Wednesday, 28 January 2026
Volume 790
Sitting date: 28 January 2026
Wednesday, 28 January 2026
The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
Start of Sitting Day
Karakia/Prayers
TEANAU TUIONO (Assistant Speaker) (14:00): E te Atua kaha rawa, ka tuku whakamoemiti atu mātou, mō ngā karakia kua waihotia mai ki runga i a mātou. Ka waiho i ō mātou pānga whaiaro katoa ki te taha. Ka mihi mātou ki te Kīngi, me te inoi atu mō te ārahitanga i roto i ō mātou whakaaroarohanga, kia mōhio ai, kia whakaiti ai tā mātou whakahaere i ngā take o te Whare nei, mō te oranga, te maungārongo, me te aroha o Aotearoa. Āmene.
[Almighty God, we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests, we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom and humility, for the welfare, peace, and compassion of New Zealand. Amen.]
Presentation
Petitions
SPEAKER (14:01): Six petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.
CLERK (14:01):
Petition of Home Economics and Technology Teachers’ Association of New Zealand requesting the House urge the Minister of Education to retain home economics as a stand-alone subject in the senior curriculum
petition of Louisa Wall requesting that the House urge the Government to establish guidelines against misinformation and disinformation in the Cabinet Manualand codes of conduct for elected representatives
petition of Tory Whanau requesting that the House urge the Prime Minister to investigate and address actions by the Hon David Seymour
petition of Aaron Clark requesting that the House urge the Government to explore the possibility of Aotearoa New Zealand becoming a state of the United States of America
petition of Tracey Clark requesting that the House make substantial changes to dog ownership legislation to end the problem of roaming dogs in New Zealand
petition of Brian Pinny requesting that the House create a specialist group within ACC for cancer claims, a fast-track method to process cancer claims, require oncology specialists to review cancer cases, and abolish the use of the American Medical Association Guidelines for the evaluation of cancer patients’ claims.
SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee.
Papers
SPEAKER (14:02): Ministers have delivered 13 papers.
CLERK (14:02):
Air Services Agreement Between the Governments of the Member States of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and the Government of New Zealand, together with Protocol 1 to the Agreement and the accompanying National Interest Analysis
Government response to reports of the Petitions Committee on:
the petition of Problem Gambling Foundation of New Zealand
the petition of Caitlyn Lucmayon
2024-25 annual reports for:
Crown Regional Holdings Limited
Diversity Works.
2024-25 Parliamentary Counsel Office Annual Report on Legislative Practices
2025 Long-term Insights Briefing for Crown Law Office
2025-29 statement of intent for New Zealand Green Investment Finance Limited
2024-28 amended statement of intent for the Water Services Authority
2025-26 statement of performance expectations for New Zealand Green Investment Finance Limited
2025-26 amended statement of performance expectations for the Water Services Authority
2025-26 updated statement of performance expectations for Research Education Advanced Network New Zealand
report of Health New Zealand on the Interim New Zealand Health Plan 2025.
SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House.
Select Committee Reports
SPEAKER (14:03): Four select committee reports have been presented.
CLERK (14:03):
Report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Financial Stability Report, November 2025
reports of the Health Committee on the:
petition of Gareth Lowndes
petition of Health Consumer Advocacy Alliance
review on 2023-24 annual review of the Health Research Council of New Zealand.
SPEAKER: The report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee and the review briefing reports are set down for consideration. No bills have been introduced.
Oral Questions to Ministers
Prime Minister
Question No. 1
Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) (14:04) to the Prime Minister: E tautoko ana ia i ngā kōrero me ngā mahi katoa a tōna Kāwanatanga?
[Does he stand by all of his Government’s statements and actions?]
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister) (14:04): Mr Speaker, before I answer the member’s question, can I just acknowledge the retirement of the Hon Judith Collins today and say, again, we’ll have plenty of time to farewell you in style but thank you so much for 24 years of incredible service to this place and to this country. We are grateful and thankful for that. Yes.
Hon Marama Davidson: Why, given that 219,000 homes in Aotearoa are sitting on flood-prone land, won’t his Government accelerate work on a cross-partisan climate adaptation framework as well as announcing reactive funding?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, that is exactly what we are doing. As the member will be aware, there has been a cross-party meeting, I think, in late October to discuss the national adaptation framework. That is important work; it’s not political work. It, actually, is work of all parties, and we’d love to keep working in a bipartisan way around that. Obviously, we have further progress to do in terms of pulling together, this year, a national flood plan. There’s a lot of work under way.
SPEAKER: I’ll just remind members that questions are heard in silence.
Hon Marama Davidson: Why has he not made the civil defence payment available so that whānau whose lives have been wrecked by the climate-charged weather events can buy the basics like food, bedding, and clothing, and cover their lost income?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I reject the characterisation of that question because, if the member had listened to our post-Cab yesterday, she’d be well aware that there are funds that are being released for immediate relief for families and communities in need. But, equally, as we stand today, there are about 500 people who have housing challenges—400 of those have been able to be managed immediately; there are about 100 that are more acute. We have a number of campervans, as you would have seen overnight, moving across the country into those very remote and very isolated communities.
Hon Marama Davidson: How does he plan to “build the future” when climate change continues to push our people and our infrastructure to the limit while his Government has stalled work on climate resilience and slashed funding to proactive adaptation?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, the very important thing on climate change is not to just have words; it’s actually to have action and investment, and that’s what this Government is doing. We have more renewable energy projects being built in recent times than the previous fifteen years. We’ve got a tremendous amount of work under way to make sure that we are moving to a lower-emissions future and a more productive place in our agriculture sector too.
SPEAKER: Just wait. That response was just a bit over the top.
Hon Marama Davidson: What would the Prime Minister say to the whānau in Te Tai Tokerau who asked leaders to remember, “the reality of the impacts of their decisions on whānau, on the ground, on communities. The short-term thinking needs to be cast aside and there needs to be inter-generational thinking.”, given his decision to cut $20 million from Māori climate resilience?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, again, farmers across New Zealand know they’ve got a Government that’s finally backing them because we want farmers to do well. They are the backbone of this country and this economy, but they are also managing to adopt and use technology that’s lowering emissions and improving their productivity.
Hon Marama Davidson: Point of order, Mr Speaker.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Prime Minister aware of the marae in north Whananaki called Whakapaumahara, where the Ngāti Wai people live, because they were able, at the critical time, to assist the people who were in desperate need because we had fixed the marae up in the first place?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I want to thank the member for his question because, actually, the work of the Regional Infrastructure Fund has enabled the upgrades of several marae across the country. Ones that I visited have solar panel units on their roofs, they have batteries in their marae, and they have storage containers set as emergency provision. Marae have done an absolutely outstanding job, and I can think of seven marae in the North that have done a brilliant job in particular.
SPEAKER: My apologies, I didn’t pick up that you were calling for a point of order before.
Hon Marama Davidson: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I am wanting to make sure that the Prime Minister heard my question correctly, which referred to Māori climate resilience, because he focused on farmer climate resilience.
SPEAKER: I’m sure he heard, and that is not a point of order; it’s a debating point. Is there a further question?
Hon Marama Davidson: Does the Prime Minister understand that climate action is needed now, given these events today will be the most mild our tamariki will face in their lifetimes?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’ll just say to the member, if she wants to support climate change, get on board with the programme of backing the Resource Management Act reform and backing fast track so that it’s actually getting renewable energy projects built quicker—that mining that enables the creation of electric vehicles and solar panels. Make sure that you get on board with what we’re doing because we are actually going to deliver net zero 2050—no problems—but we’re actually going to grow this economy too.
Rawiri Waititi: What immediate material support can the people of Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, particularly Te Araroa, expect from this Government over the coming days?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, what they know is they’ve got a Government that is actually here, standing with them, ready to help, and, as you’ve seen overnight, we’ve actually got motorhomes getting into incredibly remote places where there have been 40 slips on major roads, particularly, say, State Highway 35. We’re going to continue to do everything we can to support them.
Rawiri Waititi: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked what material support, not what he thinks they think he is doing.
SPEAKER: Well, I think he’s answered the question. Have you got another one?
Rawiri Waititi: What was the material support?
SPEAKER: You can look at the answer if you like. I heard it. It’s not for me to repeat the answer.
Rawiri Waititi: What direct financial support will he be providing to groups like Te Aroha Kanarahi Trust and Manaaki Matakāoa, who are on the ground, providing immediate relief for our communities in the absence of Government support?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’d just encourage the member to maybe pay attention and actually listen to the press releases and the briefings that are coming out from the Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery. Yesterday, we immediately announced $1 million in relief to our marae, who have done an exceptionally good job in response as community hubs up and down this country. We want them to be able to replenish their stocks and inventories quickly, and we’ve broken through the existing process to enable that to happen much faster. As I said to you, there are about 100 people who have critical housing needs. We’ve got a fleet of campervans—thank you to the support of Tourism Holdings Ltd in particular to enable that to happen—so that we can actually get them into difficult places, remote places, with supplies, and we’re going to continue that work.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Prime Minister as to whether the Government is assiduously listening to the word of the Māori MP for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, who has been reporting to this Government, to which we’re responding, and we don’t want to hear from pretenders?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, we have very good connections with marae up and down the country and iwi leaders up and down the country. We’ve got a Minister of emergency management who’s actually made sure that iwi are in the coordinating executive group teams at the table, making sure that as we have response and recovery, they are fully engaged and partnering with us on that challenge.
Rawiri Waititi: What is his plan to build resilience in Ikaroa-Rāwhiti so they’re not having to continuously rebuild and respond to these extreme weather events?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, it’s the work that we have been doing through the regional infrastructure growth fund, through the rebuilding of roads in a more resilient manner, in a stronger manner, and that is ongoing work. It is challenging, particularly up State Highway 35 at the moment. In one part of that, the road has moved 500 metres away from where it once was and is no longer existent. So we are doing everything we can to get the immediate response in place, but then we have an ongoing programme of work and recovery.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Prime Minister announced that one of the key infrastructure issues that needed to be handled was the wharf facility at Hicks Bay, which, in 2020, plans were laid out to fix up, and then a future Government following on the next year decided to dismiss and put it aside?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I can’t speak to the actions of a previous Government, but what I can say is what this Government’s doing: I think of the work of the Regional Infrastructure Fund and the work that we’re doing through the National Land Transport Fund to make sure we’re building more resilient roads. You’re seeing the rebuild of a Hawke’s Bay Expressway that is twice as resilient with respect to floods. There’s been $200 million come through the Regional Infrastructure Fund to strengthen flood resistance across the country. There’s been over $1 billion in our first Budget around resiliency efforts on roading.
Rawiri Waititi: How does he justify his Government’s decision to scrap the $6 billion national resilience plan—
Rt Hon Winston Peters: There was never money.
Rawiri Waititi: —that was set up after Cyclone Gabrielle, when Aotearoa was experiencing—
SPEAKER: Hang on. Wait a minute. Sorry. Questions are heard in silence. You may not like them, but they’re heard in silence. Rawiri Waititi, start again.
Rawiri Waititi: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Empty vessels. How does he justify his Government’s decision—
SPEAKER: That doesn’t help order at all.
Rawiri Waititi: OK. No, it doesn’t. How does he justify his Government’s decision to scrap the $6 billion national resilience plan that was set up after Cyclone Gabrielle, when Aotearoa was experiencing extreme weather events more than ever before?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Because this Government has invested in resilience heavily across our system. You can have a $6 billion fund—we’ve seen that with the COVID fund, we saw it with the climate fund, we’ve seen it with a resilience fund—that then is poorly directed, poorly managed. We are running resilience funding through our system. We have plenty of money available to support the recovery after this event. We are doing that through our roading budgets. We are doing that through our mayoral relief funds and immediate funding. We’re doing it through the Regional Infrastructure Fund and other things that we’ve got going as well. So I think it’s rather disingenuous. A $6 billion fund sounds lovely in a marketing sense, but we actually get things done here. You can talk about it as much as you like, but, actually, we know how to get things done, because we’re not here just to do performative muck-around. We’re here to get the job done.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Prime Minister as to why he’s given any credulity to the $6 billion fund, which was an announcement made in a press release with no money set aside in the first place?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: That’s right. It’s easy to say you’re going to go borrow another $6 billion and then not actually direct it and put checks and balances against it.
SPEAKER: Good. Well, when the House is ready, we’ll go to question No. 2.
Education
Question No. 2
LAURA McCLURE (ACT) (14:15) to the Associate Minister of Education: What recent data has he seen on student attendance and participation in education?
Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Education) (14:15): Can I also just acknowledge the announced retirement of the Hon Judith Collins, someone that I’ve greatly enjoyed working with in different capacities over 11 years and counting. I’ve recently seen data in relation to education attendance, with regular attendance announced at a provisional 57.3 percent for term 4 last year. That is up from 56.4 percent the year before and 48.7 percent the year before that. Every term 4 that this Government has been in office, school attendance has been higher than the year before. We are now a third of our way to our 80 percent target, and while we have made very good progress, there is a lot more to be done.
Laura McClure: What is the impact of improved attendance on New Zealand’s future?
Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: It is difficult to overstate the importance of school attendance. We all know it can be hard to learn when you’re at school—in fact, I’ve got some reports that prove it. However, it is impossible to learn if you’re not attending. And that is why, if we can do one thing as a country to pass knowledge from one generation to the next, it is to have students learning at school every day that the school’s open, because an educated population can overcome any challenge that it may face—and there will be challenges in our country’s future—but an uneducated population can squander any great amount of prosperity.
Laura McClure: What steps are being taken to ensure the current upward trend continues?
Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: The Government is very proud of the efforts that have been made and the progress that has already been gained with school attendance since we’ve been in office, but we have a lot more coming. From this term, every school will have an attendance management plan as legislated by Parliament at the end of next year. Each plan will include absence thresholds and response activities required after five days of absence. We’re giving schools the tools to identify barriers and help families get back on track at school before a student falls behind. We’ve also added a $140 million package from the Budget last year, with attendance officers being rehired and reconfigured for greater efficiency so that we are getting absolute value out of every school, every attendance officer, and every youth aid police officer to make sure that their efforts make a difference to school attendance.
Laura McClure: Will there be new charter schools opening this term, and, if so, how many?
Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: That is another statistic that I’ve heard. Nine new charter schools will be opening this term, meaning that there will be nearly 20, and over 20 by the end of this year. These schools show that education can be different and that, often, the best ideas for engaging students in learning can be found in the community, not in the capital and its ministries. I’m very proud to see that there will be schools that aim to engage young Pasifika women; for students with autism; for those who are seeking other pathways in education towards the trades. There will be at least two with a kaupapa Māori focus. All of these show that if you let the imagination of the community be used with strict standards and the same funding as the children would have otherwise got, you really can see a thousand flowers bloom.
Laura McClure: What feedback has he heard from parents about participation in education at charter schools?
Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Quite a lot when I’ve attended the schools and talked to parents, but there was something I received just this morning that I found quite touching, and I wanted to talk a little bit about it, an excerpt from an email: “Thank you for creating charter schools. My son has struggled every day of his five years at school to attend our local school. He has hated open-plan classes. Yesterday, he started at Twin Oaks and came home with a big smile on his face. For the first time in his schooling, he was able to tell me with excitement what he’d learnt about—King Charles V and Mozart—and that he was able to do lots of learning because they keep the classes quiet and focused. My son has a chance to finally show his full potential.” That is what charter schools really mean for real people. They show education can be different and can make a real difference for children’s futures.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The member may have misspoken, but given that he’s speaking to our head of State, I think maybe he may wish to correct himself. He referred to King Charles V; the current reigning monarch of New Zealand is King Charles III. Unless there is some great mystery that he is aware of that we are not, perhaps he could enlighten the House as to whether he made a mistake or not. [Interruption]
SPEAKER: Excuse me. If people want to comment during a point of order, they’ll be doing so in front of the televisions in their offices. He also mentioned Mozart, of course, so perhaps there was a European King Charles—which there has been—which the member himself is not aware of.
Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Point of order, Mr Speaker.
SPEAKER: I have kind of ruled on this, but we’ll hear from you just very briefly.
Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, I just also want, for the House’s benefit, to say that I was actually quoting directly from a parent who wrote to a Minister. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to belittle a parent for doing that, go ahead.
SPEAKER: No, that’s not a point—that’s not a point. We’re just going to settle down a little bit.
Prime Minister
Question No. 3
Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition) (14:21) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government’s statements and actions?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister) (14:21): Yes.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he stand by his statement, in August 2024, that “Our Government’s economic plan is working”; if so, is the fact that the economy then shrank in 2024 and 2025 evidence that his Government’s economic plan is working?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I’ve said to the member before, we inherited a situation where the economy was fundamentally stuffed, thanks to Labour’s management. Last year, I explained to the member that it’s been a two-speed recovery, and as you’ve seen in the last quarter, there’s been some fantastic results coming through. We’re seeing manufacturing growth, we’re seeing building consents—there’s a whole bunch of leading indicators suggesting the economy is moving to recovery, and you saw a quarterly GDP number of over 1 percent growth just before Christmas.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he stand by his statement, in October of 2024, with regard to the economy, “We’ve come through the bottom”; if so, why did the economy continue to shrink, unemployment continue to rise, and company liquidations continue to climb?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I think the member might have been on holiday for too long, because, essentially, if he remembers before Christmas, we had GDP numbers suggesting that we had a 1 percent growth in the last quarterly numbers that came through. There has been a series of leading indicators showing positive economic news that we should all be taking great encouragement from, given the hard work that this Government has undertaken over the last two years to clean up the ungodly mess that he left us. I am proud of that progress. We want more New Zealanders feeling that as we go through the course of the year, and they’re going to do that.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he stand by his statement, in May 2025, predicting that the economy would grow by 7.4 percent that year, and stating, “We’ve turned the corner, and the economy is getting back on track”, when, at the same time, the economy was actually shrinking by over half a percent?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I don’t know what happened—he must have had a bad holiday, and I’m very sorry about that, because you really needed to come back here refreshed, recharged, and in a much more positive mindset instead of that petty mindset. The bottom line is that our GDP numbers are saying that we’ve got growth in the last quarter. Let me go through for the member: we’ve had manufacturing growth the strongest we’ve had since November 2022; we’ve got building consents up 20 percent; we’ve got advertisements in construction up 43 percent; you’ve had the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research’s measure of business confidence the highest it’s been in 12 years; you’ve had ANZ’s measure of business confidence the highest it’s been in 30 years; we’ve got low levels of interests—or lower than what we had under that member—we’ve got lower levels of inflation; we’ve had exports up $12 billion; we’ve got tourism expenditure up 29 percent; we’ve got an annual trade surplus for the first time, after having hauled our way back from $18.4 billion to being positive again; and we’ve got growth in filled jobs in quarter four, which is encouraging because that’s what we need to see in terms of unemployment stabilising and then coming down this year.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he stand by his statement, in July 2025, that “Unemployment is peaking about now”; if so, why do the latest Treasury forecasts indicate that unemployment still hasn’t peaked and won’t reach a peak until later this year at the earliest?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, if the member looks at leading economic indicators that are giving us an indication of what may happen in our economy, we have just seen growth in filled jobs in quarter four, suggesting that the labour market is now recovering. As I’ve explained to the member, when you increase spending by 84 percent, when you take inflation up through the roof and interest rates up through the roof, put the economy into slow-down, and you end up with people losing their jobs, that is exactly what happens—the last thing that gets fixed is employment. We are working incredibly hard to make sure that we get our economy growing. We’ve got inflation and interest rates down and the economy growing, and, as a result, jobs are coming.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why did he say last year that inflation had peaked at 3 percent when it was still going up and the most recent numbers indicate it’s well over 3 percent again?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I mean no disrespect, but this is coming from a member who tripled the Government debt, ran up $10 billion worth of an interest bill—that funds five Dunedin hospitals every single year that we can’t do, because he didn’t have formation on economic management—ran inflation up to over 7 percent, had 12 interest rate rises, and didn’t run the economy. We have inflation at 3.1 percent. Yes, we’d like it slightly lower, but that’s a fantastic place, and it’s a hell of a lot better than 7.2. Have we got interest rates down? Yes, we have—nine times versus 12 times going up under that member. Have we got growth back in the economy? Yes, up 1 percent in quarter four. And have we got a positive sign that jobs are going to flow from that growth that we’ve now created and done together as New Zealanders, businesses small and large, as Kiwis up and down this country have supported us doing so? Yes, we have.
Hon David Seymour: Can the Prime Minister imagine having one Minister in his Government who managed to preside over disastrous statistics in health, crime, and education almost all at the same time?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I just note that the member’s record is not a strong one.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Supplementary question, Mr Speaker.
SPEAKER: Well, he was going to give some answer—I need to hear something.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Well, how could he possibly answer that question, that he has no responsibility for.
SPEAKER: He does—for all of his Ministers. Think about it. He was asked: does he have one Minister? I listened to the questions very carefully. The Prime Minister may make a statement, but I would advise that it recognises the nature of the question.
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We’ll let it go.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could the Prime Minister please explain to Mr Hipkins that the appalling failed economy we inherited in 2023 is the reason he got turfed out in the first place?
SPEAKER: No. That’s one each.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he accept that New Zealanders struggle to believe him when he tells them that the economic recovery has now arrived, given he has been telling them that for the last two years while the economy has shrunk, unemployment has grown, the number of company liquidations has continued to increase, and record numbers of New Zealanders have simply given up and left the country?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Look, I appreciate the member may want to gaslight his record and he’s going to try and do it all year long, and I am looking forward to crucifying you with it over the course of the year. But I would just say to the member that we have seen a Government take control of Government spending, not wasteful spending, not KiwiBuild houses, not bike tracks over the Auckland Harbour Bridge, not light rail that mucked around for six years and didn’t go nowhere with not a metre of rail being build. New Zealanders remember that. The member wants to detach himself from that record—I get that. He said that he’s learnt some lessons. He’s learnt no lessons. He’s going to spend more, tax more, and borrow more, and when the Greens get alongside him, it’s going to be even worse.
Prime Minister
Question No. 4
CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green) (14:28) to the Prime Minister: E tautoko ana ia i ngā kōrero me ngā mahi katoa a tōna Kāwanatanga?
[Does he stand by all of his Government’s statements and actions?]
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister) (14:28): Yes.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Do Government decisions to increase climate-changing emissions increase or decrease the intensity and frequency of extreme, devastating weather events?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, we are a Government that’s very proud of actually taking action and investment on making sure we open up, for example, faster renewable projects. That will make a big difference to New Zealand’s emissions profile going forward, and we’ll continue to support that.
Hon Shane Jones: Point of order. Mr Speaker, why did you let that question go—an assertion that somehow the Government is in control of the level of emissions in the New Zealand economy when the Government does not own the New Zealand economy?
SPEAKER: Because I was expecting that to be an answer, which would have been better than knocking out the question. But you cannot make suppositions of that nature in questions. We’ve had this discussion before.
Chlöe Swarbrick: How does the Prime Minister reconcile his claims, such as just then, about the Government increasing renewable energy projects when he is simultaneously granting fast-track consents for coalmines in the conservation estate and handing out $200 million in taxpayer money to subsidise new fossil fuel production?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No, it’s not a subsidy; it’s actually a co-investment fund to make sure that we can get the lights on. You know, we had a classic situation where a previous Government went to Taranaki and expounded, with great protest—you know, a wonderful bumper sticker—“Let’s end oil and gas.”, but didn’t think through the second- and third-order implications of that. As a consequence, New Zealanders ended up paying really high prices for their energy. We’re not having that. We’re making a unique transition, on the back of the Labour-Greens policy, from domestic gas to international, imported coal. That ain’t smart.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister aware of the evidence, and his own official advice, that his Government’s decisions to cut over 70 emissions reductions initiatives without any comparable replacements will increase our country’s climate-changing emissions and, therefore, increase the severity and the frequency of extreme weather events?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I would just say to the member that we are very proud of what we are doing to accelerate renewable energy in this country. The pace of renewable investment in New Zealand has picked up tremendously. It’s the greatest it’s probably been in recent history, so we are very proud of that. We don’t just do talk; we actually need to make sure we follow through with action and investment, and that’s what this Government is doing.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister aware that that so-called action that he is talking about in the form of his Government’s published climate plan relies on market mechanisms, which his own official advice says will cost the poorest New Zealanders four times as much money as the wealthiest?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Oh, I think the member would be aware that under ERP2, there was even a suggestion that New Zealand may deliver net zero 2050 a few years early. That would be a positive thing.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: In terms of resilience measures, can he confirm that the Government’s rail network investment programme has completely rebuilt 46 culverts, vastly reducing flood risks in the regions, so that the last time the flooding happened last week, only one washout happened, whereas in the past, we used to have 10 or more?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes, I can confirm that our rail network has held up very well, and I commend the member for his leadership of the rail activity here in New Zealand. But I also note that we are building back our roads in a much more resilient way, and that’s really important, too. We’ve seen that on State Highway 25, we’ve seen it with the work that we’ve already kicked off on the Hawke’s Bay Expressway, and there’s a lot more to come with the roads of national significance.
Finance
Question No. 5
CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour) (14:32) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen about the economy?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (14:33): Late last year, Stats NZ released the September quarter GDP figures. Quarterly growth was 1.1 percent, which was stronger than forecasters were expecting. It was also broad-based, meaning that across 14 of the 16 industries measured by Stats NZ, growth was occurring. Of course, volatility in quarterly GDP numbers over the last two years suggests caution in interpreting a single data point. Having said that, other indicators of domestic activity have been positive as well, consistent with an economic recovery, and point to growth in the December quarter, as well.
Cameron Brewer: What are some of these other indicators of domestic activity?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The New Zealand Institute of Economic Research’s (NZIER) latest Quarterly Survey of Business Opinion shows business confidence and firms’ own trading activity increased a lot in the December quarter. Firms’ actual and intended hiring—that is, the creation of new jobs—improved, compared to the previous quarter, as did their investment intentions. NZIER says, “The latest results suggest that [the] economic recovery is starting to take shape as the effects of lower interest rates flow through the economy”. In addition, the monthly BNZ - BusinessNZ performance of manufacturing and performance of services indexes showed both those industries expanding in December. BNZ says, “[This] signals firmly positive GDP growth into the end of 2025”.
Cameron Brewer: Why does economic growth matter, particularly in the context of the recent severe weather events?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: When the economy is growing strongly, businesses do well, new jobs are created, and Kiwis have more money in their pockets. At a Government level, the trajectory of the economy has a direct impact on our ability to meet our fiscal goals and get the country’s books back in order. This matters because when shocks, like weather events or significant earthquakes, happen, the Government needs to have the financial buffers to respond. That’s why we’ve been focused on reining in the loose spending, seen under the previous Government, and on bending the debt curve down. We’re making progress on those fronts, and a strong and growing economy will further help us to respond to future shocks.
Cameron Brewer: What is the outlook for the economy in 2026 and beyond?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, there are always risks in the world, but, so far, the signs for the New Zealand economy at the end of 2025 and the beginning of 2026 are positive. Forecasters are predicting growth to continue in 2026 as low interest rates provide stimulus to the economy. Of course, at some point in the future, as the economy strengthens, the Reserve Bank will start to ease off that accelerator a little. When to do that is entirely a matter for the Reserve Bank, which will be guided by the data.
Finance
Question No. 6
Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) (14:36) to the Minister of Finance: Does she agree with the Prime Minister’s “plans to unleash economic growth in 2025”, and does an annual growth rate of negative 0.5 percent reflect those plans?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (14:36): Yes, I agree with the Prime Minister, and I’m pleased that September quarter GDP data, released before Christmas, showed strong growth of 1.1 percent. The growth was broad-based, occurring in 14 of the 16 sectors measured by Stats NZ. That is, by any measure, healthy growth. There has been volatility in quarterly GDP numbers over the past two years, and I am cautious about interpreting a single data point. However, when the September quarter is compared with the September quarter from a year before, the economy is actually 1.3 percent larger than it was a year before. I congratulate the member on finding a cloud in the latest data, where many others see a silver lining of economic recovery.
Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does a 15-year high of the number of companies liquidated in a year reflect unleashed economic growth?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I am always concerned to see those who’ve had not only the aspiration but also the risk taking and the ambition to put their own effort and capital into a business see that end in liquidation. Unfortunately, that is one of the things that occurs when an economy goes through a period of downturn. The task for the Government is to create conditions that allow more businesses to succeed in the future—for example, the Investment Boost tax policy to incentivise capital investment; for example, fast tracking construction projects that will employ New Zealand firms; for example, ensuring we educate our kids at school so that we can find the skilled workers that we need; for example, reforming our health and safety and employment laws to make them more permissive for businesses who wish to grow. This is a Government getting on with making this a better place to do business.
Hon David Seymour: Has the Minister spoken to business people—as I have, including two in West Auckland at the end of last year—facing dissolution due to an inability to pay back COVID-era loans to the IRD, and, if so, can she comment on how poor policy choices and irresponsible spending can cast such a long shadow on people’s lives?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, the Deputy Prime Minister shares a very valid reflection, which is that during the COVID period, an initially pragmatic decision was made for the IRD to be concessionary in its collection of tax. By their own acknowledgment, they have acknowledged to me, face to face in my office, that they let that, under the last Government, go on far too long, which meant that some firms who had built up unmanageable tax bills were never going to be in a position to pay what they owed by law to the New Zealand public, and some of those firms are the firms now being liquidated today. We are still cleaning up the COVID mess.
Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does a record number of KiwiSaver hardship withdrawals in 2025, almost doubling in two years, reflect unleashed economic growth?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I do think it is concerning when New Zealanders find themselves in a financial position where they are forced to consider withdrawing from their KiwiSaver funds, because, ideally, what we want to see them do is build up those nest eggs for a future home or their retirement. It is also the case that, undoubtedly, more New Zealanders would be facing financial hardship today if they had not received the hundreds of dollars a year that went into their personal bank accounts as a result of the tax relief that this Government delivered and that that member opposed.
Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does the service sector contracting for the entire 2025 year reflect unleashed economic growth?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I’m very pleased to see that the latest surveys showed the service sector of the economy in growth.
Cameron Brewer: Has the Minister seen any recent reports on how the Fast-track Approvals Act is helping to drive economic growth?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, this is a very good question, because there are now nine major projects that have been approved under fast track. The nine approved projects include a wharf, four housing projects, three mining or quarrying projects, and a renewable energy project. These projects directly support employment and incomes. For example, the Maitahi Village development, occurring in Nelson, is forecast to support 2,700 jobs. The Auckland port extension is thought to support 140,000 jobs over the next 30 years. I can go on. The point is that all of these projects will create thousands of jobs in our economy, and it is such a shame that some members are opposed to that job creation and voted against fast track.
Hon Barbara Edmonds: How can anyone believe anything she or the Prime Minister says when, for almost three years, every time she has claimed that things are getting better, the only thing that has been unleashed is growing costs on everyday New Zealanders?
Hon David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Surely the answer is that it’s a convention in this House that all members should be taken at their word.
SPEAKER: That is what I was about to say. That question is quite outside Standing Orders, so, please, without losing the opportunity, reword it.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Are you indicating that any question or any answer that contains the word “believe” is out of order?
SPEAKER: No. No.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Because there’s nothing in that question that questioned the word of a member. The previous Speaker’s rulings had been quite narrow to questioning the word of a member, not their believability. You’re now extending that to believability. That would be quite a broad ruling, which would rule out a very significant number of the answers that we’re seeing from the other side of the House.
Hon David Seymour: Speaking to the point of order.
SPEAKER: You can speak to the point of order.
Hon David Seymour: Well, the precise wording used was that a person could never believe anything a person said. That’s quite different from questioning or disbelieving a particular thing, which would be to debate the issue rather than the credibility of the member.
SPEAKER: Yes, certainly—
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker—speaking further to the point of order.
SPEAKER: Well, OK. We’re going to end this now.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: But this is quite a significant matter, because it would be very broad in its application. If questioning the credibility of a member or the believability of a member is out of order, I would suggest to you that most of the speeches and most of the answers that you’ll hear in the House on a daily basis will end up being out of order. There is a narrow rule that says you cannot question the word of a member. That’s different, and it is much narrower. Your potential ruling here is extending that very, very wide.
SPEAKER: Well, I haven’t actually made a ruling. What I did is ask the member to reconsider the question. I think you’re probably right. I need to take a bit of time to get this absolutely right. I sat here and heard, in my head, that the member’s word was actually being questioned—words, in this case. But let’s see if you can word it another way, and I’ll come back with a formal statement to the House.
Hon Barbara Edmonds: How can anyone have any confidence in anything the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance says when, for almost three years, every time she has claimed things are getting better, the only thing that has been unleashed is growing costs on everyday New Zealanders?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Quite simply because we have delivered on the key policy commitments and principles that we campaigned on to the New Zealand people. But, furthermore, New Zealanders are able to see and reflect that those who say things would have been different on their watch are, therefore, accountable for explaining what they would have done differently that would have got a better result. It is the case that denying tax relief, denying fast-track relief, denying regulatory reform, and denying every single saving we have delivered would have made things a whole lot worse.
Transport
Question No. 7
DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast) (14:45) to the Minister of Transport: What update does he have on the transport recovery work in the North Island following the recent weather events?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Transport) (14:45): Can I start by just thanking the member for her very hard work as local MP in relation to these events. Urgent work is continuing to restore and strengthen transport links across the North Island following severe storms and flooding. Last week’s weather event brought intense rainfall and flooding that damaged roads, created slips, and, as I think members know, forced the temporary closure of key State highways across Northland, Coromandel, Bay of Plenty, and Tairāwhiti. At the peak of the event, many section of State highway were closed to keep people safe, while crews assessed damage and began urgent clean-up and repair work. The New Zealand Transport Authority (NZTA) is continuing to assess damage across the transport network following these recent weather events and is doing all they can to open roads and restore access as soon as possible. Geotechnical assessments are under way across the affected regions to inform recovery planning and confirm the scope, time frames, and costs associated with the required works.
Dana Kirkpatrick: What progress has been made in opening up the State highway network?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: There’s still a lot to do. Good progress has been made. In Northland, I’m pleased to advise Grant McCallum and Dr Shane Reti that all State highways are now open, with clean-up and traffic management continuing. In Coromandel, I can tell the Hon Scott Simpson that five sections of State highway were closed at the height of the event. Three have since reopened, including State Highway 25 between Coromandel township and Kūaotunu and State Highway 2 through the Karangahake Gorge and State Highway 25 between Hikuai and Whangamatā. Two closures remain on State Highway 25, reflecting the scale of the damage. In the Bay of Plenty, work continues on State Highway 2 through the Waiōeka Gorge. Members will have seen, I think, some of the photos of that damage. There are 40 slips on that route. On the East Coast, State Highway 35, as the member will know, has been particularly hard hit. There is an estimated 500,000 cubic metres of material coming down in slips and landslides across the route. I do want to say to members that given the scale of the damage, full recovery of State Highway 35 will take time and safety will continue to guide decisions on when and how further sections are opened.
Dana Kirkpatrick: What further information can he provide regarding the status of the Waiōeka Gorge?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I know that member is very interested in this very critical route. This is, unfortunately, one of the most significant closures we’ve seen. Crews are dealing with a mix of large overslips and underslips. There’s an estimated thousand truckloads of material still to be removed. Teams are working from both ends of the gorge, seven days a week, with the priority being to open at least one lane as soon as it is safe to do so. The impact this closure is having on the local community is large, as well as farmers and growers in the region, and I’m assured that NZTA is doing all it can to open up this critical transport connection as quickly as possible. I do want to thank all the crews who are working around the clock to safely reopen these roads.
Dana Kirkpatrick: What are the next steps in our transport network recovering from this event?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Over the coming days and weeks, crews will continue clearing slips, repairing damaged surfaces, stabilising hillsides, and closely monitoring sites. Even where the roads have reopened, there are still many single-lane sections, lower speed limits, and traffic management in place. NZTA is monitoring the network and will move quickly to respond to further damage that occurs. The response to the storms highlights why I think ongoing investment in transport resilience is important. It is interesting that recent recovery work on State Highway 1, at the Mangamukas and the Brynderwyns, means that those sections of State Highway 1 performed well throughout the severe weather. It’s a good sign that our approach is working. The same is true of work done in the last couple of years since Cyclone Gabrielle on the East Coast as well. We can’t prevent storms, but we can build a transport system that recovers faster and keeps New Zealand moving, and we’ll continue to support communities affected by the event.
Health
Question No. 8
Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) (14:49) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by all the Government’s actions in relation to the security of patients’ health data; if not, why not?
Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (14:49): Yes. The Government takes the protection of patients’ health data extremely seriously. That is why we have continued to invest in strengthening Health New Zealand’s cyber-security capability. Over the last two years, Health New Zealand’s taken a number of important steps, including adoption of new data-sharing standards; increasing the use of multi-factor authentication to access clinical systems; introducing 24/7 monitoring devices and systems to detect, quarantine, and respond to cyber incidents; and increased access controls on clinical systems. Recently, a private organisation—Manage My Health—experienced a cyber-security incident. The Government has treated this matter incredibly seriously, and that is why Health New Zealand has responded by running an all-of-Government response, activated incident controls to support Manage My Health, ensured that cyber-security experts have been engaged to provide assurances of Manage My Health’s response, and provided support for primary care as they respond. Following my request, the Ministry of Health has also launched a review to understand what happened and to identify lessons to strengthen protections for patient data held by the private sector.
Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is it correct that in Budget 2024 his Government cut $236 million from Health New Zealand’s data and digital funding, leading to the cancellation of cyber-security projects?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: It is correct that we invested more into cyber-security under this Government, with an additional $9 million in Budget 2024 and an additional $10 million in Budget 2025. I would caution the member about the cuts or changes that that member may have made in the 2023 Budget, where, actually, there was reduction in digital infrastructure investment.
Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: What activities in the health cyber-security roadmap were cancelled after the cuts in Budget 2024?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, we have continued to invest into cyber-security. As I outlined in the primary answer, we have made a number of significant steps forward to ensuring that we protect patient health data, including establishing 24/7 monitoring of devices and systems—something that was not in place when she was the Minister.
Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: When Health New Zealand answered at annual review that “planned future work on the next stage of cyber-security capability uplift has been cut”, did that reflect the defunding of cyber-security initiatives in Budget 2024?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: As I said, we have continued to invest in data and cyber-security under this Government, because we know how important investment is. I would point to Budget 2023 and the reduction in Health data and digital foundations and innovation, tagged “Contingency”, that she removed when she was the Minister of Health. Ultimately, we are focused on improving health cyber-security. One of the most important things that we have done is we have now got 24/7 monitoring of devices and systems—something that was not in place when she was the Minister.
Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order. The question by Dr Verrall here was a very focused one. It referred to a statement about a programme that had been cut, and it asked the direct question of whether that was because of the funding cut that was previously referred to. The Minister referred to various programmes and initiatives, but he simply didn’t address the question of whether the programme that was cut was cut as a result of the funding issues.
SPEAKER: Well, that’s an argument that you can advance, but you could also say that the question was seeking a yes or no answer, which it cannot do. I will ask the Minister to make another comment to the House, but I don’t expect that it’s going to be any more elucidating than we’ve already heard.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question.
SPEAKER: Just a moment, we’ll just hear from the Minister.
Hon SIMEON BROWN: As I said, this Government takes the protection of data systems and patient record systems incredibly seriously, and we continue to invest in those systems.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Talking about patient health data, would informed observers that have noticed that the massive drop in cigarette smoking has led to a fall of $200 million in taxation going to the Government understand that to be serious progress by way of steps forward, rather than describe it as a $200 million benefit to the tax industry, which only a four-flushing moron would say in the first place?
SPEAKER: As much as the Minister has some responsibility, he may make a comment.
Hon SIMEON BROWN: We continue to invest in our data-security systems at Health New Zealand.
Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Why has his response been to deflect and blame at every opportunity but not answer a straight question about his cuts to cyber-security projects?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, we are continuing to invest in cyber-security at Health New Zealand. That is something which we are incredibly focused on doing. And as I outlined, there’s a number of initiatives that we continue to invest in because we know how important data cyber-security is for health data.
Agriculture
Question No. 9
SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga) (14:55) to the Minister of Agriculture: What support has the Government provided to farmers and growers affected by the recent severe weather event?
Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture) (14:56): We’ve moved quickly to support farmers and growers who have been hit by recent severe weather events. To assist with immediate recovery, the Government is providing an additional $200,000 to the Rural Support Trust across Northland, Coromandel, the Bay of Plenty, and Tairāwhiti. This additional support will mean farmers have access to services they need from securing essential supplies, tapping into financial and advisory assistance, checking animal health, and assessing damage on their farms. This support builds on the $2.2 million announced yesterday by the Prime Minister to help affected regions through the mayoral relief funds and to reimburse marae that provide welfare services in response to severe weather.
Sam Uffindell: What impacts have the recent severe weather events had on rural communities, and what support is being delivered on the ground?
Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, much of the North Island has seen significant rainfall, flooding, slips, and hail storms causing damage to farms, to crops, and to rural infrastructure, and the Government is making sure support gets to where it is needed as quickly as possible. The Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) staff were there during the events, and they remain on the ground, working closely with farmers to carry out on-farm assessments and identifying needed support, including around animal welfare. The recovery assistance focuses on helping farmers and growers dealing with personal, financial, and then the weather-related challenges that they continue to face.
Sam Uffindell: What is the Government doing to support the rural communities affected by the Waiōeka Gorge closure?
Hon TODD McCLAY: There have been slips in many parts of the country, as Minister Bishop mentioned, but State Highway 2 is vital for rural communities. Heavy rain triggered about 40 slips, leaving the Waiōeka Gorge closed and cutting off key links for those rural communities—links they rely upon. We know this closure is disruptive, especially for farmers needing to get their products out, get feed in, and move stock or access supplies, and, of course, for important veterinary support. We’re working closely with local councils, MPI staff, and community networks to ensure isolated households and farms are assisted quickly as work goes on to clear that roadway. I particularly want to recognise the work of local MP Dana Kirkpatrick and the resilience of these rural communities and to assure them that restoring safe access is an urgent priority.
Sam Uffindell: What steps has the Government taken to help rural communities build resilience for future severe weather events?
Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, the Rural Support Trust do a very important job. They are exceptionally good at what they do, and we’re working closely with them to give farmers practical tools and advice to prepare for future events. Things like reviewing feed reserves, checking fences and tracks, ensuring generators are storm ready, and mapping high-risk flood or slip areas. This builds on baseline funding of $4 million, including an additional $1 million committed in Budget 2025 for Rural Support Trust to make sure that on-the-ground support reaches farmers, growers, and rural communities when they need it. Our rural communities are incredibly resilient, and we’re committed to backing our farmers, growers, and families so that they can get through these and future challenging events.
Education
Question No. 10
Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (14:59) to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by her office’s statement that “No, the Minister did not help with securing any additional support or funding for the Teachers’ Institute, and did not provide any ministerial assistance”; if so, why?
Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education) (14:59): Yes, it is the responsibility of the Ministry of Education and the Tertiary Education Commission to administer funding allocations.
Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Why did David Ferguson say to her that “Any advice or support would be welcomed” regarding accessing $750,000 of Tertiary Education Commission (TEC) funding for his business, the Teachers’ Institute?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, people can ask for advice and support, but it doesn’t necessarily mean to say that they get it.
Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Why did David Ferguson say to her that he “wondered if you’d managed to speak to Penny Simmonds about TEC funding for us.”?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: When I spoke to David Ferguson, I explained to him that I didn’t understand how TEC funding worked, nor did I understand the time frames, and that I would have to find out. I had a conversation with Penny Simmonds where I sought that information, and then, as per all my media statements, nothing further happened.
Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Why did David Ferguson thank her directly when TEC funding for the Teachers’ Institute was confirmed?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: Because he is a very polite man.
Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Supplementary? [Interruption]
SPEAKER: Wait for the House. Just wait.
Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How does she explain David Ferguson asking her for help, asking her if she’s spoken to Penny Simmonds, and then thanking her for Government funding, if she didn’t help him secure additional support and did not provide ministerial assistance?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, I’ve already explained it. I had a conversation with Mr Ferguson, I explained to him I didn’t understand how TEC funding worked, and then I never contacted him again, nor did I ask for anything to happen regarding any funding, because it is administered by proper processes through the TEC and the Ministry of Education.
Hon David Seymour: Has the Minister also been answering questions—
SPEAKER: Hang on.
Hon David Seymour: —or giving assistance to Sherlock Holmes?
SPEAKER: Hang on a minute. Hang on. Just a moment. Excuse me. When I ask you to be quiet, I’d like you to be quiet. Now that the House is quiet, you can ask the question again.
Hon David Seymour: The secret is timing, Mr Speaker. It won’t work again.
Housing
Question No. 11
GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland) (15:02) to the Associate Minister of Housing: How is the Government supporting people whose homes have been damaged or destroyed by recent severe weather events?
Hon TAMA POTAKA (Associate Minister of Housing) (15:02): The Temporary Accommodation Service, activated on Monday to provide impacted households with accommodation support following recent severe weather events—TAS, as it is known—is receiving registrations now and has kaimahi, or workers, on the ground in places like Whangaruru in the heart of Ngāti Wai, working with households to understand their needs and place them in accommodation quickly. TAS uses cabins, caravans, motorhomes, and commercial properties to help those in impacted regions. For individual homes, the Temporary Accommodation Service generally kicks in as rapid building assessments are confirmed.
Grant McCallum: When and how will the rapid building assessments be undertaken?
Hon TAMA POTAKA: Rapid building assessments have been undertaken by territorial authorities across many of the affected regions. These assessments will continue as needs arise and where areas cut off by roading issues become accessible. I acknowledge Minister Bishop’s good work in that regard. In some areas, the majority of assessments have been completed, and, in others, they are ongoing.
Grant McCallum: What steps is the Government taking to address immediate housing concerns?
Hon TAMA POTAKA: In the last 24 hours, the Temporary Accommodation Service has coordinated 10 motor homes to go to Whangaruru, Ngāti Wai; exclusive use of sites at Bland Bay Campground; and discussions to send further motor homes to the East Coast in short course. The Temporary Accommodation Service has also secured temporary commercial accommodation across Northland, Te Tai Tokerau, Bay of Plenty, Gisborne, and Waikato.
Grant McCallum: How will the Government support households over the longer term?
Hon TAMA POTAKA: The Temporary Accommodation Service supports households while undertaking remediation or finding alternative permanent living arrangements. For those who require support for six months or more and have a suitable site, generally, cabins are used in those instances. The Temporary Accommodation Service and Māori organisations across the North Island have some cabins that will be deployed in coming weeks for those with mid- and longer-term accommodation needs.
Housing
Question No. 12
ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (15:05) to the Minister of Housing: Will more or fewer houses be built in Auckland for first home buyers because of the changes the Prime Minister has asked him to make to the Government’s approach to Auckland housing intensification?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing) (15:05): The Government is considering a range of options around housing capacity targets for Aucklanders. As Minister of Housing, I’ll have more to say soon. Housing capacity is just that; it’s capacity. It doesn’t immediately mean construction; it means the ability to build. Exactly what houses are built when and where depends on the interaction of market development economics, infrastructure, interest rates, and individual choices made by landowners—to name just a few.
Arena Williams: When he said—
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Captain’s call!
SPEAKER: Hang on.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yes, capitalism is a part of it. We live in a capitalist society.
SPEAKER: Excuse me—excuse me. Everyone, just calm down. [Interruption] Mr Jackson, you don’t want to be taking an early afternoon, I’m sure. Please, ask the question, Arena Williams.
Arena Williams: When he said yesterday, “most reasonable people kind of agree we need to intensify around busways”, was he counting on the support of local MPs Christopher Luxon and Simeon Brown for dense, affordable housing around the Eastern Busway?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yes. I know for a fact that Christopher Luxon and Simeon Brown support densifying around busways.
Arena Williams: Does he agree with the coalition for more housing that pulling back from Auckland’s intensification targets would make housing more expensive?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: No. Generally, I agree with The Coalition For More Homes, but I think, in that respect, the member herself is, I suspect, actually conflating a number of different issues. What we’re aiming for in Auckland is to land a solution where we can allow the city to grow around the areas where almost everyone agrees the city should be growing—which is the Auckland Central Business District, which is the busways, and which are the City Rail Link stations in particular—and make sure that we are building where the infrastructure is and where people want to live. This has been a long process, as I think the member knows. We’re not quite there yet, but I’m really confident that we can find a solution that will allow for Auckland to grow, because that is critical to New Zealand’s future.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: In terms of the overall housing market, is it not a fact that first-home buying is at the highest percentage it has been for the last 10 years?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Very interestingly, the latest data from Cotality is that, in the last quarter, 28.9 percent of the market was first-home buyers. That’s the highest level in 20 years. We do have a situation, now, where there has never been a better time to buy a first home, because affordability is improving and rents, in some centres, are now falling. Affordability, in terms of renting and buying a house, is getting better under this coalition Government.
Arena Williams: Will Aucklanders face more bus congestion and spend more time in traffic under the National Government if density gets dropped in favour of more greenfield development?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The choice is not between density and greenfield—or it shouldn’t be. What Auckland and, in fact, New Zealand need is both—or at least we need the choice to be available for landowners and individuals and developers to do what the market demands. In some parts of Auckland, that will be greenfield, and, actually, there are fast-track applications coming in in Waikato and Auckland right now. In some parts of Auckland, that will be greenfield, where the infrastructure costs can be internalised. We’re working on the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Amendment Bill as well as development levy policies to make sure that those infrastructure costs can be covered. In some parts of Auckland, as indeed it is in Wellington and Christchurch as well, that will mean growing up and going up around train stations, like the City Rail Link stations. The choice is not a binary one between only build by train stations and only build greenfield suburban subdivisions. Actually, what New Zealand needs is both.
Arena Williams: When will the Minister tell Aucklanders how many homes the Government now expects our city to build over the next 30 years, or will he continue to obfuscate until the next column by Matthew Hooton reveals what should be publicly available information?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: There’s a couple of factual inaccuracies there, which indicate how the member doesn’t understand what’s going on here—and I encourage the member to have a conversation with her good friend Phil Twyford. The issue is not the Government dictating how many homes Auckland will build. As the last Government found out, simply announcing that the Government is going to build 100,000 houses does not make that a reality. Actually, what this is about is capacity, OK? At the moment, Plan Change 120, which is out for consultation, essentially means theoretical maximum development capacity in Auckland of around 2 million homes. That is maximum theoretical development, so if around Mt Eden Station, for example, every single piece of land was developed to its maximum extent, that would be—whatever the number is. That is clearly not what is going to happen, so we are going to change what the number is. In answer to the member’s question—when will that be?—the answer is soon.
SPEAKER: That concludes oral questions. I’ll just take a few moments while the House clears. I’d ask members to leave without conversations on the way and as quickly as possible.
Government Business
Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement
Debate resumed from 27 January.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing) (15:12): Happy New Year to colleagues from around the House. Can I start by making two remarks: the first is to acknowledge everyone affected by the weather events of the last week or 10 days or so, and, in particular, I want to acknowledge my very hard-working colleagues from the National Party who have done an excellent job, in trying circumstances, around the country.
The second thing I would like to say is to acknowledge that yesterday—it went unremarked in the House—was Holocaust Remembrance Day, on which the world comes together to commemorate the appalling barbarism and the brutality of the Nazi regime. It is, as I said yesterday at the function at Parliament, very sad that anti-Semitism in New Zealand is going from bad to worse at the moment, despite the shocking events of October 7, 2023. I did just want to place on the record that it was Holocaust Remembrance Day yesterday, and, of course, we remember and we bear witness to what happened, and we will try as hard as we can to make sure it never happens again.
The New Zealand economy is demonstrably and objectively turning a corner. Let’s be clear: it’s been a tough couple of years. In fact, to be honest, it’s been a tough five or six years for the country, since 2020. The retirement of the Hon Judith Collins, who I also want to acknowledge, has made me think, just in the last couple of hours or so, about that period of 2020 to 2022. I think, if we were honest, that’s when things started to go off the rails for the country. The Labour Government of the time’s response to COVID was actually pretty good. After the September 2020 election—or I think it was October, when they got that absolute majority—that is when things went awry. That is when the COVID fund spent all the money—borrowed money—on everything other than actual COVID response and relief. That is when we had the enormous borrowing and the debt that we are having to confront in Government. That is when inflation spiked to 7 percent, placing an enormous burden on Kiwi families trying to get ahead. That is when we went through that ridiculous charade, members will recall, of the Cost of Living Payment, when the money was handed out to French backpackers, dead people, wealthy Kiwi lawyers in London, and people living in France. People will remember all those days—and that’s when things went off the rails.
We have come into Government, since November 2023, and we have had to do the hard yards. We’ve had to fix the basics. Inflation is down, growth is returning to the New Zealand economy, and Nicola Willis and the team are doing a great job of fixing the books. Business confidence is at a 12-year high—the highest since 2014—manufacturing is growing again; building consents are up. The basics have been fixed or are in the process of being fixed, and now what we’ve got to do as a country is build the future.
I want to throw forward to this year, because it is going to be a very exciting year. In a few weeks, the New Zealand International Convention Centre (NZICC) is going to open—a little bit later than people would otherwise have liked. Some of us were around back in 2012, 2013, and 2014, when the work was done on it. Well, here we are, 12 years later, and it’s going to open, and I was there the other day for the state of the nation speech. What a boon that’s going to be for the Auckland central business district.
Of course, City Rail Link is opening later in the year as well, and isn’t it amazing that as the NZICC opens and the facades and all the rest of it in the CBD get removed from Albert Street, just how different Auckland’s going to look—and that’s just now. There’s still a whole six to nine months’ worth of work to go. We’ve got major roads under way right now. In fact, at the back end of last year, $7 billion of infrastructure construction started around the country: the Hawke’s Bay Expressway, the Melling Interchange, major works in Auckland around State Highway 22, and of course the level crossing projects.
At the back end of last year—it went a little bit below the radar, but I can tell you you’re going to hear a lot more about it from this side of the House—was a free-trade deal with India. I remember the 2023 election debate, with Christopher Luxon saying, “We’re going to do it.” I remember watching and thinking, “Oh boy, oh boy, that’s going to be tough—that’s going to be interesting to see how that goes!” Chris Hipkins—and I don’t blame him—said, “Yeah, whatever, that’ll never happen; good luck to you.” Well, he said that because the last Government paid no attention to the relationship with India, one of the world’s fastest-growing economies, 1.4 billion people, and critically important to New Zealand’s future. They never went there. They insulted the Foreign Minister when he came to the country. They never invested in the relationship. We’ve done the opposite, and, within two years, we have a free-trade deal with the Indian economy. What an achievement.
There is more to come: Resource Management Act reform—critical for New Zealand’s future; long-term, structural education reform, led by Erica Stanford, that will put the foundations in place to build the future for a generation of New Zealand children, who are going to grow up actually learning how to read by a science-driven, evidence-led teaching method called structured literacy. We’re ending the 30-year experiment on our children and pretending that sending kids to the classroom and giving them, basically, a “pick-a-path” method of instruction and hoping for the best will work. We are going back to the tried and true. We’re going back to the basics.
You’re going to hear more about KiwiSaver this year. You’re going to hear more about the work that Chris Penk is doing in building and construction reform: greater competition to drive down costs in terms of building; finally fixing earthquake-prone buildings, and the laws that have gone so astray for so many years. It’s going to be a big boon to regional towns up and down the country, like Masterton, like Gisborne, like Whanganui, and here in Wellington. Well, Wellington’s not a regional town—at least not yet—but it’s going to make a big difference here in Wellington, and even in Auckland, which is exempt completely from our earthquake-prone building legislation.
You’re going to hear more about health and safety reform, led by Brooke van Velden, you’re going to hear more about employment law reform, and you’re going to hear more about adaptation and about our response to climate change. Chris Hipkins spent most of his speech saying that the National Party doesn’t believe in it and we’re not doing anything about it. This Government is developing, under Simon Watts, the first national flood map New Zealand has ever had, bringing together all of the data so that we can actually make sure that we build in the right place. It’s this Government that has put into law—and it came into effect 10 days ago—rules that require councils to not allow building in naturally hazard-prone areas. This Government did that. Six years under the last Government led to no progress. We are the ones who are actually getting on with the job.
What is the response of the Labour Party? Firstly, a denial of their record. In “Land Labour”, everything was fine in 2023. Despite the fact that we were in recession, inflation was at record highs, debt had blown out, and the Government was spending record amounts of money, everything was fine! The first response for them is to deny their record. Chris Hipkins has the temerity to turn up on the radio and in front of the TV and say, “Oh, look, look, one of the things we’ve been doing is we’ve been on a listening exercise.” The leaders of the Opposition have run out of things to actually do; they go on listening exercises. And he says, “We’ve learnt our lessons—we’ve learnt our lessons.”
The second thing the Labour Party does is engage in empty and vacuous criticism, and you can see this in Chris Hipkins’ speech in response to the Prime Minister—all this recitation of the fact that bread’s a bit more expensive, milk, prices of butter, and things like that. Empty, vacuous criticism. They have no answers, no solutions, no policy—just criticism. Well, I’ve been through Opposition. I know how it goes. It feels good for a while, but, eventually, particularly in election year, the public eventually turn up and say, “Yeah, yeah, yeah, we get you can be critical. What have you got?”
And then we come to their third problem, which is this: empty, vacuous criticism, and empty and vacuous policy. What’s been announced so far? The Future Fund—the Future Fund. It’s the Temasek policy they’re not allowed to talk about; the Temasek policy that is not allowed to sell any assets. It’s not clear what assets will go into it. It’s not clear where the dividend streams are coming from and how they’ll make it up in the Government books, because they haven’t worked out that the revenue from Government State-owned enterprises actually goes into the consolidated account—
Hon Simeon Brown: Health. It goes into health.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: It comes from health, Simeon Brown says—well, that may well be the case. Empty, vacuous policy.
And then their fourth problem is this: more of the same formula for how we got here in the first place: more spending, more debt, more taxation, and a capital gains tax. They think they’re so clever, they think they’ve got away with this nice little capital gains tax that we’re not really calling a capital gains tax. Let me tell you, middle New Zealand is thinking about that capital gains tax, because they know it is a wrecking ball through the heart of the New Zealand economy, and they know that it’s going to be curtains for the Labour Party.
SPEAKER: This is a split call. I call Lan Pham.
LAN PHAM (Green) (15:22): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Now, I must admit I do have very low expectations of our Prime Minister, but even I was surprised yesterday by how empty and pitiful his vision—well, really, you can’t call it a vision. It would be more accurately described as like a summary of his quarterly policies for the country. It was in that summary that he insisted that he was laser focused on growth whilst protecting the environment. That is the exact kind of politics that will go down in history as the rhetoric that failed New Zealand and, ultimately, the world. We heard time after time that he’s on a mission to “fix the basics”, and then he reveals that his idea of “basics” is potholes, roads, and mining.
If he actually did understand what the most basic requirements are, he would understand that it’s access to clean and safe fresh water. If he was actually focused on fixing those basics, he wouldn’t be putting private profits above the health of people’s drinking water, where we know that between 18,000 and 100,000 New Zealanders become sick every year because they’re drinking the water that comes out of their taps. If this Government were truly focused on fixing the basics, they would do something meaningful about the 1,300 people who die prematurely every year from air pollution. That’s four times the number killed on our country’s roads. If they were actually focused on fixing the basics, they’d actually address the microplastics in our warming oceans that have such dire consequences not only for our marine life but for ourselves. And if they really understood the basics, they might know that the basic requirement of any community is their ability to grow and access safe and healthy food.
Now, the threat to all of these basics that goes completely unacknowledged is climate change. What I found most staggering about the Prime Minister’s words was in relation to the climate disaster that we’ve just experienced. Now, this was yet another tragic climate disaster in which lives were lost. I really want to acknowledge those people, their whānau, their communities, for what they’re going through right now. The Prime Minister’s words, after describing these events, were that “each time our response gets better and better”. Now, I don’t doubt that this is true of the incredible first responders and local communities who actually showed up in that time of need. But the idea that our response is getting better when it comes to Government—if anything, the opposite has been proven.
When I think of horrific, nation-changing events, Government responses actually resulted in something better. When we think of the impacted people and their whānau—things like the Christchurch mosque terror attacks, the change in semi-automatic gun laws that actually followed that; or like the payments that came through during COVID time to actually support people and businesses to get through that—that was better. This Government’s response is not better. Subsidising fossil fuel companies or walking away from climate commitments means New Zealanders may not actually get a shot at a decent future. It’s not systematically dismantling climate policy or scrapping the $6 billion climate change adaptation fund. What happens in this false economy is the Government turns the only things of real value, like clean water and functional ecosystems, into something of lesser value. It’s unacceptable—and bring on 7 November, when we actually make this a one-term Government, and this is history.
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (15:27): The Prime Minister keeps talking about the recovery, but who is actually benefiting from this recovery that we keep hearing about? If we listen to the Prime Minister’s remarks, there was no mention of homelessness, no mention of hardship, no mention of inequality or poverty—or even an acknowledgment or validation that working people are tired. Tired from working extra hours just to make ends meet. Tired of having to do more just to keep falling behind. Tired of getting into debt to access basic healthcare like dental care. Tired of having to remind Work and Income of your lifelong disability just to keep your benefit. Tired of applying for the same jobs that dozens, if not hundreds, of people are applying for. It’s almost like keeping people tired and fatigued is by design, while, at the same time, people who are tired are witnessing the uber-rich getting wealthier by the second.
Luxon would rather tell you that this tiredness is an individual problem, not the system working as intended—because unemployment is by design. I cannot recall a time where there has been a job available for every unemployed person in this country. Homelessness is by design, because at no point has the Government committed to building a home for every homeless person in this country. It’s telling that the Prime Minister believes that making wealthy landlords, fossil fuel CEOs, and the tobacco industry richer will trickle down to everyday people when that has proven to not be true time and time again. This economic growth that he is promising us relies on an increase in house prices. It relies on more highway lanes. It relies on everyday people being the scapegoat of the so-called recovery.
I’m tired of the Government putting the blame on previous administrations for today’s problems when they’re, effectively, administering the very, very same system—effectively, also using debt as a mechanism for funding, as well. Instead of actually addressing the system that keeps people locked in hardship and tired, we have politicians who would rather turn the blame to Māori, to migrants, and to the unemployed, instead of actually addressing the realities that mean that a few people are getting richer by the second while everyone struggles.
Almost every week, the Prime Minister has told us that there isn’t enough to lift incomes, that there isn’t enough to build enough public housing, that there isn’t enough to adequately staff our hospitals so that people do not wait while they’re in pain. They have told us that there isn’t enough to create tens of thousands of jobs in the construction and manufacturing sector to address unemployment. Yet, in the very same vein, we’ve been told there are billions for military equipment, we’ve been told there are billions for landlords, and we’ve been told there’s hundreds of millions for the tobacco industry and the fossil fuel companies. We’ve been swindled by a Government who tells everyday people there isn’t enough for them, but for the corporations there is plenty. We are being told that cuts to jobs are essential for the recovery, that cuts to benefit increases that could result in thousands more children falling into poverty are necessary, that restricting the accommodation supplement is a sacrifice that we must make, and that it is the poor that must pay the price of this recession.
Meanwhile, gentailers and supermarkets continue to make record profits. They’re not the ones being asked to make sacrifices for the sake of this recovery. It is everyday people, and the people can tell and they can see that running a country like a business for the sake of shareholders will not work to create prosperity for this country. It hasn’t done so in the last century, and it will not do so in this century. All it takes is for the Prime Minister to get out and realise that his Government’s decisions have seen more homeless people in our streets and more people struggling to get the healthcare that they need. [Interruption] I find it so telling that the members across the other side are upset about facts.
It doesn’t have to be this way. We can absolutely have a system that guarantees there is enough for people where the wealthy pay their fair share of tax so we can have a Green Jobs Guarantee that recreates our manufacturing and construction industry to build enough Kāinga Ora homes to end homelessness, and to lift incomes so that no one lives in poverty. It is the workers and everyday people who hold the balance of power this election. It is not the Prime Minister’s wealthy mates. If I can take anything from the Prime Minister’s statement, it’s that he is taking working people for granted. I look forward to working with communities across the ground to make this a one-term Government and end this joke of a Government, who is ruling for the wealthy few, not everyday people out there in the communities who desperately need a system that works for them.
TODD STEPHENSON (ACT) (15:32): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Welcome back to 2026. Welcome back, colleagues across the House, particularly my Government colleagues. I’m obviously going to be speaking in favour of the Prime Minister’s statement and expressing the utmost confidence in this Government, which has done more in the last two and a bit years to deliver for New Zealanders than the last lot did in six years. I’m going to talk a bit about health, and I just want to again thank our amazing ministerial health team. We’ve got Simeon Brown, we’ve got Casey Costello, and, of course, we’ve got the Hon David Seymour—all Ministers or Associate Ministers of Health doing a great job.
Health matters to New Zealanders. When you’re sick, your kids are sick, or your parents are waiting for treatment, nothing else matters but “Can I get that treatment in time?” Under the last Government, the health system completely forgot about that. It was, instead, focused on a bloated bureaucracy here in Wellington and creating a separatist Māori Health Authority instead of focusing on what actually matters. ACT has not forgotten that. We have constantly said that our system needs fixing and we’ve got to cut waste and get the front-line services resourced, and we’re now actually seeing the delivery happening.
We’re making sure that health spending is actually delivered smarter. We want to make sure Kiwis can actually see a doctor—that’s what they want—in a timely manner. Some people may remember that ACT actually campaigned to have GP funding increased. Well, actually, that’s what we’ve seen happen. Kiwis need to be able to get into primary care quickly because if you can’t see your GP, that’s what clogs up emergency departments, and so we’ve addressed that.
That’s why we’re different on this side of the House. We’re interested in delivery, we’re interested in health targets, and we’re interested in measuring those targets and actually continuing to see them improve. We’ve done that not through increasing taxes—in fact, we’ve cut taxes—but what we’ve done is found savings across Government so that we can invest in the things that matter, particularly health and education and law and order, because we know that health matters to Kiwis and their families and that we need to ensure that we’re focused on that every day.
When there are new proposals in health—for example, a new medical school in Waikato—ACT made sure the due diligence was done on that, and that the taxpayers knew they were going to get value for money and that it was going to be delivered. Again, we’re just making sure that every tax dollar is being spent wisely.
The other thing we’ve done is actually get rid of unnecessary red tape in health. For example, your GP can give you a 12-month prescription, which means you don’t have to go to the doctor so often for routine prescriptions, and you can actually just get on with working, being productive, and looking after your family.
We’ve also, where possible, sped up access to medicines that can be over the counter. Pseudoephedrine is the obvious example that we’ve talked about a lot, but also melatonin. Why can’t people just have access to safe, effective medicines from their pharmacy? We’ve sped that up and made some changes to Medsafe.
The other thing we’ve done is ensure that there are actually front-line workers in our healthcare system. When this Government came into power in 2023, there were 19,000 doctors across the country. Today, there are 22,000 fulltime-equivalent doctors around the country. That’s an increase—pretty straightforward. That means more doctors in the community in hospitals treating patients. We’ve also ensured that there’s going to be more investment in nurses. Again, we’re going to see nurses continue to be hired by Health New Zealand, and they are, again, important front-line staff that we need.
One of the areas I’m particularly proud about in ACT is our work in actually reforming Pharmac and making it more effective. Minister Seymour’s been very clear about what Pharmac’s role is. It’s to get the best medicines for patients as quickly as possible, make sure that it’s done in a transparent and clear way, but so that it also starts to take into account the other benefits to Government and society that new treatments can deliver, so we’re making sure that there are new cancer medicines. In terms of other respiratory diseases, last week, I was really lucky to be able to join the Minister in announcing an extension to cystic fibrosis treatments and an entirely new treatment for cystic fibrosis in New Zealand. That’s what we are ensuring that we do with Pharmac. We know it’s good value for money, but how can we continue to even demonstrate its value further and actually make sure Kiwis are getting the medicines they need?
It’s a pretty exciting time if you’re into health and medical research etc. Just a couple of weeks ago, my colleague Laura McClure and I actually got to go to Camp Purple, which is a camp that’s held annually for children and young people living with irritable bowel syndrome and Crohn’s and colitis. It was a great experience. My message to them was that there’s never been a more exciting time in medical research. We are seeing lots and lots of new treatments coming through—things that have the ability to cure and change the course of a disease that people might be living with. We want to make sure that New Zealand’s Government systems—whether that’s regulatory, Medsafe, or Pharmac funding—are actually equipped to ensure that they can take advantage of those new advances and that we actually get treatments to people quicker.
The other thing I’m just going to call out too is that today, my colleague Brooke van Velden put out an announcement for labs actually doing research. She’s making some changes around health and safety, which is going to save $3 billion. Let me say that again—$3 billion is going to be saved by research facilities not having to make changes to their equipment which were completely unnecessary. They’re the kinds of institutions we need to continue to be supported, because they’re the ones that are having breakthroughs, not obviously just in medical technologies and research but agricultural and other areas. So that’s an amazing achievement by Brooke.
Mr Hamilton was also talking about our increased investment in Pharmac. When we came into Government, the Pharmac budget sat at around $1.1 billion. There was actually a massive unfunded liability where if we’d continued on the trajectory given to us by the last Government, we’d actually have to take medicines off New Zealanders. But, no, what did we do as a responsible Government? We found savings, we made sure Kiwis got the medicines that they need, and now we’ve actually increased funding to Pharmac to $1.7 billion, and I know that Minister Seymour will be advocating hard around the Cabinet table to get even more money for Pharmac in this next Budget.
Let me be clear about something: Kiwis want treatment, not the Treaty. When someone’s sitting in a waiting room, waiting to see their loved ones, they don’t care about being treated as a cultural identity. What they care about is delivery and actually seeing the doctor or the nurse or the healthcare professional they see.
Lately, I’ve been calling out places like the national public health service, which was scheduling a daily karakia. Let’s be honest, that could take away time from when they should be focusing on important public health initiatives like immunisation. I would rather they spent over an hour a week actually thinking about strategies to reach vulnerable communities, whether that’s young Māori or other communities that are under-immunised and make sure we get to them. That’s a much better use. We can’t pray more doctors into the emergency departments. We need to actually come up with solutions and deliver them. That is what the other side is offering—it’s offering a healthcare system divided on race, not need. This Government put an end to that, and we want to continue to put an end to that.
So let me say this: ACT is under no illusion. Our healthcare system does still need improvement. There is more work to be done because Kiwis want to be able to see a doctor in a reasonable time and not be on waiting lists, and we’re going to continue to push for that as part of this Government, and we’re going to make sure that Kiwis actually get the medical care that they have not only paid for but deserve in a country like ours. We’re proud of the work we’ve done so far, and we’re going to continue to make sure we’re fixing what matters in healthcare.
DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast) (15:42): Thank you, Mr Speaker. What a start to 2026 we’ve seen in our country and what a moment in time of self-reflection and of understanding our communities around us but also those who have suffered great loss across the last few weeks. It should have been a great celebration to start the new year, but it has taken a turn that is somewhat unfathomable for many.
I want to acknowledge the people from Mount Maunganui and those lost in the Mauao disaster. I think that we can’t begin to imagine the pain and heartbreak they’re going through, and we can only be there to support when it’s necessary and appropriate. So I want to just leave our best wishes and our heartfelt thoughts for those people.
I want to speak about the flood events of the last couple of weeks, and I just want to bring back into the frame our friends and families and whānau from the Waiōeka Gorge. I want to relate that to the Government’s performance and what we’ve announced down the track will come for these communities. Being from Gisborne in Tairāwhiti, I was at home when Cyclone Bola struck in 1988, and I was there when Cyclone Gabrielle struck, and Cyclone Hale. We do live in a part of the world that is prone to the cyclonic events that come from the north and the east, and this is one of those cases—400 mils of rain in 24 hours in Te Araroa at the top of the East Cape. Anyone who’s had to endure that kind of rain event will know that it is actually pretty terrifying. We had families on roofs that had to be rescued. We had people wondering what on earth was going to happen to their homes. Their homes have been displaced. They’ve been knocked off their piles, and the Te Araroa campground has been affected. There is an awful lot of displacement and trauma in those communities, but I’ll come back to Te Araroa in just a moment.
In the Waiōeka Gorge, the first actual problem was when the slips all came down and the motorists were in there, and we had about 50 people evacuated from the Waiōeka Gorge across an evening and the next day. Some young people and families and some tourists were all stuck in there. We were lucky they were all out safety, thanks to the New Zealand Defence Force and their work to get them out of that situation.
Unfortunately, there is still one person missing after a tragic event in the Gorge. They were trying to cross a river, and again our heartfelt thoughts to that family and their friends and the residents who live in the Gorge. I have been lucky enough to be able to be in contact with most of those people who live there, but there are some ongoing issues in terms of access. We have some bee-keepers who can’t get to their beehives. We have families who can’t get their children to school. We have a lot of people needing resources, and we have people needing medication and appointments in Whakatāne, and so there’s been a lot of work done, I want to say, by the Ōpōtiki District Council welfare team. I want to specifically mention Antoinette Campbell, who’s done an incredible job of getting help and welfare to those people, alongside the rural support trust and the mayor, David Moore and various others in that community. It was an incredibly good job done by them.
The New Zealand Transport Agency is being pushed very hard to get that road open as quickly as possible, but we can’t cut corners—no pun intended. We have to do this correctly, because it’s a dangerous piece of road and we don’t know what’s under many of those 40 slips that have come down. There is something like a thousand truckloads of soil to come out of there.
In Te Araroa at Hick’s Bay at the top the East Cape, one of the most beautiful parts of the country, there’s a little bay just between Te Araroa and Hicks Bay called Onepoto, which is cut off at the moment. It’s a beautiful place, one of the best beaches in the country. It is stunning. Sadly, they have suffered enormous destruction in the flood event, and many people are out of their homes, and many people are suffering as a result.
I do want to mention in Te Araroa and up the coast there, Tash Wanoa, who has led the civil defence recovery team in Te Araroa and has done an incredible job of keeping us posted of what is needed, what’s appropriate, and where we should be. I also want to mention my friend and colleague Cushla Tangaere-Manuel from the Labour Party, who is the Ikaroa-Rāwhiti MP, who is still, I think, in Te Araroa and is working very hard with those communities. It’s her part of the world. She was born and bred up there, and I just want to acknowledge the work that she’s doing.
The destruction and devastation in Te Araroa is beyond belief. It is the biggest landslide I have ever seen, and I have seen a few in my time. Something like 500,000 cubic metres of soil, I think, the Prime Minister mentioned today, but I was told 6,500 truckloads of soil are to be moved, and State Highway 35 is completely decimated across a large stretch.
In terms of acknowledgments, I again just want to mention the civil defence teams both in Ōpōtiki, Tairāwhiti, and Te Araroa. There has been incredible work from these volunteers, largely—the people out there doing the hard work on the front line and making sure people are safe. Readiness and preparation is everything in a cyclone or a flood event, and we’ve seen, sadly, that these communities are ready and prepared because they’ve had to deal with it so many times. It’s world-class, the civil defence response and preparedness in Tairāwhiti and the Bay of Plenty.
I also want to thank a number of other people: the helicopter pilots, particularly Bay of Plenty Helicopters, who’ve been involved in both events and have done an incredible job; the councils, the mayors, Ben Green, Marcus Tibble, Dallas Te Hau, and all the operators from Fire and Emergency, Police, welfare teams, and St John’s. Rick and his team and the Te Araroa Foursquare have done an incredible job, being open the whole time and doing great work up there, helped along by Adam and his team at the Ruatoria Foursquare; roading contractors RossBlackbee and the Paratasfor getting stuck in, and the incredible marae community who do an amazing job of picking up the pieces and picking up people.
I’m really proud of the response that the Government has already put into this, and I just want to go through that quickly just to identify some of the key pieces of the on-the-ground useful support and aid that we have put in place. I think it’s critical that we did this quickly, because it stops people wondering if they’re ever going to get any help. So I’m really pleased that we have given $1 million for marae to replenish the stocks in the marae, because they have done an incredible job getting out there and putting all of their supplies available for people. I want to also mention the $1.2 million that’s gone into the mayoral relief fund across the district, and then just today we also announced $200,000 for the rural support trusts, as we’ve already talked about, and just this afternoon there was the announcement of the motor homes as a stopgap measure for those displaced from their homes in Northland and Te Araroa, and, hopefully, in time, for Hicks Bay.
Now, that’s just a measure that will get people through to the next period of time when we can get some relocatable homes, which we have already sourced. We just have the small issue of the road being closed. Once we get the road open and we can get those homes up there, those people won’t need to be in the motor homes. So I think there’s been a lot of work gone into that.
As well as that, I just want to remember that there are a lot of departments in the Government that already have funds available in times of disaster. We talk a little bit about this $6 billion relief fund that apparently was not there, which might have just been a myth, but there you are. I just want to talk about the Natural Hazards Commission, which has up to $700 million available for claims from this event; the New Zealand Transport Agency, which already budgets $700 million for emergency work on roads and highways in this next period; the Ministry for the Environment has $7 million to help local authorities clear emergency waste; as well as the Ministry for Primary Industries funding. That money is all there and available for these communities to call on, and there are resources and there are systems in place through Te Puni Kōkiri, Kāinga Ora, and others to be able to get the temporary accommodation assistance as needed.
We have announced some immediate stopgap measures. There’s some more funding coming. There will be assessments from the mayors and their councils on what’s required for roading and waste disposal and various other things that come in the time of floods.
There are a lot of unintended things that just happen in these kinds of events. The InterCity bus, for example, now doesn’t go from Auckland to Gisborne via Whakatāne; it goes via Taupō. So all of those people can’t catch a bus to or from Whakatāne, Kawerau, or Ōpōtiki. That’s something we’re working on. There are the beekeepers who can’t get their beehives out—we’re working on that—the kids that need to get to school; the farmers, who, some of them, it’s costing $60,000 a week extra to get their product to market. Then there’s the geofence and the paramedic response that we need in terms of rescue helicopters that we’ve also worked on.
So a huge amount of work is being done by some really proactive MPs across the country in flood zones and events, backed by great Ministers and a Prime Minister who’s been out there at the front line checking in with people and making sure that we are getting this done quickly so that people have some support and some reassurance that we have got their backs and we will deliver. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Hon MARK PATTERSON (Minister for Rural Communities) (15:52): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support the Prime Minister’s statement. Could I too start by acknowledging the victims of this terrible weather event through the upper part of the North Island and just acknowledge the previous speaker, Dana Fitzpatrick, as the local MP, and all the other local MPs that have been out on the ground, including the Prime Minister and emergency management Minister. In terms of Dana Fitzpatrick and her—
Mike Butterick: Kirkpatrick.
Hon MARK PATTERSON: Kirkpatrick—sorry, Dana.
Hon Members: Wrong All Black.
Hon MARK PATTERSON: Yeah. I was actually up around that part of the country just before Christmas, and I’d never been there. I was struck by how beautiful it was, how challenged it was, actually, in terms of some of the socioeconomic issues at play there. We’re very proud at New Zealand First of what we’ve done at Ōpōtiki, starting to turn Ōpōtiki around with the mussel farm there and the investment. I was very confronted by what I saw in Ruatōria. We do have to do more in that part of the country, but this is a major setback, and we stand united with the rest of the Government—I’m sure the Parliament—in determining to build back better and support those communities.
One thing I would like to say that hasn’t been raised in a number of the contributions so far—one story that has not been told in this in this debate is the lack of an animal welfare issue. It has been an extraordinary effort from our farmers, helped by good forecast but also the likes of Beef + Lamb, DairyNZ, our teams at the Ministry for Primary Industries, the on-farm support and animal welfare teams preparing our farmers and making sure that everyone knew that this was a serious event. It was great to see that animal welfare hasn’t been one of the issues of the myriad issues that we are dealing with now. The milk companies made sure the vats were empty so that there would be capacity to take milk if the roads were down.
Could I just talk to the rural advisory groups and those teams that are kicking in, the civil defence emergency management teams. I sit in on a number of those calls, and this is where the really hard work begins. This is the long tail. Long after the media have gone and the speeches in this House have finished, they are on the job helping to coordinate the recovery of these communities. It was a great announcement today that Minister McClay and I were able to make around the $200,000 for the Rural Support Trust, because while fixing the infrastructure is one thing, the toll it takes on people in our farming communities and our rural communities—the Rural Support Trust comes in behind and helps. It is highly valued by us. That was an appropriate announcement today.
But it is not about totally being reactive. I have heard some criticism on the other side of the House and a lot of the questions coming forward about us not being proactive enough around managing these severe weather events. Nothing could be further from the truth—within the Regional Infrastructure Fund, $200 million, which is co-funded up to $450 million alongside regional councils for 74 flood protection schemes during the course of this Parliament. Of course, it builds on the work of the Provincial Growth Fund (PGF)—the halcyon days of the PGF—where, in Cyclone Gabrielle, Taradale was saved. In the recent floods in Tasman, Motueka was saved by those previous investments. So we have been proactive in the regional infrastructure and regional development space.
The $50 million that went into marae—and I remember I was in the House at the time when even some of the people on this side of the House were in the Opposition at the time and were talking about the Shane Jones slush fund. Well, that $50 million that built resilience into that marae network around the country is really paying dividends now. It was a far-sighted investment then, and it’s paying dividends now.
So we hold our head high in this party in terms of our contribution to building resilience in New Zealand and in our rural communities in particular. Of course, New Zealand First in that sense is, with all due respect to our friends in ACT, more Muldoon than Milton Friedman. We do believe the Government has a role to play in intervention and investment.
But what a year it has been for our rural communities leading into this—putting aside, and looking out to the bigger picture, these current events. In 2025, $62 billion from the primary sector; 83 percent of our merchandise exports—in my time in agriculture, which goes back a way, I have never seen such a broad-based recovery and a contribution from our primary sector. It is certainly extraordinary, and we intend to build upon it. It’s not just from the market. It’s taking the red tape away, getting the monkey off the back, the compliance reduction, the Resource Management Act reforms, taking away the threat of a methane tax. This is a Government that understands farming, not least of which because many of us are farmers. We trust them, we value them, and we back them, and, boy, are they returning that trust with us in spades and contributing so strongly to our rural communities but to our country as well. Tourism in our rural communities is booming back, in many places up to COVID levels as well.
Also in our rural communities we can see mining returning. I went to the Bendigo mine, and we’re getting so much criticism from that side of the House. The Labour Party should hold their head in shame. They used to back miners. In fact, they were established by miners on the West Coast. It’s us in New Zealand First and the coalition Government that are backing the miners now. I’ve been over on the West Coast during the holidays and I tell you what, they are looking forward to the extension of that Bathurst mine. Bendigo in Central Otago—I see Scott Willis today in the Otago Daily Times lambasting it. He can hang his head in shame if he’s turning his back on potentially $10 billion of foreign exchange; 750 jobs, 400 of them direct. There are 1,200 notifications of interest for jobs in that mine. Many of them are Kiwis looking to return from Australia to get a decent job here.
That’s what creating opportunities looks like in areas like mining. We’re really proud to be backing—and we ask that the Labour Party in particular change their tune on this, because it is embarrassing given their heritage. We’ll take your votes—thank you very much—if you don’t.
Water and wool were my priorities going into 2025, and, again, we are delivering on that. Thirteen water storage and irrigation projects have been funded by the Regional Infrastructure Fund, building resilience and diversification in places like Northland, Hawke’s Bay, Canterbury, Wairarapa, and are pending in places like Tairāwhiti, Hawke’s Bay, Marlborough, and Otago, with another $185 million worth of investment going on top of the $205 million that’s already gone in. We need to get the Resource Management Act reform right to enable that critical infrastructure.
What I really wanted to talk about was my favourite subject. Time will preclude me going on, but wool is booming. Wool is absolutely back. Thursday is my favourite day of the week; it’s auction day. Last week, it went up 10 percent. Last year, it went up 30 percent. It started the year absolutely roaring. Now we’re making a meaningful contribution to sheep and beef farmers’ bottom line, and we are just getting started.
The industry has come together. We are pulling together a wool alliance of a fractured and disparate industry. It’s coming together. We are innovating. It’s not just about carpets and insulation; this is about acoustics, filtration, medicinal products, and bioagents, which are the Holy Grail, really high-value products that can be manufactured here, going to really high-value products at hundreds of dollars a kilo. It is the game-changer that the industry has been looking for. We are going to turn this into one of the great turn-around stories of New Zealand agriculture.
New Zealand First and myself have been active. We’ve been delivering results. We’re going to the country in November with a story to tell: a story of jobs, a story of growth, a story of no nonsense, and a story of delivery. I look forward to 4 November.
RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) (16:02): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I want to continue the mihi to those who have been affected and those who have lost lives in the last couple of weeks in regard to the weather events that have hit especially our part of the country at this particular time. I acknowledge all the hard work that is happening in Mauao, also in Te Tairāwhiti and in Whakatōhea. I just acknowledge Dana Kirkpatrick’s contribution to this debate in regard to the hard work that many of our people are doing. I too grew up in those hard and affected areas, and especially in Te Araroa and Hicks Bay, where I have strong whakapapa. Onepoto, she’s absolutely right, is one of the most beautiful beaches in the country—and communities are now isolated and needing more support.
I hear the Government talking about some of the response that they have in regard to those who have been affected by the weather events: campervans, cabins, and all those types of things. It’d been nice to hear a definitive answer to many of the questions asked at question time about what is the long-term goal here? What is the long-term objective here in regard to giving support to those particular families? We heard about Cyclone Bola, we heard about Cyclone Gabrielle, and many of those families and communities are still reeling from the effects of those particular weather events, especially Gabrielle further down Te Tairāwhiti in Kahungunu. We’ve got many whānau who are still struggling to navigate with insurance to get replacement homes and to have access to capital to be able to do that. Our question to those communities who have been affected recently is: what is the Government doing to allow better navigation through those particular systems, so our people can get back to some normality? Those are the questions that we will continue to ask.
I think the other thing that we have to consider, in places like Te Tairāwhiti, is oranga. Now, the oranga for Te Tairāwhiti once upon a time was pine trees. If I pin in on pine trees—I want to talk about this, just very quickly—the removal of slash from our whenua, I think, needs stricter criteria in regard to moving that slash, because what we have here is huge impact of the forestry industry on Te Tairāwhiti. We saw it with Cyclone Gabrielle. We saw it up at Ūawa in Tolaga Bay. We’ve seen it here at Punaruku and in Te Araroa. It’s not just road slips. It’s also the impact of slash on those particular communities, coming down the mountains, heading into those rivers, and annihilating many of the homes, in regard to those weather events.
The clean-up is not only on the shore. The clean-up in the moana is a longer process, because the access and the impact on our takutai moana and on our gathering sites and food gathering places and places of cultural significance in the moana are also affected. The silt, the logs that are lodged into places where people, once upon a time, would have gathered kai, are now impacted.
Oranga is my biggest kaupapa in this particular kōrero. Me whakapono ana tātou ki a tātou mō te oranga o ā tātou tamariki mokopuna.
[We should have faith in each other where the wellbeing of our children and grandchildren is concerned.]
Today, I want to kōrero to you about the oranga of te iwi Māori, the wellbeing of our people, during these trying times and under this current Government. We have watched this Government over the last two years try and rewrite our history, remove Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and challenge our rights as tangata whenua. I think of the oranga of our people while they withstand racist policies and legislation being fast-tracked on our whenua and mined into our moana. I think of the oranga of our people as they watch their tino rangatiratanga become the subject of debate each day at 2 p.m., by people who hold holiday homes on confiscated whenua Māori. I think of the oranga of our people as they listen to the radio on the way to mahi and hear more cuts are coming to their job sectors whilst tax havens are offered to the 1 percent.
I think of the oranga of our whānau watching the 6 p.m. news, hearing “E haere ake nei” [“Coming up next”] segue into a Māori story about Ministers who removed te reo Māori from signage and schoolbooks and public servant email sign-offs. I think of the oranga of our people as parents put kai back on the shelves at the supermarket, because the basics are now priced as luxury goods whilst this Government fails to deliver essential lunches to our struggling tamariki and kura. I think of the oranga of our people in hospitals as they sit in need for hours due to staffing shortages or as they are admitted for preventable health issues derived from inequitable access to preventable healthcare.
I think about the oranga of our people as they head to Australia to find work and a better income than their own whenua can offer them and the physical disconnect this Government has created for whānau who are just trying to provide for their babies. I think of the oranga of our young people with technology at their fingertips, who have overwhelming access to the voices of assimilation driven by the Government and the mainstream media’s divisive rhetoric about our people. I think about the oranga of our people as we attend tangihanga for the many who have passed this year alone from māuiuitanga before their time, whakamomori, and accidents on our roads. I think of the oranga of our people while our taiao was under immense duress in climate emergencies, frequent more often than the people of this House deliver equitable aid and rebuild support for our rural communities. I think of the oranga of our people who are trying to keep a roof over their heads, kai in their pukus, make ends meet, manage stress and workloads, and raise whānau whilst being told, by this Government, that they are responsible for lifting themselves up and out of the reality this Government created for our people.
E te iwi Māori, our oranga is not derived from this House, but our oranga is impacted by the decisions relentlessly fast-tracked through this House. Our oranga is not in comments on Facebook, on social media, but our oranga is impacted when one-sided narratives overwhelm the mainstream media space. Our oranga is not in our resistance. Our oranga is also in our existence. Te iwi Māori may not always be unified at all times, but we must be unified in the belief that, for the oranga of our people, our whenua, and our mokopuna, this must be a one-term Government. Te Pāti Māori may not be the majority presence in this House, but we have always been the majority voice advocating for the oranga of our people: oranga Te Tiriti, oranga tangata, oranga taiao, oranga mokopuna.
We know that this Government will continue to regress equitable outcomes while trying to package decisions as a mirage of equality. We know they will continue to point the finger at the previous Government for systems and an economy that has further failed our people, under their watch. We also know that we need to vote to make sure that our mokopuna do not inherit the damaging decisions this Government is making.
As we head into 2026, we remain steadfast on the oranga-centric kōrero that we came into this Whare with back in 2020. It is kōrero that may seem repetitive, and that is because, over the last five years, that has become normalised. Be proud to be Māori. You may not know your whakapapa, but your whakapapa knows you. You may not know your reo, but your reo knows you. You are good enough because our tīpuna made it so. Believe in Māori. We are by Māori, for Māori, and are focused on making mokopuna decisions. Our kōrero has never wavered; neither has our commitment to the oranga of our people. For Te Pāti Māori, this looks like commitment to ensuring that this is a one-term Government.
Ka whakahoki au ki ngā kōrero i whakairihia ki mua noa atu i te tīmatanga o ēnei kōrero: me whakapono ana tātou ki a tātou mō te oranga o ā tātou tamariki mokopuna. Kia ora tatou.
[I return to the words I raised back at the beginning of this speech: we should have faith in each other where the wellbeing of our children and grandchildren is concerned.]
Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change) (16:11): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, and it’s a pleasure to be back here in 2026. I want to start by expressing my condolences to the families of those that have lost loved ones in the recent landslides at Mount Maunganui, and also in Welcome Bay and Pāpāmoa, and in the flooded Mahurangi River. Condolences to those families. Mount Maunganui is one of the most beautiful places, particularly in summer, and I know people from all over the country and the world enjoy flocking there, and that includes my family, because we were there over the recent summer break. To those impacted across the board, they will and should know that New Zealanders share in your grief.
I want to acknowledge the Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery, the Hon Mark Mitchell, and I also want to acknowledge our Prime Minister, the Hon Christopher Luxon, for their leadership in regards to the way in which these events have been managed, and, of course, all of my fellow MPs across the regions which have been impacted, for their work.
I also want to thank the first responders, who are always there in times of crisis. As a registered paramedic and after 17 years with St John, I know how challenging that can be, but I want to thank all of the police, firefighters, paramedics, surf lifeguards, volunteers, iwi Māori, and every member of community that responded after putting themselves in harm’s way—and, of course, all of our local government officials as well who have played a significant part.
There is, without doubt, the acknowledgment that the last few years have been tough and that the challenges have been felt across the country. We are still seeing the devastating impacts of high inflation and its ripples across our economy. But as we enter into this new year, I am grateful to be on this side of the House with the policies and the team to get the work done and to lead a Government that delivers. Kiwis want a Government that gets the basics right. They want us to keep their streets safe, they want to ensure that their kids are learning at school, and they want to be able to see their doctor when they are unwell.
But they also want a Government that is committed to the future, one where future generations can build a life, get a good job, and raise a family. That is why National is focused on fixing the basics and building the future. As the Minister of Climate Change, I am leading the Government’s work on the National Adaptation Framework, which will guide the response to the changing climate. We’ve always had severe weather events, and we always will, but we know that as the climate changes, we are seeing increased frequency and severity of these events. Other issues that come alongside that, such as coastal erosion, will continue to affect the lives of thousands of New Zealanders.
Every time that we respond to such events, we learn, and we also get better coordinated. But it is important to acknowledge that we do need a clear adaptation framework to make sure that we are best placed and prepared to respond: simple things like providing clear guidance to councils for how they prepare to adapt, and also the introduction of a national flood map so that New Zealanders can understand the risks they face. This is all work that is under way. This isn’t political. This is something that everyone in this House would acknowledge is important work that needs to be done, and prepared to respond to them.
As energy Minister, I’m proud to be part of a Government that is seeing more renewable energy commissioned in the last 18 months than in any period over the previous 15 years. That’s what is happening, and that’s what happens when you slash red tape, when you fast-track renewables, and when you remove the impact of other Government uncertainty and policy which we inherited.
I’m proud to report that according to a recent Forsyth Barr report, New Zealand’s energy security position is the strongest that it has been in more than 15 years, with more energy stored at the start of this year than any year over that period. That is significant, and it is testament to the actions of this Government to ensure that energy security is at the forefront of the broader mix which links to affordability. It also sets us up for the future. But the Government is not complacent in regard to where we’re at. We have a clear plan to systematically address the core drivers of high energy prices, securing reliable fuel for back-up generation, particularly in dry years, and increasing that back-up capacity in fuel as well. We’re also strengthening market settings by providing investment certainty that will improve competition and drive down costs for households and businesses.
The year 2026 will be busy, and we’ll be continuing to deliver on the energy plan that the Government announced last year. That also means expectations for a stronger Electricity Authority, which is the regulator, to ensure that consumers get a fair deal and also to address the systematic issues that led to the shortages that we saw.
Energy sits behind the entire economy. It is a key input to our economy. Basic economics shows that if we can ensure that we drive more affordable energy prices, we will have a more productive economy. New Zealand has some of the most abundant resources of energy potential in the world, and we must ensure that we harness that abundance and ensure that it is affordable for New Zealand households and businesses. There is significantly more work to do, but the momentum is there, and I’ll be fighting, every day to ensure more generation and that New Zealanders have a better deal in regards to energy prices.
This Government is also getting local government back to basics. I do want to recognise and acknowledge the work of local government and our mayors and councillors in regard to the response that we’ve seen over the last week or so. The local government reforms that the Government is progressing are ensuring that councils are focused on delivery of core services while maintaining essential infrastructure and ensuring, importantly, value for money for ratepayers. For too long, households and businesses have faced rising rates without seeing increased outcomes as a result of that, and we know that ratepayers across the country have concerns in regard to wasteful spending and inefficiency. That is why, as a Government, we have announced that we will be progressing, at pace, with the implementation of a rates-capping model. The status quo where ratepayers are seeing double-digit increases in their rates, year on year, cannot continue and will not continue under this Government.
Too many ratepayers are looking at their councils and seeing examples of that wasteful spending and inefficiency while their rates bills increase. A rates cap will rein in these costs, restore discipline of spending, and provide much-needed relief for Kiwi households. We’re also simplifying the local government system, cutting unnecessary red tape and duplication so that local government spends less time on bureaucracy and more time on delivering for its communities. A clear and more streamlined local government system will improve accountability and efficiency across that broader sector.
Finally, I want to talk a little bit about the work that we are doing around City and Regional Deals. We are partnering with councils to unlock growth and productivity, and also increase jobs across our cities and regions; accelerate infrastructure delivery; and support local economic development. It is important that we have in place an enduring partnership between central government and local government to help ensure that we enable housing, transport, infrastructure and energy projects, and more and higher-paying jobs for laying strong foundations for growth.
After the tough few years that this country has faced, the future of this country is bright under this Government. I am very humbled and proud to represent the electorate of the North Shore and to be a Minister under Prime Minister Luxon’s Government and lead an agenda that is focused on growing our economy to fix the basics and to build a future that New Zealand deserves. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) (16:21): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise in support of the amended motion put forward by the Leader of the Opposition, the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins.
Ka ngaro, ka ngaro, ka ea, ka ea te toku tū moana o Tirikawa.
[Though it disappears beneath the waves, Tirikawa Rock always reappears.]
Te Toka a Tirikawa—the Rock of Tirikawa—lies beneath the mountain of Mauao. Despite the waves and the tides, the rock remains steadfast and strong. It will be the resilience of the community of Mount Maunganui and the community of Tauranga and across the North Island, which will need to remain steadfast in the tides of grief that cover the mountain today. I want to acknowledge the families and the victims of both this tragic event and of the landslide in Pāpāmoa, and all those who have been once again affected by the extreme weather events that have occurred over the last week.
When those events happened, it took me back to when I was the Minister of Internal Affairs in 2023, when I attended the funerals of the Muriwai victims of a landslide, Dave van Zwanenberg and Craig Stevens. They were first responders who lost their lives in the pursuit of the safety of others. In those events, New Zealand lost 15 people across communities in the North Island. These events leave scars on families and communities, and they will always be in our thoughts and, for those of us that pray, with them enduring.
I also want to acknowledge the tragic event that has happened today in my electorate of Mana. On Paekākāriki Hill, there was a helicopter crash, and it has been confirmed by the New Zealand Police that a pilot and a passenger have died as a result of this tragic event. I want to thank all the first responders, including the New Zealand Police, Maritime New Zealand, Fire and Emergency New Zealand, the Westpac rescue helicopter, the Civil Aviation Authority, and the Greater Wellington Regional Council, who are working hard—like those in Mount Maunganui—to recover these people in order to bring them home to their families.
It is at this time that we do respect our first responders. We understand the pressures that they are under. Whether it’s funding cuts or whether it’s strikes, we acknowledge the fact that they go towards danger when many people are walking away.
One person that I do want to acknowledge, who has been a Minister of many first responders, is the Hon Judith Collins KC. She was also my boss—surprisingly enough to some people—when I was a public servant. I want to acknowledge her decision today.
I learnt a lot from Judith Collins; I also learnt which things not to do from Judith Collins, but in Samoa—and this is an acknowledgment of her husband, David, as well—we have a particular value called teu le va. It means to look after the space and to cultivate the space between people and the relationships between land, maunga, and all things within this universe, and Judith, quite rightly, said it in her media stand-up today. She said that we don’t have to agree on everything, as people, to get along, and that is a very important value which I think that most of us Kiwis here in New Zealand absolutely should hold on to, because in a time of misinformation and in a time of spin and of sound bites, we have to remember that teu le va—those face-to-face relationships—are more important than what you read on social media.
To the Rt Hon Adrian Rurawhe—my good friend who was there at the very start of my 2020 campaign—to the Hon Judith Collins KC, and also to Celia Wade-Brown: haere rā, good luck, my friends, and all the best for the future.
It’s been an interesting time, being able to sit in the House and observe over the last 48 hours speeches from both the Government and the Opposition benches in relation to the Prime Minister’s statement. It’s been really interesting to see and observe the reaction of other members in the House when speakers are standing up and delivering their response. What we saw yesterday from the Prime Minister was a bench full of Government MPs with their heads down, quiet, looking at their phones, with maybe every now and then a little “Rah, rah, rah!”, but the interesting thing—
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Rah, rah, rah!
Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: Yeah, you’re practising it really good, Paul Goldsmith. You should have done that during the Prime Minister’s speech. The interesting thing was when the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins stood up; all of a sudden every single one of those Government members of Parliament—boy, the excitement and the energy, and he even got something from the Minister of Finance.
The other interesting thing was that when I saw the Hon Chris Bishop earlier today get up and stand up, he must have had about 50 percent of the Government benches from the National Party supporting him and rallying him on, which kind of makes sense given his failed—what is the word?—coup last year. It is a time, as Chris Hipkins said yesterday, where it’s like dirty laundry: you go to a laundromat, and there is all the spinning that occurs and all the dirty laundry that is sort of set aside. As a mother with lots of children, every now and then I have to go to the laundromat, and I sit there and you kind of watch it. It was so interesting to see the spin, so interesting to see the dirty laundry—
Hon Paul Goldsmith: That member needs to work on her spin.
Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: —and all the spin that continues to come from those Government benches—and, again, I’m getting more interjections for my speech than the previous Minister who just finished speaking did. There was less support for him than there is for me, so I will take it.
That’s the thing: when this Government came into office in 2023, one thing that you cannot spin is the numbers, and what we saw at the end of December, in the half-yearly economic forecast and also in the Budget Policy Statement—you will see in the appendix that Treasury decided to compare the change in real GDP forecasts between the pre-election fiscal update of 2023 and the half-yearly economic update of 2025. At each update, the forecast GDP figure for the calendar year since 2026 has fallen, from $304 billion just before the election, to $289 billion now, at the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update.
Despite all the spin, and despite the whole unleashing economic growth, what has actually happened? What have the numbers actually shown us? They’ve shown us that there has been a fall in our economy of 4.7 percent of GDP. Those are the numbers, and when I questioned the Minister of Finance today, she said, “Oh, Treasury was being overly optimistic.” We challenged her and we said to provide us with the advice that Treasury said that they were being overly optimistic about, and she responded, “Oh, those were my words.”—overly optimistic.
Again, despite this spin, the dirty laundry, the numbers do not lie. Time and time again, we are seeing key economic indicators showing that despite the rhetoric of unleashing economic growth and despite the rhetoric of making things better, this Government has made things worse. Higher unemployment: there are now forecast to be 50,000 more unemployed than there were in 2023. That was the forecast—50,000 more people unemployed. When you see how anti-worker this Government has been with their fire-at-will law for those earning over $180,000, you can see why the unemployment rate is going up. There’s the extension of 90-day trails, real-term minimum wage cuts, repealing fair pay agreements; inflation in wages not being conserved, attacking pay equity, and pay deductions for partial strikes. This is not a Government for workers, despite what any of those parties say. That is why we have record net migration moving to Australia because they can see their opportunity there and they can see the future, unlike this Government, which has no vision, no plan, and no hope for New Zealand.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice) (16:31): I want to start by acknowledging those who have been lost in the past few days to us in Mount Maunganui, and to their families. I acknowledge and support them in this time of trial. I acknowledge the work of the first responders and the many people across the communities up and down, particularly, the East Coast who have had a difficult time but have been working hard to get the communities back on their feet. We acknowledge them, as the Prime Minister and many others have done over the past couple of days since Parliament has returned.
Here we are at the start of the third year of this Government, and one of the focuses of this Government has been to restore law and order in this country. The good news is that we have made great progress as a country over the last two years. We now have 38,000 fewer victims of crime in this era. I want to acknowledge the work of Judith Collins—who has been part of that team and has acknowledged the approaching end of her 24 years of service—Mark Mitchell, Nicole McKee, Casey Costello, and Karen Chhour. We’ve worked together as a team, and what have we done? Well, the first thing we did is we changed the critical message that the previous Government had done for six years. What was the target that we have for the justice sector under the Labour Government? What was the focus? Well, the focus was to reduce the prison population by 30 percent regardless of what was happening in the community. We changed that, and we changed the focus to reducing the number of victims of crime. That’s what we’re focused on and that’s what we want to happen because every time there is a victim of violent crime, there is a family whose lives have been overturned, and there is pain and anguish and suffering that sometimes goes on for generations. That is what we want to avoid.
Secondly, we had to end the culture of excuses for crime. Under the previous administration, they said, “No, don’t worry, it wasn’t really your fault. It was society’s fault that you assaulted somebody or that you stole something.” The symptom of that was the cultural reports that had turned into a cottage industry—all these people writing these cultural reports and seeking a reduction in sentences. We stopped funding those. Then we returned the three-strikes legislation, which brings in tough sentencing for that very small group of serious repeat offenders, because there are some people in this country that the rest of New Zealand needs to be protected from. If you want to reduce the number of victims of crime, a good place to start is that tiny group of New Zealanders who create multiple victims over and over and over again. We’re going to deal with those.
Then we moved on to the sentencing laws in total. A lot of people were frustrated at finding people convicted of serious crimes and then ending up being sentenced to a bit of home detention and PlayStation and at all these massive discounts that were being applied. Now, we’re in charge of the sentencing law in Government, so we’ve changed that and said, “Well, you can only have a maximum of 40 percent discount for serious crimes.” Then we moved on to giving the Police the extra powers that they needed to deal with the gangs, and we introduced a gang patch ban. Everybody on the other side said, “Oh, no, that’s not going to work—that’s not going to work.” Well, it’s worked very well. For the last two summers, the people up and down this country haven’t had to endure gang patches in public, intimidating people. That is a symptom of a broader issue, which is about getting the gangsters under control and restoring safety to our streets.
What else have we done? Well, we’ve given the ability to victims of serious sexual offenders—adult sexual offenders—to be able to say whether or not they have name suppression. One of the most terrible things is when somebody is a victim of a serious sexual offence—they’ve been raped—and then you find that the offender, for some reason, gets name suppression, and the victim can’t talk about what happened to them, can’t warn others, explain what happened to them, and can’t tell people, “Watch out for that person!”, because they’ll be breaching the name suppression orders. Well, we’re changing that. They’ll only get name suppression if the victim agrees. Then, of course, we dealt with the stalking legislation, which the previous Government talked about for years but did nothing about. We got on to it, we’ve done it, and we’ve passed the legislation there.
At the same time, we’ve been focused not just on the punitive side but on dealing with some of the drivers of crime. A couple of good examples of that is—if you want to worry about youth crime and you want to have less youth crime, where’s a good place to start? Well, a good place to start is to get the kids to school. Under the previous administration, don’t forget there was a large number—up to 50 percent of people—not attending school regularly, which is a national disgrace. This Government has been focused on turning that around. That’s one of the most useful things we can do, long term, to deal with youth crime.
Secondly, emergency housing: after all the huffing and puffing and all the goodwill and everything—“Oh, we’re going to look after all these people”—under the previous Government, there were 3,000 households in emergency accommodation, the motels in Rotorua and all those other places, including 3,000 kids—
Hon Tama Potaka: Hamilton!
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: —and in Hamilton; all over the place. Thanks to the good work of Tama Potaka, my excellent colleague, the number of people who are in emergency housing, now, is less than 500. That is because they have actually got their act together and are getting people into the right houses and into proper accommodation. That is the sort of thing that makes a real difference to crime as well, so there’s good news there.
Now, that’s what we’ve been doing, but it’s interesting. I’ve been looking at what some of the other parties have been proposing in the law-and-order space. It would surprise people to know that Te Pāti Māori have come to the plate, and they’ve stepped forward and said what they’re going to do. They want to abolish all the prisons. Oh dear! They want to abolish all the prisons. Well, that’s a great idea. They made it abundantly clear that they’re not interested in public safety, they’re not interested in accountability, and that the law-abiding citizens of New Zealand just have to put up with violence and no real consequences.
Now, you might say, “Well, that’s just the Māori Party.” OK, but what about the Greens? The Greens are much more serious than that. I’m afraid they’re not. The Greens, according to Chlöe Swarbrick, are great fans of this approach. She wore a hoodie made by People Against Prisons Aotearoa, formerly called No Pride in Prisons, and she wore it with pride, and she did admit that her wearing that hoodie might, “piss some people off”—I don’t like to use such words in the House, but that’s what she said. She wore that hoodie, so it is worth reminding ourselves of the manifesto of the People Against Prisons Aotearoa, whose hoodie Ms Swarbrick was wearing. I’ll just run through it. It’s banning tasers—well, OK—decriminalising all drugs—well, I’m sure that will solve all the problems that we have as a country—and ending the arrest of people under the age of 18. It always surprises me that people get confused about this. If you were murdered by somebody, it doesn’t really make much difference to the victim whether they were murdered by somebody who was 17 or 25 or 35; they’re still murdered. According to People Against Prisons Aotearoa, if you’re under the age of 18, too bad; it doesn’t matter. You can do whatever you like; there’s no consequences there. Then they want to defund and abolish the Police—well, I don’t know about that, Mr Mitchell. That’s an interesting approach, but the Greens and the Māori Party are interested in that. They want to abolish life sentences—well, OK, all right. Maybe if you murder 20 people you should only get five years or something; a life sentence is too long Then they want to decriminalise benefit fraud—well, of course, why not? If people steal from the Government, it’s only the Government’s money. That’s a victimless crime, isn’t it? Because the Government’s money just comes from somewhere.
Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Why don’t you ask Sunny Kaushal?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: There’s no problem there if you steal money.
Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Why don’t you ask Sunny Kaushal about use of public funds, mate?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: And one other thing—well, it’s an interesting point. I seem to be winding up the Labour Party, but, of course, the Greens believe if you’ve got a warrant out for arrest and you’re on the run, you should still get your benefit, because it’s expensive being on the run. That’s the whole approach that they have to law and order. So that’s the Māori Party; that’s the Greens.
What about Labour? Because Labour was saying, “Oh, well, that’s just the Māori Party and the Greens—we don’t agree with that.” But they haven’t actually said what they will do—not a dicky bird. Not an announcement. No idea what they’re going to do on justice or law and order. Duncan Webb is retiring, but he’s still not replaced. But what we do know is that Labour and the Greens have been very consistent in the last two years. They have voted against tougher sentencing legislation. They voted against reinstating three strikes. They voted against banning gang patches in public. They voted against firearms prohibition orders. They voted against everything that we have done over the past two years which has brought about the improvement in public safety and has brought about 38,000 fewer victims of crime than what we inherited.
So if anybody has any doubt this year in the election, when we’ve got a choice between sticking with a Government that’s focused on restoring law and order and holding people to account and public safety, or going back to the previous administration that presided over the increase in violent crime, presided over all the ram raids and the culture of excuses and the shambles that we inherited in 2023 or whenever it was. Well, that is very clear. Labour will be taking us back. National has been fixing the basics and is going to be building the future from here till the end of the year. Thank you.
Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) (16:41): Perhaps we could take a deep breath in and a long, slow breath out. We just heard a flight of ideas. We just saw a demonstration of what the psychiatric textbooks call “pressure of speech”. I was here in the front row, wiping the spittle off my face. There were so many words spoken at speed and waving of hands. There are many causes for these symptoms—many causes in the psychiatric textbooks—but methamphetamine use is one of them. I would just like to remind that member that methamphetamine use has doubled under his Government. I’d like to remind that member of that, because that is an actual objective measure of the state of law and order in our community. Not performative bills passed in this House, but an actual thing that is oppressing communities up and down the country—meth use—doubling under that Government.
This debate is about the Prime Minister’s statement. Of course, we heard the speech yesterday, and then we had the statement here presented in Parliament. Of course, I took the time, rather than racing through a floridly psychotic contribution like the last member, to actually read the statement and will offer some commentary on that.
I’m looking for the health section, because I do want to talk about the Government’s contributions on health in this term of Parliament. It’s not on page 1, it’s not on page 2, it’s not on page 3 or 4, 5 or 6, 7 or 8. We go past fast-track and housing, transport, tourism—tourism; that’s funny. Tourism’s not usually ahead of health. It’s not in alphabetical order either, I should add—as you might have guessed; vocational education. Oh, here’s health on page 12. Here we are at health. Maybe this is why the Prime Minister didn’t spend much time talking about health in his statement.
The thing is, one of the things you’ve got to do when you’re holding a Government to account is actually hold them up against their own statements that they made in the course of the election campaign. I remember in the election campaign there was a lot of talk from the National Party about improving health outcomes. So we can look at improvements in health outcomes, but there’s not a single one of them mentioned in the statement. They’ve talked about laws that passed. I accept that laws can sometimes improve health outcomes. I was very proud to pass a smokefree law and a fluoridation law; but not the Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Amendment Bill, which is mostly about taking rights away from Māori. Then there’s a primary care tactical action plan, but no mention of that impact on health outcomes. They’re putting surgeries into private hospitals, but no mention of health outcomes. They say some things that they’ll go and discuss a bit further about the health workforce, which they also don’t link to health outcomes.
So the Prime Minister’s statement has some major gaps in it as far as health services go. I think, why is that? Why isn’t the Government being more forthcoming when it comes to its record on health? It’s because it is so clear to New Zealanders that promises have been broken by this Government.
Remember before the election they presented it as it would all be so easy. They were going to come into Government and just fix things with the flick of a switch. How many people asked them how they were going to fix the health system? It is, I agree, a very complicated system. But, no, no, the National Party promised that it would be easy, because they would bring in targets, then the job would be done. So if you go back to the statement, they say no improved outcomes, despite their targets. They are no longer interested in outcomes. I remember Christopher Luxon sitting there in Opposition, thumping the table with performative masculinity and saying, “Just focus on outcomes.”
They’ve spent two years yelling at the health system, firing people, thumping tables, and guess what! The health system isn’t better. Instead, the health system has fewer resources. You look at the fact that this is the first Government since the 1990s where the inflation adjusted per capita funding to the health system has gone down—first time in over 25 years that that’s happened. Then this Government’s Minister of Health has no reluctance about absolute spin, as my colleague Barbara Edmonds has said. They will just spin.
Life isn’t as simple in Government as it was in Opposition, and they just spin. They no longer speak about outcomes. They have a hiring freeze, but they don’t own up to that. They have used weasel words to try and escape accountability for the fact that whereas graduate nurses used to be able to get a job in our public hospitals, now they can’t. All of you who have a nursing training establishment in your town know that there are nurses getting out of training, desperate to serve their community, and they can’t get a job. What an indictment. I think, in our country, you should be able to go to nursing school in a city or a town, graduate, and work in the health services in that town. That just seems like an obvious thing for a health system and a country that we can be proud of to do. But no, so many of those graduate nurses have to go overseas.
You can also see the lack of resources in the health system by the fact that Dunedin Hospital was put on hold for 18 months while they decided what they would do, and then delayed it by two years and cut various bits out of it. Nelson Hospital has been severely cut back. There has been a lack of investment, as we went over in question time today, in digital infrastructure, leaving Health New Zealand struggling with outdated systems which have already failed and, no doubt, will continue to do so. The most important thing that New Zealanders will remember about the health system at the election is what the Government promised and this very clear fact that they can see that it is getting worse. It is getting harder and more expensive to see a doctor or a nurse under this Government.
General practice (GP) prices are going up—some of them are approaching $100. There are three or four practices within a few minutes of this Parliament where you’ll be able to find people paying $95 to see a GP. It’s more than that if you have an extra problem that you want to talk about. If you are unfortunate enough to have multiple chronic conditions you can expect to pay more than that.
It’s also more expensive to see an ambulance. You might not think that that’s very important because you might not need ambulances often, but some people—people with disabilities, people with serious heart and lung conditions—can end up calling an ambulance five or six times a year. This just pushes them into future hardship.
Prescriptions cost more under Christopher Luxon’s Government. Why on earth did you repeal our excellent policy to have free prescriptions? Because the Government was more interested in tax cuts for tobacco companies than people being able to get their medicine. What an indictment on having the wrong priorities. Cancer services in the lower North Island have been cut; obstetric care in the Bay of Plenty is going backwards. People cannot afford their services and New Zealanders cannot afford three more years of National. Now, I’ve been raising issues about the cost of care for two years in Parliament, and sometimes I get laughter from the other side. I think that that is telling you something that New Zealanders are already waking up to about this Government. This Government is out of touch; it’s a Government where the leader thinks that the cost of a weekly shop is $60.
We’re not going to be a Government like that. Chris Hipkins has promised that affordability will be at the centre of every decision he makes. As health spokesperson, I couldn’t be prouder to have had us announce that New Zealanders will get three free GP visits under a Labour Government. That is how we turn around this crisis of affordability that has meant people aren’t getting the care that they need in New Zealand. It will mean that people will be able to get serious conditions treated early before they become big problems that need admission to hospital. We’ll also support free cervical screening because it shouldn’t be the only public health screening programme that isn’t funded and free for everybody.
We’re going to stop these cuts that National has put in place and we’ll do these things that really matter because we know that these everyday things that they dismiss are actually really important to families. The cost of seeing a doctor and getting the care you need will be less under a Labour Government.
Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister for Māori Development) (16:51): Huihui nei, e whakakotahi nei ki te kaupapa karanga ki tō tātou Whare Pāremata me ngā mihi hoki ki a rātou kua mate atu i te wiki nei. Ngā mate o te tāruke a Tāwhirimātea, rātou ki Mauao, engari katoa rātou, haere, kapiti rātou, kapiti tātou e hui tahi nei.
[We have come together for the reason that has called the House here: I also acknowledge those who have passed this week. The casualties of the weather god Tāwhirimātea, those at Mauao, all of them: farewell, join together, as we join together here.]
Just to commence my comments today, to acknowledge those that have passed on in the recent weather events, to acknowledge those that have been lost through the slips around Mauao and in various other parts of the country.
I also wanted to acknowledge those that are departing our House in the near months: yourself, Madam Speaker; Celia Wade-Brown over here; the mātua Rt Hon Adrian Rurawhe; and a very important JC in my life. There’s two important JCs in my life, actually. Of course, one with the greatest story in the world, and one with one of the greatest stories here in Parliament, whaea Judith, Attorney-General, Minister Collins. An erudite, adroit, and sagacious citizen who’s served here for 24 years. Exemplary deployment, exemplary deportment, and exemplary demeanour. Someone who’s fearless, cultured, and absolutely marvellous and has undertaken her responsibilities: e mihi ana ki a ia [I acknowledge her].
There is a whakataukī that states, “Ko te pae tawhiti whāia kia tata, ki te pae tata whakamaua kia tina”—we pursue what lies ahead, and we secure what is close to hand. That, in many ways, is the work of the Government. Before turning to the wider direction outlined by the Prime Minister recently, it’s important to acknowledge the reality that many of our whānau are facing right now.
The severe weather in recent weeks tested communities across the upper North Island, from Te Tai Tokerau right through to Te Tara-o-te-Ika—Hauraki Coromandel, Waikato, Te Moana-a-Toi—Bay of Plenty, and out to the East Coast—Tairāwhiti. In those moments, whānau, communities, marae have opened their doors, neighbours have stepped up, and local leadership carried people through uncertainty. Our response as a Government has been clear: to be present, to act, and to support—to tautoko, for Mr Mitchell—and that’s why support has been activated for temporary accommodation, and why $1 million of funding has been put in place for immediate support for marae to reimburse and replenish te pātaka kai—the kai cupboards—and to not leave these marae left carrying the cost of their important manaaki mahi, so communities can recover, replenish, and continue to build resilience. I acknowledge Minister Mitchell, who’s been leading the National Emergency Management Agency and Civil Defence and others over the recent weeks.
That’s what readiness looks like: working alongside communities, devolving as suitable, respecting local leadership, people like Aperahama Edwards up in Ngāti Wai, people like Tash Wanoa and Ani Pahuru-Huriwai up on the East Coast who are doing the mahi for their people, ensuring help is there when needed. At the same time, the temporary accommodation service has been activated, work along with Civil Defence, local government, iwi, marae, communities, and others to support people that have been displaced, that have been left without a place to stay, that have had the chance to stay at the marae for a few days but now need something a little bit more stable for them, for their individual whānau. These measures reflect a simple community. When communities step up, this Government steps in; this Government supports them.
Two years ago, our Prime Minister, Christopher Luxon, took office in a period of real uncertainty. The economy was under strain. There were 750-something kids in Hamilton hotels, places like Ulster Street and out there in Dinsdale where bleak streets densified by emergency housing created the motel generation. We had bulk ram raids—16, in fact, in the month of May in Hamilton alone. That important and central part of Aotearoa New Zealand—I would recommend it should be considered for capital in the future, and of course for school attendance.
Confidence in the country’s direction had weakened, but our Prime Minister, leader of the National Party, was clear from the outset. Before we could reach for the future, we had to stabilise for the present. We had to fix the basics and build it for the future. It’s not driven by ideology; it’s by practical outcomes. Reducing serious youth crime, Minister Mitchell; getting kids to school; reducing whānau and households who are dependent on long-term emergency housing—very, very important basic work to get the hard mahi done, knowing that it might not bring immediate applause, certainly not from the Opposition, but understanding that without strong foundations, nothing lasting can be built. It’s like that book Built to Last. And the other one Good to Great—some reading for members opposite, and of course my own team. It means accepting responsibility, not just for the next headline but for our mokopuna and generations to come.
As we enter our third year in Government, I believe we can say this plainly: the foundations are being restored, momentum is strong, and the future is opening up. Economic growth is strengthening. Confidence is lifting. Pressure on many, many households is beginning to ease, and across the country people can feel that Aotearoa is moving again. The flag is predominantly blue for one reason, Minister Mitchell.
For Māori, this moment matters, because when the economy is weak, many, many Māori communities feel it. And when the growth is real and sustained, Māori outcomes improve—not automatically, but inevitably if we are deliberate about it, like our Government has been. Growth is the means by which we lift incomes, fund public services, and expand opportunities. It’s how we move from managing disadvantage to unlocking potential. We’ve seen that when the Kāwanatanga and rangatiratanga work together, outcomes improve for nearly everyone. That’s not theory; that’s experience earned over time. That’s why we’ve been so motivated to support places like Horeke, Utakura out there in the Hokianga Harbour; places like Rātana Pā up there in the mighty Rangitīkei District—Madam Redmayne; places like the Wainui road Ringatū Church, important community infrastructure recently announced by the mātua Shane Jones.
These places were built and supported to be built and supported over the last couple of years here in Government. Over the last two years, we’ve seen many Māori projects move from potential into reality. Of course, the return of Kororipo Pā, my cultured friend Metekōura was describing that before; the return of Orakau Paewai, a very well-known battle site in the middle of the mighty Waikato, Mr van de Molen.
Of course, the various—in fact, 24 out of 149 fast-track projects listed on schedule 2 of the fast-track legislation that are either Māori-owned, -led, or -partnered: Hananui Aquaculture with Ngāi Tahu; the Maitahi project property development down there with Ngāti Koata on the top of the South; the Waitaha Hydro project on the West Coast—Te Tai Poutini; Rangitoopuni out on the west of Henderson, out there at Riverhead; the Beachlands South project, a magnificent property development adjacent to Tīkapa Moana; Carrington road development, the largest urban development in New Zealand’s history, out there in Carrington, just on the edge of Mount Albert—Ōwairaka; Tara Road in Tauranga; and of course a few others up and down the country.
Because when Māori businesses succeed, actually our economy gets better, whānau Māori gets better, and that’s why we’re right behind the Māori economy, whether or not it’s moving from $17 billion to $32 billion contribution to GDP between 2018 and 2023, up from $17 billion. Encouraging our artists, entertainers, and tourism businesses, like those folks out at Tumunui Lands, Tauhara North No.2 Trust tourism business. Whenua Māori holds particular significance for this, as do our communities who are working not just on Tiriti issues but on tahua—economic issues, on tāngata—social issues, on taiao—environmental issues, like the people up at Raukūmara Pae Maunga, right up there shooting deer and possums and rats.
They might be catching them, not shooting them, those last ones. Or the people at Te Arawa who are working on that wallaby elimination project around the Rotorua Lakes.
Infrastructure is another expression of core responsibility: strong regions, strong futures. As the Minister of Conservation, I’m reminded on a daily basis that economics and the environment complement one another. They are complementary forces, and nature is one of our most binding and uniting forces, our greatest assets—culturally, environmentally, and economically. Nearly one-third of our country is a conservation estate, and we take action. We don’t just talk about it; we actually do things. Just like many of our farming communities actually do things for conservation, like Queen Elizabeth II National Trust covenants—absolutely fantastic.
We do need to generate more revenue. That’s why I’m all for car-park charging in certain places. That’s why I’m all for charging international visitors to access some of our most iconic places, just as we do when we go to Turtle Bay or Hawai’i Volcanoes National Park or Kosciuszko in Australia, or many, many national parks in Canada and the United States. We too should be charging international visitors to some of our most iconic places, and I look forward to doing that later this year.
Hon Dr Duncan Webb: What about our locals?
Hon TAMA POTAKA: Now, when we talk about locals, what we won’t do is leave 750 kids in emergency hotels in Hamilton. That’s what we won’t do. We won’t see all these folks struggling to get a doctor. That’s why we’re going to set up the medical school in Waikato, in Hamilton—the Waikato medical school. I’m sure there’s a lot of firm fans and favourites for that.
People, patients, Papatūānuku first, and then we get progress. We’re fixing the basics. We’re building them for the future. Kia ora.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I understand this is a split call.
Hon JO LUXTON (Labour) (17:02): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise—I’m not sure if it’s with pleasure, but with a level of cynicism, actually—to respond to the Prime Minister’s statement.
But before I begin my contribution, I would like to acknowledge all of those across the country that have been impacted and affected by weather events. I’d also really like to acknowledge all those emergency workers, all those people that are out there on the roads trying to clear our roads, working pretty much 24/7. It’s a big job and our country cannot operate without the ability to access safe roading and transporting of our goods.
They say that a Government can be judged by how it treats its most vulnerable—a Government is judged by how it treats its most vulnerable. I think we just need to sit and think about that statement for a little while, because we have a Prime Minister who stands up and spouts off saying, “Oh, you know, we’re fixing the cost of living. Everything is great. Food inflation is down by X percentage. Interest rates are down by X percentage, etc., etc.”
What we have seen from this Government in the special terminology that is used to say food is cheaper because the inflation on food is down by X percentage means absolutely nothing to the everyday citizen here in New Zealand who is struggling day in and day out to pay their bills. We just had the previous speaker, Tama Potaka, talking about how amazing it is that all these kids are no longer in emergency accommodation. Has that Minister actually stepped outside his house, outside of his street, to see that these children—and many of them are actually on the streets, living in cars?
Sure, emergency accommodation is not ideal by any means, but it has been at least a roof over their heads that is warm and dry and has the ability for them to use just simple things like showering and toileting facilities, not being stuck on the streets or in a car, living that kind of lifestyle. That is not a lifestyle for anyone to be living.
We are seeing the way Kiwis are feeling and they are showing us and this Government the way that they are feeling about the decisions that this Government is making by using their feet. They are using their feet to leave this country. We are losing talent by the tens of thousands of people on a regular basis. We need a Government that actually inspires people to want to stay here in New Zealand, a Government that provides opportunity, gives hope so that people can see that there is going to be a life here for them and their children in this country.
I want to talk a bit about climate and the environment for a minute, because the electorate where I live, the East Coast, soon to be called the East Cape, is one of those areas that has been severely impacted by the recent weather events. It is with real dismay and upset and shock that the Government has closed down the climate resilience fund—there was $6 billion put aside in that fund—although we did hear the Prime Minister say today that there’s plenty of money to fix things, so we’ll be watching that with interest.
I come from the East Coast electorate, where the community has rallied. After Cyclone Gabrielle, there was the ministerial inquiry into land use. From that report, one of the things that’s come out of that is the land-use transition business case that was put together by the community, by council, by members of the community, by iwi, by foresters. It was a business plan that they’ve taken to Government. They want to work in partnership with Government to support them to transition some of our most vulnerable land into trees that are the right type of tree in the right place.
They’ve had a response from the Minister saying, “No, we cannot afford to do that.” Well, I challenge the Minister, Minister McClay, to rethink his decision to decline it, because we need it more now than ever in the East Coast electorate.
Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) (17:07): Kia ora. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’ll just touch on the weather event in the North Island. I just want to express some disappointment at the Government’s approach of using question time today to highlight their MPs’ work when every MP around this House, and particularly from the region has been there, whether they’re list MPs or constituency MPs, attending to what’s going on in their local electorates.
I want to speak about the real important local function of MPs. I know Mark Mitchell, actually, is really good at letting local MPs know what’s going on, so I thank him for that, but it’s not appropriate for Government MPs to take these kinds of opportunities for grandstanding and photo opportunities. The job of an MP is to be in their electorate connecting people and understanding what’s going on, to inform the Government and its response, and I thank all local MPs of all parties for the hard work they do there.
But in terms of the Prime Minister’s statement, he was the worst Chris in the House by a margin, and we’ve got three to choose from. I was astounded that I had to watch the chief Government whip message his backbench to say, “Heads up, boys and girls. How about a few cheers for our leader? Get off your phones.” It was that kind of speech. There was pretty much nothing in it.
I mean, the Prime Minister is in la-la land. He has been talking about green shoots for two-plus years now. Whilst Nicola Willis can talk about forecasts, you can’t feed your family with a forecast, and the fact of the matter is that things are going backwards. They’ve been going backwards for two years. Last month alone, jobs shrunk. The jobs that workers are in in New Zealand shrunk by 700 jobs. That is an appalling statistic. Between October 2024 and October 2025, people on jobseeker grew by 33,000 people in one year because of the choices that Government has been making. They are taking New Zealand backwards. Nicola Willis is presiding over an economy that’s going backwards and Christopher Luxon is letting her do it.
What about inflation? What about the cost of living? Well, we know that bread went up 60 percent—white sliced bread went up 60 percent—so if you’re making your Marmite sandwich and an apple, it just got a hell of a lot more expensive. The major banks started putting up interest rates, again. Why? Because this economy is being poorly managed, and that’s called growth. What was the National Party’s big slogan last year? “Going for growth.” What is our growth? Well, do you remember the election back in 2023? We got thrown out, because growth under us was modest. It was 2.3 percent per annum—2.6 percent per annum. That was growth under the last year of the Labour Government. September 2024, it dropped to 0.5 percent growth, annualised. September 2025, minus 0.5 percent annual growth.
Watch the trend. Things are getting worse and worse under this Government, under a leader who is totally out of touch. This is the guy—people are struggling to feed their family, and he wants a rates reduction for his holiday home. He thought 60 bucks could buy a week’s groceries. He got rid of a clean car discount that his family claimed. And he’s the man—when he was getting an accommodation allowance, whilst he had a free flat at Premier House, he said, “I’m entitled to my entitlement.” That’s the kind of guy we’re talking about: wealthy and sorted. He’s the one who called struggling New Zealanders “bottom feeders”. What has this Government done to help the cost of living? Well, as Tangi Utikere will know, they put up car registration. They repealed free prescriptions. They increased the ACC levies for workers; increased road user charges.
SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga) (17:12): Madam Speaker, thank you very much for this opportunity to speak about the tragic of events in Mauao, Mount Maunganui, over the last week. Thursday morning was the start of a tragedy that has rocked my community and rocked New Zealand, and getting out there and seeing what had taken place is something that no one in Tauranga and Mount Maunganui will ever forget.
I want to start by acknowledging all of the victims and the families of the victims. We have six people missing and unaccounted for at the Mount in Mauao, and another two in Welcome Bay. It is absolutely devastating for those families, and my thoughts and my prayers remain with them throughout. I want to say thank you to our emergency services and first responders. After watching what they have been doing over the past week, never have I been more proud of our first responders. They are heroic, selfless people who love what they do and are fully committed to our community.
I want to make special mention of Fire and Emergency New Zealand and their commander William Pike; New Zealand Police, led on the ground there by District Commander Tim Anderson—we also had Commissioner of Police Richard Chambers on the ground for a while, as well, which was fantastic, to have him there. Also to Urban Search and Rescue team leader of the northern region, Aaron Waterreus, who I thought was just outstanding, and who, on that Thursday evening, after everyone had been evacuated from the Mount Maunganui Surf Lifesaving Club and the Mount Ocean Sports Club opened themselves up—they moved all of the patrons out so emergency services and families of the missing could come in—delivered one of the more touching accounts to everyone there. I want to reiterate to him: thank you for your dedication and your service in this terrible time. Civil Defence; Tauranga City Council—who I will go back to later in the speech; also the group from SABRE Construction, who have brought in all of their contractors and heavy machinery to help remove the huge amounts of debris that are there, and, also, to free and find those missing at the moment; Salvation Army, for all of their incredible work—and I know there are there are many more, and if I haven’t named you, I’m sorry, but I do recognise your incredible work.
To the community in the Mount and in Tauranga: we’ve had so many people reaching out and offering support, whether it be from dogs or accommodation down at the Mount; the food offers—Mount Maunganui New World has kept an army of people on site fed throughout. The Rapid Relief Team, who set up a tent and have been there throughout day and night, serving people. We’ve had a number of—Little Drum Coffee, No Naps: I mean, these people must have served more coffees over the past week than they would have over a very long time. There are a lot of people down there on site. I want to say thank you to the Mount community that’s been rocked by this, and the wider Tauranga and Bay of Plenty communities for coming together in such a beautiful way in this most terrible of times. Everyone feels the love and aroha and support that is coming from our community at this time.
I need to make special mention of the Mauao kaitiaki, who are kaitiaki of Mauao and are there on site the whole time. Every morning, at 7.00 a.m. and 7.00 p.m., they lead the emergency services and the families in karakia. There was one particularly moving one, where everyone stopped and the families came out; the weather had been fine, and as we gathered, the rain just started to bucket down, and as they finished the karakia, the skies cleared and the sun came through. It was an incredibly moving experience. I know and can feel that—nothing will ever fill the loss that these families have, but there is a lot of restoration going on through the love and care from everyone down there on site.
I want to make a special mention of Tauranga mayor Mahé Drysdale, who I think has been a fantastic leader of our local community throughout this. He’s front-footed an inquiry. The Government is also considering an independent inquiry, and likely there will be others to follow, as well. But Mahé, thank you for your leadership throughout, during this time. The Prime Minister and Minister Mitchell: Minister, it was so good to have you there on the ground. You were there from almost the moment it happened. The way you and all of the emergency service top brass were able to get around and rally your troops and be there in support is really, really impressive and commendable. Thank you, Minister, and thank you, Prime Minister, as well, for coming in and being there when our community needed you most.
There is a memorial set up by Tauranga City Council, He Maimai Aroha. This is an opportunity for people in our community who want to come in and pay their respects to do so. There is also a memorial in Pilot Bay, which is gathering significant amounts of flowers—more flowers every day. It is important, because everyone loves the Mount who lives in the region, and across New Zealand. It is a very significant and touching place, and everyone feels this immensely, so to have those opportunities to come down and pay respects is hugely appreciated.
We have had a couple of vigils. There was one on the Sunday, which the Minister and the Prime Minister also attended. I want to thank Rachel Bailie for setting this up; this was a community-inspired initiative. There is another one this coming Sunday at 6.00 a.m., down on Tay Street. There is also one tomorrow night being led by Tauranga City Council. I will be there for that; I know Minister Mitchell will be there, too. We had a huge turnout from our local community. It’s quite incredible to see the love and care that has been shown.
I have to make a mention of the Welcome Bay, Pāpāmoa slips, and I want to just make a quick mention of my colleague Tom Rutherford, who isn’t with us in the House today. He was there on Thursday and Friday, got married on the Saturday, and he was back on the Sunday. I know, Tom, if you had the opportunity to speak today, you would make many of the same comments I have today. Thank you, my bro, for all of your support throughout this.
I’m going to quickly go through the victims or the missing. As you’re down there, you get to know their families. It’s a pretty challenging time. I just want to, once again, say my thoughts and prayers are with the families of Lisa Maclennan, a teacher, 50 years, from Morrinsville; Måns Bernhardsson, and all of his friends who are over, young Swedish folk having a dream time here in New Zealand; Jackie Wheeler from Rotorua and Susan Knowles from Ngongotaha, the pair of them had been coming, I understand, to that holiday park for many years, and I really feel for their husbands and all of their family members; then there are two 15-year-olds from Pakūranga College, Sharon Maccanico, originally from Italy and more recently from Auckland, and, of course, young Max Furse-Kee. Max’s mother came down, and I can only imagine what a terrible drive down from Auckland that would have been when she was updated on what had happened to her young boy. She was just saying how good a boy he was. He didn’t go out to parties, he didn’t drink, and then he comes and turns up to go camping and he has a mountain come down on him. She also said—and it’s already been said in this House—“You go home and you hug your babies tight.” I feel that, and I think all of us should feel that. Family are beautiful and you cherish them because you never know when things can change. And there are the two confirmed dead from the Welcome Bay landslide, Austen Richardson and his grandmother, Yao Fang. This House grieves for all of those people and for your families. This is a terrible, terrible tragedy. Our thoughts and prayers will always be with you. Kia kaha.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): This is a split call. I call the Hon Rachel Brooking.
Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (17:22): Thank you, Madam Speaker. This is my first opportunity to speak this year, and I do want to acknowledge those terrible weather events in the North Island and the previous speaker Sam Uffindell’s very moving speech about his part of the world. I’m very lucky to be the member for Dunedin, but I do know this area and have spent some time there and totally agree with the member for Tauranga that it is a very, very special place.
I see some friends up in the gallery. Of course, they’re here for the Rt Hon Adrian Rurawhe, who is leaving us. He has been my bench mate recently and is a just a wonderful human being, so we’re going to miss him a lot.
Then, of course, we’ve had, today, the news that the Hon Judith Collins KC is leaving, and that Celia Wade-Brown is leaving—both people who have given their hearts to politics in New Zealand and worked so hard. Of course, I’m now looking at the Speaker, and, Maureen Pugh, you have said that you will also be retiring, and I know that others across the House are. It’s timely to reflect on everything that is going on in the world and how we are planning for the future.
That does take me to the Prime Minister’s statement. I’m our spokesperson for resource management reform and also environment as well as food safety and space, so I do want to touch on some of the matters that are raised in the paper and also, then, what the big issues for Dunedin are—with me being the electorate MP. This document says that the Government has progressed the single largest economic reform in a generation, the repeal and replacement of the Resource Management Act (RMA). I wonder if the Prime Minister thinks that he is the Prime Minister from the last Government, the Labour Government, which did actually repeal and replace the Resource Management Act. What this Government has done is bring back that Resource Management Act, and so it is still on the statute book. What this Government has done, just at the end of last year, is it has introduced some new bills to eventually repeal that RMA, but it was a Labour Government that repealed the RMA and brought in new legislation, new legislation that this Government could have worked on but, instead, decided to start again—I suspect in the interests of vanity.
We’ve heard the word “spin” used a lot about this Prime Minister’s statement, and there is certainly a lot of spin in this first sentence about the Resource Management Act. It goes on to say that the Government is committed to ensuring that the structure of local government best aligns with the new planning system we are building, as if the bills that this Government has introduced somehow mean that regional councils should be abolished. This makes no sense, because the bills that this Government has introduced rely very, very clearly on the differentiation of a regional council and a territorial council. They have a Planning Bill, which is about the roles of a territorial authority, a district council, a city council, a unitary, and then they have a Natural and Built Environment Bill which is all about the role of regional councils, so I fear that the Prime Minister does not understand that role of local government.
Then we can go to the fast track and other comments that are made throughout this document about how there’ll be more renewable energy. That is what this Government is doing—it is all that they are doing—for climate change. Then there are projects for mining and for coal mining, and we hear the Prime Minister say today, “You need the minerals for your cellphones.” There are no elements of coal in a cellphone. People are mixing up these basics.
We’re talking in Labour about a focus on jobs, health, and homes. In Dunedin, we can look to the fact that nurses being trained in Dunedin aren’t getting jobs. This Government chose not to increase the number of medical students. That could have been done immediately at the Otago medical school. In terms of housing, the 41 units at Carroll Street have been cancelled, and land is being sold at Port Chalmers that was already to go for new housing. In terms of health, this Government promised much more on the Dunedin public hospital, and, instead, they’ve delayed it for two years. Shameful!
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Labour) (17:27): Madam Speaker, kia ora. I’ll just take an opportunity, like everyone else in this House, to acknowledge the tragedies that we have faced as a country but, in particular, those families who have lost loved ones from the weather events. We must commit to those families that we have a responsibility in this House to do everything we can to prevent such tragedies in the future. We learnt as a Government, post - Cyclone Gabrielle, that there was a need for a national resilience plan, and we committed $6 billion to that plan. That would have enabled events like this and tragedies from these events to be prevented in many situations. There will always be an act of God. There will be situations that we can’t understand. The reality is that that fund was raided—the resilience and prevention fund was raided—so that the National Government, the economic champions, could provide tax cuts.
I have to go on. There was a Minister in the House claiming the wonderful state of the electricity sector. Renewables—well, yes, the rain has provided for us as a country, but it’s also provided a miserable set of circumstances that most New Zealanders are facing. The great economic champions, the National Party and ACT, who claim that they are better managers of the economy are wrong. In fact, the latest Reid Research poll says that 0.8 of a percent—0.8 of a percent—of New Zealanders think that National is better than Labour. Well, we acknowledged we borrowed a bit of money through COVID—[Interruption] The laughter from the other side of the House comes from the people who supposedly represent the resilient businesses that could have got through this without our money.
We are proud that we spent and borrowed money to keep this economy going. The National Government should not be proud of borrowing for tax cuts for landlords and tax cuts for tobacco companies.
Let’s look at the economic reality. In every one of the indicators—every one of the indicators of our economy—we’re going backwards. Unemployment in March, compared to the projections that were there under the post-COVID Government and the reality we faced—every one of the indicators is worse now than it would have been if Labour had continued in Government. Unemployment will be higher, the debt to GDP ratio will be higher under this Government, GDP growth will be lower than had we kept a Labour Government in place, and inflation will be higher.
The only thing that the Minister of Finance crows about is, actually, the lower interest rates. Well, if you come into Government and you strangle the economy and it’s stumbling along the bottom, then the only thing that the Reserve Bank can do and the Governor can do is lower interest rates. They’ve kept lowering and lowering and lowering and hoping that the economy will turn around. We hear promises of a U-turn. The bottom line is that people who need jobs get low-paid, part-time jobs, and we want to ensure that they have high-paid, secure jobs. Those people who want healthcare can’t get in the door. The National coalition Government promises more private hospitals. We don’t think more private hospitals equates to better healthcare. We say that better access to GP services—that’s why we’re promising three free visits.
Homes are more than houses. The Government is trying to claim that more houses are being built. I’d suggest to them that no more homes are being created, because the requirements that we put on landlords to have better standards of housing—the requirements that we put in place to ensure a higher quality of housing—have been removed by a Government that is desperate to get things moving. We’re looking forward to a change of Government at the end of this year and protecting New Zealanders, giving them better, more secure jobs, ensuring they get access to proper healthcare, and ensuring that the houses that are being built become homes that are secure places for them and their families.
SPEAKER: Before I call Dr Reti, I’m just notifying him that the House will lift at 5.40 p.m., probably towards the end of his speech, for the agreed time for the valedictory.
Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Science, Innovation and Technology) (17:33): Thank you, Mr Speaker. In support of the Prime Minister’s statement, I too want to start with a reflection on the recent weather events across all of the country, including Northland—the first area to go into a state of emergency—but also to extend heartfelt commiserations to all of the families who have lost loved ones. For Whangārei and Northland, I want to acknowledge the Prime Minister and the Minister Mark Mitchell for getting up close with those who have been affected in Northland and getting hands on. I want to thank them for their work last week and last weekend—and Northland MP Grant McCallum, who’s beside me. Most of the affected areas actually are in his electorate.
I want to acknowledge Mayor Couper and the Whangārei District Council and the emergency operation centre for their work and actions and for the rapid response team who came up from Auckland last weekend. Many, many others have also been involved, including Minister Upston, who took my call when the emergency operation centre called me and said they needed to open Kaka Porowini, the Terenga Parāoa marae in the middle of the city for the homeless and displaced. The problem was that all the marae kaimahi were actually out helping with other maraes—could we help. Minister Upston immediately said yes and passed me on to Ministry of Social Development commissioner Rena, who also said yes, and Debbie Power was also assisting in having that marae opened.
Can I also acknowledge Mariameno Kapa-Kingi, who called me to discuss opening that marae and for us to make decisions as to who would do what and to cross-check that the required actions had been undertaken. MP Hūhana was actually out at Ngātiwai—that’s her iwi as well as mine. And Ropata, who was coordinating the seven marae out in the affected areas. I would just note the severely affected township of Ōakura. The closest marae is actually my family marae—the Reti family marae—between the Ōakura turnoff and the Punaruku Latter-day Saints church. Amongst seven other marae, I want to thank all of them who have opened up and made their services and resources available.
For the past two years, we’ve been looking to how we can fix the basics, such as school attendance, how we can improve that; violent crime, how we can decrease those figures; how we can look at having a decreased gang presence; and how we can reduce inflation. As we start to fix the basics, this serves as a platform to build the future: build the future through NCEA reform, so that we can improve our education standards; build the future through Resource Management Act (RMA) reform, so that we can reduce red tape and unlock unreasonable hurdles; build the future so that we can progress KiwiSaver to be more useful to everyone as well.
Now, everyone agrees that we need to increase New Zealanders’ productivity—multiple Governments have said that. The Prime Minister has identified five particular productivity actions to improve growth: talent development across the whole education sector; business setting improvements, for example, RMA reform; increasing our global trade and investment, for example, Invest New Zealand and free trade agreements such as those with India; using modern science, which I want to come back to, to boost economic output; and infrastructure for growth.
I want to especially focus on this item: using modern science to boost economic output. For the past two years, we’ve been reforming in the science sector. The problems we were trying to solve were, across the science sector, overutilisation and underutilisation—too much competition, too little competition—poor alignment across all of the science sector actors, poor alignment with industry, poor alignment with Government priorities, and dispersed science funding across the Ministry of Education, the Tertiary Education Commission, and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment.
Now, a year ago, in the state of the nation speech, the Prime Minister announced the biggest science reforms in 30 years. For the past two years, we’ve been looking to enable that. We’ve progressed seven substantive reforms and five impact programmes, which I want to describe. The Prime Minister’s Science, Innovation, and Technology Advisory Council (PMSITAC)—we have established that. We’ve been meeting multiple times—I chair that. Remember, this gives us some of the structural shape of what other small, advanced economies look like and what they do with science—the Singapores of this world and the Irelands of this world have one core strategic body, as do we now.
Operationalising the strategic priorities from PMSITAC is Research Funding New Zealand. Today, I have announced the board of Research Funding New Zealand, chaired by Dr Emma Blott; the members being Professor Aidan Byrne, Professor Amanda Barnard, Professor Brett Cowan, Professor Dianne Gleeson, Dr Meika Foster, Distinguished Professor Sir Peter Hunter, and Dr Sue Bidrose. Thank you very much for your collective wisdom and help in operationalising some of the strategies which we’re looking to pass into place.
The third action that we’ve undertaken is amalgamating the seven Crown research institutes into three Public Research Organisations (PROs), bringing together Landcare, AgResearch, Scion, and Plant and Food Research. We were in the bizarre situation, for example, at Lincoln, where we have Landcare on one side of the road and AgResearch on the other, where they almost needed a non-disclosure agreement to cross the road and have discussions. We’re not a big enough country that we can afford that sort of largesse.
NIWA and GNS Science—I want to thank them, particularly for these weather events. Now, they were already collaborating, and now we’re able to give them some formality around that structure. I believe this weather event has seen the benefits of that.
I want to put to you that the amalgamation of these seven Crown research institutes (CRIs) may be some sort of template for how we might bring large State-owned enterprises together. Many of us have lived through the Health New Zealand amalgamation, and I personally didn’t enjoy that—Te Pūkenga as well; I would suggest that that was problematic. If there is one example, I want to thank everyone who contributed to that; bringing these seven CRIs together into three PROs is an example of things working together. We’re getting those benefits already. We’re seeing facilities benefits where AgResearch is sharing with Scion. We’re seeing those benefits of collaboration where, for the first time in November at Massey University, I brought together the eight vice-chancellors and the seven chief executives of the CRIs into the one room, which they said was probably the first time in maybe 15 years they’d been together. Very quickly, within a week or two, they’d come together with a memorandum of understanding, and then a work programme, talking about how we can bring universities and Crown research institutes—now PROs—together.
Creating the fourth public research organisation from scratch—the New Zealand Institute for Advanced Technology. Its purpose is to drive commercialisation through advanced technologies. It’s one particular pillar of the science sector where we have had a deficit—and to be able to focus that, not only just to create it and to verily have it on a whiteboard as a structural item but to actually already be commissioning $70 million of Robinson Research Institute work. If we look up to the skies tonight, we may not see it, but on the International Space Station is Hēki, the multimillion-dollar project from Robinson Research Institute, which was deployed at the end of last year—the first ever high-temperature superconducting magnet up in space, and it’s a Kiwi product coming out of Robinson Research, doing cutting-edge research. It’s been so successful that what was actually supposed to be, I think, a six-week programme has actually now been doubled, and it will stay bolted on to the International Space Station for up to three months.
Artificial intelligence: the request for information, five shortlisted proposals—excellent proposals from industry—and quantum into an exploratory phase, as well. We’ve produced the national artificial intelligence strategy—a strategy that is light-touch, a strategy that has safeguards, and a strategy that is internationally aligned with the five OECD principles. We’ve also looked at how we can increase commercialisation through a national IP policy, setting some direction around how we might bring together all the disparate means that universities, particularly, focus on intellectual property. Weather forecasting: I want to thank the House for unanimous support at first reading. Everyone just gets that NIWA and MetService should be together, and I think we’ve seen some of these benefits during this weather outbreak.
Many other beneficial activities: research and development tax incentive—well supported. Game developers—doubled the funding to code. Applied doctorates—I got information last week—this is where PhDs are aligned with industry: double and triple the numbers that we were expecting; very successful. Antarctica, our first funded—of course, we turn our eyes to climate change: the first formal memorandum of understanding with the United States for three projects which we’ve announced in Antarctica.
I think what’s also exciting is the $40 million biodiversity programme, and here’s why: there are 80,000 indigenous species in New Zealand, and we only know the scientific description of about 35,000 of them. Somewhere in there, in those 80,000, is the next cancer drug. Somewhere in there is the next nutraceutical. Here’s the good thing: Māori have advanced knowledge. Indigenous knowledge puts them in front of this whole biodiscovery platform—a really good example of mātauranga and Western science coming together to give us real tangible benefits.
Science will be an important part of our future, and building the science future looks at how we can be best here in New Zealand. What should we do? What should we leave to others? What do we have track record? What are we invited to into international panels? How can we get that dividend from our science spend? Thank you to everyone who’s progressed reforms; the universities, who are also changing and adapting through the University Advisory Group in how they can collaborate to our economic endeavours as well.
There are a number of other portfolios—statistics: the important work they’re doing for modernising the census. I don’t think people quite get that it’s an annual census. Mr Speaker, thank you very much.
Debate interrupted.
Valedictory Statements
Rt Hon Adrian Rurawhe
SPEAKER: Just to inform the House that the House will lift post the waiata, following the valedictory. I call on the Rt Hon Adrian Rurawhe to deliver his valedictory speech.
Rt Hon ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour) (17:43): Korōria hareruia ki a koe, e Ihoa o ngā mano, tūāuriuri, whāioio, kī tonu te rangi me te whenua i te nui o tōu korōria, nō reira, me te Māngai hei tautoko mai, āianei, āke nei, āe.
Ka tuku mihi atu au ki te ariki nui, Kuīni Nga wai hono i te po Pōtatau Te Wherowhero VIII; tēnei te mihi atu ki a koe e taku kuīni.
E mihi hoki au ki ngā mana whenua o te whenua e tū ana tēnei Pāremata, Te Āti Awa, anei taku mihi atu ki a koutou.
Kei te mihi hoki au ki te Tumuaki o te Hāhi Rātana, Manawa-o-te-koha-mutunga Palmer me tana hoa rangatira, Rangimārie; tēnā kōrua, otirā tō tāua iwi mōrehu, tēnā tātou.
Kei te mihi hoki au ki ngā mema katoa o tēnei Whare. E tika ana kia tū ake i te tuatahi ki te tuku atu i tēnei mihi. Nō reira tēnā tātou.
[Glory hallelujah to you, Jehovah of the multitudes, the countless and innumerable, heaven and earth are filled with the greatness of your glory, and so with the Holy Mouthpiece in support now and forever, yes.
I offer greetings to the monarch, Queen Nga wai hono i te po Pōtatau Te Wherowhero VIII; I hereby acknowledge you, my queen.
I would also like to acknowledge the authorities over the than upon which this Parliament stands, Te Āti Awa, this is my acknowledgement of you.
I also acknowledge the Head of the Rātana Faith, Manawa-o-te-koha-mutunga Palmer and his partner, Rangimārie; greetings to you both, indeed to our remnant people, greetings to us all.
I also acknowledge all of the members of this House. It is appropriate to rise and first offer this greeting. And so greetings to us all.]
Last week, when I informed my colleagues that I was going to retire from politics, I told them, also, that I just wanted to leave quietly and that I would not be doing a valedictory speech. I can tell you, if you want to upset 33 Labour MPs, tell them you’re not doing a valedictory speech.
SPEAKER: I’m not sure that I could upset them with that statement.
Rt Hon ADRIAN RURAWHE: Ha, ha! Because—oh, my gosh, I don’t think I’ve ever upset so many people so quickly. Anyway, my leader, the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins, said, “You’ve got to do a speech.” At the time, he did not know that I’d never disobeyed an instruction from our leader, and so here I am. However, I will deliver a speech, but I did not write a speech, so whatever comes out of my mouth—and there are plenty of stories I could tell, just from the people sitting in this room.
One of the greatest honours of my political career is, actually, to sit in the seat that you are sitting in, Mr Speaker, and to be the Speaker. I’ll talk briefly about that later on, but I don’t think anyone comes to this House to be the Speaker of the House. Well, not deliberately, anyway. I certainly didn’t, and if you had told me when I came through these doors in 2014 that I would be the Speaker of the House one day, I would have had a good old laugh and wondered, “What the hell is that one on?” That’s not the reason I came here. I came here to be the best electorate MP for Te Tai Hauāuru that I could be, and to represent the people, and to advocate for the things that were important to them. And so, the very first thing I want to do is acknowledge the people of that electorate that gave their confidence to me for three terms.
Te Tai Hauāuru is a vast—it’s the biggest electorate in the North Island. It’s as big as Taiwan. It’s diverse. It has an urban area, Porirua. It has provincial cities like Palmerston North, Whanganui, New Plymouth. It has rural towns and a lot of farming areas. Within there, there is also a diverse range of iwi that I got to engage with. Let’s see how good I am. I’m going to attempt to name them all, because there’s a few. So I’ll start: Ngāti Toa Rangatira, Te Ātiawa ki Whakarongotai, Ngāti Raukawa ki te Tonga, Ngāti Kauwhata, Rangitāne ki Manawatū, Ngā Wairiki Ngāti Apa, Ngā Iwi o Mōkai Pātea, Ngāti Hauiti, Ngāi Te Ohuake, Ngāti Whitikaupeka, Ngāti Tamakōpiri, Ngā Iwi o Wanganui, Ngā Hapū o Wanganui, Te Korowai o Wainuiārua, Ngāti Hāua, Ngāti Rangi, Ngā Iwi o Taranaki, Ngā Rauru Kītahi, Ngāti Ruanui, Ngā Ruahinerangi, Taranaki Iwi, Te Āti Awa, Ngāti Tama, Ngāti Maru, Ngāti Mutunga, haere āku—going over towards Lake Taupō: Ngāti Tūwharetoa, Ngāti Maniapoto, Raukawa. It’s a diverse range of iwi that I engaged with for nine years as their representative. It was really, really challenging to do that, and I’m sure my whanaunga Debbie Ngarewa-Packer is finding out that very fact. Even Tariana was criticised for not being everywhere in the electorate. It’s a tough electorate to get around because of that diversity of different waka, different iwi. In the time that I’ve been here, in that electorate, less than half of them had settled their Treaty claims, so I got to represent their interests on all of their settlements—many, many settlements. I’ll probably name the ones that have not yet settled: Te Ātiawa ki Whakarongotai, Ngāti Raukawa ki te Tonga. We’ve got Mōkai Pātea, who have signed an agreement in principle. We have Ngāti Hauā, who will have their third reading tomorrow. Ngā Hapu o Whanganui are going through ratification of their initial deed of settlement, and I think that’s it. In that time, it’s been a real honour to have spoken on so many of those settlements, and, as an electorate MP, I really enjoyed doing that.
In 2017—what a tumultuous election that was!—we came through it, and we found ourselves in Government, and, of course, they were allocating roles. The Rt Hon Chris Hipkins was the Leader of the House, and he gave me a call, and he asked me if I wanted to be Assistant Speaker. I wasn’t too keen on that. I said, “Oh, how about junior whip? Yep, give me that. I’ll do that one.” I even packed up and moved into the junior whip’s office. Then, about three days later, he rings me again, and he says, “Would you reconsider? Jacinda wants you to do that role.” I’m thinking, “Pull that Jacinda card, eh?” I had a conversation with a few people. I said, “Yep, I’ll do it only if Trevor agrees and only if I can be on the Māori Affairs Committee.” So I go to Trevor, and I have a conversation with him, and I said, “Well, I’m only going to do it if you agree.”, and he said, “Oh, that’s good because I’m the one who asked for you.” I kind of think that the likes of the now Rt Hon Sir Trevor Mallard probably saw things in me that I didn’t even see in myself. I thought to myself, “Well, if they think I can do it, I’m going to do it, and I’m going to do the best job that I can do and be part of a team that needs many different working parts.”
Of course, we all want to be Ministers, but not everyone can be, and there are valuable roles outside of that as well. If you’re a true team player, you will do whatever is the best for your party. I’m not just talking about my party but it’s probably a good lesson for everyone to learn, because you never actually know where they might lead to. I certainly didn’t. I didn’t think that I would go any further than being a presiding officer. Most people were telling me it’s a dead-end and there’s no way out of out of that role. Myself and the Hon Poto Williams—she was the other Assistant Speaker—really worked hard together. We were both brand new to that role, and we both learnt really quickly. We had incredible help from the Office of the Clerk. In particular, I want to mention Suze Jones, the Deputy Clerk, at the time, who ran our briefings every day.
Actually, on my first day as an Assistant Speaker, it was 8 November 2017. Those who know will know why I remember that date. Raf Gonzalez-Montero gave me a quick course on how to use all the buttons and switches and what have you during the dinner break, and at 7.30 after the bells rang, I was in that Chair. I remember it because, not long into the process, Iain Lees-Galloway decides he’s going to take a point of order. So he does, and I had no idea what he was talking about. And as my colleagues are saying, I didn’t think he did either, and all I said was, “It sounded all right to me, so just carry on.” That was my baptism into that particular role.
About three or four weeks after that—I’ve got to mention this—I was pretty brand new and had learnt lots in that short time. During a committee stage during urgency, at about 10 minutes to 1, I accepted a closure motion. Now, this part that we were debating had about 30 minutes’ worth of voting on it. Maybe a more experienced presiding officer, rightly or wrongly, might have looked at the clock and thought, “Let’s do that after question time.”, but being new and diligent, when the debate’s over, it’s over, so I accepted it. Well, Jami-Lee Ross had a mini-meltdown, and, boy, was that a baptism by fire, because he started making points of order—and, obviously, members around him were under his instruction, because they were all jumping up taking points of order as well. I’m really thankful I had David Bagnall sitting next to me as Clerk in the chair. He provided really quick, succinct advice, often while I was on my feet, probably five or six words—“No, you can’t do this—blah blah.”, and I turned that into a ruling. In the end, the Speaker had to be recalled.
So Trevor came back in, and I think the ruling that he made that day has made accepting closure motions, from a presiding officer’s view of the world, much easier. I think that’s a great outcome. At the time, though, I was thinking, “I should bloody name this fella—god!” Consequent events later on made me think I’m glad I didn’t, and it was a huge learning experience, I can tell you that.
Anyway, we got to 2020, and, like I said, everyone wants to be a Minister, and I was in New Plymouth about to—well, the boarding call had been made, and Jacinda Ardern rang me; said about what jobs everyone was going to get. And she asked me to be Deputy Speaker, and I said, “Oh, I’m just hopping on a plane, can I call you back when I get to Wellington?” So I had a lot of things on my mind. I thought I wanted to ask her, “Why can’t I be a Minister?” So I had all this time up in the air to think about all of this and got to Wellington and had thought things through. I thought, first of all, I’ll agree to being the Deputy Speaker, but I’m going to ask her some specific questions about the future. My specific questions were: do I have a pathway through this to be a Minister or do I have a pathway through this to being the actual Speaker? Because, in my mind, if there were no pathways, then, really, that’s probably as far as I’m going to go. I’ve always been a pragmatist and been honest with myself, and I knew that if someone else could do a better job, then I would easily walk away from it.
She said both pathways were open, so I was like, “Oh, OK then. Sounds good to me.” But even then, I didn’t think I’d actually be Speaker. Gradually, Trevor started delegating different jobs to me. Some members might remember, I started doing question time on Thursdays. We used to call it deputies’ day, with the Deputy Clerk, Deputy Speaker, we had the deputy leader of the Opposition, Deputy Prime Minister on Thursdays. So, yeah, that’s what we used to call it at the back—deputies’ day. So all of that led up to a call from Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, who told me what the plans were going to be and that she was going to nominate me to be the Speaker, and that I couldn’t tell anybody, which I did not. So, yeah, that’s basically the pathway I had to that role. I pinch myself almost every day and, you know, wonder how this guy from Rātana Pā gets to be the Speaker of this House.
In that role, I have a number of people to acknowledge. Dr David Wilson—actually all of the Office of the Clerk; they do an amazing job. I enjoyed the briefings that I had with the Clerk. I think they were really valuable. I learnt so much from that advice. It was always clear to me where there was no option, because he articulated the advice in such a way that it was clear that is the only pathway for this. He’d also make it really clear where there were different options depending on how I was thinking about it, which I really appreciate.
At this stage, I’ve got a number of staff that were directly reporting to me that I want to acknowledge. First of all, in my electorate office—offices, I should say—Chelsea Manuel, Pauline Tahau, Sharon Clear, Pikaera Rei, Gaylene Nepia, Tauira Allan, Natasha Reweti were all of my staff in my electorate. My Parliament staff: in the almost 12 years, I’ve had two executive assistants; first one was Zane Te Wiremu Jarvis. He seemed to know everyone in this building, and he was determined to introduce me to all of them, whether I wanted to or not. He was probably exactly what I needed as a brand new MP. He was really meticulous—I know he’s watching in London—and he was exactly what I needed right then. He even chose and trained his replacement, Tiarne Gush, who also was my senior private secretary (SPS) in the Speaker’s office. Gosh, I’m seeing faces now and I’m thinking so many other things. But, yeah, there’s Tiarne, well, what would I—she made me look a lot better than I actually am. No, she did. It’s true—and is always very, very good at her job. I appreciate that.
In the Speaker’s office, I also had Brooke Lacey. I think she’s in one of the Government offices—very good worker indeed. There’s one that wasn’t, you know, paid through any of my budgets, but I claim them anyway because he was based in the Speaker’s office, and that’s Mr Roland Todd. Kind of an institution in himself in this place—30 years in here, I think. Am I right? Speaker No. 8? Yeah, and he was a wealth of knowledge. Oh, you know, I’d sometimes go and say, “Roland, what did Jonathan do, or what did Trevor do?” and he would know. I’m sure he could probably sit in that chair and make some pretty good rulings. I really appreciated the institutional knowledge that he carried and was able to share, and I thank him for that.
Gee, I’ve got to go back to my electorate and just mention this. One of the things that makes it a lot easier is working with the general electorate MPs, whether they’re in your party or in another party. In Te Tai Hauāuru, there are nine general electorates, and I got to work with—well, I would have worked with all of the Labour ones: Kris Faafoi and Barbara Edmonds, we had Tangi Utikere and Iain Lees-Galloway, Steph Lewis, Glen Bennett, and Terisa Ngobi.
But I also want to mention the National Party MPs that I got on really well with, actually. Ian McKelvie—now, I knew Ian before I came into Parliament. He was so easy to work with, and we could have really good discussions and do the best for our respective electorates. Louise Upston—I really enjoyed working with Louise. I remember that we co-hosted the South Waikato event—actually, from Tokoroa—down here, at Parliament. That was an excellent kaupapa to be involved with. I worked with Jonathan Young on the Waitara lands Act, and there’s Barbara Kuriger in Taranaki-King Country, who is the now Deputy Speaker.
From little things like approving JP applications that had come through the general electorate office, and they had spent that time—[Bell rung] Thank you, Mr Speaker. I don’t have any speech notes, and so I don’t have anything to finish!
SPEAKER: Well, I’m just helping you out.
Rt Hon ADRIAN RURAWHE: That’s one of the beauties of not actually writing a speech, but anyway.
I want to continue to thank everyone. I think I’ve—hang on, I did actually make a list of staff and I just want to make sure that I’ve said all of their names. I have missed one. She was a temporary SPS in my office while Tiarne was on maternity leave, and that’s Nina Sudiono-Price. So I want to thank her—sorry for missing you out.
But, yeah, I’m going to leave it there. I want to thank all of my colleagues for all of the support over the years, and all of the staff around Parliament, who actually make this place work. They are the real unsung heroes of this place.
Nō reira, ka nui te mihi ake ki a tātou katoa i runga i te tukunga iho o Ihoa o ngā mano, Matua, Tama, Wairua Tapu me ngā anahera pono, mā te Māngai hei tautoko mai, āianei, āke nei, āe.
[Therefore, many thanks to all of us in respect of the bequest of Jehovah of the multitudes, Father, Son, Holy Spirit and the true angels, may the Holy Mouthpiece support now and forever, yes.]
Now, I’m going to ask Willow-Jean Prime to start a waiata, on my dad’s side, from Ngāpuhi.
Waiata—“Toro mai tō ringa”
[Applause, hongi, and harirū]
SPEAKER: The House is adjourned and will resume at 7.30.
Sitting suspended from 6.15 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
Government Business
Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement
Debate resumed.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Good evening, members. The House has resumed, and we will pick up the debate on the Prime Minister’s statement. It is a split call for the Green Party. I call Celia Wade-Brown.
CELIA WADE-BROWN (Green) (19:30): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. I’d like to share my condolences with those who have lost loved ones, my admiration to the brave first responders and volunteers, and thanks to all those who are working to help communities recover from the extreme rainfall events. Thank you to the marae and others who have offered manaakitanga both to residents and to visitors, domestic and overseas. We must focus on all of the four Rs of Emergency Management: reduction of risk, readiness, response, as well as recovery.
I had a little look for the source of a little European whakataukī, “Prevention is better than cure”. It was the Dutch philosopher Erasmus in the 16th century who is credited with saying “Prevention is better than cure”. It applies to landslides, but it also applies to healthcare, transport, congestion, and much more. We didn’t hear much about prevention in the Prime Minister’s state of the nation speech. After all, a healthy environment and a healthy population mean putting the common good above private profit. If more people in our cities are healthier because they walk or cycle more, that doesn’t provide a profit, but it’s great for the people. Clean, uncontaminated water to drink or to swim in, without too much nitrate or bacteria, is also great for people, but where’s the private healthcare profit in that?
There’s a question that the Prime Minister did not consider in his state of the nation speech: who is the economy for? I would add, as the spokesperson for democracy and electoral reform: who is democracy for? Is it for the wealthy and the sorted, or is it the young worker shifting between rentals, the student on a friend’s couch, the family who moved towns when the mills closed so they could find work? Our democracy only provides a mandate for Government if most people participate, and, right now, hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders are at risk of being locked out. The writ for the next election drops on 4 October. Election day is 7 November, and if you’re not enrolled by midnight on 25 October, you don’t get a say. But if you want to change between the Māori roll and the general roll, the deadline is much sooner—midnight, 6 August.
Then the Prime Minister talked about GDP growth and infrastructure, but he didn’t talk about the most vulnerable people—workers doing split shifts who barely have time between jobs to make a meal and sleep. These aren’t people who don’t care about democracy; they’re people whose lives don’t have the cushion of stability that makes enrolment and participation easy. If we make enrolment just a little bit harder, we’re creating a system that privileges the already privileged. The people most affected by political decisions are often the people least able to participate in making them. The people most likely to be left off the roll often have the most at stake. That’s young people who will face climate change and workers who need a living wage, so let me be clear about what needs to happen: if you’re not enrolled, enrol now. Check your details, and if you know somebody who isn’t enrolled, help them to enrol. The best response to the state of the nation speech is to vote and to make this a one-term Government.
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai) (19:35): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. There is a lot going on the world right now. There’s a lot going on here in Aotearoa—a lot to give us pause and worry and reasons to mourn—and there’s also much to give us hope. We can see the communities forming that are going to enable our society, our people, to thrive in the future. I acknowledge, like my colleagues, the lives recently lost in the extreme weather events of last week in Mahurangi, Pāpāmoa, Mount Maunganui; the families who are still grieving; and those whose homes or livelihoods have been affected.
This is human-caused climate change. We knew about this decades ago. We knew there would be more floods, landslides, droughts, and extreme heat. It affects ordinary people, it affects our food system, and it affects global stability. It was already happening in many countries more than a decade ago. Back in 2014, I had the honour of attending the Climate Reality training, which was hosted by Al Gore in this part of the world, and we saw an extensive presentation demonstrating the link between greenhouse gas emissions from humans burning fossil fuels, changing our land use, and agriculture. We knew what it would cause is a warming temperature—most of which has gone into the oceans—and that directly contributes to heavier rainfall events. It also perversely contributes to periods of drought. We could already see that there were lives being lost in extreme flooding events. It just wasn’t here in Aotearoa—not yet—but now it is.
The dangerous political ideology is the one that says we should not speak the truth, that says it’s just a matter of political opinion, that we don’t need to take climate action. It’s ridiculous. John Key’s National-led Government signed up to the Paris Agreement, and, now, we just have empty words from this Government who has gutted the Climate Change Act, has cut funding for both resilience and mitigation. That means they are actively pursuing an agenda that will increase dangerous fossil fuel emissions and that will increase agricultural emissions. At the same time as they took the funding that could have been used to make people’s lives better, to make people’s lives easier, and to help prevent the challenges, they gave that to people who already own the most—a tax break for tobacco companies and for landlords, and money for fossil fuel exploration. We have known for at least five years—at least—that the world cannot have any more exploration for fossil fuels. We cannot afford to burn them. We can’t keep building motorways. It’s ridiculous.
We need a low-carbon transport system, we need a low-carbon food system, we need to live in harmony with nature, and that is what our communities want. Last night, I was speaking to a packed-out meeting in my electorate in Rongotai, in Newtown, and there were at least 100 people there on a Tuesday night at short notice. Let me tell you, they want to change the Government. They can see the global instability, they can see the rise of authoritarianism, and in my home country—I’ve got to say, in a few weeks, I’ll have my 20th anniversary of calling Aotearoa home. What a huge privilege I have to live in a small, beautiful country where democracy still functions. It’s been nearly 25 years since I left the United States. Right now, in the city my brother and my sister-in-law live in, Minneapolis, Saint Paul, there are armed thugs funded by the federal Government, killing civilians, killing citizens, for standing up for peace. They’re taking illegal action in the United States. People never thought this would happen, and they think it can’t happen here in Aotearoa New Zealand, but it can. It absolutely can. That is why we have to protect our democracy.
As my colleague Celia Wade-Brown was saying, we need to protect democracy. Governments that change the rules around voting and make it harder for people to enrol and vote should not be trusted. We have enough time, we know what the election date is—it’s 7 November. I can tell you the people of Rongotai are already engaging in community action to protect our taiao, to protect our communities. Come 7 November, we will see a change.
GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland) (19:40): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’d like to start off in response to the Prime Minister’s statement, just to acknowledge the awful outcomes and the events, particularly in Tauranga and Pāpāmoa and Mahurangi, and I know there’s a person missing over on the East Coast too. It’s terrible and my heart goes out to those families.
But I particularly want to talk to what’s happened in my electorate in Northland and the rainfall that happened in the early hours of Sunday the 18th. I have here a graph, which some of you may find interesting. You’ll see the big skyscraper there. That covers six hours. That covers the rainfall which happened per hour. For the first hour, there was 40 millimetres of rain; the second hour, 35 millimetres; then 80; followed by 80; followed by 35; 15; and 5. That’s 290 millimetres of rain in the space of six hours, which is three times the monthly rainfall for January in that area. That just showed the actual amount that then led to a huge devastation.
No structures or catchments can cope with that sort of rainfall in that short period of time. It certainly had a massive impact in an area I know very well—around the Whangaruru Harbour, Bland Bay, and Ōakura. I holidayed there since I was a teenager. Had a lot of fun in Bland Bay, fishing and then waterskiing in Ōakura with the family, so I know the area very well. What was the impact of that rainfall—that first event; not the one that happened around the rest of the country but that very first event—was that a massive slip hit the back of the Ōakura hall. A hall, ironically, at the last election, both myself and David Seymour ended up doing an election event, which, in a little community of a few hundred people, was actually quite something. But the slip came down, right into the back of the hall, and devastated the local community. That was their hub, that was their place, and it devastated it. There are five houses red stickered in the wider area and 10 yellow stickered.
Then there was the area in Helena Bay, which was in the bottom end of the catchment where a lot of the rain fell. The devastation caused from the flooding was something else. It came up a metre and a half or so and there was some very temporary housing. One of the local fathers rescued a couple of young kids out of a particular house and got them out. Otherwise, we could have had a much different result. That was the actual devastation that was caused. That was the suddenness of it all. No one forecast anything like that—it just wasn’t forecast.
So I want to thank at this point—because what we saw from that, as all this happened—the local marae at Mōkau, in that Helena Bay area. After Gabrielle, they learnt some lessons, like a lot of the country did. They were set up with an emergency container. They had solar panels and batteries. So they were the hub. They had the kitchen and everything there lined up. So people gathered there and, thankfully, it was built on a raised area above the area of the floods. Consequently, people were safe and they were looked after and there were communications, even though the power went out. But in particular, there were a lot of people that showed good leadership in setting all that up: Simon Mitchell, the chief executive for Ngātiwai; Rōpata Diamond, a trustee; and Aperahama Edwards was another senior member of the Ngātiwai community that showed great leadership. It was great to see.
So on the Sunday morning, I contacted Ken Couper, a good friend of mine—the new Mayor of Whangārei. I shot up and was briefed on what was happening. Because when you’re the local MP, you feel connected and you want to go and help your people—see if there’s anything you can do—but you don’t want to get in the way. It’s always that fine line as a local MP. Because there are experts there who lead civil defence and they know what they’re doing. They don’t need some know-it-all turning up, thinking they know what to do when they actually know nothing. And it was great to see them in action. They did a great job.
So in the next day, they declared a state of emergency. Also, bearing in mind there was another rain system coming. Another $175 million came on the Wednesday. That’s when the big slip hit the Helena Bay Hill road, which is now going to take three or four months to clear. The downstream effects of that for the community is quite substantial—really substantial. I’ll come to that in a minute.
I think it’s important at this point to acknowledge all the people that did great work over this week. This particular area still has a localised state of emergency through till 4 February—or 3rd, I think it is. I’d like to acknowledge all the people in civil defence. They are something else to watch. They’re great people. The fire and emergency, the council staff, rapid response teams, and I really want to also acknowledge the leadership shown by our Prime Minister and our Minister Mark Mitchell. Mark’s been up there twice. The Prime Minister flew in and he took myself in and a range of other officials on Saturday—and Dr Shane Reti was also involved—and we went and visited. The community was really very pleased to see, because we sent the message that we cared about their community and we’re there to help. We wanted to understand what their needs were and we were there to listen.
I particularly want to acknowledge, also, one of my parliamentary colleagues: Hūhana Lyndon. She’s done a great job up there, because it’s her marae that is out around the Bland Bay area there. She’s done a great job supporting her community and keeping people informed. The other Mayor for the Far North—the acting mayor at the time—Chicky Rudkin, because Moko was having a holiday. As he said to me, “Grant, I picked the one week of the year when it had to bucket down.” But he was told to stay on holiday—things were under control in his area.
I also want to really thank the contractors. They’re a group of people who, when the roads are all closed and there are slips everywhere, suddenly people just want the roads cleared. They want to be able to get out, they want to go places, so they can carry on with their lives. I want to acknowledge the contractors who do a great job and thank them very much for their efforts.
So I spent a bit of time on the Friday, after all this happened, driving down from Paihia down the old Russell Road. I dropped into the Waikare marae, drove out to Bland Bay, and checked out the Ngaiotonga Bridge. When the guy said to me, because the approaches had been washed away, “Oh, it’ll be a week to fix this.”, they fixed it in two days. They got stuck in, worked nonstop, and fixed it in two days. Thank you to those people—I really do.
I’d like to acknowledge the people and managers of the Elliot Bay campgrounds, Steve and Ursula, who did a great job. They initially could see the weather was changing on the Saturday night before the big rainfall, and actually told their people who were resident there for camping, “Stick all your valuables and stuff you want to keep dry in your vehicles. I’ve just got a bad feeling about this.” Sure enough, that night they’re all in the woolshed, sheltering. So that was good foresight. They all got out the next day without any trouble.
A couple of things that are other damage to talk about: there have been 62 slips cleared so far; 90 people have been displaced from homes; and, announced today, I acknowledge my colleague Tama Potaka, who’s actually arranged for emergency campervans to be sent up. They’ll have to negotiate a pretty dodgy road to get there, but there are 10 campervans on the way, which is great. So it means we’re improving the accommodation and whatever else is required to be supplied.
The Government’s also supplied $1 million to reimburse marae for their expenses, and also $1.2 million to the mayoral funds, and $200,000 for rural support trusts. The thing with the roading is, remember that over a three-year period, there’s $700 million allocated for just emergency roadworks. So that’s great to see, amongst other things.
I just want to quickly highlight, too, one final thing. One of the challenges that you get in these situations is the kids that have to go to school. School’s about to start and, unfortunately, for most of the kids who want to go to secondary school, the road they use has now got a big slip on it. So I was really very pleased that the Ministry of Education—and I’ll pay credit here to the Minister, who’s sitting beside me here—what they’ve done is they’ve set up a hub at Whangaruru school which has the capacity for an extra 30 students. The students will have the option to be dual enrolled between Whangaruru school and the original schools in Whangārei. The teacher aides are being provided on site to offer additional support. Secondary students will continue to access specialist support through online learning, because the council has advised that this could take three or four months. Those are the sorts of challenges that these isolated communities are dealing with. I want to really acknowledge that and thank them for it.
I just want to, also, finally acknowledge the forestry business there that have been really hurt. They are stuck on the wrong side of the slip, trying to harvest the forest. It’s costing them 50 grand a week. We’re trying to sort things out, because road access is challenging. And so, I commend this speech, and I acknowledge the people of Ōakura and the North. Thank you.
SIMON COURT (ACT) (19:50): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Today, I want to talk about one thing that underpins almost every frustration New Zealanders feel right now: the cost of housing and the time it takes to get infrastructure built. The cost of living that keeps rising—the simple reason behind it all? It is too hard to build and too hard to grow business in New Zealand.
That problem didn’t happen by accident; it lies at the feet of the failed Resource Management Act (RMA). New Zealand does not lack land—we’re not Singapore, we’re not Hong Kong. We have a massive amount of land that we could develop, and yet, the real problem is the lack of land that we can develop and service by infrastructure. That scarcity is artificial. For three decades, the RMA allowed councils to ration land supply by failing to zone for enough growth and by treating almost every objection from any Tom, Dick, and Harry as a legitimate objection. The result’s been predictable. When land prices rise, house prices rise; and when housing costs explode, the cost of living across the country follows. Good planning does not require scarcity, however. It requires, instead, choice, competition, and, of course, flexibility. The RMA delivered none of those.
That is why the new Planning Bill that this Government introduced in December 2025 really does matter. Right at the top, the bill embeds a goal that’s been missing from New Zealand’s planning law for far too long: competitive urban land markets. They require just two things: enough land being zoned, so councils are not monopolies deciding who gets to build where and when; and they also rely on flexible land release over time, so that supply can respond to demand for housing.
The Planning Bill recognises a basic truth: councils need plans to prepare for infrastructure and services, but they cannot accurately determine or predict everywhere that the market demands growth. They cannot know exactly where people will want to build in any given year, or in 10 or even 20 years’ time. The Planning Bill will make sure that, in the future, councils not only zone abundant development capacity but enable the flexibility to release land when there is demand for growth beyond that capacity. That is how we confront this artificial land scarcity, make land available, more competition, get more homes built where people want to live.
But land supply alone does not solve the problem, because land must be serviced. Zoning signals a tent where a council thinks that people should live. And, of course, with natural hazards front and centre right now—with the disaster in Mount Maunganui and flooding and slips all around the country—planning and zoning also indicates where people shouldn’t build. But infrastructure delivers the reality of this capacity, and, under the RMA, infrastructure delivery has been strangled. Consents are slow, processes are expensive. The Infrastructure Commission estimates $1.3 billion per annum spent just on consenting alone. The objections and the objectors are limitless—whether it’s a McDonald’s in Wānaka or a wind farm in Southland, there is no shortage of people who will turn up to say no to the things that New Zealanders need.
Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Get some McPower!
SIMON COURT: And that money that Dr Duncan Webb spent on infrastructure consenting is money that doesn’t get spent building roads, pipes, or power lines. It’s money, birds, and a fire of delay and duplication.
One of the biggest contributors to this is the RMA allowing people to weaponise any number of effects to obstruct development. One of the craziest illustrations of this is the concept of reverse sensitivity: that existing operations that might have operated, whether it’s a factory—people move next door and then complain about the noise or the impacts of the very thing that preceded them. My colleague, Minister Nicole McKee, has spoken about people moving next to longstanding gun ranges and objecting to their continued operation. We see the same thing with airports. We see the same thing with quarries. Who knew that living next to an airport might be noisy and planes might fly over your house, but people will still object to it? And what do they expect—the airport to move? Well, that’s ridiculous. Is it any wonder that, with such a system, infrastructure is so hard and so expensive to build?
The Planning Bill, alongside wider reforms, will fix this. Infrastructure is not going to be an afterthought in the new system. It’s embedded as a core goal right at the top of the Planning Bill. It will be supported by a far narrower scope of legislation—regulation that means there will be fewer things that people can have the right to object to. It’ll be supported by forcing public input where it belongs; at the national direction and plan-making stage, not in people’s and businesses’ individual consent processes, where they are not genuinely affected. That really matters, because consenting is about delivery, not debate.
The Planning Bill will also support those dealing with reverse sensitivity. Under the new legislation, you will not be able to move to the nuisance and then complain about it. Existing operations deserve that certainty. It will also be supported by long-term spatial planning. This will identify strategic infrastructure corridors well in advance. It will provide one of the pathways for simplified infrastructure designation processes. The result is simple: land that is zoned, land that is serviced, land that can actually deliver growth.
What are the values behind this reform? Well, this reflects a planning system that, in future, will be grounded in property rights and common sense—property rights for people who already live and invest in the places where they live; property rights for millions of New Zealanders who will benefit from future growth and housing opportunities. This reform will reduce the monopoly that councils have over development and enable private developers, the private sector, to respond to demand rather than begging permission from these monopoly regulators that councils have become. We will replace a culture of scarcity with, instead, a culture of building and abundance. That is how you truly fix what matters.
Because when homes are built, people have access to affordable housing, and when infrastructure is delivered, productivity rises. When the system works, the cost of living eases. So if this Government is serious about affordability, opportunity, and growth, then planning reform is not optional for us. The Planning Bill is how we move from a system designed to say no to one that automatically says “yes, and”: yes to homes, yes to infrastructure, yes to a future where New Zealanders can afford to live in the country they were born in. ACT is proud to be in the engine room for this change. I support the Prime Minister’s statement. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): This is a split call.
SCOTT WILLIS (Green) (19:59): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Let’s talk about the state of the nation, because it’s been a chilly summer in the Deep South. We’ve had plenty of rain—heavy rain events. Our summer’s been so cold and wet. We’ve been lighting the fire, dipping into our winter firewood supply. Gosh! I think we’re so lucky that we can afford to that because the state of our nation is that so many are not so lucky. Many hard-working Kiwis are having to do without right now.
Kiwis all around the motu are doing it tough, and you’ll have to excuse me, Madam Speaker, but I thought Christopher Luxon must have been joking when he claimed that the Government is supporting New Zealanders’ financial security. It’s a joke because, for struggling Kiwis, power prices rose 12 percent in the last 12 months and this rising cost of electricity is one of the biggest drivers of the cost of living crisis. This is of the Government’s own making. Our rising electricity prices are one of the biggest drivers of inflation, and yet, in the state of the nation speech from our Prime Minister, silence.
Christopher Luxon talks prosperity. Meanwhile, people are unable to pay their power bills, and manufacturing is shutting down, meaning more people out of work and more people doing it tough. I don’t know when it will dawn on the Prime Minister that our regions are hurting. The PM told us it’s going to be a great year, and perhaps it will be for him because, in his own words, he’s wealthy; he’s sorted. But tough cookies for ordinary Kiwis who have lost their jobs or our elderly who can’t afford their bills, thanks to the choices this Government has made and continues to make. No, the prosperity Christopher Luxon is talking about only rings true for those fossil fuel companies who are getting a $200 million subsidy, those poor offshore fossil fuel companies needing a handout. Imagine choosing that instead of putting solar panel arrays on every school in Aotearoa. How short-sighted is that?
Then we hear Christopher Luxon arguing that the changes to national direction will allow greater development of renewable energy, assuming the market will simply deliver. Well, we’ve had 30 years of the market failing to deliver. What we actually need is to break up the gentailers because people are being crippled by high power bills while innovation is being cut off at the knees. But the Government wants to fund tax breaks to landlords and their big tobacco mates. That’s what the Government’s focus seems to be—“Keep the dividends coming. We’ve got to pay for our mates.” It is time to break up the gentailers, the supermarkets, the Australian bank cartels. They have had their boot on the throat of the average Kiwi household, with the Government’s complicity, for far too long. Come 7 November, Kiwis will have an opportunity to say they have had enough.
It is time to invest in an energy system for the public good to support our households, to support our businesses, to support manufacturing, to support industry, and to free ourselves from the tyranny of fossil fuels and the fossil fools who sit in this House. We can unlock real solutions to cut power prices, we can build resilience, and we can decarbonise with appropriate rules, regulations, standards, and policies that are fit for the future. We need to design an energy system that is fit for the 21st century, not something for last century. Kiwis know that the way to secure that future is through a Green-led Government, and we are ready.
MIKE DAVIDSON (Green) (20:04): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak to the Prime Minister’s statement, and I want to acknowledge my colleague Scott Willis for his inspirational five-minute speech there. As for what we heard yesterday from the Prime Minister, it was simply a load of corporate spin. We all know that this country has gone backwards over the last two years. Nature has been under attack. Māori have been under attack. It’s got harder for everyday Kiwis, not easier. The less you earn, the harder it gets. On the flip side, the wealthy are doing just fine, and the only thing that this Government has been able to grow is inequality, and they blame everyone else for their failings—like local government.
This Government seems to love using local government as a punching bag, an easy distraction from the increased responsibilities that they put on councils without the support and resourcing needed. They’ve introduced a suite of changes that they believe will fix local government, to make them refocus on what this Government thinks are the core services of roading, rubbish, and reticulation, and to get them back to the so-called basics. They’re going to introduce a rates cap, and they’re going to remove regional councillors and limit what councillors can spend money on. What they’re not doing is talking to the sector in good faith, because, of course, this Government think they know best.
Everyone that I have spoken to agrees that local government is not fit for purpose, and changes are required. Local Government New Zealand, who knows the sector best, agree and have already done a lot of work and produced a thorough and thoughtful report that this Government has dismissed out of hand. However, when you ignore the sector and just blindly create a pathway based on your own reckons, you are bound to fail. You fail councils, you fail residents, and you fail to make the changes that would endure and make a real difference.
Let’s talk about getting back to the basics. It’s back to the 1980s—roads, reticulation, and rubbish. I’ll tell you what’s rubbish: it’s thinking that the role of Government is just roads, reticulation, and rubbish. Local government is there for the people, for the community, and for the volunteer groups that do so much mahi. Local government is there for the environment, and climate mitigation and adaptation. Local government is there for the local economy and mana whenua. Local government is there for future generations. Local councils are on the ground every day for the wellbeing of their residents.
If it’s not local government, then who? Certainly not this Government. No mayor or councillor wants to lift rates higher than they need to be, but when councils keep rates increases below what is required to meet the needs of their communities, towns, or cities, then they start to sweat the assets until they start to break and water pipes start to burst. All you will do is push the burden and extra costs of delaying renewals to future councils, future ratepayers, and increase costs. All you will do is hurt community more, and, of course, nature will suffer.
Ask councils what most expenditure goes on when they lift rates. I guarantee you they will tell you it’s infrastructure. In the three years following the height of the pandemic, the cost of building roads and replacing pipes and bridges rose nearly 30 percent. That’s not measured by the consumers price index, and using the CPI as a measure of rates appropriateness is deliberately disingenuous. Councils will tell you that increased insurance and inflation is impacting rates and the constant flip-flopping of Governments causing plan change after plan change is costing councils millions and millions and affecting rates.
What is not a big driver of rates increases is supporting community groups in their district, and it’s community groups across the motu who are there when disaster hits, who are praised by politicians who then don’t think that supporting them ahead of time is important. Introducing a 2 to 4 percent rates cap will set up councils and communities that they represent to fail, and this Government wants to simplify local government. Firstly, by removing regional councillors and replacing them with a board of mayors creates unnecessary risk. These mayors have been elected by their community to serve their community, not the region. Do they actually have the time to do this additional role beside their mayoral duties, and do they have the skillsets to perform the role of a regional councillor? Once again, it will be our environment that suffers, and I’m appalled that this Government will achieve their goal of removing Ngāi Tahu councillors from the Canterbury Regional Council. This might surprise the Government, but having two mana whenua representatives among 16 councillors has made them better governors for the regions.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The member’s time has expired.
Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education) (20:09): I move, That this debate be now adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
Debate interrupted.
Bills
Legislation Amendment Bill
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 27 January.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): In the interrupted debate, we were up to call No. 12, which is a National Party call. I call Ryan Hamilton.
RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East) (20:10): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, I’d just like to acknowledge the mover of this bill, the Hon Judith Collins, who had a lot to do with—well, this bill’s actually gone through many iterations in many Parliaments. Obviously, it’s largely a bipartisan bill, being secondary legislation.
I do confess to not knowing a lot about secondary legislation before coming into Parliament, and now I can’t get it out of my head. But the fantastic thing about this bill is it brings it all into one place. It indexes it, it houses it, and it’s a wonderful thing. I’m pleased to commend it to the House.
MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Tai Tokerau) (20:11): Tēnā koe. Tēnā tātou katoa. Last night in the debate, listening to the speeches, I was—I mean, I was utterly impressed when I was listening to Vanushi Walters talking with such detail. And the whole constitutional value of this piece of—what seems simple and small, but, actually, when you get into it, like the previous member was saying, one can’t get it out of one’s mind, or, in fact, it becomes more interesting than one might anticipate.
I do rise to take a short call in support of the bill. In large part, the changes being proposed are good things. It’s a good thing. This bill makes legislation easier to find, easier to use, and easier to understand by providing a single clear point of access. Access matters. It matters particularly for secondary legislation, which for too long has been difficult for ordinary people—like myself and others—to get in, access, understand how to access, and then to do something with. So this, again, is a good thing, and I like it.
The changes are positive, because law and constitutional complexity—which, again, is better for others to comment on—have historically been one of the aspects of it that Māori cannot access, for a whole number of reasons, and have been held back because of it. When this system is hard to navigate, the people most affected are those already pushed to the margins. Again, just a thumbs up. Our people need and deserve clear access points to the law because engagement is key, and real engagement is exactly what will happen here.
I note that the bill was considered by the Justice Committee, and I expect that robust and thoughtful discussion took place throughout the submission process—one would expect. I’ve read a number of those submissions, and I want to just comment on one which did raise a bit of concern around the drafting of the tax legislation. Currently, section 68 of that Legislation Act authorises Inland Revenue to draft its own tax legislation—if I’m reading this right—and clause 27 of this bill introduces new section 83AA, which further recognises that authority. I simply note that Inland Revenue is the only department that drafts its own legislation.
Both the Law Commission and the New Zealand Law Society have raised these concerns about a system in which one agency designs the policy, drafts the legislation, and then enforces it. I also note that this bill does not expand Inland Revenue’s drafting powers, but it does create an opportunity, and perhaps an obligation, to reconsider whether this practice is appropriate. That may be something for deeper examination at the next stage of this bill, but it is certainly something we should be turning our minds to now.
As other members have already noted, while this bill may sound technical and straightforward, it is in fact making changes to constitutional law. When we are dealing with constitutional matters, the detail matters and it deserves our full attention. Nō reira, in that regard, tautoko mārika ahau i te pire [I wholeheartedly support the bill]. I support it. Thank you.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Legislation Amendment Bill be now read a second time.
Ayes 108
New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Noes 15
Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Ngāti Hāua Claims Settlement Bill.
Ngāti Hāua Claims Settlement Bill
Committee of the Whole House
Parts 1 to 5, Schedules 1 to 7, and clauses 1 and 2
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, the House is in committee on the Ngāti Hāua Claims Settlement Bill. We now first to Part 1.
DAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth) (20:17): Point of order. I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) (20:17): Members, since the second reading of the bill on 4 November, a matter has risen that requires a small amendment to the bill. Manunui School and Taumarunui Primary School have reserve status for the purposes of the Reserves Act 1977. That reservation must be removed in order to make the properties available for Ngāti Hāua as commercial redress as agreed in the deed of settlement.
The application of the Reserves Act was identified after the bill had been reported to the House by the Māori Affairs Committee. Amendment Paper 501 makes technical corrections to those properties—that did not change the overall redress package.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I just need to state that the question that we’re currently discussing is that Parts 1 to 5, Schedules 1 to 7, and clauses 1 and 2 stand part. I should have said that prior to the Minister’s call, if I’d had the right page in front of me. The question is that Parts 1 to 5, Schedules 1 to 7, and clause 1 and 2 stand part. All those in favour—sorry, hang on. It’s all right—I’m getting myself a bit back to front here.
The question is that the Minister’s amendments set out on Amendment Paper 501 be agreed to.
Amendments agreed to.
Parts 1 to 5, Schedules 1 to 7, and clauses 1 and 2, as amended, agreed to.
Bill to be reported with amendment.
House resumed.
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Ngāti Hāua Claims Settlement Bill and reports it with amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.
Motion agreed to.
Report adopted.
Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Amendment Bill
Legislative Statement
Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police) (20:20): I present a legislative statement on the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Amendment Bill.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.
Third Reading
Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police) (20:20): I move, That the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Amendment Bill now be read a third time.
The Government wants to reduce the harm to children from sexual offending. I’m pleased to stand here before the House today for the third reading of the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Amendment Bill. I’d firstly like to thank both the Justice Committee and all members of the select committee for the detailed consideration that they gave this bill. I’d also like to thank you all for the time in considering the bill, including the engaging debate during the committee of the whole House last year.
The bill seeks to make some improvements to the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Act 2016 to ensure that we’re doing everything possible to keep children and young people in our communities safe from harmful sexual behaviour. The bill simplifies aspects of the Act that are overly complex and difficult to understand, to make it easier for registered offenders to comply with their reporting requirements. It also makes amendments to futureproof this legislation, reflecting evolving technology.
The bill will improve the effectiveness of the child sex offender register and it will help registry staff manage the risks presented by child sex offenders living in the community. The bill will require offenders to report additional personal information to help inform risk management approaches. This includes, for example, making it easier for registry staff to contact the child’s principal caregiver if it is necessary to make a disclosure about an offender where they may pose a risk, and requiring information to be provided within different time frames to better enable registry staff to manage and monitor risk—for example, requiring offenders to report if a child is going to be living at the same address as them 48 hours before this occurs, rather than, currently, the 72 hours after. The new reporting requirements and changes in reporting time frames will create additional obligations on offenders on the register, both now and in the future.
The bill adds seven additional qualifying offences to the Act. These are offences that cause an offender to be placed on the register. The seven additional offences are four Prostitution Reform Act 2003 offences which were unintended omissions from the original Act, two Crimes Act 1961 offences, and one Customs and Excise Act 2018 offence. These offences are being added because they align with offences already covered by the Act.
While this bill is largely technical, it will deliver practical improvements to further support the protection of our children. The bill is another example of this Government’s focus on law and order. The bill represents a careful balance that recognises the right of the community to be protected from child sex offenders. It is also a reminder that our focus on reducing crime is about reducing harm—in this instance, preventing harm to children. I’m pleased to commend this bill to the House.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the motion be agreed to.
VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour) (20:23): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise and speak in support of the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Amendment Bill, and my thanks to the Minister of Police for bringing what I think is a very important bill to the House.
I wasn’t in the House—or back in the House, I should say—at the Justice Committee when this bill was considered, but at the time I was about to take on a role leading a Helen Clark Foundation project, which was looking at the occurrence of sexual violence and the steps that the House could take in terms of addressing what is a really awful thing that is happening a lot across the country in our communities. So my mind was certainly there.
As I read through the submissions coming back into the House, it took me back to my role at YouthLaw Aotearoa—where I was a solicitor and then a managing solicitor—and lot of our experiences talking to young people and providing them with advice through some really harrowing experiences. A lot of those young people—it took all of their courage just to raise the issue. A lot of them really couldn’t go any further than that. Really putting effort into preventing that offending happening in the first place makes a huge difference not just for children when they are children but throughout their lives. We were speaking to teenagers and sometimes parents who were suffering from trauma that had happened to them at a very young stage.
I found this bill, reading through the submissions, quite complex. In regards to the history of my work, the policy objectives are clear—very much needed. The complexity comes with how we make these changes, and the Minister would have read the Attorney-General’s reports not just on this piece of legislation but the prior pieces of legislation in this area. I will speak briefly to that, because I do think the House needs to, with its eyes wide open, be very clear about voting to affirm this legislation, because we do have challenges in terms of its compliance with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.
The Minister has covered the framing of the bill. I see it as being a bill in two parts, essentially. The first part is about the increased reporting, and the second part, if you like, is the creation of the seven additional offences, which absolutely do need to be included in this space with what we’re seeing in terms of grooming, online behaviour, and the really insidious ways that people are getting to these young people.
The first half of the bill is the part of the bill which does have some retroactivity—issues of double jeopardy—that the Attorney-General has raised in her report. I will speak to that, because, again, I do think it’s important to acknowledge as we support the bill as well. I’d recognise the 22 written submissions that the committee received—the five oral submissions—where this issue was raised. The Law Society in particular spoke to this issue.
The issue we have, essentially, is that we have court cases that say that being on the registry constitutes a punishment. For those people who have already been given the terms of which they have to report, this will essentially enforce new requirements of them that they were not made aware of at the time that they committed the offence and nor at the time of sentencing, for many of them. That does create an issue. I do believe the Attorney-General in her report accurately identified that it’s potentially not a reasonable breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. She did that on two grounds. The first was that she didn’t believe the argument that it would cause too much of an administrative burden for the police to operate multiple registers was a good reason for limiting that particular right. I agree with that. She also made some commentary, which has been present in other Attorneys-General reports on this issue, that there was no attempt to limit how it might affect the right, so perhaps to limit the reporting frameworks or reporting timelines for those people who are already on the registry and now being subject to these rules.
She was correct in terms of her assessment, but, as we know—as the Law Society knows, and as the Attorney-General knows—the House can, with its eyes open, see that we are passing legislation that is not a reasonable limitation of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and still go ahead and do it. But it is a complex thing to do, which is why I think we ought to recognise what we are doing at this third reading.
The other thing to note is the second part of the bill; the seven new offences aren’t in that same category, so they are prospective offences and that won’t be applied retrospectively. The Law Society explicitly made that point as well—that there was no issue with that whatsoever. I go back to voting in support of this bill simply because of some of what I’ve seen in the legal space with young people who suffer tremendously through their lives when an instance like this happens.
We did have some submitters who made, I thought, some interesting observations on what we should continue to monitor in this space going forward. This is an area of the law that has come back to the House several times over the last decade. I think the original regime was put in place in 2016, if I remember correctly. My view is that this is one of those pieces of legislation that we must continue to monitor to ensure that it’s serving our young people and that we’re getting the balance right.
Te Ohaakii a Hine - National Network Ending Sexual Violence Together (TOAH-NNEST) raised an issue about a concern that offenders may bargain down their charges to avoid being placed on the register. Now, my assessment of the current scope of the charges, including these new ones, is that I hope that would be a rare occurrence. However, I did think that they made a useful point there, and I think it would be useful for us to monitor whether that is in actuality happening, in terms of plea bargaining, because, again, that places our young people at risk.
The second interesting point they made was in regard to the new definition for a registerable offender’s place of residence. The current definition bases it on a time-scale, and that’s quite difficult for the police to monitor. The significant change that’s been made is based on the concept that a registerable offender’s residence is where they make their home because of family or personal relationships. One, it’s a broader definition, but it’s also more consistent with the Electoral Act provisions. I think that’s great. The interesting point is not so much that; it’s really that, for me, the fact that the Act currently provides that, if a registerable offender does not have a permanent address, they must notify registry staff of the name of each of the localities in which they can be—and here’s the keyword—“generally … found”. The current definition of locality is actually very broad, so you could provide the police with a locality like “the Wellington region”, for example. I think that, again, poses a rather significant risk issue for young people if the information the police hold on these individuals is as broad as it is. It’s another area that I think we need to be actively monitoring.
I’d say one more thing, just going back to where I started. Again, I support this bill because, what I’ve heard, the times that young people who’ve been brave enough, have sought some help yet haven’t had a resolution for the sexual violence that has happened to them—we still have an extremely low reporting rate of sexual violence. So the registry is part of a solution here, but we must be honest with ourselves that we have a very serious problem when it comes to sexual violence in New Zealand against children, against women, and against others in our population. To truly do something to address it, we must look at the system as a whole.
TOAH-NNEST raised a number of proposals in their submission on prevention, justice reform, and tailored treatment and supervision, including, in my view, the family violence courts, which we must protect, as well as research and understanding. A plea to colleagues across the House that as we hopefully pass this legislation we will continue to look at proposals that come to the House, including those that came through the Helen Clark Foundation’s report at the end of last year. I commend this bill to the House.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (20:33): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party to speak on the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Amendment Bill, but I think, before that, I do want to thank the Minister in charge, the Hon Mark Mitchell, in his other portfolio, particularly around emergency management, for the work that he has done over the last few weeks in terms of some of the tragedy we have seen across the country. I do really thank the Minister for everything that he has done over this last period.
This is a bill where it’s been, I guess, nine months since it has come back to the House for the third reading. I believe that we had the second reading and the committee stage in April last year. It is one of those bills that is incredibly important and also, like many things that we have experienced recently, a very sobering and serious bill to consider by the House—although there has been quite a significant gap in bringing the bill back.
I think, to start with, we obviously want to address the seriousness in terms of what this bill is trying to achieve, and particularly around the child sex offender registration and the work that the Justice Committee has done on this. I think that is something that we have spoken on in the second reading—that we understand, particularly from the submitters, the impact of this bill on the wellbeing of tamariki in Aotearoa. Again, we just want to reaffirm our acknowledgment of the fact that while there is preliminary evidence around this by the police and by some of the work that has been done looking at this, there is still much more work to be done, in terms of addressing some of the systemic issues and factors that are around this particularly serious matter.
However, probably one of the things that is of most concern—and we obviously see that from submitters; and it was something that we spoke on in the second reading, and also in terms of the committee stage—is that this is one of the few bills that was introduced by this Government that has a section 7 report by the Attorney-General. I do want to thank, again, the Minister for his genuine acknowledgment during the committee stage of the seriousness of the section 7 report, and also responses to our questions around that, but there are a few things that I want to touch on, in terms of that report, and also in terms of some of the discussions that we did have during the committee of the whole House. Again, it’s more of a refresher for everyone as well, since it’s been a little while since we’ve come back to this bill.
The main aspects of the section 7 report by the Attorney-General focus on two aspects that the Attorney-General believed to be not so much undermining the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act but inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and not justified under section 5, in terms of the limitations to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—that is, the inconsistency around section 25(g), the right to the benefit of a lesser penalty where penalties change, and also section 26(2), the right to freedom from double jeopardy. Those two things are important, and I think section 25(g), the right to the benefit of a lesser penalty where penalties change, is one of the more significant aspects in terms of any sort of public law experts and the reading of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.
I also want to draw the attention of the House to three tabled amendments that were submitted during the committee of the whole House stage: one on clause 5; one on Schedule 1; and one on clause 11, new section 16(1). I want to speak to some of them in turn because, also, again, while the Greens still have reservations about any aspect that is inconsistent or has a section 7 report to it, we are in support of this bill because of the serious nature and the understanding that this is something that is needed, and also, for some of them, we are reassured, actually, by the Minister’s response during the committee stage and how the Minister responded to our amendment.
One of the first ones that we spoke on is around clause 15, and this is to do with section 20 replaced. This is specifically in reference to the changes around the ability that the registrant, in this case, must be reported as soon as reasonably practicable, but no more than 24 hours after change occurred. Part of the reason we brought this amendment is the fact that the new provisions would limit the ability for close relatives to spontaneously visit the registered offender with children, even if the kids are supervised the whole time. The concern there would be that it would further isolate the offender and be an impediment to their rehabilitation. This is something that we’ve heard from the submitters as well.
I do want to say that, while the amendment wasn’t accepted by the Minister, the Minister did specify, I guess, one particular element, which is that the purpose of this amendment is to provide better protection for children and young people, and the amendment already provides an exception where it is not practicable or possible in circumstances within the 48 hours before residing. That is actually really reassuring to know—that there is the human aspect. Sometimes there are things that are just simply beyond people’s control, and exceptions will be considered on a case by case basis. We do accept the Minister’s response and the rationale behind not accepting that particular amendment.
The one on clause 11, as well—again, it comes down to what is considered reasonable, and this is in terms of reporting and the requirement to make periodic reports. One of the recommendations we made is to consider section 25(g) of the section 7 report by the Attorney-General, which is the disproportionate reporting requirement, which can be considered as a form of punishment.
It is important over there to acknowledge that the reporting system may not be intuitive for a registered offender, but if relevant personal information is not reported accurately and promptly, then it may have dire consequences to the person’s general rehabilitation efforts. Our amendments sort of seek to consider, I guess, in some ways, the ability to have these exceptional circumstances where we are looking at whether they are able to make the report to the best of their abilities, knowing that unless they get specific help—and there were some other bills that have been put in front of Parliament where there has been the ability for assistance by people to be able to support, I guess, in this case, the registrable offender to make the most accurate report possible. But, again, I do acknowledge the Minister’s response to that.
The main point of this is that the registry staff will work closely with the registrable offender to help them comply with the requirement, and it’s only when a registrable offender knowingly provides false or misleading information that may result in their being charged—I think that’s a really important distinction to make in this case, which is that people make mistakes and sometimes people may not make the most accurate report. But if it is done in a really genuine way, and in a way that they know to be true as opposed to deliberately making misleading or providing false information, I think, again, that is a really important distinction to make. Hopefully, that is something that will be considered seriously when we are looking at that in conjunction with section 25(g) of the Attorney-General’s New Zealand Bill of Rights report.
Overall, the Greens do support this bill. Like I stated before, we do have some concerns over the fact that this is one of the few bills that had a section 7 report being presented to the House, and that was something that we did discuss with the Minister at length during the committee stage. This is something that the Minister has taken on board and responded to in a genuine way in terms of the rationale for the limitations, or ways that, while still potentially creating some of the limitations, is done in a genuine way that still has both the protection of the child at its core, as well as the genuine rehabilitation of the registrable offender. With that, we do recommend this bill to the House.
Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children) (20:43): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a privilege to stand on behalf of ACT and support the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Amendment Bill. I’d just like to start by thanking the Hon Mark Mitchell for actually making this a priority on his work programme, and actually setting down in stone that this is something that’s really important: protecting our children, protecting our most vulnerable, who are often forgotten. So I’d just like to thank Mark for this.
It also just shows what this coalition Government has done over the time, when it comes to crime and when it comes to protecting victims across the whole of New Zealand, whether it be children or adults, or putting them first. Our legislation is really showing that. It’s been a privilege to work alongside many of the justice Ministers—the Hon Nicole McKee, the Hon Casey Costello, the Hon Paul Goldsmith, and the Hon Mark Mitchell. I think we’ve made a really good team and we’ve made some real big changes and differences in victims’ lives. So thanks for that.
This bill, in particular, is really important because its main objective is to improve the safety of children and young people in the communities by amending the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Act to make it more clear, more consistent, and easier for offenders to understand and comply with. But also, when you improve the clarity, when you have better understanding of what your obligations are, then there’s a higher chance of them actually being followed. When a law seems fair and a law is understood and a law can be complied with and it doesn’t feel like there’s barriers in place to actually comply with that, then you get better compliance. So this is actually really important.
The key areas of the legislation are to require registrable offenders to report that a child is going to be residing at the same address as them—48 hours before this occurs rather than the 72 hours after. This just makes sense. We need to know when young people are in the vicinity of someone that may be a risk in terms of hurting or harming them. It also requires registrable offenders to report attendance at education or training courses, and clarifies that voluntary work must be reported. I think whilst it’s a small change, it’s an important change, because in terms of volunteer work, the organisations that they are volunteering with may not necessarily know the background. So if they’re reporting, we can keep an eye on where they are and who they’re actually volunteering around so that there’s no risk to the community.
The bill clarifies the definition of “locality” for registrable offenders with no permanent address of fixed abode in New Zealand. Some people have already gone into this and why that’s really important, so I won’t repeat that. The bill enables notices to be served by electronic means. This is just common sense and will make it a lot easier to get it to serve offenders.
The biggest one for me, really, is we just have to read what the bill is aiming to do to know how important it is. It would be hard if I heard somebody in this House actually speaking against it. So it’s really nice to hear every party agreeing that we need to improve the effectiveness of this register and we need to make sure that it is doing what it is intended to do: making it easier for staff to contact caregivers if it’s necessary to make disclosures about an offender that may pose a risk, making it easier for offenders to apply, providing registry staff with more time to make necessary international notifications and border alerts—all this stuff may sound simple but it’s really, really important to the safety of our kids. If we can keep children safe from harmful sexual behaviour, we can have healthy adults, because when we look at a young person who may have been subjected to or been around behaviour such as this, the effects of it last for a lifetime.
We can talk to the technicalities of a bill and what we’re trying to do with a bill, but what does this mean in reality? It means fewer children and young people being exposed to serious sexual behaviour. This means that more young people can just be children rather than having to worry about the adult world and things that children should not even have heard or know about. Children won’t be broken to the point where they are still trying to heal, when they haven’t even become adults. Children won’t have to keep secrets from people they love. Children won’t feel that pressure of not speaking up. Children won’t feel that pressure of breaking up families, especially if it’s somebody that their family knows. Children won’t have to deal with problems that they shouldn’t have to even consider or even know about. Let’s just let our children be children; let our children grow up in a world of innocence as long as we possibly can. Any bill that allows that, I am in support of.
I don’t want to talk for too much longer because it’s really important that we get this bill through and I look forward to the rest of the speakers commending this bill to the House.
Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Police) (20:50): Madam Speaker, I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in support of the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Amendment Bill.
This is an important piece of legislation and I commend the Minister of Police for the efforts in bringing this piece of work forward. It has been a long time coming and I had the privilege of introducing the bill in the first reading on behalf of the Minister, so I am grateful that we are finally at this point.
I would really like to acknowledge the Justice Committee. They have had a huge volume of work and it is difficult, this type of offending; it’s really difficult to deal with, to consider, to confront. I recall, in my very early days when I first joined the Criminal Investigation Branch, the membership of the sexual abuse and child abuse team was one that we feared because of the confronting and harmful types of offending you had to deal with, and you carry those images and stories with you because the reality that people exist that can do this to children is frightening, at times. The register has been an important piece of legislation; it has been an important piece of legislation, both to provide support for those on the register from reoffending, but also protection to children, as we move forward. The fact that the register can be developed further, that we can do more to it, is really important.
This legislation is really an embodiment of New Zealand First’s core pillars. This is about protecting community and protecting country and our community. Our children are the most vulnerable and therefore require the most protection. Therefore, it is a privilege on behalf of New Zealand First to be speaking on this piece of legislation with some degree of sadness that we need this; with some degree of sadness that this is something that we have to have in our society, as it exists today.
I’d firstly like to talk about the fact that we are expanding the offences under which you qualify to be part of the register. Part of those additional offences were really a correction over an admission of what should have been in there in the first place. But I’d like to speak just briefly around the inclusion of the Customs and Excise Act around the importing and exporting of objectionable publications. This is a piece of work that I would just pause for a moment to reflect on the team within Customs that deals with this type of offending. They are an amazing group of individuals who are immersed, every day, in stuff that nobody should ever have to see or experience or look at or know exists.
They have an incredible task ahead of them because of the prevalence of this type of offending that’s occurring now; the fact that these images are seen as somehow a picture without a person behind it, without a child that is being treated appallingly, having their life stolen from them. These investigations are complex and difficult and worldwide. But the fact is we have offenders within New Zealand who are involved in this type of offending. So I am greatly appreciative of the fact that this is now going to be included as a qualifying offence for the register because we have to send a very clear message that these are not pictures, these are people. These are not just images on a computer; they are lives and they are destroyed lives as a result of people who trade in this commodity. So I’m very grateful that this has been expanded.
I also think it’s really important to acknowledge and appreciate the fact that the retrospectivity was retained in this bill. I think it is important that we recognise that those on the register will actually have some benefit with this legislation change: the ability to access technology, to do things in a more effective way, make changes by phone, recognise that there is a changing environment and we’re modernising our systems. Having this legislation bring about those flexibilities will greatly enhance the ability to manage the register, and for those on the register to comply. That is what we’re trying to do.
This is a support mechanism as well as just a monitoring mechanism. It is about protecting children, but it is also about providing those that are on the register the opportunity to be supported, to be kept away from temptation, to recognise that this is something that may occur again, and therefore the ability to keep them away from temptations is really important.
I really appreciate the fact that the Justice Committee has really considered this and recommended the bill without amendment. This means that we have come together as a Parliament to recognise, cohesively, that we all support this type of work, that we recognise that there is something that we can all agree on, and the protection of children is fundamentally the thing that we definitely need to come together on.
I am really appreciative, also, of the fact that in this House tonight we are dealing with this with reverence, we are dealing with this with respect on the issues. It isn’t a political grandstand; it is something that we all recognise collectively: that our children are vulnerable, children are vulnerable in a technical world, they’re vulnerable in a global environment where children are, too often, being treated as a commodity. Therefore, having some tools that not only look at punishment, but look at protection; that not only look at the punitive components of legislation, but also at the protection opportunities that we can have. This is a really significant tool to deliver protections.
It is something that I think is, again, fundamental to New Zealand First’s principles of just a common-sense approach to law and order, that we have the ability to put New Zealand and New Zealanders first—and that is really core to this piece of legislation—and that our young New Zealanders will be put first, by adding another layer of protection which I think is really important. Therefore, without hesitation, I commend this bill to the House.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The next call is a split call, and Te Pāti Māori has given permission for Mariameno Kapa-Kingi to take this call.
MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Tai Tokerau) (20:57): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Tēnā tātou te Whare. In 1994, myself and Mark Burton came together when I was living in Taupō, and we developed a response, I guess, for sexual abuse counselling. It was quite a thing to do that in Taupō, actually. I don’t believe it’s operating quite the same anymore, but my reflection there is that when I look at this and I commend and mihi to you, Minister Mitchell, for the intention and the work and what it takes to turn our minds in the whole House to it and to the Justice Committee for making this to this point, so mihi atu ana ki a koe [I acknowledge you].
I get what it takes; I get the work. I understand, deeply, the pain and anguish of such acts; terrible, horrible, disgusting acts upon the most vulnerable; just acknowledging the nods in the House right from these speeches this evening, and the acknowledgement of that harm. So, can I say to that, then, I support this bill and I have during all of its stages. I’m consistent in that because I understand the work and what it takes.
In extension to it, if I can, obviously we will also be thinking how do we get in front of it? How do we get into this protection/prevention mode? I’m sure that’s been thought about and it must be, and I think that’s got to be—if not the parallel—it’s got to be something that we are tussling with as much as we are a register. I offer these thoughts with that in mind. I do that having Māori mokopuna in mind, in my contribution. I know that 70 percent of children in State care are tamariki Māori. I know that 80 percent of those experience abuse within the system as tamariki Māori. Nearly 10 years on from 2017 findings that showed tamariki Māori made up 37 percent of victims of sexual violence within Child, Youth and Family care services, we must ask: has that really, truly changed?
You know, actually, let me just say this: I’m not avoiding the fact and avoiding the understanding and knowledge, having worked in it, that these things happen in homes, and they happen by people that our mokopuna know. So when I’m pushing it out a bit, none of this is because I don’t know that there are other dynamics; it’s because I do know them. I worked in Oranga Tamariki and I worked in the child protection team, and then in an extension to the sexual abuse counselling work—and Te Ohaakii a Hine - National Network Ending Sexual Violence Together was mentioned tonight as well—so I know those people and I know those places.
I want to make sure that the House understands that when I’m moving to the other place, it’s not because I don’t know the harm of the families that know our mokopuna would do such terrible, terrible things. I support the bill, I continue to support the intention, and I believe that more can be done in the prevention space and the protection space.
I worked for many years teaching, interestingly, self-defence to children in schools, across the whole central plateau. I did that because what I do think, Minister Mitchell, is that when families themselves, when whānau themselves, their own communities, have their own, I guess, capability and willingness to teach our children ourselves to recognise harm and to respond to harm, I knew then—I mean, it would have been for about 20 years that I did this work: working in schools with hundreds and hundreds of children. Sadly, in those times, children would disclose what was happening for them right then.
I guess what I’m reflecting here is that I know this: I think we can do much, much more in the protection space. Yes, the register—absolutely, the register—and all the other things that are around it. But if we keep our eye on our mokopuna and what they need and what they can do with their whānau, I think we’re taking it to another level. Kia ora tātou.
CELIA WADE-BROWN (Green) (21:02): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. I rise on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa to address this critical issue and to give our support to this child sex offender register amendment bill. I bring the warm support of our children’s spokesperson, Kahurangi Carter.
Child sexual abuse is horrific and traumatic, and we must do what we can to prevent this harm. Experiencing sexual abuse as a child can cause lifetime trauma. Prevention of harm and protection of children is urgent, necessary mahi. Many of us who have not worked professionally in this field still know family or friends who have suffered sexual violence. I’d like to salute both those mōrehu, those survivors, who have come forward, and also those people who have not been able to, and are holding their trauma secretly into themselves.
It is good to have a cross-party and community collaboration, and the intention to reduce sexual reoffending is worthwhile. The evaluation of the existing Child Sex Offender Register revealed gaps in the Act that make it difficult to administer, which is why we’re here today, and I thank everyone who is on the Justice Committee, and the professionals, and, again, the survivors.
Last year, we saw the ex - Deputy Police Commissioner sentenced for possessing child sexual exploitation material, which is a shocking reminder that people we trust, people in positions of power, can harm our precious taonga. Trading in this material—child sexual exploitation material—is not a victimless crime, and I tautoko what Minister Costello said earlier. Statistics reveal that less than 10 percent of all sex offending is reported, and less than half of that results in conviction. As Mariameno Kapa-Kingi said, most childhood sex offending is perpetrated by people known to the child, which is sort of double damaging, because it destroys the trust in the people whom we expect to trust. There’s a lot of nonsense talked about stranger danger, when, actually, unfortunately, the danger is often at home.
We do need clear evidence-based initiatives, and there is really mixed evidence about registers, and a lot of the data comes from countries that are quite different to Aotearoa New Zealand. The Law Society did submit that evidence supporting registers is limited, but there are also some preliminary findings from some PhD research that does show promise. Being placed on the register is associated with a 40 to 70 percent reduction in the likelihood of recidivism.
The Green Party has always been a vocal advocate for violence prevention, and I’d like to recognise the work of the Hon Marama Davidson on Te Aorerekura. I recognise the commitment of the current Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence. But let’s emphasise that fixing this register is only a very small part of the work we need to do, both to protect children and to give offenders a chance to rehabilitate. Sadly, so often, the perpetrators are people who have suffered that abuse, and they need help to not just come back and back again. Kia ora.
CARL BATES (National—Whanganui) (21:07): Thank you, Madam Speaker. This bill is about improving the safety of children and young people in our communities. It’s not often that a bill has retrospective impact, though. This bill does because we felt, as a committee, as a Government, as a House, that it’s important that it apply to all existing registrable offenders as well as all of those who are registered following the commencement. Therefore, I commend this to the House.
HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert) (21:08): Thank you. I got this portfolio for Labour last year, and it was one of those things which you get and you have a very heavy heart about, because it is full of trauma. I have been married to a family lawyer for many years, and I had, at one point, complained to him because he kept on looking at his phone and checking his emails. And then the phone call that he picked up was from a kid whose parents were on P, and it put me right in my place, because it was such delicate work. It really did make a difference as to whether he picked up his phone.
We have a growing problem in New Zealand with sexual violence in particular, but also domestic violence. It’s not going away. I thank all the parties in this House for supporting this particular bill, and the Minister for doing so, but we have a really hard nettle to grasp here, and it’s going to require a great deal of will to deal with a problem that is harming our children, and it’s rotting our society in many ways. It does so much damage. I think we probably all know people who have been damaged in an enormous way by sexual violence. It is one of those things that often gets disclosed much later than it’s occurred, and there’s often been many, many victims.
I, for one, was really concerned to see that we did have a senior police officer looking at child pornography and he was not on this register, and I was surprised at that. I know that this bill has tried to update the law, and I’m not sure it would capture that situation even in this state. The point is not to criticise but to ask a question of this House: do we actually need to constantly, vigilantly review the law as things change in our society? We now have AI material of children. We have people developing certain proclivities which are so harmful. They are so harmful, and they are happening under our nose. Are we looking at all the ways we can prevent that kind of thing happening?
One is actually the liability of our social media companies. It’s not about a register, but it doesn’t mean that this isn’t an important part of the work. One is about making sure we recognise the real harm when somebody looks at an AI image that has been created of children, and the real harm that occurs when images like that are of real children as well. These are new times. There are new challenges. I fully accept that this bill is a response to that, and a genuine one, but it’s going to be something that’s a work in progress.
I just wanted to recognise that we have an Attorney-General’s report that talks about the retrospectivity, and it talks about the need for a balance in these situations. In this case, the Attorney-General found that the harm justified that retrospectivity and that we were updating in a way that made sense, and it was simpler that way and more practical that way. I just wanted to send my respects to our current Attorney-General, who has today announced that she will retire and take up a position at the Law Commission. I actually worked for the Law Commission; it was my first job when I was at law school. I did the summer down here, and it’s an incredibly rarefied environment. There are lots of very bright people in that place, and I hope that this is the kind of work which they can also participate in looking at. It’s a really important area of law.
I just wanted to take a moment to talk about how I think it’s our responsibility in here to be realistic about what has happened. Sometimes it’s very easy in a place like this, in the Law Commission, to be a little unrealistic about what it’s like. I think this bill has tried to do that. It’s tried to be realistic and practical about some of the gnarly bits in this situation. I think that’s an important thing for us to do. Sometimes we are the people who have to make those decisions where they’re sticky and they’re difficult and we may have some concerns, and we need to constantly review them.
Thank you for this bill coming to the House. I would love to see this whole area looked at with a lot more focus. Whoever the Government is, I think it is incredibly important that all Ministers are looking in their portfolios for ways that they can address this problem and get these numbers down, eliminate this terrible scourge that’s happening in our country. I commend the bill to the House.
RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini) (21:14): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m very relieved that we’ve reached the third reading stage of the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Amendment Bill. I’m relieved because, essentially, this bill in a nutshell is about protecting our children, further protecting them, preventing harm or preventing further harm.
I’m glad that the Green Party have finally come to the party with respect to their concerns about retrospectivity, and I just want to make a few points before I sit down. Why is retrospective application in this situation really necessary? Because there are about 4,000 offenders that are already on the register. If we exclude them, essentially, we’re undermining the purpose of this bill. I feel it’s very important that we stress this, because the additional requirements are only administrative. Again, the main point is to protect our children, not the registered offenders. I commend this bill to the House.
Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) (21:15): Thank you, Madam Speaker. We support this bill, but we do so cautiously. It was interesting to hear the previous speaker, Rima Nakhle, say two things: that it’s important to have retrospectivity in this bill to protect children—we understand that statement—and then that these changes are only administrative. Those two things don’t actually sit well together.
We do have concerns around retrospectivity. The child sex offenders register actually sits in an uncomfortable space, because its purpose—right back from 2016 when it was instituted in this House—is protective. That is why we are supporting it: because its intention and purpose and function is to protect our most vulnerable citizens and it’s to save children. But the courts have actually looked at it and said, “Well, this is part of a sentencing process, and therefore it is part of a punishment.”
If you, therefore, have committed a crime and gone to court, been found guilty and sentenced under the law of the day to such and such time in prison, or whatever, and also to have to comply with certain reporting requirements that are the law of the day, that is a pretty fundamental precept of our law: that if you transgress the law, you pay the price that the law dictates when you transgressed. It is a slippery slope to say, if we change our mind and decide to increase the penalties after you have transgressed, you also have to pay the increased price.
Rima Nakhle: We are talking about child sex offenders.
Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: We are talking about child sex offenders, and if you hadn’t just walked out and come back in halfway through, you’d have listened to me recognise your argument, Rima Nakhle.
Rima Nakhle: You’re defending child sex offenders.
Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: I do recognise your argument, and what I am saying is that this is a difficult question. If you were listening, you’d know that we support this bill, rather than walking in and out and heckling with half of a thought.
Rima Nakhle: I’m not heckling.
Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: You’re not heckling? Well, I’d like to know what it is then.
Rima Nakhle: I’m standing up for our children.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: On with the bill.
Rima Nakhle: You’re defending child sex offenders.
Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: I will ignore the member now, because it is an important bill, and the point I’m trying to make is an important one. Now, the way that this bill sits awkwardly between being both protective and punitive leads us into these kinds of dilemmas. The Attorney-General pointed out that this is deeply problematic. Having said that, we do support the bill notwithstanding this.
The fact of the matter is we looked at this in the Justice Committee and we challenged the police, and even in the Attorney-General’s report it notes that the retrospective nature, the motive of it, is not particularly protective; it is administrative—that it’s hard to have two different lists, the pre-legislation list and the post-legislation list; it’s just a bit tricky. That’s not a good reason, because if you do look at the things that are there, it’s things like timelines, it’s the amount of time that has to be given for notification, the use of email notifications rather than postal notifications. They are the actual changes.
Yes, we absolutely support the child sex offenders register, but we want to be clear that we will take a careful approach with every piece of legislation that comes before this House. Notwithstanding the concerns that have been raised about retrospectivity here, we support this bill. Notwithstanding the member’s protestations—half-informed as they were—we do support this bill, but as we go forward with this, we do think we need to have a very careful look. It may be that we need to emphasise the protective nature of this bill and de-emphasise the punitive nature of this legislative framework, because that may inform the courts in the way that they approach these kinds of questions.
With that, Madam Speaker, we do support the bill. I commend it to the House and absolutely endorse protecting our most vulnerable citizens.
MILES ANDERSON (National—Waitaki) (21:20): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’d like to acknowledge the Minister of Police and the Justice Committee for the work they’ve done on this bill, which is, as Casey Costello pointed out, a very delicate topic. This bill is about giving protection to children and to communities, and I commend it to the House.
Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (21:20): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. I have been here for the duration of this debate, and I want to also acknowledge the Minister of Police for progressing this bill and the Justice Committee, who considered this bill, and the submissions and the advice provided by officials. As speakers on this side of the House have expressed prior to me taking this speech, Labour supports this bill, and our speakers, including Vanushi Walters, Helen White, Dr Duncan Webb, have identified in their contributions the reasons as to why Labour is supporting the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Amendment Bill, also noting the issue of retrospectivity, which has been addressed in advice from the Attorney-General and explored in many of the contributions in the House tonight.
I wanted to, also, put on the record, in our speeches tonight, my serious concerns about the rates of child abuse in Aotearoa New Zealand. I, actually, want to acknowledge our Children’s Commissioner, who, prior to Christmas, put out a letter seeking support from members of Parliament and from the public to do more to support and protect our children, in particular focusing on our high homicide rates here in Aotearoa New Zealand. In that communication from the Children’s Commissioner and on their website, one of the points that is made is that violence against children is increasing. In 2024, more children under 15 years were recorded as victims of violence than in previous years, and the numbers are significantly higher than five years ago. That comes from the Police victimisation data 2024 and is cited in the Salvation Army’s report in 2025. In amongst those numbers, and relevant to this bill, is that there were reported 1,833 cases of aggravated sexual assaults against children. As speakers have previously noted in the House, we have a serious problem in our community, in our country, and there is so much more that we need to do to prevent this harm happening to our tamariki.
I look around the House, and there are members on other select committees where we have been considering legislation responding to abuse in State care. I reflect on the apology given in Parliament and the recognition of how many children were abused in that period of time—many of them suffered sexual abuse. We heard the horrific stories, the trauma experienced by our tamariki through that, and we know that it continues today. In preparing for this speech, I am concerned—we know that there are programmes that work, we know that there are wonderful organisations out there, but we know that the resources to help are thin. I support the other contributions in the House, which talked about why this is one important thing that Parliament can do, but there is so much more that we all need to do to address these issues.
I also want to acknowledge the contribution from Vanushi Walters. When I talk about those statistics and those numbers—the 1,833 aggravated sexual assaults on children in the last year—we know that we also have a low reporting rate, so that number, that statistic, is not accurate to what we know is the actual level of child abuse and sexual child abuse that happens in our country.
What does this bill do? What difference will this bill make? As others have said in the House, it will expand the information that is required for the register. It does two things, I think. It was described as two halves; these are increased reporting and adding seven new offences. There were some great contributions made about those new offences and covering some of the changes that we’ve had in society, catching up with what is happening online and what is happening with social media—so much more needs to be done in that space.
In terms of the increased reporting, there’s a number of measures in there, and, as the education spokesperson, I am particularly pleased to see one of the changes will be to require registerable offenders to report attendance at education or training courses, and will clarify that voluntary work must be reported. We know, from so much of the evidence that has been brought forward in the royal commission and in things that we have been hearing before select committees, particularly around how important it is to vet those who are working with our children and who are working in our education settings—and so I think this is an important change that has been made through this legislation, to ensure that they report attendance at any education and training courses and clarify that voluntary work must be reported. I thought there are some obvious ones there: updating according to the changes in technology so that they can be served notices not just through the post but also by electronic means.
The first part is looking at making changes to the reporting requirements, and the second part is focused on adding seven new offences. As we heard in the quite animated debate just prior to me taking this call, the retrospectivity part applies to the first part that I was talking about, which is the changes to the notification, and not to the second part. I won’t relitigate that; there’s nobody here to spar with on that one in particular, so with that, I will end my contribution by saying that we do support this bill.
JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland) (21:28): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s good to be in the House tonight to rise and speak briefly on the third reading of the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Amendment Bill, which is improving the effectiveness of the child sex offender register and helping registry staff assess and manage the risk by child sex offenders living in the community.
I have spoken before on this; I’ll just acknowledge Willow-Jean Prime—we don’t always agree on everything—and the point that she made before about us having an epidemic of offending against children in this country, and we need to do a lot more at every level of our society to address that. This is one really important step, and I say that, having worked for about 10 years in criminal courts and prisons across New Zealand. I know that, unfortunately, we have a lot of predators in our communities right across New Zealand, predators who don’t often see themselves as predators, but they predate on children. Because of that lack of insight into their own offending, it’s really important we have these robust tools to manage them—and ensure that they’re protected against themselves and their own inclinations in many cases—and also that the community is protected against them, and, particularly, children are protected.
I’ve also seen the end state, having worked in and dealt with people in prisons across New Zealand, and have seen many, many prisoners who, once they have gained somebody they trust, have disclosed that they themselves were offended against sexually as children, and it creates enormous harm in humans. We need to do everything we can as a State to ensure that we can protect our communities and protect our children. With that, I commend this bill to the House.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Anzac Day Amendment Bill
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 17 December 2025.
LAURA McCLURE (ACT) (21:30): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to discuss this bill, and having sat on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee for the Anzac Day Amendment Bill, I’d firstly like to acknowledge the other members of our committee. It’s a great committee. I don’t know if we’ve got our chair in the House—we don’t, but we have the other Tim.
This may seem like quite a small bill for a lot of people, but it’s actually a really important bill, because what it does is it makes it official who we can recognise on Anzac Day. I know a lot of communities out there have been commemorating Anzac Day and acknowledging those who are serving currently, those who have served in other conflicts, and they will continue to do so, and so for some people this may not change.
But it’s really important to note that our military is a voluntary one. Those who serve do so out of commitment and dedication to our way of life here. They don’t decide the complexity or the scale of the conflicts or operations that they have done. This bill recognises all that have served and those who have served alongside them, and that was something that our committee actually wanted to make explicitly clear. We wanted to include those that actually serve alongside, so not just those who are wearing our service personnel uniform, for example. We wanted to make sure that those that die in training, as well, in preparation for these conflicts, are also recognised. That’s something that I’m quite proud that our committee has added to this. It’s not actually long ago—some people in this House might remember—that those who had served in Vietnam were actually often treated really poorly on Anzac Day. We know that now they’re not, but there was a time when that did happen. So, for them, this bill is really important.
Given that I am the first speech up and I didn’t get to give this speech at the end of last year—I was going to say Merry Christmas to our serving personnel—I want to say Happy New Year, and I know that for a lot of those that were serving, they haven’t had a break like us. They’ve continued to serve. My partner is in active service, and I know that this was one of the Christmases that he actually spent at home, but many of them are often away. I want acknowledge the dedication and the time you give to our country to make it a better place. I commend this bill to the House.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’m going to call Andy Foster, who’s indicated to me that he’s taking the next call. I need the remainder of the speakers to call when you have a call, because I don’t have a speaking list as we brought this bill on as an extra tonight.
ANDY FOSTER (NZ First) (21:33): Madam Speaker, thank you. I am privileged to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support this bill. New Zealand First has always been a strong supporter of our defence forces, a strong supporter of our veterans, and a strong supporter of commemorating their service over so many years.
New Zealand First is also a strong supporter of making sure that we recognise, protect, cherish, interpret, and celebrate our collective history, and we tell our stories warts and all—and I’ll go on to that later on. Understanding where we’ve come from and understanding who we are—those things are combined. There is great wisdom in the whakataukī, “Ka mua, ka muri”—walking backwards into the future. In other words, we know who we are by looking backwards into the past.
It is essential that when we look back to the past, though, to guide our present and our future, we don’t look back selectively but that we do it warts and all and in toto. There are some in this House who probably only do it in part, and that is not ideal.
I think that we assume that Anzac Day commemorates all of those who served our country, whether it’s in times of war, in times of peace, or in peacekeeping, but under the Anzac Day Act 1966 that is not currently the case, and this bill is about putting that right. Some of our veterans—including some of our veterans in this House—are not, in theory, recognised under the current Act. Currently, the Act commemorates the parts taken by New Zealand servicemen and servicewomen in six named conflicts: the South African war, the First World War, the Second World War, the Korean War, the war in Malaya and Borneo, the war in South Vietnam, and also all of those who have died in subsequent or other unnamed conflicts, either for New Zealand or for the British Empire or for the British Commonwealth of Nations. What, of course, is missing in that is those who have gone, served, put themselves at risk, and come home, who may be injured or may not be injured, but they are not officially recognised in the current Act, and this bill is about putting that right.
The Act does not also, at the moment, recognise our nurses, who served and sometimes died; or our merchant navy personnel, who have served, and 160 of them died in the Second World War alone. Those people need to be recognised, and this bill is about putting things right and fixing that anomaly.
I wanted to talk a little bit about the importance of the Anzac commemoration in my own community in Featherston. During the First World War, Featherston was the site of the biggest military training camp, I understand, in Australasia. During the First World War, we sent—a country of just a million people—an extraordinary 100,000 people to serve overseas. Just think of it: one in 10, most of them would have been men, so basically one-fifth of the male population, pretty much everybody of a serving age. Of those, almost 20,000—18,000—did not come back. They trained at Featherston and then, from Featherston, some of them, the artillery and the cavalry, would have gone over the old railway—a very impressive railway, the fell engine railway—to then disembark out of Wellington, and the infantry had to march over the hill. In fact, we still commemorate those marches, and I’ll come to that in just a moment. As an aside, one of Featherston’s attractions is the Fell Engine Museum, so you can actually go and see the fell engine and learn the story about that, because it’s a brilliant museum.
The infantry, as I said, had to march over the Remutakas, on a road that didn’t look anything like the road that it is now. It was a goat track, effectively. There was no seal, no edge fencing, and as part of the World War I commemorations, I was privileged to be part of a commemorative march, 100 years after those first marchers, over the hill in the footsteps of those soldiers. We began at the camp site. The camp used to hold up to 6,500 people at once—6,500 people at once—and also 500 horses. We marched over the hill with a police escort to manage the traffic side of things, unveiled a memorial, which is there at the top of the hill at the moment, and we marched back down again. We had wreath-laying services both in Featherston and, on the other side, in Upper Hutt. It was a really great event to commemorate those service personnel.
In fact, I walked a lot of the way with the then defence Minister, my friend Ron Mark, and we also went up there last September to commemorate 110 years since those first personnel walked across that hill. Featherston camp was also one of the places hardest hit in New Zealand by the influenza epidemic in late 1918: 163 men died there in one month—163 men in one month at that camp.
Featherston camp also had great significance during the Second World War because, of course, it became a prisoner of war (POW) camp. The Americans asked for New Zealand—the Americans asked things from us occasionally and we’d actually do them; some people seem to have forgotten that. But between 1942 and 1945 it was used to hold Japanese prisoners of war, and it was the site of the infamous POW riot on 25 February 1943, when armed New Zealand guards ended up firing on—essentially, striking—Japanese prisoners, resulting in the deaths of 43 Japanese POWs and one New Zealand guard. The riot, as I understand it, stemmed from cultural misunderstandings and from prisoners refusing to work.
It was described at the time as a dark event in New Zealand and was initially censored, but today it is something that we recognise and it has brought those two countries together. So we have a commemorative garden that’s there, supported by Juken Nissho, which is a company which is invested in the Wairarapa area, and regularly a Japanese choir comes to visit this area. That is about building friendships.
I guess there’s a message in that, which is that sometimes the grandchildren of those who were enemies are now friends. And you look around the world and think that sometimes we were friends with some countries, and the grandchildren of those friends maybe are not on the same side. Again, you do wonder what it’s all about. And then there are those countries who we should always be friends with, who share similar values—democratic values, freedom values—and we should always stick together with those friends, and, in fact, we do stick together with those friends. And again, as I said, some do not necessarily recognise that at all.
In terms of mentioning friends, it’s really good to see that the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee has picked up that we have, specifically, very, very strong relationships with Anzac, the Australia and New Zealand Army Corps, and, specifically, there is mention now in the bill, as it has been brought back, about service in the Australian force, and I think that is a very good move, so I thank the select committee for that.
As I said, our military history is especially important to Featherston. If you walk around at the moment, you can see artworks by the schoolchildren all over the place showing Anzac symbols and Anzac-related soldiers, so it says that the young people are recognising and commemorating that. Our local RSA commemorates the Featherston history with photos and memorabilia, and our main street includes both a war memorial and also Paul Dibble’s very special relief of slanted columns representing the soldiers and their horses marching from Featherston over towards the Remutaka Range.
Of course, I can’t go past recognising that Wairarapa is also the place of the world’s first—the world’s first ever—Anzac Day service on 25 April 1916 at little Tīnui, which was organised by the Rev. Basil Ashcroft, and 41 people carried a large jarrah cross, in parts, up Tīnui Taipo to Mount Maunsell before returning to hold the first ever Anzac service at the Tīnui town hall.
Our military history is hugely significant. The Act currently only recognises service up to and including Vietnam, and, as I’ve said, those who’ve died. This is about putting things right. I’d like just to reflect on that we have, sadly, had to deploy our people to so many parts of the world, and continue to do so as a responsible global citizen, in direct conflicts and in peacekeeping, where other nations have been in conflict. I might just go through a quick list of those: The Gulf War; Somalia; Bougainville; East Timor; the Solomon Islands; Afghanistan—and not way back away from the front, but in places of danger; South Sudan; Iraq—the Houthi response; we’ve got people there at the moment—and, in peacekeeping, the 1948 Arab-Israeli War; the UN Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan in 1952; former Yugoslavia; Rhodesia; Sinai; Cambodia; the Solomons; and the Tongan riots, as well as police deployments.
New Zealand has played its part and has gone when we have been called. We make our decisions independently, but we have done that. Our personnel, particularly in places like Afghanistan, did not stay back a little off the front lines. They served with courage and professionalism in the service of their country and alongside our friends and allies. It’s right and proper that we commemorate all of those who have served our country in war and in warlike situations.
I want to finish with the words from a plaque at the Featherston camp memorial, which I’ve mentioned before. I think it’s a challenge to all of us in this House, but equally to all of us who call New Zealand home. It says: “Featherston camp was the last home for thousands of soldiers in World War I. Let us keep New Zealand worthy of their dying.” I commend this bill to the House.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call.
SCOTT WILLIS (Green) (21:42): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party to support this bill, and I very much appreciate hearing Andy Foster’s recollections of all of those who have served and offered sacrifices. I think back to stories from my own father, who remembered people who had come back from World War I and worked on farms in Canterbury, usually missing a limb, and the skill with which they showed they were able to lift a stook of hay with one arm on to the back of a cart with a pitchfork. I think about how much our communities have contributed and suffered and kept on going, and the resilience we’ve had as a small nation, with all of our conflicts, internal and external. We’ve kept going through all of that. This bill is something that allows us to recognise a wider spectrum of service to our community and the sacrifices that have been made.
I’m also appreciative that, actually, this bill was introduced on 27 March last year, and it was referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on 3 April last year, reported back to this House on 23 September last year. What that also shows, and what we’ve got here in the House, is an agreement on a bill. It also shows that taking the time to work through things—taking the time to discuss issues and taking the time to find a balance—enables greater consensus in legislation. I think that’s an important lesson for us as we start 2026, because working together gets us further, and it enables better results that are good for our community. This bill is very much a common-sense bill and a more inclusive bill that, with a definition of “warlike conflict”, will broaden the scope of commemoration—of what we can consider and what we can recognise. That is something that I think we can all get behind and celebrate.
I could talk about all of the people we know that have contributed. I like, at Anzac Day events nowadays, that we see both the red poppy and the white poppy appearing, because there’s a recognition that conflict doesn’t serve us well, but we don’t shy from it when we need it. It is important that we recognise all of those that have been involved. In Ōtepoti/Dunedin, there’s a fantastic sculpture, just on George Street, recognising the pacifist movement that was so important at establishing our identity as people of principle who will stand up for our rights and stand up for people’s rights in the international space, as well. This is important, when you think about the conflicts that are happening at the moment and the descent into fascism in the United States, that we, as a principled people, stand up for our principles as a democracy, and recognise that we are able to talk and stand on our values. I want to commend this bill to the House.
TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki) (21:46): It was an honour, a privilege, to serve on the select committee looking at the Anzac Day Amendment Bill and thinking through so many situations and so many people that I know—that many of us know—and how they might be included in this.
All I want to do is just read the new clause 2(1) of this bill, just to talk about how this bill has evolved through the select committee. The changes appear minor, but I think they’re very meaningful. The fact that the start has changed from “recognition and commemoration” to “commemoration” will seem insignificant to many, but it was important to the RSA, and it was important to many of us. Those who know will understand why: this is a day of commemoration above all other things. It is now “of all those who have served … in time of war and in warlike conflicts (including those who died)”, and we have intentionally articulated the fact that it is for all who served. Yes, of course, we want to remember those who died—we will read rolls of honour, we will remember them, we will play the “Last Post”, and they will never be forgotten—but it’s also important that, as well as sacrifice, we commemorate service. It is a day that we celebrate service and sacrifice—not the wars and the conflicts in which those sacrifices were made. We celebrate the spirit of Kiwis, and of service and sacrifice.
Secondly—and it is secondary to that—we commemorate all those who have died in New Zealand military service. I think of people like, in recent times, Lance Corporal Nicholas Kahotea, who died while training with our special forces in Auckland. Now, there will be an argument about that and the definition, as it now stands, for “warlike conflict”, which is “in response to an armed conflict that has occurred, is occurring, or may occur”. I would argue that our tier 1 special forces, who are on readiness at all times to respond to counter terrorist emergencies and other national contingencies, are always preparing to respond to conflict, but this spells it out very clearly: if you have died whilst serving the New Zealand military, then you are remembered and you are commemorated at Anzac day—or if your death was connected with it.
Now, some will ask what this means. This is a situation that is very hard to think of, but if there was a situation where—and we saw it, perhaps, with the terrible sinking of Manawanui in Samoa, that there were people from other Government agencies on board that ship. Now, heaven forbid that one day someone in that situation was to lose their life, that loss would be lost in connection with New Zealand military service. They weren’t serving in the military, but their service was connected with the military, and so they would be remembered on this day.
Finally, I want to touch just on the point that Mr Foster touched on, which is that it now says “New Zealand, Australia, and other allied forces”. I acknowledge that on beaches like Helles and S, X, and Y in Gallipoli, many other nationalities landed forces that day, but on Anzac Cove, there is no other way to see it than New Zealand and Australian soldiers, men, as they were at the time, landing side by side. While this country in its modern form was founded on 6 February 1840, it found its feet, I would argue, on 25 April 1915 as it stood independent for the first time, not as “Little Britain” but as New Zealand. I think it’s important that we acknowledge that that was an Anzac operation. Every place I served, peacekeeping and in conflicts like Afghanistan, it was always Kiwis and Australians side by side. I acknowledge that the Australians have taken New Zealand out of their Act—it’s Australia and other countries—I actually like the fact that we kept it in and that we don’t forget that special piece of history.
Finally, can I just mention Mr Chris Turver from Kāpiti. He is someone that served in Vietnam—actually, was sent there by, at the time, the Government’s radio, as a journalist—and was eventually recognised with medallic recognition for his service in Vietnam. He was on the front line, like many others, and has some horrific stories of being under attack. He didn’t serve in the military, and I think there’s always been a question mark for people like that—“Am I remembered on Anzac Day? Am I part of it?” This bill and these changes make it clear that we remember Chris Turver and we remember all those who served our country in times of war, who served in the military, and whose service was connected with the military and may have lost their lives in modern conflicts and those killed in training—people like Richard Absolon that actually served in the Falklands War; an old boy of my school, Palmerston North Boys’ High School, who was killed in the Falklands.
Finally, I finish with this: I don’t think I’m speaking out of turn to say that the RSA raised a few questions about the bill as it went to select committee. We worked really hard with the New Zealand Defence Force, with Veterans’ Affairs New Zealand, with the RSA, and with other veterans to make sure this was something that everyone could get in behind. Even when we’d gone through it and we thought we’d found the place as a committee, everyone in the committee across the House went back to the RSA and said, “We want to have another go around this. Make sure that you’re happy, because this is something for every Kiwi and particularly for every veteran.” I’m really proud of the work that we have done as a Parliament here. I commend this bill to the House.
REUBEN DAVIDSON (Labour—Christchurch East) (21:52): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a privilege to be able to stand and take a call in support at the second reading of the Anzac Day Amendment Bill.
When we think of Anzac Day in New Brighton, where we have one of the largest commemorations in the electorate of Christchurch East, we take the time to honour those who have fallen. In New Brighton, we do that at our cenotaph, and we have really big attendance. We have a road closure, we have a parade, and we have literally thousands of people who come along to be part of that event. Garry House does an amazing job of organising that event.
Now, among some of the people that we have recognised at that event previously, one has been Huia Lyonal Wyatt, who was a New Brighton resident in Seaview Road and who was a dispatch rider who, in June 1915, was shot at war and died the next day. Now, this is remembered in the New Brighton Museum, where both the medals and identity discs of Huia are available to be viewed. Also, from the same road but with a different story, Mary Winifred White, a nurse who served with Queen Alexandra’s Imperial Military Nursing Service in both London and France and returned home to New Brighton, is remembered both at the New Brighton School and the St Enoch Church.
What all of these wars and conflicts taught us was about the horror of war, about the sacrifice of those in conflict, but, also, about recognising those who do return from conflict, in whatever roles, and how we can assist them in their journey of recovery and reintegration after seeing things none of us should or would want to see.
What this bill sets out to do and why we support it is that it says, “We can honour all who have served New Zealand.” Specifically, it removes the limitation on specified named conflicts in which those who have served are recognised and commemorated. It takes into account all service in war or warlike conflicts involving New Zealand, making the concept of service more inclusive to recognise more persons. It changes the reference in relation to the “first Allied forces’ Gallipoli landing”, to refer to “New Zealand and other Allied forces”, thus broadening recognition beyond the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand to other allied countries who also took part, such as France and India, providing for a definition of “warlike conflict” to broaden coverage to most deployments of operational service by the New Zealand Defence Force. The focus of the amendment—and I think this is a really important point—is on service to New Zealand in the past, in the present, and in the future.
I wanted to close by thanking the select committee for taking the time to have the necessary conversations to ensure that the details are correct in this bill; also, to the submitters who took part in the process to help shape it. I’m pleased to support the bill. We will remember them all. I commend this bill to the House.
JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland) (21:56): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you for allowing me to rise and make a short call on the Anzac Day Amendment Bill. It’s a privilege and an honour to make a call in support of this to recognise that the Government is expanding the definition of those who we can and will remember on Anzac Day to recognise all those who have served in war or warlike conflicts. We have a very proud and long history of recognition of people who have served and sometimes have made the ultimate sacrifice. In fact, the room that we’re in now helps recognise that, as well.
I would just take the opportunity to thank all of those who have served and just to make a brief personal reflection on something that I do speak on when I go to Anzac Days, which is the personal connection I have. I have served, myself, but, more importantly, one of my great uncles served in the First World War and landed on Gallipoli on the Sunday, 25 April 1915, and he and 191 of his friends were killed that day and lie somewhere there. I also have a grandfather, Captain John Richardson, who served in the Second World War. I think something that’s not well-known in New Zealand history is that there was, briefly, an Anzac force reconstituted, just once, in the Second World War, to my knowledge, in Greece, to repel, or to hold back, a division of the German army to allow other forces from Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom to escape. They fought at Tempe Pass in one of the most brutal battles of that war in terms of the history. This is a moment that’s of great pride to me to recognise that they and many others will be recognised—and not just them but all those who serve and will serve in war or warlike conditions. Lest we forget.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: This debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.
Debate interrupted.
The House adjourned at 9.58 p.m.