Thursday, 24 July 2025

THURSDAY, 24 JULY 2025

THURSDAY, 24 JULY 2025

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

Karakia/Prayers

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

[Almighty God, we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests, we acknowledge the King, and pray for guidance in our deliberations, that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom and humility, for the welfare, peace and compassion of New Zealand. Amen.]

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Deputy Leader of the House): Next week, the House will consider the committee stage of the Local Government (Water Services) Bill and the first reading of the Regulatory Systems (Internal Affairs) Amendment Bill. Tuesday will be extended into Wednesday morning for Government business, and Wednesday afternoon will be a members’ day.

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

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

SPEAKER: No petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. A paper has been delivered for presentation.

CLERK: Activities of the Intelligence and Security Committee in 2024.

SPEAKER: That paper is published under the authority of the House. Five select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.

CLERK:

Report of the Education and Workforce Committee on the 2025-26 Estimates for Vote Education and Vote Education Review Office

Report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on the 2025-26 Estimates for Vote Foreign Affairs

Report of the Intelligence and Security Committee on the 2025-26 Estimates for Vote Communications Security and Intelligence and Vote Security Intelligence

Report of the Māori Affairs Committee on the 2025-26 Estimates for Vote Māori Development, and

Report of the Social Services and Community Committee on the 2025-26 Estimates for Vote Social Investment.

SPEAKER: The reports are set down for consideration. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of three bills.

CLERK:

Electoral Amendment Bill, introduction

Constitution Amendment Bill, introduction

Regulatory Systems (Internal Affairs) Amendment Bill, introduction.

SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for first reading.

Points of Order

Debate—Use of “Aotearoa”

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): Point of order, Mr Speaker. I wish to draw your attention to some matters of evidence relating to the use of the word “Aotearoa” in this House. Yesterday, you referred to the New Zealand Geographic Board’s use of “Aotearoa” as the basis for its use in the House. I wish to draw your attention to the document which sets out the board’s decision making, entitled Frameworks of the New Zealand Geographic Board, April 2018. It sets out the guidance on dual and alternative naming, and it states, “Change should only take place at the will of the public, with each dual name considered case by case by the Board.” It further states—and I quote—“The Board has no jurisdiction over the country name of New Zealand and to change it would require an Act of Parliament.” Further, these points find their basis in the New Zealand Geographic Board’s Act of 2008, at section 8(3).

Finally, we can draw your attention, sir, to the petition response from the Government Administration Committee in 2008 that said, “Section 8(3) of the Act explicitly states that ‘the board has no jurisdiction to assign a name to, or alter the name of, New Zealand.’ ” In other words, changing the name of this country—New Zealand—based on the Geographic Board has no basis in law or in decisions of the Speaker or of this House. As such, we seek your consideration of this matter, given your former statements.

SPEAKER: Good. Well, because the member might have missed it due to his international commitments, I’m going to read a Speaker’s ruling which I gave on 4 March 2025, and then I’ll make some comments after that.

“I’ve been asked to rule on the use of the word ‘Aotearoa’ in the House. I said I would consider the approach taken by the New Zealand Geographic Board, though this is not … binding on the House, which does enjoys unfettered freedom of speech. The official name of New Zealand may only be altered by legislation. However, ‘Aotearoa’ is regularly used as a name of New Zealand, including by the Geographic Board itself in its own name, and in the title of the legislation that created it. It appears on our passports and it appears on our currency. I’ve pointed out several times that Standing Order 109 says that ‘member[s] may address the [House speaking] in English, [te reo] Māori, or [in] Sign Language.’ That really is the end of the matter. In light of Standing Order 109, it’s not for the Speaker to arbitrate when individual words in any of those [forms might] be used. I suggested”—at the time—“to Ricardo Menéndez March he might like to use ‘Aotearoa New Zealand’ for the sake of order in the House and to assist anyone who might not understand the term. However, members may speak in any of the three languages at any time. If other members do not like certain words, they don’t have to use them. But it’s not a matter of order and I don’t expect to have further points of order raised about it.”

Further, I’ll make the point that in his time serving New Zealand in the capacity of Minister of Foreign Affairs, he would have, over some five years or more, presented the New Zealand passport at various passport stations around the world and never had questioned the fact that our passport has the word “Aotearoa” on the front of it. It was always a New Zealand passport, despite the use of that word. I’d further say that through all of those years, and I might use a term familiar with the member, not a syllable, not a sound, not a mutter, not a murmur—no condemnation whatsoever from a Government he was part of. That is the end of the matter.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): Point of order, Mr Speaker. Are you telling this House that your statement is constitutional authority now for the ruling you just gave—yes or no?

SPEAKER: No—the answer is no—and if the member would like to read the statement later, he’ll understand that I wasn’t taking that position.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Finance

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

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): In context, yes.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she stand by her statement that “National will take action to get food prices under control once more.”, and, if so, when will the price of butter come down?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes, and in evidence of our progress on this, I would like to share some figures with the House. In December 2022, food price inflation was 10.7 percent. In March 2023, food price inflation was 11.3 percent. In June 2023, food price inflation was 12.3 percent. Since being elected, our Government achieved, in the March 2024 quarter, 2.4 percent food price inflation; in June 2024, 0.2 percent; in September 2024, 0.7 percent—I can go on. The point that I am making is the facts don’t lie. The figures don’t lie. Food prices rose faster under the last Government than they have under ours.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Well, does she agree with Steve Johnson from Te Roopu Āwhina social services, who says food insecurity amongst its whānau is “absolutely” on the rise with the rising cost of living; if not, why not?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I view it as a driving mission of this Government’s economic management to ensure that more New Zealanders can get ahead and better afford the cost of living. Our approach to that challenge is twofold. On the one hand, we are resolute in our efforts to grow the New Zealand economy so that employers and businesses can create better-paying jobs that allow people to have higher incomes with which to address the cost of living and with which to get ahead. The second approach is to, where possible, exercise our Government levers to ensure that we are not reinforcing cost structures in the economy which add to prices for consumers. That work is ongoing across a number of fronts, and I can report to the House that we are already having some success, including with the first decrease in rents in many, many years; including the fact that by stopping petrol tax increases planned by the last Government, petrol is cheaper than it would otherwise be; including the fact that interest rates have reduced such that mortgage payments are reducing. I could go on. I will look forward to the next opportunity.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she agree with Presbyterian Support, who said, in relation to power prices, that “People are trying to manage as best as they can, but given all the other circumstances that are currently happening in New Zealand with the cost of living, unemployment, reduction in social services, it means that actually the power challenge becomes exacerbated.”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, there is no question that rising electricity prices are a challenge for many New Zealanders. That is a facile observation. A deeper observation is to ask: why is that? I would point out to the member that one of the major drivers of that is an acute gas shortage in New Zealand. Now, why would that be occurring, colleagues? Well, the last Government banned the exploration of oil and gas. It set out an objective for 100 percent renewable energy that made it hard for generators to see that they should be investing in electricity generation that used gas or coal, and then they threatened a huge white elephant in the form of Lake Onslow that actively stopped people investing in electricity generation. You can play with sound bites; we play with substance. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Before I call the Hon Barbara Edmonds, I just say to the Government backbench, the Minister is quite capable of answering the question unassisted, and that level of—

Hon Member: Ha, ha!

SPEAKER: Well, the member may find that funny, but given he’s got a long way to go home, he might want to go a bit early—but just let it go.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is she saying that the Zero Hunger Collective is wrong, then, when they said, “I haven’t heard these stories since the global financial crisis. Families are putting the heating on in one room and sleeping in that one room so that they can save energy.”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: As I said in answer to the last question, I completely agree that there are New Zealanders across the board who find the current electricity prices challenging. But in my experience as a parliamentarian, it is not sufficient to describe the problem. In fact, what we have a duty to do in this House is to investigate the solutions to those problems. That is why, on this side of the House, we are, on the one hand, working with the Electricity Authority to ensure that all of the right regulations are in place to drive competition in the electricity sector, and why, on the other hand, we have sought external advice on how to ensure ongoing investment in generation assets in the New Zealand electricity sector so that, over time, electricity is both abundant and affordable. Now, if we’d been able to start that work six years ago, members—

SPEAKER: Yep, concise—concise.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: —electricity prices wouldn’t be as high now.

SPEAKER: Concise answers are good.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is she saying that the Auckland City Missioner Helen Robinson is wrong when she said, “People are making terrible, terrible choices. Do I send the kids to school? Do I have the power on? Do I pay for the washing machine to be fixed? Do I have the power on? Do I get food?”

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I have observed on many occasions that there are New Zealanders in this country who continue to do it tough, and the circumstances which the city missioner outlines are real. The question for the member is: how do we address those challenges? I would also recall, when inflation was rising faster than wages—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. Thank you, sir. There is a long and consistent history of Speakers ensuring that Ministers do not ask questions of those who are asking questions of them. Their role in question time is to respond to questions, not propose them.

SPEAKER: That’s quite true. I heard it as “a”, not “the”. “A”, of course, would be acceptable. The Minister will resume.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: My simple point is this. During recent years, when prices were rising significantly faster than wages, the stories of hardship in our community were extensive. People were being left behind by their Government. Since being elected, we have a track record of getting inflation back into target, having interest rates reducing, and ensuring that we are able to forecast real wages increasing—that is to say, rising faster than inflation. We are doing the right things, but we’ve got six years of mismanagement to fix up.

SPEAKER: Concise, concise, concise.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Who is right, front-line community service providers who say the cost of living is getting worse, or Christopher Luxon, who said a year ago, and confirmed again yesterday, that the cost of living is getting under control?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, it can be the case that something is both improving but it still hasn’t improved enough. That is our position. The simple fact is that inflation, and therefore price increases which drive the cost of living, is much more under control now than it was previously. Without going on, I would like to highlight that when you have a period of such high inflation as we had between 2020 and 2023, that bakes in higher prices across the economy. It does take time to get that ratcheted down relative to incomes. Thank goodness we were elected to get on with the job.

Question No. 2—Housing

2. TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central) to the Associate Minister of Housing: Why has homelessness increased greater than the rate of population growth, while the rejection rate for emergency housing has grown to eight times what was reported a year ago?

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Associate Minister of Housing): As mentioned previously this week, this Government takes homelessness—particularly living without shelter—very seriously, and I acknowledge that the homelessness rate and living without shelter went up between 2018 and 2023 despite serious spending. It’s not just about housing but a range of issues. The homelessness insights report yesterday gives an insight in relation to the member’s question, where it says, “It is not possible to determine the extent to which changes described in this report reflect existing trends and broader economic and social contexts or are attributable to policy changes.” In relation to the second limb, if the member is actually referring to the decline rate, we are collecting better data now than we did one or even two years ago, and people are leaving Ministry of Social Development appointments with far better and more targeted support like transitional housing and housing-support products rather than being herded into emergency housing on places like Fenton Street in Rotorua and Ulster Street in Hamilton West, to live in dark, dank, dangerous squalor.

Tamatha Paul: Is it correct that people who have a genuine need have been turned away from emergency housing?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: As I’ve mentioned several times in this House, for those people with a genuine need for short-term stay in temporary accommodation and who fulfil the responsibilities framework, in most cities and towns in New Zealand, emergency housing is available.

Tamatha Paul: Why did the Government plough ahead with their changes to emergency housing, when they were explicitly warned by the ministry that it would “create a risk of increased levels of rough sleeping, people living in cars, and overcrowding”, which we are now seeing?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: We’re absolutely disgusted by the number of children and others living in these dank, dark, dangerous, squalid motels throughout the country, and that’s why I’m very proud that we now have 3,000 less children in those motels and hotels compared to when we first came into administration. Yes, we have absolute responsibility to enable the potential of those young children and also to ensure we do not have the type of profligate spending that we saw around five years of motels.

Tamatha Paul: Why is rough sleeping up 24 percent in Wellington, up 89 percent in Auckland, up 73 percent in Christchurch, tripled in Taranaki, and up 56 percent in Whangārei over recent months, if not for the Government’s decision to restrict access to emergency accommodation?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I’ll repeat this again just for the member’s benefit: “It is not possible to determine the extent to which changes described in this report … are attributable to policy changes.”

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Listen to the providers. They are telling you it’s your fault.

SPEAKER: You’re going to have to calm it down. I’m trying to listen to what he says because you’ll be on your feet in a minute objecting to something he said—I want to hear it. Please just keep the interjections to a minimum.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: May I repeat the homelessness insights briefing note: “It is not possible to determine the extent to which the changes described in this report”—including those that have been described by the member opposite—“reflect existing trends and broader economic and social contexts or are attributable to policy changes.” Homelessness is not just about housing, and it’s actually not only the Government that can help resolve the homelessness challenges. That’s why we are so energised to work alongside many community housing providers, whether or not that is the changes in the operational supplement funding and financing to enable another 1,500 homes to be built by community housing providers over the next few years, Māori housing providers, and a whole range of other issues. But I’m sure that if members opposite are so concerned with the nature of the travel of these policy changes and the impacts that they’re having, they would ensure that they have authorities to act and privacy waivers, none of which I’ve seen with the people from the Labour Party.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister: in terms of the problems that he currently faces, how many homeless people were housed by the 100,000 homes project of the Labour and Green parties?

SPEAKER: He has no responsibility for that.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yes, he has. He can tell me how many got housed.

SPEAKER: No, he has no responsibility.

Tamatha Paul: Is the Auckland City Mission wrong when they report that rough sleepers with pneumonia and on dialysis have been rejected for emergency accommodation because they were deemed to have contributed to their own homelessness, and, if so, will he reverse the changes to emergency accommodation criteria?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: That’s the first I’ve heard of that specific example, and I’m very concerned if indeed that allegation is proven to be accurate. However, the people, the kaimahi, who work at Te Manatū Whakahiato Ora—the Ministry of Social Development—have some very clear policies and practices that they must adhere to. If that’s a matter that concerns the member so much, it’s perhaps something that she will provide an authority to act around, of which I have not seen from this member to date.

Tamatha Paul: Does he stand by his statement that they will not be returning to the emergency housing model because “New Zealanders—including people sleeping rough—deserve better than that.”, or does he accept that rough sleepers would probably prefer emergency accommodation over freezing on the street?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: This morning, I had the great opportunity to walk with and talk with people who work here in Wellington Central—the member’s electorate—and the nature of the emergency housing policies that were undertaken over the last six or seven years. The message that I got from those people was this: whilst emergency housing might have been a stopgap issue for those who are rough sleeping and others, it is not an enduring solution. We are focused on an enduring solution for those in genuine housing need.

Tamatha Paul: Have any social services providers that support homeless people supported his changes to emergency housing, and, if so, can he name one?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Many social service providers and community housing providers acknowledge that emergency housing in the form that was concocted by the previous Government was absolutely dangerous and outrageous and imprudent spending, governed by loose policy.

Question No. 3—Health

3. Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his reported statement that Tōtara Hospice received 84 percent of its funding from the Government; if so, why does his account differ from that of the chief executive, who says the correct figure is 56 percent?

SPEAKER: The Hon Simeon Brown, with an inside voice.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health): In the context it was made, yes. The 84 percent figure is accurate and was calculated by the Ministry of Health based on Tōtara Hospice’s most recently published annual report from their website. I’ve been advised this is a much higher amount than the average 50-55 percent of funding for hospices across New Zealand. I’m further advised that Health New Zealand has provided the hospice sector with a 3 percent increase in funding this year as part of the Government’s $1.37 billion increase investment in health in Budget 2025. The Government values the vital role palliative care plays for New Zealanders, and we’ve asked Health New Zealand to work with Hospice New Zealand on a nationally consistent approach to palliative care through the National Palliative Care Work Programme.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Why is he disputing the hospice’s accounts with the chief executive when he has met with the organisation and has had the opportunity to get on the same page?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: The issue here was in relation to the media query—I provided commentary in relation to what their financial position was based on their financial analysis that was provided on their own website. So this information comes from Tōtara Hospice. It’s published on Tōtara Hospice’s website. But, look, I acknowledge we need to have a nationally consistent approach to palliative care throughout New Zealand. It is inconsistent. This is a piece of work which is a priority for me, and I’ve asked Health New Zealand to progress it.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is he saying that the hospice in one of New Zealand’s poorest communities needs to fund-raise more?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Based on my answers to the primary question, I outlined the fact that 84 percent of the funding, according to their own information, is funded by the Government. That is a lot higher than the 50-55 percent funding the Government provides on average to hospices across New Zealand. We need to have a nationally consistent approach to how we fund hospice. That is a piece of work that I have asked Health New Zealand to progress so we can not only support Tōtara Hospice but all hospices across New Zealand to be able to deliver the critical work that all New Zealanders value, which is the palliative care of New Zealanders who are dying.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Will he intervene quickly to ensure Health New Zealand fills the hospice’s $3 million funding gap, or is he content to let 130 patients each month miss out on quality end of life care and leave families struggling without support?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: This Government is investing more into hospice and we’re continuing to increase investment into hospice because we value the critical role that palliative care plays. But we need a nationally consistent approach to how we approach and how we invest in hospice across New Zealand. That is work I’ve asked Health New Zealand to do. Also to work regularly—I’m advised they are meeting weekly with Hospice New Zealand to work through these issues to ensure that New Zealanders can access the palliative care services that they rely on.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Does he understand that hospice is a lifeline to families losing a loved one?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Yes, I do.

Question No. 4—Economic Growth

4. RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini) to the Minister for Economic Growth: What recent announcements has she made?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister for Economic Growth): At the weekend, I released an update on the work under way to improve New Zealand’s infrastructure. The update is the first refresh of the Going For Growth agenda that was launched in February to drive economic growth by backing business, improving infrastructure and skills, and removing barriers to innovation. The update highlights the importance of infrastructure to economic growth, and shows the Government is working at pace to build a stronger infrastructure pipeline and drive better value for money. In the short term, this means jobs for people and good incomes. In the longer term, it means better infrastructure and better living standards for everyone.

Rima Nakhle: What is the connection between infrastructure and economic growth?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The quality of infrastructure has a direct bearing on the performance of our economy. Good classrooms, hospital wards, and roads help children to learn, doctors and nurses to get patients back on their feet, and businesses to move goods to market quickly and efficiently. Unfortunately, New Zealand does not have a good track record of investing in infrastructure effectively. In comparison with other developed countries, we invest a large share of national income in infrastructure. However, historically, we’ve been in the bottom 10 percent of developed countries in terms of the value we get from that investment, and that is what the Government is working to correct.

Rima Nakhle: What is this Government doing to improve the quality of New Zealand’s infrastructure?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Our Government is turning around New Zealand’s poor infrastructure track record with faster planning and financing, better funding and financing, and smarter delivery of projects. In education, for example, the smart use of standardised designs and off-site manufacturing has reduced the average cost of a new classroom from about $1.2 million to $620,000. That means we can build more classrooms for less. The update on the Infrastructure for Growth work programme released at the weekend details 14 actions that have been delivered since February and another 24 that are under way. The Government is getting on with doing the things that make a difference to people’s standard of living.

Rima Nakhle: What has been the reaction to Sunday’s infrastructure announcement?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: As members will be aware, the update was released alongside a list of the $6 billion worth of construction projects that we are getting under way between now and the end of the year. Infrastructure New Zealand chief executive Nick Leggett described the infrastructure project update as “good news” for the sector, and Civil Contractors New Zealand chief executive Alan Pollard said contractors “[couldn’t] wait to get worth working on these projects”. Importantly, Mr Pollard highlighted the importance of announcements translating into actions.

Question No. 5—Housing

5. Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) to the Associate Minister of Housing: Does he stand by his statement, “we’ve been really focused on making sure that those people with genuine need for housing are given some sort of support”?

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Associate Minister of Housing): I absolutely am. I will stand by the statement and I’ll stand by it for many, many years. I stand by supporting the young lady in Tauranga that I visited, who had four children in emergency housing between 2019 and 2022, and establishing the Priority One decision-making process that enabled her to actually get into a social house. I stand by the people of Ngāti Maniapoto, who, yesterday, we announced an iwi-Crown relationship with to build 40 houses in Te Kūiti for Maniapoto and others in housing need. I stand by the comments of Minister Bishop when he announced an extra 1,500 community-housing provided houses over the next two years. I stand by Minister Willis, who just announced and reminded everyone in this House that rents have flattened. I also stand by the work that we have done to ensure that there is an agile response to some of the current challenges that are confronting us.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Is he therefore saying that Auckland City Missioner, Helen Robinson, is wrong when she said, “I am very, very clear that the current emergency housing policies have a direct impact on these numbers going up”?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: May I remind the member that homelessness went up between 2018 and 2023, and also that the Auckland City Missioner does some absolutely fantastic work in confronting some of these issues. Of course, the Auckland City Missioner has a view. That view is not entirely consistent with the official Homelessness Insights report, which members opposite have paraded over, that says, “It is not possible to determine the extent to which changes described in this report reflect existing trends and broader economic and social contexts or are attributable to policy changes.” No one in this House wants to see other Kiwis living without shelter. However, we will continue—as they did under the opposite members’ Government. But we will continue to be agile and make sure that we provide enduring solutions and Government support to an issue that is not only the Government’s responsibility but lies amongst the entire community.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Is he saying that Christchurch Methodist Mission’s Jill Hawkey is wrong when she said, “We could count on one hand the number of people who have been offered emergency housing, … Chris Bishop said in an interview that if people are homeless they could go to the Ministry of Social Development and housing support would be available to them … We know that’s not true.”?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: As I’ve mentioned, homelessness is not just a housing problem, and it’s not just the Government’s problem to sort out, as members opposite know. We continue to work with community housing providers throughout this country and with Māori and iwi housing providers to support provision of housing for people in genuine need. We also ensure that there’s over $120 million of housing support products that are available through the Ministry of Social Development—Te Manatū Whakahiato Ora to help those people stay out of emergency housing. We are very agile in our response to the current concerns. We’ve directed our teams to get out there and understand where we can accelerate some targeted interventions, to liaise with some of the leaders whose names the member opposite has mentioned, and to ensure that we have an enduring solution and not one that relies on outbursts rather than outcomes and exclamations rather than execution.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: How can he expect New Zealanders to believe the claim that people with genuine need will receive support when numbers of people sleeping rough have increased up to 250 percent while the applications for emergency housing being declined have increased from 4 percent to 32 percent?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Yes, there are some numbers that have been announced in the Homelessness Insights reports, and we know that there are many, many people in genuine need. We continue to respond with a whole range of initiatives, and half a billion dollars of taxpayers’ funding alone, and transitional housing, Housing First, and a number of other programmes. Is it perfect? No. Are we responding very carefully and prudently? Yes. And I will continue to work with many of the people who the member opposite has named to ensure that we do get targeted interventions: the right house, at the right place, at the right time for those in genuine need.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Who should New Zealanders believe: the Minister, who claims that housing is available to those who need it, or respected front-line providers who have said, “We know that’s not true.”?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I certainly can reflect on the $1.5 billion or so that was thrown into emergency housing, hurting people throughout the country, and yet emergency houses went up for a very, very long time under the previous Government. Certainly, I would like all members to consider the work of Minister Bishop and others to reduce the numbers of whānau who are on the social housing register. If you believe the focus that we have in this Government to reduce those who are living in squalor, to reduce those numbers of people who are living in dark, dank, dangerous situations, the Housing Register quadrupled in the time of the previous Government and under this Government it has reduced considerably.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: The “Minister for Increasing Homelessness”. Well done.

Dana Kirkpatrick: Mr Speaker—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: You should be proud.

Hon Nicola Willis: “Moaning McAnulty”.

SPEAKER: Now, hang on a minute. Just wait till the member over here is finished.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: I’m done.

SPEAKER: Yeah, well, you’ll be more than done next time there’s an intervention like that. Question—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: You hear that, Nicola?

SPEAKER: Question No. 6—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: It’s not just me, mate. You going to tell that to Nicola?

SPEAKER: I didn’t hear that—look, hang on. Don’t push it. You’re right in my ear. You’re chipping away. It’s just sometimes that I hear you because of your very loud, rural voice. We’ll go to Dana Kirkpatrick—question No. 6.

Question No. 6—Tourism and Hospitality

6. DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast) 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): Our “Everyone Must Go” campaign with Tourism New Zealand was all about encouraging Australians to pick New Zealand for their next holiday. The campaign has hit its results out of the park. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Hang on—hang on a minute. Stop there—stop. You’ve got to slow it down. You can’t expect to talk all the way—at volume—through an answer. It’s question and answer. Listen a little bit, at least, to the answer. The Hon Louise Upston, please continue.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The campaign has hit its results out of the park, bringing thousands of visitors in a boost for regional communities across the country. Tourism New Zealand’s stats show that this initiative delivered an addition 7,981 visitors, which is exceeding the initial forecasts. These additional visitors generated an estimated $22 million in visitor spending to our economy. Tourism, we know, is a crucial part of our Government’s focus on economic growth. That’s why we made investments, including the “Everyone Must Go” campaign, to help bring international visitor numbers back to pre-COVID levels.

Dana Kirkpatrick: How will targeting Australians improve overall visitor numbers?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Tourism Boost was about delivering visitors in the short term, and visitor numbers from Australia are currently about 94 percent compared to 2019, so we know that there’s still room to grow. We also know that 4 million Australians are actively considering a holiday in New Zealand, so it’s encouraging to see a bump in Australian visitors from across the Ditch. The latest Stats New Zealand international visitor data shows an extra 145,000 visitors from Australia in the year ending May 2025, which, compared to the previous year, is an 11 percent increase. These positive results show that with the right investment in the right markets we can drive economic growth.

SPEAKER: Yes, good. It’s a very long answer.

Dana Kirkpatrick: What feedback has she received on this campaign?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: It’s been fantastic. The campaign attracted significant attention on both sides of the Tasman and across the world, and got people talking about New Zealand as a destination. New Zealand Airports Association said the campaign “will get people talking, which should deliver marketing reach far greater than the initial investment.” A key part of this success was the unprecedented support from the industry that created a sense of urgency, with more than 800 deals from 450 operators on offer to Australians, and, what’s more, we knew our Australian friends would recognise this opportunity. Just as they grabbed Phar Lap and our pavlova, it’s proved to be the same with “Everyone Must Go”.

Dana Kirkpatrick: How will more international visitors support economic growth?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: By investing in tourism, we are creating opportunities for growth, as tourism supports almost 200,000 jobs and contributes $44 billion to our economy. Every time a tourist comes to New Zealand, spends money at a local shop, eats in a local restaurant, sleeps in local accommodation, it’s good for jobs, it’s good for growth, and it’s good for the incomes of New Zealand families. We know that when tourism grows, it boosts our economy, it creates jobs, lifts wages, and helps Kiwis with the cost of living. Our message is clear: New Zealand is open for business, and we welcome anyone, anytime, anywhere.

Question No. 7—Education

7. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by her statement that “We want to grow, promote and support the education workforce by backing and strengthening our educators”; if so, how does offering secondary teachers the pay offer of 1 percent each year for three years back and strengthen our educators?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): In answer to the first part of the question, yes, and it’s exactly what we’re doing. The schooling teacher workforce grew by 2.5 percent in 2024, delivering 1,864 new teachers, the largest year-on-year increase since records began in 2009. On provisional figures for 2025, there has been a 30 percent increase in domestic students enrolling in initial teacher education for the first time. Our reforms are building a world-leading education system, and people want to be a part of it. In regard to the second part of the question, the negotiation is an operational matter. It is being undertaken by the Public Service Commissioner. I agree with his comment that the offer was carefully crafted to recognise the contribution of teachers while ensuring affordability for taxpayers.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Does she believe teachers deserve a pay offer that reflects the hard work that they do; if so, how is the lowest pay offer in 30 years even close to enough?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Teachers deserve what this Government has been delivering them: tens of thousands of teachers, having additional professional learning and development, their teacher registration fees being paid to the value of $53 million, and a brand new year-by-year knowledge-rich curriculum that’s being delivered to them, along with resources to implement them. It’s the largest investment in learning support in a generation to support our amazing teaching workforce, and the largest boost to teacher numbers in a generation shows that.

SPEAKER: Sorry, we’re back into the barrage mode. Give it a miss or leave the House—one of the two. The Minister will conclude briefly, I’m sure. Right—supplementary.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Why did she dismiss concerns around blocking secondary school teachers’ pay equity claims on the basis that they had pay negotiations coming up, only to offer teachers 1 percent?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: It’s very important that the member doesn’t conflate the pay equity with sector bargaining. Pay equity is addressing historic sex-based discrimination, and unions are free to raise claims. This was, as I’ve said, a reasonable first offer, and it is disappointing that the Post Primary Teachers’ Association did not take that to their members.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How many Australian secondary schools stand to benefit from this pay offer?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, it’s excellent that the member raised that, because I hear this time and time again—that there is an exodus of teachers to Australia—whereas the reality and the facts speak for themselves. The teacher retention rate for secondary school teachers in New Zealand is 90 percent, which is unchanged from years and years, but the important thing is that the numbers do not lie—as I said in my primary question, a 30 percent increase in the first-time enrolments of domestic students in 2025. That means currently, today, an extra 925 students are training to be secondary school teachers. The Opposition should take note, because in 2023 it was only 690. That is a 34 percent increase under this Government, because, as I’ve said, we are creating a world-leading education system. People want to be a part of it, and they didn’t under that Government.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How does 1 percent help teachers with the cost of living when inflation has increased to 2.7 percent?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I’ll reiterate what I said in my initial question. This negotiation is being undertaken by the Public Service Commissioner, and I agree with his comments. The offer was carefully crafted to recognise the contribution of teachers while ensuring affordability to taxpayers. But what I would note was that this offer represents between $3,100 and $8,000, including annual salary progressions, and it’s important to note that.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. Willow-Jean Prime asked a number of questions and after each one she interjected the whole way through. Are we to assume that it’s because as a questioner she’s absolutely incompetent, or is she allowed to do what she feels like in this House?

SPEAKER: Well, it’s not conducive to the order of the House to make personal comments about members, but perhaps the observation would be one that the public themselves might conclude, should they be watching.

Question No. 8—Mental Health

8. GREG FLEMING (National—Maungakiekie) to the Minister for Mental Health: What recent announcements has he made about Gumboot Friday? [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just hang on a minute. There’s a whole lot of noise in the House.

Hon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This morning, I attended an event with I Am Hope to mark the first 12 months in ongoing Government funding for Gumboot Friday. Over the last year, Gumboot Friday has been able to scale up and deliver more than 30,000 free counselling sessions and has supported more than 10,000 young Kiwis who might not otherwise have access to timely support. The Government committed $24 million over four years to the Gumboot Friday initiative, under the National - New Zealand First coalition agreement, to scale up its support for young people across the country. We’re turning the corner with reducing wait times, increasing the workforce—initiatives such as Gumboot Friday are helping drive that change.

Greg Fleming: How has the Government funding enabled Gumboot Friday to scale up their services to young people?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: In addition to the 30,000 sessions delivered and 10,000 young people seen last year, Gumboot Friday also increased their number of counsellors. There are now more than 700 qualified counsellors registered on the Gumboot Friday platform, a 33 percent increase over the last year. This is an additional 175 counsellors. This has given our young people a greater choice of the counsellor they see and has ensured that if someone is reaching out, they are seen when and where they need it.

Greg Fleming: How will Gumboot Friday support more young New Zealanders over the next year?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: That’s a good question. This Government is focused on increasing access to timely mental health and addiction support. By partnering with grassroots organisations like I Am Hope, we can make a real difference in the lives of many young New Zealanders. The Government is backing Gumboot Friday to deliver more. Funding for 2025-26 will deliver up to 40,000 individual counselling sessions, reaching as many as 15,000 young Kiwis. Over the next 12 months, the organisation will be looking at how it can scale up and encourage even more young people to access free counselling.

Greg Fleming: How does Gumboot Friday support the Government’s targets for prevention and early intervention?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Ultimately, what we want to do is ensure young people have timely access, because it’s a real red flag in mental health to have young people stuck on a waiting list. The Government knows the value of prevention and early intervention. We know intervening early can stop small problems from becoming big issues. There are not many organisations that can get our young people off waiting lists, into support, often within just a few days. Gumboot Friday are doing a fantastic job of delivering services to our young people quickly. I want to take the time to acknowledge the tireless team at I Am Hope, the amazing work that team and their counsellors are doing to turn the corner and, ultimately, give vulnerable young Kiwis more timely access to mental health and addiction support.

Question No. 9—Local Government

9. CELIA WADE-BROWN (Green) to the Minister of Local Government: Does he agree with the comments of Selwyn Mayor Sam Broughton that “There’s some basic things that councils have to get involved in because central government isn’t stepping up to fit the needs of local communities”; if not, why not?

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Local Government): I do not accept the premise of that quote. This Government is one that is invested in the needs of local communities and was elected with a clear mandate to get councils back to basics. When councils lose focus, rates go up and it hits Kiwis in their back pocket.

Celia Wade-Brown: Does the Minister recognise that councils own 26 percent of this country’s infrastructure, and, if so, does he consider rates funding is adequate to maintain the estimated $75 million of infrastructure owned by local councils?

Hon SIMON WATTS: It is clear—and this side of the House clearly understands—that there are clear expectations that matter to Kiwis in regard to infrastructure. That’s why we are unlocking land for housing, that’s why we have infrastructure announcements targeted on growth, and that is why this side of the House is working in partnership with local government to execute city and regional deals that will turn the dial, increase economic growth, increase productivity, and increase jobs.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister: how can he possibly calculate that if local government owns 26 percent of the infrastructure value of this country, it amounts to $75 million, as was prefaced in the question that came to him last?

Hon SIMON WATTS: I don’t think it’s within the scope of my responsibilities to comment on other members’ ability to calculate maths. However, what I can say, and give an example of, is what a core service of local government is. Well, it is fixing a water pipe. What is non-core? Well, spending $17,000 to paint a statue of a doughnut in Selwyn—non-core.

Celia Wade-Brown: Is he aware that local government rates—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Hang on. Just ask the member to hold on a minute while everyone is quiet. [Interruption] When everyone is quiet.

Celia Wade-Brown: Is he aware that local government rates to pay for that $75 billion of infrastructure—just to be clear—have remained at around 2 percent of GDP? [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Questions are heard without any comment. The member will start her question again, without adding any little bits to it.

Celia Wade-Brown: Is he aware that local government rates have remained at around 2 percent of GDP for over a century despite increased obligations and infrastructure requirements, while central government taxes have risen as high as 35 percent of GDP, and, if so, does he accept that the problem is actually a broken funding model that leaves councils with no choice but to raise rates to meet basic infrastructure needs?

Hon SIMON WATTS: What I can assure the House is that last year the average rates increase in this country was 9.6 percent and the inflation rate was 2.2 percent. I make no apology that on this side of the House the Government is standing up for Kiwis in a cost of living crisis. Ratepayers are not a bottomless ATM, and rates caps and other interventions are there to protect ratepayers. This Government is on the side of ratepayers who are sick and tired of seeing their councils spending on nice-to-haves. They must address the basics.

Celia Wade-Brown: Does he accept officials’ analysis that the removal of the four wellbeings will have limited impact on reducing rates and that it may create further implementation costs and issues for local government?

Hon SIMON WATTS: The simple fact is that when you define what core services are, then, as a result of that, councils deliver the basics. As it stands at the moment, what is included within the four wellbeings includes pretty much everything—and that is a major problem. It is a major driver of the increase in rates, and the increase in rates is a major and contributing factor to increases in inflation. That is why, on this side of the House, this Government is taking action through the implementation of legislation last week.

Celia Wade-Brown: Does he regret his comments at the 2025 Local Government New Zealand Conference comparing democratically elected councillors and mayors to undisciplined children, and does he think these comments show respect to the communities who elect them and correctly represent his Government’s views on localism?

Hon SIMON WATTS: This Government is focused on ensuring ratepayers get value for money. The prior Government drove the cost of living crisis, and a large portion of inflation is now driven by rates increases. This is a critical issue for Kiwis, and this side of the House, this Government, is taking action to provide relief for those ratepayers.

Celia Wade-Brown: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table a graph comparing local government rates and general taxation as a percentage of GDP. It’s researched from the Parliamentary Library and is not publicly available.

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

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

Question No. 10—Media and Communications

10. REUBEN DAVIDSON (Labour—Christchurch East) to the Minister for Media and Communications: Does he stand by the decision to cut funding to Radio New Zealand in Budget 2025; if so, why?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for Media and Communications): Yes, because the country couldn’t go on spending at the levels that we were spending at when this Government came into power, and so we’ve had to make tough decisions. When I looked around the arts and the media context, I looked at entities that had significant increases in funding over the previous years, and Radio New Zealand (RNZ) was one such entity, and so a modest element of savings was required.

SPEAKER: Just before you start, questions are heard in silence.

Reuben Davidson: What advice has he received regarding job losses and voluntary redundancies because of the Government’s decision to cut funding to RNZ?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, Radio New Zealand has been looking at voluntary redundancies, and that’s a process that they’re working their way through. I am certainly aware that the number of people working at Radio New Zealand increased dramatically after 2017, from about 265 through to about 365—so over 100—and there may be some reversal of that flow, but there will still be a lot more people there than there were some time ago, and they are delivering a great job for New Zealanders.

Reuben Davidson: How many people have lost their jobs in the media sector since he became the Minister?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I wouldn’t give the member the exact number, but there have been substantial job losses, as everybody is aware, across the media sector. The way that people get their news and entertainment and information has changed dramatically over the past few years, and so people are ultimately competing for attention and eyeballs with a whole host of different things, including TikTok and a whole lot of things that the member may or may not be aware of. That has meant that funding has followed some of that, and so the industry is going through a time of change, and that’s very unsettling for many people involved in that. But I have every confidence that the broader sector will find a sustainable economic path through this. It’s been interesting to see some announcements around investment in both Stuff and TV3 recently. I welcome those.

Reuben Davidson: Does an $18 million cut to Radio New Zealand represent the “immediate action to support New Zealand’s media” that the Minister promised last year?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, it’s one of the responses we’ve had to a broader issue, because it did enable us to put some extra resources into New Zealand On Air—$6.4 million—which will help a whole host of entities create New Zealand stories. Of course, some of the things that we’ve done include the legislation that was before the House around Sunday advertising. I do thank the member and the Labour Party for their support of that in the spirit of bipartisanship, and I encourage them to continue on in that vein.

Simon Court: Is it correct that Radio New Zealand’s funding increased by 50 percent between 2017 and 2023, and does he agree that Radio New Zealand should not be immune to having to make savings during tight fiscal times?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, yes, I do agree that Radio New Zealand did have a significant increase in funding under the previous Government. As I said in my initial answer, the country couldn’t go on spending at the levels that it was under the previous administration, and so many parts of Government have had to look for savings, and Radio New Zealand has participated in that. But I still remain confident that Radio New Zealand can continue to provide an excellent service.

Reuben Davidson: When can New Zealanders finally expect to see some of that “immediate action” that the Minister promised the public more than a year ago?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, we’ve seen some of that immediate action already. There were changes made to funding so that Shortland Street and other such entities could have the funding. We’ve got the broadcasting bill on Sunday advertising. If the Minister wants me to forge ahead with the digital—

Hon Members: You are the Minister.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Oh, thank you very much. If the member wants me to forge ahead with changes around the digital space in the geopolitical context that we’ve got at the moment, I’d encourage him to keep talking that way, but we are taking a very measured approach and watching changes very carefully.

Simon Court: Is he aware that Radio New Zealand’s trust score has dropped by 14 percent since 2020, and why is it so important that the media is trusted?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, it certainly is a challenge in the media, and in many institutions across the world there are falling levels of trust, and so I have certainly, in my letters of expectations to both RNZ and TVNZ, encouraged them to have a real focus on a plan to improve those levels of trust. I’m glad that they’re working very hard on that, and I encourage them to continue in that work.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Given that between 2018 and 2023, there was a massive injection of finance to RNZ and Morning Report, and despite the fact they have declined from No. 1 to No. 8—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry, no comment at all from anyone in the House, and I don’t want to mention names. No comments while the question is being asked. Please start again.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Given that there was a massive injection of funding between 2018 and 2023 and, despite that, Morning Report and RNZ have gone from No. 1 in the market in the last five years to No. 8, is it capable of being salvaged or is it just plain hopeless?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I find listening to Morning Report highly motivational, and I do it most days. All politicians will have a variety of opinions on that, but I’ve got every confidence that Radio New Zealand can continue to deliver a high-quality service. We are expecting a better performance from them, as we are from every agency across Government.

Question No. 11—Housing

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tokerau): Thank you. Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā tātou e te Whare. My questions are to the Associate Minister for Homelessness, and it reads: how has the Government’s declining of 28 percent more emergency housing applications in March 2025 compared to the year before contributed to the Auckland, Far North, and Whangārei territorial authorities reporting the highest number of homeless whānau in Aotearoa according to the Homelessness insights report June 2025?

Simon Court: Point of order. I’m not sure if other members of the House heard it, but I think I heard that member ask the question without reading the question on the page, and addressing it to not the Minister but the Minister of something else. I’m just wondering if any other members might have heard it.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: Speaking to the point of order?

SPEAKER: No—[Interruption] Wait a minute. I was watching it, because if it’s a long question, I always watch it. So if there was something that was picked up by you, what specifically was it?

Simon Court: Mr Speaker, I think the member addressed the question to the Minister for Homelessness.

Hon Member: Wasting the House’s time.

SPEAKER: Then I’m sure the member—[Interruption] Well, look, it’s members’ of the House time—the member can ask the question again.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: Thank you, Mr Speaker. My questions are to the Minister for Housing—I can read the “Associate Minister of Housing”. Should I read the question again completely?

SPEAKER: Read the whole thing as it’s written on the page, one more time.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: My questions are to the Associate Minister for Housing. Forgive me if I got that wrong before. It was obviously in the context.

SPEAKER: That’s all right—no need. Just carry on. Just get on with it—please.

11. MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tokerau) to the Associate Minister of Housing: How has the Government’s declining of 28 percent more emergency housing applications in March 2025 compared to the year before contributed to the Auckland, Far North, and Whangārei territorial authorities reporting the highest number of homeless whānau in Aotearoa according to the Homelessness insights report June 2025?

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Associate Minister of Housing): Whilst our data sets are improving, accurate numbers are still hard to pin down. But the attribution of declines or any other factor to homelessness are difficult to quantify. That’s why we are so hopeful that Māori housing providers, for those in genuine need, in the member’s rohe, efficiently deliver on housing in places like Utakura, Te Hāpua, and others which have fast-track legislative support like Bisset Road in Kaikohe and Ngāi Takoto in Awanui, and others who the Prime Minister and I talked to last Thursday about these challenges in Te Tai Tokerau.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Does he agree that it is fair and just that 22.5 percent of all emergency housing applications that were denied to whānau were declined on the grounds that their “circumstances could have been reasonably foreseen”, and, if not, will he commit to instruction the Ministry of Social Development to accept these applications instead of condemning our whānau to the streets?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: There are very clear responsibilities, framework, and criteria that kaimahi at Te Manatū Whakahiato Ora now have in order to make an assessment of whānau and individuals who are applying for emergency housing. Those matters remain in the purview of the operational arms of the Ministry of Social Development. However, it is very helpful that we have more reporting across these various categories.

Question No. 12—Building and Construction

12. GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland) to the Minister for Building and Construction: What announcements has the Government made about making building in New Zealand more affordable?

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Building in New Zealand is too expensive because it’s too difficult, uncertain, and slow. Costs have increased between 2019 and 2023 by some 40 percent, and we’re doing something about it. Recently, the Government announced that we would remove the rigid aspect of the insulation rules to ease the burden on builders, thereby lowering costs without lowering standards.

Grant McCallum: How will the changes to insulation standards lower building costs?

Hon CHRIS PENK: By official estimates, the changes are expected to lower building costs by up to $15,000 per new build. By providing more flexibility, to builders they will be able to meet the building code standards in a way that is more cost-effective. Currently, the prescriptive pathway known as the schedule method doesn’t allow for design trade-offs. By providing more flexibility, we can achieve the same outcomes at a lower price.

Grant McCallum: What announcement has he made regarding Northland?

Hon CHRIS PENK: We’ve announced that we’re working on designating Northland as a separate climate zone under the building code, further evidence of adopting a more tailored approach. I’ve heard from the Far North District Council that building costs there are miles above the rest—approaching $5,000 per square metre. They’re pushing for a change to deliver more homes for locals at a reasonable price, an ambition that we fully support.

Grant McCallum: What feedback has he received from the North on the proposed changes?

Hon CHRIS PENK: The feedback’s been incredibly positive, including when I was up North with the member asking the question making that announcement recently. I’d like to thank in particular the Far North District Council, including Mayor Moko Tepania for his advocacy on this important issue. It just so happens that we bumped into each other at a Northland focus function last night and were able to catch up on that—and, of course, the advocacy of their excellent member of Parliament as well. Recognising Northland’s unique climate with a separate zone is a sensible step that can lower costs and unlock much needed housing supply.

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

Points of Order

Oral Questions—Wording

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Point of order, sir. Thank you very much. At the end of question time last Thursday, I requested that you consider the use of—I guess—context and commentary in the lead-up to the asking of a question. There have been some discussions, through points of order and in other ways in the House, around what actually is an appropriate format for a question. Some Speakers, notably Speaker Mallard, required the use of what he termed a “question word” at the start of a question.

Now, no problem that you haven’t got back to us—I consider that you’re still thinking about this. In that vein, I would like to point out an example from today from the Rt Hon Winston Peters, who started with, “Can I ask the Minister”, a period of commentary, and then the actual question. So my question to you, sir: simply asking if he can ask the Minister—does that warrant a question and the commentary that comes after it? Is that appropriate? No problem either way, just some clarity so that that will guide us in how we approach it in the future.

SPEAKER: Look, I thank the member for raising it. It is something that I’m still wanting to come back to the House on. It’s also a matter that I’m going to refer to the Standing Orders Committee, because if you think about how our question time works, it is largely an unequal competition, because the concise nature of questions required by the questioner is not matched, in all cases, by the answer that might come.

Now, that may not be necessary. If the member reflects a little bit on the structures that other parliaments have, it’s not uncommon for a questioner in other parliaments to actually speak for a period of time before finally asking a question. Westminster is a perfect example, and there are many others. So I think it is a matter that the Standing Orders Committee should consider. The current format for questions was devised in the Parliament between 1981 and 1984 and came into effect in 1984. It’s quite some time—40 years, effectively—since this particular format was reviewed. But thank you for raising that. It is under active consideration.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you.

Bills

Budapest Convention and Related Matters Legislation Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I move, That the Budapest Convention and Related Matters Legislation Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

When people think about the things that this Government has focused on, restoring law and order has been one of our core promises to the people of New Zealand, and that takes many different forms. A lot of it has been canvassed in many other parts of the House, but this piece of legislation is part of that overall plan. It means that New Zealand can finally join the Budapest Convention and demonstrate our commitment to the global fight against cyber-crime. Cyber-crime causes New Zealanders significant financial harm and emotional distress. According to the Ministry of Justice’s New Zealand Crime and Victims Survey, 11 percent of New Zealanders were victims of fraud and cyber-crime in 2024, and the National Cyber Security Centre estimates $1.6 billion was lost to online threats. However, many of the criminals, of course, that seek to exploit New Zealanders do not operate within our borders, and we cannot fight them alone.

By joining the Budapest Convention, we will join a global community of like-minded countries who are dedicated to working together against cyber-crime. Joining the convention will give our law enforcement agencies new tools to protect New Zealanders. It will make it easier to request overseas assistance in gathering evidence, especially digital evidence that is stored outside New Zealand. Access to this evidence can be crucial to successful detection, investigation, and prosecution of crimes of all kinds, not just cyber-crime.

The passage of this bill is a necessary step towards joining the convention, ensuring—as it does—that our domestic legislation complies with the convention’s requirements and international best practice. The bill will also enable law enforcement agencies to take full advantage of joining the convention by ensuring that they are appropriately empowered to gather digital evidence and collaborate with international partners on cross-border investigation. It does this in two ways. Firstly, it amends the Search and Surveillance Act to create a regime for preservation directions, a new power that enables law enforcement to prevent somebody from deleting information that may be evidence of a crime. This will be particularly valuable for cross-border investigations, where it can unfortunately take a long time to get authorisation to seize evidence. Preservation directions will enable law enforcement to act quickly to protect evidence while this is taking place. Secondly, amendments to the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act will expand the kinds of assistance for criminal investigations we can provide to foreign countries and seek in return. Getting these settings right is crucial to ensuring that we can hold our own offenders to account, regardless of where the evidence is stored, and that we can support other countries to do the same.

In addition to these two key measures, the bill also makes several other small changes, including changes to the Crimes Act and to the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act, and these changes ensure our legislation fully complies with the convention. Other amendments ensure the bill provides additional protections for human rights and that international cooperation does not run counter to the public interest of New Zealand.

The bill has been improved along the way by the efforts of the Justice Committee, and I want to thank members of the committee for the time they took, and the many people who took time to submit, and the officials that provided helpful advice.

This Government is committed to ensuring our law and order enforcement agencies have the tools they need to tackle crime in all its forms, and this bill will contribute to this goal by providing modern, fit for purpose powers that will respond to the concerns of the digital age. I look forward to New Zealand being able to join—become a member of—the Budapest Convention, signalling to the world that we are dedicated to the fight against cyber-crime. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Before I call the member, I just wonder if the Minister wants to present the legislative statement on this bill.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Indeed, I do.

SPEAKER: Would you like to seek leave to do so, since it’s out of sequence? Just to get everything right.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I seek leave to present a legislative statement.

SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Any objection? There appears to be none. Away you go. Present—can you use the words?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I present the legislative statement on this, the Budapest Convention and Related Matters Legislation Amendment Bill, to the House.

SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a third and final call on the Budapest Convention and Related Matters Legislation Amendment Bill. As the House is well aware, Labour supports this bill. It was something initiated under us. It aligns with our commitment to enhancing New Zealand’s cyber-security capabilities and also international cooperation in this space. It brings New Zealand into line with our international obligations, and it is us playing a part in a worldwide network to counter cyber-crime.

One of the issues that has been discussed through the passage of this legislation and that has come up is the importance to say that if we have a threshold for crime in real life—which is shoplifting or burglary—why is that threshold not the same for cyber-crime? Many New Zealanders have been victims of phishing, of identity theft, and of various kinds of online crime or fraud, yet the amounts lost out of their bank accounts far exceeds the amount sometimes stolen from a shop or even a private property. It’s a lot harder for those New Zealanders to seek redress, to seek justice, and to be able to have a clear pathway on how to get their lost funds.

While it is great that we’re having a greater level of international cooperation with our partner agencies in our partner countries, it’s also incumbent upon New Zealand to resource law enforcement agencies to be able to respond to cyber-crime that occurs here in New Zealand. We know that in the recent crime and victims survey, and in other surveys, the level of cyber-crime in New Zealand is growing exponentially. It’s one area where we need to have increased investment. While we know there’s been speculation as to whether, if you have a burglary or a shoplifting worth less than $500, the police will turn up or not—given there was a directive sent out not to go, and then it got retracted when it got bad media—what is the story with cyber-crime?

There are individuals who lose tens of thousands of dollars to cyber-crime, and it’s incredibly difficult for them to seek justice. Often, they are told that it’s for them to go to their bank or their insurance company and to seek redress through those routes. I believe that we need to have a more ready response to those levels. This bill does build on the work that Labour did in Government to join the Budapest Convention, and it implements, also, some of those recommendations that were made in the royal commission of inquiry after the Christchurch 15 March terror attack.

We know that cyber-crime is a growing frontier of criminal activity, and I would like to highlight the fact that it’s important to have that same threshold of crime in real life versus crime online. They should be the same level of severity, irrespective of how that crime is conducted. The problem that we create if there’s not that similar threshold is it incentivises crime to be online. Those criminals who want to operate illicit funds illegally are attracted to online networks and online ways of stealing money and taking people’s savings if they can get more and the punishment is reduced. We want to make sure that we have consistency right across our law and that we are working well with counterparts to make sure there are fewer gaps that criminal networks are able to exploit. That is why this bill is important. It really enables us to join hands with a number of other partner countries to provide limited opportunities for organised criminal networks to exploit those people who work hard and have their savings locked up.

In 2023, 11 percent of New Zealanders were victims of cyber-crime, and that’s a growing number. We know that cyber-crime does cause serious financial harm not only to individuals but also to businesses. We want to make sure that in New Zealand, we are able to have a high level of trust and confidence with our personal information that is used online. That trust and confidence is significantly undermined the more that criminal networks or operatives are able to exploit people. It erodes that trust and confidence, and it makes us less able and flexible to evolve and have a digital system if people do not have that level of trust and confidence.

A lot of cyber-crime does happen across borders, and that’s where criminals exploit those differences between jurisdictions. The Budapest Convention aligns with the international community, and it enables us to cooperate in catching and prosecuting cyber-criminals—knowing where these people are coming from and where they are operating, and working in unison with their jurisdictions to make sure that people are held accountable when they commit a crime. We expect someone who steals from a shop to be held accountable and to be punished. The same thing should occur for those criminals who operate in cyberspace.

What this bill does is it’s designed to update New Zealand’s legal framework to be able to counter that cyber-crime far more effectively than what we do already. It paves the way for New Zealand to really enhance that level of international cooperation, and it does this by introducing new tools for law enforcement that, previously, we did not have. One of these—it’s been discussed at length at the committee stage and other stages of the bill—is data preservation orders. This helps, essentially, to secure digital evidence, to keep that evidence, and make sure it can be used to demonstrate and prove who is behind the criminal activities that has gained funds or accessed personal information. It improves mechanisms for accessing electronic data and international cooperation on cyber-crime. Essentially, it means that that data can be requested from telecommunications companies and be able to be used as evidence to demonstrate a network of criminals operating in that space.

The bill, effectively, amends the Search and Surveillance Act and also MACMA, the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act. The primary change to the Search and Surveillance Act is the introduction of those preservation directions. That means that New Zealand Police and others are able to have access to computer data to be preserved where there are grounds to believe that documents are particularly vulnerable to loss or modification. A preservation direction is the interim measure for ensuring that evidence in the form of documents is preserved before a production order is sought requiring those documents to be produced.

Typically, when someone has committed an act of cyber-crime, they will simply close an account or shut it down to remove traces of themselves. These orders operate to be in advance of that and to be able to secure that information so that before the account is shut down or closed, law enforcement authorities are able to gain that information and know who is behind that criminal activity. Where a person is subject to a preservation direction, they are legally obligated to keep the existence of that direction confidential for a period of time to avoid prejudicing any potential criminal investigation. That’ll be a difficult area. It’ll be interesting to see, over that time lapse, how our law enforcement authorities will work alongside other agencies to make sure that that comes into force and works well. I’m sure there’ll be some changes to see how it works, particularly if they’re going through courts and if there are delays in the courts, depending on when they’re being prosecuted.

The select committee heard some really excellent evidence, and we made a number of amendments to the bill, including to make clear that the public interest in avoiding prejudice in proceedings for an offence against a foreign country includes public interest in avoiding undue delay. Ensuring that all of those things are looked after, those amendments were made. We also recommended amending clause 37 to include the public interest, ensuring notifiable persons can challenge the legality of a proposed direction. We also heard some really good evidence from telecommunications companies that internet service providers do not typically have the capability to identify whether a customer has sent an email or something similar from a third-party service without intercepting it and analysing it. As a result of receiving that information, the committee has decided to recommend the obligation to provide that the nature of the telecommunication should not extend to third-party communication services carried to the network using an internet-dependent service.

It got quite technical at points there, but I think we mostly got our heads around it. Even Andrew Bayly did. We were really happy to work together, and it’s nice to see the committee agreeing to progressing a piece of work that, hopefully, will strengthen law enforcement not only in New Zealand but also working with our international counterparts to reduce the opportunities for organised networks to use cyber-crime to take money and personal identification of hard-working people. We have to do our part on the global stage, and this bill is a small step in the direction of doing that. I commend it to the House.

KAHURANGI CARTER (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. “We are broken hearted, but we are not broken.” This is a quote from the Imam of Al Noor Mosque, where, on 15 March 2019, 51 Muslim worshippers were martyred and 49 were injured in the terrorist attacks during the Friday congregational prayer. Now, I have here the submission of the Federation of Islamic Associations of New Zealand (FIANZ) to the royal commission of inquiry into the March 15 attacks. I would like to quote from it here: “The Police and NZSIS did not anticipate and plan for the attack because the Police and the NZSIS were not monitoring the terrorist. The Police and the NZSIS were not monitoring the terrorist because right-wing extremism was either not previously a national intelligence priority or was not included in the detailed requirements for previous National Intelligence Priorities relating to counter-terrorism. Right-wing extremism was not included in the National Intelligence Priorities … The NZIC did not surveil the online and offline activities of—”

SPEAKER: Can I just ask the member to come to the bill?

KAHURANGI CARTER: Oh, absolutely.

SPEAKER: The document you quoted from was, I think, publicly circulated.

KAHURANGI CARTER: Absolutely. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Cyber-crime, as we know it, knows no borders, and we must work together, as a global community, to make sure the world is a safer place. From the outset, the Green Party has engaged with this bill in good faith. We have supported the underlying purpose and intent of this legislation, which is to enhance international cooperation on cyber-crime and ensure our communities are safe.

We acknowledge the implementation of this convention was recommended at the royal commission of inquiry into the March 15 terrorist attacks, and we remain committed to advancing and honouring the recommendations of the royal commission of inquiry. We know that it is our job here to ensure the legislation is fit for purpose and will actually achieve the stated intent.

Throughout the select committee and committee of the whole House stages, we raised specific and practical concerns about the way this bill is drafted. These concerns relate to human rights, judicial oversight, and the scope of enforcement powers. In particular, we remain concerned about the risk that this legislation could enable with foreign Governments, in a way that could have unforeseen effects on refugees, political dissidents, or those engaged in lawful protests.

But after the committee of the whole House last night, when we talked through new section 88A(4)—which narrowed the political offence exception, meaning that individuals could be subject to surveillance or data preservation solely because their country of origin is a treaty partner, even if the underlying offence relates to peaceful political activity—and also we brought up new sections 88B and 88V and the provisions in Subpart 2 around the safeguards around proportionality, dual criminality, and human rights expectations, we want to make sure, and we all must ensure, that any prosecutions would meet New Zealand’s own legal and ethical standards.

The Minister engaged with our questions, and one of the answers was about the Auditor-General reviewing this legislation and being satisfied that, with other Acts that are currently in our Government, this bill is in line with our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—which I will refer to as BORA from now on—and to address these issues, we did actually lodge a number of good-faith amendments, which were, unfortunately, not supported. These were a clause to exclude political refugees from preservation directions and related investigation powers; also, a clause to ensure the legislation did not apply to lawful protest activity or acts of political expression—which is, obviously, a legal thing in New Zealand and a part of our democracy here; and, also, a provision requiring regular reviews of the legislation and the impact, specifically focused around the civil liberties, freedoms of expression, and compliance with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

Unfortunately, as I said, these weren’t supported, but what I did look into was our human rights protections that already actually exist under the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1992, and it does show that within the departmental reports and with the Minister’s answers, these would be covered. But I would still really put down the challenge that we need to be reviewing this legislation to ensure that those things that we hold to be really, really important and true to our society here are looked into to make sure that we are staying true to who we are as New Zealanders and the laws and democracy that we live by here.

The biggest concern for me, and which was so disappointing, was the fact that this legislation is about one of the recommendations in that royal commission of inquiry into the March 15 terror attacks, and part of that royal commission was really clear in recommending meaningful consultation with affected communities must be a core part of the legislative response to those attacks—and FIANZ was not even consulted. They didn’t know that the select committee process was coming up. This is a real oversight that we had here and something that I would like to challenge this Government on—that we really take seriously the recommendations of any royal commission and make sure that we are engaging with the communities that our legislation will most affect. I highlighted during my second reading speech that community organisers, including FIANZ—the Federation of Islamic Associations of New Zealand—were not consulted, and they were really disappointed and provided a quote to say, “Let’s work together so that we make our country safer and that this never happens again.”

More needs to be done to ensure the utmost transparency, and judicial oversight must be taken in matters of surveillance. We know, in other jurisdictions, that national security has been used to infringe on democratic rights, and that is something we absolutely do not want here in New Zealand. We do not want to be an over-surveilled country, and we need to learn lessons from our overseas counterparts. The Green Party agrees that cyber-crime is a serious and evolving threat, we agree that international cooperation is vital, and we support the purpose of the Budapest Convention. We remain hopeful that the concerns raised in good faith during this process will inform legislative work in this space, and we will continue to advocate for a framework that protects our communities.

I just want to take the time again to talk directly to all of those families, the communities in Christchurch, the community of Al Noor Mosque—which is just around the corner from my home—and say: today, Parliament heard you. They heard—we heard—that New Zealand was not a safe place for you. You are Kiwis, you belong here, and we are sorry that this law and our systems didn’t protect you. Today, this one is for you.

LAURA McCLURE (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the ACT Party to support this piece of legislation to enable us to enact the Budapest Convention. It’s really important, as I’ve discussed in my previous speeches, that New Zealand, as a tiny island nation at the bottom of the planet, works with our like-minded partners to counter things like cyber-crime.

We’ve seen over the last few years, particularly the last couple of years, a really big increase in these kinds of global events that do reach as far as New Zealand. I mean, quite a few in this House are probably well aware when even our systems are going down here in Parliament. It is happening all the time, and so this is a really needed piece of legislation.

In order to identify bad actors within the systems, we need to work together. Part of that means preserving data. It means sharing what we have with our like-minded parties. I think that this is a really valuable piece of information and it’s also something that is really important to countries like New Zealand. In fact, it does actually protect our sovereignty.

I do accept the concerns that the Green Party have, and I note previous speakers’ concerns—I think Dr Duncan Webb also mentioned this—around how we don’t want to become over-surveilled, and we also don’t want other countries to use surveillance as a means to get to our citizens here in New Zealand for nefarious means. I think that this piece of legislation does strike the right balance. We need to make sure that we can freely share this information in order to stop cyber-crime, for example, but we need to also make sure that we protect our citizens. As the Minister has said during the committee of the whole House, these concerns are addressed and are in line with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

ACT does commend this bill to the House, and we look forward to seeing more legislation around this space when it comes to the digital world, and I look forward to discussing those other speeches.

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in support of this third reading. Look, in simple terms, this is about New Zealand ratifying the convention that we have already signed up to, and it’s a normal process to go through for all countries, as far as I understand—certainly in our system—to do that.

Look, it’s interesting to hear some of the concerns which are being expressed by members who are going to support the bill anyway, who often tell us how important it is that we are consistent with various international agreements that we’ve signed up to. Here is an international agreement that we have signed up to and it seems consistent to actually follow through and actually deliver on that, which is what we are doing today. This is about us being a responsible global citizen. It’s about sitting alongside over 80 nations who’ve already signed up to the Budapest Convention.

We’ve heard already through the several readings that we’ve had that cyber-crime is an increasing problem; it’s a growing problem. We heard—in fact, I’ve got a shout-out to Reuben Davidson for the speech that he gave that I did hear—just the devastating impacts that cyber-crime can have on individuals of the scams, the taking of people’s money, leaving them with nothing. I thought that that was quite compelling to hear that and quite tragic to hear that where somebody is taken advantage of and that all their money, effectively, has been stolen—because that’s what it is: it is stolen.

The other element of cyber-crime, of course, is that we are seeing increasing numbers of attacks by malicious actors, sometimes national, sometimes subnational actors, who are conducting cyber-criminal activity on nations like New Zealand. It was actually interesting that we visited one country last year, and they said that they had in excess of 100,000 attacks a day on that nation, trying to, essentially, destabilise that nation to try and put in front of its citizenry inaccurate, misleading information to try and destabilise that nation. We know that cyber-crime, cyber activity, is a huge issue and is probably only going to, sadly, get worse.

There are two or three other things I wanted to say. This convention is about improving cooperation. We’ve heard quite frequently that cyber-crime is something that knows no boundaries, and this is about allowing and improving cooperation across borders so that we are working with like-minded nations who’ve signed up to this convention to try and deal with that international, cross-border crime, and that makes absolute sense. As I said, this is about us being a responsible global citizen.

The information that we’ve also had in the departmental disclosure statement says that the convention requires the provisions to be designed in a way that upholds and promotes human rights, particularly the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. We’ve heard quite a lot about making sure that we are not overly surveilled—that is really, really important. My understanding is that is what the convention is intended to do: to make sure that we don’t have excess, unreasonable surveillance.

The final point I want to make—because we’ve heard the comments made around the awful events of 15 March 2019—is, again, the advice we have is that the implementation of the conventions provision was recommended by the royal commission of inquiry into the terrorist attack on the Christchurch mosques on 15 March 2019. So it was a recommendation coming from that inquiry, which has been dealt with through the bill that we are addressing this afternoon, and I commend the bill to the House.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tokerau): Thank you. I started my second reading, I think, on this one saying it’s easier to go from a “no”, to a “yes”. But we’re still in the “no” lane today, sadly.

Andy Foster: Aw!

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: I know. But just let me say this: Government rightly seeks to include our nation in the global effort to reduce and bring harsher consequence to those engaged in cyber-crime by joining the Budapest Convention. I acknowledge the necessity of this convention as the digital world extends beyond the borders of countries and, therefore, beyond our nation’s laws. Taking action to alleviate the challenge of this, I applaud, yet I cannot commend this bill to the House.

Unity in principle does not blind me to the details of this legislation, nor those of Te Pāti Māori. The proposed bill currently undermines privacy and risks public trust, which is already a bit low in any case—certainly from the communities that I live with and work with—as it exceeds the requirements of the convention.

This bill asserts preservation directions, meaning that your digital data can be frozen, not just for cyber-crime but for any offence, including those not recognised under Aotearoa New Zealand law. This can be done without any judicial oversight. This is deeply concerning, because we’ve seen how this type of approach of overreach to cyber-security can play out for communities that are typically marginalised by most of our society.

I speak specifically to the Tūhoe raids in 2007. That’s not that long ago—18 years ago. In fact, I’m sure the majority of members in this House can recall when those raids occurred. Now, how come they occurred? The raids were undertaken without necessary checks given the broad powers granted under the anti-terrorism legislation. This has stark comparisons to the convention itself and the broader powers within it. But at the time of the raids, it was physical powers that lacked judicial oversight. With this convention it is now digital powers—the lack of judicial oversight. At the time of the raids, our Māori communities were targeted and profiled.

How will this profiling be mitigated against? Have necessary discussions taken place to understand how this convention might negatively impact on marginalised communities, including Māori? History shows us time and time again that Māori are often the first to draw the short straw when it comes to expansive Government powers. The Tūhoe raids show that clearly and explicitly.

This draws me to another point of concern, which is around—and I’ve raised this a few times in first and second readings and even last night—Māori data sovereignty. The value of Māori data sovereignty is critical to our success, to our self-determination, to whānau, to hapū, and to our Māori businesses, right? So unlocking economic and social potentials enabled by Māori data—OK. And Māori data must be owned by Māori. The convention means that we could be compelled to hand over private data to foreign Governments for offences that are not crimes in Aotearoa New Zealand. This risks the safety of Māori data sovereignty and the state of our people, as well. We cannot rely on international countries—and probably a bit rugged here right now, just saying—to place a non-biased lens onto their efforts in reducing cyber-crime.

So we still are opposing this bill. Again, we were trying to go for the “yes”, just so you know—because, I mean, as a bigger idea, of course it’s a good idea, but it’s in the detail that it fails. You can have a great idea but fail and deliver a really poor methodology, and that’s certainly the case in this instance, sadly. So we oppose it to this point. Thank you.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party to speak in the third reading of the Budapest Convention and Related Matters Legislation Amendment Bill.

We have heard from various speeches already in the House that part of this bill in itself is to ensure that we are aligned with the requirements of the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime, known as the Budapest Convention, but also the implementation was recommended by the royal commission of inquiry into the terrorist attack in Christchurch on 15 March 2019. This is a topic that is not to be taken lightly, and this is one of the reasons why the Green Party, up to the first reading, select committee, second reading, and the committee stage, had a lot of concerns around this. I just want to highlight, again, some of the concerns we’ve had and how that was navigated through the committee stage.

I think the main part of this, particularly, in the bill, when we’re looking at clauses 18 and 19 of Part 1 of this bill, which is around the criteria of preservation directions, but also in terms of how that is going to be implemented—one of the key concerns that we had around this is, number one: what are the safeguards for us to be able to protect anyone in Aotearoa New Zealand against potentially foreign authorities that may not hold the same value?

We did put in Amendment Papers, which were not accepted by the Minister of Justice, around safety for those who are refugees, safety for those who are in Aotearoa New Zealand as a result of political persecution from their home country or from their country of origin, and amendments around the ability to be able to protest, which is a right given to anyone here in Aotearoa New Zealand under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

We were assured by the Minister, and we are really kind of taking a leap of faith, in this case, on what the Minister is referring to in new section 88D, inserted by clause 19—and I read—“Commissioner to make preservation direction”. The commissioner may refuse to grant all applications if satisfied—and I will home in on subsection (d)—that “granting the application would prejudice the sovereignty, security, or national interests of New Zealand.”, which includes the core values that we hold dear in Aotearoa, including our Human Rights Act and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. That, for us, is incredibly important as a baseline for how we approach this bill.

Now, the other thing that we want to highlight in terms of this bill is around people’s ability, if there is a preservation direction, to challenge that preservation direction by right. This is something that we did seek advice on from the Minister, but we didn’t get a clarification on this particular point, but I’m hoping that is something that is embedded in new sections 88O and 88P, inserted by clause 19, in terms of the ability for reviews and the right of review but also how reviews must be conducted.

Again, this is something for us that provides the kind of safety net that means that we’re not going to see situations that we have seen already, where we are using police resources here in New Zealand to investigate on personnel here in Aotearoa New Zealand that is dictated by a foreign authority and the nature of the investigation may not be in line with our values as New Zealanders and within our national interest. So we’re hoping that this does provide a level of safeguards.

I think the other thing that does provide is a level of transparency that we do see in new section 79Y, inserted by clause 18, around the need for annual reporting.

So, with all of this combined, we are, at this stage, taking a leap of faith to support this bill in its third reading. The Green Party wants to ensure that there is judicial oversight, with full transparency of Government actions involving the surveillance of individuals and also the designation of people as a threat to security. We’re hoping that this bill will strike that balance, but we’ll see in time.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Thank you, Madam Speaker. We are in the third and final reading of the Budapest Convention and Related Matters Legislation Amendment Bill. I was privileged to be a part of this process—part of my role on the very busy and hard-working Justice Committee.

Essentially, what this bill does, as we’ve heard—if we’re going to put it down in a nutshell—is align our domestic laws with the obligations that we signed to on an international level, in international law, under the Budapest Convention, essentially, to fight cyber-crime. Cyber-crime is one of the fastest-growing crimes that we’re seeing not only in New Zealand but, indeed, around the world. The way that this law will do this is by aligning with international law.

We’re amending four of our domestic laws—essentially, the main changes being that law enforcement agencies will be able to require companies to preserve records that can be used as evidence of cyber-crime offending. Another main change is going to be that New Zealand’s ability to receive assistance from foreign countries is strengthened for these criminal investigations. Of course, we will be able to further provide our assistance to different countries in return.

Tackling cyber-crime is being tough on crime, because today’s criminals don’t always wear masks or gang patches—they use keyboards—and this new law brings New Zealand into line with international laws. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I know there’s a lot of controversy around this bill. My former colleague Claire Szabó would want me to note this—as to whether it’s the “Budapest” convention or the “Budapesht” convention. I just put that on the record, and I’m not sure how Hansard will record it—ha, ha!—but there is an “s-h” sound by some local pronunciations.

In any event, look, obviously we all support this bill, but I do want to just kind of put a marker down. It has been mentioned that this is, essentially, a search and surveillance bill focused on transnational crime, and particularly around cyber-crime. My Green colleague and Christchurch buddy Kahurangi Carter noted that cyber-crime is, essentially, borderless, but we still do need to be really cautious. Sometimes, I think we take the view that if all we’re intercepting is electronic communications, then, in some ways, the threshold for intervention, the threshold for surveillance, for intrusion, is somehow lower. I just want to say that it’s not. Someone looking at your text messages or even something as apparently benign as, you know, how often you’ve called that number in Columbia or Bangladesh—it’s just as important to protect that as any other aspect of our lives.

I really just want to talk about two aspects of this bill. Whilst we support it, I just want to kind of identify that I’m a little uneasy about aspects of it, right? The big innovation of this bill is preservation orders, so that we don’t see electronic records erased whilst people discuss whether we can seize them or not, so the preservation order which is aimed at providers—the Sparks and Vodafones of this world. One is the right of review, in terms of if there is a preservation order that someone thinks is unfounded, the right of review is entirely administrative. There is a strong principle that administrative action should be subject to judicial supervision, not more administrative action. So an administrative review is problematic.

The other thing about that administrative review—it’s in new section 79J of the amended legislation, inserted by clause 18—is it’s done at the same level. It’s not even something that’s done at a mid-tier level, for example, with the Ministry of Social Development, then you go up the chain. You just stay at the same link and ask the person in the cubicle across the way, “Do you think I made the right decision?” It’s actually really problematic. So that’s the first thing I would say.

So that’s about preservation orders and the right of review—not entirely comfortable with that. The other point is this—and, honestly, it’s the one section that I really don’t know, I can’t understand, and we went through a pretty good committee of the whole House stage and the Minister couldn’t give me a satisfactory answer, and that’s the production of things. It’s about the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act. It’s about providing something to a foreign State. This is a very significant thing. So we could have a situation where there’s evidence in New Zealand; there is a trial in a foreign State, like China or Hong Kong; and that country has said, “Please provide to us the item of evidence you have seized.” It could be anything from a hard drive to a paper document to a physical thing such as, even, a weapon. Now, that’s fine, I get that—so far, no problem.

But the first thing you’ve got to do is to say to the person who is affected, “We propose to give this piece of evidence to this foreign nation.” That’s kind of obvious. You’re going to take an administrative action which significantly affects the right of a third party. It might not be a citizen, but it could well be. So you say, “Well, we’re going to hand over this hard drive full of all of this data, and we’re going to hand over this object”—which is alleged to be a weapon with which you’ve committed a crime—“to a foreign power.” Now, there are a raft of reasons which you might want to raise as to why that should not happen.

But new section 49B, inserted by clause 37, says that notice telling someone that you’re going to take this administrative action that directly affects their legal rights, you can do—and let’s use the word—in secret. Now, I can’t for the life of me understand why, because the State already has control of the thing. It’s not like there’s a risk that the thing, whatever it is, is going to be destroyed or tampered with. So the only reason is to stop the person affected having an ability to prevent it. To take a judicial review would be an obvious example, to say, “No, there is a compelling reason why that should not go overseas.” That hard drive you’ve got contains a database of the Uyghur support group in Christchurch, for example. Now, if that goes overseas—you know, it might even be by accident. It just looks like a customer database—might not even be called the “Uyghur support group”. It might be a delivery list for groceries, but it’s got contact details on it. Do we want to send that to a foreign State? We need to think about that.

I was really disappointed that the Minister, when given the opportunity, sort of said, “Well, it’s just how it works.” and didn’t give a satisfactory answer, because there might be—I can’t imagine what it is, but I was prepared to listen and hear that there’s a compelling reason where, in a narrow band of cases, we can’t tell the person affected that this thing is going to be given to a foreign State. But I can’t imagine it, and I wasn’t told of it.

So, look, the bill, cyber-crime—absolutely. Hacking—it’s a massive problem. We’ve got to address these things, but the balance between making sure that we protect human rights and certainly that we don’t enable foreign States to, essentially, misbehave is of critical importance. On balance, the bill, we’ve got to support it because it’s essential, and, of course, the Budapest convention—“Budapesht” convention—is a convention to which this Government acceded and we endorse it entirely, but still some concerns in there. I hope and I suspect that the judiciary will have a role to play as this rolls out in making sure that an appropriate balance is struck between the rights as set out in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and elsewhere, and achieving the objects of this legislation. Kia ora, Madam Speaker.

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill): Madam Speaker, thank you. Cyber-crime is a growing threat in New Zealand—our seniors are especially at risk. Many are being targeted by scams and losing thousands from their life savings. This bill ensures our domestic law meets the requirements of the Budapest Convention—a convention on cyber-crime. By working together globally, we can better protect our people, our businesses, and our digital future. I commend this bill to the House.

REUBEN DAVIDSON (Labour—Christchurch East): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a further call on this bill at its third reading, and to continue to support the bill—we signed up to the Budapest Convention, or “Budapesht” Convention, as earlier speakers have indicated. It’s good to see that this important work continues.

Now, one of the important things about cyber-crime—and most speakers have touched on this, but it would be remiss of me not to—is that cyber-crime is borderless. It happens, and can happen, with an actor in one country, a victim or a target in another country, and crucial content regarding that cyber-crime sitting in a third country. So collaboration and cooperation between multiple countries to be able to detect, investigate, and, ultimately, to successfully prosecute, to ensure that victims of cyber-crime are not left without service, help, assistance—the convention does overcome these problems.

There are some specific considerations in New Zealand, as you would expect, when you’re looking at aligning and working with other countries, and these specific considerations that I wanted to touch on here were, firstly, the protection of data. At the select committee stages, and through the committee stage, there were some concerns raised that Māori data may be at risk if New Zealand accedes to the convention. It was noted that, for many Māori, data is considered a taonga—appropriately so. This is a really legitimate issue. So only data and information held or created by both Māori and non-Māori that contains evidence of offending would be sought by law enforcement agencies under the current arrangements or once New Zealand is a member of the convention—and I think that’s very important for us to see.

The other is that the convention requires law enforcement agencies be empowered to preserve and obtain specified electronic evidence of particular instances of criminal offending. Very importantly, the convention does not enable the collection of broad sets of data about populations or communities unrelated to specific criminal offending. It does not enable any type of social profiling, and that’s a really important consideration and should be something that we, as a nation, constantly give consideration to and monitor, in any agreements that we reach with other countries internationally.

Now, a second important consideration that I want to draw attention to at this stage of the bill, at this third reading, and as the spokesperson for the creative economy for the Labour Party, is that issue of copyright and intellectual property. The convention, importantly, protects copyright by requiring countries to criminalise the intentional infringement of copyright and related rights on a commercial scale by means of a computer system. So whilst our legislation is already aligned with the copyright-related provisions of the convention, the convention does not require New Zealand to accede to any treaties relating to copyright to which New Zealand is not already party. That is very important, because we are a creative nation. We are a nation of innovators and artists. Our intellectual property holds deep significance and economic value, and we need to make sure that when we agree to things like the Budapest Convention and Related Matters Legislation Amendment Bill, which we’ve discussed today—we are agreeing to—we need to make sure that we are protecting those innovators, those creative people, and our shared intellectual property here. I think, on balance, it’s a good bill. We continue to support it, and I commend it to the House.

NANCY LU (National): I’m very honoured, and actually feeling excited about all the support from across the House for the Budapest Convention and Related Matters Legislation Amendment Bill. Particularly, I wanted to highlight the fact that this bill is one more step towards the right direction, under the National Government, to restore law and order—either in reality, physically, or online, through the digital platform. This is also particularly good news for all those victims, because, according to the Ministry of Justice statistics, 11 percent of Kiwis have been victims of cyber and digital harm. Therefore, this is a great bill, and I’m very, very honoured to be supporting this in the House.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Like my colleagues on this side of the House, in terms of the Labour caucus, I’m pleased to be speaking in support of this bill at third reading. I appreciate the time that the various Ministers gave in the chair to responding to questions, but like my colleague the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, I also do have some concerns in terms of whether the bill strikes the right balance in terms of rights protection. Where I land is that, yes, I’m happy to support the bill through to legislation, but I do think it’s a piece of legislation that needs to be actively monitored to ensure that we aren’t infringing on rights. I agree with Duncan Webb that the courts absolutely have a role in terms of making sure that that’s the case.

At second reading and at committee of the whole House stage, I spoke about reports and commentary from the likes of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch in terms of what we’re seeing around the world in terms of repression of the online voice. There’s also an organisation called Freedom House who publish annual or periodic reports on transnational repression—so this is Governments reaching across borders to silence dissent amongst diasporas and exiles. They do that physically—I’ve spoken about that in terms of assassination and illegal deportations, abductions, threats, including threats to family members—but they also do that through sourcing information through agreements such as this.

I also spoke—I think it was yesterday; we were in committee stage—about the comparison between the UN draft convention and the Budapest Convention. I acknowledge that the UN draft convention is particularly problematic, because we had a number of countries attempting to introduce what are called content crimes—so not just crimes of fraud and corruption but, essentially, crimes of the use of speech in terms of how they’re used against Government. Some of those crimes are suppressing a political voice; others are suppressing a religious voice, as well.

But what Freedom House says in their most recent report, which was a report on 2024, is that we have seen global internet freedom decline for the 13th consecutive year. What they’ve said is 55 of the 70 countries that they monitor have found that people have faced legal repercussions for expressing themselves online, while people were physically assaulted or killed for their online commentary in 41 countries. They’ve also found that generative artificial intelligence threatens to supercharge that online disinformation space, and at least 47 Governments have deployed commentators to manipulate online discussion in their favour during an election period, which was double the amount of a decade ago. They’ve also found that the legal frameworks in at least 21 countries mandate or incentivise digital platforms to deploy machine learning to remove disfavoured political, social, and religious speech.

Now, during the course of committee stage, I asked various questions on this, and there are provisions in the bill that look at protection for political speech. But my questions were really around whether that’s broad enough to cover what we’re seeing happen internationally, because a number of speakers have said that, you know, this is our opportunity to collaborate with others in combating cyber-crime. That is true, but the countries who are signatory to this convention have quite a broad slate of laws on their books. It isn’t just Canada, Japan, the United States, and South Africa; it is now also the Dominican Republic; it’s Israel, Guatemala; it’s Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kiribati, Nigeria, Mexico, Philippines, Tunisia; it’s Sri Lanka; it’s Timor-Leste. It’s a broad slate of countries, each of whom will be criminalising content law in quite a different way—some of it political, but, actually, some of it social, some of it religious. So we do need to be very cautious about how we approach and monitor this area.

Now, having said all of that, the reason why I’m in support of this bill passing into law is in part because my view is the common law principles that have assisted us in lawmaking thus far continue to apply, and one of those protections that I’ve spoken of is the common law duty of candour. This is helpful in terms of the granting of preservation directions where you may not have the subject of that order being able to produce their view as to why the order shouldn’t be granted. Essentially, the common law duty of candour says that a decision maker in that context must take into account the reasons why you should not grant that sort of an action. That applies in common law regardless of the fact that it’s not set out in legislation. That was developed through a number of different cases, but most notably Hager v Attorney-General. We have a number of common law precedents that are equally as helpful in the context of search and seizure in relation to this bill.

I do note that the Justice Committee—and I wasn’t part of much of the hearings in terms of this bill, but the select committee did raise issues about individuals being able to challenge the sending of information overseas before it was sent overseas. This comes out through the common law in Kim Dotcom v Her Majesty’s Attorney-General, where there is an understanding in common law that you should be able to challenge those decisions because they can be detrimental to you. So the common law framework is very helpful.

I do think there’s still potentially a gap, and I asked a question at committee stage about what happens when information is sent overseas not necessarily to disadvantage the individual who’s in New Zealand directly but, potentially, one of their family members. Certainly, from conversations that I’ve had with members of our multicultural community, this is a common occurrence or something that’s commonly discussed, that people don’t want information released or they’re afraid to go to protests or they feel like they’re being monitored in New Zealand, not to directly affect them but to indirectly affect them by threats made to their family members. I wasn’t confident that the definitions we’ve got within the bill as it is will necessarily cover those situations.

Again, I believe this is an area of law that we must address. Clearly, there are increasing numbers of New Zealanders who are impacted by corruption, by fraud, so we must do something. The question is: do we have the balance right? I would urge the Minister of Justice and members of Government to almost flag this piece of legislation as one that will require some particular monitoring going forward. Also, just noting that there were, I thought, very reasonable suggestions made by submitters about the need for the involvement of the judiciary, particularly in granting preservation orders—currently, that’s done by the commissioner—and those recommendations weren’t followed. So, in that light, I would just strongly recommend that there’s a need for review, but otherwise I do commend this bill to the House.

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): Oh, thank you, Madam Speaker. I too want to thank the Justice Committee for all its work on this Budapest bill over a number of months. The bill ensures that New Zealand’s legislation fully aligns with the requirements of the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime, also known as the Budapest Convention. So I commend the bill to the House. Let’s get on with it. Thank you.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Budapest Convention and Related Matters Legislation Amendment Bill now be read a third time.

Ayes 117

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

Noes 5

Te Pāti Māori 5.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Crimes (Countering Foreign Interference) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I present a legislative statement on the Crimes (Countering Foreign Interference) Amendment Bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I move, That the Crimes (Countering Foreign Interference) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

This bill is designed to strengthen New Zealand’s criminal law to support a justice response to foreign investment and espionage activity targeting this country. It represents the Government’s commitment to restoring law and order, and protects the safety, security, and democratic freedoms of New Zealand. The bill delivers on our quarter three action plan commitment to criminalise foreign interference and strengthen espionage offences.

Let me be clear: foreign investment is not transparent State-to-State engagement or international cooperation. It’s not the legitimate community, cultural, and business outreach that all embassies engage in and promote in their efforts to promote their national interest. Foreign investment is activity that is intended to deceive, corrupt, or coerce New Zealanders in order to unduly influence, disrupt, or subvert our national interests. Foreign investment—

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: It’s interference, not investment—interference.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: —interference from any source, obviously, is—what did I say?

Cameron Brewer: Interference.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Interference.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: It’s different—they’re different things, Paul.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Did I say foreign investment? I meant foreign interference—interference.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It’s a very important distinction.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Foreign interference from any source is very much not acceptable, but we are welcoming of foreign investment, and I want to make that absolutely clear to this House.

Hon Phil Twyford: No, it’s in Hansard now.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: OK, I think we’ve cleared that one up now. We’ll carry on with Mr Goldsmith’s speech.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: To strengthen our resilience to this threat, the Crimes (Countering Foreign Interference) Amendment Bill makes changes to the Crimes Act 1961 to introduce new offences that specifically criminalise foreign interference and update existing offences to better hold people to account for disclosing information that’s likely to prejudice New Zealand’s security or defence. The measures contained in this bill are country-neutral and apply to anyone undertaking or supporting foreign State - sponsored interference against our country. By providing a better means of investigating and holding to account people that mean to do us harm, the bill will help to safeguard New Zealand’s sovereignty, the confidence of Government information, and the exercise of democratic rights and freedoms.

The bill has been reported back from the Justice Committee, and I want to thank the committee for its careful consideration of the bill. It’s been a very, very busy committee—there’s a lot of work to be done, and I’m grateful for the work they’ve done. In particular, I appreciate the courage displayed by submitters who talked about their experiences, and that was very powerful and moving. Some submitters expressed concern that the bill would criminalise the exercise of rights and freedoms, but this is neither the bill’s intent nor its effect. The measures in the bill are to protect New Zealanders from efforts to undermine, manipulate, or control their ability to exercise those guaranteed freedoms.

In response to the feedback, the Justice Committee has recommended several changes to the bill. The changes provide greater clarity about what activities are in scope of the new offences and who can commit the existing offences. This delivers greater certainty in the courts about what criminal foreign interference is and how it differs from lawful and legitimate foreign-influence activities when a person exercises their rights and freedoms.

I welcome the committee’s recommendations. First, the committee made improvements to the two new foreign interference offences contained in the bill. The first offence criminalises improper conduct done for or on behalf of a foreign power which is meant to compromise New Zealand’s interests. The second offence criminalises the act of committing an imprisonable offence to benefit a foreign power.

Regarding the improper conduct offence, the committee clarified that protecting information as part of everyday activities, including personal and unpaid activities, and using encrypted communications does not on its own provide a basis to infer that a person is engaging in improper conduct. Regarding the foreign power benefit offence, the link to the foreign power has been strengthened by also incorporating the “for or on behalf of” wording in this offence. It makes it clearer that committing an offence at the direction of the foreign power, or by a person’s independent efforts to benefit a foreign power through criminal activity that causes harm to New Zealanders, is not permitted.

Importantly, the committee also updated the new offence to make it clear that exercising rights and freedoms alone does not provide sufficient basis to infer that a person is committing either offence. This was a major concern for many submitters. While the bill is not intended to criminalise lawful exercise of rights and freedoms, I appreciate the committee’s work to make this explicit.

Lastly, the committee also introduced amendments to clarify elements of the new definition of a “person who owes allegiance to the Sovereign in right of New Zealand”. These amendments make owing allegiance a question of law and will improve certainty around who can commit espionage.

By incorporating the committee’s changes, I believe the bill now addresses its primary purpose of strengthening our criminal justice response to foreign interference. It draws a clearer line between what we are protecting and the actions that we will not tolerate.

I know that members on both sides of the House will recognise the gravity of the challenge that foreign interference poses to New Zealand. I look forward to us progressing these measures to strengthen our resilience against efforts intended to undermine our wellbeing and our democratic way of life. Through this work, New Zealand will become safer and more secure, helping to ensure that it continues to be a place where everybody can enjoy the guaranteed rights and freedoms afforded to them under our laws. On that basis, I commend this bill to the House.

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

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Speaker. This is another bill that has an interface with human rights, and I did want to speak on this because it was actually quite a challenge at the Justice Committee to, well, first of all, actually understand how it was to work.

As the “Minister for Foreign Investment” has just said, even who is bound by these obligations is a moot point, so there are a whole lot of kind of triggers. The first thing is you’ve got to owe “allegiance to the Sovereign in right of New Zealand”, which sounds like a really obscure thing. Basically, “the Sovereign in right of New Zealand” is a little bit of an obscure phrase. It just means “to New Zealand”—it means you’ve got to be loyal to New Zealand. Who has a duty not to harm New Zealand? It is any New Zealand citizen, certainly, and that includes whether they’re in New Zealand or not—and that’s an important point to make—but also anyone who is in New Zealand.

Now, there are some immunities. We know that diplomats have immunities, but other than diplomats, pretty much anyone in New Zealand has an obligation not to engage in these activities, and there are others: people who might not be citizens, but who might have such a strong connection to New Zealand—whatever that exactly means—such as owning property here and residing here for a significant portion of the year. So that’s the first threshold: do you owe allegiance, because if you owe allegiance, then you’ve got an obligation not to undermine the interests of New Zealand and prefer some foreign power.

The other point is this: in terms of the conduct itself, there are a number of kinds of triggers. The first is that it’s got to be some kind of improper conduct, and “improper conduct” is also defined, and it’s kind of quite labyrinthine, if you like. It can be “conduct that is of a covert nature,”—and so it’s not telling people why you’re seeking information—or conduct which is exploitative, manipulative, intimidating, or threatening. That is to say that if someone is at a protest and you say, “You really ought not be going to those protests, or bad things might happen.”, you can say that, but not on behalf of a foreign power, because that’s the other thing: the action must be by or on behalf of a foreign power.

Now, you might be an advocate for a particular cause and you might not like the people who are on the other side of the fence, and you can tell them that and you could even—intimidation is a crime in and of itself. But if you were to act in an intimidating manner, you wouldn’t be engaging in foreign interference unless you were acting either for or on behalf of that foreign power, and I think that that’s important to recognise. It’s not just that you want to support the interests of a foreign power and you think that they’re the good guys, but you’re doing it in at least in some sense at the direction or the behest of a foreign power. Given that a lot of this is actually about political interactions and about having a political point of view, we’ve got to be cautious about that, so I think the threshold will indeed be high.

Before I sit down, I did want to point out that one of our real concerns is that in terms of things like the Ukraine conflict, the Israel-Gaza conflict, and many other conflicts around the world, there are differing points of view, and whilst I might have particular views, other people who wish to speak out shouldn’t be seen as engaging in foreign interference simply because they are holding a political point of view. Let’s be clear: that political point of view may well be supported by a foreign State and they may well be supplied with information by a foreign State, but they’re not acting under the direction of the foreign State, and if all they’re doing is engaging in political speech—whether that’s marching in the streets or posting on Facebook—we’ve got to be very cautious that we don’t unnecessarily curtail those sorts of activities.

It’s a complex law. It’s actually one that will probably benefit most by having a committee stage discussion to fully flesh out the nuances of some of those obligations and restrictions, but until we get there, I’m happy to leave it there. Again, it’s a bill we support, but one where we need to clearly articulate where the balance needs to be struck between the rights of citizens to act and the rights and duties to protect the interests of New Zealand.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Crimes (Countering Foreign Interference) Amendment Bill is something that was discussed at length in the Justice Committee, and it generated a 108-page departmental report. I think that perfectly captures what the previous speaker, the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, mentioned in terms of the complexity and the hooks around this bill. In terms of the context of the bill, the idea is that it is supposed to strengthen New Zealand’s law to better prevent and respond to foreign interference intended to harm New Zealand, by introducing a number of new criminal offences in the Crimes Act 1961.

The first challenge that we do see with this, as we inquired during the select committee stage, is that it overlaps with a number of existing offences within the Crimes Act, particularly around elements of espionage, etc. When we did ask the officials about this, there was definitely a sense of it being a grey area and of uncertainty, and of “Well, we will just have to roll it out and see how it goes.”, which I think is a shocking approach to anything that creates a criminal offence within our Crimes Act.

Now, the Green Party does not support this bill, because it is important to mention that while it is important to ensure that Aotearoa is protected from genuine threats of foreign interference, this legislation does not ensure sufficient protections for civil liberties and democratic freedom.

I want to unpack some of these things. I think the first thing we see in terms of what the submitters have said is—most importantly—the tension with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (BORA). Specifically, yes, this legislation, like all pieces of legislation that come before Parliament, will have a BORA report, or a consistency report against the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. However, a number of submitters have submitted and mentioned that the BORA report and the vetting itself doesn’t sufficiently capture the complexity of this bill, particularly around some of the additional amendments.

Most specifically, some of the areas that are of concern for submitters and also of concern for the Green Party are around freedom of association and freedom of expression. Now, in this case, what the bill doesn’t necessarily capture is the complexity of the demographics of Aotearoa New Zealand. With that, you are going to see protests and activism of all forms. It is within people’s rights to do so peacefully, and I think that any form of intimidation or violence is already considered a criminal offence.

The other aspect is freedom of association, and this is something that is going to be really challenging for anyone who is seeking to use this to contest this bill, because of the fact of what that would mean and the limitations it would place on that freedom of association, particularly when we are looking at it in light of the complexity I mentioned in terms of the demographics of Aotearoa. Now, for a number of people—myself included, as someone from marginalised communities and also from a background of being a migrant of colour—there is and there continues to be a lack of understanding of our relationship and association as a person of that particular ethnicity. That level of nuance has not been captured in this bill, and, most concerningly, that level of nuance has not been teased out.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’m sorry to interrupt the member who has the call, but the time has come for the special debate. This second reading is interrupted and set down for resumption next sitting day. The member will be entitled, if he wishes, to take the remainder of his call at that time.

Debate interrupted.

Special Debates

Debate on Constituency and Local Issues

BARBARA KURIGER (Deputy Speaker—National): Members, we come now to the debate about constituency and local issues, arranged by the Business Committee under Standing Order 80. Speeches will be five minutes long, allocated at the discretion of the presiding officer.

MAUREEN PUGH (National—West Coast-Tasman): I move, That that the House take note of constituency and local issues.

I would like to talk, in my contribution today, about the flooding in Tasman. As most people will know in this country, the area suffered from half of a years’ rainfall in two weeks, over two different storms. It’s damaged so much land and so many properties, and so many families and their homes, and it is truly heartbreaking to see. We’re still doing some needs assessment, and the damage is not yet fully understood. I know that there are quite a few issues that are still outstanding, but the efforts of the people who have come to the aid of the area have been truly, truly outstanding.

Even getting to some of those areas to do the needs assessment has been challenging, because cellphone towers were down, roads were closed, there were slips on local roads and highways, and properties were damaged. Some towns lost their local water supplies and were reliant on tanker supply for many days. Power was out, as was internet, for many people. So even getting assessments through the emergency operations centre about people who were in isolated valleys was challenging, because no one could get in to check on them.

The Government agencies have been providing support and offering that support to those areas through the disaster relief funds, through the Ministry for Social Development, through housing insurance, and also the health agencies. Everyone across Tasman has felt the might of mother Nature, right through Motueka, down through State Highway 6, over Spooners Range, out through the Motueka Valley, through Tapawera, and then over into Golden Bay. No one really escaped the might of mother Nature, and most of the smaller valleys in that area have also been badly affected. It has been truly overwhelming for the residents in those areas.

But the funding support has started. It was done very quickly by the Hon Mark Mitchell when he came with his team on 30 June and announced $100,000, and then back on the 16th of this month a further $500,000 was announced by the Hon Todd McClay; $300,000 of that was to the Mayoral Relief Fund, tagged for the rural sector, but another $100,000 in that contribution was by the Government and Federated Farmers. I’ve got to say that Federated Farmers has stood their teams up very, very quickly and started the assessments for their members and the wider community, which was outstanding, so that support could be directed really well. The other $100,000 in that contribution was by the Government and Horticulture New Zealand. As many people here will know, horticulture is a very, very big part of the Tasman economic contribution, and it’s one of the three main economic drivers for the region—there is horticulture, forestry, and tourism.

The horticulture sector has been particularly badly hit, and the crops—like apples, kiwifruit, pears, blueberries, and hops—badly affected, with trees and land being devoured by those floodwaters—water to the level that many people, in living memory, had never experienced before. And, of course, that brought the debris up, it attached itself to the fences, and the force of that just took fences away, never to be seen again. Unfortunately, the ones that can be seen are messed up in the silt and the debris that came with it. Four thousand hectares of trees were flattened—sadly, the weather came from a different direction than normal, and these immature trees were flattened. It’s a sad sight, to see the devastation. One of the impacts was also in Nelson, Rocks Road, and it showed how vital the new roading system is going to be over there. Where you can normally get four trucks delivering to the port, today it was down to two or three, so a huge hit on the productivity of that region.

But out of the adversity, there is always a silver lining, and I’m very happy to talk to some of the community groups and businesses that stood up in the time of need. The neighbouring councils brought in manpower. The emergency response teams were stood up very quickly. Many of those people volunteered there for 24/7. The Top of the South Rural Support Trust, which was led by Richard Kempthorne and his team, were directing callers to the relevant agencies and representative groups where the practical support could be found. Enhanced Taskforce Green, Taskforce Kiwi, the Rapid Response team—the spirit of generosity ran deep. Local businesses, like ITM, Smoking Barrel, and—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just want to acknowledge the speech of the previous member, Maureen Pugh, at beginning of my speech. As I mentioned in the general debate last week, I just acknowledge, as well, the people of Tasman, and particularly just want to further acknowledge those who have suffered so much, particularly the family of Peter Lines, who so sadly lost his life in the floods. We have more rain forecast for next week, and that would be devastating to have another rain event. So we are all working really hard at the moment, and I know the people on the ground are doing their best to be prepared. We do encourage people to have a plan and be prepared should we face another rain event on Thursday.

I want to focus on the local issue today that is top of mind for the people of Nelson, which is the rebuild of Nelson Hospital, and the resourcing of Nelson Hospital. Yesterday, Health New Zealand released their review into Nelson Hospital, which came about as a result of senior doctors, nurses, patients, administrative staff, and many others speaking out about the concerns they had about the resourcing of the care at Nelson Hospital. I want to reflect on the commentary, particularly from the senior doctors, that came out yesterday—huge disappointment in so many parts of this review. It is, essentially, a plan about a plan. The senior doctors commented yesterday that they have been telling the hospital for a long time what the issues were, but instead of actually coming up with a plan to fix the issues and the investment needed to fix the issues, all Health New Zealand did was outline the issues that have already been raised, particularly by the senior doctors.

My question to the Minister and my question to the Government, and what I will be pushing for as the local MP, is: where is the investment to hire the doctors and hire the nurses that we need to ensure that Nelson Hospital is properly resourced? This report yesterday is very, very clear that it is not resourced enough to support the people of Nelson, especially in the context of a hiring freeze that the report clearly outlined and said made it very, very difficult for the hospital to actually hire the staff that we need to deliver care in Nelson.

The next thing I want to talk about in regards to Nelson Hospital is the business case that has quietly been released around the plan to rebuild Nelson Hospital. There’s a part in it that is very concerning to us here in the Labour Party, and that is the over-reliance of 15 percent of care being provided in the community. Now, there is a place for care in the community, but, again, where is the investment for it?

Here are some of the comments—I’m just going to quote from the people of Nelson who are very concerned about this. Wendy, who I know personally, who lost her husband, Dave, earlier this year—and my thoughts are with her family—has said, “I’ve been in this situation. We had community nurses for wound care and hospice nurses for pain control, support workers for personal care. All were amazing, but it also required an at-home caregiver who was able to give extra help, such as sub-cut pain relief, monitoring the medication, being there 24/7 to support with some limited respite. Not all family members have the skills or ability to manage an in-home patient. To expect them to do so is putting both the caregiver and the patient at risk. Respite in a care-home facility is only partly met by Government, with the balance, $98 a day approximately, being met by the patient.” There were many comments on my page like that from concerned Nelsonians who are concerned that this build from this Government will not have the required number of beds, that care will be pushed into the community with no plan and no investment to do that.

Now, the final thing is that our plan was to build an acute services building that would have ensured the emergency department, the ICU, and the theatres were in a building that was able to cope if the Alpine Fault ruptured at magnitude 8. Now, in their business case, there is no acute services building; the emergency department, the ICU, the theatres will stay exactly where they are; the earthquake resilience will be moderate. It could be days or weeks if the Alpine Fault goes in Nelson, under National’s plan, before the emergency department and the ICU and the theatres are working. That is disgraceful. No commentary from the other side—not good enough for the people of Nelson. If the Alpine Fault goes, our emergency department, our theatres, and our ICU need to operate. We have a commitment from Labour that we will make sure that happens.

Tim Costley: Didn’t last time.

RACHEL BOYACK: We absolutely did deliver our plan—rather than your substandard, downgraded plan—for the people of Nelson.

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): I begin my contribution with a content warning: code brown in Mahurangi! Since Cyclone Gabrielle, February 2023, we’ve had ongoing contamination events of sewage and waste water being discharged in the Mahurangi River. This has significantly disrupted oyster farming in the region. At one stage, it was so bad it was described as a sewage plume infecting our beautiful river. The health of the marine environment has now been severely compromised.

Let’s look at some of the totals of what’s been discharged by Watercare. In 2023, 1.5 million litres discharged; in 2024, 800,000 litres discharged; 2025—and we’re only in July so far this year—3.3 million litres of discharge into the Mahurangi, including raw sewage. That would be the equivalent of 110 trucks carrying 30,000 litres. Faecal matter is infesting our river, while our oyster farmers aren’t able to harvest because of Watercare’s failures—commercial losses for our local farmers. They rely on the harbour’s clean water for their aquaculture operation. This is a small operation, $8 million, but it’s significant for our local region. The continued degradation of the water quality due to the infrastructure failures and the operational mismanagement by Watercare must be addressed urgently.

Auckland Council are the regulator. They are the ones who have been totally silent on this issue. How long have they known about this issue? Well, they should certainly know all about the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010, Policy 8, Aquaculture. The council must “Recognise the significant existing and potential contribution of aquaculture to the social, economic and cultural well-being of people and communities by: … the need for high water quality for aquacultural activities;”.

Auckland Council has renewed the consents of the Mahurangi oyster farmers. They now have more than 20 years on their consents to farm in the region. Auckland Council has pocketed the money, but they are silent on this issue of Watercare discharging sewage into the Mahurangi River. The council has the responsibility to treat the effluent and stormwater to the required environmental standards. This is not happening. It just doesn’t make sense. Where they’re discharging all these truckloads of, basically, sewage into the river is classification 3, but down at the harbour—and the water flows down into the harbour—it’s classification 1, which is a food-growing area. It just does not make sense.

Auckland Council do fine people for breaching the Resource Management Act in relation to contamination of waterways: for a chemical spill, $112,000 where someone spilled into a stormwater drain; for discharging waste into a nearby stream, they charge them $86,000; contaminating stormwater systems with multiple charges of discharging sediment, a $67,000 fine; discharging sewage into the environment, $14,000; another one, $40,000 for illegal sewage discharges—the list goes on.

Now, who has raised this issue with Auckland Council, Mayor Wayne Brown, and Watercare? Well, oceans and fisheries Minister Shane Jones has; local government Minister Simon Watts, thank you—he’s fired a shot across Watercare’s bow yesterday; local MP Chris Penk—he’s playing good cop in this one; food safety—of course Minister Hoggard has raised the issue; Aquaculture New Zealand; our local mana whenua, Ngāti Manuhiri, and our CEO Nicola MacDonald have been raising this issue constantly. But on deaf ears it has fallen. Minister Jones has basically said they have failed in their statutory duty of care to the Mahurangi oyster farmers. Their organisation should be renamed “Zerocare”.

In fact, in an email from Watercare to Aquaculture New Zealand, they basically said the Minister should find some Government money for the oyster farmers. What? They expect the taxpayer from Huntly and the taxpayer from Kaikohe to pay for Watercare’s mistakes in the Mahurangi? No. This needs to sit with Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown. It is a code brown situation, and we respectfully request that this time, yes, you do rush out with buckets, Mayor Brown, and fill them up with coin and support our local farmers, our oyster farmers; jazz up the support from Watercare; open up their purse strings wide; and do the right thing. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central): Thank you, Madam Speaker. The average age in Wellington Central is 26 years old. That is how old I was when I was elected to represent this city. Since then, I feel that I have aged considerably in this mahi. However, I think that the average age of our city is going to increase significantly, not just because of lower birth rates, not just because life expectancies are getting longer for some, but because all of our young people in Wellington are going overseas.

Now, young people choose to come to Wellington for a number of reasons. I came down here because after just a few visits, I love that people just let you get on with what you want to do. We’re not judgmental. We’re a city that allows you to be your full, authentic, and genuine self. It’s considered safe in comparison to other international cities. It is one of the most queer-friendly cities in Aotearoa. It’s the arts and culture capital. We have really amazing walkways in our green belt, and we have a southern coastline to die for.

But since 2023, in Wellington, job listings have decreased by 37 percent, vacancies have fallen by 39 percent, job applications have climbed by 10 percent, and applicants per job listing and per vacancy have nearly doubled. I spoke to a woman in my electorate office named Suzanne George. She had applied for over 400 jobs in Wellington in 13 months. She worked in the public sector for 12 years and she is now on the jobseeker benefit, still trying to find mahi. This has become the age-old story in Wellington: stories of people applying for hundreds and hundreds of jobs who continue to get declined applications.

We know that here in Wellington the Public Service has been slashed enormously. Hundreds of graduate roles have been cut from the Public Service, many of those roles based right here. For example, the Ministry of Health put 566 graduate roles on hold or they have cancelled these roles. I have to ask: when it comes to the Public Service and those jobs here in Wellington, why is the future the first thing we trade off for short-term gain?

On top of this, the Government’s disastrous vocational education reforms have meant that our local polytechnics here in Wellington are facing teaching job losses, campus closures—for example, at Te Auaha, which is a bastion of creativity and learning here in our city—and courses are being cut. We’re telling young people that they have to go all the way to Petone to learn the things that they want to have as jobs in the future, but we’re going to cancel those courses outright after a year anyway. These are our future nurses, our future tradies. These are our future artists, the people that build stages, film movies that bring the arts and culture to our lives, that give our lives meaning, and that help us to understand the world that we navigate. They are taking their skills, their money, their families, and their futures overseas. This is why the Victoria University Wellington Students Association took to the Mount Victoria Tunnel and placed a massive banner which said “NO [JOBS]. SHT PAY. WHY STAY?”

I don’t want to say the swear word, out of respect for you, Madam Speaker—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: As long as you go quote—just do quote.

TAMATHA PAUL: The “S” word. Ha, ha!

This Government has hollowed out all of the opportunities for young people in Wellington to stay here and contribute to our country. You don’t go into the Public Service as an entry-level worker for the pay—and you definitely don’t if you’re a woman, thanks to the changes in the Budget this year. Young people, especially here in our capital city, join the Public Service because they give a damn about their country and they give a damn about their neighbours. Instead, we fire them all or we take away their opportunities and we replace them with expensive consultants and international agencies that rack up profits that are not spent here on our home soils.

It has been demoralising to watch people who are told that they are the problem and that they are not trying hard enough. We are exporting our future at an alarming rate and, sadly, our capital city can no longer compete with the tantalising temptation of a job in Australia that pays a wage that keeps up with the cost of living, and with a society that values its workers and its future.

TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, it may have been Freudian, but never was a truer word spoken than when the last Labour member to speak said, “Can the National Government please deliver our plan for us?”, because I can tell you that they didn’t deliver very much in their time, and that’s what it takes: a team that is actually focused on delivery.

One thing we need to deliver on right now for this country is growth. That is what is key in our area: bringing growth. There is no better example of the lack of delivery by the last Government, or the growth coming to a region like I’m proud to represent in Kāpiti and Horowhenua, than the new expressway, which Suze Redmayne knows all about, from Ōtaki to the north of Levin.

The first petition I ever ran was about this road, after Labour cancelled it in 2018. I ran a petition, and we promised at the time that when we were next back in Government, we would build this road. That is exactly what we are doing, and I am so proud. We found, of course, in getting into Government, that all the money wasn’t there, it wasn’t fully funded, and Suze and I had to fight. The next petition was to get the right design. We’ve delivered that with the full interchange at Tararua Road in Levin, a full interchange at Taylors Road in Ōtaki, and we are so excited to see construction start come spring. It is an opportunity for us.

In Horowhenua, Levin has that real opportunity that everything coming out of Wellington passes through that little gateway of Horowhenua before it splits to Hawke’s Bay, to Manawatū, to Taranaki, to Taupō, and the central North Island. That’s a real opportunity for growth for us, and we see other signs—not just the road but new subdivisions like Tara-Ika, new housing, new businesses popping up and old businesses that are doing well. I would like to mention Lewis Farms that took out one of the top awards at the Wellington Gold Awards recently, and I congratulate all those businesses that have been selected as finalists for the Wellington regional awards and the local business and top shop awards.

While I’m mentioning local people, can I also say that part of our story for growth is we obviously need to support our businesses—they are part of that story for growth—but we have some local heroes in the community. I’d like to acknowledge my youth team—there’s not just one youth MP where I come from. Can I acknowledge Monique, Sam, Jack, Aroa, Kristina, Harrison, Olivia, Fern, Abigail, Liam, Yilin, Charlie, Imogen, Keita, Hamish, and Ryan for the great work they do and for being able to support them and see them do great things for youth, like the public safety campaign in Paraparaumu that has delivered real results. It has been fantastic to be part of that.

I’d also like to acknowledge some local legends who have been recognised recently in the community awards. Particularly in Horowhenua, I think of Geoff Ritchie from English Language Partners; the Kai Hub youth team from the Shannon Kai Hub—one of Suze’s favourites; the Health Shuttle in Ōtaki; Hoani Mananui and Steve Biddle from the Hope Hub Free Store—and Tony and the team do a great job at Hope Hub; Perry Rackley from Hinemoa House; Heather Wilson at House of Science; Aja Harlen from MASH Trust; and Katrina Phillips from Plunket. Congratulations—you deserve the recognition.

I did want to just also mention Dr Andy van de Vyver, retiring after 40 years serving as a GP in Levin—everything from delivering brand new babies to end-of-life care, he’s been there with us all, he’s seen it all, and he deserves the accolades. I’m proud to meet these people and to work with people like that every week.

In fact, this week I had just a couple of touching stories that came back to me. One was about someone that had been waiting to get an operation. They had been waiting 4½ years, and we were able to get that through. Obviously it’s not just my advocacy locally but the focus in this Government on actually delivering and putting patients first, delivering them, bringing back public health targets, and that has made a real difference for people in Levin that I have seen firsthand, and for people in Paraparaumu, for people in Ōtaki. I am proud to see that.

I also think of a message I was sent from a mum—someone we’d helped to get the special transport they need to get their child to school on time each day, and it was described as being life changing. I tell you that it is a privilege to serve these people, to serve alongside them, through their situations.

I can make a difference as a local MP, one person at a time, and I do believe that matters, that counts, but as a Government, we need to bring the growth, because it’s the growth that brings the opportunities. Our future is defined by growth. The new O2NL Expressway is just one visible sign. Growth is what I’m focused on, growth is what this side of the House is focused on, and when partnered with the community legends that I have mentioned, from my youth team through to retirees, I am confident, and it gives me confidence, that our region is positioned for growth. That will in turn bring the things that we need—the jobs, the ease in the cost of living, the housing, the health. What a privilege it is to represent them. How exciting to see in the spring O2NL under construction.

REUBEN DAVIDSON (Labour—Christchurch East): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s great to have the opportunity to make a contribution in this local issues debate. It’s unfortunate that the reason I’m making this contribution is because we currently have a homelessness crisis in Christchurch East—a homelessness crisis. Now, the Prime Minister tells us that homelessness is a really complex issue but that he is proud of the work that they’re doing, and yet no one can tell us where a large percentage of people kicked out of emergency housing have gone.

The Minister tells us it’s clear we have a real problem, and it is clear. It’s clear in Christchurch East, because we see it every day. Some of these mornings it’s negative 3 degrees and we’re seeing children living in tents and cars. We’re seeing retired people living in tents and cars. We’re seeing working people living in tents and cars across Christchurch East.

Now, our front-line experts are telling us this. Christchurch City Missioner Corinne Haines tells us that they’re seeing more homeless people here in Christchurch than ever in the past, and many more new people, including those who have work. If we go into our red zone, the area that was previously residential in Christchurch East—abandoned after the earthquake because it’s not suitable for homes—we find a 23-year-old woman parked up in our red zone, and those streets are now lined with campervans, cars, and tents, and they tell us it’s cheaper to live in a car than it is to rent. This is a full-time worker. She would love to have a permanent place to live, but she doesn’t hold out hope for any Government support, and she tells us that they care more about money than actually the love for people. That’s what she tells us.

So why are there people living in cars? Once again, our City Missioner tells us many people are sleeping rough in the red zone and elsewhere, and they’re telling us that they have been declined emergency housing. That’s what we hear in the Christchurch East electorate office. People are coming direct to us in dire need for emergency housing and accommodation and they are told that they have contributed to their homelessness and that they will not get help, despite what the Minister and the Prime Minister tell us in this House—“Go to the Ministry of Social Development; they’ll be able to help.” That is not really what’s happening.

There is a woman—Polly; she’s 69—and she has been living in her van in the red zone. Now, Polly tells us that she has money in the bank but not enough to buy a house. As a pensioner, renting for her, she says, is out of the question because she wouldn’t have any money left for her food or her bills, so literally her van has become her home. She has no heating in the van, and it’s been minus 3 degrees. Polly tells us that she just takes to the bed in her van and burrows under the covers—a 69year-old retired woman on her own who has contributed a working life and now burrows under the covers in her van. She says that she’s mostly happy in her own company and she also says that living in the red zone was lonely. She says that she’s not alone, but that she’s lonely.

Now, at the same time as Polly tells us this, there’s something happening in suburbs across Christchurch East, in Parklands, in Aranui, in Bromley, in Avondale, in Shirley, in Linwood, in New Brighton. This Government is selling Kāinga Ora homes. People are living in tents and cars, and you are selling homes in Christchurch East that they should be living in. Children are living in tents and cars in winter, and you are selling the homes they should be living in—not you, Madam Speaker; the Government. These people are not alone because there are lots of them, but they are lonely because this Government is leaving them behind.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT): I want to take this opportunity to highlight a critical issue that is impacting so many construction companies in Auckland. These construction companies want to build houses in Auckland. We all know it’s so important to build houses, because we always talk about supply and demand and affordability of houses, and it will happen only if more houses are built. These construction companies are not able to proceed with their projects, not because they don’t have people to work on their projects, not because there are any issues with their finances or there are any issues with availability of land—they have land, but they just can’t proceed with building houses on that land because of Watercare’s constraints.

I want to acknowledge that Watercare has proactively released a map which shows where the constraints are. In East Auckland, there are both water and waste-water constraints. In Bombay, there are water constraints.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Cancelled affordable water.

Hon Member: Ha, ha!

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR: In Paerata Rise, for example, there are waste-water constraints. There are other areas, as well, where there are Watercare constraints, because of which construction companies cannot build houses.

I have spoken to so many people in the construction industry, and they are really frustrated about this, because they have land. Sometimes people drive past this land and think that “Oh, somebody’s land banking.” But it’s not land banking—actually, they don’t know the reason behind why they are not able to proceed with their projects. In Paerata Rise, I was talking to a construction company that wants to build 98 houses. They got land-use consent, but when they applied for subdivision consent, from that point they have been stuck. Another construction company wants to build 50plus houses in Bombay. They are stuck because there are water-supply constraints there.

These are serious issues, because in Auckland we have demand for more houses. When we build houses, it’s not just like one house is being built. It’s about supply and demand, but it’s about lot more than that. There are a lot of flow-on effects of building houses. We know that there are a lot of jobs created, not just on the site but at the suppliers as well. Then transportation requires a lot of jobs. Then, of course, the tax revenue comes to Government. So, in a way, this constraint is also hindering economic growth.

This bottleneck didn’t appear just overnight. It appeared over time, because previous Government, Labour members—I heard them laughing before. Those members, when they were in Government, didn’t anticipate future need. Now we have to look at what the future need is, and now we have to also react to this past shortfall. These delays which are happening are very, very costly delays.

So, yes, I have highlighted this issue. Now I would like to highlight what this Government is doing to address this issue. As we will know and remember, what Labour wanted to do—they wanted to enforce co-governance in water supply. Did that help—did that help? No, that didn’t help at all. That’s why we made changes and we brought the Local Water Done Well policy programme. Because of the Local Water Done Well policy programme, now Watercare have their own balance sheet. This has enabled them to have their own balance sheet so that they can go and borrow money to invest in long-term infrastructure. The good thing about this is that this won’t fall under the council debt-limit, so it frees them up to see where they want to do investment. It’s very important that Watercare utilises this opportunity, this tool, to invest in infrastructure.

We also see that Watercare has a new charter that is to rebalance revenue so that growth is paying for growth. Just recently, an email was forwarded by a construction company to me—just yesterday, and I think they received it just a couple of days ago—where Watercare themselves have acknowledged, and I’m quoting from that email, “On 1 July, Auckland’s water services enter a new chapter. While we remain 100 percent owned by Auckland Council, we are now financially independent, giving us the ability to fund the infrastructure our city urgently needs, without steep price increases.”—which is so important to note.

We also know that my ACT Party colleague Simon Court is working really hard to replace the Resource Management Act. We are really looking forward to seeing that Watercare is utilising all the tools that are going to be available to them. We know that there are serious challenges ahead for Watercare, and it will be up to Watercare to prove that they are able to meet those challenges to ensure that more houses can be built—to support our economy, to meet the demand, and also for the wellbeing of families. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tokerau): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Tēnā tātou e te Whare. I want to share some information regarding Te Tai Tokerau. That’s Northland. In terms of the electorate, you should know it stems from Te Hāpua. If you’ve ever been to the very Far North, you must go. If you haven’t—

Grant McCallum: You must go. Everyone must go.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: Yes, good on you, Grant. You must go, because it’s a pretty place.

Grant McCallum: Absolutely.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: But what it is—it is a paradise, isn’t it?—it’s a paradise in poverty. Of course, I mean, the ‘Look North’ kaupapa last night—I get it, of course. But what it demonstrated last night, McCallum and others, is that it really showed the haves and the have-nots. It was a wonderful big display. It was fantastic—some blinking good people, relations of Grant and I. What it showed last night in the Banquet Hall was a great idea and wonderful thinking and so on, but the disconnect between ‘Look North’ and what I saw in the Banquet Hall to the actual north of where I know and live, at times, you couldn’t be more—I mean, it’s just so vastly different. It is the haves and it is the have-nots. It is the privilege and it’s the poverty-stricken, and it is poverty in paradise. Poverty in paradise, so that’s a point. And this is Te Tai Tokerau.

Here we go—more mokopuna made homeless in Te Tai Tokerau. You heard my comments earlier on today at question time. For that result, I want to mihi to the Hon Tama Potaka, Chris Bishop, and Louise Upston. Now, each of those Ministers holds responsibility: on one side, housing, and on the other, employment. These two pillars are critical in determining whether our mokopuna are raised in homes or in the back seat of a car.

Grant McCallum and I, we know this reality. We’ve probably got to do more, Grant—just saying. Now, these Ministers must answer to all whānau and mokopuna who have been made homeless in the wake of regressive changes to the emergency housing eligibility, especially in Te Tai Tokerau. We’re seeing it every day. More recently in Kaitāia, driving through Pak ‘N Save, you see a car parked up, see a wahine in her car and all of her clothes are jammed in the back of the back seats and she’s trying to feed her baby. I go up and we have a conversation. I go, “Babe, this ain’t good. This ain’t good for you, this ain’t good for this baby, so let’s go.” I have a reputation for just if I see it, I do something about it. I wish that we could all do that—not only singularly but particularly for Government. I really want you to consider—not just that single story, because I’m hearing other stories and they have a very, very familiar and similar vibe when it comes to homelessness, when it comes to people that are not living in poverty because they want to but because the circumstances which are imposed on them cause them and are so oppressive that that’s where their lot is.

Since these Ministers insist on defending these damaging policies, I challenge them to come to Te Tai Tokerau. I want Tama to come and I want Chris to come and I want Louise to come—sorry: Tama Potaka, Chris Bishop, and Louise Upston. Grant McCallum and I will take them to those places. We will take them to those stories, not just to the bright and shiny bits, right? Not just to all the paradise but to the poverty. Then they will know absolutely and surely that Te Tai Tokerau homeless numbers—for instance, let me share those numbers with you. There are 525 homeless in the Far North. Now, the next biggest number to that is 747 in Tāmaki, in Auckland. Why would a tiny place like Kaitāia, Whangaroa, Ahipara—those numbers nearly reach the same numbers in our biggest city in the country. That is utter nuts. What that tells our people is that we just don’t matter—we just don’t matter—not in quite the same way.

It might matter if you could turn up to the hui last night in Banquet Hall. Then it might matter, then it might reflect, but if you don’t see it and you don’t see it enough, it just doesn’t matter. So these are the real stories that are going on, whether I’m in Te Atatū North, whether I’m in Northcote, Birkenhead, or whether I’m in Mahurangi, right? Whether I then go up to Ahipara, Hokianga, Tākou Bay, Te Kao, or Te Hāpua, these pockets of poverty, impoverishment, dislocation, deculturation exist—deeply, unfortunately, horribly—in Te Tai Tokerau.

I want to say greater things about Tai Tokerau except, unfortunately, they’re not quite great enough. So please, Grant McCallum, and all the others that want to ‘Look North’, yeah, come. Haere mai ki Te Tai Tokerau. Kia ora.

RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East): The Waikato medical school journey actually began 73 years ago when the first female National Party MP, Hilda Ross, was enthusiastically bidding for it for Hamilton.

In 1952, the Auckland Hospital Board was planning a new hospital building and asked Auckland University College whether to provide an undergraduate medical school. Dr A T Rogers suggested Hamilton due to its proximity to Waikato Hospital, which was the largest hospital in bed numbers at the time in New Zealand. A Mrs Hilda Ross, MP for Hamilton—later Dame—was enthusiastic. Support grew, but the idea was eventually turned down because Hamilton didn’t have a university. In an ironic twist of fate, what was the genesis of an idea for a medical school actually became the genesis of an idea for a university. Here we are, full circle.

I’d also just have to say that just over two years ago, before our campaign proper started, I was on holiday with my wife and I heard that our leader—now the Prime Minister—was going to announce that the National Party was going to rebid for the medical school in Waikato. I cut my holiday short because I wanted to be there. Just a couple of weeks ago, my wife said to me, “How’s that medical school coming along that you cut your holiday for?” I said, “We’re working on it—we’re working on it.” I’m pleased today that we’ve got the medical school coming and, hopefully, some redemption for cutting my holiday short with my wife. Marie’s here to support me today, and isn’t it just wonderful?

I know the Opposition have been jibing for a while, “What’s been happening with that medical school?” Well, I’ve got good news: it’s coming. In my maiden speech just a little over 18 months ago, I said, “imagine, if we can, housing New Zealand’s long overdue and first graduate [degree] medical school.” Well, good news: it’s coming. Championed by David Bennett and Tim Macindoe even back in 2016—and they took it to the campaign in 2017. Scott Simpson was part of that team and that enthusiasm. But the Labour-Greens coalition did not support it.

Through resilience, it has lived through the advocacy of the Hon Shane Reti and the drive of vice-chancellor Neil Quigley. The idea, the dream, the vision has survived. I’d also like to give a special shout-out to Professor Jo Lane, pro vice-chancellor of health at the university, for his advocacy and resilience in seeing this through. Myself, Tama Potaka, and all our Waikato and neighbouring MPs are delighted with the result—and, of course, all our rural MPs—because of the benefit. The cost to the Government of $82 million and the contribution of the university and generous Waikato philanthropy of $150 million makes it a fantastic deal for the New Zealand taxpayer.

The four-year programme is run by the University of Waikato and will accept its first cohort of 120 students in 2028, and they will all be graduated by 2031. I know people say, “Oh, why don’t we just keep boosting Otago and Auckland?” We’ve been doing that and we’ve increased another 100 or so, but the problem is that with just two medical schools in New Zealand, New Zealand is one of the lowest represented in the OECD. If we were to compare ourselves to Australia, we’d be working on our fifth medical school.

Our current medical workforce shortage—we have 1,810 doctors, including 220 GPs, short; and by 2032, we’ll be short by 3,440 doctors and 870 GPs. We can’t keep doing what we’re doing, because it’s not working. We have to create a circuit breaker, and that’s what this school will provide. Only one-sixth of current graduates actually become a GP, and only one-fifth of them work outside of Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch, or Dunedin. This model has been proven around the world to successfully deliver more GPs and more rural doctors in Australia, Canada, the UK, and the US. The goal of Waikato medical school is for 60 percent of graduates to become GPs and work outside the main urban centres. It’s fantastic.

The University of Waikato’s division of health is also home to New Zealand’s largest graduate entry nursery programme and the country’s first graduate entry programmes in pharmacy and midwifery. So this is a marriage made in heaven.

Ehara te kura hauora o Waikato i te urupare noa iho ki tētahi raruraru hauora, engari he whakatūranga tēnei o te whakatinanatanga.

[The Waikato medical school is not just a response to a health crisis; it is a manifestation of delivery.]

It is a promise fulfilled from National. It is both an investment and a gift to our future for a healthier, fairer New Zealand with abundant opportunity.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Back in 2016 I met a young woman—we’ll call her Lisa. I met her at a local school in the Maungakiekie electorate. Lisa had spent some time in Australia and had come back to New Zealand with her young family so that her children could grow up here. She told me she’d moved temporarily in with her parents while they looked to buy their own home. When I met her, she’d been staying with her parents for three years. There were about 15 of them in a three-bedroom home. She was a teacher-aide, and it was her last week at school because her pay no longer afforded her the money that she needed to buy a home.

I’m proud that soon after that, Labour got into Government, and we increased the pay for teacheraides. We knew at the time in 2017 that the previous National Government had left us with 1,500 fewer public homes than when they took office. In Government, we delivered over 13,000 public homes, the most of any Government since the 1950s. Close to 10,000 of those were new builds, and that’s important because we introduced a target of 15 percent of new builds by Kāinga Ora that would be accessible homes. We then, in 2023, raised that target to 25 percent. We also delivered over 4,000 transitional homes.

But sadly, we’re going backwards. The homelessness insights report released yesterday gives us the evidence that backs up what so many of us have seen on the ground and have heard from social service providers that we have visited—that we’re back in a housing crisis. Auckland City has seen a rise of 90 percent of people sleeping on the streets in just eight months. Auckland Council’s latest quarterly update shows that at the end of May 2025, the six providers with outreach capacity have been working with 809 unsheltered clients who were sleeping in cars, streets, and local parks—up from 653 in January and 426 in September last year. That’s a 53 percent increase in a four-month period.

Now, as of December last year, 396 people—close to 400 people—were on the housing register just in the Maungakiekie Tāmaki Local Board. But what are we seeing? We’re seeing this Government scrapping housing builds, Kāinga Ora builds, in this electorate or in this local board area.

In responses to my written questions, Minister Bishop confirmed that 11,000 housing projects have been scrapped in this local board area. That’s hundreds of houses. I’m trying to work out exactly how many houses have been scrapped, but so far here’s what I’ve found. In Onehunga and Mount Wellington alone, almost 500 homes have been scrapped. The Oranga development: 400 State houses that we had decided to demolish because they were old, but we were replacing them with 1,100 homes, of which 440 would be State houses—to date, only 370 have been built; of those, 233 are social homes. Some of the projects that are on the list to be scrapped, I’m pretty sure, are part of this development as well. I will be getting those details, because this is a Government that is abdicating their responsibility to ensure that people have access to affordable, quality homes.

At the same time, food insecurity is increasing. I’ve been visiting providers in the electorate. Vinnies in Onehunga tells me that some years back, on average, they gave out 200 food parcels a month. Now, the peak is 1,200 a month and on average it’s 500. They’re forecasting this figure to rise. I visited the New Zealand Food Network, which is also in the Maungakiekie electorate. Thirty percent of their monthly recipients are new, have never asked for a food parcel before, and it’s a challenge that is now consistent. Often, they’re employees from dual income households, and they can’t afford food. Ninety-three percent of them cited the rising cost of living as the main reason for this, followed by low household or individual income due to low paying jobs and unemployment.

We can point to all of these metrics increasing as a direct result of the choices made by this Government. The fact that people lack housing affects all of us—first and foremost, those who are sleeping in cars, in tents, and in our local parks. Ultimately, is this the kind of society we want, or one that we want to go back to, where children are learning by lamplight in cars? It’s not the society that I want.

GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Te rohe a tokerau—it is time to look north. It is time to unleash the potential of Northland. It’s time to build the roads so the Brynderwyns become part of an economic accelerator and not the economic handbrake it currently is. It is time for Northland to show it is miles above the rest.

The New Zealand Institute of Economic Research (NZIER) report released yesterday, commissioned by the Northland Corporate Group, is more than a document. It is a blueprint for growth, a road map for resilience, and a declaration that Northland is ready to deliver, not just for itself but for Auckland and for all of Aotearoa New Zealand.

Let’s begin with the facts. In 2024, Northland contributed $11.2 billion to New Zealand’s GDP, 2.7 percent of the national economy. Yet our GDP per capita remains 30 percent below the national average—not because we lack talent or ambition but because of decades of under-investment in infrastructure and connectivity. If we reached parity today, our economy would be worth $16 billion. But we’re aiming higher. We have set a bold, achievable goal: to grow our economy to $60 billion by 2050. That means lifting our growth rate by just 1.1 percent above current trends. This is not a pipedream. NZIER modelling shows that targeted investments, such as a high-quality four-lane expressway, could boost national GDP by up to $1.2 billion per year by 2050. The Marsden Point Energy Precinct alone is expected to contribute $260 million annually and support over 1,100 fulltime jobs.

Madam Speaker, Northland is already delivering—or Mr Speaker, sorry; I just noticed a bit of a change. Northland is already delivering. We are home to New Zealand’s largest fuel import terminal, supplying 40 percent of land transport fuel and 80 percent of the jet fuel in New Zealand, including for every plane leaving Auckland International Airport. We are home to Golden Bay cement, New Zealand’s only domestic cement producer, producing 60 percent of our domestic demand. We produce 96 percent of the country’s kūmara, 42 percent of its avocados, and we’re expanding into subtropical crops like bananas and coffee. Our energy companies, Northpower and Top Energy, are community-owned and leading the charge in renewables. By 2026, Northland will be a net exporter of electricity. With the energy bridge proposal, we can unlock up to 600 megawatts of new renewable energy in the next five years. But this is not just about Northland. It’s about Auckland’s growth and New Zealand’s resilience and our transition to a low-carbon economy.

Our Māori economy is also growing. Māori-led enterprises are driving innovation in tourism, agriculture, and sustainable land use. Cultural tourism, especially in places like Waitangi, Hokianga, and Te Hiku, offers story-driven experiences that celebrate our heritage and enrich our economy.

We need resilient transport infrastructure. Closures on State Highway 1, particularly on the Brynderwyns and the Mangamukas, have cost Northland businesses up to $230 million. Freight delays are forcing companies to reassess how and where they operate. This is not sustainable. We also need the rail link out to the port so we can unlock the potential of Northport. We also need continued investment in water infrastructure, tourism infrastructure, and in the amazing people of the North by rebuilding NorthTec and the vocational training opportunities.

This report is an invitation to look north, to see the strength of our industries, the resilience of our people, and the scale of opportunity in Northland. We are not looking for handouts. We are asking for partnership, for recognition, for the tools to do what we know we can do. Let us invest in Northland, not just for the region but for the nation, because when Northland grows, New Zealand grows. Te hure o tokerau—look north. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Te Ātiawa tupua rau, he auripo i Te Awakairangi, he kaitiaki ki te whenua. Ko te wai o Te Awakairangi ko te toto o te whenua; ko te whenua te toto o te tangata.

[Te Āti Awa of many phenomena, a swirl in the Hutt River, a guardian to the land. The waters of the Hutt River are the lifeblood of the land; the land is the life blood of the people.]

The waters of the Hutt River are the lifeblood of the land, and the land is the lifeblood of its people. My local issue is an important one. Chris Bishop has a plan to pollute the Hutt River, and I would like to stop it. He’s rewriting the rules that protect our fresh water, our lakes, our rivers, and our drinking water. The core issue in this is that he is removing the cap on synthetic nitrogen fertilizer, which is already causing big issues for the Hutt River.

Some may say that Mr Bishop is a shrewd political operator, but he has committed the cardinal sin of defecating in his own backyard, and the people of the Hutt Valley will not stand to watch that happen. The problem we currently have is that nitrates cause toxic—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. How can someone be allowed to get away with that comment in respect of Mr Bishop and the backyard. I won’t repeat it, it’s so disgraceful. It’s defamatory in the extreme and if it was said outside, it would be cause for a libel case, but here we are, tolerating it in Parliament. Now, she’d described him doing something in his backyard which is false, untrue, and she should be asked to stand up now, withdraw, and apologise.

SPEAKER: I think that while you can have some colourful descriptives inside parliamentary commentary, I did myself do a double take at the way in which the member presented that particular idea. I think the Rt Hon Winston Peters makes a good point. I’d also point out that this House is somewhat preoccupied with the whole concept of cyber-bullying and the pressure that comes on MPs from outside the House. You should not exacerbate that by comments that are made inside the House, and I think, on balance, I would ask the member to withdraw and apologise for that remark.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I withdraw and apologise. I would say he would be soiling his backyard. Is that acceptable?

SPEAKER: No, not particularly.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Polluting. Polluting?

SPEAKER: You’re trifling with the Chair, and I’m inclined to terminate your speech. I think you should apologise for that particular reference as well.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I withdraw and apologise. I will refer to polluting the backyard. The problem we have currently is that nitrates cause a toxic algae bloom in the Hutt River, so when summer comes and the water level drops and the heat increases, algae blooms and nitrates increase that growth. What already happens in the Hutt River is that we can’t swim at times in summer, and the other problem is that dogs die. We have a number of dogs that die each summer because of the high levels of toxic algae in our river. Mr Bishop is increasing that cap on nitrates, and I wonder whether he will walk his dog along the banks of the Hutt River in summer. Maybe he will stick to the Petone beach once his regulations pass.

It is great to see that RiverLink is going ahead. It was funded fully by Labour, and I’m pleased it hasn’t been undone like other construction projects under this Government. Mr Bishop just yesterday spoke about this project and how important it is for the Hutt Valley. It’s a new interchange, it’s a flood protection, but also it turns our city to face the river. That’s the most important part. The Hutt City Council will talk about how it turns to face the river. Now, I ask members: what is the point of our city turning to face the river if it’s full of swine? That is what is happening. We already have record levels of toxicity within that river, and by increasing the nitrate cap, by lifting that, it’s going to make it even worse.

The sad point is that there is no evidence that that nitrate cap was a problem—no evidence. What we’ve seen is an increase in water quality—an improvement has been made. So what I say to all those people in the Hutt Valley who have Mr Bishop as their local MP is that they have until 27 July to submit and say they do not want these regulations to be implemented and that they will be detrimental to our natural environment and will make the Hutt River a non-swimmable river. That is not acceptable.

We do not want corporate interests put over the top of our natural environment. Two-thirds of New Zealand rivers are too polluted to swim in, and drinking water is becoming increasingly contaminated with nitrate. Labour had a goal of swimmable rivers within our generation so that our children and our grandchildren don’t get sick from taking a swim in the Hutt River.

This Government is undoing all the work we did to ensure that rivers were clean enough to swim in, and they are actively stopping councils from implementing the protections that would clean up our rivers. This Government is going to scrap hard-won bottom lines—safety nets that were actually introduced by National back in 2014 to protect our ecosystem and to protect our health. These bottom lines were developed over years with scientific backing.

This is an important issue, a local issue, that impacts the Hutt Valley and its people. We want our swimmable river back. We want to restore it. All of those wetlands that have been put in will make the water quality better, but this will be undone when Mr Bishop rewrites the freshwater regulations and makes nitrates more able to be dumped into the river, making our river toxic, causing dogs to die, and preventing our children from being able to swim in it.

SPEAKER: The time for this debate has expired.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Maiden Statements

Maiden Statements

SPEAKER: According to the determination made by the Business Committee, the House will adjourn until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 29 July following the maiden statement from Dr David Wilson. I call on Dr David Wilson.

Dr DAVID WILSON (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I hope to raise the tone a little in this speech! E ngā mana, e ngā reo, rau rangatira mā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[To the authorities, the representatives, the many leaders, thanks and greetings to you all.]

Céad míle fáilte. Dia daoibh. Ver heill ok Sael. Wesaþ hāla. Bonjour à tous. Greetings, everybody. I just paid respect to your mana, your discussion, and your leadership. Then I wished you 100,000 welcomes, that God be with you, that you have happiness and prosperity, and that ye be healthy, in the ancient languages of my tribes: Gaelic, Celtic, Norse, French, and Anglo-Saxon.

I did that because I wished to convey my whakapapa in how I came to stand in this place, this Parliament, this country. We all have many heritages, many places, and many people that form a part of us, that influence who we are and what we bring to this place.

Let me start with a personal story. Born in Auckland, my adoptive surname is Wilson. My birth father was a Pinfold, and my birth mother, her maiden name is McKeating. The McKeating name, as one strand, traces back to the 12th century and the time of the legendary Strongbow, aka Richard de Clare, Earl of Pembroke, and later justiciar of Ireland, who was sent by King Henry II to conquer Ireland. In 1170, Strongbow led an Anglo-Norman protestant army, along with a few Welsh mercenaries, and they travelled to Leinster to invade Ireland.

One of his soldiers, my ancestor, was so skilled at the longbow [Mimes firing an arrow from a longbow]—

SPEAKER: Missed me!

Dr DAVID WILSON: —that he was given the name—I deliberately aimed at the press gallery up there, but there’s nobody reporting, so it’s all good. He was given the name Céitinn, which literally means to rain fire down on your enemies. You see, sometimes they wrapped the end of the long arrows and set fire to the thatched roofs and wooden buildings of enemy strongholds before an all-out attack.

Longbows were superior weapons at the time, and Strongbow and his army were successful in conquering Leinster, aiding in the Norman invasion. However, many of Strongbow’s army remained—including my lot—married, and settled into the Irish way of life, where some said they became more Irish than the Irish. Later, they were to fight alongside their Catholic Irish families to try and repel the English Protestants once again. This reminds me of a story by the great philosopher Rowan Atkinson about religious tribes, but I will not repeat that here. We’ll have to have that some other time.

Recently, I had the privilege of visiting the 850-year-old Céitinn Norman keep in the south of Ireland. Still standing, it was a very poignant reminder that history is the greatest teacher. Céitinn is the root name for Keating and McKeating—and, no, I don’t think Ronan is my relation. The McKeatings in New Zealand are far more peace-loving these days.

I tell you that story because in all our own personal ancestries, tribes have raped, pillaged, and ransacked others. I’m pretty sure that everyone in my tribes visited merciless mayhem on the others at one time or another in history. Thank God for the Enlightenment, is all I can say.

Born in Auckland, I grew up in Glendowie. I went to Mount Taylor Primary School and Glen Innes Intermediate, which at the time you would have described as decile-one schools. My father worked very hard to allow me to cross the Tāmaki Estuary to board at Saint Kentigern College—yes, decile 10, and back to those Protestant roots—where I formed lifelong friendships with farmers’ sons and day pupils who owned cars.

I had one older adopted brother who left home when I was about seven. Later in life, I met both of my birth families. I’m the eldest of six brothers and sisters on both sides—so I figure I can field a football team—with numerous cousins and grandchildren. A far cry from being virtually an only child, I’m now surrounded by love and acceptance.

I was sporty: Auckland football rep, first XV, basketball, volleyball, athletics, Dux Ludorum, and all of that. I learnt that a team can lift performance far beyond what you are capable of alone, and there is a zone where words don’t matter and are not needed. I also learnt that the true meaning of the word “encourage” is to place courage in another.

Coming from both sides of the tracks has been very formative for me as my life has been met with both triumph and disaster, and, yes, I’m still learning to treat both of those imposters just the same. After the death of my father in my last year of school, I had to drop out of university as his carpet businesses crumbled. I lost everything due to the avarice and criminality of others.

So “Get a haircut, get a job, get a place to live—go surfing.” was my answer. I landed a great job selling surf-wear and sports equipment. I was on the ground as a buyer for Kmart in New Zealand, working alongside the future owners of Pumpkin Patch and the like. I later set up my own surf shop, of course. I sponsored young surfers, and had R & D trips to Hawaii, Fiji, and Samoa. I learnt a lot about small business, and, hey, I got married.

Later, with my wife’s support, I was able to return to university as an adult and find my way to a Master’s in public policy and a PhD in governance and economic development. However, in the words of Thomas Sowell, “It takes considerable knowledge just to realise the extent of your ignorance.”

Nevertheless, this grounding culminated in me leading the Institute of Public Policy at Auckland University of Technology and partnering with the Committee for Auckland—thank you, Sir Ron—and the Auckland Regional Council to create the Auckland metropolitan action plan, the antecedent to the amalgamation of Auckland. Lots of learnings there.

Subsequently, I became CEO of Northland’s Regional Economic Development Agency—and thank you, Grant, for stealing all my thunder. It was at this time that I was invited to work on New Zealand First’s regional development policy and serve on the advisory panel for the Provincial Growth Fund.

I count myself fortunate to have had many influences that have shaped me as the person I am today. Key amongst those is my beautiful wife, affectionately known as Dr Anna, who holds me to account daily; my son, Ash, who challenges my philosophical and political beliefs; and my daughter, Jess, a dancer who has taught me about the beauty of the arts and gaining insight and meaning from movement and musicality. Coaching our kids, on the other hand, taught me humility.

To all of my families—the Wilsons, the Pinfolds, the McKeatings, the Tabuteaus—thank you. To all of my fathers and mothers, I wish you could be here with me today. To my cousin Carolyn and father-in-law, Vaughan, you were both invested in my success during the election, but, sadly, you have since passed away, making today somewhat bitter-sweet.

To all my wonderful friends who have stuck by me through thick and thin, thank you.

To my academic influences, the late Professor Ian Shirley, Professors Marilyn Waring, Tagaloatele Peggy Fairbairn-Dunlop, Paul Dalziel, Caroline Saunders, and Phil McDermott, thank you.

To my heroes: Martin Luther King, for your principles of integrity, dedication, and unity; Winston Churchill, for your courage, forbearance, and wisdom; and to my wife, for your perfectionism, dedication, and compassion.

To Winston Peters, thank you for constantly reminding us of our history and for your decades of service to New Zealand. To paraphrase John Ralston Saul during the neoliberal revolution, “they are downgrading economic history in the universities, as it is an unfortunate reminder of reality”. Thank you for bringing reality.

We face, as a nation, turbulent times: geopolitical unrest in a multipolar world, old intransigent enmities, tribalism and war, religious fundamentalism, intolerance and tyranny, a global recession with trade barriers, a pandemic hangover from State overreach and profligate spending. Have we learnt nothing?

Actually, we have. Over the long run, things look different. Life expectancy in New Zealand in 1870 was 34, and today it is 84. Never before in global history have we lived in more democratic, free, and prosperous societies. We have never lived longer or had better education and health access. We have reduced global poverty and infant mortality in the last 50 years at rates never seen before in history. This is progress. Far from perfect, more to do—much more. The last five years in New Zealand have set us back. It’s time to pick up the tools and rebuild together.

Let me give you some sense of what I hope to bring to Parliament. Firstly, this institution is important. Parliament is important. It builds on the demos and the polis over thousands of years, and even if emancipation came far too late for many, the foundations are set. There is no better way to organise a nation or society than Western liberal democracy. Liberal democracies correlate more strongly with human rights, prosperity, fairness, trust, and equality before the law than any other system of government.

The temptation to raise one group over another, or subjugate one group to another, is deep in our DNA and has the entirety of human existence as proof, and yet citizenship, with its rights and responsibilities, is the greatest leveller. It provides us with the mechanisms to unite, not divide.

The last 20 years of my career have focused on economic development for New Zealand. Why? Prosperous nations have strong institutions, high degrees of trust, and the wherewithal to create the living standards and conditions we all aspire to. Without prosperity, we have little hope of addressing the critical issues we face today. It is the basis. It is the foundation.

Economics, if you go back to its roots, had welfare as its goal. They are inseparable. A swing too far to market fundamentalism, where the market is the primary determinant of who gets what, is dangerous. Likewise, a swing towards too much Government control is even more dangerous. Balance is important.

Adam Smith, commonly regarded as the father of economics, who was the author of The Wealth of Nations in 1776, is most remembered for his oft-quoted “invisible hand of the free market”. This quote, however, needs to be viewed in context. His previous book, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, laid down the moral, ethical, and philosophical foundations for The Wealth of Nations. The economy, in Smith’s view, was always meant to improve society as a whole, not the wealth of a few.

Thus, there is a role for the State in economic development and in determining the future of our nation. It is our future, our economy, our society, and our environment, and this is the people’s Parliament.

My work has often involved projects and programmes that variously combine iwi, community, Government, and business to bring jobs and prosperity. One of the greatest compliments I’ve ever had in my professional career came from a colleague and friend, Phil McDermott. He said, “David, you have an ability to relate to academics, the private sector, Government, and communities at all levels.” I sincerely hope I can live up to that whilst here.

Our people, our cultures, our relationships, our trust in one another, our institutions, our resources, and our strengths, assets, and potentialities are at the core of meaningful development. It’s the combination of these things that matters. “Ki te kotahi te kākaho, ka whati, ki te kāpuia, e kore e whati”—when a single reed stands alone, it can be broken, but when the reeds are bound together, they are unbreakable.

Not surprisingly then—I hope for you all—my interests lie in economic development, regional development, investment, infrastructure, energy, innovation, technology, and digital futures. I am particularly keen to foster industry and regional specialisations that will increase productivity and export intensity. I’m also interested in addressing the drags on our economy, such as monopolistic behaviours—a sure sign of market failure and, sometimes, Government failure.

You know, when it comes down to it, Churchill said that all great things are simple, and can be expressed in single words: family, freedom, justice, honour, integrity, duty, dedication, compassion, hope.

I’m immensely proud of our nation and honoured to be a member of Parliament. I will do my best to live up to the expectations that come with serving.

It’s not the first time that this little country has faced immense adversity, but I have no doubt we will come out the other side stronger. We always have.

New Zealand was once one of the most prosperous nations in the world. With all hands to the pump, it will be again. Thank you.

[Applause]

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.