Thursday, 29 January 2026

Thursday, 29 January 2026

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Start of Sitting Day

Karakia/Prayers

BARBARA KURIGER (Deputy Speaker) (14:00): Almighty God, we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests, we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom, justice, mercy, and humility for the welfare and the peace of New Zealand. Amen.

Speaker's Rulings

Personal Reflections

SPEAKER (14:01): Members, yesterday, I indicated that I would come back to the House with a ruling on a member asking whether anyone can believe what another member says. This is an important matter because the House is a place where the executive is scrutinised and ideas are contested. Credibility of statements made by members must be able to be challenged. The House also operates on the basis of trust, and members are taken at their word. Deliberately misleading the House undermines that trust and is treated very seriously. For that reason, allegations that a member is deliberately misleading the House can only be made by raising a matter of privilege and not by a point of order or in debate. Such allegations are treated with a high degree of formality and cannot be made in the heat of debate.

Standing Order 121 prohibits a member from making a personal reflection against another member. Calling a member a liar or implying they are lying is a personal reflection and, for the reasons I’ve outlined, is a particularly serious one. Adjudicating questions and statements in debate context is important. Having reviewed the Hon Barbara Edmonds yesterday, I do not think it was intended to suggest that a member could not be taken at their word; nor was it implied that a member was lying. However, in the heat of debate, and the heat of question time, I should say, using a phrase like, “How can anyone believe anything she says?” runs the risk of being unfavourably considered and ruled out of order. Accepting the invitation to rephrase the question, the Hon Barbara Edmonds demonstrated the possibility of removing the chance of an unfavourable interpretation without diminishing the impact of the question.

Business of the House

Business Statement

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Deputy Leader of the House) (14:03): Today, the House will adjourn until Tuesday, 10 February. That week, the House will complete the debate on the Prime Minister’s statement, as well as making further progress on the Employment Relations Amendment Bill, the Anzac Day Amendment Bill, and the Public Service Amendment Bill. The hours of Wednesday will be extended into Thursday morning for Government business.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) (14:03): I was just wondering if the member could inform us when we might see the Term of Parliament (Enabling 4-year Term) Legislation Amendment Bill back in the House, given the election is rapidly approaching.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Deputy Leader of the House) (14:03): I know that member is very excited about the year ahead. He shall have to wait and see when bills are going to be debated.

Presentation

Papers

SPEAKER (14:04): No petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.A paper has been delivered for presentation.

CLERK (14:04): Report of the Ministry for the Environment on the January 2026 amendment to New Zealand’s second emissions reduction plan 2026-30, amendment addendum and technical annex.

SPEAKER: That paper is published under the authority of the House.

Select Committee Reports

SPEAKER (14:04): Two select committee reports have been presented.

CLERK (14:04):

Report of the Education and Workforce Committee on the briefing on academic standards at universities

report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Monetary Policy Statement November 2025.

SPEAKER: The reports are set down for consideration. No bills have been introduced.

Oral Questions to Ministers

Auckland

Question No. 1

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader—Labour) (14:04) to the Minister for Auckland: Does he stand by his statement, “A safe, thriving central city means more foot traffic, stronger business confidence, more jobs, and more opportunities for everyone, including those currently experiencing hardship”; if not, why not?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Auckland) (14:05): In the context it was made, yes. Aucklanders deserve a safe and thriving city. Our focus is on economic growth and jobs, which also means restoring law and order through more police foot patrols and firm action against antisocial behaviour while providing support for those who need it. Auckland’s CBD is the heart of New Zealand’s economy, generating 8 percent of our country’s GDP. When Auckland succeeds, New Zealand succeeds. Our Government is getting on and fixing the basics and building the future for our biggest city.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Is the National Homelessness Data Project correct that the number of homeless people in Auckland more than doubled in just the last year, to over 940?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: We’re very focused on the issue of homelessness and making sure that we are addressing those challenges. Working alongside the Hon Tama Potaka, we are investing in more spaces for transitional housing and also more spaces to ensure that we are providing the Housing First places in Auckland, and we’ve had remarkable success, with many tenancies confirmed and filled since that funding was announced in September last year.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: How many of the 207 Housing First places in his Auckland action plan have been delivered and are filled?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: I’m advised that providers have leased 143 rentals for the Housing First programme in Auckland, of which 117 have been tenanted; 73 Housing First tenancies have also commenced in Auckland through existing contracts, meaning over 200 people have been housed in the last few months.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Why is he working on plans to kick homeless people out of the Auckland CBD, when they have nowhere to go and after they have already been denied emergency housing by this Government?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, it’s almost a patsy question. We are focused on ensuring that we provide housing options for those who need it. We’re also focused on ensuring that the businesses in our CBD have a safe place where they can operate their businesses and that people who come and work there, who live there, or who visit our city centre can operate in a safe environment. We need to focus on improving safety. We also need to make sure that those who need support from the Government have that support, and that’s exactly what we’re doing.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: If there are 940 homeless people in Auckland and he is only planning to build 207 additional Housing First places, where does he expect them to go when he kicks them out of the CBD?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: We are focused on providing support. The reality is that we are contracting with Housing First providers; we’re also ensuring that they are being held accountable for their existing contracts, to make sure that they are filling the places they already have, to ensure that they have Housing First places. We’ve made significant progress in the last few months. What I’d say to the Opposition is that we are very focused on making sure our Auckland central business district is safe and is welcoming to people who work there, who live there, and who visit there, because we know how important it is to our economy, to jobs, and to opportunities in New Zealand. We’re focused on doing what’s needed to fix the basics and build the future.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: How will the constituents of Pakuranga, Botany, Epsom, and Tāmaki feel when the CBD’s homelessness issue is moved to their doorsteps?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: The people of Pakuranga are very happy with their local member of Parliament and very happy with the work that he’s doing. Of course they always want you to work harder and to work more, so that’s what I’m committed to doing. What I would say is that the people of Botany are also very happy with their Prime Minister. What we are doing is we are fixing the basics and building the future. We have funded additional places, we are filling those places, but we’re also focused on improving safety in our biggest city. We have more police on the beat. We have a new police station in our central city. We are making sure that we are seeing thousands and thousands fewer victimisations under this Government. I would say the last thing: we’re not having all the ram raids we used to have when your lot were in charge.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Moving homeless people on to other suburbs.

SPEAKER: Good—thank you.

Health

Question No. 2

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini) (14:09) to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has he made about improving access to urgent care for South and East Aucklanders?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (14:10): Our Government is delivering improved access to urgent care for families right across New Zealand. Earlier this month, I announced that South and East Aucklanders can now access urgent care at any time, with the Counties Manukau after-hours service now operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week. That’s a significant milestone for people living in the Counties Manukau district, which has been the only part of Auckland without a 24/7 after-hours service for several years. Families can now get help for urgent health issues at any time of day or night, helping to reduce wait times for patients in our emergency departments. It is all part of our plan to build a healthcare system that delivers healthcare closer to home when you need it.

Rima Nakhle: What does this mean for patients in Counties Manukau and Middlemore Hospital’s emergency department?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Delivering a new 24/7 service in Counties Manukau means patients can get timely urgent care when they need it, while also reducing wait times for patients at Middlemore Hospital’s emergency department. I’m pleased to confirm that, on the first overnight shift, I’m advised that 33 patients were seen at the new 24/7 service in Counties Manukau, patients that may have otherwise presented to the emergency department. Overnight care is being delivered through a flexible workforce model including doctors, nurse practitioners, nurses, paramedics, and digital health support, to ensure timely care. This is about putting patients first by giving families the care they need and reducing wait times for those who do need emergency department care.

Rima Nakhle: What other improvements will East Aucklanders see to urgent care access?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: East Auckland will also benefit from expanded urgent care. From 1 March, East Care will extend its closing time from 11 p.m. to 1 a.m., while continuing to open from 7 a.m., following the closure of its extended 24/7 service in 2020. This means more Aucklanders can get the right care in the right place at the right time. These improvements across the Counties Manukau district are part of our Government’s commitment to ensuring families can access timely urgent care, when they need it, close to home.

Rima Nakhle: How does this announcement fit into the Government’s broader plan to improve urgent care access across New Zealand?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: This is part of our Government’s plan to ensure that 98 percent of New Zealanders live within an hour’s drive of urgent care services. Alongside the new and expanded services already in place in Dunedin and Lower Hutt, further upgrades planned for this year include an expansion of the urgent care services in Whangārei and Tauranga, expanded support for rural communities, and extended daytime urgent care in Invercargill. This is about giving more communities timely access to urgent care, and helping reduce wait times for patients at our emergency departments.

Social Development and Employment

Question No. 3

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (14:13) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Is the Civil Defence Payment available for people impacted by the severe weather events recognised by local states of emergency declared on 20 and 21 January 2026; if not, why not?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (14:13): The provision of civil defence payments is based on the advice of the Ministry of Social Development (MSD), civil defence, and local communities. I can confirm that MSD will be making civil defence payments in affected areas within Northland, East Coast, and Bay of Plenty. Severe weather events are complex and often move fast, and the Government’s top priorities are, of course, finding accommodation for those who have lost their homes and getting supplies into communities that are cut off. I’m very proud of the Government’s response, and I’d like to put on record my thanks to all of the Fire and Emergency New Zealand, Police, ambulance, civil defence, and other officials, communities, and volunteers throughout the country, who have been working so hard to support our affected communities.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Will she ask Work and Income to take a high-trust approach to the use of discretion when it comes to the delivery of civil defence payments; if not, why not?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As I’ve just said in my answer to the first question, decisions are made about whether civil defence payments should be made based on the advice of those on the ground: the civil defence teams, the local communities, and MSD. There is set criteria for when those civil defence payments can be activated, and that’s exactly what we do.

Ricardo Menéndez March: How will she ensure that low-income families who have been forced out of their homes or lost income due to not being able to work because of this climate disaster, and who have not had access to the civil defence payment for over a week, are now given the information and the financial support to recover?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I want to assure that member and those listening to this debate, as I said in my primary answer, the first priority has been to provide accommodation to those who have been displaced from their homes. That number is now down to, I understand, within 100 to 150, which is why we have put the temporary accommodation service in place, and also now there are motorhomes in Northland and others coming to support those who are still without homes. Then, of course, the assistance to the civil defence teams in terms of food and emergency supplies continues, as well as hardship grants and other assistance that’s available through MSD. The civil defence payment is another form of assistance that we have now activated in the three regions that I’ve mentioned.

Ricardo Menéndez March: What steps, beyond issuing a press release, will she be taking to ensure communities on the ground know what they are eligible for under the civil defence payment so that they can access the maximum amount that they may be legal eligible for?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, MSD have been on the ground, working closely with civil defence from day one. They are clear about people who require assistance, so even ahead of civil defence payments being granted, people are aware of what they can get through hardship grants, for example. When the civil defence payment has been confirmed—which is today—for specified areas within those regions, the MSD teams along with civil defence and others working on the ground to support communities will, of course, advise people what they are eligible for and how to access information. I would encourage anyone in that situation to contact their local MSD office or to phone the 0800 number.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she accept that the value of the civil defence payment has eroded by nearly 40 percent since it was last updated in 2013, and, if so, will she update the payment so that people can be adequately supported when they are affected by increasingly more common weather events?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: A significant component of the civil defence payment is tagged to what the jobseeker benefit rate is, and that is, of course, increased every year.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Is that rate good enough for someone who isn’t able to work as a result of extreme weather events?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Sorry, I think that member said “able to work”; I think he meant “unable to work”. There are a number of criteria for someone to be eligible for the civil defence payment: if they either are displaced from their home, or, actually, if they can’t move away from their home, as well as not being able to access their employment directly related to the civil defence emergency. It is suitable that the jobseeker benefit rate is what is used in that instance. There are, of course, other considerations, which is why the civil defence payment is based on an individual’s circumstances. It is not only available for those on low incomes or benefits; it’s available to anyone. MSD work really hard to work with that individual to understand their needs and provide support to them in that period of need.

Health

Question No. 4

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) (14:18) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his statement that the Ministry of Health’s review into the ManageMyHealth data breach will “identify lessons to strengthen protections for patient data held by the private sector”; if so, does Health New Zealand currently have a Chief Information Security Officer role dedicated to primary care?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (14:19): In the context it was made, yes. Patients expect that their health data is held securely, and they deserve to have assurances that this is the case, whether in the private or public healthcare systems. I’m advised that Health New Zealand has a National Chief Information Security Officer, who has responsibility for engagement and support for primary care. Support functions provided include the creation of a health information security exchange, a collaborative healthcare initiative that drives better security outcomes across primary care; a health information security framework providing small to medium sized support guidance for primary care; Health New Zealand’s security incident guide specifically for primary care; and, as we’ve seen in the case of the Manage My Health incident, incident control support.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked about a specific dedicated role in my question. The Minister’s answer identified that there was a National Chief Information Security Officer. He outlined responsibilities that that officer had, but it was not clear from his answer, which is a primary question on notice, whether or not that role was dedicated to primary care.

SPEAKER: Well, I think the way he answered—the way I took it—was he said that there was such a person.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker, and to—

SPEAKER: Well, no. You’re arguing with the Speaker now, but anyway, carry on.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: It was an ambiguous answer. It was totally possible—

SPEAKER: Hang on, sorry. That’s not a basis for—ask another supplementary.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Will the Minister confirm that that position is a single position dedicated to supporting the primary care sector with its information security needs?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: I’m advised that that position has a number of responsibilities, one of which is to engage and support primary care, as I outlined in the answer to the primary question.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Why is he seeking lessons for how to strengthen protections for patients’ data now when the Ministry of Health advised back in 2021 that the Government should build a core set of cyber-security capabilities for the primary sector?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: There is a range of investments that the Government is continually making—

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Stop obfuscating. Answer the question.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Sorry?

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Answer the question.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: There is a range of investments the Government is making into data security continuously. We need to make sure we also learn the lessons from what happened with Manage My Health. That is why we’ve launched a review. That’s why we have a terms of reference.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is it correct that the role Chief Information Security Officer - Primary Health Sector that existed in 2023, following the 2021 review, was disestablished due to funding cuts in Budget 2024?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: I’m advised there was a title of a role and that the position description and the roles and responsibilities exist within the function of primary care relationship manager, who exists within—

Hon Dr Megan Woods: So you cut it?

Hon Member: Just listen up, love.

SPEAKER: Hang on. There’s only one Minister answering.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: —the team of the National Chief Information Security Officer and supports that individual with those responsibilities.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Isn’t it the case that in 2021 the ministry had developed a plan for primary care cyber-security, his Government cut that plan, and now he is having to revert to work that should never have been cancelled in the first place?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, if the member’s going to ask that question, I’d suggest she should also provide—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Wait on. Sorry. We’ll just calm it down so we actually can hear the answer.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: If the member is going to ask that question, then I will also point out to the House that, in 2023, the then Government made reductions in health data and digital—

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It sounds like the Minister is speaking to an issue that he didn’t have responsibility for and it would be great if he answered the question.

SPEAKER: No, no. I’m sorry. A Minister is able to refer to matters that occurred beyond their time at the ministry in order to give an answer. I couldn’t judge whether or not it was appropriate or not given the early intervention on the Minister’s question. Please start the answer again.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: I would point out to the House in response to that question that the previous Government made reductions in health data and digital foundations and innovations, and the 2023 August reduction in Government expenditure, which of course has had an impact on data and digital investment in our healthcare system.

Tourism and Hospitality

Question No. 5

RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East) (14:24) to the Minister for Tourism and Hospitality: What recent announcements has she made about supporting major events in New Zealand?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Tourism and Hospitality) (14:24): It’s been swell for sure this week, when we announced the World Surf League (WSL) bringing its Championship Tour to New Zealand this year. Raglan’s world-class left-hand point break has been selected to host the event, which will be the biggest elite surfing event ever hosted in New Zealand. This announcement is part of the Government’s Events Attraction Package, which aims to bring high-value international events to New Zealand, attracting international visitors and stimulating the economy. Tourism and major events are a crucial part of our Government’s focus on building the future. More world-class events means more visitors, more jobs, and, of course, a growing economy.

Ryan Hamilton: What is the World Surf League championship?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The World Surf League (WSL) Championship Tour is the premier, top-tier professional surfing competition, which has never been held here before. The New Zealand Pro will run from 15 to 25 May this year, in which the top 36 men and the top 24 women will compete at the world-class left-hand point break at Raglan. Fans will be able to watch the world’s most talented surfers compete, inspiring our budding young athletes, and helping to grow the sport in New Zealand. The New Zealand Pro will also give a major tourism boost to the Waikato, with a large influx of competitors and spectators to the region, and a global broadcast of the event, showcasing Raglan as a top surf destination internationally.

Ryan Hamilton: What benefits does she expect to see as a result of this announcement?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: We know that when major events come to town, the economic ripple is enormous. Hotels and motels fill up. The tills are ringing in our restaurants and cafes, and local businesses see a surge in the number of customers. International sports competitions and festivals don’t just bring visitors; they bring life and energy to our towns and regions, creating vibrant communities and unforgettable experiences. The WSL Championship Tour is the fourth event announced under the Events Attraction Package. There’ll be more to say in coming weeks.

Ryan Hamilton: What feedback has she received on this announcement?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: We’ve had a wave of positive feedback. Surfing New Zealand CEO Ben Kennings said this is “huge” for New Zealand, and “We can’t wait to host [these] best surfers in the world, it’s going to be pretty spectacular.” The Raglan Sunset Motel’s Poppy Larkin said to the Waikato Times that, normally, the hotel wouldn’t be busy in May, but the 24-room accommodation provider has already been booked out for the event. Raglan Surf Emporium co-owner John Clapham said, “it’s been a pretty hard couple of years, so to have something like this in May helping … retailers [through the] winter months [is] positive.” This announcement is already showing very positive signs and means we’re building a reputation internationally as a world-class destination for sports, culture, and entertainment.

Education

Question No. 6

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (14:28) to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by her statement that “the numbers for the future are looking really good” in response to reports of a teacher shortage, with 445 vacancies listed in the Education Gazette at the start of the school year, and, if so, why?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Education) (14:28) on behalf of the Minister of Education: On behalf of the Minister of Education, Erica Stanford, who’s actually texted me some information to help answer this question—

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Oh, she likes texting! [Interruption]

SPEAKER: That’s enough.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: The simple answer is yes, she absolutely stands by that statement, and for a number of reasons. The Ministry of Education forecasts that next year, there will be a surplus of primary school teachers. By 2028, there will be a surplus of secondary school teachers, and this is due to a number of initiatives that the Government has taken. For example, when the Government started funding teachers’ registration fees, 455 teachers who had previously not been registered returned to the workforce. I’d also note that a small minority of those advertised positions are for actual classroom teachers. In fact, only 31 of those are for permanent roles. A lot of the others are for positions such as teaching assistants, which the Government has added to the workforce and is now seeking to hire people to fill. I also just note the premise of the question seems to be that it is a bad thing that there are jobs going in the education sector. If the Labour Party thinks that 445 jobs is the wrong number, presumably their goal is not for there to be no jobs going in education in New Zealand. If it’s not zero and it’s not 445, what exactly is it?

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How are the numbers “looking really good” when the New Zealand Educational Institute polling data shows that 73 percent of primary school principals say that they are likely to quit within five years?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: I suspect that they are concerned about a change of Government! But I want to say to those principals: have no fear, we are working hard to keep these people over here and those people over there.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How are the numbers “looking really good” when vacancies are up 12 percent compared to this time last year?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: As I’ve mentioned, one of the reasons that there are vacancies is that we are creating new positions in education. The retention of teachers has remained around 90 percent, where it has historically been. There are now more teachers in training than any time since 2009, up 30 percent.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How are the numbers “looking really good” when Auckland alone currently has 125 roles unfilled?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: As I said, it is not necessarily a bad thing that there are positions available, particularly when we have record numbers in training, a forecast of a surplus of teachers, and when we have new positions being created to make the job of teachers easier. Of course, there will always be principals who are under pressure to fulfil roles. I know, from my own role as a local MP, that that is often a source of real pressure for principals. But if you look at the overall policies that this Government is taking, they are in favour of boosting teacher supply and making it more attractive to teach. And, as I say once more, the reason that there are a lot of positions is, in part, because we’ve created more positions.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Does she accept that an unmanageable workload, constant changes, and the removal of pay equity have made things worse for schools trying to recruit and retain teachers?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: On behalf of the Minister of Education, no, I don’t, because what teachers want more than anything else is to help pass knowledge from one generation to the next and equip children to navigate the challenges of the 21st century. What this Government’s done by having a real curriculum, by equipping teachers with skills that are boosting literacy rates, by using the science of learning to actually teach children—that is what boosts teacher job satisfaction: getting results, with leadership from a Minister of Education like Erica Stanford.

Housing

Question No. 7

TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central) (14:33) to the Minister of Housing: Does the Minister support increasing housing supply to make housing more affordable; if so, why is the coalition considering weakening Auckland’s housing targets?

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Associate Minister of Housing) (14:33) on behalf of the Minister of Housing: Yes, this Government is committed to boosting housing supply in Auckland, Tāmaki-makau-rau, as well as being responsive to Aucklanders. We are also considering a range of options around housing capacity targets for Auckland, and the Minister of Housing will have more to say soon. No decisions have been made.

Tamatha Paul: Does he agree with the chief economist of Auckland Council that “An abundance of capacity also increases competition among landowners, which can help to moderate price pressures”; if so, why is he comfortable reducing that abundance of capacity?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Various experts and people have a range of views, but no decisions have been made at this time on capacity in Auckland. We are absolutely committed to boosting housing supply in Auckland.

Tamatha Paul: Would weakening Auckland’s housing targets and the supply of housing in Auckland make housing more or less affordable in our biggest city than continuing with Plan Change 120?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: As we are aware, affordability is influenced by a number of factors, but our commitment is to increase housing supply in Tāmaki-makau-rau, albeit we are continuing to consider the capacity for Auckland.

Tamatha Paul: Does he agree with the MP for Epsom that intensification and an increase in supply would mean “looking into everyone’s backyards and their swing sets and their pools”, and, if not, why?

Hon David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Actually, my comments are being misrepresented, and I think it’s unfair for the member to have to ask a question that’s actually based on misrepresenting a member.

Tamatha Paul: That’s word for word his quote, Mr Speaker.

Hon David Seymour: No, it’s not.

Tamatha Paul: It is.

SPEAKER: Well, just let me hear the question again, sorry.

Tamatha Paul: Does he agree with the MP for Epsom that intensification would mean “looking into everyone’s backyards and their swing sets and their pools”, and, if not, why?

SPEAKER: Well, I think, firstly, you’ve just had the member for Epsom say that that’s not the context in which the comment was made, and so—a bit like yesterday—see if you can reword that a different way.

Tamatha Paul: So I’m rewording that same question, Mr Speaker?

SPEAKER: Yeah, yeah—[Interruption] No one else is speaking, by the way.

Tamatha Paul: Does he agree with the MP for Epsom’s criticism of changes to Plan Change 120 and the process that intensification would mean “looking into everyone’s backyards and their swing sets and their pools”, and, if not, why?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I’m not aware that the erudite MP for Epsom has made those comments, or of the context in which those comments were made, but what I am aware of—and it’s good to know—is that there are more first-home buyers right now in the New Zealand market, highest in the last 20 years, as reported in the December 2025 quarter, and I’m absolutely pleased to also see rentals become more affordable across Aotearoa New Zealand.

Hon David Seymour: Does the Minister read the news properly, and, if so, would he agree with my comments in their correct context that people in central Auckland are generally in favour of intensification, but they want to ensure it’s done well, such as not having people looking in their swing sets or backyards?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Thank you for that question. I absolutely agree that we would like to see Auckland grow up and out and in a proper way, ultimately with local decision-making.

Tamatha Paul: Mr Speaker—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: We’ll just wait until the House settles itself, and all those who are offering opinions decide that it’s not a good idea to do so.

Tamatha Paul: How can he claim to be committed to increasing housing supply and housing capacity when his record is shaping up to be enabling fewer homes in Auckland and stopping Kāinga Ora from increasing their public housing supply?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: On behalf of the Minister of Housing, as I’ve said today three times, this Government is absolutely committed to increasing the housing supply in Tāmaki-makau-rau Auckland. Capacity, which is distinctly different to supply, is a matter that we have not yet made decisions on, but our approach is to enable Auckland to build up and out where it makes sense and where capacity is more likely to be turned into actual houses, like around key City Rail Link stations.

Hon David Seymour: Can the Minister foresee any scenario where Auckland is left with a housing capacity lower than the 900,000 in the Auckland Unitary Plan when the Government came into office?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I don’t want to get too far in front of myself about what will actually happen in the great city of Tāmaki-makau-rau Auckland, but we are absolutely clear: no decisions have been made on capacity at this time, and we will continue to support, advocate, and rally for more supply and, ultimately, to support Auckland—up and out.

Tamatha Paul: What’s more embarrassing: Cabinet overruling his recommendation, meaning that—

Hon Member: Who wrote this?

SPEAKER: Hold on a minute—hold on. You may want to ask those questions, but do so to yourself without disturbing the rest of the House. Tamatha Paul, start again.

Tamatha Paul: What’s more embarrassing: Cabinet overruling his recommendations, meaning that councils zone for less housing supply and realisable capacity, and, or—[Interruption] I’m going to start that again. What’s more embarrassing: Cabinet overruling his recommendations, meaning that councils zone for less housing and less realisable housing capacity than under the medium-density residential standards, or the Prime Minister making him weaken Auckland’s housing targets altogether?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: On behalf of the Minister of Housing, in this House I am not the judicial officer on embarrassment.

Hon David Seymour: Would the Minister consider it more embarrassing to mindlessly read questions off a script or not be able to mindlessly read the questions off a script?

SPEAKER: Much as he answered, he’s got no responsibility. For the previous question, he has none for that either.

Trade and Investment

Question No. 8

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato) (14:40) to the Minister for Trade and Investment: What recent announcements has he made about strengthening New Zealand’s relationship with India?

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister for Trade and Investment) (14:41): On 22 December, we announced the conclusion of a landmark comprehensive free-trade agreement (FTA) with India that cuts tariffs on 95 percent of our exports. It means 57 percent of New Zealand’s exports will be tariff-free on day one, rising to 82 percent once fully enforced. We get tariff-free access for sheep meat, wool, wood products and timber, seafood, many industrial goods, and much more; significant reductions for wine; and tariff-free and reduced-rate access for quotas of kiwifruit, apples, mānuka honey—first time India has done that. India has a population of 1.4 billion people and an economy forecast to reach NZ$12 trillion by 2030. We are a country of just 5 million people. This FTA offers significant and substantial advantage to our exporters and is a very good deal for our country. Finally, it’s one of the best FTAs India has concluded with any country, and gives our exporters advantages over Australia and the UK in their FTAs and also the EU FTA that was concluded just this week.

Tim van de Molen: Does the FTA with India give rights of migration or immigration to Indian nationals?

Hon TODD McCLAY: No, it categorically does not. To meet skill shortages in our economy, it allows 1,667 highly skilled workers—for instance, healthcare professionals, engineers, IT experts—drawn from the New Zealand skills shortage green list, to apply for a three-year temporary work permit. They must meet all of the conditions set by New Zealand—professional standards, good conduct, a job offer from an accredited employer—and at the end of the three years they must return home. The FTA does not give them rights for family members to travel with them. It also focuses on attracting Master’s and PhD students to New Zealand. They will have post-study work rights, as every student who studies in New Zealand does, and be able to work for 20 hours per week when studying—currently, students are able to work for 25 hours. It does not remove a cap on the number of students who can come to New Zealand, because there is not a cap; but it also does not restrict future Governments from creating a cap should they wish to. The FTA does not restrict the ability for future and current Governments to modify work visas or student policies or settings. [Interruption]

Tim van de Molen: Does the FTA commit New Zealand to invest money in India?

SPEAKER: Sorry, stop. I’ll ask you to start the question again when everyone has stopped talking.

Tim van de Molen: Does the FTA commit New Zealand to invest money in India?

Hon TODD McCLAY: No, it does not. New Zealand is open to investment, and New Zealand companies do very well when they invest overseas. This agreement makes it easier for them to invest in India and gives them rights in that market. The agreement includes an aspirational target for New Zealand to promote up to US$20 billion worth of private investment into India over 15 years, signalling our shared ambition to deepen commercial ties as India’s economy expands. We have committed to promote this investment only. For Kiwi businesses, stronger two-way investment means greater access to growth sectors, more scope for joint ventures, and increased confidences to expand, while also encouraging Indian investors to see New Zealand as a high-value, stable destination to invest.

Tim van de Molen: What is this agreement worth in terms of financial benefit and job creation?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Early estimates are that this agreement will be worth an additional $1 billion in New Zealand exports each year for the next 20 years and will deliver tens of thousands of jobs to our economy. It is also futureproofed; the EU-India FTA, announced this week, includes better access for wine and many services than our agreement concluded last year. We have agreed with India, in the FTA, a most-favoured-nation provision. That means if our FTA enters into force before the EU one does, then we will get the same reduction of tariffs for those wines and other access to services that the EU has negotiated. We have also futureproofed the agreement to ensure that we are never worse off, so 12 months after entering into force, we will commence discussions to improve the agreement with India on an ongoing basis. Can I take a moment of the House’s time to thank the officials at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade for their exceptional work. These are the same officials that negotiated the EU and UK FTAs, and they have done a remarkable job on behalf of every New Zealander.

Economic Growth

Question No. 9

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (14:46) to the Minister for Economic Growth: Does she agree with the Minister of Finance’s July 2024 statement that “cost of living relief is on its way”; if so, why?

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Geez, you’re a one-man band!

Hon David Seymour: For many years I was, but now I have many friends.

Glen Bennett: November, here we come!

Hon David Seymour: I see that member going in the opposite direction.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Finance) (14:46) on behalf of the Minister for Economic Growth: Yes, absolutely. For example, since that comment was made, mortgage rates have fallen for New Zealanders up and down the country, meaning that they are paying less on interest and have more money left at the end of the week. It’s also the case—and it’s interesting to look at the changes in non-tradable inflation; around the time of that comment. Non-tradable inflation—that is, inflation within New Zealand—was 4.9 percent; it has since come down to 3.5 percent. That’s important because it’s something that the Government can control. Right across the board, we’ve been managing our own spending, we’ve been cutting red tape, and we’ve been increasing efficiency in the New Zealand economy so that prices come down. However, it is true that over the same period, tradable inflation—that is, inflation largely influenced by overseas—has increased from minus 1.6 up to 2.6; so we’ve had a 1.4 percent drop in local inflation and a 3.2 percent increase in tradable inflation over that period.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Why did she claim in July 2024 that “cost of living relief is on its way”, when, in the past year, food costs have risen 4 percent while minimum wage has risen just 1.5 percent?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: I’d just like to correct an earlier answer. It’s not 3.2 percent that tradable inflation rose over that period but 4.2 percent—my mental arithmetic wasn’t as sharp as it should be there. In relation to the question about food prices, it’s certainly true that food prices have continued to rise. That has been, in part, driven by the fact that commodities New Zealand farmers sell on the world stage, such as dairy and meats, have been appreciating keenly in recent times. That has been very good for New Zealand farmers and, particularly, rural New Zealand. However, that doesn’t mean that the increases in food prices don’t affect New Zealand households. I would point out that they have risen much, much slower than they were when the previous Government was in place. Around that time, I seem to recall food price inflation as high as 12 percent.

Hon Ginny Andersen: How are Kiwis meant to believe that cost of living relief is coming when unemployment is up, wages are failing to keep up, and record numbers of New Zealanders are leaving because they cannot afford to live in this country under her Government?

SPEAKER: No, you can’t make that final statement. Just do the question again without the assertion at the end.

Hon Ginny Andersen: How are Kiwis meant to believe that cost of living relief is coming when unemployment is up, wages are failing to keep up, and record numbers of New Zealanders are leaving New Zealand?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: I would say that people are meant to believe that by looking at what we can control and what we can’t control. As I mentioned, the New Zealand Government—powerful as it may be—cannot control 4.2 percent tradable inflation that has washed up on our shores since that initial comment was made. We can, however, control our own activities, and so I would counsel people to believe: when you have a Government that’s very careful with its own spending, that gets interest rates down, and that leaves families and firms with more money at the end of the week to pay wages and grow jobs, that is a good thing. The choice for New Zealand is, really: do you want competent adults in the room looking after their money carefully on the Treasury benches, or, perhaps, something else that they’re going to increasingly think, “What was that like again? Not so good.”

Hon Ginny Andersen: Are wages keeping up with the cost of living, when white bread has gone up 58.3 percent in the past year?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: First of all, on a personal note, can I counsel the member to consider wholemeal—it is healthier—

Hon Ginny Andersen: It’s more expensive.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: —also more expensive, but then you could also economise on it in the volume you eat. The next thing I’d say is that we have to be very, very careful when we take one commodity to try and measure productivity. The simple fact is that New Zealand has faced a serious challenge with raising productivity, that actually goes back multiple Governments. It’s productivity that drives real wages: how much people produce and can take home. If we’re going to improve productivity, then what do we need to do? Well, we need to cut red tape; we need to get more investment, so workers have more capital; we need more skills, with better education. Those are the things that drive real wage growth over decades, and they’re exactly the things that this Government is investing in; rather than the “sugar hit” politics that people are a little tired of, because, like white bread, it may be sweet, but it doesn’t last.

Hon Ginny Andersen: How much should New Zealanders pay for a loaf of bread?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Mr Speaker—

SPEAKER: Sorry, no hang on, hang on. I’m going to rule that question out.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Oh, but I want to answer this one.

SPEAKER: I know you might want to answer it, but without losing the number of questions, try again.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does he think the tactic of telling New Zealanders that the cost of living is improving—when clearly it’s not—is working, or is it just further proof that she and Christopher Luxon are way out of touch?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: On behalf of the Minister for Economic Development, what I’ve been saying in these answers is that the world does actually have more than one factor to consider. While there are challenges, and those have eventuated, in part, from that figure I gave—4.2 percent uptick in the rate of inflation coming from tradables or overseas—they can also separate “Is this Government making choices with the regulations and the rules and the money and the investment in social services like education?” People can separate those things out and they can see that while there are real challenges, this Government is doing the work to fix what matters and ensure that our future is going to be brighter because of the decisions that we make. Rather than sloganeering, we actually are doing the policy work to make our country better.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does the Minister understand that food prices going up faster than wages mean that New Zealanders are worse off because his Government is failing to take real action on the cost of living?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: On behalf of the Minister of Economic Development, yes, there is no question that inflation has been a real challenge. When it peaked in 2022, it was 7.2 percent; when we took office, it was 5.6 percent; today, it’s 3.1. So, yes, it is a serious challenge, but if you want to evaluate the effect of this Government, we have made serious progress getting inflation under control to solve precisely the question that the member purports to care about. I don’t want to get political, but we’re doing a much better job of it than you did.

Mental Health

Question No. 10

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula) (14:54) to the Minister for Mental Health: What recent announcements has he made about mental health co-response teams?

Hon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health) (14:55): Our mental health plan is delivering faster access to support more front-line workers and a better crisis response. I recently announced the first four new mental health co-response teams, which we launched in Canterbury, Auckland City, Bay of Plenty, and Counties Manukau. To improve mental health outcomes, I want to ensure that when people call 111 in a time of mental health crisis, they get a mental health response, rather than a criminal justice one. Budget 2025 invested $28 million to roll out mental health co-response teams across the country. To deliver a better crisis response, we want to ensure there is someone to call, someone to respond, and somewhere to go.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: What is a co-response team?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Good question. One of my top priorities is a better crisis response for all New Zealanders. Co-response teams pair up mental health workers with front-line police to respond to mental health call outs. They offer people experiencing a mental health crisis the support they need on the spot and faster access to the most appropriate services. Police do an excellent job in our communities, but the bottom line is they are not mental health professionals. That is why we are overhauling the way emergency services respond to 111 calls for people experiencing mental distress.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: What evidence is there that co-response teams lead to a better crisis response?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: An evaluation of the pilot in Wellington found there was a reduction in the use of powers under the Mental Health Act, fewer people needed to go to an emergency department or police station, and the level of wraparound support increased. Importantly, I heard from advocates, those with lived experience, and families, that having a uniformed police officer turn up during a time of mental health need can be distressing. The previous National Government announced co-response teams in 2017, but the funding was cut in 2018 under Labour. This Government believes these co-response teams are a real game-changer, and it’s disappointing we had to wait six years to get them.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: What other actions is the Government taking to create a better crisis response?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Well, I think you’ll agree it’s long overdue for a better crisis response in New Zealand. Crisis response teams build on the work already done, including a 60-minute handover between police and patients in emergency departments, as well as 30-minute transfers from the police custody suite to a mental health facility. We’ve also announced a $61 million boost to crisis response, which includes 40 additional front-line clinical workers in our crisis and assessment teams and two new 10-bed acute alternative facilities to reduce in-patient ward admissions. When someone takes a brave step to reach out—whether it’s you, your child, a friend, or a family member—this Government is committed to ensuring the right support is always there to answer that call.

Emergency Management and Recovery

Question No. 11

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Tai Tokerau) (14:58) to the Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery: Does he intend for the Emergency Management Bill (No 2) to establish funding to support community and marae preparedness to respond to extreme weather emergencies?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (14:58) on behalf of the Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery: As the member will be aware, this is a regulatory piece of legislation, not a funding bill. There has been wide consultation with communities, iwi, and Opposition, and I welcome the member’s further engagement through the select committee process. As the member will also be aware, the Government has already made support available to respond to the recent extreme weather events, with $1.2 million in funding for mayoral relief funds and $1 million funding for marae who have provided support in the response.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Why does the Emergency Management Bill (No 2) rely on marae and iwi to support emergency response without establishing dedicated, up-front funding for preparedness and response capacity?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: On behalf of the Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery, this bill is around setting in place a new regime in terms of how we respond to emergencies in New Zealand. It takes the lessons from Cyclone Gabrielle and other weather events and also ensures that there is a strengthened role for communities and iwi in these events by giving them a place at the decision-making table. The Government continues to make investments into our marae, who do play an incredibly important role in our emergency response, whether that’s in terms of resilience projects, whether that’s in terms of energy projects, or flood resilience. Those are further investments we make across Government to support the role that marae play in our emergency response.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: Does the Minister consider it equitable for marae in Te Tai Tokerau to be relied on for emergency response without the same baseline public funding provided to other parts of the emergency management system, and, if so, why?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: On behalf of the Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery, the Government recognises the important role that marae play in responding to emergencies. That’s why we continue to provide funding for a range of projects to strengthen the resilience and support the role that marae play. Also, as I said in the answer to the primary question, we’ve made $1 million available to reimburse marae for the work that they did responding to last week’s weather events.

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi: What amendments, if any, does the Minister intend to make to the bill following the extreme flooding in Te Tai Tokerau to strengthen marae and iwi preparedness before emergencies occur?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: On behalf of the Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery, the bill is going through a process. Ultimately, we’ll be listening to the submissions, but we continue to make sure that we also learn from all weather events to improve our response. We’re incredibly proud of the response of civil defence and emergency management, and also all of the first responders who played an incredibly important role—and, also, those who are still working so hard right now to reconnect communities across this country following last week’s weather event.

Hon Tama Potaka: Can the Minister please confirm that 10 motor homes have arrived in Whangaruru in Northland to help support those whānau that are in need as a result of the severe weather emergency over the last few days; and that further vehicles are now being transported, or are coordinated to be transported, to Hicks Bay in Te Araroa, to other locations of significant weather events?

SPEAKER: Well, given the public interest, it might be worth answering, but it’s a long way from the primary question.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: On behalf of the Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery, I can confirm that is the case and that the Minister, the Hon Tama Potaka, is very much driving for that to be done as quickly as possible.

Vocational Education

Question No. 12

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour) (15:02) to the Minister for Vocational Education: How many young people in New Zealand were not engaged in education, employment, or training for the September 2025 year compared to the September 2023 year?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for Vocational Education) (15:02): I’ve been advised by Stats New Zealand that at year end September 2023, there were 74,300 young people aged 15 to 24 not engaged in education, employment, or training. At year end September 2025, there were 90,000 15- to 24-year-olds not engaged in employment, education, or training. That is an increase of 15,700 15- to 24-year-olds not in education, employment, or training in September 2025 compared to September 2023.

Shanan Halbert: Are there more or fewer young people enrolled in level 1 and level 2 vocational qualifications than there were two years ago?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Well, I’m very pleased that the member has asked me that question, because getting efficiencies often brings about really good results. The Single Data Return in 2023 compared with that in August 2025, against youth guarantee programmes and delivery of qualifications at levels 1 and 2, foundation programmes: while there were less tertiary providers in August 2025—80 versus 84 in 2023—there were, in fact, more students, more learners: 31,510 learners in August 2025 compared to 26,610 in 2023.

Shanan Halbert: Are there more or fewer New Zealanders enrolled in apprenticeships than there were two years ago?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: One of the very sad facts of unemployment being higher than we would like it is that young people are disproportionately affected by that. Now, that is not a condition unique to New Zealand, according to the recent OECD report. Of course, as we bring the economy into recovery, it takes longer for the youth unemployment to reduce. However, I know that the member asking the question will be delighted to know that Stats New Zealand just today released the figures that total exports valued at $80.7 billion occurred in the year ending December 2025. That is the first time ever that New Zealand has had that value of exports, and I can confirm that those exports were driven by our very important primary sector, and so it is incredibly important that we have our polytechnics focused on meeting the needs of industry which drive our economy.

Shanan Halbert: Do young people in New Zealand have greater or fewer opportunities to pursue vocational education and training than they did two years ago?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: There are less courses being run, because that’s what occurs when you seek efficiencies. When you put local people from the community in charge of running local polytechnics, they know what industries and the local community needs, they gain efficiencies from that, and then they look at what the industries are that are driving an $80.7 billion export value and they target the courses to ensure those industries get the graduates that they need.

Shanan Halbert: How long will it take for her to realize that 90,000 young people not in employment, education, or training is because she has no plan, which leaves them no choice but to go to Australia?

SPEAKER: No. We’ve got to tidy these things up a little bit. That question sits well outside of what’s acceptable for a question. Just try and reword it in a different way.

Shanan Halbert: What is the Minister’s plan to address the 90,000 young people not engaged in employment or education in this country to ensure that they don’t go offshore to Australia?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: As I have already outlined, these conditions are not unique to New Zealand, according to the latest recent OECD report. Those that are young are more disproportionately impacted with high unemployment—that is the result of an economy that had been crashed by the previous Government, and—

SPEAKER: Sorry, just as you can’t have the suppositions that were in the previous question, nor can you have that in an answer. So give a straight answer and finish the session.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: The $80.7 billion total export value shows that we are getting industries back that are growing and are able to then employ young people. That is why we are so concentrated on ensuring that our economy grows so that our young people can be employed. That is why the polytech sector is getting back to basics of meeting the needs of their community so that they can provide graduates who grow the economy and provide opportunities for young people.

Government Business

Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement

Debate resumed from 28 January.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (15:10): I’m delighted to speak in support of the Prime Minister’s statement as we kick off 2026. I do want to start, of course, though, by acknowledging that the year has started with some tragic events in Mount Maunganui and across the North Island. I want to just send our thoughts and prayers to those who are affected, particularly in Mount Maunganui, but also to those who have been affected across New Zealand—in Coromandel, in Northland, East Coast, and the Bay of Plenty regions. I want to take this opportunity to put on record, as the Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector, the enormous number of volunteers who have been involved in that immediate response, recovery, and clean-up. The year 2026 is International Volunteer Year, so I want to start with a shout-out to them.

I also want to acknowledge my two parliamentary colleagues who have announced their retirement in the last week. The Hon Judith Collins KC, who is, of course, my bench mate, has served New Zealand, has served this House, and has served the community of Papakura for 24 years. If you were to ask me the two things I would remember the most, they are the enormous work ethic that Hon Judith Collins has brought to this House, and, of course, her quick and sharp wit. I also want to acknowledge the retirement of the MP for West Coast - Tasman, Maureen Pugh, who has served the West Coast for 28 years in a combination of roles in local government and central government. These two women have provided enormous service to New Zealand, so I wish them both well.

If we think about the start to 2026, it’s pretty clear that we are on the road to recovery. We have to accept that it has been a challenging time for New Zealanders. This coalition Government has come in with a mandate to fix the basics—and, man, what a sizeable challenge we all faced. If you think about what’s been achieved in two years, it is quite phenomenal. If you think about what the biggest challenge was, it was, of course, the inflation beast, which has a very direct impact on everybody’s lives with the cost of living. To be able to get inflation under control in two short years is nothing short of extraordinary, so I just think this House should recognise the enormous work that’s gone in to get inflation down, because that affects every single household and every single business. If you think about where the biggest costs are, it’s housing. When your mortgage rates are lower because your interest rates are lower, it is significant. Also, for this first time in I don’t know how many years, we’ve seen rents going backwards. Again, that alleviates enormous pressure from households with their biggest cost.

We’ve made it easier for businesses to thrive with fast-track legislation, and I’ve lost count of the number of people I’ve spoken to over the last few months who can’t wait for the Resource Management Act changes. If you think about one simple figure alone, 45 percent of consents will no longer be required. Think about the massive work that will save households and businesses.

Many New Zealanders comment, day after day, on education. Minister of Education, Erica Stanford—man, what has she achieved in two years? If you think about what school achievement rates were, and if you think about attendance rates, we have really gone to work on fixing the basics: getting rid of cellphones and ensuring that our kids have an hour a day of reading, writing, and maths.

My colleague the Hon Paul Goldsmith—I knew he waited particularly for this moment. If you think about the number fewer victims of crime in two years alone: 39,000 fewer—

Hon Paul Goldsmith: It’s 38,000.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: —sorry, 38,000 fewer—I just over-egged that—38,000 fewer victims of crime. That’s a big number. I want this House to reflect on every victim: 38,000 is an enormous difference to the lives of those who are no longer going to be damaged and affected by crime, whether it’s ram raids, whether it’s burglaries, whether it’s gangs, whether it’s intimidation.

This Government has got results in two years, fixing the basics. Across our health targets, we’ve seen year-on-year improvements. Across every area that we are focusing on, we are fixing the basics. There’s a bit more work still to do, and, of course, building the future.

I want to focus on two areas in particular—two areas that I’m responsible for—and the first is social development and employment, because what is, after housing, the most significant thing that can impact people’s lives? It’s their ability to earn an income. One of the things that we have been very focused on is young people, because we know what we inherited. In the six years that Labour were in office, for a job seeker under the age of 25, their future years on a benefit increased from 12 years to 18—18. That is a crime that every single New Zealander should be aware of. That is why our Government is so focused on young people. I want to talk about some of the things we have done to improve their lives: individual employment plans; job coaching—really intensive work with young people; bonus payments if they’ve been on welfare and stay off it; real incentives to be able to support them; very customised support to assist them in getting into employment. We’ve reset the welfare system to make it clear to people, through the traffic light system, what their obligations are, and actually what they do when they don’t meet them.

On the subject of jobs, we are building the future by growing tourism—our second-largest export. Unfortunately, what we saw from the last side was no support for tourism. If you were a tourism business under the last guys, you kind of wondered whether you should exist, because they were not being supported by the previous Government. What have we done? We’ve laid out a 10-year tourism growth roadmap to back them, to support them, and to bring them more customers—and, in turn, when they get more customers, what do they do? They employ more New Zealanders. That’s what this Government is focused on. We are growing the economy because we know the enormous difference it makes to young people in jobs, to households who can afford their mortgage, and to communities who feel safe through the great work that’s being done. Have we got more to do? Absolutely. That is why, you will hear from us time and time again, the focus is about fixing the basics and building the future, whether it’s in education, whether it’s KiwiSaver, whether it’s law and order, whether it’s growing exports.

I was so proud last night to sit beside the Hon Todd McClay at the 77^th Republic Day of India with them absolutely celebrating the free-trade agreement with India. If there is one thing that this Government has done that will transform the lives of New Zealanders for generations to come, it is that. When it was first proposed—and I remember being in India with Prime Minister Christopher Luxon when we were talking about the free-trade agreement—the other side just pooh-poohed it as if it wasn’t important. Do you know why? Because they ignored India when they were in office. Instead, we said, “How do we bring more customers for our businesses? How do we grow our economy? How do we grow our exports more than the $80 billion that we’ve just hit?” That is through free-trade agreements, and by very focused, diligent attention, we have got that one over the line. It’s about visitors, it’s about tourism, and it’s about growing opportunities for all New Zealanders, because we know that is what makes an enormous difference. We’ve got more work to do, but that one, I think, will go down in history as a very significant turning point of our economy.

I’m very proud to start 2026 with a coalition Government whose Ministers who are working incredibly hard and with parliamentarians on our side of the House who are representing their communities in good times and bad and who are talking about the opportunities ahead of us.

New Zealand is a fantastic country. It is a brilliant, brilliant country, and we are all about creating that future for New Zealanders to choose to live in. What would they get from the other side? More tax, more spending, more borrowing, more debt. Guess what! It’ll be tougher for every single person, if, on 7 November, they don’t stick with a National Government.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I understand this is a split call.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (15:20): Ngā mihi o te Tau Hou, Madam Speaker—happy New Year to you, to everyone who makes this place work, and, most importantly, to those incredible responders around the country right now who are doing the important work of supporting those people who’ve had their lives irreparably changed by the weather events, and to the people who are doing the clean-up in our communities to keep the lights on and to keep people getting what they need and to get home.

I also want to mihi to Ngāti Hāua. It has been a long day for the whānau here, but it is a big day for them and it’s right to celebrate with them. You’ve tuned in to the debate on the Prime Minister’s statement, a debate that many New Zealanders would have followed along to for the first opportunity of politics for the year, and come away with a bit of a sense of Lorde’s last single, “What was That?” What was a speech from the Prime Minister that did not mention Māori rights and the way that this Government has set race relations back 20 years? What was it from the Prime Minister that ignored the aspirations of rangatahi Māori and young people all around Aotearoa? A country where we know about our history, where we speak our reo, where we celebrate who we are.

When that Minister talks about building a country that has a bright future—a future for whom? A future for the first-home buyers in Auckland who’ve been locked out of the property market in the last three weeks by a Prime Minister who blinked on his own Minister’s plan for intensification? A future under a Government that has seen thousands of apprentices laid off since they came into office and have moved straight to Queensland? We know exactly who those whānau are who have moved overseas to Australia to not only build their houses but to buy their houses. They’re not coming home under this National Government; they’re looking for something better, and they’ve found it offshore.

It’s a shame that we have a Minister who cannot recognise just how much damage we are doing to the prospects of young people in Aotearoa. We need to do better for them, because we would all have sat around the table over the Christmas break; we would have talked around the barbeque to people who don’t think like any of us, and especially to those young people. I’m thinking about those 25-year-old men in our families, those neighbours that I have, the young guys who just cannot see themselves getting ahead right now. And we know they’re doing it tough. We know that their mental health is suffering. We know that their job prospects are slimming out when the construction sector is on its knees with 17,000 jobs gone in that sector just in the last couple of years. We know that we have to do better for those guys, and it’s happening all around the world. They are looking around in other countries we like to compare ourselves to and they are seeing upheaval and they are seeing turmoil. And what do we have at home? A Government who won’t stand up to that and won’t offer rangatahi a future which is built here and celebrates the things Aotearoa is good at and invests in jobs in manufacturing and a creative sector where they can see themselves represented.

Because small businesses, the kinds of businesses that they run, they’re closing their doors. In Manurewa over summer, my favourite bakery had closed up and they’d gone on holiday because they just weren’t seeing the foot traffic coming through that they needed to keep the doors open. Here in Wellington, shops aren’t generally open on a Monday afternoon because they’re not seeing people coming through with disposable income. This is the legacy of a National Government that told voters on the stump that they would deal with the cost of living and that they would get the economy under control.

What happens when people stop believing those promises, when politicians cannot be held to account for the promises that they have made on the cost of living, when people are still seeing their supermarket bills going up, when people are still seeing their insurance bills going up, when people are still seeing their energy bills going up and a Government that walked away from electricity reform? People stop believing in Governments. People stop believing in the ability of all of us to do something better.

Those young people who sat around with you at the Christmas table who are feeling disillusioned, there needs to be something that changes for them, because they’re right. The status quo that they can see here and around the rest of the world has not delivered for them, and their diagnosis of the problem that the status quo is not changing things for the better is correct. Instead, we have a National Government that, in fact, is not addressing the problems that matter to them. They’ve been distracted by the Treaty principles bill. They’ve been distracted by kicking that kind of politics that has been borrowed straight from Nigel Farage, straight from overseas alt-right politics, and we’re seeing it playing out here in New Zealand in the most toxic ways.

We need to reject that. We have the ability to offer young people hope and a real future built here in New Zealand. That is what Labour has to offer, and that is why this election is urgent.

Hon JENNY SALESA (Labour—Panmure-Ōtāhuhu) (15:25): Kia ora e te Pīka and happy New Year to you and to all of our members of Parliament. It is so good to be back in the House of Parliament for 2026. I look forward to a good year, particularly towards the end of this year.

Now, in responding to the Prime Minister’s statement earlier this week, most of us were here in the House listening to the delivery of his statement, and some of us also looked at the written statement that the Prime Minister had. As our ethnic spokesperson for Labour, I was looking especially for any mention of ethnic communities, because when we look at the demographics of our country, we know that when you add ethnic communities, tangata whenua Māori as well as Pacific, that is close to 50 percent of our total population. So I was hoping—and, as you know, I’m Tongan—that I would also hear the word “Pacific”. I did not hear “Pacific” once. And as the electorate MP for Panmure-Ōtāhuhu in South Auckland, I was also—similar to my colleague Arena Williams, MP for Manurewa—listening and hoping that I would hear the word “Māori”. Not once was Māori mentioned in his speech here in the House. Not once was Te Tiriti o Waitangi mentioned in the House. That is just not good enough for when our Prime Minister makes a speech and a statement for the beginning of the year.

Now, in response to the Minister that just spoke earlier on, when she spoke about the India free-trade agreement—I looked also through the Prime Minister’s speech, and he did mention India once, and he mentioned India when he spoke about the free-trade agreement. However, we also know that this current coalition Government has not got that deal across the line, so to speak, as we had heard earlier on, because one of their coalition partners, New Zealand First, has not agreed to sign on or to endorse that particular free-trade agreement. They’re looking to us to ensure that that goes through. That is still in process.

I would also like to speak as the local MP for Panmure-Ōtāhuhu, and I can tell you that things are very, very tough for the just over 75,000 people and constituents that I represent. It is a unique electorate where about 50 percent of my electorate are from the Pacific, about 15 percent are Māori, and there are also a whole number of Indians in my electorate. Being the spokesperson for ethnic communities is also a good thing for me because of the people that I represent.

But I can tell you, when I was first elected in 2014, one of the things that I was shocked by, because I just did not expect it, was the numbers of families that came through my door in Ōtara—families who were working. They came through, some of them with their children in the car or the minivan that they were living in as their temporary accommodation, and they were coming asking for assistance for housing. They didn’t actually mind whether it was a State house or a social house or a private house; they just wanted to be housed. But what was even more shocking to me was the fact that many of these were working families. There were families who either both parents were working or they were working two full-time jobs and a part-time job, but they still were not able to make ends meet. I am, unfortunately, beginning to see the same thing again this year: families who just cannot make ends meet.

The cost of bread has gone up, as you heard through question time earlier on, by 58 percent, but I was actually quite shocked by the response from the Deputy Prime Minister, who was answering on behalf of the Minister. His response to that particular question was, “Well, why don’t those people just go and buy wholegrain bread?” My experience going shopping is wholewheat bread or wholegrain bread is actually more expensive than white bread. The cost of butter has gone up. The cost of mincemeat has gone up. The cost of most foods has gone up. Things are much tougher now.

This Government came in and the Prime Minister now, Christopher Luxon, promised that he would fix the cost of living. I can tell you from South Auckland, the cost of living is worse now than it was two years ago. The cost of visiting a GP is also more expensive today, and some places it’s up to about $100 to visit a GP. I can tell you that the majority of my constituents in South Auckland cannot afford to see their GP. And when they make a choice, whether it’s to see their GP or to put food on the table, they usually don’t go and see their GP. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (15:30): I move, That this debate be now adjourned.

Motion agreed to.

Debate interrupted.

Bills

Ngāti Hāua Claims Settlement Bill

Legislative Statement

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) (15:31): I present a legislative statement on the Ngāti Hāua Claims Settlement Bill.

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

Third Reading

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) (15:31): I move, That the Ngāti Hāua Claims Settlement Bill be now read a third time.

Tākiri mai ana te ata ka ao, ka ao, ka awatea. E mihi ana ki a koutou kua tau mai nei i runga i te karanga o te rā. E ngā mate, haere, haere, haere ki te pō. Ki a tātou te hunga ora, tēnā tātou. Tihei mauri ora. Ka mihi au ki ngā mana o ēnei whenua, ko Te Āti Awa, ko Ngāti Toa Rangatira, tēnā koutou katoa. Ko te Kāwanatanga tēnei e mihi ana ki te kaupapa o te wā, Ngāti Hāua, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Morning has dawned. The day has broken. I acknowledge you all who are here in response to the purpose for which we were called together. Those that have passed: go, farewell. To us, the living: I acknowledge you. I claim the right to speak. I acknowledge those who preside over these lands, Te Āti Awa, Ngāti Toa Rangatira: I greet you. The Government acknowledges the present matters. Ngāti Hāua, I greet you.]

Good afternoon, everybody. Today, I have the great pleasure of speaking in support of the Ngāti Hāua Claims Settlement Bill. It was a wonderful opportunity to have the many members from Ngāti Hāua here today, in the debating chamber, and we had a wonderful time together a couple of hours ago, earlier in the House.

Negotiations began on this settlement in 2017, officially, with Ngāti Hāua having been seeking justice from the Crown for generations. Today marks the final step in Ngāti Hāua’s long journey to settlement of their historic claims. Today’s milestone is a testament to the efforts of many. I acknowledge those who are not here today, to be with us, for this event—in particular, the late chair of the Ngāti Hāua Iwi Trust, Eugene Topine, who guided these negotiations at the earliest of stages. I want to acknowledge the current chair, Graham Bell; vice chair, Lois Tutemahurangi; trustees Aaron Rice-Edwards, Joey Allen, Louise Wahapa, Piki Taiaroa-Whatarangi; and former trustee Brett Anderson, who have provided wisdom and leadership and have been critical to negotiating a settlement that brings us all closer to reconciliation. I personally want to thank you all for your such warm relations and hospitality in Taumarunui.

On the Crown side, I want to acknowledge the work of predecessors the Hon Chrisopher Finlayson and the Hon Andrew Little. My thanks to my ministerial colleagues, Crown agencies, and local authorities for their work to achieve the settlement. I also want to acknowledge the efforts of the negotiators from Ngāti Hāua, led by Tim Castle. And my thanks to the chief Crown negotiator, Dr John Wood. Finally, I want to acknowledge the people of Ngāti Hāua who have come to Parliament today. And to those who are watching across the country, or listening in on their crystal sets or radios back home: greetings from Wellington.

I formally delivered the Crown apology to Ngāti Hāua at the signing of the deed settlement in March, last year, during a ceremony where all felt the enduring hurt of Ngāti Hāua. That day was a reminder of the importance of the Crown acknowledging its wrongdoings over many, many decades.

The bill before us records the Crown’s acknowledgments and apology for its actions and omissions which breached the Treaty of Waitangi—these included warfare, the alienation of land through substantial Crown purchasing of public works takings which have left, in totality, Ngāti Hāua virtually landless.

The bill enacts long-overdue statutory pardons for the Ngāti Hāua tūpuna Te Rangiātea and Mātene Ruta Te Whareaitu, who, in 1846, were tried and convicted under martial law and lost their lives as a result. The bill also recognises that labelling these men as rebels has led to an intergenerational stigma and mamae experienced by their uri and by Ngāti Hāua.

In the following decades, the story of Ngāti Hāua is one of a people who were alienated from their land through Crown actions, including railway construction, the establishment of Tongariro National Park, and the compulsory acquisition of land along the banks of the Whanganui River. On these occasions, the Crown either did not honour the commitments it made, or failed to consult Ngāti Hāua entirely. The loss of land led to the erosion of tribal structures and left Ngāti Hāua unable to sustain themselves and with few opportunities for social and economic development. Many Ngāti Hāua were obliged to leave their rohe, which exacerbated the damage to the iwi’s spiritual and cultural wellbeing.

This settlement lays the economic, cultural, and social foundation for Ngāti Hāua to reestablish their connection to their land, their rohe; strengthen their identity; and to build a future for themselves for generations to come. It recognises the importance of Te Pou Tikanga, the innate values that underpin Ngāti Hāua’s aspirations for their Treaty settlement in their vision for a restored relationship with the Crown.

The settlement redress package provides for the return of 64 sites of cultural significance to be transferred as cultural redress, including sites that will be jointly vested with other groups; a cultural revitalisation fund; recognition of the innate connection of Ngāti Hāua to their rohe and their obligations as tāngata tiaki; a relationship redress with many Crown agencies and the financial commercial redress valued at $19 million, with the right to purchase a number of commercial properties.

As I have said on many occasions along this way, this settlement can never fully compensate Ngāti Hāua for the loss and prejudice that they’d suffered as a result of Crown actions. Through the settlement, the Crown seeks to restore and strengthen its relationship with Ngāti Hāua, grounded on mutual trust, cooperation, and partnership.

In 1866, at the cessation of hostilities with the Crown, Ngāti Hāua erected a pou at Maraekowhai, called “Riri Kore”, which translates, roughly to “no more war”. Through Te Pua o Te Riri Kore, the Ngāti Hāua deed of settlement, and this bill, I look forward to seeing a blossoming of a relationship between Ngāti Hāua and the Crown based on respect and goodwill. It’s with great pleasure that I commend this bill to the House. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

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

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (15:38):Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Ko te mihi tuatahi ki te kaihanga, nāna nei ngā mea katoa. Ko te mihi tuarua ki te Whare e tū nei, tēnā koe. Ki ngā uri o Ngāti Hāua tēnei te mihi maioha, tēnei te mihi whakamānawa, nō reira tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou huihui mai tātou katoa.

[Greetings, Madam Speaker. Firstly, I acknowledge the creator of all things. Secondly, to the House that stands here, I acknowledge you. To the descendants of Ngāti Hāua, I welcome and honour you. Therefore, I acknowledge you all who have gathered here today.]

The third and final reading marks completion in this House of a long journey for Ngāti Hāua. But, more importantly, it marks the fulfillment of a commitment that is long overdue. Today, we move to pass the third and final reading of the Ngāti Hāua Claims Settlement Bill and giving final legislative effect to Te Pua o Te Riri Kore, the deed of settlement signed between the Crown and Ngāti Hāua on 29 March, back in 2025, at Ngāpūwaiwaha Marae in Taumarunui.

It is important to acknowledge that this bill does not resolve the full weight of history, but it does bring to a close a process grounded in truth telling, accountability, and persistence, one carried forward by generations of Ngāti Hāua whānau, hapū, and leaders who refused to accept denial in place of justice. I’d like to acknowledge all of those that have contributed along that pathway: those who have negotiated on both sides, those who have come from the trust board, those who have supported in the marae across the rohe, and also those who have passed away and are here with us today.

I believe it is important at this third and final reading to put on the parliamentary record what the breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi were in this case. I know while these are well known, I believe it is important that we record those for Hansard, and to know that they are there written in the books of this House to last over time as a reminder of where the Crown was wrong.

In the early 19^th century, some Ngāti Hāua hapū established themselves here, also in Heretaunga and the Hutt Valley, where I live. That reflects a history defined by a movement, connection, and enduring relationships to land and water. Those connections to land and waterways, to taonga, to one another, have been central to Ngāti Hāua identity over the centuries. Yet that history has also been marked by repeated and serious breaches of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and by the systematic undermining of Ngāti Hāua authority.

From the 1840s onwards, the Crown failed Ngāti Hāua as a Treaty partner. In 1846, during conflict in the Wellington region, Ngāti Hāua tūpuna were targeted, not for criminal wrongdoing but for standing up for what was theirs and who they were. Te Rangiātea was sentenced to life imprisonment and died in custody—the fate of Mātene Ruta Te Whareaitu also. Five others were exiled to Australia. These actions were not reconciliatory; they were punitive, coercive, and unjust. What followed this was a period of sustained Crown aggression in Whanganui and Taranaki, and throughout, Ngāti Hāua stood alongside the kīngitanga, not to provoke conflict but to defend their lands, their tikanga, and their rangatiratanga. The Crown responded with force, confiscation, and repeated legislation designed to dispossess.

From the 1860s, it was the Native Land Court that was used to fragment collective ownership and facilitate alienation. Much of this occurred without proper notice, without any informed consent, and without fair compensation. The Waimarino Block was awarded in hearings many Ngāti Hāua were unaware of and was swiftly acquired by the Crown, including areas of kāinga that had stood for a long period of time.

Commitments made during the construction of the North Island Main Trunk railway were not honoured. Public works legislation was deployed to take land compulsorily. Compensation, when offered, was incomplete, delayed, or never paid. By the early 20^th century, Ngāti Hāua were, in practical terms, nearly landless.

When Ngāti Hāua gave conditional support for the establishment of Taumarunui Native Township, they did so in good faith. Those conditions were ignored by the Crown. Subsequent legislation reduced iwi control, entrenched settler interests, enabled perpetual leasing, and allowed the Crown to purchase township sections on behalf of others. Infrastructure development followed, causing lasting environmental damage to lands Ngāti Hāua had protected for generations. Even into the late 20^th century, this pattern continued. The Tongariro hydroelectric power scheme was developed in the 1970s without any engagement with Ngāti Hāua, once again disregarding iwi authority, interests, and rights.

The cumulative effect of these actions was profound socially, economically, and spiritually. The land loss undermined Ngāti Hāua’s ability to support their people. Their exercise of kaitiakitanga was constrained. While whānau were displaced, and communities fractured, te reo Māori, mātauranga, and cultural practice were weakened by sustained disempowerment. Yet throughout all of this, you endured. Rangatiratanga was never surrendered. Ngāti Hāua continued to organise, to challenge, and to seek recognition.

In 2017, the Crown finally acknowledged the mandate of Ngāti Hāua Iwi Trust to negotiate a comprehensive settlement. That work led to an agreement in principle signed in 2022. The initialling of the deed and its signing in 2025 and this bill today completes that journey through Parliament.

Te Pua o Te Riri Kore—the blossom of peace that knows no anger—is a name that reflects restraint, dignity, and forward purpose. It recognises the depth of harm while affirming a commitment to a different relationship in the future.

This settlement includes a full Crown apology for Treaty breaches, a range of conservation land, $6.1 million in cultural revitalisation, and great things like restoring original place names and providing nohoanga rights for traditional food gathering. But it does not pretend to undo the past. It cannot restore what was taken, but it does acknowledge truth, accept responsibility, and create a platform for Ngāti Hāua to determine their own future with greater authority and security.

As this House moves to pass this bill, our responsibility does not end. The real measure of this settlement will be found in its implementation and whether the Crown honours both the letter and the spirit of what has been agreed to here today. Let Te Pua o Te Riri Kore stand as a reminder that justice delayed does not absolve responsibility.

In the kōrero today I heard from Graham—I think it was Graham Bell. I asked, “What’s his name?” and someone said, “That’s ‘Tinka’ Bell.” I went “Oh, OK, right.” I reflect on those words about what is true justice. He asked that question: what is true justice? It’s not winners or losers, but it’s working together. To me that is what the Treaty relationship is. The Treaty relationship endures. It evolves through our conduct and it’s measured by what we choose to do next.

Labour fully supports this third and final reading of Ngāti Hāua Claims Settlement Bill, and I commend it to the House. Tēnā koutou.

STEVE ABEL (Green) (15:47): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Kia ora koutou, Hāua. Hāua come here today for justice, and we, as the representatives of the Crown, are here today for forgiveness. The offering we have is to return but a tiny shard of the mighty waka of Hāua that was torpedoed by the wicked acts of colonisation. That shard of pounamu, ahakoa he iti he pounamu—though it is small, it is genuine. The forgiveness we seek is genuine. The apology we offer is genuine, but it requires of Hāua to fish a mighty ika of forgiveness from Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa, a second Te Ika-a-Māui. It is, in a sense, forgiveness for the unforgivable. Yet here again, we are humbled by Hāua and their generosity in accepting this offering and this apology. Kia ora.

For the record, Te Pāti Kākāriki does not accept the concept of full and final settlement. These settlements cannot be final, because Te Tiriti o Waitangi is a living agreement and our relationship is a living relationship, never to be finalised, for that would be the end of our nation.

Hāua have survived decades of theft, injustice, insult, and disrespect, and have survived the worst evils of colonisation. My colleague has just outlined some of the specific things detailed in the settlement, but I want to reflect on the character of the colonisation that Hāua were subjected to, because there’s one particular famous character in New Zealand history, a guy called Wakefield. You will see his name on street signs and in parks and things. Wakefield was a particularly rapacious and nasty and totally self-interested capitalist exploiter. I’ll give you a sense of the character of this guy, who started the New Zealand Company, who created the totally untenable circumstances in the Heretaunga that led to the Crown backing up this capitalist speculator in his totally unruly and unjust land dealings.

Wakefield abducted a 15-year-old girl when he lived in Britain because he wanted to acquire the wealth of her father. Her name was Ellen Turner, and he literally stole her and took her to Scotland and forced her to marry him in the belief that he would then have access to her inheritance. He tried to escape to France with this 15-year-old girl: Ellen Turner. He was eventually apprehended, he was tried in the British courts, and he was convicted and did two years in prison. Guess what he did in that spare time he had in prison! He wrote a theory of systematic colonisation. It’s called A Letter from Sydney, even though he was serving time in Britain. He devised a method of colonising the indigenous lands of the world, and he decided when he came to Aotearoa New Zealand to make this the testing ground for his theory, and he began the New Zealand Company. That is Edward Gibbon Wakefield. Frankly, he’s a scumbag.

Then when he did all his unjust dealings in the Heretaunga and in the top of the South Island where he originally encountered Te Rauparaha, Governor Grey backed him up and sent in the troops. “A most sanguinary vengeance” was the term given. The cultivations of the iwi there were defiled, were plundered. Urupā were defiled and the chapel was burned. Imagine putting arsenic into people’s flour—imagine. What is the mentality? Flour that will be made into food and handed out to children, to women—that is the mentality.

There are many things—this is a litany of a terrible history here—but one thing I also want to reflect on is the Native Lands Act. The Native Lands Act 1860 was explicitly defined as a means to acquire land from iwi Māori—the financial colonisation of New Zealand. A member of this Parliament in 1870 by the name of Sewell said, “The object of the Native Lands Act was twofold: to bring the great bulk of the lands of the Northern Ireland which belonged to the natives, and which, before the passing of that Act, were extra commercium within the reach of colonisation.” The other great object was the detribalisation of the natives to destroy, if it were possible, the principle of communism, which ran through the whole of their institutions upon which their social system was based and which stood as a barrier in the way of all attempts to amalgamate the native race into our social and political system.

Hāua suffered the intentional purpose of the Native Lands Act as well, and there are many things: Taumarunui, the expansion of that; the surreptitious acquisition of lands alongside rivers and turning them into reserves; the gazetting of lands into the national park at Tongariro; the wars; the invasion of Parihaka. You have withstood these things, Hāua, and you have upheld your mana through it all, and here you are today, and we make this offering and you accept it.

I want to acknowledge also our colleague, our friend Benjamin Doyle, who attended the hearings in Taumarunui for Hāua. Benjamin sent me a note. He said, “I offer these reflections: as you’d expect, the most moving part of the process was to sit with, and listen to, the stories of the people inside their whare, stories recalled and passed down, stories of loss and grief, stories of relief and resolve, stories that showed the width and breadth of the land and its people, and then to be shown places being returned which had been taken and left unused—below the hospital, beside the main trunk railway line, at the convergence of rivers—all the while treated by the people of Ngāti Hāua with the gentlest of care and respect and hospitality and generosity, which we, as representatives of the Crown, should not implicitly expect, given the pain and theft we represented—a sign of the integrity of the people and the partnership offered as always by mana whenua.”

Rangatira “Tinka” Bell, you spoke of restoring the mana of Hāua. I would say you have upheld the mana of Hāua all this time. Today, by your graciousness and generosity, you enhance the mana of us all. We commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT) (15:57): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Ngāti Hāua, welcome. Thank you for making the journey down for the third reading of this bill as we in the House go through the process of enacting the deed of settlement. I reflect on the three speeches previously given—the honourable Minister speaking of the grace that Ngāti Hāua has shown; the Hon Ginny Andersen reading into the Hansard record the rawness, shall we say, the black and white detail; and then Steve Abel giving that deep, emotional, and heartfelt speech that I think connected with everybody here—which speak to, again, the depth of the mana that you are showing us here by accepting this passing of this bill to do what little it can. What little it is doing in return, in apology, and in offering, we’ve read through in this House a couple of times. It’s been through the Māori Affairs Committee. I’m sure you’ve heard it. I know I talked about it in my second reading speech.

In Adrian Rurawhe’s valedictory speech yesterday, he talked about being the member for Te Tai Hauāuru for many years. He rattled off to the House a list of all the iwi, very impressively, in his area. I think I counted about 30. He obviously was a great man in that area and did an amazing job as a representative, and I acknowledge Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, who’s now in that seat. In Adrian Rurawhe’s speech, he talked about the handful of iwi left to settle, and this today is another settlement ticked off that list that he held very deep, as it came across in his speech.

One small piece of parcel of land that’s being returned is Lake Pohoare, formerly known, I believe, as Lake Hawkes, a small lake—lovely little place by the looks of it on Google Maps. I would love to go there one day. I know that you will look after that, as you will look after all land that’s being returned, in the way that you have always done before colonisation came to New Zealand. Thank you for listening to my speech on behalf of the ACT Party. I commend this bill to the House.

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First) (16:00): E te Pīka, tēnā koe. E te iwi o Ngāti Hāua tēnā koutou katoa. E tū ana ahau he uri nō Te Tai Tokerau ki te mihi atu ki a koutou. Ka nui aku mihi maioha ki a koutou. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. Ka mihi ahau hoki ki a tātou katoa kua huihui mai nei kia tautoko i te kaupapa o te rangi nei, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Madam Speaker, I greet you. Ngāti Hāua, I acknowledge you. I stand as a descendant of Te Tai Tokerau to acknowledge you all. I warmly welcome you. Greetings and acknowledgments to you all. I also acknowledge everyone gathered here to support the matter of the day. I greet and acknowledge you all.]

One of the things I particularly appreciate about Treaty settlement readings and, in particular, third readings is the way that we’re all authentically able to dig deep inside us and speak about what is really meaningful to each and every one of us, in our own unique ways, about a Treaty settlement. We’ve seen examples of that across the House this afternoon already, and so I hope I can live up to the standard of all those speeches that have come before me already and contribute something that I authentically believe in. I’ll come to that a little later on in my contribution.

I am pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in support of the Ngāti Hāua Claims Settlement Bill. Today does mark a significant step forward for Ngāti Hāua, a journey that has involved Waitangi Tribunal claims, including in the post-process of readings in this House and select committee processes, and all of that work, all of that time, and all of those hui have now culminated in today’s third and final reading of this bill.

Today, I’d like to acknowledge the leadership of the iwi: those who are here in the gallery to bear witness to this part of the formal process of your Treaty settlement journey. There are others who have not been able to be here today: leaders, whānau, koro, and kuia who may have passed. But, like with all settlements—and I think about my Ngāpuhi whānau. Over the last decade, there are ones who have actively sought a settlement for Ngāpuhi but are no longer with us, and they won’t bear witness when we eventually get to Ngāpuhi. But there is this sadness around not having those of our loved ones and our leaders with us through this part of the process—particularly in the third reading—not to be able to bear witness to this part of the Treaty settlement, but the baton ultimately was picked up, and new leaders take that forward.

Ngāti Hāua is an iwi based in the central North Island and centred around Taumarunui, with a population of around 2,500. The traditional lands of Ngāti Hāua extend north and west from Mount Ruapehu and include the upper reaches of the Whanganui River, and this settlement contains a redress package that returns culturally significant sites. There is a cultural revitalisation fund, financial redress, and statutory pardons, and those pardons are a unique feature of this Treaty settlement.

The redress package includes $20.4 million of financial redress and a $6 million cultural revitalisation fund, and the bill will see 64 cultural redress properties, six of which are shared with other iwi. There are going to be 14 changes to geographic names; the establishment of Te Pou Taiao, a committee to manage the new scenic reserves; and the authorisation of two pou whenua.

Importantly, though, it will pardon two Ngāti Hāua ancestors, Mātene Ruta Te Whareaitu and Te Rangiātea. They were arrested, tried under martial law, and convicted of partaking in a rebellion against the Crown—that was in the 1840s.

The Crown was negotiating on behalf of the New Zealand Company with another iwi to purchase land in Heretaunga, in the Hutt Valley, where some Ngāti Hāua hapū had settled. The hapū were ordered to leave and were under the threat of military force when fighting broke out and the Crown captured and court-martialed Ngāti Hāua tūpuna. Te Whareaitu was sentenced to death by hanging. Te Rangiātea died in imprisonment mere weeks after being sentenced. Their bodies still, to this day, have not been found. This legislation not only pardons them but it recognises their character, their mana, and their reputation, and while their bodies cannot be returned home and cannot be returned back to their people or back to their whenua, at least from this point, today, there is movement forward with that statutory pardon. Five others were also exiled to Australia.

Now, these statutory pardons for the Ngāti Hāua tūpuna were facilitated through this settlement. The intergenerational stigma, the mamae experienced by their uri and by Ngāti Hāua—well, it’s not really easy to comprehend in today’s modern context, and so it is fundamental that this bill will enact long-overdue statutory pardons for these Ngāti Hāua tūpuna who were treated so harshly by the Crown. Ngāti Hāua has received an apology from the Crown for bringing discord, death, and division to its people.

Ngāti Hāua has been in a fight against the Crown for the breaches since 1846, so for generations Ngāti Hāua have carried the weight of Crown breaches and the harms inflicted on the iwi. But today, I hope that as we conclude the third and final reading of this settlement bill, together, as an iwi, they’re able to move into a more prosperous future for all of the children and the generations to come.

We often talk about the journey—the settlement journey—and there’s a fairly common statement, and I think we’re all aware of it, which is that it’s not about the destination; it’s about the journey. But, for me, it’s more than that—it’s a whole lot more than that. For me, it’s about who do you become because of the journey—who do you become? Whenever we face a challenge, a situation, or circumstances that challenge us, these challenges push us to grow and, ultimately, we change as a result of that growth.

So my question to Ngāti Hāua today is: who do you become? How have you changed and grown because of the settlement journey and the mamae that you have endured for all these years?

I also believe that it is time now to release the mamae of the past, to leave it all here, and to lay it out on the floor of this House. Do not carry that burden any longer. The weight of the past must be left behind so that the generations to come are not saddled with that burden. If your head is always turned to the past, it is very difficult to find and navigate a way forward, so release that burden—that past—here now for the sake of all your children and grandchildren and those who will carry Ngāti Hāua into the future. I commend this bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) (16:08): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Mai i Te Kāhui Maunga puta atu ki Tangaroa, Kāhui Maunga whiti atu ki Te Upoko o te Ika. Tū ana te raukura ki runga o Parihaka, ko ngā Manu e Rua e tangi atu nei. Rārangi maunga tū te ao, rārangi tangata ngaro noa. E koro Archie, e Nanny Annie, Aunty Julie, Matua Tī, oti noa koutou ko tō rahi, hoki wairua mai koutou. Koutou e noho nei i ō rūhātanga, anei ō kupenga rangatahi e hao ake nei, e hao ake nei.

[Greetings, Madam Speaker. From the clan of the mountains to the ocean, from the clan of the mountains across to the Wellington area. The feather stands above Parihaka, and the two birds of knowledge weep. A mountain range stands for eternity but people perish. To our elders, Archie, Nanny Annie, Aunty Julie, Tī, all who have departed, return here in spirit. To those who sit here in your weariness, here is your net of youth, gathering together.]

I mihi to all of the leadership for the generosity of those who have negotiated and fought for generations, taking their attention away from their home and their hapū as they navigated through this. We know the toll that takes on our communities for the generosity that you have for the nation. It takes one who has lived this claim to lament and feel the significance of today.

I heard the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations refer today to the misdeeds, and, with respect, Minister, I’d like to correct that narrative. Cheating in a test is a misdeed and stealing is a misdeed, but having a deliberate campaign that targeted the tangata whenua here in Aotearoa is anything but a misdeed, and I think it’s really important that we use our influence in this House to correct and continuously hold ourselves to task when it comes to the real history of Aotearoa. The history of Aotearoa can’t just be stated when it comes to settlements. The full military and political force from the Crown and the New Zealand Company on our people was devastating—putting to trial our tupuna Te Rangiātea under martial law, removing normal rights, having all that happen, but worse, knowing that he died alone, without his people, without his karakia.

Trialling Mātene Ruta Te Whareaitu under martial law, convicting and sentencing him to hang was inhumane. It’s devastating, and this country should never forget its past and why we must always fight for better justice, why we must always fight and remember the rights that were lost in this horrific colonisation. It is the true history of this nation. What happened were acts of injustice and State violence. It is what it is. It has created intergenerational harm that doesn’t just lift because the iwi arrived here to settle their Treaty claim.

We honour their memory and the iwi who are here today to receive their pardons. I lament for all you have to carry; I lament for all you have lost; I lament for all that we all have had to carry; for all that our tūpuna confronted; and, indeed, I celebrate that you are here today in their honour, despite all of that targeting, despite all of that resourcing. You are here, and you are strong, and you are resilient. We stand in solidarity with you, the uri who, for the last 34 years, have fought for restoration of their rights had their natural development not been interfered with, who have fought for their Treaty rights to be honoured by the Crown, and who have endorsed and accepted the third reading of their Ngāti Hāua claims settlement.

Te Pāti Māori believes that settlements are not full and final and should never be viewed that way. We are here to make sure that every uri gets relativity. This is your moment. This is your moment to break through the barriers and everything that held you down to advance your people, to build from the ground up, and to make sure that you can, somehow, meet all your people’s expectations—and good luck on that. This is your moment to establish the new relationships, to get in with the agencies, to make sure that you can achieve all you want to do. It’s not easy.

To our rangatahi: it’s definitely not easy carrying a kaupapa or building a movement for your iwi from scratch, especially when we’re knocked down and we don’t always have Government support. At times, you’re going to break people’s hearts, and you’re going to be humbled, but you must keep believing, and you must not let the politics of your time break you. There are no other forever people on your awa and your whenua than you. Have the strength and the belief to resist. Believe in yourself. There’s no other people on earth like you. I wish you all well in the next phase of your iwitanga. Kia ora rā.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green) (16:13): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Let me begin my contribution with a quote, which, I think, would be important to get on Hansard; it is the words of Mātene Ruta Te Whareaitu on 16 September 1846 when he composed the following waiata tangi before he was executed:

E rere rā e te ao uru, tāu hōkai i runga rā,

Kaikawe kōrero ki te iwi ka wehea,

Nānā te punga i tuku ki raro waka,

Rehurehu ai ngā tuku ki a Kapiti rā,

Kia tangi au, homai kia ringia,

He puna wai kei aku kamo.

Transition the dawn within your expanse above,

Messenger to the people of my impending demise,

Setting the anchor of my waka determining my fateful departure,

Tearfully obscuring the last tributes to Kapiti afar,

Initiating my heartfelt lament, permeating in the release

Of the pool of tears from mine eyes.

Ngāti Hāua tangata, Ngāti Hāua iwi, tēnei ka mihi atu. Ka mihi atu ki runga i ngā āhuatanga i whai wāhi koutou ki te haramai ki tēnei o ngā Pāremata. Ko tēnei haerenga ehara i te haerenga māmā, ehara i te haerenga ngāwari. I ahau e pānui ana i ngā ripoata ki roto i ēnei o ngā puka, ko te mōhio ki ahau, ko tēnei iwi he iwi māia, ko tēnei iwi, he iwi manawanui, ko tēnei iwi, he iwi manawaroa. Ko ngā kōrero i puta, i kite au, i te wā e tū ana te Kīngitanga, i reira tēnei iwi. I te wā e noho ana te katoa ki a Parihaka, i reira tēnei iwi. Nō reira e tika ana ka mihi ana tēnei Whare ki te māia, ki te manawanui me te manawaroa o tēnei o ngā iwi e whai wāhi nei ki waenganui i a mātou kia tau tēnei kerēme. Nō reira he mihi mutunga kore tēnei ki a koutou. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

Tāpiri ake aku nei kōrero ki taku hoa, Steve Abel, i te mea e tika āna kōrero, ko tēnei mea Te Tiriti o Waitangi ehara i te kirimana noa, ehara i te mea mō inanahi. Engari he kawenata kē, he oranga tonutanga mōna, mō te ao o muri, mō te ao o mua, me te ara anga whakamua. Nō reira ko mātou nei, me kaha tātou ki te whai i te katoa ki roto ki te Tiriti o Waitangi me ōna oranga katoa. Tautoko ahau i ngā kōrero ko ngā nanakia ngā tāhae i haramai ki tēnei whenua ki te tāhae whenua, tāhae tangata.

Ko Edward Fitzgibbon Wakefield tērā i mea atu taku hoa, e rua āku nei kupu mō tērā momo, pokotiwha, pokokōhua. Me kaha tātou ki te maumahara i ērā o ngā mahi i tūkino i a tātou te Māori, kia kaua e warewarehia. Te oranga anō i roto i ēnei momo ripoata anō hoki, ka āhei ō tātou nei tamariki, mokopuna ki te ako i te hītori. I te mea i a au i te kura kāore mātou i te paku aku ki ngā āhuatanga o Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Me tāria te wā ki te haere ki te marae noho ki ngā rekereke o ngā kaumātua ki te ako i te hītori. Heoi i kite au i ngā hītori ki roto i ēnā pepa.

Nō reira, tāku nei wero ki tēnei o te Whare, me kaha ēnei hītori katoa, ēnei kōrero tuku iho o ngā mātua tīpuna o Ngāti Hāua otirā ngā Māori katoa o te motu ki te kuhu ki roto i ngā marau hītori, kia ākona ngā tauira, ngā pia, ahakoa Māori mai, tauiwi mai, Pākehā mai, kia mārama rātou te hītori i ahu mai i te papa, te hītori o te whenua e hīkoi nei e rātou. Nō reira i mōhio pai au ki roto i ēnei whakataunga kerēme, ēnei kerēme whakataunga, ētahi o ngā āhua, nō reira e mihi atu au ki ngā kaiwhakarite mō tēnei. Mihi ana au ki ō koutou nei rangatira i whakapau werawera, i whakapau kaha kia tau ki tēnei hēkona tonu, tēnei mineti tonu, i te mea ehara i te uaua. Ko tāku nei ki a tātou katoa, he tīmatanga pai tēnei. Kia kaha ki te hoea tonu te waka. Kia kaha ki te hāpai atu ngā moemoeā o ngā mātua tīpuna. Nō reira tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[The people of Ngāti Hāua, the tribe of Ngāti Hāua, I acknowledge you. I acknowledge the reason for which you have come to this particular Parliament. This has not been an easy journey. As I read the reports in this book, I see that this tribe is a courageous one; this tribe is unwavering and resilient. From the accounts that have been shared, I have seen that at the establishment of the Kīngitanga, this iwi was there. When everyone gathered at Parihaka, this iwi was there. Therefore, it is right that this House acknowledges the courage, the determination, and the resilience of this iwi who are here among us to bring this claim to resolution. So this is an endless acknowledgment to you all. I acknowledge you all.

I also extend my acknowledgments to my friend Steve Abel, because he was right in saying that the Treaty of Waitangi is not just a simple agreement, nor is it something only for the past. Rather, it is a covenant, a living foundation that endures for the future, for what has gone before, and for the path ahead. Therefore, we must all commit ourselves to upholding the Treaty of Waitangi and all the value it holds. I support the statements that those wrongdoers who came to this land did so to steal land and dispossess people.

As my colleague mentioned, Edward Fitzgibbon Wakefield—I have only two words for that kind of person: I curse them. We must remember those actions that harmed us as Māori, and never allow them to be forgotten. The value of these reports is that our children and grandchildren are able to learn this history. When I was at school, we were not taught anything about the Treaty of Waitangi. We had to wait until we could go to the marae and sit at the feet of our elders to learn our history. But I have seen these histories within these documents.

Therefore, my challenge to this House is that all of these histories—the inherited knowledge of the ancestors of Ngāti Hāua, and, indeed, of all Māori across the country—must be included in history subjects, so that students, whether Māori, tauiwi, or Pākehā, can understand the history that comes from the land, the history of this land they walk upon. I know that within these claims, settlements are some of those matters; therefore, I acknowledge those who have worked to bring this about. I acknowledge your leaders who have laboured tirelessly to reach this very moment, this second, this minute, because it has not been easy. To all of us, I say, this is a good beginning. Continue to paddle the waka forward. Continue to uphold the dreams of our ancestors. Therefore, I acknowledge you; thank you all.]

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui) (16:18): E ngā mana, e ngā reo, e ngā rangatira o Ngāti Hāua, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. Today, this House gathers for a moment that is more than just legislative; it’s deeply historical, personal, and intergenerational. Today is about you, Ngāti Hāua. It is about acknowledging the tino rangatiratanga of your people and of your rohe and recognising the whakapapa that brings together those who stand here now with those who came long before.

As I’ve been reminded again today, you are a people of history. The kōrero of your tūpuna, of their courage, of their hardship, and their dignity has shaped every step of the journey that brings us to this day. Today is as much about honouring those tūpuna as it is about empowering those who carry Ngāti Hāua into the future.

For generations, the stories of Te Rangiātea and Mātene Ruta Te Whareaitu and the five others exiled to Australia have been reminders of a time when justice was distorted and the Treaty of Waitangi was breached. Their convictions under court martial were not only unjust; they were an assault on the mana of Ngāti Hāua and an expression of a system that saw Māori as obstacles. The statutory pardons, restored through this settlement, are more than symbolic. They restore dignity, reputation, and whakapapa. They acknowledge what your people have always known: your tūpuna were wronged and they deserved far better from the Crown.

Among you here today, I want to acknowledge an old friend. It’s crazy at the age of 40ish, we can start to say that. But DC Harding—DC, we go back to our childhood scouting and school days. Thank you for your advice over the years and your reflections as I’ve considered what to share in this kōrero today.

As the member for Whanganui—an electorate that will soon formally encompass the communities on the outskirts of Taumarunui, Ōwhango, Waimarino, and the wider rohe connected to the settlement, it is a privilege to stand with you as this bill becomes law today. I look forward to deepening my engagement with Ngāti Hāua, working alongside MPs Barbara Kuriger and Suze Redmayne as we support the practical implementation of the settlement.

Graham, I heard your call for this focus on implementation in today’s mihi whakatau. At this point, I’d also like to share some thoughts from Suze Redmayne MP—MP for the mighty Rangitīkei—who, in her own words, is “gutted” not to be with you on this momentous day. Suze told me that it has been an honour and a privilege getting to know the team at Ngāti Hāua over the last few years. She truly values and loves her regular kitchen cabinet catch-ups with “Tinka”, Louise, Lois, and Kuru, where you manage, apparently, to solve the world’s problems over a cup of tea and some kai.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: We did. I’ve been to one of those.

CARL BATES: I’m looking forward to my invitation soon, then. Suze had asked me to give a special mention to “Tinka”. She describes your determination and commitment as infectious and she says your kōrero is wise and inspiring. Some last words from Suze to her people of Ngāti Hāua: “Thank you. Thank you for your patience and your generosity in engaging in this process. Thank you for holding your mana and for walking a path that was never easy but always principled.”

While no settlement can truly compensate for what was lost, this bill lays the foundation for the future—one grounded in respect, cooperation, and mutual trust. This bill delivers a comprehensive package of cultural, historical, environmental, and economic redress. It acknowledges Ngāti Hāua as kaitiaki—guardians whose role and authority are woven deeply into the health of the whenua and the awa.

The Māori Affairs Committee’s recommendations around the riverbed and conservation area reflect the unique context of our rohe, where the Whanganui River flows as water and as identity, memory, and connection. Aligning these provisions with Te Awa Tupua ensures the integrity of that relationship is upheld. You have pursued justice, not with bitterness, but with focus, dignity, and unwavering commitment to your people. That leadership is the reason that we stand here today.

I want to acknowledge your negotiation team, your kaumātua, and rūnanga, and the many whānau who have carried this kaupapa forward. To the trustees and negotiators: Graham “Tinka” Bell, Lois Tutemahurangi, Brett Anderson, Aaron Rice-Edwards, Joey Allen, Louise Wahapa, and Piki Taiaroa-Whatarangi, tēnā koutou. To those who are no longer with us, your legacy is evident in this moment. I want to acknowledge Ministers past and present, as well as the dedicated officials whose work ensures this settlement reflects accuracy and respect.

As I’ve said before, growing up, I learnt of the story of Taranaki Maunga’s journey down the Whanganui awa. I did not know then how often I would return to that story in this House or how deeply each Treaty settlement in our rohe would bring new life and meaning to our shared future. My hope is that this settlement brings fewer tears in our river, greater opportunity for your tamariki and mokopuna, and renewed confidence in what we are building together.

Today, this Parliament acknowledges clearly and without hesitation that the wrongs done to your people were real, they were profound, and they must never be repeated. This settlement is not the end of the journey; it is the door through which your next chapter begins.

Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. I commend this bill to the House.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour) (16:26): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Rapua te huarahi whānui hei ara whakapiri i ngā iwi e rua i runga i te whakaaro kotahi. Tihewa mauri ora. E ngā whanaunga o Ngāti Hāua e mihi kau ana ki a koutou i tēnei rā. I tēnei rā whakahirahira. He rā pōuri, nē? Heoi, e mihi kau ana ki a koutou: Matua Graham, ngā whānau mā, e whanaunga mā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, mauri ora ki a koutou katoa.

[Seek the broad pathway as a pathway to bring the two peoples together in unity of thought. I claim the right to speak. To my relatives of Ngāti Hāua, I acknowledge you all on this day—on this significant day. A sad day, isn’t it? Nevertheless, I greet you all: Matua Graham, the families, my relations, greetings to you all, life and vitality to you all.]

Ngāti Hāua, it’s good to see you in this Whare. Can I acknowledge my colleagues on the Māori Affairs Committee. Throughout part of this process, I heard your submissions. I heard the kōrero and I heard the call, the challenges, and the length of time that it has taken to get to this particular point.

Ngāti Hāua, mema Pāremata i roto i tēnei Whare [members of Parliament in this House]: yesterday, the speech by the Rt Hon Adrian Rurawhe humbled us all. I remember vividly he said, “How did this man from Rātana Pā get to become the Speaker of this House?” For every member of Parliament that sits in this job, day in, day out, we are challenged. We are challenged by history, we are challenged by issues of the day, we are challenged by the things that confront our people that we don’t always have solutions to, but we do our best. For most of us—many of us—we came into this Whare to do good, to improve this nation for all people of Aotearoa New Zealand. I intentionally use the whakataukī, because I believe that Te Tiriti o Waitangi can be the future of this nation, Aotearoa New Zealand.

We’re a week out from Waitangi commemorations. Our country is at one of the most challenging states in race relations that we have ever seen. When I read through your submissions once again, where I read through the kōrero in front of us, those times were exceptionally bad. I’ll come back to that. But at the same time, today, we pass this legislation that is a step forward in enabling Ngāti Hāua to build mana motuhake for their people, for their communities, and, most of all, for ngā rangatira mō āpōpō nē [the leaders of tomorrow, do you agree]?

In this contribution by the Crown, the acknowledgment of the hurt and pain, the loss of whenua, and the death of your people is incredibly sad. It is acknowledged in this House today—and that is genuine. At the same time, in the past two years, Te Tiriti o Waitangi has been eroded out of every single piece of legislation that has come before this House. It’s not too dissimilar to some of what the apology before us today recognises. Tikanga and te reo Māori have been taken away—out of our curriculum and out of our kura. Tikanga and karakia is being complained about in our health system, and, slowly, it is being eroded away. It’s not too dissimilar to the wrongs of the past. Yes, it does upset Government members that sit in this House today. That’s my intention: to point out that the apology that we all make today, Ngāti Hāua, is not too dissimilar to the practices of today. One day, we will also correct that.

The bill before us today contains a summary of the historical account between the Crown and Ngāti Hāua, together with the Crown’s acknowledgments of and apology for its breaches of Te Tiriti o Waitangi with regard to Ngāti Hāua. I acknowledge the mamae and the hurt that you feel for the loss of your tūpuna Matene Ruta Te Whareaitu and Te Rangiātea, who were tried under martial law and treated with exceptional harshness, caught up in land disputes in the Heretaunga Valley, where both were sentenced by court martial for acting in rebellion against the Crown. The Crown today acknowledges that this was a travesty of justice, and, today, in this legislation, they are pardoned. Whether they needed to be pardoned for you is not a question I have today.

This bill pardons Te Rangiātea and Mātene Ruta Te Whareaitu for their convictions in 1846. Its cultural redress is intended to recognise the cultural, the historical, and the traditional associations of Ngāti Hāua within the area of interest, through a number of cultural redress instruments, through the protocols, through the mineral fossicking rights, through the statutory acknowledgments, through the deed of recognition, through the overlay classification vesting of properties, the joint management committee with the Department of Conservation, the area of interest statement, and the interim membership on the conservation board. These are all steps that enable you, Ngāti Hāua, to regain mana motuhake in the full sense that you believe you should have—that you do deserve to have. I acknowledge that today.

This weekend, I will go with my Ngāti Whitikaupeka whānau up to our maunga, Aorangi, and from there I will see your whenua. And for you, I will recite a karakia; I will remember your tūpuna that were lost. I will remember your hurt and pain momentarily with my whānau alongside me. For the mahi, the hard mahi that you have done to get this bill into this House today, I want to acknowledge all of your tūpuna that are no longer with us. I want to acknowledge you, and I want to acknowledge our rangatira mō āpōpō, our young people who will take us forward.

Nō reira he mihi aroha ki a koutou, he mihi nunui ki a koutou. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, mauri ora ki a tātou katoa.

[Therefore, I extend a heartfelt and sincere acknowledgment to you all. Greetings and acknowledgments to you all, life and wellbeing to us all.]

DAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth) (16:35): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Ki ngā tāngata o Ngāti Hāua, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Greetings to you, the Speaker of the House. To the people of Ngāti Hāua, I greet and acknowledge you all.]

I want to start first by apologising, myself. It disappointed me that I couldn’t make the mihi whakatau. I most definitely wanted to listen to the speeches, and I’m sure great speeches that you brought to this place, Parliament itself. Unfortunately, I had other business with regards to something—a small matter of replacement of the Resource Management Act and that kept me rather busy this morning. But my apologies for not being there.

Now, I get the opportunity to talk. This is the third reading. It’s quite a process that we run here in Parliament with regards to Treaty settlements and you’ve now witnessed it, particularly those that are on the trust. You realise how long and arduous this is, and the Minister appropriately mentioned the former Ministers that have been part of this process as well. I think that demonstrates how long and sometimes arduous this process can be. So thank you for bearing that weight and getting to this point.

I also note that it’s rather sombre in the Whare at the moment. I can’t help but think it reminds me of when I go to a tangi. And of course, a tangi is a very sombre time, and there’s sorrow all round, but afterwards we celebrate, we get together, we waiata, we do all those other good things we want to do. I hope that’s the case after this important occasion here of the third reading.

The process itself, like I said, started way back in 2017 under Minister Finlayson, as Minister Goldsmith said. Some time ago, that’s when you signed the terms of negotiation. In November of 2024, the deed named Te Pua o Te Riri Kore was initialled. Then, on 29 March 2025, the deed was signed at Ngāpuwaiwaha marae, and then on 9 April 2025, the bill was introduced to this House of Parliament. After that, on 14 May, we had the first reading, and it was referred to the Māori Affairs Committee. On 24 October 2025, the Māori Affairs Committee reported it back to the House. Last night, we actually had what we call the committee of the whole House. The Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations was here in the seat before us and that’s the time when potentially some last little tweaks, and these are not major, just minor tweaks—last night it was just something to do with one of the titles, to make sure we get that right. That happens with every bill, getting the titles right. So make sure that’s correct. That was completed last night, and then of course today, the third reading.

It is quite some process. It takes time and it should take time to get it right. We’ve heard from multiple speakers, throughout this third reading, of the travesties, of the heartbreak, of numerous things in history, right back to Heretaunga when we talked about your tīpuna. It wasn’t just the two that have been pardoned within this year, it was also the ones that were exiled over to Australia as well.

When you think of the horrendous amount of land loss that was—you know, I’m reminded sometimes when we speak in these Treaty settlements, we talk of an iwi but the people that are listening on TV and that, a lot of people don’t know where you’re from or who you are. I want to spend a moment about that, because there’s actually Ngāti Hāua who we have in the House today; there’s also Ngāti Hauā who are actually up in the Waikato. So let’s not get confused.

The iwi of today have an immense amount of land area that you’re kaitiaki of—830,000 hectares. Let’s just think about that. A lot of people might think, “Oh, that’s big.”, but how big is that? Well, the province that I’m from, Taranaki, is only 723,000 hectares. Your area that you look after, that you are kaitiaki of, is bigger than the province of Taranaki. It’s huge, it’s immense, and, of course, it’s marked by your 10 pou whenua, your boundaries.

I’d also just like to acknowledge the fact that you have many, many neighbours from your particular rohe. There are 10 groups. I’ll mention them: Te Korowai o Wainuiārua, Ngāti Tūwharetoa, Ngāti Maniapoto, Ngāti Mutunga, Ngāti Rangi, Ngāti Maru, Ngāti Ruanui, Ngāti Tama, Ngā Hapū o Te Iwi o Whanganui, Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi. You have a busy boundary there, and I’m sure that that creates some interesting discussions at times. I recognise my whanaunga up in the gallery up here from Ngāti Maru. Ngāti Maru’s in the House to support you. Welcome to you guys.

This occasion is the final step that creates the new beginning for you all. The Māori Affairs Committee had the opportunity to come up to your marae in Taumarunui. We heard from a number of people, and, yes, they brought differing points of view and all that, but it was a great kōrero.

Can I actually acknowledge you, Aaron, and the leadership that you showed in the occasions that I was involved with, particularly. Aaron, you show your respect, your humility, your mana, but also your leadership in the way in which you’ve acted here. Also the other trustees—“Tinka”, I see you up there, and I’m sure the others who I can’t quite spot at this stage, but your full trustees that have been involved in this process, as well as those had have passed. I acknowledge the mate [dead] that are with you as well. ‘Aere, ‘aere, ‘aere rā..

Without too much further ado, I’d like to thank the Ministers. I’d like to thank the negotiators—I see some negotiators up there as well. The officials—I’d like to thank the select committee that supported me in my chair’s role there to run through the process. Thank you to all of them who are on both sides of the House. Thank you to the trust for your mahi over such a long time, to bring it to this point in time and occasion. With that, I’m very pleased to commend this bill to the House. Kia ora tātou.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call—Glen Bennett.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour) (16:43): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. It seems appropriate to follow my colleague David MacLeod, based in Taranaki, as I am also. I also acknowledge you, Madam Speaker, in terms of our connections both to Taranaki but then how that moves up, and as every part of the whenua and of humanity, we are all connected.

We stand in this place this afternoon to acknowledge you all, to acknowledge your ancestors, but also to acknowledge those who are to come. The hope of this piece of legislation is that today is a special day, but it’s not as well. Today is a special day because we sign and we pass legislation that ensures the settlement is enacted, but it’s also another day when we just move forward and support the kaupapa of what is to come.

As I reflect and listen to speakers and we go through the history, I do really want to look forward, and look forward to 2040. I think about this often: what 2040 could look like, what 2040 should look like, and what 2040 may look like if we do the right thing in this place, but also the ripples that it has to allow not only financial security, not only land, the return of land, the return of mana, but also the ability to forge a future, that when we arrive at 2040 and we commemorate 200 years of the signing of Te Tiriti, it is a moment when we look around at the connection. We look around at the bilingual nature of this country. We look around and see that the economy of 2040 is something that is completely integrated within our iwi, within our Māori, and within our spaces. I look forward to that day, to celebrating and, yes, looking back and reflecting on what my people did, reflecting on the hurt and the harm that my ancestors allowed to happen. But they will look forward and go, “Today is the line in the sand that says that we cannot right those wrongs, we cannot fix the past, but we can find means and ways to move forward.”

I had the privilege also of being in Taumarunui back in August last year and listening to your people, listening to the opportunity, listening to the challenge, listening to the “Can we go further? Can we do this? Can we do that?” But as I sat there in the marae and listened, it is always hard to comprehend what was done.

As I listen today, I thought about the reclamation of language or taking language and making it your own to move forward. We look back and we look back at the Hansard in this place; we look back at the records written mostly by white people and the fact that you were called “rebels”. I think today I encourage and ask that a word like “rebels” was seen as a negative and a slur and a slant on hapū, on iwi, on your people, but I think, how do we and how do you reclaim that word, “rebels”? Rebels who are standing up for a cause; rebels who are fighting for your mokopuna, those who are to come; rebels who are going to stand strong and tall against what this House may bring, whether it be the red team, the blue team, whatever team it is, but be rebels to say, “No more.”

Today, on 29 January 2026, a line was drawn in the sand and we will not go backwards; we will only go forwards. If we must be rebels, then we’ll be rebels that stand tall and do what is right to protect the future of your people, but also the future of Aotearoa, that we can move forward together in partnership as what was written, what was signed, and what was expected in 1840.

I stand here in support. I stand here to do my part, not today, but tomorrow when I walk out of this building and do my part to build relationship, connection, and partnership together.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote) (16:48): E ngā mana, e ngā reo, e ngā iwi, e rau rangatira mā, tēnā koutou katoa. Te Whare e tū nei, tēnā koe. Te papa e takoto nei, tēna koe. Ngā mate, haere, haere, haere.

Nau mai haere mai. Ko Dan Bidois tōku ingoa. Ko te waka, ko Waikato te awa, ko Kakepuku te maunga, ko Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa me Ngāti Maniapoto ōku iwi, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoaTainui.

[To those who hold authority, to the voices, to the peoples, to the many esteemed ones, greetings to you all. To the House that stands here, I greet you. The land that lies here, I acknowledge you. To those who have passed, farewell, farewell, farewell.

Welcome. My name is Dan Bidois. Tainui is my canoe, Waikato is my river, Kakepuku is my mountain, and my iwi are Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa and Ngāti Maniapoto. Greetings, greetings, greetings to you all.]

I’d just like to acknowledge the significance of today. It has taken 180 years for this iwi to get to this stage—180 years. I know that what’s been talked about today is that nothing can or will compensate for the damage that has been done to you and your iwi, and that is shared right across this House. The conflict, the persecution, the confiscation of whenua, the mamae, the loss of cultural, environmental significance—I know that 180 years of damage cannot be reversed, but the hope is that this settlement today, as it passes, gives your iwi an opportunity to reconcile the past and focus on your future together.

I just want to acknowledge that I am proud of National’s history with Treaty settlements. If you go back to the 1990s and you talk to Sir Doug Graham and the people that were part of that National-led Government, it was very, very hard—

Hon Willie Jackson: It was a long, long time ago.

DAN BIDOIS: —to come up—it was a long time ago, back when you had hair, Willie! That Government believed strongly that the pathway forward for this country was to proceed through and push through a settlement with the first iwi that was settled, Waikato-Tainui. Since then, we have passed, actually, over 100 iwi settlements that we’ve got before us. My colleague Rima Nakhle here reminded me that this is actually the first settlement that has been introduced by this Parliament and passed by this Parliament today.

I acknowledge those who have been part of that process—of course, past Ministers; Paul Goldsmith, your stewardship of this legislation; the Māori Affairs Committee; negotiators; the officials; and to you all here today; and viewers tuning in from across the country, for your patience and your persistence to get to this stage.

Now is an opportunity for your iwi to focus on the future. It has been well traversed that you’ve got a great opportunity here, today, with the financial redress, with the cultural redress, and with the acknowledgment from the Crown of what was done to your iwi and to focus on the future. We certainly look forward to partnering with you wherever you need support. It is my pleasure to stand and be here today and to witness this important occasion. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour) (16:52): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Tuatahi e tika ana ki te mihi ki ngā whānau i pāngia e ngā parekura taiao, tēnei te mihi aroha ki a rātou i tēnei wā. Ki a koutou Ngāti Hāua tae mai nei i tēnei wā, tēnei te tino mihi ki a koutou i whakarangatira i a mātou i tēnei wā, tēnei te mihi ki a koutou ngā rangatira. Tino waimaria mātou ki te tautoko tēnei kaupapa, nō reira tēnei te mihi ki a koutou, tēnā koutou, haramai, haramai, nau mai.

[First, it is right to extend my acknowledgments to the families affected by natural disasters; this is a message of sympathy to them at this time. To you, Ngāti Hāua, who are present here today, this is a sincere greeting to you who have honoured us at this time. I acknowledge you, the esteemed ones. We are truly fortunate to support this matter; therefore, I acknowledge you, greetings to you all, welcome.]

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Be positive!

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Well, we’re in the wrap-up stage—what was that, Minister?

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Be positive!

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: The Minister said, “Be positive!” I was thinking about that—I was thinking about that. Funny enough, I was listening to a lot of kōrero today, and I’ve got something for you, Minister, since you want me to be positive. I was thinking about our tīpuna Mātene Ruta Te Whareaitu and Te Rangiātea, who’ve been pardoned with the settlement.

The funniest thing happened to me a couple of hours ago. Tāme Iti gave me a call. He’s wondering about a pardon too, Minister—he’s wondering about a pardon too. This is a true story. Tāme gave me a call a couple of hours ago. We’ve got a very caring Minister over there, the Minister of Justice, so I’ll put it on the floor now, because I don’t know if we want to wait 100 years for Tāme to get pardoned, do we? I’m just so glad you’re interested in my kōrero there, Minister, because what the Crown sees sometimes as terrorism is not seen at all like that by our people. Tāme actually worked for me for several years and wasn’t always on time to mahi or anything. We had a foreshore and seabed protest down here, and he was my radio reo commentator for the day. He forgot that and joined the protest, and he ended up spitting at the Labour Party. But I was thinking about the pardon, and I was thinking about when Tāme said that, and then he reminded me it was Labour who actually threw him in jail at the time. He was actually rather, Minister, looking for a bit of an audience with Helen Clark, so you might be off the hook there, Minister, in terms of Tāme Iti.

As you know, I’ve got, obviously, whanaunga in terms of Ngāti Maniapoto with regards to Ngāti Hāua, but I was thinking about Archie Taiaroa, your ancestor. When I first came into—a few years ago now; I’m getting old—the iwi-urban debate—we remember that in the 1990s—fronted by my mother, myself, and John Tamihere, and one of the main people we negotiated with was Archie. He never gave us a bloody cent. He used to get stuck into us. I was thinking about him, and he goes, “You bloody two, you think you know it all.” I didn’t know why he was saying that about me and John Tamihere—I have no idea—but he’d just rip us to pieces. We’d be talking about urban Māori rights, and Archie used to say to me, “You come back to Ngāti Maniapoto, boy. You come back to Ngāti Hāua. You’ve got the battling whānau. That’s where your ancestry is.” So I was thinking about Archie and the contribution he made. He was just such a unique individual.

I just think it’s appropriate, Minister and everyone here, to remember people like that. People like that who were brave and courageous drove this kaupapa in a Treaty settlement time where National were good. They’re not very good today, but in those days, they were good. They’ve gone off the track. Seymour’s got them off the track, and Winston’s in la-la land, and so poor National, eh? You get aroha for them when you hear their lovely speeches—beautiful speeches—and then they go back to kicking out the Treaty legislation and all that sort of stuff.

But I was thinking about Archie. I was thinking about what’s been put in place. Today’s a tribute to all those people—a tribute to Mr Bell. Where’s Mr Bell? Where is he? Is he around there? Good to see him there. Kia ora. Thank you for your contribution. Tim—what’s his name?—is here. Tīmoti’s here? He’s not here. We’ve got our Pākehā chief negotiator, Tim Castle, eh, Tīmoti? You’ve got to have a Pākehā sometimes, negotiating at the table. It helps with this lot over here. So we say thank you to Tim Castle.

We say thank you to Aaron Rice-Edwards—terrific, the contributions, eh, in terms of what you do. I was thinking with Mr Bell up there, I’ve known a lot of Graham Bells. Most of them are called “Ding-Dong” and you’re called “Tinka” Bell. Ha, ha! Well, thank you, Mr “Tinka” Bell for your contribution. Sorry I missed the mihis this morning too—sorry I missed the mihis this morning too.

But, you know, so many contributors, and it is right to acknowledge all our MPs: National MPs, Barbara Kuriger, Suze Redmayne, absolutely; and, of course, the tuahine over here, Deb over here—Deb Ngarewa-Packer. She always gives me a slap. She goes, “Deb Ngarewa.”, you know? It’s right we acknowledge our Pākehā MPs who have been part of the settlement, who have worked with our Māori MPs. That’s when you get the best benefit of Parliament—that’s when you get the best benefit of Parliament. I acknowledge those two in particular. I don’t think they’re in the House. But Deb over here, even though we’re after her seat in Te Tai Hauāuru, I acknowledge that she’s done a terrific job.

But I say to everyone today, as others have said—they’re a bit more sombre than me—that these are tough times, but this sort of business is incredibly important. It’s incredibly important. We whakakotahi for the kaupapa because these settlements must go through. Despite what happens in the House, despite the type of debates we get into, we as Māori have no choice. We must work with whoever the Government is, and that’s why I mihi to you. Even if they make us riri. Even if they make us hōhā, you know? I mihi to you all there. I see my friend Soraya up there. You didn’t all vote for her last time; you all voted for Deb over there, Deb Ngarewa. Good to see Soraya up there. We’ve got a good one for you this time, though, Deb Packer. I just want to say: this type of bill is so important.

In many ways, we’ve reached the end, but it’s also a way—despite our criticism of the Government—of the House to come together for one of the most important kaupapa in front of us. It doesn’t matter that $20 million does not really—well, it does matter—reflect the loss. That’s not the point. Our kaumātua, our kuia, our Archies, all our people of the past who lined up in the Treaty settlement process, no pūtea from the Crown—a lot of times, no pūtea from the iwi—come down to Wellington, did the business, this is your day—this is your day. Thank you for coming.

Thanks to the Minister, thanks to the former Ministers, for putting this forward, but there’s a lot of other kaupapa that we want to work on, and that Ngāti Hāua, I’m sure, will want to work on too. What’s the future for our rangatahi in terms of the settlement? What’s the future for the iwi? How are you going to work with urban Māori, going forward? How are you going to work in a political sense? All those pātai—all those questions—are in front of you. How are you going to challenge the Crown to keep connection and commitment, so that the tribe does not just get labelled with all the bills and all the problems and everything? All of that has to be worked out over the next year or two.

A lot of challenges in front of you, as a tribe. But I mihi to you. I think about the area. I think about my whānau. When I was a kid, every Christmas, my parents used to send me to this exciting, brilliant place called Taumarunui. I’ll tell ya, it was tough territory. I always said to Archie, “What’s our connection?”, eh? And you said, “That’s your connection: the big bright lights in exciting Taumarunui.” Goodness gracious me! But I can’t help it. My whānau’s there. Kokiri Trust is there. My auntie Christine Brears is there, she’s running things. Our family is Ngāti Maniapoto; we’ll always be Ngāti Maniapoto. We’re part of the tribe. I better sign up so I can get a piece of the settlement, also! Tēnei te mihi ki a koutou. Tēnei nō tātou katoa. Kia ora.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini) (17:02): After the Hon Willie Jackson, I feel like we need to just calm it down a little bit, come back to me. I rise as the final speaker in the third reading of the Ngāti Hāua Claims Settlement Bill.

I was privileged to take part in the mihi whakatau this morning. There’s a lot of you that travelled a long distance to take part in this exceptionally profound and historic event. Thank you. I thank you for travelling, thank you for giving the time, and thank you for showing us, again and again, how important this type of kaupapa is.

Firstly, I’d like to recognise and acknowledge the chair of Ngāti Hāua Iwi Trust, Mr Graham Bell, who I too discovered is a “Tinkerbell” of sorts. But I couldn’t really put that reference together with this wise gentleman—but, you know, your whānau have their reasons.

I’d like to acknowledge also the deputy chair Lois Tutemahurangi—thank you for everything you’ve done and thank you for being here and thank you for the sacrifices.

I’d like to also acknowledge the chair of the trustees board, Aaron Rice-Edwards; thank you for being able to unravel sometimes the nebulas of info that we, as a committee, just needed some clarifications on, and you had quite a way with that, but I must admit the real treasure is your daughter, so I hope to see her very soon one day.

I’d also like to acknowledge my friend Suze Redmayne, the MP for Rangitīkei. And thank you to my colleague Carl Bates for mentioning earlier that she is very sorry that she can’t be here. There are certain commitments that sometimes we can’t wriggle our way out of. She did ask us to also send you her apologies and she has a lot of love and care for Ngāti Hāua. Madam Speaker, she also asked me to film the waiata, so I hope you can give me that indulgence later on.

This morning, “Tinka” Bell was talking about true justice. It really resonated with me when you said that it’s not about winning or losing; it’s about learning, it’s about growing, and it’s about making amends. I thought about that, I thought “Making amends. It’s us here with this settlement bill that are trying to make an amends.” We’re trying and we’re doing it with true intentions, but, of course, nothing will ever right the horrible, horrific wrongs, or compensate in full.

You also said, Mr Graham Bell, that the way forward is to restore mana. It made me think of something that my beautiful friend Whaea Anne Kendall, the co-chair of the New Zealand Māori Council, constantly tells me, that nobody can take away someone’s mana. People can try and trample on it, but mana is inherent. When I looked across at all of you sitting in the Banquet Hall today, I thought all of you are filled with mana, because, despite the horrible history, despite what’s been taken away from you, you have given me a big lesson in grace. In Lebanese, we say that grace is “Hiba min Allah”, which means “It’s a gift from God”. It truly is a gift if you can forgive and you can allow us to make amends, despite the horrific history that you endured.

As you said, Mr Bell, this is a time for social transformation for your people. I pray for that. I know, under the leadership of many of you here in this room today, with the guidance of your tūpuna, I’m very confident that social transformation in your beautiful area of our country will take place. God bless you all. All the best going forward. I commend this bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: We talked before about the celebration following this reading. We look forward to your waiata. Thank you.

Waiata—Te Poroporoaki nā Te Whareaitu

Waiata—Ruawhetū te Maunga

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you so much. I’m just going to give the House a moment or two to let the gallery clear so that we’ll be able to hear Minister van Velden present her speech for the next bill.

Employment Relations Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (17:11): I move, That the Employment Relations Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

This bill is a key part of the Government’s commitment to providing greater certainty for businesses and workers, supporting economic growth, and ensuring our employment relations framework is fit for a modern, dynamic economy.

I want to begin by acknowledging the work of the Education and Workforce Committee. The committee has carefully considered the bill, received thousands of submissions, and recommended a number of targeted changes while keeping the bill’s core objectives intact. I thank the committee members, officials, and all those who took time to share their views.

The committee’s recommendations align with the Government’s own decisions on how to enhance the bill. The bill, as reported back, remains focused on the same four core areas. These are: providing greater certainty for contracting parties; strengthening the consideration of accountability for the employee’s behaviour in the personal grievance process; providing an income threshold for ineligibility for unjustified dismissal personal grievances; and removing the 30-day rule to improve freedom of choice and cut red tape at the beginning of employment. Together, these changes will improve labour market flexibility across the spectrum, whether that be through more flexible contracting arrangements or more opportunities to develop future business leaders in high-wage, high-impact roles.

Today, I want to highlight two sets of changes proposed during the select committee: the refinements to the contractor provisions and the adjustments to the income threshold for unjustified dismissal personal grievances. The bill introduces a new gateway test that provides a clearer and more efficient legal test for clear-cut, genuine contracting arrangements, which gives weight to the intention of contracting parties. This is a significant step forward for business certainty. The committee has recommended some refinements to the gateway test criteria to reflect the realities of contracting work. These refinements will ensure that the test covers the intended types of contracting arrangements where they meet the substantive criteria.

The gateway test now explicitly covers situations where a business facilitates work for a third party. This ensures that the gateway test is fit for purpose for contemporary platform-based working arrangements that offer job and income without direct contractual obligations in that relationship. For the intention criterion, the test now clarifies that a business can specify in the written agreement that the worker is either an independent contractor or not an employee. This means businesses that don’t classify workers as independent contractors can still use the gateway test.

For the restriction criterion, the test makes clear that contracting a worker for full-time work will not, in and of itself, constitute a restriction on working for others. This addresses a risk that the Employment Relations Authority or the Employment Court might interpret full-time work as a restriction on being able to do other work. For the subcontracting criterion, the test now enables businesses to vet subcontractors for relevant qualifications or criminal records, where justified by the nature of the work. This strikes a balance between the contractor’s ability to subcontract work and the business’s ability to ensure quality of work is retained.

These changes respond to submitters, who sought greater clarity of arrangements covered and flexibility in the new gateway test. The result is an improved gateway test that offers businesses and workers the clarity they need to plan ahead. The bill also sets an income threshold above which an employee cannot seek a personal grievance claim on grounds of unjustified dismissal. This is about improving labour market mobility and enabling businesses to give workers a go in a high-earning, high-impact role, and fostering the next generation of talent, which I’m sure all of us across this House will be in favour of.

I want to point out two significant adjustments the committee has proposed to the threshold. First, the threshold will now be based on total annual PAYE income from the employer, not just base salary or wages. This ensures all forms of employer-based remuneration—that being bonuses, commissions, and employee share schemes—are captured, reflecting the reality of many types of modern pay structures. I’m aware that many of these structures are common in start-ups and growing companies that could benefit from the threshold, where agility is critical for success.

Second, the threshold itself will be lifted to $200,000. This ensures that the number of people captured by the threshold doesn’t increase in light of adopting a wider definition of income, striking a balance between flexibility and protection. This figure will be adjusted based on upward movements in average wages every year after 2027. These changes reflect the feedback of stakeholders that wanted to ensure the policy intent is delivered in a fair and workable way.

The bill’s other provisions are unchanged substantially. The bill retains its measures to strengthen the consideration of and accountability for the employee’s behaviour in the personal grievance process, including removal of eligibility to all remedies when an employee engages in serious misconduct. The bill also revokes what is known as the 30-day rule. This will allow employers that are party to collective employment agreements to hire new employees on bespoke flexible terms for the first 30 days of employment, which will reduce compliance costs. These terms could include a 90-day trial period if both parties agree, supporting the Government’s intended expansion of the 90-day trial policy and making hiring easier.

In conclusion, this bill is about restoring confidence and balance to the employment system. It supports business growth and innovation while maintaining core protections for employees. It responds to the realities of a changing labour market, and it does so in a way that is clear, pragmatic, and future focused. I thank the select committee, again, for its work and for all of those who took the time to contribute to the process. The changes proposed during select committee consideration have improved the bill, and they align with the Government’s own decisions on how to enhance the bill. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

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

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) (17:19): The Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, in her opening remarks, thanked the Education and Workforce Committee for its work and its decision to endorse the bill and propose a number of amendments. I want to make it very clear to everybody who is not in the House today but who is listening on the radio or online to this debate that it was only the members on that committee from the governing parties who voted to support this bill. The rest of us know that this bill is an absolute dog, and no amount of soothing tones by the Minister, with some sort of clinical neutrality, saying that this is all about efficiency—it’s about the agility to sack workers; none of this nonsense language can cover up the fact that this is simply a right-wing, ideological attack on the rights of working people in this country.

In the Labour Party—and we’ll hear from Green Party colleagues shortly—we are absolutely implacably opposed to this bill because it is taking New Zealand backwards. Now, hordes of young New Zealanders are voting with their feet and going to Perth, Brisbane, the Gold Coast, and numerous other places to get away from the sickening economic malaise caused by Nicola Willis’ and Christopher Luxon’s failed economic management and to get away from expensive housing, high unemployment, and low wages. This bill does nothing to address those problems.

It offers those young, skilled, and bright New Zealanders who are leaving this country—it gives them no hope. It does nothing for the failing public health system. It does nothing to reduce homelessness or improve the situation for first-home buyers. It does nothing to offer meaningful, decent work for New Zealanders. It actually does the opposite. It makes life more precarious for New Zealand workers, and by tilting the playing field away from New Zealand workers and towards employers, it will undoubtedly depress wages further. It is exactly the opposite of what we should be doing.

This bill is very important because it is about jobs. Low pay and insecure work are a curse on this country. Governments of all stripes—we spend all our time and money fixing up the social problems caused by insecure work, low pay, and unemployment right now, and this bill actually makes those things worse for most New Zealanders.

It’s very important for people to understand that both sides of this Parliament clearly understand and know that the employment relationship is, at its heart, unequal by the very nature of it, and this is enshrined in the Employment Relations Act. It is based on a power imbalance. Employers have more power than workers—hello! Both the major parties and both sides of this House understand that, but the difference is that, on our side of the House, we seek to redress that balance to protect the weaker parties and to give them more rights. And what do the National Party, the ACT Party, and New Zealand First do?

Actually, I would ask New Zealand First colleagues in the House to think about that today, as a party that increasingly parades itself around as a friend of the New Zealand working class. As far as I know, they are voting for this bill, which strips New Zealand workers of their rights and protections in the workplace.

That side of the House consistently—every time they bring a bill to this House that deals with matters of employment law and rights at work, they take rights away from New Zealand workers. The Minister has couched her justifications in the language of balance and certainty, but the Employment Relations Act, which this bill is amending, is based on the idea of balance and the inherent imbalance of power, which is something that successive New Zealand Governments, for 25 years, have recognised and supported. But this bill throws that commitment out the window, and as for certainty, the only certainty—the Minister talked about certainty in her speech—that this bill delivers is that it gives employers the certainty that they can ride roughshod over the rights of employees and they will not be held to account for it.

There are three key points that I want to talk about that are in the bill. One is the erosion of the personal grievance system, which lies at the heart of the State’s interaction with employers and employees—their right to take a personal grievance and have it heard and have it mediated, or for a solution to be negotiated. Not content, this Minister, with stacking the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) with people that she brazenly describes as pro-business, she has been getting rid of people on the Employment Relations Authority who adjudicate over personal grievance cases. She has been getting rid of them and deliberately and openly stacking the ERA with her own appointments, who, she says, are more pro-business.

I say to the members on that side of the House, take this as a warning. If you gut our public institutions in that way, which have been based for decades on the idea of having a carefully negotiated balance—if you gut those, you not only take away public confidence in those institutions but you invite future Governments to do the same thing. You will not be in power for ever; in fact, after this year, you probably won’t be in power for very long. In the education system and in industrial relations—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Don’t bring the Speaker into the debate.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: —yes, thank you, Madam Speaker—think very carefully about the way that you gut public confidence and the balance that underpins institutions like the Employment Relations Authority.

But, not content with that, this Minister is gutting the law of personal grievance. The Minister didn’t mention this in her speech, but this bill removes reinstatement or compensation as potential remedies if an employee has contributed in any way to the problem being considered, and what that will undoubtedly mean—because we all know that in any conflict in the workplace or elsewhere, there are always two sides to every story. This very likely means that those remedies will no longer be a feature of the personal grievance system. There will no longer be compensation and reinstatement, and that will make a mockery of the system. It hollows it out, and it will make it no longer a meaningful way for New Zealand workers to get redress for injustice or for conflicts in the workplace to be solved in a way that is fair and meaningful.

The second provision in the bill that I wanted to talk about is the entrenching of the vulnerability of workers who have been deemed to be contractors. This bill is Minister van Velden’s way to give the middle finger to the Court of Appeal, and what it had said in the Uber drivers’ case was that those Uber drivers were, under New Zealand law, found to be employees. In future, because of this law that’s being passed through this Parliament, workers, like the Uber drivers, will not have the ability that all workers in New Zealand have had for a very long time, which is to go to the court and ask for it to be resolved as to whether they are, in fact, employees and whether the real nature of the relationship is one of employment or whether they are, in fact, contractors. She and the Government parties are taking that right away from workers.

I want to do a shout-out to Mea’ole Keil and all of the Uber drivers, and to the union movement, including FIRST Union, who have waged such a great campaign in defence of those workers. They are part of a global movement that is standing up for the rights of gig workers and platform workers.

The provisions in this bill put in place this so-called gateway test, which is, in fact—as the Council of Trade Unions noted in their submission to the select committee—not a gateway, but it’s a trapdoor. It will, effectively, stop workers from going to the next step and having the real nature of the relationship tested by the court because they can be deemed a specified contractor. Just by putting a label on it—yes, there are other criteria. But it will make it much, much easier for employers to say, “No, I believe this person is a contractor.”, and they will be treated as one.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green) (17:30): Thank you, Madam Speaker. There was a lot that I agree with from the previous speaker, the Hon Phil Twyford—nothing from the first speaker, the Hon Brooke van Velden. However, he did call it a “dog of a bill”. I couldn’t help but think that that was an insult to dogs—an insult to dogs. This bill is worse than that. This bill is just another rubbish bill from a Government with an anti-worker agenda. I know that colleagues on this side of the House can’t wait to vote that lot out to chuck this into the tip.

I think it’s really important for us to really think about this legislation in the context of all the reforms that have been taking place at pace. There’s been an avalanche of anti-worker legislation coming over from that side—all part of the National Party and ACT Party coalition agreement. I think there are some people on that side that regret that coalition agreement, because how many of these bills have come through the House where that side have had to swallow a whole lot of dead rats?

I think about it in the context of the cancelling of the fair pay agreements. I think about the context of the pay equity claims. I joined with many colleagues out on the steps when we found out that they were cancelling 33 pay equity claims for the country’s poorest wāhine women workers, primarily. Making it harder to do partial strikes—they’ve done that as well. So much anti-worker legislation has come through this House because of that agreement. The result of that is we have a record number of people getting on a plane and going overseas. Our young people are getting on a plane and going overseas in the tens of thousands because of the way that this Government is treating their jobs.

The thing, though—what I have learnt over the last two years—is that if you want to get something for the workers through, you’ve actually got to go around Brooke van Velden. You’ve got to go around Brooke van Velden. I would like to acknowledge today the work of Greg Fleming and Camilla Belich, actually, to get modern slavery legislation on the floor—actually supported by the National Party, by the looks of it. Finally, the way to get around Brooke van Velden to get some actual workers legislation that the House could actually support. She did mention in her speech that the select committee supported the changes of her bill. But she neglected to say that it was just the Government parties.

I often lament and worry about National Party colleagues on that side of the House, having to run around to the ACT Party tunes to do what they want to do. Because some of them actually try to do what’s right. They tinker around with these bills to try to make them better for the workers. That’s the sense I get from some of the Government MPs on that. However, the foundations of this bill are rotten. The foundations of this bill are terrible, and that’s why we will be opposing this bill.

There were around 3,590 submissions in total that the select committee received. But here’s the thing: only 1 percent of the people that submitted supported the bill—overwhelming opposition to the bill. That’s how bad this bill is. There was a bit there that was said about mucking around with the personal grievance system—a system that has been in place for years. A system which gives people a fair shot. If you’re not being treated well at work, then you can put in a personal grievance and have that sorted out. Well, she wants to get rid of that. She wants to muck around with that and make it more and more difficult for people to get a resolution.

Also, I support what has also been said about the Uber drivers as well. The thing about the Uber drivers is this: they won every single time in the courts. They won in the Court of Appeal, they won in the Supreme Court, and now we have amendments in this bill which will make it harder for them to get their workers’ rights. They say, “Well, actually, we’re not blocking action.” Well, actually, they are. They’ve got this thing called the “gateway test”—the “gateway test”. In order for you to be able to access the courts to actually get your classification clarified, you’ve actually got to jump through another hoop—a harder hoop. What this does is it makes gig economy workers even more vulnerable. This is something that we should be championing as a House. We should be backing the workers—we should be backing the workers.

I hope our colleagues in the New Zealand First Party are listening, because they were making a lot of noises at the end of last year, saying that they were listening to the workers. Maybe they’ve been too distracted trying to make America great again and have forgotten about what makes New Zealand first. That is about backing the workers. I would encourage the workers and I would encourage the unions as well: if you want to flip this bill, you might want to give them a call and see if that will work, because this bill is outrageous and it’s egregious. We have so many of our workers going overseas as well.

So a big shout-out to the Uber drivers who took this case successfully—well done. A big shout-out to the unions who backed them as well to create that momentum and pressure. But can you imagine it? You get through the court system, you’ve won every single way, they’ve taken the side of the workers over the big corporation, and what does the Government do? Back the corporation—backs the Uber company over the Uber drivers. It backs the corporations. This is an example of corporate greed over the public good of the workers.

But there’s more horrible things in this bill; for example, the 30-day rule. They want to revoke the 30-day rule. For people that don’t know what that is: if you go to a job and there’s a collective contract on there, you can actually get those benefits as well, and then maybe you might want to join the union. With the revocation of that rule now, you don’t get to do that. You can show up there and the boss can show you what that looks like, but it isn’t automatic. What that shows is that that side doesn’t care about the imbalance between employers and employees—between the bosses and the workers. This will make it more and more difficult.

One of the other things I think is really important to note as well—and I’ve heard people calling it the “Fire at Will Bill”—is that it will create a fire-at-will culture. I think it’s really important for us to unpack that as well. That is around those personal grievance provisions. Just to acknowledge the work of the select committee, who raised it, I think, from $180,000 to $200,000 as well. But what that means is if you’re going to work your way up and you get up to that level, you can no longer take a personal grievance. They can actually just, at will, fire you. If you get out of line, then you’re down the road. You can’t actually access that system.

This is how it looks like with this bill: if you think you’re actually an employee and your boss is treating you like a contractor, guess what! The gateway test is going to keep you down there as a contractor in precarious positions. Often, those jobs are low-paid jobs as well, but if you manage to get through that and work your way up and you’re getting a bit of coin—you’re getting back up there—well, guess what! You better keep your mouth shut, because now you’re up there as well. You’ve got to make sure that you toe the line; otherwise, if you get out of line, you don’t get to access the personal grievance system. So it’s bad for both across the spectrum of workers. It creates different classes of workers and it’s bad for both of those classes of workers.

I don’t know what we can do to improve this bill. Honestly, we’ve got the committee of the whole House stage coming up, which we will look to actually try to make some amendments to improve this bill, but I can’t see that happening. There are so many terrible, bad things about this bill, made in the context of an avalanche of anti-worker legislation that has come through the House.

It’s another example of a Government that doesn’t care about the workers. They don’t care that our young people are leaving the country, getting on the plane, going to Australian pastures where, actually, they have better workers’ rights and actually get better jobs. I mean, why would they hang around? What we need to be doing is making sure that we respect workers, that we do everything that we can to protect their rights so that people stay here: good jobs, being able to put food on the table, keep the lights on, providing enough money so that our young people see living here as a pathway to prosperity. This is not happening under this Government and I hope that the National Party members on that side wake up to it before this agreement that they’ve got with the ACT Party forces another one of these rubbish bills down the legislative chute.

The Green Party will absolutely not be supporting this bill. This bill is anti-worker. This bill is bad for people, it’s bad for the communities, and it’s actually, essentially, bad for the economy. It’s only good for the corporations and not for the people. We reject this bill.

GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland) (17:40): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Anyone would think that the world is about to end. Well, actually, I think we, on this side of the House, understand that the world is changing: we’re going into a gig economy, and taking Uber rides has become something that we’re all using all the time, even those on the other side of the House, as it happens. Whilst we are focused on going to the future, the people on the other side of the House want to go back to the 1970s where everything’s controlled and no one can do anything without going and joining a union. I’d like to make it quite clear: we support those Uber drivers who actually want the flexibility and want to do what they want to do. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon MARK PATTERSON (Minister for Rural Communities) (17:40): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to this Employment Relations Amendment Bill. This is the age-old battle between capital and labour, of course, that both National and Labour and the parties to their left and right engage in. New Zealand First sit in the middle and often find ourselves as the arbiter in these employment relations bills, and this is the impact we hope to have on this piece of legislation, as well.

It does make a suite of changes to our employment relations framework, and—as Grant McCallum has just pointed out—this is a gig economy, this is a changing world and changing nature of work; there does need to be more flexibility. New Zealand First has always supported and been a champion and recognised the need to have an employment framework that does recognise the need for flexibility.

There’s a series of tweaks that have been made by the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety. We do support some of the tweaks to the gateway test, but we have also taken note of the Court of Appeal decision. We support the lift to $200,000 for the personal grievance provisions. We certainly heard some feedback that the previous threshold, which was $180k, was capturing the likes of health professionals and, actually, making us unappealing in terms of the international market. It was a bit of an impediment to hiring some of those health professionals, as an example, so we think $200k is a threshold that is better suited.

In terms of the select committee, it attracted 2,587 submissions. New Zealand First, alas, is not represented on the Education and Workforce Committee. But I do want those submitters to know that we have taken note of those submissions. We have also had considerable engagement with workers’ representatives and the unions that have thrown up some concerns—obviously, as they’ve submitted—and we want them to know that we have heard these concerns. We do share some of them. The personal grievance provisions, in particular, are really important. There’s a power imbalance there. How do we get a situation where we can’t weaponise; where we don’t have people weaponising personal grievances as the Minister and employer groups would attest to—that’s essentially their case. But how do we get it where that power imbalance isn’t so much that it makes genuine personal grievances from employees just too hard to take?

We have heard the concerns, we are reading the submissions, and we are talking to representatives of both the unions and of business. We will continue to engage with the Minister on this. We will continue to support the bill through the process, but we do have some concerns and some tweaks that we would like to see. With that, I conclude by saying we will support the bill, but we do want to see some changes. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The next call is a split call.

ORIINI KAIPARA (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau) (17:44): Just like many other bills this Government has introduced to this House in the last two years, the Employment Relations Amendment Bill offers little hope and security to thousands of everyday working families: mums, dads, uncles, aunties, rangatahi, grandparents and adults struggling right now—right now—in this very moment. It’s not about flexibility. It is not about opportunity; it is about power—power shifted away from workers and handed straight back to multinational corporations. And it’s driven by the likes of Uber, a global giant with a track record of avoiding employment law, underpaying workers, and fighting unions at every turn. It’s mind-blowing. It really is mind-blowing how near identical their wish list is; it’s almost copied verbatim into New Zealand law. It’s basically Uber’s wish list right here in this House, and we are here debating it, and the Prime Minister is championing that.

This Government claims to be fixing the basics, but the basic principle of employment law is that work deserves dignity and workers deserve protection. Instead, this bill heightens vulnerability to unjustified dismissal and opens the door for a race to the bottom on wages and conditions. The Public Service Association has rightly called this bill the “Fire at Will Bill”, as my colleagues to the left have explained to this House. The New Zealand Council of Trade Unions has described it as a “radical employment bill” that threatens every worker in Aotearoa, and you know what? They are tika—they are correct. With this bill, gone are the mechanisms for workers to fight for fair pay and treatment. With this bill, gone are the main measures to hold bad employers to account.

In Tāmaki Makaurau, in my rohe, I see whānau juggling multiple jobs. I see them working long hours and still unable to make ends meet. I see rangatahi—youth—entering a workforce or waiting to enter a workforce that offers less protections than what their parents got. I see kaumātua—elderly—still working because retirement is really not an option. They have no other choice but to continue working to put kai on the table. I feel the tears welling in my own kanohi when I see my own family, including my father, going to jobseeker hui week after week and being told that he is too qualified or too underqualified to fit the mould of the only jobs available to him right now.

The rules have changed so much in the last two years that the system can’t even keep up with the demand. It doesn’t even recognise Aotearoa New Zealanders. Many of my constituents in Tāmaki Makaurau are also tangata moana and they keep our hospitality, construction, security, cleaning, and delivery driving industries thriving, yet these are all lowly paid jobs. They’re high-pressure jobs and this bill tells them: “Your rights are negotiable and your security is optional”. Māori and Pasifika women are not only the lowest paid and least recognised leaders in Aotearoa, in this country, but, just like every other woman, they’re working for free—they’re working for free by earning much less than their male counterparts.

From a Te Pāti Māori perspective, this bill fails every tikanga that exists. In fact, it fails miserably to recognise the mana of tikanga and the need for tikanga to be embedded in employment law to safeguard Māori workers. We’re not the same. You can’t treat everyone one and the same. Kei hea Te Tiriti? Kei hea te mana o taku iwi Māori?

[Where is the Treaty? Where is the power and authority of my Māori people?]

Further, this bill fails to recognise that cultural differences exist, especially in Tāmaki-makau-rau, the largest multicultural city in the world. Where is diversity recognised in this bill? It’s not there. My people of Tāmaki Makaurau, they don’t need any more rhetoric; Aotearoa doesn’t need any more of that. They need fair pay, they need jobs, they need job security, and they need the right to challenge injustice. They need a Government that stands with them and not over them. To this end, I will continue to fight for them, for the rights of all workers, and especially for our rangatahi and our wāhine.

To this end, Te Pāti Māori will push harder for fairness, equity, and mana motuhake for tangata whenua. We will continue to prioritise Māori, and we stand vehemently opposing this bill.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (17:49): It’s not very often that I try to reach across the aisle with common shared experiences, but I think one thing that many of us from across probably all political parties share is that we have all benefited from the labour of drivers, whether it’s from a taxi company, a cooperative, or, for example, an Uber. I don’t know if members across the House actually take the time to often ask the driver how they’re doing, how they’re getting on, whether they’re struggling with the current economic conditions. But, for example, recently when I landed in this city, Wellington, I was talking to my driver. I asked him how long he had been working. It was 9 p.m. He had been working from the morning. He told me that he didn’t used to work these long hours a few years ago, and that his children were now asking him when he was going to get home. One of the few reprieves he had is that at least he could buy some chocolate for his children shortly afterwards.

That story, to me, made me incredibly sad. It’s a tale that we’re hearing across the country—that people are working longer hours simply to make ends meet. Funnily enough, one of the things that did come up in this conversation was in the very same bill. It was unprompted; I didn’t even have to do any political propaganda to get the conversation to this point. He asked me where the bill was at. We ended up talking about the fact that Uber as a corporation had stripped many drivers of their abilities to make ends meet, through their aggressive tactics. For this driver, the job cuts led by this Government have meant that there were simply fewer passengers to take around and less disposable income.

In this bill, what it does is it is, effectively, a handout for Uber, a company that has made, in recent years, for example, $400 million-plus in profit and has paid a million dollars in tax. What we know, despite all the celebration of this gig economy by members across the House, is the gig economy is not just giving people more flexibility; it often is stripping them of their means to survive. In the case of Uber, if any members across the House have ever dared to talk about the conditions of Uber drivers with their driver, what they would know is that Uber as a company does not adequately protect their drivers. Drivers often don’t know who they’re picking up. Passengers have the ability to, basically, strip an Uber driver of their ability to make ends meet if they make a complaint about the driver, and the drivers have, effectively, almost zero recourse to be able to get their jobs back if Uber disconnects them from the app.

What this means is that the so-called gig economy that the Government is celebrating is precarious. It does not lead many workers—certainly the drivers that members across the House talk about—to the ability to make ends meet, particularly if that’s the single source of income that those workers depend on. More and more, I am seeing, for Uber drivers, that the Uber app is the only source of income that they have access to. Why is that? Because there are simply not enough jobs out there.

In the other components of the bill, we heard the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety talk about how this would make it easier to hire people. I think the Minister is misidentifying the current problem, which is not that it’s hard to hire people and that’s why we don’t have lower unemployment; it’s that there are simply no jobs available, in large part due to decisions being made by this Government to cut jobs and to not put a focus on creating enough jobs.

At the very same time, young people, for example, entering their first job, will be subjected to worse conditions, because, for example, if you enter into the hospitality industry with this collective agreement, you could have benefited for those first 30 days from the improved conditions that that collective agreement could have given you: security of hours, better pay, better health and safety conditions. Yet we are being told that, apparently, stripping that immediate access to the collective agreement to then be able to determine as to whether you want to sign up to the union is actually going to be better for workers. It is not.

Let’s make no mistake: this bill is, effectively, a handout for Uber. New Zealand First, who just spoke prior to me, should be renamed to “Uber First”, because, genuinely, you know, I know Teanau talked about how some of these members have regrets, but none of the parties have shown any regrets at supporting this bill. It’s a shameful bill that will worsen conditions for workers at a time of a cost of living crisis, at a time where we should be supporting working people to live with dignity and have enough to make ends meet and support their families. The Green Party will be fighting every step of the way to throw this bill in the bin.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula) (17:54): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It looks like I’ll be the last speaker this evening in this second reading of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. This came through the Education and Workforce Committee, and we did spend a lot of time coming up with some potential improvements for the bill, which the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety spoke about earlier. One of the things that we looked into very deeply was the threshold for the ability to be able to take a personal grievance for unfair dismissal. We heard from the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists (ASMS)—from my old profession—and they very strongly wanted that provision withdrawn.

Well, the good news for the ASMS and all the doctors out there is that this is a provision that can be contracted out of in any single agreement or in a collective agreement. I hope that all of the people will take notice of that and understand that their unions have not been totally disempowered, and if they think that the unions are all that great and worth paying their money for, then they should be letting them know that. I commend this bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 10 February 2026.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 5.56 p.m.