Wednesday, 10 September 2025

WEDNESDAY, 10 SEPTEMBER 2025

WEDNESDAY, 10 SEPTEMBER 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. Amene.

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

Speaker’s Rulings

Withdrawal and Apology—Process

SPEAKER: Members, yesterday following question time, the Hon Kieran McAnulty raised with me whether the proper procedure for members withdrawing and apologising was being followed. In the first instance yesterday, the Acting Prime Minister withdrew and apologised but only after prefacing it with further comment. I want to reinforce that a member is required to withdraw and apologise, and they must do so without qualification and no other words must be used—Speakers’ ruling 60/6. Doing otherwise is highly disorderly.

In the second instance, Debbie Ngarewa-Packer raised a point of order after an exchange during question No. 12 that was hard for me to hear because of the noise in the Chamber. The Rt Hon Winston Peters was addressing a very serious matter that is of concern to all MPs. Interjections should always be rare and reasonable, and they should be calibrated to recognise the seriousness of the matter before the House, a matter that has generated significant passion and concern from all sides of the House.

The Minister’s reply to an interjection caused offence. I didn’t hear the words used, due again to the volume of interjection. However, I invited the Minister to withdraw and apologise. He contested that the response was offensive. I’ve now read the Hansard and concluded that while the exchange and the voluminous contribution across the House was disorderly, there is no further action to be taken, and I would refer members, if they want greater clarification, to read the Hansard of question No. 10 from 23 July.

I’d like to thank the Hon Kieran McAnulty for directing me to the words of the former member of the seat of Ilam while he was shadow Leader of the House. It was fascinating and exceptionally good reading.

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. Ministers have delivered two papers.

CLERK:

Government Response to the Report of the Petitions Committee on the Petition of Christian van der Pump

2025-2029 Statement of Strategic Intentions for the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development.

SPEAKER: I present the report of the Controller and Auditor-General entitled Promoting Integrity in the Public Service. Those papers are published under the authority of the House. No select committee reports have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. No bills have been introduced.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Regional Development

1. ANDY FOSTER (NZ First) to the Minister for Regional Development: What recent announcements has he made regarding geothermal energy?

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Regional Development): Earlier today, I announced the first site for supercritical geothermal further exploration. This is an exciting development and a contributor to energy resilience. The location is the Rotokawa geothermal reservoir, and it is on Tauhara land. It’s a classic example of where the Crown can work effectively with Māori land owners—both committed to expanding the supply of energy for the future development of our country. Obviously, it builds upon the $60 million committed from the Regional Infrastructure Fund, as a practical demonstration of how we can better secure the future of energy resilience.

Andy Foster: What else can he tell us regarding supercritical geothermal energy?

Hon SHANE JONES: This is a challenging area. Not only does New Zealand have a high calibre and a high range of graduates in terms of this natural resource industry but the technicalities and the demanding engineering requirements mean that we will be drawing on international talent and using homegrown expertise. The first phase of this project involves not only further prefeasibility studies, but we will be able to borrow on the broad range of experiences that are now within the New Zealand economy as a consequence of having a long period of development of this industry. I expect drilling to start within the next 18 months.

Andy Foster: Why is this energy important for New Zealand?

Hon SHANE JONES: Well, given that the Opposition spokesman for energy has repeated the Labour Party assertion that they will be repealing the legislation recently passed, where we have overturned the oil and gas ban, we now need to ensure that our energy future is not held hostage to vanity politics by people who realise they made a tragic error cancelling the oil and gas ban.

SPEAKER: With all due respect, the rules are that you don’t use a supplementary question to attack the Opposition, and that answer was certainly running as close to the border of that as possible. Just bear that in mind.

Andy Foster: How does this help the regional economy?

Hon SHANE JONES: First, I’d like to make point of order, sir. Speakers’ rulings are very clear that you’re not a quizmaster. They are also very clear that question time is, essentially, a political experience. I think your admonition was if not unworthy, then unnecessary.

SPEAKER: Speakers’ rulings are what guides the House in these matters, and it’s long been a Speaker’s ruling—I’ve stated it a number of times—that a Government cannot use questions to itself to attack the Opposition. The Clerk has just provided me Speakers’ rulings 205/4—it shouldn’t bring other parties into answers—plus 181/3. Here’s the point: a Government obviously has the ability to point to situations that they have inherited, and the latter part of the question most certainly did, but referring to comments from spokespeople is outside of that, in my opinion.

Hon Shane Jones: Speaking to the point of order, Speakers’ ruling 206/7 makes it very clear that question time is a political experience, and it actually uses the expression “quizmaster”.

SPEAKER: Yes, that was in reference to a former quizmaster who operated in this Chair and who actually also insisted that all questions begin with “where”, “when”, “what”, or “why”. I certainly have not followed that practice.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Mr Speaker, can I just make this point on this issue: we’re talking about a policy or concern where most countries would seek bipartisan support so there’s a continuation of the policy election by election, regardless of there being a change of Government. The inability to make that point that that bipartisanship doesn’t exist is surely not just politicking; it’s making a clear statement that the people outside there need to know. This is a conversation not just with ourselves but with everybody out there in the thousands. People listening need to know we’ve lost the chance of our bipartisan approach, and that’s not attacking the Opposition; it’s just stating a fact.

SPEAKER: Well, it depends on where you position that bipartisan point.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Speaking to the point of order—

SPEAKER: No, you’re not, because I’m speaking at the moment, so sit down.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Sorry, I thought you had finished, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: The second part of the question, which was totally in order, talked about the Government repeal of the oil and gas ban. That in itself could be a question about whether or not there was a bipartisan position taken. Of course it’s political; everyone knows that. I’m just saying the opening of that question was pretty much designed by way of attack. Speaking to the point of order—it had better be relevant because I’ve had a lot to say and if the member had listened, she wouldn’t have much more to say.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: I would just like to point out that the Minister referred to “the Opposition spokesman”. I know definitions like this are important to that party. I’d just like to point out I’m a spokesperson or a spokeswoman.

SPEAKER: I’m almost tempted to require everyone in the House to post their pronouns so that everyone gets it right, but I’m not going to do that. I’m not going to do that, because common sense should prevail. We’re back on, now, question No. 1 from Andy Foster. Any further supplementaries, Andy Foster?

Andy Foster: Should I give the last one again?

SPEAKER: Beg your pardon?

Andy Foster: The last one hasn’t actually been answered, because there was a point of order.

SPEAKER: Yeah, I realise that. Just ask it again.

Andy Foster: How does this help the regional economy?

Hon SHANE JONES: Geothermal energy lays the platform for future jobs. It also reflects the fact that this is a very practical way of moving forward to boost the prospects of engineering, further investment, and ensuring that that part of New Zealand where this activity will take place doesn’t disappear as some sort of rust belt. It reflects also that under the leadership of this Minister, great innovation is about to be visited into the energy sector.

Cameron Luxton: How will this announcement in geothermal energy support the retention of skills in the drilling and exploration sector, and how are these skills transferable across oil, gas, and construction sectors?

Hon SHANE JONES: Well, it’s well known since the oil and gas ban, a juvenile decision visited upon New Zealand industry—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Here we go. It’s the same again. Just ignore the Speaker.

Hon SHANE JONES: It is also very clear—

SPEAKER: Hold on, Mr Jones. Sorry, Minister. You were making a comment before he made any comment that might have been considered unorderly. How you knew what he was going to say is beyond me, but it’s not something I’m going to deal with at all now.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, sir. We have canvassed this issue numerous times in the House, and you have agreed whenever we have raised concern when a Minister is expressing a political opinion on a policy of a previous Government, and to use the word “juvenile”, at which point I then responded, surely is not anticipating anything. It is in response to something that is in clear breach of the guidance you’ve already provided.

SPEAKER: I did not hear him say “juvenile” because of exactly that sort of reaction that was going on. Mr Jones will now continue with his answer.

Hon SHANE JONES: As a consequence of an immature, underdeveloped set of ideas foisted upon the New Zealand—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: It’s not—look, I’m sorry. If you’re going to get to your feet to say that it’s inappropriate for a Minister to describe a previous Government’s policies as immature, then I think that either we’ve lost it completely or we’ve become such a sterile House that it’s hardly worth being here.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Sir, with respect, that is entirely consistent with responses that you have given and guidance that you have given in this House before. You have made it very clear that it is entirely appropriate for a Minister to indicate things that they have inherited; it is inappropriate for a Minister to provide critical commentary on that. Now, all we ask for in order to keep order in this House is consistency in those rulings, and I would argue, with respect, that now allowing Ministers to use words like that is inconsistent with guidance you’ve given to the House previously.

SPEAKER: No, I don’t think it is—

Hon Chris Bishop: Speaking to the point of order.

SPEAKER: —and I don’t need to take any more on this. Mr Jones, continue. [Interruption] Look, I don’t want to have to send someone out over something as silly as this, but I’m prepared to.

Hon SHANE JONES: As a consequence of decisions that have led to de-industrialisation, enormous amounts of unemployment, and the weakening of a key provincial city, it falls to this Government to look for alternatives—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, just stop—sorry. For fear that someone might take a point of order over one or other of the words that Mr Jones might utter, we’ll have this answer in complete silence, including from the Green Party. Mr Jones, start again.

Hon SHANE JONES: I’m answering a question which is: what is the impact on regional economies? The regional economy of Taranaki has slid down inexorably into a very dangerous place, where there is great unemployment and shops are closing. Fortunately, the men and women who have gained their experience in the oil and gas industry and the rig affectionately known as “Big Ben” will be deployed, but that deployment, sadly, is reflective of a very dangerous, job-destroying, industry-destroying policy announcement of several years ago, and New Zealand, in some cases, will never ever recover from the most destructive energy decision made since the Treaty of Waitangi, otherwise known as the oil and gas ban—a virtue-signalling, juvenile attempt.

SPEAKER: Question No. 2—Nancy Lu.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you. I’d just like to seek your guidance—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, hang on. Wait until the House listens to you.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Thank you. I’d just like to seek your guidance on how you are looking forward to interpreting Speakers’ rulings 204/4 and 204/6 in relation to, I guess, the events that occurred during this whole exchange following on from the primary question, particularly because in the context of patsies, I would say that those Speakers’ rulings were clearly not followed. But I’m keen to understand your interpretation of them.

SPEAKER: Sorry, could you tell me what your numbers are?

Ricardo Menéndez March: Speakers’ rulings 204/4 and 204/6.

SPEAKER: Right, we’ll just look. Well, I’m sorry, I just—there’s nothing in there that was relevant to the question.

Ricardo Menéndez March: You might think that. Is that—

SPEAKER: No, we’re going to have Nancy Lu.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. NANCY LU (National) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on the economy?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): A fortnight ago, ANZ released a new set of economic forecasts. The bank’s economists say that the economic recovery in New Zealand has been delayed by tariff uncertainty but not derailed. While GDP growth almost certainly took a hit in the middle of this year following tariff announcements, ANZ sees a stronger recovery taking hold from the fourth quarter of this year onwards as the full transmission of monetary policy to growth is realised. I’d remind members that the fourth quarter of this year starts on 1 October, which is only three weeks away.

Nancy Lu: What does ANZ say about the contribution of the primary and household sectors to growth?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: ANZ says, quite rightly, that primary sector exports have been the bright spot in the economy this year—thank you, farmers.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: High dairy prices.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: It’s not common for all the stars to align for primary industries, but that’s what’s happened in the past year, with a combination of good global commodity prices, favourable growing conditions—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: The high price of butter.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: —and a relatively low New Zealand dollar. In terms of households, ANZ expects domestic momentum to gradually recover over the coming year as sizeable reductions in interest rates flow more strongly through to the economy. The interjections from the Leader of the Opposition are persistent but not witty.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: She just can’t help but be nasty.

Hon Member: Pot, kettle!

Hon Member: Cheer up!

SPEAKER: Look, for some reason there’s high tension here today, so everyone just needs to calm it a bit. One person speaking from the Government side: Nancy Lu.

Nancy Lu: What does ANZ say about the outlook for inflation?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Like other forecasters, ANZ expects there to be a temporary bump in annual Consumers Price Index (CPI) inflation through the middle of this year thanks to tradable inflation imported from overseas.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Non-tradable is up, too.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: However, the bank expects non-tradable—that is domestically driven inflation—to continue falling, Mr Hipkins, and tradables, which is the more volatile series, to turn around again. ANZ makes the point, as others have, that China, our largest trading partner, is currently facing a bout of deflationary pressure, which is helpful for New Zealand’s import prices. Overall, ANZ expects CPI inflation to stabilise around 2 percent over the medium term, which is the Reserve Bank’s target under this Government. This is a far cry from inflation of more than 7 percent under the previous Government, and I would note that in the 2010s, annual CPI inflation averaged 1.6 percent across the decade.

Nancy Lu: Is she planning to change the Monetary Policy Committee’s remit to allow for higher inflation in New Zealand?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No. The period from 2021 to 2023 made it clear to New Zealanders how costly and corrosive inflation is. I have seen, from some commentators, recent interest in a higher inflation target for the Reserve Bank; I find it perplexing. One commentator said yesterday that this is a debate and a discussion that does need to be had; another, who has been chair and chief economist of the Reserve Bank, said it was a ludicrous point of view. I know who I agree with. We will not be hiking the cost of living for New Zealand households each and every year by allowing higher inflation.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

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

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Acting Prime Minister): Yes, absolutely, and in particular I stand by this Government’s policy of cutting red tape to make it easier for existing supermarket chains to expand and for new ones to launch in New Zealand. Grocery prices are a great pain to many New Zealand households, and we need to encourage new investment in competition, because those are the things that result in more choices, more efficient supply chains, and lower prices for families. When people are driving across the city just to shop at Costco, it shows that people do actually want more choice, and that more investment can lead to lower prices. This Government is resolutely in favour of attracting investment and innovation so that Kiwis can get a better deal.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why does he think the economy is recovering, when 10,000 jobs were lost in just three months of this year, between March and June?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, there is a cycle that New Zealand is going through, and it is causing great pain to many New Zealanders. That cycle involves a spike in Government spending and inflation, which has been subdued. It then is followed by the interest rates that were required to subdue that inflation, which then in turn have led to a recession because they have limited demand, which is the point of those interest rate increases. What happens subsequent to that is that interest rates fall, people have more money at the end of the week—they spend more—and you see businesses starting to hire again. As I go around New Zealand, I hear many stories that the better part of that cycle, under this Government, is coming into fruition.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with Nicola Willis that people who have lost their jobs shouldn’t take it personally?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: The fact is that people lose their jobs for many different reasons, and sometimes people do feel that it is a sense of personal failing when there are events around them that they could not have controlled. In this case, the event surrounding them was the election of a spendthrift Labour Government.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If the economy’s recovering, why did the construction sector experience a $720 million drop in sales in just three months, from March to June of this year?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: This is a Government that gets out and listens to the people. It’s a Government that hears the stress that people are facing, and there is no question that construction is under pressure—there’s no question about that. However, it is also true that we are moving through an economic cycle which began with a lockdown and a spending blow-out, carried on with high interest rates, was followed by a recession, and is now seeing a recovery.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is economist Brad Olsen wrong when he says that the ongoing decline in the construction sector represents a “new normal”, and, if he doesn’t agree with that, why is the construction sector still declining after nearly two years of his leadership?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Brad Olsen is not always right, and in this case he is absolutely wrong, because he’s talking down New Zealand. If he is saying that we are at a low point and New Zealand’s whole future will be low, then he is completely wrong, because one thing that this country needs is politicians and a Government that back them to succeed, not tear them down with negativity.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask: if the policy bonfire of early 2023—after the accession of the Prime Minister’s job—had happened a year before that, would we be in the parlous state we’re in now?

SPEAKER: No—just no.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is it a sign of economic recovery that 73,400 New Zealand citizens gave up and left the country in the past year, breaking all previous records?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, many New Zealanders choose—

Hon Shane Jones: Point of order. In the posing of supplementary questions, Speakers’ rulings are quite clear: supplementary questions are not to be like centipedes. There were beyond two legs, to the extent I could follow the coherence of that question: Australia, blame, culpability—it’s like a centipede.

SPEAKER: Well, that’s an interesting observation. There shouldn’t be those descriptors used, obviously. But if we follow the law to the letter, the Standing Orders and what they might mean—and what some people might interpret them as—none of us would say anything at all, any time. The question on supplementaries is that there should be only one leg answerable. If there are more than that in a question, the Minister doesn’t have to answer them. We’ll start again. Ask your question again.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is it a sign of economic recovery when 73,400 New Zealand citizens gave up and left the country in the year to July 2025, breaking all previous records?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: We never like to see New Zealand citizens leaving the country. However, it is worth remembering that there is a time-honoured tradition of Kiwis leaving, enriching themselves, and bringing back much knowledge and skill that enriches our country. It is also true that our country’s population grew by a net 13,000 people last year, reflecting that there is strong demand to be part of the New Zealand success story that is growing under this Government. I believe that it’s the policies of this Government, that are based on saving money, spending it carefully like New Zealanders are forced to, cutting red tape and regulation, and building our connections with the rest of the world—even as we build the infrastructure required for the next generation—that will lead to a great success for this country and many, many more people, including our own citizens, choosing their long-term future in New Zealand.

Hon Chris Bishop: Can the Prime Minister confirm that there are $7 billion of Governmentfunded infrastructure projects that will be under way by Christmas—Precinct Properties has just announced a billion dollar spend in the next 10 years on apartments in Auckland, and Simplicity is building 600 new build-to-rent apartments in Queenstown—and that some members need to look on the bright side of life?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Yes, I can confirm both of those things. It is absolutely correct that there is a stupendous amount of capital investment coming down the pipeline for New Zealand’s construction sector. It is also true that sometimes just putting a smile on it can actually in itself improve the circumstances. One of the things that people who have struggled through this winter, through this recession, need is some positivity and some positive leadership because, actually, things are getting better. What the Opposition are offering is just simple depression. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just wait. OK.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: So which represents the Government’s position on those who have lost their jobs: that they shouldn’t take it personally, or that they should just put a smile on it?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: I know that people following at home won’t have this problem, but for the Labour leader’s information: the person who could do with putting a smile on it is none other than himself.

SPEAKER: Question—[Interruption] Sorry, look, someone’s going to be out early today, because it’s just a little bit too much.

Question No. 4—Housing

4. CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Housing: Does he expect the recent changes to support for rough sleepers to end homelessness in Auckland; if not, why not?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing): My expectation is the recent changes will make a difference for rough sleepers in Auckland.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Will he commit to all 809 known rough-sleeping Aucklanders being provided with emergency housing or social housing this year, and if not, why not?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: That number’s dynamic, obviously, as people move in and out of the system. There is support available for all 809 of those rough sleepers. The Government spends around half a billion dollars per year on support for many of those people. For example, the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) stands ready and willing to support them with social housing, with emergency housing grants, with transitional housing, with bond payments, with ready-to-rent programmes, with Housing First, with sustaining tenancies. There are a plethora of programmes that MSD—depending on people’s individual circumstances—are ready and willing to provide, and we stand by those programmes.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Are Auckland City Mission wrong when they said that “We are deeply disappointed [with] today’s announcement [leaving] these tightened eligibility criteria unchanged. Until the policy settings are changed, the number of people sleeping rough will continue to rise.”; if not, why not?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, I have great respect for City Missioner Robinson. The Government has said that we expect MSD staff to exercise greater discretion when it comes to emergency housing. But we are not going to go back to the bad old days of a free-for-all on emergency housing, which resulted in thousands of children living for month after month in emergency housing motels up and down the country. That was a failed policy. The Government spent $1.4 billion in five years on that policy, and homelessness during that time increased. That is not the solution for rough sleeping and homelessness. Simply opening up the gateway to emergency housing does not help society, it doesn’t help those tamariki, it does not help those families, and it certainly doesn’t help New Zealand.

SPEAKER: Can I just make the point that when a Minister is answering a question, he’s not necessarily helped by people from his own Government barracking throughout that answer.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he at all see the causal connection between 50 percent of applications for emergency housing in Auckland being declined under the Government’s policy changes and rough sleeping increasing by 90 percent?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The official advice is that it’s not possible to distinguish or associate policy changes for emergency housing and an increase in rough sleeping. That’s the official advice. However, it is clear that we have a rough sleeping issue in Auckland, and indeed in other parts of the country. I agree with the member—and, in fact, I’m sure all members would agree with this proposition—that no one wants to live in a country where that is something that happens. That’s why the Government has invested 300 additional social homes, brought home almost immediately through the Housing First programme, which is evidence based, which has been running for a number of years and I think is supported by many members around the House; 300 immediate new social houses brought on stream from the private rental market; and additional support for those like the City Mission and others who are working at the front line of this problem. If it was a money issue and if it was an intention issue, the last Government would have solved this, because they spent, during that time, billions and billions of dollars, and the number of New Zealanders living in severe housing deprivation went up by 37 percent. The actual answer is to work with front-line providers that have the skills and capability, and, ultimately, fixing our broken planning system and infrastructure funding and financing system to make it easier to build houses more generally.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Was it a mistake to cancel 3,500 new homes across 200 public housing projects, now that he has to lease 300 temporary social homes from the private sector?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, the good news about those 300 homes in the private sector is that they can be brought online in the next few weeks and months. If we were waiting for the alleged houses that were cancelled to be built, we might be waiting until mid - next year. I think the member is right in saying we want immediate relief right now. That’s why we’ve done it. In relation to the cancelled project the member refers to, it is difficult to cancel a project for which no funding was attached. The last Government talked big about funding for social housing. It never funded those projects. Many were in the wrong place, servicing the wrong people, and were uneconomic to build. That’s why those projects have been pushed out. In the meantime, we are now building 1,500 additional homes delivered by community housing providers, much more calibrated to where the need is and, in particular, focused on the right typology. As I pointed out in the House yesterday, 50 percent of people on the register need a one-bedroom unit, but that’s not what we were building.

SPEAKER: Yep, OK.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The good news is that we’ve changed the funding system, and now 89 percent of these new units—

SPEAKER: Wind it up.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: —are one- and two-bedroom units, which is what the system needs. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just wait.

Chlöe Swarbrick: How quickly could the Government end homelessness if they spent the $2.9 billion on immediate housing support instead of tax cuts for landlords and property speculators?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I remember another person standing in this House in 2017 and saying, “We will end homelessness by Christmas.” Billions and billions and billions of dollars later, where are we? So it’s all very well to talk big. It’s all very well to rely on intentions and good thinking. It’s all very well to have the right intention. Solving this problem is not as simple as standing up and saying, “I want to do something”—I wish it was the case—“and all I need to do is throw money at it.” It is not that simple, and, actually, members who understand this problem know that. The solutions are to make sure we get calibrated support for those who need it, work with front-line providers, build more social houses in the right places, and, ultimately, fix our broken housing system. Good intentions are not enough. You have to have a plan. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: When we’re all quiet, the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is there any particular reason why so many homeless are going to, in particular, Auckland Central?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, Auckland Central is a wonderful place. It does have its challenges, but we are providing additional support for the challenges in Auckland Central, as we are in Wellington and other parts of the country. We’ll continue to provide that support and, most importantly, we are focused on fixing our broken housing market.

Question No. 5—Transport

5. CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki) to the Minister of Transport: What recent announcements has he made about the transport infrastructure pipeline?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Transport): Well, it’s been a busy few weeks. A few weeks ago, we announced $6 billion of infrastructure projects starting by Christmas. I’m pleased to tell the House that number is now $7 billion, including a range of transport projects—huge number, meaning spades in the ground, jobs throughout the country, and a stronger economy. Now, the numbers do vary a bit, but the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission estimate for every billion dollars of infrastructure investments about 4,500 jobs. Of course, we are a Government committed to building an enduring, credible transport infrastructure pipeline.

Catherine Wedd: What announcements has he made regarding the Hawke’s Bay Expressway?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I acknowledge that member’s strong advocacy for this very important project. It’s fantastic to be with her and Katie Nimon to announce that construction will begin in November on the $600 million upgrade of the Hawke’s Bay Expressway—a key road of national significance. It will four-lane the most congested 7 kilometre stretch between Links Road/Pākōwhai Road and the Taradale Road roundabouts, with a new grade-separated interchange at Links Road. Construction is scheduled through to 2028, interchange works in 2027. Once it’s built, we will have 12 kilometres of uninterrupted travel; it will improve safety and improve regional growth. I’m told there will be hundreds of jobs into this region in the next few years, just on the expressway project alone, let alone the wider economic benefits of this project.

Tom Rutherford: What announcements has he made regarding the Ōmanawa Bridge?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: A few weeks ago, we announced that construction on the first phase of the State Highway 29 Tauriko West road of national significance will begin in October, the Ōmanawa Bridge replacement at the start. Site works start this month, full construction next month. This includes realigning State Highway 29 with the new bridge and making improvements with the State Highway 29 intersection. I’m pleased to say a standardised off-the-shelf bridge design is being used that will improve delivery time frames. No more gold plating and bespoke solutions, as that member knows so well, and I thank him for his advocacy on this project. Tauranga and the Western Bay are growing fast, and this will support potential development of new houses and business growth in the area.

Rima Nakhle: What announcements has he made regarding level crossings removal in Auckland?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: More good news—as Maurice Williamson used to say. It was great to kick off construction of $800 million of level crossing removals in Takanini and Glen Innes a few weeks ago, and I thank the member for her strong advocacy for that. The level crossing projects are a travesty on the last few years, because while we’ve been building the City Rail Link, what we should have been doing was getting on and removing the level crossings to make sure we can take full advantage of this game-changing project. It’s OK—help is on the way. This Government is getting on with it: eight level crossing removals, three new grade-separated road bridges, and three new pedestrian access bridges on the Southern Line in Takanini and Glen Innes. They will take a while to do, they are expensive, but they are worth doing, and in the meantime, it will create hundreds and, indeed, probably thousands of jobs in that very important part of Auckland.

Dana Kirkpatrick: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: Well, the answer has to be a little bit more concise than we’ve been getting. All supplementaries are totally at the discretion of the Speaker. We’ll try it—Dana Kirkpatrick.

Dana Kirkpatrick: What announcements has he made regarding improvements to State Highway 35 Mangahauini Gorge?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: There are major works getting under way on the gorge on State Highway 35 north of Gisborne as crews tackle the final and largest phase of the Cyclone Gabrielle recovery efforts. Once it’s open in mid-2026, it will be open to two lanes of traffic for the first time since Cyclone Gabrielle. Much of the work will take place around the river where repeated weather events have shifted the riverbeds—about a $50 million programme of work delivered by local East Coast contractors. I know the member will appreciate that.

Question No. 6—Finance

6. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by all her statements and actions in relation to the resignations of the former Reserve Bank Chair and Governor?

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

Hon Barbara Edmonds: When the former Reserve Bank chair said on 5 March that Adrian Orr’s resignation was a “personal decision”, did she consider that characterisation to be misleading?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: At that time, I relied on the judgment of the Reserve Bank chair that that was as much as he could say at the time.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Did she receive any communications that the Reserve Bank board was going to recommend to her that she remove the former Reserve Bank Governor; if so, when?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I have previously set this out in the House, which is that on 27 February I received a text message from Iain Rennie, who is the Secretary to the Treasury, informing me that an employment process had commenced between the Reserve Bank and the Governor.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why is she failing to confirm the contents of that text, which has only just been released by the Treasury, which says, “Neil’s current thinking is that you could receive recommendation later next week unless decision is taken to go down a voluntary exit route. Neil has committed to let me know of any significant developments.”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, we have released those text messages, which were initially withheld because when that Official Information Act request initially came through, there was an employment process referred to in those text messages that had not been made public by the employer. Therefore, it was considered that the information in the text messages was subject to an obligation of confidence. However, now the Reserve Bank has made more information about the former Governor’s exit public, which I have welcomed, and the text messages no longer can be considered confidential. That is why Treasury has reassessed the need to withhold and has released those text messages.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why did she not correct the record when she knew as early as 11 June that employment discussions had occurred because there was a disagreement about the level of funding between the Governor, the board, and the Government?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, the member is making a number of assumptions about what I knew. You need to remember, at the time, I was not aware of the specific concerns the bank had raised with Mr Orr. I was not aware of how Mr Orr had responded to those concerns. I was not aware of the details of the agreement the bank had entered into with Mr Orr. I didn’t want to create legal or financial risk to taxpayers, and I did not want to be doing or saying anything that could be seen as politicising a sensitive employment process. I relied on the judgment of the Reserve Bank chair that he was saying as much as he could say. As has been traversed, it is my view that he should have dealt with that matter better.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Therefore, does she no longer stand by her statements made to the Finance and Expenditure Committee on 18 June?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I stand by my statements, although the member will be aware that I made a personal explanation in this House last night correcting a date which I shared at that committee. I made that personal explanation as soon as that error was made known to me.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she really believe that New Zealanders can trust her when she has withheld information, had to correct statements, also was on the possibility of receiving advice to allow for the removal of Adrian Orr, or, really, is the real reason why Adrian Orr resigned because she drove him to it?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: If Barbara Edmonds wishes to be the great defender of Adrian Orr, then that is for her. I have chosen not to politicise his exit from the Reserve Bank, which I think shows good judgment.

SPEAKER: I’ll just point out that the last part of that question was most certainly well and truly outside of Standing Orders, but it would’ve rendered the question ineffective had I stepped in too quickly.

Question No. 7—Space

7. TEANAU TUIONO (Green) to the Minister for Space: Was she aware of the links between intelligence company BlackSky and the Israeli Defence Ministry when she approved payload launch permits, and, if so, did she raise any concerns?

SPEAKER: Just hold on. There’s just far too much talk during that question.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs) on behalf of the Minister for Space: When I took this decision in December 2023, I was advised by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) that while there had been previous contracts between BlackSky and the Israeli defence ministry, there was no evidence of a current contract. We’d also like to note that the first BlackSky payload was approved by the previous Labour Government in 2021. The Minister for Space makes decisions on payload permits, based on MBIE recommendation, to protect New Zealand’s national interest.

Teanau Tuiono: Supplementary. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry, just wait until the House is showing the courtesy of listening.

Teanau Tuiono: Can the Minister assure Kiwis that payloads launched from New Zealand on behalf of BlackSky are not being used by the Israeli defence ministry, in any form, to wage war in Gaza?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Can I just say, very clearly, that the satellite is in the sky. What would the Greens have us do? Bring it back? I mean, the Greens might be lost in space, but the satellite is up there. The simple statement may be one small step for the Greens, but it’s one giant leap for the truth.

Teanau Tuiono: Point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Points of order are heard in silence, and I’m getting quite irritated by the amount of noise from my right.

Teanau Tuiono: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The House has grappled with these issues over the last wee while, and it’s a very serious issue. I don’t feel that that has addressed the question, and the answer was insufficient.

SPEAKER: The answer skirted right round the question. The Minister might like to say something more.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, it goes back to the original statement, which was that the Minister was satisfied that any national interest risk was sufficiently mitigated. I’ve already stated that the previous Labour Government approved it back in 2021. Now, the same Government, in 2021, approved changes to the payload permit in July of that year, when there was a current contract, and in October 2023, when they were in the interregnum role as we were taking over the reins of Government.

Teanau Tuiono: Is it in New Zealand’s national interest to allow intelligence companies to launch payloads from our shores that may be supporting Israel to wage their illegal war in Gaza?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Again, MBIE advised in December 2023 that BlackSky had previously worked with the Israeli defence ministry. There is no evidence of a current contract.

Teanau Tuiono: Is it the Minister’s view that allowing launches of intelligence satellites for companies that have links to foreign militaries and that may be used to wage illegal wars is consistent with our international obligations and in New Zealand’s national interest?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, first of all, when the term “link” is used in the question, a link is like a chain; it’s not a broken chain, and this is what’s being asked by way of a question here. Remote sensing satellites are general purpose satellites used for a wide range of purposes. For example, they help farmers manage crops, scientists monitor climate change, and emergency services respond to floods and fires. Do they suggest we should sacrifice all of that on the basis of suspicion? They are used for a range of security purposes. The Minister also imposes standard conditions on remote sensing payload permits prohibiting the sale of data to any individual or entity that is on New Zealand’s designated terrorist list or subject to sanctions and regulations. Those are the facts.

Teanau Tuiono: Why can the Minister not confirm if satellites being launched from New Zealand are complicit in the unfolding genocide in Gaza?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: That member got all the way to that question, by way of conclusion, without one shred of evidence. The next question is: where were his colleagues in 2021? Where were you in 2021? I know. They were shouting out and making no sense, just like now.

Question No. 8—Education

8. GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland) to the Minister of Education: What announcements has she made about strengthening learning support?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): Budget 2025 delivered the largest boost to learning support in a generation. Last week, I announced the allocation of learning support coordinators (LSCs) to every school with year 1 to 8 students over the next three years, so 101,000 additional year 1 to 8 students and their teachers will benefit from the skills and support of a learning support coordinator working in their school next year. These dedicated staff members will be trained in structured literacy, structured maths, and to screen for common neurodiverse needs like dyslexia and put strategies in place to give parents confidence and reassurance their child’s needs are being met. We’re working to raise achievement and provide support on the front line. Parents, teachers, and principals have been crying out for this support, and we’ve listened and delivered.

Grant McCallum: When can schools expect to benefit from a learning support coordinator?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: When learning support coordinator roles were previously announced in 2019, only a single tranche of funding was provided. This left significant inequities whereby some regions only had 18 percent coverage of their students supported by a learning support coordinator. Our fully funded roll-out will span three years. By 2026, we’ll reach at least 60 percent of all students across the country, rising to 80 percent in 2027, reaching 100 percent by 2028. In total, nearly 300,000 students in 1,131 schools will benefit from these changes. Parents can be confident that we are aspirational for their kids and are delivering more support to put their child’s needs at the centre of the education system.

Grant McCallum: How has this announcement been tailored to support small, rural, and isolated schools?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: We’ve thought very carefully about flexible support for rural and smaller schools, where staffing challenges have persisted for too long, working with the rural and isolated schools association. Schools will be able to choose to combine their part-time staffing entitlements across intervention and LSC roles, making it easier to recruit and manage resources in their communities. School boards and principals will receive information that will include operational guidance, where to find employment support and advisory services, and time lines of roll-outs and phases and key dates. Guidance for families will also be available so everyone knows what to expect from this expanded support. Planning is also under way to deliver professional learning and development in literacy and numeracy, as well as that dyslexia screening. This is a Government that backs our rural and small schools.

Grant McCallum: What feedback has she received on these announcements?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: It’s been overwhelmingly positive. A number of principals have reached out to express their support. I note one who said, “Thank you, Erica, for consistently investing in on-the-ground support.” Another principal said, “Great initiative; 100 percent agree with this approach.” Another education leader emailed me to say, “I’m really excited to see this issue finally being addressed. It’s been a bit of a festering sore for many years, and it’s great to see the allocation being done in a way to account for those small, isolated rural schools that are often disadvantaged.”

Question No. 9—Housing

9. Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) to the Associate Minister of Housing: Does he agree with the Prime Minister, who claimed, in reference to emergency housing, that “we’ve fixed it”; if so, why?

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Associate Minister of Housing): E te Māngai o te Whare, āna, tautoko au i te Pirīmia.

[Mr Speaker, yes, I support the Prime Minister.]

I agree with the Prime Minister in the context that statement was made. We inherited large-scale abuse of emergency housing that was a fiscal, moral, and social disaster and, since coming into office, we have seen over 3,000 tamariki, or kids, exit from emergency housing—2,260 accelerated through the Priority One decision that this Government made. We’ve seen a reduction in the costs of emergency housing from over $1 million a day to less than $250,000 a day. We’ve seen the renaissance of iconic hot spots like Rotorua and Hamilton—they have turned from centres of taxpayer cost into generators of tourism receipts. We’ve also seen more clarity given to Ministry of Social Development / Te Manatū Whakahiato Ora decision makers around the need for personal responsibility, strong whānau, and strong communities. We’ve also seen the member’s anxiety rise about this Government’s success in getting emergency housing back on track.

Hon Todd McClay: No need for a supplementary, that was a good answer.

SPEAKER: Questions are heard and answered. If I see someone else speaking when a question is being answered, it’ll be the end of their day.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Is emergency housing fixed when front-line providers are telling the Government that homelessness is now “The worst it’s been in living memory.”?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: What I can say is this: when we came into office, there were more people on the housing register in cars than there were last month.

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

Hon TAMA POTAKA: We might recall in this House the Homelessness Insights Report, which members opposite have relied on for the last four weeks, and, in that report, it states officially that attributing any increase in the number of people living without shelter to gateway changes for emergency housing is inappropriate because there are a lot of contributors, fathers and mothers, to people living without shelter—whether or not that’s meth use, drug or alcohol use, economic and social contexts, or, indeed, broken relationships. We’re not about that, and that’s why we support stronger whānau and stronger communities, not herding people like sheep into Ulster Street.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Is emergency housing fixed, when Jill Hawkey from Christchurch Methodist Mission said, “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: The selective use of quotes by the member opposite reveals his palpable anxiety around the success that this Government has delivered around emergency housing. We know that people like Murray Eldridge from the Wellington City Mission, or Paul Gilberd and my whanaunga Ali Hamlin-Paenga from the community housing associations, or Julie Nelson from The People’s Project, or, indeed, Barbara Brown from Kāhui Tū Kaha have all said that the recent decisions made by Minister Bishop and myself around taking action to address some of those living without shelter are very good. The best decision that we made was getting all those kids out of hotels.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Is emergency housing fixed, when, earlier this year, there were more emergency applications declined in Auckland than there were approved?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: The stats and the data reveal that most people who apply for emergency housing are granted emergency housing, and most of the declines are actually granted some sort of support. But I’m sure that members opposite would like to elide around the data and truth.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, sir. When a Minister makes an incorrect statement in the House, they are required to correct that. To save the House’s time, perhaps the Minister may wish to correct that statement immediately.

SPEAKER: Well, I’m not able to sit here to say whether it was correct or incorrect. The Minister will obviously take advice when he gets back to his office and then make a decision about what course of action he should follow.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: How much evidence from front-line providers will it take for the Minister to finally admit that it’s his policies that have led to an unprecedented increase of people sleeping on the street?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: There are members in this House that rely on hearsay, and there are others that actually go and find out the facts. We are absolutely energised and enthused by reaching the target that was set—target No. 8—to reduce the number of households in emergency housing by 75 percent in six years and achieving that in 12 months. Whilst others rely on outbursts, we rely on outcomes. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: The Hon Shane Jones, when the House is ready.

Hon Shane Jones: On the matter of emergency housing, has Rotorua been fixed after 2,000 people—predominantly gang members—in some motels were dumped there by the last regime?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Rotorua is an absolutely beautiful and iconic place in New Zealand—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Based on the assertions of Parliament’s selfappointed hall monitor earlier on today around the legitimacy or otherwise of questions, is the question that Shane—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just a moment! It’s a point of order, and the whips on the Government side need to control themselves and the people around them.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is the question of Shane Jones compliant with the standard he himself was insisting you enforce earlier on in question time today?

SPEAKER: Yeah, good point. It would be a good idea to reword the question.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: It wasn’t even a question.

SPEAKER: Well, it didn’t start with a question word. I was going to stop him there, but given the “where, what, why, and when” interjection earlier, I thought I’d just refrain.

Hon Shane Jones: On the matter of emergency housing, has Rotorua recovered after 2,000 individuals—men, women, and children, and gang members—were dumped in that city in order to solve emergency housing by the last regime?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: At the height of the large-scale use of emergency housing, over 80 motels were being used in Rotorua. Now we are down to less than 10 and soon to be less than five. I believe that we are fixing the large-scale emergency housing, if we have not fixed it already. We’re absolutely determined to make sure that Rotorua is not a cost centre but is a generator of tourism receipts and an absolute contributor to this wonderful place we call New Zealand. Kia ora.

Hon Shane Jones: Supplementary question.

SPEAKER: Supplementary question probably does cover it, but a question word.

Hon Shane Jones: On the matter of emergency housing, can the Minister confirm that Rotorua is still reeling after having received $100 million to dump gang members in Rotorua?

SPEAKER: No, that’s not something he can answer.

Question No. 10—Land Information

10. MIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa) to the Minister for Land Information: What announcement has he made, if any, about the future of Watts Peninsula—Mātai Moana?

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Land Information): In 2011, the then Government announced that Watts Peninsula would be protected as a public reserve for the people of Wellington and all New Zealanders. Today, I was pleased to announce, alongside my good friend and colleague Mr Tama Potaka as Minister of Conservation, that a reserve will finally be created on the northern tip of the Miramar Peninsula. This will be made possible by the transfer of 72 hectares of land from Land Information New Zealand to the Department of Conservation (DOC) and through the joint efforts of Wellington City Council and Taranaki Whānui.

Mike Butterick: Why is the Government establishing a reserve of Watts Peninsula?

Hon CHRIS PENK: Watts Peninsula holds deep significance for Taranaki Whānui, iwi Māori, and many Pākehā New Zealanders as well. It’s home to important pā sites; wāhi tapu; and military heritage from the 1880s through to World War II and beyond, including Fort Ballance. The public has clearly voiced that it values protecting this special whenua, and I thank everyone who advocated for today’s outcome, including members in this House, former mayors of Wellington—including extensively Mr Andy Foster—and the local member of Parliament.

Mike Butterick: How will the Watts Peninsula reserve be managed?

Hon CHRIS PENK: The reserve will be managed by a charitable trust, with trustees appointed by Wellington City Council, Taranaki Whānui, and the Department of Conservation. I again acknowledge DOC and the responsible Minister, Mr Potaka, as Land Information passes the baton for this important work to progress. Funding for the reserve’s ongoing care and maintenance will come from Wellington City Council and Taranaki Whānui through the Port Nicholson Block Settlement Trust. Creating the reserve will generate a great opportunity to preserve and enhance and protect this important piece of land.

Mike Butterick: What is the benefit of establishing Watts Peninsula reserve?

Hon CHRIS PENK: The benefit will be felt by all New Zealanders and overseas visitors while protecting our beautiful indigenous flora and fauna. The trust will have an important role to preserve and promote the reserve as an ecological, historical, and cultural place of importance for everyone to access. I know that I speak for myself as well as the Minister of Conservation when I say how excited we are to celebrate the official opening of the reserve once it’s ready for public access. The decision announced today will safeguard a treasured part of Wellington and its rich history for future generations to enjoy.

Question No. 11—Food Safety

11. CAMERON LUXTON (ACT) to the Minister for Food Safety: What recent announcements has he made about cutting red tape for New Zealand food exporters?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Minister for Food Safety): Last week, I announced that from 25 September, hundreds of food exporters will no longer need to apply for a special exemption from New Zealand law if their products meet the requirements of the country they’re exporting to. Companies have missed opportunities to grab new markets overseas because of the time it takes to get an exemption, which means they can’t respond quickly enough. This simple change will cut red tape, lower barriers to export, and promote innovation for those getting out there and promoting New Zealand’s primary products to the world.

Cameron Luxton: Why is this change needed?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: All food produced in New Zealand is required to meet New Zealand’s composition and labelling rules, but citizens around the world have different diets and different nutritional needs. Until now, Kiwi companies who are feeding the world had to go through a costly and time-consuming process of applying for product-specific exemptions. They will now be able to manage their own compliance with overseas requirements. This is a common-sense change that will help boost exports and economic growth.

Cameron Luxton: Has the Minister seen any reports on the effect the new rules will have on food businesses?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Why, yes, I have. I saw a report in the media from one innovative Waikato company who noted how important it is to be responsive to international market demands and that the simplicity of the new rules will mean more Kiwi food on the shelves overseas. Export New Zealand said “The new approach gives businesses more certainty, cuts compliance costs, and reduces delays. It’s a change that will make a real difference to Kiwi exporters competing on the global stage.”

Cameron Luxton: Is there further work under way to help exporters?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: There certainly is; this is just the start. While this change will help hundreds of food exporters, I’m aware that there are some sectors where more work is needed to unlock that export potential. There is a phase two for this work that will look at those other sectors. I’ve asked officials to prioritise further work on dietary supplements, which has a massive export growth potential if we can get the labelling requirements right.

Question No. 12—Commerce and Consumer Affairs

12. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: Does he stand by his expectation of “prioritisation and utilisation of the Commission’s full regulatory and enforcement tool kit to achieve real impacts for consumers”; if so, what is he doing to make the cost of living more affordable for New Zealand consumers?

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Yes, I stand by my expectation. On this side of the House, we are absolutely committed to reducing the cost of living for New Zealand consumers. We’re doing that with a range of things including, for instance, tax relief that benefited millions of New Zealand households, changes to the income tax thresholds, the in-work tax credit, and other measures that made around 1.9 million New Zealand households better off.

Arena Williams: What specific steps has he taken to stop misleading pricing and fake specials that would deliver real cost of living relief to Kiwi consumers, especially the staggering 62 percent of New Zealanders who have noticed pricing inaccuracies recently?

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: There are currently three pieces of legislation I have before the Finance and Expenditure Committee. I invite the member and her party to support those pieces of legislation.

Arena Williams: What specific steps has he taken to help Kiwi consumers who are paying $10,000 more in a year to feed a family of four here than in Australia?

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: As I said in the answer to the primary question, there are a range of things that this Government is doing. The portfolio that I have responsibility for is taking a range of measures, including legislative steps that the member’s party is most welcome to support if they choose.

Arena Williams: What specific steps has he taken to help Kiwi consumers with the cost of insurance when house insurance prices are up 9.1 percent and contents insurance prices have risen 10.3 percent?

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: The member doesn’t have to wait too long before some amendments to the Commerce Act come into this House for debate and consideration. I know that she will be looking forward to them as much as I am.

Arena Williams: What specific steps has he taken to help the Kiwi consumer, a mother, who said, “When I compared my power bills from May to July this year with last year, they’d gone up about 10 percent and my insurance renewal was around 20 percent higher across my policies”?

Joseph Mooney: Repeal oil and gas.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: I hear an interjection about repealing the oil and gas ban—

SPEAKER: Just focus on the question.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: —that would seem to be appropriate. However, on this side of the House we’re committed to doing all that we can to reduce the cost of living. For instance, one thing that we won’t be doing is setting higher inflation targets, as seems to be the policy of some parties in this House.

Arena Williams: Is the real reason the cost of living in New Zealand—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Hang on. All right.

Arena Williams: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Is the real reason the cost of living in New Zealand is so unaffordable is because this Government prioritised a $3 billion tax cut for landlords, a $300 million tax cut for tobacco companies, and half a billion dollars in tax rates for multi-national tech companies like Google and Facebook, rather than taking any action for Kiwi consumers who are falling behind?

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: No, and I invite the member to reflect upon the role that her party had over the last six years.

SPEAKER: No. That concludes oral questions. We’ll take a short break before I call on a member to move miscellaneous business.

General Debate

General Debate

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

This is a Government, a National Government, that is completely out of touch with New Zealanders. This is a National Government that is making things for New Zealand families worse, not better. This is a National Government that is resulting in tens of thousands of New Zealanders losing their jobs. This is a National Government that promised to fix the cost of living and instead is making the cost of living worse.

If ever we needed more evidence of how out of touch this Government is with how New Zealanders are feeling right at the moment, it was Nicola Willis’ declaration that the tens of thousands of New Zealanders that have lost their jobs under her leadership shouldn’t take it personally. There isn’t much that people take more personally than losing their jobs. Then we had David Seymour double down on that today and say that the people who have lost their jobs should just put a smile on it and everything would be better.

Things are getting worse, not better, under this Government. We saw more evidence of that today. Official statistics out: 74,000 New Zealand citizens gave up on this Government in the last year and left the country permanently. When the National Party launched their tourism advertising campaign saying, “Everyone Must Go”, I don’t think New Zealanders would expect their Government to be promoting a policy that drives New Zealanders out of the country, and yet that is what this Government have been doing: 30,000 fewer jobs under National—30,000 fewer jobs under National. But here’s an even more startling number: 2,700 businesses have gone under since this Government took office. That is the highest number of businesses going into liquidation in over a decade, and it has happened under this Government’s watch as a result of their bad choices.

Household bills continue to go up. Feeding a family of four in New Zealand now costs $25,000 a year. That is $10,000 a year higher than in Australia. This Government has no solution for that. They have no answers. This is a Government that is making life more expensive for New Zealand families. Our health system descends further into crisis under this Government’s leadership, and they have no answers for that either. The Government’s major cost of living commitment before the last election was giving working families with kids $250 a fortnight in their back pockets. Can Nicola Willis name one family, just one—I’d settle for one at this point—that got the 250 bucks that Christopher Luxon promised repeatedly up and down the country that families with kids were going to get? Suddenly, they’ve gone very quiet, because not one family got the $250 a fortnight that they were promised.

This is a Government that has prioritised foreign home buyers over Kiwi families looking for a home. It is a Government that has prioritised landlords over Kiwi tenants. It is a Government that has prioritised tobacco companies over the health and wellbeing of New Zealanders; a Government that has prioritised pay rises for company directors and not teachers and nurses who go out to work for New Zealand’s future generations every day; a Government that’s prioritised oil and gas companies over tackling climate change, one of the greatest challenges—if not the greatest challenge—currently facing humanity.

This Government’s choices are all wrong. This is a Government that thinks that if things are getting better for them, then that’s better for the rest of the country. Things might be getting better for them on that side of the House, but most New Zealanders are finding that things are getting worse and worse every day under the leadership of this Government. Most New Zealanders don’t get to claim a $52,000 tax-free allowance for their own house. Most New Zealanders don’t get to spend $44,000 flying to the top of a mountain so that they can film a social media video for their Facebook. Most New Zealanders don’t spend 60 bucks a week in the supermarket on their grocery shop. Most New Zealanders are finding things getting worse under this Government, not better.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing): Well, Chris Hipkins would have woken up on Sunday morning feeling pretty grim about life. On Saturday, he would have woken up thinking, “It’s going to be a good weekend for the Labour Party. We’re going to go into this by-election and we’re going to take back that Māori seat off the Māori Party. It’s going to be good times.” Well, the hangover on Sunday morning would have been pretty grim, and he would have got to work on Monday morning and I know what would have happened, because I’ve sort of been there, done that while in Opposition. His team would have said to him, “Mate, you’ve just got to get back on the horse. Get down to the House and have a swing—these guys are out of control. Don’t worry, we caused the inflation that the Government has had to grapple with—don’t worry about it. We caused the economic crisis and the worst recession since the 1980s, which the Government has had to deal with, but don’t worry. If you just turn up there and just keep blah-ing on and pretending that it’s the Government’s fault that we’re grappling with job losses in construction—don’t worry, just have a go.”

Well, that was a pretty pathetic effort, I have to say. Judging from the looks on the faces, particularly Willie Jackson, who has seemed curiously down in the mouth over the last few days—judging from the reaction of his colleagues—I reckon they were as unimpressed by that as the Te Tai Tokerau public were on Saturday night.

I want to talk about what a putative Labour - Greens - Te Pāti Māori Government might be like, because it’s been extremely revealing over the last few weeks. Now, Nicola Willis and I have been having a bet about what would be the first economic policy released by the Labour Party. We’ve been back and forward. Nicola says that it will be capital gains, and I say that it will be a wealth tax. Regardless, they’re both going to be stupid policies that will destroy value for New Zealanders, but that is what we’ve come to expect from the Labour Party. But I’ll tell you what, we did not expect what actually came out from Barbara Edmonds yesterday, which was extraordinary. Having caused the inflation in the first place through reckless spending, the first economic policy from the Labour Party is to drive up inflation again as a good thing, and throw out the Reserve Bank mandate—the 1 to 3 percent target. “We’re open to a conversation,” says Barbara Edmonds. As one economist said, that is ludicrous—really back to the future.

There are other policies that we’ve had in the last few weeks. We’ve had poor old Peeni—and I want to acknowledge and mihi to him for the hard work that he did on the by-election. But I’ve got to say that some of the stuff that came out during the by-election, mate—oh man, it’s like really out of left field. Banning gang patches was a personal view expressed as a Labour Party front-bencher. That was contradicted by his deputy leader and then doubled down on by Peeni Henare—bring back the gang patches. Then we had this sort of weird thing about supermarkets being tangata Tiriti - compliant and it got involved in this little weird thing, and Willie Jackson, his putative campaign manager and senior front-bencher, said, “Oh no, what we need is price controls.” All of which had to be denied by Chris Hipkins, who of course has contradicted it. So who is running the show?

It has been interesting to hear from Labour over the last few weeks. It has been a clown show, and then we get to the other clowns from the Green Party. Now, let’s leave aside the wealth tax and all the other crazy stuff. I actually thought that the thing people should reflect on is the actions of Ricardo Menéndez March, because we’ve had this lawyer who’s been going around the place, allegedly, daubing electorate offices with paint and vandalising them. Now, it’s no skin off my nose—that’s all good. But I worry for the staff in our offices—who work very hard—and also, frankly, for the people who want to actually go to the offices and be helped by those electorate office staff. It’s the height of selfishness to do this. It’s actually putting at risk our parliamentary democracy, and what does Ricardo do? Well, he writes a letter to the court—a character reference—for someone who is going around vandalising electorate offices. We are yet to get an explanation from Mr Menéndez March as to why that is tolerable. I don’t think it is, and I think that the public deserve an explanation as to why that sort of behaviour is tolerated. I think that it is really unbecoming of a member of the House, and I think it reflects badly on him and everybody else.

Then we have Te Pāti Māori. Now, where to start on these clowns? Tākuta Ferris posted this on Instagram—let me read out the quote—“Indians, Asians, Black and Pakeha campaigning to take a Maori seat from Maori”.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Yes.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Oh, here we go—“Yes.”, Mariameno says. It doesn’t get much more racist than that. I’m prepared to call it racist. Thousands of New Zealanders think it’s racist—actually, most people think it’s racist.

Does Chris Hipkins think it’s racist? No. Chris Hipkins, who has spent much of the debate over the Treaty principles bill calling us racist, says, “Oh no, no, no—it’s unhelpful to use that term.” Well, I’ll tell you what, I think it’s racist, and we’ve got to make sure that these clowns in Te Pāti Māori and their bench mates in the Green Party—who seem to stand up for all of it—are never allowed anywhere near the Treasury benches, or they will drive this country into ruin.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, I think what that speech demonstrates to the House and to the press gallery is that Christopher Luxon is safe for now, because if that was the leadership challenge, it was sadly lacking. I’d set aside a full minute in my opening reply to respond to the key points that the speaker from the National Party would make. In fact, my page is this [Member holds up notes], because he wasn’t able to talk about the economy. He wasn’t able to talk about jobs. He wasn’t able to talk about the housing issues in New Zealand. He wasn’t able to demonstrate what National’s plan is for the current situation. All he could do was talk about Labour, and I think that about sums it up.

Right now, New Zealanders are leaving this country in record numbers, and we’ve got someone making an after-dinner party Toastmasters speech. That about sums up the extent of what this Government offers New Zealand right now, because he didn’t even say that the economy was turning a corner, because he knows it’s not. He didn’t even say that once, because the damage done—the damage done—by this Government is going to take decades to fill back. The jobs gone in construction are 18,000; the jobs gone in manufacturing are over 9,000, around 8,000—high regions there. In the regions, where we’re supposed to be seeing this economic turnaround, places like Nelson—losing Carter Holt Harvey jobs, losing their Sealord manufacturing, and also those jobs in the Waikato. Ten thousand jobs in New Zealand gone in the past three months, and we get a Toastmasters speech from that side.

Well, I’d like to highlight that the new data out today showed that 73,400 New Zealanders left in the year to July 2025. That is a new record, and that breaks the previous record, which was the year to June 2025. So, month on month, for each year gone in the past, we are reaching new records in the number of New Zealanders who are saying a big vote of no confidence and Christopher Luxon’s leadership and no confidence in the direction that this Government is taking people. The reality is that it was caused by this Government. They came in guns ablaze; cutting staff left, right, and centre; cutting jobs, cutting spending, but no plan B—cancelling projects up and down the country, but no plan in place. That is why 18,000 construction workers have left our shores—gone. That is what’s happened as a result.

The reality is, the fact they have no plan was evident from Chris Bishop’s speech, and the fact they have no plan is evident in the actions of Christopher Luxon. When New Zealanders are looking for leadership, he turns up to IKEA—not even for an opening, but to a reveal date. Well, he might like to know that 25,000 New Zealanders applied for 500 jobs at that IKEA shop. That’s what he should be concerned about, not the reveal date. Next, we hear the Amazon data centre gets reannounced from what we all knew in 2021—more desperation from this Government and their leadership. Finally, if all else fails, try and make friends with Taylor Swift. I kid you not—I kid you not. New Zealanders are leaving this country in record numbers, and our Prime Minister is tagging “Tay Tay” on Insta. You couldn’t write this. You know, this is a time when we can’t decide whether to laugh or cry about the direction that New Zealand is taking right now.

There’s no wonder that these rumblings on the backbenches—and there are some more rumblings in the middle benches, but from the speech we just heard, I think he’s safe for yet another coup. We’ve all lost count of the number of coups in the leadership, led by Chris Bishop and Nicola Willis.

But we need a plan. What Labour’s plan is is to make sure that there are jobs where people earn a decent wage and it’s enough to put food on the table and look after your whānau, that there is a health system where you can get a doctor that’s cheaper and easier to get, and that we can have homes—homes that Tama Potaka and Chris Bishop are taking away from people every day. We want to build our communities. We know that by looking after our people, we make our communities stronger, and that makes our country stronger. That’s, sadly, a lesson that this Government is yet to learn.

Hon NICOLA GRIGG (Minister for Women): The Labour Party spokesperson that just resumed her seat, the Hon Ginny Andersen, wanted this side of the House to talk about what we’ve achieved in Government. Well, I’d be happy to oblige today, because after the most egregious example of economic vandalism that this country has seen in generations, overseen by the Ardern-led and Hipkins-led Labour Government, this side of the House—our coalition Government—has proudly leaned in to get the job done. We are all about delivery. We are not about press releases, platitudes, and broken promises that this country had to endure for six very, very long years. We are focused on the things that matter, things that actually make a difference to putting food on families’ tables and feeding our kids and getting them to school. We are focused on growing wages, improving health outcomes, reducing crime, and reforming the education system.

I note that the speaker that just resumed her seat was a former police Minister. She should hang her head in shame. The statistics that went through the roof under her watch are just appalling. Thanks to the work done by Mark Mitchell, our very, very engaged and hard-working police Minister, there are now 29,000 fewer victims of serious and violent crime than when this Government came in. That is nearly 30,000 people across New Zealand no longer being victimised by serious crime. That is the size of towns like Ashburton. That speaker should hang her head in shame.

Equally, we are seeing health targets reintroduced and really starting to turn around a system that was on its knees thanks to the stupidity of the decisions made by that previous Government. They erased a former National Government’s better public services targets. They erased health targets that were being imposed on the health sector, which saw emergency department stays skyrocket. It saw our childhood immunisation rates fall through the floor. It saw less and less people getting the elective procedures they needed and deserved and the cancer treatments they needed and deserved.

The proudest work that we have been able to achieve thus far in a very short 18-odd months is that we are turning around this economy and we are seeing promising signs of economic recovery. Inflation has come down almost five percentage points. It has been quite, quite extraordinary, the turn-around that can occur when a Government takes a firm approach to reforming the economy. We are already seeing 240,000 jobs being created.

That is huge, but as the Minister for Women, I am very, very proud of the gains we have made and what we have been able to achieve and to deliver to improve the lives of women and girls of this country. This Government is very proud to be able to stand up and say we have driven the pay gap down to 5.2 percent. It absolutely stagnated under the previous Government, which took its eye off the ball, got lazy, and stopped doing the work necessary to improve the outcomes for women and girls in this country. We’ve actually put our money where our mouth is. We have launched the first ever Government-backed pay gap calculator tool kit. It has had extraordinary uptake from employers across the country. It has had 30,000 hits already. It is just one part of our reform programme to grow our economy, to improve the lives for women and girls across New Zealand, and to encourage employers to hire people—particularly women and girls.

We know, equally—Stats New Zealand would also acknowledge—that we have not cracked the nut on the ethnic pay gap. We know there is work to do in that space. Again, we are being bold. We are leaning into it, and I will have more to say on that very soon. We are having to make tough decisions to deal with the economic mismanagement that we inherited from the laziness that occurred under that previous Government.

As Chris Bishop rightly pointed out, it is a horrifying proposition for New Zealanders to look at what a future Labour - Greens - Te Pāti Māori coalition might look like. Imagine Chlöe Swarbrick being in charge of finances. Imagine Barbara Edmonds being in charge of finances. Imagine seeing the likes of Chris Hipkins having to accept the Green Party’s Budget proposals to be able to form a Government. What an utterly stupefying proposition that would be for New Zealanders. On this side of the House, we are ambitious for women, for girls, and for New Zealanders. We intend to keep up the hard work.

TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central): Thank you, Mr Speaker. In this country, our economy is based on rich people trading houses between each other rather than an economy based on hard work that provides people the opportunity to contribute meaningfully and productively to the future and prospects of our nation. We used to have a country where you could work hard, save up for a home, set down roots, get a family homestead, and put away money for your kids to have a good education and a decent future, but now we have a society where there are “haves” and there are “have-nots”. The “haves” have more homes than they need; they’ve got homes in excess—owner-occupied homes, holiday homes, and investment portfolios. They yank the ladder up on the “have nots”, who grind themselves down in their 9-to-5s and then have to divvy up their pay cheque every week to go on higher rents, higher power bills, and the high cost of food. How is anybody meant to save for a deposit and be able to service a mortgage when there’s nothing left at the end of the week? Wage growth has declined and barely keeps up with inflation, and we’ve created a workforce of working poor.

More than half of all household wealth in this country is in land and in houses. If we live in a home-owning democracy, what does that mean for the third of New Zealanders who do not own a home, and what of the growing number of people who are rough sleeping—sleeping in cars and in tents or sleeping on the streets tonight? There is no better way to understand the inequality that exists in this country than to take one look at our housing system. We believe that housing is a human right, but our politicians treat housing as a business opportunity—a chance to cash in on the uncertainty and hardship that many New Zealanders live in every single day.

As we saw yesterday in the House, nobody in a position of power wants to give a straight answer as to whether they want house prices to go up or down. The Prime Minister wants house prices to rise. New Zealand First have abandoned whatever few principles they had left and allowed the door to be opened to overseas speculators because they’re more concerned with the last names of Patel and Singh and policing the definition of woman and rearranging words on our passports than they are with New Zealanders, who they used to care about.

They won’t give you a straight answer on where they want house prices to go, but I’ll give you a straight answer based on their actions and based on their choices. Their choice to cancel 3,500 public homes has driven up house prices. Their choices have meant that building consents are at their lowest in over seven years. Their choice is to allow 10,000 tradies to leave the construction industry—the industry hit hardest by this Government’s decisions. The Deputy Prime Minister chooses to undermine the Government’s one genuine attempt to address the housing crisis—to increase housing supply—by saying that he doesn’t want more housing in his backyard, in Epsom. The Prime Minister, as of last week, has decided to open the floodgates to overseas speculators to buy houses worth over $5 million, which will push house prices up. Their choice is to drive 191 New Zealanders out of the country every single day; the 18- to 30-year-olds who make up our working population are leaving in droves to go overseas to try and reach that dream of homeownership, which is out of reach in this country.

Housing will continue to be out of reach for everyday hard-working New Zealanders, and homelessness—even for the working poor—will continue to rise so long as our country’s leadership continues to deny young New Zealanders a fair shot at homeownership, which is, essentially, the pathway to social and economic freedom. We need more public housing to house people in housing desperation, to stimulate productivity, and to decouple our economy from housing. We need to zone for more housing growth but, alongside that, we need to introduce measures that break down the financialisation of housing. Most importantly, we need normal people in this House who, like most New Zealanders, don’t own entire portfolios of investment properties and who make choices that make them even more wealthy and sorted.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Resources): As a consequence of the weekend, Labour is in crisis. They actually have figured out everything but how to win. They faced the weakest candidate that Māoridom has ever produced in a by-election—she who had to rely on a cell phone to answer basic policy questions and then found that the cell phone wouldn’t work and then was given an easy pass by TV 1.

Of course, they say—and Labour should bear this in mind, apparently—that losing teaches you something. Well, let me list the things that Labour ought to learn. Number one: stop driving international investment away. Stop announcing summarily that you’re going to destroy people’s rights such as reinstating the ban, stopping people from creating new opportunities to boost our energy and gain better employment outcomes. Stop threatening New Zealand investors. But, most importantly, make your mind up where you stand with Māoridom. Do you sleep with John Tamihere or are you the proud former party that stood up for blue-collar interests, fairness, and empowerment, or have you been completely overtaken by identity politics, trans issues, wokeism, and lost your way?

They say, “Show me a good loser.” I’ll show you a basic loser. They have stumbled from failure to failure and, sadly, the winners of that tawdry experience are the Māori Party, despite the fact of “Ferris Wheel” continuing to assault and insult verbally. I’m glad he’s suffering some sort of review, investigation, by the Electoral Commission. Maybe that will teach the lad a bit of humility and whakaiti.

Come closer to the matua. I know about those matters, because they might say to me that I’m warm-blooded, but I’m cold-hearted, because I believe that unless we use our own resources, our own coal, our own minerals, and we fly away from all this climate change folly that’s designed to undermine our economy—this notion that somehow New Zealand will single-handedly save the planet. Leave all that cultural Marxism for minority groups. One of them from the Green Party just said “normal people”. Well, obviously, she’s talking about the matua, because there’s no great normalcy in that party. They want to import Karl Marx. They want to import a whole lot of other dangerous ideas that will have the effect of ruining our economy.

Ah, my colleague has said, “Why do they love Indonesian coal and hate Huntly coal? Why are they so internationally orientated and willing to undermine the resilience of our own economy?” I’ll tell you why. Because they’re basically not only confused, but they’ve fallen under the thrall of these UN dictates, these UN global imperatives, that are designed to drive New Zealand down into the ground, ruin farming.

Ah, but wait! There is a champion in the form of New Zealand First, and we’ve come from a highly successful conference where not only have we put difficult issues such as compulsory savings back up on the agenda—and, yes, we’re providing Kiwis with the opportunity to establish whether there is a place in the future for appropriate models of nuclear energy. Of course, people might quiver, they might tremble, but that’s the cost of being a bold and imaginative group of politicians. We don’t shy away from these difficult issues, because we know that there has to be a trade-off.

In the event that no one wants to have that discussion. I will continue on your behalf to dig for coal. In fact, I see a future—massive coal diggings all throughout the Waikato to save the electricity system. Of course, the Green Party privately believes in me. They privately believe that we should go for coal, whilst Megan Woods kills what’s left of the gas and the oil industry.

It’s sad for the Labour Party. The only reason they’re holding on to that untruth is because of the vanity and the shallow sense of that particular MP and unwillingness to actually admit they were wrong. I have offered penance on their behalf and that exile, otherwise known as the political fugitive Jacinda Ardern, now living at Harvard, never to come back to New Zealand and face responsibility for not only having destroyed the economy but having undermined energy. But the matua will be back in all occasions, warm-blooded and cold-hearted.

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): National promised to get New Zealand back on track, and despite all the global headwinds and the deep hole we found ourselves in, less than two years on we are making some real headway. Kiwis this week can be so proud of our police, the commissioner, and of course our police Minister. Overall, Kiwis are feeling safer, helped by no gang patches around, helped by very few ram raids, and helped by restoring real consequences for offenders, and putting victims front and centre of our justice system—and of course, more bobbies on the beat, including West Auckland.

National is now also more trusted on education: higher standards, higher attendance, and many more learning support coordinators and teacher-aide hours as well—the biggest learning support package in a generation, and I commend Minister Erica Stanford for that.

National is squarely focused on growing the economy, thanks to the laser focus of our finance Minister and Minister for Economic Growth, the Hon Nicola Willis. Inflation is down, interest rates are down, farm gate prices are up, and farmer confidence is well up—well up. Growth will start lifting in the last quarter of this year and will only strengthen and accelerate next year.

We are getting back on track, and when the dust settles next year, Kiwis won’t want to put that all at risk with that rabble over there. They won’t want to risk that. We’ve come too far digging this country out of the hole that they put us in to have them do it all again to us. Imagine Labour, Greens, and Te Pāti Māori coming together in Government—a fellowship of fiscal doom. A fellowship of fiscal doom—or is it an axis of taxes? The choice is pretty stark.

Let’s look at just three indicators, three examples of why they should never be in Government for a long, long time, if at all. Exhibit one: according to Treasury, it was the largest spend-up in the history of New Zealand. I’m talking about Labour’s completely over-the-top spending response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Treasury now estimates that Labour spent a mammoth $66 billion—all borrowed, all still collecting interest, and now all limiting investment choices for us. Treasury has declared that not only did their spending go on for too long, but it went against official advice when they told them to put the brakes on. They refused to listen, and, in fact, borrowing spending only accelerated after COVID, fuelling inflation, fuelling the cost of living crisis, and—guess what—history is already showing us that they should be ashamed of themselves.

Exhibit two: listen to this from an Opposition member. “This blows my mind! Indians, Asians, Black and Pakeha campaigning to take a Maori seat from Maori”—that was a post from a Te Pāti Māori MP during the recent by-election. If that wasn’t bad enough, Opposition leader Chris Hipkins refused to call it out as the racism it was. That’s not the New Zealand we grew up in. That’s not the New Zealand we want, but a divided, separatist policy agenda will be the reality if this Opposition ever gets the chance.

Exhibit three: you have a woman convicted of wilful damage for vandalising buildings across Auckland, including MPs’ electorate offices, and what does the Opposition do? They try to get her off the hook—they try to get her off the hook. At this woman’s sentencing for wilful damage, a Green MP writes a letter of support wanting this convicted vandal to walk free of any consequences. That would be the alternative Government. That’s the look and feel of an alternative Government, and not to mention the absence of any policy so far from the Labour Party. The Green’s “tax and borrow” alternative Budget would tax Kiwis by another $88.8 billion, with net Crown debt lifting to 53.8 percent of GDP by the end of the decade.

National is getting this country back on track. We are focused on delivery, growing the economy, restoring stability, lifting standards, building opportunity, and making our community safer. National is putting stability first and rebuilding confidence in growth for every New Zealand family. Kiwis have gone through too much and worked too hard to put all of that at risk. The choice in 2026 will be very, very clear indeed.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Last week, the Minister for Disability Issues announced that this Government is finally bringing back flexibility to Disability Support Services funding after this Government took it away, effectively, 17 months ago, in March 2024—17 months of unnecessary confusion, devastation, and harm that they caused to disabled people and carers across New Zealand.

Disabled people said that their world was shrinking because of decisions made by this Government. Disabled children couldn’t use their funding for therapies that helped them cope with school. People couldn’t use their funding for equipment that helped them to avoid pressure sores when they were wheelchair-bound. Disabled people couldn’t use their funding to travel to a different city to see their family and said that they were being isolated. Carers, parents who looked after disabled children full time couldn’t use their funding to take a break and access respite and get some sleep, all because this National Government took away flexible funding in March last year, and in 17 months, it reversed the dial and brought it back and decided that they were saving the world. It was dire and it was caused by them.

Then the press release by the Minister last week: it basically talked about the changes that they were making—flexibility that people have marched down the streets for over the last 17 months. There have been rallies. There have been public meetings—disabled communities calling for flexibility to be brought back. Finally the Minister does that, crows on about it in her press release, but doesn’t mention a few salient points. She doesn’t mention that next year there will be interim budgets that will be put in place for disabled people that will be based on how much they spent in the last 24 months—16 months of that was after flexibility was removed, which means that they couldn’t spend the budget that they were allocated—and now that will dictate how much they get to spend next year. How is that fair, and why was that not in the press release? Why was it also not in the press release that there will be a new assessment and allocation tool that will then determine, from October onwards, how much funding disabled people will get?

The sweetener was announced in a press release, to much fanfare. There will be flexibility coming back, but what was not foreshadowed was the potential cuts that will come in next year, within which flexibility will be brought back. That is in the Minister’s own Cabinet paper, where she says clearly that it will be perceived as a blunt tool to improve financial management: “There is a risk that we will continue existing inequities, given the lack of data or explanation of the gap between allocation and spending. There is also a risk of unintended consequences.” She says this pretty clearly. She also foreshadows the fact that a fixed allocation based on current or past spending could be perceived as cuts to packages, because they are cuts to packages that are coming. All of this is unfair and not foreshadowed by the Minister.

Now, the total impact of the cuts that this Government has made—we know that one in eight children in New Zealand live in material hardship where they cannot afford the basics like food, power, and rent. The rate for children with a disability or living in a household where someone has a disability is almost double that. One in four children who are disabled or live with someone who is disabled cannot afford the basics, all of which this Government is making harder to afford, directly because of the decisions that they make, plus, of course, unemployment for disabled people—7.9 percent in 2022, which almost doubled to 14.1 percent in June this year.

The care and support workers’ claim was cancelled by the Minister for Women, who just took a call in the general debate and went on about how life is becoming better for women—33 active pay equity claims cancelled, including making it more difficult for those who work in disability facilities as well.

Ultimately, the responsibility and the blame fall on the Prime Minister, Christopher Luxon, who is weak, out of touch, and doesn’t have a plan for New Zealand. The decisions made by this National Government are directly causing harm. They can only make their numbers add up by slashing services and cutting funding for those who are doing it the toughest in New Zealand. They’re making it worse, and that’s why Labour will keep fighting.

CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki): A Government of action and delivery—we’ve heard a lot of talk from that side of the House, but on this side of the House we’re all about the action, we’re all about the delivery, not just dreaming about ideology, wasteful spending, light rail in Auckland. We are delivering infrastructure in New Zealand, and it starts with the Hawke’s Bay Expressway—how good. Hard hats, shovels on the ground, diggers on site—that’s what a Government of action and delivery really looks like, not just dreaming. Unlike Labour, we see the value of infrastructure.

In fact, this road could’ve been built by now. We campaigned on four-laning the Hawke’s Bay Expressway back in 2017, but, no, Labour came in, they wiped it off the table, they said it wasn’t important and it wasn’t needed. Well, it is important, and we are now delivering on it. We see the value. We see the value of a growing Hawke’s Bay population. We see the value of growing productivity, of getting our exports to the port faster. In fact, it was short-sighted to stop that Hawke’s Bay Expressway. Labour was wrong to put the brakes on, literally bringing us to a standstill. The frustration we see every day in Hawke’s Bay—stuck in traffic lined up from Links Road to Taradale—well, we’re taking the brakes off. We’re getting things moving in Hawke’s Bay, our economy moving, and moving our wages up. That’s what good infrastructure does. That is the way to achieve this, by building strong infrastructure.

Our region is an export region. We are the fruit bowl of New Zealand. We grow the best produce in the world: the best apples, the best wine, and the best red meat. We want to grow our exports—in fact, double the value of our exports in the next few years. The way to do this is to build good infrastructure, build that four-lane expressway in Hawke’s Bay, and get our produce off to the markets a lot faster. This is what grows local economies, and this is what creates jobs.

It was so exciting to have our amazing Minister of Transport, Chris Bishop, in Hawke’s Bay a few weeks ago announcing a $600 million investment into the four-lane expressway, announcing it will start in November. That is real hard hats on site, real shovels in the ground, real people, real diggers. We are driving progress and getting things built, and we are walking the talk, because that’s what action looks like—$6 billion of Government-funded infrastructure to start by Christmas. Great news for Hawke’s Bay, and this will provide great Christmas cheer for the region, because, wow, is this going to create a pipeline of work for our local families: over 300 jobs. We do appreciate it has been really tough for our local contractors, so this is welcome news. The four-laning of the expressway doesn’t just create a long-term connection between Hastings and Napier; it creates a strong pipeline of work for our local people and our local families: 300 jobs forecast and many local businesses and families supported.

It’s not just the four-lane expressway that we’ve committed to in Hawke’s Bay. We’ve announced the Waikare Gorge realignment: over $1 billion worth of investment. This is the single largest investment in Hawke’s Bay in years, and the four-lane expressway will provide road users with easy-moving freight—12 kilometres of it, straight to the port and off to market our product.

Building infrastructure isn’t just about bricks and mortar; it’s about connection and building communities, and we saw this in Hawke’s Bay, where our infrastructure didn’t stand up in Cyclone Gabrielle. I was recently humbled and touched in the communities of Puketapu recently and Kereru, where we reconnected those communities with strong, resilient infrastructure. This is progress, and this is what gets New Zealand back on track.

TODD STEPHENSON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. When New Zealanders voted two to one for the End of Life Choice Act in 2020, they voted for compassion and for dignity. It was based on a simple belief that no one should be forced to endure unbearable suffering when they would rather go peacefully and on their own terms. Since then, more than 1,200 terminally ill people have taken that path. They have chosen to meet death with grace, calm, and on their own terms, often with their families beside them.

But when the law was passed, it was a compromise, and to get it through Parliament, David Seymour, now Minister Seymour, had to agree to some restrictions so that, unfortunately, some New Zealanders are still missing out. While it was a remarkable effort by David Seymour to get this bill through, there are people who aren’t able to meet the restriction in the law of having a terminal illness that means that they’ll die within six months. As we all know, it’s very hard when you’re living with a terminal illness or degenerative illness to put down on paper that your life might end in a strict time line. It doesn’t necessarily follow a calendar. I’ve had many people who’ve had to sit beside or next to loved ones with degenerative illnesses—motor neuron disease, Parkinson’s, multiple sclerosis, end-stage lung disease—where their decline might stretch over a number of years, but it’s known that their death by the disease that they’re living with is going to be inevitable. They continue to live with immense suffering. Unfortunately, under the current law, they’re told, “You do not qualify.” That is not compassion.

I was very moved last year when I actually accepted a petition in August of last year which Social Justice Aotearoa had organised. Again, it was signed by over 3,300 New Zealanders, really drawing attention to this issue. It had actually been initiated by the plight of Nicole Martin, who lives with a degenerative illness in Taupō, and she, unfortunately, wasn’t able to access the end-of-life regime.

I’ve heard from families across New Zealand about this issue, and that’s why I’ve proposed amendments to the End of Life Choice Act which will make it more compassionate, will draw it closer to the original intent of the bill by removing this arbitrary six-month cut off. The safeguards that New Zealanders expect will still remain—the law will remain safe, it will remain careful, but it will become finally a bit fairer.

We know that end-of-life choice is not for everyone, but I want those who do want to access it to know that they can take comfort that the disease that they’re living with will be accessible for it. Again, what we’re trying to do is just give New Zealanders back a sense of control, and often that is taken from them by an incurable disease. I’ve taken the step in the last few weeks of writing to every member of the House, and they will have received this letter. In addition to dealing with the sixmonth restriction, I’ve also taken the opportunity to pick up the 25 recommendations that the Ministry of Health published in their report, which was released at the end of last year. This was, again, a piece of excellent work done as part of the End of Life Choice Act, which required a review. I’m asking to meet with all MPs—some I’ve already met with, and I know there’ll be some in this House that don’t support the change, but I’d still like to meet with you and talk over the options, because it’s important that we do actually have a dialogue around this.

I also want to thank the End of Life Choice Society, Russell McVeagh, and Social Justice Aotearoa for supporting the efforts to date. I also want to acknowledge the Hon Maryan Street who has, once again, come back on board to try and build some political consensus around this sensible amendment that I’m asking is made to the End of Life Choice Act.

I look forward to delivering for New Zealanders, because, at the end, this bill isn’t actually about politics or law; it’s about love, compassion, and dignity, and I want to make sure that that is abided by.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Teachers across Aotearoa are rightfully angry. They’re angry at this Government continuously and relentlessly undermining, underpaying, and undervaluing them. We are seeing events unfold in Aotearoa that are unprecedented in our history, where teachers—primary school teachers, secondary school teachers, support stuff, specialist staff from the ministry—are coming out to oppose the relentless attack that this Government has on their profession.

We’re seeing organised strike action by teachers over the last few months because they have had enough. They have had enough of this Government, and they have had enough of this Government gaslighting them. What does it actually mean when we’re looking at the offers that are being presented to the teachers? We’re looking at offers that do not meet inflation. We’re looking at offers that mean that teachers will have less for their whānau, while we are funding other things disproportionately, like defence and landlords.

What we are seeing are figures continuously misquoted by this Government, trying to undermine the profession. We are seeing the Government talking about teachers getting a 4 percent increase in salary without realising or acknowledging the fact that 68 percent of teachers, who are on the top step scale, do not see that increase. We are seeing Ministers talking about teachers earning $140k a year—wouldn’t that be nice? We are seeing the removal of active pay equity claims. We are seeing the cancellation of resource teachers in Māori, resource teachers in literature, kāhui ako, Te Ahu o te Reo Māori, Creatives in Schools—just to name a few things that have been cancelled by this Government.

We have seen the Government shamelessly parading around saying how much they’re putting into education, without looking at the real numbers. They say that they are putting in three-quarters of a billion dollars into learning support; in fact, it is only a third of that. To use the Minister of Education’s own word, “most” of that is reprioritisation from cutting other parts of the sector.

Why are teachers doing this? It is not simply about the pay. It is about the treatment, and value, and their voice within the sector. We’re seeing that NCEA is being scrapped because of one professional advisory group made up of 12 people, who have to sign non-disclosure agreements and cannot go and consult with the public until it is too late. We’re seeing an open letter written by 121 principals—that is over 20 percent of our schools—saying, “Do not scrap NCEA.” We have yet to see a response from the Minister.

Fundamentally, I reiterate what I said in the beginning, from the Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand report in 2023, that the teachers are feeling underpaid, undervalued, and undermined, which then leads to a real issue that we’re going to be seeing with teacher retention. We’re seeing, from the same report, that 58 percent of teachers are likely to leave the profession within the first five years. A survey done in 2018 showed 50 percent, or half, of all secondary school teachers would be leaving the profession in the first five years, and 20 percent of primary school teachers.

We are seeing the ever-increasing—at an alarming rate—average age of teachers. Within a decade’s time, we’re going to have a real issue with a shortage of teachers. If we can fund $9 billion for defence and $2.9 billion for landlords, we can do that for teachers. It’s not just about teachers; it’s about our tamariki, it’s about our parents, it’s about our whānau, and it’s about our communities.

“Hutia te rito o te harakeke, kei hea te kōmako e kō?”—“If you cut out the centre of the flax, where will the bellbird sing?” If we don’t support our teachers, then how do we expect our students to learn?

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): I cannot believe in 2025 I have to stand in the House today and give this speech to address the concerning actions of Green MP Ricardo Menéndez March, who wrote an official letter of support for someone convicted of vandalising MP electorate offices. What a disgrace in 2025. That member used his official MP letterhead to write a character reference for Hannah Swedlund, a lawyer who systematically vandalised MP electorate offices across Auckland. This included the offices of Christopher Luxon, Judith Collins, Simon Watts, Paul Goldsmith, Melissa Lee, Dan Bidois, and a sign belonging to ACT leader David Seymour.

This is the same MP whose party colleagues are the first to complain about intimidation of MPs and who’ve actually just had one of their own resign because of intimidation. But let me be clear what this member chose to support: Hannah Swedlund orchestrated nine separate acts of vandalism across three nights, beginning in November 2023, with the targeting of the United States consulate and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade offices in Auckland, before moving on to throw red paint, symbolising blood, on National MP electorate offices. The paint was intended to be a clear act of intimidation. The judge noted that Ms Swedlund, a practising lawyer who knew this was illegal, took steps to cover it up. This was sustained, it was planned criminal activity that cost over $5,000, and it disrupted the services to constituents. Yet Mr Menéndez March saw fit to write a character reference for this individual.

The decision to support someone who vandalised parliamentary colleagues’ offices is extraordinary. His choice to use official MP letterhead makes the support even more inappropriate. This isn’t just about MPs; it’s about the people who work in these offices. Imagine turning up to work to find your workplace splattered with paint symbolising blood. Staff and constituents would have been intimidated by this display. The disruption this would have caused for constituents is significant. Meetings would have been cancelled while offices were cleaned and secured. Vulnerable people seeking help from their local MP would have been turned away. Yet that member thinks that this behaviour is acceptable enough to support with an official character reference.

Everyone in this House talks about the abuse we receive as MPs, both online and in person, and threats that MPs experience. Parliamentary security now requires us to secure our electorate offices. We have to lock front doors, and staff must confirm who’s coming in before opening them. My own electorate office is getting more security installed over the coming months, which is required by parliamentary security, including meeting rooms having two exits and more doors with deadlocked bolts, along with many other changes. While the rest of us deal with these security realities, Ricardo Menéndez March is writing letters of support for people who create the very intimidation we’re trying to protect against. It’s shameful.

The member doesn’t have an electorate office himself, but for those of us who are electorate MPs, his support for this behaviour directly impacts our ability to serve our community. This limits our ability to interact with our constituents who need help. Imagine if a Government MP wrote support letters for someone who vandalised Chlöe Swarbrick’s office—we’d be criticised heavily. Yet he faces no scrutiny, and I’m calling that out. I’ve never ever seen an MP write a character reference for someone convicted of vandalising MP offices. Ricardo Menéndez March’s judgment call deserves scrutiny from this House and an explanation to the public. These actions undermine the democratic processes. Electorate offices are where constituents access their representatives. By supporting vandalism of this office, he legitimises intimidation tactics that have no place in our democracy.

If we want a democracy where all MPs can serve their constituents safely and effectively, we cannot have MPs selectively supporting those who engage in intimidation when their cause aligns with their politics. The message it sends is clear: vandalism and intimidation are acceptable as long as you agree with the cause. That is not democracy; that is mob rule.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The member’s time has expired.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Sittings of the House

Sittings of the House

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Deputy Leader of the House): I move, That the sitting of the House today be extended into tomorrow morning for: the first reading and referral to select committee of Te Pire Whakahoki i a Kororipo Pā/Kororipo Pā Vesting Bill; the consideration of Government notice of motion No. 1 and the report of the Health Committee; further consideration in committee of the Appropriation (2025/26 Estimates) Bill; the first reading and referral to select committee of the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2025-26, Compliance Simplification, and Remedial Measures) Bill and the Defence (Workforce) Amendment Bill; and the interrupted debate on the second reading of the Customs (Levies and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.

Motion agreed to.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I declare the House in committee for further consideration of the Appropriation (2025/26 Estimates) Bill.

Estimates Debate

In Committee

Debate resumed from 9 September on the Appropriation (2025/26 Estimates) Bill.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, the House is in committee for further consideration of the Appropriation (2025/26 Estimates) Bill. The Business Committee has determined to organise the debate by portfolio, so there will be no sector-specific debates. All Votes are available for debate, but only specific Ministers will be available each day to speak to the indicated portfolio. The Government has indicated that the Minister for Social Development and Employment, the Minister of Education, the Minister of Health, the Minister of Justice, and the Minister for Māori Development will be available today. Each debate will be led by a call from the chairperson or member of the committee that considered the Estimates most closely related to the Ministers’ portfolios. In leading off the debate, the chairperson should take care not to be overly political and should ensure their call gives a fair reflection of the committee’s report on the Votes relevant to the portfolio. The debate expires after 11 hours, at which point questions will be put that the Votes stand part of the Schedules and on the provisions of the Appropriation (2025/26 Estimates) Bill.

There are now five hours and 51 minutes remaining in this debate. New Zealand National has one hour and 48 minutes remaining. New Zealand Labour has one hour and 45 minutes remaining. The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand has 44 minutes remaining. ACT New Zealand has 54 minutes remaining. New Zealand First has 38 minutes remaining. Te Pāti Māori has 23 minutes remaining.

The Estimates debate should be relevant to the Government’s current spending plans contained in the Estimates of Appropriations. A compendium of the reports of select committees on the Votes is available on the Table. The question is that the Votes contained in the Estimates of Appropriations for 2025-26 stand part.

Members, we start with the Minister for Social Development and Employment. The Minister is available to speak to that portfolio from 4.16 to 5.16.

Social Development and Employment

JOSEPH MOONEY (Chairperson of the Social Services and Community Committee): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I rise to speak on the beginning of this Estimates debate on Social Development and Employment as the chairperson of the Social Services and Community Committee.

Vote Social Development is the largest Vote in Budget 2025. The Vote funds many social services including income support, student loans, emergency housing and support, and disability support. In 2025/26, the appropriations sought for Vote Social Development totalled $45.33 billion—that’s over $45 billion.

The appropriation of Vote Social Development comes under seven ministerial portfolios. The Ministry of Social Development administers the Vote. The Minister for Social Development and Employment is responsible for 94.6 percent of the Vote, with appropriations totalling $42.829 billion, including benefits or related expenses.

Five other Minsters have responsibilities for appropriations of the Vote: the Minister of Revenue, the Minister of Housing, the Minister for Veterans, the Minister for Youth, and the Minister for Seniors. As part of our consideration of the Vote Social Development, our committee held hearings with the Minister for Social Development and Employment, the Hon Louise Upston; the Minister for Youth, the Hon James Meager; the Minister for Seniors, the Hon Casey Costello; the Associate Minister of Housing, the Hon Tama Potaka; and the Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment, the Hon Penny Simmonds.

This is obviously an incredibly important Vote for the people of New Zealand—a very significant part of Government expenditure. It is good to have a debate about these Estimates here in the Chamber today. With that, I will conclude my contribution.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Thank you, Mr Chair. As I said in the Estimates hearing in June, my highest priority is supporting more New Zealanders into employment while at the same time ensuring that those who do need support are able to draw on State support when they need it. I’m committed, of course, to the Government’s target of reducing the number of people on the jobseeker benefit by 50,000 by 2030. Our Government is focused on supporting people on welfare into employment and therefore providing with them with the opportunities that work provides, because the faster we can help beneficiaries find sustainable employment, the better outcomes they have for themselves, their families, our communities, and, also importantly, our economy. It’s part of the Government’s commitment to boost growth and with a key emphasis on maximising the potential of New Zealanders and developing the talent of our people. I’m conscious we’ve only got a short time, so I’ll provide some brief opening statements before going to questions.

Through Budget 2025, Vote Social Development received funding in key areas that align with our priorities while also reducing expenditure and delivering services more efficiently. If I look for a moment at the focus, clearly, of reducing the number of people on jobseeker support by 50,000 to 140,000 by 2030. We’ve also confirmed the multi-year transformation programme, which is called MSD—services for the future. It’s about improving services to New Zealanders who need assistance.

Some of the key investments are as follows: 490 front-line staff in employment programmes to help get more people into work, adding a parental assistance test to determine eligibility for jobseeker support and emergency benefit for 18- and 19-year-olds, updating automated decision-making using the Ministry of Social Development’s (MSD’s) processes, improving both the accuracy and integrity of MSD payments, and also changes to the accommodation supplement. We’ve improved redress for survivors of abuse in State care, including increased payments. Other key areas include the continuation of supporting national and regional food distribution infrastructure and community food provision, and we’ve continued the important funding for Kickstart Breakfast programmes and KidsCan jackets for two years.

I want to talk briefly about the Employment Investment Strategy, which will run through to 2028. The strategy guides decision making about which clients to allocate to employment support and which programmes to invest in based on people’s employment support needs, evidence of what works, and their distance from the labour market as well as value for money. It supports MSD to be more targeted and efficient with the investment to help achieve our priorities for employment. This strategy will support MSD’s front line to shift investment through allocation of clients to case management, and employment interventions under the improved employment and social outcomes support multi-category appropriation.

As expected in the current economic climate, the overall number of people receiving a benefit has increased ahead of a forecast decrease from December this year. However, our focus on employment and proactive staff engagement is helping more people to move into work. We’ve seen more than 80,700 people moved off welfare and into work in the last financial year despite these challenging times. There is, of course, more work to do, and we’ll continue to help people overcome the challenges to prepare for and find a job. Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m happy to take questions.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. One of the major problems we’ve got in the country at the moment, and have had for some years, is a problem around Māori and Māori unemployment. When we were in Government it was running at nearly three times what the average rate was, and we were able to bring that down. This Government has still got it at just over double what the general rate is, and it’s very concerning.

I would like to know from the Minister: what’s the plan in terms of Māori unemployment? Is there going to be a focus on some of the targeted programmes that the previous Government brought to the table—obviously, Mana in Mahi was one of those major programmes. Māori Trade Training was a major investment from the previous Government. Has she considered reinvesting into and boosting Māori Trade Training, which delivered 63 Māori-led projects and supported over 4,000 Māori across Aotearoa?

I’m just opening up with those questions in terms of what the Government’s overall plan is—because I never heard that in the Minister’s introductory remarks—in terms of Māori unemployment and boosting Māori in employment.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I thank the member for his question, and, as we’ve discussed in this House before, unfortunately, when we have a labour market the way it is, Māori are disproportionately affected. What I would say is that what we’re seeing in the numbers between those aged 18 and 24 coming on to jobseeker benefit is that, actually, the number of Māori coming on is less than we might have expected in terms of that proportionality, so that is positive. The investment strategy, with investment in initiatives like Mana in Mahi and He Poutama Rangatahi, is absolutely focused on young Māori and Pasifika. I’ll also add that Budget 2025 will mean that every young person under the age of 25 on the jobseeker benefit will be in case management.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. First of all, I just wanted to comment on the Minister’s initial remarks. I find it incredibly rich that she both talks about her focus of getting people into employment while yet her own Government is cutting thousands and thousands of jobs—intentionally so, despite not needing to do so.

My question’s related to the advice that Treasury gave her in relation to the tightening of the eligibility for jobseeker supports who are between the ages of 18 and 19. At the time that the Budget initiatives were going through, Treasury actually said that this should be deferred to next year’s Budget because the savings would be highly uncertain as there’s little data on the number of young people who may be affected, and that this change would also have several perverse incentives as it’s currently designed. What are these perverse incentives that Treasury warned her about, and does she agree with Treasury that the savings coming from this initiative would be highly uncertain?

This is no small feat that we’re talking about. This is about restricting access to some of our youngest and most affected, at the moment, by unemployment, alongside Māori and Pasifika; we’re talking about young people here who are struggling to get access to entry-level jobs. If the Government is going to be making it harder at a time of high youth unemployment to access these benefits, I would like some answers in relation to the advice that Treasury gave her in relation to the savings but also around the several perverse incentives that are created by this policy—can she name them?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I’m pleased the member raised the 18- and 19-year-old policy, because it gives us the opportunity to talk about the intention behind it. The intention, which I’m assuming members opposite would also expect, is that every 18- and 19-year-old in New Zealand is in further education, further training, or in a job, and that going on welfare isn’t the first option to them. That’s the intention of it. Treasury, in many of the Budget savings, will say that the level of savings is uncertain. That is no different from this proposal. What I will say is the member will need to wait only a little bit longer to hear the final policy settings of the 18- and 19-year-old policy.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. Now, moving on to one of the savings that will start coming in in this Budget—despite the announcements being made last year, the legislation was introduced during the Budget process. It is in relation to the tightening of access to the accommodation supplement for people who may be receiving the income-related subsidies who may have boarders, for example, or who may be in private rentals. Does she agree with the advice that the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) gave her that this policy will leave people worse off, on average, by $100 each week, and does she also agree with the advice that shows that the disabled, Māori, the young, and the old will be disproportionately impacted by this policy? What message does she have to old people, young people, disabled people, and Māori, who, as MSD has noted, will be disproportionately left worse off as a result of these changes?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): As I’ve said previously when we’ve debated this legislation—which is a Budget 2024 measure—the changes to the boarder contribution are about making the system fair, transparent, and equivalent. If somebody is receiving income from a boarder, that will be counted in terms of the housing assistance that they are eligible for. It is a simple step that is about making the system fairer. I accept that in this policy there will be some people who were receiving income from one and two boarders, and now their housing supplement will be affected. We appreciate that and we accept that, but what we need to do is ensure we have a system that is fair and has integrity.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you very much. When the Minister for Social Development and Employment talks about fairness, does she think that it is fair that some of these people may be left in even deeper poverty and may be requiring additional assistance from Work and Income, and, if so, does she think this undermines the supposed savings that she’s trying to make through this initiative?

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you, Mr Chair. Following on from what the Minister has just said, does the Minister accept that the impact of our youth unemployment is much more extreme, and can she give the latest numbers for 18- to 20-year-olds unemployed and 20- to 25-year-olds unemployed?

Can I also know from the Minister: is she concerned that such high youth unemployment will have long-term consequences on the mental health of those people who are unemployed at a time when they are forming their careers, their future careers? This is a critical time in their lives, and has she considered the impact on that, both economically and in terms of mental health?

I’d also like to know from the Minister—she came into Government at a time when Labour had the highest employment rates. That was something that we could be extremely proud of. How many more unemployed people are now requiring jobseeker benefits today than when she took over in November 2023, and what does that cost the country? There have been promises made about reducing the number, but my understanding is we are 26,000 more on the lists than we were. That seems to me to be an extremely worrying statistic, but it also seems to be one that would come with enormous cost.

Does she accept that those people that are on the jobseeker benefit today are there because they are legitimately unemployed due to the downturn in our economy engineered by this Government? If that is the case, if she accepts that they are legitimately unemployed—and I see the Minister’s expression and I accept that she might not accept the second part of what I said, but she can actually answer the first part, which is: does she think that those people that are unemployed now are there because of their own fault, or is it through no fault of their own, given that she accepts there’s been a downturn, in which case, why has she moved into a mode of penalising those people?

What I want to know, for those people today who face really high costs of things like butter and the cost of registering a car and the cost of energy: what are they actually receiving from this Government if they’re on the jobseeker benefit? I don’t think a lot of New Zealanders know just what that looks like for the average person. What do they get, and has it been inflation-adjusted for those very things that I said—energy, for the cost of food, and for the cost of things like car registration? Have they had more as those costs have gone on—is that part of the equation? Actually, has there been an inquiry made as to whether they can actually live on what they’re on? Can they make ends meet? I’ve got more questions for the Minister, but I’d thank her for an answer for these first.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I’m not going to go into an economics class about how the economic recession got created. I think most people know that, and it’s been debated in this Chamber. I’m more than happy to answer the question, but I’m also going to refute outrageous statements that were made by the member prior.

As of the end of June, there were 48,200 people on the jobseeker benefit between the ages of 18 and 24, which, of course, is an increase from the previous year. What we saw under the last six years was an increase in the number of years that that age bracket would be on benefit throughout their lifetime—18 years—which we are totally unwilling to accept. That’s why, as I said, Budget 2025 and the Employment Investment Strategy means that every one of those young people will be in case management. That is the most successful programme. That’s why we are investing in it—to improve their opportunities of being in employment. While it is challenging at the moment, we want to ensure young people are using this time to prepare and get ready as the economy grows again.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I have a series of questions, all in and around the youth figures. Recent statistics out yesterday from Stats NZ show there’s 19,000-plus fewer jobs filled by 15- to 24-year-olds. What I’d like to know from the Minister is what plan does she have or what solution is she offering for those young people who might go through a training course or receive some extra support but there’s no job to go to? In that space, what solutions does she offer, particularly those that are in that 18- to 19-year-old bracket, which aren’t impacted yet but soon will be by no longer being able to receive the jobseeker benefit? What specific solutions are in place for young people who have gone through training but have no place for work?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): As I said, that age bracket is a concern, because we know their lifetime years on benefit have been increasing, and we want to pull that back. We want 18- and 19-year-olds to be in further education, training, or in employment, and we know that as the economy grows, it creates more jobs—the level of investment in infrastructure projects, for example: 240,000 new jobs expected. These next few months are challenging. The 18- and 19-year-old policy doesn’t come in until 1 July 2027. That’s what we announced in the Budget.

I just would remind the committee—and it’s what most people will expect—that 18- and 19yearolds will be the responsibility of their family first, as opposed to just this idea that the best life is to go straight on welfare. We’d be encouraging them to go into further education or further training.

I neglected to answer the question of the previous member about increases to welfare payments because of inflation. They are annually adjusted with the Consumers Price Index.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): I’ll reframe it again for the Minister, because I listened very carefully and I did not hear the answer to my question, which was: if there is a young person in New Zealand that has gone through training and education but does not have an offer of employment that they’re able to take up, what is the Government’s solution to situations such as that? Are they going to take up some more training? Are there incentives by the Government? Is there any action or plan in place for young people who have gone through training but have not managed to secure a job like the 19,000 over the past 12 months?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I did answer that. I answered that very clearly: further education or training, infrastructure investments, bringing 240,000 additional jobs, and parental responsibility.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tokerau): Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you, Minister. I will be sticking with the tightening eligibility 18-19 piece, if I could. Now that Budget 2025 forecasts over $325 million in savings by restricting benefit access to 18- and 19yearolds—I’ve got a couple of supplementaries after this—how will the Government justify this cut when it disproportionately affects rangatahi Māori, over 4,500 of whom currently receive support? Can the Minister provide an update on the development of the parental assistance test and whether Māori advisers or youth advocates or other Māori—smart people, like me—have been involved in its design to ensure cultural appropriateness? Will the Minister confirm whether young people will be denied support if their parents refuse to complete the parental test, and how does this protect the rights and wellbeing of vulnerable rangatahi?

The final question, if I may, Mr Chair, is: what safeguards are in place for rangatahi escaping unsafe or unsupported home environments where parental means cannot or should not be tested? Thank you.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): As I said in answer to one of the previous members’ questions, more detail will be available on that shortly. Some of those issues are exactly what is being considered in the detailed policy assessment. Let me just say again that this policy is about ensuring 18- and 19-year-olds are in further education, training, study, or employment. What we do know—I know that members opposite would be deeply concerned when we quote these figures—is that for a young person to go on to a benefit under the age of 25, they spend 18 future years of their life on welfare. None of us want that, so we are looking at new interventions to reinforce an expectation that, actually, most people in this Chamber would have been raised with—that when you come out of your secondary schooling education, further education, or further training, you get a job. That’s the expectation our side of the Chamber wants to set. We are aspirational for young people; we’re aspirational for young Māori, and we want them to have a life of opportunity and choice, not one trapped on welfare.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just wanted to follow the member Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s line of questioning over there, because I think, with respect, that the Minister has been a bit vague in terms of her responses with regard to Māori employment and Māori unemployment, and I do want to know this. We’re still trying to get our heads around why, when unemployment was on the rise and was dramatically rising for youth and Māori, she cut Māori trade training at Budget 2025, particularly given that Māori trade training, as we know, has had a significant impact in terms of young people right around the country. It confuses me that something so successful was cut by this Government. That was something that was embedded in in a couple of generations, actually, and I was able to bring that back when I was a Minister. Something that was so successful was cut by this Government, and we’ve never really had any answers on that.

I also want to ask the Minister whether she is able to break down for us Māori, Pasifika, the over-65s, youth, people in their own homes—are we able to get some details in terms of those who are needing the accommodation supplement? We seem to be lacking in the detail which would really help in terms of any overall plan from this Government. In terms of Māori, again, can I ask the Minister: does she have any details in terms of how many Māori are on a main benefit since she took over in this position?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I would ask that member to ask his question again about the accommodation supplement, but let me answer the others first. As at the end of June, there were 406,100 people on main benefit. Of that, 148,539 were Māori. In terms of the increases over the last year, the total percentage was 6.6 percent, and for Māori, it was 5.7 percent. The increases are lower, and that’s why I made that comment before about the under18 to 24-year-olds.

In terms of the Māori trade training, we made the decision to end that. It was a programme that was brought forward in terms of a response to COVID. As we have done in many instances, we have ended funding for things that were COVID-related, and we clearly never saw the levels of unemployment—thank goodness—that were forecast at the time. What we have done is invest in the most intensive programme that is available and that we know has the greatest success, and that is case management. As I’ve said, every 18- to 24-year-old will be in case management.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): Well, that’s very sad to hear that type of response in terms of Māori trade training. As I said, it was a programme that was acclaimed by everyone no matter what their political affiliations were. I just want to come back to the question that the Minister asked—she asked me to reframe that question. The question is: how many more people have needed the accommodation supplement since she took over? Can she break that down for us: Māori, Pasifika, over 65, and youth—are there any numbers in regards to that? While we’re talking about Pasifika, does she have any numbers in terms of Pasifika on jobseeker support since she took over? It would be good to get a response on that. But back to what I was saying on Māori trade training: I think that’s one of the biggest mistakes that this Government has made.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment): Thank you, Mr Chair. In response to the questions by the Hon Willie Jackson regarding Māori trades training places, he will be pleased to know that in the tertiary education space, we have increased the number of youth guarantee places by 175 places per year, where that wraparound support and additional care of the students is absolutely imperative to the success of that training. So those 175 additional youth guarantee places are certainly most useful in that space.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): In terms of the 18- to 24-year-olds, the option is either case management or contracted services if they’ve got work obligations, which could be part-time or full time. I’m happy to answer the question around accommodation supplement. I don’t have that data on me. If you wouldn’t mind, please, putting that down in writing, and we could get an answer to you.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): At a time of high inflation, more people sleeping rough, and front-line organisations talking about the struggle of the high cost of living, what we have seen since this Budget is a record number of people—at least the only other highest number we’ve seen is in September 2024—being declined for assistance. In fact, in the latest quarter, June 2025, under her watch and after this Budget, we’ve seen the highest proportion of people on the benefit being declined for assistance for something like an advance. An advance is something that can help you sustain your rental, pay your bills, have enough clothing so that your children do not get sick. How does the Minister justify seeing, under her watch, the highest proportion of people and applications being declined for assistance that is lifesaving for many?

Following up on that, does the Minister have any information on who is most disproportionately impacted by this record proportion of people being declined for assistance such as advances, and has she made any directives, received any feedback, or passed on any feedback to the Ministry of Social Development on this issue? This is real, because people on the ground are telling us that they’re facing more declines for basic things that they need, and the data is clear that a greater proportion of applications are getting declined under her watch. What is the reason for that?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Let me just go back and answer the question around Pasifika: the number of 18- to 24-year-olds on the main benefit is 7,047. That was just to answer the Hon Willie Jackson’s question.

In terms of advance payments, I have not made any directives to the Ministry of Social Development around advance payments. We are experiencing challenging economic times, and some of the measures that we have done in Budget 2025, for example, are to ensure that people aren’t getting overpaid so that that lends to a debt. One of the challenges with advance payments is it then creates further financial difficulties further down the line. I want to assure the member I have issued no directive around advance payments.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’d like to ask the Minister a little bit more about what she said concerning youth. She talked about this group of people who spend 18 years on the benefit. What I wondered is if she would accept that that was not apples with apples, because what you had when that was the number was the entrenched unemployed group, versus now, when the reason you have such high youth unemployment is because there are no jobs out there and these are the last people that will be employed because they have no job experience. Does she accept that this class of people is very different in that way and this is the opportunity for them to get work if work is available? The answer isn’t just training; it’s actually the availability of work.

Also, I would like an answer to my question about what it is actually costing the country to have the giant blowout of people on jobseeker benefit. I think that’s a fair question. I’d also like an answer to the question about how much people get on jobseeker, because I do not think that the public understand how little it is, and whether people can live off that amount that is there. I appreciate the answer about the adjustments that are made on the basis of the Consumers Price Index, but my question wasn’t that. It was: was it actually something that was adjusted in terms of the things I mentioned? Car registration was one, the cost of food was another, and I think I had a third thing—the cost of energy, which is, of course, huge. I think those are all questions that the New Zealand public would really like the answer to.

I also want to know from the Minister—we talked about the Government engineering this. I mention engineering this unemployment, because they wanted to kickstart the economy, as they saw, by bringing wages down. The Government changed the Reserve Bank mandate to exclude any concern for unemployment in its decision. I understood the logic of that to be that it would create lower wages in that situation, because lower wages were good for kickstarting the economy. Why does the Government punish the very New Zealanders who are victims of a faulty strategy? They become unemployed by their very own design—they want them to be unemployed so there are more people in the workforce and the wages go down—and yet they’re punishing them by sanctions and suggesting that 18-year-olds are somehow, in some habitual way, staying on the benefit for 18 years. Thank you.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Sorry, I need to correct the figure that I gave the Hon Willie Jackson: it was not main benefit; it was jobseeker.

Just going to the lifetime number of future years on benefit, because I think the House will be interested to know that in June 2017, for someone under the age of 25 who was on jobseeker support, their future years was 12.2 years—it is now 18.2.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Not continuous—they’re not continuous years.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: No, it’s not continuous, it’s someone who goes on and off, but hopefully your maths will tell you that 12.2 is a lot less than 18.2, which just happens to line up with the six years that Labour was in office.

We are deeply concerned about young people being on the jobseeker benefit, which is why we are fully unwilling to accept that 18 years is as good as it gets. That’s why we are focused on very intensive programmes like case management to support them to have higher expectations for 18- and 19-year-olds.

To the member Helen White: Consumers Price Index (CPI) calculations are based on an average of household costs across a range of baskets—I’m not going to spend the time in this committee listing them. That is why we index to CPI the jobseeker benefit. For someone over the age of 25, the flat benefit is $361.32.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I’d just like to pick up from my questions before. I was asking the Minister specifically around the 19,000 fewer jobs for those young people and what the Government’s solution was to finding a place for them if there was no job there. The Minister’s answer was that her Government was going to create 240,000 new jobs. Well, I would just like to understand, from the Minister, how did she get that figure?

As I understand from previous comments that the Prime Minister has made, that’s over 4 years. Can she just confirm that the 240,000 new jobs her Government will deliver—how was that specific number arrived at? If she’s able to, what specific initiatives will produce those 240,000 jobs?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I’m not going to list the infrastructure projects that have been already quoted in this House around the creation of new jobs. One thing that’s very different about the Government we have today as opposed to the one that was outgoing in 2023 is we’re clear that it’s not the Government creating the jobs. We create the conditions for the jobs to be created as opposed to the Government creating them.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Is it correct that it is not the case that the reason why there’s been a greater proportion of declines for advances is that people have be put in a worseoff financial situation, which she alluded to in her previous answer to me, and that it could instead be because of a changing culture at Work and Income due to increased anti-beneficiary rhetoric? I say this because the stats speak for themselves.

There’s been an uptick of proportions of declines for things like advances. Her own answer to my questions in writing shows that it is not because people would be put in a worse-off situation but for a range of other reasons. Does she think it is fair for a greater proportion of people to be declined assistance at a time of high cost of living pressures and front-line organisations talking about increasing homelessness?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to come into the sanctions area now. In terms of the culture, what communities are saying to us is that the culture, sadly, has changed tremendously given where we were a couple of years ago. We’ve always had a sanction system, but obviously imposing sanctions is difficult if children and whānau are involved. I want to ask the Minister, in terms of the sanctions area, what reports has she had of the checks and balances to ensure that some of our tamariki have not been hurt by these sanctions? Is she following through with a lot of the reports that we’re getting from whānau? How much have sanctions increased since she changed the sanctions regime? It’s a very punitive strategy that this Government has gone down. How many of those families are ones with children who have been punished by the sanctions strategy? Has an increase in sanctions correlated with a reduction in job seekers, which surely has to be the aim of any Government? This is an area of vital importance to our communities who have suffered through this terrible sanctions strategy that this Government is rolling out. Where are we right now? I ask the Minister if she could respond.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I’m proud of the fact that we have a much more active welfare system than when we took office. That is for a range of reasons. One of the reasons is the traffic light system, and 98 percent of those receiving benefit are at green, which means they know their obligations and they’re fulfilling them. I think that’s something we should all be really pleased about—0.6 percent at orange, and 1.1 percent or 1.2 percent at red. The number of people who are actually under a sanction is incredibly small, which I think is great news.

The other great news, of course, is that we introduced non-financial sanctions for the very reason that there was a concern for a blunt financial sanction where there are children in the household. There will be a review after 12 months, and the next two non-financial sanctions don’t come in until 1 October. That was very deliberate and about giving Ministry of Social Development case managers more options to have a sanction that was more suitable and appropriate to that family.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. Just going back to those 240,000 new jobs, I am aware that the Minister has said that’s going to come from a range of infrastructure projects and she doesn’t want to list them out, but I would still like to know how she arrived at the figure of 240,000 additional jobs. I would also like to know: is she using job growth based on population growth? Now, she may want to take some advice from officials, but the Government must have undertaken some form of calculation to arrive at the figure of 240,000. I’m assuming they didn’t just make that up. If so, can she please explain: is she using job growth based on population growth to produce that figure of 240,000 more jobs?

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Minister, is it factually correct that disabled people will be disproportionately pushed into deeper hardship as a result of the changes that she has made when it comes to eligibility for accommodation supplements for people who have boarders? If it is correct that disabled people will be disproportionately put in hardship from this change—I don’t think she’s listening to the question, but if it is correct that disabled people will be disproportionately affected by this, what is her message to disabled people affected by this policy?

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Does the Minister accept that there’s a real possibility that the increase in sanctions may have led to an increase in previous beneficiaries not having enough food and seeking help from food banks, and this also may have led to an increase in beneficiaries becoming homeless? If so, what work has happened to track this correlation, and what advice has she been asked for or has she received about those issues?

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Just in the interest of the Minister addressing and answering my question, is it correct that disabled people are going to be disproportionately impacted due to the changes she has made to the eligibility—it’s actually really hard to speak to the Minister when she’s talking to someone else. Is it correct that disabled people will be disproportionately impacted by the changes she has made to the eligibility of the accommodation supplement for people who have boarders, and that disabled people will be pushed deeper into poverty as a result of these changes compared to other groups? If so, what is her message to disabled people affected by these changes?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): I’m not sure if the Minister for Social Development and Employment has answered my question, which is: has an increase in sanctions correlated with a reduction in job seekers? Further to that, many of our organisations, particularly community organisations, have talked to us about a dramatic increase in homelessness and the use of food banks. Does the Minister accept that there’s a real possibility that the increase in sanctions may have led to an increase in previous beneficiaries becoming homeless? It seems to be obvious as we go out there and see the results community organisations are responding to us about. Can I also ask the Minister: in terms of some of those community organisations, is she working closely with those organisations right now? Thank you, Madam Chair.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): There’s been a number of questions around sanctions, so I would repeat what I said about a very small number being under red, which is when a sanction applies. It is really simple for someone to come off a sanction, and that’s for them to re-comply with their obligations. Just because somebody is at red, it doesn’t mean it’s a permanent state of things—they have options in terms of complying with their obligations. I will say again in this Chamber—because it tends to be misrepresented on frequent occasion—no one is sanctioned for not getting a job; they are sanctioned because they are not fulfilling their work obligations, which are things like going to an interview, having a CV, fulfilling their appointments with the Ministry of Social Development, and taking the necessary steps to look for, prepare for, and find a job. The sanction isn’t if they can’t find a job, and I said before that the new traffic light regime will be reviewed after 12 months.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you. I still have not received an answer to the question about what the cost is of the blowout of 26,000 more New Zealanders not being in employment under the watch of this Government. I would really like that, and I’d like the Minister for Social Development and Employment to tell me whether she considers it a personal failure that those people are currently unemployed. I want to know from the Minister whether those people are ones she considers to just have an attitude problem or, in fact, they have been the result and fallout of an economic downturn, in which case what I would expect is that we would step up as a Government and support them into work in a way that actually was manageable for them.

I want to know an answer to a question I asked right at the beginning, which is: does she think that people, our families, our working families, often, who get accommodation supplement, and our unemployed families where one or two of the breadwinners have lost their jobs since the Government took hold of this economy and has been responsible for the way it has been run for quite some time now—are they actually able to pay the bills? Has she made an inquiry? I’ve asked about specific payments, not Consumers Price Index, which we know is a flawed system and it doesn’t quite manage to do that. Has she looked to make sure that those families can pay their bills?

One of the things that the Minister has done is she has decided to review people on accommodation supplements and take away the bare amount that they were getting from boarders. That was $100 a week from those very people who were trying to make ends meet. I would like to know whether she’s looked at that since and thought, “Well, the cost of butter is now about $8.”—if you’re very lucky, it’s $8—“Maybe I need to look at this in terms of whether they can actually make ends meet.” I’d like an answer, sincerely, to those questions.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I was hoping I wouldn’t need to do this in the Chamber because it’s been said multiple times before, but let’s just—

Helen White: I still haven’t heard it.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: OK, good. Excellent. Here’s what happens. High levels of spending, excessive levels of spending, wasteful spending, leads to high interest rates, high inflation, and higher unemployment. Unfortunately, when we came in, we came into a period where inflation was 7.2 percent. We’ve managed to get it down to 2.5 percent, which is remarkable in this short period of time. If the member’s worried about the price of butter, she should worry about inflation and be celebrating the fact that it’s down from 7.2 percent to 2.5 percent.

In terms of the unemployment rate, the unemployment rate forecast by Treasury for the previous Government—I think it was June 2022—was expected to be at 5.2 percent at this time. Guess what it is? It’s 5.2 percent. We are not further away from what the unemployment rate was expected to be when that member’s party were in Government. But, unfortunately, anyone on this side of the House would prefer not to be dealing with the circumstances we’re dealing with. We have got inflation under control, but for, I think, something like 44 percent of mortgage holders, they are yet to refix their mortgage. They are not seeing those falling interest rates in their bank account yet—that is still to come.

We know that there is a lag period between inflation coming down, interest rates coming down, the economy turning, and recovery beginning. Unfortunately, the unemployment rate is always the last to follow. The member asked specifically: what is the taxpayer bill for those on the jobseeker benefit for 2025-2026? It’s $4.6 billion. But, actually, I’m less worried about the fiscal cost; I’m worried about the human cost. That is why our side has set an ambitious target to reduce the number of people on the jobseeker benefit by 50,000 by 2030. Yes, we could have said, “Let’s have a really pathetic target because we have inherited an economic recession, we’ve inherited challenging times.”, and given up and gone home. No, because for every single one of those people that come off welfare and into work, we know what a difference it makes for them and their families. I’m celebrating 80,700 people in the last year coming off welfare and into work, despite the trainwreck of economic conditions that we have inherited. It’s $4.8 billion.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): I will ask, once again, is it correct that disabled people are disproportionately affected by the changes she has introduced that will strip away income for people who have boarders; if so, what is her message to disabled people living in poverty, who will be disproportionately affected by this change?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): The changes that we have made around the accommodation supplement, going back to Budget 2024, were to make a fairer, more equitable system. If you are a disabled person who has boarders, yes, it will affect you. If you are a disabled person who is a taxpayer, you want a fairer, more equitable system, and also if you are a disabled person who sees benefit of the accommodation supplementary boundaries and rates changes, you’ll be celebrating.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I think just because the Government’s come in under forecast doesn’t mean at all that the Government has been successful in terms of their employment strategy. In fact, it’s been a disaster for this Government. We’re seeing record numbers go to Australia, and the question, again, is where is the employment strategy in terms of this Government? We don’t see one. All we see and hear is that you have come in under what was forecast with the previous Labour Government. That is not an employment strategy; it is just a continual waffle about the previous Government.

I ask the question: is the closing of major work sites such as Kinleith and now Eves Valley sawmill indicative of the Government doing enough to tackle unemployment? What is the strategy? Where is the investment, and has the Ministry of Social Development accounted for a potential increase in demand for its work programmes in areas where major work sites are expected to close? Is there something that we can expect from the Minister other than her continually saying we have come under the forecast that was forecast for the previous Government?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): We have published an Employment Investment Strategy, which the member is asking about—an employment strategy for 2025 through to 2028. That is very much focused on a range of things—a priority around 18- to 24-year-olds—so that we can move that curve back from the 18.2 years average future time on benefit that we have inherited, back to the 12.2 years, for example, which is where it was in 2017. Part of the investment strategy is the 490 case managers, because we know that one-on-one case management is the most effective intervention we have had. That is through data and evidence that tells us which programmes are more successful. We are investing in what works the best. Other initiatives like Mana in Mahi, He Poutama Rangatahi, Mayors Taskforce for Jobs, and Ngā Puna Pūkenga are all about focusing on how we ensure we are targeting those programmes to the people they will have the greatest impact on. I would invite the member to read that employment investment strategy, and, if he has questions on it, to put them down in writing.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’m going to have a third go at asking the Minister. She’s promised that her Government will create 240,000 new jobs. Could she please confirm how that number was calculated? If so, is she using job growth based on population growth to arrive at the number of 240,000 new jobs that she has promised?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Well, from Budget 2025, it was Treasury’s forecast at that time that there would be job growth of 2.7 percent, 240,000 jobs.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Can she confirm that that calculation that she’s referred to by Treasury is actually job growth based on population growth, not any specific action that her Government has taken?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I would invite that member to ask Treasury. It’s Treasury’s forecast.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Again, is the Minister for Social Development and Employment telling me that she does not know herself? Is the Minister responsible for how her Government is going to deliver 240,000 more jobs, and does she not know how that figure was calculated?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I’ll correct the member, because I’ve already said it in this House. The Government is very different from the previous one in terms of who they believe creates the jobs: businesses create jobs. If I think about the announcement today, with Qantas and Jetstar adding 660,000 additional seats across the Tasman and within New Zealand—that creates jobs. The Government is creating the conditions where businesses will grow and create more jobs. In terms of additional jobs that have been mentioned in this House—the member referred to the Prime Minister; I’d also refer to the Minister of Finance and the Minister for Infrastructure. The significant projects that kick off in the next six months will create more jobs.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Last question in this section.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you. It is really a question that I have asked and I have not had an answer for. I think it’s a central one. Twenty-six thousand more people are unemployed than there were under our Government. While the Minister for Social Development and Employment gave me figures for what it cost the country this year, she did not give me the answer to the question, which is: what is the difference in cost between what it cost under a Labour Government, when we had less unemployment, and the cost that it is now because we have 76,000 people that are unemployed and having to receive that money? What is the extra cost to our country, let alone the cost to the mental health of those people, etc., etc., etc.? Thank you.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): As I said, we now are forecasting in the 2025-26 appropriation documents $4.6 billion on the jobseeker benefit. That member wants to ask a question about comparing a cost to 2023. I’ve gone through the figures, I’ve explained how we get to this point in terms of the economic cycle, and she seems to have missed the point that we have come in at a time where high spending, high interest rates, high inflation led to economic recession and the harshest economic times since the 1990s. What follows is higher levels of unemployment. That is why our Government has set a target to reduce the number of people on the unemployment benefit by 50,000. We will push through these challenging economic times with our Going for Growth strategy, which is all about not just the fiscal cost but the human cost. The human cost that I as Minister am unwilling to tolerate is that someone under 25 will spend another 18 years of their life on welfare.

Education

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, the Minister for Social Development and Employment’s time in the chair has come to an end. We now have the Minister of Education. The Minister is available to speak to that portfolio from now until the dinner break, and I give the first call to Carl Bates, the deputy chairperson of the Education and Workforce Committee.

CARL BATES (Deputy Chairperson of the Education and Workforce Committee): Thank you, Madam Chair. As deputy chair of the Education and Workforce Committee, it is my privilege to speak on Budget Estimates for 2025-26 for Vote Education. This year’s Budget, as the Minister told the committee, included the largest investment into learning support in a generation. Budget 2025 includes $645.8 million for operational funding and just over $100 million for capital funding for learning support initiatives over four years.

In addition, Budget 2025 extended the early intervention service through to the end of year 1 at primary school. About $192 million is allocated over four years to fund that provision. An additional $43 million funds additional speech language therapists, psychologists, and teacher-aide hours. Furthermore, the Ongoing Resourcing Scheme, known as ORS, has traditionally been funded via a fixed budget. From Budget 2025, it will now be demand-driven. If a child is eligible for ORS, they will have access to it.

Contrary to the belief of some, the facts are that the total Vote Education budget has had an overall increase in spending of about $429 million, with the five largest areas of spending being $8.7 billion for primary and secondary education, $3.4 billion for school property portfolio management, $3 billion for early learning, and $1.8 billion for Ministry of Education capital expenditure, as well as $1.6 billion for outcomes and target groups.

My question for the Minister: is she as excited as the principals I spoke to on Friday, who said learning support sparks up optimism about the learning support allocation starting in 2026, as a result of this Budget?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): Thank you, Mr Speaker—oh, Madam Chair, I should say; old habits. Can I just start by saying this was a transformational Budget. One of my key six priority areas was learning support. We learnt when we were in Opposition but also from being the Minister that a key priority needed always to be a serious investment in learning support. For too long, we have been having meetings and creating strategy documents and having a think about it and have been tinkering around the edges. Meanwhile, children sat on wait-lists. The child was not getting the right service at the right time for far too long.

We put a lot of effort into working with the sector to find out what it was that they needed. They talked to me about a number of different things, and we’ve allocated those into a tiered-system approach, starting with universal support. One of the things we found that the principals were telling us from across the country was that the previous allocations of learning support coordinators were inequitable. The second tranche that was always promised never came. It was extraordinarily disappointing. There were some regions of New Zealand that only had 18 percent coverage of learning support coordinators.

This historic Budget, which is the largest investment in a generation, of three quarters of a billion dollars will go to solving that inequity problem with learning support coordinators. It was just in the last week or so that we were able to go out to all schools and say to them when they could expect their learning support coordinator—either next year, the following, or the year after that—so that they all know and can plan. I know that schools in the great electorate of Whanganui were very excited, including Kane from Aberfeldy School, who said that that was the best news that he’d almost ever received. It is going to make a huge difference on the ground.

There is so much more than that. That extension of learning support through early childhood to the end of year 1 is something that teachers and principals have been crying out for for so long. It now means that when a child turns five, they will continue to get the same support that they got before. What used to happen was it would stop and you’d have to start again, and it would be months before you could get that learning support back on stream. That was a huge loss to those young people who needed support. We are flooding in resources. This is hundreds of millions of dollars into early intervention support, and we are taking a social-investment approach because we know that the earlier we intervene into these young people’s lives, the better their outcomes are for learning.

That does mean a lot more early intervention teachers—hundreds of them. It does mean a lot more educational psychologists and speech language therapists. One of the questions I’ve had from around the country—I front-footed this in my Budget speech—was: where are all of these people going to come from, Minister? I’ve said to the sector, “We are agnostic about where the support comes from.” We are working very differently now. It may not be that the ministry employs that educational psychologist. Where there is private provision, we will use it. Where there is an NGO, we will use it. Where there is philanthropy, we will use it. All we want and all parents want is for the service to get to the child. We will make sure that that happens, and we’re going to work in a very different way to ensure that those wait-lists are reduced.

There’s not only that but also, as a previous speaker mentioned, the ongoing resource scheme (ORS), for our very highest learners. I remember, when I became the Minister of Education, there was a certain official who said to me, “Minister, you will never make this demand-driven.” What I would like to say is that I had one meeting with the Minister of Finance, and I asked her if we could make this demand-driven rather than a set budget, and she said yes, because she gets it, she cares, and she understands. That now means that if a child is eligible for ORS, they will get it. There will be no more raiding from other budgets or making it really difficult to get the scheme. They will get that support that they need. This will be hundreds and hundreds and hundreds—up to 1,700—children additional over the next few years. It is a huge amount, and that will kick in from next year. It is very, very exciting for those families who know how difficult it is.

We know, from across all of these announcements, the amount of teacher-aide hours that will be provided will hugely increase. From next year, it’s an additional 900,000 hours, building up to 2 million hours by 2028. That’s a huge amount next year and more thereafter up to 2028—an additional 2 million hours from every year into the ongoing resource scheme and into the early intervention scheme. Teachers have been crying out for more help in the classroom to get those waitlists cleared, to get more support for their children in need, but also to make sure that there were those learning support coordinators. All the things that teachers have been asking for for many, many years and that they’ve been fighting for, now they have them, and I’m extraordinarily proud of that.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to say that we’ve had our time cut short here today, so I hope that our questions can be short and sharp and our answers can be short and sharp as well.

To the Associate Minister, I’d like to ask three early childhood education (ECE) questions. I’m not going to give a preamble, but, basically, how much funding, if any, for Budget 2025 was freed up specifically pausing or stopping ECE sector pay equity claims? How much of that, if any, went back into ECE? Does the Associate Minister recognise that qualifications, skills, and experience should matter for new ECE teachers? If so, how does changing the way that pay parity, as he has announced, for new teachers coming into the profession—how will that encourage new teachers into the profession when they’ve had their pay parity, basically, cut?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Education): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank the Labour member for her questions. In relation to her first question—what sort of money was freed up from potential early childhood pay equity claims—the answer to that is none, because it was held in contingency. As to what amount was held in contingency on behalf of early childhood education (ECE), I don’t have that figure. I’d be happy to ask the Minister responsible, which is the Minister of Finance, for that information, if indeed it exists.

The second point that I would make about, I think she said, skills, experience, and qualifications in relation to an early childhood educator’s ability to educate children: well, you know, clearly, those things are extremely important. The question that I think people interested in this area should be thinking about, personally, is who decides? At the moment, under the pay parity scheme, you continue to be promoted and get additional pay each year for being there, and prior to these pay parity changes, you also entered the scheme at a certain level based on formal qualifications. I just make the point that as I move around New Zealand and I visit many early childhood centres, I have enormous admiration for the people that work in the centres and enormous admiration for the people who operate the centres. In my view, those people should have more say about how they apply their funding to remunerate the teachers, because it’s they who can judge the skills, experience, and value of the qualifications of the teachers better than perhaps a rather rigid framework set out in Wellington.

To answer the final question, I think the changes we’ve made to pay parity will really enhance the value of teachers and skills, experience, and qualifications, because the people closest to the situation—the people with the blood, sweat, and tears on the floor of the ECE—will be able to apply their judgment to those remuneration decisions to a greater extent than they could before.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): One very short question, again following on from the Hon Jan Tinetti on early childhood education (ECE): why did the Associate Minister of Education go ahead with setting up a ministerial advisory group (MAG) for an ECE funding review when that was against Treasury’s advice, especially now we see there are already members of that MAG who have left the MAG?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Education): Well, first of all, the great thing about our democracy is that the people can vote for whoever they like. Maybe one day you’ll be able to vote for the Treasury, but the Treasury wasn’t on the ballot at the last election. These people over here were elected to make decisions, so the fact that we’re not doing everything the Treasury tells us to—that’s called democracy.

The second point is the Treasury’s perspective is not the only one that matters. I’m interested in the perspective of the parents, I’m interested in the perspective of the teachers, I’m interested in the perspective of the taxpayers, and I’m also interested in the perspective of the schools that early childhood centres are feeding into. They’ve all got perspectives. What I hear from people is that the way that early childhood education funding is done in New Zealand is not really intentional. It’s a little bit like a sedimentary rock. It’s layered up over many decades as different Governments have put different policies in place. We have put together, under the chairpersonship of Linda Meade, a really talented group of people. It is true that we’ve had one person depart, and yet we have rapidly been able to replace them with an equally, if not more, skilled person. I think that is an enormously positive outcome for New Zealanders, because we’re going to have an under-the-hood look at getting our early childhood funding right.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. The Government has removed or completely rewritten the curriculum framework Te Mātaiaho so that it is almost unrecognisable. The Government has refreshed the refreshed draft curriculum for English and maths. It has minimised te reo Māori, references to Te Tiriti, and mātauranga Māori in many curriculum areas. My question to the Minister is: how much money is budgeted for recolonising the curriculum?

Further to that, during the Estimates, at select committee the Minister said this. My question to the Minister is: why did she justify the lack of dedicated funding for Māori education by claiming that all brains learn to read the same and so the investment is going into structured literacy for everyone instead?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): As far as it relates to the Budget, I’ll answer those questions, and the second one does because it talks about investment in Māori education. If the member would like to go to the Ministry of Education website, there is an entire document about the investment into Māori education in this Budget, which totalled $100 million of many really important initiatives, one of which, and the biggest of which, of course, is into property—there is $60 million going into property.

There are a number of other initiatives in this Budget, none of which are around structured literacy in the Māori education budget. In terms of structured literacy and raising achievement, if the previous Minister is interested, she should visit some schools who are doing structured literacy and are seeing incredibly accelerated learning for their tamariki Māori. There’s one in particular that I mention a lot because it was extremely impressive when I was up at Kerikeri Primary School up in Northland. They have accelerated Māori achievement in structured literacy through having a dedicated teacher workforce but also through having structured mathematics as well, and their Māori students are now achieving at the same rate as every other child.

You’ve got to remember that most Māori children are in the mainstream. When we look at what is going to make sure that we’re accelerating that achievement, we are looking across the board at things that make the biggest difference: structured literacy, structured maths, the science of learning.

With regard to the comment that she made about “all brains learn the same”, it was a particular question that I was asked in the select committee around learning to read and the difference between long-term and short-term memory, which is a crucial underpinning of the science of learning, and if the previous Minister is interested, she could read up about it. Essentially, what it says is that the short-term memory can hold only a small number of things. The underpinning of structured literacy is that you need to retain things in your long-term memory, and that is the same for all brains. There is no brain that I’m aware of that can hold inordinate amounts of knowledge in its short-term memory, as that would create cognitive load issues. That was the context for that.

There is a $100 million Māori education budget. There is also an extraordinarily huge amount of money going into curriculum design, and resources are available to make sure that we are accelerating learning for all students, including tamariki Māori.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. The Minister didn’t answer my first question, which was: how much money is budgeted for recolonising the curriculum? In fact, I’ll point out that in the Minister’s answer, she talked about most Māori being in English-medium schools, and so that question is particularly relevant because it is the recolonising of that particular curriculum.

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): The member will be well aware that there wasn’t anything in this Budget for curriculum design.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Why does the Minister listen to people like Elizabeth Rata, with an established history of anti-Māori views?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m not sure that that’s actually an Estimates-related question.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Education): Point of order, Madam Chairperson. This House has long-established conventions and Speakers’ rulings that a member should not be accused of being racist. I believe that it brings the House into disrepute if members use their free speech in this House to make a similar accusation against a member of the public, who cannot defend herself in this House. I think to uphold the mana of this House, that member should withdraw her comment. Otherwise, the public will lose faith in us having free speech, because they’ll see that we just abuse it.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): Speaking to the point of order, this member of the public that Willow-Jean Prime has spoken about has a history of writing against Māori over the last generation. Māori have taken offence against this woman. Many academics and many Māori organisations—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): OK.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: —have opposed the writings of this woman. The woman—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I take the member’s point in speaking to the point of order, and I’d just ask the member to take his seat. We’re actually not here in a general debate. We are here in a sense that we are here to question the Minister on the Estimates of the Budget, and I think it would be most helpful if the members would actually take that course, and regardless of what people outside of this place have said, it isn’t helpful to use them in this particular debate. Can we stick to the Estimates, please.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. It is relevant because this person that I have referenced is writing the curriculum, and so it is covered by the Budget that we are talking about.

Hon David Seymour: Point of order, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Point of order, the Hon David Seymour. I haven’t asked the member to apologise; I’ve asked us to move forward as a committee of the whole House. Look, there is a view that’s held on this side of the Chamber that a particular person has had a view that they speak to in regard to education. What I’ve said is that it’s irrelevant to bring other people’s names into the Estimates. If we’re going to get the best out of this debate, we’re going to need to ask questions about the Estimates to the Minister. I haven’t asked that member to withdraw and apologise at this time.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Education): Is that because you don’t believe that it brings the House into disrepute, because saying that someone is a racist person—which is what she said—

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Anti-Māori.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: —yeah—and saying the person—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): She was asking about that person’s influence on policy. I’m asking the member to stick to the debate.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, she also made a reflection on the person. I mean, this is quite a serious point for the House, and it’s different from what Willie Jackson said.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yeah, no, I say to the Hon David Seymour that we’re going to move forward into the Estimates debate so that we can get—

Hon David Seymour: OK. Well, I think that’s really sad.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): —the best from the Minister. I’m sorry if the member disagrees with me, but we’re moving forward.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): I do want to ask the Minister of Education if the Minister agrees with a certain person’s statement—just checking with the Chair that I can do that. This is publicly available information. I want to ask the—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): If it relates to the Estimates—

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: To the Budget, yes. I would like to ask if the Minister agrees with Michael Johnston, who went on The Platform to say that in terms of the current bill, the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2) that’s going through, Stanford is being “politically sensible to not remove it”—Te Tiriti—“at this point.” He points to Stanford saying in another interview “that Te Tiriti ‘would be considered under’ Minister Goldsmith’s ‘omnibus reform of legislation’, so avoiding a ‘fight with the school sector’ is the right thing to do while she’s focusing on driving curriculum reform.” Does the Minister agree with that, and, if not, how much of the Budget is driving the removal of Te Tiriti from curriculum and the Eurocentric ideology that is being pushed?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): In answer to that, I didn’t hear that particular interview, so I can’t comment, but I would say that there is a huge amount of resource going into this Budget to raise Māori achievement. When I think about honouring the Treaty and Te Tiriti, I think about making sure that outcomes for tamariki Māori are equal to, if not better than, everybody else in the system, which is why there is so much resource going into providing equity of resource in te reo Māori, not only in structured literacy but in Panguru, where we’re making sure we’ve got professional learning and development for those teachers. This is from a previous Budget, but we’re making sure we are refreshing Te Marautanga as well, and there’ll be some announcements tomorrow about new curriculum areas within Te Marautanga. Everything we are doing is about honouring the Treaty to ensure that those young Māori who are coming through the education system have every opportunity to succeed, and that they are succeeding. I know that every parent wants their child to succeed. In terms of the specific question, there is nothing in this Budget relating to that particular bill that the member talks about.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Our follow-up question is: we have seen the statistics around the fact that ākonga Māori and kaupapa Māori-medium education do better at NCEA, so is what the Minister’s saying that the only way for ākonga Māori to achieve is through a Eurocentric pedological framework?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): The member Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan is exactly right, which is why there is so much investment going into kura kaupapa Māori. We have spent a lot of time—I have spent a lot of time—with Ngā Kura ā Iwi and Te Rūnanga Nui talking about aspirations for their students and delivering on the things they have been asking for. In terms of that, one of the things we have budgeted for in this Budget is the Virtual Learning Network, which is making sure there are specialist te reo teachers around the country who are able to beam into classrooms in different parts of the country, because it can be very difficult to find a reo teacher who is a specialist in a particular area. They asked for that, and we delivered.

More to that, we’re also making sure we’re delivering literacy and maths resources for kura kaupapa Māori in te reo Māori that haven’t been produced before. There is more around professional learning and development. As I said earlier, it’s a $100 million package, $40 million of which is outside of building. As I have already said, they do get very good results, and we’re committed to building out that network. As I’ve said previously, for the very first time in this nation’s history, we are including kura kaupapa Māori in network planning. It has never been done before, which is why in every single Budget we are setting aside tranches of money to make sure we can continue to build those schools, and in this Budget, there was $60 million. In the previous Budget, there was $50 million. We’ll continue to do that.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to move on now, actually, to NCEA. Budget 2025 doesn’t actually include anything about the scrapping of NCEA, which is currently being consulted on by the Minister. Can I just check with the Minister: how much has she budgeted or is she intending to budget in supplementary budgets for the scrapping of NCEA? Also, will she respond to the open letter by 121 principals?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Minister’s just clarified that it’s not in the Budget.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: But this will have Budget implications, because it’s happening now.

Hon David Seymour: Give the other guy a go. I mean, he can’t be worse, or can he?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): Shush up, David Seymour. Can I ask the Minister: has she consulted with Ngā Tapuwae college with regards to NCEA, where they’ve had some of the most successful results in terms of Māori students over the last few years, led by Arihia Stirling? We visited there recently, and obviously they want to work with the Government. I want to ask the Minister: has she worked with this school, which is one of te ao Māori’s most successful schools and also a real success in terms of South Auckland? Were they given any opportunity in terms of her strategy around NCEA?

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): I see that the Minister of Education didn’t answer the first questions around the Budget for the replacement of NCEA. We find it interesting, through others, not herself directly, that apparently there is no budget for it, when it is supposed to come into effect next year. What is the budget if this is to be approved? I think you’re trying to say that it’s not predetermined. What budget will be allocated, if this is approved, from next year’s Budget?

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): On that question, I think we are a little bit concerned by the fact that this is something that is happening within the financial year of Budget 2025, yet the Minister could not respond to the fact that something as major as replacing the qualification of Aotearoa New Zealand has been considered.

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): We are in a consultation phase. No decisions have been made. I was very clear in this year’s Budget when I talked about the massive investment, predominantly in primary schools, and I said that next year’s Budget would be a secondary Budget. We haven’t made decisions. Nothing has been budgeted for at this point because we’re only just at the very start of consultation, which is going to take some time. In terms of speaking with Ngā Kura ā Iwi o Aotearoa on te reo Māori, we have been doing, and I spoke with Arihia this morning.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Sorry, just one follow-up question around that. We see, in terms of the Budget document—particularly the Cabinet paper and the Budget paper that was released last week—that anything to do with the Budget is a long-term process, so what conversations has the Minister had with the Minister of Finance around something like this in anticipation to any changes to NCEA?

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I mean, this is very difficult, because it is something that we’re talking about right now, and for it to be able to be effectively implemented, if it is to be approved, we need to know how much consideration the Minister has given to the funding that is going to be required for the effective implementation of this—for example, what budget is there for additional teaching and staffing and professional learning and development? What budget is there for industry skills boards, who are going to have the role of developing the curriculum and assessment under this proposal? Surely the Minister and the ministry have done some thinking about this, because if they haven’t and it starts next year, then we have a problem.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I suggest that given the Minister’s answer that this doesn’t involve Budget 2025, the Minister’s made it very clear. I suggest that questions are aimed at what is in the Estimates of Budget 2025 to get the best out of the session.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): You can ask a different question, but you’ll get the same answer.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: No, but, Madam Chair, the Budget actually covers a forecast period. What is the forecast for this proposed change of overhauling the entire assessment framework? There’s significant amount of work that is going to need to go into the implementation of this, the staffing of this, the funding of the industry skills boards, if they are to have the roles. In the forecast period covered by Budget 2025 that has been released, what funding has been put aside for this?

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): I think it is peculiar that the four-year period that the Budget is in—I’m assuming that means that the Minister of Education has decided that NCEA changes will not happen until 2029, so we will see how that goes. Let’s look at NCEA in a different light. We’re looking at the qualification, but let’s talk about curriculum. The public has emailed us in terms of changes to some of the subjects, and particularly when it comes to the general academic subjects. What is in the Budget on the implementation of new curricula and new subject lists? Nothing? OK.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Education): As the Opposition are failing to ask any questions, I thought I would help out with the whole procedure and start by just talking a little bit about the communities of learning, which I understand are being disestablished. I understand that there’s been some people who were concerned about that, but, overwhelmingly, there’s been a lot of success and also a lot of money that has been freed up that can be used for other purposes. I just wondered if the Minister might like to talk to the committee about the disestablishment of the—

Shanan Halbert: Point of order.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: —communities of learning and also about how the funds freed up have been applied.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Do I have a point of order? No, I don’t.

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): Very quickly, Madam Chair, because I am running out of my own speaking time. It’s nice to get—

Hon David Seymour: Oh, sorry.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: That’s OK. It’s a nice to get a question about this Budget rather than imaginary future Budgets. But it was something that the sector had called for very loudly. They wanted an extra learning support budget; they wanted additional funds put into the Ongoing Resourcing Scheme and teacher-aides and learning support coordinators, and they overwhelmingly lobbied me to disestablish the communities of learning or kāhui ako. We listened to their feedback. We have done that. We’re winding it down over a number of years while we power up the learning support budget, and it has been very, very well received by the sector.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I don’t know why the Minister did not answer the questions about curriculum and subjects. Regardless of the NCEA change programme, or entire scrapping of it that the Minister is proposing, curriculum is supposed to start next year. The ministry says it has been delayed but curriculum should be implemented in term 4 and then next year. Can the Minister please talk to the Budget for that as well as the professional learning and development to go with it?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): In terms of this year’s Budget, there was plenty put aside for additional curriculum advisers, specialty secondary curriculum advisers, and the member will be able to find that in the information sheets that are printed on the ministry website.

In terms of professional learning and development, there is baselined money for ongoing professional learning and development. In terms of the—I know that the previous Minister’s very interested in the future, but the senior secondary subject areas will not be coming in for many years. There will be future Budgets that go to that, but they’re not in this Budget round, which is why it makes it difficult to answer questions when we’re talking about this particular Budget.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m so glad that the Associate Minister and the Minister of Education mentioned about kāhui ako, because can I check with the Minister that when in this Budget, kāhui ako has been removed, has the Minister consulted with unions, which was advised as a priority?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): Just very quickly on that—because I am, as I said, running out of time. It was very interesting to note that when kāhui ako were established in the first case—many years ago, under a previous National Government, as it turns out—the people that railed against them at that time were the unions. I listened to them from that time but also listened to more of the evidence, which shows us that, actually, overall, the Education Review Office found that those schools who were part of kāhui ako—their results were very marginally worse than those who weren’t.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Education): I just wonder if the Minister has any comments—perhaps with the assistance of one of her associates—on the Ka Ora, Ka Ako - Healthy School Lunches programme.

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): I’d have to refer to my associate to speak about that.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Education): Thank you very much for this opportunity. I’d just like to say that I think it’s been absolutely—

Shanan Halbert: Point of order.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Oh, here we go.

Shanan Halbert: The Minister has made herself unavailable for the remaining 16 minutes that we have for this session, and here we have the Associate Minister interrupting—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): No, each party in the House has an allocated time in this debate. Now, we’ve just been through a period where the Opposition members have been asking questions which the Minister has clearly said do not relate to Budget 2025. On that basis, I’ve given the call to the Hon David Seymour.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Thank you very much—

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Speaking to the point of order, just one small clarification from you, Madam Chair: are you saying that a person can now ask themselves questions as a part of the Budget debate?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Well, the person actually asked it to the Minister, who delegated the Hon David Seymour to answer the question.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Education): Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I thank the Minister of Education for referring this very good question to me. I want to talk a little bit about how the Healthy School Lunches Programme is performing. In short, it is performing exceedingly well.

Last week, just to take one example, the delivery in full on time, or default, was 99.98 percent. Now, anyone involved in any kind of logistics delivery, that kind of business—and people do say this to me. They say, “What you’re achieving there”—well, it’s not me. They say that what the people delivering the Healthy School Lunches Programme, the School Lunch Collective, are achieving is actually quite extraordinary in the world of on-time delivery.

They’re also getting very, very positive reviews in terms of the quality. The term 3 menu was evaluated by groups of students. They gave it 73 percent approval. Now, if you talk to parents in this country, most would be pretty happy to get 73 percent approval for the lunches that they’re putting in students’ lunch boxes, so that is a big victory.

I think the other thing that’s critical to recognise is that this is being done for $130 million less than the previous programme. As primary schools come into the programme next year, as budgeted, there’s going to be an opportunity to increase that saving to over $170 million. Now, to put that in perspective, had the previous Government adopted this approach, they would have saved about $800 million of debt over five years, and that is debt that the young people at school would not have to pay, but, sadly, they will have to because of the inefficient programme that preceded this.

It’s also a really good example of actually celebrating something that works and backing change, because we had a lot of people who were very happy to pile in and criticise when we had some teething problems with the programme. What do you hear from those people today?

Grant McCallum: Crickets.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Crickets. Crickets. Crickets. That’s what we hear from them, because they’re very happy to pile in, drag down, do the whole “pull them down” thing, but they’re not there to push up what is a success. I think it’s actually a very good example, and I would say to the people in the Ministry of Education and the School Lunch Collective: good on you for getting 99.98 percent on-time delivery; good on you for saving the taxpayer money at a rate that would have taken $800 million of debt off these young people.

We look forward to the programme in the next year rolling out to primary schools as well, as budgeted in the Estimates—which, for the Opposition’s information, is what we’re here to debate.

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato): Tēnā rā koe e te Pīka, otirā tēnā rā koe e te Minita. I’ve been going up and down the country speaking with different whānau, different kura, different kaiako, and their biggest concern—particularly coming up to Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori next week—is that the biggest barrier that will keep tamariki Māori out of learning their language is actually waiting lists. Across the country, there’s about a thousand kids on waiting lists for puna reo. There’s about another estimated thousand kids on a waiting list for kōhanga reo. For the majority of kura kaupapa and wharekura—any full immersion school—you have to have had some learning of te reo Māori or have gone to kōhanga reo before entering into these fullimmersion schools. It’s hard for them to even get to that point when there are a thousand kids on those waiting lists. The realities for all whānau, actually, is that they’re having to put their tamaiti on the waiting list before they’re even born. There’s a five-year waiting list. The biggest concern across the country, actually, is waiting lists.

Historically, Māori education has been underfunded across the board, only getting, at most, 1 percent of the full Budget, no matter who’s in Government. I’d just really like to know from the Minister what in Budget 2025 is going to eradicate these waiting lists so that there are more resources and there’s some more capacity for Māori education for tamariki Māori across the board in Māori education. When it comes to resourcing and staffing and building capacity within our Māori education, what specifically is in Budget 2025? Tēnā rā koe.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Education): I thank the member for her question; I thank all members for questions on early childhood. In relation to kōhanga reo, and te puna reo for that matter, in this Budget we have carried on with business as usual. However, in Budget 2024—I know we’re focused on this one—I just want to make the point that the Government did put a substantial increase in funding to help capitalise kōhanga reo in the previous year. I think that reflects the fact that the Government remains committed to offering choice, remains committed to supporting te puna reo and kōhanga reo, and as we work through the funding review, we will continue to do that. We’ve had a track record of investing and we will continue to do so. We didn’t make any changes in this Budget that we’re talking about, but that’s not a reflection of our commitment, which was shown in the previous Budget.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. In what was perhaps the biggest sabotage of women’s rights in a generation, the Government ripped up, in one day, the pay equity regime in order to save their Budget. This particularly affected teachers, who saw their multiple pay equity claims cancelled, and for secondary schools, cancelled entirely—completely shut out from any future claims.

My question to the Minister is: is she comfortable being the Minister of Education who oversaw the daylight robbery of teachers’ rights to pay equity? Will the Minister commit, like the Associate Minister of Education did earlier, to asking the Minister of Finance what the figure was that was saved from the cancellation of those pay equity claims? I want that commitment. Further to that, how much of that money has gone back into education, perhaps paying for that learning support package she spoke about earlier?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, the time has come for the dinner break, but I just wanted to make one comment before we go to the dinner break, because I thought maybe if people had—this debate has been fairly frustrating from a number of fronts. If somebody’s got a spare half an hour, I suggest watching the debate between 9.30 and 10 p.m. last night, when Shanan Halbert was questioning the Hon Penny Simmonds and the Hon Dr Shane Reti—the homing in on questions relevant to Budget 2025. It was a far less frustrating time in the Chamber. I just do want to make that comment that those questions were really homed in on the Budget, and we’ve missed the point a wee bit in this session.

So, members, the time has come for the dinner break. We’ll resume the debate at 7.30 p.m.

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

Health

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, the committee is resumed. We now have the Minister of Health. The Minister is available to speak to that portfolio from 7.30  p.m. to 8.30 p.m. I’ll give the call to the chairperson of the Health Committee, Sam Uffindell.

SAM UFFINDELL (Chairperson of the Health Committee): Thank you, Mr Chairman. It’s good to be able to rise and speak on the Health Estimates, and I just wanted to run over a few things that we saw. The Government looks to be funding an increase of $5.5 billion across hospital and specialist services. There’s also a significant focus going forward in this Budget. There’s also an increase in around over a billion dollars for additional cancer treatments. There’s an expansion to urgent after-hours care services, and I want to, of course, note my hometown Tauranga, which is one of the fortunate beneficiaries of that—the new 24/7 digital GP service—as the Government looks to take a load off and help to address some of the challenges that we have in that space, which has already supported over 21,000 consultations. Obviously, Elective Boost has been a very significant focus looking forward for this Government coming out of the Budget.

My questions for the Minister would be if he could give us a little bit of thought around Elective Boost, the wait-list progress around the primary care action plan and the progress on the Government’s 2025 Budget investments in primary care, something around the new cancer medicines—a billion dollars in that space—and also the primary care funding booster. If I can get some thoughts on that, that would be appreciated. Thank you.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health): Well, thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you to the chair of the Health Committee for your address. The Government is delivering record investment in our health system in Budget 2025. Across three Budgets, we’ve committed an additional $16.68 billion in funding to ensure our hospitals, doctors, nurses, and health professionals have the resources they need to be able to provide timely, quality healthcare to all New Zealanders.

This is the largest investment in health in our country’s history, because we know that putting patients first requires a system that is properly resourced and focused on outcomes. That investment is translating into more staff on the front line. Since 2023, we’ve seen over 2,100 more nurses and more than 600 additional doctors join our health workforce. These are the people who make the difference every day for patients, and our Government is backing them to succeed. The Budget also builds on this record with new funding for modern health infrastructure. It strengthens primary care so people can get access to GP care closer to home, and it supports initiatives across cancer services, extended prescriptions for patients, and elective treatment to ensure New Zealanders receive their hip operations, knee replacements, and cataract surgeries when they need it.

The investment in our new cancer medicines—and I want to acknowledge my Associate Minister of Health, the Hon David Seymour—is a record investment in new cancer medicines: 33 new lifechanging cancer medicines, which will be helping thousands of New Zealanders to be able to have access to treatments they would otherwise not have been able to receive. That is absolutely life changing and is a huge focus of Budget 2025.

The investment into Health New Zealand is also allowing us to get on top of wait-lists, which have grown too long, with too many New Zealanders waiting too long to get the care that they need. Just this week, we announced that our Elective Boost at the beginning of this year performed over 16,000 additional outsourced elective procedures to ensure more Kiwis get access to the treatments they need, and puts us on track to meet the 2024-25 milestone of 63 percent of patients receiving treatment within four months. We know that too many New Zealanders are still waiting too long to get the care that they need, but that is why we’ve put in place the health targets.

We’re providing record investment in health funding and we’re focusing the system on delivering services that New Zealanders need in a timely and quality manner. By putting patients first, we’re making sure that New Zealanders can get that care that they need. I’m proud of the record this Government has, but I acknowledge that too many New Zealanders have been left waiting for too long. We have a significant task ahead of us, and that’s why my expectations of Health New Zealand are incredibly clear: to stay focused on their health targets, put patients first, and deliver the timely, quality healthcare that all New Zealanders deserve and expect.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour): Mr Chair, thank you. Thank you to the chair of the Health Committee and to the Minister for those opening remarks. This Government campaigned on making cuts to back-office services in order to be able to, in their logic, free up more funds to support clinical services. I’d like the Minister to describe how the programme of cuts for the current financial year will go ahead, what level of cuts have been identified, and whether that quantum of money to be released by cuts matches the difference between the deficit at the end of the last financial year of $900 million and the projected deficit of $200 million at the end of the current financial year.

HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): I have a pātai to the Minister in relation to the hauora Māori appropriations and am wanting to examine where the spend has gone. What gains have been made in terms of reaching the proposed targets for closing the life-expectancy gap between Māori and nonMāori, and what are the specific initiatives that are funded through new money in the hauora Māori appropriation? Further, I’m wanting to understand from the Minister in terms of the pilots undertaken to inform Māori outreach and the extension of the immunisation services into the community, particularly in the Wellington region. What happened from those pilots, and then where did we commission services from there, and what are the targets associated with those new services? Kia ora.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour): Thank you. Perhaps the best way to progress would be to have some back and forth with the Minister on some of these big issues relating to the overall shape of Health New Zealand’s financial position and the Vote. I would like to have the opportunity to discuss that in some depth—firstly, the savings programme, the scale of the cuts that are needed to be able to make that $200 million deficit, and the items that are currently being progressed to reach that deficit. I’d like it if the Minister could engage in some back and forth on these issues.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ll address firstly the questions from the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall in relation to Health New Zealand’s budget. I would point her to page 38 of Health New Zealand’s statement of performance expectations, which outlines Health New Zealand’s revenue and expenditure for the financial year that has to do with this Budget. It points out in that statement that total revenue for the 2025-26 year for Health New Zealand is projected to be $30.58 billion and total expenditure is expected to be $30.78 billion. That is an increase in expenditure from $29.05 billion the previous year, so that is an increase in expenditure of $1.7 billion in investment in our health system through Budget 2025.

That’s more funding going into personnel, that’s more funding going into services, it’s more funding going into services provided by funded sectors, it is more funding going into infrastructure and non-clinical supplies. I’ll point the member to that forecast statement of comprehensive revenue and expenditure, which actually shows the significant investment this Government is making in health and where that money is going in terms of providing additional services for patients and for New Zealanders, and it shows the real commitment this Government is making to deliver more access to services so that all New Zealanders can get the timely, quality healthcare that they need and deserve.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. The question, however, related to the scale of the cuts or the, you might prefer to call it, “savings programme” or “efficiencies”. We know—and Health New Zealand has spoken frequently about its plans to achieve savings—that at the time of the last election, there was a programme of work that appeared to be important to the Government. Could the Minister please outline what is on the Government’s agenda in order to make those savings?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health): Well, as I said, we’re focused on the delivery of services, and as pointed out on page 38 of the statement of performance expectations, we are investing more into Health New Zealand than ever before. They will be spending more money than ever before. Our focus is on making sure they deliver more for patients than ever before so that we can get the timely, quality access to health services that New Zealanders deserve.

When it comes to the organisation and how it operates, ultimately, my expectations are very clear: I want to see as much delivery for patients as can be done with the funding that we have provided. That’s why we put in place the targets. That’s why we’ve got programmes in place like the Elective Boost. That’s why we’re focusing to make sure that we can reduce wait times and wait-lists for patients who have been waiting far too long to get the specialist appointments, the surgeries, the treatments that they need and they deserve.

I point the member to the statement of performance expectations, which clearly demonstrates that this Government is investing more, Health New Zealand will be spending more than ever before, and our expectation is very clear that that needs to deliver increased services for patients up and down this country.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour): The Minister can direct me to a document that does not answer my question as much as he likes, and I will take this opportunity to be clear that the question wasn’t answered. It does make me wonder why it was so important for this Government to point out at the election that they felt that there were massive opportunities for cuts or savings in Health New Zealand and that there was wasteful spending, and yet they cannot account for the cuts that they are undertaking in the health system now when they have to debate the health system’s budget. Yet thousands of New Zealanders have lost their jobs because of the Government’s programmes of cuts at Health New Zealand. The people at home listening know this programme is happening, and yet the Minister speaks of unrelated documents when he takes a question on that. I would like the Minister to consider what his obligations are to taxpayers to explain what is happening with their money. Would he reconsider answering what programme of cuts is under way at Health New Zealand?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health): As I’ve said on a number of occasions, I’m focused on delivery for patients. There have been change processes done, but those change processes have been completed. There are no major change programmes under way at Health New Zealand. I’m focused on delivery for patients and ensuring the organisation delivers the services that New Zealanders need and deserve. That is my expectation of the organisation. As with all parts of Government, there will be opportunities to do things in a more efficient manner. Our expectation of all parts of Government is that they find the most efficient ways to deliver things so we can get as much value for taxpayers’ money so that more patients can get the treatments that they need in a more timely manner. My focus, very clearly, as Minister of Health is to ensure that this record investment in Health New Zealand is delivering results for patients and that it is supporting the front-line services to be able to deliver that service so that patients can be seen in a more timely manner and receive the quality of care that they rightfully deserve.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. Prior to the Estimates hearing, we knew from released documents that Treasury had warned the Minister of Finance that Health New Zealand could not make the cuts required to go from a $900 million deficit to a $200 million deficit in one financial year. The Auditor-General has also issued a similar warning. Can the Minister confirm: is it the Government’s position that that $200 million deficit target no longer applies at the end of this financial year? Is Health New Zealand going to get a capital injection in order to reach that target, and, if not, what is the expected deficit now for Health New Zealand at the end of the current financial year?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health): Well, as I stated earlier, if the member looks at page 38 of the statement of performance expectations, the organisation has a projected deficit of $200 million. That means that their expenditure will be $200 million more than their revenue. The Government is supporting Health New Zealand to deliver services and for the organisation to spend more than what it has been provided in its revenues so that we can maintain and deliver the services that it needs. If you look at the appropriations the Crown is providing, Crown funding is increasing from $24.296 billion to $26.218 billion. That is a direct almost $2 billion increase in direct appropriations. Other funding from Crown or Crown entities is increasing from $3.1 billion to $3.395 billion, third-party and other revenue is increasing from $428 million to $889 million, and there’s a slight reduction in interest received.

Overall, there is increased revenue for Health New Zealand and increased expenditure being provided for. My expectations are incredibly clear: I want to see Health New Zealand deliver more services for patients, reduce those wait-lists, which ballooned under the last Government—a 6,400 percent increase in the number of patients waiting more than four months for a first specialist assessment under Labour. That’s their record—6,400 percent increase.

Hon David Seymour: Didn’t they increase spending by two-thirds?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, this is the magic from the other side: they appropriate money on Grant Robertson’s magic money tree and then don’t expect any outcomes.

Hon David Seymour: I thought it didn’t exist.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, apparently it’s in Dunedin at the moment! But the point is: they don’t expect outcomes. They removed the health targets, let wait-lists balloon out of control, allowed patients to languish on wait-lists, and we’re now addressing that with things like Elective Boost so we can actually get patients seen in a more timely manner.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour): Point of order. Thanks, Mr Chair. The Minister’s answer—we’ve engaged here with a series of questions about the financial situation at Health New Zealand, none of which have been addressed and answered in the Minister’s responses. They’re pretty straight up and down questions about numbers relating to Health New Zealand’s financial performance, not answered in the documents that he refers to. We seem to have pivoted to some matters that are not really related to the Estimates at all. We just want answers for our questions. The New Zealand taxpayer deserves answers about their health budget. We’d really like to know what’s happening with the Health New Zealand deficit.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Thank you for that point of order. If I can draw members’ attention to Speaker’s ruling 144/2: “On the Estimates a member may ask a question relative to the expenditure of an appropriation voted the previous year, but may not debate it—discussion must not travel outside the items which are to be appropriated during the current financial year.” If you could contain your questions within that ambit, that would be useful for the committee. But also, I note that many answers that Ministers will give will not satisfy all members as well. I would encourage members to continue to probe if necessary, but if those answers continue to not be to your satisfaction but are still being addressed, can I also encourage members to move on. Also, to note for members as well, there are other Ministers that are available here if there are questions for them as well. Let’s continue.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Speaking to the point of order, if I may. I think the point was not that the question—well, partly that the question wasn’t addressed, but the key point was that the Minister was straying into Budgets of years gone by, which have nothing to do with the Estimates. If the debate that we are to engage in must relate to the current Estimates, then surely the Minister’s responses have to relate to the current Estimates.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Actually, I take the member’s point. I would ask Ministers’ responses to also focus on this appropriation as well, as opposed to looking back. Let’s continue.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. We heard from the Minister of Health about the revenue and expenditure in Health New Zealand; we would really like to hear about the deficit for Health New Zealand and how the deficit from the 2024-25 financial year will be addressed. Is it by revenue from the Vote or by a different capital injection?

HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): I’m going back to the hauora Māori appropriation again, seeking answers from the Minister of Health in relation to what new money has eventuated in terms of spend for hauora Māori services.

Going back to our babies, our mokopuna, we have set targets around immunisation, commissioned services that were based on pilots that were delivered into communities. How is the direction of travel being achieved in terms of tamariki Māori, particularly in the first eight months, as to the targets of achievement for the services that have been commissioned—the hauora Māori appropriation initiatives specifically that the Minister can put on the table that will close the life expectancy gap between Māori and non-Māori?

I’m further wanting to discuss with the Minister in terms of his view of the spend in maternal health and the access of pregnant wāhine to lead maternity caregivers, and how is that direction of travel and the spend going into community services.

Then one further question: for kaupapa Māori mental health youth services, how are we treading in terms of both the funding that has gone into those services and what targets may have been set for our young people to be accessing those kaupapa Māori hauora services?

It’s a hauora Māori pātai for our babies, our mokopuna; our mothers accessing maternity services; and then further for youth mental health.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health): Thank you, Mr Chair. In terms of hauora Māori services, there’s been an increase in the appropriation. Again, the statement of performance expectations highlights total revenue increasing from $484 million to $555 million. The expenditure is projected to be $555 million in the Budget 2025-26 year. One of the key initiatives—and the member touched on it—was in relation to the immunisation target that we have set. Of course, there’s been a significant decline in the number of children who have been immunised at two years of age, from 92 percent down to 77 percent in 2023. We are starting to see that result start to turn around, which is good.

Programmes such as Immunising Our Tamariki are central to doing just that. I’m advised that, as of 31 May 2025, more than 125,000 immunisations had been undertaken by hauora Māori partners across the country through that programme—12,952 of them in May alone. That is a significant initiative, which was launched by the previous Minister of Health, Dr Shane Reti, to help increase immunisations amongst our Māori population. Ultimately, for us to meet the target of 95 percent of two-year-olds being immunised, we have to ensure we increase the rate of immunisations amongst our Māori communities. That’s where that appropriation is so critical to help and support initiatives that help drive that increased immunisation.

We are seeing increased immunisation rates within our Māori population. It’s increased, I’m advised. In 30 June last year, 63.3 percent of Māori twoyearolds had been fully immunised. That increased to approximately 68 percent at the middle of this year. Clearly, that’s a long way behind other populations, and that’s where this programme is so important to address that critically important health issue.

Hon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health): Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you to that member for questions around mental health. This Government is committed, through its mental health plan, to delivering faster access to support, growing the front-line workforce, and a better crisis response. We are turning the corner and seeing our mental health plan working—almost 10 percent more front-line mental health roles since coming into office—and we know people are accessing specialist services by well over the target of 80 percent in three weeks.

In fact, this Government set the first targets for this country ever in mental health—five mental health targets. Three of them are around faster access. One specifically the member referenced for our young people: accessing specialist services. The target we set is 80 percent to access specialist services in three weeks. The latest data for quarter three of the financial year 2024-25 is a national average of 82.4 percent. There was a question more specifically for the access rate for Māori, and I’m happy to report Māori are accessing our services faster than the national average, at 84.9 percent.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Mr Chair, if I can please then ask the Minister for Mental Health, just following on from those questions about under-19-year-olds—the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission has got data showing that there are worsening trends in youth access to specialist mental health services—I’m sure he’s aware of it—to March 2025, where, for GP referrals for under-19s, nearly 30 percent were declined. That was up from nearly one in four last year. Is the mental health Minister now saying that that has improved—and I’m speaking here about specialist mental health services, not about accessing services for more complex needs.

Hon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health): Well, the first thing I’d say is the reason that we can actually measure the access to mental health services in New Zealand is because this Government has put targets in, and not only for primary mental health and addiction services but for specialist services as well. There’s nothing more accountable to myself, as the mental health Minister, and this Government than actually setting New Zealand’s first targets for access to mental health services.

I can report that the access has increased. If you look back at specialist services for under-25s, in quarter one of the financial year 2024-25, the access rate was 72.8 percent were being seen within three weeks. In the following quarter, quarter two, that went up to 77.1 percent—so from 72.8 percent to 77.1 percent—and in the latest data we have for quarter three, it even goes up again, to 77.5 percent. We’re due to release soon the quarter four data, and I’m looking forward to that, because for the first time, we’ll be able to have a trend line of the last 12 months.

Let’s be very clear: in Budget 2025, this Government invested more into the mental health and addiction ring-fence. Broadly, we’ll go from $2.6 billion to $2.8 billion, and what we have learnt in mental health from previous Governments is that it’s not just about how much money you announce. It’s actually ensuring that you get the outcomes from that investment, and that’s why it’s important that we have these targets to drive performance forward.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): I’m wondering then if the Minister can explain in Official Information Act response 00092305, released on 11 July 2025, why the numbers are showing that the number of young people being declined and not being referred from general practice services has risen under his watch rather than declined? Is this because he is measuring different things, and is he prepared to provide a response to that question, which is from his own officials?

Hon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health): Well, I think you’ll agree that when you look at the reasons for people being declined, more often than not it is because there is a more appropriate service than the service that the individual has been referred to. I’d only look to investments into programmes like Gumboot Friday: an extra 10,000 young people seen, an extra 30,000 sessions. In fact, if we look at the investment: an extra $5 million into the mental health innovation fund that funded organisations like the Rotorua Youth One Stop Shop and other youth services as well. That’s why we have more services offering more timely access to support to young Kiwis in a time of need.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour): Thank you. I’d like to take the opportunity again to go deeper on another topic in back and forth with the Minister of Health in relation to the affordability of general practice. I’d like to start with the findings of the last New Zealand Health Survey that shows that one in six New Zealanders have missed going to the general practitioner because of the cost of a visit. My question to the Minister is: what initiatives does the Government have under way to reduce the cost of general practice visits?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health): I acknowledge that for many New Zealanders it has become too hard to see a GP, and for many New Zealanders the time to see a GP has become extraordinary, and that has impacted on the access that they have. There’s a number of things the Government’s doing to improve access to general practice. A significant part of this Budget is aligned with supporting general practice in a number of ways: increased capitation funding, increased funding to support practices to make them more accessible, performance-based funding to improve immunisation outcomes, and $26 million in additional funding to help GPs keep fees capped for community services card holders and those on low incomes, and to ensure those under 14 continue to receive free GP access.

The Budget also continues to support the Very Low Cost Access Scheme, which supports many thousands of New Zealanders to have access to lower-cost general practice. The Budget has a number of targeted initiatives to continue to support those who need help the most: through the community services cards, through the children under the age of 14, through the Very Low Cost Access Scheme to make sure that they are able to access their GP.

Also, we acknowledge the fact that we need to speed up access to general practice and make sure that people have more timely access to a general practitioner, and that’s where the Primary Care Tactical Action Plan, announced as part of the Budget, has a range of initiatives to support primary practice, including around workforce, helping to get more doctors working in primary care, more nurse practitioners working in primary care, more nurses working in primary care; helping to advance the education of nurses to become nurse practitioners; and getting overseas-trained doctors who have passed the New Zealand registration examinations exam funded placements to be able to start work in primary practice. This is all about increasing access and making primary care more accessible.

As my colleague Sam Uffindell mentioned earlier, we’ve also invested in urgent and after-hours care services, which we’ll be starting to roll out in coming months, as well as the new 24/7 digital access to general practice, which allows people to be able to book an online GP appointment any time, anywhere around the country. We’ve had over 20,000 consultations in the first couple of months that that’s been live. The numbers are increasing every single week. That is helping people get more timely access to general practice. Of course, that comes with subsidies for those who need access the most so that they are able to access that service at a lower cost so they can get a more timely service. Of course, those subsidies help them to access that at a lower cost as well.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. If I may just conclude these set of questions on primary care costs, or on general practice costs. Will any of the initiatives that the Minister listed bring down the cost of seeing a GP during this cost of living crisis?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health): As I outlined in my answer, there’s a number of initiatives that we do to provide lower-cost access for New Zealanders: those community services card holders, to make sure they can access GPs at much lower cost than non - community services card holders; the Very Low Cost Access scheme, which has been in place for many years, that continues to support access for many New Zealanders living in low socioeconomic neighbourhoods and communities to be able to access lower-cost general practice. As I said, the 24/7 digital GP service has subsidies attached to it so that people can access that service in a timely manner at a low cost if they have a community services card, or if they’ve got a child, they can access that service at a much lower cost than if they don’t. This is about increasing access to those services and also supporting those critical ways of making sure we can provide access at lower cost for those who need it the most.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour): Is it acceptable, in a cost of living crisis, to pay $94 for a standard GP appointment?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health): Well, the vast, vast majority of New Zealanders don’t pay that much money to see a GP—and the misinformation being put out by the Labour Party, when the vast majority of patients pay far less than that to see a GP. Ultimately, what I’m focused on is making sure that those who need it the most have access to those subsidies which are in place: community services card holders, Very Low Cost Access schemes, making sure that children under the age of 14 can access a GP for free—those are critically important services which we continue to support as a Government so people can get access to those services.

The reality is that too many New Zealanders are waiting too long to see a GP, and that’s why we’re investing in our workforce, and also in digital solutions, so people can get that access where they are, across the country, anytime, anywhere. I acknowledge the issue that the member is raising, and I’d point to her record when GP fees continued to increase when she was the Minister of Health.

Ultimately, what I’m focused on is improving access and fixing the problems she left behind—making sure we can reduce the wait time to see a GP. That’s why we’re putting in place a target to actually ensure New Zealanders can see a GP in a timely manner. That’s why we’re investing in the workforce. That’s why we’re making sure those overseas-trained doctors can actually practise here in New Zealand. That’s why we’re training nurses to become nurse practitioners to work in primary care. That’s why we’ve got the 24/7 digital service. That’s why we’re investing in urgent and afterhours care. By the way, when she was the Minister of Health, she was pretty happy with Kenepuru after hours potentially being closed. Well, we’ve put in place an urgent, after-hours care service so that we can actually maintain and enhance access to urgent and after-hour care services up and down our country. That is what we are doing as a country. When they were in Government, the 24/7 service in East Auckland was—

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): I want the discussion to focus on this appropriation.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: The appropriation enhances access to urgent and after-hours care services, which were diminished under the previous Government. We’re investing in front-line services so that more New Zealanders get the access they need in a timely and quality manner.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ve got three questions about primary care, and I am hoping I get answers, not political rhetoric. My first question is: is the risk structure of the capitation funding going to include addressing health inequities along ethnicities, and, if not, why not? This is something that’s future looking. The second question is: does the Minister accept that costs—

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Can you repeat the first question again?

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: Will the restructure of the capitation funding model include addressing health inequities along ethnic lines?

The second question I have is whether the Minister believes that cost is a barrier to accessing a GP and whether any new initiatives he has brought forward will lower the cost of seeing a GP face to face.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health): Thank you, Mr Chair. I thank the member for his questions. In terms of the re-weighting of capitation, the factors that will be considered will be age, gender, deprivation, multi-morbidity, and rurality. Those factors are critically important to ensure that the capitation funding is targeting on the basis of need. It is critically important to ensure that all New Zealanders can get the access to those services that they need. That work is now under way by the Ministry of Health and Health New Zealand, with the intention for the re-weighting of capitation to flow through into capitation from 1 July next year. Of course, that needs to go through the Primary Health Organisation Services Agreement Amendment Protocol negotiations with the sector, which will no doubt take place in the first half of next year.

In terms of the member’s other questions, ultimately, there’s a number of initiatives in this Budget to support access to primary care to ensure those patients and those communities who need access at lower cost can access primary care at a lower cost. That’s why we have the community services card, That’s why we have the Very Low Cost Access scheme. That’s why we have free GP visits for under14-year-olds. That’s why we’re investing in the 24/7 digital service, which also has subsidies applied to those patients so they’re able to continue to get timely and quality access to the healthcare they need.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Just following on from that, does the Minister of Health accept that cultural safety is clinically relevant for patient outcomes?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health): Well, this is getting into very much a sort of—it’s gone from the Budget to more of a philosophical debate here in terms of policy.

Ingrid Leary: Point of order. I think this is highly relevant to the funding decisions that the Minister’s made.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): How is it relevant?

Ingrid Leary: Because the Minister has changed structures and funding streams that deal with cultural safety. My question is: is that clinically relevant for patient outcomes, in the Minister’s view? It’s a simple yes or no question.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, ultimately, the role of our health workforces is to ensure that they are providing services which meet the needs of a variety of cultures who live in New Zealand, and a variety of ethnicities. Yes, there is a significantly important role that our health workforces play when it comes to providing those services that they do on a daily basis. I think the member’s referring to a consultation document that’s out under way with regards to the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act. Ultimately, there has been a submission process; those submissions are being considered. Once Cabinet has made decisions, ultimately, those will then be announced.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Further questions for the Minister for Mental Health—he’s raised the fact that referrals might not be being made to specialist mental health services because there may be better places for them to get treatment. I’m interested to know if he’s talking about the community sector, and, if so, what is he doing, and is he satisfied that there is sufficient funding in that sector?

I refer to what is happening in Waikato, for example, where there’s bed locking happening at the hospital because people are reaching crisis point—they cannot access community services. They are reaching crisis point in the hospital and then they are unable to be discharged because there are no community services available for them to be able to access, so they’re taking up beds. My question to the Minister for Mental Health: is that the type of community sector/service he is referring to, or what specifically is he referring to for specialist mental health services, because Gumboot Friday is clearly not that?

Secondly, is he satisfied that the Waikato situation is providing value for money? Thirdly, what does he say to community providers who were promised to be able to access funding through the mental health innovation fund, who still have been locked out of the funding because of the cofunding requirement? Is that building the community sector and providing those alternative treatment sources for those not referred onwards by GPs?

HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): I have a two-part question to two different Ministers to go back to primary care to discuss with the Minister around the revision of capitation funding and how those decisions were made to focus on the multimorbidities, on the gender, on the rurality, all of that. That came from, I believe, an analysis across 18 primary health organisations. Are you able to give us more of a fulsome explanation as to how you landed in that space and how the Minister and his officials believe that that will reduce or improve health equity and the outcomes of those high-need populations that you are seeking to improve access for primary care?

Then my part two question is to the Minister for Mental Health in terms of child and youth mental health through Health New Zealand and those particularly that are sitting within the main system—not funded services. Child and youth mental health have heard from staff whereby there are long waitlists at the moment for those families who are trying to access both—I think this is more of a northern region thing that I’ve heard, where there are challenges in terms of accessing. The wait-lists are long, Minister. Are there any intentions, thinking future-focused, how we can have an injection of support to reduce wait times for families, which can be up to six months waiting for that oneonone support from child and youth mental health?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health): Thank you, Mr Chair. In terms of the re-weighting of capitation, effectively, the work the Ministry of Health and Health New Zealand are doing, yes, has analysed—and there’s been a piece of work done which does analyse—practices in a range of primary health organisations to look at need. Decisions have been made in relation to what the factors are, which will go into that re-weighting, as I outlined earlier in relation to the question from your colleague.

What this will mean for practices is that those practices which have patients who have a higher degree of deprivation or multimorbidity or rurality is they will receive extra revenue which will allow them to be able to support their patients. For some clinics, that may mean the ability to employ more staff; they may use that to reduce the fees; they may do a range of things to improve access for patients to services which help support the patients that they have on their books in those clinics.

I speak to many of my rural colleagues in particular who talk about the difficulty in rural communities accessing their general practitioner. This is critically important for our rural communities to increase access by re-weighting that funding to support those clinics to be able to—whether it’s hire the staff, pay the GP more, extend the hours; whatever it takes to be able to improve the access in those rural communities. I think that is where the re-weighting of capitation—which has been called for for a very long time—is going to have some of the biggest difference across New Zealand once that’s rolled out and which I’m looking forward to delivering next year.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’d like to turn to investment in the health system infrastructure. The Minister received a briefing that was directed at identifying if the health system had the capacity to particularly meet demand for surgeries and planned care. That briefing said that the health system was short by 500 beds in Te Manawa Taki and Central North Island hospitals were short 107 beds. In this region, the Central region, hospitals were short 55 beds. Te Waipounamu were short 76 beds, and the Northern region was short 209 beds. In that region, 120 new beds were created by the building and opening of the Tōtara Haumaru Hospital on the North Shore of Auckland by our last Government. I would like to ask the Minister: what progress is being made now to address that bed deficit so that we can meet today’s demands, much less the future’s?

Hon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to respond to some of the questions directed to me as Minister for Mental Health. There was one question quite rightly looking at the Government’s focus on how we can support faster access to timely mental health support, and the question was using an example of the Northern region, which I think is a very important question. The first thing I’d say is that it has been the focus of this Government by bringing back the four regions within Health New Zealand, we have regionalised Health New Zealand, because we believe that, actually, rather than centralising, we want to return decision making back as close to the front line as possible.

What that means in mental health is when you look at the mental health targets that this Government set for the first time in New Zealand, if you take the target around specialist mental health services—a target of 80 percent of people to access specialist mental health and addiction services within three weeks—I’ve always been very clear and said quite publicly, as mental health Minister, I’m not going to be happy just with the national average. Why I say that is now we have set the targets, we are measuring against them, and we are reporting on the data. We can actually drill down to the 20 health districts. We can actually drill down to urban and rural, to other population groups, and young people as well. Why that is important is I’ve worked with the deputy chief executives who head up the four regions. They are now called regional directors, and they report on the data for their regions and are required to put action plans in place.

My expectation this year—the $2.8 billion we will spend on the mental health and addiction ringfence funding is for areas or regions that are not delivering to that expectation of a three-week wait time, then investment goes into those areas to bring them up to the desired performance level. One way of doing that is bringing in the community sector, and I’d just like to link in Ingrid Leary’s question about what the Government is doing to support the community sector for mental health. We call it the “funded sector”. Already—the question was around the mental health innovation fund—the first-year tranche funded MATES in Construction, Youthline, the Sir John Kirwan Foundation, Rotorua YOSS, Mental Health Foundation, Wellington City Mission, the National Collective of Independent Women’s Refuges, and a number of other community organisations.

The question was around why we went for match funding. Well, I just put it to you—that fund was $5 million, and because of the match fund, that is now $10 million this year. We’re just to announce year two; that will be another $10 million. We get the ability through match fund to deliver twice the activity and scale that up as well.

The member did, quite rightly, ask the question around an important issue where we have people on our mental health inpatient facilities that might be clinically ready to be discharged but there, potentially, is not the support services there. That is another task I’ve given the regional directors to look at—the occupancy rates of their inpatient facilities within their respective regions, and to ensure that we build out the system, that there is step-down care that we can discharge people into the community.

Because this is an Estimates debate, I’d point to Budget 2025, where we not only invested an extra $51 million to our forensic acute inpatient beds for Health New Zealand but funded a number of community and NGO beds in the community so people can be referred out into step-down care to increase that flow into our inpatient facilities.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health): I thank the previous speaker for the question in relation to infrastructure and I acknowledge the infrastructure deficit, which is a challenge that we’ve inherited, but is also something which—if you look at the average age of health infrastructure, I believe the average age of health buildings owned by Health New Zealand is 47 years. This is a challenge across Governments, whether it’s in roads or hospitals or schools—the need to invest more in our health infrastructure to make sure that we have the capacity.

That’s why, as Minister of Health, we have released the Health Infrastructure Plan, which outlines the need to invest, but we also need to make sure we’re investing quickly. That’s why in this year’s Budget we allocated funding for modular wards to be able to be built rapidly at a number of hospitals. We’ve announced two of those hospitals where those will be built—one at Hawke’s Bay and the other at Nelson Hospital. This allows us to actually build that capacity quickly whilst we are also doing the work on the business cases for the additional long-term investments that are required.

We’ve obviously, in this Budget, also funded the Nelson Hospital redevelopment. There is planning work under way in Hawke’s Bay, in Tauranga, in Palmerston North, and, ultimately, we need to continue to build that pipeline of health infrastructure projects that can continue to be delivered so that patients up and down our country in our health workforce have modern, reliable infrastructure which supports patients, supports our workforce, so all New Zealanders have access to the timely, quality healthcare that they need.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour): Thank you. I wonder if the Minister could elaborate on some of those points. Why is it that the Health Infrastructure Plan did not set out those initiatives to have the modular hospital beds created and the number—why didn’t it state the bed deficit? Why didn’t the infrastructure plan name the number of beds to be added this year or in the next five years or in the next 10 years? In fact, there was more specificity in the Health Infrastructure Plan around the building of car parks than there was around the building of hospital beds. Can the Minister elaborate what new beds are coming in the next year or two or five?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health): Well, as I’ve just outlined in my answer, the Budget funded modular bed wards are to be built in a number of hospitals so that we can provide extra capacity. Business cases are under way on a number of major builds, which will outline how many beds will be required and how many will be delivered and, ultimately, the capacity and services that will be delivered in those hospitals. That is what we are doing with the Health Infrastructure Plan.

This Government didn’t inherit a health infrastructure plan. We have had to put a health infrastructure plan together. When the last Government put Health New Zealand together, they thought that they could just jam 20 district health boards together, change the letterhead, and think, “Job done.” We are now having to do the work of actually delivering the infrastructure, the services, getting on top of the wait-lists, making sure that we’re actually delivering for patients. That is what this Government is doing so that all New Zealanders can have access to the timely, quality services and healthcare that they need. That’s the work we’re doing. I’m proud of the work that’s been delivered. This Budget delivers on that, but there is so much more work to do.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): The Health Infrastructure Plan, I note, doesn’t specifically talk about what is going to happen regarding the reduced dementia and psychogeriatric beds which were taken out of the Dunedin Hospital. You are on record, Minister, saying that that’s because the beds are better in the community, and I don’t actually disagree with the philosophy. However, what work has been done under your Government to create those beds in Dunedin so that those people needing beds, who will no longer be able to get them in the new hospital, will be able to get the care they need in the community? What specific steps have you done?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health): There’s a range of work under way. Ultimately, the priority is to get the new hospital built. That’s my priority as Minister of Health: getting the new hospital built. We’re very focused on doing that. Once that construction contract is awarded, once we get that under way, there’s obviously a lot of work to be done around making sure we’re implementing, putting the models of care in place. That is my expectation of Health New Zealand—that they’re doing that work so that when it goes live in 2031—I believe is the time line—their work has been done before then to deliver those models of care in the community or in the hospital so that patients in Dunedin get access to the timely, quality healthcare that they need and deserve.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Can I just confirm, then, Minister, that when you said to the Otago Daily Times that work was under way to provide those beds in the community, in fact, nothing had been done by your Government?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health): Work is under way, and that work will continue to be done by Health New Zealand. As I said, my expectations are very clear that as that hospital is being constructed, that work around making sure it is operational, that the models of care are delivered—

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Point of order, Mr Chair. Sorry, I think the Minister of Health misunderstand my question. It was the work in the community, not the work in the hospital. If he could answer that, please.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Yeah. Members, the Minister’s time in the chair has now come to an end. We now have the Minister of Justice—you being the Minister of Justice. The Minister is available to speak to that portfolio from 8.30 p.m. to 9.30 p.m. Do we have someone from the Justice Committee?

Justice

JAMIE ARBUCKLE (Deputy Chairperson of the Justice Committee): Thank you. I rise as deputy chair of the Justice Committee to give a quick overview of the Estimates that we heard through 16 to 19 June. We heard from a number of the Ministers—the Hon Paul Goldsmith, the Hon Nicole McKee, the Hon Karen Chhour, the Hon Mark Mitchell, the Hon Casey Costello, and the Hon Judith Collins. We had Votes in Vote Serious Fraud, Vote Police, Vote Parliamentary Counsel, Vote Justice, Vote Courts, Vote Corrections, and Vote Attorney-General. As you can see, it’s a very busy committee.

The one thing that came out of that scrutiny week that we sent back to the House—I’ll just touch on a few of the main topics and the main points. As we heard through the Corrections Estimates, some major issues were raised around infrastructure, around the front-line staff, and around remand. These were the main topics that came from there. In the Courts Estimates, we talked around timeliness and, again, infrastructure projects. We heard through the Police portfolio that the big concerns there were around meth use and around investing in the beat teams that we’ve now got on the front line around the country. We heard about recruiting issues and also the $480 million of additional funding through the Budget for front-line policing efforts. Within Justice, we heard about the response to retail crime and about the electoral reforms.

I might just kick off a question to the Minister. The biggest issue there was around legal aid. It’s the largest single item in Vote Justice. Legal aid is allocated over $328 million for that appropriation, which was a 2.3 percent increase on the previous year. Probably, my question to the Minister is: why is legal aid so important, and why is the Government funding increased levels?

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. Since the Associate Minister of Justice is in the chair, I actually want to start by asking a question to the Minister around court timeliness, particularly around some of the latest data coming out of the High Court regarding the time for scheduled trials. When we’re looking at various parts of the country, Auckland’s average wait time is 486 days, and then in terms of some of the measures for court timeliness, we’re also seeing that High Court and criminal trials in particular are not performing particularly well or meeting those targets. I just want to check with the Minister: in the Budget, what areas is she prioritising, or what areas are actually being funded to ensure that we do see that being reduced?

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): Thank you, Mr Chair. To the deputy chair of the Justice Committee, thank you for your introduction.

Legal aid is at $328 million in there, and why is it important? It’s really important that people are given access to justice. It also means that they have the ability to get representation and also advice, especially when they go through a court or a justice system. It doesn’t matter whether it’s criminal, whether it’s civil, or whether it’s family. We need everybody to be able to access the courts, to be able to get the right information, and, where necessary, also the right representation, and we want to make sure that there is an ability for people to be able to access that. But that has gone up recently, and in response we, in turn, have increased the volume of money that will be going there towards legal aid.

To the member from the Green Party, when we’re talking about timeliness in the High Court, yes, I think what is important to note is that for the first time our timeliness measures are actually being put in place around the courts. For example, in the District Court, District Court Chief Judge Taumaunu has for the first time implemented some timeliness in the District Court. Now, I know that you’ve asked about the High Court, but we are making some improvements.

For example, with category 1 cases, we expect 90 percent of those cases to be disposed of within six months. With category 2, we are also looking at 90 percent of cases to be disposed of within nine months. Category 3 has the judge-alone trials, and 90 percent of those cases are to be disposed of within nine months, and for category 3 jury trials, they expect 90 percent to be disposed of within 15 months. These are quite high aspirational targets for the District Court, but I’m pleased to note that we are getting there.

When it comes to the High Court criminal cases, the number of new cases has actually increased by 10 percent over the last year, and at the same time as we have completed over 12 percent, the average trial took one day longer than one year ago and four days longer than five years ago. It means that the court’s workload has increased, even if the total numbers are currently similar—that is, 3 percent. I’m kind of happy with where we have landed with the High Court criminal cases, because while we have an increase in cases, we are still disposing of them, although we can always improve.

With the High Court civil cases, there was a 10 percent increase in the number of new cases that have been filed over the last year. Timeliness has improved, however, suggesting that the increase in new cases is driven by short-turnaround cases like, for example, new insolvency cases, which were making up 30 percent of new cases over the last year.

We are tracking what’s happening in the High Court and also looking to put those targets on the District Court, and the timeliness improvements are slow but demonstrable. We’re getting there.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Mr Chair. Seeing as we have the Associate Minister of Justice in the chair, I thought I’d follow on, on the theme around stresses on the court system. I do this against the background of a couple of documents. One of the most critical ones is the Chief Justice’s report, which outlines some quite strong concerns around resourcing for the courts. It does it in essentially two themes.

One is it, essentially, points out that the workload of the courts has gone up along with the New Zealand population, but judicial resource hasn’t. I’m aware of recent moves to increase—by a very small amount—the number of judges in New Zealand, but it may be that the Minister wants to address whether we need to have a substantial increase in our appropriation for the judiciary.

The other thread in that report is the inadequacy of the court infrastructure—noting, I think it was, Whangārei, which is a busy court but has one courtroom. The bottleneck there isn’t judicial resource as much as simply having the courtroom available to both administer remands and what have you and run trials. Obviously, there’s been some deferrals—Waitakere and Rotorua courts, which are both recognised as not fit for purpose and in states of severe dilapidation, and what’s going to happen there? This is a resourcing of the courts problem, which is a justice issue.

The second document, which I think has been relatively recently released, is the Cabinet paper on the basis of which Cabinet approved the development of new offences, including coward punch, slavery offences, and some shoplifting stuff as well. But it’s those serious offences that I’m interested in, because one of the challenges that justice officials pointed out is that with things like three strikes, coward punches, sentencing reforms and so on, this is actually going to increase pressure, particularly on the higher courts.

I think this is the really important point about the justice sector—that there are interlocking pressures which come together: judicial pressures, resource pressures, and legislative reform. I guess I’m really interested in the Minister responding in terms of how the system as a whole will address these resource constraints.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): Thank you. Thank you to the member for your questions. There was quite a lot in there. I’ll try and cover what I can, but please ask me if I miss one out.

Yes, we are looking at an increase in what’s happening in our court system, who’s coming through. The increase is going to come about by the amount of law and order initiatives that this side of the House have implemented to hold people accountable for their crimes and their actions against our communities. In order to address this, we have already looked to implement different changes in personnel by increasing certain areas of staffing to assist. An example of this will be the Family Court Associates that we implemented and have increased in volume. They have made a huge difference in what’s happening in the Family Court. Their initiatives and what they can help judges with is actually enabling judges to get back some of their judge time.

This is also seen across some of the other courts that we have made changes in. One of the proposals that’s currently at the Justice Committee is to implement three more additional community magistrates. That, in turn, is expected to free up at least, I think, 5.2 fulltime-equivalent judges’ time. When we talk about community magistrates—who not do not necessarily need to be qualified lawyers—we’re also ensuring that there is going to be a Chief Community Magistrate that ensures that the community magistrates are trained and rostered to the appropriate cases. That will be led by a judge once it goes through the system. We also have two extra District Court judges coming in for sentencing changes, and we’re actively considering what else might need to be done—where we should put more emphasis or more personnel and where it’s needed. We’ll be still taking advice on that, and there may still be more to come there.

In answer to the member’s questions about if we increase the workload in the courts, how are we going to utilise or increase those within the courts to do the work, the judicial resource has gone up both in the High Court and District Court with the community magistrates and Family Court Associates. We’ve also got the coroners’ assistance, which is making a massive dent in the timeliness in that we are in the process of reducing those times.

The member also asked about the courts and what we are doing to help or to make things go faster, because some of those delays are quite large. We made some legislative changes for audiovisual links (AVL) and we currently have just received a report on the AVL system, and we’re looking at what we need to do to implement it, to make it work. This is work that we’ve done with the judiciary as well, because they’re the ones that are going to have to utilise it. We’ve got to make sure that when we implement it, fund it, and get it in there, it’s done in such a way that the judiciary can use it—as well as Corrections and Police where necessary as well. There’s that work going on in the background there.

You spoke about the Waitakere courts and the Rotorua District and High Court and Māori Land Court. Yes, we are prepared and ready to go. We need the funding. We did go to the international investment summit, and we promoted Waitakere and Rotorua courts. We got some really good feedback there. We are open to any form of funding with the Government, and we’re looking at different ideas. We need to go back and have a Budget bid in future Budgets to help us with this, but, ultimately, it’s actually going to come down to what is going to be the better way to invest that’s going to be certain for those communities and have a really good outcome. We’re still working on that. However, from our view, we feel that we’ve got a really good case where we’re about ready to go. We just need to get some partners on board, and we have been talking with some in that respect.

If there’s anything else, I invite the member to ask me some more.

TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central): Minister, in this Budget, under capital spending, there is more money allocated towards building more prisons, when you look at how many people are serviced within our corrections system, than there is money going into new hospitals and hospital upgrades and into new classrooms and new schools, despite the fact that healthcare and education are far better methods of reducing and preventing harm in our communities. So how does the Minister and her Government justify continuing an endless pipeline of people into prisons when recidivism rates show that sending people to prisons does not result in safer communities?

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): Well, as much as I can answer that, because corrections isn’t the justice portfolio; it’s under the corrections portfolio—well, no, it actually has its own portfolio and its own budget as well. But what I can say is that this Government makes no apologies for holding people to account for bad behaviour. We do not believe that people going about doing whatever they want when it’s criminal, when it’s violent, when it’s taking other people’s property—it’s not right. To say that we shouldn’t invest in making sure that people are held accountable, we on this side of the House think that is wrong, because showing accountability actually can change attitudes. It can say to people, “We don’t accept the fact that you can come out here and take what you want that you didn’t earn from people that have worked hard and there be no consequence.” A consequence, if necessary, will be prison, especially if it’s recidivist. Quite frankly, if people who are recidivist offenders—especially violent recidivist offenders—are not out in society creating more victims but are in corrections, perhaps getting rehabilitated, then that is also a positive outcome.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I actually just want to pick up from the question my colleague Tamatha Paul asked, and I’m interested in the Minister’s answer, because in Aotearoa New Zealand alone, data from the Department of Corrections as well as the ministry itself says that about 44 to 49 percent of released prisoners are reincarcerated within three to four years, with high rates among young male Māori and repeat offenders. It also says that there’s very little evidence that suggests longer sentences—they fail to deter repeat offending and may even increase risk of creating a criminal learning environment. This data is backed up by Australia, Canada, the US, the UK, Ireland, to name a few. Some of the things that have consistently shown improvement to recidivism are through community-based rehabilitation. We also see factors like court delays, overcrowded prisons, and insufficient rehabilitation further undermine the deterrence and rehabilitation effect of longer sentences. That is not just what we think; that is the evidence that is being produced by our own ministries and by international experts.

My two questions to the Minister, then, are, number one: why, then, have we seen an increase in funding in the tough on crime approach, which has no evidential backing, empirical or anecdotal, rather than putting in additional money and resources into community-based rehabilitation? Instead, what I’ve seen in this Budget is a reduction in funding for some of the community-based rehabilitation providers. That’s my first question to the Minister, and I may have a follow-up question.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): It’s quite simple, really. If you lock up violent criminals who repeatedly victimise people in the community, then they’re not in the community re-victimising people. It’s as simple as that. Locking them up to make sure that they are not in our communities creating harm is what this Government is committed to doing, because the people on the street have had enough. They’ve had enough of being victims. They have had enough of people like that member over there telling them that we don’t need the New Zealand Police, that we don’t need any sort of law and order—we just let them all run loose! That’s why we’re in Government and you’re not.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. To the Associate Minister of Justice, I have a few questions in regard to the proposed changes to electoral law, which also have appropriations implications going forward. I might actually just start with the question that I was going to end with, which is just around the logic of changing the law to facilitate very serious offenders being able to vote if they’re held in a mental health facility, and what the logic of that was, sitting directly next to the complete ban, should those individuals be in prison facilities. That’s one question.

I did also want to say that of course this is a significant change, in that New Zealanders for decades now have been used to being able to register the day before the election, and more recently on the day of the election. This is a really substantial proposal to change to our electoral law, and, just as the Attorney-General’s report said, changes to that are very serious. If there are other options in terms of getting to the Minister’s objective, which was to have the vote counted within 14 days, then that ought to be the preferred option.

My questions are whether the Minister considered simply funding the Electoral Commission to the amount that they would need to adequately count the votes within 14 days, as opposed to the current, which is around 26 days—noting also that the Electoral Commission has been quite diligent in raising the fact that it’s been drawing from reserves of late and hasn’t been able to hold its operational budget. I do have another question attached as well, but perhaps I’ll let the Minister respond to those as a start.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): Thank you. I was talking through that, so please ask me again if I don’t hit the mark with the answer to your question. The Government’s view is that it’s reasonable to require people to enrol before voting begins. Enrolment is compulsory in New Zealand, and the Government considers there’s plenty of advance notice ahead of an election for people to organise their enrolment. The change was relatively new, and the issue that we had, which was found after the—sorry, I’m jumping here, but what we found after the election was that the time taken to count those votes meant that we had to also ensure that the caretaker Government was extended as a result of that.

We’re basically saying we’re going to go back to what it was but actually not as far back as what it was, and we think that we have found a good area there. The Government believes that allowing enrolments up to and on election day has removed the incentive to get enrolled before the election, and the Minister had expressed his view that New Zealanders are capable of adapting to earlier deadlines. It’s quite reasonable for them to do so. Please, if I missed something there, ask me again.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. Just in terms of meeting that objective of having the votes counted more quickly, has the Minister of Justice received advice that, actually, it may not be the case that the votes are counted more quickly? There would still be a substantial number of special votes. Indeed, people may attempt to cast a special vote without having registered, and that vote would still need to be processed and potentially discounted, so it wouldn’t necessarily shorten the period of time.

The other question I have is: no doubt the Minister received a number of proposals of alternative ways of shortening that vote count period. Was there any assessment that those other proposals cumulatively could address the need to reduce the period to 14 days so that the Minister would not have to touch that enrolment period at all?

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): Thank you. My apologies for reading off this. I am standing in for another Minister and was not over this part. I will be—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Oh, you’re much better!

Hon NICOLE McKEE: Thank you. I’m going to be reading for this one. The enrolment deadline would need to be at least 13 days before the election day to enable enrolment processing to be mostly completed by the close of polling. Any shorter period will make it less likely that enrolment processing can be completed in time to enable the official count check to proceed immediately after election day. When looking at the enrolment deadline in other countries, in Australia, the enrolment closes seven days after the issue of the writ for federal elections—for the 2025 election, anyway. This deadline was 26 days before the election day. In the United Kingdom, enrolment closes 12 working days before election day. In Canada, the enrolment is allowed when people vote, including on election day. In Ireland, enrolment applications must be received at least 15 days before an election. We feel that we have found that sweet spot there.

Just what I spoke to earlier—people were able to enrol up to and on election day for the 2020 and 2023 elections here in New Zealand. Prior to that, the enrolment deadline had been midnight the day before election day since the 1996 election. Before 1990, the enrolment deadline was 6 p.m. on the writ day. We want to make sure that when people have actually made their vote, they get the Government that they have voted for and they get it quickly so that that Government can then start implementing their policies, regardless of whom it is. Looking at what the international comparisons were, we figured that where we landed was a good place.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I do want to talk about the electoral reform, but I just want to pick up on the question that I asked the Associate Minister of Justice previously. While I appreciate that the Minister may need to get things off her chest, the volume of voice doesn’t necessarily materialise the evidential basis of a Government policy.

My question around that is, then, from what I’m hearing, in terms of from the Minister: is what we’re looking at, the purpose and the policy direction of Vote Justice and Corrections, in this case, to lock more people up, as opposed to reduce crime in our communities? The evidence that I’ve quoted doesn’t equate with what the Minister has mentioned. That’s my first question.

Now, on to electoral reform—I do have two questions for the Minister. The first question is in terms of some of the other jurisdictions the Minister mentioned before. Could I ask the Minister how many of those jurisdictions have automatic enrolment at the age they’re entitled to enrol? Something like automatic enrolment would make a simple and reasonably low-cost and effective way of ensuring that people are enrolled to vote. Yes, what the Minister quoted undoubtedly is what those jurisdictions are doing, but I do want to know from the perspective of automatic enrolment.

My next question is: what evidence and what consultation has the Minister or the ministry done in terms of overseas New Zealanders’ voice when it comes to enrolment? For overseas New Zealanders, it is sometimes incredibly difficult for them to enrol on time because of the limited locations and availability for them to enrol, as well as to vote.

Those are my two questions. The first one is around automatic enrolment. The second one is around consultation with overseas New Zealanders.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): Thank you, Mr Chair. To the member, in talking about my volume of voice, when I am being barraged, I will speak to be heard. Your leader is a good example of using her voice.

You asked me a question about whether or not it is this Government’s intention to just lock people up. No; it’s our intention to hold people to account. It’s our intention to keep our community safe. It’s our intention to protect our front-line police. It’s our intention to protect our children. It’s our intention to protect New Zealand society. If that means we have to lock people up because they continuously misbehave or they create violent crime, so be it. We make no apology for that, because people need to learn that when you live in a democratic society such as New Zealand, we all want to live happily, healthily with each other. The social experiment that was held by the previous Government did not work, so we are taking the most appropriate action and holding people to account.

When it comes to your enrolment—and, if I don’t answer this, please, come to me again—this is one that I’m not really over. I will try to answer in the best way that I possibly can, and I hope that this does it. Automatic enrolment updates—the benefit of the policies that we’re going to make is that the automatic enrolment updates will smooth the peaks of high resource demand for enrolment processing immediately before the elections by keeping the electoral rolls more up to date between elections. Over time, this should result in fewer hours for issuing and processing special votes, with associated cost and time savings. This proposal should make it easier for the public, particularly highly mobile communities, to stay enrolled at the right address, which supports participation, but we think that this is probably going to take about two further elections ahead to get it into a state where it’s going to show some good results for us.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Oh, thank you very much, Mr Chair. I was actually finding the Associate Minister of Justice’s answers really interesting, but I don’t think members opposite are the same. Tim Costley could be potentially watching Netflix or even listening to Taylor Swift. I wonder if he’d like to take his AirPods out and join us here in the Chamber and pay attention.

My question to the Minister is regarding methamphetamine and the increase—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Sorry, Ms Andersen, I just wasn’t quite sure; I didn’t pick it up. Was that an accusation that a member wasn’t concentrating?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Yes, it was. He had AirPods in and I wondered if he needed to remove them to be in the Chamber.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): I’d say let’s just stick to the topic, shall we?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: All right.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): If it comes to the attention of the Chair, then we’ll do something about it.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I mean, he might want to listen to Taylor Swift. That’s fine with me.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Point of order—point of order, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Can we just carry on.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Maybe you confirm.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): I would hate for the Chair to be interrupting when someone is not concentrating 100 percent on what’s going across the other side of the Chamber. I think I could be on my feet rather a lot. Now, let’s just carry on with the question.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Point of order—point of order, Mr Chair.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: My question to the Minister is not about Taylor Swift; it’s about methamphetamine—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Sorry, point of order, the Hon Mark Mitchell.

Hon Mark Mitchell: My point of order is quite simply this, Mr Chair. If I had AirPods available to me, I’d wear them while that member was speaking as well.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Mr Chair, it was when the Minister was speaking, not when I was speaking, that he was listening, and that was the point.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Bordering on frivolous, Mr Mitchell. But let’s just all carry on and calm down.

Tim Costley: Mitchell—one; Andersen—zero.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Tim Costley—minus 10. My question is in relation to—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): There’s an hour to go, people.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: —methamphetamine. We know that there was no specific funding in Budget 2025 to account for the sharp increase that New Zealand has seen in methamphetamine use, particularly over the last 12 months. We’ve seen a spike that’s gone up by 97 percent. That spike is disproportionately impacting potentially—well, it is impacting—lower socio-economic areas. We know that from the waste-water testing. We also know that that use will have an increase in the incourt time, as we potentially see more prosecutions. It will potentially see also more inmates who are requiring addiction treatment, even mental health treatment, if they’ve been users of methamphetamine for some time. It also could potentially result in more violence within our prisons if people are accessing methamphetamine or going through withdrawal of methamphetamine when incarcerated.

I’m interested to know what the Minister has in place looking forward, given that sharp increase, in terms of how the justice pipeline will deal with that increased complexity as a result of the sharp increase of methamphetamine use that disproportionately does affect our justice system and those people who encounter it.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): I thank that member for the question because it’s one that affects all of New Zealand’s society and they were really good questions that you asked.

In response to the recent test showing a doubling of meth in waste water, the Prime Minister pulled together, basically, the justice sector Ministers. He has tasked us with looking to find solutions in tackling meth, not just in the areas of where it’s being sold and the crime that comes from it but also in the addiction, and how do we compel people to get off meth once we find them. There’s a lot of work that’s going on in this space. We’re considering options that have been given to us to address the serious issue. The options need to provide a balance between disrupting the international supply of methamphetamine and strengthening the domestic enforcement, as well as those options to prevent the use and strengthen the availability of treatment around New Zealand.

We’ve started this already by giving police extra powers. We’ve removed the gang patches so that they are not so visible to those that are wishing to purchase. We’ve introduced the three-strikes regime again. We have taken away the discounts offered in sentencing. Those are some of those immediate criminal justice aspects that we can look to while we look at the bigger opportunities that we have here.

Another way to stop repeat offending is to target any profit that these organised crime groups are making from drugs. Inland Revenue, for example, were doing audits, and during 2024-25, 66 organised crime-related audits were completed, with revenue assessed at $34.5 million. We have provided funding in the 2025 Budget to ensure that this good work continues.

Another important response to meth is to disrupt the supply of it to New Zealand before it even gets to our border. There has been significant success in the detection and the seizures of meth, and I do do a shout-out here not only to New Zealand Police but also to our customs agents, who have found quite a bit over a small period of time.

The final piece of the fight against meth must then be to reduce the demand—so stopping people starting in the first place and, if they have started using, getting them to stop and stay stopped. So that’s part of what we’re looking at as our response. You will see something shortly as we pull together all the options that we’ve been given and our plan on how to tackle it.

TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central): Minister, in the Budget last year there was resource allocated from the Ministry of Justice towards the Treaty principles bill and developing that legislation and undergoing that consultation process. I understand that it’s the Government’s intention to remove the Treaty from over 28 pieces of legislation, and that the constitutional team within the Ministry of Justice will likely be engaged in parts of this work. How much resource is this Government putting into petty culture wars to erase the history and the foundational documents of this country?

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): Thank you. We are in a triumvirate of Government. There are three parties, here, where we also have coalition agreements with each other. The reference to the provisions of the Treaty principles within 23 laws administered by 13 Government agencies—and there’s a list of them—is legislation that refers to the Treaty as opposed to the Treaty principles, and they’ve generally been excluded from the review. The exception is sections within the Education and Training Act 2020, whose Treaty provisions were being separately reviewed and have been included in this process for practicality.

To you, this may seem trivial—to the member, and I do appreciate the member bringing it up—but to this side of the Government, we want everybody to unite and to be as one. The coalition agreement between National and New Zealand First spoke to doing this, and that’s exactly what the Government’s going to do, because they have agreed to do so. The cost of it is going to be the cost of it in order to complete the coalition agreement that the Government had signed up to, and we will support them in order to have equality for everybody and make sure that our laws are fit for purpose.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Mr Chair. I have a relatively short point, and it’s actually around the capacity of the Ministry of Justice to undertake the policy work that it has. It’s clearly a busy ministry, and it has been busy under this Government, and will be busy under any Government, because justice is a critical sector. The reason I ask whether this policy ministry and its policy arm is adequately resourced is that I’ve just today received a couple of emails around the Regulatory Standards Bill.

We know that the Regulatory Standards Bill will require any ministry dealing with legislation, whether it be a bill before this House or secondary legislation, to undertake an additional piece of policy work around compliance with those regulatory standards. I’ve got these two documents—and I won’t name them, but they’re from policy analysts with the ministry—which say, “We have concerns about the ability of agencies to absorb the additional work and note this could potentially impact on the ministerial policy and legislative work programme.” That is to say, the Government—any Government—can’t do what it wants to do because of these standards. Then, the other document—this is October last year—says, “The proposals regarding active stewardship, regular review, maintenance, and improvement of legislation administered would have an impact on the policy group’s work programme, etc. This would be felt particularly strongly by Ministry of Justice given the large amount of legislation we administer. The bill also requires retrospective reviews.”

I guess the question is this: is the Ministry of Justice—so that it can remain in its current capacity—going to be given additional resources so that it can also discharge the additional functions being imposed by the Regulatory Standards Act, which is set to come into force next year?

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): At this stage, the Ministry of Justice is adequately funded to be able to complete their work. Should they need any extra funding, they will no doubt come to their Minister and bid for it.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour): Two very brief questions to close my questions on electoral reform—they’re quite discrete. One is around costings to implement the changes in relation to restricting registration, and what that costing looks like. No doubt, there’s education, etc., form changes, that will be required, and I’m sure the Minister of Justice has received some advice on that. The second is whether there’s a costing on enabling voting in health facilities, which is a new provision of the Act as well. Just those two very specific questions on costings. Costings to restrict registration is one—what are the costings for that? Costings to allow voting for health facilities is a second question.

Then, just in terms of access to justice, for the Minister, the other concern that I, and many I’ve spoken to, have is about increasing fees in terms of access to courts. On 1 July this year, we saw an increase to High Court fees and fees relating to civil proceedings, including in the Employment Court, which obviously impacts access to justice—and whether there is consideration of how that may impact New Zealanders’ ability to access a remedy where they’re experiencing just some very basic, really, cost of living issues, the things related to their employment, a civil dispute in relation to tenancy as well.

The second part of that is court appointment. I noted that in terms of the Human Rights Review Tribunal, the four deputy chairs were not reappointed, nor were they replaced. It takes the decision makers down from six to two. At the moment, there are significant delays in the tribunal, so I’m just asking what the considerations are, or the projections, for people going through the Human Rights Review Tribunal, given the decision makers have reduced from six to two.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): Thank you. I’m getting all this information together for you. Your questions on the electoral system reform—I’ve been told that $80.6 million is being made available, over four years, to improve and modernise the election process. You asked specifically how much is going into certain areas. What I’ve been given is full amounts that are going to specific places. As an example, $7.8 million is for modernising elections—that’s for digital comms. So $7.8 million of that $80 million is to digitalise, $18.7 million is the electoral integrity improvements, and $54 million is for general election 2026 plus implementing changes in the Electoral Amendment Bill. Within those three appropriations for that $80 million will come the costings for what you’ve asked for.

You had asked me about access to justice in courts and the fees going up, and I thank the member for that question. It was a tough one, actually, to look at having to increase the fees, because if I remember correctly, they haven’t been increased for over 20 years. We were getting to a point where it was becoming—not so much unsustainable; but we were not recovering the cost of actually operating the courts, because the fees had not been increased. We have increased the fees, and we’ve made sure that increases in the future will go with the Consumers Price Index so that we don’t have a 20-year gap and then have to do this again, or have a future Government having to do it again.

What’s really important to remember with those people that are struggling—and we do recognise that—is that we have not taken away the ability for the courts to dispose of those costs or to say that a person does not have to pay a filing fee. We have ensured that that is still remaining, so that gives people the option to be able to claim the hardship that they may find necessary to claim in order to be able to get their access to justice.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): I’ve just got a few questions around the ministerial advisory group on retail crime and whether the Minister views the advice received from the group has provided good value for money, and, in particular, which of the recommendations made by the ministerial advisory group on retail crime, in particular, she thinks holds merit and will be implemented?

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): Thank you for the question from that member. Do we believe that there’s value for money? I think so, yes. My reasoning for thinking so is because we have pulled together people from the community that have actually been affected by retail crime and tasked them with finding solutions that they think will work. They have worked extremely hard on this, and they have come up with multiple solutions for us, which we have then investigated and seen what it is that we think that we can advance.

The member has asked me which one of their initiatives, in particular, do I really support, and I’m going to say I support all of them. I think that they will make a huge difference. Some of those ones in the package of reforms will include amending the Crimes Act so that citizens can intervene to stop any Crimes Act offence at any time of the day, because currently you can only do a citizen’s arrest at certain hours. After 9 p.m. and before 6 a.m. is when you can do it, so I’m quite happy with the fact that we’re allowing people to take control—should they feel confident enough to do so—and do a citizen’s arrest themselves. There is clarity around that, as well, which means the moment you do that, you have to ring the police and do whatever they tell you to do. I think that the controls that we have put around those reforms will help keep the public safe, keep the person who’s been detained safe, and also show respect for law in the way that we have gone about doing this.

We’ve also agreed to two new theft offences, which is a new shoplifting infringement offence and an aggravated theft offence, targeting theft at under $2,000. We have seen a lot of theft, and the retailers are the ones that have to stomach it and put up with it in the reduction in their bank accounts. When they come to us and they say, “Look, if you increase the fines, if you have infringements, it may be a deterrent.”, we think that it’s worthwhile having a look at that, and we believe that they have come up with a good solution there. We’re also looking at simplifying the penalties for theft, as well.

There are some other initiatives that they’ve got coming, and we look forward to actually hearing from them about what else we can do to support the retail groups in New Zealand, because they have been so drastically affected by crime over such a large number of years that many of them are struggling. This not only gives them a voice but also gives them an effective outcome.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just have two very quick follow-up questions on the citizen’s arrest. The first one is that we are already seeing disagreements within that particular advisory group, with some of the members within that group not wanting to push forward with citizen’s arrest because of the harm that it will have for the people who are working in those particular shops. How, then, could the Associate Minister of Justice say, “Oh, look, this is the advice that we have received, and they’ve been working really collegially.”, when clearly there’s disagreement? I just want to check with the Minister how she would reconcile that.

The second question is: like the Minister said, citizen’s arrest is already in the legislation, albeit with limited hours. What evidence does the Minister have that the limited hours of citizen’s arrest we have now is working as intended? Is there a percentage? Is there any form of evidence or record that it’s working as it is?

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): Thank you, Mr Chair. One of the proposals we made with the citizen’s arrest is that a person actually doesn’t have to do it. If they don’t feel confident, if they’re afraid, they don’t have to do it. This has been a really important point.

You’ve asked me about the disagreements within the ministerial advisory group (MAG). It’s healthy to have disagreements. That’s where you get the debate, and that’s where you come up with outcomes. I mean, we have it even in this Parliament, right, where we don’t agree with things, but every now and again we come up with a healthy outcome on a matter which we can all agree to. Sometimes we can work together, sometimes we can’t, but, effectively, we will still come out with some outcomes. I think where we landed with this, by not making people have to do it, including security guards—they don’t have to do it; it’s up to the individual and their confidence. I think where we got to there is a really good point. I understand, again, the disagreements within the MAG, and as I mentioned, that creates a healthy debate and also means that you look at all different options. That’s what we did when we took on their advice.

The proposals enable more tools, more options to those that are victims of crime. You asked whether or not I had any evidence. There’s a story that resonates.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: That’s not evidence.

Hon NICOLE McKEE: There will be evidence, but there’s a story that resonates—it was in the paper, it’s in the news, and you can look it up—of some guys who had tried to entertain a citizen’s arrest of a young person who had committed an aggravated robbery on a jewellery store. They held the person down, but because it was in the middle of the day, they were told to let that person go. That person just got away with what they had done and potentially was able to go on and do it again, because there is no deterrence to what they had done. These people chased this person down the street and held him down and had to let him go. What we’re saying is that if you can only do a citizen’s arrest between 9 p.m. and 6 a.m.—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: That’s not what the law says.

Hon NICOLE McKEE: —and we have some of these occurrences happening in the middle of the day—

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: I’m asking for the existing evidence.

Hon NICOLE McKEE: —then we will—sorry, I’ve got two things going on here. The time of day makes it clear and consistent for the retailer, by saying that they can defend their property by making sure that they can arrest somebody who has offended upon them.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, I’m not entirely happy with that response around citizen’s arrest. There were some inaccuracies in there that the Associate Minister of Justice might want to take some advice on.

I actually want to talk about legal aid, and there’s two strands to it, really. The first is simply a pretty straightforward question about whether the rates for legal aid lawyers are likely to be increased. I recently had an electrician who got paid 25 percent more than a legal aid lawyer would get paid for appealing a Provider Approval Level 1 case. Perfectly happy to pay the tradie that amount, but it does suggest that things have got a bit out of kilter, and it’s no wonder there’s a shortage of legal aid lawyers. I’m interested in whether that is under active consideration with the review that’s going on.

The second one is around section 27 reports and whether the Minister has made special provision in the Budget for funding the three things which are backfilling the absence of section 27 reports. It was reported by Newsroom on the back of written parliamentary questions asked by me on the cost of psychological reports that has more than doubled. Last month was $470,000 a month. What’s that? Five, six million dollars a year, which, funnily enough, is the amount that was being spent on section 27 reports. Then, the trend in alcohol and drug reports, which was, last April, $17,000 a month but last month was $220,000 a month, which is about $3 million a year. These reports are more expensive than section 27 reports because psychologists are expensive, and alcohol and drug experts and medical professionals are expensive.

The other thing—and this is in a ministerial report that the Minister will have seen—is legal aid lawyers are using legal aid time to do the reports themselves. The sort of pitch was that this would save $7 million. I’d be curious to know if it saved any money at all or if, in fact, it’s costing more than the previous regime was.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): Thank you, Mr Chair. Currently, for legal aid, we are undertaking the triennial review, and all options will be considered while that review is being undertaken. When it comes to the section 27 reports and the psych reports that the member had mentioned, yes, the psych reports have gone up, but I have been advised that the amount is nowhere near where the section 27 reports actually were.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I have a couple of questions for the Associate Minister of Justice. Potentially, I’d appreciate it, Minister, if I could get some advice as well around the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (NZBORA) report and the availability of the NZBORA report, because one of the things we’re seeing is that consistently there is—well, consistently there have been inconsistencies around the timing of the upload of the NZBORA report, both in terms of when the bill is introduced under urgency but also when a substantial amendment has been introduced. I want to check with the Minister in terms of what part of the appropriation, what part of the Budget, has there been to ensure that there is prompt upload of the NZBORA reports to the Ministry of Justice website?

At the same time, are there any considerations or budget in place for consultation work or for urgent NZBORA report work when a substantial amendment has been introduced into the House, particularly during committee stage?

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): Thank you, Mr Chair. The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act reports—their uploading on to a website is not a ministerial issue. That’s an operational issue for the Ministry of Justice, and my understanding is that they do upload where they can, when they can, as fast as they can.

Māori Development

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, the Associate Minister of Justice’s time in the chair has come to an end. Thank you, Minister. We now have the Minister for Māori Development. The Minister is available to speak to that portfolio from 9.30 p.m. until the end of the evening.

DAVID MacLEOD (Chairperson of the Māori Affairs Committee): Thank you, Mr Chair. The total appropriation sought for Vote Māori Development is $512.7 million. This is actually bigger than the amount budgeted for in 2024, because it includes appropriations transferred from the former Vote Te Arawhiti. In essence, Te Puni Kōkiri now holds the relationship with iwi post-settlement governance entities.

The committee also discussed Māori housing, with areas of focus on this subject being new homes being built in Rotorua, Whai Kāinga Whai Oranga, papa kāinga, rangatahi transitional housing, and the accommodation supplement review.

Another focus was the procurement process of new Whānau Ora contracts. We heard that under the new contracts, Te Puni Kōkiri intends to be able to prove that Whānau Ora works by including five shifts, these shifts being: greater service reach, particularly to populations most in need; a strengthened evidence base; data-driven investment planning; better front-line workforce development and retention; and stronger risk management processes.

Although there were other matters traversed during our scrutiny hearing, these are a few of the pertinent ones. Thank you, Mr Chair.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): Mr Chair, thanks for this time. I’ve got, obviously, a number of questions for the Minister but, first of all, in the Māori housing space, can we have some clarification from the Minister in terms of how much money was transferred out of Whai Kāinga Whai Oranga, given that that was a major development for us in the previous Government? It was landmark stuff; we were talking about investments of over $700 million. Can I get some clarification on the Whai Kāinga Whai Oranga scheme?

There’s been some investment in Te Tairāwhiti, but I’m not clear, because looking at the Budget figures, am I correct in saying that $400 million was transferred out of the Whai Kāinga Whai Oranga scheme into the general fund—into the flexible fund—as Minister Bishop was saying?

Again, can I ask the Minister what the opportunities are for Māori providers in the housing space. Is he satisfied that there is priority given, or are Māori providers missing out, which seems to be the case that we’re hearing in areas like Rotorua? I just wanted to start off in that area.

Can I also now come to the Whānau Ora space, because it’s been a very controversial area. I want to ask, this being the time to traverse that area: we’ve seen questions from John Tamihere in terms of the process of Whānau Ora and in terms of how the Te Puni Kōkiri process—this is all Budget related, because, basically, the Te Pou Matakana northern agency lost all of their funding in this area; they’ve lost the contract. But what John Tamihere is implying is that that was already a done deal. He has put up evidence to say that the CEO for Te Puni Kōkiri had already made a decision in terms of the process of Whānau Ora, in terms of the future of Whānau Ora. It seems to be the case that he was held responsible, given his affiliations, in terms of being the president of Te Pāti Māori.

Can I hear from the Minister: is there any truth in what Mr Tamihere is saying? He also said that the Minister was a disgrace to te ao Māori and has alleged that—the Minister will be aware of this, it’s been well publicised—

Dana Kirkpatrick: Does this relate to the Budget?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: That’s absolutely about the Budget. John Tamihere lost his whole budget, so I would like some clarification on this, because there are allegations—and I don’t like saying this, because I’ve worked very closely with Te Puni Kōkiri, but he has questioned the process, he has said that the process was corrupted, and he is saying that the chief executive of Te Puni Kōkiri had already made decisions with regards to this Whānau Ora decision-making process.

HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): I wish to address the Minister for Māori Development in relation to Whakaata Māori, knowing that Whakaata Māori has suffered a budget cut that is significant in terms of the way that they’ve already lost staff and are now trying to project forward in terms of what their position is for both sustainability and also to achieve the goals and aspirations of Te Whare o te Reo Mauriora.

I’m wanting to celebrate the wins of Whakaata Māori, in terms of their social outcomes report that they launched earlier this year, where they shared that they’ve given a massive social value, created out of their small budget over $100 million worth of social value. They shared that they have had 2.5 million annual viewers, including the new 4.8 million digital users and all those social media interactions that they’ve had, and that Māori viewers feel more connected to te ao Māori. They’re showing this value on the smell of an oily rag—a budget of a smell of an oily rag—and the viewers are connecting more with te ao Māori. The reo is more active and reo speakers are engaging with te reo Māori and improving their proficiency through Whakaata Māori.

With all these findings in the report—and I acknowledge all of those that were in the whare with us at Whakaata Māori, celebrating the release of this groundbreaking report that really highlights the value above and beyond what is funded by the Crown right now—I’m keen to understand from the Minister, knowing that they are achieving so much, knowing that they have lost a lot of institutional knowledge and staff who had been within the organisation for an extended period of time, how we can look to the future for a strong reo Māori, vibrant Whakaata Māori, as a part of our independent fourth estate, as well, knowing that we have got this limited budget.

What are some of the wins that he has seen from Whakaata Māori, over this last period, that we can also celebrate and stand alongside? What are those plans? What can we do to improve this space and invest in such an important part of our te reo Māori celebration of language, culture, and heritage and further the broadcasting, social media, and Māori media landscape?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): Further to what Hūhana Lyndon was saying, I would like to get something, eventually, I suppose, from the Minister for Māori Development. Anything would be fine. There are so many areas to traverse, so I’ll traverse them all if you like.

In terms of Māori broadcasting, it is important for the Chamber to understand the history of Whakaata Māori—particularly given that the Minister has given no extra funding to Whakaata Māori. No extra funding has also gone into Māori broadcasting. It is an absolute travesty that this has happened, given the contribution that Māori—and I acknowledge our broadcasting spokesman here, Reuben Davidson, who is our broadcasting spokesman, but Māori broadcasting comes under the Minister for Māori Development. The obstacles that Māori broadcasting have had to work through have been incredibly tough over the years.

What we’ve had to do with Māori broadcasting is start almost two generations after mainstream broadcasting started. When you look at Television New Zealand, for instance, it started in 1960, and Whakaata Māori - Māori Television in 2004. People talk about taxpayers funding, and we know the ACT Party doesn’t like Māori getting funding, and they always ask—David Seymour will always ask—why should they keep getting funded? Well, because they started a couple of generations after mainstream television.

It’s important that the Minister in this Government funds Whakaata Māori adequately. At the moment, there is no funding coming from this Minister to Whakaata Māori. There is no funding from this Minister and this Government going to iwi radio at the moment. I want to know from the Minister—if he’s ever going to answer a question—if he has got any plans to change that. Will there be a strategy around iwi radio and Whakaata Māori, whose primary base is to support te reo Māori? It’s really tough if the Government is not going to fund the entities adequately.

At the moment, we have a Government that is saying, “We’ll look after the tobacco companies, and we’ll look after the landlords, and we’ll borrow”—how much was it, Arena?—“$14 billion in terms of tax. We’ll do all that, but we won’t give the Māori one cent.” This is absolute fact. I feel—because I came from that area, in terms of Māori broadcasting—that this Minister, given his background and history, and this Government, also given their history, should make a real effort in terms of funding Māori broadcasting.

What is the plan? When I was the Minister, this Minister had said that we should have baselined things, and that’s a fair challenge, but what we were doing was we were giving money at different times, so our broadcasters had to manage their business affairs around that. Surely, a better strategy, in terms of Whakaata Māori, in terms of Māori kaupapa full stop, would be to baseline.

I address our Māori members on the other side. This is one of the problems they would see in terms of kaupapa Māori initiatives. Māori always have to live off the smell of an oily rag. They do not have any base. It’s always at the whim of the of Governments. Surely, the Minister might have a strategy in terms of baselining funding. In terms of Whānau Ora—that was an area that we actually baselined, in terms of Te Pou Matakana—we baselined that funding, but Māori funding struggles all the way through. Now, the consequences of that are that te ao Māori struggles because we don’t know where the next dollar is going to come from.

I’m asking the Minister tonight how important Māori broadcasting is. It’s just about—and I shouldn’t say that “It’s just about”. The primary reason Whakaata Māori was set up was to support te reo Māori. Iwi radio was set up to support te reo Māori. These iwi stations—21 in total—are conduits to our community. They connect us to our community. When you have a civil defence catastrophe or crisis, our iwi stations—whether it’s Radio Ngati Porou or Te Hiku or Te Korimako in Taranaki—feed and look after our communities. They do more than just support te reo Māori.

My question tonight is: what is this Minister going to do? What is this Minister going to do to support our iwi stations? As Hūhana Lyndon said—I think, Hūhana, we were there at their promotion, but the Minister was nowhere to be seen.

Hūhana Lyndon: Unfortunately!

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Nowhere to be seen, unfortunately.

Arena Williams: Just like this debate.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Yeah, that’s right. Just like this debate, but kei te pai, I’ll just keep talking till 10 o’clock.

In terms of Whakaata Māori, Māori radio, te reo Māori, I want to know where is the strategy. Today, we—myself, and Peeni Henare, and Cushla Tangaere-Manuel—went to Te Taura Whiri—noticed that the Minister wasn’t there today, too. We went to Te Taura Whiri, which is our Māori language agency, and they gave us their strategy, their rautaki, for the year coming. Things are bleak in that area. Now, this Government, like us, I think, are—well, I would hope—committed to getting one million Māori language speakers by 2040. I’m going to put that question on the table now. It’d be lovely if the Minister could answer one question before 10 o’clock. I know they’re tough questions. I know he’s struggling. He’s thinking about it, and he’s writing it all down. But, if he doesn’t, kei te pai; I’ll just keep talking.

I would like to know, given that we made a commitment as a Government to te reo Māori, is that commitment still there with this useless Government? It’s a Government, as we well know, that is continually attacking kaupapa Māori initiatives. Has the Minister succumbed to David Seymour and Winston Peters? As we all know in the House, sadly, Winston Peters disgraces himself, every now and then, when he refuses to acknowledge Aotearoa as the Māori name of this country. Has that type of pressure from Winston Peters in the House now flowed on to this Minister?

Here’s the question, because we’re on Budgets: where is the extra money? Where is the extra money? We’re talking about te reo Māori, because as I said, we went to Te Taura Whiri today. Where is the extra money for our reo? I’ve asked questions about Whānau Ora, I’ve asked questions about Māori TV, I’ve asked questions about Māori radio, and now I’m asking questions about te reo Māori. Is there a plan to get any extra money for te reo Māori in the next Budget, Minister, or are we going to just allow Winston Peters to embarrass the language and this country every few days in the House when he rejects the beautiful name Aotearoa?

I would ask, in that area, whether there is a plan in terms of increasing the reo. What is happening in terms of the Maihi Karauna? What is happening in that area? Is that happening still? Does the Minister have regular meetings in terms of the Crown and in terms of what’s happening with the different agencies? Is he pushing the different agencies in terms of their te reo Māori obligations? It would be very, very interesting to hear. Thank you very much.

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister for Māori Development): Mr Chair, thank you for giving me the opportunity to really build into some patience in my life, listening to this spray of a variety of issues, sometimes evidenced by facts but generally evidenced by opinions and hearsay.

The question of where is the additional money for te reo Māori is one that I understand Dr Rawinia Higgins asked of the then Minister, Willie Jackson, for many years for Te Tairāwhiti, and there was no material increase to the funding for Te Tairāwhiti. I’m sure he was reminded of that today in his attendance over at Te Tairāwhiti whilst I was working with Taranaki Whānui and others at Mātai Moana to establish a reserve that will be managed by Taranaki Whānui and the Wellington City Council.

In relation to the variety of cash injections—time limited—that the former Minister made in a variety of broadcasting entities, including te reo Māori broadcasting entities, we continue to maintain the baseline that was established under the previous Government. We’re very happy to continue to maintain that baseline and, also, on occasion, consider other opportunities to support the adequate protection of te reo Māori, whether or not that is some of the mahi that Minister Erica Stanford has been doing around decodable books in te reo Māori—first time ever—that will be deployed across the schooling system next year, or other tactics and undertakings that we are making as this Government.

Yes, we do have fiscal responsibility at the heart of much of the decision making that we undertake, and it’s something that we continue to abide by. I’m not saying that all Governments do that; we do. Others might not and others may not have, but that’s where we land in relation to the allocation of funding across a number of portfolios. Whilst the member may have referred to te ao Māori struggling, there are actually many, many things that te ao Māori is doing very well. Tomorrow, I look forward to welcoming Ngāti Rēhia to this House, where the first reading for the return of Kororipo Pā to Ngāti Rēhia, on behalf of all of Ngāpuhi, will be undertaken. Hopefully my good friend, my Remuera twin, Minister Metekōura Goldsmith will be here as well.

There was an adjunct reference to Te Pou Matakana and John Tamihere making some allegations and using random descriptions, sometimes laced with prejudice and bias towards me, and I appreciate those. Some of them are sub judice, and those allegations will be retained in judicial forums. Others are wildly inaccurate and—how to describe it nicely, Mr Chair—severely adjacent to the truth. Te Puni Kōkiri makes decisions according to the processes that it undertakes, not on the basis of party politics, and the Whānau Ora decisions have been made on the basis of the process that Te Pou Matakana and others participated in.

As of this date, I’ve not received any complaints from any providers or any navigators that continue to serve their whānau and their communities under Whānau Ora 2.0, the new commissioning arrangements that are in place. I’ve not heard one since the new commissioning agencies took over Whānau Ora in early July this year. We had a wonderful, absolutely fantastic embarkation point out at Hongoeka Marae earlier in July this year for those four new commission agencies.

Yes, Whānau Ora has moved in a different direction. We think that it will be really focused on evidence-based attribution of the investment of taxpayer funds for the achievement of outcomes. We know, internally, many of us who have had experience with Whānau Ora, that this happens. But we will further demonstrate how this happens by better use of data, by better data planning, and by improving and supporting the workforce that works in the space of Whānau Ora. It’s a wonderful space. We’ve seen many providers and navigators thrive in the space but, more importantly, help those whānau who are facing some serious challenges achieve better outcomes for their whānau—for the individuals and the whānau—and also, fortunately, in Whānau Ora 2.0, aligned with some of the targets that we have as a Government.

HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): I’m just wanting to follow on from my colleague speaking about the release today on the state of te reo Māori and the insights that were garnered in the report released today, which really delved, I guess, into the growth of te reo Māori in this wonderful nation of Aotearoa and the wider acceptance of the way that te reo Māori is a part of our language, culture, and heritage—our shared language, culture, and heritage—and the fact that the Government plays a key role in helping to resource it, both in adhering to its Te Tiriti obligations and also as an organisation, to help those that are within the sector and community to thrive.

In the insights that were shared, there is a wider appreciation by non-Māori within Aotearoa of fluent speakers of te reo, also the beauty of the language—an appreciation of that—and an acceptance that the speaking of te reo Māori within our public places and workspaces is a good thing. Further, the report also talked about some of the insights by way of signage, of normalisation of te reo Māori—these things that, for us in te ao Māori, we’ve taken for granted and that wider Aotearoa New Zealanders are appreciating all the same.

My question for the Minister is: we are seeing, from the feedback that is coming in through this study, that te reo Māori is something that is valued—it is based on, of course, the Te Tiriti obligation and that it is the indigenous language of Aotearoa—and we have Māori media as a central pillar of the growth and sustainability of te reo, but also we have the Crown and community obligations and the need to flourish and thrive. What is the long-term strategy that the Minister views or has in place to continue to grow this movement and the beauty of te reo Māori and the normalisation of it, as is the call of our Māori Language Commissioner today? What are those tangible long-term strategies and the resource that we will see come through to strengthen the adoption and use and normalisation of te reo Māori in Aotearoa New Zealand?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): Just following up on that—and we’re just about out of time—I wouldn’t mind getting something back in terms of the strategy, particularly in terms of the funding strategy, given that we’ve got zero returns in that broadcasting area.

Also, can I ask the Minister for Māori Development, in terms of the tribunal, for an update on where we are with the tribunal, if he’s able to give us that, in particular, one, obviously, in terms of funding, but is there a future, given that we have a clear agenda again—I’m talking about the Waitangi Tribunal—by members of the coalition Government? It seems to shut down the tribunal. Is the Minister able to give us a quick update in that area on any plans he might have in that area? Appreciating that he’s got a review taking place, what are the next steps in that area?

Just coming back to the broadcasting side of things, adding to what Hūhana Lyndon was saying: is there a plan from the Crown? I have heard the Minister talk about private investment, but are we still looking at possible top-ups in terms of Māori television, Māori radio over the next—well, hopefully next year is last year anyway, but in next year’s Budget? Is there a plan in terms of Māori broadcasting?

I’ll leave the last couple of minutes—if perhaps the Minister could respond, particularly in that tribunal area.

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister for Māori Development): Thank you. Just quickly in response to the variety of questions, and some comments that were looking for a question, this Government has given the single largest announcement of support for Te Matatini ever. We’ve also continued to support Te Māori as a kaupapa—Te Māori Manaaki trust—and I look forward to doing things in that space in the near future. Hundreds of millions of dollars continue to be invested in reo Māori education, whether or not that’s early childhood, primary, secondary, or tertiary education, and also various other initiatives like Puanga mā Matariki and other celebrations throughout the motu.

There also continues to be over $100 million invested through Māori language entities for the promotion of te reo. No, the Crown is not solely responsible for the survival and thriving of te reo Māori. It has a very important part to play and, obviously, a Tiriti or Treaty obligation to adequately protect this iconic taonga. Te reo Māori is in the DNA of our country—past, present, and future—and will continue to be so, no matter who the Government is.

There was a question in relation to the Waitangi Tribunal. That process of reviewing the Treaty of Waitangi Act is under way with the advisory group, who people know about—David Cochrane, Bruce Gray, Dion Tuuta, and Kararaina Calcott-Cribb. I look forward to getting further updates from them in the near course.

I move, That the committee report progress and sit again presently.

Motion agreed to.

Progress to be reported.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The committee has considered the Appropriation (2025/26 Estimates) Bill and reports it has made progress on the bill. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Sitting suspended from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)

WEDNESDAY, 10 SEPTEMBER 2025

(continued on Thursday, 11 September 2025)

Bills

Te Pire Whakahoki i a Kororipo Pā/Kororipo Pā Vesting Bill

First Reading

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members, the House is resumed for the extended sitting. I call on Government order of the day No. 2.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I seek leave to present a legislative statement on Te Pire Whakahoki i a Kororipo Pā/Kororipo Pā Vesting Bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave has been sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is none. 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 Te Pire Whakahoki i a Kororipo Pā/Kororipo Pā Vesting Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Māori Affairs Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 11 November 2025 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, during any evening on a day in which there has been a sitting of the House, on a Friday in a week in which there’s been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196.

E te paepae manukura o Ngāti Rēhia, tēnā koutou. Me Ngāpuhi hoki, ko tēnei taku mihi atu ki a koutou, tēnā koutou. Tēnā koutou i tēnei rā mana nui.

Kororipo Pā, kia ora. Tihei mauri ora ki a tātou.

[To the leadership council of Ngāti Rēhia, greetings. And Ngāpuhi also, I hereby acknowledge you, greetings. Greetings to you on this auspicious day.

Kororipo Pā, hello. Vitality and wellbeing to us all.]

In August, Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Rēhia Trust and the Crown signed the Tuhinga Whakaae o te Tuku Tōmua o Kororipo Pā, which is the deed of on-account vesting of Kororipo Pā. The deed provides for the Crown vesting Kororipo Pā in Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Rēhia Trust and acknowledges Ngāti Rēhia Trust will hold the site as kaitiaki on behalf of all Ngāpuhi.

To members of Ngāti Rēhia and the wider Ngāpuhi whānau, including many who have travelled from the Far North to witness the first reading of this bill in person, and to those watching online or listening on their crystal sets back home, I extend a warm welcome. I acknowledge those, too, of te whare tapu o Ngāpuhi—the sacred house of Ngāpuhi, to whom Kororipo Pā is also held in great esteem.

For those who aren’t familiar with Kororipo Pā, it’s located on the banks of the Kerikeri River, in what is now the Kerikeri Basin historic precinct, an area rich in the history of Ngāti Rēhia and their Ngāpuhi whānau. At Kororipo Pā, you’re walking in the footsteps of the Chief Hongi Hika, the renowned and feared Ngāpuhi warrior, diplomat, and strategist. As with many pā, the site was chosen for its strategic significance. From Kororipo Pā, you can see and respond to both landward and seaward threats. Because of its location, it was a military stronghold where ngā hapū of Ngāpuhi would assemble before going to war. More than that, though, it was also a place where the rangatira of Ngāpuhi hapū would meet to discuss together the issues of the day, and when Europeans came to these shores, it became a place of learning and of trade between Ngāpuhi and missionaries and settlers.

As early interactions between Māori and Europeans progressed, there were often land transactions conducted between people with very different understandings of land holdings and led to many misunderstandings and disputes. Before the signing of Te Tiriti o Waitangi—the Treaty of Waitangi—Governor Hobson promised Māori and the Crown would inquire into these preTreaty land transactions and return any lands unjustly held. The British missionary James Kemp claimed he purchased Kororipo Pā as part of a larger land purchase in 1838. The Crown investigated this claim in a commission process that drew criticism and which was challenged both at the time and since. The Crown ultimately granted title to Kororipo Pā to Kemp in 1859. Ngāpuhi consistently challenged that decision, rejecting the sale, and have also challenged successive ownership transfers, including the transfer of the pā to the Crown on 24 May 1957.

In 1994, Ngāpuhi hapū, including rangatira Manga Tau, Mac Taylor, and Honē Mītai, met at Whitiora Marae to discuss Kororipo Pā, and Ngāti Rēhia were confirmed as kaitiaki of the site on behalf of Ngāpuhi. That led to Tuau Ahiroa Kemp lodging Wai 492 in the Waitangi Tribunal in 1995, on behalf of Ngāti Rēhia and Ngāpuhi, seeking the return of the pā. Two other Wai claims were later lodged with the same intent.

Ngāti Rēhia and your wider Ngāpuhi whānau, I acknowledge the efforts of so many people over many years to have the pā returned. The work has been a significant burden to you and your hapū and your iwi. I thank the Ngāti Rēhia team, under the guidance of Kipa Munro and Nora Rameka—kia ora, Kipa and Nora—for their work with me and the Minister of Conservation, my good friend Tama Potaka, on this process. I also want to acknowledge the initial work of Andrew Little and the previous Government, which started off this process.

The bill will vest Kororipo Pā in Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Rēhia Trust, the governance entity for Ngāti Rēhia, it will save historic reserve status in public assets, and it will remain on New Zealand’s tentative Unesco World Heritage List, reflecting its international importance. This will be the first redress provided to Ngāpuhi as part of the Treaty settlement process. Providing redress on account of a future comprehensive Treaty settlement is not the usual Crown approach. However, in 2022, the Crown agreed to progress this negotiation on an exceptional basis as a gesture of good faith.

I’m pleased that the Crown has recently recognised the mandate of Te Whakaaetanga Trust, a Bay of Islands hapū grouping, and to see the progress that other Ngāpuhi hapū groupings are making in seeking a mandate to progress the wider settlement. Ngā hapū of Ngāpuhi are organising, and I look forward to the day we’re able to work together to progress a Treaty settlement. As I said in the gathering this morning, Kororipo Pā is the place from where many consequential journeys began in our history, and let’s hope the return of the site, similarly, is the beginning of another very consequential journey for Ngāpuhi—the many hapū of Ngāpuhi—and also for the nation.

The select committee will hear and consider submissions. I look forward to helping to progress this bill through the House. Given the limited scope of the bill, I hope that a third reading can take place before the end of the year, and so that’s the intention there. It’s our hope and aspiration that we will soon be able to gather in the new year to celebrate the return of this important site to Ngāti Rēhia on behalf of the broader Ngāpuhi, and that this will signal the start. It is significant in its own right and a significant gesture and a significant place that is returned, but it is also the start of a broader discussion as well, and, on that basis, I commend this bill to the House. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

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

Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. I te mea kāre au i whai wāhi ki roto i ngā mihimihi i tau ki runga i ōku whanaunga i te ata nei, ka tāpae ake i wēnei kupu ki runga i a rātou, me te tangi auē ki te hunga mate kua wehe atu ki te pō.

I a au e noho ana ki roto i te pōhiri i te ata nei, i hoki atu ōku mahara ki tō tātou pāpā, ki a Judah Heihei. I te hui mate o Tāmati Parāone me te totohe ka takoto te kaumātua ki hea. Me te kōrero a Judah Heihei ki ōku ake o Ngāti Te Ara, o Ngāti Kōpaki, “E, tōia mai te rangatira ki roto i a au, ki roto i a Ngāti Rēhia, ko reira takoto ai.”

Heoi anō ko te āhuatanga o tērā kōrero hei tohu whakamaumahara ake ki ngā whakapapa ki waenganui i a tātou. Kāre au i te wāwāhi a Ngāti Rēhia a Ngāti Rēhia, a Ngāpuhi a Ngāpuhi, kahore. Ka kī ake ahau ki a tātou katoa, me ngā whanaunga o te kāinga, tēnā koutou. Nau mai, haere mai.

Pikauria mai ngā mate huhua o te wā. Nā kua kōrero atu ahau i te āhuatanga o Judah, ā, me te tini o rātou kua ngaro atu ki te pō. Kotahi tonu te kōrero ki a rātou: haere mai, haere.

Ka whakahokia mai ngā rārangi kōrero ki a tātou. Kia mōhio mai koutou, e ngā whanaunga, kei te tautoko mātou i ngā mahi o tēnei pire, me ngā kōrero a te Minita ināia tata ake nei. Ko te āhuatanga o tēnei pire me te hiahia kia kōkiri ngā mahi a tēnei Whare kia tutuki rā anō tēnei kaupapa, me tō kōrero, e kara, e Kipa, ka tau atu anō tātou katoa ki tōna whakatutukitanga ki runga i tō tātou kāinga, ki Kororipo.

E mōhio ana koe, koutou, ki te āhuatanga o te hunga porotiki, ko tā mātou mahi he kuti i te rīpene, engari e mōhio ana au ko te nuinga o ngā mahi i oti i a koutou, i oti i ō koutou mātua, ō koutou tūpuna i roto i ngā tau. Nō reira e mihi atu ana ahau ki tērā whakaaro nui kia tatū tātou katoa, hei tōna tutukitanga, ki runga i te wā kāinga. Nō reira tēnā koutou.

Kua rongo atu ahau i te kōrero a te Minita, me te tautoko mō te āhuatanga o ngā kerēme whānui ki roto i a tāua, o Ngāpuhi. Me te kī atu ka whakaaro nui ake ahau ki wō tāua whanaunga ki roto o Ōtaua. Ka whai whakaaro nui anō au ki te tini o ngā hapū ki roto o Ngāpuhi e tiro atu ana ki wō rātou wāhi tapu, ki wō ratou pā kāinga, me te hiahia ki te kī atu ki a rātou anei he tohu o tētahi huarahi ka taea e tātou te kōkiri ngātahi. Nā koutou tērā mahi, nā Ngāti Rēhia me ōna kārangarangatanga maha te mahi nui hei tohu ki a Ngāpuhi whānui.

Āe, me anga whakamua tātou. Me kōkiri tahi tātou ki roto i ngā hiahia, kaua o ō tātou mātua tūpuna anake, engari mō ā tātou tamariki mokopuna.

Nō reira, i a au e pānui atu ana i te pire, āe, kua kite atu ahau i ngā kupu me ngā kōrero Māori o te horopaki kei roto i te pire. E tautoko atu ana ahau i tērā āhuatanga, me te tōtō nei i toku ngākau ki roto i ēnei mahi, nā te mea ka whakaaro ake ahau ki te tini o ngā tūpuna kāre i konei i tēnei wā tonu. Ka whakaaro ake ahau ki a Rei Kapa, ki a Te Huranga.

Āe mārika, ka noho tangi ahau, ka noho koreto ahau mō te āhuatanga ki wō tātou mātua tūpuna nā rātou kē tēnei mahi i whakarite mō ngā whakatupuranga ki konei, me ngā whakatupuranga ā taihoa ake nei.

Nō reira ā taihoa ake ka tukuna atu tēnei ki te Komiti Take Māori kia āta rangona ngā kōrero a tēnā, a tēnā e pā ana ki tēnei pire, me te hiahia kia hoki ora mai anō koutou ki roto i te pānuitanga tuarua, tuatoru ki roto i tēnei Whare hei te otinga o te tau.

Ka mutu, e ōku rangatira, i te mea ā te wiki e tū nei ko Te Wiki o te Reo Māori, i te mea anō ā te Rātapu ko taku rā whānau tēnā, ka kite atu anō tātou i a tātou ki te wā kāinga. Ko te inoi kia tae ora atu rā koutou ki raro i ngā manaakitanga o te Kaihanga ki tō tātou wā kāinga, huri huri noa.

E tautoko ana i tēnei pire.

[Because I did not have an opportunity during the formal greetings that were laid upon my relations this morning, I will offer these words to them, as I grieve for those who have passed into the night.

As I sat during the formal welcome this morning, my memories returned to our patriarch, Judah Heihei. At the funeral of Tāmati Parāone, the debate was about where this elder would lie in state. And Judah Heihei said to my people of Ngāti Te Ara and Ngāti Kōpaki, “Hey, convey this chief among my people, among Ngāti Rēhia, to lie in state there.”

However, the intention of that statement was a reminder of the genealogical connections between us. I am not causing division, Ngāti Rēhia is Ngāti Rēhia, Ngāpuhi is Ngāpuhi, not at all. I would say to all of us, and my relations from home, greetings. Welcome, welcome.

Bring with you the many recently deceased. Now, I have spoken a bit about Judah, and the many who have been lost to the night. There is but one thing to say to them: welcome, rest in peace.

Let the lines of discourse now return to us. You should know, my relatives, we support the actions of this bill, and the statements of the Minister immediately prior. The nature of this bill, and also the desire that the actions of this House continue until this initiative reaches its conclusion, and your statement, my friend, Kipa, we will all reach its resolution at our home, at Kororipo.

You, all of you, are aware the nature of politicians, what we do is cut ribbons, but I know that the majority of the work was done by you, it was done by your forebears and your ancestors over the years. Therefore, I acknowledge that important idea that all of us, upon its completion, all go home. And, therefore, I greet you.

I have heard the comments of the Minister, and I support the nature of the wide claims among our people, Ngāpuhi. I must say that I think fondly of our relatives in Ōtaua. I also think fondly of the many hapū within Ngāpuhi that look to their sites of significance, to their homelands, and I’d like to say to them here is a symbol of the pathway that we can all advance along together. You accomplished that, it was Ngāti Rehia and all its many affiliations that did the major work as a representation of all of Ngāpuhi.

Yes, we should face the future. We should progress together with the desires, not of our forebears and ancestors alone, but for our children and grandchildren.

Therefore, as I was reading the bill, yes, I have seen the words and Māori statements of the context within the bill. I support that aspect, and I draw my heart with me into this work, because I consider the many ancestors who are not here at this time. I think of Rei Kapa and Te Huranga.

Oh, yes, I continue to grieve, I continue to weep for the circumstances of our forebears and ancestors who actually did all of this to prepare for the current generations, and the generations of the near future.

And so, soon, this will be handed over the Māori Affairs Committee so that everyone’s statements can be clearly heard regarding this bill, and my desire is that you all return in good health for the second and third readings within this House at the end of the year.

Furthermore, noble leaders, because next week is Māori Language Week, and also because Sunday is my birthday, we will see each other again at home. I pray that you all arrive at our home healthy and well under the care of the Creator, everyone.

I commend this bill.]

STEVE ABEL (Green): Kia ora. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Kia ora to Ngāti Rēhia as kaitiaki of ngā hapu o Ngāpuhi.

The Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations said that the hapū wanted to expedite the settlement at Kororipo, and I said, “OK, I’ll go and talk to my other boss—apart from Chlöe—Hūhana Lyndon.” She said, “Well, we’ll see about that.” She got on the phone to the aunties and she said, “There’s complexities, but”—

Hon Member: Āe.

STEVE ABEL: Āe. This is a parcel of land that is of great historic significance to Ngāpuhi. Today marks one part on a very long journey to get the rightful return of that land to its rightful owners. Even reading the history of the efforts to get acknowledgment that it was inconceivable that Hongi Hika would have ever parted with the sacred and tapu pā—over the course of nearly 200 years; reading that history gave me chest pains. In the 1930s, a judge acknowledged that it was not possible that it was ever the intention of the chief to part with the sacred site, and there seemed to be movement towards return and restoration. Then, enmities between judges and officials on the Pākehā side led to further delays and the land was not returned, and more years passed and decades passed.

This sense of a people languishing in intergenerational alienation from what they know is theirs—this is the story of tangata whenua Māori across the rohe and across our country. This story is no more strongly illustrated by the history of Kororipo Pā and the unrelenting efforts of iwi to have the pā returned to them.

If we are to have a nation that is genuinely founded in a principle of fairness and justice, we must address the issue of land alienation from tangata whenua Māori. This, today, is but one step further towards that correction of injustice. These settlements are deemed as full and final, but from the point of view of Te Pāti Kākāriki, if it is not full—and these settlements are always but a fraction of what has been lost—it cannot be final. The relationship with tangata whenua Māori that the Crown must maintain must be based on a principle of mutual respect, and that is an ongoing living relationship as embodied in our founding agreement, Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

We have a couple of specific questions about this settlement yet to ask: we’d like to understand why it is 4.4 acres, not the original 6 acres; why perhaps more land could not have been offered by the Crown. We’d like to understand why there is not guaranteed land access to the pā site. We’d like to understand why there is not the first right of refusal on the part of the iwi, should the Crown choose to dispose of the conservation land. These are things that would make the settlement stronger, in our view.

It has been a huge journey for Ngāti Rēhia and for Ngāpuhi to get this land rightfully returned. At those hearings in the 1930s, witnesses deemed Kororipo Pā to be the biggest and most important pā of the Ngāpuhi tribe. Finally, today, the bill returns the site; it is the beginning of that return to its rightful owners. So, Ngāti Rēhia, as kaitiaki of ngā hapu o Ngāpuhi, we as Te Pāti Kākāriki commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak on Te Pire Whakahoki i a Kororipo Pā/Kororipo Pā Vesting Bill. This bill gives effect to the deed of on-account vesting of Kororipo Pā signed between the Crown and Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Rēhia Trust on 1 August 2025. It provides for the vesting of Kororipo Pā Historic Reserve in the trust as part of a much-anticipated comprehensive Treaty settlement with wider Ngāpuhi. This vesting recognises historic and cultural significance of the site and returns it to mana whenua on an on-account basis ahead of that full settlement. It makes Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Rēhia Trust the administering body for the purpose of the Reserves Act, and that is appointed to control and manage Kororipo Pā. It’s putting safeguards in place that make sure the land is kept safe from financial things such as mortgages and being held as security.

On the site itself, I acknowledge members from Ngāti Rēhia today and wider Ngāpuhi. Thank you for coming here, travelling to hear us speak on this today. Kororipo Pā holds a longstanding place in New Zealand’s early history. The pā site sits at the head of the Kerikeri River, a beautiful location—I haven’t been there since I was about nine years old, but I do remember it being quite beautiful. It was chosen for its strategic importance, where Ngāpuhi could have a place of defence, decision making, and gathering. The Ngāpuhi rangatira would assemble to discuss important matters of the day, as well as prepare for war. It was the centre of political life in the North and still echoes today.

Kororipo Pā is the ground that was once a powerful centre for and of Ngāpuhi authority. The pā was not only a home but a launching place—the very site where tauā were assembled, provisioned, and sent out under the leadership of rangatira like Hongi Hika. From here, tauā travelled the length of the coast, carrying with them new forces of muskets. Historic accounts tell us that their reach extended deep into Tauranga Moana—where I am, and many other iwi, in my part of the world.

As I’ve sat here, I’ve thought about times I’ve spent with friends in places like Ruātoki and places on the Whakatāne River, hearing stories about some of those incursions. Ngāti Awa friends, Ngāti Rangi friends, who have told me of the way in which those times of upheaval and change shaped relationships between iwi in the area and across the country, and altered the balance of power across Te Moana-a-Toi. Today, I think about that, but I also acknowledge the mana that Kororipo Pā has, and the enduring legacy that these events that launched from this base have had on Northland, on the Bay of Plenty, on Tauranga, and Mauao.

The ownership was complicated. In 1838, missionary James Kemp claimed to have purchased the pā, the area. The title changed hands under the old claims process, which, as has been acknowledged by previous speakers, was not a centre of clarity and fairness, and carried, over the last couple of hundred years, a lot of grievances that have built up. The title was granted, revoked, reissued. It’s been a long time coming, but what is clear now is that the right decision for Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Rēhia Trust to be vested with this pā has been reached. I acknowledge the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations for his words, and I commend this bill to the House.

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Tihei mauri ora. Ko te tī, ko te tā, ko te weu, ko te aka, ko te aka matua e here nei i a tātou. E ngā mana, e ngā reo, e ngā karangatanga maha o Ngāti Rēhia, ka nui te mihi atu nā tēnei uri nō Te Popoto i Utakura. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

E kore e mimiti te mamae i riro whenua atu, otirā ngā wāhi tapu pērā tonu i te Kororipo. Riro whenua atu, hoki whenua mai. Ahakoa he iti, he tīmatanga tēnei. Mā konei ka tū rangatira anō te mana Māori, ka pūāwai te hapū me ngā uri whakatupu.

Heoi anō ko te whenua te waiū mō ngā uri whakatupu. Mā konei ka ora te iwi. Tēnei ka mihi, tēnei ka mihi, tēnei ka mihi ki a tātou katoa.

[Wellbeing and vitality to all. To all directions, the prime fibre, the vine, the principal vine that binds us all. To the authorities, the representatives, the many relatives of Ngāti Rēhia, many greetings of this descendant of Te Popoto i Utakura. Greetings and thanks to you, indeed to all of us.

The pain of land loss will never diminish, indeed the sacred sites like Kororipo. As land was lost, it will be returned. Despite being diminutive, this is a beginning. It is through this that the Māori authority will stand strong again, the hapū and future generations will flourish.

However, the land is what nourishes the future descendants. It is through this that the people will achieve wellbeing. I hereby greet and thank all of us.]

I stand on behalf of New Zealand First in support of Te Pire Whakahoki i a Kororipo Pā/Kororipo Pā Vesting Bill, and I bring warmest greetings from the Rt Hon Winston Peters and my colleague the Hon Shane Jones—Matua Shane to all those in the House who have joined us today from Ngāti Rēhia—on this significant day. The vesting bill facilitates the vesting of Kororipo Pā Historic Reserve—although relatively small in size, extremely large in importance, not just for Ngāti Rēhia but for the wider Ngāpuhi people—and it will be invested on account, as a step toward a future comprehensive Ngāpuhi Treaty settlement.

I’d like also to extend particular acknowledgment to Kipa Munro and Nora Rameka. Matua Shane wanted to make sure I sent greetings to you and acknowledged the work you’ve been doing in keeping the area in beautiful condition, mowing the lawns and taking care of it. He particularly wanted to acknowledge you for that, for your kaitiaki of this place.

This vesting bill puts on account for the future, fuller Ngāpuhi Treaty settlement, and that’s an important step to be taken. I’d just like to reflect back to more than 10 years ago now, when I first got involved in and observed Ngāpuhi politics. My whanaunga Rudy Taylor, upon meeting him up at Waitangi one time, for the very first time, embraced me and brought me into the clutches of Te Kotahitanga o Ngā Hapū Ngāpuhi, and from there I ventured around the North, learning about not just who I am but who my people are, as we traversed the Te Paparahi o Te Raki hearings and went to various hui around the North. I know that Rudy would be extremely pleased with this step towards this piece of land being vested.

One of Northland’s most historic sites is Kororipo Pā, and the return of it represents not only the restoration of a sacred space but also that step towards reconciliation. I want to quickly talk about a little bit of oral history that I’ve been told about, in terms of Kororipo meaning the swirling waters. When Hongi Hika got his warriors together, when the taua set out for their various war parties, they would get into their waka, preparing for their journeys, preparing for their voyages, and they would paddle about, getting into the right formation. They would circle around, and as they were circling around, they would be creating this swirling, and that—using the natural forces of taiao—would launch them off into the awa and out off into the sea.

It was also a very strategically placed piece of whenua, where rangatira would come, where they would hui, and it is rightful now that we begin this process of the return, because the pain of loss of land does not fade, especially when it’s land of such sacred importance as Te Kororipo. This is a small step that we are taking today, but it is a beginning. The land is a substance of generations yet to come. I commend this bill to the House.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tokerau): Tēnā tātou e te Whare. E Nora and Kipa, tēnā tātou katoa—excuse my back.

Heoi anō, he mea anō tēnei. He aha te mea?

[Anyway, this is something else. What is this thing?]

It’s one thing to come to the House and deliver a speech, which is really well written here, which I’m not going to deliver in quite that way. It is because, when I was walking through, making my way to the House, I come through the door and I walk into the arms of every person that is now sitting up here, and it is quite a different thing. Well, it’s not different to me, actually—it’s not different to many Māori, and probably many in general—because when you walk into the arms of your people, you bring a different thing into this House.

When Kipa says in one of his readings that it is a special thing, that there is real mana in returning the sacred site to its people, that statement in itself tells it all, really, because it reminds us that, in fact, it is Ngāti Rēhia, Ngāpuhi nui tonu, that bring mana to this bill, to this discussion, to this first reading, and to this House, and they bring it with such grace. As I say, you walked in, open arms, crying—we’re crying up there, especially me. That’s one of my reputations, and everyone up there knows that, and it’s because, when tears fall, they fall since 1883. This isn’t just this morning, “Oh, boo-hoo”; these are tears and emotion and connection that began then, and to this day they still carry that.

When this House is making such a move—in my view, so it should. It is time. When we talk about a first reading, and then we’ll go to the second reading, and then we’ll go to a select committee, and all of that technicality will occur, but so it must—so it must. We owe this. This House and everyone in it owe that debt, and now it is time to pay that debt and to make right what we did wrong. I want to make those points in my brief five-minute speech.

When I think about Kororipo, I think about Nora, and the swirling waters and all that lovely kōrero, but let me tell you, when you’re addressing Nora, it’s not a swirling nice little cute thingy; it is a progressive tsunami coming your way, and so it should be—so it should be. Waitai Tua, names that I know—that’s what came to mind for me. I knew I was going to be standing in the House this morning. Don’t cry for me—I’m good; this is just me talking to you all—but it is definitely since 1883, and I would say since 1840, and I might even say since 1835, that these tears will fall from many, because so much was taken—was just taken away.

What is uplifting, though, can I also say, is that the likes of Alana and others—my cousin baby is sitting up here—Raniera. They’re young, they’re vibrant—maybe Babe not so much, but I love him nevertheless. The point being that there is a number of mokopuna rising, and ain’t that exciting? They are rising; they are fully equipped in their tikanga, in their reo. They are fully equipped in their belonging, so they can see Kororipo. When Peeni Henare, my nephew, referred to Reikapa, you know, gee, ka hoki mahara [the memories come back], and it’s a long time since even I have said that name.

Today is a very important day, because it’s a teaching moment for this House. Each time we go into these spaces to do with our sacred sites, our places of belonging, our Māori places, in this House, there’s another energy that’s brought to it, and we are better off every time it occurs. To all my whanaunga—excuse my back—I love you, I am here for you, and it is a special and important thing, and a privilege that I get to stand and speak in this House with love. Kia ora tātou. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation): Ka tū whakahirahira te rātā, ka hinga katoa te kākano, ka tupu anō, ā, ko ngā reo a mihi ki te hunga kua ngaro mai i a Nuku-te-apiapi ki a Nuku-te-mahara. Katoa rātou kua nunumi atu i tua o Pae Maumahara.

Hoki mai ki a tātou, ngā urupā kanohi o rātou kua ngaro i te tirohanga tangata, tātou e whakakīkī i ngā hū nui, koutou e kawe nei i ngā hū nui o Eru Pou mā, Cynthia Te Iwingaro mā, rātou katoa kua memene atu ki te pō.

Hoki mai ki a tātou, kāpiti rātou, kāpiti tātou e tuitui nei. Koutou o te whare tapu o Ngāpuhi, koutou o Ngāti Rēhia, haramai ki tēnei Whare Pāremata e tū nei. E kīia ana te kōrero, koutou o te puna taniwha, te puna tupua o Kororipo, nau mai ki te ana raiona o Te Upoko o Te Ika, me kī te whiore ki te pane o te motu, ā, ākuanei ka whakatinanahia ngā uaratanga ki roto ki te tuhinga whakaae o te tuku tōmua o Kororipo.

Me ngā tūpuna ki rō wai. Ki a mātou hoki o Te Awa Tupua mai i Pari-te-tai-tonga ki Te Matapihi, ko te kōrero “Kauaka e kōrero mō tō awa, engari kōrero ki tō awa”. Koiraka hoki te kīanga kōrero e whakamataara nei i te hinengaro whakaaro i tēnei wā. Kaua e kōrero mō Kororipo, engari kōrero atu ki Kororipo. Mā tēnā hoki e kitea ai te wānanga, e kitea ai te māramatanga hoki kei mua i te aroaro o te tangata.

Koutou ngā uri whakaheke a Ruatara me ērā o ngā tūpuna ki rō wai, nau mai, nau piki mai, nau kake mai ki tēnei wāhi, te whakarewatanga hoki i ēnei kōrero, i ēnei wānanga, i ēnei mānuka takoto. I tērā tau, ta’i noa te mō’io o te tangata nei, tō koutou taokete nei ki ngā kōrero e pā ana ki te hiahia, ki te wawata, ki te minamina o tēnā, o tēnā kia hoki te taitara o Kororipo ki roto i a koutou o Ngāti Rēhia, me te mea nei ko te matamomoe, ko te matakakā, ko te matauraura, engari ko te matakanohi o ngā tūpuna.

E kīia ana te kōrero kua roa te wā e noho ana a Te Papa Atawhai me tōna ingoa ki runga i te taitara o Kororipo, engari kāore e roa mā taku māhanga o Remuera nei, Pāora Metekōura, mātou katoa o te Whare e whakaae ana ki ēnei momo mahi, ka whakahoki i te taitara me tōna ingoa ki roto i a koutou o Ngāti Rēhia.

Taku matua a Tawa, rongo au ki ō kōrero ki te pōhiri, ki te whakatau i te rā nei, ko koutou hoki te hoiho. Nei ko koutou te hoiho, ko au te hīhō. Ehara koutou i te mātāika engari he matakanohi mō te whakarewatanga o ngā kerēme nui me ngā kerēme maha o Ngāpuhi.

Ko tāku ki a Metekōura, kia manawanui, kia manawaora ki te kawe hoki i tēnei tūāhuatanga hei tauira hoki mō ngā kerēme nui o Ngāpuhi Nui Tonu. Me kauaka e taka, e whara, e haere tōtiti, e haere kōtiti—haere tōtiti he pērā i ngā sausage rolls nei—engari kia kaua e haere kōtiti engari whāia kia tika, whāia kia mau, whāia kia ita, whāia kia ita tēnei tūāhuatanga.

Kua pūrena te kapu me te ngākau i te aroha, i te tautoko hoki i a koe, e Kipa, kourua tahi ko te whaea, Nora. Nā kōrua anō au i whakatau ki te tēneti i mua i te toa kōhatu i te taha o te ahurea me Kororipo.

Nā reira e mihi ana. Nō mātou te whiwhi, nā mātou te mihi kāmehameha ki ā koutou mahi rangatira, whakahirahira i te rā nei.

Me te mea nei te kāhui amokura, ko te kāhui amorangi kua kawe mai i te kāmeta pōhutukawa, koutou o te paepae Te Rau Kahikatea e whakapūoro nei i tō tātou Whare i tēnei wā.

Ko te Whare Pāremata te hāpai ō, ahakoa te pāti, ahakoa te kara, ahakoa te tae o tērā rōpū, o tērā rōpū, katoa mātou e tautoko ana i tēnei kaupapa.

Nā reira kāre au i te whakatōroa i ngā kōrero, kei te heke mai ngā hekena o te meneti nei, engari kāore e roa ko te kaupapa kōrero tuatahi tēnei. Ākuanei ka kawea atu ki te motu, engari kāore e kore, korekore rawa, haramai tēnei āhua. Tēnā tātou katoa.

[The rātā tree stands tall, all the seeds fall, and grow again, and the voices of greetings to those who have passed on from Nuku-te-apiapi to Nuku-te-mahara. All of those who have gone one to the threshold of memory.

Returning to us, the representative memorial of those who have been lost to humanity’s sight, those of us who fill their big shoes, and you who carry the big shoes of Eru Pou, Cynthia Te Iwingaro, and others, all of them who have gathered in the darkness.

Returning to us, they have assembled as we do and reaffirm our bonds. Those of you from the sacred hall of Ngāpuhi, those of you from Ngāti Rēhia, welcome to this House of Parliament that stands here. As the saying goes, you of the fountain of powerful and fearsome leadership of Kororipo, welcome to the lion’s den of Wellington, we could say the tail to the head of the nation, and soon the values within the deed of on-account vesting of Kororipo Pā will be implemented.

And also the mystical aquatic ancestors. To those of us from Te Awa Tupua from Pari-te-tai-tonga to Te Matapihi, the saying goes “Do not speak about your river, but instead speak to your river”. That is the saying that the erudite mind observes at this time. Do not speak about Kororipo, but instead speak to Kororipo. That will also enable the observance of the discussion and insights before us.

You, the descendants of Ruatara and other such mystical aquatic ancestors, welcome, welcome, welcome to this place, and also to the launch of these statements, these discussions, and these challenges. Last year, this guy, your brother-in-law, only knew one thing about the narratives relating to the desires, the dreams and aspirations of everyone that the title of Kororipo return to you of Ngāti Rēhia, and so the sleeping giant, the sharp eyes, the luminous eyes, but the eyes that reflect the ancestors.

As the saying goes, the Department of Conservation and its name have been on the title of Kororipo for a long time, but, before long, my twin from Remuera here—Paul Goldsmith—and all of us of the House will endorse these types of actions, to return the title and its name to you of Ngāti Rēhia.

My uncle, Tawa, I heard your comments at the formal welcome ceremony, the reception today, that you are the horse. Now, if you are the horse, I am the donkey. You are not cannon fodder, but instead a representative for the launch of the significant claims and many claims of Ngāpuhi.

What I would say to Goldsmith is to be resolute and strong of heart to continue this function as an example for the significant claims of Ngāpuhi the Great. Do not fall to infirmity nor injury, by sausage or by the wayside—by sausage like these sausage rolls—but instead to not deviate but pursue it with integrity, pursue it so it is firmly established, pursue it so that it lasts, pursue it so this endeavour endures.

My cup and heart overflow with compassion, and also with support for you, Kipa, both yourself and the matriarch, Nora. It was the two of you who received me in the tent in front of the rock shop beside the podium and Kororipo.

And so I thank you. The honour is ours, and the enormous thanks are ours for your noble and significant work today.

And also the company of executive and spiritual leadership who have brought here the pōhutukawa scarf, those of you of the Te Rau Kahikatea panel that brings music to our House at this time.

The House of Parliament are the workers behind the scenes, regardless of party, regardless of the flag, regardless of the colour of each and every party, we are all in support of this work.

And so I will not prolong the speeches, the seconds of this minute are falling, but it won’t be long, this is initial subject of discussion. Soon it will be put before the nation, but without a doubt—none at all—it will be awesome. Greetings to us all.]

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. E ngā mana, e ngā reo, e ngā karangatanga maha, tēnā koutou katoa.

Tēnā koutou i runga i te kaupapa whakahirahira o te ata nei, otirā ko te pānuitanga tuatahi o te Pire Whakahoki i a Kororipo Pā.

Ko Tokerau te tūtei ki te hauraro o te pūaha o Rākaumangamanga ki te rāwhiti e rere atu nei ki Te Kerei Mangōnui, te awa o ngā rangatira. E tū mai rā te pā o Kororipo.

[Thank you, Madam Speaker. To the authorities, the representatives, the many relatives, greetings to you all.

Greetings to you with regards to the significant work of the morning, indeed the first reading of the Kororipo Pā Vesting Bill.

Tokerau is the sentry to the north wind from the mouth of Rākaumangamanga in the east, Te Kerei Mangōnui is the river of the nobility. There stands Kororipo Pā.]

Kororipo Pā is not just a place; it is a taonga that has been handed down, rich with the past, the present, and the future of Ngāti Rēhia o Ngāpuhi. It is filled with mana and woven deeply into the identity with those who descend from this land. Te Pire Whakahoki i a Kororipo Pā/Kororipo Pā Vesting Bill is the product of decades of work, dialogue between Ngāti Rēhia and the Crown. It is not just symbolic; it is about taking some tangible steps to recognise the long-lasting and enduring relationship Ngāti Rēhia have with this whenua and righting a longstanding historical injustice.

The story of Kororipo Pā reflects the much broader story of Māori-Crown relations over the years, one that is difficult and filled with pain. Māori have been contesting the Crown’s title for this piece of land for more than decades. Despite numerous attempts to raise these concerns, rights have been consistently diminished through under-investment, exclusion from decision making, and a Crown process that has repeatedly failed to uphold a genuine partnership.

The Kororipo Pā Vesting Bill represents a significant milestone in the Crown’s movement to begin addressing these historical injustices. It gives legal effect to specific provisions contained in the deed of settlement on account of vesting Kororipo Pā as agreed to by the Crown and Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Rēhia Trust. Most notably, the bill vests the title of Kororipo Pā in Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Rēhia Trust and formally recognises that role as kaitiaki in law.

I want to be clear that this bill does not grant kaitiakitanga or mana whenua, for those have never been lost. What it does affirm in legislation is a responsibility that has always existed. For Ngāti Rēhia, this recognition is not only deserved; it is very much long overdue.

I rise today firmly believing that the passing of this bill is good and a necessary step for redress for Ngāpuhi. While I do not wish to draw attention away from Ngāti Rēhia or the broader aspirations of their hapū and iwi who have worked tirelessly over the years to bring us to this point in time, it is important that we state that this bill arrives amid an ongoing, strategic attack on Te Tiriti o Waitangi at the hands of this Government, one that has deeply damaged the relationship between the Crown and iwi across Aotearoa.

I’m sorry but I cannot speak today and ignore the fact that Te Aka Whai Ora, the Māori Health Authority, has been disestablished by this Government; the removal of section 7AA, the only Treaty-related cause, from the Oranga Tamariki Act; the introduction of the Treaty principles bill; and, most recently, changes to pay equity legislation, which we know will disproportionately affect Māori women. This Government cannot claim progress with one hand while stripping away hard-won gains with the other.

This bill is a good thing. It must not be misconstrued as evidence of a Government committing to advancing relationships to Māori. If anything, this bill stands as a testament to Ngāpuhi and the resilience, patience, and unwavering commitment of Ngāti Rēhia, who have pursued injustice through the decades of negotiation. Genuine partnership requires more than symbolic gestures. It demands listening, accountability, and real action, and to achieve this, far more work lies ahead.

Nō reira he mihi mahana ki a koutou. Nō reira tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, huihui mai tātou katoa.

[Therefore, I offer warm regards to you. And so greetings and thanks to you, indeed all of us gathered here.]

GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): Thank you, Madam Speaker. E ngā mana, e ngā reo, e rau rangatira mā, tēnei te mihi mahana ki a koutou katoa.

I whānau mai au ki Kaipara. Ko Maungatūroto tōku wāhi kāinga. Ko Ngā Puke te pāmu e noho ana ahau. Ko Grant McCallum ahau. Tino hūmārie ko ahau te mema Pāremata mō Te Taitokerau.

Nō reira tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[To the authorities, the representatives, the many leaders, I hereby warmly greet you all.

I was born in Kaipara. Maungatūroto is my home. Ngā Puke is the farm where I live. I am Grant McCallum. I have very humbled to be the member of Parliament for Northland].

On 3 February this year, I attended, as the Northland MP, the initialling of the deed of on-account vesting in Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Rēhia Trust and the Crown of Kororipo Pā. It was one of those balmy Northland February days—no wind, sunny, and warm. Initialling on behalf of Ngāti Rēhia were Nora Rameka and Kipa Munro. The Hon Paul Goldsmith and the Hon Tama Potaka represented the Crown.

The significance of that occasion did not escape anyone. It was the latest important step in the vesting of Kororipo Pā in Ngāti Rēhia as its kaitiaki on behalf of Ngāpuhi. This was a journey that formally began on 13 February 1993 at the hui of Ngāpuhi that was called at Whitiroa Marae to discuss Kororipo Pā. At that hui, Ngāpuhi rangatira confirmed Ngāti Rēhia to be the hapū kaitiaki of the Kerikeri area and, therefore, of Kororipo Pā.

In preparation for this significant occasion, I met with Kipa and Nora in Kerikeri last Friday to ask them about Kororipo Pā and why it was so important to Ngāpuhi. The kōrero flowed. We discussed the pā, which is located strategically to command the junction of the Wairoa and Kerikeri rivers. It controlled the major route to the sea from inland Waimate, a heartland of Ngāpuhi. The pā, though small, had an impressive defensive position sited to capitalise on a peninsula shape of land, steep embankments, and turbulent waters, hence the name Kororipo, which means swirling waters.

Kororipo was the meeting place for all Ngāpuhi rangatira. They would meet to discuss important political issues and would assemble before going to war. Some of the greatest Ngāpuhi chiefs have used Kororipo Pā as their stronghold. Hongi Hika launched devastating raids against other tribes in the North Island after returning from Britain with muskets. Then there was Rewa, who was one of the most powerful rangatira, who succeeded Hongi Hika, and there were tales of Tāreha, a powerful rangatira of Ngāti Rēhia, large in both mana and size, often referred to as “Tāreha the Giant”—he was almost 7 foot tall.

It is a place where ocean meets the fresh water; where Māori meet Pākehā. Symbols of their meetings still exist today, with the Kororipo Pā overlooking the oldest house in New Zealand, Kemp House, and the oldest stone building in New Zealand, the Stone Store. In many ways, this significant day is more than just the vesting of Kororipo Pā in its kaitiaki, Ngāti Rēhia; it is also a reminder of the meeting of two peoples who have built so much together—two peoples who will continue to work together, because that is what Te Tai Tokerau and New Zealand need us all to do.

When I was discussing this significant day with Kipa, he said, “Grant, if I tug my ear, then you’re entering into challenging waters and you would be advised to desist.” I don’t think I’ve observed any ear tugging, Kipa. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare, otirā tēnā koutou e ōku whanaunga o Ngāti Rēhia, o ngā hapū o Ngāpuhi kei roto i te Whare Pāremata, tō tātou Whare, i tēnei rā. He rawe te kite i a koutou, he rawe kua tae mai tēnei rā. E mōhio ana ahau, kua roa, kua tino roa ngā hapū o Ngāpuhi, te hapū o Ngāti Rēhia, e whawhai ana mō te pā o Kororipo me ētahi atu o ngā take Tiriti.

Nō reira he rā nui tēnei. Ehara nō Ngāti Rēhia anake, engari mō ngā hapū o Ngāpuhi katoa. Nō reira he tino hōnore mōku te tū i tēnei rā i roto i tēnei Whare ki te tautoko i tēnei pire i runga anō i tō koutou whawhai, tō koutou mahi kaha kia tae ki tēnei rā.

Ka hoki aku mahara ki te tau 2019. Ko tētahi o ngā kaupapa i runga i Kororipo Pā i taua rā ko te whakanui i te kaupapa o Tūhono. Ko tērā kaupapa ko te tū hono a ngā iwi e rua, ngā iwi maha i roto i te Kerikeri kia tū kotahi, e honohono ana ngā iwi o tērā wāhi.

He kaupapa rangatira tērā. I hoatu tērā ingoa, o Tūhono, ki te kaupapa, nā Ngāti Rēhia i hoatu tērā ingoa.

Nō reira e te whaea, Whaea Nora, e te matua, Matua Kipa, i hoki ahau ki ngā pikitia o taua rā me te harikoa anō hoki. I taua rā i tū ahau ki te kōrero ohorere, and i kōrero ahau e pā ana ki tētahi kaupapa nui i runga i Kororipo Pā i ngā wā o mua. Kia mōhio tēnei Whare, kia mōhio hoki a Aotearoa whānui i tēnei kōrero: I te tau 1831 i hainatia tētahi reta ki te kīngi, ki a Kīngi Hōri. Nā, i huihui ngā rangatira o Ngāpuhi, i tuhi rātou i tētahi reta, i tonoa atu ki te kīngi. He aha te take? He aha ngā kaupapa i roto i taua reta? Well ko te ture kino, ko te tūkino a ngā Pākehā.

Nō reira i tuhi rātou ki te kīngi kia whakatikatika ōna ake tāngata i roto i te Kerikeri. Tērā pea ko tētahi atu take ko ngā tāngata Wīwī i hiahia ki te haere mai ki te whawhai ki a Aotearoa, ki a Ngāpuhi anō hoki. Nō reira i inoi atu rātou ki te kīngi māna e manaaki, e tiaki kia noho i runga i te rongo, me kī. Koirā te hiahia o ngā rangatira i taua wā.

Nō reira he reta tino nui tērā, and i hainatia i te pā o Kororipo i mua i te hainatanga o te Whakaputanga, i mua i te hainatanga o te Tiriti o Waitangi. Nō reira kia ako, kia mōhio a Aotearoa whānui ki tēnei hītori e pā ana ki tērā o ngā pā.

Nō reira, taku mihi whakamutunga anō ki te hapū o Ngāti Rēhia, me te tautoko a ngā hapū o Ngāpuhi, kia tae mai tēnei pire ki roto i te Whare i tēnei rā. E tautoko ana mātou, te rōpu Reipa, i tēnei pire. E mōhio ana ahau ka tonoa atu Komiti Whiriwhiri Take Māori, mā rātou e noho ki te whakarongo ki ngā tono e pā ana ki tēnei pire, and ko te hiahia ā tērā tau, pea, ka kite kua tutuki.

Nō reira tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātou katoa.

[Thank you, Madam Speaker, indeed greetings to all of my relatives of Ngāti Rēhia, of the hapū of Ngāpuhi within Parliament House, our House, today. It is great to see you; it is great that you have come here today. I am aware that the hapū of Ngāpuhi, the hapū of Ngāti Rēhia, have been fighting for a long time now for the fortress of Kororipo and various other Treaty issues.

And so this is a significant day. Not only for Ngāti Rēhia but also for the hapū of all of Ngāpuhi. It is a real honour for me to stand today in this House to support this bill in light of your struggle, and your powerful work to make it to this day.

My thoughts return to the year 2019. One of the events at Kororipo Pā that day was the celebration of the Tūhono initiative. That initiative was about two iwi, many iwi within Kerikeri standing together as one, the iwi of that place all connecting. That is a noble endeavour. That name, Tūhono, was given to the project, it was Ngāti Rēhia that gave that name.

And so, madam, Whaea Nora, and sir, Matua Kipa, I went back to the images of that day and I was very pleased. That day, I was surprised to stand and speak, and I spoke about one of the important events that happened at Kororipo Pā in former times. Let this House be aware, let wider Aotearoa be aware of this narrative: in 1831, a letter to the king, to King George was signed. Now, leaders of Ngāpuhi assembled and composed a letter which was sent to the king. For what purpose? What were the topics discussed in that letter. Well, it was abysmal legislation, and the abuse of the Pākehā.

And so they wrote to the king so that he may straighten out his own people in Kerikeri. Perhaps another topic was the French people who wished to come and fight against Aotearoa, against Ngāpuhi also. They requested that the King offer care and protection so that they may live in peace, I should say. That was the desire of the leadership of the time.

And so, my final acknowledgment is to the hapū of Ngāti Rēhia, with the support of the hapū of Ngāpuhi, that this bill came into the House today. We, the Labour Party, support this bill. We are aware that it will be sent to the Māori Affairs Committee, who will sit and hear the submissions regarding this bill, and the desire is that next year, perhaps, we will see it come to fruition.

And so greetings and thanks to us all.]

DAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth): Ki ngā tāngata o Ngāpuhi, Ngāpuhi whānau nui, me Ngāti Rēhia, nau mai, haramai ki tō tātou Whare. Nō reira tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[To the people of Ngāpuhi, the great whānau of Ngāpuhi, and Ngāti Rēhia, welcome, welcome to our House. And so greetings and thanks to you, to all of us.]

I take this last call this morning in support of the Kororipo Pā Vesting Bill, a bill that marks a step forward in our journey towards honouring Te Tiriti o Waitangi and restoring mana to the people of Ngāti Rēhia and the wider Ngāpuhi iwi. Kororipo Pā is not just a place; it is a taonga. It’s a site of immense cultural, historical, and spiritual significance. It was once a strategic stronghold, a centre of leadership, and a place where Ngāpuhi rangatira gathered to deliberate and define their future. It is woven into the whakapapa of the North.

This bill gives legal effect to the deed of on-account vesting signed between the Crown and Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Rēhia Trust. It transfers the fee simple estate of Kororipo Pā to the trust and, in doing so, it affirms the right of Ngāti Rēhia to be the kaitiaki of their whenua, and to guide their future in accordance with tikanga Māori.

To be clear, this is not the end of the journey; it is an on-account redress and perhaps the first step towards a comprehensive Treaty settlement with Ngāpuhi. But it is a meaningful step, one that acknowledges past wrongs and begins to restore the relationship between the Crown and tangata whenua. Importantly, the bill ensures that Kororipo Pā will continue to be protected. It will be a place where its shared history can be learnt, honoured, and reflected upon—and an interesting history it has, indeed.

Back in the day, it was closely associated with conflict, particularly in the early 19th century, but before that, Kororipo Pā was originally occupied by other hapū. In the 1770s, these hapū were displaced by Ngāpuhi, and particularly Ngai Tawake and Ngāti Rēhia, as part of the shifting tribal alliances and expansion. It became a strategic military base for Hongi Hika, as we’ve heard, particularly after his return from England in 1821, where he had acquired hundreds of muskets on his return journey via Sydney. Hongi Hika launched tauā, or war parties, that devastated tribes across the North Island, including in Hauraki, Waikato, Rotorua, Tauranga, East Cape, and Kaipara.

These campaigns were part of the Musket Wars, a period of intense intertribal warfare, fuelled by the introduction of firearms. Kororipo Pā was fortified with palisades, trenches, and natural defences like steep embankments and waterways. It served as a meeting place for Ngāpuhi rangatira, a site of strategic planning, and a launching point for military expeditions. Kororipo Pā was not only a site of military conflict and strategic planning but also a symbol of Ngāpuhi power and their unity during a transformative period of Māori history.

The ownership dispute over the whenua in question began back in 1838, when missionary James Kemp is said to have purchased it and its surrounding land. This transaction was later ratified by the Crown. However, by the 1930s, local Māori began to question the legitimacy of Kemp’s title. Concerns were raised about whether the land had indeed been properly acquired and whether Māori had truly consented to its alienation. Together, through a combination of historical land transfers, public giftings, and the designation as a historic reserve, Kororipo Pā is currently administered by the Department of Conservation.

This bill is about recognition, it is about restoration, it is about respect, it is about giving effect to the promises made under Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and it is about ensuring that the stories of Kororipo Pā—its people, its battles, and its legacy—are told not just in history books but by those who carry its whakapapa. I’m very happy to commend this bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is, That the Te Pire Whakahoki i a Kororipo Pā/Kororipo Pā Vesting Bill be considered by the Māori Affairs Committee.

Bill referred to the Māori Affairs Committee.

Instruction to the Māori Affairs Committee

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I move, That the Te Pire Whakahoki i a Kororipo Pā/Kororipo Pā Vesting Bill be reported to the House by 11 November 2025 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196.

HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): I stand to speak to the motion put forward by the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations in terms of the shortened time frame for reporting back on 11 November. I want to engage with the Minister and understand the process to be undertaken here, as it is very short. May I address my people of the North, of Ngāti Rēhia, of Ngāi Tawake and Whangaroa—the whakapapa that sit here today.

I ask the question around the fast track of this—it is very fast. Within the whakapapa and the obligations that we have to each other, I am mindful of the many voices and the ability for us to kia horo te āta haere—may we move forward swiftly, but with careful hands. As honourable kāwanatanga, I support, absolutely, the return of Kororipo to Ngāti Rēhia as the entity that was organised and collaborated and led the work through the claims process, as well as out whakapapa in Te Kaikohe, Ngāi Tawake, and Whangaroa who brought forward the voices of our tūpuna.

But, Minister, I ask: what does that look like in terms of the shortened process? I welcome the ability for us to cut the ribbon and have a hāngī before Waitangi, but that is very fast. I’m wanting to understand, knowing that we all support this bill in the House, what does that look like? I will participate in the Māori Affairs Committee. It would be great for us to take the House to Kororipo to feel the wairua, to see the land, to meet the people, and experience those things which weigh heavy on our hearts. Can we do that in a truncated time frame like this? Kia ora.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. I rise to support the motion put forward here by the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations. In deliberations and discussions with not just the Minister but officials and, more importantly, the people who are in the gallery, and others, we support the motion for the truncated process, acknowledging, though, that it is up to the Māori Affairs Committee on where and when they choose to hold their select committee hearings. But I think that it is a good suggestion that, obviously, if there’s an opportunity to descend upon Kororipo Pā and the place at which they will be discussing and hearing those submissions, I’d fully support that, but, of course, I acknowledge that that is a decision for the committee to make when that time comes.

When these matters are negotiated, and negotiated carefully, are, and—as was mentioned at the pōwhiri this morning about the length of time it’s taken to get here—that was the reason why, on behalf of the Labour Party, I met with the Minister and looked to support this motion. It was not only because of the desire of the people to get this done but also because we know that for a large part of the bills of this nature, it is often the processes of the House that cause delay and cause other challenges for those who it impacts most.

I appreciate the comments made by my tuahine Hūhana Lyndon of the Green Party, and I do think that there are parts there that the Minister might want to consider. But I continue to stand in support of the discussions that the Minister and I had with regard to this matter, and support the motion.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon Paul Goldsmith—oh, sorry. No, I’m sorry; I’ve just been advised that because there’s a motion on the Table, a member can speak only once. So, at that point, the question is that the motion be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Waiata—“Ngā Puawai Ō Ngāpuhi”

Haka—“Te Hari o Ngāpuhi”

Misuse of Drugs (Classification and Presumption of Supply) Order 2025

Approval

Hon NICOLA GRIGG (Minister of State for Trade and Investment) on behalf of the Minister of Health: I move, That, pursuant to section 4A of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, this House approve the Misuse of Drugs (Classification and Presumption of Supply) Order 2025 made under section 4 of that Act.

The Misuse of Drugs Act addresses the prevention of illicit possession, production, and import of drugs. The changes resulting from this order will impose stricter controls on 23 substances, increase the ability of Police and Customs to take preventative action, and allow harsher penalties for those caught making or supplying these drugs.

The planned changes have been approved by Cabinet, drafted as an Order in Council, tabled in Parliament, and considered by the Health Committee. On behalf of the Minister, I note the Health Committee has examined the Misuse of Drugs (Classification and Presumption of Supply) Order 2025 and recommends that it be approved.

The order will reclassify certain controlled drugs to higher-risk classes and introduce a classification for previously uncontrolled drugs. The amendments proposed in this order follow the recommendations of the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs established under the Act. The expert advisory committee is made up of experts who specialise in areas such as pharmacology, toxicology, psychology, public health, and border control. On behalf of the Minister, I’d like to use this opportunity to thank expert advisory committee members for their hard work and expertise. I also thank members of the Health Committee for their diligence around this important issue.

Peddlers of illicit drugs are a scourge on society and cause devastating harm to families and communities across the country. Increasing penalties supports law enforcement agencies to crack down on them to maintain law and order. The substances at the heart of this order are harmful, and it is time to act. Fentanyl is a synthetic opioid considered to be far more potent than heroin and many times stronger than morphine, and analogues can often be even stronger still. Currently, some manufactured alterations of fentanyl are classified as class B and C controlled drugs. Their higher potency also makes them attractive to traffickers and users. While New Zealand has relatively low use of illicit opioids, their availability can cause significant public harm. The order seeks to reclassify three of these fentanyl-related substances as class A controlled drugs. The order will result in increased controls on a number of other substances, including synthetic cathinones, synthetic cannabinoids, amphetamine precursors, and novel benzodiazepines.

Peddlers of illicit drugs cause significant harm in our communities and inflict misery on our streets. We know how important it is to reduce drug-related harm, and ensuring there are stronger controls in place for these harmful substances is a step towards this goal. Providing Police and Customs with the search and seizure powers they need to disrupt the supply of harmful substances is an important part of a health response to reduce drug-related harm.

There has been an increase in the prevalence and misuse of most of these substances in New Zealand; none has any therapeutic use here. New Zealand is party to drug-related United Nations conventions. Classifying these substances will help us meet our international obligations. Māori and Pacific people are known to have higher rates of recreational drug use and are at a higher risk of drug-related harm. By imposing controls on these substances, access is restricted, reducing drug-related harm to these most vulnerable populations. The changes resulting from this order will ensure authorities have more tools in their tool belt to crack down on these harmful substances. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the motion be agreed to.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Labour supports this notice of motion because what we are doing today, really, is quite a procedural matter, yet it is an important matter to make sure that we are stifling, if you like, the supply of these harmful substances, which we know can do so much damage in our community.

It’s important that this is brought to the House today because of the fundamentals around access to justice and presumption of innocence. What this, effectively, does is change the assumptions around how much somebody is holding of these illicit substances in a strict liability way, which means it reverses a burden of proof, and that’s why it’s really important that this comes before the House and is not simply rubber-stamped. But, equally, it is also important that the law is nimble enough to be able to respond really quickly to the tweaks to the substances that the Minister has just referred to.

I’m particularly concerned about fentanyl. Anyone who has seen any documentaries about the damage that has done in the United States, and the tragic consequences for families, would agree that any type of fentanyl-type tweaked illicit substance should certainly be in the class A categorisation. That does mirror the views of the expert panel, and, therefore, there was no hesitation from the Health Committee to support that recommendation.

I do note that, recently, the Environmental Science and Research Ltd has reported that New Zealand is dealing with about 120 new synthetic drugs, and that the UN has reported around one new drug coming into existence per week between the years of 2009 and 2016. We are seeing the involvement of the dark web and technology as a way of proliferating these substances very quickly through societies, and we need our legal response to be equally as nimble, to counteract that.

I would just make a couple of cautionary comments, I guess. One of them is that it’s great to see we have an expert advisory committee truly made up of the experts. I think we need, as parliamentarians, to ensure that when we are enacting committees like this to be formed that we give due respect to their expertise and we do not allow those committees to become politicised. It is something that Labour is watching vigilantly, particularly in the health space. Secondly, I think it’s really important that we not only look at the issue of substance abuse from the supply side but, equally, the demand side and have the wrap-around support services available.

There are bigger questions, I think, around some of the provisions of the Misuse of Drugs Act, which will be for a much longer, probably cross-party discussion at some point, to see what we can do to keep people as safe as possible and reduce the harms around drugs. The law as it currently stands, debatably, does that in some respects and doesn’t in other respects. But when it comes to an Order in Council like this one, which is really procedural—it is simply adding to the list of substances and also reclassifying substances appropriately so that it sends the right message to those who would be peddling them; that it has the right penalties involved for those who are enabling them to cause a lot of harm in society. We have no hesitation in supporting that.

We’re really pleased that it’s gone through the select committee process as well. The right checks and balances have been there so that when we are looking at something like changing offences and assumptions in a strict liability way, we are very satisfied that has been done. We are also heartened by the involvement of an advisory committee that is truly made up of the experts. Therefore, we do commend this to the House.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green): E te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I just want to preface this by noting that the Greens will not be supporting this today, and I would like to step through the logic for that.

As we heard from the Minister of State for Trade and Investment just before, about—I believe she was alluding to the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs. I was actually there, in 2019, in Vienna, having a really fascinating experience where we had world leader after world leader—the equivalent of the Minister of Health, overseas—get up at the podium and say, “We have more drugs, more harm from those drugs, more families torn apart, more people who are locked up in prisons. We have to keep doing more of what we’ve always done but do it harder.” Mr Speaker, I don’t know about you, but the way that I was raised taught me that doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity.

I just want to pick up on, particularly, the points that both the Minister and the Labour spokesperson Ingrid Leary just alluded to with regards to the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs. The expert advisory committee was an amendment made to the Misuse of Drugs Act to allow for the classification to be recommended by the expert advisory committee in, I believe, the early 2000s. The really important thing to understand about the way that the expert advisory committee operates—and their mandate—is that they can only recommend where a substance should be classified in relation to where other substances are currently classified within the Misuse of Drugs Act. In layman’s terms, that basically means that all the expert advisory committee can look at is the harm of substances that are currently classified and recommend the classification relative to those other classified substances. That is, the expert advisory committee is not empowered to make recommendations with regard to other health-based, evidence-based interventions to actually reduce drug harm. It is therefore self-referential.

This is underscored by successive reports that successive Governments have commissioned and then ignored because it is politically inconvenient, stretching all the way back to the Law Commission’s review back in 2011, which said that we need to bin the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 and create a health-based framework to actually reduce drug harm and target the causes not the symptoms. Then, of course, the former Government commissioned He Ara Oranga, which was the mental health and addiction inquiry, which said—wait for it—exactly the same thing. Then Turuki! Turuki!, the Safe and Effective Justice review, chaired by the late great Chester Borrows, who was, of course, a former policeman, a former National Party Minister of Police, who came around to the view, based on all of his experiences including with the failure of placing these issues within the framework of the criminal justice system. He recommended, again, that we need a health-based intervention.

We cannot in good conscience support this today, noting, as well, the inconsistencies that operate within the Misuse of Drugs Act. Again, just for those who may be following along at home, in the Misuse of Drugs Act, there are two levers by which you can introduce a substance for classification or for upwards classification and that you are then required to, inconsistently—with regard to down-classifying a substance or declassifying a substance. If you want to create new penalties associated to a substance, all you need is an Order in Council motion akin to what we have in the House today. That is something that can pass through this House in the blink of an eye without the requisite scrutiny. I know, of course, there’s a few more belts and braces with this specific instance here, but none the less, there are not the same democratic safeguards when it comes to introducing new massive penalties.

Here, we’re talking about reversing the burden of proof where somebody has to, effectively, prove their innocence as opposed to the Crown proving their guilt. That is a massive erosion of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act or the rights of New Zealanders. If you are instead to, for example, take a health-based intervention or an evidence-based intervention to try and declassify or down-classify a substance that is known to have, for example, proven therapeutic benefits the likes of, I don’t know, psilocybin or other trials that are currently existing out there in our communities undertaken by healthcare professionals, you need a whole Amendment Paper, which, as we know, takes months and months and months and comes up against massive political barriers.

I think it’s really important that we’re honest with ourselves in this House about how legislation like this, when empowered to push things through as quickly as is occurring here, actually creates perverse outcomes. All of this is to say that drugs, of course, can and do cause massive harm in our communities. The question for us as lawmakers—and, hopefully, as responsible lawmakers—should be: what should the public policy response that we want to actually meaningfully reduce that harm be? The evidence is clear: approaches like this only compound that harm and we can do so much better.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Just for the awareness of the House, the Business Committee has determined that each party is able to take a call, or not. If the parties are all done, I’ll move on.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tokerau): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Sorry, I thought we were up at number six, but our call. Tēnā tātou e te Whare. If only this Misuse of Drugs (Classification and Presumption of Supply) Order 2025 was as helpful as it suggests. I say that based on having worked in this sector, so I understand the harm. When you hear me, I’m not saying this stuff because I’m making it up; I say it because I’ve worked amongst it.

We do not—Te Pāti Māori, kore e whakaae ki tēnei whakaaro [do not agree with this idea]. We do not, and I’m just going to express why.

As many of us know, the Misuse of Drugs Act can be amended not just through legislation but also through Orders in Council. What this means in practice is that the Government does not need to introduce a bill and go through the usual parliamentary processes to update the Act; instead, with Cabinet’s approval, changes can be made quickly under the advice of the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs.

E te whānau, mēnā e mātakitaki mai ana, e rongo ana ki wāku kōrero, me āta whakatata mai.

[To the family, should they be watching and hearing my statements, come closer.]

To our whānau watching at home today, that is what is happening right now, in this moment. We, Te Pāti Māori, oppose the recommended amendments. The amendments will update the Act from Schedules 1 through to 5 by adding a number of new substances. Actually, I’m going to skip that bit, because it gets a little bit boring and technical, in my view.

Without context, these changes seem positive, and I imagine are well informed by the advisory group. Yet we oppose it, and we oppose it on—well, two things: we oppose it on principle, but we oppose it also on the fact that I know what the stakes are in this space. We oppose the amendments because drug use and the misuse of these substances is a health issue. Just to tautoko the previous speaker’s whakaaro: it’s a health issue, not a criminal one.

Te Pāti Māori justice policy states that we will overhaul the Misuse of Drugs Act so that drug use is treated as a health issue. A report back in 2022 laid it out in black and white: the Government’s current approach to drugs is leading to grossly inequitable outcomes for Māori. OK—leading to grossly inequitable outcomes for Māori. These are outcomes that are not just statistics but lived realities.

Here’s some numbers. Māori make up just 20 percent of the population, but account for nearly half of all convictions for drug possession—that’s 48 percent. Even more concerning, Māori make up over 61 percent of those sentenced to prison for these offences. This is a systemic failure, and it is not a new one.

Criminalising addiction does not reduce harm. Tātou mā, me āta whakarongo ki tēnei.

[Everyone, you should listen carefully to this.]

It does not reduce harm and if you think it does, you know nothing and you do not understand the reality of these things, as much as you might want to or you think your intentions are good. What it does do is make it harder for people—and Māori people, in particular—to access the services they need for help, support, and treatment. Criminalising what is, essentially, addiction incites intergenerational harm.

What are we actually trying to achieve with these amendments right now? We’re only further embedding the mass criminalisation of what is absolutely a health issue. Governments must build a system that acknowledges and treats what we’re discussing today as health and a social issue, not a crime.

Te Pāti Māori, we’ve got some great ideas; we’ve got some great policy. Our justice policy will do that. We really need to address this particular issue in a much more proactive but much more real-life understanding way, and I’m offering that, I guess. But Te Pāti Māori will not support this. We’d like to, but the intentions are off-track—or possibly on the fast track, which, of course, is off-track. But they failed to understand the lived reality for people—and particularly for Māori people—so we cannot support or commend.

A party vote was called for on the question, That, pursuant to section 4A of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, this House approve the Misuse of Drugs (Classification and Presumption of Supply) Order 2025 made under section 4 of that Act.

Ayes 102

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

Noes 20

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5.

Motion agreed to.

Order approved.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call on Government order of the day No. 1.

Catherine Wedd: Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment. Is this for the Chair or the committee? I’m about to declare the House in committee. I declare the House in committee for further consideration of the Appropriation (2025/26 Estimates) Bill.

Estimates Debate

In Committee

Debate resumed.

Climate Change

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): I appreciate the early morning enthusiasm of the member, but we’ve just got to do a few other things before we can kick into it.

Members, the House is in committee for further consideration of the Appropriation (2025/26 Estimates) Bill. All Votes are available for debate, but only the Minister of Climate Change will be available today to speak to his portfolio.

The debate will be led by a call from the chairperson or member of the committee that considered the Estimates most closely related to the Minister’s portfolio. In leading off the debate, the chairperson should take care not to be overly political and should ensure that their call gives a fair reflection of the committee’s report on the Votes relevant to the portfolio.

At the end of the debate, questions will be put that the Votes stand part of the Schedules and on the provisions of the Appropriation (2025/26 Estimates) Bill. There is one hour and 41 minutes remaining in this debate. New Zealand National has 21 minutes remaining, New Zealand Labour has 32 minutes remaining, the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand has 15 minutes remaining, ACT New Zealand has 15 minutes remaining, New Zealand First has 35 minutes remaining, and Te Pāti Māori has 20 minutes remaining.

The Estimates debate should be relevant to the Government’s current spending plans as contained in the Estimates of Appropriations. The question again is that the Votes contained in the Estimates of Appropriations for 2025-26 stand part of the Schedules. Members, the Minister of Climate Change is available to speak to that portfolio until the time for the debate has expired.

CATHERINE WEDD (Chairperson of the Environment Committee): Yes, always very excited to talk about our Environment Committee work in relation to climate change. On the select committee, we looked at the funding for climate change. The funding related to climate change totals $2.316 billion, and this includes $2.046 billion for the allocation of New Zealand emissions units to the economy; $153 million for administering the emissions trading scheme; $46 million for policy advice, reporting, operations, and stewardship relating to climate change; over $15 million of funding for the Climate Change Commission; over $10 million to support equitable transitions and community climate action for Māori; and over $3 million to fund the Climate Change Chief Executives Board.

Look, during the select committee process, we looked at the second emissions reduction plan. This was released in December 2024 and it spans the period 2026-2030, and it includes targeted actions in key sectors, including agriculture, transport, energy and waste, which were all discussed. We were told that work had begun on 30 of the 36 total actions, and we heard that New Zealand is currently tracking towards meeting its first and second emissions budgets.

We also discussed reducing methane emissions. We heard about some very good innovations and technologies being developed to reduce emissions from livestock—for example, the New Zealand company Ruminant BioTech, which has developed bolus that releases a substance which counteracts the formation of methane. This was a very interesting discussion. We also spoke about waste management, carbon capture, utilisation, and storage.

So my question to the Minister of Climate Change is: what is the Government’s overarching plans to reduce our emissions and meet our climate change targets?

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change): Thank you very much, Mr Chair, and thank you to the chair of the Environment Committee for those opening remarks. I acknowledge all members of that committee. I’m going to provide an overview in the five minutes that I have, and then I’m happy to take questions.

First and foremost, it is important to acknowledge and recognise that this Government is committed to meeting our climate change targets while driving economic growth. We believe that growing our economy, reducing our emissions, and building our resilience all go hand in hand, and when we act for climate and growth, we strengthen New Zealand’s position as a resilient and competitive nation in a low-emissions global economy.

The Government, last year, released our climate change strategy, which is an important document—a plan that sets the direction for cutting emissions and preparing for the impacts of climate change. Our focus ahead is putting that strategy into action. We are working on developing an enduring national adaptation framework, world-leading innovation to boost the economy, clean energy that is abundant and affordable, and credible markets in order to support the broader transition. The framework that we are looking to implement more broadly in adaptation acknowledges that we need to manage and understand the risks from natural hazards, including those that might change because of climate change.

We’re focusing on four key areas. The first of these, and most pressing, is information about the risks; access to information helps people make more informed decisions about where they build, live, buy, or invest. New Zealand’s current system for knowing about risks and deciding about what to do about them has developed over time, but this means that information can be hard to find or understand, so it’s hard for people to know how to prepare. There is some information out there—for example, people can look up their home on the Natural Hazards Portal or look at their local council’s flood maps—but we’ve heard from councils, banks, insurers, researchers, and individual homeowners that better information is needed.

This work underpins the framework and other reforms under way across Government. Our Government is continuing work on regulations to clarify council requirements when sharing natural hazard information in a land information memorandum, introducing changes this year. We’re also looking to improve access to priority data sets, such as updating the system that estimates the magnitude and frequency of high-intensity rainfall in New Zealand. This is used for assessing the impacts on flooding and, also, landslips. There will never be perfect information, but continuing to improve is essential for good decision-making.

Other areas of the framework that are being considered over the long term are: providing more clarity on roles and responsibilities, including the role of local government; providing options to guide investments in resilience so that people know what investment will happen in their area—for example, whether the council plans to build new flood protection schemes, and, also, importantly, the issue of cost sharing. We want the framework to be enduring so that people can have confidence in New Zealand’s approach and invest in our country, and we’re also working to build on the cross-party work of last year’s Finance and Expenditure Committee inquiry into climate adaptation. We’re also considering the recommendations of the independent reference group on adaptation.

We intend to introduce legislation to get the first building blocks of this system in place as soon as possible. The framework will complement other work to build on resilience that my colleagues are leading—for example, changes to our resource management system that support more broader councils to manage risks and natural hazards in new development and reforms to the science, information, technology, and emergency management systems.

An example of other areas of supporting resilience is our Māori Climate Platform. The establishment of the platform was a key action in the emissions reduction plan and part of our national adaptation plan. I have announced five initial projects; these projects are enabling Māori communities to lead climate resilience initiatives. One solar farm in Te Karaka, in the Tairāwhiti area, will power up to 200 homes and essential services, including a school, police base, fire service, healthcare centre, petrol station, and general store. This will keep critical services running during extreme weather events and provide long-term economic benefits to that community. The second stage of the Māori Climate Platform funding will be rolled out in the coming months.

In addition, the ministry’s joint work programme Pou Take Āhuarangi will deliver a marae risk and readiness stocktake; we have already undertaken that stocktake of over 1,000 marae in New Zealand, and, of those 1,000 marae that have been part of that stocktake, 145 of those marae had undertaken climate risk assessments, and this is a positive aspect.

In regard to the second emissions reduction plan, ERP2, I will now turn to emissions reductions. Our second emissions reduction plan is a blueprint for reducing emissions in the second half of this decade. The plan includes a market-led approach, harnessing the New Zealand emissions trading scheme to lower emissions, supported by targeted actions to key sectors to take efficient and effective action. We’ve begun working on a majority of actions within this plan, and, through these actions, we’ll increase New Zealand’s clean energy, also encourage world-leading innovation, and ensure that we have an efficient and competitive agricultural sector to boost sustainable investment.

One of the policies that is harnessing nature to remove emissions is through the afforestation of Crown land. The Government is actively exploring partnerships with the private sector to plant trees on Crown-owned land that is of low conservation value and low farming value. A request for information process has been run, and I hope to make decisions by the end of this year. We’ve also continued to progress the carbon removals framework; this will help ensure that we prioritise investment in effective, scientifically robust removal activities. We are currently tracking towards meeting our first and second emissions budgets and will continue to monitor progress closely. We will adapt, if needed, to ensure that we remain on track.

The New Zealand emissions trading scheme is our key tool for reducing emissions. Stable policy and adequate incentives will encourage businesses to invest in decarbonisation. Over the last month, we released the Government’s annual update to the New Zealand emissions trading scheme settings to ensure that the scheme can continue to play its role to help meet our targets. The feedback during the public consultation was very clear that these settings would better support the scheme to meet emissions reduction targets, providing confidence and certainty to that market.

Earlier this year, we also announced that we were strengthening the market governance of the emissions trading scheme. Again, in June, the Government introduced changes to limit whole-farm conversions to forestry, and these changes come into effect on 31 October. Both these new policy measures will support confidence in the credibility of the emissions trading scheme in the market. This Government will continue to work to meet our climate change targets, remove barriers, and also, importantly, open up new opportunities for our people, environment, and economy to thrive. With that, I will welcome questions.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green): E te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. With that amount of talking from the Minister of Climate Change just now, I really hope that he is open to answering questions fulsomely. It was really interesting to hear him run through the number of initiatives that the Government has undertaken, because this debate obviously is about the Estimates, but this has a deep interrelationship with the emissions reduction plan (ERP) No. 2, in particular. So I think it is really worthwhile unpacking the component parts of that ERP and how, while I wish we could believe the comments that the Minister has made, unfortunately, they do not match with reality and the actions that the Government has decided to take.

If you look at the emissions reduction plan outlined by the Minister and that pamphlet that he was just waving around, it’s not worth the paper that it is written on. That is why the Government is currently being sued over it. Fully a third of that emissions reduction plan relies on carbon capture technology, which the Minister has said the Government will not be investing in and which the private owners, Todd Energy, have said is not economically feasible for them to invest in that technology, especially with the emissions trading scheme (ETS) settings as they are at the moment.

Notably, we’re coming today off the back of yet another failure of an ETS auction under this Minister and under this Government, to which I cheekily asked him in scrutiny week, I believe last year, about whether the most effective climate policy that we are seeing from this Government is their inability to provide that certainty for the market so that those units ultimately end up getting cancelled and those permissions to pollute end up being cancelled. That is to say that fully a third of that emissions reduction plan from this Government is economically unfeasible and not going to happen without investment, which the Minister has said the Government is not going to do. So that’s a third of the emissions reduction plan from this Government, which is simply not going to happen.

Then another third, the Waste Minimisation Fund, and another almost third is the reduction required from organics. Well, if we just take a second to dig below the surface on that, we know, based on all of the official estimates, that we need approximately $30 million allocated just as a baseline to organics to meet that 0.8 megatonne reduction. How on earth are we simultaneously, out of that same pot of money, going to get those reductions in waste minimisation? The Government seems to be double counting here. This is a question that I’d really like an answer to from the Minister, because at this point, 2.8 megatonnes of the 3.3 megatonnes in the second emissions budget (EB2) are economically unfeasible and the Government is refusing to invest in them, saying that they want market-led solutions. Not only does it not add up but it is a slap in the face to New Zealanders.

On top of that, the other 0.5 percent of megatonnes that are required through the EB2 that the Minister has been waving around, through ETS changes—and, again, I’d allude to the fact that we’re seeing the failure of those auctions time and again as a result of the lack of certainty in the stockpiling that we’ve seen from the commercial sector through agricultural emissions reduction.

Just on agricultural emissions reduction, I found it quite galling for the Minister to get up and talk about the investment that this Government is making in agricultural emissions reduction. Well, it turns out that the Minister announced a fund of approximately $400 million to “accelerate commercialisation of tools and technology to reduce on-farm emissions.” Well, guess what, guys! He reannounced the fund that already existed under the last Government and simultaneously managed to cut $48 million from it while reannouncing it.

What on earth is going on? You think you’re pulling the wool over New Zealanders’ eyes, because you’re also creating this cost of living crisis and simultaneously pouring oil, coal, and gas on the climate crisis, which will only compound that cost of living crisis.

My question for the Minister fundamentally is: will the Minister of Climate Change please stand up? Because out of the one side of your mouth, Minister, with your climate change hat on, you are going offshore and you are telling people that we are still holding to the same international negotiating positions that we did under the former Government; that is, the phase out of fossil fuels and fossil fuel subsidies. Yet out the other side of your mouth, here at home with your energy hat on, you are signing out $200 million in fossil fuel subsidies. How do you reconcile these things? You, for one, Minister, are frequently saying, as are many other Ministers of this Government and Cabinet—and, in fact, many members of this Parliament always talk about how we don’t want siloed thinking.

Minister, given all that I have outlined about how your emissions budget does not stack up, given what has been said about its economic feasibility by those private actors that you’ve said that you want to partner with, how are you going to make this happen?

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Minister, thank you for your very broad-ranging opening speech, which I think gives a lot of scope to discuss climate change. In the Estimates debate earlier this year, your words were: “It is important to acknowledge that New Zealand is part of a Paris Agreement.”, and you acknowledged several times that, in actual fact, we were committed to the Paris Agreement, but, in recent days, both New Zealand First and ACT have expressed scepticism about the Paris Agreement. Minister, can you confirm that this Government is committed to meeting the Paris Agreement? I’m going to repeat your words from your opening speech: “The Government is committed to climate change targets.” In very simple language, please, Minister: is the Government committed to meeting the Paris Agreement?

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Just before we take more calls, please make the comments through the Chair; so not directly to the Minister. I appreciate the passion in the Chamber.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): I will repeat the question, Mr Chair. It’s a very straightforward question that shouldn’t take any thinking on the part of the Minister of Climate Change. The Minister said, in his opening speech, that the Government is committed to its climate change targets, yet in recent days, both New Zealand First and the ACT Party have expressed scepticism about the Paris Agreement and talked about withdrawing from it. Can the Minister, please, confirm that this Government is committed to meeting the Paris Agreement?

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green): Unfortunately, it appears as though exactly what our concern was, which was that the Minister of Climate Change would open by reading off two sheets of paper, soaking up about 10 minutes of time, so that he could then sit himself down and not engage meaningfully whatsoever with the detail that we are asking him to share for the New Zealand public—because he has a responsibility to, because we have started to unpack the very nature of the document that he is saying is going to solve all of our problems. We can show the data, the facts, and the reality are so far-removed from the things that he is saying; yet he’s not willing to get up or defend or engage meaningfully whatsoever. I don’t get it.

Minister, your job is to be accountable to this House. Minister, your job is to be accountable to New Zealanders. Your job is to be accountable to the emissions budget, which you have put out there, which all of the data and the facts and the evidence shows is not worth the paper that it is written on.

Perhaps, Minister, if you would be so willing to maybe, charitably, engage in answering some questions, which, I might note, you’re actually required to per the tenancy—

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Can you make the comments through the Chair, please. I have said that earlier.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: Mr Chair, then—

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Thank you.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: —some questions for the Minister, which we hope that he deigns to engage with. New Zealand’s second emissions reduction plan is expecting emissions reductions in the waste sector across both the Waste Minimisation Fund and from organic waste management as separate initiatives. However, we know that the only new money that is allocated each year in the Waste Minimisation Fund is the $30 million per annum. This, coincidentally, is the absolute bare minimum needed to get emissions reductions from waste. How is the Government expecting to get emissions reductions from both of those initiatives when one of them requires the full quantum of the money that he has allocated to both? Is the Minister, and is the Government, double counting?

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change): Thank you very much, Mr Chair, for the opportunity to answer some of those questions. For those who are watching at home, the limitations on the ability and the time that we have to speak is constrained. I have about 10 minutes of total time to respond to questions during this 90-minute period, so it is not for the sake of not answering; it is simply to acknowledge that.

In the context of the questions asked, on the opening statement of the climate change strategy that was produced, it notes very clearly that the coalition Government is committed to meeting its climate change targets. This is our climate strategy. That is the coalition Government’s strategy, and in order to respond to the question asked, again that remains the Government’s position. In the context of the questions asked, one of the members noted carbon capture, utilisation, and storage (CCUS), which is in regard to carbon capture related to, primarily, the gas sector. The Government is, and remains, committed to ensuring we have the regulatory framework in place to enable CCUS to occur in New Zealand. That has not changed, and work is currently under way in regard to that.

As the member should, hopefully, know, as a result of prior Government decision-making, we have a significant lack of supply of gas in this country. On the one hand, emissions reductions from gas, which was modelled in the emissions reduction plan, is one of the key pathways, but the reality is that New Zealand has significantly less gas than what we thought we had a number of years ago. By simple mathematics, if you’re going to have less gas, you’re going to have less emissions in that context. We’re still committed to the regulatory framework, and we’re working our way through that at the moment.

Another member also noted, and made comments in regard to, emissions trading scheme (ETS) option “failure”. With respect to those who understand how the ETS option operates, it is not accurate to describe it as a failure. When the market does not clear, it simply states that the amount of demand in the market is less than the amount of supply and that that demand can be satisfied through what is referred to as the secondary market. There are two ETS markets where you can buy units: one off the Government, and one off other people who hold those units. The reality is that where people want those units, they can purchase those through the secondary market, and that is what happened. The fact that the option does not clear and the Government doesn’t issue units is not a failure of the option; it’s just simply basic demand and supply.

In regard to the conversations and questions in regard to waste management in the emissions reduction plan, it remains one of the key pathways we have outlined in the strategy, and there remains active work under way in regard to delivering that. There are a lot of opportunities in regard to particularly methane capture, in terms of waste management, and also opportunity to use that methane for energy production as well. This is a Government that is committed to review all those options.

Rt Hon ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour): Tēnā koe e te Tiamana. I’ve got a couple of questions and comments about the Minister’s opening remarks and, also, around the independent report on climate adaptation with particular reference to whenua Māori.

First of all, the Minister of Climate Change spoke about the stocktake on marae. I find it interesting that the Government makes statements about engaging with Māori really quite easily, when, in fact, they seem to forget some of the actions that they’ve taken that actually isolate Māori and think that that’s not going to impact on the results of things like doing a stocktake on marae. Getting rid of the Māori Health Authority has impacted on all marae in the country. Downgrading the value of te reo Māori has done the same. My question to the Minister is: if he wants to engage with Māori, how is he going to do that given that Māori don’t trust this Government at all and the Government is going to be on the back foot in being able to do that work?

The other issue that I want to talk about is whenua Māori local adaptation decisions. In the independent report, it spoke about this issue. My question is: how is he going to empower Māori, iwi, hapū, and wānanga to actually do this work, again, given that this Government has made an absolute hash of a relationship with Māori? Kia ora.

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change): Yeah, I do want to respond to those comments because I think they are without substance in the context of the allegations that were made. To make a comment and a gross generalisation that Māori do not trust this Government is simply not one which is based in any evidential fact or substance. The reality is, actually, in the area of climate change, and the relationship with iwi Māori, we have made significant positive steps forward in regard to the work in which we’re doing. There is a very close and active relationship between the Iwi Chairs Forum and myself, as the lead Minister of Climate Change, along with Marama Royal, who leads that on behalf of that, and we have an active programme in order to do that. That partnership has undertaken a stocktake of virtually all marae in this country in terms of the risk. Why? Because, actually, those communities are on the front line of climate change. They are feeling the impacts of climate change, and, as a Government, we have recognised that and are actually not just talking about it but taking action to deal with that.

Of those 1,000 marae, we have done 145 detailed risk assessments, and we are in the process of rolling out interventions. Meremere, up in the North, where I went across and helped as part of Government funding in terms of a new water supply for that rural and isolated community and other interventions—these are positive actions on the ground that do help communities. To make such statements, that Māori don’t trust this Government, I think, is simply—

Hon Member: Māori hate this Government.

Hon SIMON WATTS: Well, you know, you have to own the words which you say in this House. I’m very proud of the work that we’re doing, we have an active programme in regard to that, and the reality is that actions speak louder than words.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader—Labour): I find it very interesting that the Minister of Climate Change has not answered the question put by my colleague the Hon Deborah Russell with respect to committing to the Paris Agreement and affirming for this House and the general public that this Government continues to be committed to the Paris Agreement. I want to know from the Minister: what would be the international implications for us withdrawing our support for the Paris Agreement? I want to know from the Minister whether or not there would be any trade implications for us with respect to withdrawing our support for the Paris Agreement.

I also want to know whether or not the Minister has provided advice to the Prime Minister, given that he is at the Pacific Islands Forum Leaders Meeting now, or perhaps en route back, and whether or not that advice included anything with respect to climate change and the Paris Agreement. Has the Prime Minister gone there to reaffirm a commitment from Aotearoa New Zealand to the Paris Agreement, or has the Prime Minister gone there withdrawing support for the Paris Agreement?

Now, this is incredibly important, given that the number one challenge and issue cited by our Pacific regional neighbours is always climate change, so I’d like to know what advice that Minister has been providing to his Prime Minister. What messages is the Prime Minister giving on the international stage on the Paris Agreement? Again, I want to ask the same question that the Hon Deborah Russell has asked on a number of occasions, whether or not that Minister and this Government are committed to the Paris Agreement.

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change): I want to be very clear and categoric that this Government is committed to its climate change targets and New Zealand’s climate change targets—that is, both our domestic targets and our international targets. Our international targets are in the context of the Paris Agreement, and they are clearly, as I’ve noted, coalition commitments in regard to this Government.

The member asked, “Why is this important?” Well, first and foremost, in the context of the multilateral system, the climate change agreement in the Paris Agreement is one of the few remaining multilateral agreements that is holding at this point. There is significant geopolitical tension and pressure out there, and New Zealand is committed in the context of that agreement.

I was in China last week. China remains strongly committed to that and will be coming out with their Nationally Determined Contribution targets in the next two months. Australia are strongly committed to that and will be coming out with their targets, as well, in the next six to eight weeks, and so it is important for New Zealand to play its part.

Yes—and particularly as a member has highlighted—the Pacific are at the front lines of climate change impact in our region. New Zealand does and should and continues to maintain a role to support our Pacific countries to ensure that they are able to have their voice heard at that international level. That’s why we supported Australia’s bid to host the United Nations Climate Change Conference next year.

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, I want to ask a few questions around adaptation and resilience. The first thing, in terms of how we respond to that, is we don’t build the wrong things in the wrong places. I note—through you, Mr Chair—to the Minister of Climate Change that we’ve moved very recently to try and address some of the problems that occurred in Auckland, so that the Auckland Council was not compelled, effectively, to consent buildings in places which we know to be flood-prone.

My question, really, is: what is the Minister aware of in terms of how we can help councils around the country who also have situations where people may well want to develop new buildings, new housing, in areas which are hazard-prone, particularly flood-prone; and the Resource Management Act, we know, is not the most nimble beast in the world—how we are helping those councils to be able to respond to those issues so we are not building the wrong thing in the wrong place. If I might illustrate that, we know, going back in time, that the Christchurch council did not want a lot of houses built in the area which subsequently, after the Canterbury earthquakes, was devastated—what is now the red zone. The council tried to say no to that; they were overruled. So my question—through you, Mr Chair—to the Minister is: what are we doing to assist those councils to be more nimble, to make sure that we’re not building the wrong things in the wrong place?

On the flip side of that, I would also be very interested to know if the Minister is aware of councils which are maybe taking it too far. I mean, there’s a council not far from here which has, essentially, said that the entire district is potentially prone to inundation from climate change, up to a distance of a good couple of kilometres from the coast—I’m talking about the Kāpiti Coast District; that has got its citizens very concerned. It’s about getting the right balance there. I’m also aware of another situation where there are people who wish to deliberately flood areas by raising lake levels in the Canterbury region. So I’m very interested—through you, Mr Chair, to the Minister—in his observations around how we get the balance right.

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change): I thank the member Andy Foster for those questions. There’s a reason that the first pillar of the Government’s climate change strategy, which we released last year, is ensuring that infrastructure is resilient and that our communities are well prepared to face the impacts of climate change. As I noted in my opening comments, the country is facing growing risks from natural hazards, such as floods and storms, and severe weather events, like we’ve seen in the Tasman area this year. Those impacts are not only devastating, they also come at a significant fiscal cost. The country has, in effect, incurred costs in the region of $50 billion over the last decade alone in order to fix infrastructure impacted by the impacts of these weather events. It is a significant fiscal cost, and we know that this is more than just a simple fiscal cost; it has societal, cultural, and other significant complications on those communities.

I hear the points that you’ve noted around councils and the way in which we absolutely believe that they should be using evidence-based data to make those decisions. We know there are inconsistencies there, and we want to work through that. That’s why the climate adaptation framework—the major part of it—is making sure that the data that’s being used is appropriate, evidence based, accurate, and consistent. Therefore, we should ensure we get that balance right around managing the risk.

The other issue with adaptation is that we’re seeing insurance premiums increase across New Zealand, and we know that that has an implication on the cost of living pressures that Kiwi households face. Making sure we have the appropriate information also deals, in effect, with one of the key drivers that cost of living is implicating in New Zealand households. That is another area of focus.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green): I don’t know if the Minister of Climate Change actually believes some of the things that he is saying right now. I mean, saying something does not make it true; saying something does not make it real. You need to put substance and actions behind your words, Minister.

I asked the Minister before, particularly, about the carbon capture technology by which the Government relies on for approximately a full third of its emissions reductions in the emission reduction plan. What he said, after I asked him what the Government was intending to do off the back of comments from the private sector, which the Minister has said he wants to partner with to make this happen—well, the private sector has said that it’s fully economically unfeasible to do this. The Minister’s response: “We’ll just deal with the regulatory environment.” No specification about what that actually means. He did not say that the Government will be investing in making this a reality. If we are to create the regulatory environment, well, the Minister must know that that means the price of emissions must go so, so much higher.

My question for the Minister off the back of that is: is the Minister intending to, if we are to take his words at face value, create the regulatory environment—to use his own terms—to create far higher pricing for emissions? That is my first question for the Minister, which we need his response to.

Then, in response to my questions about waste, by which it appears that the Government is completely double counting the money that it has set aside, $30 million for waste minimisation, also for organics emission reduction—that $30 million being the baseline required just for organics, which it is also simultaneously allocating to waste minimisation in general. Well, the Minister just said, “Oh, you know, it remains part of our strategy.” Absolutely no detail and completely ignoring the question and the reality and the facts and the evidence that he is double counting the money that is allocated here. Make it make sense.

Perhaps the most astounding of all of that—post the gaslighting—is that we have a Minister of Climate Change in this country recycling fossil fuel talking points. The Minister was talking about how, apparently, the reason that we have a gas shortage in this country is because of the offshore oil and gas ban, which came into effect in 2018. The Minister knows these facts. He knows that gas production peaked in this country 20 years ago. He must know that it started steadily declining year on year from 10 years ago. That is multiple years before the oil and gas ban came into effect.

Even if we were to have found a new gas well in 2018 when the ban came into effect, the average time it takes to go from exploration to production is 16 years. What that means is if the ban did not come into effect and we found it as early as 2018 when the ban did come into effect, then we would still be waiting 10 years from this point right now for that new gas to come online.

So will the Minister please be honest with New Zealanders. Will he please be honest about the opportunity cost that comes from this Government subsidising new fossil fuel production to the tune—

Ryan Hamilton: Not a subsidy.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: —of $200 million of New Zealanders money and will he provide the facts and the information that offer the contrary view that it’s not a subsidy—as members from over on his side continue to heckle out—because all of the information that we have in the public is to the contrary. All of the information that we have in the public, from an independent King’s Counsel, shows that it is, in fact, a subsidy per the definition of the Agreement on Climate Change, Trade and Sustainability.

My baseline question for the Minister, basically, is, through the Chair: do you even believe what you’re saying? Will the Minister of Climate Change please stand up, because I cannot point to one thing that the Minister has done in his position of power as the Minister of Climate Change that has put us on a positive trajectory with regard to climate action.

My second question is, given that the Government has been dancing around and refusing to answer questions about its no additional warming work programme—and just for those who are uninitiated, no additional warming is a pseudo-scientific method that’s been shopped around by big agriculture internationally; has found nowhere to land in Governments across the rest of the world until they met these guys. Well, when is the Government going to make clear that it will reject that pseudo-science, which would see a far higher burden placed on households and other businesses across this country, if we are to meet our emissions targets, as the Minister says he’s committed to?

Thirdly: is the Minister committing to keeping the Climate Change Commission with all of the powers that it currently has into the future?

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change): Hopefully the member will include my comments in the TikTok grabs that she’s recording at the moment for her social media, knowing that I only have two minutes to respond to all the questions left on this. I don’t want to waste the opportunity, I’ll use my two minutes on your response, because I know you’ll cut this part of my speech in your videos when you post them later on.

Minister Simmonds will be administering the waste management programme; she has prioritised organic waste solutions and will be continuing to make decisions around specific projects in this area. This Government—and please put this on your TikTok—is 100 percent committed to the Climate Change Commission, and the work this Government has done around appointing Dame Pasty Reddy to the leadership of that function conveys the important role that that entity plays and the independent advice that it provides to all Governments. That is an important part of the mix.

In regard to the other questions regarding landfill, we do have and we are progressing a wide range of policies and tools to achieve the abatement objectives in the emissions reduction plan.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I have a couple of questions for the Minister of Climate Change with regard to the impact of climate change and the adaptation work he’s mentioned and how that relates to the protection and improvement of biodiversity particularly. I have specific questions for the Minister, but I thought I’d start with just the fact that there are measurable impacts of climate change on the fishing industry—for example, two of the greatest threats to New Zealand’s marine environment are warming sea temperatures and the acidification of oceans. That threatens what is a $2.2 billion industry for New Zealand, which is fishing, and I know this Government has a goal to triple the revenue from this industry as well.

Given those two particular threats, which are of course leading to things like the decline of specific fish stocks, the availability of food—their migration patterns are being disrupted as a result as well, there are flow-on effects around the changes to ocean circulation patterns, and we know that climate change has intensified the strength of storms, of rainfall, and all of that leads to sediment erosion and therefore the reduction of water quality as well. Given all of those, my question to the Minister is: what within his adaptation plan deals with the protection and the improvement of ecosystems and biodiversity, in this case with a particular focus on the marine environment? I do have another question around wetlands as well.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): I want to ask about methane. Back in the hearing on this, I asked a question about when the Minister was going to set a methane target. I said: “When do we think that we’ll have some clarity on which way the Government intends to go on this?”. The Minister replied: “I would expect that that decision would be made this year, in terms of timing. It goes back to the point around certainty in terms of where things are at, and it is important for us.”

Minister, in recent months, I’ve been talking with representatives from the agricultural sector—I’ve been talking with Federated Farmers, with Beef + Lamb New Zealand, with other producers—and the one thing they say they want now around methane is certainty. “Give us a target. Give us a goal, and we can work towards it”. Those are the words I’ve heard from people in the agricultural sector. “Targets can be tough”, they said, “But at least if we’ve got one, then we can work to it”. They’ve also asked for a target which provides some certainty over time; some certainty that it will not change from Government to Government. They want a target that will have broad agreement across this House.

I have a series of questions around the methane target. First of all, when will we have a decision on methane? A decision that, the Minister said, would be made this year.

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change): The Government remains committed to making decisions in regard to setting the methane target this year. Cabinet has not made a decision on that at this point. However, while the member and I disagree on many things in this context, I would agree that the importance of having certainty in this conversation is an area that is an imperative, and we’ll be doing everything we can to ensure we get that outcome.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Earlier this week, I was at the Environmental Defence Society and the Climate Change & Business Conference, and there was a very telling and interesting comment made by Izzy Fenwick on a panel. Ms Fenwick was asked, “What was the risk to New Zealand if we didn’t meet our climate targets?” Interestingly, she said, “Climatically, the risk doesn’t really change.” The fact is: no matter what, we are going to be affected by climate change, and what New Zealand can do, itself, will change the results of climate change very little. New Zealand’s own efforts won’t make much difference to the actual impact of climate change. “But,” she said—and it was a very important “but”—“the risks to New Zealand, if we do not meet our climate goals, if we do not set realistic methane targets, if we do not get our emissions under control, if we do not meet the Paris Agreement, are economic and political.”

Our trade partners will walk away from us. It was in evidence presented from leading businesses figures that our trade will suffer, because, increasingly, customers in our markets are demanding that the food we produce is low emissions, low carbon, and low methane, that the food we produce can be certified to not be increasing climate change. Setting a realistic methane target is very, very important to us, for economic and for political reasons.

Is the Minister committed to maintaining New Zealand’s international competitive edge as world leaders in low-emissions food and fibre production? Does he see any risks if his Government weakens the methane target and moves it away from the target range that was agreed to by virtually all of this House—bar one party—in the Climate Change Response Act? Is the Minister committed to that 24 percent to 47 percent methane reduction range in the Climate Change Response Act?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I will just reiterate the question that I asked the Minister of Climate Change earlier, with regard to the impact of climate change on biodiversity more broadly, but specifically on the impacts to our oceans and, therefore, our fish stock. I mentioned, previously, that our seafood industry brings in $2.2 billion worth of revenue for New Zealand. One of the top fish species that we export is hoki, and that is also one of the most threatened fish species when it comes to climate change and the impact that it has on both warming and acidification of oceans.

I refer to a report that was commissioned by Fisheries New Zealand which is about climate change, titled Climate Change and New Zealand’s Seafood Sector. It lays out quite clearly what the impacts of climate change are on our oceans and on our fish and it specifically speaks about the impact to hoki and says that increasing ocean temperatures is likely to cause a decline in the population of this particular fish species, and also speaks to the shifts in oceanic winds and the impact that currents might have on food availability and, therefore, the sustainability of the population.

My question to the Minister was: what, in his climate adaptation plan, has any regard to the improvement and the protection of biodiversity, given the impacts and the flow-on effects it then has in terms of our economy, because of the impact it has on the number and the take of the fish that we are able to grow here in New Zealand?

I also want to ask the Minister a similar question to do with salmon species. I know that New Zealand Fish & Game has been raising this for quite some time now, particularly with sea-run salmon that may be within rivers that lead to the ocean, but these are particular salmon that need to go to the ocean for cooler temperatures, and then that’s part of the migratory pattern, basically. But that’s been disrupted because when the ocean’s warm, and these fish need to stay cool, that then means that there’s an impact on them; the juvenile of the species struggle to grow, and what we’re seeing now is both a reduction in salmon populations more broadly and also the fact that the young salmon aren’t growing to the extent or the size that they should be growing to, and that impacts export of salmon, as well. One might ask why, given it’s an introduced species, we need to be worried about it.

But very quickly, if the Chair would indulge me, there’s a lovely story around salmon in New Zealand—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m happy to indulge you because the Minister has very little time left, so the more questions you can get in your speech, the quicker he can condense them and answer them; so yeah.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: Sure, sure. The Minister can give me a very quick answer on the impacts of climate change on our ocean temperatures and what he’s doing about it.

One of the reasons that we need to protect salmon is that, back in the late 1800s and early 1900s, we actually received salmon eggs from a river in California. They had a dam put in place. Their salmon couldn’t survive. We got it here in New Zealand in the Rākaia River. There’s now been a link established with the Native Americans from that part of California, who are now wanting to take back salmon species from New Zealand to reintroduce to their habitat. That’s why we’ve got a number of reasons for protecting fish in New Zealand. It’s not just the economic argument; there’s also the cultural aspects of specific fish species.

I’ll leave it at that and hope the Minister responds to that. I’ll come back with a question on wetlands.

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change): Without doubt there are significant impacts on aquaculture as a result of the impacts of climate change. In the Pacific particularly, you see the migration of fish species because of the warming temperatures moving from some countries to others, which has an implication in regard to food security. This is a real issue that is in play within our region.

In regard to our strategy, we have biodiversity as one of our five key pillars. That includes blue carbon and other initiatives that we can do to look to maximise the opportunity to use sequestration within the oceans.

STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, there’s a quite broad question to be asked here, which is quite simple in context, it is: where does the Minister see he is going to achieve gross cuts in greenhouse gas emissions?

We know the Government has a strategy of substantial offsetting to pine forestry; many have asked already and canvassed what the strategy is around the methane, but when you simply look across our emissions profile as a country, you can start doing the maths on where we are going to achieve the direct cuts in emissions. Is it in the transport sector, Minister? Clearly, if you’re expanding roads, if you’ve tanked the electric vehicle market, if you’re doing nothing about our $10 billion oil deficit, then how are we going to achieve gross cuts in the transport sector? What is your strategy?

Is it in the energy sector? Clearly, if you’ve intended to spend $200 million on subsidising gas—whatever you want to call it—and expanding coalmining in Rotowaro, clearly there’s not a clear pathway to those gross cuts in emissions from the energy sector.

In the agricultural space, we’ve now got 15,000 more dairy cows on the Canterbury Plains. That does mean more methane emissions. It is axiomatic that if there are more methane-emitting ruminant animals, there will be more methane emissions. Clearly, your plan is not to achieve gross cuts through farming and agriculture. Where is your plan, Minister? Give us the numbers. How will we achieve gross emissions cuts?

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change): Two key areas: Electrify NZ, which will double the amount of renewable energy in this country, is a key area of focus. The second is co-investment with the private sector on solutions to reduce biogenic methane, such as animal genetics, which will reduce methane from cows by 10 to 20 percent and is already pretty much ready to roll out in the Waikato in the coming years.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): This is my last question on methane, and I want to put together two things. We asked the Minister, repeatedly, whether or not his Government stood by its commitment to the Paris Agreement despite the scepticism expressed by the Deputy Prime Minister and the leader of the ACT Party—they’re the same person—and the scepticism expressed by the Foreign Affairs Minister, who is also the leader of the New Zealand First Party.

The Minister eventually made it quite clear that, yes, this Government is committed to the Paris Agreement. That’s a good thing. However, alongside this, we have had some disturbing work done on methane this year where the Government appointed an independent methane review panel. Of course, the reason one appoints an allegedly independent panel is to get the solution one wants. That particular panel came up with a concept of “no additional warming”. However, the Environmental Defence Society and other key environmental NGOs have said that the concept of “no additional warming” would undermine commitments under the Paris Agreement. How does the Minister make these two things stack up? When are we going to get a clear and explicit target around methane? Is the Minister going to reject this concept of “no additional warming”, given our commitments under the Paris Agreement?

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Before we go on, can I just alert the committee to the fact that the Government, or National, has no time left.

GLEN BENNETT (Chief Whip—Labour): Point of order. Kia ora, Madam Chair. What happened this morning was—what I saw—the Minister, in his first opening comments, took almost 10 minutes, which was half of the time left. It is within the rules; I understand that. [Interruption] I thought that points of order were heard in silence.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I did too.

GLEN BENNETT: They’re just heckling me and carrying on.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I remind members on my right that points of order are heard in silence. Thank you for your assistance.

GLEN BENNETT: This point of order needs a bit of context, because there are no Standing Orders around this. I understand it’s within the rules, but I’d say within the spirit of Estimates and within the spirit of transparency, it is frustrating, particularly as an Opposition wants to—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Sorry, the point of order is?

GLEN BENNETT: I am coming to that—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Can you come to it quickly?

GLEN BENNETT: —because I just want to give that context. I think we’d be willing to give up a little bit of time to the National Party. I know, for example, that the ACT Party has at least 15 minutes. I’m sure that New Zealand First has at least 30 minutes or more. Te Pāti Māori has a lot of time. I’m just wondering whether there’d be any leeway or consideration within the rules for us to offer some time so that the Minister can continue to be prosecuted on a really important issue of our time.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Point of order—new point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Just a minute. I’m taking advice on this first point of order. Just for clarification, the whips can have this conversation, or the member could seek leave to allocate some of his party’s time to the Government to carry on this conversation if they so wish. For your information, Labour has 17 minutes remaining in this debate. It’s now 15 minutes

GLEN BENNETT (Chief Whip—Labour): Point of order, Madam Chair. I seek leave for the Labour Party to give up five minutes of its time to the National Party—I don’t normally do a caveat—for the reason that answers be given to Labour Party MPs.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Sorry, I’m not sure I understand that.

GLEN BENNETT: We seek leave to give five minutes to the National Party, but we would assume, in kind, that they’ll answer our questions they haven’t been answered yet.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

STEVE ABEL (Green): The Minister spoke about electrification. Yes, electrification is clearly a huge opportunity for us. However, we have decades of under-investment in new renewable generation in this sector through a failure of the gentailers to invest new renewable generation. Without an intervention in the electricity market—which is currently paying a billion-dollar dividend while people shiver in their living rooms—how is the Government going to achieve this supposed electrification? Clearly, the current market system is not enabling the building of new generation, even though there are consents granted and even though there are plenty of places where we could be putting wind turbines.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I find it rather interesting that, when the Minister stood up to respond to my questions, he talked about what can be done but not what this Government is doing to address the issue of climate change and its impact on biodiversity, on ecosystems, and, specifically, on the issues I’ve raised to do with our marine environment. I would be really grateful if the Minister would tell us what is in his plan that will achieve the outcomes that I’m seeking through my questions; if, in fact, he thinks that there is something that this Government is doing to protect our marine environments?

The second point that I would like to raise along the same lines of marine environments, and the threats therein, is the fact that there are extensive knowledge gaps, and I would like the Minister to outline what work is under way through his climate adaptation programme or any other programme to fill some of those knowledge gaps—for example, while we know that the two greatest threats are ocean warming and ocean acidification, we don’t really know what specific impacts there are when it comes to heatwaves and our marine fish stocks. That’s a knowledge gap that needs to be plugged. We know that when pH levels shift and, therefore, the ocean acidification is worsened, that there are some impacts on marine life, but, again, we don’t know the extent to that or the specificity around it. I would like to know what steps this Government is taking—and the Minister, particularly—to plug those knowledge gaps, because without knowing what the details are, I would assume that it would be difficult for the Government to address them effectively.

The second point that I want to make is around wetland restoration, and I refer specifically to the Ministry for the Environment’s climate adaptation report that they have commissioned and published. It’s an independent climate adaptation report that points to New Zealand’s vulnerability in this space. It makes points around the fact that biodiversity is threatened as species’ habitats change or disappear, and it speaks to the need for greater integration of adaptation and mitigation if it’s across Government to protect the environment.

It makes a mention of wetland restoration, specifically. We know that there’s been a historical decline—for example, by 2008, only 10 percent of New Zealand’s original wetlands remained; 6 percent of the original swampland is all that we have left. Currently, only 0.9 percent of New Zealand’s land area is wetlands. Now, there are a number of NGOs that are undertaking work to restore our wetlands. There’s a distinct link between climate change and our wetlands, as well—for example, carbon emissions from wetlands that are drained is an issue.

Peatlands are especially vulnerable when they are drained. They release significant amounts of stored carbon into the atmosphere. In New Zealand, dried peatlands contribute to 6 percent of our carbon emissions. We also know that rewetting peatlands in peat areas could prevent the release of, I think it’s about 2 million tonnes of carbon that could be prevented from releasing. We also know, at the same time, that increasing flooding from sea-level rise also means that wetlands are at danger of being completely submerged and lost. There’s a huge risk there when it comes to the impact of climate change on wetlands. There’s a risk of drained wetlands, too, increasing our carbon emissions, and there’s a huge gain to be realised from restoration of wetlands and the rewetting of peatlands.

Particularly, given all of that and the fact that wetlands are a hotbed for biodiversity, and a number of different species—for example, whitebait, rare birds; all of those are at risk of decline and loss if we don’t act now. What is the Minister doing to ensure that we mitigate or we reduce the impact of climate change on wetlands, but, equally, what are the steps this Minister is taking to restore wetlands to contribute to our climate targets?

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change): Firstly, thank you for the allocation of time. This Government is focused on nature-based solutions that address climate change. As the member has noted, restoring biodiversity is a key component of that, and we also need to investigate ways of harnessing nature to remove emissions from the atmosphere.

As I noted in my opening comments, we are progressing work around a carbon removals framework, and this includes components of wetlands and other aspects, including the blue carbon components within forestry. Our intent is to have a framework that is scientifically robust and that removal activities, agnostic to what they are, have the mechanism, and if they are able to be measured and independently verified and validated from a scientific basis, then you should be able to look to get credit for that as part of the broader model. So there is work under way.

One specific example of Government policy in this area is the work that we’re doing around afforestation on Crown land, which, obviously, includes native afforestation on Crown land. It is our view that that is one mechanism that we can unlock that will have an enduring biodiversity benefit to New Zealand as a result of more native afforestation on the low-conservation, low-production farmland that we have available in New Zealand.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Now that the Minister of Climate Change has some more time available to him, I’d like to redirect his attention to the issue of international risks. I’m going to quote some words from the hearing earlier this year—the Minister’s own words. He said: “The implications on international trade, you know, New Zealand has a reputation, and we have one of the best reputations in the world, as a primary sector exporter of red meat, dairy product, and other products. Why would we put that at risk?”

I would like to invite the Minister to address the political and economic risks to us of not setting a realistic methane target—a target that we can agree on across the House—and I invite the Minister to express what he thinks of the concept of no additional warming and whether that is going to affect the methane target that is being set by the Government.

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change): Within the coalition agreements that the National Party have with ACT, we have committed to undertaking a scientific review in regard to methane—which we have undertaken—and we will be considering that alongside the Climate Change Commission’s advice in regard to the methane targets that will be considered later this year.

In regard to our broader commitments and the statements that I made, I stand by those statements that I made in prior hearings, in the context of the implications of how important New Zealand’s primary sector export economy is to our economy and ensuring that the products that we do export meet the requirements of customers overseas, which has a growing desire to ensure that they are sustainable in that context. In that mix, we are of the view that this is critically important in terms of our broader trade agreements and arrangements, and hence why we remain committed to these targets.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Madam Chair, I want to move to adaptation again, quoting the Minister of Climate Change from the hearing earlier this year. He said, “We’re now working as quickly as possible to introduce legislation to support an enduring national adaptation framework. This will help people make more informed decisions about how we adapt, provide greater certainty, support our economy, and ensure that we grow investment.” In his speech earlier today, he talked of some of the range of activities that are being undertaken around adaptation, getting better information about risks, better information about cross-sharing, some cross-party work on climate adaptation, some guidance for local government. However, we have still not seen the legislation around adaptation. Could the Minister please give an indication of when we might see the legislative framework for adaptation? [Member resumes seat and then stands to seek another call]

Well, Madam Chair—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The Hon Dr Deborah Russell.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Hi, I’m enjoying this so much! I do think this is very important around adaptation. The Minister referenced the select committee report on adaptation and said it was a way forward. To be honest, that select committee report pretty much just came up with exactly the same answers as the expert working group on adaptation. If we look at that select committee report, those are the solutions offered by the select committee. They are the very solutions offered by the expert working group on adaptation.

The Minister then commissioned a separate independent review on adaptation. What I want to understand from the Minister is how he intends to reconcile the findings from that independent review on adaptation—which is quite a short report, eventually, about 14 pages—with the findings of the select committee and, more importantly, with the findings of the expert working group on adaptation. It seems a shame to set up an independent group when there is already a perfectly good solution at hand with respect to work around adaptation.

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change): The Government is progressing at pace in the context of designing the building blocks for a national adaptation framework. We remain committed to be able to say more about that later this year, and it remains our intent to continue to work with all political parties. I acknowledge the importance of certainty in regard to that topic area and—as and when we’re in a position to do so—we will continue to engage in that dialogue.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): The Minister has made quite a large play around the use of carbon-capture technology. It underpins a large amount of the second emissions budget, and it is a key plank of the Government’s strategy around reducing carbon. However, earlier this year, Fletcher’s said that the proposal for a carbon capture technology unit at Kapuni was no longer going to work, and it couldn’t work because it was too expensive. Has the Government decided whether or not to put extra funding into that carbon capture technology that was supposed to take place at Kapuni?

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change): The Government remains committed to put in place a regulatory regime in regard to carbon capture, utilisation, and storage (CCUS). It is an important aspect of New Zealand’s climate objective and energy security. Any CCUS-related risks—noting the comments that that member has noted that have been raised in the media—will be considered by Cabinet as part of the annual process that we undertake around adaptive management approaches, which is set out in the emissions reduction plan.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): The Minister of Climate Change has said that New Zealand is on track to meet its first and its second emissions reduction plans, emissions reductions budgets, however, that’s not quite the case, actually. In fact, the Climate Change Commission has a monitoring report on emissions reductions. This monitoring report came out in July this year—after our hearings, of course, but nevertheless—and is something that has been referred to extensively by the Minister over the course of this debate.

What I want to understand, though, is how the Minister reconciles his claims that we are going to meet our emissions reductions plans, our emissions reductions budgets, given that the Climate Change Commission, in its monitoring report, has said that the first emissions budget is likely to be met due a combination of emissions reductions and changes to accounting methods. The second emissions budget can be met, but there are some areas of significant risk. Those areas of significant risk are around relying on reductions from carbon capture and storage, which may not be realised, and that the third emissions budget covering 2031 to 2035 requires further action urgently to be met.

The Minister has said that we want to achieve our climate targets, that we are committed to the Paris Agreement, but it does seem that our progress towards actually meeting those targets is at significant risk.

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change): In the context of any target, there is the amount of emissions that the economy produces. Projections and an update of those projections in regard to how much emissions the New Zealand economy is producing will be released later this year. That is an important consideration in the context of what the interrelationship is with the pathways for emissions reduction, and that will provide us with an updated position in terms of what the gap is across those targets. But we do remain on track in regard to both emissions budget one and emissions budget two at this point.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, the Labour Party’s time has expired. The Minister’s time has 50 seconds left. It looks like we have exhausted the debate. The time for this debate has now expired.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Votes contained in the Estimates of Appropriation for 2025/26 stand part of the Schedules.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question now is, That clauses 1 to 10 and Schedules 1 to 5 be agreed to.

Clauses 1 to 10 and Schedules 1 to 5 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The committee has considered the Appropriation (2025/26 Estimates) Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Bills

Taxation (Annual Rates for 2025-26, Compliance Simplification, and Remedial Measures) Bill

First Reading

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): I seek leave to present a legislative statement—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member doesn’t need to seek—well, the wording I’ve got here just says “I present a legislative statement.” Are you seeking leave? Is it already on the Table?

Hon SIMON WATTS: I present a legislative statement on the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2025-26, Compliance Simplification, and Remedial Measures) Bill.

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

Hon SIMON WATTS: I move, That the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2025-26, Compliance Simplification, and Remedial Measures) Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Finance and Expenditure Committee to consider this bill.

This bill is aimed at making New Zealand a better place. This Government’s top priority is growing the economy so that we can deliver more jobs, higher wages, and lower costs for New Zealanders. This bill aims to promote growth by welcoming talent, investment in our shores, and supporting companies trying to attract and retain talent. The bill also aims to minimise and eliminate compliance costs as far as possible and helps to make the Public Service more efficient by making better use of existing resources and freeing up time and resources for more demanding work.

I want to touch on some of the key measures in this bill, and I first want to mention the one which was brought to our attention by the private sector. Currently, new migrants are taxed on estimated overseas income, even if they don’t actually receive that income. The new law will change that so that they are only taxed on money that they actually earn. This will make it fairer and more attractive particularly for skilled migrants to move here and help keep talented New Zealanders in New Zealand and not leaving.

To get more technical on this issue, there was a report by the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research examining why New Zealand struggled to retain entrepreneurial migrants. It found that illiquid equity investments held by migrants in foreign companies that are not controlled foreign companies are taxed under New Zealand’s foreign investment fund regime. Our FIF rules—which is the acronym for the foreign investment fund regime as more commonly referred to—usually assume that overseas assets are earning income at a rate of 5 percent per year. It, therefore, taxes deemed rather than actual income from equity investments. The bill, therefore, introduces a new calculation method to determine a person’s FIF income.

The new method would tax eligible FIF investments on a realisation basis; that is, on dividends derived and 70 percent of gains or losses on disposal, rather than on a deemed annual basis. In addition, a migrant who remains taxable in another country faces potentially double taxation when they sell that investment. That’s because investments held particularly in the US, for instance, are only taxed on dividends and when shares are realised, and a credit for our FIF tax may not be available against the US tax when that investment is sold. To address this, this bill has a proposal that allows a person subject to the two tax systems to apply the revenue account method even to shares acquired after they become a New Zealand tax resident.

The bill also makes it easier for overseas visitors working remotely, sometimes known as digital nomads, to stay longer in New Zealand before being taxed, encouraging them to spend more in our economy while they are here. We are also proposing that non-resident visitors earning income through remote work may be present in New Zealand for up to nine months in a given 18-month period before incurring New Zealand tax obligations, including becoming a New Zealand tax resident. This is provided that they are tax resident in another country and that they are in New Zealand lawfully for immigration purposes and do not undertake work for a New Zealand employer or client.

I now turn to a group of proposals in the bill which aim to reduce or eliminate compliance costs on New Zealand taxpayers. Joint ventures are one way for business people to collaborate and invest in projects together for mutual benefit. Joint ventures sometimes individually account for supplies made or received in the course of that venture in their own GST returns. However, it has emerged that this approach is not correct under the current rules. To avoid imposing compliance costs, we’re proposing to validate that existing operational practice to allow for joint ventures to account for supplies made or received in the course of the venture in their own GST returns. This is about easing compliance costs for those businesses.

A growing number of New Zealanders also have solar panels on their homes, generating electricity back for them to use, but sometimes having the ability to export excess electricity back into the grid. It’s new energy and it is a new income source which was not foreseen when the Income Tax Act in 2007 was passed. In many cases, the proceeds from the sale of excess electricity are likely to be taxable under the current legislation. We want to take a pragmatic approach to that. The compliance costs associated with these obligations are likely to be disproportionately higher compared to any tax revenue that is gained, also when you take into consideration the ability to claim deductions.We’re proposing an income tax exemption for income earned from the sale of excess electricity from a residential property into the electricity grid.

The bill also proposes changes benefiting FamilyBoost recipients by increases to the rebate percentages and income thresholds that could be made by Order in Council. Changes that would decrease the payment amount or the eligible population would still need to be made through primary legislation.

One of the Government’s priorities is getting tough on crime. IRD can currently disclose information about a person to the Police on request, but that information can quickly become outdated. This bill would allow IRD to disclose updated information to Police to maintain the accuracy of information held by the Police for the purposes of the proceeds of crime regime.

The information held by IRD can be useful to other agencies, too, in trying to deliver better, more efficient services. Information can be shared at present through an approved information-sharing agreement. This is best practice, but it’s also a long process and can hold up service delivery.

The bill also proposes to repeal two information requirements that are no longer required. These are section 17GB of the Tax Administration Act, which allows the commissioner to collect information for the purpose relating to the development of policy, and the additional disclosure requirements for trustees. These provisions are not necessary. The commissioner already has broad powers to collect information, including from trustees, under the Tax Administration Act 1994.

This bill says that New Zealand is open for business. We’re making it easier to do business, we’re making it easier to attract investment, and we’re also, importantly, creating the conditions for a stronger economy—one that delivers more opportunities, higher wages, and a lower cost of living. It gives me great pleasure to commend this bill to the House.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): The Labour Party supports many of the measures in this bill. The measures around employee share schemes deferring taxation events is a good measure, and a sensible one, to support our start-ups. The measures around digital nomads are sensible, and they do look to enhance what is going on in New Zealand, in terms of attracting people to come and live and work here. The measures around electricity refunds are sensible. I suspect that most people who sell electricity back to the grid are not aware that they, technically, might need to pay tax on that, but technically, also, if they’re paying tax on it, they can claim expenses. It is better just to clear that one out right away. That’s a sensible move.

The measures around the foreign investment fund rules seem sensible, too. However, given that the Minister led with it, I’m bit a surprised to find there is no regulatory impact statement around that, and we’ll certainly be asking the officials for their understanding of how this measure will work and what returns it will have and whether there are any particular impacts of it. All of these things seem pretty sensible, and, in some cases, it does just do what it says on the tin: it will reduce compliance costs. In fact, sometimes it is just ensuring that the law reflects what people are probably doing already and what is kind of consistent with the general intent of the tax law, anyway. That’s probably particularly the case with GST on joint ventures. But there are some disturbing measures in this bill, and some quite worrying ones and, for this reason, we will not be supporting this bill.

I want to turn first to the repeal of section 17GB. Section 17GB enabled the Commissioner of Inland Revenue to collect information for the purpose of making better tax policy, in order to make our tax system better. There is, of course, a lot of information that the Commissioner of Inland Revenue can collect already, but she or he needs to do it for the purposes of assessing tax. There is another big role that the Inland Revenue Department has and that our officials have, and that is of forming good tax policy. In order to write good and effective tax policy, we need good information. Section 17GB enabled the commissioner to collect that information, and it’s going. Officials even said it is going against officials’ recommendations. Officials recommended keeping section 17GB but perhaps enhancing the protections around it, to make sure that information was used only for tax policy purposes. Now, of course, that was the case already, but there were ways of putting belts and braces into the law to ensure that that was the case. But, no, section 17GB is gone, even though officials wanted to keep it so they could make better tax policy.

Information collected about trusts is going. Now, again, the commissioner can, obviously, collect information to assess the tax on trusts, but the information that will no longer be collected is about who is settling assets on trusts—who is getting benefits from trusts. In other words, we are reducing the amount of information that is available to us about sometimes quite opaque entities, and we now no longer will be able to know how income and how assets are flowing through trusts. Here’s the thing: both those measures enabled us to track wealth in this country, and we know that both of those measures were opposed by taxpayers whose affairs might otherwise be subject to more scrutiny. These two measures lead to more opacity in the ownership and distribution of assets and income in this country. People are hiding what they own and what they earn.

Then, on top of that, we now have this new information-sharing rule. The new information-sharing rule will enable the Minister of Revenue to share information much more quickly in cases where people may have committed a crime. In other words, we’ve always had a system where we try to keep the tax system away from issues of criminality, because we just want people to pay their taxes; that is being removed. What is really disturbing is the entities with whom Inland Revenue can now share information. This includes New Zealand Police, the Accident Compensation Corporation, Kāinga Ora - Homes and Communities, Health New Zealand, the New Zealand Transport Agency, the National Emergency Management Agency, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, the Ministry for Ethnic Communities—what on earth is that doing in here? That is absolutely ridiculous. It is one rule for the rich and another rule for the poor. We oppose this bill.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This bill is a prime example of how the Government is setting greater scrutiny and punishments for people doing it tough, on some of the lowest incomes in this country—lining up at Work and Income to get things like food grants—who are often scrutinised in undignified ways on every purchase that they make, with the Ministry of Social Development giving itself huge ability to collect information on people on the benefit, while, at the same time, bringing forward a bill that reduces the ability for our Government agencies to make informed decisions on taxation to address really serious issues in this country on wealth inequality.

We are the richest we have been in quite some time, as a country, and yet we have growing homelessness. We have a greater disparity between the haves and the have-nots, and this Government, instead of addressing those very same issues, is pushing forward a bill that will make it harder for Governments to have the information that they need to address how, for example, the rich hide their wealth in things like trusts. This will make it harder for the Government to make informed decisions on how we can tackle the reality that the wealthy few are accumulating an absurd amount of wealth at the expense of the rest of our communities.

Dr David Wilson: Just not true.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: I just heard somebody say it’s not true. I recommend that this member reads the legislation to be able to assert what it does. I would caution the member of actually saying that—well, the member is saying it’s not true; he may be new, but he may want to read Standing Orders a bit, anyway.

Going back to the bill. This bill is deeply problematic because, despite the technical bits around it, the core of this is a bill that cements this Government’s position of growing wealth inequality; perhaps that is a strategy of growth.

We also have concerns about other provisions of this bill which exempt digital nomads from potential tax obligations. This Government should be quite careful with how they choose to treat people they deem digital nomads. The reality is that, overseas, we have seen that policies that benefit the so-called digital nomads—people who enter here, often on visitor visas, with no purpose of trying to settle in our country and form part of our communities like many other migrant workers do. Those very same people—often on high incomes—end up contributing to gentrification in communities. We have seen unrest overseas because of Government decisions that have completely loosened rules in relationship to digital nomads, and this Government should be quite careful. They may be claiming that the money digital nomads spend is here, but often their incomes will go on paying for things like Airbnbs—that actually don’t create the wealth that we need for everyday people. The money that they will often be spending will also just be on things like allowing multiple-home owners to continue leasing these Airbnbs to those digital nomads. So we think this deserves a lot of scrutiny about the broader economic implications of the policy.

I think the Government should be quite cautious in relying on things like digital nomads to enable their socalled strategy of growth, because I can’t see how this bill—despite what the Minister of Revenue said in his initial remarks—actually addresses serious issues around our dwindling economy that is more and more reliant on things like speculators trading homes, instead of supporting our manufacturing industries, for example, that are struggling. I can’t see how this bill drives the cost of living down; all it does is make it easier for the wealthy few to hide their wealth and to face less scrutiny over the current tax settings. It really undermines the previous work that IRD and previous Governments have done to ascertain where the wealthy few have their wealth and how tax systems work, and it undermines the work to make informed, non-partisan recommendations and information on these very same settings.

Make no mistake: the Green Party cannot support this bill as it stands. We could be supporting some of the more technical components of this bill if they had come in a separate piece of legislation. But what this bill does is incredibly problematic, and it absolutely sends a message that the poor deserve a huge amount of scrutiny, whereas the rich can get a free pass.

TODD STEPHENSON (ACT): Well, I think we’re pretty clear where things are heading in this country. We’ve just heard from the Green speaker Ricardo Menéndez March—and, to be fair, the Greens are at least honest: they want a wealth tax; they want a capital gains tax. What I think I heard, though, from Dr Deborah Russell was that she’s setting the groundwork for Labour to announce their wealth tax and capital gains tax policy.

Let me be clear: on this side of the House, we will be supporting this bill because we’re actually about growth and boosting the New Zealand economy. We’re actually about letting New Zealanders keep more of their own money, getting on with their lives, and building productive businesses, and, just being able to get on and contribute to society. Obviously, we’ll be supporting this bill—it’s a good bill. I also will have the pleasure of being on the Finance and Expenditure Committee, where we will go through this in great detail. Look, it was good to hear the Labour member say that there were a number of measures that I think we will get a lot of support for in the select committee to work through, so that’s good. I did want to call out a couple of things that I thought were good. Obviously, we have a totally different position from the Greens on digital nomads. We actually want to encourage people to come to New Zealand and to spend and invest their money, so it will be good to look at those changes, and the residential solar—I was really pleased when the Minister announced that. Obviously, Rewiring Aotearoa has been putting forward a number of policies to increase solar uptake, and they were very pleased to see this.

Again, I look forward to the discussions on all of the measures in this bill, which will affect some 11 Acts of Parliament. I commend it to the House.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Look, I’ll take a short call on the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2025-26, Compliance Simplification, and Remedial Measures) Bill—

Hon Member: Point of order.

JOSEPH MOONEY: Sorry, I apologise. I’ll hand over—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Sorry—no, carry on.

JOSEPH MOONEY: I’ll take a short call, Mr Speaker, just to support this bill, which is a very sensible one, to rebalance some of the settings in the taxation system. Some of the comments that were made earlier about digital nomads—I mean, this is a sensible contribution. People who add a lot to overseas economies already—the digital nomads—if they want to come and spend some time in New Zealand and contribute to our economy, it’s something we should support. We want these young, connected people who are engaged in the digital economy, which is growing rapidly around the world; this is a very sensible addition. We don’t believe that just adding more taxation is going to be the solution; we need to grow our economy. With that, I commend this bill to the House.

Dr DAVID WILSON (NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support this scintillating Taxation (Annual Rates for 2025-26, Compliance Simplification, and Remedial Measures) Bill. It is a comprehensive bill that reflects the evolving needs of our tax system and the people it serves. Essentially, this bill is about streamlining the machinery of Government, removing outdated rules, simplifying compliance, and being fair to taxpayers. It’s about making the system work better for everyday New Zealanders, small business, migrants, and families.

New Zealand First has always stood for pragmatic, common-sense reform in the national interest, and we do also commend the bill addressing solar on rooftops. The bill proposes to introduce an income tax exemption, which is seldom heard from the other side of the House because we do know that they do quite like tax in any way that they can possibly inform it and in any way they can support it, so they have more room to spend on the policies that they like.

I do know also that Matua Shane Jones and New Zealand First look forward to the energy sector encouraging uptake through fair prices. I note with some sense of anticipation to the debate around section 17GB and the member that brought up opacity in the tax situation. We would also say that privacy is an important issue for many of our supporters, as well.

We look forward to the debate, and for the benefit of the member who said that I told him that he was wrong, I did not refer to him in particular; I said that the statement was incorrect. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato): Tēnā rā koe e te Pīka, otirā tēnā rā tātou e te Whare. E tū ana ahau ki te waha i ngā kōrero mā Te Pāti Māori i te rangi nei e pā ana ki tēnei o ngā pire, me te mea anō e kore mātou e whakaae ki tēnei pire. Heoi anō ko tā mātou mahi he tuwhera i ngā take ki te wāhi e kore ai mātou e whakaae ki tēnei o ngā pire.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker, indeed greetings to all in the House. I stand to give voice to the statements on behalf of the Māori Party today regarding this particular bill, and to say that we will never agree with this bill. However, what we would like to do is open up the issues in the area of this particular bill that we do not agree with.]

This bill sets the annual rates of income tax for 2025-26, along with a list of other tax changes, which raises a number of questions from Te Pāti Māori. We believe in Aotearoa hou, where all people can thrive and where our home is more than just a playground. We want to transform the tax system in Aotearoa for the 99 percent instead of the 1 percent. We want to remove income tax from earners making less than $30,000 per year. We want to start taxing wealth instead of incomes. We want to ease the cost of living crisis by removing GST from kai.

This bill reaffirms the status quo, where the hard-working people of Aotearoa subsidise the lavish lifestyles of the rich. This bill also repeals section 17GB of the Tax Administration Act 1994, which allows the commissioner to collect information “for a purpose relating to the development of policy for the improvement or reform of the tax system.”

Engari, there are some elements within the bill that Te Pāti Māori sees as a positive step. This bill introduces “an income tax exemption for income derived by an individual from the sale of excess electricity from a residential property to the network. Under the exemption, individuals would not need to pay tax on,”. It gives Parliament power to increase FamilyBoost payments by Order in Council. While there are some sensible amendments contained within the bill, we need tax justice in Aotearoa, not fringe changes on balance.

Nō reira, Te Pāti Māori opposes this bill because the tax system we see in Aotearoa today is a continuation of taxing workers and of refusing to tax wealth in the landholdings of the people. Nā reira e kore matou e whakaae ki tēnei o ngā pire. Tēnā rā tātou.

[Therefore, we will never agree to this particular bill. Thanks to us all.]

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a privilege to take a call on the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2025-26, Compliance Simplification, and Remedial Measures) Bill, but Labour will be opposing this bill.

The three main reasons that we oppose this bill are: firstly, it is easier for Government agencies to share information only if Ministers agree that it is needed to determine entitlement to Government assistance or it would help the detection and prosecution of crimes punished for more than two years, or to remove the financial benefit of crime; secondly, the ability of the commissioner to collect information for the purposes of informing tax policy will be repealed; and, thirdly, the disclosure of information about trusts will be repealed. In essence, if you’re on a benefit, you’re stuffed, but if you’ve got everything in a family trust, you’re sweet—and that pretty much sums up the National world view.

It will be much easier under this bill for Government agencies to share information if Ministers agree that it’s needed to determine the entitlement to Government assistance, and so your rights and your privacy are able to be eroded if you’re entitled to be receiving that sort of benefit from the Government. This can already be done through what’s called an approved information-sharing agreement—or AISA—and I’ve done quite a bit of work in the past on these. There’s the basic privacy principle that when you give your personal information, it can only be used for the purpose that you provided it for. What happens in situations such as these is that if someone has provided health information, it typically can’t be used by New Zealand Police, or if someone’s given information about their housing, it can’t be used by another agency without the explicit stipulation that it can be used for that reason.

So we get into this information sharing that the new rules enable Ministers to bypass the AISA process directly into these agencies. There’s a list of agencies that go through all of those key ones that hold personal information, which are Police, ACC, Kāinga Ora, Health, the New Zealand Transport Agency, the National Emergency Management Agency, the Ministry for Ethnic Communities, and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. In other words, tax information can be used for policing purposes.

First of all, there are some deep concerns about whether that’s going to enable people to be forthcoming with providing that information, if it’s going to be used for police purposes. A lot of the work that has been done in the past shows that people are reluctant to give health information honestly to their health practitioner if it’s going to be used to potentially prosecute them down the line, and that impedes or stops people from using public services that they rightly need and are entitled to.

The regulatory impact statement—it’s good that there is one for this bill, because there is often not one—shows that the only consultation undertaken with respect to this measure was with the Privacy Commissioner. No communities, no social service providers, no health professionals, and no other people—not even tax experts—were taken in to look at whether this should be done or not; only the Privacy Commissioner. The only options examined were the status quo and the Minister’s option, and the new rules were created at the Minister’s direction, so common under this Government.

I think it’s important to note that the ability for the commissioner to collect information for the purposes of informing tax policy will be repealed. This was the rule that enabled information to be collected for the high-wealth individuals project—funny that—and many of the people involved were really unhappy about that process. Officials suggested that instead of repealing the rule, it could be retained with strengthened protections around information collected. They have also said that repealing the rule will reduce Inland Revenue’s ability to collect information solely for the purpose of policy development, which could affect the quality of future policy advice, but these guys don’t mind about that.

In a nutshell, rich people will get to hide all of their information and poor people will be subject to information being disclosed at the whim of Ministers, and this is a real concern. That is the primary reason.

Typically, Labour would support these types of taxation bills, but the fundamental flaw is that this is one step, again, in creating a divided New Zealand, creating one set of rules for those people opposite. When they say the economy has turned a corner, it has turned a corner for them, but not for the rest of us, and this law is another example of how there are two standards in New Zealand: one for those over there, and one for the rest of the Kiwis doing it tough under a cost of living crisis.

RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East): Thank you, Mr Chair. One of the little things in this bill that people may not be aware of is that we encourage people to take out solar systems—

Hon Members: Solar systems?

RYAN HAMILTON: What’s the thing when you put it on your roof to track the sun?

Hon Members: Solar panels.

RYAN HAMILTON: Solar? Solar system. It sounded funny out loud. They can earn a credit or a refund from the electricity company, and, technically, that creates a tax liability. With this bill, we think that’s too hard, there’s too much administration, and it’s nonsensical, so we’re removing it. It’s just a little thing, amongst many, to get New Zealand back on track.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. It’s interesting to hear the previous speaker talk about space. Obviously, he’s going to great measures to avoid tax if you have to go to space to do that!

As has been traversed and talked about in this first debate on this legislation—generally, we would support tax legislation if it is measured, if it is thoughtful, and if it is doing what is right to. I guess the words I would use is “to ensure that the tax system is pure and is doing what it does”, which is to gather revenue, which, then, Government can distribute to support society. As my colleague the Hon Dr Deborah Russell said in her speech, the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2025-26, Compliance Simplification, and Remedial Measures) Bill is something we can’t support. It’s something we can’t support, because it feels like it is an overreach. When tax legislation comes through this House, we have good people in the Labour Party who know about tax. We have tax lawyers, we have tax lecturers, and we have people who understand this. To listen and to unpack it with them to understand what it means, what the potential is that this bill has to do, is something that we need to then stop and pause and consider.

The tax system—and the IRD needs to be a separate organisation that does its one job: to gather tax, to gather revenue. When we suddenly start to have this overreach of Ministers being able to step in, when we look at things like Kāinga Ora, we look at things like ACC, we look at things like the New Zealand Police or the New Zealand Transport Agency having the potential of Ministers to allow access, I think it is cause for concern.

We want people to do what is right. We want people to pay tax, absolutely, but we also want to make sure that people, no matter where they are, what their circumstances are, what life throws at them or what life choices they make, can always be in a position where they can pay tax. The approved information-sharing agreements already exist. This bill allows Ministers to overstep that and I think that is dangerous and something that we need to be concerned about.

We need to make sure that if you are living in a Kāinga Ora house, that if you do have, potentially, fines through the transport agency—if you are in arrears, for example, that’s fair enough, but that should be something that’s dealt with, with Kāinga Ora; that should be something that if you have outstanding fines that are standing there with the transport agency, it is dealt with in that space. The tax system should do what it was designed to do, and that is to gather revenue. And that’s it.

Deborah Russell also spoke—and I was thoughtful as she was speaking—around trusts and who benefits from trusts and the importance of transparency and how this piece of legislation can undermine that. We need to be very careful; we need to be very thoughtful. As this piece of legislation leaves this House, heads to select committee for debate and discussion, we hope that the Government MPs and we hope that members of the public can engage and can really prosecute and unpack what actually is being done in this legislation.

One thing I do want to comment on which is good is around those who have solar panels, for example, or wind or other forms of energy that they create and feed back into the national grid. Now, of course we agree with that. Of course we agree that we want to incentivise people to be able to have renewable energy within their own homes and to be able to then put that back into the system to get a little bit of money for it. The fact that that is something that will not have to be paid through income tax—that is sensible, a sensible move.

We just came from the debate on climate change Estimates and the importance and the challenges we’re facing. We need to remove every single barrier we can to make sure that people have options and have the ability to ensure that they can heat their home, they can run their home with solar, for example, and then any excess can be then sent back into the national grid without the need to file a tax return or do information on that. That’s fair enough.

We can’t support this bill. There are some good bits in it, but there are some really bad bits in it, and we look forward to select committee taking it forward.

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): I just wanted to focus on one aspect of this omnibus taxation bill, and that is the fact that it’s going to encourage digital nomads. It’s going to make New Zealand a more attractive place for what they call a “workcation”. That’s important, given the global workforce is more digitalised and more mobile. This bill will enable a non-resident individual to visit and work in New Zealand for up to 275 days in any 18-month period without becoming subject to New Zealand income tax. It will help this Government drive the value of tourism. So I commend the bill.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2025-26, Compliance Simplification, and Remedial Measures) Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 5.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The question is, That the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2025-26, Compliance Simplification, and Remedial Measures) Bill be referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee.

Bill referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee.

Bills

Defence (Workforce) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (Minister for ACC) on behalf of the Minister of Defence: I move, That the Defence (Workforce) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee to consider the bill and I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by four months and one day after the bill receives its first reading.

This bill amends the Defence Act of 1990 and it improves when and how the Chief of Defence Force can backfill civilian roles if industrial action within the New Zealand Defence Forces puts at risk national security or the delivery of core defence outputs.

In an increasingly volatile world, we need a defence force that is deployable, combat capable, and interoperable with our international partners, ready and equipped to do whatever is asked of it. We also need common-sense legislation which will enable the women and men who make up the New Zealand Defence Force to do their job and to do it well.

The New Zealand Defence Force comprises hard-working and highly skilled military personnel and civilian staff. Each plays an important role in maintaining New Zealand’s defence and national security. This is why when civilian staff take industrial action, there can be very rapid and serious impacts on the readiness and outputs of the New Zealand Defence Force. Current legislative settings restrict when and how the Chief of Defence Force can backfill civilian roles, and this can put national security and the delivery of those core defence outputs at risk—for example, when civilian staff take industrial action, this could mean there’s no one available to guard munitions and weapons stores on military camps and bases. Other risks could include military personnel missing out on critical training, or aircraft going without the maintenance that is required before deployment. That’s why this bill is so important. It seeks to remove these risks if or when industrial action occurs within the Defence Force.

When civilian staff took industrial action last year, the Chief of Defence Force had to seek ministerial authorisation to redeploy military personnel to perform the duties of civilian staff taking industrial action. Fourteen days later, the Minister of Defence had to return to Parliament to seek a resolution to continue to redeploy military personnel to perform civilian tasks as industrial action was still ongoing. This event showed us just how vulnerable the management of the Defence Force could be when industrial action takes place.

The process also highlighted three issues. The first is that the ability of military personnel to perform core civilian duties is constrained if a direct threat to safety and health is absent—for example, some civilian staff are responsible for arranging logistics to support important New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) training activities. If these staff went on strike, it may not be possible to authorise military personnel to conduct this work, because health and safety thresholds would not be met, but a delay or cancellation to training could in fact result in personnel being less prepared for military operations, and put deployment timing and commitments at risk, and this suggests that the criteria to enable an authorisation is too limited.

The second issue relates to military personnel only being authorised to conduct the work of civilian staff taking industrial action for a maximum of 14 days. Should the Minister wish to extend this authorisation, they must seek a resolution from this House. This process is onerous when we consider that other employers can simply ask their own staff to cover the work of those taking industrial action, without an authorisation or a resolution from Parliament.

The third matter relates to the process. To seek a resolution from the House can result in sensitive information being shared in Parliament. This could prejudice national security and put members of the New Zealand Defence Force at risk. These challenges show that the Chief of Defence Force needs greater flexibility to manage the workforce when industrial action occurs within NZDF. To mitigate the risks presented by the existing process, I, on behalf of the Minister of Defence, propose to introduce a new process to authorise the armed forces to conduct the work of New Zealand Defence Force civilian staff who are taking industrial action. This would only apply when there are reasonable grounds to believe that an authorisation is needed to avoid prejudicing national security or the ability and/or readiness of the armed forces to perform specific operational duties that are integral to the core defence outputs.

The second part of these criteria may sound broad, but it is worded intentionally so that multiple tests must be met before the criteria can apply—for example, the “readiness” to be “prejudiced”: it must be shown that industrial action has an impact on personnel being ready and equipped for deployment or other operational activities. To fit the meaning of specific operational activities, the activity must be consistent with the Defence Act of 1990 or authorised by Government or by mechanisms such as the defence output plan.

The bill also makes procedural changes to ensure that authorisations can be efficient and effective. Rather than an authorisation lasting for 14 days, the Minister of Defence will be able to say how long an authorisation will last, and this would remove the requirement to have a parliamentary debate about whether the New Zealand Defence Force can deploy people within their own organisation for longer than 14 days.

It’s important to note that the intent of these changes is not to prevent industrial action in the defence force; these changes are intended to ensure that the industrial action has limited impact on the Defence Force, and the defence and security of New Zealand. Changes will, of course, continue to preserve the right of civilian staff to take industrial action. The authorisation of military personnel to cover civilian tasks when industrial action occurs is not taken lightly but, when required, it should be practical in its application. This is why the bill also increases the number of days the Minister of Defence may authorise the armed forces to conduct the work of Public Service employees outside of the New Zealand Defence Force, from 14 to 30 days. The bill enables the Chief of Defence Force to better manage their workforce. It ensures that the security of New Zealand and the safety of New Zealanders endures while civilian staff exercise their rights.

We face the most challenging strategic circumstances in New Zealand’s modern history and certainly the worst that anyone today working in politics or foreign affairs can remember. That’s why the practical changes contained in this amendment must be made.

The selfless and committed women and men of the New Zealand Defence Force deserve to have legislation that enables their readiness to deploy to and on behalf of New Zealand, and it’s critical we ensure that we can always protect New Zealand, New Zealanders, and our way of life. I commend this bill to the House.

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

Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I start my contribution on this bill by acknowledging all of the New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) personnel—men and women—who serve our country in different ways, overseas and here, domestically. They do a fantastic job representing New Zealand, and I want to acknowledge them from the outset.

I want to put it on the record for the Government, at this point in time, that Labour won’t be supporting this bill. I want to point out why, and I want to also look towards how we might be able to make sure that this bill can have broader consensus across the House, because we do think there are some smart things in here around process and the way that we might be able to look towards supporting the decision making when these decisions are made to deploy NZDF uniformed personnel into civilian roles.

I want to start by saying this: when the Minister was making cuts to the civilian roles in the Defence Force, we asked this House and the Minister, on numerous occasions, whether those cuts would have a meaningful impact on the role of our NZDF personnel to either deploy or to do their job. The Minister told this House, “No, it wouldn’t.”—“No, it wouldn’t.”—yet here we are, saying that there are challenges here because there is industrial action being taken, and, now, all of a sudden, the Government is trying to backfill those spaces to make sure that they can continue the very basics of their functions.

We’re the Labour Party. We stood up for those who work in the civilian roles—important civilian roles acknowledged by the Chief of Defence Force—important civilian roles that allow the NZDF personnel to do their jobs to their very best. The Government decided, at the time, to make significant cuts. Now, when we look across industrial action, we can’t simply look at the NZDF in isolation. There is industrial action being taken against this Government in so many sectors it’s not funny. That side of the House might laugh, but let’s have a good hard look at it: teachers, nurses, doctors, civilian roles in the NZDF, and the list goes on and on. We want to be very clear that when we make sure we decide to deploy the NZDF into these spaces, there are strong checks and balances.

The Minister pointed out that the Minister of Defence can come in here and make the statement without this Parliament debating the point. I don’t agree with that. I believe that that is an erosion of the democracy that this House stands for. Every party in this House should be able to debate those decisions and put on record, very clearly, what their position is. Now, there are some exceptions, and I’ll give it that. When we had the coronavirus and the one-in-100-year pandemic in this country, we were in Government then. We made the decision to utilise our NZDF personnel to support our quarantine activities and other activities to keep this country safe. All we got from the current Government is, “Well, the Labour Government killed the NZDF.” We know it was a challenging time, but, now, this Government’s prepared to change the law to say that uniformed personnel can fill the roles of the civilian workforce in the NZDF.

Now, I ask this House: is that right and is that fair? It isn’t. When there are checks and balances in place, they must continue to be upheld so that the public have faith in our democracy. What’s going to happen—I can see it—is the decision-making pyramid will get smaller and smaller and, before you know it, we’ll have too much power in the hands of too few. That’s the challenge when you erode democratic rights.

Now, I’ll say it again to the House: we’re prepared to work with the Government on some of the proposals in this bill because we do believe that some of them are common sense, but, ultimately, the Government must answer this question: why is the civilian workforce taking industrial action against this Government? Silence from the other side.

We know that the decisions made by this Government to make cuts across the public sector, which include the civilian workforce in the New Zealand Defence Force, would have an impact. That Government stood up every day in this House and said, “No, it won’t. Health services won’t be impacted.”—what’s happened? Longer wait times; “No, it won’t. The roles on the NZDF will be fine, and they’ll be able to undertake their roles safely.” Now we’re being told, “Hold on. We might have to change the law so we can deploy to backfill those roles.” Let’s work together to see if we can get broader consensus.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Let me also echo the comments by the Hon Peeni Henare to acknowledge our defence personnel. I’m probably not the only Māori in this Whare that has always had relations in all the various different armed forces, both before and also currently. When you think of them as whānau, think of them as workers, you always want the best for them. Also noting that many of them often move over to these civilian roles as well.

When I look at this legislation, I see a pattern of behaviour from this Government. I see a pattern of behaviour which is trampling on the rights of workers. I see this, and it was articulated by the Public Service Association (PSA), actually, where they say this is like strike-breaking legislation. There’s a strike happening, the Government doesn’t like it, so they bring somebody in. Imagine how awkward it is going to be in the smoko room on those days, because I can guarantee you that many of these workers, whether they’re uniformed or not, will have those relationships as well.

I do support what the PSA is saying: it is a pattern of behaviour; we are seeing that right across the country. We are seeing teachers on strike, we are seeing nurses on strike, hospitality workers on strike, because this Government is trampling on the rights of workers. I see this as just another step in that direction.

I say that because if you go through the regulatory impact statement, there was a suggestion that, actually, they should sit down with the workers—sit down with the workers, sit down with the unions, those that undertook the strike before—and actually have a conversation about how to best deal with the situation. When I talk to workers, they are always well aware of the health and safety implications of strike action. They will always try to do their best to make sure that our core services continue in the case of hospitals or in the case of our firefighters, as well. I would suspect that would be the same case with these workers.

It requires a Government to engage and it requires a Government to have good-faith practices. It requires a Government to actually understand that they need to work with workers, understand that what workers want is dignity, first of all, but also decent jobs.

The regulatory impact statement does make interesting reading. Previously, the legislation was: well, unless it’s a work and health and safety kind of issue—that’s when all this stuff kicks in. However, there was a difference of opinion that I could see in the regulatory impact statement, which shows that the Ministry of Defence did not recommend including the delivery of core outputs. When I heard the Minister talking earlier saying, “Well, actually there are national security implications”, I think the members opposite should spell out exactly what they mean by that; give us clear examples. He also talked about a readiness test—I was listening carefully. They should spell out exactly what that means as well and give us real-life examples that people can understand.

The other issue I see around the core delivery of outputs is: what is that? It could be anything that the Minister just dreams up. Maybe the photocopier is broken and it’s going to inhibit the delivery of a core output. Is that what we’re including? Is that one of the elements? That is not clear in this case.

I do not think that this bill is sufficient. I do not think it has really engaged widely in the way that it has. I am disappointed that we are going to be moving to a shortened select committee process. I see that within the pattern of behaviour of this Government; it’s that pattern of behaviour which concerns me. It’s a pattern of behaviour that should concern all of this House, because when people feel that they are disrespected in their jobs, they look elsewhere. When they feel that people don’t appreciate what they’re doing, they look elsewhere. What we need is for people to stay in this country to make it the best place that it can be.

I also make the other point as well about whether this Government is actually looking after defence personnel in the best way that they can. Why are all of these roles being done by civilian personnel? Is it because there’s not enough support in there for our defence personnel as well?

I do not commend this bill to the House. It is not thought out, it is a strike-breaking bill, and the Greens will not support this bill. Thank you.

LAURA McCLURE (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the ACT Party, and I too would like to firstly give a shout-out to the men and women who serve New Zealand. We know that times are really tough out there with the geopolitical situation, so, more than ever, we really appreciate you and the hard work that you do.

Look, I think it would be wrong of me not to just set the record straight. This bill is not intended to backfill any roles that the civilians may or may not play within the Defence Force. That is completely not true. What this bill does is something that, actually, the Minister can do at any point of time, anyway, when it comes to industrial action. It just makes that process slightly easier. That is all it is. For those that are sitting at home, I’m going to make this really simple. I’m going to tell you exactly what this bill does.

This bill, essentially, extends a time period from when a Minister can use those in uniform to do activities such as security. If we had security guards going on strike—we want them to still be able to go on strike; that is part of their rights, and they’re able to do that. We want to still encourage that, but we need to make sure that our bases are safe. Could we have security walk off and just leave our bases open? It blows my mind. This is actually enabling those employees to be able to actually strike and for our Defence Force to maintain safety.

Going from 14 days to 30 days is not a massive shift. For a Minister to have to come back into the House and reaffirm this isn’t a huge deal. We’re only extending this out by a fortnight, and there could be circumstances in which industrial action could go on for some time—we’re not sure; we’re just foreseeing this in the future. It’s a waste of this House’s time for a Minister to be coming back and forward over something that is, quite frankly, able to happen out there in the private sector already.

I think, as a new MP, I was actually quite amazed that this is something that the Minister needed to do, because I would have thought that we would want to enable any of our civilians doing jobs within the Defence Force to be able to strike a lot easier.

Now, to those across the House that said that we should be listening to those employees, I 100 percent agree. That’s why this is going to the select committee. It’s coming to a good select committee, and I really do hope that we get good engagement. I’m going to commend this bill to the House, and I look forward to hearing more about it when it comes to our great select committee.

Hon MARK PATTERSON (Minister for Rural Communities): It is a great honour to speak on this bill, on behalf of New Zealand First, and I would like to join colleagues across the House in acknowledging the work of our armed services and the role they play in keeping us safe and in being prepared, actually, to walk into what, for many of us, would be unimaginable danger.

New Zealand First has always been a major supporter of our military. We’re very proud of the investment that the coalition is putting into our armed forces and our military at the moment in this greatly upheaved geopolitical environment, and, of course, we’ve got a fine track record of supporting our military. We were very honoured to have, in our last term in Parliament, the Hon Ron Mark as defence Minister and veterans Minister, and anyone who knows Ron or was around him in that time will know that no one was prouder to serve in that role than Ron; so a shout-out to Ron. The fact that we’ve got the P-8 Poseidons and the Hercules coming through now is a direct result of his advocacy.

This bill, as Laura McClure has just pointed out, is actually quite a minor tweak to a provision that is already in legislation, in terms of just making a 30-day provision rather than a 14-day provision. It’s a very common-sense amendment to what there is already the ability to do. This is not undermining workers’ rights—we do support their right to take industrial action—but we cannot, under any circumstances, be enfeebling our military or encroaching on their ability to serve or to execute critical tasks that they do. I might add that it’s not only military or offensive operations; often it is in state of emergency and severe weather events like Cyclone Gabrielle. As the Hon Peeni Henare referenced, during COVID they were called into action.

Having any encroachment on the ability of our armed forces or our military to execute their responsibilities—this bill takes away some of the uncertainty or the narrowness of the current provisions when there is lawful industrial action being undertaken by the civil staff who play such an important role in supporting our military. New Zealand First will be supporting this bill. We’re fully in support, so we commend the Minister for bringing it forward and commend it to the House. Thank you.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tokerau): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. I think it’s one thing to open with a speech—not mine; what I was listening to—as if people don’t quite get it. You know, it’s like “So I’m going to clarify something.” There’s something, I think, arrogant about that and assuming that people don’t actually get what’s going on. People do get that, because they don’t trust what’s going on. So when people think about “Gee, should I really listen?”, the reason they don’t, unfortunately, is because too many of our people, Māori included, just do not trust anything that’s coming out from those to my left in the House. So don’t be surprised, shocked, and cry-baby about the fact that people do not trust, they do not listen, and they can’t take you seriously. That’s the point that I want to make as I open up our position, as Te Pāti Māori, and say we will not be supporting this.

What we do recognise, and I tautoko the kōrero a Hon Peeni Henare; e mihi ana ki wā tātou whanaunga i roto i te New Zealand Defence Force [I support the statement of Peeni Hēnare; I acknowledge our relatives in the New Zealand Defence Force].

Māori women, Māori men, all women and men in that special and important Defence Force.

In fact, what it seems to me is—and, again, noting some other comments from my immediate right, here—what is this going to be like in the smoko room? You know, how is this going to go? You’ve got our Defence Force team, and then you’ve got them working and taking the space of our civilian work—that’s not a good, smart, or safe way, I think, to treat people.

Just picking up again that this is already something that can happen in an extension of time. The reason, again, that I want to affirm is that the people don’t get those points, and nor do they even probably care about them, because they don’t trust, overall, the approach that this Government is taking, and they fear what this Government is doing. You would have and you would have seen that, obviously, when 100,000 people came and walked on this Parliament and just said, “You’re screwing up, change what you’re doing.”—which, of course, you haven’t taken a bit of notice of.

So back to this particular issue. Last year, the members of the Public Service Association (PSA)—that’s right, that’s right. The ACT Party was the only one that agreed to that one, and the rest of you woke up and did a good thing and voted against it.

Last year, members of the PSA working within the Defence Force were offered a 0 percent pay increase. The only way they were able to improve that situation was through strike action. That right to strike is what allowed progress to be made—OK? That’s how it happened, so that they could actually make that happen. But this bill threatens to remove that power. It’s that—

Tim Costley: No, it doesn’t—no it doesn’t. That’s not true.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: It is absolutely true, and you can’t be trusted with telling the truth, so I’m just going to carry on. This bill threatens to remove that power. If the armed forces are legally enabled to take over the roles of striking staff, then the impact of striking is, effectively, neutralised. The strike becomes symbolic, without consequence or leverage. This undermines the very purpose of industrial action.

No workplace can improve if workers are stripped of meaningful avenues to advocate for their rights, and this bill isn’t just an attack on the New Zealand Defence Force civilian staff; it’s a gateway for wider attacks on our nurses, our teachers, our firefighters. [Interruption] I know that there’s a little bit of cry-baby over here to the left of me, but, again, what you’re not recognising is that even if your points that you are attempting to make by squealing right now—they might even be relevant. But here’s the thing that you’re not getting: people do not trust much of anything that you are doing right now—all right? They don’t trust you, and so why on earth would they even bother listening? They cannot take you seriously and, obviously, we do not take you seriously.

The party has no interest in this, and we will not be supporting it. Tēnā koe e te Pīka.

TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): You want to talk about trust? Let me tell you who I trust. I trust the 12,000 Kiwis this morning that got out of bed, put on their uniform, and went to serve in our Defence Force, willing to do whatever it is that their country asks of them. Don’t tell me on the other side—and we hear it from Labour and we hear it from Green and we hear it from Te Pāti Māori about employment conditions and workplace relations. These people are not employees; they are service people. They serve. They do what their country asks. The illiteracy of what our Defence Force is and does and who they are, on the other side of the House, is shocking. People that think that suddenly we’re going to have issues in the smoko room wouldn’t know what one looks like on the inside of the base. The gallant members on this side of the House know exactly what that’s like.

You want to ask about readiness? Let me explain to them, Mr Tuiono, what readiness is. It is the people that sit at home through Christmas, through weekends on rosters to respond to national contingencies, to search and rescue, and to a whole range of things. It’s medics, it’s technicians, it’s soldiers, it’s sailors, and it’s air crew—people waiting to serve this country—and we should be supporting them. That means that if a civilian workforce wants to do what they’re legally entitled to do and take industrial action, which does not change—anyone that says that would be lying. If they want to take that action, we should be supporting them by allowing them to go and do jobs that they already do. There are already military personnel—

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I was just wanting to clarify whether, with the hand action, the member was referring to a liar or anyone lying, and I hope it wasn’t me. I wanted to make that point.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): It was a general enough clause to not be specifically accusing anyone in particular of lying, but the member will be careful.

TIM COSTLEY: There are military personnel guarding military bases today. It seems outrageous that we had to come to Parliament to ask them to do that. There are military personnel servicing aircraft, and yet we had to come to Parliament to ask if more could service aircrafts.

This is a common-sense bill. It is something that I would have thought was in the national interest and that every party could unite on. I cannot believe the fundamental attempt at politics on the other side. There is no understanding of what a defence force does. There is no respect for them; there is no support for them, but that’s what this party is all about.

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

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 1 p.m.