Wednesday, 22 October 2025

WEDNESDAY, 22 OCTOBER 2025

WEDNESDAY, 22 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.]

Visitors

Australia—Tasmanian Assembly

SPEAKER: I’m sure that members will want to join with me in welcoming to our Parliament Helen Burnet, the Deputy Speaker of the Tasmanian Assembly.

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

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

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

CLERK:

Petition of Positive Money New Zealand requesting that the House inquire into the Reserve Bank providing financing towards significant infrastructure projects at zero, or near to zero interest rates

petition of Brian Webb requesting that the House pass legislation that prevents Donald Trump and his associates and family who have been convicted in America from entering or investing in the realm of New Zealand

petition of Jazmine Watson requesting that the House urge the Government to install CCTV cameras in all playgrounds and parks in New Zealand, and

petition of Education Outdoors NZ requesting that the House urge the Government to keep outdoor education as a senior general curriculum subject.

SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered 10 papers.

CLERK:

2024-25 annual reports of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, together with the International Development Cooperation Programme and non-departmental appropriation

Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation, New Zealand Super Fund, and Elevate New Zealand Venture Fund

Kāinga Ora Homes and Communities, the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, and Treasury, together with non-departmental appropriations

reports of non-departmental appropriations to 2024-25 of the regional development portfolio, the resources portfolio, and business, science and innovation and the housing portfolio in Vote Housing and Urban Development

Serious Fraud Office long-term insights briefing, and

2025-26 statement of performance expectations for Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation, New Zealand Super Fund, and Elevate New Zealand Venture Fund.

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

CLERK:

Report of the Business Committee on the recommended sitting programme for 2026, and

report of the Justice Committee on the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Sales on Anzac Day Morning, Good Friday, Easter Sunday, and Christmas Day) Amendment Bill.

SPEAKER: The bill is set down for second reading and the report of the Business Committee is set down for consideration.

Urgent Debates Declined

Sport New Zealand—Ministerial Direction

SPEAKER: Members, I have received an urgent letter from Cushla Tangaere-Manuel seeking to debate, under Standing Order 399, the Minister for Sport and Recreation directing Sport New Zealand to provide support to facilitate the resolution of the dispute between Netball New Zealand and Dame Noeline Taurua. This is a particular case of recent occurrence. The Minister for Sport and Recreation is not responsible for the resolution of the dispute, but is responsible for directing Sport New Zealand. The bar for an urgent debate is a high one. I do not think that issuing such a direction to a Crown entity is a matter that warrants setting aside the business of the House. The application is declined.

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: Has he or any Government Minister requested or received advice on limiting the right to strike for any Government workforces; if so, what was the nature of that advice?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We respect the unions’ right to strike. We also encourage them to think about the impact they’re having on kids, parents, and patients.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked the Prime Minister whether or not he or any of his Ministers had requested or received advice on limiting the right to strike.

SPEAKER: The Prime Minister might like to make a further comment.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Not that I’m aware of.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: So why did Simeon Brown say that limiting the right of doctors to strike was something the Government would consider?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: He talked about the fact that, actually, we want doctors to consider the rights of parents, patients, and kids. He said that, ultimately, we need to balance the right to strike and actually make sure we protect the interests of other New Zealanders. That is something that he said we may ultimately consider, but I’d just say to that member and to all your friends in the unions: encourage them to get back around the bargaining table. Let’s negotiate tomorrow.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: So how is it—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just wait for your own team to—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How is it in the interests of parents, patients, and kids for the Government to offer public sector workers—like teachers, doctors, nurses, and others—pay increases that are less than the rate of inflation and so amount to a real-terms pay cut and not address the workload issues that they have been raising?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, that’s just not true. What we have said is that we expect teachers to be able to come around the bargaining table and negotiate with their employer, the Public Service Commissioner, and actually do the negotiation there. But, again, there are offers that have been extended to the unions that haven’t been taken out to members. Asking teachers to consider whether they could do their professional development and their teacher only days in one of the 12 weeks of the school holidays is not an unreasonable request. Having a discussion about a Palestinian State from a teachers’ union is not a priority in improving attendance or education outcomes for New Zealanders.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why didn’t the Government increase eligibility for the game development rebate given the current $40 million budget for the rebate isn’t being fully utilised?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, again, I’m very proud of the progress that’s been made in the gaming sector under this Government. When I looked at the numbers a few months ago—and don’t hold me to account—the 38 percent increase in the size of the gaming sector, I think it actually hit something like $780 million in the last year, which is fantastic.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why isn’t he aware that the gaming sector has grown 86 percent in the last 2½ years since the gaming rebate was introduced by the previous Labour Government and that his Government, despite repeated requests from the sector, has not been willing to expand eligibility so that the budget that was set aside for it actually gets spent?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Isn’t it great! We’re getting a question on the third Labour policy of this week, but we didn’t get one for one and two. This is really the big deal that’s going to move the needle from Labour! I’ll just say that getting in behind and backing fast track, public-private partnerships, roads of national significance, NCEA changes—those are things that we want to hear from the Leader of the Opposition on.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Can he name one other sector of the New Zealand economy that’s grown by 86 percent in the last 2½ years, and if he can’t, why isn’t he willing to back the sector that is?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We are backing the sector. That’s why it’s so great to see the growth that’s taking place in the sector. It’s also why we’re backing farmers because, actually, dairy’s up 14 percent, red meat’s up about 9 percent, and horticulture’s up 19 percent. Those are fantastic results—record results—in our primary industry sectors. Again, I just encourage the member to support what the Government’s doing to free and liberate our farmers, who are treated as villains and are deeply, deeply valued.

Hon Dr Shane Reti: Is the Prime Minister aware of the recent gaming sector review where some businesses saw “increasing the number of grants available through CODE as the most effective lever for further development”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes, I am, and I appreciate the work that the member is doing to actually improve our science sector and to actually encourage more start-ups across a range of technology sectors in this economy.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on the economy?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Acting Minister of Finance): This morning, the New Zealand Superannuation Fund published its latest annual report. It shows that the super fund's total size was $85 billion at 30 June 2025, with average return since its inception of 10.1 percent per annum.

Cameron Brewer: How does the super fund compare to other Government-owned investment funds?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Oh, well, different country’s funds have their own approach to investment. There are a number of common practices. These funds and their investment companies typically buy and sell a range of assets; diversify their portfolio, including by investing internationally; seek to generate strong long-term financial returns for their investor base; actively manage risk; and reinvest their profits to ensure fund growth and sustainability over time.

Cameron Brewer: Does the super fund sell assets, and do other Government-owned investment funds sell assets?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yes and yes. Funds sell assets and they buy other assets. For example, just to take a random example, when Temasek was established in Singapore in 1974, its initial portfolio of $354 million Singaporean comprised shares in companies, start-ups, and joint ventures previously held by the Singapore Government. This included, I'm advised, a bird park, a hotel, a detergent producer, a start-up airline, and an iron and steel mill. Of the 35 companies in Temasek's initial portfolio, only 10 still remain—directly or indirectly. That means that less than 30 percent of their original seed assets are retained by them today.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: What aren’t they talking about their own policy?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I'm talking about Temasek policy. The other 70 percent have been divested or liquidated as Temasek invested, divested, and grew their portfolio to $434 billion Singaporean.

Cameron Brewer: Do Government-owned investment funds typically invest in other countries?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yes, because they're trying to diversify and get as good a return as possible for the citizens they represent. Let me again refer to just a random example: Temasek. Around half of their portfolio consists of companies and assets outside of Singapore. In fact, their sovereign wealth fund, GIC, invests in more than 40 countries worldwide. As literate investors know, diversification across countries and industries is essential to reduce risk and protect portfolios from market volatility.

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 CHRIS BISHOP (Acting Minister of Finance): Yes, including the comments I just made about Temasek.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How can she stand by her statement that “Costs are under control, and inflation is under control” when there have been four consecutive increases in inflation?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, inflation is within the target band. Three years ago, it was 7.3 percent. It is now 3 percent. I would put our record of inflation up against that member’s any day of the week.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is a pay offer below the 3 percent rate of inflation an effective pay cut; if not, why not?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, it’s not for me to get into the bargaining between the unions and the Public Service Commission.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: How does a pay offer for teachers, firefighters, and nurses that does not keep up with the cost of living help their families who are struggling with the increasing cost of living?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The Government has made generous offers in relation to all of the pay disputes that are currently under way. The other point that I would make is that, as that member’s party and other members have been making repeatedly and, in fact, allied with the unions, it is not just about pay. One of the issues that has been raised repeatedly, over many years, in relation to education, for example, is the extra investment required for learning support. The Government has come to the table and put a record investment in Budget 2025 of over $700 million. To quote the union’s own words, “This is not just about pay”, and we agree.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she agree with the Prime Minister that “We would love to pay everyone more, but for that to happen, we’ve got to be a much wealthier economy.”; if so, would there have been more money for workers had she not handed out pay increases for board directors, $2.9 billion for landlords, and $300 million for the tobacco industry? [Interruption]

SPEAKER: OK—sorry, that’s just ridiculous. If you didn’t like the question being asked from your side of the House, talk to the member away from the general furore of the House. When someone is about to answer a question, hold your tongue until they’ve at least said one or two words.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: To take each of the three stupid assertions in that question in reverse order: the tobacco claim by the member is inaccurate and wrong; in relation to the board directors, if the last Government had not appointed boards that ran so many Crown companies—like, to take a random example, Kāinga Ora—so badly, we would not have been put in a position where we had to bring in some commercial expertise to get the books back on track; and, in relation to the first part of the question, I always agree with the Prime Minister.

Question No. 4—Transport

4. RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini) to the Minister of Transport: What announcements has he made on the Government's Roads of National Significance programme?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Transport): Well, as I outlined to the House yesterday—

SPEAKER: The Hon Chris Bishop.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: My apologies, Mr Speaker. As I outlined to the House yesterday, the Government’s spending $1.2 billion to move the next tranche of the roads of national significance to the next phase of development following the board’s approval of the investment cases. This is about a long-term transport infrastructure pipeline to help address our infrastructure deficit. Of course, the infrastructure that will be built over time supports growth and creates jobs and opportunities for Kiwis. It was a fantastic day on Monday.

Rima Nakhle: What did the most recent investment cases say about roads of national significance in the central and upper North Island?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I invite members to go away and read the investment cases. To take a couple of examples, the Northland Expressway's investment case proves the project will be transformational for the North in the same way that the Waikato Expressway has been transformational for the Waikato. The first section is currently in procurement. Ultimately, if the project is built completely between Auckland and Whangārei, it will reduce travel times by 38 minutes and of course reduce deaths and serious injury, which is something that many members are concerned about, by 66 percent. The East West Link is a very important project that I think some members have been familiar with for quite some time, and the Hamilton Southern Links project will unlock over 17,000 new houses and, it's estimated, over 7,000 new jobs in this extremely fast-growing area of the upper North Island.

Rima Nakhle: What did the most recent investment cases say about roads of national significance in the lower North Island?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: It was good to see the New Zealand Transport Agency board endorse investment cases for Petone to Grenada and the Cross Valley Link, as well as State Highway 1 Wellington improvements. Petone to Grenda is a critical resilience project for the Wellington region. It will take 6,500 thousand vehicles off the most congested section of State Highway 1 and 2 and will reduce travel times between Lower Hutt and Porirua by 23 minutes at peak time. After the previous Government did not advance the case for Let's Get Wellington Moving, we are committed to delivering meaningful improvements to State Highway 1 through Wellington, including a second Mount Victoria tunnel, a second Terrace tunnel, three-laning Vivian Street so you can no longer park on State Highway 1, Basin Reserve grade separation, and widening Ruahine Street and Wellington Road.

Rima Nakhle: What did the most recent investment cases say about the roads of national significance in the South Island?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: It's good to see the New Zealand Transport Agency board endorsed the investment case into the Hope Bypass—which we may have to rename. State Highway 6 is a vital connection for people and goods, will boost economic growth in Nelson-Tasman, reduce peak journey times through Richmond by at least 10 minutes by 2034, and of course developments continue on the Belfast to Pegasus and Woodend Bypass road of national significance, with a fast-track application being worked through currently. Of course, I cannot let the moment go without mentioning James Meager's favourite project, the second Ashburton Bridge.

Question No. 5—Education

5. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister of Education: Will she be present at education sector strike protests on 23 October; if not, why not?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): Tomorrow, I will be in Wellington, and I do understand that all rallies, planned events, and sign-waving events have been called off due to severe weather in Wellington.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Why have over 40,000 educators been forced to take to the streets just to get their Minister to listen to their concerns?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, they’re not forced to do anything. I would like to just say that we have been listening to them, which is why we have delivered the biggest investment in learning support in a generation, more than they did in the last six years combined; which is why we have invested in paying for their teacher registration fees; which is why we’ve invested in an aspiring principal programme; which is why we’ve invested in a teacher bonding scheme, among many, many things we’ve done to back the sector. But we cannot get further progress unless the unions are back at the table, and children need to be in classrooms learning.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Does she realise that educators have no choice but to strike when she has refused to listen to them despite open letters signed by hundreds of principals and petitions signed by thousands of concerned teachers and whānau?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, they do have a choice, and here is an example of a union that did have a choice: the Primary Principals’ Collective Bargaining Union, with over 500 members, chose not to strike; chose to be at the bargaining table with the Public Service Commission; chose to be open and transparent; chose to come to a settlement—a good, fair, and reasonable settlement. That is why more and more educators are joining their union, day by day: because they’re sick of the New Zealand Educational Institute.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Why does she continue to defer to Sir Brian Roche when the sector is crying out for some engagement with their Minister?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, let me talk to you about engagement with the sector. Today, in fact, I’ve come directly here from Lower Hutt, where I have been at the Curriculum Roadshow with hundreds of principals and leaders and teachers, all in a room to learn about the changes. On Monday, we did the same thing in Christchurch—fully booked, overflowing—the same thing on Monday. In fact, with all of this engagement that’s happening with the sector, we can’t find a venue big enough to hold them all. [Interruption]

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Supplementary?

SPEAKER: Just wait. There are far too many conversations going on, particularly while Ministers are answering questions, as well as an unreasonable amount of barracking across the House, so we’ll just have total silence for a moment while the question is asked.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: What message does she think she sends educators when she is willing to prioritise her roadshow with her friends over meeting with those who are striking?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, it turns out I’ve got hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of friends, because that’s how many people are turning up to the Curriculum Roadshow to learn about the changes and the reform in education that is going to be raising achievement and closing the education gap in this country—which is more than those guys did in six years.

Question No. 6—Prime Minister

6. CHLÖE SWARBRICK (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.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he stand by his statement, in response to our questions yesterday, that nurses have safe staffing conditions, when Te Whatu Ora’s own data showed that 50 percent of day shifts were understaffed in 16 districts over 10 months last year in our hospitals?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’m incredibly proud of what this Government’s doing to improve the working environment for nurses. The fact that, in less than two years, we’ve added 2,100 extra nurses into Health New Zealand is a really good thing, and the fact that we’ve made consistent efforts and investments in the healthcare system—$17 billion in our first Budget; up another 7 percent in our second Budget—is all good stuff.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he stand by his statement that nurses have safe working conditions, when nurses report that emergency departments are currently, under his Government’s hiring freeze, so short-staffed that some patients who soil themselves are left lying for hours in their own excrement because staff do not have time to help?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, in answer to the first part of the question, there is no hiring freeze. But what I’m proud about with this Government is that we’ve got crystal clear on what we expect the healthcare system to deliver for patients, and that is: less wait times in emergency departments; immunisation rates for under-twos; faster access to first specialist appointments, elective surgeries; and, importantly, making sure that we are delivering for patients and putting them at the heart of everything we do. It’s been good to see some encouraging turn-around. I’m sure all members of this House would thank the Minister of Health for the good work that he’s doing in trying to get those wait-lists run down.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is he concerned that neonatal wards across Auckland, Whangārei, Christchurch, Palmerston North, and Tauranga hospitals were understaffed for more than a third of the shifts in the first half of this year, and, if so, what impacts does he think that these unsafe working conditions have on parents and newborns?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’m just very proud of the progress that we’ve taken since the departure of a Labour-Greens Government—that, clearly, we have put more money in, in the history of New Zealand; we have put more workforce into the healthcare system; we have good clarity on targets; and we now expect delivery from Health New Zealand to support patients.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Will the Prime Minister commit to empowering Government negotiators to turn up to the bargaining table equipped with the resources necessary to meet the actual real-world need to fix our education and healthcare systems?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’m proud of what we’re doing on improving on our health and education systems, given the mess that we inherited from the last lot. But I’d just say that we are ready 24/7—ready to go—so why don’t we actually cancel the strike tomorrow and actually go to the bargaining table tomorrow?

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Prime Minister understand that, in order for the bargaining to actually work, the Government needs to empower its negotiators to actually turn up capable of offering the resources necessary to meet the need in our education and healthcare systems?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Absolutely, and that’s why we’re ready to go 24/7. The bottom line is that the unions are not, coming in and talking to a Minister about the State of Palestine; not being prepared to have a conversation about professional development or teacher-only days in the 12 weeks of school holidays that happen; going in as a Post Primary Teachers’ Association organisation and not taking a new deal out to their members; actually rejecting binding arbitration from senior doctors—

Hon Dr Megan Woods: The failure of your leadership.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: —all of that says it’s politically motivated, they’re not serious, they don’t care about the parents, the kids, or the patients. We do. Get to the bargaining table. Simple as.

SPEAKER: I will just point out to the person who was questioning by way of interjection the particular actions of someone else, you were referring to me, which is not at all appropriate, and wildly inaccurate, I might also say.

Question No. 7—Justice

7. TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Justice: How is the Government progressing with its plan to restore law and order?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): Well, the Government is making good progress on its plan to restore law and order. We’ve committed to restoring consequences for crime and to keep those who cause the most harm in our society off the streets for longer, to put victims back at the centre of the justice system. I could point to the progress made on our ambitious target to see 20,000 fewer victims of serious violent crime by 2029, and the most recent data released for the 12 months to May shows there were 29,000 fewer victims than when we came into Government; 9,000 ahead of our target. That is still too many victims, and we’ve got a lot more work to do, but the plan that we have is working.

Tom Rutherford: What updates can he provide on the Government’s recovery of court fines?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, our trial of clamping and seizing the cars of people who have not paid their court fines and reparations began in July and is set to expand, after it achieved more than $225,000 in fines and the seizure of 115 vehicles. In a three-month period, bailiffs scanned more than 70,000 number plates and identified 982 with overdue court fines and reparations. Of those, 278 paid on the spot, which was good, and 115 didn’t and had their cars seized. Sixteen of those have already been sold in auction, with another 52 on the way. It’s all about ensuring that people do what they’re supposed to do and that there are real consequences for a crime.

Tom Rutherford: What other actions is the Government taking to progress its plan to restore law and order?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, it is part of our quarter 4 plan. Before the end of the year, we will introduce legislation to strengthen consequences for crime in the Crimes Act, including new citizens arrest powers, a raft of coalition commitments, as well as to pass legislation to make stalking an illegal and jailable offence—a lot of talk about that over many years but this Government will do it before the end of the year. The Government is also taking policy decisions on options to provide more tools to address the rise in antisocial behaviour that continues to be an issue in places like Auckland’s CBD. We want Kiwis and visitors to this country from overseas to feel safe and welcome on Queen Street and in our other town centres.

Tom Rutherford: What updates can he provide on the Government’s youth offending reduction target?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, alongside our target to reduce the number of victims of serious crime, we’ve also got a target led by Minister Chhour to reduce the number of children and young people with serious and persistent offending by 15 percent, which, the good news is, we have achieved as a Government already. There is much more to do, but if you are a victim of crime—especially if you are victim of violent crime—it doesn’t matter how old the offender is, you and your family still suffer the consequences. That’s why it is so important that we deal more effectively with youth crime, which was out of control a couple of years ago. Good progress has been made.

Question No. 8—Public Service

8. CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) to the Minister for the Public Service: Does she stand by her statement, “An efficient, professional, and politically neutral public service is essential”?

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Acting Minister for the Public Service): Yes.

Camilla Belich: Was she or her office consulted before the Public Service Commission approved taxpayer-funded ads about the strike on Thursday, and were they involved in the content, timing, or authorisation?

Hon JAMES MEAGER: I'm not aware of the details, but I'm aware that the decision was the commissioner’s to make.

Camilla Belich: Did the Minister for the Public Service see the ads before they were published?

Hon JAMES MEAGER: I can't answer that question, sorry. I'm not aware of whether the Minister was.

Camilla Belich: Does she think it is in good faith to spend public money on messaging that attacks the bargaining position of doctors, nurses, and teachers?

Hon JAMES MEAGER: That's not what the ads did. The ads clarified the information about the offers on the table and were a perfectly valid way of drawing attention to the enormous disruption being caused to families, to children, and to patients by the ongoing strikes. It reiterates the message that if we really want to get a resolution, get around the bargaining table and settle these disputes.

Camilla Belich: Does she still stand by her claim that the strike is politically motivated, and if so, how is her own decision to attack the bargaining position of doctors, nurses, and teachers not itself politically motivated?

Hon JAMES MEAGER: Yes.

Question No. 9—Police

9. ANDY FOSTER (NZ First) to the Associate Minister of Police: What recent reports has she seen about organised crime?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Police): Last Friday, the Ministerial Advisory Group on Transnational, Serious and Organised Crime published their final report, Lead Boldly, Act Decisively. The advisory group was tasked with assessing the transnational organised crime landscape in New Zealand and proposing bold solutions, and I would like to thank them for their hard work. Their report highlights a stark reality: that transnational, serious, and organised crime is a major threat to New Zealand’s national security. Our current operational response is strong, but, across Government, there is scope for a more cohesive approach supported by the private sector and the public.

Andy Foster: What makes responding to transnational organised crime so challenging?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: There are many reasons, but I’d like to focus on two. Organised crime groups operate at the pace of technology, while Governments are constrained to operate at the pace of law. Things like encrypted devices and artificial intelligence expand criminal capabilities and allow organised crime groups to connect, and we’re seeing cartels and groups operating and growing at scale. Drugs are the most noted commodity, and they form another major challenge, because organised crime is commodity-agnostic. Organised crime will operate wherever money can be made, whether it is drugs, people trafficking, money laundering, financial scams, or child exploitation. They are sophisticated and will always target the weakest link in our defences. However, the ministerial advisory group has been clear that the challenges transnational organised crime presents are not insurmountable, and they have done an excellent job to recommend solutions.

Andy Foster: What proposals have the ministerial advisory group made?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I won’t touch on all the group’s recommendations, because they are numerous and detailed, but, instead, I’d like to speak to their focus, which has been on four key themes. The first is creating cohesion and accountability across Government. The second is about targeting cashflows. The third is our role in supporting our Pacific neighbours. And, finally, the advisory group has highlighted the need to strengthen our communities and build resilience to organised crime.

Andy Foster: Given the wide-ranging recommendations of the ministerial advisory group, are we currently failing in the fight against organised crime?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: No. Like many countries, we are not winning, but we certainly are not failing. As I stated in my response to the primary question, operational agencies like Police and Customs are doing great work, and we’re seeing the results of that excellence regularly. We’re seizing record levels of drugs. In the last financial year, more than nine tonnes of illicit drugs were stopped from entering New Zealand. We’re also stopping illicit tobacco and child-exploitation material with increasing frequency and at increasing scale. We know we need to keep lifting our game in response to the threat proposed, and we’re not sitting on our hands. We’ve been focused on finding solutions and improving operational performance, and that focus will continue. The ministerial advisory group report provides a bold vision and presents an opportunity to drive further innovation and effectiveness in how we respond to organised crime.

Question No. 10—Internal Affairs

10. LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour—Māngere) to the Minister of Internal Affairs: Is she confident that firefighters have the appliances and equipment they need to keep them safe on the job; if so, why?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Minister of Internal Affairs: Yes, and I’m sure that the Minister would want me to say that she’s incredibly proud of the efforts that New Zealand’s firefighters make. They are some of the most trusted New Zealanders, some of the only New Zealanders who have a job of going into dangerous environments deliberately, and from my experience of visiting fire stations, absolute backbones, and great New Zealanders. We’re confident that they have the equipment in spite of a long legacy of decay. Since the merger of the voluntary and professional fire services in 2017, there has been a long period of time where the rate of replacement of fire engines has not kept up in such a way that it’s kept the average age down. In the last two years, an asset management plan has been put in place for the first time, which is quite a shocking revelation—that it’s only been done in the last two years. At the same time, $20 million to $25 million per year is being invested in new fire trucks. Currently, 78 are on order, including five aerial appliances. However, they tend to take 18 to 24 months to be delivered. We are grateful for our firefighters. We are confident that they’re safe, but we acknowledge historic problems that we are resolving.

SPEAKER: I would assume that that was such a comprehensive answer that the rest of it can be quite concise. That was an exceptionally long answer.

Hon David Seymour: But it was very detailed.

SPEAKER: Well, there was the sort of detail that probably is just a little bit more than might have been expected in the House.

Lemauga Lydia Sosene: Does she agree with the Professional Firefighters Union that “FENZ is driving emergency response into the ground [and] with the failing fire appliances, unsafe stations, refusal to increase staffing,”; if not, why not?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: I’m sure that a Labour member will realise that red things aren’t always reliable. However, there is a commitment, as I have mentioned, to upgrade the fire appliance fleet, which is under way, in order to address those concerns.

Lemauga Lydia Sosene: Does she agree with Brooke van Velden that all parties need to get around the bargaining table; if so, why has Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) failed to front up for bargaining?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: We do agree with that, and FENZ, through the Public Service Commission, is certainly being represented. Bargaining is available. It’s simply a question of the firefighters turning up.

Lemauga Lydia Sosene: Why should firefighters accept a pay offer that is a pay cut in real terms?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: The precise negotiations are being handled by the Public Service Commission, but I would make the point that, like all public service jobs, it is New Zealanders who have to pay for them, overwhelmingly, in the case of fire, through levies put on people’s home insurance. It is easy, in Opposition, to say that you think everybody should be paid more. However, it is also true that in these negotiations there are two sides that must be represented, and one of those are the New Zealanders who pay the cost.

Lemauga Lydia Sosene: Is the Professional Firefighters Union correct that the “job of a firefighter is now more dangerous than it was in the 1990s.”, and, if so, will she instruct FENZ to make a real, sensible offer to ensure our firefighters are safe at work?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: First of all, we don’t have—or at least I’m not aware of, on behalf of the Minister of Internal Affairs—a comparison that would validate or invalidate that comparison with the 1990s. What I do know is that FENZ is extremely wary of the dangers that firefighters face. As I mentioned in my initial answer, we recognise that they are the only group of New Zealanders—or one of the few—who are required to go into dangerous environments as part of their work. None the less, it’s not true that money makes up for danger. We must take health and safety as a priority—perhaps above all else.

Question No. 11—Health

11. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) to the Minister of Health: Does he agree with the Prime Minister that nurses have safe working conditions; if so, why?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health): Yes, I do agree with the Prime Minister. Since coming into office, this Government has added around 2,000 more nurses to the public health system compared to 2023, alongside hundreds of additional doctors. That's backed by a record additional $16.68 billion investment in health over three Budgets, including initiatives focused on improving workplace safety and reducing wait-lists for patients. Health New Zealand is committed to safe care, that's why we're growing the health workforce and holding the system accountable through clear health targets, so patients get the care they need when they need it.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Do current staffing levels in our hospital provide for safe working conditions; if so, how?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: As I said, we have continued to increase the number of nurses working in our health system—around 2,000 more nurses compared to 2023, alongside hundreds of additional doctors. We'll continue to focus on our front-line service delivery and reduce wait-lists for patients. And I’ll say to the member: one of the biggest risks in our health system is the waiting times for patients. Those wait-lists are only going to increase with tomorrow's strikes.

Ricardo Menéndez March: What does he say to Ali, a registered nurse who said, “I am very upset and shocked by the Prime Minister stating we have safe working conditions. Our wards are critically under-staffed; patients are not receiving the care they need and deserve.”?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, I say to that individual that this Government is continuing to invest in more nursing staff in our hospitals. Around 2,000 more nurses in the public health system compared to the Labour-Greens Government, which we inherited the challenges of our health system from. We're focused on front-line service delivery while they were focused on restructuring bureaucracy.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Who is correct: nurses across the country who are telling us that they do not have safe working conditions or the Prime Minister who said that nurses have safe working conditions?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, the facts speak for themselves, and the facts are that there are more nurses working at Health New Zealand today than under the Labour-Greens coalition, which was more focused on restructuring our health system during a pandemic. We're focused on health delivery; they were focused on rearranging bureaucracy.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Why is he not recognising that nurses are telling us across the country that they're not experiencing safe working conditions as a result of current understaffing?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, there's a range of things that this Government is doing to invest in our nursing workforce, to invest in delivery for patients. Under this Government, the number of nurses working in Health New Zealand has increased. They are providing quality care and they do an incredible job on behalf for our patients. Quality safety measures are stable or improving over the past five years. We're investing in regular training for staff. We're investing in security in our emergency departments. We're continuing to invest in our nursing workforce and in our medical workforces, and we've also put health targets in place which show that we are starting to see progress after the last Government allowed wait-lists to balloon whilst they fiddled with the bureaucracy. We're focused on patients; they're focused on bureaucracy.

Question No, 12—Mental Health

12. Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill) to the Minister for Mental Health: What recent announcements has he made on rolling out new mental health services in emergency departments?

Hon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health): Our mental health plan is focused on delivering results: faster access to support, more front-line workers, and a better crisis response. Recently, I announced the introduction of peer support workers in the North Shore emergency department, completing the roll-out of the service across all three major Auckland hospitals alongside Dunedin, Christchurch, Wellington, and Waikato hospitals. For anyone in mental health crisis, arriving at a busy emergency department can be overwhelming. Having a peer support specialist who understands what they're going through can make a real difference. No matter where you live, this Government is committed to ensuring that timely support is there.

Dr Carlos Cheung: Why are peer support workers part of Government plans to improve crisis response in mental health?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: I've always been open that one of the biggest barriers to timely mental health support in New Zealand is too many workforce vacancies. Peer support specialists are available to listen, share their experience, and provide timely support. They can also link people to community mental health services, resulting in better outcomes once they leave hospital. Whether your child, a friend, or a family member is reaching out for support, we're committed to ensuring support is there.

Dr Carlos Cheung: What feedback has the Minister received about the impact of peer support workers?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: One of my top priorities is strengthening prevention and early intervention. The feedback from hospitals with peer support workers has been very positive. A peer support worker in Wellington told me how surreal it was to be helping others in the same emergency department they came through in crisis a few years earlier. In Dunedin, a former patient told me that on the worst day of her life, this is exactly the type of service she wishes she had when she was struggling. To deliver a better crisis response we want to ensure there is someone to call, someone to respond, and somewhere to go.

Dr Carlos Cheung: Where else are peer support workers being used to improve mental health services?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Our mental health plan is working. We are delivering, reducing wait times, and increasing the workforce. Since coming into Government, the peer support lived experience workforce has grown by almost 100 percent. Not only are we rolling out peer support workers in emergency departments but also in crisis recovery cafes, eating disorder services, and to help young people with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. When someone takes a step of reaching out for support, workforce should never be a barrier.

Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke: Will the Minister investigate the mental health crisis in Thames following a serious mental health incident that was brought to his attention by a local mental health rangatira in Hauraki earlier this Monday?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: I think it's always important that we respond to people who lay some serious concerns about the mental health system. As the mental health Minister, how I hold myself to account, and this Government does, is setting New Zealand's first mental health targets. For the first time in New Zealand, we can use the data to go into communities around New Zealand and understand the level of access to that timely support. That will get rid of the postcode lottery for mental health in New Zealand.

Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke: How will his new announcements on mental health services address the lack of coordination and unwillingness of public services and agencies in Hauraki to intervene in serious incidents?

Hon Matt Doocey: Well, that member raises a significant point. New Zealanders’ experience traditionally of the mental health system is one of fragmentation and, actually, it takes too long to be seen. That's why this function of this Government is to join up the mental health system and provide faster access to support. That is why we are now able to go back to the 20 health districts, understand the performance of each of those areas, and ensure they deliver a level of service Kiwis should expect in mental health: one week for primary mental health and addiction support; three weeks for specialist mental health and addiction support.

Question No. 10 to Minister—Amended Answer

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Deputy Prime Minister): Point of order. Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation to correct an answer to a question.

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

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: In my answer to question No. 10, I suggested that the Public Service Commission was negotiating on behalf of Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ). That is in fact not true. FENZ is negotiating on behalf of FENZ.

SPEAKER: Thank you for that clarification. As members leave the House over the next 30 seconds, please do so quickly, quietly, and without any discussions in the aisles.

General Debate

General Debate

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

Two years into the term of this Government, it is now abundantly clear that all they have to offer New Zealanders is blame, excuses, and anger. Haven't we seen that this week—how angry they have looked this week? An opportunity comes along every day for the Government to tell New Zealanders how things are getting better, how they are improving the conditions in this country, and all this Government could do this week was look angry and talk about the Opposition. I can tell you from past experience: when the Government spends its whole week talking about the Opposition, it's a sure sign that things are in trouble on the other side of the House.

New Zealanders are looking to this Government for a sense that things will get better; that New Zealand can be a place where our kids want to stay, where they see a future, and where opportunities abound. Where, if you work hard, if you play by the rules, if you take pride in your work, you'll see the rewards that flow from that hard work. That you'll have a sense of security; that you'll be able to make life better for yourself and for your families; that you'll be able to access healthcare when you need it; and that you'll have a place that you can call home, where you can be secure and you can be part of a community. Most importantly of all, where you have hope for a better future.

New Zealanders elected this Government on the basis that they thought they had a plan for the future. It is now abundantly clear they don't have a plan now and they never had one—because we can see that under this Government, for two years, things have been going backwards. Our economy has been shrinking. Jobs have been disappearing. Unemployment is increasing. The number of people lining up for a job seeker benefit continues to climb. The cost of living, far from being fixed, continues to go up. Homelessness is increasing; more people living rough on the streets. Kids living in poverty—that number is going up as well. The number of businesses going broke continues to climb. New Zealanders are voting with their feet; record numbers of New Zealanders are simply giving up and leaving the country.

As a parent of young New Zealanders, this is something that I spend a lot of time thinking about. When I speak to other parents outside the school gate or at kids’ birthday parties, one of the questions that is front of mind for all of them is: when our kids reach the age when they enter into the workforce, are they going to stay? When they go off and do their OE, are they going to come back? Because we all know far too many examples of people who are leaving—young New Zealanders, in particular; talented, bright, the future of our country, giving up and leaving with no intention of coming back. Instead of giving those young New Zealanders hope, we have a Government that describes New Zealand as “wet, whiny and miserable”; that calls New Zealanders “bottom-feeders”; and that says that our emerging businesses, those who are creating the jobs of the future, are “C-listers” and unworthy of Government support.

It doesn't have to be this way. We can have a future that is made in New Zealand, by New Zealanders, for New Zealanders. We can back ourselves. We can invest in ourselves. While this Government offers asset sales, we on this side of the House say we should be investing in assets. We should be investing in a better future for New Zealanders. While that Government over there wants to sell off what's left, we want to leave a better legacy for the next generation of New Zealanders. While they wait for foreign billionaires to come and save us, we say we should be backing ourselves. We should be backing Kiwi businesses to create jobs, to keep talented New Zealanders in this country, and to create the future that New Zealanders deserve.

A future fund that uses our existing asset base to grow opportunities and grow jobs for New Zealand—a Government that backs innovation here in New Zealand is what the Labour Party stands for. The game development rebate that's created jobs, that’s seen the gaming development sector grow by nearly 80 percent during the 2½ years that that rebate has been in place—they want it expanded. This Government said no. We say yes on this side of the House, because we want to back our innovators. We want to back those people who go to work every day to create jobs and create opportunity. Where that Government says no, no, no, when they offer cut, cut, cut, we say yes, yes, yes, and we will invest, invest, invest in the future of this country.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Two years—14 October marked two years. What’s the job of the Opposition? To come up with policies—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Hang on. Take your seat. If you’re leaving the House, leave quietly. The Hon Louise Upston, start again.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: One job—they’ve got one job: come up with some policies to actually back up their words. They’ve got lots of words, but nothing to back it up.

There was a bit of anticipation. After the two-year mark, what were New Zealanders waiting for? They were waiting for some policy—waiting for some policy. What did we get? They were so patient, waiting for a policy, waiting for a plan, waiting for something from the Opposition. What did we get?

Unfortunately, what we heard on Monday took us right back to the horror show of October 2023, where New Zealanders voted out a Government who was taxing more, spending more, and who was reckless with their tax money. What did they come up with? Well, actually, nobody seems to know what they were actually talking about.

Eleven pages; no detail. I think there was one figure. Oh, and there was a photo of Chris Hipkins—that’s meant to fill in the blanks of the detail of this future fund. They don’t even understand how Temasek works: when you buy assets, you then sell assets for ones that have better returns. That’s basic economics, basic trading, basic investment. Unfortunately, New Zealanders would have been really disappointed by—well, actually, probably not surprised, really, in terms of the stupid, illiterate nonsense that we got served up. But don’t take it from my words. It was described as a flop; vague; lacking in any meaningful costings, asset listings, or clarity.

What we heard was the Leader of the Opposition saying one thing; the finance spokesperson saying something else. I mean, aren’t they meant to be hand in glove? Aren’t they meant to be in alignment? But we saw none of that—again—which is an absolute disaster for the Labour Party, and it’s high time that they actually recognised that when you’re going to announce a policy, you should have the detail, you should have your two lead people who are spokespersons for it who actually understand and are on the same page.

What did we see? Less than 24 hours later, another major policy announcement that the leader didn’t even know about. How was that look—how was that look—of absolute shock and horror about a policy that had been announced earlier in the day that he didn’t seem to know anything about? When you think about what’s happening over the other side two years in, I think they’re living their own horror show over there. Their financial and economic credibility continues to be in the grave, and, unfortunately, it’s a pattern. We see policy roll-outs that no one’s been briefed on, half-baked economic proposals, and they live in a fantasy land.

New Zealanders deserve better than that—they deserve better than that. That is why our side of the Chamber is absolutely focused on delivering for them. If you just think this week: roads of national significance. We’ve already got a programme of roads that are being rolled out as we speak, and those that were announced by Chris Bishop this week show the next pipeline of significant roads of national significance that are game-changers for our cities, for our regions, and for our communities. Yes, they create jobs, but, yes, they provide really critical infrastructure. Actually, on this side of the House, when we plan infrastructure, we’ve actually got a plan for how we’re paying for that project; unlike the economically illiterate on the other side of the Chamber.

We heard earlier from the Minister of Justice about the progress we’re making on violent crime reduction, aimed at ensuring that there are 20,000 fewer victims of crime. And on youth offending, we’re also well on track with our targets.

Just this week, we’ve introduced two more non-financial sanctions for those on welfare, and it’s very much focused on jobseekers who are not playing their part. We want to see a welfare system that is far more active and responsive and where people are preparing and doing their bit. It’s great to see the number of people exiting the jobseeker benefit for employment.

If we look at inflation: inflation has stayed within the band of 1 percent to 3 percent. From a high of 7.3 percent—eight official cash rate drops. That is incredibly significant. That comes from fiscal discipline. It comes from understanding economic levers. It comes from understanding that you have to reduce wasteful spending, and focus on getting outcomes and results. In terms of economic growth, we are seeing progress in tourism, in dairy, in red meat, and in gaming. Our side of the House is delivering. We’re not a horror show like the other side.

SPEAKER: Just before I call the next member, there was quite a bit of ongoing commentary during that last speech. I have noticed voices like that over question time and other days as well. I didn’t see where it was coming from because there was a glass that was obscuring that head from which it was emitting. But, with less people in the House, it’s now clear where it was coming from. I suggest it should just stop.

Hon MARK PATTERSON (Associate Minister of Agriculture): Well, it’s finally happened: Labour have announced a policy. And I have to disagree somewhat with my National colleague, because we do think it has some merit. We do believe in New Zealand ownership of our assets. Our main issue is it’s one of our policies, one that the Rt Hon Winston Peters announced some 14 months ago at our 2024 convention. They’re like a cheap tributes band. I see them more as Cliff Richard and the Shadows, and I see us as a bit more like The Rolling Stones. It’s so lacking in originality in terms of a policy platform, and of two years of policy seances, that’s the best they could come up with: a pale, cheap rip-off of our $100 billion sovereign wealth fund, announced some 14 months ago. But I will give it something; at least Chris Hipkins knew that this policy was being announced.

Look, it is a tepid toe in the water; it is lacking the grunt of the New Zealand First original. It is not big, it is not transformational, and it is not nation building like the policies we’ll be taking to the election. New Zealand First has a track record, the fast-track legislation that we proposed and brought in through this coalition agreement. We’d been proponents of the fast track and proponents of the regional infrastructure fund, and its predecessor, the provincial growth fund. We’d been champions, through Hon Shane Jones, of mining, aquaculture, and energy, through the supercritical geothermal—big, nation-building things; jobs, growth in our regions. My favourite is the efforts we’re putting in to reviving the New Zealand wool industry. Wool is coming back.

We are witnessing the revival of this great fibre. We have a massive heritage in wool, and New Zealand has been literally built off the sheep’s back. The turn around is on: strong wool—I should have told the Prime Minister this; he could have quoted it earlier—up 32 percent this year; fine wool: up 34 percent; and mid-micron wool up 41 percent.

Nine-year highs, most of that in the last few weeks; a surge in demand for New Zealand wool, in a strong wind, and a return to natural fibre. It’s biodegradable, it’s flame retardant, it’s moisture absorbent, it’s anti-allergenic, it’s carbon negative. There are no microplastics and it doesn’t need treating with toxic Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)—forever chemicals. Hon Todd McClay wants to eat it, it’s that good. It’s a miracle fibre with which synthetics can’t compete.

This revival hasn’t happened by accident. There has been strong leadership from the Government, and the sector is rallying; it is uniting. This famously disparate industry is coming together. We are consulting with farmers on a wool alliance—some groups aligned with wool coming together for the promotion, advocacy, skills development, and R&D—an industry-good body for which we haven't seen for over a decade and a half.

The Government has put its money where its mouth is: New Zealand First and National and a coalition agreement to put wool back into Government buildings. Yes, that drives demand, but it's an important market signal and one that has been picked up not just domestically, but internationally. If we're not prepared to use wool in our own buildings, how can we ask anyone else? We've invested in innovation, developing higher value end uses. It will not only be more carpets and insulation, it'll be air filtration; sanitary, medicinal products; breaking into component parts, pigments, particles, powders, bio agents for dyes and nutraceuticals. That's transformation; that's a $100-a-kilo opportunity. We're not only changing the game, we're moving on to a whole new playing field.

We're shortening supply chains and strengthening links between global suppliers and our growers, right here in rural New Zealand. It gets even better: investment is coming to onshore manufacturing, not just exporting the raw materials; adding value for New Zealand in New Zealand, and creating jobs in our regions. I'm determined that wool will be one of the great comeback stories of New Zealand agriculture, adding to its storied heritage, restoring pride for our growers and wool harvesters, and much needed profitability, back for our hard-working hill country farmers. Our sector is determined to play our part and make our contribution to doubling New Zealand's exports.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you, Mr Speaker—and that is how you do a general debate speech when you are in Government: you talk about the policies that you are undertaking; you talk about the sectors you are backing; and you also talk about all the other ideas that you actually back as well, such as the Labour Party’s Future Fund. To the member’s point: you can say that Labour copied you—however, the problem is, I couldn’t find any detail on your particular policy to be able to copy. Nevertheless, I absolutely applaud your support for the Labour Party Future Fund and look forward to working with you on improving the Future Fund for the benefit of all New Zealanders.

I just want to take a moment to acknowledge the passing of my father-in-law, Bill Harris Edmonds. Bill Harris Edmonds, my father-in-law, passed away in the last September recess. He was my father-in-law for 27 years; he was the grandfather of 25 mokopuna, and so I want to say ia manuia lau malaga, Papa, you’re an amazing man, and we love you for it.

The important reason I wanted to talk about Bill is because his story is a very Kiwi story. Their family owned a family farm in Kaikohe, in the regions; his parents joined a number of Māori who left the regions and came to the city—the urban migration—because there were jobs in the city post World War II. His parents came to Auckland City to take up jobs. Bill and his beautiful wife, Memory, established their family in South Auckland, and it was from those roots that their family was able to keep going back to their papa kāinga in Kaikohe, to be able to support the farm up there, but also to be able to work here. It was a generational decision; it was a decision about what other decisions we need to make today as parents to enable our children to have better opportunities.

Unfortunately, that story is no longer possible. We can’t have the regional shifts to the urban areas—we can’t have that any more, because what’s happening now is that there are no more opportunities, both in the cities and rurally. We look at all the different factories across our country that have had to close down quite recently—in Tokoroa, in Ruapehu, in all the different regional areas. Migration to urban areas is no longer possible; with high unemployment in the different city areas, people are going offshore. Two hundred people every day—a plane load every day—are now going offshore because they can no longer find the opportunities for them, for their children, and for their families. That’s why—a plane load a day!—we should never ever take for granted how many people that is per day, with record migration.

The problem for me is that this Government has no plan for that, to stem that brain-drain. The fact that we have lost almost the size of Napier City in the last year should be concerning every single one of those Government backbenchers, because Kiwis vote with their feet. If they’re not offshore, they’ll be here, and if they can’t see a future for their children, for the families, for their friends—bye-bye. That’s exactly what these Kiwis across the country are having to do right now, and it’s because this Government’s plan of “growth, growth, growth”, well, it’s not growing for them. The only thing that seems to be growing is growing unemployment, growing joblessness. There’s going to be growing migration, growing business liquidations. Every single time the public hears the phrase, “We’re going to grow the country”—“Grow it for who?” Kiwis are asking. Right now, time and time again, people are saying, “We can’t afford bread”, “We can’t afford milk”, “We can’t afford cheese”, “We can’t afford mince.” That’s not the Kiwi society that our children should be growing up in or that future generations should be growing up in.

Labour has a plan for that—Labour has a plan. In the same way that Minister Bishop kept referencing the Super Fund, it is the same way that those decisions that Sir Michael Cullen thought about—about the future generational costs. That is why Labour is proposing to set up a future fund—a future fund that backs Kiwis—

Tim Costley: What’s going in it?

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: —that backs the investment. Tim Costley from Kāpiti asks, “What’s going in it?” Read the plan. Just read it for yourselves. Maybe you should copy it. Maybe you should copy it so you actually have a plan other than house prices rising and growing record migration to Australia.

Labour wants to back New Zealand to make a New Zealand for ourselves, because we know we have the skills and talent; we know we have the ideas. What they lack is backing, and Labour is going to back Kiwi businesses to help grow our country and make sure our children stay onshore.

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture): The best speech today in this debate, far and away—so far, with the exception probably of Louise Upston's, and let's see, perhaps mine, was Mark Patterson’s. Because not only did he say that actually the idea that the Labour leader remembered to talk about this week was that of New Zealand's First. He got them to say that there was no detail in the New Zealand First policy, which isn't true. Which just goes to show that when Chris Hipkins stood up there to use someone else's homework, he didn't read to the end of the document. Because if he would have, he would have been able to answer the very, very many questions that were asked of him.

We've heard other speakers in the debate say that when you give a debate in this and you're in Government, you should be talking about what you've been doing. Well, I've done a quick scan of the newspapers and their reaction to Chris Hipkins, after two years, coming up with something that isn't a problem, it isn't a plan, it's a sound bite with no detail at all that says to New Zealanders, “If we chuck the word ‘future’ in it, hopefully you'll think we have an idea for the future.”

Actually, here's a list for you on the economy. In the last two years, this Government has reduced inflation, got it down from record levels to one now that businesses have confidence to invest. Finally, New Zealanders understand the harm that's done when a Government borrows money, taxes money, and spends it on things that are not productive. We've got interest rates down, that is saving money for every single household in New Zealand that has a mortgage, and businesses that actually have debt run up because that Labour Government kept us in lockdown far too long compared to most countries in the world and businesses are failing. We've stopped the wasteful spending. By comparison, the headline says “Labour's future fund promises everything—and nothing” and “Labour's Future Fund: a shaky policy debut”.

In education: we've improved student achievement already, something that they should have been doing: one hour reading, writing, and maths every single day for students in New Zealand, with record investment in school buildings that will help students learn—not just the sound bite—and what did we see from the media about Chris Hipkins’ announcement of something in the future he called a fund: “‘Drivel’ vs ‘lazy’” and “Future Fund or future flop?”

In trade and export: two trade deals done already. The EU deal in place much sooner than we were told was going to be the case. And we have seen a trade negotiation start with India when that Government, Labour, said it was not a priority for them: $12 billion of extra exports. And what do we say here in the media: “… hits the buzzwords, but the rationale is hard to follow”. And actually, this is one of my favourites: “Chris Hipkins’ policy, after two years, given 3 out of 10 by the business community”.

On law and order: we've banned gangs wearing patches and they've stopped doing it—police have record of efforts upon the gangs. We have reduced ram raids from records high all over the country, when New Zealanders were just expecting when they got out of bed there would be another ram raid in their community to now a level so low that we hardly hear about them. We've got on top of violent crime—and let me see, another one. Here's the best one: “What, exactly, will Labour’s new Future Fund achieve?”—with the biggest question mark I've seen in a newspaper. And here's one from this morning: “After two years of waiting for some policy, Chris Hipkins sitting there quietly saying the policies are coming, we've been doing our work.” I think Labour knows how bad this policy idea is.

Final one, because Mark Patterson was talking about our farmers. You know, actually, farmers are the backbone of this country and of the economy. Anybody who doesn't know that really just has to understand that 80 percent of all our goods exports that go overseas come from the primary sector. When Mark Patterson and I sat down before the Government was formed to talk about how to support farmers and wool, he said that he wanted to take the responsibility on. And we have started to see confidence in wool farmers, the use of wool going up, and the price starting to go up. Because we back farmers. That's what you do in Government. You don't come up with a slogan and put the word “future” in it. Mark Patterson and I didn't say we're going to have a “Future Fund” for farmers who grow wool. We said we're going to put our heads down and work very, very hard. He's done that all over New Zealand and he is delivering for those farmers.

One small word of advice to Mr Hipkins, who doesn't take advice well: read to the end of the policy. If you're going to steal it from somebody else, swot on all the things and when you get asked a question by the media the first time you can't answer it go and get the answers. Don't keep saying “I will tell you later”, because later it's far too late.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Kia ora. I wanted to reflect on the birth of Te Pāti Māori. Recently, having seen the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) (Customary Marine Title) Amendment Bill and what it was, to crossing the floor. Crossing the floor was as much about crossing a line that had been drawn against our people for generations—a line that marginalised Māori, that kept the margins of power and Te Tiriti, and the footnotes in the history of this place. And actually, it was a line that was drawn when Labour forgot about Te Tiriti o Waitangi, hapū, and iwi who never surrendered their foreshore and seabed. This isn't a dig at Labour; this is actually a differentiation of Te Pāti Māori and the genesis of who we are.

Our starting point and centre point have always been about Te Tiriti o Waitangi. In our kaupapa, I'm deeply entrenched in the belief of constitutional transformation. So our whole purpose, I guess, has been about making sure that we are here to make people uncomfortable and we will never accept the status quo and we will bring issues to the front. Sometimes people prefer silence on some of those issues, whether it be about inequity and inequality, racism, Treaty breaches, and colonisation in practice.

I mean, we won't whisper about the political environment that we are in today. That has been shaped by right-wing influence, with billionaires at these think tanks and media owned by those who fear Māori self-determination, those donors who fund the outrage machines that attack Māori politicians for daring to believe and promote an Aotearoa hou. In fact, I think without Te Pāti Māori this Parliament would risk slipping back into a comfort where Te Tiriti is a decoration, and justice of Te Tiriti is delayed for generations.

I want to talk about an environment where every Māori voice that challenges the colonial construct today becomes a target of the same hands that profit from the inequality that is shaping the public opinion of Māori, whether that be through the news and whether it be through any other media. The opinions that we see on Māori are extremely hypocritical. What we have heard—and I'm going to say this straight up for everyone to hear—is that nothing that is going on in Te Pāti Māori is as rotten as some of the things that we have gone and seen in other parties. We have seen ex-presidents with paedophilia convictions. We have seen the rolling of four party leaders in six months. We have seen MPs resigning for sexting, and another stood down for being investigated for past misconduct with fake online profiles. And dare I mention Jami-Lee Ross?

The biggest hypocrisy that we see going on in Aotearoa is its inability to confront its own honesty. Then yesterday we saw the biggest land grab be heightened by another grab from this Government that has taken us back 20 years. In fact, what we want to do is acknowledge the fact that people in Aotearoa are leaving in droves.

I want talk about our solutions, because one of the things we never hear from the any party in this place is the fact and the size of the tax evasion that goes on in Aotearoa. In fact, the sad part of it is that only 1 percent is actually welfare fraud, $80 million. We have $629.4 billion fraud that goes on in this country, and this country does nothing about it. Te Pāti Māori intends to. In fact, what we believe 2026 will be is the tightening of and the changing of the guard—thank goodness—and the reclaiming of a pen to reshape the laws that this country needs to have. We need to redistribute wealth—

Hon Member: Uh, oh!

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER: —once and for all. Well, uh, oh to some of the things that we've seen come out of this because people will be coming home and not leaving in droves like we see. The GDP will not be shrunk like we see this Government doing.

We need to tax the wealthy. We need to tax those who are making all the biggest noises with the mass homeownership. We need to tax ghost houses. We need to tax and pursue tax evasion. We need to then be able to redistribute that money. In our estimation, that will help make sure that we can look after all New Zealanders in this country, because right now the way that it's going, it is only a nation and a Government that looks after the super elite. We want to be able to confront and make this a country where every New Zealander gets looked after and gets seen and gets heard and we leave no one behind, which is what we see this Government has been doing shamelessly—shamelessly. When we sit there, we can actually have a country where we bring people into it and they like who we are; they actually like tangata whenua.

That is who Te Pāti Māori is. That is what we will intend to do when we get that pen and we reshape it and we make sure that we never have the shame of the nation that has turned its back on its own rangatahi, it’s 18- to 19-year-olds. Kia ora rā.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition was caught eyes wide and eyebrows raised when asked about what his health spokesperson had unveiled in a New Zealand Doctor article: a new policy on GP fees and funding. It was a moment of genuine surprise caught on camera, destined for memes, and yet the policy landed with a bit of a thud. There was a polite wait and see from most, but not from me—oh no, not from me. My response is neither muted nor polite because what we saw wasn’t bold or visionary. It was recycled, it was uninspired, it was lazy, and, worst of all, it merely reflected what is actually happening already.

If people thought that the future fund was bad, this is even worse. Maybe they’re saving up their best stuff for next year, for the election. But if that was an appetiser, then I’m not hungry for any more.

This wasn’t the first time that Labour has made promises about GP fees. In 2017, they pledged to reduce fees and review funding, but once in Government, that promise vanished. What followed were working groups, consultations, and, ultimately, abandonment. Instead of fixing GP funding, they chose to upend the entire health system.

I remember those years vividly. I was working as a GP in the system. I saw the confusion, the disruption, the chaos, the reports written, and then recommendations made and ignored. The result was a textbook example of how not to do change management. They couldn’t organise a bun fight in a bakery.

In 2022, Minister Little quietly commissioned a Sapere report on health funding. It revealed what many of us already knew: general practice had been underfunded for decades.

Rima Nakhle: Decades.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK: Decades. The report called for a significant uplift of up to 231 percent for very low-cost access practices. It also recommended reforming the capitation formula for funding to reflect age, ethnicity, morbidity, and gender. Sound familiar? Yes, well, that’s because the Moodie report commissioned by the previous National Government in 2015 had proposed exactly the same.

Labour had the evidence and they had the recommendations, but they failed to act. Now, under National, we are delivering. A new capitation model will be in place by July 2026. We’ve implemented the largest increase to baseline funding since capitation began. We’re not just talking; we’re doing.

I’ve sat on the PHO Services Agreement Amendment Protocol forum, or PSAAP. I’ve seen how GP fees are set—effectively by an independent economist. The annual statement of reasonable fee increases, or ASFRI process, is apolitical. It’s often retrospective. It’s not perfect. It misses major cost shifts like nurse pay parity, but getting an annual recommendation from Sapere is basically what Dr Verrall called for in her opinion piece—exactly what is already happening now through the ASFRI at PSAAP. What Labour is proposing isn’t new; it’s how the system already works.

Camilla Belich: Why does the GenPro like it so much, then?

Dr VANESSA WEENINK: Well, they like it because you’re saying that you might hold yourselves to it, which is never going to happen.

What Labour proposes isn’t new; it’s just not anything interesting, and yet Dr Verrall’s article presents it as a fresh idea. It’s painful to read. It’s like watching someone reinvent the wheel, only they’ve made it square. Obligating the Government to fund externally recommended levels while capping fees is fiscally risky. Mr Hipkins has called the policy minor. That’s only true if they don’t commit to any of it, which they won’t.

Of course, it’s not just about money; it’s about people. Our Government is also increasing the funding for GP trainees so that they’re on par with other specialist trainees and have their fees and exam costs funded for the duration of their training. We’ve increased the number of medical school places, and we’re also very excited to be starting building work on a new medical school that will focus on rural and community health. This is badly needed.

This isn’t just about policy. It’s about trust, it’s about competence, and it’s about valuing our GPs—the backbone of our health system. I say to this House and to every New Zealander listening, reject recycled ideas, reject superficial fixes, and demand better. Let us be bold. Let us be principled. Let us be relentless in our pursuit of a health system that works for everyone, because when we get primary care right, we build the foundation for a healthier, stronger New Zealand. Together, let’s deliver the change our communities deserve.

LAURA McCLURE (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Today, I want to talk about online harm and the digital landscape facing our young people. There are genuine concerns around online safety and rising issues around cyber-bullying, online exploitation, AI chatbots, AI girlfriends—all of these types of technology that our young people are using—and they leave people feeling quite powerless at times. We know that they are causing harm out there. We know that our young people are having AI chatbot girlfriends and being told, potentially, to kill themselves. There is serious, serious harm. I hear from parents, principals, and teachers all the time about their concerns. They struggle with their children in this fast-paced world that we’re growing. I think this is something that we are facing as a society. It is something that we should have seen coming but we haven’t, and now it is here and it’s faster than we could even imagine.

There’s a growing temptation in politics to do something about this, but often we focus on blanket bans. It feels like we’ve moved away from cancel culture and we’re now heading towards ban culture, and that is a dangerous place to be. We need to do something about these issues, but we need sophisticated solutions. We can’t just go out there and say we’re going to ban the internet. It’s just not practical and it’s not the world we live in, particularly not for our young people. We’ve seen countries like the UK and their Online Safety Act struggle to deal with the issues effectively that have become instead bureaucratic nightmares. There are concerns about data sovereignty and data breaches, and it’s a real scary thing to consider. But also, on the positive side, New Zealand can watch and we can learn and we can see what is happening in these countries in order to make none of the same mistakes and take all of the good things from that.

My colleague Dr Parmjeet Parmar has successfully called for the select committee inquiry to define the actual problems and hear from the experts that work in this field. I was able to submit to this inquiry and talk about my experiences, what people have said to me, and what they’re telling me that they are feeling about being a parent and being concerned, but what I want to say today, as well, is that the Government is doing our part. We are looking into these issues and we’re trying to come up with solutions.

But, parents, wake up—you guys need to get online yourselves or check out what your children are viewing online. There are a lot of advocacy groups out there doing a lot of work. They’re calling for regulation, and there may be a case for that, but parents need to take some responsibility. It is not that hard to find out what your kids are doing online. There are apps available right now where you—

Hon Karen Chhour: Yep—free apps.

LAURA McCLURE: They’re free—“free apps”, I heard someone say. There are free apps where you can monitor your child’s online activity and you can do things like screen time, for example. You can block websites. You can control the apps and things that they’re on. I can tell you right now that the things that they are seeing online are extremely damaging and harmful. If you haven’t done it already, you need to do it. You need to take some responsibility there.

Instead of trying to fix everything that we can about the internet, we could actually fix things and issues that we know are real right now and we know would be an easy win. One of those would be deepfakes. It’s been four months since I put my member’s bill into the tin, and it could sit there for ever. At the time, I shared the stories of those that had been traumatised by this form of digital harm, but what I didn’t expect was the global exposure this would get and the flurries of further concerns that came through into my inbox.

We’re not talking about a bit of fun, or a bit of a joke; we’re talking about young individuals, nearly always female, that are finding themselves abused by this kind of behaviour. Having your image taken and turned into some kind of pornography is so damaging. One of the survivors of this has found herself unable to get a job, for example, because her potential employer googled her and found pornography that wasn’t even her. Dropping out of high school, dropping out of university—these are serious things.

While I’ve got, particularly, Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke in the House, I just want to say thank you so much for supporting this bill. I know that when I came to Parliament, I wanted to make a difference, and it really, really upsets me and it kind of annoys me that senior leadership of the other parties could do something about this. We could actually debate this on the next member’s day. This doesn’t have to be a political issue, but instead we are making it a political issue.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. New Zealand has amazing talent and some of the smartest ideas in the world, but the bit we don’t have right now is the backing to take those ideas, to make sure they stay ours, and for them to work for us smarter. We’ve got a problem in New Zealand, and I’ve seen it right since the early 2000s when I first started getting involved in politics and looking at the economy. Back then, it was companies like Navman or 42BELOW vodka. Since then, we’ve seen companies like TradeMe, Tip Top, Pic’s Peanut Butter, PGG Wrightson Seeds. The list goes on and on.

These are all Kiwi ideas, Kiwi ingenuity, and Kiwi businesses that grow to a certain size and get picked off and taken offshore. When that happens, not only do the jobs go, but the opportunities go. They go because it stops us from having stronger communities that benefit from that knowledge and that benefit from those opportunities. I think probably the hardest thing is the fact that our kids don’t see that they have opportunities here in New Zealand when those companies go offshore.

What does that mean for New Zealanders each day when they’re going to pay for their groceries or trying to make ends meet? What that means is that there aren’t enough jobs in New Zealand right now, that people don’t have the higher wages that we do in Australia in other companies, and that we don’t have the same opportunities to rise up within companies, because our businesses just don’t grow that big here in New Zealand.

It doesn’t have to be that way. We can have a different future if we choose to, and we in Labour choose to build that future by having the first step in that direction, and that is the future fund. We know that if we own our future and we keep it here and we sustain those New Zealand companies to grow bigger and provide greater opportunities, not only does that grow our economy but that also makes our community stronger, it gives our people more money in their pockets, and it makes our country better. We believe in that future, but what do we see from the alternative? What is the alternative model we’ve been offered so far? We’ve seen that we can sell things off. I think National’s next plan is to sell off our State assets. In Labour, we’d like to keep them, put some in a future fund, and make them work smarter for us and for our people, not sell them off.

The other option we’ve heard is trickle-down where those people at the top were going to be so loaded that the wealth is just going to eventually trickle down to those at the bottom. We’ve heard the Prime Minister himself say that this is a two-stage recovery. One stage is for him and his mates, and the rest is for the rest of the country who are still waiting for the trickle-down to hit them. It never does. Foreign investment is a third idea we’ve heard: “Open up the floodgates. Let them in.” We’ve had a massive summit which has resulted in $1 million being spent, and the only offers are that two of those have said that they might open an office in the future. That’s it. There’s nothing in that at all.

We have so much potential here in New Zealand—so much potential. I’d just like to point to the video game development announcement. That rebate introduced over two years ago kept jobs here, but not only did it keep jobs here; it grew them even more. That industry has increased by 80 percent over the past two years. We know that is smart jobs. For every dollar of taxpayers’ money invested in that sector, the return was nearly $5. That’s smart. It’s not only more money in our economy; it’s opportunities for our young people. They can look ahead and see a future here for themselves, a well-paying job in New Zealand, and that’s the future that we want to look for. We know, in New Zealand, that we are smart. We know that we should back ourselves more, but we can’t sit back and wait for that to happen, which is National’s plan. We want to have the ability to back ourselves and to grow our future because we know that we can build a future that serves us all, an economy that works for all of us, not just one stage for them and a second stage for the rest of us.

That’s what Labour offers that is different: making sure we build an economy from the ground up that works for everybody. We are small, but we are strong and mighty, and we can be so much better if we stick together and back ourselves. We want a future here in New Zealand where our children can look ahead and see a future for themselves here. Right now, we don’t have that. We have 200 people a day on a plane heading overseas. We know that if we build our future fund and if we continue to grow a New Zealand that works for everybody, then that gives the opportunity for our kids to be here. I believe that’s a future worth fighting for.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Spring has sprung, the grass is growing, the calves and lambs have been raised on farm, and the flowers are blooming.

Ryan Hamilton: Especially in the Waikato.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN: In the mighty Waikato, of course—the heartland of rural New Zealand—we see that aplenty. It’s always comforting to have that after the dreariness of winter, and the last Government was an apt metaphor for winter—the dreariness; the dull, long, rainy days. People just want it over with, and, thankfully, this Government is like spring. Just as that new season growth, with calves thriving on farm, signals the arrival of spring, so does infrastructure, ambition, and delivery signal the arrival of a National Government. It’s fantastic to see this Government delivering yet again, with a great announcement just this week on roads for national significance.

Ambition abounds. Opportunity presents itself. This Government is absolutely driving that for the prosperity and the opportunity of New Zealanders around the country. Nowhere has that been seen more than in the mighty Waikato, where we are expecting to see two-thirds of all population growth over the next 30 years in our region.

So it is absolutely fitting that we have seen $100 million committed towards the Southern Links project just this week, to explore, design, site investigations, and consenting to ensure that project can link up, because, unfortunately, we are already seeing massive congestion in the Tamahere region. That is directly off the back of the Hamilton section of the Waikato Expressway opening, which is a great thing, of course, but we saw a 50 percent increase in traffic on State Highway 21 and 1 at that Tamahere interchange, off the back of that great piece of road opening, because everyone wants to use it. So, of course, now the next step is Southern Links to help join State Highway 3 to State Highway 1 and to cut across the bottom of Hamilton City. So it’s a fantastic opportunity to do that.

Hon Damien O'Connor: Just fix the potholes—that would be a start.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN: The member across the House talks about potholes. Well, thank goodness that this Government has come up with a plan and we are delivering those. Potholes on State highways across the country—95 percent of them have been repaired within 48 hours. What a magnificent achievement—far away from what we saw under the last Government, where you were driving in trenches all over the show.

So thank goodness this announcement has come this week. It’s a welcome delivery for the people of the Waikato and it comes off the back of the previous announcement to extend the Waikato Expressway down to the intersection of State Highway 1 and 29 at Piarere, a natural terminal point for that next stage of the expressway—23,000 vehicle movements a day along that piece of road. It just makes sense. We’re going to see dirt being turned there within the next 12 months, and I am very excited about that. Ultimately, we want to see four lanes all the way through to the mighty Bay of Plenty, through to Tauranga, ideally through a tunnel through the Kaimai Range—that will be a game-changer for the region. It would unlock economic potential, it would improve safety, reduce emissions, improve that social connection—massive benefits. These are the sorts of things that we are looking at, we want to drive, to ensure that New Zealanders can get ahead.

But wait, there’s more: a third medical school. Ms Weenink talked about that before. That has been put forward by this Government, and we’ll be turning dirt before Christmas. It’s well overdue. We are extremely excited in the Waikato region to have that one shaping up for us as well.

As I said, the golden triangle, it’s where the growth is happening. We are very ambitious. This Government is ensuring that we get the infrastructure in place to enable us to ride the wave of that growth opportunity and not be left treading water in its wake.

All of these fantastic things that I’ve talked about—none of them would have happened under the last Government. The last Government cancelled the extension of the expressway down to Piarere. They cancelled Southern Links. They opposed the third medical school. They lacked ambition. They did not support growth in our regions, particularly the Waikato. So thank goodness we have a Government that sees the opportunity in our regions; it sees the opportunity, frankly, for all of New Zealand. In the mighty Waikato, we are very excited about the potential that will be delivered under this Government for those infrastructure projects.

The last Government couldn’t do it, and we’ve seen, even now, that they still can’t deliver. All we’ve heard are empty promises, and some vague pieces of paper this week on potential policy. Infrastructure couldn’t get up and running under the last Government. Where was light rail? Nowhere to be seen. Fake bridges. New Zealand needs a National Government to ensure that the renewal of spring turns into a glorious, long summer. Thank you.

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m standing proudly in solidarity with our workers, including 100,000-plus workers who will be striking tomorrow across the country to send a clear message that they are not being valued by this Government and directly impacted by the decisions of this Government. These are workers who are in our communities, in our hospitals—particularly in our healthcare services—caring for us, for our tamariki, for our communities. Healthcare is a human right and should be a core public good and public service, and these workers are essential workers.

The situation right now is that this Government is not valuing them. Pay and conditions—safe working conditions—that’s not really a lot to ask, one would think, especially for these services and these workers who are putting themselves out there for the love of people and community and want to care for people in their communities. Instead, they are working in chronic understaffing and unsafe working conditions. This is having an impact on them as workers and an impact on patients and the people that they want to provide proper care for. This puts the system under incredible burden and stress. We end up seeing chronic and more complicated illnesses and diagnoses, including in our emergency wards, where they are incredibly under stress. Stress is not the care that they want to deliver; they want to care properly. That, unfortunately, is often leading to tragic and irreversible loss.

I want to remind us that—I think it was in 2023—a coroner rule that the preventable death, in 2023, of a woman at Waikato Hospital’s emergency department occurred while the ED was five nurses short. Just today, in question time, we put to the Prime Minister, and to the Minister of Health, whether they agreed and are taking on board the feedback from the very nurses and health workers themselves who are saying that they are not in safe working conditions. The Prime Minister had the gall to completely dismiss what they are saying when the evidence is clear—sadly, very clear. The Minister of Health had the gall to stand there and say, “Yes, you are, nurses. I’m sorry, but we do not believe you; we will not listen to you telling us about trying to care for patients including, for example, those who have soiled themselves.”

Ryan Hamilton: Oh!

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: These were the stories that we put—am I hearing mocking of the stories that we are hearing on this side of the House; the stories directly from the nurses at the front line. They want to deliver better care, but 90 percent of the shifts are understaffed. Those are political choices. While this Government has chosen to fund wealthy landlords, has chosen to fund tobacco companies, has chosen to find all these billions for all of them, plus fossil fuel barons—these are the choices—

Sam Uffindell: Point of order.

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: —that this Government has made. The strikes are a direct consequence of the choices.

Sam Uffindell: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Look, I understand that the member is quite energised about this, but it’s not correct to say that we are funding wealthy tobacco companies and wealthy landlords. That is not a correct assertion.

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: Finding the tax breaks—

SPEAKER: Wait on a moment.

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: —finding the tax breaks—

SPEAKER: Excuse me. Sit down. I need to address the point of order that has been made. This is a general debate, and people will say things in a general debate that others will not agree with. It is a matter of perception. There has always been a degree of latitude around the absurdity of saying that a tax cut is an expense against revenue. These are the sorts of things that do get debated in the House, so, while I would suggest that the speaker does speak as factually as possible, it’s not going to be ruled out of order.

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The other side of the House are far more outraged about my choice of words than they are about the actual situation that is happening in our healthcare system right now.

I’ve put on the floor the real human stories and impacts from workers and from patients about the underinvestment in the public health system. That is a choice of this Government when, yes, they manage to find tax breaks and other ways of supporting wealthy landlords, tobacco companies, and fossil fuel barons—I hope that was OK, thank you very much. Those are political choices. The Greens, instead, would choose to properly invest in public health systems, ensuring that our GP visits are free; that our nursing visits are free; that our dental care is free; that we provide vans in our rural areas and communities; diagnostic abilities; and also properly fund community and healthcare providers. Those are the choices that the Green Party would make.

I am pleased to see that the public are supporting the people and the workers, strikers, because they are seeing through the gaslighting and the minimising of workers on the front line, when this Government, Prime Minister, and Minister of Health are saying, “We don’t believe that you are telling us the truth. When you tell us that patients are not getting care, we don’t believe you.”

TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): Well, I was going to start with my quote of the week. I had quite a good one lined up ready to go, but we’ve had a couple just in the last hour during this general debate, and maybe I can touch on them as I go. I just have to make a special mention of Chris Hipkins at the start saying that we don’t want to have any more blame and excuses. I just wonder if someone could wind the clock back for him 24 hours to when he was being asked about why there was no detail in his policy and why did it not mention the right number. “Oh no, no, no, that was someone else’s fault.” “Well, why didn’t you know about the health policy you’re announcing?” “Oh, that was someone else’s fault.”

I have to hand out the silver medal to Barbara Edmonds, who actually had the temerity to stand here, to look at Mark Patterson and say, “Oh well, we couldn’t really copy the New Zealand First policy about the future fund, because there wasn’t enough detail in it.” One, of course they were copying it—they just changed the cover page—but, two, they were criticising the detail in it when what detail is in theirs? I think that what happened was that they got their one, ripped off the cover page, stuck a Labour one on, fed it into AI and said, “Take out the detail and put in some jargon.”, and that’s pretty much what came out the other side.

We’ve gone through bronze and silver. I think I’m going to keep my gold medal quote of the week at where I was going to start, and that also goes to Mr Chris Hipkins, who yesterday said that he couldn’t “hand on heart” promise that Labour would build any roads. No kidding that he can’t hand on heart promise that, because what happened last time they were in Government? They all got cancelled.

People in Levin still remember 2018 when the expressway that National were going to build from Ōtaki to the north of Levin got cancelled—outright cancelled. They remember 2020 when Julie Anne Genter said, “Well, we’ll let you bring it back if it’s just two lanes, but we want two lanes that are just for public transport between Levin and Ōtaki, which sounds—well, it doesn’t actually sound that good, but there is no public transport between Levin and Ōtaki, so I think, hand on heart—hand on heart—he can’t promise to deliver anything. Yep, I thought that was pretty good. After six years in Government and then two years in Opposition, I thought they might be able to promise something, but all we got was the same old blame and excuses.

As I looked along the rest of the front bench and I saw Willow-Jean Prime—she needs to check a few more of her emails. She was asking the Minister of Education, the same one that she refused to collaborate with and then complain about not enough collaboration, why she would not go to the protest that’s been cancelled. Why was she going to the roadshow instead? Why wouldn’t she meet with educators? That was her question this afternoon. Well, guess who’s at the roadshow? It’s our teachers, it’s our principals, and it’s educators. This is the person that Labour have got in charge of the education policy.

Next in line, we’ve just heard from Ginny Andersen. She won’t back the gang patch ban, even though she’s acknowledged that it actually works pretty well; she won’t back the law to stop protesting outside private residences, even though it kind of works, and they don’t think it’s right; and I’m yet to hear her call out the Greens, who want to defund the police.

Ryan Hamilton: Who’s next, Tim?

TIM COSTLEY: Well, we may as well bring up the renowned Dunedin MP Damien O’Connor, who’s just openly opposing this great defence workforce bill that would back our service people in uniform. I’d like to see that position turn around. Stop siding with your union mates and actually come and support some people in uniform.

Now, Mr Hipkins talked a lot about people leaving the country. He doesn’t have to look too far. He could look to his left and see Megan Woods, he could look just behind him and look at Duncan Webb—all jumping ship because they can see what the future holds.

The only thing that’s clear to me is that they’re going to need some friends in a couple of years, and I can see the Green Party licking the kombucha off their lips. They are excited: $88.8 billion of new taxes, and tens of billions dollars more in debt. Their only plan to save money is to defund the police. But, don’t worry, everyone’s going to get $395. We just heard it from Marama Davidson: “Don’t worry, everything’s free.”, and the cry went out of who is going to pay for it? “Yeah, we don’t need to pay for it. It’ll be free. It’ll be provided by that magical person.”

They’re also going to need “Ngā Pāti Māori”—I think that’s what they are now—who have had the great reset. Then they came in and we had the first speech, and it went a little bit too long, but that’s OK. It’s like Monty Python with the Spanish Inquisition: “We’ll come in again. We’ve reset again.” They’ve come back in, they throw each other under the bus. I don’t know who’s driving it—probably John Tamihere. “Oh, no, no, no—we’ll come in again.”, and then they’re burning stuff outside Parliament. I think they’ve reset again.

All we have is spend, spend, spend and tax, tax, tax. “Ngā Pāti Māori” can’t agree on one word to say three times. What we’re all about is affordability, decent healthcare and education, and safe communities.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Voting

Correction—Redress System for Abuse in Care Bill

SPEAKER: Members, on 21 October, when the House was considering the Redress System for Abuse in Care Bill, the result of the vote on the first reading was incorrectly recorded as Ayes, 68, Noes 53. The correct result is Ayes 68, Noes 55.

Sittings of the House

Sittings of the House

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Minister for Courts) on behalf of the Leader of the House: I move, That the sitting of the House today be extended into tomorrow for: the third reading of the Building and Construction (Small Stand-alone Dwellings) Amendment Bill; the second reading of the Crimes (Countering Foreign Interference) Amendment Bill; the third reading of the Disputes Tribunal Amendment Bill; and the second reading of the Offshore Renewable Energy Bill.

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

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.

SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Auckland Council (Auckland Future Fund) Bill.

Bills

Auckland Council (Auckland Future Fund) Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Preliminary provisions

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members, the House is in committee on the Auckland Council (Auckland Future Fund) Bill. We begin with the debate on Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 3 to 6, “Preliminary provisions”. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill): As we enter the committee of the whole House stage to consider the Auckland Council (Auckland Future Fund) Bill, I want to briefly acknowledge the significance of this legislation and the important work that lies ahead in this stage. This bill lays the foundation for one of the most significant financial instruments that Auckland Council has ever established.

The Auckland Future Fund is designed to protect and grow the value of key public assets for the long-term benefit for both current and future generations of Aucklanders. I’m looking forward to engaging constructively on the clauses and any proposed amendments, to ensure that this fund delivers the security, transparency, and sustainability that Aucklanders rightly expect.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much, Mr Chair, and, firstly, congratulations to the member Dr Carlos Cheung, who is sitting in the committee chair for the first time. What an opportunity, and well done to him for bringing this bill to the House. It’s some very good forward-thinking. It’s great to see a future fund with details, which is very, very positive, and I commend the member in charge of the legislation.

I've got a number of questions for this part. My first one starts at clause 3, which is in and around the purpose. I'm keen to understand from the member, if he can explain why the purpose in clause 3 refers to ensuring the Auckland Future Fund “continues” as a long-term financial investment, given that the fund has only just been established in statute.

I strongly support the establishment of the Auckland Future Fund and the protections that this bill provides, but the word “continues” suggests that the fund potentially already exists, which it does in the Auckland Council's long-term plan. But I want to ensure the committee understands that this bill is providing statutory protection for an existing council initiative, rather than creating something entirely new. So I'd welcome the member’s answer to that question.

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill): Thank you, members, and to Tom Rutherford for his question. The fund is to provide a strong return to the council to fund the services and infrastructure for the future. When the Auckland Council set up the fund, they actually asked to get a local bill to add an additional layer of protection to the fund. This is what this bill does, by requiring a 75 percent majority of councillors to agree to reduce the failure of the fund.

One of the questions is, you say, why are we doing this, why does this continue? I think, if you look back to the history of Auckland Council, when it was first set up, there used to be a fund that was set up during the old term by Christine Fletcher. This was called a “rainy day fund”, but it’s actually called a diversified financial assets portfolio. That actually comes from the old legacy council. However, because there was no protection—there was no additional layer of protection for this fund—the fund was disestablished, and the money was actually being used for paying short-term debt and council spending. This is why we are feeling it is important here today to set up an extra layer of protection to make sure this fund continue to benefit people in Auckland.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader—Labour): Labour supports the bill and its provision of statutory protection for the Auckland Future Fund. This will help futureproof the fund and provide Aucklanders with confidence that the fund’s investments will be protected.

Labour acknowledges and commends the hard work and creativity of the mayor, Wayne Brown, and Auckland Council in drafting this bill. The council has demonstrated professionalism and a strong commitment to ensuring that Auckland will have the capital funds to support the city’s future growth. There’s also another political party that proposed a very important future fund in recent days. Thank you very much, Labour Party!

Anyway, we did try to propose to the other side of the House that this debate should be taken as one, because there is very little in the first part and there is no disagreement across the House. Sadly, there seems to be an attempt here to filibuster on this bill, unnecessarily because actually the general public like it when we do support pieces of legislation. Mr Cheung has had the wonderful advantage and benefit of being gifted a bill from Auckland Council that is supported by everyone in this House. I won’t speak any more to Part 1, because it is absolutely supported.

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill): Well, in part, I agree with the member on the left-hand side—we actually acknowledge Wayne Brown for all his hard work—but I think she forget that it’s about teamwork. It’s not about people. We also need to acknowledge Councillor Christine Fletcher. We also want to acknowledge Christopher Swasbrook, the chair of the Auckland Future Fund, for all the hard work as well, and also all the officers who were involved in drafting this bill as well.

I think that member mentioned the future fund. Well, I think that makes a huge difference. Why are some of them against so many people? The Auckland Future Fund is not about storytelling; it’s not about writing an essay like what the other side do—they write essays and pretend they present a policy. This is a real policy. You can see that with the policy. You can read a lot of detail to show people what’s going on with this legislation.

Also, I think this member probably doesn’t work on those details, so she doesn’t understand that that’s a lot of hard work. Even though this is a local bill, a member of Parliament still needs to work very closely with the council staff to make sure all the feedback that is received by the public can feed back to the council and to try to amend the bill and make sure the bill will benefit Auckland in general.

TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): Oh, what a great day for Mt Roskill. What a great day for Auckland. I commend the member in the chair, Carlos Cheung, and I congratulate him. I have certainly appreciated his continual advocacy the whole way through this process for the last few months. A staunch advocate he is for Mt Roskill in Auckland at that, as well.

I would like to ask him a question in regard to clause 3, which is the purpose clause of the Act. He touched on one aspect in his previous answer where he talked about wanting to, sort of, futureproof. He might have been referring to the supermajority of 75 percent in clause 11, and I'm sure we'll get to that in the future parts of the Act. I think that is an important provision.

The question I have is the fundamental one. As I read the bill, it seems this is the most appropriate place to address this, because it is the purpose of the bill. The question that I would actually like to hear from the member himself is around the purpose and the need for legislation, because there are many ways funds can be set up: you can get AI to write jargon for 12 pages and call it a future fund, apparently—that's OK. But do we need to go through the whole process of having legislation? I know that we've been through the first reading and then we've gone through a full and robust select committee process, and then, of course, we've had the second reading, and you say, “Well, we're not far from the end now, why wouldn't we finish?” That's not my question. My question is really about—

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: What is your question? It sounds like filibustering to me.

TIM COSTLEY: It's great to hear from the other side because we didn't hear from them during the select committee process—it would have been really nice—but we did hear from Carlos Cheung, and what a great advocate he is for Auckland.

My question is: does this require being kept in legislation? Because I can see the case coming where a change, for whatever reason, is needed, whether that's changing that supermajority from 75 percent to 67 percent—a two-thirds majority. Is it going to go to 80 percent? We're going to have to come back and we're going to have to do what we did with the McLean Institute (Trust Variation) Act, and we're going to have to take months to work through this. We all remember the stories of Allan McLean and his journey from Wales to Australia to New Zealand and the process that that took us through. We'll be back here doing the same thing in no time for this. In fact, we just did that for Auckland Council when we worked through the “Takapuna Boating Club Ice Cream Bill”. So is it really necessary that we come through the whole process at Parliament?

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Is it really necessary to listen to this speech that is just trying to eat up time?

TIM COSTLEY: I just want to address this now once I—

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: At least if you’re going to filibuster, do a good job.

TIM COSTLEY: It's like white noise, but I'll start again. Is it really necessary to go through this now and to have this in legislation? Because once it's there, it will be nigh impossible to get rid of and I can just see us coming back time and time again to change that. I'd like to hear from the member: firstly, does he think that's necessary? Secondly, does he have, sort of, assurances that we've got all the settings right—this is the last chance to look at them—so that we won't be coming back to make change after change after change and so that we have some certainty that we can move this through the House?

The last point that I was wanting to make is, you know, are we setting a precedent here? We've been hearing about the Golden Triangle from Tim van de Molen, from Ryan Hamilton. I would argue that the Kāpiti-Whitby area is a great area of growth and we're going to see a lot more over the coming years. Are we going to see those councils wanting to set up their own future fund—one that will have some detail in it—and then we're going to have to put all of those through legislation? Is there a more broad framework that we could have considered to do this once and for all that might open the gate for others?

So I'd like to hear, firstly, about the need for it, have we got the settings right to ensure we're not going to do it again? Finally, is this precedent setting? Thank you.

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill): Yes, as I say, this Auckland Future Fund is a long-term development to try to benefit the people in Auckland. I think the main point is that the wording is important—the “long-term”. By long term we’re maybe talking about 10 years as a period of time, but we know there are a lot of factors that can affect the direction of local government. For example, every three years there are local elections and there will be a change of councillors. I think that, every time there’s a change of councillors, there is a chance that the direction of their priorities will change, and, for this, we want to make sure that this fund is set up in the long term and won’t be affected by other factors such as elections or a change of direction as well.

At the same time, in order to set up a supermajority of 75 percent, you do need to bring it to the House for legislation, and this is the main reason we bring this bill to the House as well. At the same time, you say, “What will happen in the future if we want to make a little amendment as well?” I think this is also up to the councillors as well. As I say, if they have over 75 percent, if a 75 percent majority of councillors agree to, they will be able to change the legislation again.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I want to come to clause 4, which is in Part 1, around “Interpretation”. I’ve got a couple of questions in here. Clause 4(1) defines the “Auckland Future Fund” (AFF) as including “any funds or assets (or both) that the Council adds to the AFF”—which is the Auckland Future Fund’s in the future. I’m keen to get an understanding from the member in charge, Dr Carlos Cheung, around whether he can indicate whether the Auckland—

Shanan Halbert: Which clause?

TOM RUTHERFORD: Oh, “Which clause?” Shanan Halbert asked. It’s clause 4(1), in and around “Interpretation”. I’ll just read it to you, actually. It says, “In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,—Auckland Future Fund or AFF—(a)means the fund established by the Council as part of its Long-term Plan 2024–2034; and (b) includes—(i)any funds or assets (or both) that the Council adds to the AFF;”—which was the part I was talking about—“and (ii) capital and income retained in the AFF”.

Shanan Halbert: Where’s all the Aucklanders?

TOM RUTHERFORD: What was that, sorry?

Shanan Halbert: Where are all the Aucklanders?

TOM RUTHERFORD: “Where are all the Aucklanders?” Why does it matter about legislation and whether I’m from Auckland or not? Why should that be a piece around whether—

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Because it’s an Auckland fund.

TOM RUTHERFORD: Yeah, but this is a place for parliamentary people to come and actually do legislation. Why should it matter about the place that I come from? Why should it matter which part of New Zealand is my place of origin, around whether I can or cannot speak on legislation? If I want to ask the member in charge to improve the legislation and to scrutinise it, it shouldn’t matter whether I come from Auckland or not. Actually, I take offence at a member saying “Where are the Aucklanders?”, and asking why I have a right as a non-Aucklander to ask questions and scrutinise this legislation. Maybe that member might want to get to his feet and take a call on this exact bill and do the exact same thing. For shame—for shame from that member. No wonder he is on the list and didn’t win his electorate seat back. Now, if I could actually get back to the point I was trying to ask of the member—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): That’s a really good idea, actually.

TOM RUTHERFORD: Yeah, well, if he keeps heckling and interrupting me—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Well, that’s just a really good idea, without any explanation.

TOM RUTHERFORD: Yeah, thank you very much. My question is around how clause 4(1) defines the “Auckland Future Fund” as including “any funds or assets (or both) that the Council adds to the AFF” in the future. Can the member indicate whether the Auckland Council has identified any other specific assets, beyond the Auckland Airport shareholding, that might be potentially transferred to the fund?

I note that the explanatory note mentions that the fund will initially be capitalised with Auckland Airport shares and may be further capitalised with other assets. Understanding whether other assets are being considered would help us assess the potential scale and importance of the fund over time. I commend this member and the council for their forward-thinking approach, which is commendable.

My second question is: can the member also clarify the breadth of what structures for governing and managing the AFF could include under clause 4(1)? Could this encompass, potentially, a trust, a council-controlled organisation—a CCO—a committee structure, or other arrangement?

The bill does provide some sensible flexibility for Auckland Council to choose the most appropriate governance model; however, I think it would be helpful if the member could clarify for us the range of options that are available under this definition, particularly as the council may change structures over time as they see fit. I’d welcome the member answering both of those questions for me.

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill): Once again, thank you to the member for the question. To talk about funding, why there is, initially, the fund was capitalised by selling the airport shares. But at one stage I think there was a debate in Auckland Council about whether they wanted to put the Port of Auckland shares into the fund as well. I think that's the reason why they left it open on the wording like this.

Also, I think there's some good news to tell other members as well, not only the airport shares—now, obviously we know that the airport shares, when they sell, they make extra profit from what they expected—but also recently Auckland Council have been willing to put another $45 million from the special dividends from Port of Auckland into the Auckland Future Fund as well. That's why you see that the Auckland Council is leaving it open—so, in the future, they are happy to put more extra assets or more funding into the Auckland Future Fund in order to benefit the people in Auckland.

Now, if we just talk a little bit about the structure of the Auckland Future Fund, the Auckland Future Fund is basically like a council-controlled organisation. The overall direction will be given by the Auckland Council, but at the same time they run independently from Auckland Council. Three board members—very experienced board members—are being appointed to manage the fund and make all the investment decisions as well. All three board members will, based on the direction or the guidelines given from the Auckland Council to make their investment, make sure they benefit people in Auckland as well.

Recently, there’s also been some good news to tell the member as well. The Auckland Future Fund Board actually recently appointed Vontobel Asset Management as its global investment manager, with the responsibility to manage that $1.3 billion in funds on behalf of Auckland Council. Vontobel Asset Management company is a global company. They’ve actually got offices all around the world—I think in 23 different countries—and they have a very good track record in the investment sector as well.

I also say that this is from a tender process, which is a very competitive tender process, in which we actually got 21 participants try to put in—they wanted to work with Auckland Council. Then, from that, we actually managed to choose the best one, which is called Vontobel Asset Management company, to help Auckland Council to manage this global investment.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader—Labour): I think it’s really clear that there is support for this bill, and there is very little in Part 1, nothing controversial, and certainly nothing that the Opposition seeks to debate on this particular bill, which is really a big part of what the committee stage is all about. It’s our opportunity to debate detail. Now, where we all agree—isn’t it wonderful. That doesn’t happen very often. I do worry that the other side is just eating up time in this debate for the sake of it.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Ms Sepuloni, you have the opportunity to move that the debate close.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I know.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. My previous questions have been on clause 3, which was the purpose, clause 4, the interpretation, which the member in charge just answered my two questions on, and I thank him for that. I now want to come to clause 5, which is Decisions of Council.

In the legislation, it says, “In this Act, decisions of the Council are made by the governing body (as defined in section 4(1) of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009).” Clause 5 specifies that decisions are made by the governing body, which would be Auckland Council. Can the member confirm that this means that these decisions require proper governing body meetings with things like notice, agendas, and public access as per normal council procedures? Many of us would know that you would go on to your local council website to find what is being discussed at your upcoming council meeting many days in advance of it—so ensuring that things like agendas and public notices are available to the general public and that people can attend in person if they so wish.

Transparency requirements are important, in my view, for maintaining public confidence in the fund. I would like to know from the member that he is going to reassure us that major decisions about the fund won’t be made behind closed doors but will follow the normal democratic processes that apply not only to Auckland Council’s governing body but, actually, to the expectations that we have through the Local Government Act of all our councils across New Zealand, to ensure transparency and openness to their ratepayer base and to the public, so that they know when meetings are happening, what are points of discussion, and then resolutions from the meeting once that meeting has concluded as well. I’d be keen to hear from the member around what is expected on the transparency front from the council on this, please.

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill): I thank the members for their questions. Like I say, public confidence and transparency is one of the most important things when we are using our taxpayer’s or ratepayer’s money, so I think it is very important to let the public know what’s going on. This is why an Auckland Future Fund and trust will actually have an annual report coming out to give detail on what is going on, what is the investment, how is the return going; not only the annual report but also a six-months report, as well. Also, every three months, the board of trustees will also report to the council, as well, on the progress of what’s going on with all this investment. That will give the general public more confidence, to see what’s going on with their fund, as well.

ORIINI KAIPARA (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau): It gives me great pleasure to give rise to the voices of those in Tāmaki-makau-rau, a city of wonder, life, culture, and its own strong identity. I am proud to rise as the member of Parliament for Tāmaki-makau-rau to lend my voice for the first time in this manner and in particular on this Bill, the Auckland Council (Auckland Future Fund) Bill.

Now, contrary to what you've heard in this House, especially for those in the Opposition, let me be very clear: Te Pāti Māori and the member of Parliament for Tāmaki-makau-rau oppose this bill, and I will explain why. But before I do, we acknowledge—Te Pāti Māori and I acknowledge—that economic prosperity is important and critical to the future of Tāmaki-makau-rau and to all those who live, play, and visit our region. I acknowledge that the Auckland Council is doing good and important mahi to futureproof our region for future generations. However, I implore this Government and all those who hold power to determine how the lives of every single Aucklander is impacted now and into the future to honour your obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi; uphold your responsibilities as a partner. I will even go a step further to urge you to be like Māori. Māori have never breached Te Tiriti o Waitangi. So please rise and be the Treaty partner Aotearoa and Auckland deserves and needs today. It's not a hard ask. All it takes is to put the people and the planet before profit.

In this instance, I and Te Pāti Māori are not saying, “Put Māori before everything and everyone else” where this bill is concerned. No, we are not. We are urging you to include Māori in your decision making, especially when it impacts a significant portion of the Māori population. How does the Government that prides itself on being unapologetic, on prioritising the economy for the benefits of all New Zealanders, when it does not factor in, nor make room for, nor even bother to include all New Zealanders?

Let's go back to the establishment of this Auckland Future Fund (AFF). Auckland Council sold its Auckland Airport shares, a sale that went ahead without consultation with Māori—and not just any Māori: Ngāti Whātua and Waikato-Tainui. They were not afforded the respect that they deserve by being a prominent voice in consultation and decision making, but rather included as an afterthought. This bill lacks governance structure. In fact, it lacks any statutory requirements for Māori representation. When referring to the protection of intergenerational wealth, Māori must be a part of the decision making on what gets sold, how funds are invested, and who benefits from the returns. I mean, a global investment manager—has that been appointed here? Where and what is the long-term investment strategy? How will tangata whenua, tangata Tiriti, and tangata moana who reside in Tāmaki-makau-rau actually benefit from the funds?

I do have specific questions for the member to ask, and it goes back to clause 3, Part 1. The quoted text from the legislation is this: “The purpose of this Act is to ensure the AFF continues as a long-term financial investment for the benefit of the current and future communities of the Auckland region.” My question: why does clause 3 not explicitly reference Māori communities or the Treaty of Waitangi, given the bill’s stated purpose to benefit current and future communities? Would the Minister or the member support an amendment to include Māori as Treaty partners in the purpose clause?

I have another question. It is in regards to clause 4, Part 1. The quoted text from the legislation is this: “structures for governing and managing the AFF means organisational structures for governing and managing the holding, direction, and operation of the AFF.” The question is: would the member, the Minister, support adding definitions for “mana whenua Treaty partnership” or “Māori advisory group” to clause 4 in Part 1 to clarify the role of Māori and the governance and management of the AFF? And may I remind this House that in Tāmaki-makau-rau, we boast one-quarter of the entire Māori population—250,000 Māori call Tāmaki-makau-rau home. How is this justified as representative of every Aucklander and New Zealander when their voices aren't here? Please explain.

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill): Thank you, member, for raising that question. Obviously, this is an Auckland Future Fund. It’s going to benefit everyone in Auckland, including different ethnicities as well; including Māori, Pasifika, Asian, European—basically everyone living in Auckland.

I think one thing we need to understand about this bill: this bill is about adding an extra layer of protection to the fund, to make sure the fund isn’t being misused or mismanaged. Overall, to invest the returns of this fund or how to make a decision is still guided by the Auckland Council. They’ve got quite a few different documents to guide them, including the statement of intent, Auckland Future Fund policy, responsible investment policy, and also Auckland Future Fund distribution policy, and the deed of trust, as well.

So, as I say, since we are guided by the statement of intent, we can also refer back to one of the Auckland Council’s outcomes. We can know this, on the long-term future plan, we have six outcomes which Auckland Council tried to focus on, and Māori identity and wellbeing is one of them. But we can saw say that, due to the activities, I think the Auckland Future Fund may not directly contribute to this outcome, however I think managing the risk and providing a strong return to council enables the achievement for this outcome across the group, as well.

I want to remind the member, as well, the council actually have representatives from Houkura Independent Māori Statutory Board on the selection process for future fund directors. So they do have a say on who they want to employ, how those directors have the vision to benefit the Māori community as a whole, as well. So they actually have the obligation to ensure there's an opportunity for Māori to contribute to decision making.

At the same time, I just want some more good news to inform the member as well. The fund is actually achieving a Māori outcome plan, and the council has an independent board to monitor how council is considering the Māori perspective. I also want to give you more good news, as well: recently, Auckland Council have increased their Achieving Māori Outcome Budget by 10 percent next year, to support projects like marae infrastructure, energy, and climate resilience. So I think all this funding has a vision to benefit everyone in Auckland, including the Māori community as well.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Mr Chair. I must congratulate the member for taking the bill to the committee stage. I want to, firstly, just set the scene about the purpose of the Act, and I’ve got some questions for the member. I’m interested in the purpose clause being a long-term financial investment for the benefit of current and future Aucklanders. Now, as a member of the West Auckland community, I know that we have a large number of community assets that are aged out. Our one swimming pool, for example, built for the 1990 Commonwealth Games in Henderson, the West Wave pool, was for a population of around about 120,000 people. The population is now well over 200,000 heading towards 300,000 in West Auckland. So, what I would hope, Dr Cheung, as a benefit of this fund, is that investment in community assets like new swimming pools, for example, and new community facilities would be possible. I’m interested in your perspective as to whether facilities like that would be one of those things that would benefit current and future communities.

I’m also interested in the fund acting as a long-term financial investment vehicle. It’s all very well to say we’re going to put a billion dollars or so from the proceeds of Auckland Airport shares into the fund, Dr Cheung, but Auckland Council is sitting on billions and billions of dollars of lazy assets. It’s got maybe $2 to $3 billion worth of port assets, and if they were put into the fund—and you did mention it—they could potentially generate fantastic dividends for Aucklanders every year. Then we have around $2.6 billion dollars of vacant land and buildings that Auckland Council owns. So, Dr Cheung, do you think that the Auckland Future Fund will be able to realise its potential if it’s only got one asset in it or, essentially, $1 billion from the sale of Auckland Airport shares, or do you see this as a very smooth vehicle to start bringing in these other assets, actually recycling assets, into things Aucklanders need, like community facilities? Dr Cheung, I’d just like you to focus on those questions first, please.

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill): Thank you, member from West Auckland Simon Court, for raising the question. I actually have a similar request to the mayor as well. As we all know, Mt Roskill has recently been suffering from flooding, as well. We really want to have an upgrade of our stormwater infrastructure and also on the transportation infrastructure as well. However, this bill is about adding an extra layer of protection to how the fund is being invested. How to use the return of the fund is up to the Auckland Council. They are making the decision on which area they want to invest in. This is why I say it’s so important that everyone needs to go to vote during the local election; make sure you vote someone who can represent your values, someone who can actually fight for your constituency, for some more investment in your area.

But do you know what? In saying that, every three years, as well, I think the council will have a meeting to look at the direction, look at the return of the funding as well, to make sure that they’re still kept in the right direction. I think there’s multiple safeguards there to make sure that the funding works properly.

Also, to address your second question, which is “It is just only one funding or multiple fundings?”, as I mentioned in my answer to the previous question from our colleague Tom Rutherford before, I think the Auckland Future Fund, at the moment, is capitalising by the sales of the airport shares, but I think this is only the start of this journey. In the future, the council has the opportunity or has the choice to put more excess into the fund as well, to make sure that they keep growing the fund, and to make sure that they have the high returns so that they can benefit Auckland as a whole.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader—Labour): I move, That debate on this question now close.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Dr Cheung, that’s very helpful. I just want to explore what you consider to be the long-term financial investments for benefit a little bit further, and I just want to provide the context. The Government is planning, through the National Land Transport Fund and other initiatives—potentially a city and regional deal—to invest heavily in Auckland’s infrastructure. Just this week, an announcement was made to invest in the East-West Link, an incredible piece of highway infrastructure that’s going to get tens of thousands of heavy trucks off local roads around Onehunga, Ōtāhuhu, and other suburbs in south-east Auckland—a project that is maybe five or six years overdue, which is about the term of the previous Labour Government that stopped it.

Now, Dr Cheung, this project could cost somewhere in the region of $3 billion to $4 billion, and I’m interested in your views on whether the Auckland Future Fund could be used to co-invest in projects where Auckland Council and its communities receive a benefit in order to make the overall dollar go further. We’ve got the Mill Road project, and of course the north-west busway, which will lead from Auckland City out to Massey and Westgate, and out to as far as Kumeū and Huapai, eventually. So, Dr Cheung, do you think that the Auckland Future Fund could essentially become another public in the public-private partnership model so that Auckland Council invests its money and we can actually get more infrastructure up sooner. Do you think that’s a possible use of this fund?

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill): Thank you to the member for raising another question. As I mentioned before, how they use the return on the investment is the council’s decision. In saying that, the fund can be used for reducing the rates increase; it can also be put on infrastructure as well. There are a few things, so I think I’ll just try to use this opportunity to mention how the model of this fund works, to give a little bit of extra confidence to the member here, Simon Court, to know that the fund will be going in the right direction.

On behalf of the council, basically, we are trying to adopt 80 percent growth and 20 percent income of the portfolio to meet the council risk advertised. We want to make sure that the fund will grow, but at the same time minimise the risk as well. Also, I’ve been informed by the council that—the member will be interested: what happens if the fund underperforms? Will that affect the future planning of infrastructure or increase the rates? I’ve been informed by the council as well, if the fund underperforms it won’t be affecting the rates. So they won’t increase the rates in order to cover the loss of investment. I think that is a very good initiative for this Auckland Future Fund, making sure the fund keeps going and matching the development of Auckland and making sure we have enough funding to grow the city as well.

Also, like I mentioned in the second reading as well, that also creates—I think this is a new model as well, because currently, I think most of the local councils, all their funding is based on rates, based on debt, and also based on central government as well. So if this model actually works I think it will open up to the rest of the country how councils can actually raise funds to make sure all the future development, all the funding, is sustainable for their development as well.

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): Thank you, Mr Chair, for the opportunity to take a call on this important bill before the committee this afternoon; it’s my first opportunity to do so. I want to speak about clause 6 “Relationship between this Act and other legislation applicable to Council financial management”. I was interested in reading this particular clause, wondering about the depth in terms of the detail that’s included here, given some of the lack of detail in other documents I’ve read this week regarding funds.

I just wanted to ask you whether, when we talk about other legislation applicable to council’s financial management, accountability, and use of funds, why a range of other Acts that relate to exactly that point, the role that councils play in terms of financial management, accountability, and use of funds weren’t also specifically detailed as subclauses—including, for example, the Public Records Act 2005, which relates directly to financial document retention, and, obviously, that is something very relevant in relation to council financial management when you are buying and selling assets. As we’ve learnt in the House earlier today, actually, the importance of funds being successful—they both buy and sell their assets; so just understanding the retention of records in relation to that being an important component, potentially, of the council’s financial management, and, therefore, a piece of legislation that may need to be specifically acknowledged and reflected.

Another one in terms of that context, the Local Authorities (Members’ Interests) Act 1968, the role that plays. You know, these funds can invest in things that may be local and there may become challenges where we have elected members who have interests in those, and that might be worth considering.

Also, the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009. It’s specifically relevant to the Auckland Council, and, therefore, a piece of legislation when it comes to the financial management, accountability, and use of funds of Auckland Council, of the Auckland Future Fund itself, it may be another relevant Act that needs to be taken into account.

Of course, the Public Finance Act itself is all part of the wider scope of public finances, and that is something that captures council’s interests. In relation that Act, of course, as well, we have the overarching Companies Act 1993 for CCOs—council-controlled organisations. The fund may invest in companies that could get caught in terms of that definition of a “council-controlled company”.

I’m just wondering if any of those Acts should be specified just to ensure completeness under that clause 6(1)(b). Thank you.

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill): Thank you, member, for the question. Yes, it’s true that Auckland Council do have a history of fund mismanagement and they have been raising a lot of funding from our ratepayers as well. For example, I mentioned there used to be a fund called Diversified Financial Assets Portfolio, which was supposed to be a long-term fund, but due to mismanagement, the fund was disestablished and they've been used for short-term repayment, the short-term debt, and all that council spending as well. This is exactly the reason why we want to bring this bill to the House here right now, because we want to make sure the purpose of the fund will remain the same for the long term.

We want to make sure that the fund will benefit Aucklanders in the long term, not only the current generation but also the future generation as well. This is why we are bringing the bill here, to make sure that, if they want to change the direction of the fund or want to change the initiative of the fund or how they invest the fund, they need to make sure they have 75 percent—which is called a supermajority of councillors—to agree. Otherwise, they can't just use the fund for other purposes. I think that's answered the question for the member: why this funding now? We are here setting the bill for Auckland Council. I think the purpose is to make sure the fund is not being mismanaged or being wasted in different areas that are not going to benefit Aucklanders.

GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ll just take call and put focus on Part 1 clause 4 and the whole long-term view of the Auckland Future Fund and its benefits to the wider region, a region which stretches all the way up to the edges of Mangawhai. There are investments that can be made up there for the benefit of the wider region, whether it be into some of the great regional parks they’ve got up there but also into the area of huge investment around the golf courses. They need more infrastructure investment, potentially, up there that would benefit the wider population and provide opportunity for events and help to develop that part of the region.

I’m intrigued to see how the benefits could flow to the wider population of Auckland. That’s the focus around the events opportunity with investment into a potential area like Eden Park, which is obviously a large stadium in the middle of Auckland with a lot of history and a lot of contention, but it really needs the opportunity for investment to grow the use of that investment. I’d be interested to hear what the member’s thoughts are in terms of utilising that asset for wider use around the region to get a better return and better opportunities and more and more events to be held there and how that would benefit the population of Auckland going forward so that it will, once again, work on that livable city and provide lots of opportunities for the people, whether it be to invest in more opportunities to provide concerts and those sorts of things. If you can make the ground bigger so you can provide more cricket games for test cricket and so forth, which it struggles to do at the moment, that would be of benefit. But the investment of the fund could be used for something like that, I would have thought, to potentially help the sport of test cricket in the Auckland region.

And then that would then allow them, maybe, to have day-night games so that we can benefit the Indian population in particular, which we then can project to, , because that works better for the time zones in terms of utilising the lights, the only lights that are probably good enough in Auckland to have a facility and provide entertainment at that time of night, and then the income that would come back from advertising into the region, and it would make for great entertainment.

Then other sports could benefit. You could change the shape of the ground if you could invest in it and, maybe, then put a roof on it so that you don’t have to worry about whether it rains or not or whether the wind blows too hard. You can still have all your various sports, and you wouldn’t have—like we saw recently—a T20 game being cancelled down in Canterbury, because of the fact it rained for the second part of the match.

The advantages of having a future fund that can invest in that type of infrastructure, I think, would really benefit the wider population of not only Auckland but, actually, the country. It would bring people from around the country into Auckland to help drive that event sector. Then you would be hosting big rugby games with the benefit of not having to worry about what the weather’s going to do and all that sort of thing. You can provide big, huge concerts and attract the really big acts. Wouldn’t it be great to have Taylor Swift over here. After she’s been out here and got married, she can go and perform a concert. Wouldn’t that be a great thing? Wouldn’t that be a great thing?

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Why don’t you get the Prime Minister to ask her again in a—

GRANT McCALLUM: Exactly, wouldn’t that be a great thing? I completely agree. Isn’t that a great idea? Isn’t that a great idea? Wouldn’t that promote—yes, Megan thinks it’s a great idea. Well, it would certainly be a bigger venue than what we provide and what you’re going to have in Canterbury, which is a great new stadium. The potential of covered stadia is that when you try to attract events, they don’t have to worry about weather and the impact of that sort of thing. Investing in a roof would, I’m sure, be of great interest to the people of Auckland. That’s another one of the big things you could use it for. There are plenty of other events that that would be able to drive and help the people of Auckland. I’ll be fascinated on your thoughts there.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader—Labour): I move, That debate on this question now close.

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill): Thank you, thank you, thank you, Chair. Thank you, member, for raising the question. Although I keep saying that the Auckland Future Fund is going to benefit Aucklanders—the current and future generations as well—I always say that Auckland is the heartbeat of the country. We've got 1.3 million people living in Auckland, and I believe that the impact for this fund, for this legislation, goes way beyond Auckland. I think it's going to be for the benefit of New Zealand as a whole.

For example, I think the member just now raises a very good example—what's happening if they're going to put more infrastructure in Eden Park, we're going to benefit people—people will travel to Auckland to watch the concert. Or, for example, I think if Auckland Council put more funding on the transport level, I think that's going to benefit the whole country. We know that for the member, the MP for Warkworth, there's a lot of transport logistics going on between Northland and the Port of Auckland as well. Imagine if all this funding, the return of this investment, can go back to improve our transport network in Auckland, that also benefits the people in Northland as well. I agree with you; I believe that this bill’s impact goes beyond Auckland and actually benefits everyone in New Zealand.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): I’m interested to delve into an area that hasn’t been traversed yet over the course of this debate, and I have been listening diligently throughout the early stages of this debate so far. It does delve a bit deeper into clause 4. I appreciate the higher-level perspective from the member Grant McCallum, who talked of his aspiration for roofs, but I thought, in particular, I wanted to touch here on clause 4(1)(b)(i)—that’s on line 18—talking about the Auckland Future Fund (AFF) being the establishment of the fund in the Long-Term Plan. It includes “any funds or assets (or both) that the Council adds to the AFF;”.

Now, I’m interested in the first part of that, in particular “any funds or assets”. I’m interested to understand from the member in the chair whether he can give us some greater insight around when a fund is not an asset—because, obviously, we’re well aware of normal processes to draft legislation that is simple, concise, and as clear as possible, so I am interested in why they have chosen to specify “funds or assets (or both)” as opposed to simply saying “assets”. The suggestion there, to me, anyway—and I’m happy to be corrected by the member in the chair—is that it’s possible for Auckland Council to perceive a scenario where a fund is not an asset but they may still wish to include it in the Auckland Future Fund. That, I suggest, would be an unusual situation, but, again, it’s unusual that we’ve broken out fund and asset in this situation, where most people would consider, I think, funds to be assets.

If there is indeed a scenario where the member could shed some light on any potential funds that the Auckland Council currently has that are, from their perspective, not considered to be assets, or maybe perhaps be in negative equity? There could technically be a scenario where that could happen if they had a standalone fund and that fund had borrowed money against the assets of the fund, which have then devalued over time for some particular reason such that it was in a negative equity position—that is a potential scenario that could occur. I suggest it would be unlikely, but, again, I come back to the point of why you would specify those two separate pieces being a fund or an asset if, indeed, that was not the expectation that there could be at some point a fund that was not an asset such that it needs to be clarified through that mechanism.

Then, I guess the question that flows from that is: if, indeed, a fund could potentially not be an asset in that scenario, is it the intent of Auckland Council that they may look to leverage some of these funds such that they may be in a position of vulnerability and may fall into a negative equity situation? I think that would definitely give a different lens on the conversation we’ve had so far around looking to, primarily—well, the conversation certainly has primarily focused on assets, but that could be a scenario where we have a leveraged fund in negative equity. Of course, that still could, potentially, be cashflow positive, but I would suggest, again, that that would be an unusual scenario.

I’m really just interested in understanding why we’ve seen that classification of “any funds or assets (or both)”—why the distinction of fund versus asset, unless there is that scenario. As I said, I would be surprised if there was a scenario where we were talking of funds potentially being in negative equity, but it could technically be possible. As I say, that suggests—well, asks the question, actually—is that where they’re wanting to go, putting something as a potential liability or a negative equity into the Auckland Future Fund? What are the potential implications of that, if that was a scenario that came to be in some sort of speculative investment environment that then could potentially have a detrimental effect on the Auckland Future Fund itself, which, of course, then would go against, presumably, the premise of the fund looking to grow wealth over time and return investment to the city to fund a wide myriad of things like roofs, as Mr McCallum has suggested.

I’m really interested if we can get some clarity around that aspect in particular from the member in the chair, and I do want to acknowledge his work on this, working on behalf of his constituency and the wider Auckland region to bring this bill forward. It is a useful suggestion, but I just really do think it would be helpful for the committee if we could gain some clarity on that aspect in particular to ensure that we have the right lens around this as we proceed. Thank you.

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill): Well, the Auckland Future Fund for me is not only a fund to grow the fund for future Auckland development as well, but I also think it represents a new journey of local government with a different funding model. I mean, at this stage, yes, maybe we have only got the fund which was raised from the sale of the Auckland Airport shares, but I think this is only the first stage. I think in the future we're going to put more different assets into the fund as well.

We remember one of the reasons or one of the initiatives of this fund is to try to diversify all the investments. At the moment, I think most of the Auckland investments are either on properties or on shares, and I think they have a high risk to the funding model. I think we would love diverse investment. Also, I think we've got to put more funding or more assets into the fund. This is why clause 4 is purposely drafted like this, to leave the door open for the future, to allow Auckland to put more assets into the fund in order to match the development of Auckland in the long term.

Hon MARK PATTERSON (Minister for Rural Communities): Mr Chair, through you, if I could ask the member in charge: is there a chance, through this bill, for the Auckland Council to see the error of its ways and perhaps buy back into Auckland Airport, a gold-standard piece of monopoly infrastructure that’s expanding, pays a good dividend, and would be able to be leveraged to pay for Grant McCallum’s Taylor Swift concert? If so, so it be. Are they going to be able to see the error of their ways, Mr Cheung?

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill): Thank you, Minister, for your questions. As I say, I mean, there’s nothing wrong with investing in specific shares or specific assets, but, at the moment, we need to also know that we want to reduce the risk, we want to manage the risk. For example, during COVID, when we didn’t actually have tourists coming from overseas, and we got a lot of flights being cancelled because of the pandemic and, obviously, airport shares not doing well, that actually reduced the return of the fund. That affects the future planning for Auckland council as well, so I think it’s very important to diversify all investment to make sure we’ve got return from different areas, as well. That will provide an extra layer of protection to our funding model, to enable Auckland Council and the councillors to plan in the long term, as well.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour): I move, That debate on this question now close.

Motion agreed to.

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 Auckland Future Fund

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, we come now to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 7 to 12, “Auckland Future Fund”. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. It’s great to come into Part 2. I’ve got questions relating to clause 7, which is around the governance and management of the Auckland Future Fund (AFF). My first question relates to clause 7(1), which requires the council to “put in place structures for governing and managing the AFF.” I’d be interested if the member Dr Carlos Cheung could just clarify what specific structures Auckland Council currently has potentially in mind. Could this potentially be a trust, a council-controlled organisation, or another entity? I think it would be helpful for the committee to understand the practical implementation. While the bill, rightly, provides flexibility, understanding the council’s current thinking would help us assess how these provisions will work, in practice.

My second question is on clause 7(2)(b), which allows structures to be implemented either internally, within council, or externally, through trusts or other entities. Could the member please explain how this works if the council initially establishes the fund internally but later decides to potentially move it, say, to an external trust, what would the process be to require that change to potentially happen? The flexibility in this part definitely seems sensible, as best practice evolves over time; however, I’m keen to ensure and understand the implications of shifting between internal and external management, particularly regarding staff contracts and continuity of investment strategy.

My next question comes to clause (7)(2)(b)(ii)—so I’ve done 7(1), I’ve done 7(2)(b), and now we’re on 7(2)(b)(ii). If the fund is managed externally through a trust or other entity under that clause, how will accountability to Auckland ratepayers be maintained? External management might bring in expertise and independence, which I definitely support; however, Aucklanders will rightly expect to maintain visibility and accountability over their fund. Can the member explain how this balance would be achieved, in practice?

So my questions were relating to clause 7(1), 7(2)(b), and 7(2)(b)(ii). I welcome the answers from the member.

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill): So Auckland Future Fund is a separate council-controlled organisation (CCO), in which they actually receive direction from the council, but they actually work independently. So the council basically will select the board member, the three board members, they’re selected based on their experience, based on their track record as well. But also, they will try to prevent any conflict of interest and also any political influence as well.

For example, board members can't be the family members or the members of a councillor or the mayor. So to keep it more independent as well. But at the same time, the fund itself is also subject to an external audit by the Auditor-General, of its financial and service performance as well. So it makes sure the fund and its performance is accountable to the council and must comply—

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: I love how he’s got all his answers written out for these questions from his colleagues!

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG: —with the CCO accountable policy including quarterly according to statement of intent.

I think this is not called an answer, but to answer the member on the other side, I think this is called preparation. We want to make sure and I think this is something that, on that side of the House, they’re not very good at it! You know, because for me, one thing I want to know as the chair is I want to provide as detailed as possible to the member to make sure I give them confidence that this legislation is benefiting people, not like the other side. They just like to write essays or give us 11 pages of document or pictures, and I think this is not the way to actually do things.

I think that’s also referred to the member’s previous statements as well: “Oh, I don't think the member actually does anything” or “I think it's just the council give him to carry the bill”. This is a perfect example a member of Parliament, how to work hard together with the council to make sure we clear all the concerns raised by the other side of the House as well.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you to the member for answering my questions relating to clause 7. I want to move on to clause 8, which is around the principles for governing and managing the Auckland Future Fund. Clause 8(b) states, “with the intent of maintaining or increasing the real value of its capital over time.” I’m keen to understand from the member how “real value” will be defined and measured. If I put myself in the shoes of the ratepayers, I would be keen to know how I could see that the fund was being managed “with the intent of maintaining or increasing the real value of its capital over time.” How will “real value” be defined and measured?

My next question is around clause 8(b) as well, which is the phrase “over time”. It’s important for giving the fund appropriate flexibility, which I appreciate, but could the member just clarify what time frame is envisaged? Is this measured annually, potentially over a rolling five-year period, or potentially even a longer term? I ask because investment markets, as we know, can be volatile in the short term, and I want to ensure that the fund has appropriate flexibility to weather market downturns without being in a technical breach of the Act. A long-term investment approach requires the ability to ride out short-term volatility.

Clause 8 also sets out principles but doesn’t specify consequences if the principles aren’t followed. These principles are at the heart of the bill’s protection for future generations. While I’m confident that both the member and the Auckland Council will follow them, it would be helpful to understand what happens if a future council or fund manager doesn’t comply. Is this a matter for the courts, for the Auditor-General, or another body? What mechanisms exist to enforce compliance with these principles?

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill): Thank you, member, for the questions. So in order to retain the fund, I think it’s relatively related to the inflation numbers as well. So as the proposal has been proposed, the expected return of the Auckland Future Fund is 7.42 percent, and within that, 2 percent will be used to retain the fund value to make sure the fund can keep growing as well.

Also, as I mentioned before, as a council-controlled organisation (CCO), they are actually subject to external auditing by the Auditor-General for its financial and service performance as well. So most of the data and most of the investment value will be reported quarterly, and also every year they have actually got an annual report as well.

I think the member actually raised a very good point as well, because this is core investment. There’s no guarantee that everything will go accordingly, especially during some financial downturn or some economic crisis as well. There’s no guarantee that the fund will always perform as it has been described. But in saying that, the 7.42 percent is based on the calculation for the long term and we have already put a lot of different factors into the consideration, and we want to make sure all this investment will be managed—the risk will be managed. Also, I think this is all another layer of safeguard as well.

Every three years, councillors will look into the appointment of the board members as well. If they are not performing well, they will look into it and see whether they want to reappoint other board members to make sure the fund continues to grow.

Dr DAVID WILSON (NZ First): In relation to the governance of the Auckland Future Fund, very good discussion—thank you very much for your questions, Tom. My question is around the words “council-controlled organisation” (CCO), which you’ve used—and although this is not decided completely as yet, we do note that the Auckland Council has had a predilection just recently of pulling all CCOs into council. This, to me, presents an issue, because what we're trying to do here is create a fund on behalf of Auckland's shareholders—citizens of Auckland—and if this is close to and controlled by council, I fear for the future of the fund.

However, if there are enough governance rules in place in terms of separating this organisation to be able to return the 7.2 percent per annum or greater, to give them the freedom to do so without interference of the councillors that come in from time to time and/or the mayor—can you give us some assurance around those governance arrangements?

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill): Thank you, members, for the questions. Yes, I think this is the reason why we set up the legislation here, to make sure the fund will not be affected by political environment changes. We made sure the fund will have the initial initiative to keep benefits to Auckland as a whole, because we know that, like you say, every single time there's a local election going on, we may have a different councillor into the Auckland Council. They may think differently, they may have different priorities, but for this we want to make sure the fund is going to be used long term. I think, as referred to before, without this legislation—like the one we talked about, the financial assessment portfolio, which was set up by a previous council before—because without the legislation, that fund wasn't performing well or they were being mismanaged or being misused, and they need to be disestablished. So I think it is important we’re here. We set up a very high bar for the council, to make sure they can change the initiative or change the use of the fund only when they have a super majority, which means only 75 percent of the councillors have agreed to it.

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): Madam Chair, thank you very much. I want to ask a question on clause 9(1)(c) in Part 2, which says, “acting independently of members of the Council and those members’ personal or political interests”. It’s around the investment decision-making.

My concern doesn’t lie so much about the independence of that investment decision-making being sufficiently far enough away from, say, elected members. My concern lies with the amount of the dividend expectation that may be put on them, overtly or subconsciously, and whether the entity, the Auckland Future Fund (AFF) board, or its designated investment wealth manager is protected enough to make the right decisions around dividends and around the timing of dividends that are in the best interests of the fund and not in the best interests of the local body politicians—if I want to be straight with you. It is so that this fund is not under pressure and so that the chair Christopher Swasbrook, who has got a lot of respect and experience and integrity up in Auckland, and who is chairing the AFF board—that they are not under a lot of the pressure that we might have seen from the Ports of Auckland in previous years to deliver a dividend, and there is this “This is how much we want.”

As we know, we’ve got some reasonably lively and unpredictable local body politicians in and around the Auckland Council chamber, and I just want that assurance that there’s not going to be the pressure to deliver so much dividend every so often. I say that because it started on a high: a $38 million dividend was paid out from the June to December period in this year alone, making that period 13 percent higher than forecast. I suspect that the incoming council, which will be revenue short and capital short and up against its debt ceilings, will be like “Well, when’s the next $38 million coming? Why can’t we make it $338 million?”

So, I say yes to clause 9 in Part 2 around the independence of investment decisions, but I’m more interested in whether we’re covered in this statute, I say to the sponsoring MP. Are we covered so that this entity chaired by Chris Swasbrook is not going to be under any political pressure as far as paying out dividends, how often they get paid out, and how big they should be?

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill): That’s a very, very good question. I think that this bill basically is about focusing on the growth of the fund. There are a few further terms: is this setting the right percentage of return? Will it be too aggressive or too conservative?” Obviously, during the economic good times when you go for aggressive, you’ve got a high return, but you’ve also got a high risk as well. On the on the other hand, during economic uncertainty, you obviously want to go for a more conservative approach.

So, most of the investment guidelines are based on Responsible Investment Policy released by the Auckland Council as well. [Holds up document]

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: We’ve already had you hold that up. Thank you for holding it up again.

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG: So, basically, I just want to tell people—well, just to let you know, not everyone in front of the TV has been watching this bill since, like, 3 o’clock. I think it’s very important to tell people in front of the TV or who have just recently turned on the TV to look at the parliamentary debate, to make sure they know what’s going on and all the detail as well.

So I just want to read out what council has actually called responsible investment policy.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Don’t read out from the document, please. It’s not the bill.

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG: I know that the member on the left-hand side doesn’t really care because they don’t really care about the future of Auckland, but I think most of the people involved with the TV would love to know what’s going on, what’s happened to my rates and my fund as well. So I just want to read it out: “The council recognised that there are challenges in the implementation of a responsible investment policy when investing globally. For efficiency, operational, and cost reasons, the council fund may be invested in pooling funds known as collective investment vehicles. Where this is the case, there will be limits on the ability to exclude securities from the investment portfolio. In such an instance, fund governance will ensure the manager of the collective investment vehicle is aware of the council’s responsible investment policy and should be satisfied that there is a broad alignment with the policy applied in the management of the collective investment vehicle.”

I hope that that actually gives us a little bit of information or gives a little bit more public confidence to people in front of the TV, rather than you just turn it on and the other side just says, “Shut up and sit down.” and they just don’t really care. I think this is our job as MPs, as parliamentarians: to make sure our general public know what we’re going through, what is the detail of the legislation, and give them the confidence as well.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): I move, That debate on this question now close.

Motion agreed to.

Part 2 agreed to.

Clause 1 and 2

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

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Auckland Council (Auckland Future Fund) Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Bills

Consumer Guarantees (Right to Repair) Amendment Bill

Discharge

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I was expecting the member in charge of the legislation from the Green Party to stand and take the first call on this bill, being it’s her piece of legislation, but she hasn’t turned up to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Because it wasn’t moved, I’ll have to move to the next—

Hon Marama Davidson: Madam Speaker?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): No, I’ve got a bit of a timing issue now. The member wasn’t present to move the motion and I had just started ruling on that, that it had to be—it then dropped off and then we moved to the next item on the members’ order of the day. So I call on members’ order of the day No. 2.

Bills

Juries (Age of Excusal) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): I move, That the Juries (Age of Excusal) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

I rise to speak on the second reading of the Juries (Age of Excusal) Amendment Bill, a bill that seeks to modernise our jury service framework by raising the age at which individuals may automatically be excused from jury duty from 65 to 72. This is a modest but meaningful change. It reflects the evolving demographics of New Zealand, the practical realities of our justice system, and the enduring civic value of older New Zealanders.

As I’ve previously indicated to the House, the idea for this bill was first raised during a visit to the Auckland High Court with the Minister of Justice, the Hon Paul Goldsmith. Court staff highlighted the challenge of filling jury benches due to the high number of age-based excusals. The supporting data came later, confirming that 47 percent of excusals are granted solely on the basis of age. That is nearly half of all excusals, and it is not because people are unable to serve but because the law allows them to automatically opt out. This creates a significant administrative burden. More summonses must be sent out, more follow-ups are required, and more time is spent managing excusal requests. By raising the excusal age, we reduce that burden, making the system more efficient and more representative.

Let me clarify what this bill does and what it does not do. This bill does not introduce age into the jury system. That already exists. Under current law, anyone aged 65 or over may request automatic excusal from jury duty, either permanently or for that particular occasion, and that request is granted without question. This bill simply raises the threshold for that automatic excusal to 72. If someone has a genuine reason—health, caregiving, employment, or personal circumstances—they may still seek to be excused at any age. That does not change, but, if not, the expectation should be that one fulfils their civic duty like everyone else.

One of the key issues this bill addresses is the perception that civic duty ends at 65. As I said in my opening remarks to the Justice Committee, you can serve on a jury past the age of 65—in fact, many do—but the automatic opt-out creates confusion and, worse, creates an expectation that once you hit 65, you’ve done your bit and you do not need to serve. That is not a view I support. Civic duty, like voting, volunteering, and public service, does not expire at retirement.

Jury service is a cornerstone of our democracy. It is one of the few remaining civic obligations that applies broadly across society. To automatically excuse large numbers of healthy, capable people from participating undermines that duty and weakens the representative nature of our juries. This bill sends a clear message that we trust our seniors to participate in civic life, and we expect them to continue contributing, just as they do in churches, in sports clubs, in community organisations, and in workplaces across the country.

I want to thank the Justice Committee for their careful consideration of this bill. The committee received a range of submissions and, ultimately, recommended that the bill be passed along with several amendments. One key amendment was the insertion of transitional provisions ensuring summonses issued before Royal assent remain subject to the current law. This avoids retrospective application and provides clarity for registrars and court staff.

I also want to acknowledge the committee’s role in examining the options in terms of age thresholds. I specifically asked the committee to consider whether 72 was the right reference point in terms of an age. In considering the new threshold, the committee examined several benchmarks. It considered the age of retirement of judges at 75 and the Ombudsman’s retirement age at 72, whereas international norms vary, with the excusal age of 70 in Australia, 76 in England and Wales, and even 80 in parts of the United States.

The age of 72 strikes the right balance. It reflects capability, it respects contribution, and it aligns with other civic roles.

This is not, though, a radical leap. The threshold was originally 60, and it was then raised to 65 back in 1945. Eighty years later, we must ask whether this still reflects our society. Life expectancy has jumped dramatically since then, and since 1982, when it was also reviewed, the life expectancy for men has increased from 70 to 76, and for women, from 80 to 83, respectively, today—I’ve mucked that up. It increased from 70 for men and 76 for women in 1981, to 80 and 83 for women today. Today, New Zealanders are healthier and more active, and are engaged longer in the community than ever before.

The submissions received by the committee offered a range of perspectives. Some supported the increase, others suggested alternative thresholds, and some raised broader questions about the role of having an age in jury service at all. Age Concern New Zealand supported the increase, but recommended 70 as the more suitable threshold, aligning with the judicial retirement age. They noted the huge value and life experience the 65-plus cohort can continue to bring to jury service. The New Zealand Law Society supported the intent of the bill, but emphasised the importance of maintaining trust by the public and confidence in our jury system.

The Wellington Community Justice Project, a group of law students here in Wellington, offered a particularly thoughtful submission. They wrote that raising the jury excusal age would reflect, rather than lead, existing social trends that support older adults’ continued participation in public life. They also highlighted the need for the ability for excusal processes to be accessible, noting that while most senior New Zealanders use the internet, digital exclusion remains a concern, and they had some suggestions in that regard.

Other submitters shared personal reflections. Sarah Brodrick wrote, “Our baby boomer generation has so much wealth of knowledge and life experience to offer in the courts … Lifting the age to 72 … will enable … seniors … to feel a sense pride and to feel needed by our society”. To feel a sense of pride and to feel needed by our society. Margaret Thompson, aged 80, simply said, “I would like to be able to sit on a jury”.

In going through the process in the Justice Committee, it was very clear that there was a broad range of support across the membership of the select committee. It was recognised that we should consider the various options for ages for the excusal age, with 72 being what they ultimately landed on as the most appropriate age to recommend back to the House, as originally intended in the first draft of the bill that I spoke on in this House in the first reading, and they came back with that simple amendment to ensure that there wasn’t a problem around retrospectivity of the legislation.

In conclusion, these voices that I’ve shared with you from the submitters remind us that senior New Zealanders are not just capable; they are willing, they are engaged, and they are eager to serve. This bill is not about compulsion; it’s about expectation. It is about recognising that civic duty continues beyond retirement and that our seniors have much to offer. As one constituent, Andrew, wrote to me: “Thank you so much, Carl, for getting on to this. It makes a lot of sense.” I commend the bill to the House.

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

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā rawa atu koe ki a koe, Madam Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill. May I begin by thanking the hard-working Justice Committee and the member who has brought this through the process, Carl Bates. It is a difficult thing to work through a law like this where there is, essentially, a judgment to be made about a line for the appropriateness—in this case, for people to be the right age to make judgments in this way and perform a civic duty of sitting on juries. A number of opinions were heard from submitters, and this level which has been suggested here has ultimately met with the approval of the parties represented at the Justice Committee, and so I stand in support of it today.

I want to make the point that, when we think about civic duty, jury service is incredibly important to that—that more and more cases are being heard by juries in a system for which it is difficult for people to seek timely justice. Our courts, at the moment, are very, very busy places and it is difficult for people to be able to access not only the system but also the precursors to that—the right kind of advice. It’s important that we all take the measures that we can in this House to enable people to seek that justice and to have their day and to be heard in the way that their rights enable them to be heard.

This is a bill where, when there is difficulty in fulfilling the numbers required for a jury duty trial, reducing the reasons that a person may be excused makes it easier for the Ministry of Justice to be able to fulfil those numbers in a jury and to be able to allow people to be heard in the way that they hope to be heard. This is a good measure to be able to do that.

It’s also important for people to be assured that the member says it’s not about compulsion but it’s about expectation. I see this as an enabling provision. It’s a provision that enables people between the ages of 65 and 72 to be able to sit and to have an automatic provision to be able to opt out. There is an expectation that they will be able to fulfil that function but, if they cannot fulfil that function, there are obviously ways for them to be able to remove themselves from that duty. This is also about making sure that we set a clear line in the sand around active participation in civic life for people up to the age of 76. I think most New Zealanders would be pretty surprised that it was set at 65. I think most New Zealanders have a reasonable expectation that older New Zealanders have all of the rights and access and expectations to be able to participate in civic life.

I think of my dad. He’s in his nineties. He is an incredible member of his community. He is an active member of his local democracy. If any of the Auckland councils are listening along, he likes to ring up and complain about his local issues—they will know. That is the reality for aging New Zealanders: they’re very much a part of civic life and their communities around them. Being able to participate in jury duty in an unfettered way, where they are also expected to be able to sit at the table and that there is no presumption that they would not be able to do that, is important for them, and there is still a real contribution to make.

It’s also relevant to note—for anyone thinking about what the reasons for this bill are—that there is a very low payment for most people who sit on juries. It doesn’t necessarily reflect their lost wages. It doesn’t even reflect the minimum wage. It is a small payment in a gesture of thanks for them to be able to participate in that way. It is a burden that often falls to people who can either afford to be there or who are retired and can do that and there’s a lower opportunity cost to them. That is a feature of our justice system, which many, outside of the scope of the bill, would argue is a limitation on the rights of equal and fair justice. This is within the system at the moment, and to be able to address, in some small way, that limitation, having older New Zealanders who widen the pool of people who can possibly be called upon and can find themselves at the table and able to financially support themselves to be there, is a sensible move.

When I think of the Manukau court in my electorate, it’s one of the busiest courts in the country and there is certainly a need there for more people who want to fulfil this duty, also a real need for more justices of the peace who can sit as magistrates in that court to be able to participate in that. Those older people who fulfil those roles are incredibly important to not only our justice system but the functioning of that community around Manukau and people’s access to rights and faith in the system.

For those reasons, I’m happy to support this bill and to be able to thank the Justice Committee once again for their work on it.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Madam Speaker, thank you. I rise on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand to also support the Juries (Age of Excusal) Amendment Bill. Now, just to kind of cast our minds back to when this bill was introduced and the first reading: in the first reading, we did oppose the bill, but then we were interested to hear, in the select committee process, exactly some of the potential fishhooks that this does create. It particularly gives us an opportunity to consider with various stakeholders within the seniors area whether this is actually a reasonable bill to expect for our senior population. Just in terms of the select committee process, we did have a few submissions—not all that many, but we did actually get some submissions from key stakeholders, who did provide some very, very helpful feedback.

I think, in terms of the bill itself—again, just a reminder that when we are looking at this bill, it provides for people over the age of 65, if summoned—well, actually, now 72—that they are no longer able to be automatically excused from jury service. However, it does mean that they're still able to be excused from jury service if need be, for various grounds. Part of that, in terms of the age—we did have quite a big discussion during the select committee stage around whether the age of 72 is the most appropriate age. I think that was something that probably generated the most discussion within the Justice Committee. We did hear, helpfully, from the department in terms of some of the stats.

I think, overall, when it comes to this bill, the concerns that we have in terms of what it means in terms of the demographics, the make-up of our jury service, are still something that we are interested in and concerned about. One of the things that we wanted to check during the select committee was would that affect decisions within the judiciary system? Would that mean that, because every one of us carries a certain level of bias when we're looking at jury service—what does that mean in terms of the natural justice process, when you're looking at this? And also, again, what does it mean for people over the age of 65, who rightfully should have been entitled to an automatic excuse, to be actually now called back or no longer having that as an option and having that bumped up to 72?

Overall, the Green Party is happy with where this bill landed. We're really happy with the advice that we received during the select committee process. We think there are other ways and, again, other things that could be introduced and could be considered, in terms of the remuneration aspect when it comes to jury service, that, again, allow more people to be able to partake in jury service, particularly people who are younger. We understand the need for juries in general, but I think there are other measures that also should be considered alongside this. But, overall, this bill is something where we are happy with how it's landed and we're happy to support it in the second reading.

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's somewhat of a surprise to be standing and speaking on this bill. I wasn't a member of the committee that examined it. Todd Stephenson had a great speech lined up for this, but the timing worked out that I got to stand up and deliver the speech, so it’s going to be quite an interesting moment for the House to hear me talk about the Juries (Age of Excusal) Amendment Bill, considering I wasn't on the committee.

Look, I think what we've heard so far talking about the civic duty that being part of a jury is a core part of—I think there has been a long and somewhat ivory tower discussion about whether juries are the best thing for our judicial system. Personally, I'm a big fan of juries. I think there's a long history that's proven that it is a core part of the demos having a say in the way justice and law is created and dished out in our society, our country, and through our history.

As Carl Bates has brought this bill to the House, being able to take advantage of the wisdom that age and experience has gifted to the members of our community who have made it past the age of 65—I think taking advantage of that for the good of our country, our demos, our institutions, our democracy is only a good thing. As has been described in the media over the last certain amount of time, there are elements in the Electoral Act about making sure, if you're eligible to be on the electoral roll, it's important to do. It's not just because we need to know who and where people are for the important core function of voting in an election in this country, but also so that we know who is on the electoral roll for the purposes of jury duty.

Now, I would have liked to have heard, and I'm sure I will hear in future stages of this bill as to how that interacts with the Electoral Act requirements once you're over 65, if you choose to be permanently off the jury list or on—it's not a committee stage, but I look forward to hearing those from the member when he is in the hot seat.

There was another element, reading through this bill hastily as I have in the last little while, about raising the age from 65 to 72, and it's great to see the whole House behind this—

Grant McCallum: You’ll be in your prime.

CAMERON LUXTON: Well, you are in your prime there, Grant McCallum, so it’s apropos to be speaking about that. The question that comes to mind is if the House—I think it was Disraeli who talked how about how a conservative in the British system does things which are based on precedent from the past. It doesn't mean that you're not open to changing things, but you do want to make sure there is something to base that on; it's not just plucked out of thin air.

The committee reaching out, trying to find an age, or the member finding an age of 72, relating that to the retirement age for the Ombudsman—Disraeli would say, “Well, great. Fantastic. You've found something in our history to attach something to, something to anchor it to, something to get a zip tie and link it together.” But I wonder why we needed an age in the first place. It does seem like perhaps we could have got away with using the wise heads of over-72-year-olds, some of whom are in this House—

Carl Bates: You can still use them.

CAMERON LUXTON: Yeah, and you could still use them, but having an ability to choose exemption and not doing that part of the civic duty—there are questions about that that I have.

Grant McCallum: Presidents and Prime Ministers.

CAMERON LUXTON: And Privy Councillors, right? Of course. It raises another question about the age. We have a system in New Zealand that goes back, and it is a generational inheritance—that is our superannuation scheme. If the House has been so open to raising this age, I wonder about how the House might look at raising the superannuation age gradually, carefully, over time. It would be an important thing to make sure that our country is financially stable into the future.

Francisco Hernandez: Not sure all the coalition partners would like that.

CAMERON LUXTON: Well, I’m glad to hear I'm getting support from the Greens over there on that proposal. It's a good thing to make sure we've got some generational justice, as they would say.

I do wonder if this limit was really needed. There are wise heads that have sat around the Justice Committee, which I'm somewhat envious that I do not get to partake in, considering the lofty intellectual discussions that they have. I don’t get to be in the tower of the Justice Committee; I’m in the square, perhaps, with the plebians out there building houses in New Zealand. I’m very proud to be in that situation. The Transport and Infrastructure Committee is a great committee for that sort of discussion. I haven't had a chance to partake in the discussions around this bill.

Rima Nakhle: You can be an honorary member.

CAMERON LUXTON: An honorary member, Rima Nakhle says. Look, I appreciate that, Rima Nakhle, but there’s a lot to be done in this House and select committee time is important time.

Look, I think that what we're going to see—and New Zealanders over 65 are proud to be able to serve their community, proud to be able to stand and say, “Look, I have built a life. I have built experience. I have something to offer. I am going to be providing for people who”—you know, I think about mothers I know who have said, “Look, I don't have time for this jury duty.” Perhaps there's a legitimate reason with a sick child or some such—fathers who say, “Look, I’ve got my kids this week. I can't get in to jury duty. I've got to provide that that parenting this week.” And older New Zealanders like grandparents who take kids on in the weekend sometimes or during the week so parents can go to work—they might see this as another part of providing for their part as the elder leaders in our community to provide for the next generation.

Thinking about the way that we can use that knowledge, that we can make sure that New Zealanders are contributing right through is an incredibly important part of what this bill is trying to do. I would like to once again congratulate the member Carl Bates for bringing it.

Hon Member: Thank you to the member from Whanganui.

CAMERON LUXTON: I'm not going to get into that debate. The member has obviously shepherded it well through the Justice Committee who have come to an agreement that this is the right thing to do and I'm happy to support it. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Hon MARK PATTERSON (Minister for Rural Communities): It's a pleasure to stand up on behalf of New Zealand First and take this call on this Juries (Age of Excusal) Amendment Bill. Madam Chair, can I say that it's good to re-acquaint—we had a good day out in the King Country on Monday, didn't we—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Absolutely. Thank you.

Hon MARK PATTERSON: —going around some of the—not so good for the province; heavily impacted by the flooding event last week. Our thoughts also are going out to those in Canterbury, parts of the South Island, and the lower North Island here that are going through similar inclement weather events at the moment.

In terms of this bill, I'd commend the member Carl Bates, and I know he has a legal background. I think it's a solid bill to be bringing forward, one that, actually, I think, if you look at it—and I'm sure I'm not the only member in the House that thought, well, how is this still the case? It seems to make no sense at all why we would start excusing people over the age of 65. I'm taking far more interest these days in superannuation bills and the like, as you get a little bit older. I would take a little bit of issue with Cameron Luxton's take on lifting the super age; I don't think that's going anywhere fast, but we're here. There's a good reason for that; people work pretty hard, especially those in manual labour. The challenge for us is to continue to grow our economy strongly so we can afford to have those that get to 65 retire with some dignity and some security in their earnings, particularly those that have gone through a life of manual labour, for which 65 is quite a threshold to get to.

Age cuts across a number of these bills when you get up to that 65. It is something that we do debate in this House across a range of pieces of legislation. This makes absolute sense, from New Zealand's perspective, to lift the threshold to 72 in terms of where our expectations lie. We know that our seniors make an incredible contribution to this country. The volunteer sector in New Zealand would collapse without the contribution of our seniors.

Grant McCallum: So would New Zealand First!

Hon MARK PATTERSON: Ha, ha! I've heard members of the National Party, in particular, talk about the wisdom and the experience of people over 65, so if they are members of New Zealand First, then you know that that's certainly playing out. But it's not just our members; we're thinking of everyone across the political spectrum. We think there is a contribution to make—you know, those are the people at the prime of their lives in terms of their experience, their wisdom. If I was in that situation—in the unfortunate situation of having to face a jury—I think I would want a jury of experienced senior peers to bring their vast experience.

The other thing: it could also, on the periphery, be a boost for the wool industry. The seniors are very big knitters, and I think a bit of time in the jury box could grow some demand for wool, as well. And of course, because they'll have a SuperGold card—as long as we can get the timings of the hearings so that they can get there on their SuperGold card, their off-peak SuperGold card, I think that would be something that we should look into, too.

In terms of the select committee, the Justice Committee, it has been a busy committee over this course of Parliament. I think, without wanting to undermine the good work, this would have to be one of the simpler bills they would have seen—one of the most common-sense bills they would have seen. It was interesting, though, when we get to the committee of the whole House, because Carl Bates, in his first speech in this second reading, did raise a number of issues that came through in the select committee, and particularly around those that that want to want to serve into an older age and whether they’re fit and competent, and maybe that's something that we can prosecute through that committee of the whole House stage as we go through this bill. So sometimes these simpler—you can get a bit complacent about them, and then actually someone does come along and ask some really good questions. It's something that, if there is something there that you would like to bring to the House, Carl, I know New Zealand First would certainly look at that, because we're a party that absolutely has respect for our seniors for their contribution. And obviously, I mean, our leader the Rt Hon Winston Peters is certainly well past this threshold and still running rings around most, if not all, politicians in this Parliament.

So, without further ado, we do support this bill. We'll continue to support it through to the committee of the whole House. We wish it well in that process. We will participate, and we commend it further to the House. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The next call is a split call. Oriini Kaipari—is someone going to take a call? Francisco Hernandez.

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to take a call on the Juries (Age of Excusal) Amendment Bill. This is a bill that, as my colleague Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan has said, we are now supporting. I won’t elaborate that strongly on my speech.

Before I turn to the reasons why we do support this bill, I just wanted to wish the members a happy Filipino Restaurant Week. We went pretty wide in the previous speaker’s contribution, going to the issue, and there will be some Filipinos that will be affected by this Juries (Age of Excusal) Amendment Bill, particularly to the ones who eat at the Wellington-based eateries of Little Manila, Lazy Juan, and Faithful Flavours.

Old people bring a lot of really valuable experience, so I think it’s good that this will enable a wider range of participation. In our own local branch, we have a lot of members who are, you know, 72, still very capable. I won’t name them, because I might have misjudged their age; they might be younger than that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Very wise!

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ: Look, congratulations to the member Carl Bates on getting your bill drawn, and it looks like it will have unanimous support from the House. Well done. I won’t labour this speech any further. Congratulations.

Tom Rutherford: Madam Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Oriini Kaipara has decided to take a call.

ORIINI KAIPARA (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau): Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. Te Pāti Māori stands by its decision to oppose this bill. In listening to the kōrero to my left and to my right, from experience having parents who are in the category—the demographic group that is being spoken of, mid-60s—in Māori communities, it's very, very rare nowadays to see many 70-year-olds turning up to the marae, coming to hui, actually out and about in the community. Many of them are very frail. The health system has failed a lot of our people, and especially the demographic group that has been referred to.

There are many reasons as to why Te Pāti Māori opposes this bill. Consultation with those that are being questioned, the 72-year-olds, where are they in the mix of consultation? I find it quite interesting to hear this bill being proposed by someone not in that demographic group, but speaking for them. We’re talking to excusals for 65-year-olds—not everybody actually has equal health to be able to actually responsibly do the role justice. So on behalf of the Māori population who do suffer disparities in every K shape and form actually being—

Carl Bates: Don’t speak for all Māori!

ORIINI KAIPARA: I don't speak for all, I speak for Tāmaki Makaurau.

As the MP for Tāmaki Makaurau, I do know my people within the electorates and there are many, many who would oppose this based on discrimination against everybody. This is a generalisation of everybody within the 65- to 72-year-old age group. It is putting a blanket response on everyone within the demographic without giving weight to the individual circumstances of these people. I speak for the people of Tāmaki Makaurau and those, particularly, amongst Māori communities. Te Pāti Māori is here to represent and speak for the voices of those who are marginalised, and this further marginalises many Māori people. That is the start, and that's where I'll end it.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): I can't quite believe what I've just listened to for the last 2½ minutes.

Oriini Kaipara: Because you’re not in the Māori community.

TOM RUTHERFORD: Oh, OK. The member has just yelled out, “Because I'm not in the Māori community”, I'm incapable of potentially understanding any part of the argument that she just presented in her short contribution. I would say she talked about the potential impacts on Māori people who are aged between 65 to 72.

If she'd actually read the legislation, she would know that, for example, if they had healthcare issues or issues of a similar nature, they still have the ability to apply to withdraw from being part of the jury process. It's in the legislation. It is literally in the legislation. You cannot say that because you're 66 years old and you're Māori, you shouldn't necessarily have to turn up and do your civic duty on a jury, which is a jury of your peers—your peers of 11 other people on a jury of 12 from across New Zealand, Māori, non-Māori, Pākehā, European, Asian, Indian, Chinese, whatever it might be who make up that mix of people who serve on a jury. Yet that member has just stood up and said, “No, no, it doesn't work for 66-year-old Māori to serve on a jury.” Had she actually read the legislation my colleague has put up here, she would know that if they were 66 or 67 years old, they would have the ability, if they have health issues or other issues that are in a similar vein, to say, “I am unable to be a member on the jury.” But had she read the legislation? Not a chance, not a chance at all, and it showed, in that shameful two-minute contribution.

I didn't plan to talk for 10 minutes on that member's contribution. I plan to actually talk about the good components that make up this legislation. This is really—and I cannot believe a political party as opposed to it—a really straightforward, sensible reform that reflects modern New Zealand. We are living longer in this country. People are living longer—Māori are living longer—and as such it is only right to adjust the age of responsibility for people to serve their civic duty on juries amongst their peers. By changing it from 65 to 72, it reduces bureaucracy and it improves jury diversity. Would you believe it? It improves jury diversity. And do you know what? I trust seniors to participate in their civic duty. If Grant McCallum can be an MP, I trust seniors to participate in their civic duty! Whether they're Māori or non-Māori, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, or 72, I trust that they can participate in their civic duty.

The Justice Committee considered the legislation. We received 31 submissions on the bill and unanimously—unanimously; Oriini Kaipara’s own colleague from Te Pāti Māori—recommended that this bill pass. Your own colleague recommended that this bill pass. You should have a chat with your parliamentary colleague, that this bill pass. Would you believe it? Now, Grant McCullum says, “Who is this colleague?” Who is this colleague? Oh, well, Tākuta Ferris, admittedly. Now, admittedly, it's Tākuta Ferris. But the Justice Committee examined the bill and unanimously recommends passing it, with practical transition provisions—unanimously recommends that it pass.

The current law is simple. Anyone aged over 65 or over who receives a jury summons can choose to serve or apply to be excused. If they apply to be excused solely on the basis of age, the registrar must grant—

Arena Williams: Who’s watching you, liking this?

TOM RUTHERFORD: What was that, sorry?

Arena Williams: Who’s watching you, liking this? Does this do us any favours?

TOM RUTHERFORD: See, this is the thing. This is the thing.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One never knows who might be watching.

TOM RUTHERFORD: This is the thing, we get elected to Parliament to be legislators, right? To bring in legislation, to scrutinise it, to improve it. And then a member of the Labour Party, Arena Williams, says, “What are you doing? What's the point? Why are you speaking? Why are you debating legislation?” Oh, shock horror! Rule number one says that that is my job. That is my job. That is, literally, why we were elected to this place.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: OK, order! Someone will be watching.

TOM RUTHERFORD: That’s right.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: All of you.

TOM RUTHERFORD: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

At the moment, if you are aged over 65 or over, you will be granted excusable by the registrar based on the fact that you are over 65, no questions asked, no assessment of circumstances. Age alone is sufficient grounds. This can either be for a particular occasion, under section 15(2)(aa) of the Juries Act 1981, or permanently, under section 15A(2). Many people over 65 receive a summons, tick the box saying, “I'm over 65, please excuse me,” and that's the end of it.

This bill, in the name of Carl Bates—and he's done fantastic work leading it—proposes two simple amendments. It changes 65 years to 72 years, in both of those provisions. That's it. That is it. Clean, simple, and straightforward—

Carl Bates: And unanimously supported.

TOM RUTHERFORD: And unanimously supported by all members of every political party represented in this House on the Justice Committee, so I cannot believe that Te Pāti Māori would stand up and oppose a really simple, clean, and straightforward piece of legislation. I therefore commend it to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This debate is interrupted. The House is suspended until 7.30 p.m.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Debate interrupted.

Speaker’s Statements

Canterbury Local State of Emergency—Removal of Proxy Vote Limit

SPEAKER: Members, the weather situation around the country is getting worse and a local state of emergency has been declared for Canterbury. In order to assist members to be able to return to their electorates safely, parties have discussed removing the limit on proxy votes for the rest of this week. Therefore, I seek leave that the limit on proxy votes does not apply until the House adjourns on Thursday, 23 October and that Standing Order 146 be read accordingly. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is none.

GLEN BENNETT (Chief Whip—Labour): Point of order, Mr Speaker. I just want to clarify the date. You did say the 23rd, and I’m sure we’re all happy with that, but I just wanted to make sure you’re right.

SPEAKER: It’s 23 October, so—

Hon Members: Tomorrow.

Glen Bennett: At the end of tomorrow?

SPEAKER: Yeah, and so the effect of what I’ve just said is that there is no limit on proxy votes up until the close of play tomorrow.

Bills

Juries (Age of Excusal) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. I want to make several points and they’re actually about the bill, which will be a bit of a shock to anybody listening to this debate. This is a bill—thank you to Carl Bates—that we have before us to extend the age that people can serve on juries. I want to start with the value of juries themselves. This was raised by one of the ACT Party contributors here who talked about the value of the jury. I’ve been a lawyer most of my life, which meant that I couldn’t serve on a jury, and now I’m in this position, I probably can’t either. If we go to 72, maybe I’ve got a chance of serving on one. I’d be very, very keen to be part of a jury because I think they’re a really interesting institution.

I think it goes back to a time when I was part of a law-school class run by a guy called Bernard Brown, who was must have been one of the nicest professors that you could ever have. He was a legal historian. I remember him telling us about the early juries and how they came about. One of his favourite stories was to talk about how when you created penalties that were too severe, juries simply wouldn’t find the person guilty. There were a lot of penalties at that point that included tarring and feathering, and in fact, juries would not find their fellow citizens guilty of these crimes because tarring and feathering seemed too severe.

It was a really good lesson in staying in step with the norms and values of your society or never being very far apart. The jury told its own story about where it would settle in terms of justice. Some of us call that, I guess, common sense, but it’s a process whereby people sit and they listen and they actually adhere, as part of their civic duty, to a set of rules that are about impartiality, about listening, fairness, listening, justice, listening, listening, and listening. They don’t do it from a point of view of being on high, like a judge. They’re not separated. They are accepting that they do this in equality with the person who is being tried, but they also do it in equality with the person who is the victim, and I think that’s a really interesting part of the jury system.

Now, I actually don’t think that it’s something that is for every situation. I think there are a lot of situations which are very harrowing. They require an expertise that we need to draw upon, but I think it’s a really valuable part of our system.

I want to talk about something that is very connected with this bill and its ethos, which is about the value of our older people in our community, and this is a lesson I’ve really had to learn as my parents have aged. My dad, like Arena Williams’ father, and I think you’ve heard from her—by the way, Arena Williams’ father is someone you just need to meet. He’s absolutely amazing. He’s electric, he’s energetic, he’s intelligent, and he is assertive. He’s a lot of things that you’d want on a jury, and he’s in his 90s.

My dad is 94 this year, and he drives me nuts—he absolutely drives me nuts. He drives me nuts because he is absolutely—he has tenacity. He thinks he’s in middle age, and he has no idea that this is called old age. He will not accept that. He does not live in Selwyn Village, where I would really love him to live. My mother has dementia and it’s hard, and it would be better in some ways, from my point of view, that they lived in Selwyn Village down the road, which is an amazing rest home with bright, intelligent people. But he does live there, because he will not give up his independence, and I think about the way that he and my mother have taught me the value of respecting people’s autonomy and their intelligence as they get older.

When I was a lawyer, I had a case that I really remember. It was one of those things that just grated on me. It was a man who had been a CEO of a company, and he had got to 65 and somebody said, “Right, you’re out. You’re retiring because we’ve got a policy that says you’ve got to go.” I took the case because that was a breach of the law—you can’t discriminate on the basis of age. You used to be able to, so it was in his contract from years ago. There was a mediator involved in the situation. She said to him, “Haven’t you got better things to be doing with your time than working as the CEO of this company? Wouldn’t it be good to do some other things and take a step back?”, etc., and he said to her, “Lady, I can’t even deliver pamphlets. Nobody will employ me to deliver pamphlets.” That was the attitude of our society towards somebody with enormous experience and wisdom who wanted to work.

So we’ve come a long way, I hope, from that. It would have been maybe 15 years ago that I did that case. You know, I hope that the mediator doesn’t think the same thing that she did. I hope that most people don’t, but I do think we have suffered from an ageism that really is not appropriate and it probably never was appropriate. But I know how valuable work is, and this law, again, reflects that. Isn’t it strange that we did have a different rule for our judiciary? Isn’t it strange that we allowed some people to progress? I mean, let’s think about Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She was a justice of the Supreme Court in America and how old was she? We have these beautiful people who are bright and stimulate us, and bring with them the wisdom of having been every age, and we still have this prejudice that says that they cannot participate in the society and can’t contribute to something like a jury. So I think that it’s incredibly important that we challenge these real prejudices of the past.

Then, I want to spend the last part of my speech just actually talking about some of the people that I’ve met while I’ve been a member of Parliament—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): As it relates to this bill.

HELEN WHITE: —as it relates to this bill, and the kinds of contributions that they would make to a jury. In this speech, I talked about how I had a group of people that I would love my father to join at Selwyn Village. The people that I have met at Selwyn Village are a community that is so thoughtful. I go along and I do these public meetings there where I meet with them and they ask me questions. I don’t think I get better questions asked of me in any context than I get in Selwyn Village. I get the best questions because people are focused and they’ve read well—

Carl Bates: They’re engaged.

HELEN WHITE: —and they are super-engaged, and they have through deeply about things. I remember—and I think it was a point another speaker made about the pressures on people when they’ve got little kids. Actually, I think it was Cameron Luxton, again, talking about this. I remember that time in my life when I had little kids and there were catastrophes and there were crises, and I was trying to work. There were all sorts of things. I remember the gym instructor saying, “If you could just get here three times a week and focus on this.”, and I was thinking, “You’d be lucky. I don’t have that kind of time in my life.” But when you’re older, you get this privilege of, hopefully, a bit of time, and so this is a rich source of people for a jury.

We have people that I’ve met in that context in that village who would ace a jury. They’d be absolutely wonderful on it because they’d be thinking about the situation with all that rich experience, and coming to it with a proportionality. I think that this bill has got a really strong, firm affirmation of a group of people who often feel that they are not being valued and whom we should value, and so I commend the bill to the House.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It really is a pleasure to rise as we are delving into the midst of the second reading of the Juries (Age of Excusal) Amendment Bill, a member’s bill in the name of my good friend, as I mentioned in my first reading speech, Carl Bates, member of Parliament for Whanganui. I say “good friend” because he’s one of these people—like many of my colleagues in the class of 2023, as we say, and across the party that I’m very blessed to be part of—that are strong in their convictions but reasonable in their understanding and in the lengths they’d go to understand different sides of situations. I want to commend you, Carl, in that regard.

This bill is a very interesting one. It’s one of those bills—which often happens with members’ bills—where we realise it’s actually a very small change. I remember back to the member’s bill that I was very privileged to have pulled out of the ballot and that was passed unanimously in the House with respect to victims of crime. It’s a small change, but the ripple effect, I can confidently say, is quite colossal. When I think about this bill—and we’ve just heard from the speaker the honourable Helen White who just sat down—we’re delving into the subject of our seniors and the value they add to different segments in our community. That’s something that, for me, resonates quite profoundly and quite deeply because, from a young age, I would watch my mother take extra care with our seniors and go that extra mile. It’s not because they’re not capable, but it’s because they’ve lived through this world, they’ve gone through different stages of our progress as a world, and they absolutely hold inherent mana in my opinion. That is why I really struggle when I hear people almost disregard the value—not all people, but some people can—that our older, wiser, mature senior citizens can add to our society.

This bill, in the name of my friend Carl Bates, reinforces how valuable our seniors are and, actually, how much value they add when it comes to making decisions on the situations where people have transgressed the law. I reflected on how—as I was thinking about what I’d like to convey in my kōrero today—a lot of us at our ages—yes, I look 27, but I’m actually in my mid-40s. A lot of us, in our age, talk about how our parents have mellowed out—a lot of us; many of us. I, as a Lebanese wahine, talk about that with my cousins. My dad is so mellow these days—my dad was not mellow once upon a time—and in this mellowness, what I find is that when we give our seniors an opportunity to contribute effectively in the administration of the law—in a way, depending on how you philosophically look at it—via jury duty, they’ve had the wisdom of their years, the changes in the waves of them being mellow, not mellow, snapping, but in their mellowness, they never lose what’s important. That’s absolutely what I’ve seen with my parents, my beautiful parents, my aunties, and my uncles. That’s why I thank you, Carl Bates.

Other people might see this as a little change—“Oh, we don’t need to invest much time into a change like this.” No, we do. We need to invest time to reinforce how important it is to have the contribution of our older and wiser folk in the exercise of law. As we’ve mentioned, my colleagues across the House have said in no uncertain terms that the bill essentially makes two changes to the Juries Act 1981. If we’re going to put it into a nutshell, essentially the registrar’s discretion and duty to excuse someone from jury service on particular occasions—instead of it being automatic from the age of 65, we’re changing it to the age of 72.

I just think of my mother. My mother is 72.

Suze Redmayne: Seventy-two is the new 50.

RIMA NAKHLE: “Seventy-two is the new 50.”, my friend Suze Redmayne says. My mother is 72, and as I mentioned in my first reading speech, she says to me she’ll only retire when she dies. Once I was talking to her about a bill progressing in the House, and she said, “Well, why don’t you do this? Why don’t you do that?” I said, “Mum, that’s actually what we’re doing. You’re so amazing.” She left school—well, she didn’t choose to, but circumstances meant that she left school—when she was 17. She would have loved to further her studies. Even without her studies—we talk about lived experience—the amount of knowledge and wisdom that my mother imparts to me and to many others. She loves jury duty. She tells me about the times that she sat on jury duty, and she’s a very wise, intelligent, and beautiful lady. Thank you, my friend Carl. Thank you. I do commend this bill to the House.

Before I end, with your indulgence, Mr Carl Bates, and with your indulgence, Madam Speaker, and the indulgence of the House today, there was a funeral in Auckland, a funeral of someone that’s only known to me minimally but is very important to my brother-in-law. I often talk about my Tongan, Kiwi, Aussie brother-in-law, Cyril Edwards. His paternal auntie passed away. The sadness is that she just turned 99 a few weeks ago. But Cyril and his siblings often talk about the wisdom of Auntie Janie. Her name is Janie, Seini Foliaki, and she was married to the late Leopino Foliaki. If you allow me, Madam Speaker, in terms of—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): As it relates to this bill.

RIMA NAKHLE: Yes—in terms of the beauty of the wisdom of age and what she’s imparted. I’d just like to share my condolences, if you’d allow me, Madam Speaker, to the Foliaki family in what they’re going through today and recognising that it’s going to be put on the Hansard. Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank you to the memory of Auntie Seini and the wisdom that she’s imparted. She showed everyone that, yep, you might be 99, but you still can add a lot of value to our communities.

Coming back to this bill—

Cameron Brewer: Very nice.

RIMA NAKHLE: Thank you. And thank you for your indulgence, Madam Speaker, and to my friend Carl Bates.

Coming back to this bill, as we said, it just increases that automatic age from 65 to 72. Some of the positives of this are that we know that it will help in making sure that we can have more people to contribute to jury duty so that we can get through our cases in a quicker and faster way as well, because we’d have that that extra seven years of people that fall into that pool for jury duty being able to contribute as well.

I really appreciate the fact that, Carl, when you gave your first reading speech and indeed throughout the conversations in the Justice Committee, you gave a lot of thought into why the age 72. The member came to the conclusion that it was a balanced midpoint where judges retire at the age of 70 but can serve until the age of 75, and the Ombudsman’s retirement age, at this stage, is 72. That’s how my colleague Carl Bates came to that midpoint of 72. I’m excited about this going forward and what it means for the opportunities it continues to open for our senior citizens who we admire so much and we thank so much. Again, Aunty Seini Foliaki, may your soul rest in peace. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. As has been well canvassed in this House here this evening, Labour supports this bill. I’d like to take the opportunity to congratulate Carl Bates for seeing an issue and bringing it forward; a perfect example of what members’ day can do and bills that identify where there are issues and do something to fill them.

One of the things I would like to note is that many times you don’t really know until you get to that select committee process. As this is a second reading speech, I just wanted to comment that I have read through the submissions that were presented at select committee, and you can see from that that most of the select committee submissions did agree that there was an issue here, that the courts are being pressured at the moment, and that this would go some way to alleviate them.

I also noticed Age Concern New Zealand’s feedback. It does relate to what has been said here and what I have heard here this evening that the way that society sees ageing now has changed, in that we’ve moved to a positive approach to ageing that maybe a decade or more ago we didn’t see quite like we see now. It is important, as Age Concern New Zealand say in their submission, that this bill recognises and promotes that positive ageing and also promotes the value of older people in making decision making in such a way as being representative on the juries.

The other point that I thought was really interesting in that particular submission was that they said that this goes a long way to increasing the diversity. I think that is really important because 65 isn’t that old and doesn’t bring that level of diversity, if that’s the cut-off point. So I am really supportive of anything that will increase diversity and will increase the chance that the Ministry of Justice will be able to fill those juries a lot easier because there will be a lot less people who will be able to give those excuses over time.

So, as I’ve said, Labour supports this bill and we look forward to seeing its progression through the House.

PAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm happy to be able to stand and contribute to the Juries (Age of Excusal) Amendment Bill. As a fan of jury movies, it is a very interesting topic for me. My top three would be 12 Angry Men, Runaway Jury, and Juror #2. Each of the movies show how the stress and anxiety brought about by jury duty impacts on the jurors themselves. So it—

Dan Bidois: 12 Angry Men—that’s another good one.

PAULO GARCIA: Absolutely.

Carl Bates: And the TV series The Twelve.

PAULO GARCIA: Yes, and so there is much to be said about allowing jurors who are more senior in age to be able to contribute still. I must say that there are practical reasons to this change from age 65 to 72. The practical reasons include reducing the need for having to issue more summons, as people aged 65—who are, at this stage, still given jury summons—will ask for excusal at age 65. They have much more to give, and allowing the age to be increased to 72 will allow that. Also, as the member across has mentioned, allowing more people of age to perform in the jury duty gives diversity to the pool and increases the number that's available for the pool. The ageing population of New Zealand also demands that. It's a sign of the times. We're also getting to live far longer and far older.

Also, I wanted to take this opportunity to mention that, as my colleague Suze Redmayne had mentioned earlier, actually, which was that the official thing is that 50 is the new 40, and so on—she referenced and so on and so on. I must say, especially to my younger colleagues, that everything feels the same after 40—it feels absolutely the same. Probably there would be some differences, like whiter hair and some other little bits and pieces, but it’s largely the same.

So there's much to be said about being 65 and older. Taking it from my point of view and my own observations, there's much more serenity and far less anxiety, and there's much more calm, and far less rash judgment. These are really good qualities for a juror, and this—

Suze Redmayne: Life experience.

PAULO GARCIA: Yes, life experience—it is.

Tom Rutherford: Yeah, lived experience.

PAULO GARCIA: Lived experience—it is. As I'm sure my peers in this House and my more senior colleagues would agree, lived experience allows for a far greater and more balanced judgment of the facts of any case that may be before a juror. I think that it is an opportunity that should not be ignored, and a space of humanity that should be given the opportunity to carry on and contribute. For these very reasons, I absolutely commend this bill to the House.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Madam Speaker, it's a pleasure to take a short call on the Juries (Age of Excusal) Amendment Bill, but can I just say I'm really hoping and very excited that tonight we finally get to the Life Jackets for Children and Young Persons Bill, Mr Brewer. That would be very exciting. We've been waiting for that for a while, so I'll keep this call short in the interest of trying to get to your bill, good sir.

Labour supports this bill. As has been spoken about tonight, it’s a sensible bill that will make it more straightforward for older members of our society to participate in a jury. It's no secret to New Zealanders that in my community of Nelson, we do have a higher proportion of older people, many of whom, upon their retirement, continue to contribute in a number of voluntary ways—volunteering for organisations, sitting on committees, and actually being able to undertake jury service is the type of contribution that I know a lot of older people in Nelson really appreciate being able to do.

Just to be really clear, the current law doesn't preclude anyone over the age of 65 from participating in a jury already, but what it does do is it allows somebody over the age of 65 to be able to excuse themselves, whereas that age is now going to be lifted to the age of 72. So what this will mean is that there is a bigger pool of people who will be required to participate in a jury. That is a good thing, because we know that there's a real pressure on our court system, and often part of that pressure is actually having the availability of jurors to sit on a jury.

I also just note that the Justice Committee did make a couple of small amendments to the bill with some savings provisions, particularly, to ensure that when the bill has its commencement and receives its Royal assent that it doesn't become retroactive to people who have already been issued their first notice for being on a jury, their first summons, so that was a sensible position from the select committee.

I congratulate the member on getting the bill this far. Labour is very pleased to support it and I'm really looking forward to Mr Brewer's bill later. I commend this bill to the House.

TODD STEPHENSON (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Sorry, you weren’t on my list.

TODD STEPHENSON: I know, sorry.

I'm just taking a call because I really did want to actually take a call on this bill, Madam Speaker. And it's probably something you're not going to need to worry about for a long, long time, about the age of excusal for juries.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Because I'm already 72, you mean.

TODD STEPHENSON: Well, no, because you're so young, you've got obviously decades ahead of yourself. But I just also wanted to—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): As it relates to this bill.

TODD STEPHENSON: —as it relates to this bill, yes—say to Mr Bates, congratulations on progressing this bill to the second reading. I know it's quite exciting having your bill drawn out of the tin and then taking it through the process. And again, like some of the other members who have spoken here tonight I was lucky enough to be on the Justice Committee as we—

Dan Bidois: Hard-working!

TODD STEPHENSON: —hard-working Justice Committee, you have no idea—as we took this bill through the process and, you know, again, it is actually really up for the member in charge of a member's bill to actually do the hard work. The select committee is obviously there to examine the legislation, can take submissions, but you actually, as a member in charge of a member's bill, actually have to do the hard work yourself—to talk to other political parties, talk to other members on the select committee, and try to reach some consensus.

Again, I think it's just an art that we—or something we just need to remember, that just because your bill's being drawn, it doesn't actually mean the select committee's going to do all the work, because it doesn't have the same vested interest as the member in charge does. So I want to congratulate Mr Bates on actually shepherding this bill through and having those constructive conversations. And look, we did look at a lot of different issues. I know Mr Bates might have been slightly infuriated when I said, “Well, let's just get rid of the age entirely. Like, I just don't know why we have an age restriction at all.” But, you know, I am in ACT and we're a little bit into freedom and trying to remove regulations and rules.

But look, we worked through what would be appropriate. We looked at different compromises as a committee. We obviously took submissions—and again, we did actually have some submissions on this bill, not thousands, but we did have some submissions and some thoughtful reflection on what this would mean.

Again, I think the other thing which other members have mentioned tonight is I think it's also an acknowledgement that older New Zealanders actually can contribute to our justice system and play a really important role. The wonderful thing about the age we live in—I'm very positive about where the world is going and the actual hope for future generations. I like to say to my friends, you know, I do have some friends and acquaintances who are around 50, but I like to remind them they're only halfway there. The life expectancy for people will get longer and longer and they will need to continue to think about the ways that they can contribute to society. Obviously, jury duty is a very important way to contribute to our society.

Look, we've done some wonderful things in Government in trying to actually address court timeliness. But we actually, when jury trials are required, we actually need people to serve on those juries. Having a slightly larger pool of New Zealanders that can actually participate is super important.

I think the other thing I found really interesting was with the justice officials in the Justice Committee. They actually gave us a lot of information about the actual practicalities about how the balloting system works, how they actually get the pool of jurors. And again, some of the changes they're looking to make so that people aren't inconvenienced by having to turn up and present themselves from jury duty and hang around and wait there, they're actually looking at some more modern techniques which actually will support what Mr Bates has done here, in this bill.

So, you know, I think a lot of that was really informative to the committee as we worked through the issues, because changing the age is just one thing; we wanted to make sure it actually works for people, and the mechanics of it and how juries are selected. People are obviously picked at random, and then they're rung up and said they have to—or sent a letter actually, I think—have to come in. But there are ways they can also call to see if they do need to show up. And yeah, it was just really interesting to understand that process, and also how they're looking at modernising it, which again will go in parallel to this change that's being remained around the age of excusal.

I think it was a very constructive process. I think we've reached a really good compromise—or a consensus, actually, is the word I would use—

Carl Bates: Unanimous.

TODD STEPHENSON: Unanimous consensus as a committee around the age. And yeah, I just think it was a really great example of the member in charge diligently working away, making sure it was an issue where we actually could make a change—it wasn't too big in scope—building a consensus, examining the issues. And we really did feel that we were able to return this bill to the House with our—obviously—our comments. We only made one, I think, minor—a couple of minor amendments just to make sure that the transitional provisions, etc. and other Acts were covered off.

I really, yeah, want to commend the member, and also all those others on the Justice Committee, people who made submissions. I will be commending this to the House on behalf of that. Thank you.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Points of Order

Members’ Order of the Day No. 1—Reinstatement

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): Point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek leave for members’ order of the day No. 1 to be reinstated and set down for second reading immediately.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? Leave is not granted.

Bills

Life Jackets for Children and Young Persons Bill

First Reading

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): I move, That the Life Jackets for Children and Young Persons Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Transport and Infrastructure Committee to consider this bill.

It is a privilege to speak as sponsor of this bill. The sea, lakes, and rivers are part of who we are—our lifestyle, our community, our economy, and our culture—but that proximity also carries risk, and, all too often, that risk falls upon our children and young people. New Zealand’s drowning rate is tragically high—sadly, the data tells us as much. Drowning has been cited as the third-highest cause of unintentional death in New Zealand for children up to the age of 14. Our overall fatal drowning rate is among the worst in the developed world.

The Life Jackets for Children and Young Persons Bill aims to reduce that risk in a straightforward, practical way. It makes the wearing of life jackets compulsory for anyone under 15 years of age while on board recreational vessels 6 metres or less in length. This is not a sweeping change or radical reform, but it is one that’s overdue.

The current rules are inconsistent across every region in New Zealand, thanks to different unitary and regional by-laws. They are inconsistent, can be confusing, and hence ineffective. Not only is it that the by-laws are inconsistent across the country, we’ve now got the situation where many territorial local authorities require the mandatory wearing of life jackets at all times for everyone but our country’s pertinent maritime rule made under the authority of the Maritime Transport Act is now more permissive than most regional by-laws, and, I would argue, below Kiwis’ expectations.

Maritime Rule 91 requires that all recreational vessels carry life jackets for every person on board but it doesn’t mandate that children wear them at all times. Yes, wear them at heightened risk and on a vessel less than 6 metres, but skippers still ultimately hold the discretion and judgment under Maritime Rule 91. The law, as it is, ultimately leaves it to skipper discretion. Sad news stories over many years show us that discretion doesn’t always lead to safety. Even the most well-meaning boatie can sometimes get things wrong.

I want to acknowledge the bill’s former sponsors, former National MP Alfred Ngaro, as well as current MP for the North Shore and now Minister the Hon Simon Watts.

This bill has strong sector support from the likes of Maritime New Zealand, Water Safety New Zealand, Coastguard New Zealand, and Drowning Prevention Auckland, who have all called for stronger requirements around wearing of life jackets. I want to thank each of these organisations for taking the time to meet with me and outline the critical issue of water safety. I acknowledge the incredible work that they do in keeping Kiwis safe on the water every single day. Water Safety New Zealand tells me that improving life jacket use is one single action that can significantly reduce our drowning burden.

Put plainly: life jacket use being left to chance or left to personal discretion is putting people’s lives at risk. This bill simply puts in place a clear and consistent nationwide rule: if children are under 15 and are on a small boat, they wear a life jacket. Wearing a life jacket shouldn’t be optional for a child on a small recreational vessel.

Capsizings, collisions, and weather changes can be unpredictable or sudden. There’s no time to reach for a life jacket once you’re already in the water. Last year alone, Maritime New Zealand was notified of 17 deaths, of all ages, involving recreational craft. The 2024 numbers not wearing a life jacket have yet to be confirmed, given ongoing investigations, but what we do know is that life jackets would have saved several last year.

I also spoke with Coastguard New Zealand. Sadly, it is volunteers from organisations like Coastguard who have to confront the trauma and reality when something goes wrong in the water. Let’s not lose sight of the fact that behind every fatality is a family and a community left with devastating loss.

The scope of this bill is limited to those under 15, which is tied to the minimum age which someone can legally skipper a boat. I acknowledge this bill naturally raises wider questions of universal use, which have already been put to me by those involved in the sector. This is certainly worthy of further select committee investigation. That is: should all Kiwis in small boats be required to wear life jackets? But that is not what we are voting on tonight.

Different definitions of the bill will also need to be addressed, noting that it’s critically important that life jackets are not only worn but are fit for purpose, maintained, and properly fitted. I note the existing exceptions in the maritime rules for surfboards; sailboards; and wind surfers, provided a wetsuit is worn; supervised sporting events; and commercial rafting are all preserved. This bill reflects those exceptions.

The Transport and Infrastructure Committee will also need to examine and scrutinise what a fitted life jacket is, realistic access to life jackets, determine whether the named exemptions are sufficient and appropriate, and consider the role of education and enforcement. This is about protecting children, plain and simple; just a straightforward rule to protect children on the water and grow a positive culture of lifejacket wearing going forward this century.

We teach our kids to wear seatbelts in a car. We make them wear helmets on bikes. Wearing a life jacket on a small boat should just be as obvious.

Surveys have shown that the overwhelming number of Kiwis want our children and life jackets on small boats. In fact, most Kiwis already think they are already mandatory nationwide, reflected by the fact that most Kiwi kids are already in life jackets when out in the open water with family and friends. This bill simply codifies what many regional councils already have in place; it codifies what most families already put in practice; and it codifies what almost every Kiwi, rightly, expects is already happening.

I want to just reflect on Water Safety New Zealand again. They gave me this quote: “This legislation sends a clear message about the culture we need to help New Zealanders make the right decisions on water. Drowning data tells us that up to 20 lives can be saved every year if the rules were clear and if everyone wore a life jacket.” That’s Water Safety New Zealand.

This bill will give a clear, consistent, nationwide rule, keeping our kids safe on the water. I commend the Life Jackets for Children and Young Persons Bill to the House, and ask that all parties in this House support it to select committee. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the motion be agreed to.

CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Otirā, tēnā tātou i tēnei pō.

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

Thank you. The spirit of support and mahi tahi! To me, it's a no-brainer that we support this bill. I had one of those idyllic childhoods you dream of these days, where we spent all day in the river when we weren't at the sea. You'd spend all day at the river until your mother yelled out to get home, well after dark. There were some exploits: whatever could float, we'd drag it down to the river, and that was our fun. Often, swimming under branches of the willow trees in the Poroporo River—which was a shallow river, so it didn't feel that dangerous; jumping on logs; if you were flash, you had an inflatable tube of some sort. While it was great fun, in hindsight, I do look back with gratitude that none of us lost our lives taking such risks while enjoying fun. I've got to say, sometimes I think kids today need to get out and have a little bit more fun rather than doing it virtually, but maybe one day they can sit there wearing their life jackets while they're playing virtual reality or whatever you do these days.

The loss of lives is nothing to be scoffed at, and it's something no one in this House wants to see. Under-15s wearing life jackets is a wonderful notion, especially being brought up on part of the beautiful Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, which traverses the whole Eastern seaboard of the North Island, where often people feel so familiar with their shoreline—they feel so familiar with their beach that they are a bit relaxed and take unnecessary risks.

My only query about this is the affordability for life jackets. A good quality life jacket is not cheap, and so we need to think about how we make those things accessible to whānau, because everybody's life is valuable and no price should be put on that. We don't want any barriers to safety. We don't want people picking up, you know, “Oh, your turn with a life jacket”, “You're in the most risk at the moment”—and the member who's named this bill in is nodding approvingly, which I absolutely appreciate.

Now, just in the spirit of jest, while we do support this bill, I just want to say, oh, whānau, I hope you don't need to get your life jacket repaired, because that bill didn't get passed because the Nats didn't let it get heard tonight. So if you get a good quality life jacket and you need it repaired, too bad, you'll probably have to send it to the manufacturer. But hey, hey, hey, let's stay friends.

Heoi anō rā, because we are a nation that has beautiful beaches and access to beautiful rivers, we want that culture to continue and we do want our whānau to be safe, especially our tamariki, who hopefully will be good role models for their parents to wear life jackets and their grandparents to wear life jackets. So I commend the bill to the House.

CELIA WADE-BROWN (Green): Thank you. I rise to support this bill to the select committee. I agree with life jackets on small boats. It’s like seatbelts, and it’s regulation that will save lives. When I’m in a car, whether I’m a passenger or I’m driving, I wear a seatbelt. On my kayak, on rivers or seas, I wear a life jacket. I’m a member of a couple of kayaking groups. The Wellington Sea Kayak Network practises assisted rescues and also self-rescues and we all wear our life jackets. However, I have some reservations, some of them alluded to by the member introducing the bill, Cameron Brewer, about age.

I want to use an example and I want to acknowledge the loss and the pain of the whānau involved. I do want to refer to this particular Auckland example. In 2022, there was the Clarks Beach boating tragedy, 6 November 2022. Some people will be remembering that next month. None of the five people on the 4.8-metre boat was wearing a life jacket when it was struck by two waves in short succession and capsized in Auckland’s Manukau Harbour a short time later. Ten-year-old Ryder Ferregel was wearing a life jacket when he went out, but it was ill-fitting, it was riding up, so he was allowed to take it off. By the end of the day, after hours—just imagine those hours of clinging to the overturned hull—Ryder and his mother, Gemma, had drowned. As the member said, there are still many drownings in New Zealand.

It wasn’t just a 10-year-old that drowned; it was his mother that drowned as well. I really am concerned that if this bill goes through with the title Life Jackets for Children and Young Persons Bill, we will be advised that changing the age will not be within the scope of the bill. I really hope that the member has got good advice on that. There are already some regions where it is compulsory for any age to wear a life jacket. I think the logic would be that we—whether it’s 6 metres, 5 metres, 7 metres, we’ll hear about what the length should be.

I think the other thing that’s interesting in this bill, as it’s proposed, is that a 15-year-old can decide a matter of life and death for themselves. Yet the parties on the other side of the House, at the moment at least, think a 15-year-old can decide life or death, a 16-year-old can get married and can pay tax, but they can’t vote. I’ve just been at a most interesting democracy conference, partly led by vote 16. But, before I’m reminded, I’ll get back to this bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Fantastic.

CELIA WADE-BROWN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. There are some issues of funding, as was alluded to by my Labour colleague, but it’s not just about funding the life jacket itself; there are some issues about funding Coastguard, funding kayak safe courses, funding school pools, funding education and enforcement. There are a lot of different things that we could do.

Of course, local government does a lot of work in water safety and pools and swimming, but please don’t make this another unfunded mandate that regional councils are required to enforce without any support from central government. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. No one in this House wants to confront the worst kind of tragedy, the death of a child. When a young person drowns, the pain ripples through families, schools, and entire communities. New Zealand's drowning statistics remain deeply saddening, yet amongst the pain there is progress. Even as our population grows, the overall trend in child drownings is falling. One policy in particular has played a clear role: the fencing of swimming pools. It addressed a well-defined risk and reduced death, especially amongst toddlers. It was a focused response to a real problem and it worked. I suspect the success of that policy vote motivates those who support this bill. After all, who amongst us does not care deeply about the safety of our children?

The bill before us today mandates that every child under the age of 15 must wear a life jacket at all times when on a recreational craft less than six metres long. It is well-intentioned, but good intentions are not enough. Let us turn to the facts.

I ask the House, last year, how many children drowned who would have been covered by this bill? None. In 2023, none. Over the past decade, from 2014 to 2024, there has been only one such case. It occurred in 2022 and it was a tragedy. In that instance, the child had initially been wearing a life jacket but removed it with the skipper's permission. That decision was a fatal error.

Crucially for this debate, it was already illegal under the existing law. The skipper was charged and pleaded guilty to manslaughter. There were numerous other safety failures that day, which I don't have time to detail, but there is no guarantee that this bill would have prevented that death. At most it may have made a difference in one incident in 10 years, and even of that I'm very doubtful. At the end of my speech, I intend to table documents affirming the stats I have just provided for the benefit of all members.

This bill is a solution in search of a problem. Worse, it creates new problems of its own. When the Government overrides the judgment of parents, it is not a trivial step. In cases of neglect or abuse, intervention is necessary, but in a free society, that must be the exception, not the rule. Parents know their children's abilities. They understand the risks of their environment. They are often best placed to judge when it is safe to loosen the reins or when to insist on a life jacket and when to allow a child the joy of freedom under supervision.

This bill doesn't target bad parenting. It doesn't respond to a pattern of preventable deaths. It imposes a one-size-size-fits-all rule on every boating family in New Zealand. It says, in effect, that the Government always knows better, regardless of conditions, child maturity, aquatic activity, or parental supervision. ACT believes that approach is wrong. We believe children should wear life jackets in risky conditions, but on a still day, anchored on a shallow bay, with parents nearby, should you really be criminalised for lying on the deck without a life jacket or for jumping off the boat to cool off?

Some will argue that such exemptions can be sorted out in select committee, but those exemptions already exist under the current law. The law today allows for judgment, supervision, and adaptation to local context. This bill takes away that flexibility. It substitutes rigid rules for human discretion. It reflects a fundamental mistrust of parents and a disconnect from the lived experience of boating families.

Undeniably, life jackets save lives, but so does common sense; so does education; so does a society that values both freedom and responsibility. We should promote safety by informing and equipping families, not criminalising everyday choices. We should encourage good parenting, not presume its absence. Let us not confuse action with genuine outcomes. The tragedy of child drownings cannot be solved by symbolic gestures that ignore the evidence and impose blanket mandates. This House should stand for evidence-based policy, not reflective overreach. I commend the member for his concern and congratulate him on having his bill drawn, however, ACT cannot in good conscience support this bill.

Point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek leave to table two documents, one from Maritime New Zealand and one from Water Safety New Zealand, showing a breakdown of drowning statistics from 2014 to 2024.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Is that information publicly available?

CAMERON LUXTON: No, they're not publicly available. One is an official information response from Maritime New Zealand and the other is data provided by Water Safety New Zealand, produced after an inquiry from me.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

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

Dr DAVID WILSON (NZ First): Madam Chair, I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in favour of life jackets for children and young persons. To mandate life jackets for children under 15 years on recreational craft of 6 metres or less and to require sufficient, appropriately sized life jackets on larger vessels all seems to fit within maritime law and what we’re used to doing, especially on larger vessels when you’re the skipper. But I note that also, with my boat, which is about 5 metres long so it fits within the under-6-metres, that I actually become the skipper on that day and it’s my responsibility for the safety of my crew.

I thoroughly enjoyed the examples that have been put before us tonight by members on both sides of this debate, and I respectfully admire Cam Luxton for putting his libertarian view towards this bill. However, New Zealand First likes pragmatic legislation, and this bill is just that. I’m pleased to take this opportunity to speak to the first reading of the bill and I acknowledge the member for taking the time to draft this and address a clear safety concern.

We support this bill’s intent to mandate life jackets for under 15s on small craft. However, I think of my own experience and it gave me a chance to reflect on my holiday experiences and boating, and my mates that go fishing and the like, and boating and playing around in the harbour. I have keen respect for water and movement of water and what it means for you, having been a lifelong surfer and fisherman. And so I get the feeling, and I had to reflect on some of the behaviours that I see amongst all of my mates whilst we’re on holiday.

I know the pressure that’s involved to race to that boil-up where the kingies and the birds are working and there’s so much excitement going on. The kingies are running and hitting that bait ball and you know damn well, if you get there on time, drop your line, get in the way, you’re going to be feeding the whānau for the next couple of days. You know it’s now or never. You’re going to miss it. You’ve got to go—but no. Take two or three minutes. Get those life jackets on, because I’ve seen what happens when your boat runs against the tide and the wind is going the other direction or it’s moving really, really fast and you get crossed up, or you’re sitting in your boat and all of a sudden you’ve got three lines going off all at once. It’s chaos and we’ve got to hit them because we’ve got to catch every one of those fish, right? We can’t let any one of them go. And there’s the problem: we forgot to put the life jacket on and we’re bumping kids out of the way or we’re getting in front of each other or the chain gets wrapped around the nose or the tail, or your line gets wrapped around, or there’s a bronze whaler chasing up one of your fish and you absolutely have to get it on board before that’s taken.

I really understand this. Seeing how quickly we can move from being in control to being out of control and at the mercy of the ocean made me think seriously about how we should be doing everything we possibly can to change our behaviour as skippers, to look after the people that are on our boats. I will admit I was one of those that was in the boat and I was out there and I was chasing. I reflect on this and I thank Cam Brewer for pushing this bill through, and we commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Can I just point out to the member, when he’s referring to another member, to use their full name? Thank you.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): It's a pleasure to rise—slightly earlier than I anticipated—and support my dear colleague Cameron Brewer’s bill.

I do want to acknowledge you, Cameron—good things come to those who wait, and Cameron has waited some months in this House to have this bill read a first time. It's a pleasure to support this bill. Well done, mate; good on you for having this drawn from the member's ballot.

I wish to also acknowledge the previous MPs who took this bill up in previous Parliaments, Alfred Ngaro and Simon Watts. I wish to thank them for initially bringing this to the attention of the House. I also wish to acknowledge the dissent that we've had here today from the ACT Party. I've listened intently to your speech, Cameron Luxton, and while I disagree, I really respect that within a coalition we can have these types of debate on principle and on policy.

We are here today for a serious kaupapa, and this is something that is a concern for all Kiwis, because water is part of all Kiwis’ way of life. In my view, child safety needs to be paramount for Kiwis when we're out there on the boats, whether it's in open seas or in lakes and rivers, and so forth. We do have a high drowning rate in this country, and so one takes time to reflect: how do we move the dial and improve that? It really is about a culture shift. We've talked a little bit about that today: how do we develop that culture shift of—it's just what we do as Kiwis, just like what we do with putting on a seat belt when we get into a car. If you're like me, it's just a habit. Even if you're going up the road 50 metres, I end up putting the seat belt on because it's just what we were raised to do as Kiwis. We need that same type of culture on the boats and in our seas.

Part of developing that culture is making sure our laws reflect the culture that we aspire to have in this country. Right now, we have very fragmented rules across New Zealand, based on the territorial authorities. You look at a map and you see that part of the territorial maps require the skipper to have life jackets on, and then you cross a little boundary and then the rules change. That doesn't make sense. How are skippers supposed to understand all these different rules around the country? That is what this bill is trying to do, to standardise and make it clear what is expected from skippers, whether you're up North or down South in Dunedin.

Many families already adhere to looking after their children with life jackets, but not all. That is what this bill does; it seeks to mandate that every kid under 15 years of age wears a life jacket for vessels six metres or less. The counter example that my colleague in the ACT Party raises is that we shouldn't need to wear them in safe conditions. Well, I'd put a counter example to that, which is: how do you know it's not a safe condition? I mean, in the calmest of waters, bad things can happen. My late father used to say, “Look, there were many recorded examples of accidents happening of people just driving down the road to get their KFC or their fish and chips, and that's why we need seatbelts even for short distances.” For what should be a very safe thing is actually not safe.

That is why I just don't buy that example, and it's not consistent, really, with the type of culture that we wish to create in this country. I support this; I look forward to hearing submissions, as deputy chair of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. We will look at what can be done, from widening the scope of this field to include all other adults in New Zealand, but that is not within the scope of this bill as we are voting today; that is a discussion for another day. I look forward to hearing from members of the public and to welcoming this bill at select committee. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m really delighted to speak in support of this bill. This is really important to me personally, but it is a really important bill across the country. To get consistency in this area is just something that I cannot believe that people would not support.

My family is heavily involved in sailing. My son has represented New Zealand in sailing since he was 13 years old and is now 29, and he’s currently in Bermuda sailing at the world match racing cup event over there. He is also one of the head coaches in the Royal New Zealand Yacht Squadron for youth. I’ve learnt to dingy sail and sail. We are really at one with the water, and it’s something that we enjoy recreationally a lot as well as a family.

We’ve had some experiences over the years. We are good on boats, we are strong swimmers, we know the water, we know the hazards, we know the weather, but that hasn’t stopped us having some issues over the years as well. I just wanted to say, first off, in junior and youth sailing in this country, it is mandatory to wear life jackets. In fact, when you go to those events, your life jacket has to be checked to make sure that it is of a good standard. That’s not to say that anybody that goes out sailing will wear a life jacket, because the rules aren’t consistent across that. That’s racing sailing; that’s not consistent across recreational sailing.

I remember once that my son was at an event. It was the Peter Blake event up in Auckland, and he was thrown out of his boat and was knocked at the same time. He said to me, “If I had not been wearing that life jacket, I would have drowned.” Now, that’s pretty sobering when you think that he is a strong sailor, he has represented New Zealand, he has been a world champion twice over, and he is a strong swimmer, but had he not worn that life jacket, he would have drowned. Why would we not support a bill that would make that rule consistent for all young people in this country? It just seems ludicrous when you think that even the best people can get caught out if they are not wearing those life jackets. It makes so much sense, and I congratulate the member for having this bill and shepherding it through. Labour fully supports this through to the next stage.

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill): First of all, I just want to congratulate my colleague Cameron Brewer, the hard-working MP for Upper Harbour, for having his member’s bill drawn. His hard work and dedication to improve life jacket safety for young people is truly commendable. I rise here today in strong support of the Life Jackets for Children and Young Persons Bill.

This is a simple, clear and necessary step that will save young lives on our water. At its heart, this bill is about one thing: ensuring that no parents ever have to lose a child to a preventable drowning. Every summer, thousands of New Zealand families head to our rivers, lakes, and coasts to enjoy the outdoors, but for all the beauty and the freedom that our waters offer, they also present dangers—especially for children and young people. Sadly, too many families have experienced those dangers turning to tragedies.

The drowning rate in New Zealand remains high. I’ll give you a little bit of the data. In 2020, the rate is about 1.62 per 100,000 people. It’s higher than a comparable country like Australia, which is 1.1, and Canada, which is 1.3. In 2024 alone, 18 New Zealanders lost their lives in boat-related incidents. Of those, 17 were not wearing a life jacket. Wearing a life jacket increases the chance of survival in a boating accident by up to 10 times.

This bill focuses on one of the most vulnerable groups, children under 15 years old. Children under 15 years old are less experienced around water and less likely to respond calmly in an emergency situation. They depend entirely on the adults around them to keep them safe. This bill ensures that responsibility is backed by legal safeguards. Just as we require car seats, helmets, and seatbelts for young people, this bill recognises the special protections children deserve on our waterways.

Yet, under our current law, whether a child wears a life jacket on a small boat is often left to the skipper’s discretion or to the presence of a regional council by-law. However, the rules vary around the country. In Auckland, wearing life jackets on boats 6 meters or smaller is optional unless the skipper deems it’s unsafe. In Canterbury, children must wear life jackets, at all times, on boats 6 meters or smaller. A child in Auckland should have the same level of protection as a child in Canterbury. This bill introduces national consistency and a clear legal requirement that anyone under 15 years old on a boat 6 meters or smaller must wear a properly fitted life jacket—no excuse and no grey areas.

Support for this bill is well and strong. Maritime New Zealand, Water Safety New Zealand, Coastguard New Zealand, and a long list of front-line responders and water-safety educators are all behind it. They have seen the reality. These are the people who have seen the consequence first hand—the lives lost, the heartbreak endured. They know a law like this could save many lives, and it’s very sad and very disappointing to hear that the ACT Party are not supporting this bill. They believe that personal responsibility or the burden is on the skippers, or they’re scared the Government is going to overreach, but I want to remind them that the cost of a life jacket is far less than the cost of a funeral.

This bill doesn’t impose anything radical. It simply aligns the law with what responsible boat users are already doing. This bill turned common sense into common practice. I say this bill reflects who we are and who we want to be: a country that protects its young people, that learns from tragedy, and that learns about water safety. We pride ourselves on being a nation of lakes, rivers, and coasts, and it is time that our law reflects that reality. Let us act now because no child should drown simply because we fail to act. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’d just like to congratulate Cameron Brewer for this piece of legislation. It seems small and significant, yet incredibly important. I come from the West Coast and I just want to acknowledge the previous speaker who also would understand that the West Coast is a place where going to water, either to sea or river, is an exception rather than the norm. The reality is it’s pretty harsh. Our ancestors came to that place and many, many of them drowned because it’s not a friendly water environment.

When I started an adventure tourism business, whitewater rafting and jet boating, there were many, many people who were quite horrified. It’s not seen as the normal thing to do to play in the water. One of the things I learnt very early on, in fact, from day one, was there were no regulations then, none at all—no regulations—but the basic safety implement of a life jacket was an absolute must for everything that we did.

It was disappointing to hear from the ACT Party that they can’t see the logic to this, that the ideology of libertarianism that you can make up your mind is going to protect everyone when you go in the water. When you go in the water—and I’ve been in many, many times under a boat—unless you’ve got absolute presence of mind, you panic. You panic. The idea that parents could look after their kids is complete idiocy when they’re in the water—and most of the time stepping on to a boat with the expectation that they will be safe, and for the most part, they are—but we have many, many pieces of legislation and regulation around this country for the small minority of people who might find themselves unfortunately in this situation, or harm themselves or harm us or whatever; it’s for the minority.

We still go through some quite strict security regimes at the airport. The chances, thankfully, in our country of someone wanting to harm us on a plane is very, very small, but we’re prepared to do that for the greater good. This piece of legislation is one of those: for the greater good. It is absolute tragedy when someone drowns, especially when it’s not necessary. A life jacket is not that cumbersome or costly or an imposition on our civil rights. It’s a simple, sensible step to prevent what could happen.

I’m not familiar with boating at sea, but the reality is—and we’ve seen it the last couple of days—weather conditions change very, very quickly. For a small boat to tip or for someone to be tipped out of the boat without any floatation device, I can tell you that on a river, it’s a very, very urgent and unusual and difficult situation to deal with unless someone’s got a flotation device.

I think the value of life jackets is probably underestimated. I think we should, along with this piece of legislation, look forward to another National Party MP bringing forward a piece of legislation that says it is compulsory for all schools to teach kids to swim because, in fact, that has been squeezed out of the curriculum, out of school responsibilities. That’s part of the reason that we’re seeing too many people drown in this country. For a country that’s a small island nation surrounded by water—full of water, you name it—we should all be able to swim. And the Australians can teach us a thing or two.

Can I just say that evidence-based policy is what this is based on. Too many people in this country unnecessarily lose their lives when they could have been saved by a life jacket. Can I say that firstly, congratulations to the member, Cameron Brewer. He saw the need for a change in legislation that many people might think is small and insignificant; for the people who will be saved—these are people under 15 years of age—their families, and they will be forever grateful. We look forward to the passage of this legislation. It’s the right thing to do.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Cameron Brewer—in reply.

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I relish the opportunity to reply and thank the members for their contributions and the overwhelming majority of parliamentarians that will be supporting this to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee.

I think that nothing points more pointedly as to the issues we’re dealing with than when you look at this map. These are the current by-laws in the different territorial local authorities across New Zealand. What does it show you? It shows you that there’s a lot of different rules around who should wear life jackets and how people should wear life jackets. So this is about a consistent, nationwide rule that everyone understands, that kids under the age of 15 on vessels 6 metres or less will wear a life jacket—will wear a life jacket.

I want to also respond to some of the other comments that were made—comments around the criminalisation of parents; that’s not going to happen. The best tool of getting people into life jackets will be through education—will be through education. So no one’s going to go heavy-handed on trying to find offenders and trying to criminalise them at every opportunity—at every opportunity.

I want to also point to the fact and to the comment from the Green Party that the water safety sectors need more financial support.

Hon Simon Watts: Oh, is that right?

CAMERON BREWER: Well, they might have missed an announcement, Simon Watts. I think you were probably there with Mark Mitchell and the Prime Minister that Surf Life Saving New Zealand and Coastguard received a funding boost of $63.6 million over four years last year—over four years. What did the Coastguard CEO say, with accusations of underfunding when they had six years? “We’ve received everything that we asked for, so this is good.” What did the Surf Life Saving New Zealand CEO say with the $63.6 million funding boost from this Government? “We are thrilled and delighted at this Government announcement.”

But, anyway, I digress, Madam Speaker, and I can see you looking at me to get back on the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, it’s still got something to do with water and boats.

CAMERON BREWER: Oh, as long as it’s got something to do with water and boats—do you want the America’s Cup speech? No.

Access to life jackets—that was raised across from the Labour Party, and it’s a very fair point: the equity of access to life jackets. I went to a life jacket hub at Sport Waitākere, in West Auckland, where they, at nominal or no charge, give out life jackets to those groups and families that need them for occasions. But we do—and I encourage the Transport and Infrastructure Committee to look at that genuine access, look at the affordability, look at communities, Grant McCallum, in the Far North, and their realistic access to life jackets, and on the East Coast, Dana Kirkpatrick. So that is another issue.

Finally, we can’t go past—and we heard another story this week, didn’t we, about another tragedy on the water. You go through—and I’m not going to read them all out, because they’re all discoverable, but there are so many stories that have happened on so many occasions in recent years where life jackets would have saved lives. “Family’s Harrowing Boating Ordeal Shows Why Life Jackets are Vital.” It’s simple: life jackets save lives. “Man Who Drowned on Christmas Day was Canoeing with Daughter Who Wore a Life Jacket and Called Out for Help”. The little girl wore a life jacket but her father didn’t; she lost her dad. And as the Green Party alluded to, the Clarks Beach tragedy in 2022 and those many souls that were lost, including a young child, due to life jackets not being worn, or being ill-fitted when they were put on.

So there’s a lot to think about for the Transport and Infrastructure Committee to get their head around, but this is a bill that has the support of over 90 percent of New Zealanders—90 percent of New Zealanders want children in small boats to wear life jackets, and this will achieve that. I commend the bill.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Life Jackets for Children and Young Persons Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 106

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

Noes 11

ACT New Zealand 11.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

That the Life Jackets for Children and Young Persons Bill be considered by the Transport and Infrastructure Committee.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Crown Minerals (Prohibition on Coal Mining) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 55

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

Noes 68

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

Motion not agreed to.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is,

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee.

Bills

Crown Minerals (Prohibition on Coal Mining) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): I move, That the Crown Minerals (Prohibition on Coal Mining) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Environment Committee to consider the bill.

Firstly, I have to acknowledge my very dear friend and colleague the Hon Eugenie Sage, who was in this House as an MP for 12 years, as a Minister—Minister of Conservation, Associate Minister for the Environment—someone who has always championed our conservation estate and done amazing work to ensure that those places are protected, not to mention creating huge numbers of jobs and community resilience through Jobs for Nature. She was here tonight, in Parliament, and I was at an event, which I’ll get to in a minute. But I just want to acknowledge that this bill was originally drafted by the Hon Eugenie Sage. I hope that all members in this House, particularly those who were at the event tonight put on by Forest and Bird and hosted by my friend and colleague Steve Abel and Lan Pham—I hope you will consider voting for this bill because it’s a bill that is absolutely essential if we want to have a livable future for our planet.

We’ve known this for some years: the simple maths on climate change means that we cannot have new or expanded exploration or mining of fossil fuels, particularly coal. What this bill does is it draws that line in the sand: no new coal mines, no expansion of existing coal mines. The brutal maths of human-caused climate change is that we cannot meet the targets that we must meet to get to the Paris Agreement, which all the countries in the world signed up to at the time, based on the scientific evidence. You crunch the numbers, you do the maths; we cannot have a livable climate if we continue to explore and produce fossil fuels, particularly coal. We’ve known that for 10, 20, 30 years, and it saddens me that members in this House—who no doubt have children or grandchildren or other family members, and surely they care about the future world that those children and their children will inherit—are continuing to live in denial of the basic reality of what we need to do to have a livable future.

This evening in Parliament, some of the members here would have seen an excellent documentary that I recommend everybody watch, and that’s about the Denniston Plateau. I don’t know how many members here have visited the Denniston Plateau. I have not had the privilege of visiting it myself, but I was extremely moved by the documentary that was put on tonight, that has been produced by Forest and Bird. My colleague Steve Abel spoke very movingly about taking his son, who’s 14, to visit this place. It’s undeniable, the richness of the ecology there. It’s actually a unique place with an irreplaceable part of our natural heritage here in Aotearoa. I know all New Zealanders have some connection to the beautiful nature of this place. So many New Zealanders are out there spending their time manning trap lines, doing pest eradication, replanting natives because they care about this land, and they want to see nature thrive.

It’s one of the things about this country—I wasn’t born in Aotearoa New Zealand, but my children were, and two of their grandparents were, and four of their great-grandparents were, and everyone in their family has some connection to this land. And that can’t even compare to the connection of tangata whenua. It’s part of what makes Aotearoa unique, and it’s an absolute taonga that we need to protect. I want to take the opportunity, in the first reading of this bill, to talk about the threat to this incredibly unique place that is the Denniston Plateau.

What is being proposed—and I believe there’s a fast-track application in—is an open-cast coal mine. It is total ecosystem destruction. It would strip mine an area the size of 1,700 rugby fields. As we’ve heard, restoration is impossible—it’s like “trying to unscramble an egg”, to quote the Forest and Bird speech earlier today. How could we even begin to contemplate the destruction of such a precious place in 2025? It fails, as people spoke about tonight, the most basic tests. First, the environment test. Denniston is an ecological island in the sky; it is a living museum. The Department of Conservation ranks this plateau as one of the most valuable ecological sites on mainland New Zealand. It’s a world of ancient dwarf forests, giant insects, and a Kiwi habitat. It is the only home on Earth for the avatar moth and New Zealand’s very own endangered giant carnivorous snail. I know that a certain Minister in this Government would laugh and brag about causing these species to become extinct—that’s how out of touch some of the Government members are. They brag and laugh about the destruction of entire species.

Steve Abel: But they’re gonna vote for this bill.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: And the Government members are probably—yeah, I wish they were going to vote for this bill.

So let’s talk about the economic test, because that’s what’s always put up. We say, “Oh, we have this precious place where life is thriving.”—a unique place that I would love to take my children to. And rather than letting it thrive, “We can’t afford—we need jobs; we need money.” As if, somehow, money were something other than a symbol. It’s just a symbol. We have resources; we have the ability to produce electricity without coal. So New Zealanders carry all of the environmental risks, but the truth is this is all a lie—I’m sorry, it is a lie—this trade-off, that somehow we’ll be wealthier if we destroy this place. It doesn’t pass the economic test. Indeed, the cost of the runoff from the acidified water, as a result of the open-cast coal mine, costs more for the Government to repair than the royalties they earn on the mining. You know, there’s a handful of jobs, but we can create jobs in other ways. In fact, we need to create a whole bunch of jobs in order to have the transition to renewable electricity; in order to have affordable, warm, dry housing; in order to have sustainable transportation; to have high quality processed wood products that can be used in structural timber buildings. There’s so many opportunities for jobs that are created by the transition to a renewable economy, and that’s what we should be doing.

The Stockton mine, which is nearby—I don’t know if anyone’s visited the Stockton mine—has already cost taxpayers millions to clean up the mess. There’s a cruel irony in asking a community like Westport, which is one of the most vulnerable to worsening flooding exacerbated by climate change, to look for hope in a sunset industry which is driving the crisis. It’s not against the jobs that we have had or professions; it’s just recognising that we need to work together for a future that protects our unique places and creatures. It’s a future that doesn’t champion a volatile boom-and-bust climate-damaging industry that has let the coast down before.

To quote the Forest and Bird speaker tonight, “They’re putting a choice to all of Aotearoa.” Do we sacrifice a priceless national treasure for short-term jobs and dubious profits that flow to offshore companies, and which come at the expense of irreplaceable damage to a living museum and exacerbate the climate crisis? Or do we draw a line in the sand and say some places are too precious to mine? I think that’s a very easy answer, and I encourage all the Government members to watch the documentary, to go and visit the Denniston Plateau, and ask themselves: is this who they want to be in 2025? Is this what you want to be remembered for—members opposite, not you, Madam Speaker, obviously. Is this what all of us want to be remembered for? Because people will look back at this point in time, in 2025, and say, “They could have made different choices. They could have prioritised renewable electricity instead of prioritising profits for a coal mining company, and then allowing them to destroy this irreplaceable indigenous biodiversity.” We don’t have to do it—we don’t have to do it. The science and the maths says we cannot do it.

So I ask Government members here tonight, to consider voting for this bill so that they can look themselves in the mirror and say they truly did stand up for positive progress, for protecting their children—all of our children—and their children’s future, and all of the other life that we share this planet with.

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

GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to take the first call to oppose this bill, on behalf of the Government, the Crown Minerals (Prohibition on Coal Mining) Amendment Bill, and the—

Hon Member: On behalf of the National Party.

GRANT McCALLUM: Oh, sorry—on behalf of the National Party. I do apologise—I couldn’t possibly speak for you. I couldn’t possibly speak for the members over to my left here. I do apologise.

Look, so it’s interesting, you know, I recently attended the AGM of a little group in Kerikeri called Our Kerikeri, right? And we got to the point of general discussion and so forth and the questions started to flow. So what do you think the main question and concern was from the people in that room? There’s probably about 50 people there. And being in Northland, you’d have thought, “So is it all about the roads?” Because, boy, we’ve got some rubbish roads up there and, and is it going to be about the dusty roads and all that stuff? Would that be their number one concern? Would it be? No, it wasn’t. Would it be about the education systems and the challenges we’ve had in the education system? Would it be about that? No, it wasn’t. Would it be about the challenges of law and order, their personal safety? No, it wasn’t.

I’ll tell you what it was about. Their biggest concern was about power prices. It was about the size of their power bill. And so they then proceeded to have debates about it. And I sat there and listened, listened carefully to what they had to say about any concerns about the price of power. Then they all said, “Well, you’re our member of Parliament. What can you do about it? What do you think about our challenges in this space?” So I stood up and I said, “Well, I think you just need to remember a couple of things. The reason that we had such high power prices is because the previous Government cancelled oil and gas,”—

Hon Julie Anne Genter: No, it’s because of coal.

Steve Abel: That’s not true.

GRANT McCALLUM: —which they cancelled. They put an oil and gas ban on the table and destroyed the confidence in that sector. Overnight, the price of wholesale power went up—doubled. The wholesale power price doubled overnight. That’s what happened. The truth is clearly hurting some on the other side of the House—clearly hurting people.

So where did we end up? So one of the reasons we didn’t end up with—and they had this big plan. They had this big plan, they said, to stop oil and gas and coal and all that stuff. They wanted to get rid of it all and come to a place where we have all renewable energy. Well, actually, that’s what we’d all love, is renewable energy. That’s great, but you need to transition.

This is the problem. They came out with a big announcement and had no plan. There was no plan. So consequently, suddenly, we became the only country in the world that instead of transitioning to renewables, we’re going away from gas to coal—to coal. And what impact does that have on climate change? [Interruption] Right, look at them. It’s obviously a trigger word. Coal is clearly a trigger word. Gee, they’re really excited on the other side of the house, aren’t they?

We’re in this situation because it was a typical sort of spur of the moment, irresponsible announcement, which led to a situation where suddenly the confidence went, and power prices went up. And why’d they go up? Because suddenly we had to start bringing in coal to cope with the fact that we had a shortage of energy—a shortage of energy at crucial times in the winter. Because guess what? It didn’t rain. Unfortunately, it didn’t rain. The wind didn’t blow, and the sunshine hours was shorter in the middle of winter. And that is what happens. The power price went up.

So what were the consequences of those power prices going up? Well, why don’t you go and ask some of the people in the central North Island of New Zealand that saw the mills closed, the timber mills and all that that closed, and the jobs disappear. Rural, small town, regional communities—destroyed. Why? Because people on that side of the House, they think they have this idealistic view of the world that you could fix the world by ignoring the fact you actually need energy at an affordable price.

Steve Abel: It’s free market ideology—it is deindustrialising.

GRANT McCALLUM: And there we go. There they go—they’re going again. Gee, they’re quite excited tonight, aren’t they?—quite excited.

Go and ask the people of Nelson who’ve recently been through similar experiences: two or three big businesses have laid off staff and reduced. Why? Price of energy, once again. Once again, this is what you get from people who go through this idealistic approach without a plan. Well, guess what? We have a plan. And unfortunately, because of what the last lot did, it does involve using some coal.

Now wouldn’t it be better—

Hon member: And gas.

GRANT McCALLUM: And gas. Yes, thank you, Minister. And wouldn’t it be better if we were to use coal that we had in our own country rather than importing it? Because that’s what we’re doing. Indonesian coal: here it comes by the ship load into this country, and we happen to burn that while we try and transition, while we build more solar, while we put up more wind farms like we’re doing in Northland—we’re doing a lot of that in Northland, which is absolutely fantastic, right? So that’s why we do that. We’ve got to burn coal. So why don’t we just burn our own?

This bill will stop us. According to this bill, it will stop us doing that. And that would actually be worse for the climate. Here we go. They’re all worried about climate change, and yes, so are we, but we’re more sensible about it. We actually have a plan.

Hon member: Pragmatic.

GRANT McCALLUM: We have a plan, and we’re pragmatic. That’s exactly right, Minister. And that’s what we have to focus on. We had to focus on delivering in this space. Because if you don’t have a plan, then you plan to fail. And the last lot, well, they certainly planned to fail. We all saw that—we all saw that. We have a huge pile of coal there that we’re importing from Indonesia. What a complete waste of our own resources. So they’re saying to the rest of the world, “Look, oh, here we go. We won’t dig up our own land to use our own coal in the meantime. No, no, no, no, no. We’ll bring it from overseas and let someone else dig it up.” We have actually got better opportunities in this country that do that properly than some of the countries we might import from. And I think it’s really, really important to remember that.

So what are the other implications of this policy? There is also the job aspect. Why don’t we make sure we give our own people in this country jobs—working at the moment while we have to transition, while we transition to renewables, which is where we all want to be. Why don’t we actually use our own people and expand the mines we’ve got in New Zealand to actually use that coal and employ our own people so that our own communities benefit from it, in the meantime—right?—while we do the big transition. Because it’s just the idealistic nonsense you get from people on the other side who don’t understand the implications of making these sorts of decisions.

In summary, this bill really is a typical idealistic, simplistic approach to a complex problem. All it does is help drive up power prices and make the climate worse. It won’t reduce our impact on emissions in this country; it’ll make it worse because the coal’s got to be imported. And so therefore, why don’t we at least do it in New Zealand where that means it’s closer to us, therefore we have less emissions getting it here to use.

Steve Abel: You’re going to use LNG.

GRANT McCALLUM: No, in the end, do we want to use coal? Of course we don’t. So what we will do is we will eventually use gas because that will a make a big difference. If we use gas we’ve got off the coast of Taranaki, won’t it be great? Won’t it be great, David McLeod from New Plymouth, if we went for the local people employed in your region who actually want to work and find the gas so we can then get rid of the coal—wouldn’t that be a good thing? You’d think the people on the other side would be thinking, “Let’s go and find the gas” because guess what? It’s a much better option than actually burning coal.

So, boy, we’ve got to be excited. It’s like a trigger word on that side of the House. It’s like a real, real trigger word. But, look, in all seriousness, if we’re going to transition, let’s do it properly. Let’s plan, let’s build renewables because that’s what we can do in this country, and we’ll do a damn good job of it. I do not commend this bill to the House.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): I think, after that standup comedy routine, I’d like to bring some serious analysis to this debate—some very serious analysis to this debate. Grant McCallum is a nice guy, but I’m going to overlook that rather facile analysis of the energy supply in this country.

We do need an energy plan in this country. We do need an energy strategy in this country. We do need one that is based on renewables. The reason that power prices have been so high is because there are so many unbuilt but consented renewables available to us—wind farms that could have been built. There is a huge opportunity to go to solar power. In fact, interestingly, we don’t actually need coal for thermal power in this country. We could easily do it with renewables if we went and built them. We can do solar; we can do wind. There is a need still, in some cases, for coal for process power, and that’s a recognised need.

The interesting thing is that the International Energy Agency has said two things about coal mines. The first is that, if we are to meet net zero emissions by 2050, we simply must have no new coal mines or extensions of existing ones. That’s from the International Energy Agency. That’s kind of interesting because they’ve always had this focus on ensuring a secure supply of fossil fuels, but not only have they said that, the International Energy Agency has said that the decline in fossil fuel demand is so significant that no new investments in coal projects are required beyond those which were already committed as of 2021. We do not need new coal investments anywhere in the world. We simply do not need—

David MacLeod: Coking coal, steel.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: And, Mr MacLeod, that does include coking coal. This is actually a conversation we do need to have in the New Zealand context. Why would we carry on mining coal in New Zealand when there is no need for coal for process energy in New Zealand—when we do not need to mine it? There’s no need for coal for thermal energy in New Zealand, energy that can be created through renewable means. That’s the first serious conversation that we could have in the context of this bill: what we do about our energy supply.

There is a second serious conversation that needs to be had in the context of this bill, and that is what we do as we move away from extractive industries like coal mining, with respect to jobs. Now, people talk in terms of the “just transition”, but let’s cash out what that actually means: it means protections for workers; it means training for workers; it means ensuring that there are good, well-paying jobs that people who currently work in coal mines can transition to, very much preferably in the places where they already live. That’s a conversation that I think we need to have in the context of this bill. If we’re going to say, “No new coal mines, no extensions to coal mines”, what, then, of the people who work in those coal mines? We do need to have that conversation about the just transition.

In fact, this is very much a bottom line for Labour. How do we manage those workers? How do we ensure that their jobs are protected, not the jobs they are doing currently but that we find, as I said, good, well-paying jobs that speak to their skills, that speak to their homes, that speak to their sense of identity, that give them a place of standing. That’s what we need with a just transition.

The Labour Party is going to vote for this bill, is going to vote for this bill because we want to have that conversation about energy in New Zealand, because we want to ensure that we do make a move towards renewables, because we want to have that conversation about jobs for people who are engaged in those industries. On those grounds, we are supporting this bill and will be proud to cast our votes in favour of it.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Julie Anne Genter’s bill would make energy scarcer, prices higher, and New Zealand weaker. She says it’s a climate plan; I say it’s a plan to manufacture energy scarcity, and that it’s frankly immoral. From 1 January this year, apparently, her bill would slam the door on any new coal mines and expansions on existing mines. Not one more tonne of good, clean black coal from a clean, safe, local site. Not one more efficiency upgrade.

Hon Willie Jackson: Oh, stop talking big.

SIMON COURT: Not one more dollar of regional investment, Willie Jackson. A hard ban; a full stop. That’s a policy of deliberate scarcity, dressed up as virtue.

Now let’s talk about what she refuses to: real people. The shift worker on the night line at the steel mill at Glenbrook, the dairy processor in Southland who’s responsible for cleaning out the vats, and the family in Flatbush—

Hon Willie Jackson: You don’t even know where Flatbush is!

SIMON COURT:— who just wants the lights on and a heater running on a frosty winter’s night, Willie Jackson. Tell them to tighten their belts, Jackson—

Hon Willie Jackson: You tell me where Flatbush is! Where’s Flatbush?

SIMON COURT: —while we strangle our energy supplies. That is not leadership, Willie Jackson.

Hon Willie Jackson: Where’s Flatbush? Tell me where Flatbush is.

SIMON COURT: Willie Jackson: it’s an elite fantasy where other people pay your power bill. Energy poverty isn’t an academic talking point. It’s a child doing homework in a cold house because Parliament decided to grandstand and that’s what we had from Labour and the Greens for six years. Not all coal is the same. Our West Coast coking coal is amongst the best in the world. It’s simply too valuable to burn. That’s why we export millions of tons of it to India, South Korea, and Japan.

Steve Abel: And destroy irreplaceable ecology.

SIMON COURT: It’s a critical ingredient in steel making and chemical manufacturing. It’s what life runs on: hospitals, tubing, transmission towers, wind turbine masts, EV bodies, bridges, even the things in our homes are all made from coking coal, Steve Abel. Until there’s a truly scalable, affordable alternative for primary steelmaking, coking coal is all we’ve got that keeps us living in a modern society. And when it comes to keeping the lights on, physics beats politics every day, because hydro needs rain, wind needs wind, solar needs sun, and when they don’t show up, New Zealand still needs reliable and affordable energy, and that is in the form of thermal coal.

That’s why ACT, in Government, is fixing what matters. We’ve given coal- and gas-fired power stations the same one-year priority as renewables under the amended Resource Management Act. A consenting pathway is important for firming energy, so when all those other renewables aren’t available, we can keep the lights on and the factories running. We back building a million tonnes coal stockpile at Huntly to keep Auckland and the Waikato safe from blackouts and brownouts, and we back locally mined coal in Southland and the Waikato.

Importing more coal from overseas while banning efficient domestic supply is economic and environmental nonsense. Ship miles and lower standards don’t cut emissions, they raise them. And here’s the kicker: the member says her ban protects the environment. I say it does the opposite. Prohibiting modern, monitored higher standard mining, here, shifts demand to jurisdictions with lower environmental standards, longer shipping routes, and higher emissions. Bans don’t lift standards, they outsource responsibility. And now they’ve all gone quiet on the Opposition benches, haven’t they.

The responsible path is to demand excellence in our mining operations here at home, to rely on engineers, scientists, and ecologists to design smarter mine plans, to avoid sensitive areas where practical—maybe the Denniston Plateau is one of those—minimise footprints, and restore land when the job is done, and hold operators to account with tough compliance, transparent monitoring, and real enforcement. But that is not an outright ban; that is not an outright ban.

This bill also kneecaps regional economies that have powered New Zealand for generations. The message to the Coast, to Southland, to the Waikato: “Thanks for your service, now shut up shop. Here’s a pink slip, with a pat on the head.” That’s what they call a transition.

ACT stands for energy security, for responsible mining, for world-class environmental practice, and for a transition to a future that is affordable, that is reliable, and on New Zealand terms. ACT will not support this bill.

JAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in opposition to the Crown Minerals (Prohibition on Coal Mining) Amendment Bill. Apologies, we actually had a speaker in the Hon Shane Jones that was really looking forward to this bill. Unfortunately, he is away on parliamentary business and cannot speak to this tonight. Why would you want to put this in the ballot? It is unfortunate for Julie Anne Genter that this has been pulled out in this form to be debated. This bill is talking about a blanket ban. It’s talking about no more new coal mines; it’s talking about no expansion of existing coal mines. We should be talking about energy security in this country. We should be talking about how this would stifle economic growth. We’ve already seen, from the Opposition’s gas and oil ban, how economic growth in this country was stifled under that announcement.

On this side, in the Government parties, we’re talking about an agenda of growth, and we need energy sources. We are not just talking about the use of coal, obviously, for energy production, but we’re talking about things like steel production, and we’re talking about things like cement production. They’re all things that go into buildings and into construction of buildings—that’s another issue that we have in this country—and other industrial processes that coal is used for.

After I travelled to the West Coast about five or six weeks ago, I gave a speech in the general debate on my trip to the West Coast. When I’m on the West Coast, the West Coasters are telling me, “We want these types of industries, we want jobs, and we want regional development.” From the mayors on the West Coast—what I’m hearing from the Opposition isn’t what I’m hearing on my trips away when I’m speaking with those people in those communities.

New Zealand First believes we should be open for business. By promoting the mining industry, we are actually saying, “We are open for business here in New Zealand. We are wanting investment. We’re wanting to attract investment.” What I can’t understand is that we’re still bringing Indonesian coal into this country from—I just googled—over 750,000 kilometres away, nearly 800,000 kilometres away. In places in the Waikato, near Huntley, 10 kilometres away, we’ve got coal sources. Why are we doing that? Why are we not using our own natural resources that are here and that we can use, instead of importing inferior coal from other sources in the world that is a dirtier, more unreliable resource, when we’ve actually got that here in our own country.

We also don’t talk enough about the fact that 0.17 percent is our emissions—0.17 percent is the emissions that we are producing here in New Zealand. Why aren’t we talking about countries like China? Why aren’t we talking about the US? Why aren’t we talking about India, where all these other emissions are happening?

Hon Willie Jackson: Because you live here—that’s why. You’re New Zealand First, aren’t you?

JAMIE ARBUCKLE: The Opposition is shouting out, but you want to shut us down, you want to close our businesses down, and you want to skyrocket residential power prices just on an ideology that, for some reason, we are going to save the planet by not having some coal mines here in New Zealand. It’s absolutely farcical. People are laughing at that type of ideology that is coming from the Opposition parties.

We also heard about the International Energy Agency and how they’re going to be frowning on New Zealand. Are they going to be coming to save our residents? Are they going to be coming to save New Zealand businesses when the lights go off? Where is the Paris Agreement when the lights go off here in New Zealand? We need to be resilient and looking after our resources and using them while we can. I don’t commend this bill to the House.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. First of all, it’s an honour to be here on behalf of Te Pāti Māori to support this bill and to support the vision and the courage and the bravery that this member has to finally look at what it is that we need to do as a nation—instead of hearing this lazy, “Let’s just carry on doing what we’re doing because it’s the only thing we know what to do and we’ll keep doing it until there’s nothing left.”

The sad part about this, as I just heard the previous Government member talk about people laughing—and they are laughing: they are laughing at the lack of vision that this Government has and the absolute embarrassment that it has for the future generations who want to hear what is the solution. Where is the transition this Government keeps talking about, because it’s not evident in any of the discussions? We’ve seen a lot of discussion about “Oh, well, let’s just allow the less dirty coal in than the dirtier-dirtier. Let’s just carry on doing what we’re doing because even though it’s poisonous, it’s less poisonous than the last thing that we were doing.” It’s like: are we really listening to the degree and the poor level of debate going on? The argument is that the status quo is the only way to go: “We must continue to look after the shareholders. We must continue to keep being dirty and filthy as New Zealanders and not care a hoot about the future generations that are impacted.”

What we have here, and it’s not disputable, is that coalmining directly fuels the climate crisis and the issues that we have as a nation. It degrades whenua, it degrades waterways, and it degrades and it impacts negatively on our ecosystem. But instead of saying, “Let’s just ban all coal activity.”, what this member is doing is saying, “Let’s ban new activity.” The alarmists are saying, “It’s going to affect jobs. It’s going to make the world fall in. Oh my goodness me, capitalism is going to fall on its knees!” It’s just alarmist, and I think the real sad part is about the denial of what the Crown Minerals Act does on its own—I don’t even want to go down that path—but it continues to breach Te Tiriti o Waitangi, where we ignore the fact that mana whenua, iwi, and hapū have never wanted these types of activities and never wanted the lack of connection and the lack of ownership and accountability that they deserve.

I keep hearing about Taranaki—and, actually, as somebody from Taranaki, we see, full-on, what this industry doesn’t do and doesn’t give to the local economy. So I think, you know, again, the only people that really benefit from this are the shareholders. And quite often they’re not shareholders that come and bring their energy and their multiplied economic effects into the regions. So, again, the hardest part about this is: how are we going to achieve 100% renewable energy? Are we never going to have that discussion as a nation? Are we going to continue to hear from the likes of people like “Miney”, the likes of the people from New Zealand First, who keep saying, “This is the only way we’re going to keep the lights on.” Rubbish! What is the alternative? Where is your innovation? Where is your connection? Where were you when the whole of Taranaki had an energy conference? Where were you all, because I never saw one of you turn up? You know why? Because you’re comfortable sitting in the mud and the filth of what the sector does and brings to our whole nation.

Banning coal and making sure that we protect our mokopuna has to be something, surely, every party here agrees to, don’t we—don’t we? Don’t we all agree that our mokopuna are the most important people in the world? [Interruption] I mean, I’m hearing one over there that doesn’t agree that the mokopuna are the most important. For us, for Te Pāti Māori, there’s nothing more important than our mokopuna, and the sad thing about this is that we’re not here debating what the solution is, what transition is going to look like—no, no. What we’re doing is we’re standing here debating how we please the lobbyists and how we make sure the sector stays exactly as it is, and we take the less dirty option than the other dirty options. You have no idea at all of what it is that you’re proposing.

When are we going to stop calling extraction growth—when? When are we going to get out of that denial and stop calling colonisation regulation? When are we going to stop sacrificing our mokopuna for short-term profits? And when are we going to stop sitting there and being in denial that coal is the dirtiest fuel on the earth—the dirtiest? It doesn’t matter what degree of dirty you have: dirty is dirty is dirty.

I think the whole sad thing is that we as Te Pāti Māori will always stand on the side of those who give a hoot about our mokopuna, because this place really lacks vision and future care for our mokopuna. I think the sad thing about it is not only should we be supporting this bill, I mean, we would love to see the Crown Minerals Act repealed—we would really love to have that debate in this House, but we’ll leave that for another day.

So, again, I give, and Te Pāti Māori gives, homage and congratulates this member and ex-Minister on her vision to do what is right by every New Zealander, and that is to look after us and come up with a just transition. Kia ora rā.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. [interruption] I am pleased that the Government members are full of hope when I get up and speak on this particular topic this evening.

I’m pleased to be able to speak on the Crown Minerals (Prohibition on Coal Mining) Amendment Bill. I acknowledge the whakapapa of this member’s bill, Eugenie Sage and Julie Anne Genter, who have done the work that’s needed to bring this bill before the House. This bill prohibits new coal mines and any expansion of existing coal mines after the 1 January in 2025. This will protect the climate from the greenhouse gas emissions generated by burning coal and better protect Aotearoa New Zealand’s landscapes.

This is an important conversation and what we’ve heard from Government members across the House is largely political. It’s a scare tactic, really, where they constantly use the line that we need more mines in order to keep the lights on when it comes to energy, and anyone who knows anything about the subject matter knows that that would only get us part of the way. We need to be innovative, clever, and resourceful in the way that we use energy in this country.

The other point comes back to the need for a plan, and it is our view that, fundamentally, decisions like this need to be made within the context of a comprehensive energy strategy for New Zealand. But under our colleagues, of course, this has gathered dust. There hasn’t been much action, like many things under this Government in the past two years. I really like the MP for North Shore, he’s a great man, but this is hard yakka, when it comes to important stuff before us.

We will support this bill through its first reading, and I always look fondly to the work that Julie Anne Genter puts before this House. It’s always well-thought-through and progressive.

We want it to go through to select committee and have the scrutiny of Parliament with experts to put their lens across it and advise the committee with good-quality evidence to reduce the politics and the heat that comes with the subject matter.

We need to be integrating this with the transition away from coal—that is important—and, of course, we need understand what this piece of legislation would mean for workers in this particular place, for relevant communities across Aotearoa New Zealand, and for those in the Taranaki who may or may not have gone to the energy conference as outlined by our colleague before.

But the point I do want to acknowledge here is that while it does create a strict ban on expansion and means no new permits for existing mines, it means that the continuation is allowed, and existing coal mines can continue to operate after 1 January 2025 with their current permitted activities. The bill does not immediately shut down active mines, despite what Government members will say. Instead, it allows them to operate within the boundaries of their present approvals.

So I think that’s an important point, where we say what we’ve got now potentially is where we’re at. Any new mines are being ruled out under this piece of legislation, but it needs to fit as a broader strategy for energy in Aotearoa New Zealand. Tonight in this first reading, we commend this bill to the House.

RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It gives me—well, I have to do this really, speak on this bill. I am on the Environment Committee and passionate about all things environment. I do acknowledge the member, the Hon Julie Anne Genter, for, I guess, the luck of the draw in bringing this member’s bill to fruition. Unfortunately, it’s going to have a short life. At least she turned up for her bill, which is very important, so we can vote on it.

I would like to agree with Deborah Russell, who actually said that Grant McCallum is a nice guy. I do can concur, and actually the Green Party could learn a lot from Grant McCallum. He’s one of our co-leaders in the Bluegreens, which is actually doing some incredible work in the environmental space. Actually, it’s probably one thing National could actually do better—promote our Bluegreens better—because, actually, in terms of environmental policy, it’s really, really, really good. To give you an example, just this week—

Steve Abel: The most environmentally destructive Government in a generation.

RYAN HAMILTON: Steve’s a bit excited there! Just this week, through our own environmental policy, for example—if I was to talk about a pragmatic policy—let’s look at our methane targets, which were released just last week, I think, where it’s a pragmatic solution. You’ve got ideology up here and it says, “Yep, we acknowledge that the methane levels need to come down”, but let’s do it in a pragmatic, transitional way. Let’s look at things like split gas and things like that. That’s the sort of thing, that’s the sort of policy, that the Green Party could do really well on. In fact, I remember our Prime Minister acknowledging the departing of James Shaw and saying that, with James Shaw, there was the last true environmentalist. We really do miss him in the House.

When I think about coal, there’s a few things that come to mind. When I think of coal, I think of Matua Shane, and I acknowledge his efforts in the minerals space.

Steve Abel: Yeah, he’s the future, isn’t he?

RYAN HAMILTON: He’s certainly got a more pragmatic future than you, Mr Abel, I think, because his feet are grounded, let’s put it that way. The other thing I think of, when I think of coal, is my grandparents in Papatoetoe, where they used to put coal on the fire because it was slow burning and would keep the house warm during those winter months. Picture this, Madam Speaker, if you will: now we’ve got the great Waikato Expressway, but before that, there was the old State Highway 1 and you’d have all the stops from Pōkeno and Mercer and Hampton Downs, and you’d see the twin towers of Huntly Power Station on the skyline. I still go past them and look at them with awe and think about the incredible contribution that Huntly Power Station has made to this economy. When all the ideology—

David MacLeod: And the local coalfields.

RYAN HAMILTON: The Huntly coalfields—I’m going to get to that. When all the ideology of the last administration talked about shutting coal down and shutting fossil fuels down, and then all of a sudden we were left with these rising power prices, who do we turn to in the time of need? We go back to Huntly and we say, “Thank you. Huntly, we apologise. We apologise, Huntly, for that”—the great Rāhui Pōkeka, the great power station that exists there.

I do have some sympathy with the mover of the bill. We do acknowledge that there is a definite place for the reduction of fossil fuel, but, of course, it’s got to be pragmatic. In fact, if I turn to the bill, it said the commencement of this Act will be 1 January 2025, which only gives us two months—

Hon Member: ’26.

RYAN HAMILTON: 2026? No, it says “2025”. I think we would need to make an amendment in the committee of the whole House. I think what we could do is we could, potentially, support this if we changed “2025” to “2045”, or to “2055”, just to give us more of a runway to get there. I think that’s really important.

Just by note, there’s something like 12 coal mining companies in New Zealand operating right now, and they’re employing people; they’re producing economic growth. This bill would just think to clip their wings and prevent them from expanding. We’re a Government that’s keen on restoring the economy, growing the economy, and building the economy. Why would we support something that shrinks something based on ideology and not on fact? We too care about our mokopuna, but we want to do it in a pragmatic way, not one that’s cooked up in ideology, where we burn papers in a bin on the steps of Parliament.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): What a load of nonsense from Ryan Hamilton. Have you got any mokopunas? It was just a very sad speech, but it sums up the other side very well. The member there from the North—Grant. I always forget. What’s your last name, Grant?

Grant McCallum: McCallum.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: That’s right. You’ve made such an impact on me that I forgot your last name! It was a very, very weak speech because, as he well knows, his dear friend Matua Shane Jones was a huge supporter of the Labour Government and the ban on new oil and gas.

Ryan Hamilton: He saw the light.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: He didn’t see the light. [Interruption] They can laugh all they like, but he’s there, in front of the cameras, smiling away, saying, “Yes, Jacinda, I support you. I love you. I love Labour.” He’s there—it’s a fact. He can deny it all he likes, and all his nonsense in the House, but we all know, and old New Zealand First—oh, there he is, the mayor over there, another Wellington—we’ve got a good Wellington mayor now, haven’t we? Fabulous! This lot over here—up and down.

Here’s the other thing: Winston Peters, the man who should still be Deputy Prime Minister, he supported the ban on oil and gas exploration in 2018. Yes, he did! He was 100 percent behind it, so I ask the question, how can we take this other side seriously tonight when their coalition partners backed us, the Greens, Labour, the Māori Party—were the Māori Party there? I don’t know if they were quite there. Not in 2018. Were they there? No? Well, they should have been there. The reality is that Winston Peters and Shane Jones backed us 100 percent, and the other side knows this.

The reality is that National back us, too, because the ACT Party, as we all know, are climate change deniers. That is well recorded. David Seymour was caught out on Q + A. He tried to deny it, but Jack Tame came up—

Cameron Luxton: He tried to deny denying?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: No, no—you are deniers. You’ve been deniers for years and years and years. The reality is you opposed the Paris Agreement, repealed the zero carbon Act, and abolished our Climate Change Commission. The ACT Party doesn’t care about this kaupapa.

I want to say—where’s our member gone? Is she still there? I want to congratulate her. She was a wonderful Minister in this area for her courage. It takes courage. I want to mihi to you, Julie Anne Genter, for your courage and your bravery in putting up an alternative. She’s trying to be nice to this useless lot on the other side. She’s trying to be nice and reasonable. She hasn’t always been nice and reasonable to them, and I can understand that.

Grant McCallum: Ask Matt Doocey.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Yeah, well, he deserves a clip across the ears. All I’m saying to you tonight is that this former Minister cares about the environment. She’s got a history, she’s got background, and she’s got some courage that no one on the other side—I’m not really meant to say that, am I, Madam Speaker? But they are lacking—they are lacking. You have to have some courage to do this sort of thing. You have to imagine a new world, and there is no imagination on this other side. They’re full of dingbats on the other side—I knew you’d find that funny, Madam Speaker. You have dingbats in the Government—you do—and you’ve got climate deniers over there who’ve got a history of rejecting what’s happening; climate change deniers over there. They reject what the majority of New Zealanders want—they reject what the majority of New Zealanders want.

Tonight, I want to mihi to Julie Anne Genter and to my good friend Jacinda Ardern, because she was brave and she was courageous, unlike this useless lot on the other side, who keep embarrassing themselves and going down in the polls. We know there’s a move going on in terms of the leadership. Louise Upston is a candidate, and I congratulate Louise Upston. We also know that Erica Stanford is a candidate. I think James Meager should go up, because we want a Māori, and he’s one of those Māoris, you know? I’d put him up, a Māori Minister, and we’re training him too—but they have to get one thing, and that is courage, and they have no courage.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired.

TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): For the last two years, members on that side of the House have been trying to deny the six years that preceded them, wanting to distance themselves from almost everything that the last Government did. They certainly didn’t want to talk about the oil and gas ban when we had energy spot prices over $800, did they? But now, suddenly, Willie Jackson’s really proud of them: “Oh, that was great.” Here’s the same Labour Party that was the party—once upon a time, a hundred years ago—of miners. Isn’t that where it started, at Blackball? A party for miners. Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.

Hon Willie Jackson: Times have moved on.

Hon Member: Times have moved on, says Willie Jackson.

TIM COSTLEY: Oh, we’ve moved on. How they love to selectively pick their history.

I do want to acknowledge Julie Anne Genter I don’t think much of her bill, but congratulations on having it drawn, none the less. Willie Jackson’s a big fan of you. That’s good to hear. In Horowhenua we were less a fan of your transport policy, in all fairness; we quite like our new expressways and we’re looking forward to having one built. But that’s OK.

Let me let me just break this down and slow it down. The problem with this is it sort of packages itself up as banning coal, but it doesn’t actually ban coal. It bans coal mining, which means we can’t get any coal from the West Coast, where Maureen Pugh is a local MP—

Hon Member: Wonderful MP.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: A great MP.

Hon Member: The only one in the area.

TIM COSTLEY: The only one. Everyone’s deserting that side of the House. It’s miraculous.

What it means is we’re going to keep importing that Indonesian coal, the same coal that members on that side of the House say that they hate and it’s a terrible thing and we shouldn’t have this. It doesn’t stop us using coal. It doesn’t lower our emissions. In fact, as a result our net emissions are worse as a result. It doesn’t fix the problem. It talks about it; it gives them the banner. I want to commend Julie Anne Genter in that she’s actually got a bill that is vaguely about the environment, because we don’t hear that from the Green Party these days. They’ve stuck with the green name because it sort of tries to work for their branding, but we never really hear from them. We don’t hear from them in question time asking about the environment. We don’t hear from most of their members’ bills, but here we go. This is at least one that touches on the environment. The problem is it doesn’t fix the problem.

What is the problem? If they really want to see us move away from needing coal as a back-up energy generation, then they would be backing fast track so that we could go and build a new solar farm, a new wind farm—

Hon Member: Hydro?

TIM COSTLEY: Maybe some hydro—renewable energy. If we’re going to have to burn coal, let’s at least burn New Zealand coal. Let’s at least create jobs. Because on that side of the House, they keep talking about jobs. They say, “Oh, you can earn more money in Australia. That’s bad. We should have better paying jobs here.” Well, we could have, because my friends that have gone to Australia work in the mines. They dig the wealth out of the ground and they provide a better product than what they could import from overseas.

But those members don’t want that. They want to have this argument of “Oh, we want jobs and we want an economy; we just don’t want any of the things that create that.” So let’s just import some more Indonesian coal. Let’s just go [Sings falsetto] “La-la, la-la-la, we’re just going to look at this as if it’s someone else’s problem. If we don’t see it, it didn’t happen.”, and yet the coal gets burnt.

Grant McCallum: How does Hansard represent that?

TIM COSTLEY: OK, fair play, Grant McCallum. That was one of the wittier things you’ve said.

Here’s the problem, for seniors like Mr McCallum: when they want to turn the heater on in the winter and energy prices are going through the roof, they want to know that we’ve got cheaper ones. They want to know that we’ve got affordable electricity. Their kids want to know that they can get good paying jobs. No one wants to burn down the planet, but people on that side of the House seem to want to burn down our economy in the pursuit of it.

I’m not into that. The reason that poor countries have higher emissions is because they can’t afford it. They can’t afford the things that move them away. Banning coal would be like just banning petrol in New Zealand. Why don’t we do that? Why don’t we just ban petrol?

Hon Member: Don’t give them any ideas.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: They’re going to need a new one tomorrow, because this one’s not going to make it through. But why wouldn’t we do that? Why don’t we just put the blinkers on—I’m not going to give you another impression—because it’s like most things that come from that side of the House. It kind of sounds nice, it doesn’t do what it says, and it creates more problems, and that’s why we’re not supporting the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before I ask the member the Hon Julie Anne Genter a give a right of reply, I just want to say that I wish you could all disagree in that vein more often, because that was fun, and if the Minister of Energy captured half the energy that was in this House tonight, the lights should stay on for quite some time. The Hon Julie Anne Genter, you have a right of reply.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): The International Energy Agency concluded in 2021—so that was four years ago—that no new coal mines, mine extensions, or unabated coal plants should be developed in order for us to achieve net zero by 2050. So I'm sure many of the members opposite have never heard of the International Energy Agency, but it's a very mainstream body. It's, like, extremely mainstream. They said very clearly—because they sat down and looked at the math, and everyone in the world, every country in the world, signed up to the Paris targets, based on science. Imagine getting every country in the world to agree on something that means that there's actually significant science behind it, unlike the National Party talking points—the Government Party talking points they've been quoting tonight—which are all nonsensical.

It's very easy to stand up and say your little slogans that banning new coal exploration and mining is causing high energy prices. But, actually, if you know anything at all about how the energy market works in New Zealand, it's the coal price that is the most expensive. The coal is the most expensive kilowatt hours to generate electricity, and the overall price is all priced at the marginal price. So everybody's paying more for cheap hydroelectricity, for cheap wind power because of the coal peaking plants.

So it's totally nonsensical to say that stopping the expansion of coal mines here in New Zealand—and everywhere in the world where we need to stop producing new coal mines—has anything to do with high power prices. The Greens also have a member’s bill—and any members opposite could sign up to it right now in the name of my colleague and friend Scott Willis—that would help fix the electricity market, and that would help address some of the issues. But it's all just a big sham to say that we have to support fast track to get renewable electricity; it's just not true.

Fast track is going to be used to destroy a living museum, a national treasure, the Denniston Plateau, because of this Government, in order for Bathurst to expand coal mining operations that will not be used, will not have anything to do with electricity generation, which will cost the country more than they will pay in royalties, more than we will earn in having those jobs. It's destroying something that would cause people all over the world to come visit New Zealand. The value in ecological services in tourism of the Denniston Plateau is far greater than the value of it dug up and shipped off overseas. I mean, that's the truth.

So the Government members, when they say things are ideological, they're talking about themselves. All of those Government parties are blind ideology, refusing to accept the evidence around public good, that electricity is public good. I'm looking at the ACT Party members. It's blind ideology that's causing high power prices; the blind ideology of neoliberalism. It is the blind ideology of ripping up the most precious ecosystems in order to have some short-term profits for some overseas companies that is driving the fast-track legislation. It's all about ramming through unpopular decisions.

People like renewable electricity and the Green Party has been talking about practical solutions to increase renewable electricity, to have more energy efficiency, since we've been in Parliament, which is now 26 years. The members in the National Party and the New Zealand First Party and the ACT Party have always said that the Greens were away with the fairies, because they're ignorant bullies. That's who those people are and they're making irresponsible decisions that are literally causing the country to be in an enormous amount of suffering right now. We've got a whole lot of public servants and publicly funded roles: doctors, nurses, teachers, firefighters going on strike because they're not being paid sufficiently. And the Government's like, “I know, I've got a plan: let's announce $50 billion for 17 roads. That's going to save our economy.”

You're a bunch of dreamers. I'm sorry, the Government is a bunch of dreamers, but they're looking to the past. They're stuck in the past, and as of next year, this country has well and truly seen what a bunch of dinosaurs you are. I'm sorry, you're going to get voted out. Shame on you! Sorry, Madam Speaker, you’re not a dinosaur.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The House is suspended until 9 a.m.

Sitting suspended from 10.05 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)

WEDNESDAY, 22 OCTOBER 2025

(continued on Thursday, 23 October 2025)

Bills

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

Third Reading

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Good morning, everyone.

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Local Government) on behalf of the Minister for Building and Construction: I present a legislative statement on the Building and Construction (Small Stand-alone Dwellings) Amendment Bill.

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

Hon SIMON WATTS: I move, That the Building and Construction (Small Stand-alone Dwellings) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

It takes too long, and it is too expensive to build in New Zealand. That is why the coalition Government, through the National - New Zealand First coalition agreement, committed to making it faster and more affordable to build granny flats. Removing barriers to building small simple houses is a common-sense change that will be an important step in helping address New Zealand’s housing crisis. This bill will help to increase the supply of affordable housing options for both young and old New Zealanders, as well as for people with disabilities and those in the rural sector, particularly rural workers.

Before getting into the detail of the bill itself, it’s worth noting that this bill is widely supported by the public and across the House. This speaks to the design of the bill and what it seeks to achieve—firstly, accelerating housing growth by right-sizing the regulatory approach for simple lower-risk building work. If you take a look at the bill, the bill will permit non-consented small stand-alone dwellings, commonly referred to as granny flats, to be built without a building consent, subject to certain conditions. That is the building must be simple in its design and meet the building code. Building work must be carried out, or supervised, by authorised personnel, and councils must be notified prior to and on the completion of building work. The bill also maintains appropriate safeguards to provide assurance to homeowners, councils, insurers, and lenders that eligible homes will still meet the minimum code requirements and still will be healthy, safe, and durable. These safeguards include existing consumer protection mechanisms in the Building Act 2004, including pre-contract disclosures and a 12-month defect-free period. To ensure consent-exempt granny flats are simple, lower-risk buildings, the bill provides that they must be new, stand-alone, single-storey dwellings of 70 square metres or less.

The bill also provides that granny flats must be built in accordance with a set design specification set out in Schedule 1A. For example, the dwelling must be constructed with lightweight materials for the roof. The bill also introduces a power to add, remove, or amend some of these simple design requirements by Order in Council. The ability to change the simple design requirements will ensure that the building design conditions in Schedule 1A may be reviewed and updated in ways that will continue to meet the building code.

It’s important that those doing the work have the competency to do so and can be held to account if things go wrong. As such, building work must be carried out by authorised professionals. These professionals are required to produce a record of the work that they are responsible for so that they have a lasting record of the work that was completed, who completed it, and when. This information will be valuable for future owners, insurers, and lenders who may want to know if the building does, in fact, meet minimum building code requirements. To ensure owners and councils can be fully informed of the proposed building work, the bill also provides that owners must notify the relevant council of their intent to build a granny flat by applying for a project information memorandum, also known as a PIM. The bill requires that councils issue additional information alongside the PIM to further inform owners in support of their decision making. This will include information on any natural hazards that may be present on the land and whether the council has a view to make changes to the proposed design or a building consent is required to manage the risk presented by the building work in connection with the natural hazard. It is important to note that this is for information purposes only. Homeowners will have the freedom to determine how they respond, and it will be up to the owners to determine how they may wish to utilise this information to build a compliant granny flat.

The bill also offers a much simpler process in regard to building a code compliant granny flat compared to the normal building consent process. Firstly, a homeowner will engage qualified tradespeople to carry out the building work along with lining up their insurance and lending requirements if applicable. A homeowner will then apply for a PIM and receive that within 10 working days. A homeowner will then use that information to complete their design plans and ensure that all the exemption conditions are met, along with applying for any relevant authorisations to connect to a council network if not received at the point of the PIM. At that point, building work will commence. As the work is completed, records of this work will be produced and provided to the homeowner or to a homeowner and a council for restricted building work. And then, when an owner has received all relevant records from tradespeople, they have 20 working days to provide these to the council and to pay any development contributions owing.

This is a common-sense, straightforward approach to building a granny flat. Building owners will then be able to choose if they wish to follow this process or if they wish to go down the normal building consent process, which can see homes taking several months to receive a code of compliance certificate. This bill will make it easier to build, it will make it more simple, and it will make more lower-risk homes that many New Zealanders will be able to live in and benefit from. It will also help unlock productivity in the construction sector, which will help to increase the supply of affordable housing options for Kiwis. On that basis, I commend this bill to the House.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to take a final call on this bill which has been an example of cross-partisan working support through the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, ably chaired by Andy Foster. A Minister who enthusiastically engages not only with the sector who builds these things—the people on the ground who know and want to be able to build granny flats and to stimulate the work that they need and to improve productivity in their industry—but also engages with many of the submissions that have come through the select committee process.

This is a sensible change that is designed to stimulate more building work at a time when the construction sector desperately needs it, and to improve people's access to simple buildings that will be built in connection with people's single homes on parcels of land which can accommodate them. It creates a new system for councils to be able to notify people of any risks associated with that, and that remains something that the Labour Party will continue to watch and determine whether that works because, as I have noted along the way in this process, there are systems in this which have been designed quickly; we do not know the full impact of them. It is on all of us who have been supportive of this legislation to make sure that it works for the people who'll be affected within their communities. Those systems have to be robust, and so we'll make sure that this is a building system addition that contributes to New Zealand's building system—overall, being affordable, delivering houses that are in the right place, and being safe.

I wanted to highlight for the House, at this point—the third reading—just how important this is for New Zealand because, at a time when we are seeing more Government policy that makes it harder for people to afford their rents and harder for them to afford their housing cost, there should be some element of Government action on this. This isn't where Labour would have started. This is a change of the supply side which will make a small movement of the dial to make housing more affordable, at a time when rents continue to rise and when people in New Zealand are still facing a housing stock which has significant challenges of dampness, of thermal inefficiency, and—particularly for those more vulnerable communities—real issues in terms of affordability. Things like poor sanitation, which the ministry in charge of the building system and acting as a steward for the housing system, as a whole, have pointed out to successive Governments. It is not something we expect in New Zealand; it is not a standard that we should set ourselves for our homes.

Any small thing that will enable the building of new structures that are of a higher standard and that can get people into better-quality housing at an affordable rate, and make some kind of measure on the supply side to address the real needs in our communities, that is a good thing. But this is not the silver bullet. I was reflecting, when I was sitting in the committee room alongside my colleagues who have all brought a huge amount of enthusiasm to making a change here that will be lasting and that will be robust, and listening to the views of others in the community about how to make this something that New Zealanders can buy into—I was listening to the submissions of Māori architects, and there was one who came along with his two young daughters. They introduced themselves to the committee. I believe the one who was speaking was about 11 years old, and she spoke of her home in Te Urewera and about the building standards that she hoped for her community, that we could be using more local knowledge and that we could be providing for a community there who, for generations, have lived with underperforming housing stock but reclaiming some of the knowledge that her father was reviving through his work as an architect.

It highlighted for me the missed opportunities that we have there, and it connected with me because my father was born in Te Urewera in the early 1930s, at a time when that area of the country was vastly cut off from the rest of us—

Hon Peeni Henare: It still is.

ARENA WILLIAMS: It still is, says the Hon Peeni Henare. My father was moved as a baby over to the shores of the Ōhiwa Harbour where he grew up in a raupō whare. That raupō whare had a dirt floor, it had a thatched roof made of reeds that were replaced each season to keep the rain out. But he recalls that being a warm whare where he, you know, really enjoyed his life with his grandparents who were part of the Ringatū Church and were there safeguarding an area that was important to the life and the death of Te Kooti Arikirangi Te Tūruki.

Reflecting on those building practices, that this little girl—11 years old—had come along to speak to the committee about, and that we could not include in this bill. We could not include it in any legislation which is moving through the House on building systems made me think about the lost opportunity that we have here when we restrict ourselves to a narrow view of what is possible in Aotearoa for a future that this little girl was advocating for. There is something to be learned from these young people who are hoping for more, from a building system and a housing system that houses the people who need it most, when we cannot make any shift of the dial for her and her aspirations, and looking back to those practices which worked so well for my father in her own rohe.

When you think about the policies of successive Governments from then, when he was born, until now, it tells a picture of housing inequality in New Zealand which we are missing too. Successive Governments from the 1940s, those were Labour Governments, absolutely changed the picture for housing ownership. Rates rose over those two decades that were post-war years to increase housing ownership from about half to about two thirds. That was because people were able to build their own homes cheaply and it was because they were able to be supported by a State programme backed to build State houses.

State ownership increased and housing quality increased over those years because those two things went hand in hand. The big difference in housing policy arose in the 1990s when a National Government implemented a housing policy that involved slashing all controls around people's access, and increasing rents. Some people saw their rents of State houses go up 300 percent in six months. The difference there is that successive Labour and National Governments have believed that it is the role of the State not only to increase supply of housing, like this bill does, but to ensure that demand for housing is also supported.

That is, I think, the point here: that we are missing a trick if we think that these measures will make the difference that we need to radically increase not only home ownership but the quality of housing in New Zealand. So for this, this is something that we can all support and this is something that we all need to keep working on, to make sure that sort of “crust”, as I like to call it, Cameron Luxton—the crust of regulations that has grown up over those decades that I'm talking about—is not holding back anyone to build cheaply and affordably, which is something we believe in, too. But to also make sure that we have the policies—the crust, that has grown up—that we need to be brushing away.

There is also a role for us in making sure that those interventions that we can make, to make sure that home ownership is increasing continues because, you know, it has been successive Governments of both stripes. Keith Holyoke's Government stands out to me, in the 1960s; a Government that prioritised home ownership. He was the Prime Minister of home ownership. We need to see that commitment being bipartisan and being widely agreed as important to New Zealand because it increases our productivity overall. It increases our economic resilience; it increases resilience at the household and family level. It gives people something to be proud of and to hope for and a connection into their communities, which is unparalleled. It is a meaningful Government policy that we should not walk away from when times are like this, when the economy is tough for people, and we need to make an intervention on both sides.

I'm looking forward to watching how this bill impacts New Zealand. It's predicted that 13,000 of these small dwellings might be built because of this intervention. That's a good thing. Where they are in the country makes a big difference, and how they are received by their communities makes a big difference because people need to buy into this and it will change the way some neighbourhoods look and feel. We need to make sure that people can support a process, and councils that also work within the process are supported to be able to do that, have the funding and financing adequate to be able to administer this system. These also became larger during the process of our consideration of the bill; up to 70 square metres. That is also something that we will watch closely because the intention here is—I think, in most Kiwis’ minds—that they will be small, but these will be larger buildings, so we need to make sure that the system is working for everyone.

At this final stage, we’re proud to support this bill and we look forward to it making some small difference.

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

CELIA WADE-BROWN (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak on behalf of the Green Party at this third reading of the Building and Construction (Small Stand-alone Dwellings) Amendment Bill. As we reach this final stage of the bill’s journey, it's time to reflect on some of the things we've achieved, what we're still not sure about, and what we need to address in the future.

We support, particularly, enabling tangata whenua to build on their own land. We support making it easier for multi-generational whānau to house their kaumātua, their rangatahi, or other relatives. We support giving people who do have land to add housing capacity more simply—I have to say that 70 metres is a lot larger than where I live, but it's an interesting change to the size. We do believe that housing is a human right, and we urgently need more affordable, healthy, secure homes in Aotearoa. But this bill is a very small tool in what needs to be a much larger toolbox. As it becomes law, we must be honest about both its potential and its limitations.

I want to say a little bit about the council role. It's a very major shift introducing how councils operate in relation to building oversight. Instead of a consent process, councils will now provide the project information memorandum, the PIMs, and it reduces their liability in some ways, and it quite dramatically changes their role. Councils will still need to manage the infrastructure impacts—the stormwater, the wastewater, the roading—but with less information and less oversight. What happens if there is a surge of these dwellings in just one area? What happens if landlords use them in different ways than we had been expecting?

At the second reading, some members spoke about preventing councils from wriggling out—or possibly wiggling out—of the bill's intent. But, you know, we can't hold councils responsible on one hand and remove their oversight on the other. So it would be interesting to hear from the Minister in his closing speech what resources might be provided to councils for this new system? What training is council staff going to receive? How will the public know what they can and can't do? What support will licensed builders get for any changed responsibilities? The risk is confusion, uneven application, and potentially unsafe buildings.

Reuben Davidson earlier rightly highlighted the importance of digital records. Master plumbers in their submissions suggested that there are some tools that need to track these buildings nationally, because it's a big change from a sleepout to something that's got plumbing, both for the incoming water and for the sewage. Is the Government going to fund any digital systems for councils to monitor these buildings, or is it creating yet another unfunded mandate for local Government?

The legislation was developed quickly. The regulatory impact statement says it was rushed due to the coalition agreement. As Arena Williams said, not just now but earlier, there will be things we come back to because they do not work as intended, and there are some important questions that will only be answered in practice. Will insurance costs rise for buildings that are made under this particular area? How will banks treat lending for these dwellings? What happens if development does overload infrastructure? I would have suggested that we need some kind of more formal review in five years to check on a range of these buildings, whether they've been safe, whether their sewage and electricity infrastructure is functioning as intended.

The estimates suggest somewhere around nearly 13,000 additional dwellings over 10 years. That's not exactly tomorrow. It's helpful, but it's modest. Julie Anne Genter said this is a tiny number, given the scale of our housing need. The other thing is these dwellings are going to be scattered without strategic coordination for good urban design, transit access, or infrastructure efficiency. These dwellings are going to reduce neither car dependency nor emissions. They're not going to support compact, walkable neighbourhoods. Scattered backyard builds are fine to address some narrow needs, but they do not deliver climate smart cities. This Government's preference for urban sprawl in places is not going to help.

It also does little for productivity in the construction centre. One-off granny flats are not likely to be standardised. Productivity would come from more coordinated large-scale builds. Also, some of these dwellings are going to be used as airbnb’s. Tamatha Paul brought that point forward. That's fine for tourism, but short-term rentals are not going to solve our housing crisis.

So these new dwellings will add some capacity to our housing system. Not all are going to be homes for people in need. Most critically, this bill does absolutely nothing for social housing or addressing homelessness. It doesn't help people, whether they're grannies or solo parents on the public housing wait-list or sleeping rough. These dwellings require existing land and existing money, so to some extent they will help people who are already better off.

Tamatha Paul said it plainly: we are in a housing crisis; homelessness is increasing. This Government was warned that their policy changes would increase homelessness, and it happened. The Green Party has a petition calling on the Government to reverse emergency housing eligibility changes, fund wraparound services to house people, and reinstate the public housing build programme. The previous Government built over 13,000 public homes, the most since the 1970s. This Government has cancelled 3,479 homes, cut $1.5 billion from Kainga Ora, and is selling off existing stock. Now, they want applause for enabling a few thousand granny flats over a decade.

We will be watching the implementation of this bill closely. We will be continuing to push for much bigger systemic changes, not just to more housing but to better housing—to housing that uses sustainable materials, to training for building apprentices that's improved and better funded. It's quite hard for people to move to new areas for apprenticeships without rather stronger support. You can look at the changes to the polytechnics; you can take a look at the changes to jobseeker 18- and 19-year-olds—all of these things impact on our ability to provide safe, sustainable, affordable homes.

So we have got oversight reduced, the risks remain, and we haven't really addressed our overly prescriptive building code, which holds back innovations like passive housing and energy efficient design. Rather than just deregulating this aspect, we should raise the bar and make it easier to build high-quality, long-lasting, resilient homes in the right place. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s fantastic to stand up in this third reading of the Building and Construction (Small Stand-alone Dwellings) Amendment Bill. It’s been through a great process in the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, where there was a kumbaya, there were a lot of problems sorted out. It would have been good if the previous speaker Celia Wade-Brown had actually been on the committee, because a whole lot of the questions and issues that she raised were actually answered. I mean, scattered backyard builds, urban sprawl—this is infill by definition. And standardised—these buildings are the almost definition of standardised. There’s literally, in the end of this bill, a description of what you’re allowed to use: light cladding materials. There is an envelope restriction. Now, I have some issues with the restrictions around the envelope—what building can actually be built and where it can be located on the site. But, hey, we’ve come to a kumbaya agreement at select committee and across this House, that we are seeing a way forward.

Arena Williams talked about interventions on both sides—this is the type of supply-side intervention we need. We do not need any more demand-side intervention like KiwiBuild and other flops that did nothing but drive up the cost of housing in New Zealand and make the other side of the House ungovernable. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Are you seeking a call?

Dr David Wilson: Mr Speaker.

Dr DAVID WILSON (NZ First): I stand in support of the Building and Construction (Small Stand-alone Dwellings) Amendment Bill third reading, and I know my colleague Andy Foster, who is at the funeral for the late Rt Hon Jim Bolger, would much rather have been speaking to this third reading. However, we’re delighted to speak on this third reading. The bill makes it faster and more affordable to build simple, small stand-alone dwellings—one part of responding to our housing supply challenges, as was mentioned by the member from the ACT Party Cameron Luxton, with whom, I see, we’re actually agreeing today.

New Zealand First campaigned on removing consenting costs for small stand-alone dwellings, aka “granny flats”, and this was included in our coalition agreement with National. Today, we deliver on that promise, as we have delivered on so many other campaign promises. It’s just another example of the pragmatic solutions-focused, not problems-focused, approach that New Zealand First takes to issues confronting everyday Kiwis—not really just for grannies but for anyone wanting to build, own, or live in a small stand-alone dwelling. Just consider the current very high, very tight housing market for our kids and their ability to get into the housing market, or any other whānau arrangements, such as those mentioned by the member from the Labour Party, such as papa kāinga—and those about the Labour Party’s influence—or what they actually want.

Hon Mark Patterson: It’s one of life’s great mysteries!

Dr DAVID WILSON: Yep. It still needs to meet all the insulation standards, as was mentioned by such member. It saves on time, saves the disruption to construction when waiting for a building inspector, and saves the direct cost of fees, as was mentioned by the Green Party member.

There was a lot of support for the bill, unanimity in the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, which was chaired by none other than Andy Foster. It started with 60 square metres. Following consultation prior to the bill being lodged, it was raised to 70 square metres—another pragmatic change. Many complying buildings will be factory-constructed dwellings able to be transported to site. Now, 70 square metres is small, but it still allows good space for a kitchen, bathroom, laundry, living area, possibly a dining area, two bedrooms—you can deliver a lot, and of good quality, for a modest price. We have seen many examples, during this process, for less than $250,000, which is well under the average building cost for New Zealand.

Under this bill, councils are not consent authorities and are not on the liability hook, as they are when they have to process normal building consents. What they are required to do is provide upfront the project information memorandum, as the Minister mentioned; identify any hazards; keep records of the finished dwelling; and levy any development contributions towards infrastructure, which addresses the Green Party member’s concerns earlier. They may also have to oversee any connections to water infrastructure. We will also need to deal with any relevant resource consent issues, if any.

Getting more houses built faster creates jobs, creates housing where it’s of need, mostly, so we commend this bill to the Parliament. Thank you, sir.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Scott Willis—five-minute split call.

SCOTT WILLIS (Green): Tēnā koutou e te Whare. The Green Party sees housing as a human right and the Government's role is to ensure that there is effective action to increase the supply of warm and cosy homes, secure homes, affordable housing. We all need shelter and we all need shelter that will keep us healthy. The Green Party is not opposing this bill, but we do have concerns.

Hon Mark Patterson: Say something nice, Scott.

SCOTT WILLIS: Oh, say something nice.

Hon Mark Patterson: It’s a good bill. It’s a good idea. Don’t be so grudging.

SCOTT WILLIS: Well, unfortunately, just about everything this Government has done has made things worse for Kiwis. We're seeing people sleeping on the streets.

This bill’s regulatory impact statement tells us that there's going to be something like 7,800 new buildings in the next decade. Kāinga Ora was building 5,000 homes a year. The Green Party has put forward a proposal to build 7,000 homes a year. So if we think about solutions, this bill is really a patch-up. It's a PR job to try and deal with the bigger problems.

If we think about the State homes that have been cancelled, I think particularly about 2-12 Albertson Avenue in Port Chalmers. Kāinga Ora put that land up for sale when was required to. The deadline sale failed. We do not have housing in Port Chalmers in Ōtepoti Dunedin because of the failure to build the homes that were ready to be built. This is Government action.

When you take away one of the biggest levers that the Government's got to address housing quality and supply, you make a big mistake. We need more direct intervention. The market is not going to solve the housing crisis. People building small granny flats is not going to help get people into homes. It'll help with some airbnbs, it'll help with some short-term rental, it'll help some people get into homes, but it will not deal with the housing crisis. There is always going to be a section of the market that will not be met because the market solutions do not deliver what we need. They do not deliver shelter for all.

I am certainly in favour of seeing the building, construction, of housing better. What we'd like to see is an improvement in the code so that we have improvements here—and Cameron's going to say this is all in the bill. Actually, what we haven't got is an understanding of how we can make things better through other methods such as component building, building from patterns, and using structural insulated panels. If we really wanted to make a difference, we would be amending the building code to make sure that we can build quickly to code from patterns and from component building.

This is something that I have experience of, and I also live in a community where there are homes that have been built, small homes that have been built, sometimes with a consent, sometimes not. There's not a great difference between the poor quality of those homes, and this is where we see a real risk, because if we don't have an understanding of what sometimes happens with builders, or plumbers, or electricians when they decided they’ve had enough—they’ve got too many risks—where does that liability fall? This is the real risk that we face with this bill. It looks like an election slogan without a lot of work done, because we saw in the regulatory impact statement that it was done in a rushed manner because it’s part of the coalition agreement. It’s just an election slogan.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Just before I call Dan Bidois, the last two speakers have not sought the call. I remind members that they are required to seek the call if for no other reason than for the people who are actually up in the broadcasting area. So if you’re on your feet and not seeking the call, you are required to do so. If you don’t do so, the risk is that I will go straight to a vote. I call Dan Bidois.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): I wish to apologise for the previous speaker, Scott Willis, because I think he’s a bit upset that we didn’t get to debate the Consumer Guarantees (Right to Repair) Amendment Bill yesterday—his party’s bill. I have one message for the member, which is: you’ve got to show up to this House on time. I’m here to show up to talk about this good bill that we’ve got.

This is good policy. It’s a great example of bipartisanship in this House. It’s a practical solution to our housing challenges, and I wish to thank the Minister, Hon Chris Penk—a great, hard-working Minister—for shepherding this bill through the House. I wish to thank the officials, who have done a lot of work to really make sure that we can ramp this bill up quickly, in record time. I wish to thank my colleagues on the Transport and Infrastructure Committee.

I look forward to its implementation as a practical way for us to build. I wish to say that I look forward to its implementation. Go forward—build, baby, build! I commend this bill to the House.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s my privilege today to speak on the Building and Construction (Small Stand-alone Dwellings) Amendment Bill. It’s always interesting to see my colleague Dan Bidois comment on other actions and showing up to the House on time, when, in fact, I think his own party has issues in getting votes right and practices in this House. But I’ll leave that for him to discuss with his own colleagues—foot-in-mouth syndrome, I think.

Hey, the last speaker also spoke to this being a practical solution to our housing challenges, and I don’t think that that is fair at all. Labour certainly supports this particular piece of legislation. It “seeks to reduce the time and cost of building a granny flat by permitting small stand-alone dwellings up to 70 square metres to be built without obtaining a building consent, given certain conditions are met.” Those conditions are, obviously, important, and I acknowledge the select committee, who have gone through a robust and thorough process, collectively, to understand both the implications and the opportunities that sit in front of people and home owners and communities for this legislation to take place. Those conditions are that the granny flat must be simple in its design; it must be meets the building code, that building work must be carried out by authorised professionals—that’s an important one, of course, because there are some people that DIY at home and quality is important there—and thirdly, that councils must be notified prior to and on completion of building work.

But going back to: is this a practical solution to our housing challenges? That member will, of course, know that Glenfield Salvation Army is reporting a homelessness list—as he moves around the House uncomfortably—of 150 people, who are sitting on that register in our own community. That’s the highest that Salvation Army Glenfield have ever reported. He’ll be aware that De Paul House in Northcote are seeing the highest number of single kaumātua, kuia—seniors—accessing their support, so by no way is this a practical solution to our housing needs.

Saying that, it does provide a suite of opportunities for Aucklanders in Tāmaki-makau-rau, that they are able to use their property better, and that it’s more cost effective for them to do so. We have seen incredible fees applied to people doing works on their homes in the consent process with Auckland Council. But those costs do have to go back somewhere, and so one of the points that was raised in an earlier speech was: what support is being provides provided to Auckland Council to assist their part of the role? Because what is at stake, albeit highlighted in this legislation, is the quality of those facilities. The Labour Government, despite doing the largest public housing build since the 1970s, particularly, has been criticised for transitional housing options and using motels as an alternative. But here is a Government that is putting up granny flats as that alternative, with less regulation in order to enable people to live in a warm, dry home. So there is a balance to be struck here, but we must move forward with caution, with two eyes open on actually addressing the housing crisis in front of us.

We know that under this Government, over the last two years, the construction sector has gone backwards. We’ve had thousands and thousands—tens of thousands—of people leave our shores, who likely came through New Zealand and the Labour Government’s apprenticeship scheme. As Labour’s tertiary spokesperson, I’m very clear that in the last two years, we’ve graduated 9,000 fewer apprentices in this country. That’s on top of the 20,000 - odd that have headed offshore. As they scale up the infrastructure investment in this country—finally—we really find ourselves short of a skilled workforce that they actually can’t deny because they know that it’s there, so let’s not play politics on that one. We do need a skilled workforce in order to do that.

The granny flats obviously need to have a very simple design element to them. They must meet the building code in there, and this bill provides that “a consent-exempt granny flat must be built in accordance with a set of simple design specifications.”, and I understand that the select committee have gone through a process of elimination there, that they do understand that building code very well and the expectations there. Also in the legislation before us: “building work must be carried out by authorised professionals;”, as I mentioned, and that “councils must be notified prior to and upon completion of work.”. In dense areas, where we do see intensified housing across Auckland, neighbours are very important, of course, so a bit of the communication of where you’re putting your granny flat is very, very important—that we acknowledge those that live next door, that we’re working with them to find the best fit for that neighbourhood and that community and the people that live between each other. The last thing we want to see, of course, is neighbours at war, which can easily happen when building and construction happens in people’s property.

I’m personally very supportive of this bill. I think it’s an easy thing to do for households that can afford to do this. It shouldn’t be an expensive exercise. I remember as a teenager that back in my day, it wasn’t—well, it kind of was a granny flat, but my eldest brother had a converted area in our shed. This is back in the 1980s, so similarly, I guess, that’s a granny flat; but it gave people a bit of space, families a bit of space. It also offers the opportunity for kaumātua and kuia to come and live with their loved ones.

It’s not a solution to the housing crisis; let’s be very clear about that. The Government has taken us backwards in both building houses and also growing a skilled workforce for the construction sector—we have low number of apprentices graduating—but for the average Joe, in communities like mine, I think it’s a good thing. It enables them to get on and create a granny flat in their backyard, and I really, really support that.

It’s one action that the Government can take to support people at this time. The cost of living challenges are pretty heavy, and we aren’t seeing any solutions there. Without further ado, can I acknowledge the select committee, the mahi that they’ve done on the bill; some of the expertise that sit around that table, I think are pretty good, and they’ve come from all angles, so I do certainly support this bill, and I commend it to the House.

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill): It is great to hear that this bill received unanimous support from the House. Several speakers have addressed affordable housing regulation and workforce issues, but I would like to highlight something different. I want to speak for my ethnic communities. For many ethnic communities in New Zealand, including the Pacific and Asian families, multiple-generation living is not just practical; it is culture. These families value being close while also respecting each other's needs for privacy and independence. This bill allows the development of small stand-alone dwellings that support this way of living. It reflects our diverse communities and ensures our housing solution meets real families’ needs. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a delight and a privilege to be able to speak in the third reading here of the Building and Construction (Small Stand-alone Dwellings) Amendment Bill. This is the first time that I’ve had the ability to have a contribution on this bill. It’s something that I’m quite passionate about, believe it or not. This is an area that I think is a really positive one for this country, and, as has been traversed here for Labour today, we are very supportive of this bill and have been very engaged in the select committee process around it—

Hon Mark Patterson: You just need Scott Willis to get on board.

Hon JAN TINETTI: It seems like a sensible change. Mr Patterson, I’m pleased that you’re really engaged in my speech here this morning—that you can call out and support that.

Hon Mark Patterson: I’m here with you, Jan.

Hon JAN TINETTI: That’s really good—lovely to hear that, Mr Patterson. We see this as a sensible change, and what we are pleased about is that the new builds will still have to comply with the building code. That was a concern that we took through into the select committee stage and were able to traverse that and have that conversation, and we’re pleased that the select committee made some sensible changes in that report as well, and that has been said here this morning in this debate.

I heard my colleague Shanan Halbert talk about a granny flat that he grew up with in his house. I was a member of a very large family; there were six siblings in my family, and we had a very tiny two-bedroom house that I grew up in. While it wouldn’t have been compliant with this bill, my father did build a granny flat to add to our dwelling to make it a bit more comfortable as a family, and it meant that our family were able to stay together for a lot longer. It wouldn’t have been compliant, because my father built it and he was not a certified personnel member, in this particular case, but that’s what happened back in those days.

Hon Member: Don’t throw your dad under the bus!

Hon JAN TINETTI: Ha, ha! It was a very safe dwelling, though, and it still stands today. I have to say that this is one of the things that I really think is important. With the changing nature of our families in this country, and in places where it’s really important to keep families together, anything that we can do as a Government to help and support that is going to be helpful for those particular families. I say that from working in a particular place where larger families were more the norm, and it was hard to keep those families together. In many cases, when they came together—it might have been cousins coming together—back in the 2010s, they would often have to be in garages and in lounges and places like that, and it was very hard for them. This bill does make that easier. As my colleague Shanan Halbert said, it doesn’t solve the housing crisis, and it doesn’t go near to solving the housing crisis, but it does help particular families and particular places to be able to keep their compositions and make certain that they can stay a family unit.

One of the questions that I would have—and I would hope that, when this bill is looked at and reviewed down the track, we can see some changes—is will this make a difference to social housing? I say that because I’ve had knowledge, just this year, of a couple of families in my area around me who were in social housing; they had family—not even extended family, but direct family—a 16-year-old young woman who had a child and was wanting to put a granny flat on that particular social housing property, and that had been declined. Unfortunately, there was no emergency housing for that young person and her baby, and she had to live in a tent on the grounds of that house. I think those are questions that all of us can be taking forward and looking at to see whether that could make a difference for social housing providers to be able to put such dwellings on those pieces of land.

Again, those are questions for review down the track, but, overall, I think this is a really good change; it’s a pragmatic change; it won’t solve some of the big issues that we have as a country, but it will help certain demographics within the country. I have no hesitation in commending the bill.

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a great honour to rise in support of the Building and Construction (Small Stand-alone Dwellings) Amendment Bill. We want to increase the supply of housing because, currently, it’s far too hard to build a home in New Zealand. Even the simplest dwellings are tied up in red tape. This is about building the houses and the homes that New Zealanders need. We want to increase the supply. This is just one measure we’re doing. We are also increasing access to overseas products that comply with overseas standards. This is going to really make a difference.

The other thing I’ll mention is we’ve already seen up to 29 percent of real estate sales going to first-home buyers in New Zealand. That’s the highest on record. This Government is serious about getting houses to New Zealanders. Therefore, I commend this build to the House.

CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. [Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

I stand in support of this bill, the Building and Construction (Small Stand-alone Dwellings) Amendment Bill, as my colleagues have indicated.

Jan Tinetti took me on a trip down memory lane. I am—I've said in this House before—one of nine children and have a very large extended family, and looking after our elders is something that's been entrenched in our whānau. When I was younger, my grandmother came back to Rangitukia to stay with us, leaving her granny flat here in Tītahi Bay to come and spend a couple of years with us so that—well, actually, so that my cousin could get disciplined by my mother, and also to have a bit of a taste of country life. So in that sense, in the sense of keeping whānau together, of course, we naturally support this bill.

Easier doesn't necessarily mean accessible. One of the barriers—which I accept that this bill removes a lot of barriers and that's why we support it—when building on whenua Māori, especially, there are enough barriers you have to go through. First of all, to get your whānau together to look at the land block and then to go to get the consent from the shareholders; and then to get your ducks in a row to finally get to Te Kooti Whenua Māori; and then go through that process to get your occupation order or your license to occupy. That can take years. Once that's done, you then have to go through the process of finding finance to go through the process of naturally building what often is a dream home on your whenua, to which you feel absolutely connected.

Sometimes, that dream actually becomes a nightmare for so many whānau because of the laborious process it can be, and that's a bigger-picture item for us, I hope, as a whole House to work on: removing that barrier and making that easier for whānau. While that doesn't remove those barriers, this does go some way to helping whānau access housing. While this may not be the express intention of this bill, to provide permanent long-term housing, let me tell you, that's what's going to happen. If you drive across not just Ikaroa-Rāwhiti but around the bay—probably some of a lot of the areas some of the constituent MPs live in—you will see whānau establishing makeshift papa kāinga. Whether or not that is the intention of this bill, that is what's going to happen. Whānau who don't have access to resources to build their dream home are going to see this as an opportunity to whack up what they will see as housing options, as permanent full-time housing. The risks that come with that, with the lack of infrastructure required, are health and safety risks, and just—well, quite frankly, we risk Soweto-type situations popping up around communities.

While the price tag of less than $250,000 might seem attractive, that is still far out of reach for a lot of whānau. I'll go back to the issue of accessing finance. Some of the criteria is such that I know of one person who couldn't get access to a $50,000 mortgage to renovate a family home on Māori land, but he could get a loan to buy a $77,000 vehicle. These are the realities that whānau are facing, and the risks that come with this legislation—while we support it.

That said, I want to reflect on the aftermath of Cyclone Gabrielle, where we saw whare āwhina pop up to support and house whānau from Wairoa all around the East Coast; and visiting a whānau member in Te Wairoa, who was so happy to be in her whare āwhina, which I think was about 30 metres squared. Why she was happy was because she still got to be on her whenua. So that's a beautiful opportunity that comes with the support that that provided and with this bill; it is going to allow people to put something that they want on their whenua.

The other positive thing that I want to raise is the opportunity for Māori providers who are already fulfilling builds of this nature. I think of Toitū Tairāwhiti, who—referencing Willie Te Aho, who's one of their senior advisors—has already stated that they have the ability to build these, so they come pre-built to your whenua, within around two to three months. We know that's a proven record, because as I've said, they have delivered already in situations such as post-Gabrielle. And actually, there are papa kāinga that are popping up around Tairāwhiti and Ikaroa-Rāwhiti.

Again, just want to support and reflect on the comments of my colleague Shanan Halbert about the workforce that's going to be required to fulfil these whare—because speaking of post-Gabrielle, it was just so amazing to see apprentices in Hawke’s Bay, in Ngāti Kahungunu, supporting the builds of houses which now sit at Omāhu Marae, who, as we all know, was a beacon of light for all communities post-Gabrielle. These are the considerations that need to be made.

I am very pleased for the whānau whom this will serve—whānau for whom this is accessible, who now can build a whare for their kuia, for their koroua, for their mokopuna in their backyard, and also build a dwelling on their whenua so they can be grounded and connected and be where they want to be. Nā reira, e te Māngai o te Whare, kei te tautoko au i tēnei pire.

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

MILES ANDERSON (National—Waitaki): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m thrilled to be the last speaker on this bill, the Building and Construction (Small Stand-alone Dwellings) Amendment Bill. This bill will go a long way to solving some of the issues some of my constituents have building on their land. In particular, I’m thinking of one who I’ve been dealing with recently, so, Gordon, I hope this helps solve your problem. With that, I commend this bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Crimes (Countering Foreign Interference) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 18 September.

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand to speak against the Crimes (Countering Foreign Interference) Amendment Bill. While we do believe that it’s important to ensure New Zealand is protected from genuine threats of foreign interference, we believe this legislation does not ensure sufficient protection for civil liberties and democratic freedoms. This was a sentiment that was echoed in the submission stage of the select committee process. The committee received 705 submissions, 49 of which were accompanied by oral submissions to the committee. Out of those 705 submissions, 620 submitters opposed the bill, 34 supported it, and the remaining 51 were either unclear or did not take a position on this bill. We share the concerns of the submitters that this legislation could be used against environmental advocates, trade unions, human rights groups, and indigenous peoples. The recommendations in the departmental report and from the select committee have not alleviated this.

We do believe that the legislation is written in such a vague way that it could encapsulate—for example, I’ve already wished members a happy Filipino Restaurant Week yesterday, and I did that just because I saw that it was Filipino Restaurant Week. But if the Filipino Embassy had contacted me and asked me to share posts related to Filipino Restaurant Week, under the really vaguely defined provisions of the legislation, my posting that and encouraging people to celebrate Filipino Restaurant Week could potentially constitute a crime, if you interpret that under this legislation. That’s how loosely defined this legislation could be, and that’s why we have serious concerns.

The Crown’s record in this regard is not good. We only have to look at the Urewera raids and the history of espionage, in a domestic way, to see that. We consider that the new offences created represent State overreach and a significant threat to civil liberties, particularly the right to peacefully protest and organise, the right to privacy, and the right to voice one’s own personal political opinions, or opinions about restaurants for that matter. References to a foreign power, and what it means to act for or on behalf of a foreign power, are too broad and have not addressed the concerns of many submitters. Intelligence agencies often highlight concerns about foreign influence from countries such as China and Russia, for example, but there’s no clarity on how this bill will address, if at all, the influence of Five Eyes countries and the additional complexities of navigating those relationships.

I’ll give you an example of that complexity: there’s widespread public concern about the presence of a law enforcement FBI office being opened here in Wellington, particularly around the level of coordination and cooperation in law enforcement and policing matters, and the relationship between our security services. It took everyone by surprise, especially the trade Minister Todd McClay, because the very next day we got pinged with 50 percent tariffs. We actually felt a bit sorry for him. They let this lot set up shop, including an FBI headquarters right in our capital, and they said thank you with tariffs. We’ve had Ministers say that this wasn’t about China, but then the person who came over to open the office, Kash Patel, reiterated that it actually is about countering China. This is not a simple administrative move, and it’s not just an intelligence liaison; this is an expansion of a foreign surveillance power on to our soil under the banner of cooperation and security. Is that foreign interference? This legislation doesn’t count it so, but apparently we can just invite them.

This appears to step over successive Governments’ claims on independent foreign policy and continues with the trend that we’ve seen, under this Government, of being aligned to the United States rather than with other partners and our neighbours in the Pacific. We should not accept that our membership of the Five Eyes means we should be open to agencies from within that group. We are not another state in Donald Trump’s United States. There’s also insufficient clarity on how this would address foreign interference from powerful multinational corporations who might owe no allegiance to any foreign power. References to benefiting a foreign power are also too subjective and broad. The implications of this are numerous. I’ve already mentioned the right to peacefully protest could be threatened by accusations of being a protest movement in service of a foreign power. We are also concerned that consultation with Māori was inadequate, particularly given the submitters’ concerns around the State’s poor track record, and the rest of this legislation could unfairly target Māori, particularly for aspirations of tino rangatiratanga and mana motuhake. Thank you.

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thanks for the opportunity to speak on this bill. There are three things I want to touch on in terms of amendments that came through the Justice Committee: replacing “enemy alien” with “citizen of a State at war with New Zealand”, just to make that really clear what that reference related to; secondly, making it a question of law whether a person owes allegiance to New Zealand, so a judge will make that decision instead of a jury—that was a suggestion of the New Zealand Law Society—and, finally, a safeguard for protesters to ensure that engaging in protest, advocacy, or industrial action would not, by itself, be criminalised. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m very glad to be able to have a chance to contribute to this second reading debate on the Crimes (Countering Foreign Interference) Amendment Bill.

I wanted to say a couple of things about why I think this bill is important and why it’s worthy of serious debate in the House. The motivation here is to protect our democracy. And when we look around the world right now, democracy is under threat in so many places. It’s under threat from right-wing populism. It’s under threat from Governments who deliberately set out to undermine democratic institutions, to ignore the basic human rights standards that have been really the foundation of democratic systems for more than a century—I would note that both of these things are going on right now in the United States, a country that much of the world has looked to as a pinnacle of democracy for a long time—and the rise of unregulated, unchecked social media. For so many reasons, our democracies are under threat, and foreign interference, the deliberate covert interference, including in elections, is also a feature of the international landscape right now. The Russians have been identified often as one of the worst culprits in this respect. But they’re not the only ones, and we have no reason to think that little old New Zealand at the bottom of the South Pacific is likely to be immune from these kinds of pressures.

I want to acknowledge the concerns that were raised by our Green Party colleagues. This is something that warrants careful and thoughtful balance here. Historically it’s not very long since the anti-communist witch hunts of the 1950s. Think about the McCarthyite hounding of people in both in politics and the entertainment industry; in fact, all walks of life in the United States where anti-communism and geopolitics was used as a pretext to suppress absolutely legitimate political dissent in a liberal democracy. It’s not very long since that happened.

Think of the Government of Sid Holland, the National Party Prime Minister from 1949 in New Zealand. We had plenty of our own echoes of exactly the same phenomenon when geopolitics and anti-communism were used to crack down on critics of the Government of the day. And I think about the Bill Sutch case and others. So we’re not immune to all that. But by the same token, it’s very clear, and our intelligence agencies have provided plenty of evidence, that there is foreign interference that is covert and deceptive activity taking place that, at least arguably, could undermine New Zealand score national interests. So I think we have to take that seriously.

I want to talk about the elephant in the room in this debate, and that is the quite well publicised activities of operatives from the Chinese Government who have been engaging in, I think, foreign interference, in the way that it is defined in this bill—their activities would qualify as foreign interference.

Now, I’m not an advocate for a kind of new Cold War mentality about the rise of China. In fact, I regard myself as a principled critic of this Government’s headlong rush into the arms of the United Military Alliance, effectively with the United States, to counter China’s growing strength in the Asia-Pacific region. In my view, and I think it’s the view of my colleagues too, the relationship with China is one of our most important foreign policy relationships. We have an enormous amount at stake not just in economic terms and trade, but China is already a great power in our region, and we need to conduct our relationship with China in a way that’s calm and thoughtful, and mature. There is far too much at stake to cast China as some kind of military villain in our region and a military threat to New Zealand; it’s not. The biggest threat actually is what would be a catastrophic war between China and the US and Asia. And in our foreign policy, we need to be doing everything we can to avoid that. We need to be a voice for peace and negotiation and detente. So I’m not a new Cold War guy in terms of our relationship with China, but I do think that we need to be candid with our friends in China and in the Chinese Government and say publicly and openly that foreign interference activity in New Zealand is not acceptable.

As a local MP in West Auckland, I represent a substantial community of Chinese New Zealanders. They are New Zealanders, they live here, they have the right to stay here, they contribute to this country, they are making a new life, and their human rights are just as important as the human rights of any other person in this country. So when I see reported incidences of people in the community being intimidated, when there are threats that are alleged or implied against the family members back in China of people who might be considered to be dissenters or dissidents here, that is completely unacceptable. There is a word for it and it’s “transnational repression”. There are a number of countries around the world who engage in transnational repression, where they basically send their operatives to put pressure on people in the diaspora to try and keep them in line.

It’s also, in my view, unacceptable that that the Chinese Government, through its United Front Works Department, deploys resources of the State to influence the behaviour and the publicly expressed opinions of the diaspora communities in New Zealand by controlling and influencing Chinese language media outlets who serve the diaspora communities in New Zealand. That is not OK, and when I read reports of the deliberate influencing and the distribution of funds through community-based associations and organisations who serve our Chinese diaspora communities in New Zealand in order to exercise influence in a covert way, I don’t believe that that is acceptable.

So, as a member of this House, I want to say to the Chinese Government that New Zealand values the relationship with China. We are inextricably bound together. We share the Asia-Pacific region; our destinies are intertwined. We have a very important and growing Chinese diaspora community in New Zealand. It’s been around for a long time, back to the 1800s, and today it is growing fast. These are New Zealanders who contributed enormously to our society, and we expect that their human rights and civil rights will be respected and that they will not be used in a way that’s instrumental in what we regard, and certainly in the terms of the bill that we are debating in the House today, as foreign interference. I think that for those reasons this bill is very important. It’s about a protection to our democracy. I’ve spoken about China as an example, but there are many other countries around the world, like Afghanistan, like Iran, and others who engage in transnational repression. It is not good enough and I think this bill actually is a good and useful move to address those issues.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It’s great to speak on the Crimes (Countering Foreign Interference) Amendment Bill, which we considered on the Justice Committee, and it was great to engage with that. Let’s just be really clear about what the legislation is intending to do here: it’s about strengthening the criminal law, and providing a means to better hold people accountable for undertaking foreign interference. That’s ultimately what the legislation is all about. There are some foreign States that try to influence what people in other countries do, and this is simply providing a means to better hold people accountable for undertaking foreign interference. As such, I commend the bill to the House.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this bill. I’m not on the Justice Committee; however, I am a proud member of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee—probably the hardest-working committee, certainly from my perspective. That these matters go hand in hand is the point here. When we consider our relations in the foreign sphere—when we consider the way that we interact with other nations abroad, but also here domestically—these things must be considered hand in hand.

My colleague the Hon Phil Twyford gave, I thought, a very good speech about the fine balance being struck here: about trying to make sure that we can continue to protect our citizens here in New Zealand; to protect also the right, in a free democracy, for advocacy, to have the right for protest, but also to make sure that we continue to protect the sovereignty of New Zealand, the democracy we all enjoy, and also the rights of citizens here in New Zealand. I thought Mr Twyford made a very good contribution on this bill.

I think of the speeches in this House in light of the most recent threat assessment that has been completed by our agencies, as a background to some of my thinking with respect to this bill: how we must continue to act in our best interests, how we must continue to make sure that we look towards the geopolitical challenges that the world finds itself in today, and how ever-evolving that is, and how we must make sure that the legislation is fit for purpose today but also lends itself to an opportunity for the evolution of that legislation given the ever-evolving situation of foreign affairs matters around the world. It is a tricky time—it is a tricky time.

I think it’s naive for many of our people out in New Zealand, who often sit in ignorance of many of the challenges that they face and of many of the challenges that this country faces—I think of some recent examples, whether it’s what seems like a benign kind of cyber attack or phishing, if we will, or whether it’s something far more sinister. We’ve seen occasions of that, where we know, on a regular basis, that our public institutions are constantly under attack in those spaces, all for access to data—to public and to private information.

When we look towards a piece of legislation or an apparatus that is designed to deter but also to define—and also, where appropriate, look towards an appropriate punishment for those that do enter into that particular space of what we’re covering here, around terrorism and countering foreign interference—we’ve got to make sure that it is able to answer the questions that many have on instances that we are aware of and that we are clear on. Mr Twyford spoke to some of the well-documented and publicly known instances where there have been cases where it has been proven that there has been foreign interference, but also cases where it has been proven that it doesn’t quite meet that threshold, or in fact that we might have had a rogue or a person acting on their own. There have been those instances, certainly in my time here in Parliament.

We’re looking to support this bill and continue to remind the House, though, that, on a day when communities across the country are striking, we must continue to respect and also protect the ability for our people here in this country to peacefully protest, for advocacy, and for industrial action. It’s rather fitting that we continue to speak and discuss this bill on a day when New Zealanders look towards taking to the streets to prove their point in the industrial action space, rallying against the moves by this Government with respect to their pay. Mr Speaker, we support this bill. Like I said, from my perspective on the committee that I myself and yourself sit on, we must think of it in its entirety, within its context in international affairs, and of course the security of our democracy here at home.

DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to take a call on the Crimes (Countering Foreign Interference) Amendment Bill. As my colleague—or my friend—the Hon Peeni Henare said, as a member of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, I have an interest in this.

Foreign interference from any country is simply unacceptable and it often disrupts the rights of New Zealanders, including their right to freedom of expression. So this legislation will help to ensure that our criminal law is fit for purpose to address what we see as a harmful activity and will better equip the relevant agencies to hold people to account. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill. It was an interesting process at the Justice Committee to hear submissions and to understand the nature of some of the threats that this bill is designed to counter. In particular, the instances that were provided at select committee revolved around members of the New Zealand community who have Chinese connections and who have been in situations of protest against issues that are occurring in China. There were instances where there had been pressure put upon them not to be able to protest in New Zealand, to the point where sometimes there was a physical threat to prevent that protest from happening. We have a very strong view in Labour that irrespective of your country of origin, if you are a New Zealander you have every right and privilege of a New Zealander, and that includes the right to be able to protest about whatever you want to as a free citizen. We believe that’s a fundamental part of our democracy, and we believe that no other nation State has the right to interfere in our democratic processes here in New Zealand.

The bill, essentially, seeks to deter, detect, and respond to covert actions by powers that threaten our sovereignty, our democracy, and the safety of those who call this country home. Let me be clear from the outset: Labour supports robust measures to protect New Zealand’s democratic institutions from foreign interference. And in this day and age, that is more important than ever before. It’s important that people can rely upon information and make up their own minds and be able to participate freely in a democracy. We live in a world where State sponsored disinformation, cyber-attacks, and coercive diplomacy have become tools of influence on the international stage. It is only right that our legal framework evolves to meet these modern challenges, and that is what this bill attempts to do.

It’s important to note that this is qualified. We recognise the importance of acting decisively, but also the importance of acting wisely and being fully informed. When Governments expand the powers of the State, particularly in the realm of national security, they must also do so with precision, accountability, and transparency. Labour’s position is that while the bill is a necessary step, it must be accompanied by strong safeguards, resourcing, and oversight to ensure that it protects our democracy not only from foreign interference but also from overreach at home.

But the main points I would like to make today are the importance of defending New Zealand sovereignty and democratic values, and also the importance of having a broader, more coherent national security strategy—one that earns, not assumes, public trust, and that is so important. At its core, this bill is about protecting our independence of decision making, the ability of our people and institutions here in New Zealand to shape our future without external manipulation. That is so important.

Foreign interference can take place in many shapes, and sometimes we’re not even aware of that. It can involve covert funding of political activities, attempts to intimidate members of ethnic communities, and cyber-attacks designed to steal sensitive data or disrupt Government operations. We’ve seen examples of this behaviour internationally, and we would be naive to assume Aotearoa is not immune to this.

The National Security Strategy, released in 2023, was right to identify foreign interference as a key and growing threat. However, that recognition must now be backed by substance and capability. The gaps that this bill seeks to close are real, but also too are the risks with acting without balance. We cannot defend democracy by weakening the very principles that underpin it. Laws designed to target foreign interference must be precisely defined and proportionately applied, ensuring they do not have a chilling effect on the legitimate political activity, advocacy, or even dissent, especially amongst diaspora communities who already face pressure from authoritarian regimes abroad. Labour will therefore continue to seek assurances that these laws will not be misused to target individuals exercising their democratic rights, to silence critics under the guise of security, and make sure New Zealand is protecting its democracy and protecting its freedom of expression as much as it means countering covert influence.

This bill has some big changes, and I’d just like to outline what some of those changes are. Targeting foreign interference offences: this bill has the introduction of a foreign interference offence. It squarely criminalises covert, deceptive, corruptive, or coercive activity undertaken on behalf of a foreign power to harm New Zealand’s core interests, including national security, elections, and human rights. This provides a clearer pathway for authorities to prosecute those who intentionally or recklessly act against our democratic integrity, and it is a necessary change. However, we also urge the Government to ensure that clear prosecution thresholds and judicial oversight accompany these powers. Vague or overly broad definitions risk unintended consequences, and the line between influence and interference is not always clear, and the law must be careful not to blur that.

This bill also clarifies allegiance and espionage liability. It’s a clarification of when a person owes allegiance to the Sovereign in right of New Zealand. It may seem technical, but it is an important fix. This provides greater certainty for charging individuals for serious crimes such as espionage offences, which go to the very heart of the loyalty of the State. Labour remains concerned about how this principle is applied to dual citizens or long-term residents, and whether the Government needs to make sure it fully considers its diplomatic implications in this space.

In terms of protecting Government information, we support the expansion of those offences that are related to unauthorised disclosure of Government information, including explicit coverage of military tactics and sensitive data held by a wider range of public bodies.

Good national security law is precise, not broad; is balanced, not blunt. This legislation alone will not keep New Zealand safe. Foreign interference is not only a criminal problem; it is a societal challenge that demands our awareness, our resilience, and coordination across all levels of Government and community. This bill must sit within a broader strategy—one that equips New Zealand’s public sector, local Government, academic institutions, businesses, and communities with the knowledge and tools that they require to identify and resist foreign interference.

Under the previous Labour Government, we took steps to modernise our national security approach and strengthen agency cooperation, but that work must continue. We want to continue to see this Government have a clear plan to resource and implement these capabilities effectively. Passing a law is one thing, but ensuring it works in practice is another. We must also make sure our communities are aware that we are resourcing these aspects, as that is also incredibly important. We must be transparent with the public about the nature of the threat that we face. If the Government wants communities to be resilient, then communities must be trusted as partners in this conversation, not passive recipients of State protection.

Finally, we must ensure that in countering external coercion, we do not become coercive ourselves. National security should never be an excuse for secrecy that excludes scrutiny. Oversight mechanisms are essential to maintaining that level of public trust.

New Zealand’s democracy is one of our greatest assets, built on transparency, fairness, and freedom. Those values are what foreign interference seeks to erode, and those values must also guide how we respond. Labour supports the intent of this bill because we believe our country must be equipped to defend itself from covert manipulation. But we will continue to push for stronger safeguards, resourcing, and oversight to ensure the defence of democracy never comes at the cost of democracy itself. Protecting New Zealand’s sovereignty is not the task of one party or one Government; it is a shared responsibility. In that spirit, we support the bill moving forward, while holding the Government to account for how it is implemented. I commend this bill to the House.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Thank you, Mr Speaker, I’m grateful to be able to rise in the second reading of this bill, the Crimes (Countering Foreign Interference) Amendment Bill. I’m appreciative of the of the 49 oral submitters and 705 submitters, in general, that expressed their concerns. Some of those concerns were listened to—well, they were all listened to—but there were some amendments that were made as a result.

I’m grateful for them expressing their concerns and I’m grateful that we’re going forward with this bill. I commend it to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the amendments recommended by the Justice Committee by a majority be agreed to.

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

Ayes 102

New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 15

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.

Amendments agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Disputes Tribunal Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): I move, That the Disputes Tribunal Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

I'm pleased to present this bill to the House. The Disputes Tribunal Amendment Bill amends the Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 to increase the financial jurisdiction of the tribunal from $30,000 to $60,000. The aim is to improve access to quick, low-cost dispute resolution so that people can resolve their disputes about claims of higher value, those over $30,000 going up to $60,000. In doing so, the bill enhances access to justice by providing an affordable forum for resolving more lower value claims. It's estimated that up to 2,000 claims a year could benefit from this process.

The bill enhances access to justice for people who either cannot afford to take a claim to the District Court or choose not to because the associated fees would exceed the value of the claim they're pursuing. In essence, we've got quite a good, efficient system that works for smaller claims up to $30,000, and for a long time that figure hasn't been adjusted. There has been a lot of inflation and we think it makes sense to extend that boundary further to $60,000—a practical, pragmatic thing that will make a difference to the many hard-working New Zealanders who just want to get on with their lives and get their disputes resolved in a timely fashion. This increase in the jurisdiction addresses this justice gap, provides benefits for new claimants, new people that would have abandoned it.

The Disputes Tribunal has one of the fastest disposal rates of all the courts and tribunals in New Zealand and is one of the busiest forums in the civil justice system. I just want to take the opportunity to thank all the people in the court system working across this tribunal for the work they do on behalf of all New Zealanders. I don't think we take the opportunity to thank the people who work in our courts often, because though sometimes they work in stressful environments, under a lot of pressure, they do their best for the community and we should acknowledge them today.

The tribunal is resourced through a combination of user-pays and Crown funding. This recognises the tribunal's public and private benefits. The bill also amends the Disputes Tribunal Rules 1989 to introduce a new filing fee tier of $468 for claims of $30,001 or more to aid with cost recovery and reflect the higher private benefits of using the tribunal for higher value claims.

This is the only fee users pay. Whilst the new fee tier might seem a barrier to justice, it's a very small portion of the potential value of the claim. Disputes Tribunal proceedings remain significantly cheaper than bringing proceedings to the District Courts where court and legal costs are incurred throughout the case.

The Government’s also separately progressing a proposal through the Regulatory Systems (Tribunals) Amendment Bill which will give the disputes referees the discretion to order the respondent to repay the cost of filing fees to a wholly or partially successful applicant. This will help ensure the costs of pursuing justice do not fall solely on those who have been wronged.

The bill will ensure the Disputes Tribunal will continue to operate as an affordable and accessible way to resolve disputes and will improve access to justice for more people. In the justice space, we're focused on restoring law and order, but we're also focused on speeding up the wheels of justice so people can get on with their lives, get their disputes resolved, and continue prospering and doing well, like everybody aspires to do in this country. On that basis, I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. This bill, Labour supports the aim of increased access to justice and supports this bill, and that includes an increase to the financial jurisdiction of the disputes tribunal.

In essence, what this bill does is it amends the Disputes Tribunal Act by increasing the jurisdiction of the disputes tribunal from $30,000 to $60,000. This will mean that people who cannot afford to take a claim to the District Court or who choose not to because the associated fee exceeds the value of the claim would indeed be able to access the disputes tribunal for those claims. The bill also introduces a filing fee of $468 for those claims over $30,000.

We’re incredibly lucky in New Zealand to have our disputes tribunal system. It really enables greater access to justice. That’s why we support this bill. It’s a simple but important reform that will make a real difference to the thousands of New Zealanders who are seeking justice in a fair, affordable, and timely way. It keeps our courts from being clogged up and it enables issues which have become problematic to be resolved more quickly.

The disputes tribunal plays a really crucial role and is often unsung in what they do in our justice system. It is often referred to as the “people’s court”, a place where ordinary New Zealanders can resolve civil disputes without any great cost and the complexity of lawyers or the long delays of the formal court system. Around 11,000 people each year use the tribunal to sort out their issues. While small by the standard of the higher courts, they can be absolutely life changing for those people involved. The tribunal was designed to make justice accessible and it will continue to do that with this change today.

Over time, the realities of inflation and the rising cost of living have eroded the value of the $30,000-limit. What might once have been considered a substantial claim is now often a modest one, especially when you’re a small business, a contractor, or even tenants trying to recover what they are owed. As a result, more and more people are being forced to give up a claim that they’re wanting to pursue in order to have their case heard, and that is not fair and that is not justice.

We heard of some of these instances where a Master’s student was paid $9,000 for a full year’s work; she was owed $41,000 in total. But to bring her case to the tribunal, she had to forego more than a quarter of what she was owed. She quite literally had to choose between cutting her losses or facing the cost and delays of the formal court process. That instance is precisely what this bill seeks to fix today.

By raising the cap to $60,000, around 2,000 more claimants each year will be able to pursue the full value of their claims before the tribunal. For them, this is not just an abstract number; it is wages owed, work completed, deposits unfairly withheld, or contracts broken. These are disputes that affect people’s livelihoods, their business, their sense of fairness, and their mental health.

Access to justice is the cornerstone of a fair society, and Labour has always believed that justice should not depend on the size of your wallet or your ability to hire a lawyer. The disputes tribunal, with its low filing fees and its straightforward process embodies that principle. It allows people to come forward and tell their story, to be heard, and to get a decision without being drowned in legal costs. Updating its jurisdiction is about keeping that promise alive in modern and challenging economic circumstances.

This bill also allows referees to order that a losing party reimburse the successful applicant’s filing fee. That might sound like a small change but it’s symbolically important. When someone wins their case, they should not be left out of pocket for simply accessing justice. It reinforces the idea that fairness should be practical as well as philosophical.

Some have questioned whether increasing the tribunal’s cap will overburden it, but the evidence that we received is otherwise. The Ministry of Justice modelling shows that the system can absorb this change and that only a modest increase in the caseload is expected.

The tribunal’s referees are highly skilled and already deal with a wide range of complex and different issues that they resolve. This bill simply allows them to hear more of the cases that are already coming through the door but which currently fall just outside of their reach.

Labour also notes the recommendation of the Rules Committee last year, which suggested an even higher cap to $70,000 or even $100,000 by consent, along with clearer appeal rights. We support the Government taking steps in that direction and we will continue to encourage a broader look at just how our civil justice system serves ordinary New Zealanders. There is still more work to streamline the enforcement and to ensure that the tribunal decisions can be upheld without the added cost and delay of going back through the District Court.

But today, this bill represents a meaningful and positive step forward. It modernises an important institution and it recognises the economic realities that many New Zealanders are facing today. We should not have a situation where people are deciding whether to pursue a claim or whether to be able to pay their rent or pay their bills, because access to justice is fundamental.

This change makes justice more accessible for those who need it the most. At a time where the cost of living is biting hard, ensuring people can recover what they are owed, without spending thousands more to do so, is not just good law; it’s common sense.

This bill is practical, it’s fair, and it’s overdue. It upholds the principle that justice should be available to every single New Zealander, not just those who are able to afford it. It gives more New Zealanders the confidence to stand up for themselves, to know their rights, and it helps keep our justice system working for the many, not just the few. For those reasons, we are proud to support this bill.

Labour has opposed an amendment at Justice Committee to introduce a fees waiver for the filing fee on the basis of hardship, reflecting the existing practice of the District Court. Accordingly, the New Zealand Rules Committee has already referred to increasing that. It’s important to note that we will be bringing some more changes at the committee stage. We think there are further improvements that can me made to strengthen this bill, and it’s important that we discuss those in few. We feel that there has been a missed opportunity, that there have been a number of other improvements that could have been made to the Act. Those include clarifying the subject matter jurisdiction of the tribunal, which is currently limited and could be expanded to include other disputes—for example, those related to land or intellectual property. We know that that could be further strengthened.

We also do have some concerns around the $468 - filing fee. We consider that this may well be a barrier to some people bringing legitimate claims before the tribunal. There are legitimate reasons for a filing fee to cover the costs associated with a dispute resolution process; however, $468 is high to many New Zealanders right now—significantly higher than the $260 filing fees for the District Court and there is no associated fees waiver on the basis of hardship; there is such a waiver for the District Court. So we believe it is not right that there should be a fees waiver for the District Court fee but no fees waiver for a disputes tribunal, which would be a lower form.

Sixty-thousand dollars is not an insignificant amount of money. A finding either way in $60,000 could have a really significant financial return for either party. Sixty thousand exceeds the limit in which a no-asset insolvency is available.

So while we support the bill in principle and we look forward to it going forward, we think it can be strengthened. We will be working to provide those suggestions and those changes—

Hon Members: This is the third reading.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: —during the committee stage. Sorry, apologies for that. So we think it further could be strengthened, but we agree that in the time that is incredibly difficult for New Zealanders, it is important that we note that the cost of living continues to be a real problem, and we believe that that filing fee is not sufficient.

Carl Bates: Does Hipkins know you’re making an announcement?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Apologies on that. I’ve been rushed this morning. But we did put those suggestions through; they have not been made to the bill. We still believe that that filing fee is too high and it will be prohibitive to those who want to pursue justice through the courts. It’s a good change but it could have been strengthened further. So we think, in future, we would like to revise some of those changes to make access to justice even more available to those people.

Carl Bates: Policy announcement; check with Hipkins.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Even no matter how many properties someone might own, everyone should be able to go forward and pursue their claims in the tribunal.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand to also support the Disputes Tribunal Amendment Bill. Now, we’ve supported this bill since the first reading because we do think that what the bill is intending to do, in terms of raising the financial jurisdiction of the disputes tribunal from $30,000 to $60,000, is a good one, and we will see that more claims will be made and it will, hopefully, alleviate some of the burden that we’ve seen on other parts of the court system.

In saying that, again, something like this in terms of increasing the financial jurisdiction is not new. We have seen numerous increases over the last few decades. However, the threshold that we’re currently seeing in terms of going from $30,000 to $60,000 is probably the most significant increase that we’ve seen in a while.

I just want to touch on a few things that we did discuss during the committee stage. Again, while the bill is not the most substantial in terms of length, there are a lot of implications in terms of the operationalisation of a bill like this and what it means for the people of Aotearoa New Zealand. One of the things that we discussed at length is around, I guess, the policy intent in the first place of the rationale of increasing the threshold from $30,000 to $60,000. One of the things is whether other considerations have been made in terms of other ways to alleviate some of the pressures that we're seeing in our court system; again, being a key component of the rationale for this bill.

Now, one of the other things that we've also mentioned—in terms of the discussions that we had at the committee stage with the Minister in the chair, we are happy in terms of the increase of the threshold from $30,000 to $60,000. But the other thing that we've kind of discussed at length during the committee stage is around the increase of the filing fee here from $234 to $468. Now, while on paper it looks like, you know, we've doubled the existing threshold from $30,000 to $60,000, ergo, it makes sense to double the filing fee as well, a key challenge is in terms of the significant increase of that threshold. Again, you know, this is the most significant increase in the financial jurisdiction threshold for the disputes tribunal that we have seen in a while. The key aspect here is if you are making a claim that is $30,001 your filing fee will also be doubled in response to that, and whether we think that that is actually the right setting and whether other things could have been considered that phase in or proportionalise the filing fee. Because, again, for a lot of people now during the cost of living crisis, $234 for a filing fee for the disputes tribunal is not insignificant, but now you are doubling that. That $468 is a lot of money for a lot of people.

While we were at the committee stage, there is an assumption that was made, because there was no genuine evidence of this other than from the Minister but also from the officials—the assumption being that if you were to make a claim that could be $30,000 and above, theoretically you would be able to fork out the $468 filing fee, or if you are going to be successful in getting your claim or, either way, you are able to have that filing fee reimbursed. But that still relies on the fact that people need to have that filing fee and that cash upfront, and pay for that application in the first place.

While people can now make a claim up to $60,000, there is no sort of, I guess, empirical evidence other than the assumption that we have seen throughout the committee stage that suggests there's any rationale behind the idea that people making claims above $30,000 naturally have nearly $500 that they're able to pay for this in the first place, which is one of the reasons why the Greens supported the Labour Party's amendment from the Hon Dr Duncan Webb in terms of having an opportunity to look at the hardship situations where the filing fee could be waived.

Now, we see that ability to waive filing fees or to waive certain court fees in other jurisdictions, particularly in the higher courts, but we don't get to see that in disputes tribunal because, again, the assumption is that the smaller courts like the tribunal will remain significantly cheaper for the applicants than bringing proceedings in the District Court. But the District Court has that ability for hardship and for considerations and for waivers of that fund. So we are disappointed that the Government hasn't decided to consider that particular option of a waiver, because it would be in line with the idea of natural justice and also in terms of being a democratic society and having the ability for everyone to access justice as a rule of law here in Aotearoa.

Now, there are a couple of other considerations that were made during that committee stage. One of them is also a lengthy discussion, both in terms of the select committee stage but also in terms of the committee stage, around the fact that, you know, the disputes tribunal being a smaller tribunal and being, I guess, something where lawyers may not always be needed or may not always be represented, and the ability for people—now with the increased financial jurisdiction—to be able to seek additional support if they're in a situation of hardship such as legal aid or other forms of advice such as using community law centres. So, again, it was something that fundamentally comes down to, with the increase in financial jurisdiction, will we be seeing a more prominent role that's being played by the disputes tribunal, and how are people able to rightfully access some of those services, now with a higher filing tier threshold? Also, the ability for people to now increase that to claim or make an application of up to $60,000—whether there should be more awareness or more allowances being given to access some of the, I guess, universal or free services that we are seeing that are currently being used in other services and other courts.

Overall, like I said in the beginning, the Green Party understands the policy intent of this bill and we do see this being a good start. Again, there are precedents of increase in terms of the financial jurisdiction, which is one of the reasons why the Greens support this bill. However, we also need to address the broader challenges that we're seeing in our court system around the ability for people to access justice. We have seen certain improvements that are being made in terms of access to justice across various jurisdictions. But as the Minister himself said right at the beginning, we are seeing an approach and we're seeing a bottleneck because of the approach the Government has decided to take that may not be in line or may not be providing stress relief, I guess, in some ways, to the court system, which is why we're seeing a bill such as this.

So there is a general concern in terms of whether the ability for us to relieve some of the higher courts such as the District Court and above, in terms of having some of that being allowed to be put through the disputes tribunal, actually, in some ways, fails to address the bigger issue we're having in our court system, which is that we're not being able to process bills fast enough. Yes, there are other bills that are being introduced in the House such as the Judicature (Timeliness) Legislation Amendment Bill, but we're not seeing that being responsive enough to what our communities really need in this current environment, particularly, in terms of the number of judges. Yes, increase the District Court judge by one, increase the High Court judge by two—

Hon Casey Costello: Back to the bill.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: I'm not going to listen to someone who is a tobacco lobbyist, frankly. So I'm going to keep on going with what I'm saying, which is broadly in line with the bill and the intention of this bill.

Hon Casey Costello: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That was clearly a slight to my comment to the member, and suggesting that I'm a tobacco lobbyist is something that he should withdraw and apologise for.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Did you take personal offence to that?

Hon Casey Costello: Yes.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The member might want to offer that.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: I withdraw and apologise, Mr Speaker.

This does bring a broader question, because this is relevant to the bill because this is the intention of the bill, which is to address the bottleneck and the pressure on our court system. So we would seek that the Government actually do more to genuinely fix the court system.

TODD STEPHENSON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, it gives me great pleasure to rise and speak in this third reading of the Disputes Tribunal Amendment Bill. ACT in Government is about actually fixing what matters, and this is an important bill that adds to everything that the Government and ACT is doing to support our court system and ensure people actually have access to justice.

This is a small but important amendment. We’re increasing the jurisdiction of the Disputes Tribunal—up to $60,000; so that’s the amount that they can look at—and that’s going to improve the ability for people with disputes to be able to get in front of them. So that’s a really important, practical thing. It is actually fixing what matters.

The Minister of Justice, supported by the excellent Nicole McKee, the Minister for Courts is addressing our issues around our access to justice. We’ve already seen an improvement in court timeliness, and I know Minister McKee is going to continue to work on that throughout this term because it is very important.

Again, I am very happy to commend this bill. We’re fixing what matters, and let’s just get on with getting this passed.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Minister of Customs): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Disputes Tribunal Amendment Bill at its third reading. I think it's worth noting that this is the third reading as we kind of went down a wrong track with the previous speaker.

This is, as has been stated, a very pragmatic and practical step and, again, it’s an indication of how this Government is moving us forward and getting the important tasks done. It is about improving access to justice.

New Zealand First firmly believes in upholding fairness and accessibility to the justice system. The bill aligns to our core values of equity and fairness and ensuring that more people can access an appropriate justice mechanism by increasing the threshold to $60,000. There are mechanisms under which the fees can be addressed through existing processes within the justice system. Therefore, the bill is very effective and will deliver exactly what it’s aiming to do, which is access to justice. I commend the bill for the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Offshore Renewable Energy Bill

Second Reading

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I call on Government order of the day No. 4. I call the Hon Matt Doocey. Is there a legislative statement?

Arena Williams: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It appears to me that there is no item on the order paper that is ready to be presented. The Government is not ready to present the Offshore Renewable Energy Bill, and they do not have a legislative statement to present, so my suggestion to you is that it would be appropriate to ring the bell and, if in 10 minutes the Government is not ready to present that, then this bill should be discharged.

Cameron Luxton: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Just a minute, I’m going to take some advice because I actually have taken a call. The member stood. But the clock is ticking.

Hon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health) on behalf of the Minister for Energy: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I present a legislative statement on the Offshore Renewable Energy 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 MATT DOOCEY: I move, That the Offshore Renewable Energy Bill be now read a second time.

Thank you for the opportunity today to talk about the Offshore Renewable Energy Bill. I do rise on behalf of my good friend and colleague the Hon Simon Watts, Minister for Energy. I think most people would agree with this bill coming in for its second reading—that its time has come. This is a bill that is supported by many Kiwis. We do know the support it had for the first reading, and it has then gone through the select committee process. What we do know is that the select committee process is an important time for people to have their say. It actually is quite often the time that parties do get together; we’re criticised quite a bit that we’re not as collaborative or cross-party, working on bills like this, so I do want to acknowledge the select committee that has worked quite diligently on this bill as it comes back through for the second reading as well.

Renewable energy generated offshore, including from offshore wind farms, could support New Zealand to meet its long-term energy needs, ensuring the transition to net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. Let’s be very clear, because what we are going to hear from Opposition parties is the challenging of the Government’s position in this space. Let’s be very clear: we are committed; we know this is important for Kiwis; we know it’s important for “New Zealand Inc.” Actually, when you think about it—about rebuilding this economy—it is important that we get our energy sector right and our offshore energy sector right, which can support this Government’s focus on reducing the cost of living.

The Offshore Renewable Energy Bill establishes a legislative regime to govern the construction, the operation, and the decommissioning of offshore renewable energy developments. When you look around the main provisions of this bill—and, as I said in my introductory comments, I do want to acknowledge the hard work of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, who have worked hard on this bill as well—it starts off with a two-stage permitting regime designed to give potential developers greater certainty and to enable the selection of developments that best meet New Zealanders’ interests.

I suppose you would start with the position of “Why is this bill needed?” It delivers on a commitment to put a regulatory regime in place for offshore renewable energy, and that is important. It’s part of the Government’s Electrify NZ plan. This is something that we have spoken of not only in Government but, actually, in Opposition, when we stood on that policy of electrifying New Zealand, and that is the mandate we got in the last election—to bring bills like this through the House. International developers are exploring offshore wind projects in New Zealand, and this bill will give them certainty to invest. What we do know is that, when people want to risk their private capital to invest, it is the role of Government to give them certainty and clarity, and that’s what this bill will give them today. The bill will also enable risks to the Crown and to the public from offshore renewable energy, such as decommissioning of infrastructure, to be appropriately managed.

I suppose, the next point to raise is “What does this bill do?” Well, firstly, a feasibility permit gives the holder certainty that no other offshore renewable energy developers will be approved to develop the same site while they undertake feasibility studies. It does this by giving the holder the exclusive ability to apply for an offshore renewable energy commercial permit, as well as the right to apply for relevant environmental consents, resource or marine, in the permit area. It’s also about how a commercial permit must be obtained before construction begins, and it provides assurance that the project is ready to progress to construction. It will complement the environmental consents and other approvals required to build and operate offshore renewable energy infrastructure.

It also, you might be interested to know, limits the ability for developers to land-bank certain areas or impede other developments. Permits will be “use it or lose it”, which I think is important with the provisions, meaning that, if a project fails to start or progress, the area can be made available to other developers. The Minister for Energy will consider commercial permit applications and must have regard to readiness to carry out the proposed development, compliance with requirements in the legislation, conditions of the applicant’s feasibility permit, and the applicant’s ability to put in place an acceptable financial security arrangement.

Very important for this Government is the focus on consultation and engagement with relevant Māori groups. Applications for feasibility and commercial permits will be required to consult with relevant Māori groups ahead of submitting their applications. The Minister for Energy must consult with relevant Māori groups before granting any permit, and the provisions in this bill relating to upholding Treaty settlements and associated rights and interests align with those in the Fast-track approvals legislation. I must say, it was encouraging to hear, through the submissions process, the support for Fast-track and thinking about how we deal with offshore renewable energy. What we do know is that, under the last Government, the issue was around consents; there was interest, but obviously people were waiting—it was reported publicly—eight years for consents. That can’t be continued, so that’s why this Government, quite rightly, is making a change.

Under decommissioning and financial security, the bill requires all permit holders and owners of related transmission infrastructure to decommission their offshore renewable energy infrastructure at the end of its life. The bill also requires financial security arrangements to be put in place and maintained to cover the cost to the Crown in the event that the permit holder or infrastructure owner fails to meet their obligation to decommission.

When we look at regulation powers, the bill includes regulation-making powers to set out procedural and implementation matters, such as additional matters that the Minister must have regard to when determining whether to grant a permit, and the provision of information. The powers include the ability to set fees and levies to recover the costs of the regulator. Shortly after the bill is passed, I intend to introduce feasibility permit and cost recovery regulations so that the regime is operational as soon as possible. That is, really, the focus from this Government: ensuring that we, quite literally, are getting things done, and it’s great to see the focus here of moving at pace and ensuring that we will operationalise this regime as fast as possible as well.

Just to conclude, the amendments will enable the Government to use a new secondary legislation instrument to designate specific marine space where permits could be invited for offshore renewable projects where there is a pause on granting new permits for seabed mining under the Crown Minerals Act. It’s a real privilege to take this opportunity to speak on this bill this afternoon. It’s a bill that I’ve been watching through the legislative programme, one that I’m very supportive of, and I support my colleague the Minister for Energy, Simon Watts. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): As it did at the first reading and as it did during the select committee process, the Labour Party supports this bill at the second reading. This is a timely bill and, actually, it’s a very collaborative one. It builds on work that was under way under the previous Government that was picked up and carried on with by the current Government, and it is much-needed legislation.

When we talk about the Offshore Renewable Energy Bill, the obvious application is in wind farms. Of course, we are experiencing, frankly, an over-abundance of wind today, and so I just want to recall in the House today that people in Canterbury, people in Kaikōura, people in Tasman-Nelson, and now people in Wellington are experiencing some pretty severe wind conditions today. Much as we love the energy that can be generated by wind, there is some pretty terrible stuff going on, and so I hope that everyone is staying safe, staying inside, and looking after their neighbours as much as possible, and that we’re generally doing all that we can to get ourselves through this incredibly windy period today.

I’m a Taranaki girl, born and bred in Taranaki—

Cameron Brewer: Whangamomona.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: —from Whangamomona, which, to be fair, is right inland. But I mostly grew up in New Plymouth and spent some time in Hāwera, as well, and things like that—there you are, Mr Brewer. It’s a windy place. We think of Wellington as being windy, but something about Taranaki is that the wind offshore is pretty constant.

Hon Member: World class—it’s world class.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: It’s a world-class wind, which does make it highly suitable for offshore wind farming, and, of course, we also have an abundance of wind onshore in New Zealand.

One of the interesting things about offshore wind farming is that there is a fairly constant flow of wind and of air so that the turbine is turning maybe about 40 percent of the time, which is actually pretty good for land-based wind turbines. It’s about 40 percent of the time in, say, the Ruahine wind farms and things like that, and the offshore wind farms can turn pretty much all of the time. So it’s a very reliable source of power with offshore wind farms, and it’s a source of power that we need to tap in to if we are going to meet out climate commitments. If we are going to do our bit to meet the existential threat of climate change, we need to move to renewable energy, and this is an excellent way to do so.

There is very good reason for the support across the House for this particular bill. There are some wrinkles in it that I do think we need to have a bit of a look at, and I know that they will be examined quite closely during the committee of the whole House stage.

I want to draw the House’s attention to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee’s report, and to the particular section on managing competing uses. Now, this is quite an important issue that needed to be worked through, and it has been worked through at the select committee. The interesting thing is that sitting in the legislative statement from the Minister for Energy is a really interesting bit, talking about progressing changes to the bill through an Amendment Paper. I’m going to direct the House to paragraph 6 in the legislative statement presented by the Minister, where it says that the Government has actually announced that it has plans “to progress changes to the Bill through an amendment paper. This is intended to address issues raised by submitters and Select Committee in relation to competition for space between seabed mining and offshore renewable energy.”

This is not merely a theoretical concern. We’ve had in the past year or so a huge push for offshore seabed mining off the south coast of Taranaki—the same south coast of Taranaki that would also be an ideal place for an offshore wind farm. Those two uses are going to be particularly difficult to put together, but here we have reports from October 2024—so about this time a year ago—of wind power firm BlueFloat Energy cancelling its plan for wind farms in New Zealand, and the major reason was that a seabed mining firm wanted to mine offshore from the south coast of Taranaki. Those two uses are incompatible.

It’s a bit of a frustrating one, because an offshore wind farm is something that is clearly compatible with our climate goals, but seabed mining for iron ores is not necessarily compatible with our climate goals. We actually need to have a think about which of those projects should go ahead in that really incredibly valuable space off the south coast of Taranaki. So I’m pleased to see that the Minister is intending to bring in that Amendment Paper. We’ll want to have a really close look at it during the committee stage to work out whether it’s going to meet the issues that were raised by submitters during the select committee process and the issues that have been raised in this House right from the start.

It’s also an issue there that I’m sure that tangata whenua will want to be sure is examined closely because, again, it’s an issue to do with Māori-Crown relations there, and how resources that belong to the whole country are used. We’ll look forward to that debate at the committee of the whole House stage.

There is one other set of issues that I wanted to raise around offshore wind farms. It is pretty important that we go ahead with them, particularly around places like Taranaki. Taranaki has called itself the energy province for a long time. I remember, as a girl growing up there, seeing the lights of the oil-drilling rigs offshore, and, of course, there’s still a fair amount of work around fossil fuels that still goes on around Taranaki and there are wells drilling for it, bringing it up, and using it. Now, we are very clear that the use of fossil fuels needs to stop if we are to meet our 2050 climate goals, and that will have to take a transition, but one of the difficulties for us as a labour party is the jobs that are associated with that—the jobs that are associated with mining, with oil wells, and with that drilling for fossil fuels.

There are people who have worked in those industries who have developed really high levels of skill in managing critical equipment and in managing and actually creating the machinery, adapting it to the particular conditions, and maintaining it, and they are valuable jobs. Of course, as we move out of using fossil fuels, that means that jobs go as well, and we do need to find viable industries for people to have jobs in that is good, fulfilling, worthwhile work. It just seems to me that the offshore wind industry is one of those areas where people can work and where there are jobs to be had. They are trade jobs. They are jobs where our sparkies can be employed, where our engineers can be employed, and where workers of all sorts can have work to do that actually really contributes to the country, that is well-paid, and that gives that sense of standing—the sense that when they get up and go to work in the morning, they are doing a job that is worth doing.

So as we move away from using fossil fuels and as we move and transition through to a green and renewable economy, this is one of the tasks we must engage in: ensuring that people continue to have good and meaningful work. Offshore wind farms seem like an ideal place for that kind of work. It keeps people employed and it actually generates good for New Zealand. It is part of the work that we must do to become an energy-independent nation, and that’s a great goal for us to have. Why? Because we do not want to be dependent on overseas fuel suppliers. We actually want to have our own energy independence here, in New Zealand.

For a whole variety of reasons, we support this bill. We support this bill because it has been a collaborative effort, beginning in the last Government and continuing through into this Government. We support this work because it supports our climate goals. We support this work because it will create jobs for people. This is a good bill. There’s stuff we still need to iron out—stuff we want to see at the committee of the whole House stage—but Labour is proud to stand in support of this bill today.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the motion be agreed to.

SCOTT WILLIS (Green): It is my pleasure to talk to the Offshore Renewable Energy Bill, and, as you might expect, the Green Party does support renewables. However, we do have some things to say about this bill given that the Government is promoting fast track as a solution to everything, and we’ve seen what happens with fast track with Trans-Tasman Resources being written into the legislation and BlueFloat floating away. It is time that we focused on the renewables transition we want rather than simply seeking to extract more minerals and destroy our reputation internationally.

Simon Court: You can’t build wind turbines without minerals.

SCOTT WILLIS: Oh, that’s an interesting comment—you can’t build wind turbines without minerals. Actually, there is so much potential. We see in Scandinavia wooden wind turbine towers. We see so much circularity in wind now, but I am surprised that—

Simon Court: Point of order, Madam Speaker. I just need to check. Is the date 2025 or 1825?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Are you trifling with the House, Mr Court?

Francisco Hernandez: That is not a point of order. Sit down.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I did not accept the point of order. He was trifling with the House. Mr Willis, please continue.

SCOTT WILLIS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. We are used to the trivial nature of the Government. However, this is a serious matter. It’s a serious matter that does merit consideration, and I appreciated being able to sit through the submissions at the select committee. We heard concerns from iwi and hapū about the need to be engaged, the need to be consulted, the need to be participating in the offshore renewable transition that we’re seeing. We heard the concerns about Trans-Tasman Resources very strongly.

What I would have loved to have done was spend some time in the Cabinet when this bill was being discussed, because I wonder how the Hon Shane Jones was able to manage the restrictions we require on extraction to enable the offshore renewables transition.

This bill is something we will support because we want to see renewables powering our nation. We want to see our nation fully powered by renewables—not simply our electricity system; our whole energy system. We want to see our mobility powered by renewables. We want to see the end to the de-industrialisation that is under way. We want to see our industry and our manufacturing supported by renewable electricity. In that sense, we certainly will support this bill. What we saw and what we heard through the submissions was the need for hapū and iwi to be involved, and we’re pleased to see some strengthening. It’s not all the way we would’ve liked but it is some strengthening for participation in the bill.

We’ve also heard that there are real risks even though we’ve got some controls. There are still risks if there are multiple uses in that area, and these risks don’t magically disappear when we limit some things, because if we’ve got large boats that are seeking to operate in the area, we have risks to big bits of kit—to our wind turbines. We’re not wholeheartedly pleased with where this has got to, but there are definitely benefits there.

The most important issue, I think, was that we do need to make sure that iwi and hapū are more involved in what happens in the marine environment. This was the most prominent issue that came up through submissions, and I’m not convinced that we have got there yet with this bill. I think we will need to improve it when we take Government in 2026, but at least this gives us something to work on. As my colleague from Labour talked about, this is something that we have worked on collectively across the House through the previous Government to this Government, and we will keep working on it in the next Government as well.

We have a focus to make sure not only that we build the renewables we need but that we involve the communities that are affected in those buildings. And this is where we take issue with fast track, because what fast track is doing is cutting out the community voices, cutting out iwi and hapū voices, and that is problematic. That is why we have taken a position on fast track that will ensure that we revoke those consents that we don't deem consistent with community interest, with our climate interest.

I also want to address the natural and built environment legislation, the fast track legislation, the enabling legislation, not just the offshore renewables legislation but the lack of legislation for renewables onshore as well, because we had a promise from this Government that by June 2023, 2024, we would have a national policy statement for renewable electricity generation. That still has not been delivered. We had a promise that we would have national environmental standards. That still has not been delivered.

So while it is good to get this bit of legislation through, we're seeing a real problem with the rest of the renewables transition, the faster, quicker, easier renewables transition, which is onshore, and we don't have the legislation that was promised back last year. We are still waiting, and I particularly take issue with this because in my pre-parliamentary days I have worked on renewables. There was the Board of Inquiry into the Proposed National Policy Statement for Renewable Electricity Generation in 2010. It was gazetted and implemented in 2011. Since then, numerous reviews of the national policy statement for renewable electricity generation have made it really clear that it made no impact whatsoever in enabling renewable electricity generation through the Resource Management Act. It's made no difference whatsoever.

And there have been attempts to replace it because it was, I believe, the first national policy statement. There have been attempts to replace it, but they have not been completed, and this is what we’re seeing here—we’ve got one little bit of legislation that has taken quite some time beyond December 2024, when it was going to be delivered, and now we still do not have the national policy statement for renewable electricity generation. We're still waiting.

This is really problematic because we've been told that this Government wants to double or triple renewable electricity generation, yet it can't deliver on time the legislation we need to meet that target. That’s the problem. We’ve got to get it right. If only this Government did not rush legislation and get it wrong so often. If the Government took the time to do the work instead of trying to fast-track things and causing social disruption, they could choose to do things right and deliver what they promised. Unfortunately, they failed to deliver far too often.

We will support this bill. We're pleased that it has got here finally—finally. But we also want to see the national policy statement for renewable electricity generation delivered, with national environmental standards, so that we can fast-track onshore wind and solar, so that we can build the renewable nation that we could be if we had a Government that knew what it was doing.

This is really, really important because at the moment, the $10 billion per annum of fossil fuels we import costs us, costs everybody, costs every household heavily, in a cost of living crisis. And that that $10 billion we can wipe off the slate by generating our own electricity here, by powering our households, our industry, our businesses, our mobility with the electrons we generate onshore and offshore here in Aotearoa.

So we will support this bill but we do not feel as though all our concerns have been addressed. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. On a day when Wellington reminds us how much power the wind has, it’s fitting that we advance this bill to turn energy into jobs, investment, and reliable electricity for New Zealanders. ACT supports this bill, wholeheartedly, at second reading. The select committee’s work has produced a clearer, faster investor-grade regime, putting flexibility first, commercial second—with transparent decisions, obligations to decommission, of course, and engagement with iwi and hapū being important too, and the ability to manage the safety and coexistence, at sea, of different types of activities.

This bill fixes what matters. It provides certainty over ambiguity, pace over drift, and, above all, accountability over open-ended process. This bill’s not about slogans; it’s about unlocking billions in private capital and safeguarding the marine environment and other users. Over the mid to long term, offshore renewables, especially offshore wind, will complement hydro, geothermal, solar, and the growing contribution from utility scale or rooftop solar. Together, these resources can lift supply, they can sharpen competition, and they help keep power affordable for Kiwi households and businesses. We should also be honest. Variable renewables actually need a reliable, firm supply so that they can do their part of the heavy lifting. For the foreseeable future, not just as a temporary measure, New Zealand will need flexible thermal generation powered by gas and, yes, of course, that reliable trusty black nugget, coal. We need to keep the lights on when the wind is low and the sun doesn’t shine, or maybe the rain doesn’t show up either, and that’s why we’ll always need thermal. In fact, proponents of renewable projects have told me, and I know they will have told other members of this House and the Government, that without reliable thermal firming, the type of renewable energy projects like offshore wind simply won’t get off the ground, because those developers cannot sell offshore wind or any other type of renewable to their customers unless they have an insurance policy in thermal firming to back it up.

Now, the committee engaged seriously with the challenge of competing uses in the marine environment. Investors simply won’t commit to a project if they feel that their need to use a space can be undermined by somebody else coming along and getting a consent after they’ve already started planning. It’s important that we make space for different types of activities, and that’s why this bill does provide space for offshore wind projects but also recognises that we do need to get those critical minerals from places like the seabed in offshore Taranaki that the former speaker from the Green Party was so concerned about. While he proposes you can build wind turbines with sticks and bits of wood, I tell you what: the wind turbines coming out of North America, Europe, and China right now are made out of critical minerals; they’re made out of epoxy resins made from oil and gas and coal. You cannot deliver renewable energy without the minerals that go into manufacturing these components. Look, just to reflect back on something we often hear from the Greens, educate yourself greenies, because you can’t have one without the other.

Now, we should also learn from Australia, particularly our cousins in Victoria, where declared areas for offshore renewables and transparent milestones give developers clarity and give communities confidence about what’s coming next. New Zealand must be at least as bankable as our neighbours in Australia because developers will judge whether to invest in Australia, if it’s easier, or New Zealand, if it’s easier. They certainly won’t come and invest in New Zealand if we make the playing field too hard to play on.

Passing the bill is necessary but not sufficient, and the previous speaker from the Green Party alluded to the fact that this Government is getting on with fixing what matters in terms of a national policy statement for renewable energy generation and for electricity networks. We’ve consulted on those in the past few months—

Scott Willis: You promised it in June last year. Where the hell is it?

SIMON COURT: —and I would have expected that member to know that and, if he was really involved, to actually have made a submission on what should be in those national policy statements. I understand that the Minister for Resource Management Reform, Chris Bishop, will have more to say about the results of that consultation in the near future, and I’m sure it will address many of the concerns that the Green Party member had, no matter how misinformed. As I said, passing the bill is necessary, but it’s not sufficient. The next action, consistent with my delegation from the Minister for Resource Management Reform, is to deliver an environmental management framework for offshore wind that provides a clear and reasonable consenting pathway across the coastal and marine area. Applicants need to know upfront what standards apply, how environmental effects will be managed—for example, on marine mammals, on the sea floor—and how long decisions will take. If we get that right, we move from torque to turbines, from potential to actual projects.

We also need smart coordination on the shore side. I do agree with that member from the Green Party that transmission planning and making sure we’ve got the resource management system coordinated is really important so that we keep pace with new generation as it comes on stream; ports capable of handling the large components, the wind turbines, the towers and the bases; and training pathways so that New Zealanders can take the jobs this industry creates. The wishful thinking of the Labour Party, since announcing a just transition and cancelling an entire industry like offshore oil and gas exploration, is like giving people a pink slip and a pat on the head and a “wish you well”. This Government does not agree with that approach. We believe in making sure that people have the skills and are supported to take a role in this industry.

When consenting, when infrastructure, and when skills and jobs align, costs fall, timelines shorten, and confidence grows. That is what this Government is all about. That is what fixing what matters looks like—targeted reforms that reduce uncertainty, that reward progress, protect the environment, and make private investment do the heavy lifting. That’s why ACT is trusted with important work streams in this Government. We focus on outcomes—

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Ha, ha!

SIMON COURT: —rules that are clear—from the giggling Gertie over there—decisions that are timely, and responsibilities that are enforced. That’s what this Government is doing. That’s what ACT’s role in this Government is to do, again, through the resource management reforms that complement offshore wind.

So, on this very windy Wellington day, let’s harness what we’ve already got. Let’s pass the bill. Let’s deliver the environmental framework next and show that New Zealand can welcome offshore renewables on the same terms and conditions as Victoria, Australia, as Europe, and as the United States. ACT supports this bill. Let’s fix what matters and secure reliable energy. Let’s get on with it.

JAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support the Offshore Renewable Energy Bill in its second reading. As the previous speaker has alluded to, we’re not having a lack of wind across the country today, but probably the wind that we are all experiencing across the country is something that we don’t want to see at the levels they are at the moment.

The previous speaker also spoke about how this bill can create jobs, investment, and another important part is around energy security. I do want to highlight the select committee, the Transport and Infrastructure Committee that’s chaired by Andy Foster, and the work that they’ve done on the bill. I had the opportunity in the first reading to take our first reading speech on this, as well, and there has been a number of changes on the bill and amendments. I’m sure that there will be further amendments through the committee of the whole House stage, but it’s good to see the work that’s been done from the chair and the committee members.

Just as I alluded to in that first reading speech, a number of us—I guess it’s almost all of us in this House, at some point in time—we get to see the opportunities across the country. I’ve had the opportunity to go to Taranaki and talk to some of these companies that are looking at setting up these wind turbines. I also had the opportunity this year, actually, to travel to Taiwan, where they’ve actually got some of these already up and running. Obviously, seeing these structures and how big they are, you actually get a presence of the size of these turbines that we’re talking about and the planning that needs to go into them. It’s not just the rules and the regulatory regime that needs to be set up but just the logistics of setting one of these up in different ports. I know they were talking to me about the construction sites—how they would actually even piece them all together was quite a puzzle.

The fast-track bill: I do want to speak about that, as we hear often in the House about the fast-track bill and, at the moment, I think there’s 22 renewable projects in the fast-track bill. Some of them are the hydro opportunities, some of them are solar, but some of them are the wind opportunities. It is disappointing, as we’ve gone through fast track, that the Opposition parties have not realised the potential to actually get some runs on the board, especially in the renewable space. We often hear—

Glen Bennett: There are already dozens of consents.

JAMIE ARBUCKLE: Now we’re hearing that some of these things are consented from the other side, but we’re actually trying to create certainty, and when we come to renewable energy, you would think that, across the House, we could come to a bipartisan situation where we go, “Yes, we can see the potential here”, and fast track and actually take away the red tape and the rules around this stuff, and actually get some runs on the board. So fast track—it’s great to see that that these projects are included, and, actually, let’s see some of these getting developed.

Through this bill, we see that it’s just a two-stage permitting regime. It’s the feasibility first—we hear, also on my site visit and just discussing with these potential companies, that they need to have the feasibility opportunity; and then going into some commercial permits after that. So that, to me, is very, very sensible. I do just really want to say how important it is to see these projects now and developed. I think, across the House, we should just be celebrating the fact that we’re actually getting some of this work done. The bill does see that this will enhance the clarity around the legislation. It does give some flexibility—and again, because it’s a pretty new concept here in New Zealand, we’re going to have to have some flexibility, some understanding, as we get these under way.

But importantly, we need investor confidence, and I think the previous speaker again touched on that with the oil and gas ban. We don’t want to see people rising in this House saying, “Hey, maybe through fast track this will be consented, but we’re actually going to have another look and maybe we’re going to decline it further down the track.” That isn’t going to give confidence to renewable energy, just as it has in other sectors when people say things like that: “Oh, maybe further down the track, we’ll really look at this and decline things”—that won’t give confidence to investors to come here and invest.

I do highlight, and I think we have heard across the House, the competing interests, and there are obviously things like seabed mining and wanting to use the same kind of areas as the offshore wind. I think that’s an important issue to discuss. I think you could look at it something like spatial planning; in the Resource Management Act, we look at spatial planning on the land, and maybe here we need spatial planning in the sea, so it’s that same kind of concept.

Another really important part, as well, is the decommissioning of this infrastructure. As great as it will be to get the infrastructure in, there will be a time and a place to actually have these decommissioned, and to have a plan in place for that. So this is about future-proofing energy security and infrastructure—and on that, I commend the bill to the House.

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise in support of this legislation and in the spirit of the cross-party comity which has gripped the House in supporting the passage of this bill. I’ll highlight one thing from each previous speaker that I do agree with, starting with the member Deborah Russell, when she pointed out that it was good to see the Government continue the framework that was set up by the previous Labour Government. I say “Labour Government” deliberately, because sometimes speakers across the House call it a “Labour-Green Government”, but, actually, there has never been a Labour-Green Government. The first term of the Labour Government was a New Zealand First coalition Government, with supply and confidence from the Green Party. The second term of the Labour Government was a Labour majority Government with a cooperation agreement with the Green Party—

Cameron Brewer: Are you trying to distance yourself?

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ: No, it’s not to distance ourselves; it’s just to factually outline the things that have happened.

Then there was the contribution from the member Scott Willis. Of course, like the Government members, I have to say I agree with everything that Willis says! I agree with everything that the Willis on our side says.

The member Simon Court said that we should look to Australia for our energy policy and our wider policy settings. I do agree with aspects of what he said. Australia has set a very aggressive and impressive emissions reduction target of 62 percent to 70 percent. If you contrast that with New Zealand’s, of 51 percent to 55 percent by 2035, I do think there are things we can learn from them in that regard. The member Simon Court also said that ACT exercised disproportionate influence in this Government and was trusted with important jobs, and we certainly agree with them in that regard; they’ve definitely exercised disproportionate influence. If you look at the things like the Regulatory Standards Bill, if you look at the Treaty principles bill, if you look at charter schools—if you look at all sorts of legislation—we definitely agree with them that ACT has definitely been a powerful and driving influence on this Government. We agree with him in that regard.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: ACT and New Zealand First

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ: ACT and New Zealand First—yes, definitely. I’ll turn to the contribution by the member Jamie Arbuckle, because he said that it was important to have a security of energy policy and to ensure a stable transition between different energy policies across different types of Government

Look, that’s why we’ve called on them to not reverse the oil and gas ban, because one of the things we need to do is give confidence to people who want to invest in New Zealand. I do believe we are giving them confidence in the House today, because the House is sending a very strong signal that you should invest in offshore renewables and that you should invest in renewable energy policy, because that is something that every single political party in this House does agree on. The message is: invest in renewables. What we don’t want the Government parties to do is give false hope to people who might want to invest in the sunset oil and gas industries, because that is something that we, in the Opposition, have taken a united stance on in saying, ”No more investments in that regard.” In that regard, we do want to give policy certainty, and the policy certainty we do want to give, which is partly being granted through this bill, is for investors to come to New Zealand, invest in offshore renewable energy, and invest in renewable energy in general, and not to invest in the declining sunset fossil gas industry, because that’s not something that’s going to be continued and supported across the next Government.

While we do support this legislation, we do feel that this is one step forward and 10 steps back in the context of the wider energy policy taken by this Government. There have certainly been some positive initiatives, like this one, like the wood and bio gas energy strategy that was announced, either yesterday or a couple of days ago, but that has to be contrasted with the wider cuts and what has been taken away in terms of clean energy policy. One of the things that they took away when they first came into office was the decarbonising industry fund, which was a really important component. They took away clean energy subsidies, which was also another part of the transition to a clean energy policy. While we do welcome this as one step forward, we do decry the 10 steps backwards that this Government has taken on energy policy.

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister for Energy): Well, thank you very much, Madam Speaker. This bill delivers on our Government’s commitments to put a regulatory regime in place for offshore renewable energy, as part of this Government's Electrifying New Zealand plan. If you’d let me just provide a little bit of an update: obviously, this morning, the country has seen a significant impact on electricity network, in particular at the top of the South Island, with the top of the South Island and the West Coast losing power. I’m glad to report—Madam Speaker, you may be interested in this—that Reefton is now back on, and all substations are also back on across the top of the South and the West Coast. I want to recognise those staff who are out there in these conditions, providing repairs to our network, and acknowledge their work.

This bill today is not merely administrative; it is a measure to unlock a significant new source of clean power for our economy. Offshore renewable energy has the potential to help grow our economy, powered by clean energy, and reach New Zealand’s target of net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. International developers are exploring offshore wind projects in New Zealand, and this bill will give them greater certainty to invest, as well as allow them, and the Government, to select the developments that best meet our national interests. The bill also enables risks to the Crown and the public from offshore renewable energy, such as decommissioning of infrastructure, to be appropriately managed.

I want to use the time that I’ve got to run through a few of the key features of the bill and feedback that we have received during the select committee process. The bill introduces a requirement for all forms of commercial offshore renewable energy infrastructure to obtain two permits: a feasibility permit and a commercial permit. The feasibility permit grants the holder exclusive rights for a specified site for a defined period. This exclusivity is vital. It provides a secure window for developers to undertake the complexity and costly feasibility studies and apply for the necessary environmental consents. It does this by giving the holder the exclusive ability to apply for an offshore renewable energy commercial permit, as well as the right to apply for relevant environmental resource or marine permits in that area. Feasibility permit applications will be assessed on a comparative basis and awarded to the projects that are most likely to deliver benefits to New Zealand. Secondly, a commercial permit must be obtained before construction begins. This permit provides assurance that the project is ready to progress to construction, and that process incorporates the necessary function that limits the ability for developers to land bank certain areas or to impede other developments. Permits will have a use-it-or-lose-it provision, meaning that if a project fails to start or progress, the area can be made available to other developers. I think that's pretty sensible.

The bill requires all permit holders and owners of related transmission infrastructure to decommission their offshore renewable energy infrastructure at the end of their life. The bill also requires financial security arrangements to be put in place and maintained to cover the cost to the Crown in the event that the permit holders, or infrastructure owners, fail to meet their obligations to decommission. This is, of course, as we will all know, consistent with the standard practice internationally. New Zealand implemented similar mechanisms for oil and gas in 2021 through amendments to the Crown Minerals Act 1991.

Other protections in the bill, of course, include the ability to have safety zones to protect the infrastructure and people from intentional or accidental harm. The bill enables safety zones of up to 500 metres to be established around offshore renewable generation infrastructure and substations, and this will prohibit unauthorised people or vessels from entering or undertaking certain activity in that area. The bill enables the administration, monitoring, and enforcement of this regime, and it is intended that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment undertake that role.

The bill empowers enforcement officers and safety zone officers to undertake a wide range of compliance and enforcement activities. The bill also includes a range of offenses and penalties for breaches of the regime, from $3,000 to $10 million in fines, through permit revocation or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years. Significant fines and penalties were considered necessary in certain instances to provide an effective deterrent, given the financial capability likely to permit holders. The bill includes regulation-making powers to set out procedure and implementation matters, such as additional matters that the Minister must have regard to when determining whether to grant a permit and the provision of information. The powers include the ability to set fees, levies, and to recover the costs to the regulator.

Shortly after the bill is passed, we intend to introduce feasibility-permit and cost-recovery regulations so that the regime is operational as soon as practical. This bill was transferred to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee in December last year. The committee received 71 written submissions and 21 oral submissions. I want to thank those who submitted for their interest and their constructive contributions. I also want to thank my parliamentary colleagues, many of which are here today, for their help and consideration in these matters. The committee recommended changes: greater flexibility for determining financial securities regarding decommissioning, removing the cap on the total duration of commercial permit, and, of course, defining the type of projects that are not covered by the legislation, such as research and demonstration projects. These changes will improve the workability of the bill and increase certainty for developers.

A key recommendation from the select committee concerned the issue of competition for space between offshore renewable energy and seabed mining. To provide necessary investment certainty for both sectors, Cabinet has agreed to an amendment that will allow the Government to use a new secondary legislation instrument to designate specific marine space where permits for offshore renewable projects can be invited. This action would occur while a pause remains granted for new seabed mining permits, under the Crown Minerals Act, in the designated area. This measure will create clear pathways for development, ensuring that our offshore wind potential can be realised without undue regulatory friction.

In the Amendment Paper, which is currently being drafted—this will be debated during the committee of the whole House phase. We have covered the main features of this bill, and I want to conclude by refocusing the House on the true opportunities that this bill unlocks. This bill does more than set up a regime for offshore renewable energy; it creates an economy that is going to be powered by clean energy. It is a catalyst for high-value job creation across the country, particularly in our regions. The billions of dollars in private investment that this framework attracts will translate directly to demand for engineers, specialised marine technicians, and other high-value jobs.

By providing a clear, robust, and certain regulatory foundation, this bill guarantees that New Zealand is ready to capture this massive economic opportunity. With that, I, therefore, commend this bill to the House.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. As I rise to take a call on this piece of legislation, I reflect on how this House is often slow and often is playing catch up. I mean, I’m not targeting anyone in this, because I think successive Governments have dropped the ball or haven’t actually been ahead of the ball. And so we’re here and we support this legislation, but it’s probably something we should have been considering 20 years ago. It’s probably something we should have been considering at the start of the new millennium in terms of what we need to be doing to ensure that we burn no more fossil fuels, that we stop extracting those from the earth, that we find ways to ensure that we meet our Paris climate targets to make sure that we’re doing what’s right for future generations so we can look them in the eyes and say, “We did what was right for you.” But we didn’t, and that’s on all of us in previous Governments to consider. But we’re here and we’re making some movements, and it is the right thing.

As I look and read parts of the legislation, and obviously the impact it has specifically for us who are in Taranaki—it impacts our people, it impacts our environment, and it also impacts our climate. As we went through the process in previous years around looking at decarbonisation, as we worked on the process around looking at Taranaki 2050 and what it could be—a future beyond oil and gas—this definitely has been front and centre in terms of offshore renewable wind or renewable energy and what it could be and what it should be, and how we get the regulations right.

I just have a few comments to make, because we’re happy to support it and move on. But just to reflect on the fact that there are, as was said by my colleague the Hon Deborah Russell earlier, several organisations and businesses that have been working on business cases and on studies on what this could be in terms of renewable wind offshore. Of course, we’ve had BlueFloat who were there, who were in the mix and have pulled out, have moved on, because of the challenges of getting the regime and getting the settings right. Because, obviously, as a business case, you need certainty to make sure that your business case stacks up. But we also have others that are hanging around. We also have Wind Quarry Zealandia—I think they’re called—who I remember meeting with a number of years ago, who had been looking at the possibility of work off the coast of Taranaki. Also, the Taranaki Offshore Partnership, which brings in the New Zealand Superannuation Fund and Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners, who are still looking at what could be done.

So this piece of legislation, as it makes its way through this House, is part of setting out and laying out certainty, not only for the ocean floor but also for the marine life, for—like I say—the people, the workers, and the economy of Taranaki and of New Zealand, and, as has been said by many people this morning, the fact that that we are in a position where we need to invest heavily in what should be offshore—and any form of—renewable energy to make our country not only more affordable but the greenest country in the world.

My other point I want to make is around decommissioning. I made sure I flicked through and tried to understand what this legislation was doing around decommissioning, ‘cause that has been a huge bone of contention for us in Taranaki, in terms of the Tūī Area oil fields back several years ago. But it also has been an issue for this Parliament, or for the Government of the time. It was just under $450 million of taxpayers’ money that was spent in terms of the decommissioning. Tamarind had abandoned the field and had gone back to their home overseas, and it left the uncertainty and the potential environmental disaster of what could have been if the Government of the day didn’t step in, didn’t front up with the money, with taxpayers’ money, for the decommissioning process to ensure it was sealed correctly, to ensure there were no potential environmental issues. We don’t want that to happen again, because we know that the purse strings in the Treasury are tight. We know that we need to be investing money in clean energy, into things like health, into homes, into making sure that we have good jobs. So when the Government had to spend $450 million because a private firm had just abandoned and gone off back home across the ocean, then we need to make sure that doesn’t happen again.

So looking at what this legislation does: the obligations regarding decommissioning and financial security to ensure the permit holders and owners of those reflected places—that the decommissioning is done and they are liable for it, which we need to make sure. And during the committee stage, I’m sure we’ll be asking a lot of questions to make sure we get that right because we don’t want another Tūī oil field debacle. We don’t want another rookie business riding into New Zealand, doing their thing, abandoning, and then the Government and us taxpayers having to foot the bill.

The other one, just finally, is around the purchasing of permits and what that looks like. We need to reflect on that, because we don’t want this legislation to enable someone to be able to buy a patch of ocean floor, hold on to it—you know, invest not in infrastructure, not in building any wind turbines, but sitting on it—to be able to sell in the future and to make a profit, and nothing to actually be done. So we need to make sure, in terms of how that looks when it comes to offshore renewable energy, that we get that right.

Finally, I just want to mention the benefits of offshore renewable energy. Looking around the world, I think there’s a real challenge because of fast track and because of seabed mining and the uncertainty that creates. It’s dangerous and it’s potentially a huge issue for us in Taranaki, but more than that, for our environment, for our ocean floor, but also for our marine life and what is there. I’ve looked around the world at several offshore wind farms and, in fact, where they actually enhance the ecosystem of an ocean bed, where there’s actually artificial reefs. And there’s been even—I forget what they call it, but it’s padding, that when they’re drilling the holes to put the wind turbines in, they have cushions around to protect the different sea life from the vibrations, and what it actually does in terms of the regeneration and the bringing back to life of what is there and what should have been there.

So I think we need to take this into the committee stage and ask some serious questions to make sure that it is fit for purpose, to make sure the decommissioning regime is set up to protect us as taxpayers, but also to protect the environment and to protect our workers. We support this legislation, and we look forward to it heading into the committee stage.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): Well, this is a good bill, but you wouldn’t get that, necessarily, from listening to the speech of the previous member, Glen Bennett. He brought up so many “if”, “but”, and “what” questions, which made you question whether this is a good bill.

But it is a good bill, it’s a good bill for Taranaki, I say to the MP from Taranaki, and it’s a good bill for New Zealand. This is a bill that’s about saying yes: yes to jobs, yes to economic growth, yes to foreign investment, yes to energy security, and yes to meeting our climate commitments.

It’s been a pleasure to be part of this bill as a member of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. We had a lot of submissions on this. What was really fantastic was seeing the number of foreign investors that were coming to the table and saying, “Here’s what we need to unleash this sector in New Zealand.” I’m really impressed and proud of the fact that there is a lot of foreign investment that wishes to come to New Zealand, and invest in regions like the great Taranaki region, and to power this sector up for the future. But there are a number of things that we made in select committee based on the feedback that we had from these foreign investors.

We’ve heard it today: these foreign investors need certainty and they need to make sure that the economics can work, because this is a tough sector to actually make viable for commercial businesses, in terms of setting up the infrastructure, setting up the pipeline that’s required to connect to the grid, and then making sure that the commercials actually work. So we did make a number of changes to the bill around the feasibility permits, changing the permitting regime, making sure that the decommissioning obligations were clarified, including being clear about what infrastructure is excluded as part of the feasibility and commission regime, and also dealing with the competing offshore renewable energy applications and how that was to be addressed.

But there is, I think, substantial opportunity for New Zealand in this area. I’m looking forward to getting this bill passed as quickly as possible. We know that there are going to be some amendments in the committee stage that deal with the new secondary legislation instrument, and the Minister Simon Watts has outlined that today. So this is a great day for energy security, jobs, the economy, and I commend this bill to the House.

Debate interrupted.

Business of the House

Consideration of the Second Reading of the Mental Health Bill—Leave Declined

Hon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave for the House to consider the second reading of the Mental Health Bill, if the House concludes consideration of the Offshore Renewable Energy Bill before 1pm today. I note the Opposition spokesperson for Mental Health will be here to consider that seeking leave.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): You’re seeking leave. Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Bills

Offshore Renewable Energy Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Rt Hon ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. On a day that Tāwhirimātea’s reminding us of his strength and power, I find myself speaking to the Offshore Renewable Energy Bill. I had the privilege of attending a hui in Taranaki about three or four years ago, along with the then Minister the Hon Megan Woods, who met with iwi about this very issue.

I wanted to let some of the members opposite, whose characterisation of our position on this side of the House is not entirely accurate, know that we were early starters on this issue and it’s taken a long while for this current Government to get to this date. It was already in train when we were in Government. I can tell the member Mr Court, perhaps as he casts his eyes towards Australia, he can wave the Taranaki workforce goodbye, because, in that time, that’s what’s happened. So we definitely need to do this.

Taranaki iwi want to be active participants in this issue. My advice to any overseas investor that wants to come here is that you beat a path to all stakeholders in Taranaki and make sure that those relationships are strong and that they are active in allowing that investment to move forward; failure to do so would be a mistake, and, actually, it should not be a tick-box exercise through this legislation. So we will be looking closely at it at the committee of the whole House stage to make sure that we have the best piece of legislation that we can have. There are many communities who will be relying on us getting this right. So that’s my brief contribution to this bill.

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): Mr Speaker, thank you very much. It’s great to rise in support of the Offshore Renewable Energy Bill. It’s certainly good news for my home province of Taranaki—South Taranaki, to be more specific. It’s also good news for the guardians of the New Zealand Super Fund, which, of course, have in their guardianship over $85 billion. Of course, the Super Fund is looking at an investment in offshore wind farms, which is well exercised and well under way, as the previous speaker said, with the Copenhagen infrastructure partners. That will pursue the development of significant large-scale offshore wind farms in the South Taranaki Bight.

The guardians of the New Zealand Super Fund are very excited about this, and they will be pleased that this is progressing through select committee. Incidentally, the guardians of the Super Fund have also announced that they are looking at other investment opportunities of course, particularly in infrastructure and particularly pertaining to roads. But I digress. As others have said, this gives greater certainty for developers to invest in offshore renewable energy developments. It’s unlocking that offshore investment, which is fantastic. It also manages the risks to the Crown and the public from offshore renewable energy developments.

So, look, the National Party are committed to this as part of our Electrify New Zealand, which of course is all about the goal of doubling renewable energy generation by 2050—we are now delivering. New Zealand has not currently got a regulatory regime for offshore renewable energy, and so we are progressing this legislation to fix that and to enable this new form of energy generation. Again, establishing this regime is an important step to giving those investors the confidence—the huge billions of dollars’ worth of confidence—needed to construct such assets to help New Zealand’s increasingly electrified economy.

Of course, despite what the Opposition may tell you on the black and white tiles, we are committed—National’s committed, this Government is committed—to meeting New Zealand’s long-term energy needs, hence why you’re hearing a lot about the energy sector coming from this Government. That includes transitioning to net zero carbon emissions by 2050. I commend the bill.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): I’m really pleased that the House had the opportunity to hear from my colleague the Rt Hon Adrian Rurawhe to correct the record, really, that this is a piece of work that Labour started because of our commitment to unlocking the potential for renewables, and it has been picked up by this Government, which we are really happy about.

I won’t repeat all the comments made by previous members—I think we’ve got the message loud and clear that this is a pretty good bill—apart from to put into context the importance of the Taranaki wind farm developments, because what it will do with that offshore wind project is generate up to 1 gigawatt of electricity, and that’s equal to 1 billion watts. So what that means is that it’s equal to some of our largest hydro stations and more than eight Harapaki Wind Farms combined. The developers have said that it is really good in terms of bringing confidence back into the sector. So what matters for Taranaki matters for the rest of the country. It means keeping the lights on in Auckland. It will be jobs and growth in regional New Zealand. As has been said, it will help meet our net zero climate goals—although we do have some cynicism about that, given everything else that’s going on.

I think it is important to note, also, the parts of the legislation, and the regime in particular, that Labour will be watching really closely to ensure that this can do what it says on the tin. That is around clarifying how maritime space conflicts will be managed in terms of mining and aquaculture; it’s about strengthening environmental compliance obligations under exclusive economic zone and Resource Management Act frameworks; and as my colleague the Rt Hon Adrian has said, enhancing Treaty of Waitangi recognition and Māori engagement. That is going to be critical. We will be keeping a close eye on that, given that sometimes we see one side of the ledger enhanced and enabled under Christopher Luxon’s Government without the surrounding protections and safeguards to ensure that the transitions can happen.

We’re also going to ensure that there should be ministerial oversight or guidance for setting decommissioning and financial security requirements, and we want to see improved information requirements and transparency for permit applications and ownership changes. So a lot of that stuff is the devil in the detail of the regime. They are caveats.

However, as we have heard today in the House, it’s a good piece of work, started by Labour, picked up by this Government, and we do support what is happening in the House today. I commend the bill.

DAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m very pleased to stand in support of this bill, as everybody else around the House has, as well. I just thought I’d mention it’s rather ironic, with all the wind we have outside at the moment, that a lot of the turbines would not actually be able to operate because they turn off at 90 kilometres an hour or thereabouts, and I think there’s been some wind speeds in excess of 200 kilometres now in the South Island today. So it shows you how excessive the wind actually is.

This, as has already been spoken to, is very important for Taranaki, and I’ve got to support what Adrian Rurawhe has actually said over the engagement with Māori. It’s critically important that, at the earliest possible moment, proposals such as these start with conversations with iwi. It’s a strong start and it’s one that I strongly encourage, as well.

The actual size of this, as the member has just spoken—it’s talked up to maybe even up to two gigawatts of generation capability here. Now, if we think about the current stored generating capacity of all the wind turbines in New Zealand at the moment just being north of one gigawatt, this one farm can be actually immense—huge, in fact. One of the challenges of it is, actually, when you bring that amount of electricity into the supply stream, what effect that actually has. We spoke about the fact that Lake Onslow, one of the potential perverse outcomes of that was actually nullifying the potential interests of having other electricity generation occur. Well, this wind farm opportunity potentially has an effect similar to that, in some ways, in itself.

The size of these farms is immense. We spoke about the fact that one of these generators—I think it was Jamie Arbuckle who mentioned that he viewed it overseas in Taiwan. Well, some of the proposals that have been put forward, one generator, the size of the tower is similar to the size of the Sky Tower. They are immense structures. One of these wind turbine generators is potentially up to three times bigger than the land wind generators. That’s how big these structures are. The distance between these wind generators can be up to 2 kilometres apart. That’s how big the actual span of each of the blade’s diameters are, and for them not to be disturbing each other with the wind flow, etc.

The South Taranaki Bight is a very attractive area, not just because of the world-class wind that they have there but also the immense amount of area with low draft or low depth of water. They need to install the pile-driven turbines in drafts less than 60 metres deep, and the South Taranaki Bight happens to have an immense amount of area. It’s recently been established that you can easily have gigawatts of wind generation and the potential of the Trans-Tasman Resources proposal existing together. They can’t exist on top of each other, no, but there’s so much area out there that you can actually coexist with it, as well, and that is actually being looked at as we speak.

So with that—I know that I’m standing between everybody’s lunch in this session here—I’m very pleased with the work that’s been done in this year. It has been a long time coming; we’ve mentioned when this work began, and all of the entities that are looking at these wind offshore wind proposals have been waiting this for some time. We’ve got a number of parts still to go within the House here with the committee of the whole House and the third reading, and I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan. This is a five-minute Te Pāti Māori call.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party to support the Offshore Renewable Energy Bill. My colleagues Scott Willis and Francisco Hernandez have spoken on why the Greens are supporting this bill. I also want to bring additional perspectives to this as well, which is why I sought this particular call. The Greens understand the importance of offshore renewable energy, and I think, as our energy spokesperson, Scott Willis, has said, that when we’re looking at the future of energy generation, this is something that is also in line with our obligations under the Paris Agreement and what is supposed to be our emissions reduction plan.

In terms of offshore renewable energy, I want to mention two additional aspects of that. While, again, in the bill, there are lots of really good operational aspects, particularly around specific requirements for consultation with Māori groups, there are additional things I want to mention in the broader context of offshore renewable energy. One of them is around the way that offshore renewable energy in Aotearoa is being investigated and also invested in. If you’re looking at South Taranaki in terms of the offshore renewable energy and, particularly, if you’re looking at wind energy, one of the biggest supporters and backers of that is actually the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. When we are looking at the potential, not simply in terms of energy generation but also in terms of our ability to use our own sovereign funds, to support domestic entrepreneurship and production of renewable energy, we will be able to see compounding effects that benefit Aotearoa on the whole. I think that is something that really deserves mentioning when we’re looking at the opportunities when it comes to offshore renewable energy.

Again, while this bill in isolation is something that is good and is moving towards a direction of renewable energy, it cannot go without saying that the combined effect of what the Government is doing regarding other bills, including the repeal of the oil and gas ban and also the additional subsidisation of offshore oil and gas, is preventing or affecting our overall effort of having a renewable and sustainable energy source here in Aotearoa. I think that needs to be said as well because when we are looking at—to give an analogy—making a muffin, even when most of the ingredients are fine but even if it’s just one component in there that is potentially poisonous, it means that the whole muffin is inedible. That, in some ways, also speaks to the fact that while there are good initiatives that we’re seeing being put through in offshore renewable energy in terms of some of the projects around wind energy by the fast-track legislation, the overall intent of things like fast track and the overall intent of the Government to repeal oil and gas ban are not moving us in the direction that fulfils our obligations under the Paris Agreement. Again, when we are looking at something like this, we cannot simply look at something in isolation. We also need to look at the broader Government agenda when it comes to energy.

The last thing that I want to touch on more broadly—again, all of the things I’m saying would be things that we are really interested to tease out with the Minister during the committee of the whole House stage coming up—is that energy production and renewable energy is a really important aspect. This has been well articulated by a number of people in the House around this bill. One of the things, about this particular bill, that should be part of a bigger patch that is also being looked at is the need for us, under the recommendation of the OECD, to start breaking up some of the gentailers and see how we can actually make the energy that we’re producing affordable for the overall population of Aotearoa. At the same time, what initiatives are we also using, on one hand, to produce renewable energy sources but, on the other hand, also to support people to make the right decision to make energy consumption more efficient. The Greens do support this bill, and we have a number of questions that we would like to discuss in the committee stage.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): The House stands adjourned until 3 p.m. today.

The House adjourned at 12:34 p.m.