Zealanders know what it delivered. It delivered a cost of living crisis, a mountain of debt, and perpetual deficits. So if the members opposite want to spare a moment to listen to Barbara Edmonds, they’ll understand that if they keep committing to every single spending, then this is the question they’ll be faced with: show me the money. They need to find the money, and we all know where they’ll find it: higher taxes and more borrowing, which has proved a disaster for Kiwis. Barbara Edmonds is on to it. It’s a pity Chris Hipkins isn’t. And just spare a thought also for Chlöe Swarbrick: she wants to save a planet that she doesn’t even live on.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): One day to go; one day to go until this Government’s second Budget. They’ve got a chance to talk about all the things that they’ve supposedly done and what do they talk about? Us. They don’t talk about them. They talk about Barbara Edmonds. A confident finance Minister doesn’t talk about her opposite; she talks about herself and what they’ve achieved and they didn’t mention that once and New Zealanders know exactly why: because they have done bugger all, because they’ve buggered up the Budget.

That is a fact: they have buggered up the Budget. Because they have given tax cuts to landlords, they have given tax cuts to tobacco companies, they have given tax cuts to tech companies like Google and Facebook, and what do you know, the books don’t add up. Now what do we do? What does this visionary of finance called Willis do? She targets the women workers and they kick the homeless, because tomorrow they will make themselves out to be virtuous and they will make announcements that make it look like they are investing in this country. But every single announcement will be paid for from women workers’ future pay and depriving people in genuine need of the homes that they need.

They crow about saving a billion dollars by keeping people out of emergency housing.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Shame.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: It is shameful. And today, even, at question time, they were celebrating the fact, supposedly, that so many people had got into homes—homes that the last Government paid for and the last Government built. And what does this crowd do? They’ve stopped Kāinga Ora expanding homes, and they have significantly reduced the funding going to community housing providers. They have deliberately changed the rules that deprive people in need getting into emergency housing—to save money. Women and children escaping domestic violence are being deprived an emergency house because of the changes that each and every one of them have voted for. I don’t know how you sleep at night.

Hon Matt Doocey: Ha, ha!

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Domestic violence—Matt Doocey laughs. Try and defend that in your local electorate. One of your constituents defending domestic violence—now they’re all laughing. Let’s just take a second here and take a moment. They are laughing when we are talking about people escaping domestic violence being denied an opportunity to get into an emergency house because of the change in the rules that they made, while they celebrate the money that they’ve saved and their response is to laugh: Matt Doocey, Simeon Brown, and Sam Uffindell. Put it on the record. They laughed at domestic violence and they laughed that they’re being kept on the street, because that is a fact.

Homelessness has gone up at unprecedented levels because of each and every one of them. The front-line providers have been screaming out, telling them that the changes they made to save money, to try and make this Budget add up, are meaning that people are living on the street and in tents and in cars and in garages. They don’t care. The only thing that they care about is trying to pay for the tax cuts that they can’t afford. And their response was to laugh.

I bet they don’t have the guts to laugh at people who actually are homeless. I bet it’s only in here—

SPEAKER: Sorry, you can’t make that sort of suggestion. You can imply it but you can’t say it directly; you know that. So please carry on without those references.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: I bet if they had the opportunity to talk to a homeless person, they wouldn’t laugh. But here, where they feel like they’re protected, where they feel all buoyed up, they can do it. Will they laugh to the women workers who are going to come to them after tomorrow’s Budget and say, “Every single thing that you have just announced is because you’ve deprived me of my future pay?” Of course they won’t, but they’ll do it here.

I think sometimes this debating chamber can give the public of New Zealand an insight into the true feelings of this Government, and they have demonstrated it today. They don’t care that women’s pay is being cut. They don’t care that they are screwing over some of the lowest-paid workers in the country. They do not care that women and children are sleeping on the street, because they need the money, because they decided to favour—

Hon Member: For their mates.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: —their mates. Landlords, big tech companies, tobacco companies, over the people that actually need it. The people paying for this Budget are the ones that can least afford it. That’s on them.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, it’s one more sleep until the Budget; two if you’re in the Greens—two if you’re in the Greens. So one more sleep until the Budget. I would have thought that the first person leading off the debate for the Opposition would have been the finance spokesperson for the Labour Party. But no—it was Kieran McAnulty, who lost his seat of Wairarapa at the last election, complaining about the fact that we represent the electorates up and down this country. Well, what he forgot to talk about in his speech—

Rima Nakhle: Leadership pitch.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Oh, yes, absolutely—that was a leadership pitch if ever there was one, wasn’t it? But what he forgot to speak about—and there he is; he’s smiling, he’s very happy, he loves that. What he forgot to speak about was what the fiscal plan of the Labour Party is. What’s the fiscal party of the Labour Party?

What people out there know is they know three words: tax, borrow, spend—tax, borrow, spend. That’s what we know the Opposition know about. But, of course, there was the confusion, the absolute confusion, that’s been sowed this week. The Opposition finance spokesperson coming in and saying, “We believe in fiscal responsibility and having a debt cap and trying to sow the seed of fiscal responsibility.”, only to have the bus run right over her and then reverse back over again. Run over and then reversed right over by the leader, Mr Hipkins, who’s now saying, “Well, actually, no, we’ll borrow more. We’ll borrow more.” Well, of course, that’s the Labour Party way: to borrow more. They promise surpluses with no plan to get there. They oppose every single savings measure and promise to spend more on anything. They haven’t seen a spending measure that they haven’t liked or said yes to. They have never seen a spending measure that they haven’t liked or said yes to.

Of course, we know where their mates in the Greens are at every single day. They want to go even further, borrowing and spending even more.

Of course, they forget that in order to actually spend on the public services which the taxpayers of New Zealand rely on, you have to have a strong economy. Not one word about the economy. Not one word about the need for a strong economy from the Opposition. You can’t invest in public services without a strong economy. You can’t invest in infrastructure without a strong economy. You can’t invest in better health services without a strong economy.

So, of course, this weekend the Government announced our Budget investment in urgent and after-hours care: urgent and after-hours care which is going to make a huge difference for New Zealanders up and down the country; $164 million of spending over four years to help ensure that New Zealanders can get access to urgent and after-hours care across New Zealand.

What was the Labour Party’s response to that? The Labour Party’s response was to call this “Pocket change”—pocket change. Well, tell that to the parents with a sick child. Tell that to the people who need these services. Only Labour would call $164 million “pocket change”. Only Labour would talk about that as pocket change after the hundreds of millions of dollars of wasted money they blew on consultants when they were in Government. They don’t care, but this is taxpayers’ money. Every single dollar that the Government spends, whether it’s in infrastructure, whether it’s in housing, whether it’s in education, whether it’s in healthcare—every single dollar is taxpayers’ money. On this side of the House, we will respect every single dollar that is spent.

Labour’s vision: consultants, bureaucrats—wasted money. On our side of the House: investing in critical front-line services of health, education, and law and order, and a strong economy to back that up. So I’m proud of the investment we’re making in healthcare. I’m proud of the investment we’re making in our front-line services. We have record numbers of doctors and nurses working at Health New Zealand. We’re delivering the electives boost right now, which is seeing thousands of patients get the care that they need in a faster and more timely manner. We’re investing in front-line primary healthcare to make sure there are more doctors and nurses working in primary healthcare. These are the things which matter to New Zealanders, and we can make those investments because we’re investing and we’re focused on growing the economy. A stronger economy means more investment is able to be made in those critical front-line services.

So I’m looking forward to tomorrow’s Budget. I’m excited about tomorrow’s Budget. I’m excited about the “growth Budget” and about growing our economy so we can invest in critical services. I say it once again: one more sleep, and two for the Greens.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. New Zealanders are stuck, and I don’t just mean in traffic. From the Far North to the deep South, infrastructure is failing hard-working New Zealanders. Whether you’re in Wellington, Ashburton, Auckland, Bay of Plenty, Northland—you know the deal; overpriced homes, buggered roads. Infrastructure is failing everywhere. It’s holding us back. Families can’t live close to jobs, schools, or entertainment. Businesses can’t base themselves near the workers they need or move goods efficiently to market.

And why is that? Because the previous Labour Government cancelled, delayed, and sabotaged the very projects that we need to get New Zealand moving. They weren’t guided by reason or rationale; they were guided by a cult-like hatred of cars and a completely irrational obsession with climate change. They killed four-laning from Whangārei to Port Marsden, they stabbed to death the East West Link and Mill Road, and they halted the next stage of the Waikato Expressway. What did they give us instead? Billions wasted on rail and cycle projects that delivered practically nothing.

Enough is enough. New Zealanders deserve better. They deserve affordable homes, they deserve better-paying jobs, and that means we need infrastructure that actually works for Kiwis. We’ve seen what happens when a Government does commit to long-term investment, though. You only need to look at the Waikato Expressway. Started in the ‘90s, it has transformed the region, it has unlocked billions in private investment, it has created jobs, super hubs, opportunity. Just ask Tainui Group Holdings, the Ruakura Superhub: an inland port, a logistics centre, and an industrial precinct plugged directly into rail and the nearby highway. It’s connected to Tauranga and Auckland ports.

Now, imagine what Northland can do: a 100-kilometre highway connecting Auckland and Whangārei, unlocking Auckland’s north and west and helping growers and manufacturers in the North reach New Zealand’s biggest markets and the entire world. ACT in Government is making it happen. The first stage of the Northland corridor project kicks off in late 2025. It’s going to be procured through a public-private partnership (PPP). That full project, on that basis, is going to be delivered in less than a decade. That’s twice as fast as the Waikato Expressway. Why? Because ACT and National agreed we need more PPPs to get more infrastructure delivered faster, so we can get the benefits of it sooner. We won’t let bureaucrats turn “shovel ready” into “never ready”. We’re going to get stuff done.

But let’s be real: even public-private partnerships need funding. We won’t get it by taxing and taking more, like the Greens propose in their so-called alternative Budget. We won’t get it by dividing New Zealand with race-based separation and creating alternative sovereignties, like the Māori Party are always wailing for. And we sure as hell won’t get it by borrowing billions to build bike bridges, like Labour tried to do. ACT is instead doing the hard yards. David Seymour found $486 million in savings in the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment in the last year. Brooke van Velden found another $421 million in Internal Affairs. That’s real money redirected to schools, hospitals, and, yes, roads.

Kiwis have waited long enough. Budget 2025 is how we stop talking and start building. With ACT in the driver’s seat, 2026 and beyond is going to be all about delivery, not delay. Let’s build the roads. Let’s grow the economy. Finally, let’s give New Zealanders the future that they’ve been promised. Thank you.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Not only has this National Government buggered up the Budget but they’re actually buggering up the mental health system.

SPEAKER: No, hang on. Hang on. Look, sorry, I’ve had an enormous amount of correspondence because, unfortunately, a member over here used a word that is completely unacceptable and it can only be described as a profanity. I have suggested that that member might like to rectify that situation, and I’m sure that they’re thinking about that. The Hon Kieran McAnulty used, on three occasions, that particular word and description. I’m now saying it’s not to be used.

INGRID LEARY: May I speak to the point of order, Mr Speaker?

SPEAKER: No, I was ruling; I wasn’t taking a point of order.

INGRID LEARY: Not only have they stuffed up the Budget but they are stuffing up the mental health sector. Their cuts to pay equity claims will dismantle the mental health sector. I say this paying tribute to Hear4U, the NGO in Gisborne that has folded. I say it in relation to Segar House, which is facing imminent closure because of decisions being made by this mental health Minister. I acknowledge the youth one-stop shops in Taupō, Rotorua, and Christchurch that have closed down due to the changes in the Oranga Tamariki contracting which meant their funding was closed.

Now, let’s look at Rotorua. In the Lakes District mental health services, they have been cut to one session per week in telehealth, due to recruitment issues. This is in a week when last week’s suicide statistics show that children and youth in New Zealand have the highest level of suicide in the OECD. That puts us at the top of 36 countries. That is shameful.

And yet the Government insists on making these pay equity cuts which are going to further decimate the community sector. This, in a week when we’ve learnt that there are 5,000 workers in that sector, mainly women, who have been working for three years on their pay equity claim. That has been cut. They are amongst some of the lowest-paid workers. How is the Minister going to find mental health workers to staff his crisis cafes that he has been crowing about for so long?

This is a week when the roll-out is happening in emergency departments (EDs) that will enable police to stay for only up to an hour with people who are detained under the mental health Act. We’ve already seen numerous stories in the media about transportation issues and safety. Radio New Zealand has reported that 85 percent of workers in EDs over the last week have faced a violent incident. We’ve just seen a new report today about an attack on a midwife, which was horribly brutal. Yet the Minister is continuing to put these staff in vulnerable positions because of the cuts that his Government is making. In fact, I spoke with the Police Association president, Chris Cahill, last week, who admitted to me that there is a serious risk that has gone from one public sector—i.e., the police—over to mental health workers. I suggest that that hasn’t changed thanks to anything that is being done by this Minister.

If we go back to Rotorua and we look at why they are in crisis, it’s because of psychiatry. Then we saw a TV3 story where there was gaming of the targets, including psychiatry and psychology. Previous speakers in this debate have spoken about people being thrown under the bus. Well, how about this Minister who has thrown his officials under the bus once again, as he did with the Gumboot Friday debacle, this time saying it was his officials who made the changes to the targets?

Well, I have a bunch of emails and an Official Information Act request that date from 17 September last year, from the morning through to the afternoon, that showed very clearly the Minister’s office knew that the changes were being made, knew that the baselines to psychologists were being changed, knew that there was massaging of numbers, and was actually trying to keep well across it because he was due to have a meeting with the Prime Minister. None of that came out in the TV3 story. The Minister, instead, threw his officials under the bus, and said, “Nothing to do with me; talk to them.”

So this Government does not care about the workforce in mental health, it does not care about pay equity, it does not care about the most vulnerable New Zealanders, and it looks like a Government and a Minister that want to look good, rather than making a difference in the sector. I would say to this Government and I would say to that Minister: getting back into surplus in tomorrow’s Budget should not be at the expense of women—through the pay equity claims and the cuts—and it should not be at the expense of New Zealanders’ mental health. I ask this Minister to reassure the House that he has done some decent work to try and get some more funding into a sector that is absolutely in crisis, and I look forward to seeing the Budget tomorrow to show that there will be funding for the community sector, there will be funding for those who are facing uncertainty over the 30 June contract deadlines, but I’m not holding my breath.

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): While the Opposition is at war with itself, totally distracted, and only talking about themselves, this Government is focused on the things that matter to Kiwis. Fundamentally, that all centres around achieving economic growth. Reigniting and sustaining growth is how we will continue to deliver better law and order, higher education standards, and better health outcomes. And so while they’re flailing around hoping something will stick, this Government has been singly focused on bringing down the cost of living and we are starting to see results.

Let’s not forget the giddy heights of 7.3 percent inflation. Annual inflation is now down to 2.5 percent—well within the Reserve Bank’s 1 to 3 percent target band. At the same time, the official cash rate has reduced by 200 basis points since August 2024, currently at 3.5 percent, with another official cash rate decision next week. Mortgage interest rates have gone from having a seven in front of them just a couple of years back to having a five or even a four in front of them today. That makes a huge difference for someone—let me tell you—with a $500,000 mortgage over 25 years. A two percentage point drop in their interest rates reduces their repayments by about $300 a fortnight. That’s nearly $8,000 extra a year in the back pocket. If you live in the likes of Auckland, with a $1 million mortgage, that’s nearly $16,000 in savings a year. Guess what! It’ll only get better. The Reserve Bank told us just two weeks ago that 60 percent of mortgage lending will reprice to lower rates in the next six months and around 80 percent within a year. Lower mortgage costs mean a boost to disposable income, which in turn will mean household spending gradually lifting.

We’ve got a long way to go, but I’ll tell you what we’re not doing tomorrow. We are not introducing a wealth tax. We’re not introducing a capital gains tax. We’re not introducing an inheritance tax or, indeed, any other taxes that other parties are proposing. Let’s, for a second, listen to an economist from New Zealand’s largest bank, the ANZ. This ANZ bank economist recently described the last Labour Government as going on a “debt-funded spending spree”, leaving a fiscal mess for the current Government to clean up. He described Labour’s second term purely as “inflation fuelling fiscal expansion”. What a mess and what a clean-up job we’ve got to do.

From 2019 to 2024, New Zealand’s net Crown debt leapt dangerously, soaring from $58 billion to $175 billion. The interest bill on Government debt alone has soared from $3.6 billion in 2014 to $8.9 billion last year. As the finance Minister tells us, that sum of $8.9 billion that we’re paying in interest is more than the annual core Crown expenses for Police, Corrections, the Ministry of Justice, Customs, and the Defence Force combined. This Government’s goal is to put net core Crown debt on a downward trajectory, and we will, and we will get back into surplus next term. Only this side of the House will ever achieve that.

This is a “no BS Budget”. Even The Dominion Post is promoting the no BS Budget: “Willis to give a ‘no BS Budget’ ”. This will not be a Budget where we saddle the country with $88 billion worth of taxes and $44 billion worth of debt, as the Labour Party’s coalition partner wants. We are not going to tax our way to prosperity. We’re not going to borrow our way to prosperity. We are going to grow our way to prosperity. Economic growth is the only way we will build more hospitals, it’s the only way we will build more schools, and economic growth is the only way we will get anywhere close to funding the $71 billion superannuation bill by 2050. Budget 2025 will responsibly showcase good and steady Government and careful spending choices. It will not be a lolly scramble. We are growing the economy to create jobs, lift wages, and help Kiwis get ahead. Instead, tomorrow, as our Prime Minister has described, will be the right Budget for the right time. Let’s get behind our local people, let’s get behind our town and country businesses, and let’s secure this wonderful country’s future. Bring on Budget 2025. Bring on the “growth Budget”.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tokerau): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Tēnā tātou katoa e te Whare. I rise today to speak to this shameful report that’s come out of the Auditor-General’s office regarding Oranga Tamariki, so I’ll start my comments with this: congratulations to the Minister for Children—another failure on your watch, under your leadership, care, and supposed protection. This is not a rumour. It’s not gossip. The Office of the Auditor-General has just told us so in an extremely damning report.

So what are we to make of it? Well, there’s only one thing we can make of it, to be completely honest, and that is that the Minister took her eyes off the ball and focused on targeting mokopuna Māori and their whānau by diminishing their culture, customs, and practices, suggesting that safety is more important than those things. Culture and custom are critical protective factors, and that would be known to the Minister and probably anyone else that is muttering to the left of me if they read new material, if they understood the evidence, and if they knew the reality of Māori mokopuna and their whānau. It seems to me, particularly to the left of me, that that’s just misunderstood, and it’s probably best to disregard it, I would say.

The other thing that’s happened in this regard, too, to get her to this point is that the personal experience of the Minister, I think, had far too much to do with the lawmaking and resourcing of things, particularly when it comes to mokopuna Māori. If safety of the child was truly the priority of the Minister, why has an urgent inquiry by the Auditor-General into Oranga Tamariki procurement and contract-management processes revealed it’s such a blatant disregard for the safety of children reliant on care providers?

We have heard the Minister repeatedly claim to be—what is it?—refocusing on Oranga Tamariki and child safety—this being the only piece of evidence she seemed to need in the removal of section 7AA, her own opinion. To discover that poor contract management and flawed procurement processes have endangered our most vulnerable tamariki is utterly shameful.

I would suggest one hangs one’s head when you recognise that no risk assessment or meaningful consideration was undertaken when the Minister pushed through major funding cuts that directly affected the very providers responsible for supporting tamariki and their whānau. These funding cuts were made without credible evidence, and when contracts were cancelled as a result, Oranga Tamariki dumped the responsibility of relocating tamariki and their whānau back on to the providers and said, “You did a very poor job. The fact that we didn’t fund you properly is not on us; that’s all on you.” And when things inevitably fell apart, which is what they do when things happen like this, the result is always harm to mokopuna and their whānau. I bring attention to these findings because te iwi Māori are too often consumed in having to survive all of this nonsense and churn inside a system such as Oranga Tamariki.

The Auditor-General’s inquiry outlined four recommendations for the Minister and Oranga Tamariki to implement to prevent that disaster that was last year’s contracting rounds. I can tell you right now that zero of those has occurred. Again, it comes back to what our families, what our mokopuna, and what our hapū have to contend with at the end of the day. It’s poor management. I used to be an assessor back in the 1990s—that’s quite a while ago—and at that time, you had to have a section 403 and a section 396, and these were good things that we were able to do to get community providers into the game, whānau for whānau, Māori for Māori. Those things worked. Those things are gone now.

I’m confident in saying that survivors of abuse in care are—I just want to mention this—yet to see, yet again, any of the recommendations from the Whanaketia report—another failing, another instance of ignoring the truth that comes from survivors—and, unfortunately, this is the result that particularly mokopuna and their whānau are having to deal with, and suffer, on a daily basis. So I raise these, in this general debate, with hope and implore the Minister to recognise and take note. Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker.

DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, it’s an exciting week in the parliamentary calendar as we all wait for tomorrow’s Budget announcement—something that the Opposition should take note of. They might learn a thing or two. I’m proud to be part of this Government that will deliver a pragmatic and sensible fiscal plan for the next year. It’s the only way we can really focus on fixing this country’s economy. We need growth and we need a thriving economy. I want to focus my short call on just one part of what we’re planning on doing, which is the work in social investment and how it links to growth and the economy.

The Minister for Social Investment has announced a $275 million boost into the Social Investment Agency, with $190 million into targeted investment in projects to improve the lives of all Kiwis. Really, what that’s about is how we use our social sector spend to actually make a measurable difference to people’s lives for enduring periods of time. Nationally, in this country, we spend $80 billion a year on the social sector. The community section of that—I guess you would call it—is $6 billion to $8 billion, and the rest is in core Government delivery. The Social Investment Agency is focusing on how we use data and evidence to improve outcomes in health, housing, and education, by understanding how we do a better job of commissioning work and doling out contracts to social sector agencies.

In Tairāwhiti, we spend up to $1.5 billion a year on social sector agencies. And in the Eastern Bay of Plenty they can’t give you a figure, but we are working on it. But in the report from Manaaki Tairāwhiti, which is one of the great organisations in Tairāwhiti that gathers the evidence and data, they say they are currently aware that the Ministry of Social Development in Tairāwhiti alone has approximately 150 contracts with around 25 providers, worth about $50 million on its own, which is just evidence of the fragmented and non-material nature of the current practices. The reality is, we have amazing people working in our community doing a really great job of supporting people through mental health and addiction, through getting driver licences, literacy, social housing, all sorts of ways. But the reality is that our metrics are not improving at the same rate as our ability to contract social sector agencies.

For far too long, the focus has been on measuring outputs instead of outcomes, and anyone can do outputs. Measuring outcomes is somewhat different, but with evidence collected by entities like Manaaki Tairāwhiti and a collective approach by iwi, Government agencies, and the community, we will have a better approach, via social investment, to how we commission contracts for better results. Our investment is the key to unlocking potential in our people and our regions. It’s critical to breaking the intergenerational cycles of poverty, poor access to support and educational opportunities.

And in the regions, we’ve already figured some of this out, we’ve already identified what needs to happen. In Kawerau, there is a leadership group that focuses on what the biggest issues are for Kawerau. They’ve identified education and housing as the places that all of those social sector agencies, the community, the council, and the iwi, will focus on to deliver better for their community. We have Eastbay REAP doing phenomenal work in that same space. They know the return on investment for every dollar they spend. They’ve done an incredible job. And Waiariki Whānau Mentoring, who I’ve talked about previously, are doing an incredible job too in that social sector space around mental health and addiction services.

So how are they linked? Well, let’s just take the example from last week, which we’ve talked about a bit in this House: Toitū Tairāwhiti and the social housing, 150 homes into Gisborne. Iwi are funding $25 million—the collective iwi approach—and the Government is funding $49 million. That’s how you make your dollar go further, because you give them ownership. They have done an amazing job, those iwi, of getting that organised. It’s an example of social investment. That project is not just about housing. It provides community support, whānau approaches to education, and safer, warmer, responsible living for people who need it. It brings jobs, skills, apprenticeships, and money being spent in our community.

That, on top of the great work done by this Government to get interest rates down, inflation down, investor confidence up, means businesses do better. And if businesses, farming, and communities are doing better because inflation is down and interest rates are down and the great rural returns are going way back up, and we have investor and business confidence, that helps all of us to do better. Social investment, economic growth, and a pragmatic Budget all work together to bring a better future for all New Zealanders. I say bring on tomorrow; let’s get New Zealand back on track.

SCOTT WILLIS (Green): Why won’t this Government deliver for Kiwis? They have the power to create a future where homes are warm and cosy, powered by affordable electricity, where electric trains, electric vehicles, and electric ferries provide mobility, where green manufacturing is enabled in our regions, where we focus on the common good over corporate profit.

But that’s not their agenda and the evidence is really clear on that, because over the last 12 months we’ve seen Winstone Pulp International closing two mills with 230 jobs lost, a huge impact on the Ruapehu region. Oji Fibre Solutions have shut up operations at their paper division at Kinleith Mill: 200 jobs lost there. They’ve also closed their Penrose mill in December, resulting in the loss of 75 jobs. Meanwhile, Glucina Alloys, Aotearoa’s only aluminium recycler, may go out of business because of the energy crisis that is this Government’s responsibility. Let’s call it for what it is: the Government is overseeing the deindustrialisation of Aotearoa.

The solutions, however, are really clear. It is basic stuff: listen to those who know. It is time to electrify everything. The major energy users’ group has urged the Government to be bold and to look for long-term solutions rather than the current chaotic, ad hoc approach. Meanwhile, households are facing real challenges in electricity bills. It’s unsustainable, it creates distress for households while gutting industry, putting more people out of work, sending more people off to Australia for sharper business opportunities.

The Government’s fascination with fossil-fuelled Ford Rangers places us in an incredibly vulnerable situation. Global trade uncertainty, conflict, and risk around trade routes expresses the fragility of a faith in fossil-fuelled growth. At the same time, the fixation on fossils simply fuels more climate changing pollution. Those impacts are hitting our farmers, our cities, our vulnerable communities like South Dunedin and Westport. Meanwhile in the energy sector, we are seeing an even greater concentration of power in just four gentailers who already dominate and control the market.

Where is the common good in that? Flick Energy has just been bought out by Meridian, Prime Energy has been absorbed by the gentailers, and the Commerce Commission has allowed Contact to take over independent generator Manawa Energy. Instead of diversification and innovation, we are seeing a retrenchment in the energy sector.

Economic growth Minister Nicola Willis has announced another $577 million to subsidise Hollywood movie producers and their private jets, but isn’t prepared to adjust the electricity market settings to save manufacturing in the regions. Transpower New Zealand has warned of high risks of electricity outages because solar, wind, and batteries aren’t coming online fast enough to make up for the dwindling gas supplies. We head into winter knowing that this Government won’t lift a finger to give thousands of Kiwis some respite from energy hardship.

We’ve got a broken electricity market. Kiwis are having to choose between heating and eating and this is unavoidable. There’s a common-sense approach to building an energy system that has the common good at heart. We need a Government that is prepared to lead with things like direct investment in new renewable energy generation and storage, to electrify everything. We need to adjust the market settings for a fairer, more transparent market. We need investment in energy efficiency and warmer Kiwi homes. We need incentives to boost the uptake of rooftop solar by homeowners for cleaner, cheaper power—something that the new energy Minister was knocked back on.

We’ve got a broken electricity market that is gutting the regions of manufacturing and hurting households. We can have power through the people, through investing in new generation. We should challenge the status quo when people can’t pay their power bills, when industry fails, and when manufacturing jobs are lost. A better world is possible when we invest for the common good. Kia ora.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): The National-led Government has been adamant that it will meet its climate goals. In December last year, the Minister of Climate Change assured this House that the Government was committed to meeting its climate change goals. Just one week ago, in the annual review debate on climate change, the Minister said, in his first contribution, “I want to make it very clear from the outset that as a Government we are committed to meeting our climate change goals.” They are the words of this Minister.

How was that Government going to meet its climate change goals? Well, they’ve placed a huge reliance on—and, again, I’m quoting from the Minister’s own speech—“recognising carbon capture utilisation and storage”. They were going to do it through the emissions trading scheme. In fact, if we look at the Government’s emissions reduction plans, all the way through it, there are references to the sequestration of carbon dioxide from industries. It’s sitting there on page 9 of their latest emissions reduction plan. It’s sitting there, again, on page 16. It’s sitting there on page—let me see it—34; it’s through and through and through the emissions reduction plan. In fact, it talks about carbon capture utilisation and storage, and it says—and it’s, again, sitting in their own plan—that the most likely opportunity for carbon capture utilisation and storage is to establish sequestration facilities in existing gasfields during this emissions budget period and the next one. That’s what they’re relying on.

In fact, we know that in terms of meeting the 2050 Paris goals, around about 30 percent of the weight of that is carried by carbon capture and sequestration. Well, bad news—bad news. Because that all hinged on a project at Kapuni in Taranaki, a project run by Todd Energy. Todd Energy now says it cannot do that at the current carbon price. That is not economic at the current carbon price. So that Government’s plan for meeting its climate goals, despite the Minister’s fine words about meeting their climate goals, has just gone up in—well, “smoke”, I suppose, would be the word for it. They have totally lost out.

Now, that begs one hell of a question. How on earth is that Government going to meet its climate goals? Now, it could have been that, perhaps, given that Todd Energy says this can’t be achieved through the current carbon price, the Government could have used something like, I don’t know, the Climate Emergency Response Fund to fund Todd Energy to do that. That fund’s disappeared—folded up into tax cuts—and now not there to provide other measures to reduce carbon in our atmosphere. It could have been that they perhaps would subsidise Todd Energy. You know, we subsidised carbon reduction at Glenbrook steel mill. That took the equivalent number of cars off the road that run on the road in Christchurch every day. That was the climate effect of that—it was really, really effective. But that Government has taken that option away.

Their magic technology solutions have failed. They are not available to meet the climate goals. That Government needs to engage in some serious thinking about how it is going to meet our 2050 climate goals. You know, they’ve got magical thinking on technology and they’ve got magical thinking around the Paris commitments. In fact, I see a fair amount of magical thinking around climate altogether: refusing to grapple with it and hoping that some solution will just pop out of the air, instead of doing the hard yards to actually address climate change in this country.

I keep on saying it’s magical, because they appear not even to really believe in climate change, given their lack of commitment to action. Well, I’m telling them: they may not believe in climate change, but their insurance company certainly does, and the people who insure New Zealand for natural hazards certainly do. We are now facing some real worries around that too. It is time for that Government to stop its magical thinking and actually grapple with the real challenge of climate change.

MILES ANDERSON (National—Waitaki): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Time for something more positive. Today, I’d like to talk about the rural economy. I know it might be hard to believe that a farmer from the Waitaki would want to talk rural, but here I am. What I’ve got to say might actually surprise some on the other side of the House, but the heart of our economy beats the strongest in the paddocks and on the hills and on the waters of rural New Zealand. This is where hard-working primary producers and dedicated workers contribute their blood, sweat, and tears to our economic prosperity. They work hard, they innovate, they face challenges and find solutions to increase profitability and sustainability.

Profit is essential, because without it they will cease to operate, and borrowing is not a long-term solution. Being profitable means reinvesting in your business and technology and people. It also means taxes flow back to the Crown to pay for schools, hospitals, and the public services that we need. With over 80 percent of our export income coming from food and fibre, the primary sector proves it is not merely an industry but the lifeblood of our economy, it is a testament to the resilience and innovation of our farmers, foresters, and fishers, whose efforts ensure that New Zealand remains a powerhouse in global agricultural exports.

National backs farmers. Profitability for the food and fibre sector is bolstered by better market access and fewer trade barriers. We know this, and we are proactively building global relationships and securing agreements to support our economy. Here’s some of what we’ve done since we’ve been elected: we’ve secured a New Zealand - European Union trade deal, adding $1 billion to exports in 12 months. We completed New Zealand’s fastest ever trade agreement, eliminating 98.5 percent of duties to the United Arab Emirates. We concluded the Gulf Cooperation Council trade agreement, delivering duty-free access for 99 percent of our $3 billion worth of exports. We opened negotiations for a trade deal with India, signing a memorandum of cooperation around horticulture which could provide up to $600 million in benefits over a decade. We developed a comprehensive strategic partnership with Vietnam, opening greater access for our horticulture and arable sectors.

All of these agreements and negotiations are more than economic transactions, they’re collaborations that enhance our reputation and our global footprint. This Government also understands that regulation, red tape, and uncertainty can reduce the ability for farmers to farm, which in turn impacts on our economy. We’re reducing duplication by reforming freshwater farm plans, banning full farm to forestry conversions, holding banks to account through the banking inquiry, and we’ve removed agriculture from the emissions trading scheme and are reforming the Resource Management Act.

Now, I’m going to throw some more numbers out there that might help to better understand the sheer scale and contribution primary production makes to our economy. Eighty: over 80 percent of our export income comes from food and fibre; 70,000: that’s the number of businesses directly associated with agriculture; 360,000: this is how many people work across the sector; 1.2: a $1.2 billion increase in red meat exports for 2024-25; 4.5: dairy exports were forecast to grow by $4.5 billion to $25 billion by June 2025; one: 1 billion in export dollars that our apple and pear industry hit for the first time; 4.5: $4.5 billion in global value that our kiwifruit export has reached; 2.2: $2.2 billion, a record for our seafood exports; and six: this is the billions of dollars our forestry exports are close to achieving; and one final number, 1.4: $1.4 billion in trade surplus for April 2025.

The rural economy is not just the backbone of our nation; it is the foundation of our prosperity. As we continue to support and invest in our food and fibre sectors, we build a lasting legacy of innovation, sustainability, and economic stability. Together, we can ensure that the heartbeat of our rural communities continue to keep New Zealand strong and thriving. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. All around the outside of the “Long White Cloud”, we have the most amazing marine space; we have a big, beautiful backyard. We grow amazing oysters, amazing scallops—

Shanan Halbert: Where are they?

JENNY MARCROFT: They are coming back. We have incredible fish, whether it’s wild caught or in our farms. And, right now, it’s the Bluff oyster season. I don’t know whether anyone in this House has had a chance to visit Barnes, whether it’s in Bluff or actually in their supermarket, and test this year’s supply of beautiful Bluff oysters.

However, what you won’t find is Mahurangi oysters at the moment, because Watercare has had spills into the Mahurangi River, which has affected all of the oyster farmers up and down the Mahurangi River. This is really shameful, because this has been going on for quite some time. At Elizabeth Street, in the middle of Warkworth, there is a pipe where the spill happens, and it goes into the river at the top, by the town. The sewage flows down through the river, out into the harbour, where the oyster farmers are. I’m very disappointed, and that’s why I chose to speak today about this particular issue, which has just hit the headlines.

For the last several months, I’ve been working closely with the oyster farmers, alongside my colleague the Hon Chris Penk, who’s the MP for the Kaipara ki Mahurangi region, and also with the Hon Matua Shane Jones, because we acknowledge that our oyster farmers in the Mahurangi are under extreme pressure. They are losing tens of thousands of dollars every week. They have serious mental health concerns because of the ongoing issues. Their businesses are on the brink. They can’t afford to pay their rent. They are laying off staff—and the reputational damage because they aren’t able to harvest their oysters right now, at the beginning of the harvest season, and because others that would normally buy their product don’t want a bar of them.

The Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) has obviously had to shut down any harvest at the moment, and this is on the back of these oyster farmers paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to Auckland Council to renew their consents. They have done that willingly, because they love the work they do, they love growing oysters, and they love supplying an incredible product to the market. As I mentioned, I have been engaging with the Hon Chris Penk, and both he and I have met with Watercare to discuss the concerns that we passed on from the oyster farmers. Minister Jones has also written to Watercare. One of the problems, obviously, is the number of spills that have been happening, and with this heavy rain that we’re seeing, MPI, who do the water testing, have said that, while they’ve been sampling for norovirus, it’s not the only pathogen associated with raw sewage. MPI is well aware of the financial pressure this puts on all of the oyster farmers; however, as you know, the consequences of causing an illness outbreak linked to Mahurangi oysters are a lot worse.

Of course, the oyster farmers will comply, but Watercare needs to do a whole lot more. One of the emails sent by Watercare to the oyster farmers after there was another spill—and a longer overflow followed from about 8.30 a.m. to 3.30 p.m., with an estimated discharge of around 307 cubic metres; devastating. What the email said: “We understand this may be uncomfortable and disappointing news for you.” Well, that’s outrageous, to say how uncomfortable it might be for these oyster farmers, who are going broke. On Monday, there is a meeting. Finally, Watercare will meet with the oyster farmers, and I will be attending that meeting as well. Watercare has work to do to rebuild trust in our area, to rebuild trust in our community, and it’s going to be, I’m sure, a robust meeting. But I do hope that they are able to come and offer some consolation to these incredible oyster farmers, who have dedicated so many years in the area. They have their families there that are growing up.

I’d just like to finish very briefly with part of an email from one of the oyster farmers, who said, “We’re getting more desperate each year due to Watercare’s lack of responsibility for fixing the sewage spills. This is affecting all the farmers’ mental health and their families’. We haven’t even had one cent from Watercare, even when we’ve had to bin thousands of dollars of oysters.” Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Motions

Education and Workforce Committee—Authorisation to Inquire into Online Harm

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I move, That the Education and Workforce Committee be authorised to inquire into the harm young New Zealanders encounter online, and the roles that Government, business, and society should play in addressing those harms.

Motion agreed to.

Professional Examinations in Law Regulations 2008—Disallowance of Provisions

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): I move, That this House disallow the following provisions of the Professional Examinations in Law Regulations 2008: (a) regulation 1(3), definition of “Tikanga Māori Requirements”, paragraph (a); and (b) regulation 3(1)(a)(ii).

The motion of disallowance that I have filed, which the Business Committee has determined should be debated, is in accordance with the majority decision of the Regulations Review Committee. It is in regards to the Professional Examinations in Law (Tikanga Māori Requirements) Amendment Regulations 2022, which were made by the Council of Legal Education under the delegated authority given to them by Parliament, and which came into force at the beginning of this year.

I will read from the relevant part of the Regulations Review Committee’s report to the House, as the reason for this disallowance motion is ultimately very simple and the report clearly articulates it: “It is the view of the majority of the committee that it was an unusual and unexpected use of the Council of Legal Education’s powers granted to it by Parliament to require tikanga to be taught as a compulsory component of every other compulsory law subject where relevant. There is no precedent for this, and no other compulsory law subject that is not only a stand-alone compulsory law subject, but also a compulsory component of every other compulsory law subject. By definition that is unusual and unexpected, and the majority of the committee is of the view that this aspect of the regulations should be disallowed. For the sake of clarity, the majority does not take issue with the Council of Legal Education using the powers granted to it by Parliament to require tikanga to be taught as a stand-alone compulsory law subject, for the reasons outlined elsewhere in this report.”

Tikanga is increasingly referred to in Acts of Parliament and decisions of various branches of the courts, including the Supreme Court. In fact, a majority of the Supreme Court in the 2022 case of Ellis v R—three judges for and two against—stated that tikanga was the first law of New Zealand and decided that the court should abandon what it called “the colonial tests” for incorporating tikanga into the common law. That is the law of the land, unless Parliament were to determine otherwise, and it is only proper that tikanga is learnt at law school by all law students. All members of the committee were unanimously of the view that the Council of Legal Education had properly exercised the delegated powers that Parliament had given it to require tikanga to be taught at law schools as a compulsory stand-alone subject. The position of the committee differed, however, with respect to making it a compulsory component of every other compulsory law subject.

Some later speakers in this debate may criticise the fact that a majority of the Regulations Review Committee made this decision, rather than it being a unanimous decision. However, I would say that the majority’s decision on this point is an orthodox one intended to uphold the system of precedent and continuity in the history of the regulation of legal education in this country, which the majority has decided Parliament intended when giving the Council of Legal Education delegated powers to regulate the professional examinations in law. It is not unusual for majority decisions to be made on all kinds of issues in this House, including constitutional issues. One of many examples I could point to is the establishment of the Supreme Court itself, which was decided by a 63 to 53 majority vote in 2003.

This disallowance motion follows a complaint that was made to the Regulations Review Committee by Gary Judd KC, latterly joined by Thomas Newman. It is important to note that while the committee gave careful consideration to Mr Judd’s complaint and that of Mr Newman and a number of concerns that were quite properly raised for consideration by them, the committee ultimately did not uphold those complaints. However, a majority of the committee decided that a component of the regulations should be disallowed, albeit on different grounds to the ones that had been advanced by Mr Judd and Mr Newman.

During the time that the complaint was heard and until the time that the complaint was reported back to the House, the Regulations Review Committee was chaired by the Hon David Parker, and I acknowledge his considerable contribution to the consideration of this matter, although we did not in the end agree on all points. The committee recognised that submitters had ongoing concerns about the way that these amendment regulations may be perceived as intending to influence the law, rather than to provide for education on the law, and noted the reference that was made by submitters to speeches given by senior members of the judiciary, which they criticised.

The committee unanimously agreed to refer two examples of the speeches submitters had raised as a concern for consideration by the House, noting that the comity shown by Parliament towards the courts does not mean that the content of extrajudicial speeches, such as those, should not be discussed. It is important to note, however, that those speeches did not form part of the committee’s consideration of whether the regulations were properly made, which was very much focused on whether the secondary legislation complied with the grounds in Standing Order 327(2).

Finally, I would note that real care needs to be taken in the education of tikanga, because tikanga is very personal to whānau, hapū, and iwi, who rightly do not want to risk ceding control over their own traditions and the custody and development of their own tikanga to law schools, the judiciary, or Parliament. My motion of disallowance respects those traditions and leaves it to the discretion of law schools to teach tikanga how and where they deem it appropriate to do so but no longer makes it a compulsory requirement in other compulsory law subjects. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the motion be agreed to. Just before I call the next speaker, the Business Committee has determined this will be a one-hour debate with 10-minute calls. I’ll endeavour to distribute the calls across the party, giving precedence to those who are on the committee. If anyone wishes to split a call, please feel free to approach the Speaker, and we can make that arrangement.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Chairperson of the Regulations Review Committee): Mr Speaker, ngā mihi o te wā Matariki e haramai nei ki a koe.

[Mr Speaker, compliments of the upcoming season of Matariki to you.]

As the chair of the Regulations Review Committee, I present our final report on the Complaint about the Professional Examinations in Law (Tikanga Māori Requirements) Amendment Regulations 2022.

Tikanga Māori is the first law of New Zealand. The report sets out why and is unanimously endorsed by the committee. The only point of contention at the cross-partisan committee that is the Regulations Review Committee, and the reason for Labour’s vote No at the end of this debate, is about the very narrow grounds for whether tikanga Māori was rightly required in compulsory papers studied by students at law schools.

This complaint was brought under Standing Order 327(2)(a), (b), and (c), which relates to whether the regulations are consistent with the empowering Act, whether they unduly trespass on rights and liberties, and whether they involve an unusual or unexpected use of regulation-making powers.

The point of contention is whether the ideas of the majority, that the use of those powers is unusual and unexpected, is worthy of discussion here. But it is in narrow grounds and one that this debate is confined to. Comments from members of the Regulations Review Committee that stray outside of that, into the place of tikanga Māori and the law, or the teaching of any subject by a university or professional body is well beyond the scope of the committee’s inquiry.

The committee did not find the claim under Standing Order 327(2)(a) that the regulations were inconsistent with the enabling statutes to be made out. However, we considered that concerns raised under paragraphs (b) and (c) were appropriate for the committee to examine and report to the House on, and that is what this report does.

The committee heard from the New Zealand Council of Legal Education. They are the professional body that is at issue here. It is a statutory body responsible for setting the professional requirements for entry into legal, professional work. They mainly handle the regulations that apply to young lawyers once they have graduated from their legal degree, except they do have a function to determine what is included in a legal degree that all New Zealand lawyers are required to undertake. The council, in this case, had introduced regulations requiring that all candidates for admitting complete the course, including tikanga Māori. We commend the council for following a multi-year, transparent process, consulting widely with law schools, the judiciary, the New Zealand Law Society, the Bar Association, and student groups. No stakeholder at that point in the consultation process opposed the inclusion of tikanga Māori in the legal education requirements for the degree taught at New Zealand law schools. That is important because the process was careful and thorough and it is useful factual background for the House to understand how deliberately the council engaged in that process of inclusion.

The decision to include the teaching of tikanga Māori in legal education was based on the clear and growing relevance and application of tikanga Māori in New Zealand law. That is uncontentious. They cited not only the legal obligations in Acts such as the Resource Management Act, the Oranga Tamariki Act, and Te Ture Whenua Māori Act but also the approach of our courts. It’s useful to note those cases here: Takamore v Clarke, Trans-Tasman Resources, Ellis v R, and the more recent case concerning the Pouākani Inc., where tikanga is not only symbolic but used in legal reasoning. It applies not only in our courts but here in this House.

The committee accepted that the council made its decision on professional grounds, not on grounds of culture but that all competent lawyers in Aotearoa must understand what the law is, as it is, at the time it is taught. Tikanga Māori is now part of the New Zealand landscape.

I want to be clear on the committee’s intentions in the report. The report is a statement in support of the inclusion of tikanga Māori in legal education. It is certainly not a signal that Parliament should have any role in deciding how and what is taught at universities or in professional education, whether that applies to lawyers, engineers, or doctors. Universities and professional doctors can do—and, where appropriate, should—include tikanga Māori in their curricula. Many already have those requirements and they should not change after today’s debate.

The committee’s findings are narrowly directed at the legal question of whether the council’s delegated powers were used in the way that Parliament expressly contemplated. Our concerns—that is, on the Opposition’s side of the House—relate specifically to the use of the regulation to make what may amount to significant policy decisions, rather than going through legislation.

We will vote No to this motion. Labour supports some of the findings of this report. We do not support the finding of an unusual or unexpected use of the regulation-making power. We also are uncomfortable with the Government’s approach to this issue. We believe that if the Government sought to overturn the council’s decision or to restrict the teaching of tikanga Māori in universities, then the proper path would be to introduce a bill. The Government has that power and it has used its majority in the Regulations Review Committee setting to, effectively, do that: change a policy as it affected law students and their educators. That means engaging with the public, if the Government was going to go down that route, and going through a select committee and being transparent about the policy debate and the rationale for change. That doesn’t happen at the Regulations Review Committee level. While I am an advocate for the function of the Regulations Review Committee, I do not believe that questions of policy should be debated and decided in that forum.

Instead, the Government has chosen to use a disallowance procedure, a mechanism designed to check whether delegated legislation fits within Parliament’s grant of power. It is not a substitute for policy making and it is not intended as a back door to reverse regulatory decisions that were lawfully and transparently made.

To explain this simply: the tension in the system at the Regs Review Committee is that when Opposition members bring a motion for disallowance and they convince the Government of the power of their argument, it is meant to hold in this House; that is not what’s happened here. Government members have done that. Governments have another way of changing the law.

The disallowance mechanism is an important constitutional safeguard, but it should not be used to override the independence of statutory bodies when they are acting within their mandate. In this case, the council made a professional judgment about legal training in response to a legal system that is evolving.

We also heard concerns that requiring students to learn about tikanga Māori infringes on their personal rights. This was roundly rejected by the committee, and that is a non-contentious rejection. Professional qualifications are built on core competencies. Just as students must learn criminal law, contract law, ethics, and public law, they may now also be required to learn about tikanga Māori, not as a belief system but as a body of law relevant to their practice and their understanding as lawyers in New Zealand.

Legal education has always evolved. In the 1990s, ethics became a core requirement. My colleague here the Hon Duncan Webb is a celebrated professor of ethics at the New Zealand law school level. It is appropriate that those things develop when our changing expectations on the profession develop. It is not appropriate for Parliament to tell universities what to teach, even though some of us are experts on that. It is better for universities and professional bodies to make those decisions based on the needs of the students in front of them at the time. It is a core democratic principle that universities act as the critic and conscience in our democratic system and that they are independent from the interference of Parliament.

To conclude, tikanga is law, and this report does not find the regulations improper or unlawful. The committee’s report draws attention to a narrow constitutional issue, not a cultural one. The role of tikanga Māori in our legal and education systems is rightly dealt with by the universities themselves, not through the backchannels of parliamentary disallowance. But I thank the committee members for their thoughtful engagements, the officials for their support, and the submitters for their clear and constructive contributions. Labour votes No.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): I rise on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa to also oppose this particular motion. Now, let us be really clear about this: this is a gross misuse of the empowering provisions as set out in Standing Order 329 and also the Legislation Act 2019 section 117 in terms of the power that is granted to a member of the Regulations Review Committee to disallow secondary legislation despite all evidence and all advice from the sector which this particular part affects.

Now, let’s unpack what that means, and let’s first unpack the context and the landscape that we’re dealing with in terms of why the tikanga regulations came about. These particular regulations have gone through years of consultation. They come from the fact that common law, which is the fundamental element of our judicial system, has moved on and has developed through the ages to include elements of tikanga as part of this process. It is now an intrinsic aspect of our New Zealand common law and legal system. You cannot distinguish that. You cannot pull that back.

All of this comes from a complaint from people who feel—who know and who have not yet come to terms with the fact—that they are no longer relevant. And if they have an issue with a judgment that has been quoted here—and I’ll come to some of the judgments later—they should take it up with the court, take it up with the people who made those decisions, not disallow the secondary legislation that simply is moving with the time. And they’re moving in the context of what the communities and what the sector is asking for right now.

There are two reasons why this was proposed in the first place, in terms of the tikanga regulations. The first one was the fact that, simply, legislation now includes more references to Te Tiriti o Waitangi—which, by the way, this Government is mostly removing or altering—as well as common law. Now, we have seen cases such as Paki v Attorney-General and Takamore v Clarke—all of these make references to tikanga Māori as an intrinsic aspect of the way we interpret our law and our common law, particularly around torts, in Aotearoa New Zealand. Some of those things are simply not done through legislation; they are done through case law. On top of that, we have seen the member opposite mentioning Ellis v R. Now, in the Ellis case of 2012, heard by the Supreme Court, as a matter of fact, the decision that was made on that case was made after the consultation, and the decision that was made here on the tikanga regulations. So it actually wasn’t even relevant to the regulations that we are disallowing at this stage. That’s just one part of it.

The second part is the need of the sector. The New Zealand Law Society, the New Zealand Bar Association, the New Zealand Law Students’ Association, law schools, and the judiciary—all as experts; every single person who would be affected by the tikanga regulations has spoken and none of them stated a contrary view to the inclusion of the tikanga regulations we are discussing here.

As a matter of fact, the legal counsel has done everything within their power, that is within the correct process of the empowering provisions under the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act, to make this regulation and to make this secondary legislation. They’ve done the work, they’ve done the consultation, and they’ve listened to the needs of the communities, of the sector, and of the ever-changing landscape of common law in Aotearoa New Zealand. All of that—all of that—can be removed by one person; one person from the Regulations Review Committee, who is pandering to the complainant. All of that work, gone. That is what I mean when I say this is a gross misuse of Standing Order 239 and section 117 of the Legislation Act 2017.

But let’s talk about the broader issue that we are seeing here. The member opposite—Joseph Mooney—mentioned a number of times that this is done by majority on the Regulations Review Committee. I think the word “majority” should not be underestimated. For a committee like the Privileges Committee—which is traditionally non-partisan and tries to build consensus decisions—for people, and for the Governing parties to use “majority” as a way of forcing through their political agenda and politicisation is problematic. That’s simply not how the Regulations Review Committee and the Privileges Committee have traditionally operated.

I do have serious concerns about the role of these committees in the future if we have set up a precedent, here, of being able to introduce rulings by majority of the committee to do things like presenting an unprecedented punishment for members of Parliament, and to disallow secondary legislation despite the fact that the empowering provision and the people responsible—who are independently appointed, I might add—have done everything they can to ensure that the regulations that they’ve set out are within the law and within what they’re able to do. I am concerned at the fact that the majority has decided to interpret the unexpected and unusual use of power in the way that they would like to see it being interpreted, not in a way that is in consensus with the committee or with the evidence-based aspect and evidence-based information that we’ve got from the submitters and from the sector. This is a concern.

When we are looking at this, what is the role of tikanga Māori? What is the role of Te Tiriti o Waitangi? It seems like, based on what we’re seeing in the House this week, we are looking at a Government—you know what? Frankly—because of this particular move, the motion that we’re voting on today—we too can politicise it. What we can say is that this is a Government that would hate—hate—to see Māori get ahead. They would hate to see any aspect of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, kaupapa Māori, te ao Māori, or tikanga Māori being respected in Aotearoa. They would hate to see indigenous people in Aotearoa New Zealand get ahead. They would hate to see the fact that we should be able to uphold our international obligations like the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This is what you will see. This is what you will continue to see. I’m sure we’ll see a lot more of this going forward. We will be here to hold this Government accountable each step of the way.

Now, even if you’re looking at some of the stats—I mentioned some of the collectives before who did not have any contradictory views about this. In 2023, the law council conducted a survey of students: 85 percent of the students—the majority; more than majority—say that tikanga Māori is important in the understanding that they have of the law of New Zealand, their understanding of common law, and just their understanding of the legal ecosystem that we are currently operating in. The majority on the select committee—i.e., this Government—didn’t take any of that into consideration when they made this decision, when it decided to trigger the disallowance of this secondary legislation.

The members opposite talk about democracy. Now, does democracy mean that we don’t hear the voices of our people despite the overwhelming majority? Does democracy mean that one person can make that decision on behalf of everyone else despite the work that has been put into this? I don’t believe that’s what democracy means.

This is a flippant disregard for the operation of this House and for the process of this House. It’s a blunt tool that we do not need, so the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand will not support this motion.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m taking this call on behalf of ACT to support the motion moved by Joseph Mooney which is that this House “disallow the following provisions of the Professional Examinations in Law Regulations 2008: (a) regulation 1(3), definition of ‘Tikanga Māori Requirements’, paragraph (a); and (b) regulation 3(1)(a)(ii)”. Before I talk about the background and also our reasons for supporting this motion and also what ACT believes in, I just want to say to the members—those who just spoke before—that the Regulations Review Committee is not Government. There is a difference between Government and the Regulations Review Committee. That is a decision made by majority, by the Regulations Review Committee. And if there is no consensus, that is how we operate, and it’s better that the member learns that.

What we would say is that we support this motion, but the ACT Party would like to go further than this; that is, to disallow all of the provisions of the Professional Examinations in Law Regulations 2008, introduced by the Professional Examinations in Law (Tikanga Māori Requirements) Amendments Regulations 2022. The ACT Party doesn’t have representation on the Regulations Review Committee, but my ACT Party colleagues and I have been very closely watching the progress of this item on the agenda of the Regulations Review Committee.

Now, coming to the background, I want to commend Gary Judd KC for raising—

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Of course you do.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR: —this very—of course, yes, I will—important issue, and bringing this issue to the attention of the Regulations Review Committee. I also want to commend all the members of the Regulations Review Committee for working on this. This was in April 2024 when the Regulations Review Committee received a complaint about the Professional Examinations in Law (Tikanga Māori Requirements) Amendment Regulations 2022. The amendment regulations were made under section 278 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 and it amended provisions of the Professional Examinations in Law Regulations 2008.

We note that the amendment regulations were made on 5 May 2023 but had a commencement date of 1 January 2025. So the case that was made by the complainant was that the amendment regulations are not made in accordance with the Act’s intention, because they extend beyond legal work and the provision of legal service, and he stated that tikanga is not law and that the amendment regulations are an unusual or unexpected use of the powers conferred by the Act because, in his view, they are unprecedented.

The members of the committee would have heard his submission and those who were not on the committee like I was not on the committee—I would say that if you listen to the reasoning that Gary Judd KC made, then it makes sense why tikanga should not be a part of this law degree. I would like to quote a bit of his submission. This is a very, very small section from his submission that I would like to read out so that members can see why it makes sense to completely disallow these provisions. I’m reading this section from the submission: “Introducing tikanga is also contrary to the rule of law. Laws must be publicly promulgated, clear, accessible and generally applicable to all persons. They must be prospective, stable and applied consistently and impartially by officials and the judiciary. Tikanga does not satisfy any of these requirements.”

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Just because one person doesn’t understand.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR: So these were the reasons made by Gary Judd KC—and that is how the process works, Mr Lawrence Xu-Nan. That is how the process works. So the complaint came to the Regulations Review Committee, and the Regulations Review Committee looked into this issue, and that is the conclusion the Regulations Review Committee came up with. But we are saying we would like to go further, as I have said before, because we believe that our legal education shapes the future of our legal system and we want to see that our lawyers have that impartial view towards our justice system. By mixing legal aspects with culture, there is a risk that we will be undermining the legal objectivity that is needed in legal principles.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Utter rubbish.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR: It’s not rubbish. I would also say this: for the legal profession, it’s very important they uphold the values of justice, fairness, and accountability, and when you bring culture into it, it becomes very challenging to be impartial because that brings in a subjective interpretation. It brings in subjective interpretation, and we do not want that kind of subjective interpretation in our legal system.

In this Parliament, for example, we make laws. We don’t create cultural beliefs. We do not create cultural practices; we make laws here. So there is a clear, clear difference between cultural beliefs and legal obligations. There is a clear difference between cultural practices and laws that we make. We cannot mix two things, because what we want to see is that our legal system sees everybody in the way they should—exactly the same, irrespective of their culture, irrespective of their ethnicity. The justice system should serve all individuals irrespective of their culture, irrespective of their ethnicities. [Interruption] Yes, I know some members have problems with that, but that is what we believe in.

It’s very important that people have trust in our legal system and people will not have trust in our legal system if our legal system starts judging people on the basis of their ethnicity.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Just for those members with that continual commentary: the good thing about this debate is everyone has the opportunity to stand up and take a call. I’m having difficulty hearing this member. Also, that includes conversations on my left here, so carry on.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR: Thank you, Mr Speaker. We also are aware that this is an issue that has not only come from one complainant but there was a submission as well as supporting this complaint, and also there is other correspondence that we have received from a number of people, those who are concerned about this issue. So I actually think that it’s really good that someone has come forward and put this complaint to the Regulations Review Committee, because we received so much correspondence about so many different issues but we don’t see people coming to this level, to select committee, to put their concern forward so that a select committee can examine that concern.

So, in this situation, this concern has been examined and by majority a motion has been moved and, as I said, we support the motion, but we would like to go further in this case and I have explained what we mean by that. And here I want to say this: it’s very important that we maintain the integrity of our legal system; by mixing cultures, we will be risking the integrity of our legal system. Also, it’s not about one culture; we are saying that no culture should be mixed; no culture should be mixed. And cultures evolve—cultures evolve. Cultures are not consistent. So our legal practice should be based on the laws that we have in our country, not on the basis of the cultures and the cultures that evolve and how we are becoming multicultural. It shouldn’t be on that basis. So that’s why it’s very important we keep cultures separate from our legal system.

Hon Member: You might be able to.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR: I would suggest this to those members there: that by keeping tikanga Māori separate, by keeping it distinct, actually you will be giving it better significance. By mixing it, you’re diluting the significance of tikanga Māori and also compromising the integrity of the legal system. We are very keen to preserve the integrity of the legal system and that is why we support this motion.

I again repeat that we would have liked to go further to disallow all of the provisions of the Professional Examinations in Law Regulations 2008 introduced by the Professional Examinations in Law (Tikanga Māori Requirements) Amendment Regulations 2022. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Minister of Customs): I rise on behalf of the New Zealand First Party to speak in support of this motion, and I think it’s important to step back for a moment and get some perspective on what is being debated here. The question that was raised by the Regulations Review Committee was whether these regulations were properly made. They have taken time to analyse those positions, and this is a perfectly legitimate discussion to be having and it is perfectly legitimate for this motion to be brought to this House.

We have had a lot of conflation of issues here, and I think that we should just pause for a moment to clarify that tikanga is not being excluded. Tikanga is still a subject that will be allowed and will continue to be allowed, and its recognition by the committee is noted. This will be an important part, and—to quote the member opposite who said this—it is part of the New Zealand landscape. But we must challenge it in this discussion when we say that it is New Zealand law.

The member who put the motion, Joseph Mooney, was very clear about the fact that we are talking about tikanga, which is personal to hapū, to iwi, and to individuals. This blanket application of tikanga, as if we all agree—as we see in this House, Māori in this House do not necessarily agree. They do not necessarily accept the tikanga that one practises is the tikanga that I will practise. This ownership of tikanga is a conflation of the principles that we’re trying to deal with here.

So, as has been said, this introduction of tikanga as a compulsory subject component is fine, but we have talked about all of the different components of compulsory study that make a law degree. We have talked about all of the different essential study topics that are made into this degree. The purpose of this study programme is to produce competent, qualified experts in law. That is the point of this study programme. So we will produce lawyers who will have tikanga awareness, but inserting tikanga into the compulsory component of every single subject is unnecessary. It’s not relevant. It’s not important, because what we need in a law system is lawyers who understand the complexity of every individual component of law.

When you have a victim who is going through a traumatic process, you want a lawyer who knows exactly the details of the law of that criminal prosecution. If you’re establishing a business or if you are growing a business and you need to take something to court around your business practices about the development that you might be doing, then you need someone who knows all of the intricacies of that law. If you are taking an employment matter and you have an issue to do with your employment rights, you want an expert in the field of law that you are dealing with.

Hon Rachel Brooking: What about a dead body?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: That is exactly the component—and a dead body was just raised. That’s exactly why the tikanga sensitivities are included in these subject topics. But it does not have to be a compulsory component in every single study topic. This is the part that we’re talking about.

Then we had this whole conflating of Te Tiriti o Waitangi obligations. That is not what is being debated here. What is being debated is this motion, and we want to put all of this emotion in, because then we lose track of what it is specifically we are talking about. We are talking about a motion that asks: were these regulations properly passed? Therefore, we’ve reviewed them and, therefore, the committee has made a recommendation.

What is frightening in this debate is that we have been told yet again by one party in this House—which is the party that doesn’t like profit, and which now does not like majority rule—it now does not like the idea that a majority can make a decision in this country. So every single citizen of New Zealand should be very worried that we are now dealing with a political party that doesn’t want majority rule. So what is the option that is being presented here—that the minority rules? I don’t know if that is a subject that we want to go down, but we hear this a lot. We’ve heard from members across the other side of the House of the tyranny of the majority. Well, I’m not sure if you know this, but majorities don’t do tyranny very well; minorities do tyranny very well, but not majorities.

So let’s bring this back to the point. Tikanga is not law, and let’s be very clear about it. Tikanga might be important to inform your decision making, tikanga might be important to understand the sensitivities of your client base, tikanga might be important to deal with some issues around the end of life—it may be important in a range of subjects. But tikanga itself is not law.

Tikanga is not, as was put forward previously, the first law of this land. Tikanga was—if you go back to those principles—an individual belief system within each iwi and hapū. It was not a collective identity across the country, and, therefore, you choose to select how you promote this position.

Then we come back to what is at debate here. It’s a simple motion. It’s a motion that asks: were these regulations properly made? The Regulations Review Committee has, rightly, analysed this. They’ve taken on board all of the considerations, and they have said no. They have brought this motion to the House to be debated on the basis that there were significant concerns about what was being proposed here, and this is the part that we have to be considering here in the House. This is about how the rule of law applies, and this is exactly the point we’re debating: that the rule of law—the rules in this House, the rules of our democracy, and the laws that we pass in this country—has to be clearly understood, clearly appreciated, and clearly acknowledged so that they can be debated. It’s not the moving, vague target that tikanga can be, but, actually, something tangible that’s written in black and white and that is consistently applied across the country, and this is the part that we’re dealing with here.

This is why it is so important that, yes, tikanga is being recognised. The committee has recognised it. It has said that it is perfectly acceptable for it to be a compulsory component. But to insert it into every single compulsory part of the study programme is just unnecessary and unreasonable, and it goes back to the basic principle that tikanga is not law.

It is important, as we discuss this debate, to consider all of the components, and this criticism of Gary Judd KC—who is a highly experienced lawyer with decades of experience. He has put a logical argument forward for the committee to consider, the committee has considered it, and it has made those recommendations to this House.

It is worrying to me that when we talk about how we are making decisions, and how dangerous it is to have a majority decision—this is not removing anything from the study programme. We have highlighted the fact that it is still a compulsory programme. We can get all emotional and we can debate all the airy things that might or might not happen, but at the core of it, exactly what is being desired is being given. Tikanga will be a compulsory component of this study programme. All that is being removed here under this regulation review is that it will not be a compulsory component of every single study unit.

So in this House, please let us have some perspective on what we’re debating here. Please let us have some perspective on what we are trying to achieve here. This is not a complex issue, and it is not to be conflated with a whole lot of other issues that are causing emotion across the House. This is about a simple recognition that the study programme of law is important to this country, it’s important to moving this country forward, and it’s important that those who study come out of that programme fully competent to practise law. They will have that component that you’re so committed to ensuring is delivered, but in their other compulsory subjects. They will be competent in that particular topic without it being conflated with a whole lot of other surplus information that, again, may be differentiated, depending on where in this country you are from, which hapū you relate to, and which iwi you identify with. This is individual, and, therefore, I have absolutely no hesitation in supporting the motion.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s nice to hear the reckons of various members around the House on what should be in a law degree. I guess I am perhaps well placed to make some comments, having actually taught a law degree for some time. Do you know what I would say? I don’t have reckons on what should be in a law degree; I’m going to leave that to the Council of Legal Education. I think three judges, five senior lawyers, two law students, and all the deans of law are pretty well placed to make decisions about what should be in a law degree. That’s the funny thing here; this is why the Regulations Review Committee has overstepped. The powers are clearly set out there in the legislation and, ultimately, what we have here is that a majority of the Regulations Review Committee, as we heard from Parmjeet Parmar and Casey Costello, don’t like the regulations.

This is why we set up expert bodies. We set up expert bodies because we trust them to make good decisions in their expert area. There is no suggestion that this was outside of their powers. To say that it’s some unexpected use is perplexing to me. I just want to say, in terms of teaching adoption law, I don’t think you can do that in a way that is New Zealand without having an understanding of the tikanga of Māori family dynamics and whāngai. In terms of teaching property law and resource management law, where you have to take into account the local iwi’s interests and customary rights, I don’t think you can do that without having some understanding of tikanga. If you’re going to teach criminal law and sentencing law, where half of our imprisoned population are Māori, and what the appropriate approach to a rehabilitative sentence might be, I don’t think you can do that without some appreciation of tikanga.

The other thing is teaching method. There are two ways to teach a subject: one is by having it put in subject pots, and the other one is called a pervasive method, where you spread it out. The pervasive method is what the Council of Legal Education has adopted, at least in part, here. In terms of how you teach a law degree, not just what you teach but how you teach it, I wouldn’t presume to know better than three High Court judges, five senior lawyers, two law students, and all of the law deans. I think it is arrogant of this House to assume upon itself rule-making power, because the legislature delegated that authority to this expert panel for a reason. It’s disappointing.

Let me, before I close—because I’m only taking a short call—I want to identify the actual clause that party is striking out. This is what the degree course must include. The degree course includes teaching and assessment of the general principles and practices of tikanga Māori, Māori laws and philosophy, relevant to the subjects set out in the regulations. And there’s a list of subjects. It’s tikanga relevant to the subject. It’s not that hard. That’s what we’re striking out. That’s what we’re usurping. We’re telling law schools, lawyers, judges, and professors how to do their job. I can’t think of much more arrogance than that. That’s why we won’t be supporting this overreach, this misuse of a disallowance power in this House today.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tokerau): Kia ora, Mr Speaker, tēnā koe; tēnā tātou e te Whare. I wanted to jump up several times, so I appreciate the ability, the opportunity to take this call, as you might have heard in some of the discussion earlier. Just a teaching moment, if I can, to say this: prejudice plus power. Prejudice plus power equals racism. Prejudice plus power equals racism, which equals arrogance, which equals ignorance. I want to start my discussion with those as teaching moments for the House actually, because when I listen to this—particularly the nonsense on my left—it boggles me just how deep ignorance and racism can run. And it’s so casual, the racism that I often feel on my left.

But I’m going to start like this. When my tūpuna traversed Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa, arriving in Aotearoa, they brought with them tikanga, the sovereign legal system of our whenua. So there’ll be Māori words there mixed with Pākehā words that—I’m not sure everyone will appreciate those, but they brought the sovereign legal system of our whenua. This system served our people for nearly a millennium prior to European arrival. It is no mistake that in 2022, the Supreme Court affirmed that tikanga Māori is the first law of this land. The first law of this land. Obviously, I don’t need a Supreme Court to confirm that, what I’ve always known to be true, but that affirmation is an absolute necessity for the members of this Parliament who now question the status of tikanga Māori and its place in curriculum. If Parliament’s own institutions can recognise the status of tikanga Māori—notice that there’s a little bit of fuss going on at the moment, particularly through the Privileges Committee—then it should follow, as a matter of simple logic, that its subjects do the same. It is critical that we ensure our law curriculum reflects and aligns consistently with the Supreme Court’s recognition of tikanga Māori as the first law of this land, of our land, of your land, stolen or otherwise. While it would be consistent for the coalition Government to ignore evidence and expert opinion, I implore my cohort across the way to actually consider evidence in their debate this time around.

Tikanga Māori—and I was hearing it expressed in a number of ways, particularly just across in the corner there, and there were some points in there which I could even connect with, up until this expression that tikanga isn’t really a “thing”. It might be a nice, you know, attachment. It might have some good value as a cosmetic, but it has no fundamental use. What that most definitely tells me, is that the level of ignorance—probably, maybe by choice, I’m not sure, but nevertheless—is so fundamentally ignorant. Therefore, when you’ve got that deep level of ignorance, you have what is called an “already, always listening”—you have an “already, always listening”. Therefore, you can’t help where you land, because your ignorance is so fundamental you’re going to land at the place that you were always going to, which is without real understanding and knowing. I picked it up also in the debate when te reo Māori was being used, because without understanding those things, or some understanding or appreciation, or respect and acknowledgment of it, you are also lost. You are lost to the ignorance that you carry quite comfortably, because it keeps you comfortable.

Where to now? Tikanga Māori is the pathway to justice. It is a leading solution to the injustice and inequity that is embedded into the colonial structures imposed upon our whenua. There is no denying the facts: our criminal justice system is institutionally racist and fundamentally unfit for purposes in Aotearoa. Māori suffer unequal outcomes at every turn. We are more likely to be stopped, to be searched, and—I think I heard this expression the other day—charged with “DWB”, or “driving while brown”. Those things are real, and I want to note them at this particular—

Simon Court: No, that is not a real charge.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: —to be arrested and convicted than any other group in Aotearoa—[Interruption] I’m sorry, there’s a bit of nonsense going over here, so I might ask him to take a break. Though we make up just 20 percent of the population, we represent 37 percent of those that are proceeded against by police, 45 percent of all people convicted, and 52 percent of the prison population. So with all of those numbers, “driving while brown” is a thing.

If we accept the facts, if we know that Māori disproportionately pass through the judicial system, then it becomes essential that those trained to operate within that system—our lawyers—are equipped with an understanding of tikanga Māori. Without such training, our systems will continue to oppress our people and exacerbate the reality that Māori are one of the most incarcerated peoples in the world. That isn’t an accident; that is deliberate, and that is all what I’ve shared before—particularly to the one on my left; don’t know whether he’s listening. At the very least, lawyers trained in tikanga will be better practitioners, attuned to the needs of the people without the shackles that come from operating within a legal framework that has enforced its own version of what is tika since its arrival in this country. To label this and the teaching of tikanga Māori into law as “cultural indoctrination” is hypocritical. It is a disservice to all those who have endured the cultural indoctrination of the current law curriculum, if that’s the way we want to be viewing education. It is a limited way of thinking, it’s backwards, and it’s bad for our health, Joseph, it is bad for our health.

So I guess I just want to say, thank goodness for our mokopuna that are coming. I look forward to it—from both sides of the House—because they will be woke, they will be smart, they will be ready, and they will correct all of the nonsense that’s been imposed and driven through this current Government’s mind-set, which is “Māori are bad. Lock them up. Put them”—oh, and here’s the housing. OK, this is our housing, this is the Government’s housing policy: “Look, we’ve got 200 more beds, but that’s our housing policy. And, oh, they’re houses, they’ve just got bars on the windows.” If that’s your policy, if that’s how you see us, you will suffer for your decisions, and thank goodness for your mokopuna in the House that’ll correct all this nutty, divisive, crazy, racist behaviour. So buckle up, tātou. Kia ora.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour): I wanted to contribute, just briefly, to speak about the grounds on which this proposed dissolution is purportedly being hung. Good grounds to hang a dissolution are potentially 327(2)(a) of the Standing Orders grounds. That is not something that this committee considered. There was no finding there. Instead, the majority of the committee are hanging this significantly constitutional, important decision only on Standing Order 327(2)(c), “unusual or unexpected use of … powers”.

Let’s make the point about what the committee did not find. It did not find that the regulations were “not in accordance with the objects and intentions of the enactment”. It did not find that the regulations are unlawful. No. So let’s flip that. The regulations are within the scope of the objects and intentions of the Act. The regulations are lawful. The only thing they’re hanging this on is that an “unusual or unexpected use of … powers” has occurred.

So let’s look at that. The committee’s concluding comments suggest the only way to determine whether something is unusual is whether it’s been done before, but my sense is that what is or isn’t unusual should tie not only to what has been done in the past in relation to compulsory programmes but also to the intention and scope of the empowering legislation itself. In short, just because a power hasn’t been exercised in this way before does not mean that the power is an unusual or unexpected way to exercise it.

In many ways, if you were to read regulations in the way that the majority appear to have, this would potentially be limiting the authority of executive decision makers who hold their decision-making powers now. To suggest that their powers should only exist within the boundaries of ways in which their predecessors had exercised those powers—that can’t be the case, particularly when considering secondary legislation that might need to be stood up in response to emergencies or emerging needs. We must, as colleagues have spoken, also recognise that the courts have shown us that tikanga has been recognised in different areas of law over the last several years.

In my last 30 seconds, I would strongly urge the House to be cautious about making a decision to disallow where the committee has not found that Standing Order 327(2)(a) is engaged. This has only happened once before. Since 1989, debates like this have happened, and sensible members of the House have voted against these motions four times—four times. I will be voting against this motion.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The time for this debate has expired.

A party vote was called for on the question, That this House disallow the following provisions of the Professional Examinations in Law Regulations 2008: (a) regulation 1(3), definition of “Tikanga Māori Requirements”, paragraph (a); and (b) regulation 3(1)(a)(ii).

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Enabling Crown Entities to Adopt Māori Names Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Noes 68

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

Motion not agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Auckland Harbour Board and Takapuna Borough Council Empowering Amendment Bill.

Bills

Auckland Harbour Board and Takapuna Borough Council Empowering Amendment Bill

In Committee

Clause 1 Title

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, the House is in committee on the Auckland Harbour Board and Takapuna Borough Council Empowering Amendment Bill. Members, we come first to clause 1.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader—Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. Can I just congratulate the member for the North Shore on bringing this bill to the House as the local member of Parliament, with a local issue that is supported widely across the electorate.

I won’t speak for too long on this particular bill, but I will say that despite the fact that there might not be a lot of keen interest across all of Auckland and the rest of the country for this, it is important to note that these types of bills are very important for acknowledging local issues. This particular one, the Auckland Harbour Board and Takapuna Borough Council Empowering Amendment Bill, certainly does that. For those that are watching the discussion in the committee, it is important to note that this bill amends the Auckland Harbour Board and Takapuna Borough Council Empowering Act 1923 to enable certain land owned by the Takapuna Boating Club Inc to be used for commercial purposes, and the bill would allow the land and boat club building at 17 Sir Peter Blake Parade, Bayswater, Auckland—the Bayswater clubhouse—to be used for commercial purposes, while requiring that the principal use of the land remains for community purposes. The land and boat club building is owned by the Takapuna Boating Club Inc, and clearly there was a keen interest for this to come to the House.

There are other members of the House who are much more intimately involved with this particular issue. I also acknowledge my colleague Shanan Halbert, who is the list MP based in Northcote and the former MP for Northcote, who is over the detail of what is happening in that part of Auckland. So I’m sure he will give a much more detailed committee stage speech during this debate. But for now, can I just say that Labour will be supporting this bill.

TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s a pleasure to be speaking on what I’ve dubbed the “Takapuna Ice Cream Bill”, because that’s a fundamental change that takes place here. I would like to ask the member for North Shore some questions.

I guess, for context, for those watching at home, this is about a facility that’s been in this part of Auckland for nigh on 100 years. We’ll get into the history, maybe, in the third reading; it’s quite fascinating, really. But, at the moment, the land exists, and it exists for the purposes of things like boat sheds, public swimming baths, a social hall, or other community purposes. At the moment, Auckland Council are not able to run a commercial activity on this land, because it’s been set aside for community activities. But, sadly, over time, this beautiful old tannery that was moved—literally by hand to Takapuna, in pieces, and done by volunteers over a weekend, it really shows the power of community, and it is a great story and one well worth celebrating. This building has come into a state of disrepair and there’s a lot of work that’s required.

Rightly, people are asking the question, I think, “What is the right way to fund that?” What is the right way for us to raise the funds necessary to restore this beautiful, grand, old, three-storey building, where we hear stories at the Governance and Administration Committee of community dances and balls and all sorts of activities like that—what is the right way to fund this?

What this bill does is it provides a mechanism so that there can be commercial activities conducted at the location—hence “Takapuna Ice Cream Bill”; selling ice creams is a great example that one might think of—so that there can be some revenue raised to contribute towards the cost of restoring this beautiful, old building.

Of course, in time, this bill allows for the fact that it may come that the work is done, that the building is restored, and, of course, there’s still commercial activities taking place—and how should those funds be used? This is the area that I’m going to drill into a little bit over the course of the evening with the member. How should that extra money be used? It was an area that attracted, I don’t want to say “controversy”, but some attention during the select committee stage. We heard from submitters, we particularly heard from Auckland Council, and we heard from members within the select committee—some of them, former mayors not of Auckland, but of Wellington—that wanted to ensure—and I just want to go through the wording—

Tom Rutherford: The committee’s made up of them!

TIM COSTLEY: Well, the committee, Mr Rutherford, is made up of quite a few former Mayors of Wellington. But when we look at clause 4, replacement section 5—in particular, I’m looking at replacement subsection 5(2)(a) and (b) here—the original intent stands. In new replacement section 5(1), it says, look, the site still needs to be used “for the principal purposes of, boat sheds, public swimming baths, a social hall, or similar community purpose.” So what this is saying, as I understand it—and I welcome the member’s views on this—is that we can’t transform this to be entirely used for commercial purposes. We can’t set up a three-storey mall, different layers of restaurants, and little outlets and eateries, and things. As much as that might be a great thing for the community, we can’t use that land because we have to adhere to the original purpose.

The money that is received from any commercial purposes that are done there, as a sort of a side act, a side show, a subpart of this—there’s a cafe run on the site of the boating club. This is a boating club that was the birthplace of many legendary New Zealand yachtsmen, like Sir Peter Blake and many others who have sailed for teams like Team New Zealand, Olympic classes; in fact, one was introduced through this boating club, but we’ll come to that later. But, if on the side of that, they want to run a cafe or an ice cream shop and sell the ice creams, we can retain some money, but it must be—

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: What’s your favourite ice cream?

Tom Rutherford: Oh, it’s Gold Rush.

TIM COSTLEY: Well, Gold Rush is good; Orange Choc Chip. I’m interested to hear the member’s favourite ice cream, if that’s where the member wants to go. I didn’t hear any questions from that member, actually, when she spoke; it’s a bit of a shame.

The point is here, as replacement subsection (2)(b) states that the money received from commercial purposes should be used for the maintenance of the land, the maintenance of any buildings or any other improvements on the land—so looking after the land that sits right on the side of the inlet there, the building itself, and we know that’s where a significant amount of money needs to go as we look to rebuild and rejuvenate that old, grand building.

Then replacement subparagraph (iii), “community purposes”, that’s the area I’d like to ask the Minister about, because it is of particular note, and that’s where the select committee landed. [Time expired] Mr Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The Hon Simon Watts—you didn’t have enough ice cream in your—

Hon SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Look, I just want to acknowledge the member, and I do apologise for standing up and answering it, but I thought it was useful because I think the points you’re raising were very important, and I will cover that.

Firstly, I just want to make some brief remarks in the context of what I hope to be an uncontroversial committee stage to the bill. This bill has enjoyed unanimous support of the House, and I do hope that that continues. I think, more importantly, the people of the North Shore certainly appreciate all of the members in this House and the support that they are providing for this.

While this bill is tiny—it’s got one part and one associated schedule; all in, about 2½ pages—for reference, the Hansard on the first and second readings of this bill were about 24 pages. So as you can see, many times longer than the bill. But not in itself, it is quality not quantity, and we’re going to work our way through those clauses.

The bill makes a number of changes to Part 5 of the 1923 Act, and replaces Schedule 1. It amends the use of the Takapuna Boating Club—which I think was the question that the member was referring to—located on Sir Peter Blake Parade. I think that just acknowledges some of the history—which we may get into a little bit later on—but it allows it to be, in effect, used for a much broader purpose, and that’s obviously really, really important. I guess, if you get to the fundamental point of the bill, the changes in the building is governed by very restrictive legislation, which means it can’t generate income to, in effect, maintain and wash its own face. That is an issue, and this bill will change that. That will give the boating club more flexibility to run the premises in a way that can be sustained.

Look, I do want to acknowledge that there is, I believe, quite a large crowd watching online live at the moment from the North Shore. So I want to do a call out to Commodore Wendy Baker, who I know is watching; I know Ray Welson is there. I know a number of the club are sitting in the club rooms down the road watching this, and they’re very busy but they did make time to do that, obviously.

I just want to say—now they don’t want to jump ahead of the proceedings of the House, but I can tell you that if the committee does support this bill, then I know teams are literally going to be on the ground tomorrow starting to look at plans in regards to how to make this thing a reality. I think that’s pretty exciting.

Look, local bill, and I’m really proud to be able to shepherd this through the House. I want to acknowledge the Auckland Council and the members and the councillors involved, and the broader Auckland Council entity—they are the ones who have obviously drafted this bill. They strongly support this bill, they undertook a wide range of consultation on it, and, also, it’s been heavily consulted with our local community as well.

In regards to the question that was asked around clause 5(2) by the member, in terms of original purpose—and I think it is worth going into, because there’s been quite a lot of speculation around what type of activities you could actually do under clause 5(2) of the bill. But it is important, and I know that the select committee—and I want to acknowledge the Governance and Administration Committee. I want to acknowledge the members of that, particularly Rachel Boyack, who chaired that committee very ably, and I know that Cameron Brewer, Tim Costley, Andy Foster, Celia Wade-Brown—I acknowledge your contribution. And many others—many, many others—were part of this.

But going back to clause 5(2), a wide range of activities, and primarily, what I envisage the club are looking to do is to create a cafe-style environment to be able to—

Shanan Halbert: Ha, ha!

Hon SIMON WATTS: There’s some laughs coming from the other side of the House, coming from Northcote. And I know there’s a little bit of tension between North Shore and Northcote, but I’ll just close this out and then I’ll let the member for Northcote come in, because I know that he is equally a big supporter of this bill.

The purpose is primarily going to be the cafe format. There was a swimming pool there; it was a saltwater pool—obviously tidal—and my understanding is that the club have assessed that they probably will not be able to reopen that. But you never say never—do you?—in these contexts. They used to be quite good, and that’ll be a big thing. So, primarily, a cafe—that’s going to be the original purpose, and that’s what’s going to be done under clause 5(2).

Clauses 1 to 5 and the Schedule

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Before I take the next call, maybe some member might want to ask for this to be taken as one whole question, because I did note that people are wandering from clause 1 to clause 5 and perhaps people didn’t realise we got on to a bit of a rocky road there. So does any member want to do that or not?

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour): Point of order, Mr Chair. I move that all parts be taken as one.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Leave is sought for that purpose. Are there any objections? There are no objections.

SHANAN HALBERT: Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s always good to be a great representative for those of us from Northcote in the absence of any other voices when it comes to issues that relate to Auckland’s North Shore. And this is a very good bill, of course. We are blessed and flush with wonderful facilities, regional parks, and recreation areas across Te Raki Pae Whenua in Auckland’s North Shore. From the outset, I have been an advocate and very supportive of the member’s work in this local bill, particularly because it assists it in coping and enabling it in modern times.

The challenge here is that this is the best that this Government is presenting for the North Shore. When I think about hospital beds built, houses built, classrooms built, that was all under the Labour Government, and my friend the member and next-door neighbour, knows that. So I always encourage people of the North Shore to be asking the question: is this the best that the Government has got? I hope that, tomorrow, it might benefit a lot more working people. I will hold my breath and move on to this particular bill.

For those that are watching tonight from the North Shore, you can hear the rowdiness coming from Government members because it is a sore point, but it doesn’t take away from this particular bill, the Auckland Harbour Board and Takapuna Borough Council Empowering Amendment Bill. What I say: ahakoa he iti, he pounamu [although small, it is a treasure], because sometimes it’s the incremental changes that can be made to effect and enable good things locally. So, for our community in the North Shore, it is a good thing.

When I think of other facilities, recreational parks, centres, I also acknowledge the former MP for Northcote Ann Hartley, because, through her work in council, she also secured a lot of property, a lot of land, that services the electorate of North Shore and across to Northcote as well.

I do have a couple of questions, when it comes back to this particular piece of legislation, for the member. I’m just seeking an understanding from him what initial consultation he went through with our North Shore community, both in his electorate and in the Northcote electorate, because we do cross over that motorway very often and enjoy the facilities over in the wonderful coves and beaches in the North Shore electorate. What consultation did he have both prior to and during this particular process?

I also want to acknowledge the contribution through the select committee from Auckland Council, and I know we have quite a strong and vocal mayor in ensuring that local decisions are made, particularly with input from Auckland Council and himself in particular. So I’m interested to know what his contribution was and what engagement the member had with Mayor Wayne Brown in this particular instance.

The other part, I guess, is: what risks has the member identified, throughout this process, of this facility being used unintentionally—sometimes where people might think it’s for good reasons—for commercial purposes that don’t serve our local North Shore community, and how has he ensured that through this legislation there are some parameters made on that, given the whakapapa and the context of how this particular facility came about? I’ll hold there, and I’ll have another round shortly.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Thank you, members. I just want to state the question, which I didn’t do before, but I’ll do that now. The question is that clauses 1 to 5 and the Schedule stand part.

CELIA WADE-BROWN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you, Minister Watts for bringing the bill. As a keen water sport practitioner—although I noticed that kayaking is not listed, but maybe we can work on that. Kite foiling, kite surfing, dingy sailing, all sorts of wonderful activities, but those people definitely need to re-caffeinate after their activity, and this is a great opportunity. It was wonderful to be part of a select committee agreeing on something. Listening to the council, listening to the boating club, and also being able to preserve a piece of heritage that has possibly got the best view in Auckland, looking out to Rangitoto. So that’s all good.

I would like to ask Minister Watts—and maybe you could take off your local MP hat and put your local government hat on—while the outcome from our unanimous decision will be helpful for the community, will be helpful for the club, will be helpful for the locals, it is sort of strange that such a matter needs to come to this Chamber. I think this is a very good example where, for historic reasons, we’re making a decision in this room about what is an important but actually very small place that would be well decided within Auckland Council’s remit. While I know there are some that would like to narrow the scope of local government so they’re only looking at potholes and pipes, this would be a great example of community wellbeing and of heritage. So I think we should really consider that local issues should be dealt with by local people and not require coming first of all to a whole round of the wonderful Governance and Administration Committee and then here. I will play my small part in not taking up more of this committee’s time, however delightful the bill, by sitting down now and looking forward to the member’s answers.

Hon SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I do acknowledge there are a large number of questions this evening and so I will do my best to work my way through them, and I acknowledge all members for their contribution on what is a very important topic.

First and foremost, the member from Northcote had three questions in regards to consultation, particularly more broadly with the community, with our Mayor of Auckland, and also any unintentional risks as well. So I’ll work my way through those. It was a very thorough consultation process undertaken by Auckland Council. Just a reminder again that this is actually a local bill which is brought here on behalf of Auckland Council. As a Government member, I’m shepherding that local bill through; this is not a Government bill and, you know, that’s why we are here. We see them rarely, but we do see a few of them coming through.

So consultation was undertaken very extensively by Auckland Council. I know they ran a number of in-person sessions across the electorate in Bayswater and in Devonport and other beautiful locations such as that. They had an online portal from which they gathered feedback, and I do acknowledge that many within the community found that a very useful process to consult and feedback into this bill. Overwhelmingly, again, my community of the North Shore supported that consultation. That’s one of the requirements before a local bill can be submitted through to Parliament. We want to have comfort that that process has been done.

In addition to that, obviously it went through a full select committee process. Again, we acknowledge the tributes and capability of the Governance and Administration Committee for the work on that, but it went through a select committee process. I think, as one of the members noted before, there were a number of submissions and that formed another basis. So I think the consultation period, as the member has noted, has been done pretty consciously.

I think that process has been ongoing. I know there’s a large following of the progress of this bill through the House and I know in the local Flagstaff or the local Observer—which are the local rags in my neck of the woods—they have regular updates. Even, I believe, Stuff have written a number of double-page features on this which included a photo of the derelict building, which I think got everyone’s hearts caught up with this intriguing story, and it is the one that—I think everyone’s been part of that journey. So anyway, that’s been that.

Look, in regards to Mayor Wayne Brown, I know that this is an area of improving local facilities for local communities, which is a priority. I’m not sure whether the mayor has actually visited this specific location—potentially, because it had a number of dances and other events back in the day and I’m sure a lot of people went through in that period. But the conversations that I have regularly with the mayor, he’s always a big supporter of projects such as this. And again, as mayor, he shepherded this through as Auckland Council.

Now there’s the third question related to unintentional consequences and risks. I think the member was referring to maybe if for some reason this and went beyond potentially a cafe or an ice cream bar to something, I don’t know, a little bit more risky. I won’t go into what that could be—

Hon Member: Hot dogs!

Hon SIMON WATTS: —but I want to—gelatos have been mentioned. I’m not sure that that’s going to be—we’re pretty traditional on the North Shore; we like our ice creams. And just to go back: a boysenberry ripple. Someone asked before a question: favourite ice cream? Boysenberry ripple, and I’m hearing “Good choice” coming from the left—

Hon Rachel Brooking: Clam and tomato.

Hon SIMON WATTS: —but some of the members—sorry?

Hon Rachel Brooking: Clam and tomato.

Hon SIMON WATTS: OK, well, I’m not familiar with that. Anyway, the question was around unintentional—look, I know the Governance and Administration Committee has spent a lot of time on this point because they also had concerns around making sure that the revenue gathered and the income gathered as part of this bill went for its intended purposes. So they did make it a number of consideration, particularly in regards to clause 5(2) and strengthening that portion, and particularly clause 5(2)(b)(iii), actually, which defines community purpose. I think that was an addition by the Governance and Administration Committee. But I know that there are a few members that want to just dig into that a little bit more deeply. I appreciate that and I’m happy to answer the questions.

The member Celia Wade-Brown noted a good point. Her question was in regards to probably two parts: one is maintaining local voice and the role in which local communities can make decisions on such matters. I think we would all acknowledge that, again, this is a local bill but the reality is things were done in the past which we are still working our way through. But I think the broader question, and it’s one in which I know has been considered is: how can we or how could we deal with a number of these legacy historical bills which have such clauses within them and which, with a quick fix, would actually make a positive impact for communities across the country, and what’s the most efficient mechanism to deal with that? While not within my responsibility, I do know that that’s something that is under consideration more broadly, and we’ll see where that goes. So those are the questions that have been answered so far.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you, Mr Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to take a call on this bill, as we just ease into the committee stage. I know there will be a robust range of questions coming, as we continue over the next couple of hours on this. For me, I haven’t had the opportunity yet to sit on the committee, but hearing some of the debate that has gone on, from members that were present and to the Minister’s comments as well—in his capacity as the local member for North Shore, of course—the robustness of the consultation that happened, I’m really interested to delve into one aspect in particular here, under clause 4, inserting new section 5(3), which starts with “The Auckland Council, or a body or person claiming through or under it”.

The word that I want to focus on specifically with this contribution is “or”. I’m talking about “or”, not to be confused “o-a-r”, which could be a reasonable confusion point, given the nature of the location and the premises that we’re discussing here this evening, but “o-r”—“or”—“The Auckland Council, or a body or person claiming through or under it”. I guess the point I specifically want to raise within that is whether that means it can only be one of those. That, for me, is relevant in the context of this. Obviously, the importance of any committee stage is trying to make sure we end up with a robust, confident, competent piece of legislation that, ultimately, can stand the test of time, as indeed the predecessor to this amendment bill did—and the building itself, as Mr Costley points out. Hence why I’m wondering whether “or” should actually be “and”. I’ll come to the detail of that in a moment. Specifically—

Hon Member: Important difference.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN: Well, it could indeed be “and/or”, and I’d be open to either of those, but certainly keen to get feedback from Mr Watts—or, indeed, it may be raised by other members who’ve sat on the committee, such as Mr Costley and all the others who made a contribution through this point.

For me, this is an important consideration because it talks about “The Auckland Council, or a body or person claiming through or under it, may grant a lease, licence, or other arrangement for use of [that] land”. Now, that piece is important, because what I want to understand is whether we are talking about the ability to have only one single tenancy within that, or whether, indeed, there could perhaps be a couple of tenancies, or indeed subtenancies within that. Then, that raises the question of “or”, because, if we’re saying, well, actually, there could be two pieces—one could be the ice cream stand and one could be the hot dog stand, for example—but they are separate businesses operating from there and therefore have separate leases, if one is granted by the Auckland Council, could the second one be granted by a body or person claiming through or under it? Or must it also then be granted by the Auckland Council? It says, “Auckland Council, or a body or person claiming through or under it, can grant a lease,”, but not “and”.

The concern is that you could have the council, on one hand, granting a lease to one business operator but then that, potentially, negates the ability for a body or person acting on behalf of the council to grant a separate lease to an additional potential operator from that. I guess that’s where I wonder whether indeed “and” would be a better word to have in there, or perhaps “and/or”, as an alternative amendment that Mr Costley may seek to discuss more robustly than I can in this contribution. That would indeed, then, enable both the council and a body or person acting through or under it to grant separate leases to separate operators for separate business purposes. So I guess that’s the one piece that comes back to the crux of whether there can be separate tendencies. And, if so, can anybody acting through or under grant that lease? Or can it only be either the council, on the one hand, granting both leases? If it were two, in this example we’ve talked about, “or the person or body acting on their behalf” granting both leases, but not Auckland Council on the one hand and the other body or person claiming through or under it to grant the separate lease.

I think that would be an important point for us to have some clarity on as we go into this, for any potential vendors who may be looking, once this passes through—not just today but, of course, the third reading—and becomes law, to take up the commercial opportunity presented by that and, ultimately, then drive some economic growth in the North Shore community, which is fantastic and will, of course, contribute to the maintenance of the land, buildings, and other improvements, and community purposes, as have been discussed earlier on in section 5 and other aspects. There’s a lot more to delve into with that, but I think some initial comments from the Minister on the use of “or” instead of “and”, or indeed both, would be very helpful. Thank you, Mr Chair.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, my apologies, Tim Costley. Look, it really is a pleasure to stand up and contribute in this committee of the whole House procedure that we’re taking part in, with respect to the Auckland Harbour Board and Takapuna Borough Council Empowering Act Amendment Bill. It’s a pleasure because, unfortunately, I’m not part of the Governance and Administration Committee, but I do have the privilege of being on the Māori Affairs Committee and the Justice Committee. I wasn’t able to take part in the process, but it really is a privilege that I can take part in the process now.

What I would like to ask, Madam Chair—Madam Chair, welcome to the Chair. It was Mr Chair before you. Look, there are so many questions that I can see that my colleagues around me and behind me want to delve into, as we said earlier, but if you don’t mind, since earlier it was allowed by Mr Chair that we can take all these clauses as one part, I’d like to ask the Minister—if you don’t mind, Minister Watts; one of the best Ministers on the North Shore there with Erica Stanford and others.

I’m always curious about commencement of bills that become an Act. The reason why I’m interested in that is a lot of times we hear about how when a change takes place, so much needs to happen in order to be able to really be practical with respect to the changes that need to take place with changes in a law. So, Minister, I was curious to know, I read here that in clause 2 that the Act will come into force the day after Royal assent. Minister, if you don’t mind, for my own just piece of mind and for those on the North Shore and those that will be directly affected by the changes that we’re hoping that you’re shepherding through, Minister, with this bill that we are conversing on today. Minister, with the day after Royal assent, I’m presuming—and if you can just—[Interruption]

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): There’s a lot of chatter over there—not from the person speaking, thank you.

RIMA NAKHLE: I’m presuming, Minister, that you’re absolutely confident that the day after Royal assent is sufficient for all of those parties involved with this really excellent change that you’re shepherding through, and that that should be sufficient for the administrative tasks that will be the roll-on kind of domino effect that will happen after this bill is passed. Minister, I just want to hear your thoughts. I’m sure that you’re confident about that. So, Minister, it would be great to hear your thoughts.

Once again, just before we delve into your thoughts, I would like to thank the members of the committee and, in particular, those members that are around me. I know there’s some people that don’t know how to turn their frowns upside down on the other side of the House, but over here, look, I really do want to tautoko my mates, you know, like the likes of Tom Rutherford, the likes of Tim Costley, and the Hon Melissa Lee, and Stuart Smith, and shall I say Rachel Boyack, she’s the chairperson—not any more—and she came over and let us know her favourite flavour, the clam flavour of ice-cream.

Hon Rachel Brooking: Different Rachel.

RIMA NAKHLE: Pardon me?

Dr Vanessa Weenink: Wrong Rachel.

RIMA NAKHLE: Rachel Brooking—my apologies. But we’ve just got to deal with the frowning friend of yours over there. So, Minister, if you don’t mind, do enlighten us about this one day after the Royal assent, and that’s all from me.

Hon SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Again, I acknowledge the questions around the Chamber at the moment—a flurry coming through at the moment. There were two really good questions there.

I want to first go to the member for Takanini, Rima Nakhle—and I just acknowledge the great work that you do in your electorate. Your question was in regards to clause 2 “Commencement”, in regards to the Royal assent. I guess I’m in your hands, in the context of that. It will depend on how quickly we can move our way through the committee of the whole House stage and also third reading. But I know the people of the North Shore cannot wait for the day following Royal assent to be able to get in and do this and make this a reality. So I’m not into forecasting; I don’t have that crystal ball, but I hope it’s not too far away from today.

To the member from Waikato. I acknowledge Tim van de Molen, who I think raised an important point in the context of “or”, “and/or”, or “and”—I think. Some are laughing, not me, but this is an important point. I actually do know, from conversations that have been raised in the committee, that, actually, the Governance and Administration Committee did spend quite a lot of time in their deliberation in the context of that point. I know member Tim Costley will, potentially, add more colour to that—more flavour to that!

Look, the purpose here is to be able to allow the club to be able to derive income in order to support the maintenance and sustaining of that business operation. I think there is a degree of expectation of flexibility around that. I know that the Governance and Administration Committee was very focused around not putting compliance and restrictions on that. I think they wanted a straightforward process to deal with the issue, and the drafting in which they’ve landed on has got us to that point. So I welcome any more questions.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’ll take some more questions but they need to be new and they need to be relatively sensible.

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I knew when you said “sensible” that it was probably likely going to fall to me, so thank you very much. I’ve been following this bill and participating closely. Just reflecting on comments from the sponsor of this local bill, the Hon Simon Watts, that the Takapuna Boating Club are watching this coverage from different vantage points around the North Shore—if not New Zealand—then it takes me back, and it will take everyone back, to when that same Takapuna Boating Club and the Royal New Zealand Yacht Squadron were watching Sir Peter Blake and others win the America’s Cup in San Diego in 1995. I would imagine that when the Hon Simon Watts gets this legislation over the line, there too will be a ticker tape parade—not down Queen Street; no, not down there, but down Hurstmere Road, down Lake Road. It will just go right through the North Shore all the way down Lake Road. I don’t know how long it takes to get from Takapuna to Bayswater on Lake Road—let’s not do it at peak time; it could be a long ticker tape—but I’d imagine the celebration will be enormous.

So it should be, because this legislation and this amendment has been over 100 years in the making. This gives us the opportunity to ensure that this prime piece of real estate—and, frankly, there’s not much prime real estate sitting on the water in a community and commercial sense in Auckland; a lot of it’s set back. So this enables this piece of real estate that has already had its roof replaced and its foundations done and some money spent on it, the Bayswater clubhouse, to be kept in perpetuity, its heritage status remaining, but with a commercial imperative to ensure that it stays for another 100 years.

That brings me to these questions: looking at the different clauses here and the definitions, I want to get a sense from the member that, with a commercial entity coming in, this is going to be able to fit inside and work alongside the Devonport-Takapuna Local Board’s local alcohol policy, because I suspect if it’s a licensee or a hospitality operator, given the fabulous location, that they will be looking for a local licence, and, sometimes, as we’ve discovered in Auckland and other places, local licences, particularly in and around community spaces and residential areas, are not easily obtained. So I want to know that, if we pass this legislation, a commercial arrangement can be looked into and locked up, knowing that this commercial entity that gets signed up will have the ability to run an on-licence facility, whether it’s a wine bar or whether it’s a restaurant or a licensed cafe—also whether there are restrictions as to the footprint of a licensed premises. We don’t want to turn this into a Speight’s Ale House where it gets bigger and bigger and bigger and the community facilities get smaller and smaller and smaller and smaller. So has there been a restriction put in, or is there any expectation, that one floor or half of one floor or 200 square metres of the building spilling out over to the land, perhaps, is where the operator will sit and where that footprint is limited?

Thirdly, I just wanted to get a sense from the local member and the sponsor as to—this might be outside the scope, but he might have a comment as to whether this is a piece of legislation that is going on in perpetuity or this is—because, as we know, Auckland Council basically wrote this. Auckland Council wrote it more so than the Parliamentary Counsel Office; Auckland Council was who we liaised with—like a lot of these local bills, to the Hon Simon Watts, something that should be wrapped up in Auckland Council by-law, not parliamentary legislation. Thank you.

Hon SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much to Cameron Brewer, the member from Upper Harbour, and I just again want to acknowledge his support for this bill. I do acknowledge that that has been a longstanding degree of support—another member, based on the North Shore, who does an absolutely wonderful job for his local community.

The question that was raised is, I think, an important one because it’s often one that galvanises communities across our country, in the context of liquor licences and other aspects. I do know that the Takapuna Boating Club have considered this widely. It was also picked up in consultation as well. I think where this has landed—and I think I’m comfortable that where the Governance and Administration Committee landed on this is they didn’t want to be overly restrictive of the income being derived from this entity, acknowledging there are other by-laws and other processes already in place. Simply, creating an enabling framework to do commercial activity and derive income was the purpose of the changes in this bill. The other considerations around the issuing of licences will be done through existing processes in local government.

I’d go out on a limb here—and I don’t often like doing that, but, on behalf of the members of the North Shore, I think there would be a few members of the North Shore community that probably would be open to the opportunity to maybe share a can of hazy pale ale or maybe a chardonnay or maybe a mixture of other aspects in that context. But that’ll be for the club to determine in what is most appropriate, and I’m not going to get into that. I think there are very sensible people involved in this entity. I think, again, what the select committee have done in terms of improving and enhancing this bill to make sure that it is fit for purpose is going to stand it in good stead.

So, in the context of that, I hope that answers the member’s questions. And the question around how long—well, I think when people reflect back on this bill 100 years from now, like we are reflecting in the context of the period of 1923, I’m sure they will reflect back on the Hansard and go, “Well, I’m glad that this Parliament stood behind what is such an important bill and made the right decision.” And the benefits that will flow from this decision will, I’m sure, be felt for generations ahead.

TAKUTAI TARSH KEMP (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Tēnā tātou e te Whare. Thank you. I heard the Minister say that this was a local bill and Auckland Council are heavily involved in this project. So I want to ask, then, at a local level, what local iwi, local marae, hapū, Māori organisations were engaged and to what regards? Who were they and what were their responses? Kia ora.

TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ve got three questions I would like to ask the Minister. The first one is really to pick up—because I didn’t quite hear the answer—along similar lines to what Cameron Brewer asked before—on the need for an Act of Parliament to amend this. Does he see a way that we could have actually used this as an opportunity to maybe wrap up the legal framework so we don’t have to come back to Parliament? I think, as an example, one that might be helpful to compare it to—and members will be familiar with the McLean Institute (Trust Variation) Bill. Actually, in that bill—which went through last year and which was, again, a member’s bill—it included a clause that meant it would no longer need to come back to the House for amendment. Is there a pathway through which that could have been included here, by way of amendment? So that any future changes—because we’ve heard some of the different, I guess, the left and right of arc out there, the different perceptions and the different ideas for how this building could be used and the different commercial purposes and the community purposes that those funds could be channelled for. Is there a way that this could be amended so that we wouldn’t need to come back to Parliament next time there is a change in the use of the land? So that is the first question I’d like to hear from the Minister on—from the member in charge; I apologise.

The second one and the third one come under clause 5—so clause 5(2)(b)(iii) and also clause 5(3). Clause 5(2)(b)(iii) is community purposes, and we know that the majority of funds, as was covered before, will be used for the upkeep of the land and in particular the renovations of the building. But clause 5(2)(b)(iii) just states “community purposes” as the final purpose that that money and that profit can be spent on, maybe down the track, when the renovations are complete. There was discussion at the Governance and Administration Committee, and there was even comment from council in their additional information provided around 10 February, about whether or not “community purposes” was too vague. Is it prescriptive enough? Is there the chance that, in the future, that money could be used for something that was deemed “community purpose” but maybe wasn’t inherent enough, wasn’t tied to the use of this land? Is using the money for a community purpose to say, fund something in Papakura—would that be OK? Is that too far apart? What if the council was to look further? What if it was for some reason contributing to, I don’t know, the next America’s Cup bid when it’s in New Zealand? Is that a community purpose? Where do we draw the line? What if it was something outside the Auckland area, like the Rugby World Cup, but Auckland benefits from that, it’s good for the community? Could money be channelled into that direction? How far can it go now?

Now, my personal view here, and the member—

Shanan Halbert: Already asked that question.

TIM COSTLEY: No, well, we haven’t asked that question. You’ve got to pay attention—that’s why Dan Bidois is a great MP for Northcote. My perception of this is I think we need to leave the terms broad, and trust council and trust those that are involved to make good decisions and give them scope to make community decisions. That’s what they’re elected to do. It aligns with what we heard from the Green Party member earlier, saying, “Let’s let councillors at a local level make some decisions.” I think leaving it broad is actually helpful, but I wonder if the member in charge has any views on that.

The third question, which is clause 5(3) and was addressed in part by Mr van de Molen before, was around the use of that word “or”: “The Auckland Council, or a body or person claiming through … it”. I wonder if the member has considered that that might actually come from the fact that this was originally the Takapuna Borough, which is now the Auckland Council. In the future, there could be a way that it’s the Auckland Council, or the body or person claiming through it could revert to something like the Takapuna Borough. There could be a district council. There could be a different entity at a council level which approves the use. Would that be therefore a higher body which is granting a lease, a licence, or another arrangement? Would it be fair to say that we don’t have to be discreet, that that provision might be used once to grant a lease to one person and then it could be used again to grant a lease to a second person?

So do we actually need the word “and” in there? Because I think, actually, “or” is sufficient. The higher body is the one that is granting the lease, but they can do that more than once, so, therefore, I think the suggestion of an amendment to include the word “and” is actually redundant in that meaning. But I think it is important to bear in mind that there could be a different entity other than Auckland Council. It could be a borough, it could be a harbour board—as it was when this bill was first brought about—that might award that.

Of course, is there any provision on subletting? What if someone was to subgrant their lease and give that to someone else? And if I just had a few seconds to finish, Madam Chair—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Two.

TIM COSTLEY: Thank you, I—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Simon Watts.

Hon SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you, very much, Madam Chair. Again, I just acknowledge the contributions from all members. I’ll go through the questions that were raised.

First, Takutai Tarsh Kemp raised a question in regards to iwi engagement. That was a question that was actually brought up as part of the prior speech. That was raised in the context of this bill, and we have had confirmation from Auckland Council that their consultation was wide ranging and included input from relevant local iwi as part of that process. Again, the support of that, through that consultation process, was very thorough, which is great to hear.

To the member Tim Costley, again—and I do acknowledge the contribution that he has been making this evening, in terms of the points. I think he raises some important points in regards to new section 5(3) in particular, and 5(1). Look, the reality is that I’m comfortable, as was the select committee, with the wording used—“or”—in that section. I think it provides the appropriate basis in order for this to be carried forward, and I don’t foresee that we need to be making any amendment in regards to that.

I think, to the points raised, also by the member, as to the question around community purpose, the context of that is very much in the context of the boating club and ensuring that the boating club is used for a community purpose, not forgetting it was, historically, used as boat shed, pub, public swimming baths, a social hall used for dance and other social gatherings, and other similar community purposes. That was the context of the principal purpose of this building.

I hope, members, that answers all of the question, and again I acknowledge all members for their support of this bill.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): I move, That debate on this question now close.

Motion agreed to.

Clauses 1 to 5 and the Schedule agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Auckland Harbour Board and Takapuna Borough Council Empowering Act Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The time has come for me to leave the Chair. The House will resume at 7.30.

Sitting suspended from 5.57 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Bills

Enabling Crown Entities to Adopt Māori Names Bill

First Reading

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour): I move, That the Enabling Crown Entities to Adopt Māori Names Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Governance and Administration Committee to consider the bill.

Rapua te huarahi whānui hei ara whakapiri i ngā iwi e rua i runga i te whakaaro kotahi. Tēnā koutou katoa e te Whare.

[Pursue the pathway that brings our two nations together on the same journey. Thank you, all.]

Like many of my colleagues before me, I have the privilege to introduce my member’s bill to this House this evening. I am presenting the Enabling Crown Entities to Adopt Māori Names Bill. I am proud that te reo Māori is recognised as an official language in this country. We’ve been on a journey in Aotearoa New Zealand since the Māori Language Act 1987; however, we are still yet to fully embrace the language. I myself am on a te reo Māori journey as a second-language learner with both Māori and Pākehā whakapapa, like many in this House also.

In recent years, weeks, and months, we have seen increasing friction over the use of Māori names and te reo Māori in public spheres. Today, even, I have seen Ngāti Kahungunu calling for the reinstatement of te reo Māori signs after they were removed from roads in the Hawke’s Bay, where I grew up. This is just the latest incident in a string of back and forth about where we should and should not use te reo Māori. We can think of other examples, like Te Whatu Ora - Health New Zealand or Waka Kotahi - New Zealand Transport Agency, and, after reading through the recently introduced Education and Training (Vocational Education and Training System) Amendment Bill, we see that Minister Penny Simmonds has decided to remove the te reo Māori name Te Pūkenga, and instead of using a bilingual name, replacing it with the New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology.

Decisions like these are backward steps for Aotearoa New Zealand. Many of us walk our lives with a foot in both the English and Māori worlds, and I believe that the Government, including our Crown entities, can and should do the same. Therefore, we don’t have to make a choice between English and te reo Māori; we can simply have both. Many have talked about the importance of te reo Māori as an integral part of our nationhood, that enriches our lives and it does not divide. But we have seen division and te reo Māori being used as a political football. If we learn anything about the outcome of the recent debate on the Treaty principles bill, where 90 percent of 300,000 submissions opposed the legislation, then we see that our country wants to move forward, building nationhood in partnership with Māori. This bill today is a step towards doing that. Haere whakamua, hoki whakamuri.

[Go forward, look to the past.]

The bill enables, on the recommendation of the relevant Minister, for Crown entities to adopt Māori names in addition to, or instead of, the names given them to them by the Acts that established them. This is a simple but symbolic step towards greater inclusivity, bilingualism, and support for te reo Māori revitalisation. Crown entities, including statutory entities, Crown entity companies, school board of trustees, and tertiary institutions—for those of you in the House today and those of you at home, you will be familiar with many of these: Te Kaporeihana Āwhina Hunga Whara—ACC; Manapou ki te Ao—Education New Zealand; Nō te rere moana Aotearoa—Maritime New Zealand; Te Ratonga Toto o Aotearoa—New Zealand Blood Service; and the list goes on. But while a number of Crown entities already use a Māori name, these aren’t their legal names and are not currently recognised in New Zealand legislation.

It is important to note—because Māori names, as we’ve seen, can become political—that this bill does not mandate all Crown entities to adopt Māori names. It simply allows relevant Ministers to recommend this shift where and if they see fit for their organisations and their ministries. The legislation would, for example, allow Minister Simeon Brown to make Health New Zealand Health New Zealand—Te Whatu Ora again, or Minister Mark Mitchell to give Sport New Zealand—Ihi Aotearoa the mana of being enshrined in legislation. And while I have the opportunity again, I’ll make the suggestion for Minister Penny Simmonds that she can in fact take on a bilingual name that will save her a lot of money. How about Te Pūkenga—New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology?

Importantly, the bill strikes a middle ground and a way forward. It’s not one or the other. It gives us both the English and the te reo Māori, and tonight I encourage Government members in the House to seriously consider supporting this at first reading, sending it to select committee for further consideration. Governments now and in the future should reflect the communities they represent, the constitutional foundations of Aotearoa New Zealand, as well as how we represent ourselves in the future, locally, and abroad. Bilingualism as a sign of this partnership is the essence of our country, as reflected in our founding document, Te Tiriti o Waitangi. We must collectively uphold and protect this.

This bill offers that protection through legislation. By supporting this bill, we can collectively shift something that has been tagged as tokenism by some, or taken backwards by others, to a more meaningful reflection of the country that we aspire to be. In saying that, I do not believe that there is anything tokenistic about being proud to be a bilingual nation and being proud of our rich te reo Māori language identity. Normalising the use of te reo Māori is an important part of the continued effort to revitalise the language, and this bill can help to play a part in that journey.

When we travel abroad, our coat of arms, Te Tohu Pakanga o Aotearoa, is an illustration to the world that our nation was founded on the partnership between two cultures. Giving Crown entities Māori names helps set us apart. Aotearoa New Zealand’s identity is unique from anywhere else in the world, and that should be reflected in the institutions of our Government. There are a variety of countries worldwide who choose to honour their unique cultural heritage by engaging in bilingual naming practices: Ireland, Wales, Canada. When I travelled in 2022 as part of a parliamentary delegation to Canada, I was impressed by the work that they had done there. Economically, too, these names provide us with a unique point of difference when we go offshore, and in particular, we’ve seen New Zealand Trade and Enterprise use Te Taurapa Tūhono when they do business overseas to help market our unique Aotearoa New Zealand brand.

This bill will allow for a Crown entity to adopt a Māori name and ensure that it has the mana and the integrity behind it, using legislation. We have successful examples of Māori names that have been used for Crown entities—Oranga Tamariki by Tracey Martin; I have been impressed that the Minister for Housing, Chris Bishop, has continued with Kāinga Ora—because many of the reasons why people would be against this legislation already played out when the last Labour Government passed legislation to establish the Matariki public holiday. Yet here we are, with multiple celebrations across the country that bring communities together through the kotahitanga of te ao Māori. It is with no doubt I am also sure that many Government members will be attending and enjoying these wonderful celebrations in the coming months.

This is an omnibus bill which enables the Governor-General, by Order in Council made on the recommendation of the relevant Minister, to adopt te reo Māori names for Crown entities, in addition to or instead of the names given to them by the Acts that established them. This reflects the process that exists for Public Service departments outlined in section 23 of the Public Act 2020. I note, again, that this is not mandatory; it’s a tool available to Ministers and their organisations. Finally, can I acknowledge the Hon Dr Duncan Webb for his support in this piece of legislation. Without further ado, I commend this bill to the House.

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

TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Enabling Crown Entities to Adopt Māori Names Bill—and I do just want to start by going through, in case it wasn’t crystal clear, because there are some technical differences between different Crown agencies and departments, the intent of this bill, which, as I understand it, is to allow Crown entities to adopt a Māori name, as Mr Halbert just specified, on the recommendation of their Minister. The Governor-General can then have their name changed by Order in Council. I do want to congratulate Mr Halbert on having his bill drawn. Apparently, it’s a very exciting day. I wouldn’t know yet; I haven’t had one drawn. But it’s great to get something this far.

The difference in this case, between the listed Crown entities and other departments—because you might notice, for those following along at home, if you’re looking through the bill, it’s very specific to the Acts that it changes and the Crown entities that are changed. You’ll notice, for example—I was about to say Oranga Tamariki, but that is a Māori name. The New Zealand Defence Force, for example, isn’t listed, because there is, in the Public Service Act 2020, a provision by which certain Government departments can change their name, can be established or disestablished, and that includes a name change provision. This one is about these specific entities, which are separated out, and I would just like to go through some of those in the time that we have available.

As you look at these different Crown entities, there’s a range. For example, the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) has its own legislation: the Accident Compensation Act 2001. Now, ACC was actually established in, I think, 1996, but the Act that would need to be changed here in this bill is the 2001 Act. If you go to the ACC website, for example, actually it’s one of the most bilingual websites I’ve seen across different Government entities. Every heading and every sort of section is broken down with te reo as well as with English. But can I just go through some of the other ones that are listed. For example, the Civil Aviation Authority—and they’ve got a great Minister looking after them, but, in this case, we’re talking about them. They could have, under this bill, a te reo Māori name. For example, it could be “Te Mana Rererangi Tūmatanui o Aotearoa”. I pick that name because that’s the name they’ve already chosen. They already have a te reo Māori name.

If we go to the Earthquake Commission Act—and it used to be called the Earthquake Commission; now it’s called the Natural Hazards Commission—a name for that could be “Toka Tū Ake”. Again, I pick that name specifically because that’s the name, in te reo Māori, that they already have. But that’s OK, because there are some others. For example, we might look at the Tertiary Education Commission, and I wonder if they could be called, under this bill, “Te Amorangi Mātauranga Matua”. Again, I’ve specifically chosen that one because that’s the name, in te reo Māori, that they already have. I looked at some other ones—for example, the New Zealand Qualifications Authority (NZQA) is the next one in this bill. I’m up to new section 430A, if you’re following along. The name I’m wondering about is “Mana Tohu Mātauranga o Aotearoa”. Again, the reason I’m suggesting that as a possible name is because that’s the name that NZQA actually already have.

Stuart Smith: There’s a pattern here.

TIM COSTLEY: Well, there is a bit of a pattern, but I want to keep going, because then we have the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority, established under their Act from 2000.

Hon Member: “ECA”.

Hon Member: “EECA”.

TIM COSTLEY: Well, you can call it “ECA” or “EECA”, also pronounced “EECA” by some. Some other people would call it “Te Tari Tiaki Pūngao”. Again, that is the name in te reo Māori that they already have.

There is nothing wrong with these names. The member in charge of this bill makes a very good point: we don’t want this to become about tokenism. We don’t want this to become a political football. This is just about whether or not they can, and by which means they can, have a name. What I’m trying to illustrate here is that a number of these Crown entities already have a name in te reo Māori: the Environmental Protection Authority, Te Mana Rauhī Taiao; Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ), Whakaratonga Iwi. As I keep going through, the trend that you would see is that almost without exception, they actually already all have a name in te reo Māori. Many of them have been gifted these names. There has been a lot of thought go into this. These are very appropriate names they have got. Even, I mean, entities like the Health Research Council—I can’t read my own writing here: “Te Kaunihera Rangahau Hauora”. One that will be more familiar to many members would be the New Zealand Transport Agency - Waka Kotahi. And on and on they go.

The next one here is the New Zealand Antarctic Institute. Now, I want to take just a minute on the New Zealand Antarctic Institute, because it’s one of many examples where most people, when you think of the New Zealand Antarctic Institute, they don’t actually go by the name of the New Zealand Antarctic Institute, even though the New Zealand Antarctic Institute Act 1996, section 4, specifically sets them up as that. These days they trade as “Antarctica New Zealand”. They are not known as the New Zealand Antarctic Institute, and yet that’s the name in the legislation. There are many other examples like it—for example, Sport NZ. Their name in the legislation is not actually Sport NZ, though “Sport NZ Ihi Aotearoa” is what they trade as. They are actually “Sport and Recreation New Zealand”.

The point is that a number of these agencies, a number of these Crown entities, have actually changed their English name as well. While Sport New Zealand has changed from “Sports and Recreation New Zealand” to “Sport New Zealand Ihi Aotearoa”, the point is that they have already changed their names. They have adopted te reo Māori names, they have changed their English names, and nothing has stopped them doing this—nothing has stopped them doing this. Another example: the Walking Access Commission—the Walking Access Commission—

Stuart Smith: What’s that called?

TIM COSTLEY: Thank you for asking. It’s now called the “Outdoor Access Commission”. Well, it’s actually called “Herenga ā Nuku Aotearoa”, and if you go to their website, their website isn’t walkingaccess.govt.nz. It’s not even the new name of outdooraccess.govt.nz. The website is herengaanuku.govt.nz. These Crown entities have already adopted Māori names; they’ve changed English names. To do that, nothing had to change in the law. There was no need for legislation. If a Minister really wants to do that, they still can go and do that right now, today. There is nothing stopping them from doing this. There is no need. As the member said, this is not about English versus te reo, because names in both languages have been changed without needing to change the legislation. And I could give countless more examples. In fact, if you go through the bill itself, almost every single one has either changed its English or Māori name. The point is that we can do it, and we don’t need this.

This is the ultimate example of a solution looking for a moral high ground or a problem. That’s what this is, and that’s why we don’t need this. I just wonder, when I look at this bill, where are their priorities? As I look at some of these entities, like FENZ, like New Zealand Trade and Enterprise, and the work that we are focused on to double the value of our exports, to bring growth to this country, to increase our trade—there is so much work that could be done. There are so many ideas that could be brought in the form of a member’s bill. When I look at things like Tourism New Zealand—again, they’ve changed their English name and adopted a te reo Māori name. As we look to grow our tourism and bring that back to being one of our top exporters, there is so much work that could be done and so many ideas that could be brought by members right across this House for the good of all New Zealand. They are the kinds of ideas that we should be seeing in these members’ bills.

While it’s a great point that he makes that we should be able to have te reo Māori names, we should celebrate the bilingualism—as he described it—and we should celebrate the different cultures that make up this country, we don’t actually need to spend the next six months of a select committee and two more readings and a committee of the whole House to go through this process. We have to be really clear that there is nothing today that stops any of this happening. Whether it is changing the English name—which has happened—or whether it is adopting a te reo Māori name—which has happened—it is absolutely possible today. The National Party will not be supporting this bill, not because we don’t support te reo Māori—not because we don’t support it—but because there is no need for the bill.

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. E tautoko ana te Pāti Kākāriki i tēnei pire, me te whakaaro kia tautoko tātou katoa.

[The Green Party supports this bill, with the opinion that we should all be in support.]

I want to thank my colleague Hūhana Lyndon for supplying me with those words, and I want to apologise to our Māori caucus, Te Mātāwaka, for my pronunciation.

I rise in support of this bill. The Greens support the idea of enabling more Crown entities to be able to use te reo.

We did have some internal debate and discussion in the caucus about it, because, on one hand, there were people who felt that—well, there are some out there in the community who felt that it’s only natural that as a result of the long process of colonisation and the violence that many Māori have endured under the colonial State and under the Crown, there was naturally some wariness of enabling the taonga of having Māori names to be given to these institutions that have done so much and inflicted some violence towards—you know, not all Māori, but some Māori certainly feel this way, but, on the other hand, we do acknowledge that it’s a voluntary process. When Crown entities have adopted names in te reo, it has been as a result of a long discussion and consultation with iwi Māori, so it’s not as if any institution is going to be forced to adopt a Māori name.

So congratulations to my colleague Shanan Halbert for getting this bill drawn and for drafting this bill. We encourage all Government parties to support this bill. We certainly support it, and we hope you do the same.

TODD STEPHENSON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT to talk about the Enabling Crown Entities to Adopt Māori Names Bill. Firstly, I just want to acknowledge the member Shanan Halbert for having his bill drawn. It is always exciting to have that drawn out of the biscuit tin and to, at least, have the chance to have your bill debated and discussed.

Look, Mr Costley really, I think, summed up pretty eloquently why this bill really isn’t needed. There’s a difference between, obviously, the legal entity names of organisations and the way they brand themselves and present themselves to the public. As we’ve actually heard from Mr Costley, this bill covers around 21 Crown entities. A majority of them already have te reo branding and the ability to communicate in that way. He used the example of ACC, which I think he said had one of the best bilingual websites he’s seen.

We actually have over 2,700 different agencies or organisations in our public sector.

Stuart Smith: That’s way too many.

TODD STEPHENSON: I know. We probably need to rationalise that, but that is way too many. But the point is we’re, obviously, not doing this bill to address all of them; we’re only doing it for a select number. And the select number actually don’t need it, because they’re already doing it.

So I do, sadly, think this is actually tokenism in this case, because if organisations are having a te reo name, we actually want them to genuinely embrace it and make sure they are able to communicate it to the people you serve. So we would rather that we focus our Crown entities, our departments, and our public services actually on delivering the services and things that New Zealanders need and making sure they’re up to scratch. And if they choose to have a te reo name, then they can absolutely do that today, and we don’t need this piece of enabling legislation.

So that’s ACT’s position. We, unfortunately, won’t be supporting it, because it is unnecessary. Obviously, it’s good, tonight, to be able to highlight some of the organisations within our Government that already have te reo names and are using them to do their business every day, and I think it’s, obviously, a worthy policy intent of the bill to actually be encouraging and revitalising te reo. We just don’t think this bill is needed to do that, so we, unfortunately, won’t be supporting it.

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First and speak to the Enabling Crown Entities to Adopt Māori Names Bill. Congratulations to the member Shanan Halbert for having a member’s bill drawn from the ballot; it is a great day for you this evening.

The bill enables Crown entities to adopt Māori names by an Order in Council either alongside or replacing existing names. But as we’ve heard so eloquently from my colleague from the National Party Tim Costley, many entities are doing this already. So, really, this piece of legislation is unnecessary. In fact, he highlighted a number of entities that already have a name in te reo Māori.

I thought a priority, really, for New Zealand First is: what outcomes can we influence? What can we do that will make a meaningful difference for Māori, rather than a little bit of virtue signalling, as this bill does? One-point-five-million dollars for Māori wardens, now that’s an outcome; $10.2 million for infrastructure rebuild at the Waitangi grounds, that is an outcome for Māori—and that is what we’re focused on, on this side of the House—$7.1 million for Māori economic development, that’s an outcome; changing the name is not an outcome. It won’t make a meaningful difference at all. How about improving water infrastructure at Parihaka, in Taranaki? Well, that’s a great outcome; never mind putting a name that really is unnecessary when that could be done already without needing legislation. There are a number of ways that we can improve outcomes for Māori, and this is not one of them. In fact, if I look at the coalition agreement which was agreed between New Zealand First and National, it was to ensure all Public Service departments had their primary name in English, except for those that are specifically related to Māori.

So New Zealand First will not be supporting this bill. I’d just like to quote from my leader, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, who said, “This is not an attack on the Māori language … [but] … on the elite virtue signallers who have hijacked the language for their own socialist means.” I do not commend this bill to the House.

TAKUTAI TARSH KEMP (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Tēnā tātou e te Whare. I rise tonight, proud to be Māori and proud to support this bill, the Enabling Crown Entities to Adopt Māori Names Bill. We do this because this bill has good intentions that it serves in terms of inclusivity, bilingualism, and support for the revitalisation of te reo Māori, and this House has a priority to whakamana te reo Māori.

This isn’t just about Government names; it’s about giving te reo Māori names mana. Te reo Māori is the only official language of this country. I must remind this House that English is not, despite what New Zealand First have to say. Te reo Māori is and shall remain the only official language of this country, alongside New Zealand Sign Language.

We have to protect our reo. Article 2 of Te Tiriti o Waitangi guarantees protection of our taonga—this includes te reo Māori, as it does our whenua and our kiwi.

This bill is a small step towards the revitalisation of te reo Māori and, on balance, it does have good intentions. However, our tautoko comes with caution and with some reservation. We must stand up for the injustices of te reo Māori—that’s our taonga. This House continues to attack our tikanga, it continues to attack our reo, and it continues to attack our people. Our reo is constantly bastardised or dragged through the mud, mispronounced, misunderstood, and misrepresented, but it’s normalised in this House. Seventy percent of the members of this House mispronounce our reo, and it’s normal and it’s OK.

I can remember that when we came into this House, our names were mispronounced. Now, our names hold mana. Our names have meaning for us, just like the Māori names that are given to Government agencies. They have mana.

We have a Prime Minister that can’t say te reo properly, yet he wants to call us out. He says, “When I see it, we call it out.” Well, it’s time for us to call it out when our reo is misrepresented, mispronounced, and dragged through the mud. Our reo cannot be used for those reasons. There’s just no respect. It’s just ignorance, mockery, and the resistance to our ātahu reo. We must ensure that our reo is protected. We have to try harder.

I have to ask: why is this Government so proud to be monolingual? If people can’t tell the difference between a red and a green stop/go sign without reading te reo, is it just that people are thick, or are these people just really racist? How would they ever survive a trip to a foreign country without English on their phones?

Our reo carries mana, and this bill has good intentions. Te Pāti Māori will support this bill to select committee stage, where we give our people the voice and the right to have their say. Tēnā tātou.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): Tuatahi e mihi ana ki a koe, e Shanan, mō tō kaha ki te tautoko i tō tātou reo Māori. E mōhio tāua he nui tēnei pakanga ki te whakapakari i tō tātou reo, engari he rawe tēnei kaupapa i tēnei wā.

Nō reira e tuku i tēnei wā ki te kōrero ki a Greg Fleming i te mea kua tae ki te wā, e hoa, ki te whawhai mō tō tātou reo Māori. E mōhio mātou he nui tēnei maha i roto i tō ao. Kua tae ki te wā, e hoa, ki te tū i waenganui i ō hoa ki te whawhai mō tō tātou reo, ki te tautoko i tēnei pire.

Nō reira e mihi ana ki a koe, e hoa, mō tō kaha ki te ako i tō tātou reo Māori, e mihi ana ki a koe.

Koutou katoa, tēnei te mihi i a koutou.

[Firstly, I’d like to acknowledge you, Shanan, for your determination to support our Māori language. You and I know that this battle to strengthen our language is a big one, but this initiative is awesome at this time.

Therefore, allow me this time to speak to Greg Fleming because the time has come, my friend, to fight for our Māori language. We know that this is important in your world. The time has come, my friend, to stand amongst your colleagues to fight for our language and to support his bill.

And so I acknowledge you, my friend, for your determination to learn our Māori language, I congratulate you.

To all of you, I hereby greet you.]

Well, it’s been an interesting kōrero so far—hasn’t it?—in terms of this kaupapa. It’s a fabulous kaupapa. I want to mihi to Shanan Halbert. I want to just answer a couple of things. The reo, as particularly our Māori members here will know, has been under threat for many, many years. So every little bit helps. Yes, we support the wardens—of course we support the wardens. Of course we support pūtea going to Māori housing. But every little bit helps.

Here’s the thing: the reo is for everyone. Greg Fleming knows over there. He’s been learning the reo for a long time, and I mihi to you. I mihi to him for his commitment to the language. You see, you might be a bit surprised sometimes, but I do believe the language is for everybody. In this country, more Pākehā are learning the reo than Māori, which is terrific. You go to wānanga, you’ll see more Pākehā because they love the reo. The reo is incredibly important.

But, sadly, our people out there are seeing so much division in this House. So I’m proud to tautoko this language. We’re happy to live in towns and cities with Māori names like Whanganui, Kaitāia, and Whangārei, but when it comes to Crown entities, we draw the line. What’s wrong with calling our department Oranga Tamariki or Kāinga Ora? Good on Chris Bishop for not removing that name Waka Kotahi.

People start asking, do Māori names count? In Gisborne, for instance, over half of the population are of Māori descent—according to the 2023 census, a clear majority of 56 percent—but they have to all have their signs and names of Government departments in English. What happened to democracy?

Some people need to remember that Māori are members of the community, too. That’s what our people are saying—Bayden Barber is saying that. Bayden works with any party. Now, he’s calling the latest call from the Government to remove bilingual signs racist. That’s the type of kōrero that you’re going to get out there, and Bayden ain’t no radical; he just wants to see our reo out there. He’s part of the fight for the language.

So some people have to realise that the Māori populations out there, they just want to see the language develop. They don’t want to be called supporters of apartheid when this type of kaupapa comes up. The fact is there’s nothing to fear about a Māori name. Across the world, our culture and language are being celebrated, except, it seems, right now, in this country. Now, I know the National Party have been supporters of the language before, but the kōrero coming from the Prime Minister says something else to us. What is this Government so scared of? That’s what people are saying—what are you so nervous of here?

We’ve had Shanan Halbert say that this is not a compulsory set-up. You don’t have to absolutely take the name, but by allowing Crown entities to adopt a Māori name, it will further enhance and support the language. It doesn’t mean someone in the Government will need to improve on their pronunciation. I’m not so picky about people mispronouncing the reo. As long as everyone makes an effort, I’m fine—I won’t condemn anyone. As long as everyone has a crack, good on you. That’s what it’s all about. We don’t live in a fundamentalist world.

But I say to everyone tonight that to support Shanan’s bill would be great in supporting the language, and maybe it would take away the image at the moment of this Government being the biggest anti-Māori Government in the last generation. Kia ora, Mr Speaker.

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, I wasn’t going to take a call this evening. In fact, I’m not on the speaking list. But after listening to the last couple of speeches, I thought it would be an important thing to do, to take a call to set the record straight, especially after that last statement.

This Government, in education, has done more for te reo Māori than that Government did in six long years. This, as my colleague said, is a solution looking for a problem. We’ve already had the very long list of Crown entities that already have te reo names, but here lies the problem with the Government’s position, and the fact that they think that we are anti-Māori—as I’ve said, we’ve done more for the Māori language in education in the last 18 months than they did in six years.

Here are a few things that should be put on the record when we’re talking about te reo language revitalisation, because we have a bilingual education system and we’ve heard nothing from the other side of the House when we launched all of the pāngarau, or the maths, resources in te reo Māori consistently across the country. Guess what! For the first time, consistently, in te reo Māori, we have high-quality curriculum-aligned resources created by Māori experts. Nothing in six years happened on that side of the House for pāngarau, for language revitalisation in maths, in our education system until now. And then when we do it, completely silent.

What about structured literacy? For the first time ever, consistent nationwide te reo resources in te reo Māori for structured literacy, including an assessment—Hihira Weteoro it’s called—which is a check to make sure that our young learners are on track with their learning.

Now I know, Mr Speaker, you’re getting ready to tell me to speak to the—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Oh yes, I am. Well predicted, Ms—

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I can tell that you’re leaning in. But I think that it’s only fair that when things like that are said across the House—that this is the most anti-Māori Government—it’s important to put on the record all of the things that we have done in structured literacy and in maths, all of those things to make sure that we are properly resourcing a bilingual education system.

So when it comes to this bill, it is well-intentioned. We understand that it’s important to have names in English and te reo Māori; however, as has already been laid out this evening, almost all of the Crown entities that were listed in the member’s bill already have te reo Māori names. So, as I said, it’s a problem looking for a solution. But it goes wider to the priorities of an Opposition when this is the best that they have. Are they out here tonight talking about a bilingual education system or properly resourcing it? No, they’re looking for something that’s already done, in most cases. It’s a waste of this House’s time to bring forward a bill that can already be done. There are so many ways that we could properly be investigating the revitalisation of te reo Māori names in this country. Bringing a bill forward that does something that already exists, that we don’t need legislation for, just shows the level of incompetence of the Opposition, when this is literally the best that they’ve got.

How bereft of ideas are they that this is the bill that they bring to the House? That is why, in six long years, it’s really difficult to point to anything when it comes to the revitalisation of te reo Māori that you can point to. Because this is a Government who cares about the language, who is investing in things that actually matter, not only in education but across other areas as well, which is why we don’t bring bills like this to the House. Not only are they a waste of our time or a waste of our resources, we have so many other more important things that we could be doing to revitalise the language, to properly resource it, rather than bringing a bill like this.

I have to say to the member, congratulations for getting it drawn out of the ballot, but try harder next time. There are so many more things that are more important when it comes to properly resourcing te reo Māori and properly resourcing a bilingual education system that he could be bringing, rather than, as we say, a solution that’s looking for a problem. As we say, look, we’re not opposed to the use of te reo Māori names.

Shanan Halbert: Yes, you are.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: If we were opposed to, like that member just yelled out, the Māori language, then why on earth would we be spending millions and millions and millions of dollars doing everything in the education system in te reo Māori that we’re doing in English? Why would we be doing that?

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Kia ora e te Mana Whakawā. Well, what a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth over there! It’s really strange that they’re all of a sudden saying, “No, no. We’re supporting Māori.”, when one of the very first things they did when they came in as a Government was to issue a direction to get rid of te reo throughout the Public Service, including Māori names.

Do you remember when I think it was Chris Bishop didn’t know the actual English name of Waka Kotahi? Do you remember that? But they made a point of using English names only because they don’t like te reo. You can have the tokenism if you like. You can talk about your education kits, as the Minister of Education, but, frankly, that speech was a D. It was D for duplicitous. It was saying one thing out of your mouth and doing another thing throughout Government. This bill is well-thought-out—and I congratulate the member for bringing it to the House—because there are plenty of Public Service agencies that use a te reo name when it’s not the official name. In fact, every time these agencies go to court, they have to use their English name, and every time they enter into a legal contract, they have to use their English name, because—

Tom Rutherford: Who cares?

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: “Who cares?”, one member yells out. You know what? That’s the point, because you don’t care that you are alienating our indigenous population. You don’t care that all of the people for whom te reo is their native language—you’re saying, “I’m sorry, use English. That’s the proper language.” Well, it’s one of the languages we speak in this country, but it also sits alongside and—here’s the point—equal to te reo. That is what this bill does. It doesn’t elevate; it brings alongside. That’s not that much to ask.

Here we have a bill that simply says, “Here’s an easier way to make it official, to make it legal, and to make it appropriate.” And to be dismissive and say, “We don’t care; it doesn’t matter.”, is actually emblematic of the approach of this Government, the tokenistic approach that it takes, and the fact that in terms of meaningful change, it’s going backwards. It’s actually reviewing our legislation to get rid of references to the Treaty and to de-Māorify our statute book, and that is really offensive.

And this is one easy step for the Government to put its money where its mouth is, but it chooses not to. So it’s sad that we’ve got members over there, when we’re talking about one of the taonga of te ao Māori, saying, “I don’t care.” Well, I care. I think this is a great bill. I think this is one small and simple step that this Parliament could take, but that side doesn’t care.

Hon MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a real pleasure to rise to—

Hon Willie Jackson: Are there any Māoris over there?

Hon MELISSA LEE: —debate this bill.

Hon Member: What about Duncan?

Hon MELISSA LEE: I’d like to congratulate my colleague across the House—

Shanan Halbert: Fake Dan—useless.

Hon MELISSA LEE: —on having—did you just say congratulating you was useless?

Hon Willie Jackson: No, we’re just asking if there’s any Māoris over there, that’s all.

Hon MELISSA LEE: Well, I was going to say congratulations, Shanan, for having your bill drawn from the ballot, but perhaps I actually spoke a little too early, because I’m getting offensive interjections from that side. I think it’s just ridiculous members want to abuse speakers on this side when they haven’t even heard anything—

Ingrid Leary: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I heard the member reference my colleague Shanan Halbert by his first name, and I’d ask that she use both names, please.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The Chair will decide when to intervene with these things, but thank you for reminding me. Carry on, Miss Lee.

Hon MELISSA LEE: Thank you, Mr Speaker. What I was actually going to say is that I wanted to give a little bit of perspective from someone who actually speaks English as a second language, who actually comes from a country where we struggled to revive the language after 36 years of—how would you call it? “Colonialism” is what I think a lot of people call it. Korea was annexed by Japan for 36 years, where Korean people lost their language. We weren’t allowed to speak Korean. We struggled to revive the language, and we’re very proud Korean speakers.

I actually feel for Takutai Tarsh Kemp when she said that she gets offended when people mispronounce te reo. I apologise if I mispronounce te reo, because I’m not a native speaker. But having said that, I too get offended when, in this House, often people actually call out things like “Hyundai” and “Samsung”. They’re Korean brand names, but I get offended because I’m Korean and I know how “Hyundai” is supposed to be pronounced: it is supposed to be “Hyundai” [Member emphasises Korean pronunciation]. Samsung is not “Samsung”; it’s “Samsung” [Member emphasises Korean pronunciation]. But we actually understand that people try, and we do try.

I think my colleague Tim Costley earlier actually laid out that this bill is not necessary because virtually every single one of those Government departments or agencies that Shanan Halbert has said that we need to name in te reo Māori already have te reo Māori names. I was actually looking at them because I didn’t know the te reo Māori names. I looked up some of the names. For example, the New Zealand Qualifications Authority, it says Ngā Poutoko Aromatawai o Aotearoa. The Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority, Te Tari Tiaki Pūngao. New Zealand Trade and Enterprise (NZTE), Te Taurapa Tūhono.

Ryan Hamilton: Good pronunciation.

Hon MELISSA LEE: Thank you. Even the Ministry of Ethnic Communities is called Te Tari Mātāwaka. The Ministry of Pacific People, Te Manatū mo ngā Iwi o te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa. All of these agencies and Government departments already have te reo Māori names. We don’t actually need to adopt this bill and say they all need to use them; they already do. Having said that, on this bill Shanan Halbert included Callaghan Innovation, which is being disestablished, so we actually don’t need that.

But one of the concerns that I actually have, which hasn’t been talked about, is that when we are trying to trade with overseas countries—like when we are trying to promote our tertiary institutions, our education sector; New Zealand Trade and Enterprise—instead of saying NZTE, which is very well known around the world as our agency that deals with trade, if we tell the world Te Taurapa Tūhono is our NZTE, nobody will know what that is. The other one is, for example, ACC, Te Kaporeihana Āwhina Hunga Whara. A lot of people who have accidents in New Zealand—I mean, even tourists are covered by ACC. When they are looking for ACC, if they have the te reo Māori name, they will not recognise it. That is one of my biggest concerns.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Well, what do people do when they go to Korea?

Hon MELISSA LEE: Road signs—even Korea is changing their road signs to English so the foreigners who visit Korea can actually understand. I think, when we have people who do not understand road signs, we are in for a major issue where there will be more accidents, people looking for more compensation through ACC, Te Kaporeihana Āwhina Hunga Whara, will be very busy with all of those visitors who cannot read those road signs. I do not commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): In reply, Shanan Halbert.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s been an honour to present this bill to the House in its first reading. I’ve tried to play a straight bat tonight because I do believe that this country is at a crossroads of how we move forward; that through the actions of this Government, we have gone back decades in race relations and in the progress of te reo Māori.

I’m surprised tonight that not one Māori member from the National Party was allowed to speak on a bill. I’m also surprised that the most senior Minister in this House this evening—the Hon Erica Stanford—stood up and called this legislation that offers te reo Māori names to be recognised a “waste of time”. Not only did she do that but she stood up on her high horse and pretended to be the saviour of Māori learners, which we both know she is not.

Not only that but over this period of not any Māori speaking on this bill, there’s been a series of attacks, unnecessary criticism from Tim Costley, from Jenny Marcroft, who rattled off a bunch of dollars that this Government is spending on Māori outcomes, yet this legislation costs nothing but goodwill and effort on the Government side. They’ve attacked it and called it virtue signalling and being woke. That’s not what this legislation is; this legislation is about mana and dignity, and I would have thought that after the rocky time that this Government has had with race relations in Aotearoa New Zealand that tonight they may have some sense—just some sense—of humility.

There are members over there that I know recognise te reo Māori, that don’t agree with the speakers who have spoken on their behalf tonight. But if that is the will of the National caucus, that is their will. Dan Bidois has said zip—zip, no contribution. But what is most important is that something that could have been easy to do tonight has launched out into full attacks across this House. Unbelievable—absolutely unbelievable.

So to finish off my contribution, can I say that for all the things that this Government has taken Māori and this country backwards on, you will be held accountable. Each and every one of you will be dragged out in front of your communities and be held accountable for the decisions that you have made. I can list them off, just like Tim Costley’s contribution tonight that actually didn’t make sense to this bill. I acknowledged that, yes, organisations do have Māori names, but the intention and purpose of this legislation is that they don’t sit in the actual legislation. Therein lies the point.

It is not a waste, particularly when the last bill that we did was about the Takapuna Boating Club, and can I give another example of the waste of money and the time of this House on the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill that New Zealand Aotearoa absolutely rejected. It won’t end here and in fact I look forward to the way forward because I know that this Government, like New Zealand is also coming to realise, is not fit to govern.

Bills

Financial Markets (Conduct of Institutions) Amendment (Duty to Provide Financial Services) Amendment Bill

First Reading

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): I move, That the Financial Markets (Conduct of Institutions) Amendment (Duty to Provide Financial Services) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Finance and Expenditure Committee to consider the bill.

This is a very long title for what has popularly been called the “Debanking Bill” or, more accurately, the “Protection from Debanking Bill”. This bill is all about the ability to participate in a modern economy, because banking services are critical to participation. We all need places to put our money to be able to conduct transactions; to be able to access credit; to be able to buy assets; to be able to establish, operate, and grow a business; and to be able to employ our fellow Kiwis.

Hon Shane Jones: Hear, hear! Jobs.

ANDY FOSTER: How many businesses, Mr Speaker, do you know that have no debt?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Perhaps, Mr Jones, you could whisper to your colleague if you want work included in the bill, because it is actually your colleague’s bill, other than yelling it out so that it can be heard at Wellington Railway Station. Carry on.

ANDY FOSTER: Mr Speaker, how many businesses do you know that have no debt? The Department of Statistics in 2022 said that the average New Zealand business, for every $100 in its own equity, owed $202. So what that says is the ability to better borrow is essential to running a business.

Look, it’s right and proper—indeed, it’s fair and reasonable—that banks are able to decline to do business with people or organisations for legitimate commercial reasons. It’s right and proper that they’re able to charge interest rates reflective of the risk that a client represents. But the question that this bill is all about is whether it’s right for banks and other financial institutions to make decisions on non-commercial grounds, when it’s environmental, moral, or cultural.

Now, some people have suggested that banks could simply argue that they’re withdrawing lending from a business or even a whole sector, a whole industry, for commercial reasons, because they see an industry going out of business, because it is a sunset industry and they see it going into the sunset within a short period of time. But that, of course, is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you remove banking services, you, essentially, remove the ability for those businesses to do business, and of course they’re going to go out of business.

My bill puts the onus on banks that plan to withdraw or withhold a banking service to be very sure that there is a real—and the bill says this—valid and verifiable reason based on financial risk, to withdraw or withhold services. I’ve been asked about the penalty regime and the penalty process. My bill backs that obligation with penalties, and the regime is already in the existing Act.

The Financial Markets Authority (FMA) website says, “The FMA is New Zealand’s financial markets conduct regulator. We’re responsible for promoting and facilitating fair, efficient, and transparent financial markets in New Zealand. … We are dedicated to promoting and facilitating fair, efficient, and transparent financial markets, characterised by”—here is a key word—“fair access”—fair access—“suitable products, quality advice, transparent actions”—that’s important, too—“and integrity.” They go on to say, “Our goal is to ensure New Zealand businesses, consumers and investors”—and here again is critical—“believe the financial services sector works well for them.” Of course, if you withdraw those banking services, it’s not going to work very well.

What is not right and proper is for banks to make those decisions for non-commercial reasons because they do not like the industry or even they do not like the people—as we’ve seen in the UK in one instance. Some—possibly some in this House—will say, “Well, those businesses are bad”—particularly around climate emissions—“so good riddance, and well done to the banks.” But that is a very dangerous pathway, because who is next? Who is next?

The question I put to you, though, is: is that the role of a bank to make that judgment or is that the role for an elected Parliament? Of course, this Parliament has made a decision this year about terminating an industry—that is, the greyhound industry. But we’ve done that transparently, fairly, and democratically. It is very different than the banks making those sorts of decisions, that lawfully established and legitimate businesses should be, effectively, shut down.

Indeed, banking doesn’t just affect the targeted business or sector but all of those around it—their suppliers and services, their communities, in many cases. It affects our economic performance.

One other thing is that we have been struggling as a nation for decades, in terms of productivity. The last thing we need to do is to have our banks, or our Australian banks, hamstringing us any further.

So let’s look at some of the industries who have already been targeted or have expressed deep concern about being targeted, because those industries, by and large, contribute to our economy, they provide vital services, they contribute to New Zealand’s export revenue, and, by doing this, they underpin the living standards of every New Zealander and the tax revenue that pays for the public services we all enjoy.

Well, first of all, there’s the mining industry—and I can hear some nervousness across the other side of the House. Some would wish that the mining industry did not exist, but they still happily, even if unknowingly, consume products made from mined materials.

But let’s say it’s the coal industry that they’re particularly concerned about. Well, the Finance and Expenditure Committee heard from Minerals West Coast and Straterra that some banks prevent New Zealand coalmining companies from accessing some or all of their services for climate change reasons already. We heard from Kiwibank, who said they don’t lend to the coal, oil, and gas sectors. Well, Kiwibank, sorry, that is not going to keep the lights on and it’s not going to keep energy prices down, as we saw last winter, and, hopefully, we don’t see again this winter. Westpac said that they had ceased lending to the coalmining sector, following losses incurred when Solid Energy collapsed. Look, that’s fair enough to say, “Risky business”, but one miner’s failure in a poor market does not mean that other better-capitalised and better-run miners in a good market are the same risk. I have found that some of our Australian banks actually invest heavily in mining in Australia, but they are thinking about that and whether they continue doing that—some of them are thinking about that.

But if your beef is specifically with coal, can I give you a few numbers? It’s worth thinking about global coal production being at an all-time high. In the West, it’s going down, but for the rest of the world, it’s going up faster than the West is going down. New Zealand produces 2.6 million tonnes, approximately, of coal a year. It sounds like a lot, but when you put that in context, China, which is the biggest coalminer in the world, by a long distance, produces 46 percent of all the world’s coal, and that is 4,382 million tonnes or 1,677 times more than New Zealand. Even if you put population, that’s 6.2 times as much. Do you know what? That number is going up all the time. Their growth, since 2007, has been 701 times our entire production. So what difference do we really make in that context?

Perhaps climate-concerned Kiwis would rather that those mined minerals and coal come from other countries—other countries that do not have the same environmental standards as New Zealand does. What about the labour standards? What about the jobs that we export? What about our balance of payments? It’s really, really good that in New Zealand, we shut our own industries down and we buy those products and those minerals from overseas. Because do you know what? We’ve got a balance of payment—oh, deficit, isn’t it? We haven’t run a balance of payment surplus since, what, about 1970? So we need to be firing on all cylinders and not hamstrung.

What about our primary sector, which produces 80 percent of our goods exports? The ANZ told the FEC—the Finance and Expenditure Committee—that they don’t currently apply restrictions to businesses with significant agricultural emissions, and they seemed to put a “yet” warning in there. Let’s be very clear: if we damage or destroy our agriculture sector, we damage or destroy the living standards of every single Kiwi, urban and rural. We cannot afford to do that. According to the Federated Farmers May 2025 survey, which will be released next week—so this is in advance, but they have told me that I can use that—roughly 20 percent of farmers report being asked about their emissions profile by their lending banks, and an overwhelming 70 percent said that they would support—

Hon Shane Jones: Parity.

ANDY FOSTER: —this bill and also Mark Cameron’s bill, which is coming along soon, we hope.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Mr Jones, I hope you haven’t changed your seat to improve your ability to get away from the Speaker, but, either way, it is against the Standing Orders. Carry on.

ANDY FOSTER: In summary, the farming sector is worried about banks making lending decisions on non-financial grounds.

And then what about the motor trades industry and petrol stations? FEC also heard from Waitomo. They told us that only their current bank was willing to continue providing finance; the others were not so willing. The BNZ indicated that they would reduce lending to the fossil fuel industry. We’ve had correspondence, as a party, from quite a number of petrol stations, saying that they’re, effectively, asked to pay back their loans over the next five years. Now, think about how hard that is going to be for them as businesses. And just imagine: let’s say all the banks went down the same track and we had no petrol stations in five years’ time.

Hon Member: We’d go nowhere.

ANDY FOSTER: We’re going nowhere, and what does that do to 4.8 million vehicles around New Zealand? Do you know what? We could all use electric vehicles because we’ve got 80,000 of those. How is that going to work? How would New Zealanders feel about their cars, trucks, utes, and motorbikes being unable to be used, and then being unable to get anywhere? What about freight?

There’s a lot more I could say about this. Suffice to say that there is a lot of concern about the behaviour of our banks. This bill is about getting through its first reading and then giving New Zealanders the chance to tell us their stories; to tell us their experiences to the banks; and to make sure that the banks cannot decline to provide banking services, which are critical to running businesses, for non-commercial reasons. I commend this bill to the House.

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

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): It’s with great privilege to stand up here on behalf of the National Party and say that we will be supporting this to select committee. Let’s have a look at it at select committee because it raises that vexed question—and many of us on the Finance and Expenditure Committee (FEC) and the Primary Production Committee looking in and around banking practices—as its sponsor, Andy Foster, has already raised: are the banks making moral decisions or are they making valid and verifiable commercial decisions? So that is at the heart of this, and that is what we will be looking at, Mr Bidois, and it could arguably be seen as supplementary to an extensive programme of work, Ryan Hamilton, that the FEC and the Government generally continues to do.

And so, James Meager, if you were here last night—I don’t know if you were or not—you would have seen the Holy Trinity of financial services reform, and if you’d read those three press releases out of FEC today, you would have seen that those three pieces of legislation—one is the second tranche of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act reform—are now open for public submissions for five weeks, and we will be reporting back within five months.

Greg Fleming: Which select committee?

CAMERON BREWER: “Which select committee?” says Greg Fleming—everyone wants a shout-out here. Which select committee?

Dan Bidois: Māori Affairs.

CAMERON BREWER: It could be the Māori Affairs Committee, but more likely—more likely—it’s the Finance and Expenditure Committee.

Of course, this supplements the banking inquiry which was launched, Mr Foster, back in August last year.

Hon James Meager: Is that still going?

CAMERON BREWER: It is still going, Mr Meager, but submissions have closed. Submissions have closed, the departmental report is in, the independent advisers’ report is in, and we are working collectively—aren’t we, Deborah Russell?—and across the Chamber as best we can to put together some solid recommendations out of that banking inquiry, which focuses on banking competition, particularly pertaining to the rural and commercial sector.

This is something that has been exercising committee members past and present, and I want to acknowledge Stuart Smith—is he here?—who was on FEC and who led the charge and took it to the banks late last year. And we’ve had the banks back since, and they have been under the spotlight. The big banks have been under the spotlight. Climate disclosures were raised. The Net-Zero Banking Alliance was raised, and the whole area around risk profiling and lending to rural and the weighting of that and the high equity that farmers must have, for example, to get their loans through, and the wider issue of: is debanking actual, real, or not happening, or is it in our imagination? Is it a moral decision that’s being made or is it a commercial decision that’s being made? That is something that we will be looking at.

Looking back at the explanatory note here—this is a colourful explanatory note, Andy Foster. I actually wish that you had a member’s bill that said something like, “Let’s Not Dig up the Golden Mile Amendment Bill” and “Let’s Not Ruin Lambton Quay When There’s Absolutely Nothing Wrong with It and Not a Paving Stone Is out of Place Bill”, but we’re not going there. But this amendment, as the explanatory note says—and I won’t give you the full name of it; Mr Foster’s already given that, and isn’t he uncanny? He puts it in the tin, he walks out of the library, the bell goes off signalling that there’s a ballot being made. Andy turns around, he’s halfway down the passage, he goes back, and it’s drawn—and it’s drawn. It’s drawn. I don’t know what you call that. In some small countries, that sounds like it’s well organised—that sounds like it’s well organised. I don’t know who he knows in that office, but, anyway, it got drawn very quickly, on 20 February this year.

And so his bill aims to prevent debanking driven by, as is known, political views or environmental social governance (ESG). ESG is what we’re looking at here, and the explanatory note—I have to say, Andy—almost, almost, reads like a press release really, but it says, “This includes the withdrawal or refusal to provide banking facilities and services from businesses on murky”—murky, I don’t know, is that a legal term? I haven’t seen that in an explanatory note before—“environmental, social, or governance moralising.” And it goes on to say, “To provide teeth, the bill creates an offence that provides for fines of up to $500,000.”

Greg Fleming: How much?

CAMERON BREWER: $500,000 is small change for someone that lives in Greenlane—$500,000.

The lawyers and the consultants, of course, have been piling into this, haven’t they, Andy Foster? I don’t know if you’re still on their Christmas card list, but Russell McVeagh, for example, says—and this is why we walk into this with an open mind, as the National Party, going into select committee, because we need to hear on its workability as well, don’t we, Dan Bidois? But Russell McVeagh and Chapman Tripp have raised their concerns, but that’s just their views.

Tom Rutherford: What did they say?

CAMERON BREWER: Well, Russell McVeagh says, “In our view, the Bill as currently drafted is likely to be unworkable in practice, whether viewed from the perspective of financial institutions or their customers.” Then there’s an article here, too, in Radio New Zealand with Andy Foster—a defiant Andy Foster—in the front with his arms folded: “lawyers and financial experts say the proposed law would not stop banks considering climate risks [but] might raise the cost of borrowing.”

Again, this is for the Finance and Expenditure Committee to open submissions and wade through it, and Mr Foster has been very open about that. He said, “Let’s open submissions, let’s hear what the commentators have got to say, let’s hear what the business experts have got to say, and let’s hear what the consumers and small business and farmers have got to say for themselves on this specific issue.” Lawyers say Radio New Zealand and Russell McVeagh and Chapman Tripp have called it likely unworkable in its current form, because climate change does pose commercial risks. And, again, that is at the crux of this whole debate. Are they legitimate commercial decisions, verifiable valid commercial decisions, or is it—as this member’s bill’s explanatory notes suggested—a lot murkier than that? And are banks moralising and making decisions that they can’t justify?

This is something that we will pull apart. This is something that we will look at. We will invite all to submit. We will also be looking at all those submissions, of course, Mr Foster, and we invite you to pore over what’s been submitted, both from the banking sector and the consumer rural and commercial lending sector, as to what they’ve already said on the public record in the banking inquiry. I think from MP to MP, Mr Foster, we want to give you all the support we can. And we know that our officials at Treasury and the Reserve Bank of New Zealand and others have done a lot of summary and analysis of submissions, and we would be very happy for you to have a look at that work to help strengthen up your case, if indeed you feel that it’s worthy—and the House feels and the select committee feels that it’s worthy—to proceed beyond submissions.

The Reserve Bank, as Steve Abel well knows, is already going under a number of reviews at the moment. It’s opened that big capital review. It’s looking at Māori lending, as you know, David MacLeod. So the Reserve Bank is very much looking in the mirror, looking behind it, looking in front of it, and reviewing its practices, looking at its prudential policy, looking at its monetary policy, and looking at whether these issues are real or perceived. That is the challenge of the select committee. The National Party is pleased to support it to select committee. I commend the first reading.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): If the New Zealand business community needed another reminder that this National Party is not the party of Bill English and John Key, that was it: a 10-minute call to tell the House why the “party of free markets” is now demanding Government intervention to protect industries affected by the transition to a clean economy. Once capitalists, now an attitude of telling businesses what to do; a little bit of tough talk, whilst, in the background, this Government is the one that has just forgiven the debts of ANZ and ASB to tens of thousands of New Zealanders who are owed thousands of dollars for their loans from 2015 to 2019. “We’ll look tough, but we certainly won’t make those decisions when we are convinced not to do so by the banks.”

What’s the difference here? When first-home buyers and small businesses tell this Government that they cannot access credit, they cannot do business in the New Zealand market because of the barriers they face in this economic downturn of their making, the ACT Party and the National Party throw their hands up and they say, “That’s just how the market works. That’s just how the market operates.” But when big corporate organisations get in beside New Zealand First and they say, “Hey, guys, we need a change here because we can’t get a bank account because we are literally so risky—so commercially risky—that the major banks won’t touch us here and in the Australian market. You need to help us out with that.”, this is posturing 101.

But, for years, the Labour Party has argued that banking should be more accessible and affordable for Kiwis, and here’s what that looks like. If that was a Government that was interested in it, they would be pushing for more competition in the market, they would be making sure that everyone who needs a bank account can get one when, in fact, thousands of Kiwis cannot get one. Those are people facing homelessness, getting away from domestic violence situations, getting out of prison. These are still people who cannot get bank accounts, and this bill does nothing for them. They would also be focused on solutions like the expense of remittances in the New Zealand market, which I have a member’s bill that they could help skip the ballot. There would be a number of small interventions that they could actually do to help people who face barriers to accessing credit.

But, no, instead they’ve identified a small part of the market to launch just another ideological culture war on. This is not a bill which solves a real problem. This is a bill which signals some sort of action on banks—we don’t know what it is, but we look scary. It’s going to go to select committee and we will be looking at it with interest. Because, you know what? There are a number of changes, Mr Foster, that could be made to this bill to actually help the people that you say you are trying to help: people who need bank accounts who don’t have them yet. You know what the barriers for them are? Not that they’re being debanked, because you’re asking the question about who has been told by their banks that they are so risky that they cannot have bank accounts, people who could never get them in the risk place. Young people who are facing homelessness and do not have an address cannot get access to bank accounts that they need to participate in the system—that is a social justice issue as much as it is an economic issue. There are people in the electorate of Manurewa who my electorate office are helping right now who do not have access to bank accounts. If we are serious about banking access, we would design a bill to help them. That is what we should be focusing on in this. This is not just another side of a culture war; this is an issue which seriously affects people.

That is a Government which promised it would solve the cost of living for them. At the election campaign, they campaigned on bringing the cost of living down for those people. Instead, they have picked a small number of industries that do not have a problem making money and a big bank to go after as the villain. Are we meant to believe what the National Party is suggesting to us, that a few months after calling it a cozy pillow fight between the most profitable banks in any jurisdiction we like to compare ourselves to, the banks are actually sacrificing their profits for woke ideology? Are we meant to believe that after the finance Minister called them out for their excessive profits in the New Zealand market as compared to the Australian market, actually, the New Zealand banks are so gentle and kind that they have been giving away their opportunities to make money out of industries just out of the goodness of their heart and because they’re bleeding heart liberals? That does not make sense. This is not a problem that we can solve with this sort of ideological culture war. This is a problem we should be solving, but Andy Foster’s bill doesn’t do it.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): I feel really bad for the member Andy Foster because no matter how reasonable he tried to make this bill sound in his first reading speech, he kept being undermined by his own colleagues with interjections. It reminded me of even the Deputy Prime Minister’s own commentary on this bill that completely derails it from what I think was an attempt at making a cogent contribution on this nonsense of a bill, because we’ve got the Deputy Prime Minister, who was not, obviously, reading from the same song sheet as Andy Foster, talking about the globalist agenda that he’s going to be ending with this bill, which, obviously, wasn’t reflected in the discourse by the member. So either they’re not talking to one another, or this bill will be helping Winston Peters’ Twitter engagement far more than everyday consumers.

This is clear when we realise that yesterday—just yesterday—the Government was actually supporting a piece of legislation that would have undermined countless consumers who have had a class action taken against the Australian banks ANZ and ASB, which themselves admitted with the Commerce Commission that they had failed to take the necessary care of a responsible lender. It’s so clear to me that this is a Government that cares far more about virtue signalling than actually addressing the needs of consumers and everyday people.

It’s so obvious, and it should be so obvious for those members, that under the free-market, capitalist society that we live in, banks are probably not stupid—and I’ll be the last one to be defending these banks. But I think the people who are running the big banks are not stupid, and they are taking measures to stop investing in things that drive climate change and industries that are not for the future, like fossil fuels, and now we’ve got a really heavy-handed intervention here, supported by the National Party, to actually force the banks to take fiscally nonsensical decisions. This is made even worse by the fact that this is driven by climate-denialist rhetoric and a complete disregard for the evidence that climate change does not risk just banks’ profits but our livelihoods and the communities that we’re supposed to represent. I think those members should be taking this issue with the severity that it deserves, rather than pretending that the mining industry represents the big picture of our economy when it actually doesn’t compare to other industries—no matter what they try to say—and even with their interventions that they’re making, the mining industry is unlikely to become as major a player as other parts of our economy. So this is just fiscally illiterate rhetoric from the Government members.

This bill is, obviously, not supported by us, because, at the core, these banks are making calls right now on “What if?”, and it’s not a safe investment for them in the context of our changing climate and economy. Banks and other actors are slowly waking up to the huge climate risk on their balance sheets, and regimes such as the climate-related disclosure framework are assisting in making these risks more visible to businesses and investors. I just think that, at the end of the day, the Government members—including those on the backbenches—could either be far more effective campaigners and lobbyists to convince their members in the executive to take action to actually support consumers, or bring in members’ bills that address real issues by people.

I acknowledge that where there are good ideas from members of the Government, when it comes to members’ bills; we’ll be supporting them to either get the scrutiny that they deserve at the select committee stage or go all the way, as they have done for some of our bills when they have thought that the bills had merit. This should be the space that we work in. But we can’t be supporting a piece of legislation that goes against the best available science and evidence, that undermines progress on one of the most existential issues that we face, and that I think just wraps up the Government members in a bunch of contradictions over their belief in the free market.

This bill just makes absolutely no sense. It has no evidential basis behind it, and I think Andy Foster’s rhetoric is undermined by the realities that, actually, this is driven by members of his party who would rather keep yelling “Coal, coal, coal” over and over and over, as they are drowned by rising sea levels. We look forward to changing this Government and getting rid of these climate change - denialist members of Parliament and supporting policy that actually helps the cost of living, that drives down inequality, and that creates an economy that works for everyone by taxing the wealthy few—including many members on the other side of the House.

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Minister for Biosecurity): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m pleased to rise on behalf of the ACT Party to provide our conditional support for this bill to progress to the select committee. We believe there are a number of issues to do with the availability of banking that do require the thought and the debate that the select committee can provide, and, hopefully, provide a reworked bill that we could support past the first reading. Fundamentally, at the ACT Party, we believe in only intervening in the market where absolutely necessary. This bill’s main action is that financial institutions must not withdraw or refuse to provide financial services except for commercial reasons. Now, in most circumstances we would be of the view that it is the free choice of any business as to whom they engage with in business and whom they don’t, and if they want to stop an arrangement, then they should—they’re free to do that, so long as they follow the contract. Again, that is their choice.

However, there is a real concern that has emerged through the banking inquiry at the Finance and Expenditure Committee around the practice of a number of banks making loaning and servicing decisions based on wider environmental, social, and governance (ESG) matters. There is the question of: do we really have that much competition in the banking sector? Members opposite have talked about: what about the free market? Yes, the free market works really well—where you have good competition.

Now, particularly as a farmer, my choices are really limited as to what options I have for banking. The level of competition that others in this House may experience with their home loans and the good competition that exists there does not exist for rural banking. Just to add to the level of concern around competition, we have issues with the banks signing up to such initiatives as the Net-Zero Banking Alliance, and thus the Commerce Commission is investigating as to whether or not that is market collusion. Also, collusion dampens competition. Whilst we’re working on things such as open banking, we are not there yet, and it remains to be seen whether or not the improvements to banking competition through open banking will apply to farming, mining, and other industries. Or will it just be focused again around home loans?

Another solution to enable much-needed access to capital, for farming especially, would be the relaxation of foreign investment rules. End of the day, is there a difference between me having capital in my farm from an Australian or a Dutch bank or any other overseas investor? Our strict rules in this regard do hinder the ability of farmers and others to access capital, so we operate in an environment where competition is hindered.

The other point I would make is that it is so hard—and previous speakers have made this comment—if not impossible, to exist in modern society without banking services. I myself came afoul of anti - money-laundering rules last year, when I forgot to send in some paperwork to my bank of 40 years to let them know who I was, and so my accounts got frozen for several days until I was able to resolve the situation. They did say, “We sent you an email”, and I said I was having eye surgery on that day so it was a bit hard to read. That experience of just a few days without banking services really brought home to me how difficult things can be if you don’t have those banking services.

Finally, I’d say access to capital is critical for investments into businesses to be able to improve your productivity. Now, around this House, whether your political goals are to double export growth, to create new jobs, to have better-paying jobs, or to lower the cost of food, investment is needed, capital is needed. You know, if we constrain access to capital, we constrain all of that. So, given the challenges around meaningful competition, we think it is right that the select committee should explore the question: do financial institutions have a duty to continue to provide financial services to their customers even if they happen to work in sectors that the bank may no longer approve of? If the business is engaged in lawful activities, who are banks and financial institutions to be our nation’s moral arbiters? I commend this bill to the House and look forward to the discussion from the select committee.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Kia ora e te Mana Whakawā. I always find it interesting going after the ACT Party, the party of freedom and rule of law and sanctity of contract, and here they are into voting in favour of a bill that intervenes in contracts. This is not a hypothetical question. There’s a case called the Bank of New Zealand v The Christian Church Community Trust and Others, and the Christian Church Community Trust was debanked by the BNZ. The BNZ said, “We’re not going to bank you any more; we don’t want to be your banker.” For whatever reason, they gave them an appropriate period of notice and said, “We are not interested.”

Now, the Christian Church Community Trust is better known as Gloriavale, and the reason—the pretty clear reason—that the BNZ wasn’t particularly interested in banking Gloriavale is because it’s a place which, basically, engages in modern slavery, flouts health and safety laws, and is a centre of abuse. Now, to say that BNZ should be compelled to bank Gloriavale, despite the abhorrence of the activities there, frankly beggars belief because that, in Andy Foster’s words, would be the bank following some woke environmental, social, and governance goal. Well, for a major financial institution to say, “We will not be complicit in an organisation which is premised on modern slavery, abuse, and victimisation of its workers.”, frankly, is the kind of society I want to be in.

That’s not the only case. Targa Capital Ltd v Westpac New Zealand Ltd—Targa was a company which had branches in Australia as well, and in Australia it was in breach of Russian sanctions. Now, the New Zealand entity may not have been in breach of Russian sanctions but, in that case, Westpac said, “We’re not comfortable banking a subsidiary where the parent is supporting a foreign nation aggressor that is invading the Ukraine.”

Steve Abel: Woke!

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: “Woke”, the ACT Party says. Yeah, well, that’s where we’ve come to. There we have it. There’s a third case: E-Trans International Finance Ltd v Kiwibank Ltd, where E-Trans were money remitters and no one could tell who the money came from or where it went. In that case, Kiwibank wasn’t happy supporting an entity which couldn’t convince it that it wasn’t helping money launderers. Now, that’s not woke, thank you. That’s not some woke goal; that is responsible corporate citizenship.

Those are three cases—cases which have got to the courts and in some cases the highest courts. This bill would say, “No, you’ve got to bank these people who are engaging in activities that I think everyone in this House would agree are utterly reprehensible.”

Now, this bill looks like it’s going to get to select committee. I hope that you’ll look at this bill and take the advice, as one member said, of Russell McVeagh and say that it’s unworkable, that it makes no sense, and, in fact, it undermines freedom of contract, that it’s a fundamentally bad idea, and we won’t be seeing much more of it.

RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, I was going to start with the end, but I’ll end with the start now. To talk to the previous member the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s comments, around the three examples he gave—well, we’d actually agree, and there’s actually a caveat in this bill, in new section 446JA(2)(a), that says—and I quote—“for a valid and verifiable commercial reason; or (b) as required or permitted by any other enactment.” So, in cases like those, they’d be justified in not banking those entities, and so we’d support that. The challenge, of course, is how we define what is “verifiable”, and what is a “commercial reason”, and that will be the work of the select committee. I admit I was a little bit cynical about this bill because we’d just come through the banking inquiry, and it kind of felt like maybe we’ve covered this off. But you know what? Maybe we haven’t dug deep enough. So we’re going to take this back to select committee and we’re going to do some “scrutinisation”, as my friend Cameron Brewer would say. It’s really important.

But one of the things about the purpose of this bill is it talks about preventing them from withdrawing or refusing services to customers based on political views or environmental, social, and governance factors. Imagine if we couldn’t bank someone because of their political views. Imagine if there was a bank for the Labour Party. You can only go to this bank and withdraw money if you’re a member of the Labour Party. Or you can only go to this bank if you’re a member of New Zealand First, and Shane Jones would be sitting behind the teller there, checking your membership. Or you could have the bank of the Green Party—the only trouble is they wouldn’t have any money to lend you; that would be the only issue there. But this has been a work of the Finance and Expenditure Committee (FEC) over the last eight months, because we’ve been looking at how do we make the banking sector more competitive. And the former speaker the Hon Andrew Hoggard said previously, we do like free markets, but they have to be competitive—and that’s what we’re all about, is ensuring there’s adequate competition.

Through the work of the FEC, we found some really interesting things. We’ve got a lot of work around the Reserve Bank of New Zealand, they’ve said they’re going to come back and look at the capital requirements, they’re going to look at the use of the word “bank”, they’re going to look at the tiered capital proportionality so that start-ups—most start-ups in New Zealand, to be banked, need $30 million; that’s quite a high barrier to entry, so they’re going to be looking at that. That’s really cool. That will have a flow-on effect in the banking ecosystem. We’ve just made legislation—the Consumer and Product Data Bill—which is the forerunner to open banking, and that was going to be in train for middle of next year; our Ministers have said no, we’re going to accelerate that and bring that forward to December of this year—

Tom Rutherford: Oh, fast track!

RYAN HAMILTON: Fast track the open banking. That’s going to make the opportunity for the interface of retail banking for consumers much more competitive. Instead of taking three days or three weeks to get another mortgage offering, you can be done within 30 minutes. That’s going to provide real competition at the front end.

The other thing which is real exciting is the Financial Markets Authority. They’ve created this thing called a “sandbox”, where they’re trialling six start-up digitechs or fintechs. One of them—and this might be a revelation for some of the members of the Opposition as well—called IndigiShare, in that they call it “koha loans”, where they’re actually trying to support Māori businesses with lending, and they’re in the sandbox, so they get to trial it and pile it and test it, and see if it will work without the risk of failure, because the Financial Markets Authority is creating guardrails for six different entities to test these things. That’s awesome! That’s awesome for Māori business. Willie shakes his head, but next week he’ll be shouting and going, “Oh, check out this IndigiShare. It’s awesome! It’s awesome!” You watch! You watch him. And then the Speaker will remind him to stay focused on the bill. But that’s very important.

Another great one is HomeShare, for example—a young entrepreneur, who actually happens to come from Hamilton, which, by the way, is New Zealand’s fastest-growing city, the city of the future. But we know that home affordability is hard for many people in New Zealand. If you think of a million-dollar home, it’s going to be divided into 1,000 shares, and so someone can buy one share or two shares and actually get in the housing market and earn equity on those shares. They’re dividing houses into, as I say, 1,000 shares. It’s another little awesome innovation. This is at the entrepreneurial, innovation end of the banking sector. If we get those things up and running, that’s going to create real competition in the banking sector. But, of course, we need to hold these banks to account, and so we will support this to select committee, where it will undergo robust scrutinisation.

REUBEN DAVIDSON (Labour—Christchurch East): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I also wanted to just take this opportunity to thank the member Andy Foster for bringing this bill to the House and to congratulate him on the good luck of having it drawn from the biscuit tin so that it could come to the House tonight and be debated.

Given that it’s nearing the end of contributions on this bill, I thought it would be good to look at a couple of things, from a perspective of sort of debunking some myths about debanking. I think the first thing to consider is: what does this bill claim to be? Mr Andy Foster’s bill aims to prevent financial institutions from withdrawing or refusing services to consumers based on non-commercial considerations. The bill seeks to address the growing issue of debanking, where financial services are withdrawn from individuals or businesses based on political views or environmental, social, and governance criteria. The bill goes on to emphasise that access to banking services should be determined based on legal or valid commercial grounds, not moral judgments. It’s good to have that information and great, also, to have received a letter from Mr Foster today detailing some of the engagement he’s had with individuals, with industry, with a number of people who have talked about the challenges they face.

I’m going to say that it’s possibly, or probably, a well-intentioned bill, submitted for the right reasons, and Mr Foster delivered a robust and thorough speech, but there is a number of problems, and here are just some of them. The bill suggests overriding the default position at law, which is a little bit of a challenge. It’s definitely focused on fossil fuel interests and not everyday Kiwis. It actually does less to enable everyday Kiwis to have access to the banking services they need than it does to provide protections for the fossil fuel interests and industry. Now, the reason I raise that is that banks are responding to climate risk because it is a commercial reality. That’s why banks are responding to it, and that can be seen as a good thing as opposed to something that we need to legislate around.

Another member spoke this evening and drew attention to the fact that there are actually a bunch of people in New Zealand, in our communities, who can’t open bank accounts currently. Those people are prisoners, people who have recently gotten out of prison, young people with no fixed abode or address. They’re facing some very real challenges, and opening a bank account is another one of those challenges. This bill, if it was true to its stated intent, would actually address that and provide a service for those people and access for those people to have a bank account, but in fact it doesn’t do that. The argument, I think, it would seem, is that all people, all entities—the argument being made by this bill—should enjoy the same access and rights to a bank account, the same access and rights to be able to access and transact their funds.

I think there’s some interesting timing here, on the eve of Budget day and speaking about bank accounts and equity and rights, because the same member who put this bill into the tin, which has been drawn and been debated tonight, seeking this equal access, has also very recently, in fact only a couple of weeks ago, supported halting pay equity claims for 180,000, mostly, women—180,000 of our lowest-paid workers. Whilst this bill argues that everyone should be entitled to a bank account, the argument is also being made that women should get less money in theirs. Tomorrow, we’ll find out what the money they’re not getting is going to be spent on, in tomorrow’s Budget. I cannot commend this bill to the House, because I don’t think it does what it says on the tin, even though it was pulled out of one.

NANCY LU (National): I rise to actually speak to support the Financial Markets (Conduct of Institutions) Amendment (Duty to Provide Financial Services) Amendment Bill progressing to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. Now, this bill raises a very important and timely question, one that has been in the media and with many Kiwis and New Zealanders having an attention on the banking inquiry: should financial institutions be able to withdraw or deny services to day-to-day New Zealanders based on political views, industry affiliation, or ESG—which is known as environmental, social, and governance—considerations, or simply because they don’t sit on the same side as banks or if banks don’t think that they are the “good” businesses?

But the reality is there are individuals and businesses across New Zealand who are increasingly concerned about their access or their future inaccessibility to banking and financial services because they’ve been unfairly restricted; so whether it’s sectors like—as members have mentioned before me—farming or firearms or fossil fuels, or simply, as some people have put it, to be unpopular views. Please, can I make a note here: it’s not just about climate. It’s not just about businesses that seem to be, according to some Opposition members in this House, anti-climate—it’s not about those industries. It also includes other sectors and businesses who have a genuine idea about making business and obviously have suppliers and consumers who needed that business, but those often have unpopular views by some and those that are impacted and, therefore, have no ability to continue to bank. Now, that is not a healthy banking system that New Zealanders can have confidence in.

Let me be very clear to all those speakers before us: we are not here today—and to people tuning in on TV—to actually pass any judgment on banks or to pass any legislation. We’re not rushing into regulating banks for the sake of it. But we have a duty to scrutinise and to listen to consumers, to listen to New Zealanders about what they believe is a healthy and fit framework that will be fit for purpose for New Zealanders to continue to bank.

We also acknowledge that financial institutions should have the ability to continue to manage risks and make decisions that are commercially sound, but they shouldn’t be, I think, handcuffed to popular views or to go in with a certain trend—for example, like the ESG—and to disallow services that don’t really quite fit with the “valid” trends that are in our market. But banks should be allowed to have the ability to continue to validate and also verify proper, healthy commercial reasons for our open market.

There are concerns raised in the bill, as some members have also mentioned before me, like, for example, what about a potential overlap with existing legislation that we already have in New Zealand—for example, the Companies Act. Now, there are also questions raised about whether this bill will unintentionally capture entities like insurers under the CoFI regime—CoFI here is the conduct of financial institutions. I am aware many Kiwis watching on TV probably don’t really understand the acronyms that we often use. It is the conduct of financial institutions. So whether or not there are overlaps or complications or duplicate work or inefficiency because of the duplication, these are the questions that we should ask the select committee to understand and to make sure that we are not duplicating the work or wasting public resources.

So we must be very careful when we consider the unintended consequences—for example, the increase in compliance burdens or higher consumer costs or the risk of legal uncertainty. But these are all risks and they must be worked through methodically. But our bottom line is that New Zealanders should have fair access to financial services. This is why, as a member on the Finance and Expenditure Committee, I do support the bill on this very first reading: because I’d like to see it go through to select committee; I’d like to see the public coming in for their submissions on their views, on their recommendations, but also providing some examples of how we can provide a healthier and better financial market going forward. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The—

Andy Foster: Madam Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Oh, sorry, yes. Andy Foster in reply. How could I forget?

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, just responding, and thank you, everybody, for your contributions to the debate. I’m going to start off with the comments around Russell McVeagh, because it’s interesting that when you look at what they have said on their website around this, they are saying that climate change can cause some risk around some businesses. If it causes risk to that particular business, to that particular investment that’s being made, sure, you would take it into account, because it is about the risk to that loan and being able to get that money back again. But if you were saying that investing in a particular business is going to change the world, save the planet, whatever it might be, that is a very, very long bow. For example, if it’s the coalmining industry, you would say—well, look at New Zealand, as I said; China produces 1,677 times more coal than New Zealand does, so we are not going to move the dial there.

The second item that I wanted to raise: quite a number of people raised issues around competition, particularly the ACT Party. The reality is that we involve ourselves, as a Parliament, in the financial industry in many different ways. For example, the Hon Andrew Hoggard talked about the anti - money-laundering process and having his accounts shut down. I can tell you, that is a labyrinthine, horrible process to have to go through, and that is this Parliament intervening in the banking industry; we do it all the time.

One of the other things that came up is around the issue of free markets and Government intervening. Well, if you are David it’s hard enough when you’re facing Goliath, let alone when there’s a cosy cabal of pillow-fighting Goliaths—and there are four of them there. That is a really tough thing. If that is what a free market looks like, that is a real challenge for the small businesses. Actually, it’s really funny seeing the Opposition standing up for the big banks against the small businesses and against the farmers, because what we heard from them is that this all about fossil fuel - emitting businesses. What about the farmers? Well, there might be a bit of methane in there, but if we crucify our farming industry, we crucify this whole country. They don’t seem to recognise this.

Speaking of the Greens, we got a little bit of a lecture about financial literacy from the Green Party. We were in hysterics before about some of the previous legislation—this is an example of comedy hour, when the Green Party are trying to lecture anybody about financial literacy.

There was concern from Dr Duncan Webb about some businesses, and I think quite rightly so, of which he said, “Well, these aren’t really legitimate businesses doing legal work.” I would agree with that, but what I said, consistently, is that it’s about making sure that banks are not penalising lawful, legitimate businesses. The examples that he gave of breaching sanctions against Russia, of the Gloriavale community, hardly fit into that context. If those are things that need to be written out as you go through the select committee process, then have a look at those things to try and make sure that you are able to do that.

Would the banks sacrifice profit for environmental, social, and governance reasons? Well, I think that they would. Why would they do that? It’s because they are concerned about their image and the pressure they are getting from some parts of our community. Oh, and by the way, one other thing is that they also get pressure from the Parliament, again, because they are required to report on not just their emissions but the emissions of their customers. So when they’re required to do that—now, that, of course, is a bill that Mark Cameron has got into the tin, which is about saying, well, actually, that is unreasonable, because the banks themselves might not be producing a lot of emissions but their customers might be, and yet they’re being required to report on that and then they’re putting the squeeze on their customers. Is that a particularly sensible thing to do?

Then Ryan Hamilton talked about whether the Finance and Expenditure Committee (FEC) has covered these issues. It’s a fair question. I mean, I only sat in on FEC for I think it was a day and a bit, but what I did hear from people who were submitting to FEC were real concerns about these issues. I would suggest that if you’ve heard them, you haven’t fixed them yet, and we do need to fix those, so this in a sense is a response to those issues.

I thank people again for their contributions to the debate. I look forward to hearing the submissions when this bill goes through its first reading. It does give our community the opportunity—and that includes the likes of Russell McVeagh, it includes the likes of the banks, it includes our farmers, it includes our Motor Trade Association, it includes our miners, it includes the sex industry, it includes all of these people, who can tell us their stories. You can have a look at what changes need to be made to the legislation to make it work. But what is very, very clear to me is that banking and financial services are utterly essential to anybody doing business in our modern economy, and for banks to be able to deny legitimate and lawful businesses the access to those things because they’re big, because they can, because they feel the pressure to do so, that is a real problem to our economy and a real problem to those businesses. I commend my bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Financial Markets (Conduct of Institutions) Amendment (Duty to Provide Financial Services) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is, That the Financial Markets (Conduct of Institutions) Amendment (Duty to Provide Financial Services) Amendment Bill be considered by the Finance and Expenditure Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee.

Bills

Resource Management (Prohibition on Extraction of Freshwater for On-selling) Amendment Bill

First Reading

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Tēnā koe e Te Pīka. I move, That the Resource Management (Prohibition on Extraction of Freshwater for On-selling) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Environment Committee to consider the bill.

What a privilege to be here tonight, and not particularly forecasted, so I would like to admit to all of those from Wanganui who were planning on coming to this first reading that got changed. So the member’s bill that I’ve put through is actually really simple. It’s a bill that’s looking to amend the Resource Management Act 1991 to do what I think we’re all committed to, which is to protect fresh water from commercial extraction and to uphold rangatiratanga of tangata whenua. From a real simple perspective, it’s looking to close the door to a loophole that continues to let water be taken for free, packaged for profit, and sold offshore, while our people in our communities are having to go through some real hassles and stress with respect to the quality of the water.

Just a little bit of context, this bill was actually born in Wanganui. It was lobbied and advocated for by some of our well-known leaders: Ken Mair, Sister Makareta, and obviously a lot of our iwi, Te Runanga o Tupoho. It was a real honour to be able to have the privilege to put a bill from those in the community that have come up with a solution.

The problem that it’s looking to solve is that they have a consent that’s been awarded by Horizons Regional Council to extract 750,000 litres of groundwater per week from an aquifer that they believe is extremely stressed. Now, the community are not just tangata whenua; 4,000, in fact, within that community have actively lobbied and supported that there be the halting of this particular activity. There was a submission process where 37 submitted; 33 were opposed and four were in favour, but it’s continued on.

This isn’t an isolated situation that we see around Whanganui; in fact, there are lots of marae that are having to ship in water. There are lots of towns—rural townships—that are having real water-quality issues, and their angst is actually just to work together as a community to make sure their own supply is OK before they start shipping things off. So they have appealed to use tangata whenua—which is really awesome to see that Te Tiriti and tangata whenua are being used to protect and help a community address their needs.

I just want to remind the House of the state of the water in Aotearoa—and I’m not pointing fingers at any particular party because I think it’s been an ongoing problem for consecutive Governments for years—we have about 178 local authorities; 67 councils who face significant challenges meeting drinking-water standards; 60 percent are under target for water supply; only 33 percent of targets for the safety of drinking water are being met at the moment, down from 48 percent the year before.

So while we’ve got this water degradation continuing, we’ve also got the over-extraction; we’ve also got commercial bottling; we’ve also got the use of plastics, which I think we can agree that all of our voters are opposed to that; and a whole lot of other run-off. I think the real issue—and when we’re talking about 2025 now, where there are, thankfully, a lot of our councils and regional councils who represent and recognise hapū and iwi as kaitiaki for the whole community—is article 2. I know that this House is really savvy with Te Tiriti because it gets talked about a lot. Article 2 recognises and protects iwi, hapū rights to their lands, forests, fisheries, and resources, like wai. There are much better experts than me to talk about te mana o te wai. We’ve heard it from Annette Sykes, we’ve heard it from Dr Mahina-a-rangi Baker, we’ve heard it from Tina Porou. But to put it into perspective, what we are seeing is an anxiety from those in the communities who are having decisions made about them without them, and we’re wanting to see the fact that te mana o te wai is something that we all are part of.

Te mana o te wai, in a really simple way, is to say that the first right of water goes to water, the second right of water goes to our ability to be healthy and to function well as humans, and the last right of water goes to our ability to sustain ourselves as long as our first right of water is protected—pretty simple—and what we’re worried about is that this has taken years and years of concluding that that is a great a framework to work by that we all worked together towards. This bill is upholding the kaupapa of te mana o te wai. It’s protecting fresh water for public good and it affirms our responsibility together under Te Tiriti o Waitangi. It’s a step forward. It’s actually not assuming or usurping the mana of those that are currently going through processes, as we know with Ngāi Tahu, as we know with Waikato, and as we know of the aspirations of the tino rangatiratanga of many of our iwi for the wellbeing of Aotearoa, of all New Zealanders. So I want to make it really clear that this is a step. It’s just to hold the ground while communities are trying to sit there and say, “This is how we want to live well.”

I guess one of the other things, as I sort of share and reflect, for many of those who couldn’t be here today, some of the stories that were shared, sister Margarita—and I don’t know if many of you here know her, but she’s one of those aunties that points a finger a lot, too. Her whole aspiration was to actually worry about the future generations of all our mokopuna.

So, in this instance, we’ve got communities that are feeling that they’re not able to make decisions. Even when they do participate in the process, their democracy is actually thrown out the window, and we’ve got people there who are taxpayers and ratepayers. Most of those 4,000 people are not my voters, and I want to be also really clear that they feel that they are being taken over by officials and corporations behind closed doors that are guided by legislation that’s still protects everyone else but them. They are going to be left there and will probably end up having to ship in water because it’s all going to be used up. So it’s a genuine fear, and I guess there’s also a genuine sense of urgency. These humble communities—some politicians have probably never been around them, but they are humble, humble communities that enjoy looking after each other, and I think that, while we see the Resource Management Act reforms, there is an angst that this Government is going to rewrite things in a way that’s actually going to remove te mana o te wai.

So this bill, I guess, is about recognising and validating the genuine fears that these communities have—again, they’re not all my voters—and also making sure that there is a significant opportunity to address and honour Te Tiriti; honour the fact that we should be putting a moratorium on these kaupapa that are going to affect them without having good legislation and protection, and honour the fact that there are values behind what it is that these community people do. There are many who are also elderly and who are really concerned that no one should be profiting from wai. While we’ve got Governments that are saying that no one owns it, we’ve still got a whole lot of people making profit from it.

Some of the things that we are really concerned about are that, because we have seen new systems coming and going, and our people in the communities are having to live with the changes that are being proposed, what they’re really wanting to see is an Aotearoa—a New Zealand—where everyone can have certainty on what is going to be provided and what is coming out of their tap, and some people in our communities—and a lot in Te Tai Hauāuru, Patea included—are not able to turn their taps on. So I think that this is about trying to make sure that we not only pay respects to the many communities, as we saw in Wanganui, but also pay respect to the fact that we still have ongoing battles of te mana o te wai and of Te Tiriti for many of our iwi who have great big plans to work with Governments in the future, not only on how to protect and sustain wai but on how we make sure that any businesses that we create around our natural resources are first and foremost planned around what’s best for all of New Zealand.

I think when we look at the opportunities before us with this bill, it is proposing a solution to a really obvious problem, and that is that many of the councils are making decisions that aren’t representing what these communities want, and they are relying on us in central government to bring about some legislation, some amendments, and some addressing of what it is that can make sure that they, as taxpayers, ratepayers, and voters, are going to have a final say on what and where is being extracted in their backyard. Obviously, the bottling and the plastic—this is not about anything else other than pure, raw water in its primary sector. It is not anything that’s had anything added to it—that was just getting too complicated. But I’m happy to answer any questions and I’m happy to also address any amendments, if we get the goodwill and the support to take it through to a select committee.

My hope is that either way, we continue to look at solutions for communities that are struggling, particularly these rural towns and cities. Kia ora rā.

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

CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki): Look, I’d, firstly, just like to congratulate the member Debbie Ngarewa-Packer on having her bill drawn from the ballot. I would like to also acknowledge water—and I think we all agree it is a very precious resource that we have here in New Zealand.

But we will oppose the Resource Management (Prohibition on Extraction of Freshwater for On-selling) Amendment Bill. The reason for this is that sending this bill to select committee right now would be a distraction from the very, very important job that we have at the moment of reforming the Resource Management Act (RMA), and, of course, this is a very large piece of work that we have committed to as a Government. Of course, if this bill did go through to select committee, it would involve reprioritising officials’ time, resources, and energy. We’ve got a real priority at the moment, as a Government, to reform the RMA. We’ve got phase three, which we have, obviously, gone through the process already of repealing the first bill and then, of course, are bringing through the fast-track legislation, and, of course, the resource management bill that we had before the Primary Production Committee at the end of last year, and then currently in the Environment Committee at the moment we’ve got RMA reform that we are navigating through.

This is because our Government is absolutely laser-focused on driving economic growth and opening up more development across New Zealand, and that is why we are undertaking such significant reform, because the current Resource Management Act is 900 pages of red tape, bureaucracy, and handbrakes, which is really restricting growth in New Zealand, and it’s really created a culture of no. But we are saying it is time to say yes. It is time to say yes to economic growth, yes to housing development, yes to building infrastructure, and yes to renewable energy. This is where we need to go. This is being progressive in New Zealand, and that is why we are committed to overhauling the resource management system.

Currently, our consenting landscape is incredibly, incredibly challenging. It’s a real handbrake to growth. New Zealand’s resource management system governs how we interact with the environment, of course. For many years, I think many of us across this House would agree, it has been broken. It achieves the worst of both worlds: stifling development and failing to protect the environment as well. So our current planning system is one that causes infrastructure deficit in this country.

So we’re taking action. We are enabling a system which will repeal the entire RMA system, which we plan to have introduced to Parliament later this year, that has been, obviously, acknowledged by our amazing Minister responsible for RMA Reform. The driving force behind these reforms is a practical enablement of development. It is absolutely possible to build the infrastructure that New Zealand needs but protect the environment at the same time. So to get things moving, we have introduced the fast-track approvals system, as I’ve already mentioned. Consenting is just taking far too long. It’s costly, it’s inefficient, and the fast-track regime allows infrastructure with significant regional and national benefit—

Steve Abel: What about the bill?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, I’m just going to bring the member back to the bill.

CATHERINE WEDD: Yeah, that’s right. The reason I am talking about the different processes within the RMA reform is because I am coming to the fact that this bill would hold a lot of that up, and it’s just not a priority at the moment. That’s why I’m actually just outlining where we’re going with RMA, because I think that we just need to understand that, to understand why we feel that this bill is not a bill that we would take to select committee at the moment.

Of course water security is very, very important, as the member has already mentioned. We absolutely agree with that. If we’re going to continue to grow what we’re growing in New Zealand and producing what we need to produce in New Zealand, we do need water, but not water in the context of the bill that the member has presented. We need to look at water security, absolutely, in New Zealand, and that is in the way of water storage. The reason we need to look at water storage is because, as the member has, rightly, pointed out, aquifers are overallocated, and so the reason we need to create more water—and obviously, it is logical to store water in the winter, when we have a lot of water, and use it in the summer, in areas like Hawke’s Bay, where we are prone to drought. But within the fast-track legislation that was brought through under the Resource Management Act, one of the projects in that piece of legislation was the Tukituki water storage scheme, which is in my own electorate, actually, in Hawke’s Bay. Of course, we want water security in Hawke’s Bay. As the member has pointed out, they need it in their own area, as well. That is why, on this side of the House, we recognise the importance of water security, and so we have invested $3 million in that water storage scheme to get it up and running.

Of course, water, it really does unleash the economic potential that we see in regions. It gives us water security, but it also enables diversification of land use and it, ultimately, creates jobs and opportunities, which is what we want to see. Of course, the fast-track legislation, which was part of the RMA reform, which is very, very important, also opens up more infrastructure development across New Zealand, which, of course, is very, very important as well.

Steve Abel: Point of order, Madam Speaker. You pointed out that the member has not been speaking to the bill, and I think that you’ve given a huge amount of leeway for her to return to the bill. But she keeps referring to other pieces of legislation that the Government is proposing and is not able, it seems, to speak to the actual bill before her, which is concerning, given it’s about protecting the environment and she is the chair of the Environment Committee.

Hon Willie Jackson: Would you kick her out, please, Madam Chair?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I’m not going to kick her out. I’m not going to comply with that request, but to the member’s point of order, it is about fresh water. Water has been mentioned quite a bit, but, actually, it is about the extraction of fresh water.

CATHERINE WEDD: That is right, and absolutely. But it is also about RMA reform, because that is what this bill obviously would like to do. And, of course, as I’ve mentioned several times, we are very committed to reforming the RMA, which, within those reforms, includes water reform as well. But we don’t agree with the way that this member would like to reform water within the RMA, and so that is why—

Hon Member: Nearly there.

CATHERINE WEDD: I am absolutely coming back to the bill, in terms of water. It is about water security, because, of course, it is important that we do address freshwater management. That is really important. As part of our RMA reforms, we are addressing freshwater management allocation and, of course, Māori rights and interests in fresh water, which is what the member has also spoken about—all key parts of the new resource management system, which is being designed, obviously, to take into account all stakeholders when it comes to water. And, of course, that includes Māori rights, Treaty settlements, and iwi interests as well. We’re already working with iwi; farmers, of course, because our primary sector is very important when it comes to water. Of course, we cannot grow the produce that we want to export to the world when we do not have that very crucial water security.

So, in terms of the way we use water and the consents that we enable, and the allocation of this very precious and important resource, of course, it is very, very important when it comes to the RMA. As I’ve already mentioned, we are already looking at the way water consents are allocated, water is managed, and how our primary sector is managing water as well, with freshwater management plans on farms. Of course, this has already been discussed quite intensely on the Primary Production Committee, and we’re having many of those discussions at the moment in the Environment Committee. So the issue of water has certainly been well traversed at the moment across much of the RMA reform, which is already in front of the Environment Committee at the moment. Of course, I’m the chair of that select committee, so I’m navigating a lot of those reforms through, and we are looking forward to the two big RMA bills that will be coming to our committee later this year. So, with that, I do not commend this bill to the House.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Madam Speaker. What two different speeches we’ve heard. I do want to touch on them, and I appreciate a little bit of concern about some of the speeches wandering off the topic of the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Getting on the topic was a bit difficult at times, too.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: It is really important that we hear what the member who’s promoting this bill said, and I want to congratulate that member and acknowledge that she did want, I hear, a busload of people, at least, from Whanganui to come down to be here for this debate, because this is a very important issue for them—

Simon Court: We’ll have to close the public gallery. You know how they behave. You can’t trust them, and Whaea Deb invites a busload.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: —but with all the different timing issues that have beset Parliament this week, they are not. So I do want to acknowledge them and their care for their water. That is such an important thing.

But what we heard in the first speech is the importance of te mana o te wai. We heard that there is a real worry that an aquifer is drying up and that things need to change.

Simon Court: Well, give them a bottle of water! I mean, that’s the whole point.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: In the response from the Government member, what we heard is, “Well, don’t worry. We’re changing all the laws.” But what are they changing them to? They are moving in the total opposite direction to looking after our water, which is what this bill is about, Mr Court.

Now, it is important to know that the Acts that we’ve just heard about from the chair of Environment Committee—

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Point of order, Madam Speaker. If I may, I’ve been listening to this nattering here, but they’re insults really. So Simon Court refers to Debbie bringing her people from Whanganui when it was referred to and was saying, “Oh, yes, Debbie Packer, will have to close the gallery because she can’t be trusted.”

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That’s not good enough, Mr Court. I think it’s worth an apology, please. Stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Simon Court: I apologise.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Carry on. And before the member speaks again, there’s a lot of barrages in the House. Interjection is fine, but I heard quite a lot of barrages, which is why I didn’t pick up on some of the comments.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Thank you, Madam Speaker. So I think what I was talking about was the importance of te mana o te wai and what this Government has done already in one of its pieces of legislation, and that was the Resource Management (Freshwater and Other Matters) Act. And what that was was an ability to change our water regulations, our essential freshwater package, the national policy statement for fresh water, to get rid of te mana o te wai. That is what we’ve heard that the Government’s position is. This bill said te mana o te wai doesn’t relate to consents, but this is a significant shift. We’ve had te mana o te wai in our legislation—well, in our secondary legislation—now for a long time, with National Governments as well as Labour Governments, but it’s this Government at the moment that is saying, “No, no. We don’t want te mana o te wai.”, for some reason.

Grant McCallum: It’s the order of priority. You know it. It’s a hierarchy.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Oh, we’re hearing, “We don’t like that hierarchy. We don’t think that the health of the water is the most important thing.”, from the other side of the House. If that water is not healthy, then how can humans drink that water? Of course there has to be healthy water for humans to be able to drink it. And then, of course, we think that the next stage is that then you can have your consumptive uses and make some money out of that water. How might you make money out of water? Well, we heard from the chair of the select committee that you might irrigate land. You might do a whole different range of things with how you use that water as the consumptive use, but that has to come after you’re protecting those water bodies. And that was one of the things that the first speaker spoke about. She also spoke about the importance of being able to turn your tap and for there to be drinkable water coming out of it.

Again, I go back to the things that this Government has done. They talk about infrastructure and how bringing back the Resource Management Act (RMA) and taking several years to then replace it with something else is somehow going to benefit this country’s infrastructure. We had three waters ready to go. All the legislation was through. What happened? It was repealed. What was that legislation about? That legislation was about pipes, and it was about treatment stations, and it was about all New Zealanders being able to turn their tap and have good, clean, fresh drinking water—

Grant McCallum: Why didn’t you pass it?

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: I’m hearing why didn’t we pass it? Those Acts were passed, and you, this Government, repealed those Acts, just as they repealed the Natural and Built Environment Act.

We heard from the member of the committee, “Oh, we’re going to repeal the RMA and do some things for Māori rights.” Well, the Natural and Built Environment Act did. It substantively changed where the RMA is at, where mana whenua were to be consulted with, and put them at the table, and what did this Government do? They repealed that. Is there any chance that any RMA replacement legislation will do anything like that? No, there is not.

LAN PHAM (Green): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Fresh water is life. Apparently we all agree on that, yet we take it for granted every day and we’re continuing to do that, it sounds like, in the House tonight. It is so refreshing to have a bill on the Table that actually prioritises water, that actually puts in place the fundamental concept of te mana o te wai that we so desperately need in this House. I do want to address, hearing from the Environment Committee chair, that we have all these things going on at the Environment Committee, of which I’m a part—fast-track, Resource Management Act reform, the likes—and that those are the priorities. But the priorities are simply wrong. All of those pieces of legislation are taking te taiao—our environment—backwards. It is hugely disappointing that they cannot see in this bill one small but very significant step in actually turning over a new leaf in this absurd and dangerous approach where we as humans have this extractive, depletive, destructive approach to our environment and it harms not only our environment but particularly ourselves.

I want to give a little bit of context around particularly the human health aspects of plastic pollution. In New Zealand, single-use plastic bottles sold here every year total 1 billion. All the medical evidence, if we paid any attention to it, shows us that plastic is throughout the entirety of our bodies, our kids’ bodies, and the entirety of our environment. Now, I think that’s disgusting, I think it’s really sad, and I think it shows how limited we humans are in terms of not actually addressing the very real serious problems and, in fact, filling our actions and agendas with things that actually continue to harm ourselves and our planet.

I want to acknowledge my colleague Debbie Ngarewa-Packer and thank her for bringing this bill to the House. I want to also acknowledge Ngā Hapū ō Tūpoho. Again, really sad that they couldn’t be part of this tonight. I want to shout out as well to the other hapū and iwi across the country who have been resisting commercial water bottling consents for many years, including Ngāti Awa, Ngāti Kahungunu, Ngai Tūāhuriri, and Ngāi Tahu.

I feel like it needs to be stated that getting ourselves out of this mess that we’ve created is complex. This is one part of it, but let’s just get this to select committee. Let’s get this to select committee to work out these issues and its application, because what we consistently find ourselves in, in this country, are these perverse situations where, for example, with recent summers in Hawke’s Bay, residents in Napier and Hastings were asked to conserve water while water bottling operations continued undisrupted. We have situations in the likes of Canterbury, with nitrates, where pregnant and breastfeeding mums have to rely on bottled water because they can’t trust the water coming out of their taps. Again, when there are water restrictions in Canterbury, then the bottled-water companies do not face any restrictions.

So there’s a lot we could unpack. I would ask the House to really consider taking on these kinds of issues and actually resolving them, instead of this ridiculous, surface-level, back-on-track nonsense. Let’s confront the actual issues of the health of ourselves, our communities, our people, and our environment, and this is a really key part of that. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This debate is interrupted and set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.