Wednesday, 15 October 2025

WEDNESDAY, 15 OCTOBER 2025

WEDNESDAY, 15 OCTOBER 2025

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

Karakia/Prayers

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

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

Speaker’s Rulings

Broadcasting (Repeal of Advertising Restrictions) Amendment Bill, Third Reading—Interruption of Vote

SPEAKER: Members, yesterday, Glen Bennett raised a point of order asking for clarification of how the vote had been interrupted for the previous sitting day. I undertook to consider the matter and come back to the House.

On Thursday, 9 October, the question was put on the third reading of the Broadcasting (Repeal of Advertising Restrictions) Amendment Bill. After a vote was declared on the voices, a personal vote was called for and held. The Assistant Speaker declared the result. However, before the bill was read a third time, a personal vote was ruled as having had no effect under Standing Order 154. This is because fewer than 20 members attended the House for the vote. The Assistant Speaker asked for the personal vote sheets to be inspected to ascertain how many members had voted in person. There were 15, and so the vote was of no effect. I should point out here that members would have been in the precinct, but given that the vote was in process, the doors would have been locked.

It was 6.23 p.m., well after the time that the House was scheduled to adjourn. The Assistant Speaker set the bill down for resumption on the next sitting day, and I endorse that decision.

Standing Order 53(2)(a) says that when a vote is in progress, the interruption of business is deferred until the question is determined. When the Assistant Speaker found that the vote was of no effect, then the vote was no longer in process, and the decision was the correct one. When the order of the day for the third reading of the bill was resumed yesterday, the only way for the business to be completed was for the question to be put again. At that point, a new vote took place, and the bill was subsequently read a third time.

PETITIONS, PAPERS, SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PETITIONS, PAPERS, SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

SPEAKER: A petition has been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.

CLERK: Petition of Jacinta McGregor requesting that the House tighten bail and sentencing laws for sex offenders.

SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee. Nine papers have been delivered by Ministers.

CLERK:

The 2024-25 annual reports for:

Ministry for Culture and Heritage

Ministry of Defence

Ministry for Pacific Peoples

New Zealand Defence Force

Department of Corrections

Whaikaha

reports on non-departmental appropriations for 2024-25:

the Emergency Management and Recovery portfolio in Vote Business, Science and Innovation

Ministry for Culture and Heritage

the Government response to the Climate Change Commission’s 2025 Emissions reduction monitoring report.

SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House. No select committee reports have been delivered for the Clerk. No bills have been introduced.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

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

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he stand by his statement on becoming Prime Minister two years ago, “We’re desperate to get to work to try and make things better for New Zealanders.”; if so, why do twice as many New Zealanders think things will be the same or worse in the next 12 months compared to those who think things will get better?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, absolutely, and that’s why you’ve seen this Government restore law and order to this country. We had violent crime up 33 percent, gang membership up 51 percent; we had a four-fold increase in ram raids, and a doubling of retail crime. I’m proud to say there are 29,000 fewer victims of serious violent crime; there’s a 16 percent reduction in serious youth offending. If we now move to the area of education, I’m very proud to say that after having got to the basics of teaching our kids maths and reading, I'm very proud of the progress that we're making there. I consider that the member who was the education Minister for 5½ years did a pretty bad job, actually, making sure that over half our kids weren't at school regularly and that half of them couldn't read at the standard they needed to be going into high school, and 80 percent weren’t at the standard they needed in maths. On the economic front, I'm proud of the fact that we've got Government spending under control. We didn't increase it 84 percent. We didn't triple the debt to $180 billion, writing out a $9 billion interest rate bill. But what we're doing is lowering inflation, lowering interest rates, getting the economy moving, and actually getting people back to work. And we're cleaning up the mess that that member left.

SPEAKER: I just would express a hope that other Ministers don't take the Prime Minister's example in taking so long to answer.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he think New Zealanders are feeling better off or worse off after two years of his leadership compared to before he became Prime Minister?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, look, as I've explained to the member before, when you increase Government spending by 84 percent and you lose control of the immutable laws of economics—

Hon Ginny Andersen: Answer the question.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: And just look at the front bench across the road. Do you think there are any economically literate people in that front bench? It's unbelievable. But I’ll just say to the member, we've actually got a two-speed recovery under way already. We have had record farmer confidence, we have had 12 percent growth in our exports overseas, and our primary industry sectors are doing very well. Just yesterday, you would have seen 86 percent confidence in our tourism operators—our second biggest industry, at 7.5 percent of our total GDP. That's actually looking good for the year ahead. Yes, there's more work to do in Auckland, but it's coming, too.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Well, does he stand by his statement that the economy is now growing; if so, will he resign as Prime Minister if figures for the September quarter that has just concluded [Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, hang on—sorry. We’ll start again.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he stand by his statement that the economy is now growing; if so, will he resign if the figures for the September quarter that has just ended show that the economy has actually been in recession?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I've said to the member before, we had good growth in quarter four. We had even stronger growth in quarter one. The brakes were hit on the second day of April due to uncertainty around the Trump tariff. That affects confidence and sentiment, understandably. We're now growing now; we're expected to grow even further in quarter four.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Pretty straightforward question: if the economy has been in recession over the last two quarters, whether the Prime Minister would resign or not. He hasn't addressed that.

SPEAKER: Well, I think he did address it by talking about the annualising of the stat.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: So that’s obviously a no.

SPEAKER: Well, I'm not interpreting any answer, let alone interpret your question.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Very good. Thank you, Mr Speaker. How has refusing to meaningfully negotiate with firefighters, doctors, nurses, and teachers, contributing to what may well be the largest strike action New Zealand's seen in a generation, made things better for New Zealanders?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, look, I think the Government has been acting in good faith in negotiation with the unions. But what Kiwis are sick of is unions prioritising their interests ahead of kids who haven't been in school, the kids that are about to go into exams over the next wee while, the tens of thousands of patients that have been waiting because they ran up the wait-list like 20 times since they were in power. And so those people there are actually really what we're focused on. I know you might be worried about your union mates, but actually we're not worried about your unions.

SPEAKER: That last comment wasn’t at all necessary.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: So why is he willing to accept a pay rise in line with inflation, claim a $50,000 housing allowance, and spend $44,000 on a helicopter ride so he could take a photograph for his Facebook, while his Government makes pay offers to workers like firefighters, nurses, and teachers that amount to pay cuts in real terms?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, that's not true. I reject the characterisation of that question.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How has scrapping pay equity agreements, therefore cutting the future pay for thousands of New Zealand workers, mostly women, made things better off for New Zealanders?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I think there's some weirdness in the question. When you say cutting future pay, I don't know what you mean by that. But what I’d just say to the member is that this is a Government that supports pay equity legislation. We supported the initial pay equity legislation that came through the House, but that member took a paper to Cabinet and blew the cost from $3.5 billion up to $12 to $13 billion. Not surprising—can't do math, so not a surprise, but we're actually making it workable given the complexities around that regime, and it's still available for people today, and we encourage unions and members to make claims under the pay equity legislation that's there.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If his Government is so supportive of pay equity, how many of the 33 active pay equity claims that were in the process when he became Prime Minister have been settled during his two years as Prime Minister?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We have pay equity legislation that's there today. We have made it workable. It was unworkable and complex. We had perverse situations of jobs being compared to other jobs that had no relevance or no consistency. And that member ran up the cost from $3.5 billion to $12 billion. So are you reversing that? Where’s the $12 billion coming from?

Question No. 2—Health

SPEAKER: Question No. 2—Nima Rakhle.

Rima Nakhle: Rima Nakhle.

SPEAKER: Yes, that’s the one. Rima Nakhle.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, sir. I’ve noticed a developing trend amongst Government Ministers, including the Prime Minister in this instance, where they end their response with a question. Successive Speakers have made it very clear that it’s not the Government’s job to post questions to the Opposition.

SPEAKER: That is quite true, so I hope all Ministers have taken that on board. Rima Nakhle.

2. RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini) to the Minister of Health: What recent progress has been made on the Government’s commitment to extend free breast screening for New Zealand women?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health): Good news. From this month, women aged 70 and 74 are now eligible for free breast screening—the first step in the Government’s nationwide age extension for all women aged between 70 and 74. This means more New Zealand women will have the opportunity to detect breast cancer early, when treatment is most effective. Once fully rolled out, around 130,000 additional women will be eligible for free screening every two years. We’re backing this up with real investment by training and recruiting more staff, purchasing new equipment, opening new screening sites, and delivering mobile screening units. We’re delivering practical, life-changing results for New Zealanders.

Rima Nakhle: How will this extension improve early detection and survival rates for women with breast cancer?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Early detection quite literally saves lives. By extending the eligible age range, women will have access to an additional two to three mammograms over their lifetime, giving them more chances to detect breast cancer before symptoms appear. Once the full extension is implemented, it is expected to result in around 60 more breast cancers being detected early every year. Those early detections mean more women surviving, more families spared heartbreak, and those women given a fighting chance.

Tim Costley: How is the Government ensuring that women across the country, including the Kāpiti Coast, can access these breast screening services?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: I thank the member for his question and for joining Minister Grigg and myself in Kāpiti this morning. Access is at the heart of this programme, and we know that not every woman lives near a major hospital or screening centre. That’s why, as part of this roll-out of the age extension, we’re also opening new regional screening sites, such as the Waikanae breast screening centre I visited today, as well as delivering four new mobile screening units to serve our smaller towns and rural communities. We’re also introducing a modern digital platform that automatically identifies eligible women, sends out the invitation, and allows them to book their appointments online. We’re making screening faster, simpler, and more convenient whether you live in a city or a rural community, bringing this to people closer to home.

Rima Nakhle: What steps are being taken to ensure services can meet the increased demand for breast screening?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: We’re taking a carefully phased approach to ensure the system grows sustainably. Health New Zealand is recruiting and training more radiographers, technicians, and specialist staff, investing in new mammography and ultrasound machines, and expanding capacity across both fixed and mobile sites. This is a system that has been built for the future with smarter technology, stronger infrastructure, and a clear focus on early detection, accessibility, and quality care. It is yet another example of this Government delivering better health services that make a real difference in New Zealanders’ lives.

Question No. 3—Finance

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

Hon SHANE JONES (Associate Minister of Finance): on behalf of the Minister of Finance: Yes, within the context within which the statements were made.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How can she stand by her statement that she is, “making changes that will set our country up for a better future”, when 200 Kiwis a day do not see a better future and are choosing to leave the country?

Hon SHANE JONES: It has long been a rite of passage for Kiwis to venture overseas. The changes that we are making, both of a fiscal and a regulatory character, are both short term and medium term. Green shoots are emerging.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How can she stand by her statement in April this year that “We’ve been seeing green shoots across the economy.”, when at that time the economy was shrinking by almost 1 percent?

Hon SHANE JONES: As is the case with statistics, they’re so backward looking. The actual truth of the matter is that with the reduction and the improvement in terms of monetary policy, more liquidity is coming into the economy, banks are more confident, and the market is talking about yet another further reduction in monetary policy standards from 2.5 percent to some other figure.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Well, what is her responsibility in relation to monetary policy?

Hon SHANE JONES: The Reserve Bank, as you well know, is an independent organisation. It took on a responsibility for coping with inflation driven to stratospheric levels of danger as a consequence of a failed fiscal policy prior to our arrival. We are taking an approach of fiscal policy which is one of consolidation and responsibility.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How can she stand by her statement that “We have invested more in public infrastructure.”, when there are 20,000 fewer people working in construction?

Hon SHANE JONES: It should come as no surprise that when the Government was formed, we inherited a mess in Kāinga Ora. Not only were projects over-costed, not only were we looking at housing options that had grown at levels of recklessness that became unaffordable—it was not unreasonable for the Government at that particular time to have taken a further look at how robust the costings were for that portion of the construction sector. But as my colleague Mr Bishop has said, over $60 billion has been put aside for infrastructure, including the construction sector, over the next four years.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Who else is there to blame for her economic mismanagement, given that since she was asked this question last week, her Government has added teachers, firefighters, doctors, nurses, and the unions to that list?

Hon SHANE JONES: Well, given that the size of our economy is $440-odd billion, it takes a while to turn the super-tanker around. We are not only very focused on the right navigational bearings but we’re leaving the storm and hurricane of destruction that was left to us by the last regime.

Question No. 4—Education

4. DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast) to the Minister of Education: What recent reports has she seen on education achievement?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): The Education Review Office (ERO)—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just wait on. Now you may progress.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Thank you. The Education Review Office released a report today evaluating how the Government’s English and maths reforms are being implemented. In less than a year, we are seeing considerable improvement in achievement and engagement in maths and English and increased hours spent in the classroom on reading, writing, and maths, especially in our lower-decile schools. Half of teachers reported that students’ English and maths have improved compared to last year. Parents agree, with over three-quarters reporting better progress for their children in both English and maths, and so do our young people. Three-quarters of students agree that they are getting better at English and maths. We had a plan, we’re delivering on that plan that places student achievement at the centre, and we are seeing results. This is what delivery looks like.

Dana Kirkpatrick: What does the data say about student outcomes?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Our reforms are delivering better outcomes for students. Three out of four teachers report that structured literacy approaches have improved literacy for most students. Nine out of 10 students report enjoying learning English and maths. Teachers have said that new approaches are improving attention and behaviour in the classroom. One student is quoted as saying, “My reading is getting better. I am reading faster than usual. My fluency has increased.”—note the word “fluency” from a young student. Another student said: “We have more structure, more explaining, and more help with maths in school.”. We know that structured literacy and maths works for students. We know that following the evidence is important in enabling our children to thrive at school, and teaching the basics brilliantly is at the core of everything we’re doing.

Dana Kirkpatrick: What does the data say about the impact on teachers?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: We have so many brilliant teachers, and when we back them, we see results. Nearly 80 percent of primary teachers have accessed professional learning and development in delivering structured literacy, and ERO found that teachers who used the 1.1 million maths books, textbooks, workbooks, and teacher guides that we have delivered were four times more likely to change their teaching practice. This quote about structured literacy from one teacher sums it all up: “It has been one of the absolute benefits we’ve had, and the most impactful things we’ve had around engagement. We’ve seen this spin off in other spaces—in particular with spelling. There is some talk of it being too structured and ending up with robot kids, but I would absolutely disagree. You can still have fun, spread joy and love, and make sure you don’t lose the art of teaching.”

Question No. 5—Education

5. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT) to the Associate Minister of Education: What recent announcements has he made about the opening of new charter schools across New Zealand?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Education): Very exciting announcement: three new charter schools announced this week so far, taking the total number to 14, with more to come later in the week. These include Altum in Wellington, a school focused on classical education; Aotearoa Infinite Academy, a school focused on remote education; and Te Aratika High School, a school in Hawke’s Bay focused on giving vocational pathways to Māori and Pacific students who have been disengaged from education. That’s three quite different aspirations and communities all joined together by the simple idea that one size does not fit all. Many students would like school to be different, and the ideas that exist with within communities can be harnessed within the charter school framework, which gives the same funding, much greater autonomy, and much higher accountability for attendance and achievement so that each child can realise their full potential.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Who will benefit from the newly announced schools?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: It will be students who have aspirations not met by the system as we currently know it, because one size does not fit all. When I think about this policy, I’m always reminded of Clarence Beeby’s quote that the Government’s intention, broadly expressed, is that every child, whether they be rich or poor, boy or girl, or from town or country, will have an education that extends them to the fullest extent of their powers. That was an education secretary under a Labour Minister, Peter Fraser, and I would love to see the Labour Party fulfil that kind of aspiration for the students of New Zealand rather than cuddle up to the unions.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order—point of order.

SPEAKER: I know what you’re going to say, but make your point of order.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Sir, this is a point that you have ruled on consistently—

SPEAKER: Yes, and I did yesterday.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: —and yet it’s occurring again.

SPEAKER: And the member himself actually pointed out to me that that was not acceptable. That last comment is not acceptable in an answer from the Government. It’s an accusation that shouldn’t be made.

Hon David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Speaking to the point of order?

Hon David Seymour: Yes. The Standing Orders prevent members from asking questions with the intent of attacking the Opposition. I don’t believe there was any such intent on the part of the member asking the question, nor me, until I faced heckling from the other side, which I responded to very well, I thought.

SPEAKER: Well, you may think so, but I’m going to ask you to withdraw the comment.

Hon David Seymour: Mr Speaker, I withdraw any comment applicable.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Are charter schools addressing wider education problems in New Zealand?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Absolutely. The Government has a range of programmes to improve attendance at school; to improve, as we’ve just heard from the Minister of Education, the curriculum and the pedagogy as well as the assessment in school. But we still see students who are disengaged, and, in the case of charter schools, we are already hearing stories from students who had been disengaged, had not been going to school regularly, and hadn’t attended school in some cases, they say, for years. They report that suddenly they can see a pathway where they learn, they turn their learnings into qualifications, they turn their qualifications into careers which enable them to do what we all really want, which is achieve and feel good about themselves. That is the ultimate problem that we’re tackling and we’re very proud to be doing it.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Will more charter schools be announced?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Yes, many more charter schools will be announced. I anticipate as many as three more in the rest of this week, and they are very exciting prospects which continue the theme of communities up and down New Zealand demanding more choice. That’s why we had 58 different applications for people to run new schools in this round, and I’m very much looking forward to announcing even more of these new schools as well as a growing number of State schools converting to charter status as the year completes.

Question No. 6—Social Development and Employment

6. Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: How will her introduction of a parental income test for young job seekers impact families struggling with the cost of living?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): The introduction of the parental income test for 18- and 19-year-olds is a positive step towards ensuring Government support is well targeted and effective. We make no apology for encouraging young people to go into education, training, or employment before welfare. We are focused on easing the cost of living pressures and helping families to keep more of what they earn. This policy comes into effect in November 2026 and reflects the values of fairness and responsibility. We want young Kiwis to build independence and confidence in a growing economy.

Hon Willie Jackson: Does she think it is reasonable to cut jobseeker for young people when over 218 applications for one role at a Tank Juice bar show that there are simply no jobs available?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, as I said, this policy comes into effect in November next year, and we want young people to be looking at employment opportunities and, if they’re not considering employment opportunities, further education or training. They are the things that set them up for a great future, which is what, I’m sure, I would have thought members opposite would also want.

Hon Willie Jackson: Who is correct: the Prime Minister, who said that young people need to get off the couch, stop playing PlayStation, and go and find a job, or Student Job Search chief executive Louise Saviker, who said applications are outpacing job listings?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: They’re both correct, because what we do know is that we have a higher aspiration for young people, clearly, than the Opposition do. Because under their watch, the number of young people that went on to benefit under the age of 25—the duration increased to 18 future years on welfare, a 49 percent increase since 2017. We’re not willing to accept welfare dependency for young people, and we accept, right now, economic conditions make it challenging. This policy comes into effect in November next year, and our Government is focused on creating more opportunities for young people.

Hon Willie Jackson: Does she agree with the Prime Minister that they’re doing everything they can to get them connected to work, when more and more young people just can’t find work under her watch?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, unfortunately, the reality that we have inherited is a challenging economic environment, and we’re dealing with it. What I announced today is that we now have 70,000 people in case management with independent, individual employment plans. Actually, what we’re seen is a greater number of people exiting the jobseeker benefit into jobs than a year ago. So, despite it being challenging, we’re seeing more people exit the jobseeker benefit into jobs, including 14.4 percent under the age of 25.

Hon Willie Jackson: Will she admit that instead of doing her job, she’s kicking 18- and 19-year-olds off jobseeker because she’s failing to get to her 50,000 jobseeker reduction target?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Definitely not. I look at every single one of those young people—18- and 19-year-olds—I want them to have a greater life, I want them to have greater opportunities, and I’m unwilling to tolerate that 18 future years on welfare is as good as it gets for them.

Hon Willie Jackson: Is she confident that the next quarterly update will show a reduction in jobseeker numbers?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Treasury forecast in Budget Economic and Fiscal Update indicated that we would continue, unfortunately, to see jobseeker numbers rise until December. That is the reality of the trends that we have inherited—actually, not far off the forecasts that were in place when that member left office. But we’re not sitting around waiting and watching for that to happen, which is why we’ve got 70,000 people in case management, the most effective intervention that is possible. We want to encourage more 18- and 19-year-olds into further education, employment, and further training.

Question No. 7—Tourism and Hospitality

7. MAUREEN PUGH (National—West Coast-Tasman) to the Minister for Tourism and Hospitality: What recent reports has she seen on tourism in New Zealand?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Tourism and Hospitality): International visitor arrival numbers released by Stats NZ this week show a 5.5 percent increase, compared to the same time last year. This means our international visitor numbers are currently sitting at 88 percent of our pre-COVID numbers. Tourism is New Zealand’s second-largest export earner, and is a crucial part of our Government’s focus on economic growth. More visitors mean more tables in our restaurants, more bookings in our hotels, more people visiting our regions and attractions, and more jobs being created.

Maureen Pugh: What recent feedback and indicators suggest growing confidence in New Zealand’s tourism sector?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The Tourism Industry Aotearoa (TIA) survey, also out this week, shows 86 percent of tourism organisations feeling confident about the year ahead. This is an 11 percent increase on last year. TIA chief executive Rebecca Ingram highlighted recent industry-wide announcements as boosting the sector’s optimism. Tourism Holdings chief executive Grant Webster told Mike Hosking yesterday that it’s the time of year and the success of tourism campaigns working their magic. He says growing air capacity and visas being sorted are other momentum points that mean the next 12 months are looking really positive for tourism and New Zealand.

Maureen Pugh: What is the Government doing to support the tourism industry in New Zealand?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: We know the benefits a thriving tourism and hospitality sector bring to our economy, supporting local regions and communities. That’s why our Government has been making a series of investments this year to boost demand and position New Zealand as a go-to destination for people considering their next holiday. It’s encouraging to see a bump in Australian visitors from across the Ditch. These positive results show with the right investment, in the right markets, we can drive economic growth.

Maureen Pugh: How will more international visitors support economic growth?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: By investing in tourism, we are creating opportunities for growth, as tourism directly supports almost 200,000 jobs and contributes $44 billion to the economy. Every time a visitor comes to New Zealand and spends money at a local shop, buys a meal at a local cafe, and stays in our accommodation, it’s good for jobs, it’s good for growth, and it’s good for the incomes of New Zealanders. Our message is clear: New Zealand is open for business and we welcome anyone from anywhere, at any time.

Question No. 8—Prime Minister

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

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

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes.

Hon Marama Davidson: Can the Prime Minister guarantee that Aotearoa will protect 30 percent of our exclusive economic zone by 2030 as committed to under the 2022 global biodiversity framework; if not, why not?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, those are conversations that we haven’t had as a Cabinet yet, but I’d just say we’re very proud of the work that we have collectively all signed up for to protect the Hauraki Gulf.

Hon Marama Davidson: How much of New Zealand’s exclusive economic zone is currently highly protected?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, again, I’d just say we have a lot of focus on making sure we protect our oceans. We’re part of the blue Pacific ocean initiative that we do through the Pacific Islands Forum, and we continue to play our role in that and meet our obligations there. But, again, you know, this is a Government that is very focused on economic growth, right? We want to get things done and we want to get things built.

Hon Marama Davidson: What is his response to our New Zealand sailing great Peter Burling, who said, “we have much further to go to protect more of the coastal and deep ocean ecosystems we are guardians of. I hope this can inspire us to think about greater marine protection beyond the Gulf.”, and will he commit to more marine protected areas outside of the Hauraki Gulf - Tīkapa Moana?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, look, it was really great to see Pete’s comments supporting the progress that we’ve made on protecting the Hauraki Gulf. I just want to say to him, thank you for your support and for the conversations that we’ve had over the last two years about this issue and many others. He cares deeply about the state of our oceans. He cares deeply about the state of the Hauraki Gulf, as do many other Kiwis. It’s been good that we’ve actually made a big step change and actually done something, not just talked about it but delivered it.

Hon Marama Davidson: How does cutting fishing industry levies, enabling ring-net fishing in high protection areas, and blocking our own proposal to restrict bottom trawling show that his Government is protecting our oceans in the interests of all New Zealanders, rather than the interests of the commercial fishing industry?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, we’re getting the balance right, aren’t we? I mean, we’re making sure we can actually maximise the opportunity that exists for aquaculture. We’ve got an outstanding Minister for fisheries who thinks about these issues very deeply. He’s protecting different catches at different times, but he’s getting the balance right between economic growth and protecting our oceans.

Hon Marama Davidson: What’s more important to his Government: protecting the ability for the industry to harvest the last remaining orange roughy, or protecting the integrity of our vulnerable marine ecosystems?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: It’s actually about helping New Zealanders get ahead by lifting the collective living standards of all Kiwis. That’s what our Government’s focused on. That’s why we see huge potential in aquaculture. We want to see it continue to grow very, very strongly like the rest of our primary industries.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: What does the Prime Minister think of the implicit suggestion by the questioner that independent Pacific Island nations be told how to use their waters and resources?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I would find that somewhat paternalistic.

Question No. 9—Science, Innovation and Technology

9. TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki) to the Minister of Science, Innovation and Technology: What steps is the Government taking to support science and innovation in order to grow the New Zealand economy?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Science, Innovation and Technology): There are enormous opportunities in New Zealand to utilise our scientific expertise to create higher-paying jobs and to diversify our economy. That’s why I have substantively accepted the recommendations of the Science System Advisory Group and am creating a single, independent board, Research Funding New Zealand, which will replace the complex bureaucracy that researchers currently have to navigate. The message from the science and research community has been loud and clear: the current funding system is too complex and too bureaucratic, and it takes time and energy away from actual research. This is about smarter investment in research that grows our economy, protects our environment, and improves New Zealanders’ lives.

Tim Costley: How does this new funding organisation differ from how science funding is currently delivered in New Zealand?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: Research Funding New Zealand will consolidate the fragmented decision-making process we currently have. It will take on the Endeavour Fund, the Marsden Fund, and Strategic Science Investment Fund—currently administered by three separate funding bodies—as well as health research from the Health Research Council. We’ve seen in the past that there is too much duplication across these bodies, with different application processes and unclear alignment with Government priorities. Research Funding New Zealand will be simpler, faster, and more focused on impact.

Tim Costley: What areas of science will the new science funding board focus on?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: High-quality science is critical to so many parts of our economy and communities. Under this new model, public investment in science will be focused across the economy, the environment, health, and society, as well as on emerging technologies—an area that we’re falling behind in. High-quality science will support our exporters, tackle the environmental challenges we are facing, and improve the health of all New Zealanders. This is about getting the system working better, with less bureaucracy, clearer priorities, and a stronger focus on research that makes a difference.

Tim Costley: What other initiatives does the Government have under way to grow the New Zealand economy through science, innovation, and technology?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: We are currently undertaking the most comprehensive reform of our science sector in a generation. In the last six months alone, we have already set up new public research organisations. We’re also branching out into new areas of research, with $70 million committed to AI technology, $71 million for future materials and magnet technologies, and $42 million to establish a biodiscovery platform, and we’ve more than doubled investment into our fast-growing gaming sector. We are committed to growing our economy, and having thriving science and technology is a core part of that mission.

Question No. 10—Economic Growth

10. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister for Economic Growth: Does she agree with the statement of Hon Nicola Willis that “On our watch there may be fewer people wearing lanyards on Lambton Quay, but there are going to be a lot more people wearing high-vis and hard hats”; if so, why?

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Regional Development) on behalf of the Minister for Economic Growth: Yes.

Hon Ginny Andersen: How many of the 200 New Zealanders who leave our shores each day are qualified construction workers?

Hon SHANE JONES: No doubt their skills are in high demand over in Australian, and if she writes me a letter, I'll consider responding to it.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Why is construction activity the lowest it has been since 2019, when he promised more people wearing high-vis and hard hats?

Hon SHANE JONES: When you create a fiscal perfect storm and the cost of money—interest rates—becomes recklessly high, the Reserve Bank intervenes and increases the cost of money—the interest rate. That has a direct impact on the confidence and the ability of people to fund projects. And therein lies the lesson for that particular member as she struggles to understand economics.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Why did the Government promise more people wearing high-vis and hard hats when there has been $2.9 billion less spent on roads, housing, and hospitals over the past year?

Hon SHANE JONES: On the matter of the hospital, it’s this Government that's actually accelerated the delivery of the Dunedin Hospital project. Not only did we resize the project within a defensible fiscal level but we have, as has been announced, entered into a contract. Once again, this is taking some time because of the dreadful fiscal burden that was left on the current Government due to the profligacy of the period of time between 2020 and 2023.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Why did his Government cut Apprenticeship Boost for civil engineers?

Hon SHANE JONES: Obviously, the responsibility for boosting the number of apprentices, highly trained younger people, has to be shared between the public sector and the private sector. We have been running a set of policies that have enabled society to see that we are bringing the books back in order. As matters improve and as the market picks up, who knows what options will be available to us in the future.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Why did he say to New Zealanders that there will be more people wearing hi-vis and hard hats when there has been, under his watch, $2.9 billion less spent on infrastructure and when his Government has cut Apprenticeship Boost for civil engineering, there are 20,000 fewer construction jobs in New Zealand, and 760 construction firms have gone under, under his watch?

Hon SHANE JONES: I repeat: once inflation runs rampant, this is the devastating impact that inflationary policies have upon the confidence of investors, the ability of firms, and, quite frankly, it shrinks the options that New Zealanders have. On the question of hard hats and high-vis, I can assure you coal mining is about to improve those statistics.

Question No. 11—Oceans and Fisheries

11. TEANAU TUIONO (Green) to the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries: Has he seen the Our Marine Environment 2025 report, which shows that New Zealand oceans are warming 34 percent faster than the global average; if so, what actions is he taking to address this?

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): Yes, I am aware of that report and will be sharing my thoughts with the Minister for the Environment on that matter. But I have to tell the member that 5.2 million people residing in the South Pacific with an economy of about $440 billion Kiwi dollars have zero control over the direction or the heat being generated by the Pacific Ocean.

Teanau Tuiono: Does he accept the report’s finding that climate change is driving significant changes in our oceans, and, if so, does he believe that the attempts to drill for more fossil fuels will help or harm our moana?

Hon SHANE JONES: Obviously, our contribution to global emissions is 0.17 percent—less than 1 percent! It is the height of conceit to imagine that somehow by closing down New Zealand industry we’re going to save the planet. The planet is more than capable of saving itself and we will adapt in good time.

Teanau Tuiono: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I don’t believe the Minister addressed the question. It was whether he believed that attempts to drill for more fossil fuels will help or harm.

SPEAKER: Well, I think he did answer it when he used some acceptably colourful language to describe what he thought of the question, I’m sorry to say.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question?

SPEAKER: We’ll go one more here; Teanau—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: He hadn’t asked for it at that point in time.

Teanau Tuiono: Does he accept that warming oceans pose—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order?

SPEAKER: He sat down.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: He had not asked for the question at that point in time.

Teanau Tuiono: I was waiting for him to talk.

SPEAKER: Sorry, wait on.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Let’s have some rules here.

SPEAKER: With all due respect, I’ve called Teanau Tuiono.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. With all due respect, he had never asked for the supplementary question when you’d given it to him. How does that work? We’d like some old-fashioned rules restored to this place.

SPEAKER: Yes, good. And as the member will have listened carefully to what I said yesterday, all supplementary questions are at the discretion of the Speaker, not the person who wants them. Teanau Tuiono.

Teanau Tuiono: Thank you, Mr Speaker—thank you. Does the Minister accept that warming oceans pose a risk to the sustainability of the fishing industry and fishers’ livelihoods, and, if so, what is he doing to ensure fishing in New Zealand can be a sustainable source of income for years and decades to come?

Hon SHANE JONES: On the question of fisheries, the proposed mining, God willing, to proceed off the coast of Taranaki will have minimal impact on the strength or the vitality of fisheries. Sadly, fish do move around. Consequently, it behoves the Government to change, from time to time, its regulatory approach so that the harvesters, the guardians, and the regulators of our fisheries resource have multiple options in front of them to deal with the changing fortunes of the oceanic environment. But to suggest that a single Minister or a Government or 5.2 million people at the distant end of the South Pacific can effect change when larger climate change emitters are doing zero is fanciful.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: With respect to mining fossils, which is what four countries are doing—namely, China, USA, India, and Russia—and contributing to 60 percent of the emissions, what hope have we got to change that?

Hon SHANE JONES: The hope is we will dig our own coal up, starting with 200,000-plus tonnes to reduce our reliance on imported Indonesian coal. The hope is that with the $200 million allocated in the Budget, we will accelerate the development of the oil and gas industry. Sadly, we are unlikely to see unanimity until the former Minister disappears from Parliament.

Teanau Tuiono: Is the Minister at least concerned that warming oceans—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry, wait on. Start again.

Teanau Tuiono: Is the Minister at least concerned that warming oceans pose a risk to human health due to toxic algae blooms, and, if not, why not?

Hon SHANE JONES: It’s really important that the Minister for Fisheries and Oceans deals in facts, and those facts have to be informed by rationality, science, and technology. Then, when those facts are evident, our society is more than capable of adapting to the challenges. But any suggestion that we’re going to hollow out industry, including fisheries, to meet this dreamlike conception of how dangerous climate change is—it’s never going to be agreed to by this Minister.

Teanau Tuiono: Does he stand by his statement from September that catch limits for the Chatham Rise and southern New Zealand orange roughy will be more than halved to support sustainability following a careful scientific assessment, and, if so, what has changed about the best scientific information available since then?

Hon SHANE JONES: I thank the member for that question. Obviously, setting total allowable commercial catch limits for any fish species is a balance, as reflected in the purpose of the Fisheries Act. Not only do we have to be mindful of the scientific evidence and the pressure on stocks, we also have to take account of the statutory status of utilisation. I’m confident that the information fed into that decision will stand the test in good time.

Question No. 12—Agriculture

12. JAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First) to the Associate Minister of Agriculture: What reports, if any, has he received regarding wool?

Hon MARK PATTERSON (Associate Minister of Agriculture): Well, by far the most important reports I have seen are the weekly auction results, which are giving renewed hope to our long-suffering wool growers. Great news: there has been a resurgence in wool prices. Over the last 12 months, the strong wool indicator is up 32 percent, mid micron up 41 percent, and fine wool up 35 percent. These are levels not seen in nine years, and much of this increase has occurred in the last few weeks.

Jamie Arbuckle: What has contributed to the notable rise in strong wool prices?

Hon MARK PATTERSON: Recently, I travelled to China to attend the Nanjing Wool Market Conference, as part of a New Zealand delegation. Nanjing is a major hub for the international wool-textile trade, and China accounts for approximately 40 percent of New Zealand’s wool exports. It was evident there that there is a genuine shift in demand for New Zealand wool as part of a global consumer swing to natural fibres, combined with constrained supply out of New Zealand.

Jamie Arbuckle: Can the Minister outline the actions being taken to support the recovery and growth of the wool industry?

Hon MARK PATTERSON: Importantly, via the New Zealand First-National coalition agreement, the Government has sent a clear signal to the market that we are backing wool. We’ve directed Government departments to prioritise wool and fibres in Government buildings, driving demand and backing our farmers. I’m also pleased to report that industry leadership is coming together. A wool alliance, combined of Wool Impact, Campaign for Wool New Zealand, and the Wool Research Organisation of New Zealand, has begun consultation with farmers in the formation of a long-overdue leadership model not seen since 2011.

Jamie Arbuckle: What new incentives and innovation are helping to revitalise the New Zealand wool industry?

Hon MARK PATTERSON: I’d like to put on record that I am really proud of the commercial wool sector. They are rallying in support of their farmers. There is a number of initiatives under way from new pathways to market, simplifying supply chains, and cutting costs. There is much investment in innovation, unlocking high-value end uses beyond just carpets and insulation, with wool being now used in filtration, acoustics, pigments and powders, bioagents, and even nutraceuticals. There is investment flowing back into restoring local manufacturing capacity, adding value right here in New Zealand and creating jobs in our regions. This sector is determined to play a part in doubling New Zealand’s exports.

General Debate

General Debate

Hon SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

If you want to see what happens when ideology trumps competence, when virtue signalling replaces governing, and when chaos becomes policy, then look no further than the unholy alliance of the Labour - Greens - Te Pāti Māori. Let’s take a tour of the unholy alliance, shall we?

We’ll start with the Te Pāti Māori, who’ve just had their reset. They thought they were doing a 180, but somehow they’ve turned a 180 into a 360. They don’t even know basic maths—

Hon Member: It’s a burn out.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: They were doing a burn out, that’s right. Lasting a whopping three minutes, their so-called reset was completely shut down by questions. It started a half an hour late, and now they’ve got leaking members, leaking against each other, with emails being fired off, making accusations. That’s Chris Hipkins’ coalition party right there—that’s Chris Hipkins’ coalition party right there.

Let’s talk about Chris Hipkins, because he’s got his own problems; the ship with no rudder—the ship with no rudder. When he’s asked about Te Pāti Māori and whether he will rule them in or out, what does he say? “Well, I’m not sure exactly how many Te Pāti Māoris there are.” Well, either that man doesn’t know how to count, being a former Minister of Education, or, quite simply, Mr Hipkins is so committed to trying to do a deal that he’ll do anything to try to get into Government. That shows how desperate that man is. This is the same Chris Hipkins who said he’ll work with anyone—anyone—if it means a sniff of the Treasury benches. Principles; well, they’re optional; standards, negotiable; coherent partners, who cares?

Let’s get to the Green Party, shall we? The unholy coalition—the unholy coalition of chaos on the other side—of course, relies on the Green Party. What have we seen from them? For the first time in two years, we had a question about the environment! It’s like they’ve just remembered that they’re actually called the Green Party. You could have thought, well, for the last few months, pontificating about Palestine, making sure they were chaining themselves to every protest, out there with their selective outrage, but not one single word when it comes to the hostages who were released yesterday—the 20 hostages released yesterday. On this side of the House, we’re grateful for the work done by President Trump and the coalition of nations to release those hostages, to have a ceasefire in the Middle East, but the selective outrage over there has shown that, actually, there’s nothing but silence—nothing but silence.

It all comes back to Chris Hipkins with his unholy trinity, the three parties which he is desperate, of course, to try to stitch together. Of course, what do we know that this Chris Hipkins will have to do if he’s going to try to get elected? There’s three things which they are united on. They might not know how to do a reset, they might not quite understand whether their name is the Green Party or what that means they should focus on, but there’s one thing that they’re all united on, and that, of course, is increased taxes: increased taxes for New Zealanders. Whether it’s a savings tax, whether it’s a property tax, whether it’s a death tax, New Zealanders can be guaranteed that, behind the scenes, that’s what they’re cooking up to take to the next election.

There is hope for New Zealand, and that hope sits on this side of the House. While the Opposition plays games trying to work out what they’re doing, we are delivering results. We’ve got spending under control, inflation down to 2.7 percent, and mortgage rates cut eight times. We’ve delivered tax relief for the first time in 14 years. Ram raids are down 85 percent; gang patches banned—I’m not sure what their position is on gang patches. We’re reducing wait-lists for hips, knees and cataracts, all of which went up under Chris Hipkins when he was Minister of Health. We’ve delivered 33 new cancer medicines, delivered the biggest funding boost for general practitioners, and just today announced an extension to breast screening, which, by the way, Labour promised in 2017 with their coalition agreement with New Zealand First but failed to deliver. You cannot trust Labour when it comes to health.

The contrast couldn’t be clearer: on that side of the House, chaos, coups, budget blowouts, selective outrage, internal warfare, parties that can’t even organise a press conference without imploding; and on this side, delivery for New Zealanders on the issues that matter. New Zealanders deserve a Government focused on the issues that matter, and that is exactly what this Government is delivering.

MARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Two parts per million—reconcile that. Two parts per million—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Hang on. If the member could just—

MARK CAMERON: —biogenic methane.

SPEAKER: Sorry, we’ll start him again. You’ve got to give people at least a couple of seconds to start before the barracking goes. Just so I can explain to anybody who might be watching this and who thinks the place is completely rabble-ous, this is the general debate, and that tends to be the time when the House is most animated. We will give Mark Cameron another start, and, hopefully, a little bit of leeway into his speech.

MARK CAMERON: Thank you, Mr Speaker—thanks, sir. Two parts per million methane—biogenic methane. That side of the House eviscerated rural New Zealand. Damien O’Connor and his thugging mate of David Parker were beating up rural New Zealand. Now, David Seymour was the only guy in this entire precinct that voted against the zero carbon Act.

Hon Damien O'Connor: Such a brilliant time.

MARK CAMERON: Common sense—Damien O’Connor—was restored to the debate. In the ACT Party, we believe in principle. We believe, actually, in rural people. I came here, after spending 30 years in a cowshed—and I know that that member hasn’t spent three—saying that I would fight for the rights of rural people. We had had absolutely enough. In 2020, we campaigned on putting common sense back in the room, and we did. We campaigned in 2023 to do exactly the same: to restore some common sense and, gracious me, to restore some hope in rural New Zealand households. We came to fix what matters, and we are fixing what matters. We are restoring rural confidence.

Rural New Zealand has seen the needle move. National commitments to methane have been revised—how good is that? Common sense—restored down.

Now, I hear all the naysayers saying that it’s the end of days and it’s doom and gloom—rubbish. In rural New Zealand, we are sick of the climate wokery from the alarmists. It’s all doom and gloom and the world is burning—I mean, I’ve heard Arena Williams say that the world is literally burning. What factual nonsense is that? It is not, and rural New Zealand, by the way, I would say to that member, has the most efficient farmers in the world. Why don’t you celebrate that reality? There is a novel idea, I’d say to that side of the House.

ACT stands with rural people. Farmers in rural New Zealand are worth almost $60 billion—60 billion—and Chris Hipkins knows this, as the leader of that party. Gracious me, I have never heard that member stand up and defend my people.

Gracious me, I came to this House, I buried my son with suicide, and I’m standing here while on dialysis because I absolutely believe in rural folk. They’re worth fighting for. I wish that anyone on that side of the House would do the same: stand up for your principles. We will not bite the hand that feeds it.

Now, yesterday, Marama Davidson—a member of your future coalition, so I hear—said that we were lobbied by lobbyists. What malarkey! I stood up because I believe in farmers, and I am a farmer myself. Maureen Pugh is a farmer. Mike Butterick is a farmer. Andrew Hoggard is a farmer. Where are your farmers? This is the biggest part of the economy—

Hon Marama Davidson: Ours is at the climate conference. Where’s yours?

MARK CAMERON: —and Damien O’Connor—I say to Marama Davidson—sits silent. Where is your counter-narrative?

We’ve put science back in the conversation. No more hyperbole, no more conflation, I say to Damien O’Connor. The end of days—“Market access, be gone.”

Hon Peeni Henare: COVID didn’t exist—yeah!

MARK CAMERON: We represent—Peeni Henare—the interests of rural folk. It’s a damnable shame that here we are and we are talking about a gas that decays back to carbon dioxide, and it is, factually, two parts per million. I am saddened that this is our reality, but it doesn’t need to be so. This side of the House, with Simon Watts, the Minister of Agriculture, David Seymour, Andrew Hoggard—we’re all part of a future that is supporting rural New Zealand.

One final remark I would like to add in my brief contribution: rural New Zealand has heard us. They are grateful to us, and in a world of averages being one and the same, they are supporting this Government because they knew that Damien O’Connor’s and David Parker’s days were numbered. That’s why they’re on that side of the House, and agriculture and its future is assured under this Government, and not only in this Government but the next one.

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition): Two years ago today, Christopher Luxon stood in front of New Zealanders and he made a promise: his promise was that he was going to lower the cost of living and fix the economy. Two years on, it is abundantly clear he has failed to do both of those things.

The Government made big promises. What have we seen? Increasing unemployment; an economy that’s shrinking; more kids living in poverty; more people homeless and living on the streets; the construction sector—remember, they were going to get things done and get things building again—is at its lowest point in seven years, two years into this Government’s leadership; $3 billion less spending on building stuff in the last year compared to when they became the Government. Our health system descends further into crisis under their leadership, and yet the Minister of Health, who just gave a speech, was only 15 seconds into his speech before he started talking about the Labour Party.

It shows that they have no plan. They know they can’t defend their own record; they know they don’t know how to fix the mess that they have been creating; all they can do is scaremonger and attack, because they don’t know how to turn things around. Their answer is pretty simple: more cuts, more asset sales, less hope for everyday New Zealanders, who are flogging their guts out trying to get ahead with a Government that’s working against them. It does not have to be this way. Instead of coming up with more excuses, this Government should be coming up with answers; they have failed to do that. They’re going to tell New Zealanders, “We just need more time.”, but New Zealanders can see that, with more time, things will get worse, not better—because two years in, that is all this Government has been able to deliver. Forget about getting the economy and the country back on track; they have derailed it. Things are getting worse, not better under Christopher Luxon and his Government’s leadership.

Well, let’s just cut to the chase. As a parent of young New Zealanders, my hope for the future is a relatively simple one: I want New Zealand to be a country that my kids want to stay in. I want it to be a country where they want to create a life here and not join the exodus of people who are leaving. We have to make change if that is going to happen. Doing more of the same—cutting more, selling more, robbing future generations of hope, transferring more of today’s problems on to the next generation—is not going to give them that hope. They deserve better. All young New Zealanders deserve better. This Government are not giving them better; they are transferring more problems on to them and making it worse.

We have to turn this around. We cannot sustain the exodus of talent that we are seeing under this Government. There is one thing the Government has broken records on, and that is the number of New Zealanders giving up and leaving. Every time a member on the opposite side of the House gets on a plane to fly to Auckland or to Christchurch, I want them to think of one thing: the number of people on that plane is the equivalent number of people who are permanently leaving the country every day—every day—under their Government’s leadership. Far from turning that around, they are making things worse. It does not have to be this way.

Labour is positive about the country’s future. There are better decision that we can make. We can invest in our own future; we can back New Zealanders in a way that this Government is failing to do. Far from selling off what’s left, we should be investing in the assets we need for tomorrow. We should be backing our businesses to grow and expand, not pulling the rug out from under them; we should be saying to our entrepreneurs and those who are excited about the future that we are behind them, and we are not going to call them C-listers. We are not going to go around the world telling them that New Zealand is a wet, whiny country at the bottom of the world that’s not worth backing; we’re going to get behind those people who are building New Zealand’s future. They will have a Labour Government that wants to work with them to create the future that New Zealanders deserve.

We need a Labour Government that will get New Zealand back to work, because, under National, New Zealand does not work. We will be focused on jobs, on health, on homes, on real action on the cost of living—not more broken promises, more blame, and more excuses, which is all this Government has to offer.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Defence): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s so nice when the other side clap every time I stand up. It’s wonderful. I would say to Chris Hipkins that, well, if you’re going to do all these things, mate, then how come you didn’t do it in the six years that you were there? Instead you left us with an utter mess and you left house owners in a terrible situation, paying interest rates they shouldn’t have been paying, because of your behaviour as the Government that then sat around spending New Zealanders’ money, borrowing money for New Zealanders to pay so that New Zealand is now paying interest every single year that is more than Corrections, Police, and Defence, and our fire service all together because of him and his former Government.

Thank goodness we’ve got the adults in the room back, actually getting this country back on track. The economy is turning. It’s turning the right way. We see interest rates dropping. We see New Zealand businesses getting a bit more confidence, and that will help them to employ more people. When they keep talking about New Zealanders going to Australia, they’re going to work in the mines. They’re not going to work as baristas; they’re going to work in the mines. That’s why they’re going because New Zealand, in the last six years of the Labour Government, decided to cut the mines. It took years and years to get any consents, and they ended our ability to be able to have those high-paying jobs and to build our economy.

Instead, what are we doing on this side? Well, we’ve got two new really great trade deals. Thank you, Todd McClay. The UAE and Gulf States. Remember Labour saying, “There’s no point even talking to the Indian Government about trade. We don’t want to waste our time.” That is what they said of the Indians, and what are we doing? We’ve already started the Indian free-trade agreement negotiations, and we will get there, and we’ll get there in this term.

I do want to say, though, that it is an amazing week when, basically, peace has broken out in the Middle East. Thank you, President Trump. At the same time, war has broken out in Te Pāti Māori. Perhaps they should get President Trump to come and negotiate for them and be the facilitator. I think the term is—what was it?—peace through strength. Well, that would be really good for Te Pāti Māori. That’s all part of the uni-party of Labour, the Greens, and Te Pāti Māori.

I think it’s also practically a miracle this week—you think it’s the Middle East? No, no, the miracle is that the Green Party has actually asked some questions on conservation of the environment. I think it’s amazing—amazing, amazing, amazing. Can I say there’s not a Gaza flag in sight. I mean, it’s amazing. How does this happen?

Tom Rutherford: Where are the tea towels?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: No, no tea towels, we say, but I always say—don’t talk about tea towels; they don’t like being told they wear tea towels.

This is an incredible thing. Instead, what we’re doing on this side is we’re growing the economy. Even the Defence Force is now a great source of growth in the economy. We’ve released the defence industry strategy.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Have you ever thought of leadership?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I’ve no idea why that woman keeps shouting. We’ve released this defence industry strategy, so our New Zealand businesses like Syos, like Dawn Aerospace, like Kea Aerospace, like all the businesses up and down the country who are currently manufacturing for people like Rocket Lab and others, so that they are actually going to be able to work with the Defence Force to help provide aerial drones, land drones, and sea drones for our New Zealand Defence Force.

Despite what the left say, we have the fourth largest search and rescue area in the world. Pacific nations who are our friends need our help as well. We cannot sit back and say, “Let’s wait for someone else to come and save people. Let’s wait for someone else to help in humanitarian assistance and disaster relief situations. Let’s wait while someone else comes and cleans out our seabed.” It’s not going to be good enough. We have to be able to do something ourselves, and our New Zealand defence industry is absolutely cock-a-hoop because they are now getting a look in the door. We’ve worked out a portal for the New Zealand Defence Force, so they are getting people coming to them. That will be going live later on this year. Already, they’re getting over 100 contacts a week—a day, sorry; no, a week. It will soon be a day. There are 100 contacts a week from industry that are wanting to work with them or are working with them. This is going to be huge for our economy. In the meantime, we just have to look at the space sector to show just how large this is. It’s great, we’re here, we’re getting the job done, and we don’t sit around whinging.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour): Returning to Earth: for two years, Christopher Luxon’s Government has cut healthcare and driven up costs. Their unfunded tax cuts have meant less money for the services New Zealanders need and depend on. And because of that Government’s underfunding, GP services have had to put their prices up. They have two options: put their prices up or close their doors. It is Luxon’s fault that a visit in New Zealand now to the GP, a standard adult visit to the GP, can cost nearly $100. His underfunding means more costs are passed on to you. X-rays, scans, prescriptions all cost more because of Christopher Luxon’s choices. They repealed free prescriptions, a policy that kept people well and out of hospital. Sometimes I say that this Government believes in the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff, when it comes to healthcare. Well, sadly, people, ambulances now cost 30 percent more too.

All of this, more costs being moved on to the public, comes at a time when the cost of living is putting pressure on New Zealand households. People are struggling out there. Instead of helping, Christopher Luxon’s Government is pushing bills higher and cutting people’s jobs that they rely on. It’s having a real effect on people. Now one in six New Zealanders say they cannot afford to go to the doctor. I asked Simeon Brown about this in this House, and he accused us of misinformation put about by the Labour Party. I asked him about a clinic that charges $94—it’s not far from here—$94 for a standard visit. He said that was misinformation.

Well, I and 16,000 other New Zealanders have written an open letter to Christopher Luxon calling for healthcare to be more affordable. Here is what some of them said: “Yes, my doctor costs me $64 now and regardless of being employed full time I can’t afford that. It puts me off going. I feel sorry for everyone who has such a bill to pay.” Others said “Doctors visits costing $60 to $70 is outrageous. That’s why pensioners are not going to the doctor.” I visited a clinic in Tauranga where they told me community service card holders could no longer afford to come with the cost of living pressures that they were facing—people with diabetes forgoing their checks, meaning they’re more likely to get complications down the line. If the Government wants to dismiss that this is a problem, that is only proof of how out of touch they are. A senior GP told me that she knows people—she called them middle New Zealanders—who think twice when she says, “Come back in a month’s time and let me check how you’re going on your blood pressure medicines.” The fundamentals of basic medical care are becoming to be out of reach for a number of New Zealanders.

Yesterday, I asked the Minister about one of these stories and he told me he had limited the increase in doctors fees. Here’s the problem: limited fee increases, but they haven’t increased funding to practices. Now, practices have just diversified the range of fees they’re charging. There are fees for prescriptions and fees for your first appointments. A person told me “The first appointment at our new GP cost our family $660, because there’s a $110 first visit charge.” There are fees for cervical screening. Great news, ladies! We can now take our own sample, but we get charged for that. And then one that really gets me: double appointment fees. If you have two problems, you have to pay twice. The reality of medical care, particularly for our seniors, is that they have to have care for multiple long-term conditions.

This is all the result of the choices that that Government has made. They have chosen to put more costs on to people because of their bad decisions. They have prioritised tax cuts for landlords, tax cuts for tobacco companies, and not putting money into our health system. They have underfunded general practice, and that means that people cannot get the care they need. Simple problems that could be dealt with in the community mean people are going without, they’re going to the emergency departments, and their conditions are getting worse and worse, and they’re going to be more costly down the line.

Labour can fix this. We will make care more affordable and make it easier to see a doctor and nurse when you need one in your community.

Hon Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangārei): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to celebrate progress on the science reforms—the biggest reforms in 30 years—but I want to start with a shout-out, first of all, to the gaming sector. Exports in one year are up from $500 million to around $750 million. That’s extraordinary growth. Show me another half-billion-dollar export industry with that sort of growth in one year. I recently spoke at the New Zealand Game Developers Association annual meeting and announced a doubling in funding for CODE, which is the Centre of Digital Excellence. It’s responsible for building capacity in start-up gaming businesses through programmes like KickStart and StartUp. Now, CODE was actually created by the previous Labour Government in 2020, and I get a sense that, maybe, part of the initiative also involved naming rights to future games, sort of as an homage, if you like, to the Government of the time who are now in Opposition.

The connection with the current Opposition, then, is in the gaming titles. Let me give you a few examples. The first is the video game Path of Exile, created by New Zealand firm Grinding Gear Games with a reported million players a day. Now, this game is clearly an homage to the current Opposition parties, with the game described as a dark, grim fantasy world where people are exiled to a place which is filled with monsters, political intrigue, and a constant struggle for survival. The second gaming connection is to the video game Super Monsters Ate My Condo by New Zealand gaming studio PikPok. Now, this clearly refers to the previous Government’s explanation for the KiwiBuild failure. Why did it fail? A super monster ate my condo. The third example I’d give is the naming rights, also by New Zealand firm PikPok, to the video game Clusterduck—carefully and eponymously representing in so many ways the collective Opposition parties that we see today, to which we give them Clusterduck.

I want to quickly move to a précis of what we’ve done in the science reforms to date. We’ve merged seven Crown research institutes (CRIs) into three public research organisations (PROs), creating some of the biggest research and development thematic institutions in the world. Now, I would put to you that this is somewhat of a template for merging large Government organisations because I lived through the merger of Health New Zealand—I didn’t enjoy that actually. We all lived through the merger of Te Pūkenga—we haven’t enjoyed that either. But the merger of the seven CRIs into three PROs has actually gone well—maybe because the actors were willing participants and willing actors, but regardless, I want to thank them for that effort.

Through the Bioeconomy Science Institute, we’ve brought together Landcare Research New Zealand, AgResearch, Scion, Plant and Food Research; Earth Sciences New Zealand, National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research and GNS Science, and, of course, the Institute of Environmental Science and Research renamed as the New Zealand Institute for Public Health and Forensic Science. We’ve also created a fourth public research organisation, the New Zealand Institute for Advanced Technology, and passed into, at $70 million over seven years, Robinson Research Institute and their amazing world-breaking work on magnets and materials. In fact, a few weeks ago, I had the privilege of watching their project, which had taken several years to get to fruition, be bolted inside the SpaceX Falcon-9 and head up into space. The Northrop Grumman Cygnus carrier then took it off the Falcon-9 and took it over to the International Space Station. Isn’t that amazing? It was the first time in space ever that high temperature superconducting magnets have been bolted on to the outside of the space station. That’s Kiwi technology breaking new ground up in space. All credit to them.

We have also announced $70 million for artificial intelligence, that new emerging technology that we need to safely step our game up in and progress. We’ve created the Prime Minister’s Science, Innovation and Technology Advisory Council to provide strategic oversight to the science sector, which many are saying was needed to undo the fragmentation and the duplication. Yesterday, we announced exactly that simplification of the science system with the Prime Minister’s Science, Innovation and Technology Advisory Council providing strategic advice to Research Funding New Zealand that will then administer these funds. The New Zealand Association of Scientists were particularly pleased with this announcement when they said, “There is great potential in the science funding reform announced today. The announcements create a more strategic science funding system that better resembles successful systems in successful small nations.” I am very pleased to undertake that piece of work.

Two weeks ago, I announced a $40 million biodiscovery platform, a hole or a pocket in our science trajectory, if you like, that we haven’t done well. That is an opportunity to integrate Māori, to integrate Western science, to integrate industry, to find the next cancer drugs from amongst our 80,000 indigenous species, to find the next nutraceuticals, to find the next supplements, and to collaborate together and make our way in the world with biodiscovery. There is real excitement around how we can appropriately use indigenous knowledge to advantage everyone. I am very pleased with the science reforms and very mindful of the officials who have brought this to life with a willingness and enthusiasm that makes me very excited and the sector as well. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): It is the wellbeing of the environment that will sustain us all, and not just for the few but for the many, but this Government’s economic strategy is based on exploiting and destroying te taiao for profit, and not even for the profit of the people of Aotearoa—for overseas shareholders in Australia and elsewhere in the world. The Government say fast tracking environmental destruction is going to create jobs. What limited imagination and ambition they have for our country. Winston Peters and Shane Jones on the other side of the House gloat about ruining our oceans and our soils and our air and telling our people that this is the only way forward. That is stale, stale old thinking. The same people in this coalition Government who crashed the economy leading to 36,000 fewer jobs the day that they took office. They say they’re going to save us; I do not think so.

What this Government fails to understand is there is no economy when our environment is destroyed. They are repeating the same old stale, stale strategy, opening up precious conservation whenua for mining, four-lane highways that still don't get through the traffic, literally at huge expense, allowing corporations to pillage our environment while one-in-100 years storms become several-times-a-year storms where the people in our community suffer. Shame on them.

That's why the Greens release our Greens industrial jobs creation plan, our Green Budget, to show people an economy that can truly support our country, our communities, our environment, and our climate. Like the Green Jobs Guarantee that would create 40,000 jobs to build infrastructure and housing and take climate action to protect—including the very farmers that they claim to care about, and in New Zealand owned by New Zealand, not overseas corporates like Trans-Tasman Resources seabed mining overseas corporate who this Government are wanting to approve a permit to destroy some of our unique taonga species and ecosystems like Waihi gold mine OceanaGold, offshore corporate, fast tracking mining in Waihi, largely within Coromandel—beautiful—Forest Park, conservation land that’s home to our precious species. Who benefits? Multinationals like Bathurst Resources, West Coast mining, offshore corporate, foreign owned Bathurst Resources applying again for fast track and more coal mining. This, in a time when the world is needing to reduce our emissions, stave off the threat of climate change driven famines, conflicts, disasters. This small thinking Government is making way for a carbon bomb on the Denniston Plateau right now.

Despite their so-called laser focus on the economy, they are actually ignoring the fact that there is no economy without a functional environment. Let's be really clear about this. Destroying our native species and their habitats, chopping up and selling off our country for parts is not for our benefit; it is for the benefit of overseas-owned corporations. New Zealand First—more like “Trans-Tasman Resources First”, more like “OceanaGold First”, more like overseas corporations first, New Zealand last. Our land and our future are being sold offshore by them.

Over in the National Party we have our environment Minister destroying the name of her job, sitting outside of Cabinet for the first time in 50 years, providing no input—none—on fast-track projects that will destroy our taio and our moana. Instead, doing what? Spending time lobbying councils to speed up water consents for the benefit of a handful of farms that include her own colleague. The absolute state of it, whānau.

New Zealanders value our environment. They value a stable climate for mokopuna to come. They know real economic value and opportunity. That's why, come 2026, the people can choose a Government that will put its hands back on the wheel of the economy and steer it where it actually needs to go instead of into a ditch of environmental destruction.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s been two years since the election, when Christopher Luxon stood in front of voters in 2023 as an economic genius who declared that he would fix the cost of living and the economy, and he has failed to do so. In two years, hundreds of people have lost their jobs and livelihoods in my community of Nelson. Christopher Luxon and Nicola Willis’ economic mismanagement is wrecking local communities, including my region of Nelson and Tasman. National’s economic failure is hitting us hard. Jobs are being slashed across our region. Earlier this year, 142 jobs were lost from Carter Holt Harvey’s Eves Valley sawmill. Another 59 jobs are on the line at Sealord, after 79 were axed recently. Griffin’s plans to close the Proper Crisps factory in Nelson. And also recently announced, King Salmon are looking to move their operations from Nelson, across the hill to Marlborough. Just this week, Pic’s Food Factory, which supports local food entrepreneurs, have announced their closure because things are just too tough.

These jobs and business cuts have a real impact on the lives of working people, their families, and our entire community. Maria Hemara, who had worked at Carter Holt Harvey for the past six years, said the closure was a shock that left her feeling like she was in a slow motion movie. “It’s life-changing and unsettling, it’s bewildering, really, to be faced with this.” Meanwhile, National’s finance Minister tells people like Maria not to take it personally. Losing your job, your livelihood, and worrying how you’re going to pay your bills and provide for your family is deeply personal. National are tone deaf and out of touch and they just don’t care. They have no idea what it feels like for people like Maria, losing their livelihoods because of National’s economic mismanagement. Christopher Luxon promised Kiwis that he would make things better, but instead he’s making things worse.

Doug Paulin, the chief executive of Sealord, has said that increasing costs, and requests for higher supermarket margins, has driven their decision to cut jobs. This is a Government that has talked a big game about reforming supermarkets, yet food prices continue to go up. Companies like Sealord are pressured to reduce prices so that the supermarket duopoly can increase profits at the expense of local workers and their customers.

We need a real plan from this Government now. We need greater engagement with local leaders to support the Nelson-Tasman region to create more jobs. Instead, we’ve had radio silence from this Government. In fact, when I asked Nicola Willis in the House last week what she was doing about this, she claimed Nelson should be happy with the Government because they’re giving us half a hospital. They can’t even invest in the full, complete hospital rebuild that our region needs. National are cutting investment in Nelson when they should be properly investing in our region, and they are overseeing a wrecking ball to our local economy. New Zealand is going backwards under their watch and they know it. The consequences are real and they’re damning. Businesses are closing, jobs are being lost, and families like Maria’s are paying the price. Christopher Luxon promised Kiwis he would make things better, instead he’s making things worse.

Labour will focus on what matters most to people in New Zealand and Nelson: jobs, health, homes, and real action on the cost of living. Look for the announcement from Chris Hipkins tomorrow on all of that. It’s clear to the people of Nelson and the people of New Zealand that Nelson and New Zealand cannot afford another three years of National.

SUZE REDMAYNE (National—Rangitīkei): Today, I want to talk about international rural women’s day. It’s a day celebrated globally on 15 October to recognise the vital contributions of rural women to agriculture, to food security, and to rural development; a day to celebrate the extraordinary women who are the backbone of our rural communities. From the board room to the paddock, rural women are leaders, innovators, and caretakers, driving our economy, nurturing our families, and holding our communities together. It’s manaakitanga personified. Rural women are inspirational, innovative, and resourceful.

I’m a city girl who saw the light in the mighty Turakina. A proud farmer, I’ve raised three children in heartland Rangitīkei, and I get it. It’s all about community; it’s about getting stuck in, in good times and in bad. I’m incredibly proud to stand here today, as part of the National Party caucus that is literally stacked with amazing women; rural women who are champions of rural New Zealand. We’ve got Nicola Grigg, our outstanding Associate Minister of Agriculture, Minister for Women, a farm girl from Mount Somers, a champion for rural women today and every single day. Just like Minister Louise Upston and Penny Simmonds and Barbara Kuriger, Maureen Pugh, Dana Kirkpatrick, Catherine Wedd, Katie Nimon, and Vanessa Weenink. National has a proud history of backing farmers and farming, and our significant cohort of rural MPs—men and women—is a testament to this.

Hon Judith Collins: Don’t mention me, for goodness’ sake! Mother of the House!

SUZE REDMAYNE: But today, Mr Speaker, it’s all about the girls. Rural women have a voice in this Government—

Hon Member: And Judith.

SUZE REDMAYNE: Especially Judith. Our Minister of Finance, Nicola Willis, a Wellingtonian, yes, also a champion of rural women, because she knows, as the holder of the purse strings, how vital rural women are and how much they contribute to the Government’s coffers.

I can’t forget Nicole McKee, our shooting and hunting legend, which affords her honorary rural status, and Casey Costello, with her 2 acres and three chickens. Together we stand alongside all the rural women out there who play a critical role in New Zealand’s $60 billion food and fibre sector; often the unsung heroes. Women who balance farm work, family, and community roles, quietly leading the charge in education, healthcare, community connection, and local resilience.

I get it. It’s great, we’re also seeing more women in rural leadership roles than ever before, making a tangible impact in business, innovation, and community. This year marks the centennial of Rural Women New Zealand, an organisation that stood the test of time by adapting to the evolving needs of rural women and their communities. Chair Sandra Matthews said on Radio New Zealand this morning that rural women are the beating heart of rural New Zealand. She acknowledged that rural women face unique challenges such as access to services, connectivity, and leadership representation. Like our Government, she knows they should be supported to lead and to thrive.

That’s why, in Budget 2025, the Government committed $250,000 to support rural New Zealand’s grassroots work. We’re backing initiatives that support leadership development and economic empowerment because when rural women thrive, New Zealand wins. It’s why we’re also backing the Agri-Women’s Development Trust and Dairy Women’s Network to deliver coaching and training for young and established rural women leaders.

There’s huge opportunity to inspire women into long-term fulfilling careers in the food and fibre sector, and the Government is committed to backing that growth. Minister Grigg is a champion of the Ministry for Women’s nomination database, which helps get women onto public sector boards. By supporting leadership development programmes, mentoring networks, and pathways into governance, we can ensure that rural women are not only heard but are directly involved in shaping the future of our regions.

Her and our Government’s message to all rural women is: back yourself; you’re an integral part of New Zealand’s prosperity and our future. Oh, I’ve run out of time. While it’s hard to quantify just how much rural women do across New Zealand, International Day of Rural Women is a chance to honour the strength, resilience, and leadership of rural women across New Zealand.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Mr Speaker. And good on that member. I guess that is the point: Kiwis are fair-minded people. New Zealand women are known for being fair thinkers and reasonable. So when National promises at the election to lower the cost of living, people go, “Yeah, good on them. Give them a go, that’s important to me.” And then when things are going badly, New Zealanders, wherever they are around the country: “You know, we’ll give these guys a go.” People said, “We can survive till 2025”. That was the phrase. You might have heard it out there, it was pretty popular in Auckland. And then it became just “Survive 2025”.

And then every day, as costs go up under Christopher Luxon’s Government and he’s not helping with the rising cost of living and he’s more interested in protecting the big banks and tax cuts for tobacco companies, Kiwis aren’t seeing any of that correction they were promised and they’re not seeing the growing economy that they thought they were going to get. It’s not “Survive ‘25” anymore out there,; it’s “Pack up sticks in 2026”.

Everything is going up: transport, power, phone bills, the cost of study, and that’s pushing more and more personal debt on to people and household debt and consumer debt, and more and more people are withdrawing their KiwiSaver because of hardship. That’s the effect that this Government is having out there. It’s because of decisions that they have made and the mismanagement of the Government’s books that this has happened in New Zealand. Housing, utilities like rates and electricity, they’re rising even faster, and food and essentials continue to relentlessly rise week on week. Every family in New Zealand is seeing that at the grocery check-out. Every pensioner in New Zealand is seeing that in their power bills. Fuel and transport costs keep going up, not because of global events but because this Government has added on fees that are administrative costs to keep moving around your city and your region, and this Government won’t own up.

Instead, they’ve got policy announcements like the surcharge ban, which sounds good and is, in fact, policy that is supported all around this House. But instead of being clear with consumers about who will bear the cost of that, they have lumped it on to small businesses. Hospitality owners, at a time when record numbers of hospitality businesses are going under, are saying to Government, “Why are you picking on us? We will have to pick up thousands of dollars of cost every month at a time when we are putting more and more on our mortgages, more and more out of our retirement savings just to keep the business going because we believe in it and because that is what the National Government tells us that they are prioritising: us business owners. But at the same time, they are lumping costs on us.”

They’re also not being upfront with things like the pricing rules, which they say is going to be a big market intervention on those large corporates, those monopolistic large corporates that they say they are going to focus on when in fact they have picked the one pricing intervention which makes it illegal to drop prices. Explain that one to consumers on the doorstep, that under National if prices come down in a market event, that will be illegal.

So people are getting squeezed from all sides and they’re getting told by this Government that it is not the Government’s fault. Costs are going up to travel, costs are going up to study, costs are going up to live, costs are going up to stay well. It’s hurting in Auckland, it’s hurting young people, it’s hurting all around the country. And those young people that are bearing the pain? That’s a structural problem in our economy because it has an effect in the next generation, it has an effect in our pipeline of people who are ready to work. This Government has no vision for those young people beyond a one-way ticket out of this country or—as Judith Collins described it in a fantasy harking back to Victorian England—“into the mines”.

Some 73,900 New Zealanders are hearing that message and have left—200 New Zealanders every day with no plan to get them back. They are buying houses in Queensland, they are building their infrastructure. Another 20,000 of our construction workers gone, Warriors jackets on every building site in the Northern Territory. That is a shame and that is a record that the National Government will have to answer for at the ballot box.

The cost of living was meant to be something that this Government could manage, but this economy is going backwards. It has shrunk since the day they took office. It’s not just good enough to point to those young people as something of a problem when this Government has a target to get 50,000 people off jobseeker support. So they are literally making it illegal for some people to be on it. There are young people right now in my electorate, in Manurewa, who are looking for a job. They want to get their driver’s licence. They want to get their forklift ticket. Do you know how they get that? They go to the Ministry of Social Development and they ask for support. They will be removed from the waiting list for any of that help under a Government who is excluding people from their ability to get that work that they say they prioritise.

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think that member, over the last two years, must have been taking a thing or two in, sitting and watching this National-led Government start to get this economy under control. All of a sudden, there’s a revelation that debt has a cost. She wants to talk about the impact of debt and the cost of debt—well, $66 billion later, New Zealanders are paying the price of that Government’s disastrous run trying to lead this country. “Trying” is the word. I wonder if Chris Hipkins is going to continue to try to lead the “Coalition of Chaos”, as we called them prior to the election.

Thankfully, they never became a coalition in this Government, on the Government benches, but they have proven beyond reasonable doubt that they are an unholy alliance; that they are the “uni-party”; that they are one thing on that side of the House. It worries me that they are going to try and manage a merger to pull themselves together—and I wonder, I question, who will be pulling the strings on that ship?

Francisco Hernandez: The Greens!

CARL BATES: The Greens, as our friends in the Greens say. They know that the unholy alliance on those Opposition benches will be arguing with each other to work out who’s going to lead them. They’ll be pulling strings among each other. God help us that we don’t end up with a “co-Minister” leading the country and not a Prime Minister. The Rt Hon Chris Hipkins, he said, “I’ll work with anyone.”. I’m wondering today which of the two Te Pāti Māoris he intends on working with or whether he’s going to need both in an unholy alliance to lead this country.

Hon Judith Collins: Never going to get the chance.

CARL BATES: Exactly, Minister Collins: they will never get that chance. Labour leader Chris Hipkins said Tākuta Ferris’ comments at the time he made them last month were incompatible with Labour; but, at the same time, Willie Jackson said, “We agree on about 90 percent of kaupapa.” They cannot work out what this merger would look like—and I reflect on their six years before we had the opportunity to get on these benches and steer this ship for the better. They tried to merge Te Pūkenga: it was an abject failure. They tried to merge Health New Zealand; they tried to merge three waters; and now they’re trying to merge Labour, the Greens, and Te Pāti Māori. New Zealand would bear the cost of that.

It's been two years since the election, and when you are focused on managing a merger like they are, you can’t actually get things done, but let me tell you what we’ve done in the last two years since the election: in law and order, we’ve reduced violent crime—29,000 victims less than on election day; ram raids are down 85 percent; police patrols are up 40 percent; bans on gang patches. In the economy, we’ve delivered tax relief for the first time in 14 years; we’ve introduced FamilyBoost. In health, there’s 16,000 more elective surgeries that have happened, 33 new cancer treatments, and 33 more medicines. We’ve expanded urgent and aftercare clinics nationwide, including in my electorate of Whanganui. In education, we’ve banned cellphones in classrooms, and we’ve introduced learning support coordinators. Over the last 18 months, we’ve rebuilt the confidence of farmers, and we’re just hoping that the Greens do not get the opportunity to destroy it with a 33 percent tax on farmers.

You see, you’d have to choose: do you want a National-led Government, as a country, that got inflation down from 75 percent into the twos, or a Labour - Greens - Te Pāti Māori-plus that would give us another $100 billion - plus of debt? Would you want a Prime Minister who can actually deliver or whoever wins the Hunger Games on that side of the House? Marama Davidson has already indicated that she wants to be in Cabinet. Do you want Nicola Willis, who delivers Investment Boost, or Chlöe Swarbrick, who delivers 33 percent inheritance taxes? Do you want Erica Stanford, who delivers results in education, or Willow-Jean Prime, who can’t manage her emails? Do you want law and order with a reduction in ram raids and up with the confidence, or Tamatha Paul, who wants to defund the police? The delivery of this Government is clear.

CELIA WADE-BROWN (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise today on Rural Women’s Day to thank and congratulate all the successful candidates in the local elections. However, I want to express some really serious concerns that cut to the very core of our democracy. We have just witnessed another round of dismal turnout, missing details of Māori ward candidates, and a growing unease over the role of private companies running our electoral processes. My key concern is how this central government “Coalition of Chaos” is undermining local government at every opportunity.

First, the numbers speak for themselves. In many areas, turnout was below 40 percent, and in some communities, it dropped into the 30s, which is a reflection of a voting system that is confusing, outdated, and disconnected from the lives of everyday New Zealanders. Postal voting is no longer fit for purpose in a digital age. Many young people don’t check their mailboxes, let alone know how to post something. Some don’t even have a mailbox. If we were serious about strengthening local governance, we’d need to make it easier, not harder, for people to have their say.

In September, I asked the Minister of Local Government this question: will he consider amendments to the Local Electoral Act to bring the administration of local body elections away from private companies and under the Electoral Commission? What did he say? He said no. This directly contradicts the Prime Minister in Monday’s post-Cabinet press conference saying he’s discussing the Electoral Commission running the local elections with Minister Watts.

Secondly, the voting process has been under-funded and under-resourced. In Mt Albert Library, people were waiting two hours to cast their special votes. With a more transient population—also thanks to this Government’s rental rules—how many people have got two hours to wait to cast their special vote? Under-resourcing voting systems is a form of voter suppression, though less blatant than this Government’s Electoral Amendment Bill, which would roll back voter enrolment for general elections by 13 days.

Thirdly, and equally troubling, is the reliance on private companies to administer our elections. Private companies are not—however well meaning, however good the staff—subject to the Official Information Act. They have been entrusted with responsibilities that should be firmly in public hands. Democracy is not a business model. When private contractors are running elections, who holds them accountable? Where is the transparency?

But let me finish this speech about local government on a more heartening note. Despite the attacks on te reo, Te Tiriti, and Māori customary rights by the coalition partners, a strong majority across the country—as of today, 520,113 voters—voted to keep Māori wards. [Holds up graph] I would like to table the graph that shows the margin of more than 60,000 people supporting Māori wards. And who knows, by the time the specials are counted, there may be more councils keeping Māori wards. That’s a huge step up from the first couple of decades of this century, when only Wairoa got through.

If we want to rebuild trust in local democracy, we need reform backed by the Greens, Labour, and National—and if any of the other smaller parties want to join us, that would be good. No going from four wellbeings to no wellbeings and back again.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. [Holds up graph] May I table this? I’m seeking leave to table this—I did in my speech.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): And what is it? Is that a document that’s available?

CELIA WADE-BROWN: It’s a graph that’s been compiled and designed and is not in the public sphere.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): All right. Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

CELIA WADE-BROWN: Thank you.

Hon Mark Patterson: Mr Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Point of order. Sorry, was there objection?

Hon Mark Patterson: Yes, there was.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Sorry, I didn’t hear that, from the depths of the House, there was an objection.

Hon Mark Patterson: Publicly available information.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2)

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

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

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This bill covers a number of issues and items in the Education and Training Act. The purpose of this bill is to make amendments across a range of matters in the Act, to give effect to new policy decisions, and to make other minor and technical changes.

When I go through this legislation, one of the goals is to provide New Zealanders and those studying in New Zealand with the skills, the knowledge, and the capabilities that they need to fully participate in the labour market, society, and their communities. That also includes health, wellbeing, and safety, of course. This bill covers compulsory education sector primary schools right through to some of the changes that the Government is proposing in our universities.

This bill, in my view—and I lean heavily into the university tertiary education component—is an absolute Government overreach, no matter which way you look at it. It will enable ministerial micromanagement and undermine the teaching profession and the academic profession in our universities.

When the Government has made such big promises on change to our education system—the slogans that they’ve put out there—here is a bill of bits and pieces that is simply unnecessary, with several of the amendments already in practice. These things already exist or can already be done.

The bill removes some of the key parts of the Act that aim to promote and protect the rights of our tamariki and young people, such as those rights under Te Tiriti o Waitangi and under the National Education and Learning Priorities. School strategic plans will no longer be required to be holistic approaches to educating our tamariki and young people from complex and, in many cases, diverse backgrounds.

This bill deprioritises Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and I think this is actually maybe our third or fourth example of legislation under the National Government where they do this. Once again, here we are. It removes local curriculum, and this is incredibly concerning, knowing the work that educators have done in our local schools to understand local contexts, whether that be in a regional or an urban setting or within a historic setting. Those things are important.

Schools already have attendance management plans. Anyone that’s visited a school—and I know many MPs in this House visit schools—knows that every single school has attendance management systems online, that they look at their data, that they use that, and here we have a bill that enforces this to happen. That reads to me as low trust of the sector and low confidence in our teachers and schools and in board of trustees and their ability to educate our kids to ensure that they are in school learning in the best way that they possibly can.

The Teaching Council should be independent. The National Government introduced this professional body and it should not be politicised here through ministerial overreach. The National Education and Learning Priorities were collectively developed by schools. Removing these now creates a narrowness in the curriculum offerings that we see that are offered in our schools and to our children and tamariki learning in those environments. So that’s my summary. Here we are, with the Government focused on big ideas and slogans, but this is a mish-mash of a bunch of small things that really speak to influences, I think, of the minor parties set up in this Government.

I’ll turn to one particular part, which is about protecting freedom of expression and academic freedom in universities, but before I do, those of us in the Education and Workforce Committee that went through the process of hearing submissions from right across the sector—and there were hundreds in total that we received in written and oral submissions. Only 13 percent supported this bill in its totality—13 percent out of hundreds of submissions that were received.

While this bill aspired to present thoughtful and future-focused approaches within our education system from womb to tomb, it simply hasn’t, and that is concerning. Whether it be breaches to Te Tiriti o Waitangi—but significantly, across those submissions in each part of the sector, it was acknowledged that there was a lack of consultation, no matter which group in Aotearoa New Zealand that you came from, whether you’re a practitioner as a teacher, whether you are a leader within the school board of trustees, at universities, and so on and so forth. It really strips away the commitment that our education system has to equity and to ensuring that everyone has the same opportunity in our education system, no matter where you come from.

It also presents constitutional and democratic concerns in the way that it silences community voices and particular groups of our society. That is not what we want to achieve and the education system that we aspire to in this great country of ours.

Coming back to protecting freedom of expression and academic freedom in universities, this really came from the ACT Party. This was something that was important to them, but I’m still yet to meet a university that says that this is one of their priorities. This is not something that they asked for. This is not something that they saw necessary. And certainly this is not within the expectations of a Government that is supporting them to be at their best, that is supporting them to contribute to economic growth. Instead, the National Government, with their ACT Party friends, have focused on freedom of expression as their priority for universities.

But we saw that more than half of those that submitted disagreed with this piece of legislation when it came to freedom of expression. Out of the 136 submitters that opposed this, they mainly focused on the unnecessary nature of the changes, the risks to academic freedom and erosion of university autonomy, concerns about safety and impacts on marginalised communities, and views that the changes were contrary to Te Tiriti o Waitangi. That comes from the departmental report that we put forward as a select committee.

Most concerning: when I asked the Minister if she had come across any examples, any evidence that validated this particular change, that validated the time that we used in this wonderful Parliament of ours, the only example that Minister Stanford could offer me was Don Brash—Don Brash from Hobson’s Pledge and the ex-leader of the National Party. So that’s probably the influence on this Government—Don Brash pushing through legislation in this House that isn’t asked for and isn’t necessary.

At the end of the day, universities in this country are autonomous in their own right. They’re able to actually manage themselves and in many cases they do. I know that between Otago, between Canterbury that I visited, between Massey, Auckland, and the Auckland University of Technology, every university encourages academic freedom of speech, but there’s also got to be safety in place to ensure that that academic freedom of speech doesn’t translate into free hate speech—into free hate speech—in this country that we know impacts those that are most vulnerable. I do not support this bill.

Debate interrupted.

Personal Explanations

General Debate—Correction

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Defence): Point of order. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to correct a statement I made today.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Good. Thank you. I made a comment that the New Zealand Defence Force had 100 email touchpoints. That is apparently from 50 email contacts in the last week, resulting in approximately 100 email touchpoints. I just want to clarify it for the record. Thank you.

Bills

Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2)

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Green Party is not supporting the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2). I do want to run us through some of the underlying issues that we have with what the bill is trying to do, and how the Government is not addressing some of the underlying critical issues that allows students to thrive.

I want to start with the attendance management plans. A lot has been said, in this bill, on the need for schools to have an attendance management plan. Even today, when debating my co-leader Marama Davidson, the Associate Minister of Education, David Seymour, in a New Zealand Herald interview, acknowledged that child poverty plays a huge role in attendance. And yet the provisions in this bill put in place requirements for, for example, not just an attendance management plan but for the schools to respond to the underlying causes of student absence. Imagine if schools had the ability to address poverty and to ensure that kids are able to actually have a warm, healthy, safe home to live in that allows them to actually participate in education. I think this is such a telling issue that the Government is unable to grapple with. Because, on the one hand, they’re creating all these additional layers of bureaucracy around attendance management plans and then, on the other hand, quite happily allow material hardship for children to go up on their watch. That, to me, is contradictory. How are the Government expecting for schools to succeed in these so-called attendance management plans if they are not addressing child poverty?

You don’t need to believe me; you can just look at the Government’s own statistics of child poverty to see that more children are projected to not have their basic needs being met as a result of Government decisions. So it’s just mind-boggling that we’re asking schools to then show how they will respond to these underlying causes, and not actually take any responsibility for the fact that, actually, it is Government who has the ability to tackle these. This is due to the changes in clause 9 and clause 23, which subsequently were recommended to be changed to be a bit more workable. But, none the less, what we’ve got right now is a bill that fails to address some of these underlying issues, and a Government that, elsewhere, is unwilling to tackle it, and, all at the same time, quite happy to punch down on some of our poorest.

If you think about parents who may be grappling with kids who don’t feel safe at school, but, on top of that, those kids are unable to have their basic needs met, they’re faced with a Government that (a) is providing lower-quality school lunches, a Government that is not tackling the underlying courses of school attendance, and a bill that is claiming that by putting in place a management plan, suddenly all those things will miraculously disappear.

There are other components of the bill that we have concerns with, including changes to the school board objectives. Others have talked about how the deprioritisation of Te Tiriti o Waitangi is a deliberate inappropriate weakening of Te Tiriti rights and will make it even more difficult to achieve equitable outcomes for Māori students. Once again, in the context of everything we have seen, even just today in the House with the marine and coastal area legislation being pushed through, it’s really telling that the Government takes a very, very narrow approach to education, and treats education as simply a pathway into the labour market as opposed to a place where we can develop critical thinking skills, where we can actually allow people to develop themselves and their full potential, and not just simply learn very specific, narrow skills that have a very specific and narrow outcome in mind. So when these school board objectives are narrowed and issues like Te Tiriti are deprioritised, what we are seeing is a Government that does not seem to value or understand learners’ experiences, nor, in the context of other Government decisions, the conditions of teachers.

So, again, it’s really concerning that this Government just wants to punch down. We are seeing more and more evidence of this, particularly with the removal of kupu Māori from children’s books. Again, what is that supposed to do, if not to narrow the actual scope of learning that that children can be exposed to? In my view, once again, that diminishes the quality of our education and undermines, actually, the Government’s attempts—if they even believe that they want to attempt this—of narrowing the gap between students who have been left out of the education system and those who are currently thriving within the current settings.

The bill also contains other concerning provisions, including the removal of the national education and learning priorities. As others have noted, many of these provisions were not supported by submitters at the select committee stage. This isn’t the first bill that we’ve seen that the public overwhelmingly rejects. The way that the Government has often responded to the overwhelming rejection of provisions in bills like this one and others is to—and they’ve said it in the Chamber—then diminish submitters by saying that, you know, they’re people who just had a lot of spare time, who had no jobs. I even heard heckles from my left side talking about the use of AI. Instead, what I think the Government should be paying attention to is the fact that on this bill, as well as with others, members of our communities are telling members of the Government that their bills do not achieve what they set out to do. So, again, whether it is issues, for example, that parents may have had with how some of these boards are run—like, removing this isn’t the answer; it’s just simply improve accountability.

We’ve also seen how the ACT Party has had a free ride in their importing of culture wars in the provisions around freedom of expression. Others have noted that the issues of freedom of expression in universities are not real issues that universities are genuinely having to grapple with. I actually think it’s huge overreach to decide how universities, as paragons of freedom of expression, should be able to conduct debates within their institutions—like, allow universities to make decisions on how these debates are going to be carried out. For a so-called libertarian party, I find it really contradictory that, at the same time, they want to dictate how freedom of expression occurs at universities. Again, this does not address many of the serious issues that our universities are grappling with. At a time where so many of our universities are seeing courses being closed and people being laid off, staffers feeling the brunt, in the tertiary sector, of poor wages and poor conditions—

Francisco Hernandez: And cuts.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: —and cuts indeed—the Government instead chooses to focus on this nonsense of an issue that is not what is being fed back to us from staffers and learners in the tertiary space.

Instead of actually committing to adequately funding our universities so that, actually, people can thrive and that we can have people entering the labour market—which the Government does care about—with a diverse range of skill sets, and to recognise that, actually, when we create the conditions where Governments are so focused on culture war issues as opposed to addressing learners’ material realities, all that we see is oxygen being taken away from the real issues that matter to our communities.

This bill is just such a great example where the material conditions that lead to poor attendance are not being addressed. Instead, we just have a bunch of extra bureaucracy being thrown into schools, where issues around, for example, critical thinking skills not being adequately supported and developed at universities. Instead, we just want to bring this Americanised debate on the freedom of expression.

Again, all that we will see is our universities continuing to drop in some of those international rankings when it comes to how they’re perceived internationally. That is a direct result of Government underfunding and undervaluing of our universities and vocational education institutes. If the Government was serious about educational achievement, they would be putting their energy into addressing poverty, into addressing house prices, into addressing violence, into addressing the lack of inclusion that disabled students have told us time and time again they face in schools, and they would not be importing this cultural wars into the legislative chamber.

It’s really clear to me that the ACT Party, at no point in their negotiation agreement, thought of issues like the underlying causes of school attendance, like hardship, inequality, and the housing crisis, and instead are quite happy to use time in this Chamber to debate issues that actually will not lead to better educational achievements.

This is an absolute joke of a bill. Again, I go back to the earlier example, requiring schools to show how they’re addressing the underlying causes of lack of attendance, without actually taking responsibility for Government policies that have made it worse, is a passing on of those issues to our educational institutions. So we call on the Government to take serious issues with the evidence that they deserve to be evaluated by, and not go through this bill, and instead address the stuff that students have told us for many, many years, which is fix poverty, fix the housing crisis, address violence within our communities, and take absentees seriously.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m taking this call on behalf of the ACT Party to support the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2). This bill is really important, a very, very fundamental bill, because this bill is about our education system. This bill is about setting some guidelines for our education system; this is from school to university to ensure that schools and universities are delivering what they should be delivering—that is education.

In the select committee process a number of amendments have been made to this bill. I won’t go through all the amendments, but I would like to highlight some amendments. I would like to talk about three areas in this bill which are so important to us, the ACT Party. I must acknowledge the Hon David Seymour for his work, for his advocacy to bring these changes which are happening through this legislation.

The first one is about the school board’s objective. Now, one would imagine that the school board’s objective is to ensure that schools are able to provide for everything that students are able to achieve in education. But at the moment, school boards are so distracted because their objectives are not about that. And that’s why this bill is going to ensure that the school board’s paramount objective is to ensure that schools are able to attain their highest possible standard in educational achievement. Other objectives are going to become supportive objectives. Yes, other things can be done, but the main objective should be educational achievement—educational achievement. Because we want to see that students are able to attain skills so that they are not able to just compete here in New Zealand, but all around the world. So the skills we are talking about is real science, maths, reading, writing, or any other subjects that they choose to study, they should be able to choose to study.

The school boards are not a place for ideological activism, and we don’t want to see that every subject is filtered through that lens of culture and ideology. We want students to read and study and take up subjects that are real subjects so that they are not just relevant to one community or the second community or third community, but they are relevant to the entire world.

It’s really important to note that the ACT Party has been advocating for one of the subclauses to be removed. This is in section 127, inserted by clause 8, subclause (2)(e) and this is “to ensure that the school gives effective Te Tiriti o Waitangi,” and there are other subclauses to that. Now, this is something that we know that ultimately is going to be looked at and is going to be removed. This could be part of the wider review that is going to happen to all Treaty clauses, but it could be sooner than that. We’ll have to wait and see. We don’t want distractions for school boards. As I said, school board’s role is to ensure that students are able to achieve in education.

The second point I want to talk about is about management plans. The Hon David Seymour has been working really hard to improve attendance of students at schools and we have seen some really good results because of that hard work. And we know that if students are not attending school, then how are they going to achieve. Attendance is a must. The member, the Green Party member who spoke before me, instead of supporting that, he was actually providing excuses for students to not attend school. We don’t want that kind of attitude coming from parliamentarians here because that is sending a very wrong message to the community that “Yes, you can give a number of excuses for not sending your children to school”. We want to change that attitude, and, yes, schools will have to play their role, community will have to play their role, and for that, what this bill does is it requires schools to come up with attendance management plans.

When we talk about the attendance management plan, one of the points that the Green Party member made was about the plan should include how the school will respond to underlying causes of student absences. Yes, that is important because we do want to know why students are not attending school. That should be part of their plan, and we are really happy with this clarification that was done in the select committee process—that that should be part of the plan that schools will prepare for managing attendance of students.

Then the third point that I want to talk about is the freedom of expression at our universities. It’s a very important part of this bill and again ACT Party has advocated for this for a long time. Again, I would like to acknowledge the Hon David Seymour for his work to ensure that this happens. Section 281A, “Requirement for university council to adopt statement on freedom of expression” is not just about adopting the statement but it comes with accountability because it also requires establishment of a complaints procedure for academic freedom and freedom of expression. And yes, there might be just one example, two examples, but that’s not the role of the university. Universities’ role is not to block people from coming at campuses—to some extent—and speaking because we want students to go to university to be challenged. They should be able to challenge other views as well. They should be able to learn what different views exist in this world.

We want to see that students, when they come out of universities, are mature citizens, they are able to deal with issues that exist in this real world, and if they are able to deal with the real issues in this world, then they are going to go ahead in their life and build communities, lead communities, and think for themselves. So it’s important that we let students think for themselves what is good for them, agree to views or disagree to views. At the moment, what is happening because of those members sitting on the other side, our universities have been hijacked by the ideology, and we want to rescue universities from that, and that is why I am really pleased with this provision in this legislation.

One thing that I want to highlight about the change that we made in the select committee process is there is one point in the legislation which says that universities “should not take … positions on matters that do not directly concern their role or functions:” Some submitters expressed concerns that this may apply to students or staff members. So that has been clarified, that this will apply to universities as institutions and not to individual staff and student members.

So some improvements have been done—great improvements have been done—to this bill in the select committee process and I’m really looking forward to the committee of the whole House, and we are really, really looking forward to seeing what comes out after the committee of the whole House. So the ACT Party supports this bill.

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, I want to start, on behalf of New Zealand First, by thanking the Minister for not only for introducing this bill but also for the excellent work that she is doing in turning around our education system, and I think that is widely recognised. I also want to thank the Education and Workforce Committee for the hard work and the thoughtful work that’s gone into some changes to the bill.

I think I’ve heard from the Opposition some criticism that this bill is a bit of a grab bag, but I disagree. But also, I would say that sometimes it makes a lot of sense to actually bring a number of things which are related together rather than say, “Well, look, we’ve got to have multiple different bills and take up even more of the House’s time.”

Our education is an investment in the future of our young people. It’s also an investment in our own future, because without education we are going to go nowhere as a country. What this bill does is to clearly establish educational achievement as the paramount objective for school boards, rather than just being the first mentioned of a multitude of different objectives, all of broadly similar way. What a radical thought that is, that educational achievement will be the most important thing at schools. What a radical thought. I think that’s a really good thing to put in there because at the moment, all it is is the first one mentioned of several different, potentially competing—and sometimes they are competing—objectives.

Now, I read the Opposition parties’ differing view. We don’t have a member on the select committee but I read the Opposition parties’ differing view, and they say that the focus here is “narrow” and “antiquated” and they say that, “together with educational achievement, boards must ensure schools are emotionally and physically safe”—yeah, all good—“give effect to rights-based legislation”—all good—“protect children from all forms of discrimination at school, and give effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi.” All of those things are good, but all of those things are still in the bill. All this bill does in this context is say that educational achievement is the number one—it’s not equal with all the others, it’s the number one objective that we’ve got. That is a simple concept. It’s a radical concept, that seems, to the Opposition, but I think it is the right concept.

Now, I’ve been to quite a number of prize-givings over many, many years and often I’m deeply impressed by the quality of the students who are graduating—from some schools, in particular. What they’ve learnt, their capabilities, their aspirations, and that they are fitted so clearly to be citizens of the world. Because that’s what we want, we want our young people to be coming out of schools fitted to be citizens of the world, whether they’re going on to tertiary education or whatever they might be going on to, they need to be fitted to be citizens of the world. Unfortunately, so often that is not the case.

Education in the school context is the passing on of knowledge from one generation to another. There are many key skills, and obviously as a Government we’ve been very focused on some of those, like core skills, the ability to read, to write, to command numbers, to be numerate. Those things are very, very important. I would also add, an understanding of the world that we live in and the ability to think for themselves—not to be told what to think, but the ability to be able to think for themselves. Education should not be indoctrination, and I think there are times when we stray into that space, and that can’t be the case.

However, what is very, very clear is that far too many of our young people are nowhere near where they need to be in terms of their core skills: the ability to read, write, and be numerate. And it has got markedly worse in recent years. Again, I want to pay tribute to the Minister who’s doing a great job in systematically starting to turn that around and focusing on what matters.

So what needs to be turned around? Well, I want to start by looking at earlier-this-year’s year 8 achievement data for maths. For all students, only 23 percent were at the level that they were supposed to be—23 percent; 62 percent were at least a year behind where they should be. Now, that is not success. What I heard, effectively, from the Opposition was “Everything’s fine.” No, it’s not fine. That’s for maths. For writing, pretty much the same for all students: 24 percent at level, 61 percent more than a year behind. That is utterly unacceptable.

Then there’s our PISA scores—this is the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment. It tests 15-year-olds, the performance is measured every three years, and we’ve been involved in this since 2000. Every year, pretty much every time we’ve been assessed, we have gone backwards. So it’s not just recent; this has been happening over an extended period of time. In the last assessment—in 2022-2023, before this Government took office—reading has dropped in that time, from 2000 to 2023, by a full year. So where a 15-year-old is now was where a 14-year-old was in 2000. If you look at science it’s the same, where a 15-year-old was now, when science came into the PISA programme in 2006, that’s where a 14-year-old was. In maths, it’s even worse. Where a 15-year-old is now, a 13½ year old was in 2003, when maths came to that programme.

So things are not in the place that we need them to be, and turning this around is important. That means a focus on education and educational achievement has got to be at the top of the list, because at the moment our education system has clearly lost its way and needs to be turned around and got, if I might say, “Back on track”.

This bill is a legislative backing for a huge amount of work that is being done to fix a broken system. I want to, again, think about the things which the Minister is doing at the moment, the introduction of structured literacy, the extra investment that’s been made: $30 million in maths and maths material, the teaching. [Suze Redmayne enters the Chamber] It’s nice to see you, Suze. I’ll wave back at you as well.

Teaching support, so actually helping teachers with their registration costs, etc., it’s something that the teaching profession has been asking for, for years; delivering more classrooms for less, so instead of bespoke designs, we get more classrooms. That’s what we want, more warm, dry classrooms for our kids to learn in. The replacement of the NCEA system and the work that’s being done to improve the terrible attendance rates that there are.

Just looking at those attendance rates—again, from the Opposition, we heard as though everything was fine. The term 2 attendance levels, where young people are at school for more than 90 percent of the time, in 2022, that was 40 percent—40 percent. So 60 percent of our kids did not attend school in that year for more than 90 percent of the time. In 2023, it was 47 percent who did, 53 percent who didn’t; in 2024, 53 percent did, 47 percent didn’t; and 2025 it’s up to 58 percent plays 42. So it is getting better, but it is nowhere near where it needs to be.

I’m just going to finish off by saying that New Zealand First strongly supports this bill and the things that are in it. I just want to reflect on some of the things that New Zealand First campaigned on in the last election. One of them, to enforce compulsory education and address truancy—exactly what is being done. Secondly, to focus on doing the basics better through emphasising the historic “3Rs”: reading, writing, and arithmetic. Again, what is being done: an hour a day for each of those three things. Third, to provide better pathways and funding for STEM subjects. We know we need to invest in science and those sort of subjects. Fourth, to remove gender ideology—I talked about ideology earlier—from the curriculum. Fifth, to review the New Zealand curriculum, to remove critical race theory and decolonisation and finally to conduct a select committee inquiry into the future NCEA to see if it is delivering for students, parents, and employers. And I think the conclusion is that it isn’t, and that is why it is going.

This bill clearly establishes educational achievement as the paramount objective to school boards. This should never be in doubt. But I know—and many parents and communities have told me that that is in doubt in some school board’s minds. This is about clarifying that to put education at the top and starting to fix our education system for our kids, for their future, and for the future of this country. I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): A five-minute split call.

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This legislation is emblematic of three things that have become symbolic of what this Government stands for. It’s a distracted and out-of-touch Government that is obsessed with imported culture wars. It is an unpopular Government that is pushing through these reforms despite overwhelming opposition at the selection committee stage. It’s not an evidence-based bill, either. These are the three things that are characteristic of Government bills—we’ve seen it time and time again in the House, and this is the latest manifestation of it. At a time when New Zealanders want the Government to get focused on the cost of greed crisis, at a time when people in New Zealand want their Government to be focused on prioritising cheaper bills, more and more jobs, and clamping down on the corporate greed that has led to runaway “greedflation” that has afflicted and crushed our economy, this is anything but doing that.

Let me address how it’s not evidence based: one of the things that has been central to the argument of the members opposite is that this bill is actually about protecting free speech. In the select committee stage, I asked questions of the Minister about how many universities in 2024 had actually restricted speakers from their campuses. The Minister’s answer was zero. This bill is trying to fix a problem that’s not even a problem in the first place, and, in doing so, it’s a serious case of Government overreach into the freedom of expression of universities and a serious overreach on the ability of universities to be self-managing institutes. It is a serious overreach on the ability of staff and students to actually self-organise and direct their universities to be the institutions that they want them to be.

This is most clearly seen in the requirement of this bill for universities to produce statements of freedom of expression. Now, what an irrelevant term, because who’s going to be judging what the freedom of expression actually is? It’s going to be the Government; it’s going to be a bunch of political people that will be judging universities, which should be independent of Government control, on how free they’re going to actually be in terms of freedom of expression. This is a very dangerous pathway that actually sets universities on a path to being Government-controlled institutions and to Government dictating what universities can and can’t teach, and what universities can and can’t proscribe.

This is most evident in new section 281A(2)(d), inserted by clause 12, where it says, “universities, as institutions, should not take public positions on matters that do not directly concern their role or functions:”. This is where the Government’s actual agenda around universities is most clear, because we know that a lot of the policies they are pursuing—whether it’s increasing the amount of fossil fuel gas in the atmosphere, whether it’s increasing the amount of drilling and mining, which is going to release these fossil—

Simon Court: What’s that got to do with the bill?

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ: —mining gases in the atmosphere—this is about the bill. This is actually about how the Government is restricting universities from taking public positions on a lot of things that the Government has actually submitted. If you look at the submissions of a lot of the universities, they have taken quite strong positions against things that this Government has advocated for—for example, on Te Tiriti legislation—

Simon Court: Tell them to get elected.

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ: —I saw submissions on the Regulatory Standards Bill from institutions. It’s really clear what this Government’s agenda is. It's not actually about protecting free speech, it’s about crushing dissent from universities and setting them up to be Government-controlled commissariats, controlled by David Seymour, who will be prescribing his vision of ideology on what free speech actually should be. It’s really unacceptable that the Government has overreached to this extent, and it really speaks to the fundamental nature of how this Government has been wagged by the two dogs that are driving this coalition—ACT and New Zealand First.

It’s really ironic that, in the general debate speech, they were talking about how this Opposition was controlled by the Greens and Te Pāti Māori when they’re actually just projecting how they in Government are acting, and how this, as a bill—and it literally says so—is about advancing an agreement in the policy clause in the coalition negotiations between ACT and the National Party. We do not agree with this bill.

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill): My beautiful electorate of Mt Roskill is home to hard-working families who value education and who see it as a key to a better future. They want stronger schools, clearer pathways, and real opportunity for their children. That’s what the schools should be focusing on to ensure that every child learns, progresses, and succeeds, and this bill is about lifting student achievement, improving attendance, and making sure that every young New Zealander gets the best possible start in life. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): As Shanan Halbert said earlier in this debate, this bill is a mishmash of small things brought to this Parliament at the behest of the minor parties in this coalition Government. The question of free speech and academic freedom in our universities is probably the most obnoxious aspect of this bill, and it’s the matter that I want to focus my remarks on.

The context for this bill is the increasing attention that conservative and libertarian political groups here and internationally have been giving to the issue of free speech in recent years. They have targeted independent institutions like universities, who they feel don’t share their libertarian values. Initiatives like the provisions in this bill are an attempt to break down the gates of academia and use the power of the State to force independent academic institutions to give platforms to the pedlars of hate speech—white supremacists, Islamophobes, racists, anti-trans activists, and Holocaust deniers—in order to give their views respectability by giving them access to independent academic institutions.

This is an imported culture war, as previous speakers have remarked, and there is no evidence. The proponents of this bill—either at select committee, the submitters who came along, or the Minister—have been completely unable to explain the problem statement that justifies this intervention, and, in fact, in the regulatory impact statement, the officials said as much before the bill went to select committee.

The Government’s own assessment of the proposed amendments here to mandate free speech on campus show the manufactured nature of this crisis. Officials acknowledge having—and I quote—“limited evidence on the actual extent and impact of freedom of speech concerns in New Zealand.” As colleagues have already pointed out, the only example—the only example—that the Minister could come up with, when asked at select committee, was of the notorious incident of Don Brash, I think, being denied the opportunity to give a Hobson’s Pledge speech at Massey University. That is not a crisis that justifies this kind of heavy-handed intervention in the cherished, autonomous academic institutions that we should be taking care to look after.

One of the problems with this debate is the confusion of free speech with academic freedom. I want to quote Professor Joan Scott, who put it this way: “Free speech makes no distinction about quality; academic freedom does.”, and the difference between those two concepts is foundational to why universities exist in the first place. Academic freedom protects rigorous inquiry conducted according to scholarly standards. It shields researchers pursuing evidence-based knowledge from political interference, no matter where that interference comes from, and, by contrast, free speech makes no quality judgments at all. It protects all expression equally, regardless of whether it meets any scholarly criteria or contributes to a greater public purpose.

The other problem with this debate is that the notion of free speech espoused by the advocates of this bill is that it is divorced from the idea that with freedom comes responsibility. It fails to balance the right of an individual to say whatever they like with the consequences of their speech. I believe that in New Zealand—unlike this imported culture war; unlike the chaos of the United States right now—we have a history of taking care of our society and of thinking about the consequences of what we say and do in the knowledge that in this small collection of islands at the bottom of the South Pacific, we have to learn to live with each other, we have to get on, and we have to balance these things, albeit imperfectly, but always with an eye to taking care of our society and our ability to get on together, and taking care of the vulnerable.

The other thing that I think is bad about this bill—and this is ironic, given that the impetus for these provisions has come from the libertarian part of this Parliament. The irony is that it is the long arm of the State protruding into somewhere where it should not go.

Universities are autonomous, self-governing institutions, with an academic freedom tradition that is hundreds of years old, and I want to quote Peter Davis, who wrote a very good piece about this. He said that universities “have used their independence judiciously to protect the freedom of their staff to push the boundaries of research, to encourage and manage debate on key issues on campus, and to inform public debate through civil, constructive, and evidence-based contributions.” Using the law, as this bill will, to force our universities to bend the knee to the State through these provisions sets, I think, a very unfortunate precedent. It undermines the autonomy that is central to the status and credibility of our universities.

This bill is a distraction from the very valid and urgent concerns of ordinary New Zealanders, who right now want a Government focused on jobs, the public health system, and housing. They want a Government that focuses its energy on easing the cost of living crisis, and I urge the National Party not to buy in to the imported culture wars that its minor party coalition partners are so fond of and, instead, focus on the things that matter.

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It must be difficult being on the Opposition benches today, as we put this piece of legislation through the House this afternoon. I have 72 schools across the mighty Whanganui electorate, and to teachers and principals and parents and students it's pretty simple: they go to school to learn. A board's paramount objective in governing a school is to ensure that every student at the school is able to attain their highest possible standard in educational achievement. Pretty simple. Look at the results this Government is achieving by focusing on the simple things in education and getting them done. I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): A five-minute split call.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Who’s correct: the National Party leader’s office’s speaking notes, which have been read to us so dutifully, that this bill is about educational achievement; or the ACT Party members in this debate, and in their heckles, who are gleefully celebrating the demise of academic freedom and welcoming in an era where institutions will have sign up to a free speech statement that is, in fact, in line with the Government’s priorities for their free speech?

This bill guarantees that academics and students within universities will have free speech, but that academic freedoms will be limited, and that universities themselves will not, in fact, be able to have any free speech on issues that the ACT Party doesn’t want them to be talking about—political issues, social issues, cultural issues. Those issues that are preserved in our law and are hundreds of years old—that come from a tradition of the 1500s, when universities were thought of as respected and trusted institutions, and there was a civil contract. Remember that sort of deal between Governments and citizens—remember that one? It’s a really important part of our law, but whatever we’re getting over there isn’t quite that.

That is part of a contract that people sort of sign up to when they engage in a society and that they think will be honoured by Governments, and part of that is that institutions—independent institutions like universities—will be able to take positions, will be able to advance freely informed, thoughtful inquiry and test ideas; that they might be a forum for debating issues and thoughts. That is something that the ACT Party is meant to stand for, but, instead, this bill is an imported culture war straight from the US—lucky us in New Zealand—and we will have to deal with the consequences of this for many, many years. The idea that universities will not be able to take a stand that the Government doesn’t agree with is simply not part of what New Zealanders would expect and what most New Zealanders think they are getting from this Government. They want the Government to be focused on the real issues, like rising cost of living, like the economy that is shrinking, and like the 73,000 New Zealanders who have left under their watch.

This is a bill that makes a number of pernicious changes mixed in with all the little, sort of smaller amendments. One—just to give you a flavour of what they’re focusing on—is an amendment to make it harder for unions to give notice of school strikes and require longer days. I mean, what has this Government got? One trick: bust the unions; bust the teachers’ unions; bust the universities. What is the point? Other than to make a sort of political stab at the traditional supporters of the ACT Party, who does this help? It just makes it harder for people to have a say, in a bill that is meant to be about free speech.

There’s another one that just seems to allow the Minister to cross-subsidise international students with the fees of domestic students. Why is it helpful to the training and learning of New Zealanders that a previous rule that required universities to fully cost-recover from international students—fair enough; international students are good. That’s an important export for New Zealand—good. Why is it useful for the Minister to say, “We’re going to cross-subsidise these international students now with the fees that are paid by domestic students.”? Who was asking for that?

The point is that this sort of grab-bag of things that are from the deep, dark right-wing playbook are also mixed in with some things that will really hurt the independence of our institutions and the ability of academics to make their point. In the case of Don Brash, when he was denied the ability to speak at a university, that was a call that the university made because they thought it would harm the overall ability of that university to be able to be that kind of forum that New Zealanders expect—where we interrogate ideas fairly, where we give everyone a fair go. It’s OK for a university to take a stand like that and say, actually, our role here isn’t to promote this kind of speech, it’s actually to be able to interrogate the ideas in a different way.

Simon Court: Speech is not harm. This is where you’re flawed.

ARENA WILLIAMS: That should be fine. The thing that should be fine, Simon Court, is for academics to take a stand. When, earlier in the debate, you said “The academics should just get elected then if they want to take public positions”, that betrays any of the arguments that you have made around promoting fair speech and free speech. It means that no one other than you should be able to decide what New Zealanders think, believe, and talk about—and isn’t that straight from the quiet part out loud?

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): This is another piece of legislation that proves and shows why National is more trusted in education compared to that lot these days, and so I commend this bill. I also want to pay tribute to the deputy chair, Carl Bates, and the Education and Workforce Committee for all the work that they've done. The bill commentary here says that “We recommend all amendments [are passed] unanimously”. I commend the bill.

REUBEN DAVIDSON (Labour—Christchurch East): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just to acknowledge, at the top of my contribution, that the member Cameron Brewer took only 25 seconds to claim to be more trusted in education but was unable to make an argument longer than 30 seconds to convince, which would suggest to me it’s not an argument he’s confident in and neither is it an argument he’s prepared to make on the record in the House. Just a spurious claim. It is good to be able to take the full 10 minutes to be able to make my contribution on the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2), and to confirm that Labour does oppose this bill because, as you’ve heard from a number of my colleagues on this side of the House, this is Government overreach and it’s a grab bag of a bill that is bungled and messy.

I want to focus on two aspects of the bill, in my contribution. We know that the purpose of this bill is to make a series of amendments, but what I’m wanting to focus on specifically is the impacts that this will have on school boards—those boards that work within our schools in the governance role—and also on the freedom of expression within our universities and tertiary institutions.

I had the privilege, when I was at high school—and that is some time ago—of being on the board of trustees for my school. Through my personal experience on that school board, I could see a number of roles with which the board members had skills, experience, and the ability to make a contribution to their school community, but I could also see the distinction and the line of where the staff and teachers should have the freedom and the responsibility for a number of tasks and responsibilities within that school environment. I think one of the issues that is confused in this grab-bag bill is the distinction around the role of a school board. Now, the Act as it is currently written requires school boards to ensure that schools are places where children and young people can achieve educationally, where they are safe, with their rights upheld, where they feel included, and that Te Tiriti o Waitangi is given effect to. These four objectives are equally weighted and interconnected to create the optimal environment for children to learn and develop.

Now, making the three objectives of safety and rights, inclusion, and giving effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi subsidiary to one primary objective is contrary to the purpose of the Education and Training Act, which is to establish and regulate an education system that does four things. It provides an educational experience that gives people the skills, the knowledge, and the capabilities they need to fully participate in society, at work, and in their communities. When we’re talking about schools, we are talking about the hearts of our communities, and we need to ensure that Acts like this don’t overreach into the boards that govern those schools and those communities, and have unintended or intended consequences that cause harm. The second thing is to support the health, safety, and wellbeing of those people in the school community, The third is to assure quality education. The fourth is to honour Te Tiriti and support Māori-Crown relations.

Now, making these supporting objectives implies that they are not as important and necessary in and of themselves. Further, these objectives are in place to require school boards to create an environment that is supportive of every learner. Demoting these undermines the efforts to increase attendance. There are a number of reasons students don’t attend, and often it’s because the school environment is not a welcoming environment.

Now I want to give a shout-out to a specific school in the electorate I’m lucky enough to represent, the mighty Christchurch East. It has Te Hiwa Shirley Primary School, where a special welcome party is held every Monday, or has been previously held every Monday, at the school gate, to encourage attendance and to welcome children into that school environment and into that school community. That’s the kind of thing that I think schools should be encouraged and empowered to do within their school communities. When we become as didactic and as dictatorial as some of the steps in this Act are, we risk taking away the autonomy that schools should have to create the right kind of environment, to provide the curated education and community experience for every student in their community to flourish and for every student to learn, and to recognise that not every student is the same and the needs of every student differ. This cookie-cutter approach in this bungled bill loses sight of that—significantly loses sight of that.

The other point that I wanted to speak to was around the supposed free speech issue. There were a number of submissions that came through to the Education and Workforce Committee about the free speech components and that suggested or included requirements on universities. Now, one of these was from the misleadingly named Free Speech Union—partly because it doesn’t really stand for free speech and also because it’s not really a union. But the submission from the Free Speech Union says that “ ‘Academic freedom is essential for universities to uphold if academics and students are to speak freely. We welcome the Education and Training Amendment Bill, which the Free Speech Union contributed to extensively,’ ”—well, there’s a clue—“ ‘to protect and enable academics and students to speak without fear of retribution.’ ”

Simon Court: Hear, hear. Tell us why that’s wrong.

REUBEN DAVIDSON: So that was the opinion of the Free Speech Union, who claim authorship for large parts of the bill and who received a resounding “Hear, hear” from ACT Party member Simon Court in the House, so you can give that submission the kudos that those clues might deserve.

The Law Society, on the other hand, “told the committee the bill created ‘needless complexity’ because freedom of expression was already protected by law.” So the very party that talks about wanting less Government is in fact, from the very respected Law Society, being told that they are adding needless complexity. And whilst “needless” might be a word that we use to describe the ACT Party from time to time, “needless complexity” is not a term that we should see in our bills.

Hon Phil Twyford: Send that to the Ministry for Regulation.

REUBEN DAVIDSON: Exactly—a member on this side of the House, the member Phil Twyford, calls for us to send this to the Ministry for Regulation. I think that is a good idea, although, judging from the costs at the Ministry for Regulation, it would be an expensive exercise.

“Paul Rishworth KC said freedom of expression was of the utmost importance, but the bill was not necessary … academic freedom was already protected in the Education Act and the Bill of Rights protected free speech.” Further to that, the Tertiary Education Union—now, that’s a real union—co-president Julie Douglas told the committee “there was a lack of evidence that universities were limiting free speech.” She goes on to say that “ ‘What we have now is a functioning model which does not need this level of monitoring.’ ” So, on the one hand, you have an organisation who claim to have authored large parts of the bill, saying that they think it’s a great idea—surprise, surprise—and then you have the Law Society and the Tertiary Education Union spelling out exactly the issues with this bungled bill.

It’s a grab bag of a bill. It addresses issues that do not need a new Act; they are already covered in existing regulation or law. But instead, today, at a time when New Zealanders are facing a cost of living crisis, when we are seeing, day after day, people leaving New Zealand, people losing their jobs, this Government is choosing to waste their time with overreach into this area, where the experts are telling us it is not required.

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a great honour to rise and speak in support of the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2) in this second reading. I have sat here and listened to about seven speeches from the other sides, and do you know what? I have not heard—I have not heard—about lifting the educational achievements of our children, and that is absolutely shameful. We, as a Government, are relentlessly focused on lifting the achievement and closing the equity gap so parents can have the confidence that their children can have the foundations to succeed. We want our children to be competitive on the international stage. We need a good education system. The other side should have spent their 10 minutes thanking the Minister for the great achievements that our children are now achieving due to the changes that this Government has made. This bill is about lifting school and student achievement, improving attendance, and ensuring every young New Zealander gets the best possible start at life. I commend this bill to the House.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: We haven’t arranged for—

Cameron Luxton: Well, there’s a spare call.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, it’s just written here, and I just wanted to double-check, but you called, so Simon Court has the call.

SIMON COURT: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I want to commend the work of the Minister and the select committee, particularly for attendance management plans. New Zealand’s children cannot learn if they are not in school, and this bill delivers a much-improved approach to attendance management. I also want to rebut some of the claims made by Labour and Green MPs about this bill when it comes to statements on freedom of expression.

The committee reported back that, actually, diverse opinions should be expressed in a respectful manner, consistent with any statutes made by a university. What we heard from Labour and the Greens is their contention that hearing different opinions is akin to some kind of violence. It might be dangerous for students. It was quite a remarkable proposal from Arena Williams. She quoted the very dangerous former Governor of the Reserve Bank and former member of this Parliament Don Brash. The most frightening thing I’ve ever seen Don Brash try and do is get into a speedway car or try to walk down a gangplank and get on a boat. Now, anyone who’s ever seen that will know that that is the limit of how dangerous Don Brash is. Apparently, according to Arena Williams, he’s too scary to be allowed to speak at a university.

I’m proud that this Government, with ACT in Government, has promoted free speech in the universities and that our member on the committee that considered this legislation, Dr Parmjeet Parmar, has been instrumental in making sure that the language and the wording in the legislation meet the expectations of New Zealanders and young people at universities. I commend the bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a second time.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Education and Training (Vocational Education and Training System) Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for Vocational Education): I present a legislative statement on the Education and Training (Vocational Education and Training System) Amendment Bill.

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

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: I move, That the Education and Training (Vocational Education and Training System) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

This is a great day for vocational education and training. That is all the wonderful people who build our roads and our houses, fix our cars, run our farms, plumb our bathrooms, cook for our restaurants, care for our people, the makers, the bakers and the creators, the fixers and the fabricators, the drivers, the shearers, the welders, the hairdressers—those valuable people who are useful and drive our economy.

The purpose of this bill is to redesign the vocational education and training system and increase industry leadership in vocational education and training, particularly in the areas of standard setting and work-based training; and restore local decision-making to polytechnics and their communities which support regional development. I am so pleased to get to this stage today as the bill fulfils the Government’s commitment to disestablish Te Pūkenga.

The bill will re-establish regional polytechnics, and Cabinet has taken decisions on the 10 polytechnics that will initially be established as stand-alone polytechnics. These 10 will stand alone on 1 January 2026, with two of them expected to be in the federation. The remaining polytechnics will stay in Te Pūkenga for a very short time as they continue to build their financial sustainability. I am confident they will complete this work and that decisions will be able to be made about their establishment in the new year. Further decisions regarding the federation will be taken in the first half of next year with the intention that it will be operational by the middle of next year.

The bill will also establish industry skills boards (ISBs) and disestablish the workforce development councils. Work-based training—that’s our wonderful apprentices and trainees—will transfer initially to the industry skill boards for a period of up to two years. This will support existing and new apprentices, who can also transfer or enrol into new industry private training establishments, polytechnics, and wānanga as suitable programmes emerge. Any gaps in the provision for new enrolments can be covered by industry skills boards during the two-year period.

The bill was amended via an Amendment Paper at the committee the whole House stage to change the commencement date of the bill. This will ensure that all preparations for the new system can be made prior to the transfer date of 1 January 2026 and the new entities can be ready to operate from that day.

Other technical amendments in the Amendment Paper were made by the committee of the whole House to support the transition of the work-based training divisions, make some tidy-up amendments to ensure the functionality of all provisions, and to correct any remaining drafting errors.

I’d like to thank the Parliamentary Counsel Office for their drafting of the bill and for their rapid work on the Amendment Papers, as these updates have ensured the bill is fit for purpose and ready for implementation.

There are many people that I want to thank. I want to thank the officials and the private secretaries from the Ministry of Education and the Tertiary Education Commission for this superb work in getting to this point. We are often hard on our bureaucrats, but they have been wonderful in this. I asked for them to have it done before Christmas and they’ve done that—it’s unfortunate I asked two Christmases ago, but we’ve got it done this Christmas.

I’d like to thank my office—Trish, Alex, and Amy—who I’ve worked to the bone getting this done and I am so grateful for their unfailing support.

I’d like to thank the Education and Workforce Committee, led by Carl Bates, and all the members of that committee who have added to how good this bill is. I’d like to thank coalition partners for supporting me throughout this.

But most of all, I would like to thank the communities that I have visited across New Zealand who are so delighted to have their polytechnics back and are ready to support them. I want to thank all those wonderful industry people who have been putting their hands up to be in the driving seat to ensure the relevancy of the qualifications in their industry.

A huge amount of preparatory work has been done to get everything lined up and ready for a smooth transition of functions and activities to the new entities and to have the new system up and running by 1 January next year. Including the work by industry getting involved in the ISBs and including that financial work that’s been done over the past 18 months, and the polytechnics have been wonderful making their way through that.

I want to thank all the industry representatives and the staff in the industry training organisations (ITOs). We know how important our tradespeople are and I want to highlight how valuable—especially our apprentices and our trainees. They are the salt of the earth people in our community. Through the development of their industry skills, they grow as individuals, they support their families and their industries, and I want to thank them for the work that they continue to do to contribute to the prosperity of our country.

I’d like to take this opportunity to thank all the wonderful staff across all the polytechnics and ITOs. They have had a tough time of it for the last few years and I really want to thank them for their professionalism. I want to thank them for how well they have looked after students during this time, and I acknowledge them and I look forward to us being able to work together and grow this important vocational education and training sector.

In closing, I just want to say I am incredibly pleased and humbled to have had the opportunity to lead the bill to this stage. But I am looking forward to the progress that we can now make together across that whole vocational education and training system as the new system beds in next year and beyond. I’m especially looking forward to achieving parity of esteem for our vocational education learners, our apprentices, recognising that the work that they do is so important, showcasing how valuable they are to our country. I commend this bill to the House.

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

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I don’t know if anyone else in this room today thought that that sounded somewhat like a valedictory speech, Minister, when you go around thanking every single person in this House. I know why that is: it’s because the promise that the National Government sold last election—to reintroduce regional autonomy for polytechnics—this bill does not achieve that. It may give people the right to think that suddenly they have regional decision-making again, but what does that mean if you only have half of what you had? What does that mean if you only have half of what it had? What is the real cost of this National Government’s vocational reforms? The cost is jobs—hundreds of jobs in the vocational sector: gone. Campuses: gone. Courses and access to learning in our regional communities: gone.

Hon Penny Simmonds: An extra $20 million going in.

SHANAN HALBERT: The Minister says there’s an extra $20 million going in. The Minister knows that the reports and the advice that she has had is that she needs at least $200 million to stand up 16 polytechnics. Herein lies the problem with this legislation: the problem that we have collectively—that consecutive Governments—have been trying to solve is how do we make a vocational polytech system financially viable for the future? Over decades, it has lost money, and it has required consecutive Governments to bail them out. At no point throughout the process of this piece of legislation have we seen the financials, have we seen the cost-benefit analysis that tells us that this is a financially viable plan.

Francisco Hernandez: Show us the money!

SHANAN HALBERT: It is not here. We can make all the promises in the world, but the reality of this legislation is that it has come at the cost of jobs, of courses, and of campuses. Anyone that sits in this room and who comes from those regional communities—from Northland through to Otago, through to Tairāwhiti—you’ve lost out in this bill. Our young people have lost out, and our communities have lost out, because there are less and less opportunities—particularly for our young people.

When we look at the numbers of NEETs increasing under this National Government—under Christopher Luxon—this bill does not take responsibility for that problem. It does not take responsibility for that problem, because, at the very heart of it, this bill also doesn’t address the lack of provision and access to provision that we have in foundation learning. When Christopher Luxon tells young people to get off the couch, stop playing PlayStation, and go and find a job, not only are there no jobs, but even if they’re trying to get into foundation learning, they can’t get in. They’re getting turned away, and that is shameful.

Simon Court: This bill’s going to fix it, Shanan.

SHANAN HALBERT: This bill is not going to fix it. Where have you been? [Interruption] Where have you been? [Interruption] Madam Chair, that comment from the ACT Party member just—it threw me.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I can see that.

SHANAN HALBERT: I come back to financial viability. The National Government simply cannot afford this legislation. It takes us back to a model where we’ve already been and that we simply couldn’t afford. There hasn’t been an explanation of how we can do things cheaper or how we can make arrangements for shared services to make savings and to create better outcomes for people that work there, for communities and, particularly, for learners.

I don’t believe we had the opportunity to have a robust discussion about the industry skills boards in our debate this morning. If anything, it’s a part of this conversation that hasn’t been as easily explained as our local polytechs and the federations. We know that, under this Government, thousands and thousands less apprentices are graduating under their watch—thousands. Twenty thousand construction workers have gone off to other parts of the world, and thousands of apprentices aren’t graduating or enrolling under their watch. That becomes problematic for our workforce, and it becomes problematic for our economy overall.

The thing is that the Minister promised—promised—industry that they would have more leadership under this piece of legislation. She hasn’t achieved that, and industry has been very clear with the Minister that this legislation falls well short. They are not happy with this; they are not satisfied with what this legislation offers, and they simply do not believe that the way it has been structured or the plans that are in place are going to train in the skills areas that we desperately need for workforce shortages in this country. This bill does not have industry backing—it does not have industry backing—and it came through clearly in the submissions that were made and that the Education and Workforce Committee heard.

The workforce development councils (WDCs) were a successful part of the previous Labour Government’s reforms. The industries were very clear on that, because they developed qualifications and micro-credentials that people were able to train with and that were put together by a group of experts. Instead of continuing that on—because I appreciate that sometimes this is political, but in education we can be sensible. The shortcoming of the Minister, when it comes to WDCs, is that she should have just transitioned them over. The industry skills boards do not offer anything new or additional in form and function that the workforce development councils didn’t do.

It doesn’t make sense to disestablish workforce development councils and re-establish a whole new entity while giving them only half the funding that they used to have under the old model. How is that setting industry up for success? How is that setting learners up for success? Most of all, how is that building a workforce that our economy needs? How is that getting us to a better place than what was in place before? I genuinely believe, with the 30 years of experience that the Minister has had in tertiary education, she knows today what she is doing. She knows that this doesn’t create better outcomes for learners, it’s not financially viable, and that, most of all, she has let industry down in the promise that she made back in the last election.

I have always said that her plan doesn’t stack up—it just simply doesn’t stack up—but I’ve given the Minister the benefit of the doubt to show us the detail of how this is achievable. We haven’t seen the finances on our polytechs; we still have no details on the federations, and that is a good example of the emperor with no clothing, Minister. We still don’t have a viable transitional plan around the industry skills boards. I expect a high level of legislation coming into this House, but, particularly when it comes to our education sector, I believe that this is a space where we can work, in a bipartisan way, to address the systemic challenges that are in front of us. If every young person in this country does well—if they have access to education and higher learning—then that will benefit out country and our economy. I do not commend this bill to the House.

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to take a call on the Education and Training (Vocational Education and Training System) Amendment Bill, the final one, in its third reading stage. Finally, we’re grinding to the end.

I want to begin by acknowledging the people that I’ve always acknowledged at the start of all my debates, in all the readings except for the committee of the whole House stage where it would be impractical. These are the learners and the students in the communities that have undergone nearly a decade of disruption in the polytech sector. With nearly one-in-seven jobs lost, with campuses closed across the board, and with programmes disestablished, it’s hard to see that this is what success looks like for this National Government. It’s hard to see that all this pain is being suffered with the ultimate conclusion of the Treasury that the viability of the new institutions would be the same, if not worse. Almost contradictorily to my first point, I also want to thank the Minister for her engagement on this bill. I think democracy is best served when Ministers are engaged and active in the subject. Minister Simmonds, with your three decades of experience and a clear passion for the polytech sector, we appreciated your engagement during the committee of the whole House, and you’re correct to thank your office. They’ve been very active in engaging through the parliamentary written questions process, and we thank them for their work.

I want to turn to the reasons why we oppose this bill—in spite of my kind words for the Minister. They’re rooted around three concerns: representation, the federation model, and the viability of the future pathway for the polytechnics. I’ll go through them one by one. I want to begin my contribution around the representation part by reading from an unlikely subject’s speech during the committee of the whole House stage on the bill that established Te Pūkenga. That member is, surprisingly, Simeon Brown. Simeon Brown, in that speech, asked if there were other options though which the staff and students are able to have their voices heard rather than through central planning where the Minister essentially retains control. Simeon Brown was then complaining about the lack of staff and student representation provisions on the bill that established Te Pūkenga. I do agree that there was insufficient staff and student representation. There was only provision for one staff and one student representation. In contrast, in this bill, there’s no staff or student representation guaranteed at all, which is very problematic. I do think that some enlightened polytechnics will still choose to have staff and student representation because we know that getting the learner perspective and getting the perspective of the staff who make these institutions run, is really a valuable way of governing. We do know that some won’t, and it’s a real loss.

I also want to talk about the stripping down and watering down of the Te Tiriti clauses and the requirements for Māori representation, which is another loss in the bill and another big omission from what could have been a bill that endured the test of time in a cross-party way.

I want to talk about the federation model. The Minister, in her committee of the whole House stage, advocated for it being a positive thing. If it was such a positive thing, why are polytechs required to be part of it but not required to be consented for it? If the federation model was going to be so successful, then, logically, polytechs would want to be a part of it, and they wouldn’t need to be forced to be part of it. Unfortunately, the Government voted down my amendments which would require the consent of the communities and would require the consent of the polytechnics to be a part of the federation.

Now, the Minister said that in some cases some polytechs don’t actually know that they’re drowning and that they’ll be in denial on this issue, but that’s where the mechanisms around Crown observers could come in, to rescue them from, essentially, their own delusion. The excuse of not requiring the consents of communities to be a part of the federation does not wash. I’m also really concerned about the lack of mechanism for anchor polytechnics to exit the federation. This is something that I did have a back and forth with the Minister on.

This is something that I was going to bring up later during the debate around new section 380 around the closure of the industry skills boards (ISBs). Now, like anchor polytechnics, industry skills boards are also established via Order in Council. The Minister said that it was not necessary to include provisions to require exit clauses for anchor polytechnics, because they’re being established by Order in Council, but ISBs are also being established by Order in Council. New section 380 also makes provisions to disestablish the industry skills boards via Order in Councils, so there is some inconsistency in the legislation. I do worry that the Government is opening itself up to potential legal challenges as a result of this inconsistency in drafting.

We’re also really concerned around, essentially, the potential for Ministerial overreach in the governing councils of these new Institutes of Technology and Polytechnics of New Zealand (ITPs). The only people that the Minister had to consult when appointing or removing the chairperson or deputy chairperson is the chairperson or the deputy chairperson themselves. It doesn’t require the consent of the ITP council that she’s already appointing half of. Our view is that it unduly concentrates power in the hands of one person. It’s a shame that the Amendment Papers I drafted, which would have potentially fixed that, have been voted down.

I want to turn to the idea of sector viability, because this was something that this bill was intended to fix. Again, I keep coming back to the words of the Treasury advice about how the ITP sector would, essentially, be the same, if not worse, than they would be coming out of Te Pūkenga as they did before Te Pūkenga was established. This is really key because, from my point of view, we’ve just gone through unnecessary pain. This is the view of a lot of the staff as well. When I asked the Tertiary Institutes Allied Staff Association and the Tertiary Education Union, at the select committee stage for this bill, whether the level of disruption that they were encountering was worse or better or about the same as they did when Te Pūkenga was established, they both said that it was much worse now. Again, we know that there’s been significant disruption to staff, we know that there’s been significant disruption to students, and we know that there’s been significant disruption to the communities that the polytechs are going to serve. I do worry about what that will do to the future viability of the polytechnics. When you have a car that’s lost one-seventh of its functions, of its parts, or of its essence, how is that going to be a more viable car going forward?

Look, all of us here across the House want to see people who are not in education, employment, or work going to some form of training, but they are forcing these beneficiaries into either employment or training or education. Can these polytechnics that have lost so much staff, that have lost so many courses, and that have, in some cases, stopped in-person delivery at campus handle the surge of people that are going to these institutions? Our concern is that they can’t. There’s funding coming at the end of the process when they’ve already gone through these changes. I feel that, logically, it would have been better to spend the money at the start, to define what the strategically important provisions would have been, and then to cushion the blow so that these ITPs are not losing valuable people just as they need to start again.

One of our concerns—and the Minister did talk about this a little bit—is about how much debt polytechs are going into as they start up. A lot of them are carrying existing debt. I had an Amendment Paper that would have eliminated the debt that the polytechs were going to carry forward. Unfortunately, the Government members didn’t vote for that legislation.

I want to turn, now, in my last 30 seconds, to expand on the concept of the new ISBs. I agree with my colleague Shanan Halbert that there should have been a lift and shift because, with the additional responsibilities that have been overlaid, essentially, they’re having to do twice the work with half of the funding that’s been required. Taken all-in-all, because of the cuts in representation, because of the fact that the forced federation doesn’t actually restore regional autonomy but, in fact, creates a tier system where successful polytechs can be independent but the ones that aren’t, aren’t, and because of the lack of viability, we oppose this legislation.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m taking this call on behalf of the ACT Party to support the Education and Training (Vocational Education and Training System) Amendment Bill. We are very pleased to see this version of the bill which is going through the third reading and we are really looking forward to seeing that this bill is going through the House now and will be, hopefully, passed very, very soon.

The decision of merging polytechnics was a disastrous decision, and just listening to the Labour member and the Green member there, it felt like they have finally woken up. They have realised that there were issues with the vocational education and training system, but when they were in Government they didn’t realise that they didn’t ask those kind of questions. But now, all of a sudden, they have all those questions that they are trying to ask of this Government, and this Government is trying to fix that issue, that big disaster that was created by the previous Labour-led Government.

This bill actually fixes this very important issue because vocational education cannot be undermined. It is really important and what we are doing through this bill is we are restoring regional decision-making. Why is that important? That is important because this is about local needs, this is about local jobs, and it’s about ensuring that local industries have a stronger voice. This is about ensuring that when industries evolve, they are able to take into consideration what needs to be done to respond to those evolving needs, and also, students’ needs evolve as well, so the polytechs are able to respond to that. And that can happen only when there is regional decision-making.

Two changes happened in the select committee process. I want to quickly highlight those changes. One change was about the appointment of members of a polytechnic council. Before, what it said was that it should include ethnic, gender, and socio-economic diversity, and that it should include Māori. We all know that the polytechnic council’s job should be about ensuring that polytechs are able to run properly, they are able to maintain financial sustainability, and that they are able to deal with the operational challenges. So we wanted to focus on ensuring that people, those who are capable, those who are able to deliver in these jobs, are appointed. That’s why that amendment was made in the select committee process to reflect that the council of a polytechnic should, as far as is reasonably practicable, reflect the communities in the region that the polytechnic serves.

The second change that I want to highlight here is about industry skills boards’ functions and duties. The original legislation said that they must act in a manner that contributes to an education system that honours Te Tiriti o Waitangi and supports Māori-Crown relations. Now, we need to look at the core function of industry skills boards and we need to ensure that industry skills boards are able to deliver on those core functions—that is, to plan for workforce needs, set and maintain skill standards and qualifications, and other things. So when we see these kind of things in the legislation we think they are quite irrelevant. They are actually unnecessary and are distractions and that’s why that has been changed as well, to say that it has regard to the needs of Māori and other population groups as identified in the tertiary education strategy.

So now the bill that we have before us is in a much improved form than when it was tabled, but that is the process of the select committee and that is the process of the scrutiny of the committee of the whole House. So the ACT Party is quite pleased to support this bill and commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in support of this important reform bill. I want to start off, if I can congratulate the Minister Penny Simmonds for all the work that’s been done on this, because I know it has been a long, hard journey. Two things I wanted to say: first of all, to celebrate the re-establishment of community-based polytechs and the end of what we would regard as the failed centralisation model of Te Pūkenga, which was brought in by the last Government.

One of the things that I love is going around the country and seeing that every different area is different. All of them have their own aspirations, all of them have their own needs, and what is really exciting is to see each different community working with its local polytech already, and I think that’s great. There are some of those regional polytechs, in particular, where there are far-flung parts of the district—I particularly think about NorthTec and the areas like the Kaikohes and Kaitāias and Kerikeris of the world. They need extra support and that is being acknowledged there as well. I would say that sometimes it is more expensive to deliver things into those far-flung areas and therefore they do—

Hūhana Lyndon: 32 programmes are going to get cut.

ANDY FOSTER: —need more resource. I don’t think the Green Party’s actually been listening to the answers that the Minister gave on those particular questions.

One other thing I would say in that area is that if you are a long way away from your polytech, the drop-out rate and the inability to complete is much, much higher than it is if you live in the area very, very close, in the town that is there, so there is an extra need not only for extra resource or maybe hybrid models but also for extra pastoral care. I did note the question that Francisco Hernandez asked about that a while ago.

New Zealand First strongly believes in regional empowerment, and, as I said, in education, different areas, different regions have different needs, and so I would advocate that we need to be wrapping these things up in regional deals. That’s something that New Zealand First very strongly supports, that we need more work in regional deals and we encourage the Minister to get on with those regional deals. In this case, it’s a different Minister, of course, but that is very, very important.

The final thing I wanted to say is this also frees up industry training organisations, which had effectively been nationalised into Te Pūkenga by the last Government. They have become industry skills boards (ISBs), as we’ve heard. They’re not exactly the same as the workforce development councils, particularly because they also deliver educational outcomes, and that is a significant difference.

The final thing I wanted to say about those is the idea is to establish the ISBs by 1 January next year and then to transition them through to being their own stand-alone entities. Some of those are ready to go. The Minister knows that and I hope that as soon as possible, even possibly before they become ISBs, some of those entities are able to be free to go and do their own thing, because they are ready or very close to ready. She knows that I’m talking about Connexis, that’s the civil construction area; MITO, the motor trades industry; and BCITO, building and construction. So I hope that we can get to there as fast as possible.

This bill is about strengthening regional responsiveness, improving industry alignment, and delivering the skills that our country needs. I commend this bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: [Interruption]The next call is a split call. Hūhana Lyndon.

HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): Hello, kia ora. Sorry, that just took my breath away.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I took a double-take, too.

HŪHANA LYNDON: Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. I’m speaking on behalf of Te Rōpu Kākāriki, who, of course, object to this legislation, and bringing the voice of an informed Northlander—an informed Northlander—who is of the North—

Hon Member: We’ve got one of those over here!

Grant McCallum: Hello!

HŪHANA LYNDON: —who’s connected in the North, and who actually talks to the community. I am here to share the actual issues in the community, because maybe this House didn’t know that none of the iwi of Te Tai Tokerau actually knew that these changes were coming and that NorthTec was going to have to cut back so much. Some of the problem is that the communities have been left out of the conversation. We have seen that clearly in Te Tai Tokerau, whereby the iwi have been chasing for connection to the change, have been chasing to understand what is happening on the ground, and there is impact right now in our institutes of technology and polytechnics sector.

We can’t ignore the fact that there are staff on the line right now that don’t know whether they will have a job by Christmas, because that’s what these changes are bringing. The independence that we’re hearing in terms of regionalisation and giving the rangatiratanga back to the communities—well, there’s a good number of staff that have their jobs on the line right now in NorthTec. They are support services; they are the admin staff; they are the marketing staff; the pastoral support people that, apparently, some of members in the House reckon we need more of—their jobs are on the line; even student voice—the coordinators of student advocacy events and tautoko for students—their jobs on the line too.

So what’s the remedy for Northland? What’s the remedy for the Western Institute of Technology at Taranaki? What’s the remedy for Toi Ohomai Institute of Technology? All of these regional campuses that are being given back their rangatira—but forced, really; it’s a forced thing, eh, because we weren’t asked whether we’re going to join a federation or shared services, because there hasn’t been sufficient community engagement on any of these changes proposed. Rather, it has been creeping along quietly, and the staff, particularly, have been muzzled; they have not been able to share what they are being impacted by. And the students don’t even understand the ripple effect of what will occur, because when enrolments and the registrar and the marketing team and the ICT teams are all getting cut back—who’s going to keep the lights on? Who’s going to do the facility maintenance? Because those teams are all being cut back in regional New Zealand.

So what will Christmas look like? What will Christmas look like for these key staff members and the institutional knowledge that will be lost? Because when people leave NorthTec, they get the post-NorthTec glow, and they don’t come back. They go on and they do awesome things. But if we lose a programme, a tutor, if we lose a support staff member, if we lose a director and managers, then they don’t come back—and that’s a loss to the sector. I shared this recently in one of the many community huis that I’ve hosted on this issue—to my colleague, the Northland MP: he could have come; there’s been hundreds of people come to my meetings. It was interesting to hear when the forestry tutors stood up and they said, “We’ve been teaching forestry for a decade, and we know we’re in a tough spot right now. We don’t have students. It’s low numbers, but, you know, it’s only two years away and then we’ll be required again.”—and if those tutors leave, you lose all of that institutional knowledge.

It’s not easy to get a tradie academically ready, and I say that with love, having been working alongside our academic staff. Sometimes they’re not—you know, they’re in industry. They may need the academic support that comes from the admin team and the enrolments team to make sure that they click the right button on “A+”–you know, all of these are systems that are in place to make it easier for us to deliver could actually be undermined, because the back office is something that is required and, at the moment, we have job cuts coming.

Finally, in closing, talking to the issue of Māori-Pacific trade training: the fact that, actually, while there is funding offered, it’s more looking like Māori-Pacific trade training is a dollar that’s being kept internally in these institutions, and they’ll just clip the ticket and say, “We’re doing it for our Māori and Pacific students”, because they’ve actually closed the door on hapū and iwi relationships—like we’ve heard from Ngāi Tahu, like we’ve heard from Te Matarau Education Trust. Over 10 years of delivery of Māori-Pacific trade training; in December 2024, the door was shut on Te Matarau Education Trust and they were evicted from the building in NorthTec. So that’s a good question for the Minister to ask NorthTec: “Oh, far out—why did you kick Te Matarau out, and what happened to the relationship with hapū and iwi in Te Tai Tokerau?”. Kia ora.

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I appreciate the opportunity to tautoko the work that the Minister has done in bringing regional polytechnics back to the regions. Our own of the Universal College of Learning (UCOL) in Whanganui is a really positive step for our region. We’re looking forward to having regional influence on the governance of UCOL in Whanganui, in the Manawatū, and I know that it is the same across New Zealand, so I commend the bill to the House.

REUBEN DAVIDSON (Labour—Christchurch East): Lovely. Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to stand to take call on the Education and Training (Vocational Education and Training System) Amendment Bill. Now, as the Labour spokesperson for the creative economy, I stand in opposition to this bill, and I would like to take a moment to explain why that is so. Earlier this week, I had the privilege of visiting Haeata Community Campus, a fantastic school in the Christchurch East electorate. That school is full of young, enthusiastic, clever, excited, positive students. They are our future, and this move doesn’t see them, because this move cuts, out of the purview of so many, the ability to be part of our creative economy. Our creative economy has enormous potential to provide meaningful, well-paid jobs, jobs that people will love, jobs that will contribute not just to their incomes but to their community and to our economy as well.

A few weeks back, I was able to see a number of those jobs in action from members of our creative economy at the New Zealand Game Developers Conference here in Wellington. Now, business is booming for our game developers. They are punching above their weight. They are creating amazing games that become weightless exports around the world. We can sell them over and over and over again, and they perform incredibly well. One of the reasons that business is booming so significantly for our gaming sector is because of a rebate scheme that Labour put in when we were last in Government. That has delivered enormous growth to the sector and enabled, very importantly, those creative economy jobs to stay in New Zealand. Instead of disappearing off to other countries—where they very easily could have and where there were very strong incentives for them to do so—they have been able to stay in New Zealand as New Zealand jobs. Those people are contributing, not just to the companies they work for, not just to their personal income, but to our wider economy and to New Zealand’s wellbeing.

Now, the steps taken in this bill, the Education and Training (Vocational Education and Training System) Amendment Bill, do not do anything for the growth of jobs in our creative economy. This bill does not even see that our creative economy exists. I want to look at three specific ways in which it doesn’t see our creative economy. The most significant of those—and I’m taking these from the submission that was made to the select committee—was from WeCreate, which is a fantastic organisation that brings so many people in our creative economy together to represent them with one voice. The loss of the industry leadership role: a core function was to have an industry leadership voice from the creative sector in our tertiary education and training institutions. That voice is lost. Further, it’s no longer required to give effect to advice from our industry skills boards (ISBs). Previously where they were obligated to, now, they are no longer required, under this bill, to take advice from our ISBs.

The thing that I have found most astounding—just as a point of clarification, do I have the full 10 minutes, or do I only have—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You do.

REUBEN DAVIDSON: In that case, I’m very happy to let those members across the other side of the House who are hanging on every word know that whilst I can see from the looks on their faces they have struggled to keep up to this point, I will now speak a lot slower.

The biggest concern for me—this is also in the submission from WeCreate—is the reduced focus on equity and sustainability. There are five points here. The first is that they are no longer required to consider specific consultation with Māori and underserved population groups. Let that sink in. They are no longer required to consider specific consultation with Māori and underserved population groups. Just to remind you, this is in New Zealand—no longer required specific consultation with Māori and underserved population groups. Second, ISBs are no longer required to consider a transition to low emissions and a climate-resilient New Zealand. Third, they are no longer required to consider global sustainability goals. Fourth, they are no longer required—join in; you’re getting the lines—to consider new global challenges and emerging technologies.

Carl Bates: Why did polytechnics need to worry about any of this?

REUBEN DAVIDSON: Carl Bates, you’ll find they are no longer required to consider emerging technologies. I don’t know if you’ve been keeping up. I don’t know if you’ve been keeping up, but artificial intelligence is moving at great speed—at great speed—and ISBs are no longer required to consider emerging technologies. That seems beyond bizarre.

They are also no longer required to consider the changing nature of work. Now, we can disagree on a lot of things in this House, and we often do, but I think no one in this House could stand up and challenge the fact that work and how we work is changing radically and possibly more and faster than we have ever seen or are likely to see in our lifetimes. Yet this Act puts in place legislation that would mean that ISBs are no longer required to consider the changing nature of work. That strikes me as beyond belief.

When I see the other ways in which this bill absolutely ignores key sectors, like our creative economy, and absolutely overlooks the fact that our creative economy even exists, let alone is thriving in the places where we’ve got the settings right, and has the ability to continue to grow and to continue to provide us with amazing high-paying, good jobs for our young people across so many industries.

Instead, no, this Government says, “We do not see the creative economy.” What is the message that I give to those students from Haeata, those students who I visited on Monday, those students who are clever, who are excited, who are positive, who want to have great jobs, who want to work hard, and who want to contribute to New Zealand? The only message from this Government is: “We do not see you.” The other message from this Government is: “Everyone must go.” That is the message you are saying to our young people. They are young people looking for meaningful jobs and meaningful work. That’s why, when I have a conversation with an intermediate school student in Acheson Avenue in Shirley and I ask him, “What do you want to do when you leave school?”, he says, “Move to Australia.” Well, the good news is that by the time that person leaves school, this Government will be history.

GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to give a short call on the Education and Training (Vocational Education and Training System) Amendment Bill. I say one thing: look north. Look north over the Brynderwyns; look up to the NorthTec and you will see that we are going to have great vocational education available to the people of Northland. I commend this bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. The House will resume at 7.30 p.m.

Sitting suspended from 5.58 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Members, the House is resumed. When we broke for the dinner break, we were debating the Education and Training (Vocational Education and Training System) Amendment Bill. We’re up to call number 10, which is a split call and it’s the Labour Party.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak on the Education and Training (Vocational Education and Training System) Amendment Bill, which is a bill, as colleagues have said, that we will not be supporting in the House today.

I did not have the pleasure of sitting on the Education and Workforce Committee when submissions were heard on this bill, but I have read through many of the submissions and listened to the calls that were taken during the committee of the whole House. I think what is unfortunate is that post - committee of the whole House, there is supposed to be much more clarity about the legislation and how it will be implemented—and, sadly, that is not the case in relation to this bill.

There remain a number of questions—as my colleague Shanan Halbert has pointed out earlier in this debate—that remain; that create a large amount of uncertainty for those in the industry as well as students, many students who are already engaged in studies at these institutions. Questions such as what the costs will be in terms of transitioning Te Pūkenga and re-establishing polytechnics under the federation system. Questions about how many jobs and programmes are going to continue to be cut to make the transition viable. Questions about whether this additional transition and change is actually going to deliver for learners and why the Minister for Vocational Education is seeking so much high-level decision-making power over the sector when she’s claiming to give autonomy back to the regions.

There are several questions that still remain, and if you move away from the committee of the whole House and look at the submissions that were put forward to select committee, there’s a certain amount of trepidation in the tone underlying many of those submissions.

I look to the submission of the Aged Care Association, who make a number of recommendations in terms of finances, because clearly they’re worried that there isn’t clarity about the funding for transition, but then also the funding to ensure that the new entities are funded and set up well. They make points such as the need for robust, detailed consultation with industry stakeholders on the actual funding rates and models for industry skills boards once these are developed. They make comments about any industry levy implemented under the bill provisions needing to be genuinely industry-supported and used for purposes that directly benefit the aged-care sector as a whole. They make suggestions as to concerns about the potential for provider charges for QA functions to increase costs for providers, which could be passed on to learners or impact the sector’s already strained finances; and the need for any changes that are being made to be transparent.

These seem like fairly obvious policy suggestions, but the fact that they’re reflected in submissions to select committee, in my view, reflects a trepidation from many of those who are engaged in the sector.

There was also a combined submission from the Disabled Persons Assembly and the National Disabled Students’ Association, both of whom oppose these changes. They made several points about how difficult it already is for disabled students to access tertiary education. They talk about what I would call “layered changes” and how that impacts disabled students in particular. They point out specifically that with equity funding being changed as well, disabled students are more likely to suffer detrimentally in this space.

The submission of E tū is also fairly robust in terms of speaking to the fact that the workforce development councils have been working well, and it’s very unusual for changes to be made in the face of a system and a structure that is already working well.

It is something that submitters have very much opposed or opposed in part in their submissions—I believe only 11 percent were completely in support of the changes—and therefore we oppose this bill.

DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast): It’s a great honour to rise and speak about this wonderful bill. Here we are correcting another failure of the former Labour Government, the centralisation of polytechnics—what a disaster. It’s about time sensibility returned to polytechs and vocational training that we all knew worked and delivered. The Eastern Institute of Technology Tairāwhiti and the value it brought to Tairāwhiti was just amazing. We welcome this bill and the return of regionalised vocational training, doing the job that’s needed in the regions. Thank you, Penny Simmonds, for finally returning sensible solutions to the system. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): It was touching at the beginning of this debate to hear the relief and the excitement in the voice of Minister Penny Simmonds in her speech in this third and final reading of this bill. I think we can all acknowledge what a huge amount of work for all of the officials, our parliamentary staff, and the Minister herself, in bringing a bill of this size through the legislative pipeline of Parliament. Regardless of the partisan politics and our differing views about the best way to build the kind of vocational and educational training system that New Zealand needs, we all believe in the importance of good vocational education and training serving our communities from one end of this country to the other and giving these students and trainees the qualifications and skills that they need.

But with the scepticism that comes more naturally to the Opposition benches, we have questions and concerns—many questions and concerns—that have just not been allayed by the select committee process or the debate in this House. We still haven’t seen a cost-benefit analysis that would justify the policy design and the architecture of the system that the Minister has chosen. We still haven’t seen—in spite of Shanan Halbert persistently asking for it—the money for the transition, let alone the capitalisation of the new polytechs, or any way to be assured about the overall financial viability of the new system.

It was very clear from the submissions to the Education and Workforce Committee that the employers who rely so heavily on a good vocational education and training system don’t have confidence in the model that the Minister has chosen and that is embodied in this bill. Civil Contractors New Zealand said to the select committee—Civil Contractors New Zealand, the peak body of the organisations who build the infrastructure in this country, came along to the committee and said that at no point was anyone able to articulate the problem that these reforms solved, and they were very worried about the future funding of the vocational education system. They said, “Throughout the process, no one has been able to articulate the problem that they are trying to solve. We have consistently heard that the structures arising from Labour’s [the RoVE] reforms were not delivering for industry, and that the cost of the structure was unreasonable and prohibitive. In our view,”—they said—“neither statement is correct.”

One submitter after another came along to the select committee and, in the words of Ministry of Education officials—don’t take my word for it; Ministry of Education officials wrote, “Many described the Bill as ideologically driven, lacking clarity of purpose and a clear evidence base, and felt it reverses progress made under Te Pūkenga. Many also felt there is no coherent plan or clarity regarding the functions of the new entities.” The new system is much more complex than Te Pūkenga was and more complex than the old system, and the official said that in the regulatory impact statement.

You’ve got multiple polytechs, you’ve got industry skills boards, and on top of that you’ve got this federation model with polytechs who are unperforming able to be forced into this federation with an anchor polytech supposedly providing support. It is a complex system overlaid over a set of institutions with a very big question mark over their financial viability. It is a recipe for further decline.

As we discussed during the earlier debate, this bill strips out references to Te Tiriti and it waters down commitments to engage with Māori institutions at the local level and the national level; commitments that were there to ensure that Māori are represented on the governance boards of the new polytechs. It’s a shame. It’s a shame in modern New Zealand that a Government thinks it’s OK to strip out commitments to the Treaty partnership, especially when we’re talking about a vocational education and training system that is serving one of the largest groups that it looks after and is supposed to be serving: our young Māori workers and students who are disadvantaged in the labour market and the education system. But apparently this Government thinks it’s OK not to take that relationship seriously.

So this is the picture—notwithstanding the Minister’s enthusiasm and euphoria tonight: no assurance about the financial viability of the system, no potential under the new design for cross-subsidisation, industry skills boards which are basically a carbon copy of the workforce development councils, but with half the funding.

Francisco Hernandez: Twice the work.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: That’s right. And now at a time of very high youth unemployment, we have thousands fewer apprentices than we had a few years ago. Given the Government’s apparent unwillingness to invest in the new politics, the inevitable result will be fewer courses, fewer trainees, and fewer jobs in the system.

So the Minister might have got her way restoring the decentralised model that she loved so much, but at what cost? Unviable polytechs limping along, delivering fewer and fewer courses to fewer and fewer trainees. At this point, I can’t help but think that the result is a victory for political hubris over evidence, stakeholder opinions clearly articulated, and common sense.

We are a tiny country. We battle constantly with the tyranny of scale. I fear that this Minister has designed a system that will be permanently hostage to scale—small populations dispersed around the country—and distance, likely to struggle to deliver the quality or the breadth of training and education that our young people deserve.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Oh, thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m quite shocked, Phil Twyford usually gives a great speech—very good off the cuff, and he read that speech. I’m not sure whose it was, but I think the technical term is “projection”. I mean, he said, “no cost benefit analysis” and it was a financial disaster. Well, that’s exactly what we had with Te Pūkenga. I’ll give the House an example: the Marlborough Nelson Institute of Technology. I got that round the wrong way deliberately because I believe “M” always comes before “N”, but that has had $23 million that went into Te Pūkenga and they’re going to come out with $11.7 million. So that’s about $12 million just gone down the toilet because of mismanagement.

This is a great day for New Zealand. It’s a great day for young and older learners, and it’s a great day for the New Zealand economy because it will enable people to get training and get jobs and have a great life. Thanks to you very much, Minister Simmons. You’ve done a great job today and well done.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): This is the Te Pāti Māori split call. I call Tākuta Ferris.

TĀKUTA FERRIS (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā tātou. We’ve been discussing the bill a lot today and, look, I’ve been in education myself for 25 years. I know that I look young, but that’s how long it’s been. I started early—very early.

Carl Bates: It was 15 yesterday.

TĀKUTA FERRIS: Oh, you weren’t listening just today, were you? You don’t listen, anyway.

I did 11 years at Te Wānanga o Raukawa—yeah, Māori wānanga education. Then I went to the Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology (NMIT), as the director of Māori education—they still call it the NMIT; Tasman might have a tussle with you there, Stuart Smith—and then I did seven years at Massey University, as the principal Māori adviser. So we’ve grappled with all sorts of things like how you turn a university into becoming a Tiriti-led university, and built an iwi council alongside the NMIT council, from a time when they were in such a deep fight they couldn’t stand to be in the room with one another, and aal along the way, we built two kura kaupapa. Along the way, our kids went all the way through all of that, and so I understand it pretty good.

The institutes of technology and polytechnics (ITP) sector has got a really key job, and it’s to train our people into work. The Māori unemployment rate today is double that of New Zealand—it’s 10 percent. We need training desperately—desperately. Our young people need training desperately.

I’m going to cut the Minister for Vocational Education some slack and say that I hope you get it right—I really do. A great colleague of mine, and a mentor, Tony Gray—he hopes you get it right, and we both hope you’re getting it right, because we understand the challenges. We’ve had to trudge through them. We’ve done the hard yards to shorten the gap between someone who won’t come in the door—Māori kids, I’m talking about—and someone who needs a job, needs a career, and all of that, and I’ve talked about it in the Budget speech this year. The country needs young Māori. Those members don’t like to admit it, but you need young Māori.

If you want the great economy that you talk about being able to build, you need young Māori for that economy. I’ll tell you why. Take a big infrastructure company like Downer Construction, or somebody. With Downer’s, their workforce population north of Taupō is 33 percent Māori, and south of Taupō, it’s 44 percent Māori. Now, that’s why you need young Māori. That’s why they need training, and that’s why this bill has to succeed, although a lot of the things in it, Minister, tell me that it will struggle. It will struggle, but I’ve got to live in hope—I have to live in hope.

Removing Te Tiriti o Waitangi out of the requirements is a mistake, in my view. Diluting it, downgrading it—that’s a mistake, in my view. The work required to train organisations to deliver well for young Māori requires an explicit description of what the commitment to Te Tiriti o Waitangi needs to be. So downgrading from “honours Te Tiriti”—that’s a good one. That’s very clear—honour Te Tiriti. OK, probably 99 times out of 100, if I’m promoting this idea somewhere, people ask how or why. Well, if it’s in the legislation and it says that you must do it, they will find ways. This is what it got downgraded to: “have regard to the needs of Māori and other population groups”.

Until the country and its laws and its lawmakers can come to the agreement that the bicultural framework of constitutional rights set out in Te Tiriti o Waitangi is an actual thing and start to acknowledge them—and those two rights are the Māori rights and the Crown rights. They were cleverly captured by Eddie Durie and the likes in the 1970s and 1980s, just for clarity for the people, in the terms “tangata Tiriti” and “tangata whenua”. Those two terms describe where those two groups derive their constitutional right from. Tangata whenua derive the constitutional right from the land, as the name suggests, and tangata Tiriti derive the constitutional right from the Treaty, as the name suggests.

That’s probably the most alarming thing in the amendments, Minister. For me, it’s the downgrading of the Māori right, because until the Māori right is recognised properly, our kids won’t do well in mainstream education. The Māori unemployment rate will continue to be double. These are the things that need fixing, and they need fixing because young Māori and young Polynesians are the future. Good luck to you, Minister. The country is counting on you, but we, unfortunately, don’t support the bill.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Education and Training (Vocational Education and Training System) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Building and Construction (Small Stand-alone Dwellings) Amendment Bill.

Bills

Building and Construction (Small Stand-alone Dwellings) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Amendments to Building Act 2004, and Schedule 1

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, the House is in committee on the Building and Construction (Small Stand-alone Dwellings) Amendment Bill. We come first to Part 1. Part 1 is the debate on clauses 3 to 24—“Amendments to Building Act 2004”—and Schedule 1. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Thank you, Madam Chair. Good evening to all members of this committee of the whole House. Here’s just a brief introductory remark from me. I think the policy intent was pretty well understood at the second reading of this bill. Obviously, some changes recommended by the select committee and being accepted by the Government—and, hopefully, the House as a whole—were discussed. I don’t intend to take up the committee’s time going through those. I will record, however, that I’m grateful to the select committee, including cross-party participation thereon, for the changes and indeed the spirit in which they entered the discussion, which was—and I hope will remain—unanimous support for the bill.

In Part 1, we’ll see that there are a few particular conditions that enable the building of these so-called granny flats or small stand-alone dwellings—these being, first, that the dwelling has a simple design as defined and that authorised professionals, again as defined, will be those carrying out the work; that, second, they must provide records of the work to the relevant council or territorial authority, the keeper of the keys, the depository and repository of the records relating to the property, which is important, obviously, for ongoing ownership but also for other reasons that councils need to have such records; and that, third, the territorial authorities actually are informed in advance of the work taking place so they can provide what’s called a project information memorandum—or PIM—which contains key details relating to the property so that the authorised professionals can go ahead and conduct the work in a known, safe manner in accordance with the building code. I look forward to the discussion tonight.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Part 1 stand part.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Madam Chair. Colleagues, good evening and welcome to what will be the most interesting committee stage tonight. You’re in for a treat. This is a bill which enjoys cross-partisan interest and support for good reason. It advances something which most people in this House can get behind: more housing for people who need it, built more cheaply.

There are some things in this bill that we have had to do very quickly. They have been at pace and some of these changes were introduced part way through the system and were not things that were consulted on in 2024. And so they deserve our scrutiny, even those people who support it, perhaps mostly those people who support it.

I really welcome contributions from Andy Foster, who is a very good chair of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee that dealt with this bill. Very open to feedback, not only from submitters but Opposition members. And Cameron Luxton, the ACT MP with responsibilities for this portfolio, has been a very helpful contributor to those of us in the committee who aren’t experts in the building sector. I don’t know, I’m not calling anybody out particularly on this—would welcome any of you thinking that I can build a house.

Todd Stephenson: You could swing a hammer, I reckon.

ARENA WILLIAMS: Would welcome that comment, Mr Stephenson, that I can swing a hammer. I can and I do know what a dwang is. Thanks.

Todd Stephenson: And a stud?

ARENA WILLIAMS: I do—I do know what that one is, too.

I have really enjoyed engaging with the sector on this. We have learnt a lot at the committee, in the committee room and around the country, with members engaging in this in a cross-partisan way, and it has been another good example of how parliamentarians can come together to solve a problem.

I propose to ask a few questions now about the supplementary analysis and advice, particularly around those things that haven’t really been traversed with the sector fully because the consultation was done in 2024 and didn’t include some of these changes. So I’ll ask the Minister how we around the House as supporters of this idea and principle can get comfort with some of the issues that have been raised by officials and haven’t been fully, you know, fleshed out with industry and with the sector.

Then I propose between myself and my colleague Tracey McLellan to go through those clauses that we think could be clearer because, you know, we have been able to work at the committee level on some of these in a cross-partisan way. But when you are working through quickly with those, inevitably you are going to end up with some anomalies, some things which might be drafted in a way that gives more power within either the primary legislation or the regulations that they purport to change, which might not have been their intended effect. So we’ll go through some of those.

The first questions I have are around the number of dwellings that we might expect from this change: 13,000 units was a number that was raised with committee by our officials in the committee’s proceedings. Over 10 years, 13,000 units built because of these changes is a higher number than what we expected last time we were in this House. That makes a difference because as we think about the way that these things will impact on the communities they are in, they will have an effect. They will have an effect on the councils that have to deal with them, particularly if they are in one part of the country, and they will inevitably change the way that some neighbourhoods feel. Communities should have a say in that. They should be able to look to an elected person and say they are responsible for this change, and they are responsible for the way that my neighbourhood has changed.

We need density, and we need density done well, but we also, I think, owe it to those people who put us here to be able to change the way that people’s neighbourhoods feel, to be able to account for that. This will change the way that some places look and the sense that you get from being in a neighbourhood at that level of 13,000 new dwellings. Can the Minister give the committee a sense of how that number is predicted? If it is significantly more than that, will he raise concerns with his officials? Does he have a watching brief on that? What are his conversations with councils around the country tuning up in terms of exposing issues that some councils will have, because this will not be evenly felt. There will be more of these in some different parts of the country. So what is he hearing about the large numbers that might go in some neighbourhoods, and what assurances can he give those communities that might see a change for more of these granny flats being in their area?

I also want to ask him at this juncture: officials raised with the committee the part of their advice around the number of latent or undetected building defects that might increase because of the increasing size from 60 square meters to 70 square meters. What assurances has he had that the level of latent defects is something that he can have comfort with, and what are the assurances that he can bring to this Chamber that he will be monitoring that?

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the member for her thoughtful discussion and participation at select committee and, indeed, at previous readings. It seems to me that Ms Williams brings up a couple of major areas of focus. One is in terms of the intended or expected outcome of 13,000 new units over a 10-year period, as she has quite rightly outlined. That was the advice. It’s not a number that I can particularly vouch for. Indeed, it’s an educated guess at best by anyone, even those much more smarter—“much more smarter”; that’s good, isn’t it? It’s going to be a long night.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: It’s less dumber.

Hon CHRIS PENK: Less dumber—Duncan Webb would know. Apart from having derailed myself syntactically and semantically, the point that she’s made, I think, is the right one. There will be a major change. We can’t quantify it exactly, but we can hope and expect that there will be a significant number of new units. Indeed, that’s the whole point. As she’s referred to, those of us in this Chamber—and I hope it’s all of us—who want it to be quicker and more straightforward and more affordable for people to have access to quality housing in this country can be pleased with that, even as we interrogate the details, quite rightly so.

In terms of changes to neighbourhoods, though, I think it’s worth noting that, first of all, there will be development contributions able to be levied by the relevant territorial authority. The mechanism by which that can be sought and, indeed, demanded is the development contribution as triggered by the project information memorandum that I referred to earlier. Of course, the rating base for a council will increase according to the increase of the property value in each individual case, and the number of residents, frankly, is a relevant factor there too. It’s not as though councils will be left short changed.

That relates to the other point, on the flip side, as to whether they’ll have liability in relation to the fact there is a different process—one that doesn’t involve a building consent—and the answer is that the select committee rightly recommended that we have clarity to confirm that the territorial authority will not be liable in relation to relying on information provided by said trade professionals. Of course, these will only be constructed in areas that are already residential in terms of their zoning and, indeed, only on parcels of land that are already being used for residential purpose. It’s a stand-alone dwelling, but one that must have an existing dwelling—an ordinary one or a major one, I suppose, if we were to contrast with a minor residential unit on it— relatively small in size, which goes to not only any risk associated with the construction but also the fact that there will be relatively small additional strain on the infrastructure within the area. I don’t say that there’ll be no additional strain, but we live in an imperfect world, and we thought it was a reasonable trade-off to have the extra housing capacity as compared with all the strain and cost associated with, for example, greenfield developments for which a whole lot of extra residential infrastructure is needed, of course.

Now, I go to the second point of Ms Williams’ contribution—the increase from 60 to 70 square meters as a maximum floor area. There’s relatively little extra risk associated with that. Yes, it’s slightly larger, but, in fact, the relatively risky areas are those wet areas, so-called—kitchenettes and bathrooms—and particular provision’s been made to mitigate the risk associated with those. We don’t think there’ll be much additional risk of latent defects as a result of that change which we made along the way to increase the footprint.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Fernando Hernandez—Francisco Hernandez.

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green): It’s all good, Madam Chair. Just a quick question, based on the remark that the Minister made: what do you see as the other trade-offs between increasing the housing supply and potential trade-offs to safety? What are the other sorts of trade-offs that you identify in this legislation, and how have you worked to mitigate those trade-offs?

I guess you will already know at this point that we’ve switched from supporting this bill, partly because of the number of public submissions that supported it, and because a lot of the improvements that were suggested by the submitters were accepted during the select committee stage.

I’m also interested in—just going to the legislation now—around some of the changes that have been made in terms of, it says here, “non-consented small stand-alone dwelling”. Now, there’s a definition of that in the Building Act. Could you elaborate if that’s different from the one that’s here or if it’s exactly the same as in the parent legislation? I’ll leave this contribution quite a short one for now.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Can I just ask members to refer to the clause that you’re speaking to, so that we can track it?

Francisco Hernandez: Oh, yes, I will do so in future.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Thank you.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Madam Chair, thank you very much. Just really briefly—a helpful contribution from Mr Hernandez, thank you. As for trade-offs, the key one is really that oversight through a building consent process is being replaced by, well, firstly, a confirmation. I should say that the building code standards still remain applicable, but the relevant qualified trade professionals—for example, licensed building practitioners, registered plumbers, drain layers, electricians, and so on—will be conducting the work and certifying it. That’s the main sort of trade-off, and we think it’s a reasonable one in terms of a relatively low restructure, in conjunction with those persons who should be able to vouch that there work complies with the code.

Secondly, I appreciate the comment around the public submissions and the improvements made. I’m happy to acknowledge those, obviously, in the context of any particular ones within the parts that are raised. But, as I started by saying, I think they’re helpful improvements to the bill, and we’re pleased to be able to accept them.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m asking the Minister a question about clauses 6 through to 11, which detail the operation of the project information memorandums, or PIMs. I have a number of questions about how the amendments to the system work and, I guess, the balance between giving councils a mechanism for notifying land owners of, say, natural hazards. This is also a system where project information memorandums exist in the current system, but they’re hardly used. This isn’t the way that they work now. It is generally a way of sort of notifying the council if you want to let them know about something. This will now be a mandatory system for this particular type of allowed work, because usually in council systems, conceptually, you have works that are either not allowed and so they have to have a consent or they are allowed and so they don’t have to have any kind of notification. This is the in-between area, so it’s a new thing.

I want to ask about this new thing and the cost and coverage of insurance and bank lending. At what point do you expect, Minister, homeowners to be able to get lending and insurance for this sort of building? I also want to know what conversations you have had, particularly with insurers, around their concerns around this. The information system is a good one. It’s a system that will allow homeowners to have more information about what’s built, and it’s probably a superior system for document-keeping from their eyes than even a consent system where you’re relying on older documents. This information system is useful, but how will insurers respond to a different sort of information? It’s an information process which doesn’t create a liability for council—deliberately and rightly—but the question is, then, how can insurers rely upon it? And, if they can’t rely upon it, how will banks? Really, the guts of the question is: can people get lending for these granny flats, or do they have to borrow against their existing dwelling, if they have equity available? Are these products available to people who need lending that is on just those assets, or are they for people who have equity built up and can use it on these?

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Thank you, Madam Chair. I think they are very thoughtful and astute questions. Of course, we’re not in the business as a Government of directing either lenders or insurers of a private nature on what they must or can or should ensure. They’ll make those decisions themselves. Obviously, case by case, it may vary according to their appetite for risk. However, I would say there are tens of thousands—probably hundreds of thousands—of dwellings in this country that do not have consents at the moment. They were built before the current regime. Typically, that’s not a reason for them not to be insured.

Certainly, I would expect a prudent bank, other lender, or insurer to make an assessment based on the fact that a relatively low-risk structure in the first place, built with the benefit of knowledge of the conditions of the property—for example, the existence of natural hazards as exposed through the project information memorandum process and with the history of the property being knowable through the fact of an existing dwelling already being there—taken together along with the fact that a qualified registered professional would have signed off the work in order for it to receive the equivalent of a consent. It means that they should feel confident. There should be no reason that they wouldn’t insure or lend on these properties.

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a few questions that I’d like to hear answers from the Minister for Building and Construction on, just for the record, so I’m going to fire through them pretty quickly. I’ll do a couple and I might take another call if that’s OK with you, Madam Chair.

First of all, the question about a small stand-alone dwelling being a definition in the Building Act, could the Minister point us to that section in the Building Act? This is in section 4 of this particular amendment bill, but in the Building Act—the legislation which is under amendment here—there’s detached buildings, but what actually makes it a “small stand-alone dwelling”? How do we have that as a definition?

Which follows on for the next question which I’d like to ask in this brief contribution, which is: why would a small stand-alone dwelling necessarily need to be on a site with an existing—what would you call it?—major dwelling? What is the reason for that? Would it not simply be enough to have a piece of land zoned for the residential purpose and allow a small stand-alone dwelling to be on that piece of land? So those are my two questions to start.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank the member, the licensed building practitioner in the House.

The reason that we have the regime include only existing properties—residential, zoned, yes, but also with an existing dwelling is that by saying that there must already be a dwelling there, we’re confident and comfortable. We know the characteristics of the land and also we’re not requiring extra infrastructure such as pipeline infrastructure and water services and so on to be added new as though we’re a Greenfield development or a site that had not those connections already. So it will be literally possible to tap into those existing pipelines and infrastructure provision for all the services you’d expect for a residential property, precisely because there’s already a dwelling on site.

Now, there’s a reasonable argument, I think, to be made for expanding the policy whereby you could have existing parcels of land without property, you know, built environment on there already. It might be, for example, in a papakāinga context that Māori ownership of land is much more enabled in that sense. I think those are good discussions, but they’re not within the scope of this bill. A story for another day perhaps.

As for the “small stand-alone dwelling” definition, the relevant one for current purposes, which is the so-called granny flats at the subject of this amendment bill, are those set out in Schedule 1A: “Characteristics of small stand-alone dwelling”, that “it is stand-alone:”—which is to say detached—that "it is new”, “less than 70 square metres” in terms of floor area, and “has a single storey only.”

CELIA WADE-BROWN (Green): Thank you, Minister. I’ve not had the advantage of going to the select committee and seeing the progress of this. Despite not being a licensed building practitioner, we have actually built our own cabin, well back in the old days, when we could actually have building inspectors come out and check that we’d put the joists in, that things were the right distance, and so on. I do think there is something a little bit regrettable that we’ve moved completely away from the Kiwi “do it yourself”—obviously needing guard rails.

Until recently, we had the 30 square metre rule, where you didn’t need a consent at all as long as it complied. We’ve recently had a 15 square metre studio added, which has not quite doubled but nearly doubled our area. We checked with the council whether we needed anything. We did not need anything. Did they need to have the information that it even existed? They did not. So, to some extent, would you agree that this legislation has, by replacing the 30-square-metre rule, in a limited number of cases, without extra plumbing and things like that, actually made it more difficult?

Then my last question is, really: you’ve talked about existing infrastructure in residential zoned areas. The Wairarapa electorate is one of the largest and very significantly rural electorates. I’d just like to know: if you already have, maybe, natural flow irrigation from the grey water, or if you seek to put in a composting toilet—again, with the correct plumbing people rather than doing it ourselves—how would that apply in a rural area, whether you do or don’t have another dwelling? And, if you do or don’t have another dwelling, is it on the same title or the same block of land? I think this is quite complex, and I think it needs some further explanation for people who live in a rural off-grid environment.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the work, including the experience with which the member speaks, but also including your local government background. She will know as a building consent authority administrator, so to speak, as the former mayor of this fair city, that there are complications in all these matters.

I think, with respect to the question of the 30 square metres existing exemption in Schedule 1 of the Building Act, I regard that as a different matter from the 70 square metre exemption that we’re adding in a new schedule, Schedule 1A. Even though it’s similar in philosophy, as the member has quite rightly pointed out, nevertheless it’s different because this will be able to be used in a proper residential sense, not only for a so-called sleep out, but also with shower or bathroom facilities and also a kitchen area; it could be more independent. Therefore, the risk associated with people sleeping overnight in terms of, I suppose, danger to them but also danger or risk in the sense of the construction and things that could go wrong when you’re adding plumbing and so on, puts it in a different category. Even though, yes, it is more difficult to reach the threshold required even without a building consent for these so-called granny flats, nevertheless I think that’s justified given that we’re talking about a different and more differently demanding thing at stake than a mere garage, sleep out, and so on.

As for existing infrastructure in rural areas or the question of existing infrastructure, including those that might be determined as off the grid, I think that’s a fair point. I will acknowledge as well that there is considerable clamour for a liberalisation of rules as relates to tiny homes. I know that’s slightly off to the side, but I think, in my mind at least, there’s the same question about ways that we can make it easier for people to live off the grid or in ways that don’t represent the white picket fence around the quarter acre in a suburban setting as well. Any details that, I suppose, might flow from that—it’s not that it will necessarily be that the infrastructure provision is the same in every case. Perhaps I was overly simplistic to talk about that, but, in general terms, whatever is provided for an existing dwelling on a residentially zoned parcel of land is good enough for that existing dwelling and can be relied upon—or not, as the case may be if there is none for these so-called granny flats being added.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m speaking to section 7, but also to Schedule 1. In relation to what the Minister for Building and Construction said about where these dwellings might go, I have good news, good news for the committee. You will want to listen to this; so will you, Andy Foster. There is an amendment in the name of Vanushi Walters which introduces the ability for these small stand-alone dwellings to be built at marae. It is sensible change. The reason it’s a sensible change is because we know that it’s outside the scope of this bill about how many would be built, but it’s not outside of this bill where they would be built. So allowing for one of these to be built at marae doesn’t seem to create any problems that are foreseeable around the infrastructure that is at those marae. The plumbing is there.

We are not talking about marae that do not have ablution blocks and kitchen facilities already; these are something that exists at those facilities. Why it’s important is because more and more marae are asking for kaumātua housing to be part of what they offer to the community.

The member for Māngere here, Lemauga Lydia Sosene, she knows that in her area and places like Ngā Whare Waatea Marae and also at Papatūānuku Kōkiri Marae, the ability to have kaumātua housing in that area is so crucial to the South Auckland community, it’s also crucial to our rural and regional communities. We know that providing for older people who experience more and more housing insecurity over the years, particularly older women over the age of 55, it’s an incredibly important thing that community organisations, NGOs and hapū and iwi can come to the party and help the Government to provide that service that would otherwise fall to the Government.

So this is an amendment which is a sensible step forward—it doesn’t solve the whole problem, does solve this problem, which is in the spirit of this bill because we know this doesn’t solve the housing crisis, but it does make a difference to the supply of housing cheaply and affordably. This would help Māori housing and it is something we should support.

I want to tell the Minister about who I think of when I think of this amendment. I think of my Uncle Kelly at Tapuihikitia Marae. He is not someone who will sit on the paepae. He doesn’t have the reo that he feels like he needs to, to sit up there with, say, my Uncle Charlie, who is the Pou Tikanga Te Hahi Ringatu, too. We’re very proud of our Uncle Charlie, but we are also very proud of Uncle Kelly, who doesn’t have the reo but he gets up every time there is a hui or tangi. He’s there first and he’s up on the roof cleaning out the gutters, even though he’s in his late 70s now. I’ve been up at the gutters because I don’t want Uncle Kelly to climb up there, but I’m not home that often. And he will be in the ablution block at the end of the hui at 9 p.m., cleaning them out. He will be in the kitchen and in the kāuta fixing the oven. He will be driving around to Auntie Lynn’s house to pick up the pot that she took last Sunday and hasn’t brought back after housie. It’s that fella, it’s Uncle Kelly who will get that kaumātua flat if you build it, if you just build one at Tapuihikitia Marae, because he is the caretaker of that place. He is the embodiment of kaitiakitanga.

There is more to our working marae than the paepae. There is more to our working marae than the kaikaranga, there is more to our working marae than the people out the front. People like him, who if we could provide for their housing needs, would be out of a State home, they would be provided for by their community, and they would be at the heart of it. That is a life of dignity for our kaumātua kuia. That is a life that I want for myself. I would love that, and I would love for that to be part of the aspiration that young urban Māori also have, that they could move back to their regional marae, to be a part of something which is meaningful and contribute in that way when they’re in their older years.

This is an amendment which we should adopt today. We can do it today. It is in scope of this bill. It is something we can change now and it’s something that would make a tangible difference to—maybe it’s not thousands; maybe it’s hundreds of people in the next year. Maybe it’s, you know, those people who have been waiting for this for a long time, they’ve had their consents at the council level and they are waiting to do this already. There are marae around the country who have adopted this because of Labour’s policy to fund some of this housing. There are marae that are still waiting to be able to build these things, to move relocatable homes on to their marae and to be able to build something which is meaningful for people that will last as long as the marae will stand. There is dignity in that. Let’s adopt this amendment.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just really briefly, the passionate advocacy on behalf of Uncle Kelly, I think it’s really sensible, compelling. These matters can and will be addressed through resource management changes that essentially sit alongside the bill. Outside the scope of this bill, there’s the work that my colleague and friend Chris Bishop will be doing to enable, also, the certainty of such structures without a resource consent either, but separate to the question of a building consent.

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. I was going to the next question that I had on this part, Minister, if that’s OK with you. It’s new section 35A in clause 11, to do with section 71 of the Building Act and the ability of councils to be in the project information memorandum process, which is a very important part of this bill, and it’s a respectable part of this bill that brings everybody on to the same page. It gives the councils the ability to point out where there are ground issues or where there could be slip issues, flooding issues, or any kind of hazard that could be existing in proposed projects.

Now, the question I’m proposing to ask the Minister is this. With this process, we’re trying to enable buildings to be able to be built in New Zealand on the backs of sections in order to create more housing. In the building industry, we’re worried that the councils have got the ability to get in the way by using section 71 of the Building Act and putting in place something that is kind of like a resource consenting mechanism, where it’s saying that this is how you’ve got to comply. Now, I know of builders who have had buildings that have just been given a flat no, when there are processes and ways to mitigate that issue with the project which haven’t been accepted by the council. What I’m looking for from you, Minister, is an indication as to how you see this interacting with councils, and whether councils are expected to be enabling, and taking the spirit of this bill as it is given, by using I think it’s section 67 to grant exemptions if they can, or section 72 to find mitigating abilities to make sure that things get built.

I’d like to see a change in the way that the culture of saying no affects our building regulations, Minister. What I really want to hear is that this is an enabling piece of legislation that will get housing built and that the sections in the Building Act that have stood in the way of the building industry to date are something that you are eager to hear councils get over. Thank you.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the member Cameron Luxton for his comments. I don’t disagree that we need to be more enabling, and of course that’s the whole animating spirit of this legislation. I hope that that is interpreted and applied as such, but, of course, as always, there’s a balance. We don’t want to swing the pendulum so far one way to the other that we inadvertently create a different problem and crisis than we have at the moment, which is an affordability crisis, and simply replace that with some other quality or safety or sustainability issue in terms of our housing.

So I would say that it’s a balance, and we attempt to strike the balance in this bill by saying that while a council cannot say no, or has not been invited to provide a consent or deny a consent, it’s nevertheless being asked to provide information about the land on which the granny flat is going to be built so that an informed decision can be made by a responsible professional. That’s where we’ve struck the balance. We think, for example, that the provision of natural hazard information is a good way to ensure that those who are responsible will not inadvertently make a mistake, but to some extent there will be an element of responsibility being associated with decisions that will be made, and, as I say, we think that that will make it faster, more affordable, and more certain to be able to build.

Hon Members: Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): It’s a bit early, guys.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’m really pleased to have seen Cameron Luxton ask that question because it’s new section 35A, inserted by clause 11, that I was keen to explore as well.

I’m very conscious that the Minister, through his constituency work, is well aware of the issues that can be presented to homeowners in light of natural hazards and severe weather events, and the questions I have, which may be a series depending on the responses, are in good faith. He will know that we support this bill, but one of the consistent concerns that have been raised from people who also support this bill is what is the likely impact of intensification in areas that we know are prone to flooding. When we consider areas that were hit with the Auckland floods and Cyclone Gabrielle, in intensive urban areas it was often the inability for the water to flow through residential dwellings that caused a problem, and I am keen to explore the advice that the Minister received about this.

I know the intent of the bill is to make this a seamless process, but in the new requirement of the memorandum to accompany the project information memorandum, if a council identifies that where the proposed granny flat is going to be built is an area where when there is severe weather it does flood and that there are flow issues, and the person is informed of that and they do it anyway, it makes the issue worse for those around them. Now, surely that is something that we do want to prevent, even though we want to see in the majority of cases that these things are seamless.

We know from Muriwai and West Auckland and other areas the issues that this causes on a regular basis, so I’m keen to, in good faith, explore that with you.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Thank you, Madam Chair. The member is right to identify this as an issue and I’m grateful that he’s referenced a real life example. For example, the area that I am fortunate enough to represent had a terrible time, as did other parts of the Auckland region and, of course, around the country in relation to the Auckland Anniversary floods, Cyclone Gabrielle. They weren’t the first, they won’t be the last either, so we do need to mitigate against the possibility that we will exacerbate that issue. So I think it’s a very sensible and relevant question.

I think the point that I’ve already made around a project information memorandum having to identify any natural hazards and provide a statement, including whether it’s unclear or not whether such hazards exist, should also be augmented by the point that was made by the select committee, which I did think about seriously but ultimately thought sensible to adopt, which is that in cases where it appears that—and I’m paraphrasing—there would be an issue associated with a natural hazard, for example, a flood-prone overland flow path through the property, it may be that a building consent is required and that will be at the option of the council to be able to require it. So even though that does, in some way, undermine the intent of the policy, nevertheless I think it’s a reasonable trade-off to avoid the issue that the member quite rightly raises, which is not only the properties themselves being subject to flooding and so forth but also the risk that the impermeable area would exacerbate flooding issues for their neighbouring properties. So, it might be, for example, that a granny flat would need to be built in an elevated manner so that water would flow through and not create a pooling or ponding effect that would make life more difficult for others.

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. The contribution from the Minister brings me to the question that is outlined in section 34A that leads to Schedule 1, which defines the boundaries and what is actually an exempt small stand-alone dwelling in this case. I refer to Schedule 1A (2)(1)(c), and in that it describes the maximum height above the ground that a floor level can be. First question: is that structure-bearing ground, and is it finished floor level? Some clarification on what that measure is. Is it off the structure floor or the finished floor level? Is it off the load-bearing ground or just the highest clump of mud?

The next issue is if we were going to do something about mitigating a new building and I was to turn up on site and say, “Look, we’ve got a section 71 issue here to do with flooding.” This is from my prior contribution where I’m worried that we are restricting the ability to build in a way that councils will be able to say, “Look, you can’t go higher than 1 meter and therefore the flow path of water will be obstructed. Therefore, I cannot allow you to do this. You have to go through a consent process which we’re not going to grant.” That’s a worry that I have. So I’d like to hear some rationale for that one.

Also how that relates to Schedule 1A (2)(1)(b) which is the maximum height of the building above floor. Again, finished floor level—floor level, is that to the flashing? I suppose that’s the entire envelope. But just how those two interact. Is there any ability for us to open that up a little bit in this committee to be able to say, “Look, let’s make an envelope that includes a total number. Let’s give enough space that we can work with the ground conditions that we’ve given, the flood conditions we’ve given, the structure we’re given.” And in the end, the type of home or building that will actually fit the people who are set to occupy, their design requirements, the design requirements of the neighbourhood, the aesthetics, and the usability.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much. I’m conscious that we’ve got an unusual situation here where two members from opposite sides of the House both support the bill, are both concerned about one particular section, and are coming at it from two completely opposite directions. One thinks it’s too restrictive; the other is concerned that it might be too open. But let’s explore that, because we do want to get it right. This is the point of the committee stage.

Like I said, I’ve got a series of questions, but I’d like to go back to the Minister for Building and Construction’s response just for clarification. You were talking about how in certain instances, a council, if it feels that building a granny flat in a particular area does present an unreasonable risk from a natural disaster or a natural hazard perspective, can require a consent.

I think it would be useful to just get a better understanding of that process, how that is triggered, and what options are available to the landowner after that point, because I actually agree with Mr Luxton that that could be counted to the intent of this, but I am not concerned, necessarily, because there might be some instances where that is warranted. So I think for the purposes of the committee’s understanding and clarity, if you could walk us through how that process would play out, that’d be useful.

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour—Māngere): Madam Chair, thank you. I’ve been listening, really, with great interest on this bill. I wanted to seek clarification and ask the Minister for Building and Construction, with respect to new Schedule 1A clause 2 , inserted by Schedule 1 of the bill, the “Requirements”.

Minister, my question might sound weird, but I wanted to ask, because I’m quickly looking through: is there a limit on how many people will be allowed to be in the small stand-alone dwelling? The reason I ask is because you’ve got the big house and then you’ve got this structure. For Pacific families, we do, in village settings, when you’ve got visitors—be it funeral, wedding, whatever, whatever—the current practice is that you go to the garage because you haven’t got enough beds in the main house.

So I wanted to ask clarification: is there a limit on how many bodies of people, and is there an age? Whilst that might sound a little bit weird, it’s to get a clearer understanding, and utilising member Williams’ questions on marae styles. We do the same thing in Pasifika settings. When you have to host people who arrive on your doorstep at 3 a.m. in the morning because they’ve got nowhere to sleep, you just go to the next structure. So I just wanted clarification on that, and had that come up in any of the select committee? Thank you.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Thank you, Madam Chair. A good series of questions—ACT to the right of me, Labour to the left; here I am, stuck in the middle with you.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Lucky day.

Hon CHRIS PENK: Indeed!

Cameron Luxton: Hey, I’m just trying to enable the flow of water.

Hon CHRIS PENK: I appreciate you’re enabling the flow, Mr Luxton, and I am also grateful to Mr McAnulty. I think they were both very sensible questions, as he observed, actually, that were sort of coming from a different angle. We’re trying to establish the right balance, I think, and, certainly, that’s what we’d aim for in relation to that particular section.

The answer in terms of how it would come about that the council would make a determination that a building consent would be required in any particular case is found in new section 35A, as it will be, in clause 11. It’s set out at subsection (2)(b) that the project information memorandum would also contain, or be accompanied by a document containing a statement indicating whether they consider that “the construction of the dwelling”—and I’ll go ahead now—“is likely to accelerate, worsen, or result in a natural hazard on that land or any other property,”—to this point earlier about adjoining landowners—“or that it is unclear whether that effect is likely to occur; and”—then it goes on to say—“if the territorial authority advises under [that paragraph] that there is or is likely to be a natural hazard present on the relevant land, or that the construction of the dwelling is likely to accelerate, [etc.] a natural hazard”, then a statement is made that a building consent may be required.

That’s the decision-making test, I suppose, which is that if it would worsen, accelerate, or otherwise interact with a natural hazard, then that’s at the discretion of the council, and of course it’s a balance. We don’t want to introduce uncertainty that it might be the case for, let’s say, every second granny flat - proposed dwelling that this would kick in. That would seem a lot, and it would defeat the purpose, which is to avoid having the need for a consent on every occasion, but we want to capture and have an ability to capture the occasional case in which that might be relevant and reasonable to require it.

That’s the attempt to strike the balance between the points that you both quite reasonably make. We won’t please all the people all of the time; indeed, we may not please all the people any of the time, but we’ll give it a go, and we think that we’ve struck the balance right in that respect.

As for the very technical questions that have strained me—luckily, they haven’t strained our friends and colleagues from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, who are much more across the technical detail than me—in relation to the question around where the ground is measured from, it’s the lowest point of the ground, I understand. Then, in terms of the building design and with a higher foundation, the point is made that it’s often more complex in design and, therefore, wouldn’t be classified as simple. In terms of the combined foundation and building height, it’s 5 metres, 4 metres plus 1 metre—and that kind of way of enabling different structures on different ground conditions enables quite a variety of structures. We think that that’s quite enabling, as far as it goes.

Finally, to the point made by Lemauga Lydia Sosene, I certainly take the point that there would often be calls for considerable occupancy on a property, including at short notice, in certain cultural contexts, particularly. The Building Act doesn’t actually regulate occupancy, and so there’d be no maximum number specified within this legislation, but I certainly acknowledge the point that she is making, and I would just add that of course the whole intent is to provide for more housing supply. In an ordinary sense, I suppose, it would usually be envisaged, but there’s no reason that that kind of an overflow scenario couldn’t also be quite helped by the passage of this law because it would make it easier to provide additional housing in those kinds of situations, too.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): I move, That debate on this question now close.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I’m not ready for a closure motion just yet, Mr Bidois.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I thank the Minister for that. I appreciate the response; it didn't sort of go beyond what was already outlined. Is he worried that this is going to lead to some inconsistent decisions that are made by councils? Which does go against the intent of this. You're trying to streamline the whole process and make it clear for everybody they know what they're dealing with. I'm very conscious that I've come at you saying I'm concerned about natural hazards and then you've explained it and I was like, “Well, that might be a bit loose”, which I think actually illustrates the balance that you're trying to strike here, but if you can explain what considerations were done to avoid inconsistent application of this across the country from councils, that would be useful.

I'll move on to the next area. I'm worried about people's ability to get insurance for these dwellings if they build on an area that the council indicates is likely to be prone to natural hazards. I'm really interested to understand what considerations the Minister had around this, perhaps what engagement he'd had with the Insurance Council or some of their members to ensure that, if someone does choose to erect a granny flat in an area that, after dealing with the council, they end up with one of these memorandums that says that this might potentially be prone to flooding—let's stick with flooding to keep it simple, for argument's sake. I don't blame any homeowner that builds or buys in an area that they are told they are allowed to. If there's one lesson, after all the recent severe weather events, surely it is that there are certain areas of the country that shouldn't have residential dwellings on them, because of the tendency to have severe weather or natural hazard events. If people are told they're allowed to, then of course they're going to.

I just want to be really clear: I'm not casting aspersions on those that find themselves in those certain circumstances—it's not their fault whatsoever—but, looking forward, surely we have a responsibility to ensure that areas that we know are going to be hit shouldn't be developed. If they are, we don't want to, in good conscience, let people do it if there is a serious risk that they won't be able to get insurance for that dwelling in the long run. It's all well and good to have planning rules that enable things, but if we have had advice that the insurance companies have expressed concerns about this and indicated that in the future if the frequency is such that they then will no longer insure those areas and we knew that, or we could have put protections in for those people and didn't, then we're creating another problem.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Thank you, Madam Chair. To the first point that Mr McAnulty makes, it’s fair question about consistency of application by building consent authorities, or BCAs. I think that’s a broader question that we need to address and we’re looking to do that as a Government—including with as much support as we can get across the aisle—whereby we’re allowing local councils to consolidate their functions, which will be helpful for them but also helpful for those looking to build, getting consistency within a region. Also, there are other ways that we could potentially have a more nationally consistent approach taken by building consent authorities.

Then, within this legislation itself, you’ve got a set process that talks about time frames and the way in which the project information memoranda have to be issued and so forth. Forms are being developed, regulations are being drafted to give effect to all this, and in conjunction with guidance that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment will promulgate, there will be every reason and no excuse that councils will be applying this in the same fashion, or be it of course in an individual case by case basis—results may vary, as they say in the advertising field.

As for the second category of question, I think we’ve covered insurance tolerably well except to say that the Insurance Council of New Zealand, I understand, did indicate their approval with the natural hazard provisions. Of course, also district plans shouldn’t consent or allow the provision of housing in areas that are flood prone and otherwise unsuitable for residential development. Now, I will acknowledge that there are cases—indeed, I’m all too familiar with some in my own area—where areas have been consented and zoned that never should have been, but if we’re talking about that now, as opposed to the enabling of existing areas having structures put on them, then what that becomes is a conversation about managed retreat more generally. It’s a very interesting, very important topic, but outside the scope of the bill.

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): Madam Chair, thank you. Look, just to pick up the point that’s just been raised about building in hazard-prone—we’re talking flooding—areas in particular, and Minister, you talked about the use of district plans and whether buildings are allowed to be built in particular areas. There is another way of dealing with that, of course, which I would like your comment on. That is where a council says, “Yep, look, the level that floods are expected to get to is X and therefore you can build there, but you must build at a level where the floor levels or the areas which you don’t want to get flooded are higher than the expected flood areas”. So I’d be interested in your comment on that because that might alleviate some of the concerns which are being raised.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to check with the Minister about the planning stage and also about preliminary and also final design plan. What I haven’t seen in this bill and have haven’t located within the supplementary analysis paper or even the regulatory impact statement is anything around insulation.

Now, I’m coming at this particularly from a seniors perspective, because one of the things that we do see in terms of granny flats is that, if there isn’t proper insulation, that’s going to lead to damper granny flats, which would then lead on to additional health issues. I want to check whether the Minister considered the insulation requirement when it comes to granny flats. Also, in addition to that, has the Minister consulted with either Te Whatu Ora or anyone else around any studies being done on the impact of the lack of insulation on the senior population. Again, when we’re looking at the construction of the granny flats, one of the considerations I think other people have also mentioned is being able to provide additional housing for a relative—particularly for parents or grandparents—so I think that seniors angle is particularly important. I would be interested to hear from the Minister on that.

The second question I have is, again, picking up on the thing around insurance and also flood prone areas. Now, my base is in Epsom and Tāmaki, which were affected a lot by the Auckland Anniversary flood. One of the things that we’re seeing in the most recent unilateral plan—particularly flood plan 47—is around the fact that there is going to be a different level of allowances for upscaling, upzoning, and downzoning in terms of density. I wondered how the building of granny flats, for example, would interact with any sort of zoning allowances within our unilateral plan for a council. Maybe that has been covered. If it has, then just let me know that has been covered, and I can go back and watch the video. Those are my two questions for the Minister at this stage.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to respond to that final point, I think, with all due respect, that’s more around the resource management and planning as opposed to what the building code would require—or indeed the Building Act, which is the legislation we’re amending.

To the other point that Lawrence Xu-Nan makes, around legislation, I go back to the point that I started with in tonight’s proceedings, which is that all this work must still be conducted in accordance with the building code, notwithstanding that it would be an individual licensed practitioner who would certify that that’s the case, as opposed to a council officer. Therefore, it’s relevant to say that homes must meet the building code, including that they mustn’t worsen natural hazards and, in fact, must also actively mitigate natural hazards where present. Also, in terms of insulation, there are certain requirements as to the way in which we must build in the building code as regards energy efficiency, which includes insulation. That’s already baked in by reason of the fact that building code compliance is still needed.

Then, to Mr Foster’s point about the possibility that one can build higher in flood-prone areas, again, I point to the building code in relation to that, but also say we have already discussed, as a committee, the particular circumstances in which a council can require that a building consent be needed, notwithstanding that the general intent and the presumption is that it won’t. The difference being, as I’ve discussed back and forth with Mr McAnulty—and by the way, I can’t take that point any further. As stated in the amendment bill, it’s just simply that, if there is the presence of a natural hazard that might accelerate or worsen a natural hazard’s effect, the council may choose to exercise its discretion to require a consent in those circumstances.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m going to say I’ve got two questions, but one is probably more accurately a point of clarification. It may well be that the Minister’s previous answers have answered it, but I’ve still got a scenario in my brain, and I’m going to have to get it out, because I’m not quite 100 percent clear. That scenario is when I think about, when we’re looking at natural hazards, as has been raised, the impact on existing infrastructure, which we talked about earlier. I’m thinking of certain areas of Christchurch post-earthquake, when, because of events, there were suburbs that were all of a sudden prone to flooding. A lot of work went into mitigating that via looking at that underground infrastructure, particularly water waste. That has largely been remedied or remediated.

The particular suburb I’m thinking about is the quintessential quarter-acre bungalow, ripe for a granny-flat - type issue. We know that some of that mitigation is seat of the pants in so far as it’s doing a lot of the heavy lifting. The addition of granny flats in large swathes of streets in that neighbourhood could, conceivably, put—it wouldn’t necessarily be a known natural hazard, as the trigger for the council to deny the consent, or to trigger the consent, but it would certainly put pressure on that infrastructure. Is there any wriggle room or was there any thinking around that? I know that’s quite a specific scenario, but it’s not one that we’re unfamiliar with. That is, I suppose, my question. Has that been considered? Is that something that the Building Act, rather than other pieces of legislation, would take into account?

While I’m on my feet, if you’ll indulge me, I am looking at an amendment proposed in the name of Arena Williams in relation to clause 6. It is somewhat related because it says, in clause 6(1), under new subsection (b)(ii), “after ‘non-consented’ insert ‘but otherwise legal’”. One of the issues that sprung to my mind whilst listening to these conversations and these questions and answers, not being privy to them in the select committee process and being rather unfamiliar with the building process in general—although I do know what a dwang and a stud is. The third thing on that list, which I would readily recognise, is the fact that “consent” and “non-consent” are kind of the two dichotomous phrases that I have for “good” and “bad” or for “you’re on the right path” versus “you’re in big trouble”. As has previously been stated, this is a new thing, where, previously, things were either allowed or they required consent.

Every time I’ve seen the word “non-consent”, it automatically makes me think that that’s a bad and naughty thing. I think that this amendment is quite sensible and to the point. I wondered if the Minister had had the chance to look at that and had any thoughts about the harshness of just the term “non-consent” and any potential ramifications of that. Thank you.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank Tracey McLellan for her comments, including the post-quake flooding situation in Christchurch, which must have been incredibly difficult and stressful to deal with for affected owners and others. I would say, however, that the Building Act doesn’t regulate horizontal infrastructure, but it’s a relevant question to the extent that we ask ourselves: how would infrastructure be funded if we’re adding to the housing supply? The answer to that is that development contributions can and will be obtained. And the trigger for that in this legislation is the project information memorandum. That gives the council a chance for involvement without being required to give a consent in most cases.

As for the prospect that there would be natural hazards of which the council’s unaware—obviously, again, sympathetic and sensitive to the fact of that taking place in Christchurch with regard to a series of earthquakes, but we simply can’t know what we don’t know. If we were in the business of failing to provide consents, or even to require them where they otherwise wouldn’t be required, on the basis that there might be hazards of which we’re unaware, then, simply, we’d be very hidebound and have an even greater issue of productivity and affordability, in terms of housing in this country, than we already do.

As for the suggestion—and I think I understand the point that “non-consented works” might sound as though there’s some sort of value judgment being created, but, nevertheless, it’s just a straightforward statement of fact. It is possible for works not to be consented but not to be illegal, given that they didn’t require a consent, and I think that we’ve covered that well enough. Anyone who’s likely to be reading the legislation would be able to set aside their feelings of judgment or being judged and simply take that at its face value.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I can see that Arena Williams has one more burning, specific, new question.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): I do. Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll ask two questions in one, then. The first is about the regulation-making power. I’ll take the Minister to clause 14 at the top of page 9. It’s a pretty broad power, which allows the Minister to change everything that’s in Schedule 1 if he wishes. Just so we’re clear, just so we know what that means—

Cameron Luxton: What’s it of?

ARENA WILLIAMS: It can be the size, so 70 metres squared. It could be just to build a mansion. It could have several bathrooms, it could be large, it could be many floors, it could be a castle, it could be a swimming pool—it could be absolutely anything. It could include tiny houses now. It could include anything. Just to be clear, what we’re doing here: this is a regulation-making power that is very broad and would take it well outside of what most New Zealanders think we are doing here. So wouldn’t it be better if we adopted my amendment to be clear what that regulation-making power should be and shouldn’t be?

This is a situation where we’ve gone out of our way, actually, to say in the Schedule what kind of building we mean. This is an unusually detailed Schedule 1, in terms of actually setting out things like: the frame must made of “lightweight building … [materials] (being steel or timber)”. That level of detail isn’t something that you would normally find in primary legislation, but it’s appropriate in this legislation, because it sets out the kind of buildings we expect. It’s the kind of density that you expect. And New Zealanders are very fair-minded people. When it comes to density in our cities and our regions, we want that, but we want it done well. Right, Todd Stephenson? You’ll hear from your constituents who you talk to that they’re open to seeing more building of homes in the area, but they want to see that density well formed and well-thought-through.

But this is a regulation-making power that allows the Minister a very, very wide range of powers to be able to change the sorts of homes that are built in the backyards of the people next door to you. We heard earlier from the Minister that, say, a bunk room for 30 people with a bathroom would be fine. We don’t think this will really be used for that—we don’t really think that that will be used for that.

Todd Stephenson: I don’t think he said it was fine.

ARENA WILLIAMS: He didn’t say it was fine, but he said that would be within permissive, as Todd Stephenson says. He also said, for the Hansard, that it is permissive. But what we are intending to do here is not that. That is not the expectation of Parliament here. So why wouldn’t we just say that? Why wouldn’t we just create a regulation-making power which was sensibly within the bounds of what we are debating here and not building this out to large mansions and castles? That would be sensible.

OK, the other question that I have is about the use of the word “must” from clauses 8 through 11. What I’m really getting at here, the guts of the question, is that this process for project information memorandum is one we haven’t really used in this way before, where building consents have a really clear and established process and also process rights for the applicants, where if a council doesn’t meet its obligations, then those applicants have an ordinary sort of recourse and a way to raise a dispute or to raise issues around timing—we’ve used “must” in the way that you might expect the process for building consents to be drafted, but this is not that.

I’ll take you to clause 8(1), which is a good example of where “A territorial authority must issue a project information referendum” within this time period.” The next obvious question for anyone in this committee stage is: what if that doesn’t happen? There is a clearly established process if you are using the building consent track, but this is not that. There are no penalties for council suggested here, nor would it be appropriate for that to exist. It makes sense to use that sort of “must” in the context where the council was after a development contribution, because there is an end point to that; the council are after money, so they’re incentivised to pursue that. They’re incentivised to act in a way where they are meeting the time frames and meeting the statutory time frames. But in a situation where they just have an obligation to give something and they might be overloaded, there might be lots of these applications—13,000 of them, say our officials—what happens if that small council doesn’t meet those obligations? What disputes resolution are available to someone? What is the process for someone to raise process rights under this new system where there is not a clear recourse if things go wrong?

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to respond briefly to the second point first of all, building consent authorities (BCA) that don’t meet their statutory requirements can have the punishment, and I use the term loosely, that they might not get accreditation to remain operating as a BCA. It’s probably in the nature of Brer Rabbit not wanting to be thrown in the patch, because it’s actually quite a good thing not to be a BCA, but that’s for them to worry about.

As for the second point, it’s not the case that the “Henry VIII” power relates to the whole of Schedule 1A. Of course, there is good reason that you want flexibility so you can update for technical reasons, as technology and building practices and so on increase. To be able to change the requirements for the small stand-alone dwellings, in terms of the detail of clause 2 within new Schedule 1A, is a good thing, but it’s not an unlimited power, because it’s still subject to clause 1, which can’t be changed by Order in Council. It will still be the case, whatever else happens, that it must be stand-alone, new, less than 70 square metres, and less than a single storey. That’s quite a tightly constrained envelope.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): I move, That debate on this question now close.

A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Minister’s tabled amendments to clause 10(1) be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4(1) amending the definition of “final design plans” be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4(1) amending the definition of “preliminary design plans” be agreed to.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4(1) amending the definition of “small stand-alone dwelling” is ruled out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4(2) replacing “if any” with “as required by relevant decision makers” be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 5 deleting subclause (2) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 5(2) amending new paragraph (ba) of section 12(2) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 5(2) amending new paragraph (bb) of section 12(2) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 6(1) amending new subparagraph (ii) of section 32(b) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 6(2) amending new subsection (2) of section 32 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 7 deleting subclause (1) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 8(1) replacing “must” with “will, unless it is unreasonable or inequitable to do so” in new subsection (1) of section 34 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 8(1) deleting “working” in subsection (1) of section 34 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’ve got a few more votes to take place here, and it would be nice if people could succinctly vote—we don’t want to be sounding like robots in front of the viewers that are watching.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 8, deleting subclauses (2) and (3) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 8, deleting subclause (4) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 8(4), amending new subsection (5) of section 34 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 9, amending new section 34A be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Arena Williams’ tabled amendment deleting clause 10 is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 10, deleting subclause (2) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 11, deleting new section 35A(2) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 11, new section 35A(2) replacing the word “must” to “form” is ruled out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 11, new section 35A(2)(b) is ruled out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 11, new section 35A(2)(c) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 13, amending new subsection (4) of section 37 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 14(2) is ruled out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Part 2 Amendments to other Acts

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we now come to Part 2. Part 2 is the debate on clauses 25 to 56, “Amendments to other legislation”, and Schedule 2. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): I’ll start by asking the Minister a question around clause 30, the section 209 amendment. Understanding that new subsection (1A) is, essentially, a replica of subsection (1), there is a particular area that is not included as part of subsection (1A). I just want to seek the Minister’s clarification around it. In section 209(2), it says, “A territorial authority may retain any portion of a development contribution or land referred to in subsection (1)”—OK, you know what, it is actually answered in subsection (2). I take that back.

The question I then have for the Minister is—I am curious about both subsections (1) and (1A)—why, then, if a development doesn’t proceed because the developer chose not to proceed, the territorial authority needs to refund the application for that. In this particular case, what do the personal representatives—I’m assuming, in this case, lawyers; presumably, it could be, or not. My second question is actually around Schedule 2, which is also tied to this area. Now, Schedule 2, in terms of Part 10, clause 59(1), it says, “Territorial authorities may require development contributions for small stand-alone dwellings even where not authorised … expiring 3 years after that date.” Does that mean that, after three years, the territorial authorities can no longer require development contributions? How am I supposed to interpret clause 59(1)? If that’s the case, why has three years been chosen as a date after which they can no longer require development contributions? Those two are my first, initial questions on Part 2.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Thank you, Madam Chair. In the member’s second question, I didn't quite catch where the reference to the three-year period is. So after I've answered his first question, I wonder if he would seek a call just to clarify that, please.

In terms of the point around return of a development contribution or some land that had been set aside where that has taken place in consideration for providing or enabling the development to take place: if the development doesn't take place, then the development contribution which is used to support funding infrastructure isn't needed anymore for that purpose. So that would be why that would be returned.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’ll just call on Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan to clarify the question that the Minister just referred to.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll be really brief. So this is Schedule 2, inserting new Part 10 into the Local Government Act, clause 59(1).

Schedule 2 has provisions that allow that “Territorial authorities may require development contributions for small stand-alone dwellings”, but clause 59(1) says this clause only applies—and it expires within three years of the commencement date. My question is: does that mean that after the three years, and after this clause has expired, territorial authorities can no longer require development contributions for small stand-alone dwellings? Is that how I’m meant to be reading that particular clause?

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): My questions relate to page 19 and, there, clauses 52, 53, and 54, which set out how the various pieces of information, the certificates that are given by professionals who are carrying out work in the building of small dwellings are meant to be handed on, and what happens with them in the scenario. The question is really to the Minister: there’s all different sorts of regimes with different sorts of penalties and different sorts of liabilities that arise but they are all essentially the same provision. Have we got this right in that there is no obvious recourse, there is no sort of obvious end point if these certificates of compliance or certificates of safety are not handed over in that period. What is the process for a homeowner to be able to get that information that they need and are required have later in the process, if that’s not forthcoming, and what is the system here? Should it be read as if it is—like in a situation where those requirements can be enforced. Are they enforceable? What recourse do the homeowners have here?

My other question is about Schedule 2; useful questions from Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan about how territorial authorities might make these decisions in the interim period where they might not be able to update their own processes internally. But my question is really around whether that word policy is broad enough to capture what the Minister means. Because territorial authorities will do some of this in policy, but some of it at the plan level. There will be instruments that councils use which you wouldn’t normally describe as policy, so is that what he means? Can he clarify for us what needs to be updated here by local councils that he’s envisioning is helping here and solving, especially in clause 59(2).

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I’m grateful to the member Lawrence Xu-Nan, who was kind enough to repeat and clarify his question. The schedule that he refers to provides a period of three years in which development contributions can be charged in the way set out in this legislation, because it’s envisaged that, within that period of time, councils will have the ability to update their policies, practices, and procedures, and also in anticipation of resource management reform that will change the way development contributions are charged. It might be that some replacement of development contributions is introduced, but we think that to provide at least a three-year window in which those changes can be made will mean that, in the meantime, councils have a clear, fair—well, at least, a clear—way of continuing to charge development contributions so that they’re not left out of pocket in the meantime. Of course, the point of that is to provide the supporting infrastructure that would be needed for these so-called granny flats.

In terms of question that Arena Williams asks regarding the failure of a trusted professional to provide what they are required to do under the Act, I would say—and as a lawyer who’s self-sure, hopefully—I recognise that there are a number of different categories of obligation. One is statutory, in terms of what’s required under the Act; another would be contractual, as between the building professional, which is some other tradie or a builder in the sense of a Licensed Building Practitioner; and also occupational. The disciplinary powers of various practitioner boards is something that we’re looking at separately from, or in addition to, what’s needed to make sure this regime is robust. That’s because, overall, we want a system that is as enabling as possible but that doesn’t enable building professionals who can’t or shouldn’t be trusted to continue to provide work that is substandard or delivered in an unethical fashion. All those different categories of obligation are enforceable in different ways against a professional who doesn’t meet their obligations in this law.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Part 2—oh sorry, was there a call?

Tom Rutherford: Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Lawrence Xu-Nan was on his feet first. Have you just got a quick clarification?

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): I just have a quick question for the Minister for Building and Construction regarding clause 52, and this is to do with electricity safety regulations. I’m curious to just kind of get clarification from the Minister on when it comes to “responsible person”. When we were previously looking at the plumbers section of the new section 27A, inserted by clause 39, it talks about a supervisor as well. I just want to check, in this case, that the “responsible person” also covers, for example, a supervisor of someone who’s on a provisional electrician licence as well.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Yes. To the best of my knowledge—if I’ve understood the question correctly; I think it’s right that I should clarify in case I’ve misunderstood—professional obligations relate to those doing the work or those who are supervising the work being carried out by those who are not suitably qualified, licensed professionally, whether it’s plumbers, gasfitters, drainlayers, or others.

Part 2 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Now, the Schedule 1 vote. The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to Schedule 1, new Schedule 1A be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we now come to our final debate: clauses 1 and 2. This is the debate on “Title” and “Commencement”.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Madam Chair, we’re here; we’re at the end of the committee stage, which I have very much enjoyed the back and forth across the committee. For anyone watching, that was a particularly unusual and good committee stage where we had the unusual situation of two experts in this policy area—Cameron Luxton from the ACT Party and a Labour Party spokesperson for housing, Kieran McAnulty—discussing the same issue from almost the opposite perspectives, and a Minister for Building and Construction in the middle trying to find a way through. It’s a great example of how asking questions, teasing these issues out does result in a better process for people. This is what the committee has been good at.

The Transport and Infrastructure Committee, chaired by Andy Foster, has worked through this bill and listened to submitters on it. Many of those submissions were really positive and wanted to see this come in and wanted it to work. Then the question becomes: how does this Parliament make sure that this is the best bill in the best shape it can be? Therein lies the question of what should its name be? Is this the best name for this bill? Madam Chair, I would suggest to you that my amendment changing it to the “Building and Construction (Big Stand-alone Dwellings) Amendment Bill” is better.

The Government is very proud of this change. It is the Government’s policy change that it announced to great fanfare that it would be making the size of these dwellings bigger. If that’s what it means, then it should say that. It should say that these are larger house-sized buildings in people’s backyards; it should be proud of the density that is going to create by this.

But we should be clear with those people whose neighbourhoods are changed by this, that is what is, in fact, intended by this legislation: that there will be larger dwellings, that that will be a change for them. Because that is something we support. We want to see more of these dwellings being built for people. We want to be able for, you know, intergenerational living for families that are expanding for—in the case that was brought to this House by the member for Māngere, Lemauga Lydia Sosene, around whānau coming from overseas to stay. We want to enable that for people and there is a real problem with the affordability of housing that we are trying to look for solutions that are creative and that allow for people, whatever their situation, to be able to make some small contribution to within their communities.

That name change would be at least clearer with people about what is happening here and what the effect of this will be: 13,000 of these dwellings around the country. Not evenly spread—there will be some areas where people will see this more. We need to be upfront with people about what this will mean. We think that there should be a monitoring component of this, especially around those broader regulation-making powers that can see these change without it returning back to the House, the nature of the buildings change. We just want to be clear about that; we want people to be fully cognisant that in your mind what you might think of as a granny flat is not necessarily what you will see being built, but it is in fact something that we want to see working well in our communities.

Every member in this House who represents an electorate would also want to hear from their constituents how these things are going, because we know that when it comes to the provision of housing and of changing the way that our neighbourhoods look, that people deserve a say in that. They deserve to be able to go to someone who they know, who has their interests at heart, who represents their area. There are a number of members in this House who represent their areas vociferously and that is how we are constitutionally designed to work.

That is an important function of everyone who has listened to this debate today and has managed to get into the detail, because these are important details but they’re details that everyone can grasp. It’s about where houses should go; it’s about what they should look like. So people being able to come and say to their elected MP, “This isn’t working for me”, we’re interested in that. We want to make sure this is right; this is working for our communities. That’s why we should change its name and I hope you accept my amendment.

I’ve also noticed something that I never noticed before, which is sometimes—members, you will know this—the Parliamentary Counsel Office, when they are drafting you a member’s bill, they will make you call it something very sensible. We could get around this, me and you. I could be proposing to you some really funny political name that you want to call this. You want to call this the “Building and Construction (Chris Penk: Superstar in a Cape Solving Problems) Amendment Bill”. I mean, we could sort that out so you let me know. All right, thank you.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I too would like to take the opportunity to say that this committee stage has been really informative, insofar as I feel as if I’ve learnt a couple of life skills listening to this conversation and listening to the Minister for Building and Construction actually engaging with the questions and providing answers that elucidate on what is ultimately an important piece of potential legislation that affects the day-to-lives of many whānau across the country.

I too have an issue with the title, insofar as, whilst it’s been acknowledged that it’s possibly not ambitious as it could have been and doesn’t necessarily state what it could, from my perspective—I’m looking at this amendment in Arena Williams’ name. Whilst I’m not going to argue with her about the previous suggestion where she said about it being “House Sized”, I particularly like the one that says “Extra House in the Backyard”. I like that one in particular because, from my perspective, it lends itself a little bit more closely to the type of scenario that I’m envisioning, insofar as it is an extra house in the backyard and, by definition, therefore is one that’s drawing on the utility that’s already existing, it’s drawing on the infrastructure that’s already there. And it feels a little bit more descriptive of the type of issues, through those notes, through those memorandums, through that reporting that’s going to be held at the territorial authority or local authority level, tasked with keeping a tally or keeping an eye on forecasting for future problems, should that utility, or should those pieces of infrastructure, be overtasked.

So, along with my colleague Arena Williams, I too would like the Minister to take a little bit of time to think about those names. I’m sure he’s pored over this and sweated on this and had many a sleepless night trying to make sure that this piece of legislation is appropriately titled. But the title is important because it is what it says on the tin, and I think the “Building and Construction (Extra House in the Backyard Stand-alone Dwellings) Amendment Bill” is worthy of some further consideration and potentially some comment from the Minister.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Thank you. I wouldn’t normally comment on the title of the bill, as the Minister in the chair, but I will say, first of all, I’ve enjoyed the committee of the whole House process. I think we’ve thrashed out some pretty important issues; that’s been helpful all around.

I’m not inclined to suggest to the Government side that we accept any of the name changes, but I will say, for the record, that my office and I did push pretty hard to have the phrase “granny flats” in the title. Let’s all just take a moment to enjoy the fact that there was serious criticism levelled at my colleague the Hon Chris Bishop and I when we were talking about granny flats from some who thought it was some combination of sexist and ageist or, maybe, that it discriminated on the basis of family status. Anyone can gain the benefit of a granny flat, of course; it’s multiple different scenarios in which that could be useful. So we don’t want to constrain it by being too definitive but, nevertheless, I think the title, technocratic as it is, describes well the intent and a certain amount of the content of the policy.

TODD STEPHENSON (Whip—ACT): I move, That debate on this question now close.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 1 replacing “Small” with “House sized” be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Arena Williams’ two remaining tabled amendments to clause 1 are ruled out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.

Clause 1 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 2(1) replacing “on a date set by Order in Council” with “28 March 2027” be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Arena Williams’ three remaining tabled amendments to clause 2(1) replacing the words “Order in Council” are ruled out of order as not being serious amendments.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Building and Construction (Small Stand-alone Dwellings) Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Bills

Land Transport Management (Time of Use Charging) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Transport): I present a legislative statement on the Land Transport Management (Time of Use Charging) Amendment Bill.

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

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I move, That the Land Transport Management (Time of Use Charging) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

This bill is a key step towards modernising our transport system by introducing time and location based charges. The key point is this: sitting in traffic is not just a nuisance, it is a drain on productivity, and our road taxes at the moment do not reflect when or where roads are used, meaning they fail to address actual demand and network performance. This disconnect contributes towards costly congestion. A recent estimate—and there’s been a range—suggests Auckland could face an annual cost of $2.6 billion by 2026. So there is a need for more sophisticated demand-based pricing to ensure our system remains fair and efficient. Congestion is a tax on productivity.

I was in New York a couple of months ago, which has just introduced congestion pricing. After years of scepticism, they introduced it in early 2025. Traffic dropped by 7 percent—over 7 percent. Travel times improved by up to 40 percent in peak hours. Speeds increased across the network, even outside the charging zone. And the people I talked to in New York said that actually the streets were a lot nicer to be on. Road pricing can deliver real benefits when done well.

Now, there’s been plenty of talk about this over the years, but this is a bill that actually gets on with it. It enables a flexible framework designed to suit a wide range of situations and adapt to future needs, but with controls and safety features to protect motorists and the community. It empowers local authorities working with New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) to introduce charges for road use during peak times. It provides a clear structure for how central and local government can partner on time of use charging schemes.

A central component of the bill—this is the second point—is a clear purpose for all schemes to improve traffic flow and network productivity, not just collecting revenue. Getting this objective clear is important for public support. International experience shows that social licence matters, and this legislation puts the purpose at the front and centre of the reform. It’s the backbone of the entire framework.

Thirdly, the bill has strong protections to ensure transparency and foster public trust. Every scheme has to go through public consultation, impact assessments, and meet national consistency and oversight requirements. The bill contains the nuts and bolts, sets up the compliance framework, allows for adjustments to charges within limits, and lays out the processes to get schemes off the ground.

The bill has been considered by the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, and I do want to thank them for their hard work on this, particularly the chair, the indefatigable Andy Foster. It’s an excellent committee, I’m told they work in quite a bipartisan and cross-party way, which is the way select committees should work at their best. The committee’s recommendations on the changes to the bill were unanimous, which is not always the case, but it’s good when they can be unanimous, and that’s really good. So there is a hope—what’s that?

Hon Julie Anne Genter: I have a differing view in the report.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yeah, but no one really cares what you think, so let’s set it up.

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: That’s a bit rude.

Hon Willie Jackson: That’s not very prime ministerial.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, it’s—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: They all smiled. We’ll take it as jest tonight.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: It certainly wasn’t very nice. I withdraw and apologise to the Hon Julie Anne Genter. It certainly wasn’t very nice. I wasn’t aware that you’d dissented. You put a minority report in, but the recommendations were unanimous, right? Is that right? The recommendations were unanimous, but the minority report—

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Yeah—yeah.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Oh, that’s OK. Well, it’s OK. So I was right; the recommendations were unanimous. That’s OK—that’s OK. That’s fine. OK. Well, I’m looking forward to hearing what will no doubt be a very passionate contribution from the Hon Julie Anne Genter, because, if nothing else, there’s always enthusiasm. But anyway, I think I’m right in saying that there is cross-party support for this.

It will be a momentous day when that happens, because the first economic study into congestion charging, or time of use pricing, whatever you want to call it—I think I’m right in saying—was in 1994. That’s now 31 years ago. So we’ve known about this for a long time and finally we’re at least going to legislate to have the framework to do it.

I do want to thank everyone who made a submission. There were 218 submissions, a really diverse range of perspectives, and quite a lot of contributions from local government, because ultimately they’re the ones who are going to have to implement this alongside central government. So I do thank them for all of their submissions.

The committee has recommended further refinements to the bill and the Government will be supporting the report back and the amendments proposed by the select committee. We welcome the recommendations to strengthen local government influence and scheme decision-making. The reported back bill gives local authorities approval rights for key decisions made by scheme boards that will be set up to establish and implement time of use charging. We support that. The committee has also recommended that scheme boards have an independent chair. We support that. I believe these changes will address concerns expressed by some in their submissions on the bill.

The committee has also recommended that any revenue left over after the scheme establishment and operational costs, should there be any, are prioritised on initiatives that improve the ability of people to move around the area affected by time of use charging scheme. We support that. The committee has also recommended scheme boards be able to propose exemptions for large public transport and school buses, reflecting the need to incentivise the use of this alternative to private cars. This change does not involve opening up the bill to allow a broad approach to exemptions.

There was, I understand, a bit of debate at select committee about this. It’s a bit like Swiss cheese—you know, once you put one hole in place, you can’t stop. We’re not in favour of broad exemptions, which some people have argued for. We are going to have some narrow exemptions, but the whole point at some level is to make sure that people actually face a price signal. The more people you exempt, the less effectiveness there is of the price signal. So by definition it’s not as effective and we do want to make the scheme effective.

There were some submissions around privacy as a key matter. The bill contains several privacy safeguards, but to strengthen these the reported back bill requires scheme proposals to include privacy impact assessments. NZTA and enforcement authorities must also consult the Privacy Commissioner and publish their privacy policies to ensure transparency and accountability. We support that. There’s a range of other improvements around the legal foundations of the boards which we support as well.

The select committee’s done a really good job on this. I want to thank Andy Foster and the team on the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. They’ve done an excellent job. The Government’s going to support this. I’m genuine in my desire to try and make sure we get some bipartisan cross-party support on this. I think, from a productivity point of view, it’s just really clear now, after years and years of international experience, that this is the right thing to do for our cities to try and reduce congestion and make sure that we’re making more efficient and effective use of our roading network. Ultimately, that’s what it is all about.

Our intention is to try and proceed with the legislation and get it through Parliament by Christmas so that we can work with Auckland Council as a starting point in 2026 and get a scheme in place after that, but it would be good to get it done by Christmas. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to. We’ve had an agreed change of order here. I call on the Hon Julie Anne Genter.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Madam Speaker, I’m very grateful to be able to take this call, because I could see I wasn’t going to be able to before the end of this evening if I didn’t take the call now. Very graciously, Labour has allowed me to take the second call so I can speak in this debate.

The Green Party has long supported investigation of time of use charging, so we were very pleased—I think we might have been the first party in this Parliament to have it officially as policy many, many years ago. I did mention that, although the Transport and Infrastructure Committee agreed the changes and the amendments unanimously, the Green Party still put in a differing view, with just some other concerns where—we rightfully understood that the Government wasn’t going to address the concerns, but, were the Green Party to be in Government, we would like to see these concerns addressed.

The first thing is that there are many opportunities to have a better and more balanced transportation system here in Aotearoa. In our largest cities—in Auckland, but it could apply in other cities; I know Wellington has been in support, at a local level, of wanting to be able to use a tool like congestion charging. We know that, where it has been implemented overseas, it has been very, very successful. But, in all of those cities overseas where it has been implemented, other things have been true as well. The first cities to pioneer road-use charging or time of use charging were Singapore, Stockholm, the City of London, and a few other cities such as Gothenburg in Sweden, and, most recently, of course, New York City. All of those cities had a few other conditions as well, which the Green Party has policies to support. Those are: greater employment and residential density in their city centres; far greater provision of public transport services and lower charges for those; far higher charges for car parking.

When all of those things are true, then time of use charging can be very effective. That is because, here in Aotearoa, we don’t actually charge for parking, in most places, what the value of the land is. When you have those more direct charges, people make different choices. When they’re forced with the choice of paying upfront, they might decide to do something different. You can get much more extensive and comprehensive public transport services that enable people to get around without having to rely on a car, and those who are using private motor vehicles, for whatever reason they may be, are willing to pay the price to use them—and that’s useful.

Our concerns—I’ll lay out three of them, and I have proposed some amendments that I hope the Minister will consider at the committee of the whole House stage. If other parties would like to look at those amendments, they’re already on the Table there.

Low-emissions zones: in the last term of Parliament, the Transport and Infrastructure Committee conducted an inquiry into congestion pricing, and it heard from many expert submitters that we should be designing legislation to allow for low-emissions zones as well, using the framework that is used in a congestion pricing bill to be able to achieve other outcomes—not just reducing congestion but also reducing emissions by targeting high-emissions vehicles with fees, for example. That was an expert recommendation from other jurisdictions that have implemented either congestion charging or low-emissions zones, or both.

Low-emissions zones work slightly differently to congestion charging, so we wanted to ensure that this legislation was broad enough to enable local authorities to implement something like low-emissions zones. That’s really, really important because air pollution from motor vehicles has a huge impact on health; it has a huge impact on productivity and on our health system. It causes approximately $10 billion in social costs each year, including 3,000 cases of childhood asthma. When cities are able to have tools to manage those externalities, they often choose to do so, and that’s really good to enable those local councils to be able to do things like that. This legislation, unfortunately, is very narrowly targeted to congestion charging.

Our second concern has to do with local representation and decision making. We were very happy that the Transport and Infrastructure Committee did recommend a change that ensured that there would be an independent chair of the scheme boards. We generally thought that Waka Kotahi was going to have disproportionate weight on the scheme boards for deciding really important things and that there wouldn’t be sufficient representation by territorial authorities. But then there’s another kind of confusing thing that would not apply in Auckland, which is that, if there are multiple territorial authorities who are choosing to join a scheme board, it could end up reducing the representation quite significantly from the territorial authority in which the scheme is actually operating.

In Auckland, this isn’t an issue because you have an amalgamated super city, so there’s really just the one territorial authority, which is a unitary authority. But, in Wellington, for example, we have quite a few smaller councils who could choose to join the scheme board, and who could argue that some of their constituents will be paying the price of the congestion charge, and yet the congestion charging area will not be within those territorial authorities. They way the legislation is written could have a perverse effect of giving significantly more power to a scheme board as to whether a scheme is adopted, how it is designed, what the revenue is used for, and to a much smaller percentage of the population that resides very far from where the congestion charging scheme is. Maybe that’s a worst case scenario, but I do think we do want to think about those hypotheticals and make sure that we’re not accidentally setting up a system where outlying areas are determining where the revenue is going. There are 200,000 people in Wellington City, and how many tens of thousands in the Wairarapa? Significantly less.

Andy Foster: About 55,000.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Yeah, 55,000, but they could have three representatives on a scheme board, and Wellington City with 200,000 people could have one. That would be a very perverse outcome, and, arguably, in the case of Wellington wanting to put in place a scheme, you would hope that multiple representatives could be chosen on behalf of just Wellington City to represent the different parts of the city and not have it disproportionately dominated by territorial authorities far away.

The final concern was about the use of revenue. I have proposed some really specific amendments that we can debate in the committee of the whole House stage if the Minister has a change of heart. When congestion pricing schemes have been put in place overseas, the vast majority of surplus revenue has gone into additional public transport services, to reducing fares for those services, and to improving active transportation options. In the City of London, for example, I think it was 80 percent of the revenue initially was just going into additional bus operations. There will be a certain proportion of the revenue that has to go to administering the scheme, and you want that to be as little as possible, but it could be 10 or 20 percent—it could be more, obviously. But any additional revenue has to go into improving transportation options so that people can avoid having to pay the charge. That’s how it achieves the congestion reduction.

There are two ways you can avoid the charge. One is not travelling at all, and one is changing your mode of travel or carpooling—doing something different—to reduce the impact of the charge. If we don’t want people to be stuck and not able to move around, we are going to have to significantly step up our public transport services, which, as I think everyone in Aotearoa knows, have been lagging behind other parts of the world. We have higher fares, on average, than every city in Australia for public transport. In Brisbane, they set up a 50c fare to anywhere recently. Public transportation is very expensive; it’s got more expensive under this Government because of the policies of Simeon Brown, and I’m hoping that the current Minister will see fit to ensure that more of the budget can be used for transportation fares.

It doesn’t make sense to use revenue from a congestion charging scheme to build additional capacity on a motorway. That completely defeats the purpose, because, when you put the congestion charge in place, that reduces the demand for the roads, and it increases the demand for the other forms of transportation. That’s why, everywhere where this works, they have very, very efficient, effective, and very well used public transportation systems. The Green Party is supporting the bill; we’re happy with the overall direction, but we do think there are further improvements that can be made and look forward to debating those in the committee of the whole House stage. Kia ora.

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

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10.01 p.m.