Thursday, 6 November 2025

THURSDAY, 6 NOVEMBER 2025

THURSDAY, 6 NOVEMBER 2025

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

Karakia/Prayers

GREG O'CONNOR (Assistant Speaker—Labour): 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, justice, mercy, and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen.

Visitors

USA—National Conference of State Legislatures Executive Committee

SPEAKER: I’m sure that members would wish to welcome a visiting delegation from the United States of America National Conference of State Legislatures Executive Committee, present in the gallery. Welcome.

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): Next week, the House will consider the third readings of the Land Transport Management (Time of Use Charging) Amendment Bill, the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2), and the Medicines Amendment Bill. Wednesday morning will have extended hours in the morning for Government business, and, in the afternoon, the House will consider members’ business. On Thursday, there will be a one-hour special debate on local issues.

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

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

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

CLERK: Petition of Shinichi Yamada requesting that the House urge the Government to advocate that the Japanese Government stop the nuclear reactor in Ikata.

SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered seven papers.

CLERK:

2024-25 annual Reports for:

Education New Zealand

Genesis Energy Ltd

Meridian Energy Ltd

the Privacy Commissioner

2024-25 final report for Predator Free 2050 Ltd

2025-29 statement of intent for Education New Zealand

2025-26 statement of performance expectations for Education New Zealand.

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

CLERK:

Reports of the Education and Workforce Committee on the

petition of Hugh Donald

petition of Matilda Otter-Lowe

reports of the Regulations Review Committee on the

briefing on regulatory reform

complaint about the Animal Welfare (Care and Procedures) Regulations 2018.

SPEAKER: The reports of the Regulations Review Committee are set down for consideration. No bills have been introduced.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Internal Affairs

1. TEANAU TUIONO (Green) to the Minister of Internal Affairs: How many breakdowns have there been of fire appliances nationwide since January 2025, and how many of them have caused delays in getting to a fire?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Acting Minister of Internal Affairs): Fire and Emergency (FENZ) inherited a faulty logging and tracking system from 2017. This means it has a highly manual process for reporting data, and while I’ve asked Fire and Emergency for this information and they’ve been working on gathering the information on the nature of the breakdowns, they were not able to provide data, as the system does not support that. A full system replacement is planned for the next financial year to modernise how faults are reported, tracked, and resolved. This will significantly improve the information Fire and Emergency can access about fleet issues and how quickly we can do that. It’s important to note that Fire and Emergency New Zealand sends multiple trucks to an incident, and a breakdown does not necessarily mean that there is a delay in getting firefighters and resources to that incident.

Teanau Tuiono: Are firefighters currently adequately resourced to do their jobs safely?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Yes. I know that there is a lot of publicity, and the Professional Firefighters Union have been publicising a lot of faults that have occurred. However, I think it’s important to put it in context: there are 1,300 fire trucks, and they do 180,000 calls a year, or around 500 a day, throughout the country. So when you see various numbers thrown around about faults, notwithstanding the challenges with recording them and getting accurate data, it does have to be put in the context of the number of trucks and the number of call outs.

Teanau Tuiono: Can she confirm that in the past year, the fire appliance servicing provider for Auckland alone has done 446 emergency call outs—more than one a day—due to breakdowns of the ageing fleet, and how does that give confidence?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: No, I can’t confirm that number. That would be a number from a contractor who is hired by Fire and Emergency New Zealand, and I would just put in context that whether or not that figure is accurate, it should still be put in the context of the number of trucks and the number of call outs. The other question I would raise about that figure is whether that relates to faults or to routine maintenance designed to prevent faults.

Teanau Tuiono: Can the Minister guarantee that FENZ’s efforts to reportedly save $50 million a year will not impact the provision of emergency services and the recruitment of new firefighters, as agreed in the 2022 negotiations between the New Zealand Professional Firefighters Union and FENZ; and, if not, why not?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: What I can guarantee is that we’re going to have a very efficient fire service, I say on behalf of the Minister, who has made it clear to the fire service that they are using money that comes from New Zealanders’ insurance levies. If that amount of money is to increase, then we need to get value. It’s long been believed that there are savings to be made in the management and the administration of firefighting, and perhaps the member might imagine that the improvement in the reporting of faults is an example of how critical investments that weren’t made from 2017 to 2023—six years after the merger with the volunteer firefighters was done—will now be done to make the fire service more efficient.

Teanau Tuiono: What evidence does the Minister have to show firefighters have safe working conditions?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: The firefighters certainly do have safe working conditions, even though danger is inherent in what they do, and I’ve said at various times that the firefighters are just about the only people I can think of whose whole job is to go into unsafe environments. In every other workplace in New Zealand, almost, the purpose of the job is to remove safety hazards and ensure that the workplace is safe. However, firefighters go into dangerous places. Their job is inherently dangerous, and that’s why it’s important to equip them well.

Teanau Tuiono: Why is the focus of FENZ on saving money rather than making investments into the key functions of the organisation, which requires new appliances, better resourcing, and more recruitment to continue to enable our firefighters to keep our community safe, especially in the face of more frequent and severe climate-charged weather events?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: I can’t help but notice that a piece of paper with the questions is continually being passed to the member by Chlöe Swarbrick, to his left. I was thinking why didn’t she answer the question herself, and then I thought about question time yesterday and I think I know why.

Teanau Tuiono: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister doesn’t have ministerial responsibility for the Green Party and the way we conduct—

SPEAKER: No, he doesn’t, and I was about to chip in on that particular point. If there is a question that can be answered in the public good, make sure you do so, briefly.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Yes. The member asked off the page why are we focusing on cost savings instead of investment, and the answer to that is very simple. The answer is that we are investing $20 million to $25 million a year in new fire trucks. We are getting more resources to the front line and less in the back office right across this Government, and so it’s actually possible to do both: to save money, and to invest in things that fix what matters.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Our firefighters are in danger.

SPEAKER: Good—that’s really interesting. Take a call if you want to make a comment. Question No. 2, Catherine Wedd—when we’re all quiet.

Question No. 2—Economic Growth

2. CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki) to the Minister for Economic Growth: What action is the Government taking to increase supermarket competition as well as drive economic growth?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister for Economic Growth): I have heard loud and clear from potential competitors in the grocery market that consenting, zoning, complexity, and lengthy approval processes are getting in the way of them taking on the major incumbents. So we are removing barriers and building the foundations for more competition in our grocery market. Today, the Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill will be read in this House for the first time. The bill helps create a consenting express lane for new supermarkets that will improve competition. That is great news for Kiwi shoppers.

Catherine Wedd: How does the Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill address supermarket competition?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The bill makes clear that grocery developers can access the fast-track approvals regime if their new supermarket will improve competition. To qualify, projects will have to demonstrate how they align with the Government policy statement on grocery competition, which accompanies the bill. If they do that, competitors can bypass the standard, lengthy resource consent process and instead be referred to a fast-track expert panel. This will simplify what can be a years’ long process into one that could be wrapped up in a few short months. Any member in this House that says they want shoppers to get fairer prices should support that bill.

Catherine Wedd: What other changes help create the consenting express lane for new supermarkets?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Government is also streamlining consenting processes to encourage grocery competition. The Minister for Building and Construction is making regulatory changes so that grocery developers will be able to get standardised grocery building designs approved. The Government is introducing a nationwide building consenter for competition-enhancing grocery development. As a result of all these changes, we expect a grocery development could obtain all of the necessary consents in a year or less, well under the current average of 18 months and a million dollars in cost reported by the Commerce Commission. Our goal is a more competitive grocery market that delivers better prices and more choice for Kiwi shoppers. It will be up to private organisations to decide whether they want to build; we’re ensuring there are no barriers in the way.

Catherine Wedd: How will the Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill support economic growth and job creation?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The bill also further strengthens the fast-track regime to get more developments consented and drive economic growth and job creation. The Auckland Port expansion, which has already been consented under fast track, is expected to deliver between $2.5 billion and $6.5 billion to the New Zealand economy as well as supporting 140,000 jobs over the next 30 years. The Milldale housing development will deliver 1,100 new homes in Auckland, contributing nearly half a billion dollars to the economy and supporting 3,550 new jobs. Maitahi Village—

SPEAKER: Good, we’ll just—

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: [Member makes a hand gesture]—will deliver hundreds of new homes in Nelson, supporting 2,700 jobs—

Hon Members: Woah!

Hon Member: What was that?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Sorry—

Hon Member: Speak to the hand!

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: That was not what that was intended to mean. But members opposite voted against fast track and against the creation of those jobs. If they want more New Zealanders in work—

SPEAKER: Good. That’s enough—that’s enough.

Question No. 3—Education

3. Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Associate Minister of Education: Was it his intention in reinstating the charter school model that a community group could mount a takeover bid of a State school without the support of that school; if so, has such a takeover bid been made regarding Kelston Boys' High School?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Education): I reject the terminology “a takeover bid”. An application has been made to the Authorisation Board from a community member with support of a sponsor to convert Kelston Boys’ High School to charter school status. This is permitted under the Education and Training Act, which sets out that any entity may apply to convert a State or State integrated school to a charter school so long as the applicant is the school's board or one or more members of the school community. In both cases, the support of the proposed sponsor is also required. The Authorisation Board must take into account the level of support from the school community, staff, and students for the proposed sponsor and the level of support from the school community, school staff, and students for the proposed conversion of the school to a charter school. It does this through a consultation process. At this point, while an application has been received, there has been no consideration of community support by the Authorisation Board yet, and I certainly look forward to seeing how they consider that. But I reiterate, this is occurring within a school community; it is not a takeover.

SPEAKER: OK, that was a very long answer. Ministers would be advised to shorten up answers to match the pithiness of the questions.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Is he aware of the stress, anxiety, and concern this bid has already caused in the community and school even without an application being approved?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: It comes down, in some ways, to the role of a local MP at times like this. You can either choose to explain the process and help people understand what is happening or you can whip up stress and anxiety. I would ask—

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Point of order. My question is in relation to his ministerial portfolio. I didn’t ask him to explain what a local MP’s responsibilities are, because I know those.

SPEAKER: That’s quite right and the Minister will confine himself to responsibilities directly relating to the portfolio.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: It is material to the situation that the way that leaders in the community interpret it will have an impact on the people surrounding them.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Should an organisation such as the Bangerz Education and Wellbeing Trust, a group that is not qualified to teach children, be able to make a takeover bid of a prominent State school?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: First of all, it’s not a takeover bid, as I’ve reiterated. Second of all, the decision over whether they should become a sponsor of a converted State school is one that rests with the Authorisation Board, led by a very prominent and successful former school principal, a number of educators, and people with experience in a range of communities and in business. This is a group of people who will be assessing very carefully any application for a charter school, of which there’s been over 100 of various kinds already. They will be taking into account community support. If an application to convert does not have community support, then I think they’d be very unlikely to approve it.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does he believe that a group such as the Bangerz Education and Wellbeing Trust is an appropriate group to be trusted with the care and wellbeing of young people in our schools?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: At the risk of repetition, I’ve addressed that question by saying it is a quick decision that is put with the Authorisation Board. That board has a range of very experienced educators on it who will make a judgment such as that.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: What options would parents have to send their children to State schools if the bid were successful, given Kelston Boys’ High School is zoned and all nearby schools, including Avondale High School, are oversubscribed?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, they would retain the right to go to that school, because if the community has decided that they don’t like the way the school is being run now—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry—just a moment. If you want the answer, listen.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: If the community has supported the conversion, and strong community support is a condition that the authorisation board would look at under the law, then you would expect the community would be happy—they would see the school as being improved by its conversion to charter status. And here’s the difference: on the one hand, it’s State provision and unionism no matter how many kids fail; on this side, we believe in the right of children to an education that extends them—

SPEAKER: Good—that’s enough.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: —to the fullest of their powers, no matter what the provision model.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Why has he set up a model where anyone can attempt to take over a State school, forcing that school to defend their preferred status as a State school, diverting attention away from teaching and learning?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, first of all, I actually have not done that. You have to be part of the school community or the school board, so it’s not anyone. All one needs to do to understand that is read the Education Act. That member was in the House when the Education Act was amended to add these conditions, so she should know that. Second of all, there will be some State schools which, frankly, would be better off if they did convert. And this is my point: defending failing schools on ideological grounds—

SPEAKER: No. No, that’s enough.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: —at all costs has damaged generations of children.

SPEAKER: No, that’s enough.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Will he review his charter school policy, given the upheaval this has caused, to ensure no other school has to go through the same experience as Kelston Boys’ High School?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: If this keeps up, I’m going to be more worried about the patsy question from Parmjeet Parmar. Frankly—

SPEAKER: No—no.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: —we’re not going to—

SPEAKER: No—sorry.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: —make changes. The stress—

SPEAKER: Sorry. Don’t preface questions with that sort of comment. It’s very, very disorderly, and I know that you want the House to be far more orderly. Please just answer the straight question.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: No.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Will he apologise to the students, parents, and teachers of Kelston Boys’ High School for the impact his educational experiments have had on them, like the food in schools debacle and the attempted charter school takeover?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: In answer to the first leg of the question, no, because, as I said in my opening remarks to this series of questions, I’m not sure that the concern and anxiety is entirely caused by the sponsor; it appears to be whipped up by their local MP. In answer to the second leg of the question, that’s not actually in line with the question that was initially asked—the primary—but, actually, the healthy school lunch programme has saved an enormous amount of money and delivered the same quality. If the Labour Party had done it the way this Government has—

SPEAKER: Yeah—good.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: —they would have saved those children—

SPEAKER: That’s fine.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: $800 million—

SPEAKER: That’s enough!

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: —of Government debt.

Dana Kirkpatrick: Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Well, I’m almost inclined just to skip a Government question because the Government is not behaving in a fashion that would be reasonable in these circumstances. However, we’ll try again.

Question No. 4—Conservation

4. DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast) to the Minister of Conservation: What recent announcements has he made about the Hauraki Gulf/Te Pātaka kai o Tīkapa Moana?

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation): E te Māngai o te Whare. Last week I announced the biggest step in a generation to restore the Hauraki Gulf/Te Pātaka kai o Tīkapa Moana, and help bring the mauri and the life back to the water, create jobs, and strengthen connections between people and place. The Government is investing $6 million in tourism-focused infrastructure in the gulf, as well as committing $10.5 million to operationalise the legislation. In addition, the NEXT Foundation is investing up to $20 million in reef restoration. I’d just like to acknowledge, at this time, the recent passing of Chris Barfoot QSM who was instrumental in establishing the Tahuna Torea reserve in Glendowie, near the gulf.

Dana Kirkpatrick: What new opportunities does the International Visitor Levy (IVL) investment create for the Hauraki Gulf?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: The Government’s $6 million investment from the International Visitor Levy will enhance access to the Hauraki Gulf by upgrading tracks, wharves, and water systems on iconic islands like Rangitoto, also known as Ngā Pona-toru-a-Peretū; Tiritiri Matangi; Te Kawau Tumaro o Toi, also known as Kawau Island; and Te Motutapu a Taikehu, Motutapu Island. These upgrades support more than 150,000 manuhiri who travel to these islands annually. Works are under way.

Dana Kirkpatrick: How does the philanthropic commitment build on the Government’s IVL funding for the Hauraki Gulf?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Many, many people know about the chaotic havoc caused by kina barrens in the Hauraki Gulf/Tīkapa Moana. The philanthropic commitment compliments our Government’s investment by extending the reef restoration across the new protection areas. The NEXT Foundation is starting with $2 million in pilot projects around Te Hauturu-o-Toi, also known as Little Barrier Island; Otata, Motuhoropapa, and The Noises, and Raupōiti or Administration Bay out at Motutapu. Philanthropy, Government, and iwi will work together to restore the Gulf’s ecosystems from the seabed up, and by combining IVL-funded infrastructure with privately funded restoration, we’re building a full circle approach.

SPEAKER: Good. Brevity’s a really good thing.

Dana Kirkpatrick: What wider work is being supported, through the IVL, across the Department of Conservation?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: The IVL is driving significant on the ground conservation and tourism investment across the motu, for example up at Raukūmara up in Ngāti Porou and Te Whānau-ā-Apanui, with forest regeneration and species protection, more support for wilding pines in the Branch Leatham and Mackenzie Basins, and other areas throughout the country, and also—s heard earlier this week—those famous cycleways in the Ruapehu district with Ngati Rangi and Te Korowai o Wainuiārua.

Question No. 5—Education

5. DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) to the Minister of Education: Does she agree with the president of Te Whakarōpūtanga Kaitiaki Kura o Aotearoa – New Zealand School Boards Association, Meredith Kennett, that “to understand attendance and achievement statistics for rangatahi Māori, you have to understand our history – and that includes Te Tiriti”; if so, how does she justify her decision to remove the Te Tiriti o Waitangi requirement from education governance?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): Understanding history and the Treaty are very different things than having a legal obligation to give effect to the Treaty. Elected parents to a school board should not be delegated what is a core Crown responsibility. We are ensuring that that accountability, for giving effect to the Treaty, sits where it belongs—with the Crown—so that school boards focus on their core roles: ensuring children are turning up to school, progressing in their learning, they’re safe and succeeding. We want school boards to have clear expectations about their role in supporting equal outcomes for tamariki Māori.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does the Minister have evidence that shows stripping Te Tiriti obligations will improve outcomes for Māori students; or is this a purely ideological and anti-Māori policy?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: In relation to the first part of the question, the evidence that I hold is that tamariki Māori achievement has been declining for decades. If you want to talk about a Treaty breach—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Hold on a moment. That’s utterly ridiculous. If you have a question, take one of your supplementaries and ask it. Don’t barrack it across the House.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Point of order, Mr Speaker. We can’t hear the Minister—I don’t believe her microphone is on.

SPEAKER: Of course you can’t. When you’re yelling in your own microphone, of course you’re not going to hear it.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Thank you, Mr Speaker. As I said, the information that I do have is that achievement data for tamariki Māori has been declining for decades; the gap is yawning. If we want to talk about a Treaty breach, that is it. The evidence that I have is that only 10 percent of Māori students are at curriculum for mathematics by the time they go to high school; 78 percent are more than a year behind; and everything that we’re doing—

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order, Mr Speaker. We truly are struggling to hear the Minister, and we’re quiet on this side.

SPEAKER: OK, then. We’ll come back to the question in a few minutes. We’ll see if the audio people can raise the volume on that microphone. We’ll move to question No. 6.

Question No. 6—Health

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Health—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Dr Verrall, sorry. No talking at all while a question is being asked.

6. Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by all his statements and actions?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Health): On behalf of the Minister of Health, yes. For example, we stand by this Government’s commitment to raising immunisation rates for measles. When the Government changed, the time before last, in 2017-18, we had 92.4 percent vaccinated; however, by 2023, something had happened for six years, and it was only 77.1 percent. Since then, we have raised vaccination rates to 82 percent, and while typically there will be 3,000 immunisations per week, lately we’ve been seeing over 2,500 immunisations each day. I think everybody should reflect carefully on the moral imperative not to take your eye off the ball on immunisation, as happened in those years. It leaves all of us more vulnerable.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is it still his position that he won’t make cervical screening free for all who need it?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: The current Government policy is not being changed or discussed at this point, but it could be. The only thing I will say to the member is that there is a choice between screening programmes and treatments, and also screening other illnesses. If we were to put more money into screening, that would take money away from other things we can do, including funding treatment for those women who are unlucky enough to test positive for cervical cancer.

SPEAKER: I think that was a long enough answer. If the member wants answers to her questions, it would be nice to listen to the answers.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Why should women have to pay for cervical screening when every other screening programme is free?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: The Government faces choices in everything it does, in every service that it offers. There are a range of services—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry, wait. Do we want to end the question? Because there’s obviously no desire to hear the answer.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: There’s no question that, in a perfect world, everything would be free of charge, but unfortunately we don’t live in that world. We each have to make choices in our households, in our companies, and, indeed, in Government.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Why won’t he act on the recommendations of two parliamentary review committees to make cervical screening free for all who need it?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: On behalf of the Minister of Health, for the reasons that I have given, about having to make difficult choices, and something like, for example, extending a free screening programme means there is less money for other things, including treating those women who sometimes, unfortunately, have positive tests for cervical screening.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Will he join me in advocating for 90 percent of girls to be vaccinated for HPV so that New Zealand can eliminate cervical cancer?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: On behalf of the Minister of Health, if I wanted to join someone to promote vaccination and immunisation, it most certainly would not be the person who was a Minister of Health in a Government that saw measles immunisation plummet. We are facing an outbreak where three- to eight-year-olds are more vulnerable because, when they were young, those turkeys were in Government, and—

SPEAKER: No, that’s enough. Just don’t use commentary like that. It will just cause problems.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Will the Minister commit to providing colposcopies for more than 2,000 women overdue for one, as any delays increase their risk of developing cancer?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Again, I am not going to start making health funding decisions on behalf of the health Minister here in the House. What I can say is that the Government has increased funding for healthcare from $30 billion to around $32 billion in the last two years. We have significantly increased the amount of money that goes into healthcare, as we have attempted to clean up an enormous mess in administration. For example, it is sadly still the case that each region of the country has a different patient record system, and if you find yourself out of town and in a car crash and in hospital, they may have to email your home town to find your patient records. I was talking to a doctor who actually has a surgery on the border between Auckland and Waikato and half his patients are on one system; the other, he didn’t have the records for. Thankfully for that doctor we’ve fixed it, and we’ll continue fixing what matters so that the health system actually gets value for money.

Question No. 5 (continued)—Education

SPEAKER: We’ll go back to Question No. 5. There is nothing wrong with the microphone. I’ll ask the Minister to speak into it, but we will hear the answers in silence.

5. DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) to the Minister of Education: Can the Minister name a single Māori organisation, iwi, or education expert who supports her decision, and will she table any consultation documents showing that Māori were actually listened to?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: This was an issue that was raised last year during consultation on the bill that’s currently making its way through Parliament. It was then decided that that would then go to a process undertaken by Minister Paul Goldsmith around the Treaty principles. When that report came back, it did make a recommendation that it is questionable for school boards to be delegated a core Crown duty and then Cabinet made that decision.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What message does the Minister think this sends to tamariki Māori sitting in classrooms today, that their language, their culture, and identity no longer belong in the system meant to uplift them?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: It doesn’t send that message at all. In fact, it strengthens the fact that we expect school boards to achieve equitable outcomes for Māori students, to take all reasonable steps to provide teaching and learning in te reo Māori, and to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the policies and practices for their schools reflect New Zealand’s cultural diversity. But more than that, what it sends is the signal that we take our core Crown responsibility for upholding the Treaty very seriously when it comes to raising achievement for Māori students.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Supplementary? [Interruption]

SPEAKER: I’ll just make the point that we are listening to these answers in silence. That means you don’t speak.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Oh sorry, I didn’t mean to do that.

SPEAKER: No, well, I will now tell you very specifically without naming you, which is very generous on my part. Debbie Ngarewa-Packer—last one.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: When the Minister said her Government is “getting back to basics”, on 29 April 2024, did she mean erasing Māori language, Māori knowledge, and te Tiriti o Waitangi from the basics of our national identity?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: No. What I meant was that I was going to uphold my core Crown duty under section 32 of the Education Act to ensure that we are abiding by the principles of the Treaty of Watitangi. The core tenet of that is to raise Māori achievement at school like no other Government has managed to do for a very long time. It’s really evident, because we’re focused on a knowledge-rich curriculum and great teaching and learning in the classroom, that in fact Māori meeting expectations for early phonics has gone from 25 percent in term one to 43 percent in term three. Our Māori kids are reading better than they ever have under this Government, because we take our responsibilities very seriously.

Hon David Seymour: Can the Minister confirm that all of her excellent education reforms have been signed off by a Cabinet with no less than seven Māori members and that perhaps the views put about in the House today are not the way all Māori think?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: We do have an exceptionally diverse caucus, including a number of Māori Ministers who did sign off this decision, and all back me in my education reforms to make sure that all students, but especially tamariki Māori who have been falling behind in academic achievement, are all reaching their full potential. We are the first Government in a very long time to see any of those results turn around.

Question No. 7—Mental Health

TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): To the Minister—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry, Mr Costley. When questions are being asked, no one else is talking on either side of the House.

7. TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki) to the Minister for Mental Health: What recent announcements has he made about delivering a better mental health crisis response?

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. Yesterday, the focus was on creating a better crisis response. I announced a $61.6 million funding boost that will provide additional front-line workers for crisis assessment teams, new peer-led acute alternative services, additional peer support workers in hospital emergency departments, and more crisis recovery cafes. When someone takes the brave step of reaching out, I want that support to be there.

Tim Costley: What new peer-led crisis services will be delivered?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Our mental health plan is working. We see reducing wait times and increased workforce. Since coming into Government, the peer support lived experience workforce has grown by almost 100 percent. Three more emergency departments will receive peer support workers on top of the eight emergency departments already launched. Two new peer-led crisis recovery cafes will be rolled out, bringing the total to eight new cafes across the country. We’re also establishing two new 10-bed peer-led acute alternative services to reduce in-patient ward admissions. To deliver a better crisis response, we want to ensure there is someone to call, someone to respond, and somewhere to go.

Tim Costley: How does this announcement build on a better crisis response in Budget 2025?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: One of my top priorities is to improve access to timely mental health and addiction support. In Budget 2025, we announced $28 million to roll out ten co-response mental health teams around the country to respond to 111 mental health distress calls and also an additional crisis helpline capacity of 20,000 contacts. We've also implemented a 60-minute handover from police to emergency department workers for people arriving in distress. When someone takes that brave step to reach out, whether it’s your child, a friend, or a family member, this Government is committed to ensuring the right support is in place.

Tim Costley: How will this announcement deliver more front-line workers?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: I've always been open that one of the biggest barriers to timely mental health and addiction support in New Zealand is too many workforce vacancies. Part of this funding will add an additional 40 front-line workers to crisis assessment and treatment teams nationwide. These are front-line professionals who respond to acute mental health issues. We don't want people in distress waiting long periods of time for a crisis assessment. Their job is to assess risk, stabilise people in crisis, and connect them to ongoing care, resulting in faster access to support. When someone takes the brave step of reaching out for support, workforce should never be a barrier.

Question No. 8—Infrastructure

8. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister for Infrastructure: Does he stand by his statement that the Government’s infrastructure pipeline “will create thousands of employment opportunities for New Zealanders”; if so, why?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister for Infrastructure): Yes is the short answer, because the Government has a large infrastructure pipeline that will generate thousands of jobs as the pipeline is unveiled and rolled out.

Hon Ginny Andersen: How many jobs will be generated from the Government’s list of infrastructure projects by Christmas?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, if the member’s referring to the $7 billion initiatives that we announced in, I think it was, July, roughly for every billion dollars, around 4,500 jobs are created. Specific projects vary, clearly, but that’s a rough estimate that the Infrastructure Commission has devised. So, the member can do the math—I hope.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Point of Order, Mr Speaker. That was a pretty clear question.

SPEAKER: Yes, it was, and the answer was correct there as well.

Hon Ginny Andersen: So, is he unable—

SPEAKER: Have you got another supplementary?

Hon Ginny Andersen: Alright, sure.

Hon Ginny Andersen: How many of the thousands of jobs he promised in July 2025 have been delivered to date?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, the thing about $7 billion of infrastructure is that it takes time to roll them out.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: You said by Christmas!

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, $7 billion of projects starting by Christmas. To give the member one example that I think she knows well, the Melling Interchange, for example—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: That’s going to see the termination of the question if we can’t behave.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP:—is a seven-year build. Ōtaki to North Levin is a, roughly, five-and-half-year build. The level crossing programme in Auckland is, again, a four-to-five-year build. You can’t turn these things on straight away. They ramp up over time. The point is there’s billions of dollars of construction jobs coming into the market over the next few years. Some of the projects will take two years; others will take quite a long time. The point is they’re starting, which is in contradistinction to the previous Government.

Hon Ginny Andersen: What constitutes the beginning of an infrastructure project?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Normally, when me or another Minister goes and turns a sod.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Can he be clear to the House that—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, hang on, sorry. What makes people think they can talk during a question?

Hon Ginny Andersen: Can he be clear that he is telling New Zealanders that the beginning of an infrastructure project constitutes him turning up in a high-vis with a shovel?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: It’s difficult how to know to answer this question without causing embarrassment to the member. What happens is an agency or the Government appropriates money, then there are business cases done, then construction funding is confirmed, either by Cabinet or in relation to the new transport agency, for example, or the particular Government department, then a contractor is arranged and then contracted, then, at some point, a project actually starts. Now, it may surprise the member to learn, because the last Government didn’t do a lot of this, Ministers normally like to turn up to the start of projects that they’ve had some involvement in funding to make sure they get built. So, projects start, literally, when contractors arrive on site and start drilling holes and digging dirt. That’s what construction starting means.

SPEAKER: That will do. I think that’s it.

Hon Ginny Andersen: How many of the projects listed under his press release in July 2025 meet the criteria he just laid out?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, of all the projects that have started, all of them. There are some—

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How many is that? None.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: We haven’t reached the end of the year, yet, and there is a range of projects yet to come.

Question No. 9—Transport

9. RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini) to the Associate Minister of Transport: What recent announcements has he made about land transport rules?

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Associate Minister of Transport): Last week, the excellent and eloquent Minister of Transport, Chris Bishop, and I announced the beginning of public consultation on three significant areas of work on land transport rules. Consultation will focus on the frequency and inspection requirements for warrants of fitness (WOF) and certificates of fitness A, heavy vehicle permitting, and the consideration of potential additional safety requirements for vehicles entering the fleet.

Rima Nakhle: Why is the Government consulting on changes for warrants of fitness and certificates of fitness?

Hon JAMES MEAGER: New Zealand currently has one of the most frequent regimes globally, and we want to make sure that we are not placing unnecessary costs or time pressures on Kiwis, while still keeping everyone safe on the road. The Government is looking at how other jurisdictions handle this—for example, Europe checks light vehicles every two years, and most states in Australia and provinces in Canada actually only require a warrant of fitness when a vehicle changes ownership or when a defect is identified.

Rima Nakhle: What will these changes mean for vehicle owners?

Hon JAMES MEAGER: These changes will save Kiwis from having to renew their WOF every year. They reflect the fact that many of our vehicles that are actually aged 4 to 10 years don’t require annual warrants of fitness. Just like the changes made by Minister Bishop to the warrant of fitness frequency changes for vintage vehicles, we are taking a modern approach, which will see Kiwis save more time and money each year.

Rima Nakhle: How can people have their say on these changes?

Hon JAMES MEAGER: Kiwis can have their say by submitting their thoughts to the New Zealand Transport Agency. Consultation opened last Wednesday and closes on 17 December. Following feedback from the public, a new rule could be potentially in place by the middle of next year.

Question No. 10—Transport

10. Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai) to the Minister of Transport: What is the total amount that the Crown has paid for Transmission Gully to date, including settlements, and what is the annual amount of the quarterly payments to the Wellington Gateway Partnership?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Transport): The cost of Transmission Gully to the Crown is $1.25 billion, and the average annual unitary charge paid to Wellington Gateway Partnership is $113 million. The New Zealand Transport Authority (NZTA) reached a confidential commercial settlement with Wellington Gateway Partnership and its subcontractors in December 2024. The agreement resolved all disputes and ended ongoing High Court litigation. NZTA now has direct responsibility for completing the remaining works, and a greater role in maintenance and operations. The financial details of the settlement are commercially sensitive and subject to non-disclosure agreements. I will say, though, that the settlement does not increase the cost for taxpayers.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Is the cost of rebuilding 6 kilometres of Transmission Gully included within the $32 million budgeted for this year's routine maintenance and resurfacing, and, if not, what is the additional cost of this work?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The cost of the work the member is talking about is covered by the settlement.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: How can the public know what the total cost of Transmission Gully is to the Crown, and the ongoing cost, if the settlement is confidential?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, I think I've answered that in my primary answer, that the cost was $1.25 billion and the average annual unitary charge paid to Wellington Gateway Partnership is $113 million for the life of the rest of the contract. The settlement that has been reached between NZTA and the Wellington Gateway Partnership and its subcontractors in December last year is commercial in confidence.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: So does the $1.25 billion total cost include the 25 years of annual payments of $113 million?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: No.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: So $113 million every year for 25 years, in addition to the $1.25 billion, is what the taxpayers will be paying for Transmission Gully—and does that include ongoing operations and maintenance costs that NZTA is now responsible for?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The unitary payment for the life of the contract is lower now, as a result of the commercial settlement, because NZTA is now bearing the responsibility for operations and maintenance. The original inception of the public-private partnership (PPP) was for the partnership to be responsible for that. Because of the commercial settlement, NZTA is now responsible, and that is that is borne out in the unitary payment amount going forward.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: How can New Zealanders have confidence in the use of PPPs for multibillion-dollar highways—like the one in the north of the Auckland region from Warkworth to Te Hana—when it was a National Government that signed a contract for Transmission Gully, which is clearly going to cost far more to the taxpayer than was originally envisaged?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The member, I think, confuses a few things. There have been two independent reviews into Transmission Gully, including by the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission, and they concluded that the PPP model is not the root cause of Transmission Gully’s delays and cost overruns. Interestingly, one of the issues that actually caused many of the delays around Transmission Gully was consenting; getting the resource consents for quite a complex piece of work in—anyone who's driven through it will know—difficult terrain was time-consuming and extremely expensive, and then COVID happened in the middle of it, which also put pressure on it. The PPP model was not the cause of much of what the member is complaining about—and, in fact, successive reviews have said that.

Question No. 11—Acting Prime Minister

11. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT) to the Acting Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of the Government’s statements and actions?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Acting Prime Minister): Yes. On behalf of the Prime Minister, I stand by this Government’s commitment to cutting red tape and making it easier for New Zealanders to work and provide for themselves and their families—for example, the Government is repealing and replacing the Holidays Act 2003, a law so complicated even Government departments have struggled to follow it, with all their resources and proximity to the Government. Employers will, instead, have certainty with straightforward rules, and workers and businesses alike will benefit from leave payments being simple and predictable. We’re replacing the Resource Management Act—relevant to the previous question—which was massively pushing up the cost of getting things like roads done. We’ve repealed, largely, the earthquake-prone buildings laws for putting massive costs on New Zealanders for next to no benefit.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What is the Government doing to improve the justice system and keep New Zealanders safe?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: The Government has decided to adopt a philosophy that it is the right of New Zealanders to be safe, not to be victims, and to be supported if they are victims, while the Government’s role is to ensure there are consequences for criminals. The court system, under our Minister for Courts, who happens to be here beside me, Nicole McKee, has now had a 20 percent reduction in the District Court criminal-case backlog, because justice delayed is justice denied. In addition to that, we’ve seen the total prison population at 10,800, up 1,700 since the Government took office. Previously, there was a policy to let them out and see what happened. Now, we are locking people up if they harm their fellow New Zealanders.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: How is the Government focusing the education system on student achievement?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: We’ve traversed this already in question time, but the changes that we’ve heard about already: having a curriculum that is rich in content; taught by a knowledgeable teacher, standing at the front of one classroom, not three joined together; and tested by exams where you actually can’t dodge the hard bits—that is how you transfer knowledge from one generation to the next. Not to mention continually rising school-attendance rates; because it’s hard to learn when you’re at school, but it is impossible if you don’t go.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What is the Government doing to rebalance the New Zealand history curriculum?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, under the previous Government, we saw a history curriculum, I would say, imposed on the New Zealand student body that said things like, “Māori history is the foundational and continuous history of Aotearoa—”

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Mr Speaker. We’ve traversed this matter a number of times, but in this particular instance, this is coming from a Minister who you have warned a number of times today alone—

SPEAKER: Yeah—just make your point, don’t start giving me a lecture on how to operate.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: The Minister is quite clearly—

SPEAKER: There are people speaking while a point of order is on.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: —using a question from his own side to literally express his opinions, and he shouldn’t be allowed to.

SPEAKER: Yes, that’s right, and I was about to curtail that. So is there another supplementary? Good. We’ll go to question No. 12—Tangi Utikere.

Question No. 12—Transport

12. TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) to the Minister of Transport: Does he stand by the Government’s Roads of National Significance programme; if so, how much of that programme has been fully funded to date?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Transport): Yes, the Government’s committed to building a long-term pipeline of transport infrastructure investments to address our deficit and build jobs and growth. Our roads of national significance programme is a key part of this pipeline. As the member knows, $1.2  billion was announced last month to get on with getting these projects ready for delivery. In response to the second part of the member’s question, the following projects are fully funded and currently in delivery: Ōtaki to North of Levin; State Highway 29 Tauriko West stage one, Ōmanawa Bridge replacement; Hawke’s Bay Expressway stage one; the Takitimu North Link stage one. They are fully funded and currently being delivered.

Tangi Utikere: Of the $1.2 billion that he’s just referred to, how much of that is actually going towards construction, rather than just planning, consenting, and property purchases, especially when the full programme is projected to cost up to $54 billion?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, I don’t have the exact breakdown in front of me, but there will be some early works included within that, but we can get back to the member on that. But the bulk of the money is for consenting and designations. I know that the member may not like to hear this, but, actually, you can’t just turn up tomorrow and build a road; these are complex operations—you need land, you need consents, you need designations, you need root protection, you need seismic work, you need geological testing. All that work has to happen. I know the other guys don’t like hearing it because they didn’t build anything, but that’s actually what building a road involves.

Tangi Utikere: Why is he announcing multibillion-dollar projects without any funding for construction, which will only mislead communities into expecting local jobs that will never eventuate?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I’m not. I’m announcing funding to get the work ready for projects that will come up for funding in due course. What the sector has said to us, and what the public has said to us repeatedly—and I’m sure they’ve said it to that member as well—is that the public wants a long-term infrastructure pipeline of transport projects. They want a 10-, 20-, and 30-year vision, and that is exactly what we are creating.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Announcements with no money.

SPEAKER: That’s enough.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: You cannot create an infrastructure pipeline without the necessary work to build it.

Tangi Utikere: If these projects are not fully financed, isn’t the promise of thousands of regional infrastructure jobs effectively just a mirage?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, some of the projects that the member talks about are in delivery right now and creating thousands of regional infrastructure jobs. So, for example, Ōtaki to North Levin; the Hawke’s Bay Expressway, for which the sod turning is very soon—

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: What about the other ones?

SPEAKER: Sorry. Look, I’m sorry. Stop. That’s got to stop. It’s just constant all the time, and it adds nothing. The Hon Chris Bishop.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I mean, I’m—

SPEAKER: No, just don’t make any comment; just answer the question.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, I’d just invite the member to go and visit the Takitimu North Link stage one project, which is under way right now. There’s hundreds, probably thousands of people working on that, let alone before you count all the spin-off jobs of all the people who are working outside the north of Tauranga, working on that really important project.

Tangi Utikere: Why has Waka Kotahi started using a 60-year time frame and a much lower 1.5 to 2 percent discount rate when working out whether his roads are worth it, and how would those projects stack up if the previous settings of 30 years and 6 percent discount were still used?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) is following Treasury guidance in relation to that. That decision was made by Treasury, so NZTA is following the rules set down by Treasury in the appropriate way. I’m not an expert on these matters but, as I understand it, it goes to the fact that roads have a social good component as well, other than just economic, to the extent that you can bifurcate between economic and social—that’s as I understand it. But the other thing I would say is that BCRs—or benefit-cost ratios—as I think the member knows, are not the be-all and end-all of everything. Take one notable example that I’ve talked about before: the Northern Busway across the harbour bridge in Auckland, back in 2007, had a BCR of just over one. That has been the single most successful transport project in New Zealand history in terms of deferred maintenance on the Harbour Bridge and extending the life of the asset. If you actually analysed it properly, it would have a benefit-cost ratio of, I would argue, probably well over 10. But when it was actually analysed, it had one of 1.1. Sometimes, dynamic effects of building projects create jobs and growth in ways that you don’t expect and can’t be captured by strict economic models, which is why the Government’s view is that BCRs are useful but they are not a strict Bible to follow.

SPEAKER: Yeah, good.

Tangi Utikere: Does he seriously expect road users, like Northlanders, to pay $60 to $80 in tolls, every time they drive between Whangārei and Auckland, to cover his funding shortfall, when that project alone is projected to cost up to $22 billion and carry 10,000 vehicles a day?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: No, and that’s not the proposition. We’ve always said that tolling makes a contribution towards funding of roads and allows them to be brought forward and also to cover the ongoing operations and maintenance in relation to roads. But the idea that any road would be fully covered or funded by the tolling revenue that would come from that is not accurate and it would be unlikely to ever happen.

SPEAKER: That concludes oral questions. If there are people who need to leave the House for other business, please take 30 seconds to do so before I call Mike Davidson for his maiden statement. That means leave the House without discussion on the way.

Maiden Statements

Maiden Statements

SPEAKER: In accordance with a decision by the Business Committee, I call on Mike Davidson to make a maiden statement to the House.

MIKE DAVIDSON (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Whakapuakina te tatau

Te tatau, o te mātauranga o te whakaaro

Te whitinga o Matariki

Hei here ai, ki te Pīpīwharauroa

Kui, kui whiti whitiora

Kui, kui ki Raki e tū nei

Kui, kui ki a Papatūānuku e takoto nei

Kui ki mua, kui ki muri

Kia rongo mai ai koe ki te tangi a te manu nei

Kui, kui, whiti whitiora

Ki te whai ao, ki te ao mārama

Tīhei mauri ora.

E te pou whakaruruhau o te takiwa nei

E te mana whenua, tēnā koutou.

Ko Aoraki te maunga

Ko ngā wai huka e rere ana

Ko ngā waitapu

Ko Ngāi Tahu te iwi

Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

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

In August 2020, a few days before my father died of prostate cancer, I promised him three things: first, that I would follow through the process we had started together and gain whakapapa registration with Ngāi Tahu; second, that I would finish my environmental science degree; and, third, that I would become a member of this country’s Parliament. Five years later, those three things are finally ticked off, but my journey to this House did not start in 2020.

I would like to acknowledge and thank the people that have been a part of my journey—many of them here today. My whānau: Fiona, Harry, Gaye, Leon, Clare, Franka, Matt, Murray, Suzy, Dom, Sebastian, Megāne, Lucy, Harrison, and Lianne. Former councillor colleagues; the team at Whitiora and Taumutu Rūnanga; and, of course, I can’t forget the regulars at Vic’s Café. I would like to acknowledge the Hon Eugenie Sage, the Hon Lianne Dalziel, the Hon Rick Barker, and Brendon Burns, who are all here today, and also Te Taumata from Ngai Tūāhuriri. I want to thank Green Party members and supporters, especially those in Christchurch Central, Ilam, and the wider Ōtautahi.

Lastly, I want to pay a special tribute to my father, Rob, who left us all too soon. He was more than a father to me; he was a mentor, a best friend, and a big reason why I’m standing here today. I wish he was here to witness this occasion, and I know he’d be proud.

I came from a working-class family, with a train driver dad, and mum, a childcare worker. It was a stereotypical Kiwi childhood spent tramping and camping with my parents and brother all around Te Waipounamu. Politics and protests growing up were part of our family. I remember a photograph in The Press newspaper of a seven-year-old me with my father and brother, in the rain, protesting at a National Government transport amendment bill that would deregulate the railways, encouraging freight on to our roads instead. It was these experiences that shaped me—that laid the foundation. As a teenager, I always wanted to be an MP, so I joined the NewLabour Party. I remember posting my membership form, but I never heard back. Then, life got in the way, and it wasn’t until 2011 that that spark was lit again.

My home, Ōtautahi, had been rocked by earthquakes, and it was through post-quake response and recovery that I realised the importance and power of community. At the same time, I was going on regular group bike rides—often including my father; then councillor Glenn Livingstone; and former MP Brendon Burns. Naturally, the conversations were political.

With the 2013 local government elections looming, I surprised many by standing for the local community board, getting elected, and then being elected as the board chair. Within a few months, I had discovered my “why”. It was on the community board that I had my first introduction to the importance of urban transport planning, as we led the consultation on one of the first of 13 major new cycleways in Ōtautahi—the Papanui Parallel.

In 2016, I was elected to Christchurch City Council, and, in 2017, to show my support for Metiria Turei, I joined the Greens. I had found my political home: the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand. My father and grandfather were life members of the Labour Party; the generations that followed are Green. In 2019, I was re-elected to the city council and chaired the council’s Urban Development and Transport Committee, and the Coastal Hazards Working Group.

Climate change is the biggest threat facing us, and, as a coastal country, the impact on Aotearoa is going to be severe; the impact on our Pacific Island neighbours will be much worse. Anthropogenic activities have seen ecosystems destroyed, habitats wiped out, far too many species lost, and thousands more at risk. The impacts of a rapidly changing climate will only make this worse. Climate-related events are becoming more intense and more frequent. Many of our coastal communities are being impacted by sea level rise, coastal erosion, and storm surges. Other communities are at increased risk of pluvial flooding, fire, and drought.

Climate change is no longer an abstract concept happening to someone else, somewhere else, sometime in the future. It is here and now. We should be acting, but instead we continue to pander to vested interests and fight amongst ourselves. We need to do better; we need to be better. The decisions that are made, or not made, in this House will be felt by the generations that follow. Do we really want to go down in the history books as the generation that failed this country?

While adaptation is now necessary, it is simply not possible to adapt ourselves out of the worst impacts of climate change. We must continue to mitigate and accelerate our efforts to lower emissions. In cities, transport is the biggest polluter. In Ōtautahi, New Zealand’s second-largest city, 54 percent of emissions come from the transport sector, and most of that from land transport. We must transform our transport system across the country. We must make it easier for people to choose to walk, bike, and take public transport. We must make it easier for people to own and have access to an electric car. Our urban form and our transport networks need to work together. We can no longer sprawl, taking over valuable food-producing land and locking us into car dependency. We must grow in and up.

Unfortunately, with a current focus on bigger, more expensive, but low-value motorways, our communities are missing out on safer, quieter, people-friendly streets, and the climate and health benefits that go with them.

My time as a city councillor has made me acutely aware of the importance of local government and its role of providing for community. The wellbeing of the people who make up the towns and cities across Aotearoa is a core function of councils, and instead of continually scapegoating them, central Government needs to work in partnership with local government. Councils are on the ground every day, implementing Government direction, and continual changes are expensive and erode trust. They have done the mahi and provided good information on how to improve the sector. Let’s listen to them.

It was 2018 that my father was diagnosed with prostate cancer. He knew he had relatives in Scotland but not who they were, so he took a DNA test, and this led us to connect with some Scottish cousins. What was most interesting about the test, however, was that showed that he was Māori. This discovery meant a lot to my father, and it explained a lot as well. My great grandfather was Alexander Ramsey. Alex was the son of William Daniel Barrett, a Ngāi Tūāhuriri man from Tuahiwi. Alex’s mother married a Scottish man three months before he was born, and because of the social norms at that time, his Māori identity was taken from him. That had a rippling effect. Like Alex, my grandmother never knew her whakapapa—my father, only shortly before he died; myself and my brother, in our forties.

One of the most memorable moments in my life was being welcomed as whānau at the wharenui Tuahiwi Marae by the late Dame Aroha Reriti-Crofts, who, at the time, was our closest living relative. The kōrero from both my father and Auntie Aroha, on that day, is something that will live with me forever. So even though we had been welcomed as whānau, gaining registration through the Ngāi Tahu whakapapa unit was extremely important to my father—not for him, not for myself, but for his mother, who had struggled through State care and abuse. He saw this as a way to give her mana.

In 2023, I was fortunate to be employed as operations manager for Te Taumutu Rūnanga, and then, in 2024, I moved to Whitiora Centre, the organisation mandated to drive positive outcomes for my hapū, Ngāi Tūāhuriri. As an MP, I look forward to continuing the work with my hapū and others across the Ngāi Tahu takiwā and beyond.

I stand in this House today concerned for our future. Our communities are struggling, and the environment is under attack, and politics across the globe and here in New Zealand is becoming more confrontational and toxic. We are failing our tamariki. But while I’m concerned, there is hope, hope found in action, in the volunteer and community groups, working collectively across the motu to help each other, to restore nature, and to advocate for change. Hope is also here in this House—it’s in the members’ bills; it’s in the thousands and thousands of submissions on legislation; and in every debate. Those of us working to make Aotearoa a fairer, more inclusive, and sustainable country will not give up.

Over the next 12 months, I will work with my Green colleagues to hold this Government to account, to challenge them, and to show the people of Aotearoa what a Government with a green heart will offer our country: a country that upholds Te Tiriti o Waitangi, takes real action on climate change, and lifts people out of poverty; a country where everyone has what they need, our water is clean, and nature thrives; where our healthcare system is resourced to meet its needs; where children can safely walk and bike to school; and we all live in warm, dry, affordable homes.

The current drive for economic growth at any cost is hurting us, and it is destroying our environments. I think that people forget that we do not live to serve the economy; it is here to serve us. We created the current economic system, and we can recreate it in a way that better serves people and planet. We have huge challenges ahead, and we cannot solve them if we only think about the short-term gains for a privileged few and ignore the long-term cost to the many. Because I want to see enduring change, where we don’t constantly roll back progress, and where people and planet come first, not the GDP.

I want to leave this House knowing I’ve been a good ancestor, knowing that I’ve made my mother and father proud and created a better future for my son.

Mō tātou, ā, mō kā uri ā muri ake nei! For us and our children after us!

Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

Waiata—“Ka tahuri au”

Bills

Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): I present a legislative statement on the Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill.

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

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I move, That the Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Environment Committee to consider the bill.

It’s very pleasing to introduce this amendment bill for the Fast-track Approvals Act, to promote supermarket competition and to improve the application process so it’s more efficient for all fast-track projects. The Government is making this change to make it clear to the grocery retail sector that projects that will improve competition are within fast-track scope. It’s a range of technical and machinery amendments that are also aimed at speeding up the application process by up to six weeks, or potentially more in some cases. The aim of the changes is to cumulatively reduce time frames, lower costs, improve flexibility, and clarify operational matters.

Fast track was designed to offer a streamlined alternative to convoluted Resource Management Act (RMA) - based consenting processes, and also to establish a one-stop shop regime that means large or complex projects can now make a simple application for multiple consents, permissions, and approvals. There’s been a steady stream of applications since February this year and several large projects gaining final approval from independent expert panels. There is real appetite for the fast-track approvals process, and the Government is very proud about how it’s working.

It’s worth noting that it’s not the first time that Parliament has authorised a fast-track regime; the previous Government had its own version. We think our version is better—

Hon Rachel Brooking: Two versions.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: —two versions—OK. Well, we think our version is triply better, then, than the member Rachel Brooking’s version. We are happy with how it’s going so far, but our view is that there are a range of process-based improvements that can be made. We’ve consulted with applicants, agencies, councils, and, actually, the panel convenors themselves around improving the operational efficiency of the Act.

In terms of the grocery retail developments, as I think all members know, we’re focused on creating the conditions for enduring improvements to grocery competition to benefit consumers. Grocery retailers are not excluded from fast-track applications, but we have heard that potential grocery retailers are not confident their projects will be eligible, so the bill includes proposals to remove barriers to entry and expansion of new competitors by making it easier to get consents for new supermarkets. The changes clarify that improving regional or national competition in the grocery industry is a valid factor that the Minister for Infrastructure can consider in referral decisions, and expert panels must have regard to the Minister’s reasons for referring an application, including those relating to grocery competition.

The bill proposes a general power to issue Government policy statements, including on grocery retail competition, which the Minister for Infrastructure and expert panels must consider when making project decisions. We’re also making changes to the eligibility criteria for the MultiProof approvals regime to support both grocery developments and developments in other sectors with more streamlined building consenting. Time frames for approvals will vary case by case, but we do expect, with this streamlined approach, grocery developments could obtain necessary consents and resource management approvals in a year or less after formal lodgment. The Commerce Commission’s recent Annual Grocery Report tells us that it takes, on average, 18 months and $1 million to obtain consent for a new supermarket, which, when you think about it, is totally nuts.

Hon Rachel Brooking: Who repealed the RMA?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, we’re fixing that—watch this space—but 18 months and a million dollars for a new supermarket is, I think, frankly nuts and indefensible.

In relation to the technical and machinery improvements, the description of this undersells the fact that the combined effect will be to make fast track more operationally and procedurally efficient. Our estimates are that it will take at least six weeks, and potentially more, out of the current statutorily prescribed processes. The referral process for projects approved for referral currently takes an average of 71 working days, and the substantive stage takes an average of 130 working days. The process improvements could reduce this further.

It’s probably not the right place to give a comprehensive overview of the amendments here—they are summarised in the legislative statement and in the bill itself—but I would summarise their intent by saying that the aim is to reduce process time and complexities. For example, the amendments will allow parts of the process to occur in parallel where that makes sense. It will also give applicants and other users more clarity on what information is required at various application stages. They will allow applicants to address information gaps during the earlier stages of the process. The amendments include proposals to reduce the scope for projects to be rejected on procedural grounds if part of the application is withdrawn. It proposes that applications can be granted conditionally without planned future infrastructure, such as roads and services being completed. Proposals in the bill will clarify that Schedule 2 - listed projects are national or regionally significant. This will allow expert panels to focus on the adverse impacts and whether or not they outweigh the projects’ benefits and reduce unnecessary litigation.

Several technical amendments are proposed by the Ministry for the Environment, the Department of Conservation, and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, which include correcting lapsing rules, aligning reporting obligations, and resolving inconsistencies in a variety of provisions, and we are also fixing the issue around the Stella Passage development at the Port of Tauranga to make sure that that project description is rightly aligned with what the project is, following a recent High Court case. Amendments that do not require system changes, such as the grocery competition - related amendments, will come into force on the day after the date of Royal assent. Amendments that require post-enactment updates to systems and processes could be in place by February 2026 to allow time for implementation.

I’d like to thank the Government agencies involved in drafting the bill for their continued efforts. I also want to thank all those who engaged in a bit of a process we ran to suggest improvements for engaging or using fast track. This is a relatively straightforward, simple amendment bill that we want to get through the House so that we can make those machinery and technical improvements to make sure that people can continue to benefit from the great work that fast track is doing. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for this opportunity to speak on the bill. Now, the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform has talked about—and all the press releases and the front page of this bill talk about—groceries and supermarkets an awful lot. In the Labour Party, we totally agree: do everything that we can to stop that or to create more competition for our grocery sector. That is a good thing to be doing. That is something that we worked on in Government, and I commend this Government, if they are continuing to do some of the work—good—good.

However, most of this bill is not about that issue. Most of this bill is not about the groceries. It's not about the supermarkets. This bill is a Trojan horse for watering down—even more—this Government’s version of the fast track. What it is doing—we all know that Shane Jones is a big proponent of the fast track, and this Government's fast track, which is quite different from the two previous fast tracks because it overrides environmental protections.

When the Fast-track Approvals Bill was introduced, it was going to have ministerial oversight—and there were huge protests in the streets. In Auckland, you could have been at Aotea Square and people were already down the bottom of Queen Street near Britomart; there were that many people protesting. To give some credit to this Government, they did listen a little bit and they changed those provisions around the ministerial approval. Then, in the select committee process, there was a lot of work on how it was that expert panels were going to work; how were they going to get as much evidence as was relevant to enable a fast process, but also one that enabled the decision makers to make some reasonably robust decisions? I would say not nearly robust enough because we, of course, opposed that fast-track bill because it was overriding environmental regulations and overriding community plans.

What this bill does is it moves that step closer to Shane Jones’ original idea, which is the Ministers having the say, and they have that say by referring projects or having already put them on the 149 listed projects. So where there was a little bit of rigour—I’m not sure if you can say “a little bit of rigour”, but there was something akin to rigour—was that the expert panels, who are appointed to be experts, had some discretion to ask for other people to give them information and evidence. And we now have had this Government's version of the fast track in place for some time, and we have seen some annoyance from Minister Shane Jones about the fact that expert panels have been asking for evidence—for more information—and that has meant that their decisions have not always been exactly what Minister Shane Jones has wanted. So now what this bill is doing is removing that ability, the one little check in the system for those expert panels to ask for additional evidence and for different groups to come and give them information. That discretion is goneburger with this amendment.

This is not just a simple little bill that's doing a little bit of fixing up and we don't need to worry about it because really it's about good supermarket changes; it is not that. If it was only about supermarket changes, we would be in support of it.

The Minister has said potential supermarkets have asked for this—that it would be helpful. We would be in support of it. We are in support of fast tracking when environmental protections are not overridden, and that is our track record. So I'm deeply disappointed, once again, by this Government's continued cynical approach of combining something that's a little bit good with something that is disastrous. We support the grocery provisions, but we do not support this the rest of this bill.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. As my colleague Rachel Brooking so eloquently laid out, so much of what this Government does is putting up some positive spin, some smoke and mirrors, and their real agenda is simply allowing corporates and those who have the most to benefit and profit at the public expense—and that includes environmental damage, as well as public cost. We see that as a pattern happening over and over again.

However reasonable Minister Bishop might be on some urban planning issues, when it comes to solving the issue of supermarket competition, this is not the way to do it. The Green Party will not be supporting this bill. Fast track is not good public policy. It is not the best way to ensure we have good planning rules. There are many other tools available to the Minister and the Government which they could have easily pursued, but they always choose to go with something that is kind of like taking a hacksaw to cutting a loaf of bread; they’re quite happy to overdo it, to create a tool that allows far too much discretion. It’s very, very clear that this is not going to result in inclusive, transparent decision making that we need, respecting the role of tangata whenua as kaitiaki, and enabling us to protect the things that matter most, which include life, indigenous biodiversity—which is life, a stable climate, and all of that.

Amendments in this bill only worsen the nature of the fast-track approvals process. It does not provide a credible solution. Now, what they could have done—because this does exist and it’s been done—is have a national policy statement on supermarket developments. They have done this for housing in the past. We can do it for increasing housing around rapid transit. We could do it for other things. Having a national policy statement was a simple fix that could have addressed any issues. We don’t have to go through an undemocratic fast-track process.

But, you know, it’s pretty clear what the agenda of this coalition Government is. It’s not good planning law; it’s not protecting the environment; it’s not protecting ordinary workers or communities or those most likely to live in poverty. It is enabling private profit at the expense of public good, and that’s what the fast-track process is all about: it is all about enabling private corporations to run roughshod over communities, over our precious natural environment, to have limited or no oversight over what’s done. They really just want a rubber stamp for companies to do whatever the heck they want, and they’ll pretend that this is somehow going to benefit people.

Well, there’s a whole lot of smart policy that we could be implementing that would genuinely benefit those who are struggling with the high cost of living. The Green Party has laid out a comprehensive alternative approach in our Green Budget which shows that we could improve the incomes for the vast majority of New Zealanders—ensure everybody had a sustainable living income, no matter what their employment status is. We could make sure that the wealthiest people in this country pay their fair share in tax, and that would enable us to invest in the core public services that people need.

When it comes to supermarket competition, it’s actually the Green Party who has long called for measures to address this—like an ombudsman, which we proposed well over a decade ago. There is so much that could be done, but really, going through the fast-track process is not necessary nor sufficient to deliver more affordable prices on food and other goods that are sold in supermarkets. We see through this, and I think most New Zealanders do. That’s reflected in their very poor polling, in the absolute lack of trust in the Prime Minister, who is one of those people who benefits the most from the Government’s policies, like not taxing capital gains. It’s a party—well, three parties—for the wealthy and sorted: for the wealthy donors, for the mining companies, for those that would destroy the environment that our life depends on simply to make a few extra bucks, while there’s a whole host of people who are barely able to get by in this country. Government’s going to be changing. Can’t wait.

SIMON COURT (ACT): I’m proud to stand here on behalf of the ACT Party to support the Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill. This bill is about fixing what matters, making sure the one-stop shop for complex consenting actually functions as Cabinet intended, because it turns out that some of the things Kiwis need, like more supermarkets, actually need a bit of a nudge. What this bill does is it allows supermarkets that qualify to enter the fast-track system and have all the things they typically need consents for—earthworks, putting in drainage, traffic management; all of these things consented in one place and with a very strict set of criteria. Is there a national and regional significance test? It turns out that we need more supermarkets because competition means lower prices; lower prices means more affordable things for Kiwis, like food and all those other groceries that many families worry whether they can afford and pay the other bills that they get every month in the mail.

What this bill does is it introduces supermarket competition and also clarifies that some specific significant projects like Tauranga’s Stella Passage project for Tauranga port actually are covered by the fast-track process because, believe it or not, despite this Government’s stated intention that we should get on with consenting and delivering projects, meet environmental tests, meet our conservation obligations, and, of course, compensate people fairly under the Public Works Act if land is acquired or impaired by the development of these projects, some of the decision-making processes have identified that, actually, the legislation needs a bit of panel beating. That’s what this Government’s all about. We’re not here to claim that everything that we’ve said or done is perfect, but we are here to fix what matters.

What’s coming after this In just a few weeks’ time is the introduction of a new resource management system, two new bills to deal with planning and environmental matters separately that are going to resolve some of the underlying problems that fast track intends to solve. We’re always going to need a one-stop shop for complex consenting, but those underlying resource management issues need an entirely new system of their own.

At the moment, Kiwis needs to get 40,000 consents a year for things—everything from where you might hang a laundry line, to a tiny retaining wall, and, of course, major infrastructure. We need to get that back to something far more sensible. When I studied civil engineering, Kiwis only needed 5,000 consents a year.

We need to be much more ambitious. Fast track is ambitious. ACT is here to fix what matters, that’s why we support this bill.

JAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I arise on behalf of New Zealand First to support the Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill. Yes, it is true, this was a core part of the New Zealand First - National coalition agreement. Yes, I know from the experience the leader, the Hon Winston Peters and Shane Jones—yes in that brief case when they rocked up to those meetings this bill was in there. Yes, finally, we’re getting it to look more like what we wanted to start with.

It is a one-stop shop for consenting. In New Zealand, we have an issue at the moment around productivity, and we need to get these projects consented. We’re talking about the supermarkets, we’re also talking about regional New Zealand where we need competition, where we need to start seeing extra competition in the supermarket industry. This bill will allow that to happen.

We’re also seeing around consultation—I've been a resource consent hearings commissioner and the nonsense that goes on in some of these consent hearings from people across the country who have nothing to do with the thing that's trying to be consented. When the local communities want to see a project to be consented underway to create economic activity and jobs it is stifled by people that don't even live there, have nothing to do with the area. It's also going to make the process six weeks quicker. That's something we want to do. We want to see a pipeline of activity. We want to see that we've got one project where people can go from on to another project on to another project to create that economic activity.

On that side of the House, all we hear is no. We've heard no to infrastructure, no to airports, no to roads. We've heard no to housing, no to energy projects, no to the supermarkets, because they're not going to vote for it. They said they would, but they won't. They're going to say no to mining because mining's no good to them, no to aquaculture. To my right here, they're also saying no to farming activities. They say no to everything.

I actually don't know what their plan is. I know our plan is a pipeline. It's going to give a lot of activity. We're going to get rid of the delays. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank you to the Minister for Infrastructure for his opening remarks. I'm pleased to speak to the Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill because it will support grocery competition and thereby enable better deals for Kiwi shoppers. This bill helps to create an express lane for new supermarkets, to boost competition in the grocery sector. The amendments in this bill make it clear to those considering opening new supermarkets that their projects are within the fast-track regime’s scope if they improve competition. These changes to clarify eligibility are about easing the barriers that we've been told are holding back competition in our grocery market. We're doing this because Kiwi shoppers need and deserve greater competition so they can benefit from lower prices and more choice, and this bill is a step towards achieving that.

The New Zealand Commerce Commission has found that competition in the New Zealand grocery sector is limited. The sector is highly concentrated, with the major grocery retailers—Woolworths and Foodstuffs North and South Island—making up 82 percent of the market. While they have different banners and brands underneath them, essentially we have a duopoly in our supermarket sector in New Zealand which contributes to less affordable groceries for everyday Kiwis.

The limited competition also means Kiwi shoppers have less choice about where they shop and they face higher prices at the checkout compared with other countries. You can choose between a Pak ’N Save and a New World, but ultimately they're both Foodstuffs. You can choose between a Woolworths and a FreshChoice, but ultimately they're both Woolworths. We want more real, genuine choice for New Zealand shoppers, because when we look around the world, the countries that have more choice also have more affordable options for their people.

Right now, New Zealand consumers spend more on groceries than in Australia and the UK, with our grocery expenditure the fifth highest per person in the developed world. Earlier this year, I ran a request for information process. What I wanted to know was what is holding back those investors or retailers who might otherwise be able to offer a competitive alternative in this sector. We asked them, “What would help you, as a challenger, to take on the major grocery retailer?”

We get it. It's a big task. When you've got two behemoths that you're up against that have massive market power, it's a pretty tough undertaking to say, “I'm going to enter that market and compete and win.” So our position was if the Government has created any barriers, red tape, or regulations that are making that task even harder, we have a responsibility to tear that red tape down and ensure we're not standing in the way of competition.

Now, we can't compel a new investor to come into New Zealand and start a new supermarket chain. That is not within our powers. What we can do is say to those investors who might be considering it, “We are on your side and we will get rid of anything that may be standing in your way that is within the control of Government.”

So when we did the request for information process, we got detailed, granular feedback about some of the issues that do currently stand in the way. We heard loud and clear that there was a lot of frustration with restrictive zoning—restrictive zoning that in many parts of the country says that there's only this tiny envelope of land in which you are actually allowed to build a commercial retailer, in which you could actually build a supermarket. There may be a huge amount of land in New Zealand that's zoned for other purposes, be it housing or farming or commercial development, but, actually, in a lot of regions in this country, we actively, currently, because of the Resource Management Act, restrict where people can buy land that can be developed for a supermarket.

That's crazy, because actually what we should be saying is when it comes to the abundant land we have in our towns and regions, and we're thinking about how we could use that in a good way, one of the best ways it can be used is to ensure that Kiwi shoppers are getting a better deal. That's what this fast-track change is all about. Of course, it’s not just the consenting; it's a bunch of other cumbersome regulations that make it difficult for new competitors to gain a foothold and we are addressing those too. We think it is unconscionable to keep in place—

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

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Now, anyone listening to the speeches in this House would be forgiven for thinking that according to Nicola Willis, Chris Bishop, and Shane Jones, this bill is just about creating a consenting express-lane for new supermarkets to improve grocery competition. Sadly, that’s not what it’s about; that’s not all that it’s about. If it was really just about addressing the grocery duopoly, as Nicola Willis was waxing lyrical about just now, and putting in place the framework for more competition in the grocery sector, if it was about that, if it was about bringing food prices down, we would be supporting this bill. In fact, Labour in Government started that work five years ago in 2020, when we asked the Commerce Commission to carry out a study about grocery competition, whether it’s working well enough, and to give us recommendations.

Now, this Government has sat on those recommendations for the entire time that they’ve been in office, for the past two years, done absolutely nothing about that, and then they bring in this bill, claiming that it’s going to fix the issues within the grocery sector. But that’s not just what this bill does; it’s a Trojan horse. This is a bill that continues this Government’s war on nature by stealth, and it makes about a hundred other changes that none of the members on the Government benches have bothered to address in their speeches.

In June this year, over 20,000 people marched the streets to protest the fast-track bill. Many of them said that it would put Aotearoa on a fast track to environmental destruction. Many called it the biggest fight for New Zealand’s environment in a generation. Part of the reason for that overwhelming lack of support for, or opposition to, that bill was that the bill, as it was initially designed, would have concentrated power in the hands of three Ministers, who could then override the decisions of their own expert panel and put in place whatever infrastructure projects they wanted to do, that would run roughshod over environmental protections. It would also ignore the concerns of local communities and mana whenua. For all those reasons, 20,000 people marched the streets.

After that, they made one little change: they reversed that and said that expert panels would be able to override the decisions of the Ministers. That was a good change that they made—still flawed, it still overrides environmental protections, but at least they made that one little change.

One of the specific projects that people had an issue with is the Trans-Tasman Resources seabed mine in Taranaki. The central tenet of the fast-track legislation is the facilitation of projects with significant regional or national benefits, but it does not require independent analysis of the proposals to weigh those benefits against the associated costs, which is ridiculous. If it’s approved, that particular seabed mine project would be the world’s first at-scale, commercial seabed mine, that would destroy the habitat and the ecosystem that many of our critically endangered species, including Māui’s dolphin and Hector’s dolphin, rely on. It’s been rejected by the Supreme Court. There have been significant concerns raised by the Environmental Protection Authority about it. The sad thing is you would think, at least, that they would have sound economic analysis or argument for that particular project—they don’t. Even experts in the mining industry have said that their valuations and their analysis are flawed.

Now, the amendment that’s being introduced today, that we are debating today in the House, will introduce a hundred changes that will give Ministers much more power over the consenting process. It will mean that the expert panel will struggle to get the information they need to make better decisions, it reduces the amount of time that the expert panel can make those decisions within, and it limits the right to appeal those decisions. So it brings back the concentration of power that people marched on the streets about—by stealth.

We would have supported this if it was just about grocery competition and increasing competition in the grocery sector. But this is really about a Prime Minister who cannot keep his coalition partners in check. Shane Jones has been vocal about his opposition to the Environmental Protection Authority, and, sadly, now these Ministers and the Prime Minister have caved once again, the way that they did with the Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana Marine Protection Bill. They’re rolling over to Shane Jones.

For all those reasons, and for the fact that it’s another blow to the environment and local communities, as environmental non-governmental organisations have said, we cannot support this bill.

CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki): I rise to support the Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill because we need to get things built in this country. We need things consented faster. That includes supermarkets, where we need to see more competition, where we need to see more choice for New Zealand shoppers so that we can reduce the cost of living. The fast-track system has been really successful so far. I am about to turn the sod shortly on the Hawke’s Bay Expressway. This was fast tracked. This is what delivery means and what building infrastructure in this country means. We’re a Government of action, and I commend this bill to the House.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Madam Speaker. New Zealanders are in the middle of an affordability crisis, and we have a problem on our hands in this House. We tell New Zealander when we’re out as electorate MPs in the church halls for the prize-giving, when we’re giving speeches to our community organisations, that the cost of living is a problem that we understand—that we understand as parliamentarians that things are feeling tough right now. We all do it. At the election the now Government members stood up and promised to take the cost of living seriously. They promised New Zealanders that they would do everything they could to address that.

What are New Zealanders seeing? Prices are rising at the grocery store. They’re rising in electricity by 11 percent, the highest jump in 30 years. They’re rising in education. They’re rising in housing. The truth is that when politicians put themselves on the stump and tell New Zealanders that the cost of living is their number one priority and then they introduce bills like this, which pay lip-service to the issue and do nothing to address the real drivers of price inflation, people start losing faith in the process. They don’t just start losing faith in the Government’s management of the economy—which is a given. New Zealanders are telling pollsters, news agents, and the 6 o’clock broadcast that they don’t have faith in this Prime Minister’s management of the economy. It’s not new.

Do members know what concerns me? They lose faith in this Parliament when we as politicians say we’re going to do one thing, put it in the name of a bill, and then the rest of the bill is about destroying the whenua that we rely on. It’s about a war on nature that is ideological and is based on scraping the bottom of the barrel for votes that they know are there, for people who want to see more “drill, baby, drill.”, and hats on Shane Jones when he rocks up to a select committee. It’s not about addressing the things that New Zealanders really care about.

This could have been an opportunity for the Government to introduce to this Parliament a bill that would have dealt with the land supply issues that are a real issue in the supermarket sector. But this bill is one where the grocery retail sector participants can already apply to the Minister to defer a development project for decision making under the fast-track approvals process. This does not change that. It does not introduce a new track for supermarkets to apply to Minister Bishop for special consideration. They already have that.

In the request for information, I doubt that there were submissions from serious competitors that said they were unsure as to whether they could the use fast-track process, or they might have, usefully, received back from the Minister a helpful explainer note that says, “Good news. You can already use this process, and I would love to engage with you.” Instead, we’ve got a piece of performative politics here that says to those investors that this is a Government that will introduce new legislation to use what they told them is a cloak for a war on nature, which ultimately does not help those investors.

These are serious players that we’re talking about overseas. We want third-entrant supermarkets in our market to know that we have a Government that is focused on delivering them a robust system that they can use to increase their prospects in our market—that people will have faith in their brand in the long term not only here but offshore.

No supermarket entrant wants to be associated with a Government that changed the law for them at the expense of their people and their environment. It’s important that we get this system right, so I’m calling on the Government to split this bill so that we can have a proper debate about the supermarket part that we broadly agree with. The second part, those changes that are associated with changing the machinery of this bill, are not things that the Labour Party could ever have supported. It is a bit rich for those Ministers who have spoken in this debate to put it back on to the Opposition and say, “Oh, look, they don’t support supermarkets. They don’t support more building.” That is absolutely incorrect.

We want this to work for new supermarket entrants. There are serious issues here to be worked out in our economy about how easy it is for new entrants—not the existing entrants—to build more supermarkets, not to deepen the moats to make it harder for the third entrants. But there are serious questions and legitimate issues about land supply in New Zealand, particularly those small towns that are planned with two spaces for supermarkets. We should do something about that. We should have a bill where we can discuss that seriously, but instead we have this thing, which mixes it all in there with changes we could never support that undermine our protections for nature and the environment that we need.

GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m proud to stand up here in this House and support, once again, a bill that believes in and supports getting things done. What we’re looking to do here is to allow for more competition in the supermarket sector so that people can lower their cost of living—that’s what it’s about. The last speaker seems to have forgotten about the 7.2 percent inflation that we inherited from them, and we have done a lot of great work to change that.

Another thing that this bill will do is allow us to build great projects all around this country, and the main one, of course—the most important one—is to get that new road over the Brynderwyns so that it’s got resilient infrastructure into Northland. I commend this bill.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion will say Aye—

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Madam Speaker—sorry, I was standing to take a call for Te Pāti Māori on this bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I have already started to put the—

Glen Bennett: Point of order, Madam Speaker. She was seeking the call before you actually moved to take the call.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Oh, OK. There was so much noise, I didn’t hear it. Thank you for that. It does help with the order of the House if members take their call in the appropriate order.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Of course—my apologies.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I call Mariameno Kapa-Kingi.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tokerau): Thank you, Madam Speaker. This is, I think, probably the 45th time I’ve stood today, so thank you, Madam Speaker. All for a good purpose, though, Duncan, tēnā koe. No surprises, I stand on behalf of Te Pāti Māori to oppose the Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill. My cousin Shane Jones will be probably very disappointed but not surprised. I do so for a number of reasons. This contribution will be, I guess, closer to the ground, I might say, and so much of what I discuss here is from the ground and from the people we know and love.

Under the existing Fast-track Approvals Act, section 7 requires decision makers to consider Treaty settlements and recognise customary rights. The Government says that those obligations remain unchanged, but Te Puni Kōkiri has rightly pointed out that the replacement of pre-application consultation with a simple notification process significantly reduces the quality of engagement with Māori. Notification is not consultation. Being told that something is happening is not the same as being listened to. This bill strips away the chance for post-settlement governance entities, iwi, hapū, and other Māori groups to engage early and meaningfully in decisions that could affect, and will affect, their whenua, taonga, and Treaty rights.

By shortening comment periods and reducing opportunities for dialogue, the Government is, effectively, telling Māori to hurry up and to get it done, make their submissions, while developers are told to get on with the building—so we’re caught and not feeling as fast as this process requires us to be. That is not partnership; that is procedural tokenism. If speed is prioritised over relationships, where will this leave communities. For communities, for iwi, and for those charged with protecting the environment and upholding Treaty obligations, this bill creates uncertainty. It compresses timelines, it cuts consultation, and it puts economic growth ahead of genuine and honest engagement.

I am confident that all of us in this House want to see growth, obviously, amongst our communities. We want affordable food and success for local businesses, but true progress is not about moving faster; it is about moving together. Fast tracking without proper partnership risks deepening mistrust and undermining the very relationships that good policy depends on. On the surface, this bill sounds reasonable. After all, we all want lower food prices and better access to groceries for New Zealanders, but if the Government is serious about improving the lives of all New Zealanders, they should ensure that Māori have equal opportunity. This bill as it stands does not achieve that balance. It moves us away from partnership and towards a model where consultation becomes an inconvenience rather than a cornerstone of decision making. That is why Te Pāti Māori cannot support it. Tēnā koe. Tēnā tātou.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 55

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The question is, That the Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill be considered by the Environment Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Environment Committee.

Bills

Parliament Bill

Parliament (Repeals and Amendments) Bill

Third Readings

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): I present a legislative statement on the Parliament Bill and the Parliament (Repeals and Amendments) Bill.

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

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I move, That the Parliament Bill and the Parliament (Repeals and Amendments) Bill be now read a third time.

These two bills were divided from the Parliament Bill that the House considered yesterday, and I’m pleased to bring them to the House for their third reading. This does represent a constitutional moment—not one that Parliament often engages in in our largely unwritten constitution. People who are rude would say we tend to make it up as we go along, and that would be a way of looking at it. Others would say that we have a flexible and—

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Adaptable.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: —Adaptable—thank you very much, the Hon Deborah Russell—adaptable constitution centred on the notions of parliamentary sovereignty, and this bill is in keeping with that.

Its genesis actually goes all the way back to the Hon Christopher Finlayson’s time as Attorney-General, and I remember being a young whippersnapper in the Parliament—well, I don’t know if I’ve ever been a whippersnapper, but I was certainly a younger MP than I am now. I remember him expounding at length in the caucus one day about how one of his great ambitions was to create a Parliament Act that brought together all of the statutes and the rules around Parliament, which, as he rightly noted in his adroit way, were scattered throughout things like the Parliamentary Privilege Act and the Clerk of the House of Representatives Act and the Act that governs how we’re paid, and all of these things.

I remember sitting in caucus and thinking, “I’m not sure that’s going to catch on as an election-winning strategy”, but that was never his forte, Mr Finlayson. I have great respect for the man, but retail politics he was not an aficionado of. All of which is fine—Parliament is made up of people with many different experiences and skills. Anyway, it started back then; the work was carried on under the last Government; and I became Leader of the House almost two years ago now and got passage of this bill, took it through the Cabinet, and here we are. I do, just at this juncture, want to thank all parties in the House for the very constructive way we’ve worked on this. I think it’s going to pass through the House unanimously, which is excellent. I also want to acknowledge and thank the Rt Hon Adrian Rurawhe for his very good and collegial chairmanship of the special select committee that Parliament or the House thought fit to establish to consider this bill.

It is an important bill. It brings together, as I say, a range of different statutes and incorporates them into what will become the Parliament Act, and it also repeals some legislation, including the Legislative Council Abolition Act. As I noted in the committee of the whole House stage last night, I’m always keen to repeal things that are no longer needed on the statute books. We canvassed quite a lot of the issues in the bill in the committee of the whole House stage last night. A couple of notable things just to put on the record: a new funding model for the Office of the Clerk and Parliamentary Service brings the House and Parliament into line with the offices of Parliament and enables greater independence from the executive when it comes to funding. That’s important constitutionally. A statutory basis for parliamentary security—again, very important—brings the regime into line with the similar regime for court security officers as well.

In general, the bill is about the modernisation of the statutes that govern the Parliament. There’s also a modernisation and clarification of the systems for members’ remuneration, funding, and services, and travel services for family members. This was noted in the committee of the whole House stage as well. Members of Parliament have a variety of living circumstances, and the bill is intended better support for members to balance parliamentary duties with family commitments. For example, the bill gives greater flexibility for travel services so a caregiver can accompany a member’s dependent family members to Wellington, which is a bit of an oversight in the current regime that’s been brought to Parliament’s attention. It also includes a new definition of “adult dependent” for any member’s family member who is over 18 but, by reason of disability, is dependent on the member. There’s also a change that attracted the attention of Celia Wade-Brown, who proudly told the House yesterday that she was responsible for the first citizens-initiated referendum in New Zealand history, which I didn’t know, and now I do. The bill makes the change so that the responsibility for the counting and the administration is no longer the Clerk of the House, but it is actually the Electoral Commission who is the expert body to deal with this.

I don’t want to take up any more of the House’s time. I just want to say thank you to everybody who has been involved in the bill’s genesis—there have been a large number of people. I also want to thank the Office of the Clerk for the support that they’ve provided on this quite long journey, actually, as we enact the Parliament Bill. I thank the Clerk of the House and his team in the Office of the Clerk for all the support as we go through this, and I thank all members, as I said at the start, for their support as we enact this very important piece of legislation. Thank you.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m not sure I’m happy about sharing a moment with Chris Bishop—but a constitutional moment, I will have. We get a lot of criticism in this House for going hammer and tongs at each other, and it’s right that we do in some cases, but this is a really good example. This won’t be on the front page of The Post tomorrow, but it’s a really good example of a really important piece of legislation where we’ve put our heads down and worked through some important questions and tried to get this place to work more effectively.

I think there’s only two main things I want to say, because we can dive into the detail, which is what we did in the committee stage, around security issues and so on and when you can use force and what you do with somebody you’ve detained, and all those sorts of things—and that’s all well and good at the committee stage—but I think it’s really good to stand back and say, “Well, what is that about?” Those security measures are entirely appropriate, and it’s good to see them clearly articulated and put within a proper statutory framework that sits alongside other statutory frameworks. But it’s actually about striking the right balance between the orderly conduct of this House, the protection of members of the House and members of the public, but also doing what here in New Zealand I think we do as well or better than anywhere else in the world, and that is making this House everybody’s House. It is absolutely important that people can come and sit in the gallery, can come and sit on the front lawn and have their voices heard. We have an incredibly accessible Parliament, and that is partly because of the way in which our rules have worked to date and also the excellent work that the people who are in the office, Parliamentary Service, and the security section—the way in which they navigate it as well. But it’s good to see that we now have a set of rules which clearly delineate when it is appropriate for someone to intervene, what the limits of those powers are, and how they will be recorded, and so on and so forth.

So I think, in terms of making sure that that balance is struck right, we haven’t got iron bars on the gate, we haven’t got perspex shields in this House, and may that long continue on the basis that we in this House have put our heads together and said, “Here is the right way to approach the issue of security of this place and of us, these members.”

The second step forward is just that financing—and, again, it might seem arcane, but how this place is paid for is actually of critical importance. Whilst we have managed to get this far on the basis that the Minister of Finance has not unduly chipped away at what is needed—and I know that some people might think otherwise—to run this place, the fact of the matter is that when times are tight and budgets are being scrutinised, this, arguably, should be the last place, because it’s the most important place. The place in which laws are made and Government is scrutinised should not have its ability to do that undermined because the Government of the day feels it’s short of cash. So we have now, not entirely, but, at least, in part, said that those decisions are now going to be made by Parliament. So Parliament will have a say over its own funding—will, in fact, have the determinative say over its own funding.

Of course, the difficulty is that in our democracy, the Government dominates Parliament. So it’s not perfect. The Government of the day could abuse its position, but we do have a long and strong tradition in this House of those particular committees, those committees that deal with things like Officers of Parliament and the way Parliament operates acting in a cross-party manner and cooperatively. So this is certainly a step in the right direction. I’m hopeful that that convention will in fact be strengthened and that the liaison that goes on between Parliament and Treasury won’t become a channel for the Minister of Finance to refuse funding, but rather that it will be a good-faith and open and transparent process, because funding this place—and I’m not talking about MP salaries; they’re a different thing—funding the Office of the Clerk, funding the Parliamentary Library, funding Parliamentary Service, funding security, funding electorate offices is all part of building a strong democracy. Making sure that that isn’t subject to the whims of Government is of critical importance. That’s actually what this legislation seeks to do as best as it can, given the way that this Parliament works.

So, like Minister Chris Bishop, I want to kind of just round that off by saying that the committee that I sat on did work well. There were a lot of things that were thrown up, not all were accepted, but they weren’t thrown up in some sort of political game-playing sense; they were thrown up as good ideas—sometimes very good ideas—that either did or didn’t fit and would or wouldn’t work, and they found their way in the bill if they did. Also, of course, it’s unusual in the sense that this didn’t come out of a Government department, but the assistance of the Office of the Clerk was really, really useful.

So to Chris Finlayson, yet another feather in his cap. It is a good piece of legislation. It’s something which really does bring together the way this place operates not only in that genuinely operational way but it is a constitutional moment. We have, today, as this bill passes the House, made our democracy stronger and more transparent. Obviously that’s why we support it and we would expect everyone around the House to support it. Kia ora.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Democracy is held up by working people, and so I want to begin my speech by acknowledging the workers who, ultimately, this bill will be impacting, because this bill aims to seek to make changes in a constructive and progressive way, in my view, in how our bodies that help Parliament run are resourced. So I want to acknowledge, first of all, some of the teams that help our democracy run and support our elective members to do our work. That includes the library, the travel team, the cleaners, the security, the Copperfield’s staff—the people who, actually, day in and day out, provide support for us to do our mahi, who, ultimately, as has been canvassed in the media in relationship to this bill, have struggled to keep up with the reality of a growing population, more complex needs for our constituents, and, in my view, chronic under-resourcing.

I also want to acknowledge the Clerk and the team that holds them together, because, ultimately, no elected representative should be expected to come to Parliament having spent their lives and their working time knowing the ins and outs of the minutiae of how Parliament operates. That’s why we have teams that help us do exactly that, because Parliament should be a place that enables people from all sorts of backgrounds to come into this place to represent our communities.

The Parliament Bill, in my view, does move us forward to ensuring that how we resource those very same workers is done in a way that is held less by the executive and more by members of Parliament. Therefore, we don’t have an executive that seeks to control the resourcing of institutions that, ultimately, are supposed to hold the executive to account. This is why this bill is deeply, deeply important.

I hope that as we move forward, now that we’re on the third reading, we can work constructively to support those very same teams to do their job well, and that the Officers of Parliament Committee can adequately look at the needs of those very same teams that hold our democracy together and support them—for example, to process the thousands of submissions that we have seen over the past 12 months on contentious bills, which have enabled the members of the public to participate, to have their voices heard—to be adequately resourced, and at a time where political tensions are rising, and I think people in our communities expect their voices to be heard at critical times.

This bill also contains other important modernisations when it comes to, for example, how we consider family when it comes to the support that members can access, and I think that’s really important. Members come into this place with diverse family arrangements. Often, they may have caregiving responsibilities—of disabled people, for example. And the provisions in this bill that seek to modernise these are a step in the right direction. People should not feel like their family and caring arrangements are barriers to participate in our democracy. So it is important that we move towards modernising these arrangements to make Parliament a place where more people can see themselves in.

The Green Party initially had some concerns around the safeguards in relationship to the greater powers that would be given to security. I want to thank members who participated in the Parliament Bill Committee that was formed to scrutinise this bill, for working constructively to address these issues. We feel confident that there are adequate safeguards so that the additional powers that security have are adequately scrutinised, but also so that we protect security officials themselves, who often have to work in really, really delicate environments, and who have to balance the tensions of enabling participation—for example, rallies outside of Parliament, bringing family members of members, as well as guests and members who may be sitting in the gallery as well—at the same time, keeping us safe. I think the provisions in this bill will be important, and the safeguards will be something that the Green Party will continue keeping an eye on to ensure that they are sufficient.

I also, in my closing remarks, want to acknowledge that, ultimately, it will take this continuous cross-party work for us to ensure that the mechanisms we have put in place—like moving the funding of these two bodies that help Parliament run, into the Offices of Parliament—actually work. Because no matter who is in Government, it benefits us all to have these institutions adequately resourced. For example, if we don’t have a library team that is adequately resourced, it makes it harder for members of Parliament to learn about specialised topics. And in the case of smaller parties, for example, the reality is that you won’t have a caucus of people who have the full level of expertise in every portfolio that exists in this place. Those teams are the ones that help fill the gaps, that make sure that we can adequately respond to constituents’ needs. When I think about the teams that work around us, I want to make sure that we centre the needs of our democracy in our communities when making decisions in the Officers of Parliament Committee.

I invite members across the House to work collaboratively and put aside party politics as we move forward, to ensure that these two bodies are adequately resourced because it benefits us all. No Government lasts forever. Each party will find themselves on the other side eventually, and they will be using those very same resources that the Parliamentary Service and the Office of the Clerk often provide for us.

So, once again, I mihi it to the staffers of this place that help democracy run, and I look forward to this bill passing through its remaining stage.

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Yes, it was a fantastic opportunity. I felt very blessed to be part of this constitutional moment. Full credit to the Clerk’s team, you guys did an amazing job and it was impressive to watch. Also, to the Minister, and a shout-out particularly to the Hon Dr Duncan Webb for his enthusiastic input in the Parliament Bill Committee, which, I think, really got to some nitty parts of some issues.

To that point, I would also like to give my support to the idea that we are splitting this up to tidy up a bill into having a repeals bill and a piece of legislation that actually has a clean start—saying that is the whole point. It sounds like what Chris Finlayson tried to start back in that harrowed day in that caucus room with the young Christopher Bishop watching along and no doubt being inspired by the retail politics of it all.

The principles about public money use, the Clerk, the Office, Parliamentary Service, parliamentary security, matters of parliamentary privileges, allowances, expenses; it’s all fantastic to have it laid out in this way. I commend it to the House.

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): I’m pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to this bill very briefly. I have been encouraged to make it a short call. I said most of what I wanted to say in the second reading. It’s great that we’ve got to this point of completing this bill after its gestation across three terms of Parliament. It’s got cross-party support. I think this is about making our Parliament more accessible and more open. I commend this bill to the House.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tokerau): I've had the privilege of working inside the development of this for a wee bit, so it's a pleasure—I'm glad to stand and let the House know that we support this.

I'm just going to discuss why we support it. I guess the word “modernisation”, when it shows up, it gives a little bit of hope, I think, and an interest in how we bring modern thinking and modern ideas with the diversity and, might I even say, the growing tikanga in our House. I saw that expressed, particularly, yesterday, with the readings that came through with Ngāti Paoa and so on, and even today, and it gives me hope that as we modernise and grow the capability and the capacity of the House, then I think we're doing a better job as we go.

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

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

So we supported it at the first reading, and we support it again today. When we come into this House, whether it's members or whānau or

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

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

we say to them, “This is your House”. Duncan Webb made a similar phrase: “It's everybody's House.” So if that is true, then safety in this House cannot be defined only by institutional comfort. It must reflect the realities and the values and the tikanga of all who enter. This bill grants parliamentary security officers significant statutory powers to search, to deny entry, to welcome, to seize, to detain—not only within precinct but also within community and electorate officers. And the irony of me speaking to this—referring to Chris Bishop's discussion yesterday about “Keeping Up with the Kapa-Kingis”; so I'll just make reference to that given this particular piece in my speech.

But it is a serious responsibility—and we get it—and one we must ensure is exercised with the utmost respect for tikanga, human rights, and equity. This bill’s commentary makes clear that these powers must be consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. That assurance is welcome. But what remains missing, we would say, and that we continue to hope for, is explicit recognition of the Treaty of Waitangi. I was present as the committee considered including a Treaty clause but chose not to, suggesting it might alter constitutional arrangements. I'm sure that's true. Yet, Te Tiriti is the foundation of those arrangements. Its recognition would not undermine this House, it would strengthen it. Because no bill that governs how this House operates can truly serve all peoples that enter our House—and to acknowledge the very relationship that this House is based on and standing on.

Good legislative design is not just about clarity of language or efficiency of structure. It is also about Treaty-based design and decision making that honours both kāwanatanga and tino rangatiratanga. So while we support the intent of this bill, which is to consolidate, to clarify, to modernise, we also remind the House that clarity without conscience and consolidation, and without connection, will never deliver true safety for all.

Our challenge and our opportunity is simple: if this is our House, then let it be a House built on trust, on tikanga, and on Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Because only then will safety be not just promised but shared by everyone who calls this place home.

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

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

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party to also support the Parliament Bill, and I want to just touch on a few things. I think it cannot be overstated just exactly how important a bill like this is in terms of the democracy of Aotearoa New Zealand. Particularly from the fact that if you are looking at it from a values and principles perspective, our role and the way that we look at democracy here in Aotearoa is based on the ability of the three branches of Government to be able to hold each other to account and to be able to provide those checks and balances, but it’s hard to do that when one branch of the Government is in control of the budget of the other two branches. This bill, particularly in bringing that ability for Parliament to bid for its own budget, is incredibly valuable for the democracy of Aotearoa.

I think also, in terms of that, what we are seeing as well is the kind of ability for Parliament to make certain decisions—as many people have mentioned—in order to modernise. Now, I just want to reflect on the fact that our Parliament is one of the most diverse parliaments in the world, but it hasn’t always been like that. It wasn’t until 1993 that we had our first ever queer MP here in Parliament, in Chris Carter. It wasn’t until 1996—well over a hundred years after the first arrival of Chinese people in Aotearoa—that we had the first Asian MP, in the form of Pansy Wong.

So when we are looking at the way that Parliament is being representative, we are a much smaller—a fishbowl—version of the representation here in Aotearoa. Being able to have something like this, and being able to know that anyone here in Aotearoa can come into Parliament and be well-supported and know that they are able to have the kind of resource and the kind of ability to fully participate in the democratic system here, is incredibly important and it’s incredibly valuable, and that just really makes me want to also reflect on some of the things we’ve heard lately in terms of the number of bills that have been going through, where people talk about times in the past when we haven’t actually seen the ability for people like myself to be able to fully participate. So I think that having something like this, and also having the additional services and the understanding and having that curiosity to know the needs of our members and the needs of our legislature—the needs of Aotearoa New Zealand—is important.

I want to particularly draw on a couple of examples in terms of some of the services that we have already seen that have been provided and some of the services that are being adjusted here. For example, previously, we would have allowed only a spouse or a partner to be able to support a particular member back in an age when maybe there was a traditional sense of the household, but, again, we’re seeing the modernisation of that in the sense of the kind of support that members are able to receive. We are seeing the ability to upgrade our buildings and the ability to have our buildings made accessible for disabled communities, and that is something that we are hoping to be able to inventorise more and more with this bill.

Most recently, I had the very good fortune to travel to the Welsh Parliament—the Welsh Senedd—and to see the amazing work they’re doing as part of their Welsh revitalisation. The kind of support that the Welsh Senedd is able to offer its members in the form of just a free and ongoing and enduring Welsh language learning programme is something like what I would love to see us have a way of manifesting through this particular bill.

Finally, I want to echo what everyone else has said and just once again thank the Parliamentary Service and thank the Office of the Clerk for all of the support they give to every single one of us. Again, whether it’s Copperfields, whether it’s IT, or whether it’s the library, all of the people that are supporting us have made our jobs more enjoyable and more informative, and, most importantly, they allow Parliament to do what Parliament does, which is create the laws of Aotearoa.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (Minister for ACC): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I want to commence my contribution to this third reading debate on the Parliament Bill by acknowledging the very capable chairman of the special select committee that was formed to consider this bill, the Rt Hon Adrian Rurawhe. I had the privilege of sitting on the select committee, and I think it's worthwhile recording for the record that the recommendations of the special select committee were unanimous, and I think that stands this piece of legislation in good stead.

As New Zealanders, we are privileged to live as citizens in a fully participatory, functioning democracy, one that has an unbroken tradition going back more than 150 years. Now, there are literally only a handful of countries in the world that can share that kind of democratic record. Over those 150 years, of course, society has changed, expectations have changed, technology's changed, the way we live our lives has changed, and so, too, it must be that our Parliament as an institution and the way it operates and is administered must also change.

I had an opportunity a week or so ago to visit our cousins in Australia. Of course, they have a completely different parliamentary system to ours. We don't have a federal system, we don't have states, and we don't have an Upper House. We have a unicameral, one-Parliament system and it's very precious to us and we need to protect it, maintain it, and keep it in good order, and this piece of legislation seeks to do that.

I don't want to go on any further because others have spoken very eloquently about the provisions of this bill, but I would simply remind those listening and colleagues from around the House that although we are individual members of Parliament and we come to this place as members of Parliament, ultimately, we are all parliamentarians and we have a role to play as parliamentarians. I have great pleasure in commending this bill to the House.

Rt Hon ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. One of the things that most pleases me about this bill is that it actually addresses a number of issues that impact on many people who work in this precinct in service to this House, to the members of this House, and to our democracy, and who sometimes have to struggle with some of the processes or the lack of the tools that they require to do their job. The irony of that is that here, in this House, lies the answer to a lot of their problems, and I hope that, in passing this bill today, they will be pleased about having those concerns that they had—and I know they had them—addressed.

In my time as Speaker, I had a number of different occasions where staff asked about different things—why can’t we do this, why can’t we do that?—or they were kind enough to share with me the difficulties that they were having in performing their roles. I’m happy, for example, that our security officers will have the tools that they need to be effective because, on too many occasions in the recent history of this precinct, they have not had the tools that they need.

To balance that off, the Parliament Bill Committee actually strengthened the monitoring and reporting requirements. We strengthened the requirement for training for our staff. We looked very carefully at the submissions—and there are some really good ones. There were some that, as mentioned before, that would not be workable, and we had to make our way through all of the different options that we had in front of us. While members have thanked me, I want to thank the members of this special committee—in particular the Hon Scott Simpson as the deputy chair. I say that because he wasn’t afraid to give me a bit of a nudge and say, “I think we should move on, Mr Chair.”

Hon Scott Simpson: Participatory democracy.

Rt Hon ADRIAN RURAWHE: I thought that was—well, good on you, and, yeah, you’re probably right. It was good to have that collegiality with the chair and deputy chair. I think we were pretty much on the same page most of the way through, Mr Simpson, so I appreciate that.

I feel like I want to thank probably too many people, but I will acknowledge Dr David Wilson and all of his staff—it would be too easy to start naming some that we had in front of us, but I fear I’m going to miss some important ones. The clerk of the committee, though, I will name—James Picker, who did an excellent job. I want to acknowledge Rafael Gonzalez-Montero, Chief Executive of the Parliamentary Service and all of his staff. I felt they gave us really good information. I’ve been on a number of select committees, and I think that the quality of information that we had and, actually, that we started with—you could see that a lot of work had gone into it. I’m very thankful for that; it actually made our role a lot easier, I think.

I do want to speak about the new funding arrangements. One of the situations that I often encountered was “Why can’t we do this and that?”, and it usually came down to funding. I think it’s a model that can work really well in most circumstances—it’s not perfect. I remember having a conversation with the Hon Grant Robertson, who was the then-Minister of Finance, and he didn’t like that at all. I can understand why a Minister of Finance might not like that sort of arrangement. However, despite that, Parliament should be independent of Government, and it should set its own pathway that we all have to actually live with. Given that a Government in that sort of situation and that sort of regime would have probably the numbers to do something or not do something, you’d have to have a pretty good reason not to fund it. The only other comment that I would make is that there’s probably some Standing Orders that may need to be looked at, and I’m thinking particularly around financial veto and whether that will still be in place for such a regime. I hope not, but that’s a matter for the Standing Orders Committee. I think I’ll leave it there. Thank you to everyone. I think we’ve done some good work here in this moment of our constitutional arrangements.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can I acknowledge that everyone is very complimentary of the skills of you chairing the committee, so, on behalf of Parliament and from the Chair I would like to acknowledge you as well.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): I, too, wish to acknowledge the member Adrian Rurawhe’s efforts and chairmanship. He—the former member and former Speaker—is held in massively high regard, so thank you for bringing this bill through Parliament.

Look, everything has been said. I concur with all the main points, so to quote Shakespeare, “Brevity is the soul of wit.” I commend this bill to the House.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I really appreciate the opportunity to take five minutes to also add my support to this bill. I didn’t have the pleasure of sitting on the Parliament Bill Committee, but my thanks to the chairperson and the deputy chairperson; clearly a very collegial committee doing some really important work.

I've commented in previous readings of this bill that one of my favourite moments in Parliament is when we see some of the school students coming up to the gallery and their local MP often gives them a little wave. There's a real sense of intimacy in this House, which I think makes us very fortunate as a country. It is something we protect, both inside this House but also on the grounds. Just this week we've seen, I think early in the week, at least three separate rallies that were all gathered on Parliament precinct together. Again, I think that tells a special story about who New Zealand is. Dr Duncan Webb also spoke about what a unique place this Parliament is and what we protect.

I do think it's a time to recognise that a choice was made. I've made this comment before as well. We faced a moment in the last Parliament where we could have gone one of two directions. We very much could have said no, we want to bring in the police here—as many other Parliaments have—we want to just go purely down a security route and it's time to do that. I think we've made the brave decision. I think we've made the correct decision for New Zealand. It is the thing that will continue allowing those students to come in and experience Parliament, as many of us have over the years. I think it will mean that we as parliamentarians feel more connected to the people whom we serve as well. So very grateful for that steer from across the House that that is who we want to be.

Ricardo Menéndez March thanked many of the people who work within these buildings, and it's impossible to over-state the contribution of the staff in this place. It's not something that New Zealanders get to see on a day-to-day basis as we do, but certainly we could not do our jobs, nor as well as we often can do them, but for the support of those staff.

I mentioned, of course, that other countries do enlist the police forces to come in and provide security in their Parliaments. Again, I'm really glad we haven't chosen to go down that route. It does mean that the approach we've taken is quite unique in many ways. There are many Parliaments who don't give security staff on precinct the powers that we have decided to. A point I made in the second reading was it is something I do think we should monitor, not only for the public in terms of their access, but also for the safety of the staff who are in these buildings as well. No doubt it's quite a significant change for them and this does feel like something that we should continue to monitor in an ongoing way.

I would really welcome the ongoing discussions around the Parliament Bill and how it could, and should, be updated. The security arrangements are certainly a part of that. There were a number of submitters who I thought made some very interesting submissions. There was one set regarding the Official Information Act and whether the parts of Parliament should be subject to the Act, and I understand that the Office of the Clerk is already, to a certain extent. But as we're seeing a big shift in how information is shared and used, I do think this is an area that we should actively be monitoring. I know that there are several other Parliaments, for example, who do allow more access by statute to information. We do have guidelines in this Parliament, but they don't have statutory force. So I think that is a big question for us.

The other thing, which I've mentioned before, is accessibility. With a quarter of New Zealand's population having a disability of some sort I do think, while it may involve certain repercussions in terms of how we structure ourselves at Parliament, it's an extremely important thing to do in terms of accessibility.

Lastly, just to add my thanks again to the team. I think this is superb work and hopefully many New Zealanders are watching and see that we can and do act collegiately to ensure that this is a place that protects our democracy for us. Thank you.

DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, I don’t think there’s very much more to add. I agree with everything that the Rt Hon Adrian Rurawhe said, and my colleague Scott Simpson. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. With the greatest respect to the other contributors to this debate, I actually do think that there are things to say here in recognition of the significance of this bill, and I don’t think that a debate, even if we do agree, should be rushed when we consider the significance of this.

Now, when the Minister introduced this bill, he proclaimed that this was a significant constitutional moment. I take the view that therefore parliamentarians should take the time available to them to discuss it, because this bill is a long time in the making. The bill was developed under the previous Government and, as has been noted, it had been discussed by many others over many years, such as the Hon Chris Finlayson, and that work then moved in beyond the change of Government, and let’s be honest, not all bills did, but this one did, and there’s a very good reason for that. The way that Parliament works has a direct link to our democracy. The more accessible Parliament is and the more that it enables people to participate, the better our democracy is.

Now, that is not to say that even with what is proposed in this bill when it passes, that Parliament will be as good as it could be. In fact, I think if we’re all honest, we’d say that’s far from the truth, but it absolutely is a significant step forward and a significant improvement. Therefore, it is appropriate that contributors have acknowledged those that have played a part in this and also acknowledged those that enable this to happen through their contributions to Parliament.

Parliamentary Service and the Office of the Clerk provide a crucial role in the business as usual and day-to-day running of this Parliament, not just to enable members of Parliament to do their job easier but also to enable members of the public to participate, to visit, to watch, and to observe. But also, as has been acknowledged, there are hundreds of people that have to work through their jobs to enable this to happen, and this bill helps them do that. It provides them certainty and it provides absolutely necessary clarity as to what they can and cannot do in their role.

We, as is always the case in a parliamentary term, are currently going through the process of considering submissions to the Standing Orders Committee. I hope that the process in the deliberations through that committee is conducted in the same fashion that this bill and the committee chaired by my friend the Rt Hon Adrian Rurawhe, because there are some serious changes that could be made to Standing Orders that would suitably complement what this bill does.

The way in which Parliament runs, I guess at an official level, has to be complemented by the way that Parliament runs in here, and if we all take a moment to reflect on the way that Parliament and that legislation has passed and that debates are conducted and the levers that are available in practice to a Government—now, technically, we’re talking about Parliament here, but in reality, since MMP was brought in in this country, it is essentially up to the Government by way of the majority that it controls within Parliament.

Now, that is relevant here because ultimately this bill tries to address that, most notably through the funding provisions. It recognises that for Parliament to run in a way that it should, to properly complement our democracy, it shouldn’t have a theoretical threat of financial veto over its operations. Now, I say “theoretical” because in practice that hasn’t really happened now, on the whole, but it could, and that’s exactly the same with the provisions in Standing Orders. If a Government wished to simply bypass proper process to avoid scrutiny, it can.

The reason I point that out is because Parliament has come together to debate this bill in, I think, a way that should make New Zealanders pleased and hopefully proud. We have heard concerns raised by other parties that weren’t shared by other parties about the provisions that were originally proposed for the security guards. Now, those concerns were respected and considered and the provisions in this bill were adjusted accordingly. That is exactly how things should go in a bill like this.

So when we consider the things that we rely on as parliamentarians, as members of Parliament, but also that the staff rely on, we’ve come together as a House and discussed it. We’ve all put our representatives forward on the committee, those that can contribute to those discussions, and we’ve come to a compromise that everyone is happy with. I hope that the consideration of Standing Orders does the same. So often a party’s position on Standing Orders depends on whether they’re in Government or whether they’re in Opposition, and of course, we know the cyclical nature of Parliament is that things that may be a hindrance to a party in Government are of great assistance when in Opposition. So in order to look beyond that, it requires longer term thinking, the exact thing that has been put in place to determine this.

The thing that I want to touch on in addition to those comments in particular is around the security guards and the statutory powers that this then provides the security team here at Parliament. It also clarifies, for everyone’s awareness, essentially, what they can and cannot do. We are lucky in this country that we have an accessible democracy where people feel able to go up to their MP. If they see them at a public event, supermarket, or wherever, they can go up and say gidday and have a yarn. When that happens, we feel safe and I think that is becoming increasingly rare in democracies around the world and must be preserved, but we shouldn’t overlook the real and genuine threat that has emerged over recent years in the hope of preserving that. We must be vigilant and do what we can to preserve it, but not overlook the threats that do exist.

I don’t say this on behalf of the Labour Party; I’d like to think I say this on behalf of Parliament, because no party is immune to this. Every party in this House has members that have had threats made against them and, the deepest regret, threats made against their family members. If we can’t, even in this place or in the electorate and community offices, enable our security team to have the powers to do what they can, where appropriate, to keep members, their family, and their team safe, then we would have missed an opportunity.

I think that this bill does that, and it should give people confidence that we as a Parliament do care deeply about preserving the public’s access to here and to encourage the public’s participation, but also recognise that things are not like they once were, and if we get ahead of it like we have in this bill, then we can do our utmost to preserve the things that we hold dear.

So I’m pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate. How this Parliament works is important to all of us and I think that where we’ve landed on this bill is a credit to the process. I hope members recognise that, and I would just take this opportunity once again to encourage members to take the same approach to the consideration that’s currently under way with Standing Orders.

SUZE REDMAYNE (National—Rangitīkei): One of the main provisions of this bill that I want to quickly talk about is that it gives our security officers the powers to do their job more efficiently and more effectively. I want to acknowledge and thank them all, especially today, for what they do. A special shout-out to Tuakana, who I met today, who is a new recruit to the parliamentary security team. I commend this bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bills read a third time.

Special Debates

Report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee—Inquiry into Banking Competition

CAMERON BREWER (Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee): I move, That the House take note of the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the inquiry into banking competition.

The Finance and Expenditure Committee (FEC) released its cross-party inquiry into banking competition in August, following a year-long parliamentary select committee process in collaboration with the Primary Production Committee. I want to acknowledge by National Party colleagues on FEC—in particular, deputy chair Ryan Hamilton, economist Dan Bidois, and accountant Nancy Lu for their commitment to the task and consistent hard work. I want to also acknowledge former FEC members, previous chair Stuart Smith and deputy Catherine Wedd, for their leadership in scoping up the inquiry’s terms of reference from the outset and those critical first six months. Can I also acknowledge my National colleagues on the Primary Production Committee who dutifully attended all of our meetings and hearings: Suze Redmayne, Miles Anderson, and Mike Butterick, all of whom are real farmers.

With a focus on banking services pertaining to the business and rural sectors, our report back was published exactly a year after the Commerce Commission’s market study into personal banking services. Our report contains 19 key recommendations to Government agencies, financial regulators, and financial entities, including retail banks, to enhance competitive practices in the banking sector. As chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, I pushed hard for cross-party consensus where it was possible—and for 14 out of the 19 recommendations, that was achieved. Political consensus on most recommendations is important because it will help keep the pressure on the regulators and banking sector, as will our insistence on six-monthly updates on progress.

Several developments have been announced since the committee initiated our high-profile inquiry, at the finance Minister’s request. Many things are now in play. The Reserve Bank has conducted its review of capital requirements for banks, and expanded access to the exchange settlement account system—ESAS—for non-bank financial institutions. The four big banks now need to make sure their open bank systems meet new statutory requirements by 1 December. Kiwibank’s parent company has been given the green light to raise up to $500 million to help it grow. More recently, it is pleasing to see the Reserve Bank is setting up a financial policy committee (FPC). As the Reserve Bank publicly acknowledged last month, its new FPC follows our inquiry’s recommendation that it should set up a prudential policy committee. The Government had 60 working days to respond to our recommendations, in writing, and its response is imminent and will be available on the parliamentary website soon. Again, every six months, the committee will invite the relevant entities to report on their progress towards implementing our recommendations. This is critical in tracking progress and holding the entities to account going forward.

Our deputy chair, Ryan Hamilton, is on leave but has asked me to relay some of his comments today. Quote, from Mr Hamilton: “The banking inquiry was an excellent opportunity to bring all the banking players to the table and to really analyse and put pressure on all the varied components within the ecosystem to really test and see how and where we can make this all work better for Kiwis. Our recommendations touch on a whole ecosystem from the banking sector, to the FMA, to the Reserve Bank, to Māori lending, and to open banking and Government regulation. We sought advice and guidance from fintech start-up operators who are keen to maximise the opportunity that lies right now within reach and to disrupt the landscape of banking in New Zealand.”, writes Ryan Hamilton.

Finally, committee members are grateful for those who took the time to share their insights and experiences, including the 216 organisations and individuals who appeared before us, including the chief executives of the big banks. Thank you also to our independent specialist adviser, Murray Sherwin, and to the officials—particularly the Treasury officials—and the committee staff, the Clerk’s Office, who supported the inquiry’s work. Thank you.

MILES ANDERSON (National—Waitaki): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m grateful to have this opportunity to speak about the banking inquiry and to focus on the rural banking section of that inquiry. I want to thank the members of the two select committees for their diligence over the many months that the inquiry took place, and I also want to thank the large number of submitters for their submissions on the integrity of our banking system.

ThePrimary Production Committee sought to understand the challenges faced by rural customers, the impact of regulatory change, and the role of banks in supporting sustainable rural prosperity. We concluded that improvements were required, and our key recommendations are: that the Reserve Bank immediately cease capital increases for banks; that the Reserve Bank review rural lending capital requirements; that the Reserve Bank require banks to have formal disclosures of factors used to calculate loan rates; and that the Reserve Bank require banks to have greater clarity around natural hazard and climate-related disclosures. There are also a number of recommendations in the body of the report aimed at making rural financing more straightforward and transparent for all.

What do these recommendations mean in practice? Well, in 2019, the Reserve Bank reviewed that capital requirements that banks must adhere to and elected to begin a series of incremental increases over a period of five years beginning in 2022. This meant that the banks had to hold more capital for rural lending than for residential lending. Since these capital requirement changes, rural lending growth has slowed relative to other sectors, and interest rate margins on rural loans have widened compared to residential lending. Submitters told us that the level set by the Reserve Bank has hindered lending to business and agriculture. For example, ANZ’s lending to business, agriculture, and institutional sectors totalled 28 percent of loans in 2024, compared to 42 percent of loans in 2015. The Reserve Bank reports that the new capital requirements have added between 0.91 and 1.17 percent to rural loans, which is adding between $515 million and $712 million in rural interest repayments annually—money that could be spent on the farm or in local communities.

Furthermore, we note that the Reserve Bank expressed that it had concerns that banks may be using the capital review as a cover to expand rural lending margins to an unreasonable degree. Although the Reserve Bank have these concerns about banks accelerating implementation of capital requirements, we see no evidence that this is being monitored. While the Reserve Bank was incrementally raising capital requirements, the banks, it would seem, went to the maximum from the outset.

Transparency in lending practices was also as significant concern for rural customers. Many submitters noted that loan terms, rate setting methodologies, and risk assessments are often opaque, leaving borrowers uncertain about the fairness and competitiveness of their banking arrangements. Our recommendation for improved disclosures and communication is designed to address these concerns.

Another issue raised by submitters relates to natural hazard and climate change disclosures. There is currently no standard practice employed by banks when making these assessments, and borrowers are unaware of what steps are available to them to reduce their risk and the margin imposed on them. These steps need to be clearly articulated so that borrowers can take appropriate actions, if practical, to reduce their interest rates.

In summary, these findings and recommendations offer a pathway to a more resilient, transparent, and equitable banking system. Such a system will support our primary producers, rural businesses, and the communities that form the backbone of our nation. It is vital that regulators, financial institutions, policy makers, and rural advocates work together to implement these recommendations. By doing so, we can ensure that rural Kiwis receive fair, transparent, and accessible banking services, both now and in the years ahead. Thank you very much.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s my pleasure to take a call to rise on this report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the inquiry into banking competition. I’d like to acknowledge colleagues from all around the House who took part in this inquiry. I think it is important that, as parliamentarians, we do come together to consider issues as important as this, and I think it was important that we had the two select committees—the Finance and Expenditure Committee, joined by colleagues from the Primary Production Committee—to consider these issues, because these were issues that cut across the work of both committees.

It is so important because New Zealanders, rightly, have always expected banks to serve the public first, not as distant profit machines, but as trusted partners in our everyday lives that have a stake in a shared future with us—because when things go wrong, it is the public and the people that bear the brunt of it going wrong. Banking requires active, real-time supervision and oversight to prevent problems before they escalate. Public trust has to underwrite that private profit. It is absolutely critical that we have the public trust in our banking system, and it comes with a public responsibility to safeguard stability, fairness, and access for all New Zealanders. That, fundamentally, is what lies at the heart of a successful banking system in any country, because banking systems cannot be built to favour the interests of a powerful few, while families, homeowners, and small businesses are left looking for fairer treatment and genuine choices.

The inquiry presented us with an opportunity, as parliamentarians, to look at these fundamental questions and the challenges before us. On this side of the House, in Labour, we supported the inquiry because competition and accountability and banking are matters of significant public interest. They are things that the public expect us, as parliamentarians, to be questioning, to be making sure that they are serving the public interest. We can engage constructively with evidence from Treasury’s recommendations seeking to identify where consensus could be reached.

The chair of the select committee has identified that we did manage to find consensus on a number of the recommendations, but it is fair to say that there were some that we did not, and that is not unexpected; after all, we come from different world views, carry different values, and approached this inquiry from our belief set. I think what I would like to have seen more is more engagement from Government MPs on some of the Opposition proposals. I think that’s how we can strengthen further inquiries like this as they take place at select committee and provide platforms for genuine bipartisanship, and to build that up. When we embark on these inquiries, it shouldn’t be a matter of who has the voting numbers on a particular select committee; it is an opportunity for us to have genuine multipartisan engagement across ideas, and to allow that to happen.

But despite this, the inquiry has serviced some shared priorities that warrant further attention and provide a useful place for us, as a country, to consider our banking system. The Commerce Commission, obviously, had been looking at things and had found New Zealand banking market is two-tiered: there’s the big four banks who dominate, especially when it comes to mortgages, and Kiwibank stands as our only meaningful homegrown competitor. Now, when it comes to Kiwibank, it is fair to say that, as the member of Parliament for Wigram, I hold a very strong view about Kiwibank and the place that it holds in our country. It was the life’s work of my predecessor Jim Anderton to establish that bank and to make sure that we could have that genuinely homegrown bank here for us. But what we do know is it lacks the capital to disrupt an unbalanced market, and I think that’s something that came through really clearly.

Small banks, innovators, and fintechs face barriers so high that real competition remains out of reach. Likewise, we also heard from Treasury, which found that current competition is limited, and we heard that more support for Kiwibank, greater transparency around fees and foreign exchange and changes—these are the kind of things that could put people before profit and have a banking system that is working for people.

We are concerned that we did miss some opportunities to strengthen competition in the course of this work. We could have focused on the role of Kiwibank as a public banking option and competitor. That would mean protecting Crown ownership and, for me, that is an absolute mainstay of what I believe in: protecting that public ownership of Kiwibank, keeping it there as a competitor to have competition in the market, and supporting the bank’s capacity to provide service to those under-serviced communities. We heard, very much in the course of the rural banking sector, around those under-serviced communities and the need for us to have those and to provide with systemic importance to our economy as a whole, and first-home buyers needing their support, and small businesses. These were the things that we put very much at the heart of what our considerations would be, because we do need that counterbalance to the dominant banks. We do need to make sure that we are putting that first.

Loosening the rules for the largest players and prioritising deregulation is not the way forward, as we saw it. Watering down capital protections—not the way forward; not the answer. Indeed, we’re concerned it does risk making the problem worse. Deregulation might serve the big four banks well, but it ignores the truth for Kiwi consumers, businesses, and farmers; they need more choice, fairer prices, and stronger oversight, not less. So for us, everything has to be anchored in that notion of fairness. We believe that banking is built on public trust, and that trust must be valued and it must be protected. We support strong supervision, because nobody ever wants to have their savings put at risk—and I think that is the bottom line that the committee heard over and over again, and that all members could see very clearly.

But let’s turn to some of the detail of the report. I think some of the detail that we heard around what we need to do in terms of the regulation and capital rules was an absolutely important part, and actually became a very strong focus of the report. We say no to any dilution of our hard-won capital standards. Our economy has to be resilient. Kiwis need to know that their deposits are protected. Taxpayers need to know that their money is safe. These are the kinds of things we need to put clear in there.

The rural work was really important, and I’m really pleased that the two committees did come together on this, and that we didn’t have the Primary Production Committee producing a report on banking and the Finance and Expenditure Committee producing a report, and that we could bring those strands together. Because that was, I think, a critical piece: thinking about what does banking look like throughout our country, how do we serve our regions, what is the role of fintech in here, and how do we ensure all of that is there—all while thinking about those fundamentals around accountability and transparency that creates their trust within our system.

We also looked very much at the focus of the report on profitability and competition. This lay at the heart, really, at the genesis of the report, and those clear, transparent deposit and transaction fees are something that are absolutely critical. No customers being stung by hidden charges. People have a right to understand what are the fees that they are paying for their banking system. Standardised credit information and useful comparison tools will allow us, as consumers, to feel like we are getting a better deal. It’s absolutely, absolutely critical.

What we do need to know is that we’re also looking out to ensure that Māori banking is well served. This became a critical part of the inquiry, and my colleagues will pick up on that. But what we need to do is—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Very quickly, because the member’s time’s expired.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: —make sure that we’re putting people first, and not just balance sheets, at the heart of the New Zealand banking system.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): The Greens welcome this inquiry into banking competition, and I acknowledge the several members of the two select committees that participated in it. I’ve only had the privilege to sub in for some of the later sessions, and I acknowledge Chlöe Swarbrick and Steve Abel who partook in the large majority of those.

I think most people won’t be surprised to know that the four big banks that we have—all Australian-owned—operating here control almost 90 percent of the market and that, even in the year period between 2015 and 2019, before the pandemic, they had some of the highest return on equity of all sample countries. This is really critical to underpin this debate because what we have seen is that during times where people have been expected to tighten their belts, we have seen some of the largest banks actually continuing to make record profits, which tells us that the system is not so much broken but actually working as intended.

During the report, one of the things that we evaluated and that the Green Party made really clear in our deferring view, was that we had an opportunity here to look at the role of Kiwibank and to strengthen it to continue serving the public good as opposed to simply looking at maximising profits. One of the things that we were concerned about—and this occurred during the period of the inquiry, I believe—was the flirtation with the idea of privatising Kiwibank. The report in and of itself did look at strengthening Kiwibank, instead, but we think that, actually, Kiwibank needs to be strengthened in a way that raises funds from public sources as opposed to seeking sources from elsewhere. This is key because, at the end of the day, Kiwibank must remain State-owned and must actually be strengthened to ensure that its focus is on serving communities that have previously not been adequately well served by other big banks.

The other thing that I wanted to touch on is that it was concerning to see in the report that the committee recommended making it easier for overseas banks to operate in New Zealand as a primary solution to improve banking competition. What we’ve already seen is existing banks making, as I said earlier, significant profits. And the problem, particularly with the Australian-owned banks who hold the large majority of the market here, is that those profits end up being taken offshore. Opening the door to overseas banks simply as a way to increase competition risks that—

Simon Court: It would be terrible if Fonterra brought profits onshore, wouldn’t it?

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: —being taken offshore. I couldn’t really understand Simon Court’s incoherent rambles, but whatever they may be, I hope that he focuses on that in his remarks.

Also in our differing view, we touched on the fact that the Reserve Bank should instead be focused on lowering barriers for local banks, including community, iwi, and not-for-profit trust banks to offer a broader range of banking services. Only through the expansion of those not-for-profit banks and community banks will the system better prioritise the needs of Māori, rural New Zealanders, disabled people, and the public generally because there are communities that large banks simply choose to not prioritise. So it is important that we treat banking services as a public good. This is why, once again, we reiterate—

Andy Foster: That’s right.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: I’m really glad to see New Zealand First saying that. It’s really interesting to see New Zealand First, for example, talking about banking being a public good in the heckles just now, when we have seen New Zealand First continuing to undermine the potential for banks to make independent decisions that genuinely centre the public good—and their “anti - woke banks bill”.

Andy Foster: You’re just misrepresenting it.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: I hear the member say that I’m misrepresenting it, but I remember sitting at the committee stage and hearing from submitters completely slamming the bill that he’s presented. I think this inquiry had the opportunity to centre the public good at the core of its business. But instead, I think what we have seen are some worthwhile recommendations that have been made by the committees and some of them I do think should be taken up by the Government. But overall, we have seen an over-reliance on overseas players increasing competition and assuming that as a result that will benefit our communities. We saw it, actually, in some of our previous debates today in relationship to supermarkets and we’re seeing it again today when it comes to banks.

The Green Party will continue pushing for banking services to remain a public good, to strengthen Kiwibank and keep it as a State-owned service and for Kiwibank to be enabled to genuinely reach to the communities that it has not been able to do so before.

TODD STEPHENSON (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, it gives me great pleasure on this Thursday afternoon to rise on behalf of ACT and talk in this special debate on the banking inquiry. Yes, look, it was a unique inquiry bringing together two select committees. Again, obviously, we've already heard some contributions, but I also want to acknowledge my great farming colleague Mark Cameron who is the chair of the Primary Production Committee. This topic was very close to his heart. He's been very passionate about rural banking issues for a long time. I know he's bullied his other committee members on the Primary Production Committee with his passion, and I know that they came on board because they also saw it as a very important topic. So it was great to bring these two committees together.

I do actually have to acknowledge Cameron Brewer, it was, at some times, a bit like trying to manage a three-ring circus, because you did have lots of competing interests. But I do think we actually did a very good job in the end over the year bringing it together. Again, I would encourage people to pick up the report, the recommendations are upfront. It's quite logical to follow.

Look, I also want to focus on the fact that over 73 percent of the recommendations were actually agreed unanimously. Despite what the last speaker from the Greens said, I think that’s actually a real credit to where we could actually find that common ground. I want to acknowledge members from across the House that are on the committee, because we actually had some really great discussions, some robust discussions. In the end, we actually did find a way to get—as Mr Brewer said, 14 of the recommendations were unanimous of the 19. So I think that's really, really important.

As I said for my colleague Mark Cameron, he was really driving some quite probing questions around this fairness for banking for rural New Zealand. It was great. We had a lot of—obviously, the big banks came in; they actually came in more than once. So again, we should acknowledge their time, and of all the submitters that came before our committee. One of the things he was very focused on, and, in fact, the report makes a very specific mention of this where it recommends, “We recommend that Reserve Bank requires banks to provide greater clarity around interest rates connected to any natural hazards, climate related disclosures, and green lending products.” Mr Miles Anderson, who spoke earlier, referred to this. But really, what Mark Cameron was driving at when he was asking questions around those issues is about transparency. We just need lenders, particularly rural lenders, to understand what is contributing to the costs when they are borrowing and lending money. So it was good to get that recommendation on the record.

The other thing which I was really pleased, and again, Mr Brewer talked about this, part way through our inquiry, the capital requirements reviewed by the Reserve Bank were announced. Again, we obviously acknowledge that in the report, but that would have been a recommendation, but I think the Reserve Bank had, obviously, been closely following the inquiry and decided to act on their own, which was great.

The other thing that I thought was, again, really important, is we acknowledge that, or we actually have evidence that there's so much innovation, actually, in the financial services area. Yes, while a lot of New Zealand banking systems at the moment are dominated by four big banks and Kiwibank, we actually had evidence that that is changing over time and you've got a lot of more innovative niche players coming up. Again, some of the recommendations in this inquiry needed—we'll support those players as they start to come through. We talked about open banking. We've touched on capital requirements, our access to the Exchange Settlement Account System and other things that can be done, because we actually want to get more of that innovative product. So rather than—of course, I'm from ACT so you'd expect this—the State stepping in and taking over banking, we actually just want to make sure that we can get more innovation and unique products.

The other unique thing—and again Mr Brewer did touch on this, but I do want to highlight it—is at the end of the recommendations, is the fact we're actually going to follow up on this report. Both the Finance and Expenditure Committee and the Primary Production Committee have undertaken to get some of the significant organisations, Government ones, back in to discuss the report at regular periods. I hope we can also extend that invitation to some of the other players in the sector, the banks and other financial services institutions. So it's not just a report that's one and done. We will be putting this into our work programme, and we look forward to following up on it and actually making this continue to live. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Dr DAVID WILSON (NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First for the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on its inquiry into banking competition. I congratulate the chair and members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on some very helpful recommendations, and collegial and at times very robust discussion. That's a good start. The whole purpose of this is to increase competition. The Commerce Commission highlighted a complex regulatory environment, high compliance costs, high capital requirements, and constraints on open banking as barriers to entry for new banks and fintech in our banking sector. New Zealand First, then, is pleased therefore to support the inquiry recommendations, standardising credit information, and supporting open banking. It should not take two to three months, online or over on the phone, where consumers are subject to forensic examination by the banks, to get a mortgage. Further, real-time payments and easily switching service providers should already be with us, and they are not. We await progress on these fronts.

Regulatory improvements: the committee has made some recommendations about streamlining the institutional arrangements surrounding Government-owned financial regulators and Payments NZ. This is interesting. Payments NZ will be asked to support new entrants into the banking sector. Payments NZ governs New Zealand's core payment systems, setting rules and standards for financial transactions.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Who owns it?

Dr DAVID WILSON: It is owned by the banks themselves. Hmm!

Welcoming new competition: there may be a bit of work to be done in that regulatory environment. [Looks through notes]

Hon Members: Dramatic pause.

Dr DAVID WILSON: Oh, I have made a pause.

Regulatory improvements: the committee has made some recommendations about streamlining these institutional arrangements, and the capital requirements are fabulous.

Todd Stephenson: Aw! I mean, that’s unnecessary.

Dr DAVID WILSON: Thank you, Todd, for mentioning that. Also, I think the exchange settlement account system is a good step in the right direction. Therefore, we are really pleased that the Exchange Settlement Account System (ESAS) has started—but there lies a problem. One of the core responsibilities of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) is to keep our banks safe and secure. Well, I can say that the RBNZ has been particularly successful in this endeavour, so much so that we now have a safe, secure, and cosy oligopoly.

To that end, I'll give you two key performance indicators (KPIs) for us all to gauge the success of this inquiry in the long run—because after all, that's what we're dealing with. We're dealing with this structural anti-competitive banking sector, where just under 90 percent of the bank's assets in this country are owned by the four Australian banks and just under 7 percent by our challenger, the Kiwibank. Doesn't matter which way you look at this, whether it's the home-loan market, it's the same answer. This structural inequity has been with us for over a decade. These banks have been in the upper quartile of profit, no matter which way you look at it, for that period of time. This is interesting and this is what lies ahead of us. These pie graphs represent a structural anti-competitive banking sector.

It has been said that a strategy without execution is an hallucination. Likewise, a report with a series of helpful recommendation needs Parliament support to action it. We do commend this inquiry to the House, it's a good start, but there is more work to be done.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tokerau): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I stand for Te Pāti Māori to speak to the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on its inquiry into banking competition. In just five years, Māori have lifted our contribution to GDP from $17 billion to $32 billion, increasing our share of the national economy from 6.5 percent to nearly 9 percent. Our collective Māori asset base has surged from $69 billion to $126 billion. That is an 83 percent increase—please note that, Andy. Not bad for people—

Andy Foster: There are a few settlements in there.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: —who make up just 20 percent of the population—hardly settlement. There’s no one settled. Anyway, I’ll just speak to you, Madam Speaker. These facts matter.

This inquiry was launched to investigate whether the banking services in Aotearoa are fair, competitive, and accessible. What it exposed were longstanding challenges—ones that Māori, that rural communities, and that small businesses face every day when just simply trying to open accounts, secure loans, or access fair banking services. The reason is clear: a small number of large banks dominate the market, supporting the kōrero of Dr David Wilson just to my left. For te iwi Māori, though, these barriers cut even deeper. Current banking frameworks simply do not fit our realities—particularly for Māori land trusts and collective ownership structures. That is why recommendation 17 of the inquiry is critical. It calls for the removal of unnecessary anti - money-laundering compliance barriers for land trusts. These regulations, though well intentioned, have resulted in punishing Māori for owning land collectively. It becomes arduous to open accounts, to borrow, and to grow.

That’s not just a regulatory flaw; it is a justice issue. Removing barriers is only the first step. Once Māori are free to participate, the system must also adapt to reflect Māori ways and thinking and Māori ways of doing business. That is where recommendation 19 comes in. It calls for Māori-focused lending products—lending that understands our land tenure, our intergenerational ownership, and our collective stewardship: our whakapapa, our kaupapa, our tikanga. If we want growth that lasts, we cannot keep forcing Māori into one-size-fits-all financial models built for someone else’s economy.

If Māori-focused products are created, we must also guarantee that they are delivered to a fair standard. That is the purpose of recommendation 16, which proposes voluntary service standards for Māori banking. Voluntary is a start, but voluntary isn’t enough. We require partnership and co-governance—I’m going to say that again, because I know not everybody really digs that word, but you’ll get used to it: co-governance—where Māori financial experts, iwi leaders, and Māori businesses set the standards, monitor compliance, and hold the sector to account. True partnership under Te Tiriti o Waitangi means Māori must take a role in shaping the standards, not just to follow them.

With the foundations of recommendations 16, 17, and 19 in place, recommendation 18 will become the natural next step. This calls on the Crown to enable Māori co-investment in infrastructure. Māori have proven that we are not bystanders in this economy; we are partners in the future growth of this whenua. If there is any call for a reset that actually produces effective change, it must do so to the system. We are a people ready to elevate economically to the next stage, so I look forward, and we look forward, to seeing how the recommendations are given effect to in the coming months, and how people can grow in this space. Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Tēnā tātou.

NANCY LU (National): I rise to speak about the inquiry into banking competition as a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee—an inquiry that matters for every New Zealander who has ever taken out a mortgage or wants to take out a mortgage in the future, started a small business, or tried to access finance, either from a rural community or a Māori community.

I have to say my thanks first, because the two select committees worked really, really hard and really well together. I thank my colleagues on the Finance and Expenditure Committee, alongside the colleagues who have spoken earlier today. I also note Ryan Hamilton, our deputy chair for the select committee, is currently on Parliament leave, but I join him to acknowledge the former chair Stuart Smith, who did a great job in kicking us off in the entire inquiry. And I acknowledge the current chair, Cameron Brewer, who navigated some challenging times and ensured that we had as much bipartisanship across select committees and across the parties as we could, and landed on really good recommendations across all sectors.

I do also want to thank the Primary Production Committee for their constructive, cross-party work, our clerks and advisers from Treasury and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment for their rigor, and the hundreds of submitters who came in either in person or online, from banks, to fintechs, to farmers, to community groups, and from individuals—for their honesty and their insight. As one rural business owner told us during her submission, we don’t want sympathy, we just want fair access to finance so we can grow our farms.

The banking inquiry matters for New Zealanders. As Finance Minister Nicola Willis has said, New Zealanders deserve a banking sector that is as competitive as possible. Banking is the infrastructure for opportunity, for people to consider growing, for businesses to grow, for the country to grow. And when competition is weak, cost will rise, innovation will slow down, and ordinary people—all New Zealanders—will pay that price.

What we knew going into the inquiry was that particularly the top four of the Australian-owned banks operating in New Zealand have a huge majority of the banking sector. They manage and operate and control almost up to 90 percent of the banking market in New Zealand. That dominance stifles smaller competitors and innovators in banking and also in fintechs. Profitability remained quite high by international standards, despite our banks operating mainly in a very low-risk retail market. The Commerce Commission have also found that there was no observable tendency towards strong competition, and our select committees have agreed.

We have heard, through the inquiry period, from New Zealand households, who want fairer fees and simpler products. We have also heard from the rural communities, who want banks that understand seasonality changes and realities and challenges. We have heard from Māori organisations, who want the system to really reflect on collective ownership. And we’ve also heard from fintechs, who want regulation that protects stability without crushing innovation, and they want to deliver for New Zealanders.

So now progress is already under way. Importantly, this inquiry has delivered recommendations that we now see progress. Kiwibank has Cabinet approval to raise capital. Open banking is beginning to now roll-out nationwide. The Reserve Bank is reviewing capital settings to ensure prudence but also growth. And the Financial Markets Authority has widened its regulatory sandbox so fintechs can now test their products without the needless red tape. So we are seeing green shoots—from new entrants expanding digital services, to rural lenders now starting to get some response to tailor their seasonal needs, and Māori financial situations building that capability and confidence.

Now, out of the 19 recommendations, I just wanted to highlight five—I’m conscious of time. Standardising credit information so Kiwis can get easily compared loans. Lowering barriers for new and overseas banks and fintechs. Revisiting capital rules so smaller banks can compete on fairer terms in New Zealand. Requiring transparency in rural lending risks. And developing Māori banking services standards, and removing unnecessary anti - money-laundering barriers for Māori land trusts. What this means for New Zealand is better, fairer banking services that protect households and small businesses but also allow us to grow.

So, looking ahead, I’m very excited about what we delivered for New Zealand, as Parliament as a whole and also across parties. So, Madam Speaker, I am so proud to be recommending our inquiry to you. Thank you.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): This has been an interesting inquiry. As previous speakers have said, there’s a great deal that we can agree on across the House in terms of our banking sector, but there are places where we come apart and where perhaps we’re not quite so bipartisan in our approach. I want to focus on one of those in particular, and that is around climate. It’s for a very particular reason, because this is a week in which we’ve seen the Government, frankly, walk back on its climate commitments.

I want to direct the House’s attention to recommendation No. 9. That’s the recommendation that says that we should “Make climate lending rules clear and consistent”. It says, “We recommend the Reserve Bank develop transparent national guidelines for banks on the application of climate-related risk weighting and pricing, regarding how it influences subsequent lending practices across different sectors.”

If we go to the body of the report, there are two sections of the report that concern themselves with climate. One is the section in chapter two of the report that looks at climate-related disclosures that are made by the banks. The banks have been required to make climate-related disclosures under, I think, the Climate Change Response Act. Actually, no, it might be under the financial management—I’m not sure which Act it is. Basically, entities that have more than $1 billion of assets have to make climate-related disclosures. This is set out in this report, and that clearly includes all our banks.

In a second part of the report, in the chapter on rural lending, the views were coming through from people about sustainable loan products. Now, those are products where the banks offer a lower interest rate or discounts on interest rates for borrowers who engage in sustainable practices, especially around climate. During the inquiry we had a series of questions from some members of the committee to submitters, particularly to the banks, which clearly, I think, contained the view that the banks were improperly engaging in the sorts of practices that led to lower rates for some borrowers because they engaged in good climate practices. It was, to my mind, a form of climate denialism. It is a place where we are starting to come apart with the Government. Now, instead of really finding that the banks were doing anything improper, what we just came up with is these guidelines around transparency. Frankly, any borrower can go to their bank and ask for how their borrowing rate is calculated. We do that all the time as we fix our mortgages again and again. I’m sure that rural borrowers can do it too.

What concerns me around the climate denialism, which was coming through from some members of the committee, is the flow-through into what this Government is now doing, and it is appalling what this Government is doing. At 8 p.m. on Tuesday night, there was dropped a whole new set of things that are going to happen around the emissions trading scheme, and it was serious. The carbon price immediately dropped by 10 percent. One of the things that’s going to happen is that climate-related disclosures, extensively referred to in this report, are going to be wound back. The emissions trading scheme unit volumes and prices are going to be disconnected from our nationally determined contributions.

Nigel Brunel, a prominent person working in climate trading, said that the unpredictability generated by that Government around climate is causing real problems for the emissions trading scheme. That Government says that it is committed to climate and committed to Paris. That’s what it says, but its actions are completely the other.

This report, looking at what the banks say, says that climate reporting is a good thing that institutions need to engage in, and yet that Government is walking back its commitment around climate. That is a Government that says something with one hand and does completely the other. I say we might think we had a bipartisan report here, but we are losing our bipartisanship on climate because that Government is not consulting us, is not talking to us, about climate, and is saying one thing and doing the other. It was great doing this report, but, dear God, we need one on climate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just before I call the next member, I want to remind members that interjections are fine, but that was a barrage, and I don’t want to hear that again.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): It’s great to restore the dignity of the debate that we’re having today. It is an honour to speak in this debate about the banking inquiry. I do just want to acknowledge my colleagues across the House, and you, Deborah Russell, in particular, for the collegiality of which we have come together across this Parliament to investigate banking competition. In particular, I just want to call out my colleague Cameron Brewer; you're a great chair, mate. Well done. Good work. I’d also like to call out the deputy chair; we call him Ryan “Enforcer” Hamilton. He's doing really well, and other colleagues from across the Finance and Expenditure and Primary Production Committees. Thank you to the submitters—216 of them—for your contributions to this important inquiry.

I must admit, as a new member on the Finance and Expenditure Committee I was very sceptical of this inquiry when I joined. But, like many, I have found that this will be a value-add inquiry for the outcomes that we're seeking in the banking sector. I do think that there are real benefits for the long-term in terms of greater competition, lowest possible interest rates, more innovation and better service, and a return on equity that is more commensurate with a competitive market.

I do want to just say to those listening at home, there is no silver bullet to improving competition in the banking sector, unless you want the heavy-handed Government to start regulating that prices must be a certain percentage. We're not actually Venezuela, last time I checked; we trust in the market as the best system of allocation in financial services. We trust that Government policy is to assist in market efficiency.

That is why this inquiry has been so important, because it's come up with, I think, 19 recommendations, practical recommendations, that we think will make a difference to competition in the long run. These, coupled with already lower interest rates and the lower OCR and Government policies already under way, as the chair has already outlined, will make a substantial difference. But this won't be overnight.

But what did we recommend? Well, let me focus on what I thought was the biggest impediment to competition: the regulatory environment. We made three broad recommendations around improving the regulatory environment, around improving prudential settings. That is the responsibility of the Reserve Bank. Submitters told us loud and clear: they're not doing their job properly. So that is why we recommended that they establish a prudential policy committee, which they have done already, and they're recruiting independent members for that committee. We also recommended that they look to appoint new board members who have specific skills in the financial sector to the board and also conduct regular independent external reviews of the policy settings.

The second is around the review of the capital settings, which has already been discussed and debated. It's great to see the Reserve Bank leading and already consulting on a raft of changes that this committee made in its inquiry to improve the capital settings.

The third area, and equally important, is cutting red tape to prevent greater innovation in this space. Red tape is everywhere in the financial services sector, as we heard loud and clear from submitters. So we urge the Council of Financial Regulators to get focused on getting rid of that red tape, streamlining processes, and getting rid of duplication. We urge Payments New Zealand to look at its governance model so that fintechs and other little start-ups actually have a voice at the table, and for Reserve Bank to review its definitions of what is a bank and encourage more innovation.

Change is under way. We will monitor progress in the Finance and Expenditure Committee. It is my pleasure to commend this inquiry to the House.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you, Madam Speaker. What a good opportunity to be able to talk about what is a pretty remarkable report. Being able to have these special debates is a privilege for committees that have worked really hard to find consensus and common ground on these inquiries, and this is one. This is one where this remarkable report, basically, found that four big banks in New Zealand’s market are making the best part of $7 billion a year while small businesses go to the wall with big loans, while farmers have to become finance experts just to make a living, and while first-home buyers are getting locked out of the housing market.

We should have been asking the big questions about banking. We should have said that if New Zealand is the wealthy and abundant country that we want it to be, then how can ordinary people be locked out of affordable home loans and credit to grow their businesses? Why are some New Zealanders struggling to get money to build a home to raise their kids in that they can actually pay for? And if they can pay for it, why are they being hit with surprising fees and with tougher and tougher terms year after year? Why are small-business owners, like my mum, who pays more for merchant fees this year than she ever has before, still putting their houses up at security 30 years on from opening the doors? All of this, when New Zealand banks made about $7.2 billion in 2024. Those profits were up while ordinary New Zealanders were out there living through an affordability crisis, which this Government promised, at the election, they would have as their number one priority.

There is misuse of market power going on in New Zealand’s banking sector—that is agreed by all parties in this House—and it’s costing Kiwis money when they pay for their loans for their businesses and for their homes. We should have been able to address that, but what has this Government done? This Government, while the banking inquiry has gone on and while we have found common ground that we can be proud of, has tried to forgive the debts owed by ANZ and ASB to thousands of their customers. It has also regulated surcharges in such a way that people were surprised to find out that the beneficiaries of that regulation would be would be Visa and MasterCard, and the people who would bear the cost were the small businesses who are still going to the wall because they can’t get enough feet through the door. These are the wrong choices about banking in New Zealand.

We believe in competition too, on this side of the House. We believe that competition will serve a market that is functional for people who need banking services. But the priorities here couldn’t be more clear. We’ve heard from bank after bank that the problem here is the big bean, the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ), who’s coming with their big regulating stick and have told the big main banks to do better loans—or something; I don’t know what the arguments were in the Finance and Expenditure Committee room—look, I’ve forgotten. But, certainly, the Government MPs were extremely influenced by that. And we’ve come out with a report that puts the blame squarely where it does not belong, in the face of evidence on which we in fact agree, which is that the margins are rising, the profitability is going up, while ordinary New Zealanders are getting a worse and worse deal.

Todd Stephenson: You agreed!

ARENA WILLIAMS: We do agree with many of these recommendations. What we certainly don’t agree with are the priorities here on display for everyone to see.

What should the Government have focused on? Top of the pops should have been Māori access to capital, and that is something Labour has been proud to work on over many years, to make it easier and easier for Māori landowners to develop home in their land and to valid their businesses. That is important, and this was something that went by the wayside time and time again.

It should have focused on the role of Kiwibank. Let’s be clear, this is also a really important inquiry because it sets out some of the most groundbreaking common ground about Kiwibank that we have ever seen in this Parliament, which is that everyone agrees they are capital-constrained. Everyone agrees that there are capital constraints on Kiwibank and that we want them to continue to grow. So what’s the answer there? Let’s find common ground to be able to retain a public bank, so that New Zealanders can access a product in the market that competes with the Australian banks. But let’s make it possible for the bank to grow its market share. But, no, that wasn’t the focus.

Instead, we have seen some steps forward. We have seen some agreement that Payments NZ needs to be more open to the fintechs and the competitors. That will be important. That is a disparity between what Labour and the Greens believe. We are proud to be able to support the findings that more overseas entrants should be able to enter the market. That is important to the way that we see banking working for New Zealanders. So let’s press out on that, let’s not waste our time blaming RBNZ for the problems, and let’s make sure that we have room to introduce serious law that will improve the situation for New Zealanders and not waste their time by telling them that we are doing something about the cost of living while we aren’t.

Motion agreed to.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 11 November 2025.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.