Thursday, 12 February 2026

Thursday, 12 February 2026

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Start of Sitting Day

Karakia/Prayers

GREG O'CONNOR (Assistant 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.

Personal Explanations

Question No. 11 to Minister, 11 February

Amended Answer to Oral Question

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (14:01): Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to make a personal explanation to correct an answer to an oral question.

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

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: In answer to question No. 11 yesterday, I said that unemployment had been rising since March 2021. I should have said that unemployment has been rising since 2021.

Business of the House

Business Statement

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House) (14:01): Next week, the House will have the first members’ day of 2026 and will make progress on the Legislation Amendment Bill and other bills on the Order Paper.

Presentation

Petitions

SPEAKER (14:01): Two petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.

CLERK (14:01):

Petition of Benjamin Sims requesting that the House require banks and/or retailers to implement mechanisms that automatically block transactions for age-restricted goods when the cardholder is under the legal purchasing age

petition of Kyra Clifford-Marsh requesting that the House urge Medsafe to prioritise the approval of Dupixent and urge Pharmac to fund it as soon as possible.

SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee.

Papers

SPEAKER (14:02): A paper has been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.

CLERK (14:02): Government response to the petition of Reuben Hilder.

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

Select Committee Reports

SPEAKER (14:02): Three select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.

CLERK (14:02):

Report of the Education and Workforce Committee on the briefing on the report of the Education Review Office A new chapter: How well are the changes to English and maths going?

report of the Governance and Administration Committee on the Regulatory Systems (Internal Affairs) Amendment Bill

report of the Health Committee on the petition of Kathleen Walsh.

SPEAKER: The bill is set down for second reading. The report of the Education and Workforce Committee is set down for consideration. No bills have been introduced.

Oral Questions to Ministers

Energy

Question No. 1

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) (14:02) to the Minister for Energy: Does he stand by all his statements and actions regarding liquefied natural gas?

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister for Energy) (14:03): Yes.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: What protections, if any, will be put in place to ensure gentailers will actually pass through any eventuated savings to households rather than simply banking the extra $400 million per year as extra profits?

Hon SIMON WATTS: That’s why we are beefing up the powers of the Electricity Authority. This will make sure that gentailers play by the rules and that consumers get a fair deal. This includes increasing penalties for serious rule-breaking. These changes will mean that power companies will face real consequences if they try to take advantage of customers or distort the market.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: What, if any, mechanisms will be put in place to protect against large increases in the levy, given his Cabinet paper says the levy can be annually adjusted?

Hon SIMON WATTS: The levy that is included within the Cabinet paper refers to the mechanism in which we will cover the costs of building the infrastructure. The infrastructure is still under commercial negotiation, so the exact cost is not yet known, but the levy will be based on what that final cost does land at.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: What specific mechanisms will be put in place to make sure liquefied natural gas (LNG) is only used in dry years and not as routine baseload supply, which would push up energy costs for New Zealand households and businesses?

Hon SIMON WATTS: The reason why the Government is developing an LNG facility is to provide back-up fuel for electricity generation in a dry year. It is an insurance product for the electricity system. There may be a case to have a secondary benefit in regards to that gas for industry, but its primary purpose is for electricity generation.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked about specific mechanisms to ensure that it would be only run in a dry year. The Minister didn’t address what any of those mechanisms would be. This would be important, because if it is used for other than dry-year back-up—

SPEAKER: You don’t need to go into that explanation.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: —it does have the potential to increase prices.

SPEAKER: The Minister may like to add to his answer.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Has he received any advice or modelling on what investing the up to $2.7 billion in alternatives such as solar and storage, load shifting, energy efficiency, fuel switching, and accelerated renewables—to name a few—as opposed to leasing an LNG terminal, would do to wholesale and retail electricity prices, and, if so, will he release that modelling?

Hon SIMON WATTS: All of the information in regards to the modelling has been released by my officials yesterday. The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment did consider a long list of different options including renewables, demand response, and new thermal plant. All of these were considered; however, none of those, with the exception of LNG, were deemed to be feasible nor to provide the sufficient firming capacity and scale required to meet dry-year needs. LNG is the right option. The maths is simple.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister: is there a time that he might take some advice from the very person who shut down the critical energy infrastructure at Marsden Point?

SPEAKER: That’s not something that he can comment on.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. He most certainly can comment on whether he’s going to take that advice from that person. What’s wrong with that? I’m asking: are you going to take this advice from that person with that track record? That’s a legitimate question.

SPEAKER: Sorry, I did not quite hear that part about the taking of advice. The Minister may give a brief comment.

Hon SIMON WATTS: Yeah, I have no requirement to take advice from that member.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Does he agree with Karpowership, a company that participated in the Government’s own LNG process, that it would place upward pressure on gas prices, thereby making prices more expensive for Kiwi families and businesses, and, if not, why not?

Hon SIMON WATTS: As I noted before, we are currently in the middle of a commercial negotiation process in regards to the selection of a vendor to undertake the importation of LNG. It is not appropriate for me to comment on a supposition in regards to some of those parties that may or may not be in that process.

Hon Shane Jones: Will the Minister be taking advice as to whether overseas investors who may participate in this LNG project could be fearful that their rights would be terminated, as was the case with the cancellation of the oil and gas industry?

Hon SIMON WATTS: In regards to the risks and issues that investors will be considering—one of which will include political and sovereign risk and that is a fair assessment. As a Government, we are taking on board that consideration, and we will be ensuring that those international partners that are looking to invest capital in this country on a long-term basis to support our economic growth will be protected.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Has he received any advice on whether the process outlined in his Cabinet paper, where a delegated group of Ministers make the final decision on the selection of a preferred provider, falls within the usual scope of procurement?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Yes.

Finance

Question No. 2

NANCY LU (National) (14:08) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on Investment Boost?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (14:08): Today, the initial results of an Inland Revenue survey about Investment Boost were released. According to Inland Revenue’s survey of over 800 firms, Investment Boost is already changing investment behaviour for the better, bringing capital projects forward, increasing their scale, and lifting productivity across the economy. The survey shows that of those who knew of the scheme, 40 percent of firms that invested said that Investment Boost had already increased their investment. This included 11 percent reporting a significant increase directly because of the policy. This early data shows Investment Boost is working.

Nancy Lu: What does the survey show?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: That early positive impact is expected to get even stronger over time. For example, 49 percent of firms planning to invest over the next five years say Investment Boost is influencing their plans positively, with 14 percent expecting a large increase in investment as a result. More than half said they were changing the nature of their forward-looking investment plans, with many firms reprioritising investment projects or bringing planned investment forward. This is exactly the behavioural change the policy was designed to deliver and exactly what you see when Government backs investment rather than talks it down.

Nancy Lu: How does Investment Boost work?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Investment Boost was introduced in Budget 2025 to encourage business investment by improving the tax treatment of capital investments. It has been a longstanding challenge for the New Zealand economy that we have had low rates of investment in capital in our firms, and this is strongly linked to our low productivity rates, which underlie low wages in New Zealand. Inland Revenue modelling shows this policy reduces the effective marginal tax rates on new capital investment by around 5 to 6 percentage points, on average, making previously marginal investment projects viable and encouraging more investment to proceed. It matters because it helps drive long-term growth, productivity, jobs, and income growth. We’re well on track to reaching initial estimates that Investment Boost would lift GDP and wages by 1.5 percent and capital stock by 1.6 percent over the next 20 years; in fact, around half of those gains are expected to be delivered in the first five years.

Nancy Lu: How important is policy certainty to long-term growth?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Of course it’s very important. This Government introduced Investment Boost to help address the country’s longstanding productivity problem, through driving capital investment. We’re clear that we back ownership, investment, and stable, productivity-enhancing tax policies, but a policy like this one only works if businesses believe it will endure, and what businesses want to know today is: will Investment Boost be retained as a permanent fixture of our tax settings to unlock growth through future election cycles, or will it be sacrificed to fund ever-higher spending—and those members opposite owe hard-working Kiwi business people an answer on that question today.

Workplace Relations and Safety

Question No. 3

LAURA McCLURE (ACT) (14:12) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: What legislation is she currently progressing?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (14:12): This week has been a busy week for the workplace relations and safety portfolio. This week, the Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill was introduced to the House and the Employment Relations Amendment Bill went through the committee of the whole House this morning. Both of these bills are a win for businesses and workers by making it easier for employers to hire staff, keep workers safe, meet their employment obligations, and change their staffing mix when they need to.

Laura McClure: What does the Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill do?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: The bill addresses concerns I heard on my health and safety roadshow that the law is unclear and that WorkSafe is not much better. We’re fixing this. Changes in this bill will make it easier to run a business in New Zealand by helping to ease the cost of compliance while supporting safety outcomes. It does this in two main ways: first, by strengthening the role of approved codes of practice to give businesses access to guidance that is tailored to their own industries and easier to keep up to date, and, second, by requiring WorkSafe to move from an approach of expecting everyone to address every possible risk, towards one in which WorkSafe provides guidance on critical risks a workplace must address to meet their obligations under the Act.

Laura McClure: What does the Employment Relations Amendment Bill do?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: The Employment Relations Amendment Bill supports business confidence by enabling a more flexible labour market and giving businesses greater confidence to provide new and better opportunities to workers. When businesses have this confidence, they are more likely to create jobs and to take risks on new hires or promotions. In particular, it will ensure poorly behaved workers are not rewarded for bad behaviour, it will support workers’ freedom of choice to not be part of a collective agreement, it will make it easier for employers to give workers a go in high-impact positions, and it provides more clarity around what constitutes a contracting relationship.

Police

Question No. 4

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (14:14) to the Minister of Police: Does he stand by all his statements and actions relating to supporting Police’s front line?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice) (14:15) on behalf of the Minister of Police: Yes, and in particular my statement, “Our police do an outstanding job.”

Hon Ginny Andersen: Why are there fewer police than what there were a month ago, and when will he now deliver the 500 additional police officers, given that he failed to do that on 27 November last year?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, the good news is that there has been an increase in the front-line police officers since we came into Government of 285 police officers—my notes tell me that’s 10,496 police on the beat. The good news is that those police are supported by a Government that backs the police to do their job and to restore law and order in this country, unlike the situation under the previous administration—

SPEAKER: No, that last part’s not necessary.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: —with a revolving door of police Ministers who didn’t support the police.

SPEAKER: That’s enough.

Hon Ginny Andersen: How can he claim that he is supporting the front line when the Police Association reported in February that almost 60 percent of police officers had considered leaving due to insufficient pay and staffing shortages?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Like I say, we support the police and, of course, there are always challenges in a very tough and difficult job, and that’s what they do on behalf of all New Zealanders to keep those New Zealanders safe. We back the police. The most important thing we do is give them the support through extra budget: we’ve had more than $480 million over four years to support the front line in Budget 2025 and an extra $226 million under Budget 2024 to support the extra police officers. This Government backs the police.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does he agree with the Police Association President, Steve Watt, who says, “You don’t solve this by spending millions trying to attract new people while the ones you already have are burning out and questioning whether they can stay.”; if not, why not?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, no, I don’t agree with that statement because what I would agree with is the sentiment that we’ve been pushing hard to increase the number of front-line police officers after a period of real strain. I also support the additional powers in legislation we’ve given the police to go after the gangs who create misery in this country. After years where we had mixed messages to gangs about sometimes being against them, sometimes being for them, sometimes paying for them to do work for us, this Government has sent a clear message: back the police with tough legislation. That’s the most important thing.

Hon Shane Jones: Does the Minister envisage a time when the police front line will be used in moving out the mōnaroas, the criminals, the gangs, the layabouts, and the vagrants blighting Queen Street?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: On behalf of the Minister: yes, I can anticipate that time.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Has he considered offering front-line police the same daily rate as Sunny Kaushal, $920 a day, in the next police pay round; if not, why not?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: On behalf of the Minister: I won’t indulge in the member’s petty games, but I will focus on the outcomes. The outcomes are that in this country right here, right now, there are 38,000 fewer victims of violent crime, and that’s 38,000 fewer families that have to go through the pain and suffering of being victims of violent crime, and that’s what this Government has been focused upon. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Questions of that nature will always lead to slight disruption in the House.

Internal Affairs

Question No. 5

ORIINI KAIPARA (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau) (14:19) to the Minister of Internal Affairs: What assurances can she give to Māori, and to all vulnerable communities in Aotearoa, that they will not be harmed by the Online Casino Gambling Bill?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (14:19): My intention for the Online Casino Gambling Bill is and has always been clear: to regulate online gambling in a way that prioritises harm prevention and minimisation. The online gambling market in New Zealand is currently unregulated. The bill will provide greater protections to all New Zealanders and all communities within New Zealand than under the current unregulated market.

Oriini Kaipara: Why will this bill enable rangatahi aged 18 to access online casino gambling when existing laws prohibit anyone under 20 from walking through the door of a casino anywhere in the country?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Because currently, anybody of any age can gamble online. The law, when this bill is passed, will prohibit licensed casinos online from advertising to people under the age of 18 or allowing anybody under the age of 18 to use their products online.

Oriini Kaipara: How many of the proposed 15 online casino licences will be issued to companies based here in Aotearoa?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I can’t know that for sure, because the licence and the auction has not occurred. The auction will only occur once the bill has become law.

Oriini Kaipara: How does she justify allowing 15 multinational gambling companies to operate and advertise in Aotearoa when New Zealanders lost $2.79 billion to gambling in the last year alone, according to the Salvation Army’s State of the Nation report released yesterday?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Quite easily, because the law will put in place a safer regulated market than what we currently have. It does this in many ways, by having strict harm minimisation standards that currently do not exist. In particular, when it comes to genuine addiction and problem gambling, online casinos who currently operate pay nothing to the problem gambling levy. In the future, they will be contributing to harm minimisation by a levy that will force them to contribute to lowering gambling harm for specific problem gamblers.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Minister intend to take a race-based approach to online casino gambling, as the original question suggests?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: No.

Local Government

Question No. 6

TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central) (14:21) to the Minister of Local Government: What advice has he asked for or received about the risk of more waste-water disasters like that at Moa Point, noting that the water regulator says about a third of waste-water plants are operating with expired consents?

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Local Government) (14:22): Mr—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: The House will just totally settle itself and the Minister will begin his answer.

Hon Chris Bishop: You’ve scarpered!

SPEAKER: Hang on. Hang on. Does someone need to go out early? [Interruption] Or two of you—perhaps one from either side.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Can we nominate?

SPEAKER: If you want to nominate yourself, you’re not going to.

Hon SIMON WATTS: I receive regular advice about the issues across the water network, including on the recent events at Moa Point. It is fair to say that what we are seeing reflects systemic under-investment in water assets by local government. I think that that fact is acknowledged everywhere across this House. That, of course, will be well known to the member, given her experience as a councillor. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: A question is being asked.

Tamatha Paul: Why did the Government introduce waste-water discharge standards in December that will allow 40,000 colony-forming units of bacteria per unit of discharge, when some councils, like Bay of Plenty, noted that this represents an 11 times increase on their current consented limit; and will this allow more or less waste water to enter the ocean?

Hon SIMON WATTS: One of the key ways in which we can address the challenges we are seeing in regards to waste water is to ensure that we have appropriate water quality standards in place and regulation to back that up. That is what we’re doing. Local Water Done Well ensures that that regulatory approach is in place, and we’re proceeding with that approach also for Wellington, which will become a council-controlled organisation on 1 July.

Tamatha Paul: Was the Government warned, when it chose to scrap the three waters programme, that further delaying investment in water infrastructure would likely lead to disasters like the one in Moa Point in Wellington?

Hon SIMON WATTS: It’s too early to be drawn to conclusions on what has happened at Moa Point. I have, however, read some commentary that a certain councillors championed increases in cycleway spending, all while the council continued to under-invest in water. If they are here, can they please stand up?

Tamatha Paul: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question.

SPEAKER: Supplementary question—

Tamatha Paul: Mr Speaker, I’ve got a point of order.

SPEAKER: Oh, point of order. Sorry.

Tamatha Paul: I would like to table—

SPEAKER: Wait on. Point of order, Tamatha Paul.

Tamatha Paul: I would like to table a graph that is not publicly available that shows waste-water investment by Wellington City Council from 2013 to 2024.

SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? Is there objection?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yes, there’s objection.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, sir.

SPEAKER: Just a moment; hang on a minute. I’m just trying to hear what’s going on in the House. Sorry, Mr Peters.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I object. Point of order—the reason is that that tabling should have happened after question time, not an abuse of the question time process.

SPEAKER: Right. Sorry, leave is not granted.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, sir. Now, sir, there was a point of order under way there, and there were senior members of the Government making noises—one being on their feet. Now, in any other circumstance, that would have been pulled up by you, and what is of concern to me is that it appears, at first sight, that it was because it was one particular member that was doing it, that it wasn’t, and that is of concern. That was, really, a quite obvious breach of the clear guidance you have given in this House.

SPEAKER: Yes, that’s true if it was the case, but I was actually looking at the member who was taking the point of order because I had originally called it as a question—so I moved from one to the other and didn’t quite understand that—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question.

SPEAKER: —I’m still speaking; please sit down—that that could have occurred. I’ll certainly watch out.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: What reports has he seen of Wellington City Councillor Tamatha Paul moving empty virtue-signalling motions to do “whatever it takes” to prevent sewage overflow with no practical bearing on budgets whatsoever—

SPEAKER: Good. OK, we’ll stop there.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: —while voting time and time again to blow out funding for cycleways—

SPEAKER: Good. Excellent. I’m about to stand on my feet.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: —as the water bills flow down the pipe?

SPEAKER: Now, the member who has just asked that question considers himself to be quite an expert on Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings, so he’d be aware that Speakers’ ruling 181/3 rules that question out.

Tamatha Paul: Does he believe that the private company operating the Moa Point waste-water plant should be held accountable for the environmental disaster occurring on Wellington’s south coast, and, if so, what will he do to ensure that this happens?

Hon SIMON WATTS: The specific contracting arrangements for water services are a matter for councils. I expect the contracting arrangements to be considered as part of any review or investigation that is undertaken. I’m pleased to say that, under this Government, water assets are staying owned by local communities.

Cameron Luxton: What advice has the Minister received on the effect of successive Green-Labour councils prioritising spending on cycleways, arthouse public toilets, and utopian urban development designs instead of basic water infrastructure?

SPEAKER: No. Hang on. A supplementary question has to align itself, largely, with the primary question, which that question does not.

Tamatha Paul: Is the Moa Point disaster an example of privatising the profits and socialising the risks of contracting out key services—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just a moment. Someone is clearly going to have to leave the House—just as a demonstration that when questions are being asked, no one else is talking. Please start again.

Tamatha Paul: Thank you. Is the Moa Point disaster an example of privatising the profits and socialising the risks of contracting out key services, noting that Veolia is paid $17 million a year to operate by Wellington Water, and there is no evidence of them paying any penalties for those failures?

Hon SIMON WATTS: No, but what it is an example of is a failure by those responsible and those that have power to ensure that they prioritise spending on essential services, which includes waste water and stormwater.

Tamatha Paul: Does the Minister plan on holding Veolia to account for their environmental destruction, and, if not, is it his view that Veolia are not responsible for the ecological disaster happening on the south coast?

Hon SIMON WATTS: The member will be aware that Mayor Little, the Prime Minister, and I have already met to discuss what is a very serious issue for Wellingtonians in regard to what we’ve seen at Moa Point. We are looking and considering the intervention and the review process which we will undertake to get answers to those questions, and I have offered Mayor Little all of the support that I can provide from local government to make that happen. It is too early to signal or align blame to anyone, but it would be fair to say years of under-investment will be, no doubt, part of the consideration by that group.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. I seek leave to table the critical minutes of Wednesday, 23 March 2022 of the Wellington City Council, which points out who stuffed up where and when.

SPEAKER: OK. I have to ask: is the document readily available?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Nah, apparently not. They admit it.

SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection to that course of action. Yep, there is. There appears to be objection. [Interruption] The whole House should just calm itself down.

Transport

Question No. 7

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) (14:30) to the Minister of Transport: Does he stand by his statement, “The Government is committed to the Roads of National Significance”?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Transport) (14:30): Yes, the Government’s committed to building a long-term pipeline of transport infrastructure investment to address our infrastructure deficit and build jobs and growth for Kiwis. The roads of national significance (RoNS) programme is a vital part of that pipeline. However, as I said last year, in November—and it’s good to see someone finally noticing—while we’re committed to the roads of national significance, delivering them tomorrow, or all tomorrow, is not realistic. Some roads will not be starting for many years. What the sector’s told us is required is a credible, long-term pipeline of transport projects with a variety of funding options and in a logical sequence. That’s what we’re delivering for New Zealanders.

Tangi Utikere: Does he accept his officials’ advice that progressing the first wave of RoNS projects involves a $30 billion funding gap over just the next decade, within a land transport budget that is already fully committed, and, if so, where specifically will that money come from under current funding settings?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, as the Member has rightly noted, there are real challenges with the funding for land transport into the future, and the Crown faces many demands for capital, from defence through to schools and hospitals and other projects that are critical. All of those decisions require important trade-offs. The other point I would make—as I said, again, in November last year, in a speech about this specific point—all roads have to be paid for. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Ultimately, we want users to pay for roads, because we have a user-pays system. So we are giving—[Interruption]. Well, you guys campaigned on putting up fuel tax, so, like, yes, fuel is an important part of paying for roads.

SPEAKER: Good—just answer the question.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: We are doing further work at the moment around the right blend of funding options in order to deliver roads of national significance.

Tangi Utikere: Does he accept that his own officials’ modelling shows that there are only two viable ways to fund this programme: either significantly higher transport taxes, or around $40 billion in additional debt; if so, which of those will he choose?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, yes, the advice went to me and I accept it, and that’s why I publicly released it—so, obviously, I accept the advice. The specific examples the member is talking about are essentially straw men in order to illustrate the point around the funding challenges. Clearly, raising the fuel tax by 50 cents a litre is not sustainable politically or economically, and we will not be doing that. Likewise, borrowing $40 billion in order to fund the roads of national significance programme is also not realistic or economically responsible. However, within those broad straw men that make the point, there are a range of different options, including tolls and other forms of charges and fuel tax. But, ultimately, if New Zealanders want high-quality transport infrastructure, someone has to pay for it, and you get what you pay for.

Tangi Utikere: Has the Minister spoken to the Minister of Finance about adding $40 billion of net core Crown debt; if so, what was her response?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: There would be very few people in Parliament that I talk to more than the Minister of Finance. I sit next to her. We have had many conversations around transport funding challenges, and we are doing work on that, as I’ve said publicly for four months. This is a challenging situation for everyone. We are doing work on it, and I’ll have more to say soon.

Tim Costley: What announcements has the Minister made today about roads of national significance, like Transmission Gully?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I’m very pleased to announce today that Transmission Gully—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Are you going to get it fixed?

Hon Dr Megan Woods: He’s just checking it isn’t getting cut.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I hope the member didn’t just say that was “stupid”, because that will be very interesting news to the people of Kāpiti and Wellington. Transmission Gully is going up to 110 kilometres per hour, making it faster and easier for Kiwis to go north to the mighty electorate of Kāpiti.

Tangi Utikere: Why is he prepared to spend $56 billion on roads at the expense of funding for hospitals, schools, and critical public infrastructure?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, the member sets up a completely false dichotomy, and that is not the binary that is before the Government. We are committed to—

Tangi Utikere: Are you going to tax them more to pay for it all then?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, you guys should read your last Government policy statement, because you campaigned on many of the roads that we are now delivering. So you might want to, like, actually look at what you campaigned on. It’s like history passed them by. It’s like they didn’t live through the years they screwed the country—but anyway. We are committed to a long-term transport infrastructure pipeline made up of not just the roads of national significance but important public transport projects like the Eastern Busway, funding for which was announced for the final stage today; like the Northwest Busway, which is a really important project in Auckland; and also the second harbour crossing in Auckland, which the country will have to confront in due course as well. We are committed to that pipeline. The point I have made for four months now—and the member seems finally to be catching up on—is that roads and public transport have to be paid for, and we are working our way through that and I’ll have more to say soon.

Hon Nicola Willis: Is the Minister aware of feedback from the infrastructure sector who are looking for more bipartisan commitment to infrastructure planning, and is it helpful or unhelpful for other political parties to suggest they would cancel roads of national significance?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, one of the consistent pieces of feedback I think many members of the House get is that what we need to do as a country is have some degree of stability in our long-term transport pipeline. We are committed to building that. We are being completely upfront and transparent with New Zealanders around the funding trade-offs required to deliver that. That’s why I proactively gave a speech about it and released the material. The member seems to think he’s stumbled upon some grand new piece of information. We are committed to building that pipeline, and it would be great to get the Opposition’s support for that.

Housing

Question No. 8

TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki) (14:37) to the Minister of Housing: What progress has Kāinga Ora made on its turnaround plan?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing) (14:37): Last year, we announced the Kāinga Ora turnaround plan. I’m really pleased that, since then, the organisation has made good progress getting its books back in order and improving performance, delivering lower debt, lower build costs, a strong renewals programme, less rental debt, and higher tenancy satisfaction.

Tim Costley: Well, why did Kāinga Ora need a turnaround plan?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, when we came into Government, debt for Kāinga Ora, on its balance sheet, had risen from $2.3 billion in 2017, to $16.5 billion in 2023-24. The 2023 board-approved budget showed debt forecast to grow to $24.8 billion by 2026-27. From 2017 to 2023, the wait-list for social housing grew by 20,000 people. The situation was unsustainable; something needed to change. We commissioned an independent review. We’ve changed the board, the turnaround plan is in place, and we’re now making good progress.

Tim Costley: Can the Minister tell us what Kāinga Ora’s expected peak debt is and how that has changed?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Before the turnaround plan, Kāinga Ora’s peak debt was forecast to be—listen to this—$29 billion in 2032-33. The turnaround plan brought that down to $21.3 billion, and now, a year into the plan, debt is expected to peak earlier in 2029-30 at $19.5 billion. That is a total reduction in peak debt of $9.5 billion dollars so far—that is debt borrowed by the Government that we will not have to repay, thanks to the fiscal prudence demonstrated by the new organisation. In two years of proper stewardship, the savings have helped to fund 2,000 additional community housing and social housing places, the greenfield model to enable delivery of thousands of new homes, and other cost pressures in the housing portfolio. We’re saving taxpayers’ money and delivering high-quality public services.

Tim Costley: How are tenant and community outcomes tracking?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, some might say that the reduction in debt and cost savings have come at the expense of tenant outcomes. The great thing is tenancy satisfaction is rising, vacancy rates are lower, fewer tenants are in rent arrears, and Kāinga Ora is doing a better job of managing tenants to support safe, respectful communities. When we came into Government, 80 percent of tenants were satisfied with their homes, and 70 percent felt safe; the figure now is 87 percent of tenants satisfied, and 90 percent of tenants feeling safe. Vacancy rates have dropped from 5 percent, to 2 percent, and there are far fewer people in rent arrears—a drop of over 3,000. We are taking antisocial behaviour seriously: at the end of 2023, it took Kāinga Ora 38 days to resolve disruptive behaviour complaints; that is now down to nine days on average. What this shows is that throwing money at something, or an organisation, does not necessarily lead to better outcomes; what you need is focused delivery.

Energy

Question No. 9

SCOTT WILLIS (Green) (14:40) to the Minister for Energy: What is the total estimated cost of infrastructure and annual lease fees over 15 years for the proposed liquefied natural gas import terminal?

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister for Energy) (14:41): The Government is currently undergoing a commercial procurement process with multiple parties, so it would be premature to provide a total estimated cost at this time. I can assure the House that the selected option will represent the best value for money, and it will deliver savings to households.

Scott Willis: Does he accept Bernard Hickey’s analysis that the total cost to regular Kiwis over 15 years for LNG infrastructure could be as much as $2.7 billion; if not, why not?

Hon SIMON WATTS: No, we’ve been very clear that LNG will result in lower prices for households and businesses.

Scott Willis: How many megawatts of renewables like wind, solar, and geothermal could the Government build with the well over $1 billion, and likely more, that regular Kiwis will have to fork out for this fossil fuel infrastructure?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Well, the reality of what we’re doing is dealing with a solution to the problem of a lack of fuel to make electricity in a dry year, and that is gas. When we don’t have enough water in our hydro dams, enough wind or solar, we need fossil fuels and we need gas to do so. Coal alone only accounts for 50 percent of the capacity required. We need gas and we have diminishing gas in New Zealand domestically. Therefore, the very practical solution is to import the gas we require from overseas.

Scott Willis: How can he expect that the gentailers won’t pass on the cost of the electricity levy to households and businesses, but that they will pass on imagined, future potential savings?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Well, first and foremost, an LNG terminal will result in lower prices for households and businesses. But, as I’ve answered to a previous question, we are beefing up the Electricity Authority, which is the regulator, to ensure that the gentailers do play by the rules and that they can ensure that consumers get a fair deal.

Scott Willis: What is his response to analysis by Rewiring Aotearoa that suggests one-third of major gas users could transition to electricity and save money without requiring Government financial support, while another third could transition for the cost of an LNG terminal, and did he consider that freeing up two-thirds of our existing gas supply might be a better use of Government resources?

Hon SIMON WATTS: I would appreciate that when you add one-third and one-third, you still have one-third remaining, and that is one-third of industrial business in this country which does require gas in order to create economic growth and benefit for our economy. On this side of the House, we are not of the view that we should be shutting down industry; we are of the view that we should be supporting that industry to make sure they are sustainable. Gas is a fuel that makes the goods for those companies, and we want to make sure they have it.

Scott Willis: Does he accept that it was extremely short-sighted of the Government to stop work on the Gas Transition Plan, designed to manage declining supply and to cancel the Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry Fund, which supported industry to switch from gas to electricity?

Hon SIMON WATTS: What I can be clear on is that as we all know that the oil and gas ban decimated the gas industry. Now, Kiwi households are suffering the consequences. This side of the House is fixing that. All sides agree that we need to sort the dry-year problem. This side of the House wants to put in place something that will work. LNG is a practical solution to the country’s dry-year problem. We need fuel, and an LNG terminal will provide that access.

Climate Change

Question No. 10

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour) (14:45) to the Minister of Climate Change: Does he agree with Nicola Willis that “New Zealand globally contributes an absolutely tiny proportion of overall emissions”; if so, is this an indication the Government has given up on goals to reduce our emissions?

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change) (14:46): Yes, I do. New Zealand does contribute only a small portion of overall emissions. The member could have saved herself a question by reading the full quote from the Minister of Finance which begins with, “Our Government is committed to emissions reductions and meeting our obligations under the zero carbon Act.”

Hon Simeon Brown: Keep reading.

SPEAKER: Supplementary, the Hon Dr Deborah Russell, and no one else.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: What is his response, then, to UK Secretary of State for Energy Security, Ed Miliband, and UK Foreign Secretary, Yvette Cooper, raising concerns about New Zealand’s decisions on methane and fossil fuels?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Secretary Miliband and I talk regularly, when we see each other, in regards to the challenges that both the UK and New Zealand face in regards to climate change. I, however, refute the point that the member is inferring in regards to that individual raising concerns. Secretary Miliband and I talked more broadly, obviously, around agricultural emissions, because that is a key aspect of both of our economies, and we talked about the way in which New Zealand is actually leading in terms of agricultural emissions innovation investment to deliver reductions in those emissions, and he was very interested to hear more about that.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Do the reports that Secretary Ed Miliband and Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper have raised concerns about New Zealand’s decisions on methane and fossil fuels suggest that our trade agreements might be at risk because of our declining ambition with climate?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Well, again, I refute the inference by that member that the individuals who I interact with raise concerns. We do talk around a wide range of aspects of policy, as you would expect, and it was very positive that Secretary Miliband and I talked about, for example, the great progress that we’re making around building renewable generation capacity in this country. He was very pleased to hear that, actually, often we’re operating at 98 percent renewable for our electricity generation, so it is a good opportunity to be able to share some of the good progress we’re making around emissions reduction.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Has Cabinet received any advice on the risk of trade retaliation or sanctions under the enforceable climate clauses in our free-trade agreements?

Hon SIMON WATTS: As Minister of Climate Change, I regularly receive advice in regards to a wide range of factors. However, in regards to the member’s question in terms of concerns, I have no concerns in regards to the points which the member is raising. We are ensuring that we are meeting all of our obligations, and, actually, on this side of the House, we’re a very busy Government in regards to signing more of those free-trade agreements, and I acknowledge Minister McClay for his work in that area.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question, the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Francisco Hernandez: Point of order.

SPEAKER: Sorry, it’s a point of order—the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, mine’s a question.

SPEAKER: Sorry; hang on. Hang on.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: You gave me the question and then he jumped up out of turn and wanted a point of order.

SPEAKER: A point of order trumps a question.

Francisco Hernandez: You’ve been trumped, Mr Peters.

SPEAKER: Sorry?

Francisco Hernandez: He’s been trumped.

SPEAKER: Listen, sit down. Don’t waste the House’s time with that sort of stuff.

Francisco Hernandez: Can I ask my point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table the Freedom of Information Act request that Dr Deborah Russell is referring to where the UK Government is expressing concerns.

SPEAKER: Is that a document that is—

Francisco Hernandez: It’s not publicly available.

SPEAKER: Why not?

Francisco Hernandez: It’s from a Freedom of Information Act request—it’s from a Freedom of Information Act request.

SPEAKER: If it’s the Freedom of Information Act, how is it not publicly available?

Francisco Hernandez: Because they’re released to private individuals and not disclosed publicly. That’s quite often the case.

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

Document, by leave, subsequently laid on the Table of the House.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister as to whether Miliband has talked to him about his views on China, India, Russia, and the USA being 60 percent of the world’s emissions now?

Hon SIMON WATTS: I regularly engage with colleagues, including Secretary Miliband, ensuring to discuss and ensure that all countries are providing contributions in regards to emissions reduction. First and foremost, my priority as Minister of Climate Change is to ensure that New Zealand is playing its part. As a Government, we are committed to the targets, and we are on track in regards to meeting those.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Isn’t the reality that one of our most significant trading partners has expressed concerns over our commitments to climate change, and that by obfuscating around that and refusing to accept that reality, he and Christopher Luxon are actually gambling with our exporters’ livelihoods by not meeting our climate commitments?

SPEAKER: I think that’s an interesting way to put a question, but you can’t make an accusation like that. Ask the question again without the bits added.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Isn’t the reality that he and Christopher Luxon are risking our exporters’ livelihoods by backsliding on our climate commitments?

SPEAKER: No, you can’t—try again.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Isn’t the reality that he and Christopher Luxon are risking our exporters’ livelihoods by not meeting our climate commitments?

Hon SIMON WATTS: No.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. Mr Speaker, you put a motion as a request to table a document. Did you notice, though, he didn’t have the document?

SPEAKER: He’s got till 4 o’clock to do that. [Interruption]

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Pardon?

SPEAKER: He’s got till 4 o’clock to do that.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: But you didn’t tell him that.

SPEAKER: Eh?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: He only arrived here yesterday.

SPEAKER: Sorry, just so everyone is clear, if leave is granted to table a document, it needs to be tabled by the end of the day.

Conservation

Question No. 11

MAUREEN PUGH (National—West Coast-Tasman) (14:52) to the Minister of Conservation: What recent announcements has he made regarding conservation concessions?

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation) (14:52): Today, I made announcements regarding the grant of a 38-year concession for the Remarkables ski area near Queenstown Tāhuna, and a grant of a 30-year guided walking concession on Milford Track, and a grant of a 25-year concession for Te Ana-au Caves in Fiordland Te Rua-o-Te-Moko. These concessions strengthen iconic destinations and regional economies while protecting the environment. Long-term concessions give operators the certainty that they need to invest, train staff, and plan ahead.

Maureen Pugh: How will regional South Island communities benefit from these decisions?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: These concessions underpin jobs, transport, accommodation, and conservation across some of our most well-known visitor and manuhiri hotspots, Queenstown, Te Ana-au, and Milford Piopiotahi, which is experiencing a record summer, Minister Upston. The long-term certainty that these decisions give means operators like Paul Anderson, the CEO of NZSki at the Remarkables keep investing in safety, infrastructure, and visitor experiences, building the future economy of the region, and the Speaker’s home island.

Maureen Pugh: How does conservation support New Zealand tourism?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Our majestic conservation lands and waters are some of Aotearoa New Zealand’s biggest tourism magnets, enabling $3 billion to $4 billion of tourism receipts every year. To that, I say, ka wani kē!

[Awesome.]

Not only is the conservation estate a VIP in attracting people to New Zealand, once here, 65 percent of international manuhiri go walking or tramping, and 45 percent visit a national park while in this country. One in five of the Department of Conservation’s 8,000 permissions are for tourism activities.

Maureen Pugh: What is the Government doing to improve decision making for concessions?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Te Papa Atawhai the Department of Conservation is doing the mahi, clearing up the backlog of concessions and speeding up decision times. Application volumes have reduced from around 1,300 in September 2024 to around 500 today. Tourism applications that have been awaiting decision have gone from 400 to less than 100, and the Department of Conservation is investing more time around kanohi ki te kanohi, or face to face, engagement with concessionaires and prospective applicants, introducing IT systems to move away from the antiquated paper-based systems and getting on with the mahi. My conservation reforms will introduce statutory time frames, exempted and pre-approved applications, streamlined public notification, and clearer iwi engagement requirements. Kia ora.

Internal Affairs

Question No. 12

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour—Māngere) (14:55) to the Minister of Internal Affairs: Is she still confident that firefighters have the appliances and equipment they need to do their jobs safely and effectively; if so, why?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (14:55): Yes. It’s a well-known fact there is a legacy of ageing assets that Fire and Emergency inherited. I’m assured by Fire and Emergency that their fleet and equipment are regularly maintained, safe, certified, and legally compliant. They have also assured me they have a robust servicing programme of planned maintenance and repairs and there is an ongoing programme of asset replacement. Fire and Emergency has been retiring its oldest trucks and adding around 40 new ones each year, investing around $20 million annually. A further 78 trucks are on their way, in addition to the 317 already delivered since Fire and Emergency was established.

Lemauga Lydia Sosene: How can she be confident given the continual failure of aerial appliances, including 32 breakdowns of high-ladder trucks in 2025 in Auckland alone?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I do have confidence, and I know that all New Zealanders wish to have confidence that the right resources will arrive quickly to an incident. With a fleet of around 1,300 trucks, operational issues are unavoidable, but they aren’t evidence of a lack of investment or safety. To the issue of the aerial appliances specifically, I understand Fire and Emergency is investing $12.5 million in five new aerial appliances, scheduled to arrive this year.

Lemauga Lydia Sosene: How can she be confident when both Rotorua’s and Hamilton’s aerial appliances and Greerton’s Command Unit failed at the Taupo-nui-a-Tia College fire over the weekend, with Greerton’s appliance unable to reach the scene at all?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Look, I’ve been assured Fire and Emergency is undertaking an incident review in relation to Taupō, including the tactics that were used. I am advised, in this instance, that alternative tactics were available to firefighters while the aerial appliance was unavailable, and would reiterate that Fire and Emergency is investing $12.5 million in five new aerial appliances scheduled to arrive this year. But in relation to the other specific instances that she has been referring to, in any instance firefighters can apply a range of tactics, including using hoses at height to direct water on to a fire. Doing this from an aerial appliance or from a roof are both tactics which an incident commander may consider, depending on the circumstances, the type of incidents, and the resources available. But, look, I would once again reassure the public that while there may be some breakdowns—because of course, with a fleet of 1,300 trucks, there are always going to be some operational issues—Fire and Emergency operates a network approach to responding to an incident, which ensures that there are backup trucks and crews available to respond as required, so a breakdown does not mean that no one is coming.

Lemauga Lydia Sosene: Why, in the face of repeated equipment failures, which are forcing firefighters to put their lives on the line—including climbing up the sides of burning buildings due to aerial failures—is she cutting more than $50 million a year from the Fire and Emergency New Zealand budget?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: These things are not connected. One of the things that has been really apparent over the years is that we have an ageing fleet—very, very important that we invest more, which is what Fire and Emergency is doing. But one of the criticisms I have heard time and time again is that there is too much fat in the back office within Fire and Emergency. We are asking Fire and Emergency to find efficiencies within their back-office functions, like we are asking all other Government departments to do when we have cost of living issues. I think every New Zealander out there who knows that their insurance contracts pay for the fire levy that pays for Fire and Emergency would be very happy to hear that this Minister and this Government is taking into account their cost of living constraints so that we get efficiencies, the money goes further, it goes to those trucks, and it doesn’t go to fat in the back office.

Lemauga Lydia Sosene: Will she cancel her $50 million a year in cuts and, instead, invest in equipment and appliances to allow firefighters to do their jobs safely and effectively?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: One of the things I want to make abundantly clear is that there are no cuts to front-line trucks and maintenance, like the member seems to be alluding to. It has always been the case that, when the two fire agencies were merged, people wanted to see some sort of efficiency. That efficiency has never been found—not until this Government.

Government Business

Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement

Debate resumed from 11 February.

RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East) (15:02): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise and to speak in reply to the Prime Minister’s statement, which he gave back in January. It is a real privilege.

Before I go any further, like many of my parliamentary colleagues around the House, I would like to acknowledge those who have lost their lives in the recent weather events, and, of course, also the friends and family of those who were affected. E ngā hungamate, haere, haere, haere atu rā. [Farewell to those passed.]

I really want to acknowledge our Prime Minister and our leader and the work that he has been doing over the last two years. There was some criticism that his speech was a little short, or that it wasn’t sizzling, but we take fixing the basics seriously, and there is so much that we have done as a Government in the last two years that it was a case of going through and providing context. It’s very easy to forget the environment and the economic situation we inherited, with massive debt, ministries falling apart, huge inflation, and then, on top of all of that, he has been able to lead a Government with the first three-way formal coalition in New Zealand’s history. For the first time in New Zealand’s history, we’ve got a three-way formal coalition Government, and I am pleased to report that it’s going very well—that this National-led Government, with our friends New Zealand First and ACT, are strong, cohesive, and ready to go again later this year.

I want to pay a special mention to a few of the key reforms that we’ve started; one in particular was talked about yesterday by Minister Erica Stanford, and that was around education. It can sound simplistic when we talk about an hour of reading, writing, and maths, but those basics are fundamental to our next generation of children. Things like removing cellphones from schools created a little bit of noise at first, but I go around and see schools, and teachers thank us because it has made their job so much easier. Some of the schools had the autonomy to make that decision themselves, but it was politically charged dealing with parents and parent-teacher associations in board meetings. The decision was the right one, and we’ve never looked back as a country, and people enjoy going to schools and hearing the noise of children in the playground, laughing and playing like many of us used to when we were kids. It’s just fantastic.

Also, the changes around helping parents to understand what their children are actually learning. I was there, as a parent, trying to understand the process that they would use to grade our children, and we couldn’t understand and we couldn’t lean in. There’s so much more clarity provided to that now, it makes it so much easier.

It’s also a privilege to see the result of this Government, in my own electorate. Now, just over two and a half years as the MP for Hamilton East, I’ve got good news to report to my constituents. The great city, where the mighty river runs through it, I had a bit of a crack at doing a manu recently.

Hon Member: Terrible!

RYAN HAMILTON: It was terrible for those that saw it. But nevertheless, I had a go, and the community loved it because that river is very special to our community, it’s a life force—the mighty Waikato.

There’s some really good things happening in Hamilton coming up. As much as it’s Wellington’s loss, we’ve got Homegrown, the musical festival which is going to be attracting 30,000 people to Hamilton on 14 March.

Dan Bidois: City of the future.

RYAN HAMILTON: Indeed, the city of the future. Thank you, Mr Bidois. We’ve got Balloons Over Waikato, that will be attracting over 130,000 people over the five-day event.

It was a great day at the University of Waikato today. We had the Minister of Finance there. I wasn’t there, but she was delivering a great speech, and she was pleased to remind everyone that she could point to the Waikato medical school, New Zealand’s third medical school, where 120 GPs will be being trained every year from 2028. It’s so good.

Might I also say that this is the year for the Chiefs—the mighty Chiefs. Ko ngā Chiefs te tīma hākinakina e tautoko ana au. [The Chiefs is the sports team that I support.] I’m all for the Chiefs, this year.

The regional theatre has just opened up in the main street of Hamilton—BNZ Theatre, 1,300 seats available. It’s going to be fantastic.

I have a message for New Zealanders: keep supporting this National-led Government, because we’re all about fixing the basics and building the future.

SUZE REDMAYNE (National—Rangitīkei) (15:07): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Our Government was elected with an ambitious goal: to get New Zealand back on track. We’re seeing evidence of economic recovery, infrastructure investment, and better health and education outcomes. We’re on a roll, ladies and gentlemen. We’ve got safer communities across the mighty Rangitīkei as we continue to focus on building the future.

I’d like to take some time to highlight just some of what we’ve done and some of the amazing communities and people in the mighty Rangitīkei. First of all, a shout-out to some of the kids I met from Huntley School yesterday who were in question time and I caught up with in the education centre last week. Outstanding; a tribute to what we’re doing in education.

Look, we’re delivering for health, as well. We’ve invested $12.7 million in two new modular CT units at Palmerston North Hospital. We’re doubling the scanning capacity, so increasing it by 3,000 scans a year. It is fantastic. Shorter wait times, better outcomes.

Hon Member: Brilliant.

SUZE REDMAYNE: Brilliant.

Just yesterday, Minister of Health Simeon Brown announced that we have started the construction on the new emergency department (ED).

Hon Member: Great news.

SUZE REDMAYNE: It’s brilliant news for Palmerston North. It’ll increase the capacity by 40 percent. The ED was built 25 years ago, and the demand for it has far exceeded what it was designed for. It’s going to stay open—it’s going to stay open—while they’re doing the renovations, while they’re fixing it up. It will be ready in June 2026. It’s great news for Horowhenua and for the people of the mighty Rangitīkei.

Hon Member: Brilliant, Suze.

SUZE REDMAYNE: It’s fantastic. I’m telling you, it’s fantastic.

We’re also backing law and order, and we’re backing our police, too. I’d like to take this opportunity to welcome Inspector Matenga (Marty) Gray. I was privileged to go to his pōwhiri on Tuesday, in Levin. He is the new area commander for our region. It was great to be at the Kohuturoa Marae in Levin on Tuesday. I’d also like to take this opportunity to thank Inspector Ross Grantham for his 47 years of service to the police force, and wish him well in his retirement—he deserves it.

Look, one of the core values of the National Party is building and supporting strong families and caring communities. As the local MP, one of the things I enjoy the most is getting out and about in our community. It all came together for me at Waitangi weekend. It started at the Rongotea and Districts Lions Club, where they have an annual Waitangi Day gala—absolutely brilliant. All the money raised is raised for the community, in the community, and goes back to the community to support local projects. I went to Foxton where it was an awesome family fun day, and then I ended up in Lake Horowhenua with Muaūpoko’s celebrations in full swing. I met the amazing Lulu, who taught me, believe it or not, with a pasta machine, how to transform flax and make hāpine—when it has that sort of textured, woven feel. Incredible. Saturday and Sunday were all about celebrating our rural roots, and it was all about shearing. We went—

Hon Jo Luxton: Suze, are you just reading out your diary?

SUZE REDMAYNE: I’m talking about rural roots. We’re backing rural New Zealand in this economy.

Hon Member: Tell us more! Tell us more!

SUZE REDMAYNE: I’m telling you! When you’re renowned for producing the best lamb in the world—and wool—with $4.5 billion in export receipts, it was great to watch the shearers.

Hon Willie Jackson: This is so inspiring!

SUZE REDMAYNE: Thank you. You should be inspired by our farmers, Willie! You should be inspired. Now, I’ve got to tell you a little story about the Argyle in Hunterville.

Hon Member: Yes, please.

SUZE REDMAYNE: Yes, I will. A little story about the Argyle in Hunterville—a fantastic pub. The community got together, bought a building, set up a board of directors, and they rejuvenated it, re-established it, got it up and running, and they had a shearing competition on Sunday. It was absolutely amazing.

We’ve seen success across rural New Zealand because of our Government’s policies. I am proud to say that what drives rural New Zealand drives this Government. It’s about being relentlessly focused on fixing the basics and building the future for communities and Kiwis across New Zealand.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: We got there.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) (15:12): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Now, for anyone who is still watching at home and anyone who is left in the gallery, this is actually a debate on the Prime Minister’s statement—you wouldn’t know it from those last two speeches. We had Ryan Hamilton, who was telling everybody about how he does manus in the river and encouraging people to go and support the Chiefs, and then, bizarrely, he finished with a pleading to continue to support the National Party, which I think actually speaks volumes. And Suze Redmayne, who I’ve actually got a hell of a lot of time for, resorted to reading out her diary. But the problem with when you share your speeches and you split the 10-minute call between two is that she only got to Wednesday, so we’re going to have to wait till next year to find out what she got up to Thursday through Sunday!

The funny thing is that both of those speeches were better than Christopher Luxon’s. I’m not surprised that neither of them mentioned either the Prime Minister’s statement or the bloke who said it, because, by golly, that was a dud of a speech—an absolute dud. This is election year. This is the year that the National Party should be talking about all their achievements. Their leader stood up and ran out of puff after 14 minutes—he had six minutes spare. He actually ran out of things to say because they haven’t achieved anywhere near what they are pretending to achieve.

The thing is, deep down, I think they’ve given up. I actually think they have given up. They’ve given up trying to find a solution to the problems that are facing this country and the problems that they have created. What they’re doing now is just simply trying to make it look like they’re doing things and trying to kid New Zealanders. The thing with New Zealanders, though, is that they are not thick and they are not going to fall for this.

Just look at this nonsense that we saw from the Government about the firefighters. Firefighters are the most trusted profession in this country, and when they say that it has never been this bad, Kiwis believe them, and Brooke van Velden did nothing to assuage that. She actually would have made things worse, because she knows that things have never been worse, and she knows that this Government are making it worse, and that they are doing absolutely nothing about it.

Look at the roads. They’ve gone round the country promising almost every community a big, flash road. They can’t pay for it—and they know they can’t pay for it. There is a massive gap in their roading budget, and Chris Bishop thinks, “I know. I’ve tried to kid New Zealanders. What I’ll do is I’ll just tell them, and then, when I’m held to account, I’ll say, ‘Oh, I’ve already told them that.’ ” It doesn’t actually get them off the hook. They have promised $30 billion of roading—more than they can actually pay for—and then they turn around and say, “Oh, no, what this country wants is certainty, because if there’s a change of Government, they want to know what you’re going to do.” I’m not sure that’s the zinger they think it is, because inherent in that is the fear—a real fear—that there’s going to be a change of Government.

There should be a change of Government, because just this week sums them up. How are we going to address the cost of living. I know! We’re going to put a gas tax on New Zealanders, and then what we’re going to do is tell them that taxing them more will save them money. Genius—genius! That is exactly what they have done. I just don’t quite get it because, surely, they must realise that New Zealanders are smart enough to see through this nonsense. But, no, they are still pushing it. They started by calling it a levy, but then they realised that a levy is a tax, so we better not call it a levy, and then they denied it was a levy, only for Winston Peters to say it was a tax, and David Seymour to say it was a levy, and the Cabinet paper to say it was a levy—but Simon Watts said it was a charge, and then Christopher Luxon said it was a fee. Whatever it is, it’s higher costs for New Zealanders, and it is not going to achieve what they say it’s going to achieve. There’s one way to clear this up: they could release the modelling they say they have, but they actually haven’t, and there’s a reason why—because it doesn’t add up. Neither do their claims that things are getting better for New Zealanders.

Now, I’ve got a question for my colleagues: how many people have come up to you in the street over the last week or two and have said, “Things are getting better.”? Any? No—none. I guarantee that if I ask the Green Party, they’ll give the same answer. Have you had anyone come to you? No. I don’t want to know who’s come up to New Zealand First and said things; they’ve been talking to the cookers, so I’m going to leave that one out of it. But I bet you that ACT and National will claim that they have, because they are talking to landlords and they are talking to large-scale multinational businesses—the two groups that they are here to serve. They are certainly not here to serve ordinary New Zealanders. They are certainly not here to serve workers—and you only need to look at their voting record this week where they are stripping rights away from New Zealand workers. The only people who are actually better off because of this Government are their mates. They are a party of and for landlords, and that couldn’t be more obvious, because one of the first things they did when they came into Government was to give landlords a $3 billion tax cut. Then, they turn around and say, “Sorry, we don’t have money to pay our lowest-wage workers anymore. We don’t have money to put into firefighting equipment. We don’t have money to put into all the massive gaps in health.”

New Zealanders are seeing through it. You can only get a fib through so many times, and it’s wearing incredibly thin. What New Zealanders want to see from this Government, not blame—because that is all you get. It doesn’t matter. They are the ones who decided to prioritise tax cuts for those who didn’t need them; they are the ones who decided to prioritise tax cuts for tobacco companies; and they are the ones who are now underfunding crucial services in this country, and when they turn around and blame the previous Government, no one believes them. No one believes them, because they know it isn’t true. They know it doesn’t stack up, and they know that these guys are getting increasingly desperate. This is why they’ve started little political games, like calling for us to support this and support that—because they’re worried about losing their jobs. That is why they are starting to do inquiries that report back one month before the election—because they want somebody else to blame for their own mistakes. But New Zealanders will see right through it.

Just look at their record on housing. We saw the biggest attempt to gaslight today: “Look how good we are”, Chris Bishop said. “Look what good we’ve done with Kāinga Ora.” He forgot to mention that, actually, they’ve cancelled 3,500 house builds through Kāinga Ora, and they have cancelled emergency housing. Homelessness is at the highest record ever. Those on the front line are saying it is the worst that it has ever been in living memory, and when the City Mission says it’s the worst it’s ever been,—and they’ve been around since before World War II—everyone should take note. They have caused the biggest increase in homelessness in this country’s history, and then what they’ve tried to do is turn around and say, “Hey, look, we’ve turned things around. Look how good we are. Kiwis will not look through it.”

The thing is, just look at the books that have come out today. They are claiming that they have saved a billion dollars. Do you know how much they’ve saved by keeping people on the street, by not giving them emergency housing? A billion dollars. There are the savings. The people who are paying for this Government’s savings are the people who are living on the street—the families, the young people, the old people, those that should be looked after that are living on the street are the ones that are paying for their savings. That is shameful. It is utterly shameful.

New Zealanders actually want something to be offered to them—not excuses, not blame, not shifting little distractions and political games; they want to know that the cost of living is actually going to be dealt with, not political power stunts but actual help. They want a Government that will invest in this country, not sell off the assets like the National Party wants to do. This is like going back in time: every time they stuff things up, they say the solution is to sell our assets. Well, we say that is wrong. We say we should preserve our assets and reinvest in those so that we can actually invest in infrastructure and invest in jobs and give New Zealanders a chance. That is why we put out the Future Fund. That is an actual policy that will help people, and it is a clear choice between the National Party, who want to sell things, and the Labour Party, who want to preserve them and invest in our people.

That is why we are offering three free doctors visits to every New Zealander. So the choice is clear—the choice is incredibly clear. If New Zealanders want to pay for their doctors visits, vote for the National Party. If they want to have three free doctors visits, vote for the Labour Party. It’s pretty straightforward. Do you want our assets sold? Vote for the National Party. Do you want them protected? Vote for the Labour Party. Are you a cooker? Vote for New Zealand First. It’s pretty straightforward. It is pretty straightforward and a pretty clear choice for New Zealanders heading into this election, one that is actually going to determine so much for our future, for our young people, for our education, for our health system.

It is not too late to save our system, but we need to invest in it. New Zealanders have a choice: they can have a dud Prime Minister who can’t even talk about what they have achieved because they haven’t done anything, or they can have a Prime Minister in Chris Hipkins, who cares about them and is dedicated to them and will actually deliver.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (15:22): Well, it took him nine minutes and 50 seconds until he mentioned his leader’s name in his speech. That was actually a leadership pitch from Kieran McAnulty, and he had more energy for his speech than Chris Hipkins had for his.

This Government has a clear plan that we are delivering for New Zealand, and we had a fantastic speech by our Prime Minister, Christopher Luxon, where he set out our plan to fix the basics and build the future, and to clean up the mess left behind by the Labour Party of their six years in Government, led by Chris Hipkins.

We’ve got to remember what Chris Hipkins did. He was Minister of Police. How did that go? Ram raids through the roof. He was Minister of Health. What happened to waiting lists—skyrocketing waiting lists with thousands and thousands of people waiting, waiting, waiting. The number of people waiting over four months for an elective treatment went up by over 2,500 percent; and Chris Hipkins was the Minister of Health. He was the Minister of Education. How did that go? Well, he wasn’t focused on reading, writing, and maths, was he? If they knew a bit about maths, maybe they wouldn’t have left this country so screwed up fiscally, which is what we have been left behind. Maybe if he had done a bit more maths, he would have worked out that 7 percent inflation ain’t a good number—7 percent inflation; that’s the mess left behind by the Labour Party.

We have a big job in this Government to fix—fixing the basics. That is a tough job. We are making the tough decisions that the last Government wouldn’t make. We’ve got wasteful expenditure under control. Remember what they did? Two hundred and seventy millions dollars spent on consultants for “Auckland Light Fail”—$270 million. And they have the gall to now get up in this House to talk about transport policy!

How many metres of track were built, Mr Tangi Utikere? Not one metre of track, despite over $200 million being wasted on consultancy expenditure under that Government. Of course, we all remember up in Auckland the harbour bridge cycleway crossing—$50 million that they wasted on the harbour bridge crossing. Of course, all of the wasteful expenditure through COVID and all of the other things they wasted money on have put inflation up, interest rates up, and New Zealand households and businesses paid the price with the high interest rates and the high inflation and the cost of living crisis that that party left behind.

We’re having to stop the crazy waste of expenditure. We’ve brought wasteful expenditure under control, and we’re focusing Government back on fixing the basics. That is what New Zealanders elected us to do. Of course, we’re doing that, whether that’s in transport, focusing on fixing the potholes; whether that’s in health, reducing wait-lists; whether that’s in education, actually making sure we’re getting children reading, writing, and doing maths—one hour a day of reading, writing, and maths, focused on achievement, not woke ideology by the Labour Party ideology. We are focusing back on the basics, on this side of the House.

I’m incredibly proud, as Minister of Health, to see the progress that we are making when it comes to health. Of course, we’re reminded that when Labour came to office in 2017, 89 percent of people were being seen within six hours in our emergency departments. That went back to 67.5 percent under Labour. I’m pleased to see the progress that we’re seeing with that target now improving and meeting the improved expectations that we’re seeing through the improvement of our health targets and the work of our health targets and the work of our front-line doctors and nurses. Of course, the number of patients waiting for an elected treatment: over four months—an increase by over 2,500 percent.

We’ve brought Elective Boost in. We’re working across the public and private systems to get more people their hips, their knees, their cataracts done sooner. We’ve hired around 2,000 more nurses in Health New Zealand, and there are hundreds more doctors working on the front line. They were focused on restructuring the health system during a pandemic—hundreds of millions on consultancy expenditure, changing logos and letterheads. We’re focused on patients, focused on front-line workers, focused on delivering.

They talk about health infrastructure—six years talking about Dunedin Hospital. We’ve got a construction contract signed to deliver it. We’re getting the work done. They talked about it. They said they would get spades in the ground for the Nelson Hospital between 2020 and 2023—a spade probably didn’t even arrive in Nelson, but we’ve funded the build of that hospital. Of course, we’re getting wards put up, up and down the country, and even in Palmerston North yesterday there was an extension of the emergency department services. We are delivering the infrastructure that our health system is needing. This is fixing the basics and building the future, and cleaning up the mess left behind by the previous Government.

That’s all because we also have invested record funding into our health system, with over $16 billion across three Budgets into our health system. That is funding going to the front line, going to more services, getting more done—we’ve had a 10 percent increase in elective surgeries being delivered in our health system over the past two years because of our focus on the front-line services.

We’re also focused on building the future. One of the most exciting things that is progressing this year is the new Waikato medical school—such an exciting advancement for tertiary medical training in New Zealand: a third medical school, which is only happening because we have a National Government. We campaigned on it and we’re delivering it. If Labour had got elected in 2023, that would not have happened; we wouldn’t have as many doctors being trained here in New Zealand. On that side of the House, they are not taking the long-term future. We’re not only fixing their mess but building the future, and we have spades in the grounds, construction under way—we’re a Government of action and a Government of delivery; they’re a Government of all just talk and focus on themselves. Of all the things they have talked about, I noticed there was one thing missing from Kieran McAnulty’s speech—and I haven’t heard much of it from the Opposition.

Rima Nakhle: One only?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, there were a lot of things missing, weren’t there, Rima? But it was a good leadership pitch, if that’s what he’s after. But no one in the Opposition is talking about the capital gains tax, are they? No one’s talking about the capital gains tax. Why wouldn’t Kieran McAnulty, the wannabe Leader of the Opposition, want to talk about the capital gains tax—the capital gains tax which they don’t want to talk about? Well, maybe that’s because they’re not sure whether that’s the only tax they’re going to try to bring in. Of course, they don’t quite know what sort of party coalition make-up—you’ve got Chris Hipkins saying, “Well, we’re not really keen to work with Te Pāti Māori” and Willie Jackson is out there saying, “We’re going to work with Te Pāti Māori.”

Of course, you just have to go through the taxes that the Green Party and Te Pāti Māori want to bring to the “Coalition of Tax” on the other side: the wealth taxes, the inheritance taxes, the savings taxes, the death taxes, the KiwiSaver taxes, the property taxes, the savings taxes. If it’s got a tax, they’re right there. They love those taxes, don’t they? They are addicted to spending, they’re addicted to borrowing, and they’re addicted to taxing hard-working New Zealanders and stopping them from getting ahead. On this side of the House, we’re proud to have delivered tax cuts, reducing the tax burden on working families—the first time in 14 years, something the last Government failed to do. Of course, Labour voted against the first tax reduction in 14 years, and now they just can’t wait to tax, tax, tax. There is a very clear choice at this upcoming election on 7 November: vote for a National Party for lower taxes; vote for a Labour - Te Pāti Māori - Green Party “Coalition of Taxation”, a coalition of increased taxes on working families who are trying to get ahead.

We’re focused on fixing the basics and building the future, delivering, fixing the problems left behind by the last Government—the high inflation, the high interest rates— making the difference in our core public services, and reinvesting in front-line services like health, education, and law and order. We’re seeing a significant improvement in safety on our streets. When we get out there and talk to our communities, people are telling us they are feeling the difference in our communities, in the classroom, on the streets. They’re seeing a health system focused on them as patients, not on bureaucracy. We have a lot more work to do, but we have a plan to do it. The Prime Minister’s statement clearly outlined that plan, and we can’t wait to get on and get it done.

KAHURANGI CARTER (Green) (15:32): Thank you, Madam Speaker. We’ve heard the Prime Minister say he’s serious about building the future. We’ve heard this over and over again, and it’s clear that the future he is building is for the privileged few and his big-dog corporate mates, who keep lining their greedy pockets with hard-working Kiwis’ money. When people show you who they are, believe them. The PM’s blanket Budget cuts honour the National Party’s god: the economy. Decisions the Prime Minister and his Ministers have made cause actual harm to people and planet and actual harm to our kids, and it’s our kids who are our future.

The Prime Minister can learn a lot from Christchurch about who we listen to, how we move, and what we choose to value. Almost 15 years on from the earthquakes, Ōtautahi Christchurch is serious about building the future for everyone. Like the phoenix that has risen from the ashes, Christchurch is the place to be. It’s not a perfect story, but we have important lessons for the PM. People are flocking to Christchurch: young people, families, professionals, retirees. That hasn’t happened by accident; it has taken the intentional work of many who are serious about building a better future. The University of Canterbury is the uni of choice for young people these days. I’ll see you all at clubs’ day next week. I believe in you.

Our city centre is growing up with multi-density warm, safe, dry homes. We have libraries where people from all walks of life feel inspired and welcome, playgrounds and sports fields, and the most incredible public art. Right now, the Flare Street Art Festival is happening. Artists are painting our city with massive scale murals in collaboration with Sea Signals, a public art festival for ocean conservation. Public art adds to the cultural richness of our thriving and connected city. Christchurch is the embodiment of Green values.

Every day I wake up in Christchurch, I am reminded why I fight so hard alongside my Green team for the changes needed in our beautiful country. Ōtautahi has shown the Prime Minister that green cities are a reality in Aotearoa. Today, I share three lessons for the PM that he can learn from Christchurch, because Christchurch is serious about building the future, not just for the big dogs but for everyone. After the earthquakes, it was hard to imagine what the future of Christchurch Central would look like. Today, Christchurch is thriving because the people of Christchurch are resilient and care about each other. Ōtautahi today was once a vision that is now a reality, a vision for building a future for everyone.

The first lesson that Christchurch has for the PM is that partnerships with mana whenua have profound results. The mana whenua of Christchurch is Ngāi Tūāhuriri, and they have played a central role in reimagining our city. Has it been perfect? No. Is there more to do? Yes. But this Luxon Government has taken a sledgehammer to partnerships and community building. Christchurch is not afraid of Māori language on signage. You will see Māori names incorporated into the fabric of our beautiful city. Fifteen years ago, people didn’t know the Māori name for Christchurch; now everyone knows Ōtautahi is Christchurch. It’s not confusing or scary; it’s beautiful.

After the earthquakes, our communities came together: Ngāi Tahu, Ngāi Tūāhuriri, the local council, local businesses, artists, community leaders, and the wider community, stepping in where the Government failed. Today, and together in partnership, they are serious about building the future. Many parts of Christchurch where people used to live became a red zone, where thousands of homes were demolished and communities were uprooted, but through disaster comes opportunity, and the red zone, which the Ōtākaro Avon River flows through, has become a “green” zone. I’ve joined hundreds of volunteers, who have planted over 50,000 native trees already, thanks to the wonderful work of Conservation Volunteers Christchurch, planning a future for our kids and every generation after.

The second lesson for the PM is how designing our cities around people, not cars, works. In Christchurch, we have safer streets and more connected communities. That is building stronger local economies. Like many parents, I want my kids to be safe when they’re walking or biking to school. This year, Christchurch was named the No. 1 most bicycle-friendly city in Asia and Oceania. That didn’t happen by accident; that was our community and having a bold vision. But the Prime Minister doesn’t share Christchurch’s vision for our future. His Government cut almost a billion dollars in planned transport funding for Christchurch. We were going to have $800 million for mass rapid transport and our Green MPs Lan Pham and Mike Davidson, who were local councillors at the time, secured $78 million for bus improvements, but Luxon’s Government was like, “Nah, actually we know better.” There would have been money left for safe cycleways also.

Almost a billion dollars secured for Christchurch, ripped away by Luxon’s Government, but still Christchurch will rise like the phoenix. Just last week, Spokes Canterbury held an event for the public about improving Ōtautahi’s cycleways, and Greater Ōtautahi members fight for better public transport so that everyone can participate in the community. Our city centre is thriving, and our local businesses love it.

Christchurch has proven that cities designed around people, not cars, is not Green idealism. Walkable, bikeable cities are mainstream and practical, and they help cities and the people that live in them.

In New Zealand, one in five children lives in a household where food sometimes or often runs out. When the Prime Minister was questioned about this, his reply was “We’re fixing the economy.” The callousness of that reply, when children are going hungry through no fault of their own, and then we’ve got “Discount Dave” cutting school lunch money, all while children in Aotearoa are going hungry.

Our Christchurch community shows up at the supermarket at the Christchurch City Mission, where people have dignity and choice, and at Satisfy Food Rescue and Kairos, who save food from going into landfill and redistribute it to the community, filling hungry bellies. Food to farm activities for kids, like at Te Pā o Rākaihautū—local solutions that make life better for people in Christchurch, where kids don’t go hungry.

The Ōtautahi youth hub opened in Christchurch in 2024 because local visionaries like Dame Sue Bagshaw know that when our children and young people get the support they need, the future of Aotearoa New Zealand is bright. Dame Sue has fought for trans rights since for ever ago because trans people are a part of our community and they deserve to be safe and to have access to healthcare—all this while the Prime Minister allows his Ministers to incite hate that causes actual harm to trans and gender-diverse people.

The Prime Minister allows his Ministers to cut child safety care organisations’ funding and say that they are cash cows, with no evidence, and to then use that reasoning to cut funding to safety care organisations without even looking at how that will affect children. In the Salvation Army report released yesterday, it showed the horrific reality that after child safety care organisations had had their funding cut, violence against children increased by 44 percent in 2024. Is that the Prime Minister’s vision for building a better future?

Our youth hub provides everything that Christchurch’s young people need, but Luxon’s Government has cut funding to Te Tahi Youth and to Voyce Whakarongo Mai. It’s clear that the Prime Minister is serious about building a future where our communities are the ones picking up the slack.

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction) (15:42): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise in support of the Prime Minister’s statement to begin this, the election year of 2026, a year of fixing the basics and building the future. Indeed, it’s been a term of that, and I look forward to explaining to the House just how well we’re going in the various parts of the economy that we are restoring, along with law and order, and providing those health and education services so well for this country.

But, first, I do want to just take a moment to acknowledge the tragedy that was the events of the severe weather suffered by various parts of the North Island earlier this year. The Prime Minister and others have been on the ground and they’ve been working closely with locals, including iwi and other community groups, first responders, and the National Emergency Management Agency, and I do want to shout out and thank all of those who have worked so hard in the community. In the days and nights of those events, the response was hugely important, but the recovery is important, as well, going forwards.

I’m really grateful to the Prime Minister for entrusting me with a role to support Mr Mitchell in helping those areas recover. I want to commit to the House to work in a non-partisan way across the House, and we’ve had good interaction with local MPs of different political parties, including, of course, National MPs on the ground. I’ve been delighted to spend time on the ground with them in areas such as Northland, the Coromandel, the East Coast Tairāwhiti, and in all these areas there that are affected, including—and I’ve saved a last mention for it—the Tauranga area and the landslides that caused the tragedy at the campground and also across at Welcome Bay and Papamoa. We acknowledge and we respect the memory of those who have lost their lives.

We’re determined to learn the lessons, and we’re also determined that our ongoing work to improve resilience in terms of flooding and in terms of roading will continue. As part of the Government’s broader effort to build the future, we know that we’ve got to have sensible climate adaptation plans, and I am grateful to be part of a Government that is focused on doing those things for the long term, as well as acting in the short term to alleviate the pressure that these communities are feeling.

As far as fixing the basics goes, I’m really pleased to talk about a building and construction sector that we inherited in the doldrums, to say the very least, with all the macroeconomic factors and the morale of the workers, the tradies—of course, the chippies, the plumbers, the sparkies, and so on—at a record low because of the conditions that arose following the COVID-19 response, following the high interest rates that followed the inflation fuelled by high Government spending. These have been a tough few years for the construction sector. The good news, however, is that we have turned a corner, and while not every tradie will have a full book all the time immediately, the reality is that up and down this country, there is more work and there is more demand for work. Tradies, for example, are seeing demand up by 43 percent, according to data from SEEK, 9 percent was the increase in the dwelling consents last year as compared with the year before, and, of course, this year we anticipate further ongoing, steady growth.

That’s the kind of growth that we should want, particularly for the construction sector, which has been historically beset by boom-bust cycles, including the artificial sugar high followed by the headache of the crash that we experienced in those post-COVID years with the large money-printing operation that we are, rightly, examining as a Government because the people of New Zealand, including the construction sector, deserve not to suffer through that again. For anyone nervous about the prospects of having another boom-bust cycle in that kind of way, they would be well advised to avoid voting Labour ever again.

What are we also doing in the construction sector to make life easier for those tradies? It’s about providing a pathway for competent, qualified, and registered professionals such as plumbers and the other tradies. Specifically, in the case of plumbing, we’re broadening the ambit of what they’re able to sign off themselves, just like with the electricians, but for all the relevant qualified professionals, in relation to granny flats, we’re saying that “For up to 70 square metres, you don’t need a resource consent. You don’t need a building consent. Get on and do it. Provide the plans, provide the sign-off, and provide the assurance.” That came into effect on 15 January this year, and I regard that as a case of both fixing the basics and building for the future.

We’ve seen other initiatives continue to roll forward. Building products are much more readily available in this country. Just this very week, an extra 40,000 products from Australia’s WaterMark Certification Scheme, for example—plumbing and drainage products—are now readily available in this country, where they don’t have to jump through all the hoops that they previously did with their local council as a building consent authority.

We’re also reforming the earthquake-prone building system. Yes, we’re going to be careful to get that detail right, and, yes, we do need to engage in a diligent fashion this year as that goes through the legislative process in this House, but, in short, we want a balanced, proportionate, risk-aware system that focuses on the buildings that are the most high-risk, because that will be of great benefit to cities and regions throughout this country.

I want to talk a bit about small business and manufacturing, as well. It’s axiomatic that small business is the backbone of the nation and the economy, and there’d be few who would disagree with that, I suspect. What we’re doing is we’re actually removing some of the red tape, some of those barriers that actually make it difficult for them to operate. Some of it is sector-specific, and some of it is across the economy in areas such as employment relations and health and safety—and I want to commend the work that other Government Ministers have been doing in that space.

Some of the work has been individual Ministers and agencies and, of course, civil society, along with the businesses and their groups themselves, advocating for a better way with more investment and a smarter approach to actually improve the business environment—and I’d like to commend, for example, the approach of the tourism sector, with the leadership of the Hon Louise Upston. Many small businesses that happen to be in the tourism space, either explicitly or because they happen to be some business that’s located in a tourism hotspot, are seeing a much better rate of return. They’re seeing a much-improved circumstance this year already, compared with last year, which, in turn, was better than the year before, and partly that’s due to the investment and the focus that’s being provided through a smart application of Government resources to this highly important export sector.

Speaking of export sectors, for manufacturers, who, of course, provide goods and products for New Zealanders as well as overseas, we have seen a real boom in recent times after a tough few years, again, like with other sectors. In the December 2025 statistics which came out earlier this year, as further evidence of fixing the basics and also building for the future, we saw a Performance of Manufacturing Index score of 56.1. That’s above the 50 mark, which would be steady as she goes and maintaining the same expansion rate, or, rather, a flat-line from the previous year. So firmly in expansion mode. The news is good for manufacturers in this country, and I do think that—among other things, including business confidence improving more generally—that reflects the success of the Investment Boost scheme, as brought about by last year’s Budget. Enabling businesses to invest in plant and systems that will improve their productivity, enable them to invest in a way that actually sees them keep more of those profits in their pocket to incentivise that. It’s also an exercise in improving the efficiency and the technological uptake. So it’s been a win-win and we’re already seeing the results of that come through.

Business confidence in general is up across the board, including in retail and hospitality, which, again, were areas that were hard hit following those very difficult years and all the reasons that we’ve discussed around, of course, the high inflation rate with out-of-control Government spending, high interest rates to combat it, and so on. We know how that story goes.

Elsewhere in the small business and manufacturing space: I’ve been really pleased that this year we’ve been able to announce the introduction of an AI pilot, thinking about ways that we can advise Kiwi businesses to invest in their business to improve their productivity and so forward. It’s going to be an exciting year. There’ll be many more examples to share. We look forward to 7 November 2026—the re-election of the current Government, which is fixing the basics and building the future.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: So this is a split call—I call Glen Bennett.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour) (15:51): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. It is always interesting to be in the House and to listen to the contributions from around it. Sometimes they are easier to hear and easy on the ear, and other times they’re a little bit hard to take. But as we reflect on the Prime Minister’s statement several weeks ago, as has been said already, it is interesting to hear that he didn’t have a lot to say—had a bit to say, tried to rally the troops, but actually that didn’t go too well, to be honest. Most of the backbenchers had their heads down and were on their phones or doing other things, which is not a surprise, because it’s quite common in this place.

What I found interesting, as I’ve listened and observed over recent weeks as we’ve had the debate on the Prime Minister’s statement is that the Government MPs, the backbenchers, the frontbenchers, the Ministers, the Prime Minister just can’t stop talking about the Labour Party. They just keep talking and talking about us, and it’s like one of those things—that secret obsession, which isn’t so secret, because they just can’t help themselves. You’d imagine, in an election year, the Prime Minister’s statement and all the MPs, they’d spend the whole five minutes, the whole 10 minutes, the whole 20 minutes talking about themselves; but no, generally it’s seven minutes, eight minutes, talking about us, and then maybe sort of throwing a few bits in about what they’re doing, what they’re trying to do, or maybe just sort of a bit of smoke and mirrors.

We’ve heard this week, in terms of what they’re trying to do and talking about doing when it comes to the cost of living is this gas tax. The whole thing that they’re planning to do some amazing magic and they’re going to fix the energy system and they’re going to make electricity prices cheaper, but they have a gas tax in place. I just think it’s one of those things that is kind of desperate. Because, being from Taranaki and knowing the history of energy in Taranaki, 20 years ago, in 2006, this was proposed as an option—the LNG plant. Just sort of rehashing something from the bottom of the energy Minister’s draw.

Hon James Meager: Oh, have you been reselected!

GLEN BENNETT: But the question is—well, I lived through that and I lived by the port. I knew the debate that went on back 20 years ago. So I know. Guess what happened 20 years ago? Well, they did the case study: the energy companies did their work over several years, they did due diligence on LNG and what it would do. It took them a couple of years. They did the work that needs to be done. What happened? Nothing. Nothing happened. Why? Because they realised it wasn’t economically viable. They realised it wasn’t actually something that made any sense to do. So we hear about the gas tax, we hear about what they’re thinking about, but if you look into the past, you see that you can’t reinvent things that don’t actually work when they’ve actually gone through the proper process and they haven’t gone anywhere.

I stand here and am glad, as being a previous member of the Environment Committee that had to challenge and push against the Fast-track Approvals Bill, which is now the Act. So, again, to stand and see last week that the judge ruled on the case for seabed mining off the South Taranaki coast, to say no. We know that this is the preliminary decision, but it is good news for the people of South Taranaki, it is good news for the people of New Zealand, but more than that, it is good news for our environment, for our oceans, for our fish, for our Māui dolphins. I am glad that with such a horrendous piece of legislation, such a horrendous Act, at least we have a moment of clarity, when we say, “No, this isn’t going to work.”

We need to reflect on homes and the challenge we have and still have on homes. Again, I come back to New Plymouth and Taranaki. For us, when we were in Government, we built more homes than we had for generations. Again, in Taranaki, it was the same thing when it came to our social housing. We had so many on the go. Of course, they were cancelled by this Government. What have we seen? We have seen a 200 percent rise in homelessness in Taranaki—a 200 percent rise in—[Interruption]. Listen up, because you should be ashamed of that. The members of the Government should be ashamed of that, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr Bennett.

GLEN BENNETT: A 200 percent rise in homelessness since this Government has been in office. If you’re not doing anything about that, you should actually think about your future when it comes 7 November, (1) whether you should stand, or (2) the fact that you’ll potentially lose your seats.

We can’t support anything that this Government is talking about and this Prime Minister said. We do not support the Prime Minister’s statement.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour) (15:56): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s good to see the National Party MPs choosing to conclude all of their contributions to the Prime Minister’s statement in a very similar way that the Prime Minister started it, isn’t it, this afternoon: a bit lacklustre, a bit boring, and a bit short. But even before Christopher Luxon stood in this House and gave his Prime Minister’s statement, which we’ve heard—should have been his one big chance to celebrate all his achievements, but fizzled out about six minutes early—he and Nicola Willis stood in front of New Zealanders in various fora around the country, on the hustings, during the election campaign, and they made a very explicit promise to New Zealanders. They said, “Trust us. We’ll fix the economy, we’ll fix the cost of living, and we’ll make life better.”

Well, here we are, disappointed but not surprised. For the people across Banks Peninsula, for the people across Christchurch, and for the people across all of New Zealand, there is a really simple and a really honest question: does this feel better? No. Because what people are actually living with and living through tells a really different story to the yarn that’s being spun on this side of the House. Unemployment is rising, more businesses are going under, more and more people—especially young people—are deciding to sling their hook and head across the ditch. This is not a recovery; it’s a warning sign. This is a warning sign.

Time and time again, during this Prime Minister’s statement debate, National MPs have stood up in this House and they’ve waxed lyrical, haven’t they? They’ve waxed lyrical about fixing the basics. I don’t know how many times we’ve heard it. It’s ironic, because the actual basics—the real basics that people care about—just get more expensive: groceries, power bills, insurance, healthcare. It’s not only harder to get ahead—and that is not a lofty expectation. It is not an idealistic, lofty expectation to want to be able to get ahead. It is getting harder to get ahead. It’s also getting harder just to keep up.

Yet they stand here and tell us everything is fine, because, what? Some sort of spreadsheet somewhere looks slightly better than what it did last quarter. Well, you can’t pay your power bill with a spreadsheet, and you certainly can’t feed your kids with a GDP graph. There is a huge difference in this country between a mediocre spreadsheet on paper and what feels brutally hard in real life.

What makes all of that worse is that the pressure that people are feeling, the hardship that people are under, is because of this Government’s bad choices. It’s not just global and it’s not unavoidable. Look, the Government are allowed to make choices—that’s their prerogative, no one’s denying that, because it all comes down to choices. But the people paying for those choices are actually our families, they’re our workers, they’re our small business owners, and they’re young people who are simply trying to get ahead. They’re people who are desperately worried whether they can get the healthcare that they need, whether they can see a doctor when they need to be able to see a doctor, and that is shameful.

Every time Christopher Luxon or one of his Ministers or one of his backbench MPs boasts about how well they’re doing in the face of real people’s actual, lived reality, all that does, I can tell you, is it goes down like a cup of cold sick out there in the real world. All it does is prove and show how out of touch they really are. They’re talking about confidence when people are losing their jobs. They’re actually talking about progress when people are leaving the country. On top of that, they can’t even tell us what comes next. There’s no credible long-term plan, there’s no insight or inspiration or clear path to how they’re going to create more jobs, and there’s no meaningful strategy to ease the cost of living, which is the number one concern of real people in the real world. People are going backwards, this country is going backwards, but the good news is that Labour does have a plan—one that backs working people and invests in New Zealand instead of making it worse like this Government is. The thing is, nothing will change until there’s a change of Government, and I, for one, am looking forward to that on 7 November.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Dan Bidois. How fast can you speak?

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote) (16:01): Madam Speaker, it’s a great privilege to wrap up this debate on the Prime Minister’s statement in two minutes. Two minutes is all I need. Firstly, 2026 is going to be a great year, as the Prime Minister said. All the forecasts are looking good. From Westpac yesterday: economic growth of 3.3 percent this year; inflation down to 2.3 percent this year; unemployment down to 4.7 percent this year; and modest growth in the housing market. That is good news.

This Government is doing our best to clean up the mess that that side left us. Let’s remind ourselves what that mess was. Debt increased by 2.5 times to $155 billion. We had the largest Budget deficit in the developed world, which skyrocketed our debt even more to $185 billion. Inflation was 7.1 percent, and we had rising unemployment. We take responsibility for cleaning up the mess and the fire that the arsonists on the other side left us. That is about fixing the basics and—?

Hon Members: Building the future!

DAN BIDOIS: Building the future! Fixing the basics in education and health, in law and order, building stuff and our Government finances, and building the future so that my kids, your kids, everybody’s kids have a great future here in New Zealand and don’t have to up and leave like people for decades have around the world.

It is a privilege to be here to witness my colleagues on this side of the House working hard. We’ve got the Minister for Building here. We’ve got other members of Parliament, Ministers here from ACT, and from New Zealand First. It is going to be a great campaign. I’m looking forward to it. I don’t hear that side at all, and I commend the Prime Minister’s statement in the House today.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The agreed time for this debate has expired.

A party vote was called for on the question, That all the words after “That” be deleted and replaced with “This House has no confidence in this Government, who have failed to deliver on their promises, are out of touch with New Zealanders, have continued to promise a recovery that never arrives, have choked off economic growth, forced thousands of Kiwis out of their jobs, forced up the cost of living for New Zealand families, and created the conditions that have seen record numbers of New Zealanders lose hope and leave the country for good.”

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That this House express its confidence in the Government and commend its programme for 2026 as set out in the Prime Minister’s Statement.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill

Legislative Statement

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (16:06): I present a legislative statement on the Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill.

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

First Reading

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (16:06): I move, That the Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Education and Workforce Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 13 June 2026.

New Zealand’s rates of work-related deaths, serious injuries, and illness remain unacceptably high. At the same time, many businesses—particularly small businesses—have said they struggle to understand what is required of them and where they should focus their health and safety efforts. In 2024, I travelled the country on a health and safety roadshow to find out what the big issues were. Feedback was clear: confusion and a fear of getting it wrong have contributed to a culture of overcompliance that has not delivered better safety outcomes. The bill responds directly to that challenge. It will address longstanding concerns about complexity, uncertainty, and overcompliance, and will contribute to economic growth by cutting red tape and reducing unnecessary costs, particularly for small business.

The bill amends the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015, the WorkSafe New Zealand Act 2013, and the Health and Safety at Work (General Risk and Workplace Management) Regulations 2016. It will amend the purpose of the Health and Safety at Work Act so that its main purpose is to prioritise the critical risks arising from work. At the same time, the Act’s purpose will now expressly include providing certainty to business about the scope of their obligations to comply with the Act. These changes will direct effort and resources towards managing the risks that cause serious harm, rather than paperwork and minor or peripheral issues. These critical risks will be defined as hazards regulated under specified health and safety regulations, as set out in a new Schedule 1A. They will also include hazards of any kind that are likely to result in death, notifiable injury or illness, notifiable incidents, or occupational diseases. This approach ensures that duty holders can clearly identify the risks that demand the greatest attention.

A key feature of the bill is the relief it provides to small businesses. They will be required to comply with core health and safety duties only, in relation to critical risks, while continuing to meet worker welfare obligations in full. The time and cost of dealing with lots of small risks quickly adds up—particularly the time spent on reporting—and I’ve heard directly that the fear of not having documented every risk weighs heavily on small businesses. We can trust them to use their judgment without needing additional paperwork or formal systems for every minor issue. Small businesses will be defined through amending the Act’s concept of person conducting a business or undertaking, or PCBU. The new term “small PCBU” will cover businesses that have fewer than 20 workers for at least nine months of the year. For PCBUs that are not small, the bill maintains the obligation to manage all risks but requires them to prioritise critical risks over other risks.

Another important aspect of this bill is the strengthening of approved codes of practice—or ACOPs, for short—into safe harbours, meaning that if a business acts in accordance with an ACOP for a specific risk, they have complied with the relevant duty. This will give businesses and workers confidence that they’ve met their responsibilities while preserving flexibility by allowing alternative ways of complying. The bill also enables worker, employer, or sector representatives to develop and submit draft ACOPs to the regulator. The responsible Minister still decides whether an ACOP should be approved.

In another change, the bill will clarify duties in relation to recreational use of land. Landowners or managers who permit recreational activity on their land that are not part of their business or undertaking will not owe health and safety duties to those recreational users unless the landowner has work occurring in the same place at the same time. This change responds to concerns raised by landowners and recreational groups alike and should encourage greater access to both public and private land across our beautiful country.

The bill also clarifies the duty of officers. The officer duty is intended to be a governance duty, requiring officers to exercise due diligence to ensure that a PCBU meets its health and safety obligations. Over time, uncertainty has developed about the scope of that duty, particularly where officers also have other roles, such as being the chief executive. The bill responds by confirming that an officer’s duty applies to governance only, no matter if they have another role. It also clarifies what is required to meet the due diligence standard, providing greater certainty for officers by rewriting the due diligence steps as an exhaustive list.

The bill also addresses several areas where the current law has created some uncertainty or overlap. Where a person complies with relevant requirements under another enactment that manages the same health and safety risk, they will not have to do more under the Health and Safety at Work Act. However, they must continue to comply with any specific health and safety regulations relating to that risk. This reinforces that the Act is not intended to duplicate or override other regulatory regimes. Relatedly, the bill clarifies duties for PCBUs in relation to seismic risks under the Building Act. If a PCBU manages or controls a workplace that includes the whole or part of a building, and they are not in breach of obligations imposed by the Building Act, the Health and Safety at Work Act will not require the PCBU to take any additional action in relation to seismic risk affecting the building. This provides certainty and avoids duplication, particularly in light of ongoing reforms in the building system.

Finally, the bill prioritises the existing functions of WorkSafe New Zealand, Maritime New Zealand, and the Civil Aviation Authority. This enables regulators to prioritise guidance, advice, and targeted enforcement, directing resources to activities that deliver the greatest impact, rather than spreading effort across a broad and unfocused set of functions.

In conclusion, this bill is a practical and targeted reform of our health and safety laws. It focuses on what matters most: managing critical risks. It reduces unnecessary compliance costs, particularly for small business, and it provides greater clarity and confidence for workers and businesses. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I commend this bill to the House.

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

Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour) (16:14): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Labour joins leading health and safety professionals who have already expressed their concern over this bill earlier this week. This bill, despite its intentions—and I do acknowledge the intentions of it—risks making New Zealand’s health and safety at work area and landscape worse. This comes at a time when protecting our workers should be absolutely paramount, but this bill narrows our focus on health and safety. It puts our workers far more at risk than what we’ve seen in a long, long time.

One of the central premises of this bill is the attempt to define and codify a critical risk. On the surface, that might seem sensible. Mature organisations already focus on the risks that could kill or permanently injure workers. But this bill doesn’t simply encourage the focus; it tries to legislate it in a way that will burden employers, confuse our duty holders, and—this is the ironic part—it has the very real potential of making workplaces less safe. An employer, under this law, would have to wade through over 60 listed risks, cross-referencing multiple regulations, Acts, and Schedules to determine what is critical. They would have to assess whether each risk is likely to cause death or injury, though the bill never explains what “likely” means. Is “likely” in a week? Is it a month? Is it the entirety of the working life of that particular employee? That’s a real concern. The lack of clarity could lead to inconsistency, uncertainty, and endless legal debate. This could be caught up in courts and held up in courts for a long, long time.

It also makes matters worse, because two of the most common and costly causes of workplace harm—musculoskeletal injury and psychological harm—are excluded altogether, yet these make up more than half of ACC’s workplace injury costs. By deliberately omitting them, the bill turns its back on real-world harm that New Zealand workers are experiencing every single day. It does not take that into account at all. Worse still, the bill extends exemptions to duties relating to the supply and manufacture of goods. That’s the small businesses that we’re talking about here—the fewer than 20 workers that the Minister talked about. This is really a big part of this. It extends that exemption to duties relating to the supply and manufacture of goods and substances used in workplaces. In other words, a small supplier could provide less safe products than a larger competitor, creating an incentive to stay small, and sidestep higher safety standards. That’s a recipe for a race to the bottom in workplace safety, and something no responsible Government should ever consider.

There is also the question—and the Minister addressed this, but the question still stays—of how this bill sits alongside other laws. The proposed new section 35 would make compliance with any other regulatory regime enough to meet a workplace’s health and safety obligations. That might sound tidy, but it means that over 4,000 other Acts could take precedence over our health and safety laws. Take one example: the Minimum Wage Act regulates working hours. If an employer complies with that Act, they could claim they have no additional responsibility or duty under the Health and Safety at Work Act to manage fatigue from long hours. Think of all the other Acts that come into play here. It is seriously concerning.

There are parts of the bill that are useful, but some of those parts seem like they’ve been botched in drafting. Our Health and Safety at Work Act was landmark. We cannot support this change to it. The lives and wellbeing of New Zealand workers are far too important.

MIKE DAVIDSON (Green) (16:19): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party to speak to the Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill. The Green Party opposes this bill. The New Zealand Institute of Safety Management released a statement two days ago, and its second line puts it very simply: this new bill will not improve workplace safety. Mike Cosman, the spokesperson for the New Zealand Institute of Safety Management, goes on to say—and I quote—“We are experts who work every day, helping businesses make their workplaces safer. This bill will not help that.”

Now, we’ve just heard a couple of hours ago from the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, when asked about the current legislation she is currently progressing, that this will be a win for businesses and workers. That’s right, a win for workers. This bill is definitely not a win for workers. This bill will actually cause more harm to our workers.

We had on the Order Paper today the second reading of the Online Casino Gambling Bill, a bill that—guess what!—also will cause more harm to people. What we have is a Government that is happy to introduce legislation that will create harm in our communities and harm in the workplace. But we need to ensure that we have high health and safety standards so that people who go to work, no matter where that is, no matter what they do, come home safely.

This bill will establish a two-tier system where small businesses have a lower set of obligations than larger employees, changing interactions with other Acts and focusing health and safety and management on so-called critical risks. This bill is intended to reduce compliance cost to businesses, increase certainty for them, and support continued reductions and incidents of workplace fatalities and health and safety incidents. However, when you listen to the experts, it will not do that. It will add confusion. It will add compliance cost and increase harm in the workplace. This bill is reducing high workplace health and safety standards, especially for small businesses, which is where many workplace injuries occur, as over 90 percent of New Zealand businesses are small and likely to have their duties reduced.

Creating legislation that will increase harm in the workplace will also see a flow-on of increased costs to the Government when ACC claims are increased. The workplaces and types of injuries where the Minister is trying to relax health and safety compliances are the workplaces and injuries where most of them occur, making up 75 percent of ACC’s work injury costs.

Important issues like mental health and workload management are very unlikely to be captured by the new focus on critical risks, which would mean that workers in small organisations are at greater risk of these harms. Many workplaces with a relatively high profile may also be shifted into the lower-duty small-business category, particularly seasonal workers, which may have dozens to hundreds of employers for short periods of time.

Additionally, the definition of “critical risk” is unlikely to lead to a greater certainty for employers. The bill has a huge number of examples trying to define this, demonstrating that the wording itself is unclear and will not support good decision-making by an employer.

This bill also creates more risk of harm to Māori and Pacific workers. Māori are overrepresented in workplace injury statistics and also work more frequently in high-risk sectors, with data showing that 70 percent of those submitting workplace injury claims within the sectors identify as Māori. Māori and Pasifika workers are also more likely to work in shift work jobs, and to work more than 50 hours a week, than any other ethnic group. Additionally, they are exposed to noise, hot conditions, and/or cold and damp conditions in their workplaces. These are all risks for health and safety issues.

The health and safety professionals and sector groups, as well as unions, have come out against this bill. I would like to finish, once again, by quoting Mike Cosman from the New Zealand Institute of Safety Management: “These changes are likely to increase harm to workers, families, businesses, communities, along with the cost blowouts for the Government’s books in ACC and health—”

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired. Thank you.

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui) (16:24): Thank you, Madam Speaker. The National-led Government is building the future by reforming health and safety laws to lessen the cost and the burden of compliance on business.

I’m looking forward to participating in the select committee process and actually listening to businesses and manufacturers and people who use our health and safety laws every day—unlike the Opposition, who simply, as I often say in this House, want to rant and rave and not actually solve the problem. Those small to medium businesses, manufacturers, and people who use health and safety every day, tourism—all of those sectors of our economy that we need to grow in order to grow the prosperity of this country—I invite them to submit to share how they see this bill improving, or not, the challenges they face when it comes to health and safety so that we can ensure we fix health and safety in this country, because, right now, there’s one thing that we can all agree on: it’s not working.

Hon MARK PATTERSON (Minister for Rural Communities) (16:25): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to add our support to this Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill. This is a very important piece of legislation. Every worker deserves to go home uninjured or go home full stop. We do know that too many of our people are injured or, worse, killed at work. The current system is not delivering the outcomes that we would want. If you look at our international comparisons in workplace injuries or deaths, we are far too far towards the top, in a bad way, of those statistics.

The current system, the 2015 system, is not working, so it’s a good opportunity for us to have a good look at this. I will note that we’ve heard some feedback coming in, but the Minister, to her credit, did engage quite heavily at the start of this process and went around a number of meetings with business and practitioners to get feedback, which has guided the drafting of this bill.

The key themes and focuses on this bill are really about the critical risk—the death or serious injury part of it. I think, at first glance, that that’s a really sensible thing to do. We do have to be careful we don’t send a signal, because, I think, culture matters too in this. If you walk past the small risks, sometimes that’s a culture thing that can work its way into a workplace culture and that can lead to the big things happening, so we’ve got to be careful we don’t send a signal that that’s what we’re looking to do. But we do think that workplaces and businesses are really focusing on those key risks where people are getting injured—particularly in our primary industries, I might say, there are way too many of our people getting killed or injured. Actually, a sensible amendment that we do support is the one around recreational land users or people, as you would know, coming on to your farm and mine and Grant McCallum’s, and sorting out that liability system. We don’t go out there to put people at risk, and we don’t want to put people off coming on to rural properties, so we think that’s a sensible move.

The key things, of course, are focusing on that critical risk, and limiting compliance and cost when necessary. We know that our productivity needs to lift in this country, so by focusing on those important aspects, hopefully limiting compliance and cost, and that pivot for WorkSafe towards, I guess, being more proactive and being seen as an organisation that’s guiding rather than one that’s perceived as being there for enforcement and punishment—I think that is a welcome change of culture, actually.

But this is, as I said at the start of this reading, an important bill. Hundreds of thousands—millions—of New Zealanders go to work every day. They deserve to be protected. They deserve to be in safe workplaces. This will be an important select committee. There’s a lot of detail in it, and I think it’s important that we do listen very carefully to the feedback that’s coming back on the ground, because the intent—and I’m sure for whatever political party we’re representing here today—of what we’re trying to get out of this is safer workplaces for Kiwis. New Zealand First supports this bill through to select committee. Thank you.

ORIINI KAIPARA (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau) (16:29): While this bill may be the most significant reform to our country’s workplace health and safety system since the introduction of the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015, it does fail to cover the fundamentals that prioritise workers’ rights instead of businesses’ bottom lines. Health and safety regulation is not red-tape bureaucracy, nor should it ever be treated that way. Strong health and safety laws create the conditions for workers and employers to agree on the systems and procedures needed to keep people healthy and safe at work, and that should be our shared goal. Instead, this bill takes us in the opposite direction. It is a heartless piece of legislation, with the Minister, effectively, signalling that harming workers is acceptable. This marks a major departure from the longstanding consensus that every worker deserves to return home safely and healthy.

The bill itself is confusing, and it’ll impose significant compliance burdens, creating uncertainty for both employers and workers about how to keep workplaces safe. It establishes a two-tier system of health and safety protection that, effectively, gives small businesses permission to expose workers to greater risk. How? Well, small businesses with fewer than 20 workers will be exempt from most health and safety obligations beyond critical risk, such as access to water and even to toilets—and this Government reckons it’s “fixing the basics”. Clearly, basic human rights and workers’ rights aren’t important basics for this Government.

Research consistently shows that small- and medium-sized businesses are generally less safe than larger ones, so weakening their health and safety duties is likely to make the situation even worse. It’s a clear case of creating another scenario where the ambulance waits at the bottom of the hill—set up to solve a problem, instead of prevention. That’s gambling with real lives, which means it threatens whānau and it is threatening whakapapa. The bill requires businesses to judge whether death or serious injury is likely, with no criteria provided. This is a highly subjective analysis. It’s dangerous.

The New Zealand Council of Trade Unions states it is known that perceptions about the likelihood and severity of harm differs widely between bosses and workers actually doing the mahi. Worse off, there are explicitly no repercussions for any business that fails to prioritise critical risk. WorkSafe New Zealand says Māori workers experience a rate of serious injury at work that is, on average, 31 percent higher than non-Māori across all industries and sectors. On average, there are between 750 and 900 work-related health deaths reported per year here in Aotearoa. Injuries requiring more than a week off work hit well over 37,000 in the year from July 2024 to June 2025. In 2024 alone, 70—seven zero—New Zealanders were killed on the job.

Pike River—never forget Pike River: 29 souls were lost. Pike River exposed just how weak our health and safety system is. Does this bill meet the needs of whānau and communities who continue to suffer from those and other tragic workplace incidents? This amendment bill rewinds progress made in the wake of Pike River, taking us in precisely the opposite direction we should be going in. Te Pāti Māori has made it very clear that we stand with workers, and we stand to protect the rights of workers. That includes Māori and vulnerable communities often exploited by lawmakers and, in particular, this Government, who clearly does not care for the safety of our people, the wellbeing of our whānau, and the future of all our mokopuna. On behalf of Tāmaki Makaurau and Te Pāti Māori, we do not support this bill.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula) (16:33): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. This is the first reading of the Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill, and, as we can see across the House, there’s going to be some very robust debate. This democratic process that we go through in select committee will be undertaken with the utmost studiousness, and we will put all of our combined intellect across the House into this to make sure that, when this bill comes back, we actually are fixing the basics so that we can build the future—because the fundamental truth is that it is a basic requirement to be safe at work. That is not at issue here, and I commend the bill to the House.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (16:34): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to take a call on this Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill, which was introduced this week and tabled at the end of last week. It’s important to remember the context of where the health and safety amendments that this particular bill changes came in, and that was done after the terrible tragedy at Pike River, which has already been mentioned. Twenty-nine New Zealanders lost—a very, very dark day for New Zealand. The National Government at that time, to its credit, put in place the Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill. By and large, that bill—even at 10 years old, as it was last year—is seen as bringing in, essentially, an adequate and workable framework to addressing health and safety in New Zealand.

People have said—and it’s definitely something that I think everyone in this House would agree—that New Zealand has an absolutely abysmal record on health and safety, and there is more we need to do. But what we need to do is not what is in this bill. That is reflected by the fact that when the Minister came out with this bill and these proposals, there was a lot of concern within the health and safety community—not just from trade unions but also from businesses and from organisations that specialise in health and safety. Their collective view—and it is rare to find a collective view in workplace matters across those groups—was that the Health and Safety at Work Act was generally fine. It just needed to be bolstered through increasing support for WorkSafe, which is a message which has been mentioned in this House during this reading, as well; and, also, in terms of specific industries to be able to be supported to do what they need to do in order to limit the accidents that they have at work.

The Minister wanted to do this bill, and no one else wanted this bill in this way. I think that what we’ve got before us is not, perhaps, the worst option out of all of the options that she was initially looking at, but there certainly are some very, very concerning aspects to it. One of them is the focus on critical injury above all else. There are a few reasons why this is problematic. Today, at lunchtime, I went to the tailor to get my trousers tailored, because the hem had come down. When I went in there, one of the tailors who was out the back was sewing and sewed through his finger on his sewing machine, and there was blood everywhere. This is a workplace accident that was—is—very much at the forefront of my mind as we’re discussing this. It would not be considered a critical accident, because it is not something that is likely to threaten this worker’s life. But it is still a terrible incident to have occurred at work, and something that all businesses need to be focused on ensuring does not happen.

This bill takes the focus away from injuries that are not critical or considered life-threatening. In addition to this, one of the major objectives that this bill has is the removal of red tape or regulation that is deemed unnecessary. Unfortunately, with the imposition of critical injury as the main focus for all types of businesses, including small businesses, a significant amount of work is going to have to go in, and—experts say—money spent, towards assessing what is a critical risk. This means that they’re going to have to spend money on getting, probably, external people to come in and say, “Are there any critical risks currently in our workplace?”, and they’re going to have to get very, very clear advice on that.

I do disagree. I do think that, if New Zealand wants to be focused on health and safety, we need to not have a situation where the types of industries that do tend to have a lot of injuries—smaller businesses or smaller persons conducting a business or undertaking, PCBUs, as they’re referred to in this Act—have different standards from larger companies. Everyone deserves to go to work and come home and be safe and not injured—everyone, no matter if they work for a small employer or a big employer. This Act changes that, so I think this is a step backwards for health and safety.

I think that’s a shame, because I think there is actually bipartisan support for a rigorous, sensible, pragmatic health and safety regime. I think there’s agreement from unions, I think there’s agreement from businesses, I think there’s agreement from health and safety practitioners on what that should be. Unfortunately, what is included in this bill is not that, and will actually take New Zealand backwards in respect of health and safety. So I cannot support it.

GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland) (16:39): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise and take a call on the first reading of the Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill. As a small-business owner myself, I and other small businesses really have, in some ways, struggled with some of the aspects of dealing with health and safety. We all want the same thing: we want to minimise, if not eradicate, injuries at work, and that goes without saying. But if you’re in a big business, you’ve got professional people that actually deal with and look after the health and safety, and run all those programmes; if you’re in a small business, it usually falls on the owner to do it all, and sometimes you’re just not sure what has to be done. Through this Act and these changes, I’m looking forward to being able to actually see a difference so that we can end up making it clearer for small business. I’m really looking forward to the select committee process and to hearing what small business has to say. I commend this bill.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert) (16:40): Thank you. Working in this area, there are some cases that you never forget. For me, one of those was when we had some meatworkers who worked on a chain and they had to cut the meat quite fine. The introduction of water made sense in terms of some hygiene over the meat, but it made their job extremely hazardous, and they were losing their fingers. There was a decision made that that was OK, that there was a trade-off in that situation, and the workers who remained on that work lost their fingers. That’s a real story. What happened was that the ones who had some ability—because they were quite senior employees, they were able to get off that chain, because the union would get them off—were replaced by workers who were not so lucky, and they lost their fingers. That’s the reality of a learning curve and it is the reality of small injuries.

Those small injuries in our workplaces cost our ACC system about $5.6 billion. Workers without their fingers don’t go on to earn a lot of money if they’re only trained for that kind of skilled manual work, so their families lose a lot more than that. Those small businesses lose productivity. There is a direct link between our lack of productivity and the injuries at our small businesses. It is a myth that by looking past these small injuries, we will create a more productive economy. It is one thing to go around and hear anecdotes from various frustrated employers; it is another thing to look at the evidence of what will move our economy forward and will keep our people safe.

Now, I would urge the New Zealand First party to ask the people at the Maritime Union about their experience of what works in this area if we want to move things forward. I want to talk about one other very serious experience that I’ve had in this area, and that was at the Ports of Auckland. Now, the Ports of Auckland was run by somebody who, I think, is presently being prosecuted for manslaughter—I could be wrong.

Simon Court: Probably shouldn’t talk about that.

HELEN WHITE: We absolutely can say that on the record. I’m not referring to the case; I’m referring to the fact.

In the Ports of Auckland, what we had was there was a big case run and an expert came out to talk about fatigue in that area. That expert that the union paid for talked about how the way that the shift system worked was causing fatigue and it would cause fatalities. The Ports of Auckland went on to actually continue a practice of rewarding people, and the shift systems meant that people were taking risks that they didn’t have to, and people died. We have had a new Ports of Auckland manager go in, who was collaborative with the union, and it has been extremely effective. It has been amazing on that site. The union sings the praises of the management, and the management sings the praises of the union, and together they have sorted that situation out and it is a much safer workplace.

That is the way we are going to be able to move from fatalities and small injury: through understanding that workers have a place in this, that they can talk about these things and know them from a different angle, because it’s their fingers, it’s their lives, and it actually works really well at that port.

I would urge anyone—I suspect that the manager of that union is a card-carrying member of the National Party. I’m sure that he would welcome you in, and you would be able to go and see him. As the ACT Party or the National Party, I think that anyone would be welcome to go and see what magnificent work has been done at that port to save lives. But people died in that situation, and they were young and they were vulnerable.

Finally, I just want to mention the issue of the small business at Salters. That man who died at Salters was absolutely a victim of a “she’ll be right” attitude. He was 24. I am very worried about this legislation.

NANCY LU (National) (16:45): I think it’s very important that we lay out clear the key focus of this bill, which is around the small- and low-risk small businesses in New Zealand that are not quite sure of the risks they should focus on and balance with the high cost associated with identifying the risks that they’re confused about, and trying to do something so they can satisfy the very rigorous and overrated red-tape legislation. This is why the Government is sharpening the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015: to ensure that we don’t have the unnecessary red tape. I look forward to all the small businesses that will come forward through to the select committee to present their stories. I commend the bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Referral to Select Committee

DEPUTY SPEAKER (16:47): The question is, That the Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill be considered by the Education and Workforce Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Education and Workforce Committee.

Instruction to Select Committee

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (16:48): I move, That the Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 13 June 2026.

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

Ayes 68

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

Noes 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Motion agreed to.

Anzac Day Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Veterans) (16:49): on behalf of the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage: I move, That the Anzac Day Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Madam Speaker, I—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Does the member have a legislative statement, or no? No? OK. Keep going.

Hon CHRIS PENK: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’ve been delighted with the discussion and debate that’s occurred through the process of this legislation passing through the House, of which this is the final stage. That’s because I think we’ve gotten to a really good place and it’s reflected in the genuine, robust, thoughtful, and really constructive debate and discussion on all the aspects. Of course, the discussion and the debate and the recognition and the acknowledgment of the service and sacrifice of those who have gone before, those who still serve now, and those who will serve into the future, is of course the point. So I’ve been really delighted with that. I want to thank all members who have entered into it in that spirit, as well as all those who contributed at the select committee process stage, including those who submitted—the RSA being among them—but, of course, our very diligent Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee members.

I’m standing here, as we all are, contributing in this House with the names of various battles and conflicts around us, and it gives me some satisfaction to think that all of these will be recognised officially—formally—when we celebrate Anzac Day; in the sense of commemorating, of course, every 25 April each year. On my right, I have Tim Costley and Dr Vanessa Weenink, and there are other members of this House who have come before, and who serve now—and, no doubt, who will serve in the future—for whom this is a personal matter. But of course, with various family members and friends that many of us have had in the armed services under the New Zealand flag and fighting in service of New Zealand under other flags and banners too, I hope that we can all feel a sense of ownership and indeed a sense of pride for the legislation that we are about to pass into law.

The Anzac Day Act has changed several times over the years. Commemorations of the Gallipoli landings were first held in 1916—still, of course, during the period of World War I, or the Great War as it was then known. The first Anzac Day Act was enacted in 1920. It wasn’t restricted to recognising the Anzacs who landed on Gallipoli, but was—and I quote—“in commemoration of the part taken by New Zealand troops in the Great War and in memory of those who gave their lives for the Empire”. I should add here that of course times have moved on and we have much friendlier relations with a number of nations against whom we fought in those days. We live in a difficult and dangerous world still, but it’s worth reflecting on the fact that we enter into spirit of a peaceful cooperation. Just today, I was pleased to be meeting with a delegation from Türkiye who graciously allow New Zealanders to return to Gallipoli and similar areas each April in particular. It was a real pleasure to be able to interact with those governors, to thank them on behalf of New Zealand for allowing our young people and, of course, returned service personnel and others to represent the people of New Zealand in that way each year.

Continuing on through the historical passage of this law, it was in 1949—of course, following World War II—that the Act was amended to include those who had served in the South African War and World War II, including women, and commemorated all those who gave their lives for the British Empire or Commonwealth. In 1966, the number of conflicts specified in the Act increased to six, ending with the war in South Vietnam.

So a change to the Act is long overdue, not only to update with all the conflicts, warlike and other, that have taken place since then but also to recognise that we need to contemplate, sadly—and we would love to be proven wrong—that in due course there will be other occasions for which we need to recognise, and so we’re futureproofing in that way.

Increasingly, New Zealanders have used Anzac Day to commemorate and honour all who have served New Zealand, military or non-military, in many other wars and warlike situations. Members across the House have shared situations of family members who served in wartime situations, albeit not as sailors, soldiers, or aviators, and I think it’s important we recognise their service too. I’ve been delighted over the years to attend commemorations of the Merchant Navy, and knowing the courage that they served with—no less than the regular Navy, and, in fact, arguably, with even greater vulnerability—it’s an honour to be able to bring forward the voice of those sailors and see them finally now recognised in this way.

Kiwis also reflect on others who have served in deployments both before the conflict in South Vietnam and since. There are families who reflect on the loss of loved ones who died in training in preparation for conflict. They are important too. This bill addresses Kiwi’s views as they have developed over time. Therefore, when enacted, the Anzac Day Act, as we will have amended it, will be more inclusive in terms of the type of service given. It will also be flexible enough to span across service given in the past, the present, and into the future. We also wanted to make sure that the new Act would recognise and commemorate the service of all Allied forces who participated in the Gallipoli landings, such as France and India, who had been excluded until now. As such, the bill now refers to troops from New Zealand, Australia, and other Allied forces.

The bill has made its way through the House with general support through all its stages, and it would be a great delight if that were to continue in this third and final reading. Amendments recommended by the select committee were all constructive, and the inclusion has made this a better bill. I thank them again for that. I commend this bill to the House.

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

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson) (16:55): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a real honour to take a call on this bill today, which Labour will continue to support as we hope that it may end up passing today. So thank you for the opportunity to take a call.

I want to begin, just before I talk specifically to the bill, and just reflect on what Anzac Day means in my community, and some of the observations about the changes in how we’ve honoured and commemorated Anzac Day in Nelson over the past few years. What really moves me—and, I think, moves many of our veterans and older members of our community—is the contribution to our ceremonies on the day from young people. The reason that this is so important is our younger generations are continuing to learn the history and honour the sacrifices and contributions of the past.

In Nelson, our Air Cadets, our Sea Cadets, and our Army Cadets all get up very, very early in the morning and are there at the dawn ceremony and then attend a number of small community ceremonies throughout the day, where they are in formation, in uniform, and they work the entire day. It’s wonderful to see. At our Anzac services, we always have senior students from high schools speaking on their reflections on Anzac Day, and it’s a deeply moving part of our day. The fact that our local RSA has made the decision that young people should be front and centre in our commemorations, many of whom have relatives who have served and some of whom are wanting to go on and serve themselves in the future.

I also just want to make an acknowledgment to my uncle in this speech. This is the first time I’ve had the opportunity to mention him since he passed suddenly in November 2024. My uncle, Nicholas Boyack, was a journalist and a historian. One of the things he did when I was a child was he wrote three books, one on his own and others in conjunction with other historians, where he interviewed veterans from World War I and World War II and told their stories. Obviously, those veterans from World War I are no longer with us, and most of the veterans from World War II are no longer with us either, and the oral history that he took is actually represented and forms part of the Gallipoli exhibit at Te Papa. So for those of you who walk through the Te Papa gallery and listen to the transcripts of those interviews, those interviews were conducted by my Uncle Nicholas. We miss him deeply, but really want to acknowledge him today and the contribution he has made to New Zealand’s war history.

Finally, I just want to thank the Ministers, in particular the contribution from the Minister for Veterans and his reference to the Merchant Navy—also of real importance to me. I think this reflects the changes that this Act is bringing, which is so important. My grandfather Edgar served in the Merchant Navy in World War II, and he was on a ship where they were getting goods through the Atlantic. He actually would probably tell me now maybe not to share this, but he did get a medal from Russia because he assisted in getting goods into Russia. He certainly would not be supporting Russia’s actions in Ukraine, I can assure the House of that.

I think what that speaks to is the need for a broadening of those who we honour on Anzac Day. The Minister alluded to this in his contribution, so I’m just going to put it on record now because I’ve made a note of this that I wanted to actually note this specifically: that I don’t think everyday New Zealanders would actually know that the current Act doesn’t commemorate contributions by New Zealanders in conflicts after 1966. I don’t think New Zealanders know that. When we turn up on Anzac Day, often the speeches and the contributions made are reflecting on recent conflicts—current conflicts—so I don’t think that New Zealanders actually know that, technically, the day and the commemoration only covers those six specified conflicts. That is one of the reasons why this bill is a good thing, because anybody who serves in any capacity in any type of conflict, whether that conflict is currently occurring—and I’ll talk a little bit further shortly about the changes in the bill and where it has had some changes from the select committee—all deserve to be honoured as New Zealanders who have made a contribution on behalf of New Zealand but also to help resolve conflict and keep peace globally.

I know that many people who choose to serve are doing so because they have a strong belief in making this world a better place. They want to go into service. Sometimes, it is in the most dangerous armed conflict situations; other times, it is in peacekeeping situations; other times, it involves things like training, providing intelligence, and doing other things.

I just want to note you, in the Chair, now, Mr Speaker. I will just bring you into the debate and just acknowledge Labour’s veterans’ affairs spokesperson. I know that you are very keen to see the passage of this bill, so I just want to acknowledge you. So I will just talk—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Still neutral in the Chair.

RACHEL BOYACK: We are all neutral on this, I think, Mr Speaker. I think this is, as the Minister has said, one of those times when I also hope that the House all comes together to make this change.

I’m just going to talk through some of the actual changes in the bill. What the amendment bill does is it provides a broader and more inclusive Anzac Day recognition and commemoration by removing the limitation on specified named conflicts in which those who have served are recognised and commemorated. It takes account of all service in war or warlike conflicts involving New Zealand. What that means is that we’re able to recognise more people.

I’d like just to talk a little bit about those warlike conflicts and the importance of this bill having had that change. I acknowledge, particularly—and I might just talk to it—the select committee who did some excellent work on that. What the select committee report says is: “In addition to commemorating people who have served and died in war and warlike conflicts, we believe it is important that the bill include those who have died in, or connected with, New Zealand military service; for example, during military training.” So this is in addition to the warlike conflicts; this is around things like training. I want to acknowledge—and I hope he will take a call—my friend Tim Costley across the House, who I know has done exactly that: has gone overseas to help train those working on the Ukraine conflict. So these types of acts of service need to be acknowledged, and that is what the bill does.

There’s some other matters I just want to talk to briefly before making some final wrap-up comments, which is that there’s some parts here specifically around Australia and Gallipoli that I think are important, because it’s important that we specifically acknowledge the role of our Australian brothers and sisters who are very much part of the Anzac Day community for us. It’s something that bonds Australia and New Zealand together. One of the things that the bill says is that “Anzac Day is the anniversary of the first landing of New Zealand and other Allied forces’ troops on Gallipoli, not just troops from New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and Australia”. I think it’s important that it does broaden out the rest of the Allies alongside our comrades from Australia and from the United Kingdom.

I am going to take a little bit of liberty and just make one final acknowledgment, because I am Labour’s animal welfare spokesperson and I’ve never mentioned this person—these two people, actually—in the House, and I think I’ll get told off by the Nelson RSA if I don’t. A wonderful man, Brian Ramsay, who has established the celebration—well, we call it a celebration—Purple Poppy Day, which is commemorated on 24 February. We have a massive Purple Poppy Day commemoration. We have a plaque that was gifted to us by Nigel Allsopp, an amazing New Zealander who runs the Australian War Animal Memorial Organisation. There are hundreds of thousands of animals who have served in wars: horses, cats, mice, rabbits, dogs. We commemorate it in Nelson and this is something that is happening a lot around the country, including at Waiouru every year. So I would be doing Brian and Nigel a disservice if I didn’t thank them for their amazing service and commitment to honouring everyone who served. I commend this bill to the House.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (17:05): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand to also support the Anzac Day Amendment Bill.

Suze Redmayne: Well, let’s pass it tonight, eh?

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Sorry? Just in terms of the context of this bill—and I think the Minister has captured it quite nicely—while it is a short bill, it is important to recognise the magnitude that this bill serves in terms of the context of New Zealand’s military history, as well as those who served in the military.

I also want to take this opportunity to recognise all of the members of Parliament who have served in the New Zealand military as well—and, I think, particularly the Hon Chris Penk, Vanessa Weenink, and Tim Costley, and apologies if I have missed anyone else.

In terms of this bill, I think while it is a short bill it is important to cover a few aspects that this bill is looking at. One of the things is looking at the commemoration of those who have served during the wars, but also in terms of focusing on the commemoration component of the war and removing the word “recognition”, because in some ways that is implied. I think that’s a really important part to mention. This is something that also came out of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee.

It’s also important to note in this bill, particularly in clause 4, another aspect that has been added to it, which includes the death outside of war or warlike conflict. In addition to commemorating the people who have served and died in a war and warlike conflict, it is important that the bill includes those who have died in or are connected with the New Zealand military service—for example, during military training as well. Of course, like the previous speaker Rachel Boyack has mentioned, it is important for us to make a special reference to Australian troops at Gallipoli as a part of this.

One of the things that we were looking at in this bill during the committee stage—and there was quite a lot of conversations on this during the committee stage. I think, for me, what is really memorable in some ways about that committee stage is hearing the stories that different speakers mentioned of not just their own personal history but also the histories they have within their local communities. I think one of the things that we have discussed a fair bit during the committee stage is how local communities are able to honour and also commemorate Anzac Day in a way that’s the most appropriate for that particular community. With that, we’ve heard from various members of the House on aspects of that.

I think another thing to touch on in terms of this bill during the committee stage is that while there was an Amendment Paper that was introduced by my colleague Andy Foster, there were a lot of conversations around whether the intent of that Amendment Paper has been covered within the bill, specifically looking at New Zealanders who have served with other nations as well. I think there were some discussions around this, and in the end, hopefully—and I think the member Andy Foster will be able to speak more to that Amendment Paper and the reasons behind it, and also the context and some of the discussions that we had in the select committee for that, so I won’t discuss it here.

A lot of people are mentioning their personal—either they themselves who have served in the New Zealand military, but also in terms of their families who have served in the New Zealand military and in the war. I think we also heard a part of that from my colleague in the Labour Party, Cushla Tangaere-Manuel, in terms of your connections in this space, as well. I think those are really powerful stories, and as someone who wasn’t born in Aotearoa New Zealand but grew up here, there are actually important connections that I personally also have when it comes to the importance of Anzac Day that I would like to share with the House. I think it is one of those bills that, while we have the agreement of everyone in the House, it’s also important for us to recognise our own connections to that.

With that, for those who may not know, when I was in high school and in the early years of university, I played with the Manukau Concert Band in South Auckland, where I was their solo bassoon player.

Hon Member: What!

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Yes. That is one thing that I also share in common with our Minister of Education: both of us are bassoon players. I played the bassoon for the Manukau City Concert Band, now Manukau Concert Band, for 10 years, and every year, without fail, will participate in the South Auckland, particularly in Manurewa—the Manurewa Anzac Day service.

I think one of the things that, for me, was really memorable is not only seeing the veterans—seeing the magnitude, hearing the speeches from local students on their connection and their recognition and commemoration of the war, and the impact that the war had and the desire for those who have served in the military to strive for peace and world peace; but it’s also that, as we are participating, every single year, I see younger and younger people joining the march and joining the Anzac Day service, along with their family. I think that is a really important reminder for all of us—to know that, in those kind of situations, it is important for our future generations to recognise our participation when there is a global conflict; that our participation and our, I guess, identity as New Zealanders in terms of striving for that world peace, fighting for what we believed in in those wars—whether it is World War I, World War II, or any of the subsequent wars—that we are now seeking to be recognised in this particular bill. That, for me, was probably one of the most memorable aspects in those years that I played with the Manukau Concert Band.

But I think the other thing to also recognise—and this is something that, I think, a number of the members here are aware of in terms of my background in Egyptology—but one of the things that I probably don’t normally talk about is that while we are in Egypt, a lot of times, when we do take students to Egypt and we’re visiting Cairo and various other places, if we do, we’re fortunate enough to go and visit Alexandria. We often do also take our students and we, ourselves, will make a trip to Alamein at the Commonwealth war memorial. Because again, Egypt, particularly when we’re looking at the context of Anzac, was a significant location where some of our soldiers were stationed. There is significance in our continued collaboration and continued, I guess, connection that we have with veterans here in Aotearoa New Zealand and with Egypt. Indeed, I think Egypt is one of the names that we see here right there on the wall in terms of the areas that we have participated in war as a country.

Finally, I understand the importance of this bill and the magnitude of this bill, but I think it’s also something that we have discussed, not in the context of the bill but more broadly in terms of veterans, with the Minister for Veterans Chris Penk—who is incredibly receptive to these areas—is that, while it’s important that we have this bill, with the commemoration and remembering those who have served in the New Zealand military or who have served alongside the New Zealand military, it’s also important how our veterans are looked after after they have served for our country. As we see, there are ongoing issues globally—and I think, as a country, we’re one of the places that’s doing the best—but it’s important to see what’s happening, for example, in the US in terms of their veteran rights and access to support, both financial but also in terms of mental health support, that is in dire need of additional funding. I think one of the things that this bill should also highlight and remind is the fact that those who have served for our country also deserve the kind of support—whether it is financial, whether it is psychological—that they deserve in terms of their contribution that have made.

With that, the Green Party commend this bill to the House. This is something that is significant, and we’re hoping that we’re able to have more, I think, as a Parliament, of a unified front when it comes to veteran rights.

SIMON COURT (ACT) (17:15): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The ACT Party supports this bill, and I just want to reflect very briefly on why it’s important. I have close friends and family members who’ve served in conflicts that are not currently recognised under the current Anzac Day legislation, such as Timor, Bosnia, Bougainville, where they knew they were risking their lives to go into these places on so-called peacekeeping missions, and there were bullets and bombs going off all around them in some places, and they lived with the constant threat of army conflict breaking out between different parties. Their job, as Kiwis, was to put themselves in harm’s way to keep people apart in conflicts so that peace could slowly, with hope and with enough encouragement, flower.

Now, it also indicates that New Zealanders must continue to be prepared—and will be—to use our strength of arms to enforce peace where it is necessary. The people who do that should be recognised for it in future conflicts, which no doubt New Zealand will participate in. ACT supports this bill and I commend it to the House.

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First) (17:17): Thanks, Mr Speaker. I’m privileged to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support this bill, as well. New Zealand First has always stood strongly behind our defence personnel, behind our veterans, and behind the memory of our veterans. That’s what this bill is all about. It’s called the Anzac Day Amendment Bill, but Anzac Day was one day. It was the day which has often been called our baptism of fire. It was a day when this young country, as it was then, of barely 1 million people, sent 100,000 people overseas—one-tenth of our entire population went overseas in that war. That’s a staggering contribution to a conflict which was, mostly, on the other side of the planet.

In Gallipoli, 2,779 New Zealanders lost their lives. But the Anzac Day Act and the Anzac Day Amendment Bill are not just about remembering those men—and it is really important that we do—but it’s about representing and remembering all of those who have served our country in times of war and in warlike situations. As we’ve just heard, it is those times when New Zealanders have put themselves in harm’s way in service of their country. This bill is all about trying to make the recognitions that are in the Act at the moment much more inclusive. I’ll come back to that momentarily.

The community of New Zealand did not need legislation to decide that it wanted to recognise the people who have been and served. I think, in the second reading, I mentioned the Wairarapa extensively, and I mentioned the community of Tīnui, and that is where the first ever Anzac service was held on 25 April 1916. Now, they didn’t need legislation to do that, but they took a cross up the hill there and then they had a ceremony at the top of the hill, and then they came down and had an Anzac service—the first Anzac service—in the town called Little Tīnui. Why did they do that? Because that community had lost a significant number of young men already in that conflict.

What I think this bill is doing is, in a way—I think we’ve already heard that when we go down to the Anzac services, as so many of us do, and it is great to see, the numbers had dropped off for a while, but it’s great to see those numbers growing again. As we’ve heard so many of the speeches already say, younger people are coming, because people want to recognise those who have been and served and sacrificed for our community. It is very much a part of us. It really is a critical, important national day. But I think the community already expects that Anzac is about recognising all of the people who have served and put themselves in harm’s way, not just those who are recognised in the current Act, and so this is about the legislation catching up with where New Zealanders are already at. That is a point that Rachel Boyack made very well, I think. What’s great, though, is that we are doing that and we’re doing that today.

At its heart, this bill is all about inclusion. At the moment, all of those people, anybody who has served—not died, but served—since Vietnam is not recognised, so to recognise those people is absolutely right. I think of somebody very prominent in our community who we all look up to for what he’s done, and his courage—that was Willie Apiata. Now, at the moment in law, Anzac Day doesn’t recognise him. That’s an absurdity because he will be at every Anzac service and people will be looking up to him and what he has contributed, so that is a nonsense. I look around the House here and some of our own colleagues here are currently not recognised in the Anzac Day Act, and so it is right and proper that those of our colleagues as well, all around the country, are recognised for the service that they have given.

It’s also right that we recognise those who have served not necessarily directly in the military but alongside the military. We’ve heard comments about the journalists who’ve served. We’ve heard comments about the Merchant Navy. We lost 150 people in the Second World War who served in the Merchant Navy. They put themselves in harm’s way and sometimes they did not come home. What about the nurses? Very important. Again, we lost some of our nurses. They put themselves in harm’s way. It is important that we recognise them.

I also wanted to make note of those who’ve died who actually never even got overseas. We had 163 people—I mentioned the Featherston camp, which is where 60,000 of the 100,000 people who went overseas in the First World War trained. When it came to the influenza epidemic at the end of the war, it was a tightly packed area with a lot of people living there, high chances of transmission of disease, and 163 people died in one month—163 people died in one month. In a sense, this also recognises them better.

On a personal note, I also might say that my wife’s great-great-uncle was—at one stage we actually had a ceremony for him because he was deemed to be the first casualty of the First World War. He signed up on, I think, the day after we declared war. He went into camp, and the poor guy died of pneumonia seven days later, so these things are recognising him. We found out that somebody else died first because he was guarding a bridge in Auckland and he fell off the bridge. Well, he might have been a bit under the weather, but it’s important that we recognise those people.

We had a bit of discussion earlier because I was concerned about one change that was made in the bill, and it was taking out the reference to those people who had served in the forces of the British Empire or the British Commonwealth. Why am I concerned about that? Because there are tens of thousands of New Zealanders who would have served in the military of the United Kingdom, the military of Australia, the military of Canada, etc. We know that. Those people made a massive contribution and they fought, essentially, side by side, alongside, and certainly for the same purpose as our people did, and we should recognise them and keep recognising them.

While I ended up withdrawing that amendment, it was good to have put on the Hansard that this bill, as it is changed, still recognises those people. I think of Keith Park. Sir Keith Park served—born in Thames, died in Auckland. I mean, that’s a New Zealander—born in Thames, died in Auckland. He served in the New Zealand Expeditionary Force as a gunner, first of all. He actually transferred to the British artillery, got wounded, then ended up in the British Royal Flying Corps, and then of course in the Royal Air Force (RAF), and played such a critical role in the Battle of Britain—“the saviour of London”. So critical, and why would we not recognise him? Of course, as Scott Simpson mentioned earlier—sorry, it might have been Chris Penk—there’s a statue there in Thames recognising him. Why would we not recognise a man who made such a contribution?

As I said during my speech in the committee stage, when you go up to Pukeahu National War Memorial Park—the Wellington City Council, I was proud to be part of that. It has the special traffic lights that we managed to get through the NZ Transport Authority (NZTA) because they’re a bit different. NZTA was a bit diffident about those. They are special traffic lights there. They are the picture of Alfred Shout, VC, born in Wellington, married an Australian. He served in the Boer War under British commanders. That probably wouldn’t have counted if we didn’t count those people who served alongside New Zealand, for the purposes and for the benefit of New Zealand but under a British commander. Then, because he had an Australian wife, he went to Australia and served with the Australians at Gallipoli and won the Victoria Cross there. He was killed in action at Lone Pine, but he won the VC there. Why would we not recognise a man like that? In fact, he’s recognised right next to our own National War Memorial Park.

The other one I will say is one more personal one. Again, it is on my wife’s side. Her grandfather was Peter Wynn Mason West. He was born in the Manawatū and joined the RAF. He served in the RAF in the bombers and, sadly, was killed over Denmark. We visited his grave there in Esbjerg. One of his brothers also served in the RAF. He also was killed in the war. The other two brothers—one served in the Royal New Zealand Air Force. He managed to survive the war, and one of the brothers was in the Royal New Zealand Navy. So it would have been utter absurdity to have the situation where we recognised two brothers but we did not recognise the other two.

So I think it is really good that we have this inclusive approach to this. It’s been great to have that on the Hansard, that we are recognising those who have served in the interest of New Zealand but they happened to have served in the colours of another flag that has been our allies, our partners.

I think this is a really important bill, because while it’s symbolic in many ways, it’s symbolism is very, very important. It is very, very important that we continue to pay our respects and remember those men and women who’ve served this country, whether they’ve served in our colours or they’ve served in the colours of other nations. I’m proud to commend this bill to the House.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (17:26): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Green Party, as outlined already by my colleague Lawrence Xu-Nan, is supporting this bill. I just want to begin by acknowledging the shared histories, and of how much closer than many of us realise—and the public may realise—we have stories close to war, unfortunately. I think those shared experiences can bring us together on Anzac Day, and I think this bill offers an opportunity to create a more inclusive and broader scope of who we choose to acknowledge on that day.

I take the points from the previous member, Andy Foster, around the sort of symbolic nature of this bill; but there is power in language, right? I acknowledge the changes in the select committee that were made to focus on the language of commemoration as opposed to recognition. Particularly, I acknowledge the language in the select committee report about the importance of acknowledging both the living and the dead. I think, to me, that’s quite pertinent. While, like my colleague, I was not born in this country, I grew up close to military personnel, both because it was at times stationed actually outside of my house that I grew up in but also because I grew up next to San Diego, which had a strong military base, and many Mexicans actually served in the United States Army. I saw, first hand, the impact on families who had family members who chose to give up their time and energy to serve for what they believed in, in the country that they belonged to.

We cannot underscore the fact that the living also deserve an acknowledgment—and recognition, as well—while they are serving, also because, as we know, veterans in many ways also face huge amounts of challenges. It’s something that is acknowledged both here but also in many other parts of the world, particularly where there are parts of the world that are actively participating in wars or warlike conflicts.

I think the inclusion, as well, of extending it to, basically, non-military service and people who would have played other roles, is also critical. War, and those who assist in supporting our military personnel, should also be acknowledged. They share the trauma; they share the purpose; they share, in many ways, also some of the risks to their livelihoods. So I join in acknowledging the range of non-military personnel that is now going to be included in this. As noted, there’s journalists, merchants, and healthcare professionals who are affected by war and, in many ways, help serve countries in whatever purpose they may be serving at the time.

I also want to acknowledge Andy Foster’s attempts to broaden the scope in the committee of the whole House. I think this is particularly pertinent, because in the select committee process there was an attempt to make a specific reference to Australian troops at Gallipoli, because it was that recognition, actually, of some of those shared histories that we have and shared purposes that we have with people from other parts of the world, and that acknowledgment of New Zealanders actually serving for other countries and being stationed in other places that should also be acknowledged. I think this goes beyond the potential partisan lines that may exist when it comes to views in relationship to ongoing current conflicts around the world. I think one thing that can bring us together is that, ultimately, people who choose to serve need to be commemorated. We have a day for that here in this country, and that allows us to actually pause and take a moment, in a non-partisan way, to acknowledge the service that people have provided and also the trauma that may exist in the communities.

Finally, I echo the sentiment that this is about Parliament keeping up with what is already happening in community and family spaces. They did not need Parliament to acknowledge the contributions that other people have made. But I think, any time that Parliament as an institution can help uplift and formally recognise groups of people who have made contributions to our nation, but also to important events like literally defeating fascism, it’s critical that those can be underscored. So the Green Party joins in supporting this piece of legislation, and we hope that we can have many other pieces of legislation that can have this level of cross-party consensus going forward.

DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast) (17:31): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a good way to end this parliamentary week with the finalising, hopefully, of the Anzac Day Amendment Bill. I just want to thank those members from the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee who spent a great deal of time on this bill, and agonising over the wording in it, so it’s fitting that we have got to this point.

My grandfather, David Kirkpatrick, fought in Egypt. He went to Egypt with the Wellington Mounted Rifles Regiment in 1919. As children, we were always taken to the Pātūtahi Anzac memorial. Every year on Anzac Day, we would all traipse down there. I remember, as a child, watching those troops marching down the road towards us as the bugle played. Over the years, the numbers got fewer and fewer and fewer, until there were none that marched down the street any more. So the recognition for those people then became forgotten for some time. So I think it’s a wonderful thing that we now recognise Anzac Day and that we have a renewed revitalisation of its importance to us as New Zealanders.

My children now go, too, of their own volition, which didn’t happen at the start, but now they understand how important it is. It was for that reason and from that experience that I took myself to Gallipoli when I was overseas, and walked along the beaches and saw the circumstances in which our troops found themselves. So with all of that in mind and with all of the thoughts about the sacrifices that everybody who’s fought or served for New Zealand has made over the years, it’s fitting, I think, that we widen the scope to now honour more people who have served us as New Zealanders in conflicts overseas and around the world.

So thank you to all of those people, from all of the forces and all of the agencies and organisations that have served us as New Zealanders. With that, I commend the bill to the House.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert) (17:33): Thank you. It’s been a pleasure to participate in all the stages of this bill. I join the Minister in saying it’s absolutely great to have a dialogue that felt like it was constructive. It hasn’t been a very easy week for me. I found some of the legislation, frankly, appalling, and I’ve found that I’ve felt really emotionally involved in that legislation passing in a way that is not always the case. But it is good to be ending the week on a bill that I can find some commonality with, with regard to my colleagues on the other side of the House.

I think, across the country on Anzac Day, we find commonality. We understand that we’re part of a community. And as a community, we have had families and friends who have been killed and injured in terrible wars, and we share the burden of the trauma of that when we celebrate and commemorate on Anzac Day. We have picked a day that is a memory and a trauma in itself, because it was the landing at Gallipoli under the leadership of people who took far too little care about our troops and, as a result, more died than needed to die. It was incredibly damaging to our country in that way, but we also found our way forward in terms of leading our own responses to wars from that point on. So it was very much part of our national identity. I think it is the right day to commemorate.

But since that time, and particularly since 1948, we have had an involvement in some work that I think we need to celebrate: it’s the peacekeeping work that we have done. We’ve been involved in, I think, it’s 40 or so missions. The work that New Zealand peacekeepers have done has been exemplary. That work has brought many stories home of the trauma others are having. It has brought an understanding of the world we live in home. The people who’ve done that work have been incredibly brave, and they deserve our recognition. I hope that what the community has already done by including people who have been involved in wars in the commemorations is now going to be added to by this bill, because we will be officially recognising those people.

Now, I want to just take one story that I have never shared before in this situation. There are some very well-known stories, but I thought I’d look at a story of a peacekeeper. It’s a story of a woman who is Colonel Mel Childs. It’s an interesting story because it’s about South Sudan. I knew just very little about South Sudan, and yet we have been involved in peacekeeping in South Sudan for a very long time. In 2016, there was a great deal of conflict, and Mel Childs was involved in a peacekeeping mission at the time. She was involved in sheltering and leading a group of civilians who were caught in the crossfire of the worst possible kind. Hundreds of people died, thousands of civilians were displaced at that time, and she played such a constructive role and was recognised for that. But it’s nice that a person like that will now be recognised in this Act, and we will be looking at her work and being able to tell her story.

What I hope it means is that people will know more about that conflict and they will be able to truly recognise the bravery involved in the work that those people do. I can’t imagine that bravery in some ways—it’s so far removed from my life. I take the point of my New Zealand First colleague, who talked about how we have some of those people who are our bravest people, they are our most famous and bravest soldiers, and they have no recognition until now of this kind. So I think that that virtue in our society is something that we also need to concentrate on at this moment, because we have a world that seems to think that one way to go is really just bullying; it’s really just “might is right”. That is one way to go. It’s not the way I want to go. People that are involved in this work are going the absolute other way. They are moving into the world and they are doing things not for their own benefit, not for the money. They are not just using force in an indiscriminate way to get what they want; they are protecting people. They are moving with so much virtue, and there is that love, in that way. They are really at the hard end of that, because these are not things that are romantic; these are things that are absolutely scary that they are involved with. I think about some of the work in Afghanistan and in Timor-Leste, and I think about the people involved, at that level, where they would have experienced great fear. I think about the role model that they are to us all.

I have given an earlier contribution on this. I was privileged to open in the committee stage for the Labour Party, and I was talking about how much pride I take in being able to, as the local MP in Mt Albert, give a speech at our local commemoration. I think it’s probably my favourite part of the job of being a local MP, because it cuts across political divides, and it feels an incredible honour to do that. I don’t think any of us can take for granted being given that privilege—and I think I can see some nods across the House; it’s just such an amazing part of what we get to do. There are people we know in the audience—more qualified, more connected—that sacrifice more, and we have to make sure that we represent the loss that that community suffered, and make sure that we’re aware enough of the miraculous survival of some of the people in our communities, but also the people who are just not there. They aren’t there, and their children aren’t there, because they died in these wars. So I think it is something that is a great privilege that we get in this House, and I take it very seriously—and I take the sacrifice that those communities have made very seriously indeed. As, I think, we all do.

I wanted to end my contribution by returning to the fact that we share this, across the House, in a week that I’ve had a really hard time thinking that we share a lot. But we share this, and it’s a very important part of our job and our collegiality, that we share the value of this. Mostly, I want to thank the people who have sacrificed so much to do this kind of work, and I am thrilled that we are commemorating them by passing this Act before our next Anzac Day.

TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki) (17:43): Ka maumahara tonu tātou ki a rātou—we will remember them. That’s what we’re talking about today. This is an important piece of legislation, but I also want to suggest that, in some ways, it’s one that we don’t need, because we’ve always remembered them—when we stand at Anzac Day at dawn, as that early light flickers, maybe an aircraft flypast overhead, and we hear, as Dana Kirkpatrick mentioned, the boots marching down the road. We’ve always thought of those that we loved, those that we served with, those that went before us. But finally, the legislation is catching up to mention, to encompass, people—as Helen White just shared—like Colonel Mel Childs, who was in antenatal class with me, actually, so a little shout-out to Mel and Chucky and their family, well done. But that’s the point, these are real people that just chose to serve their country instead of doing something else, whether it was 1915 in Gallipoli or 2015 in Iraq. They’re just people that said, “Actually, I’m going to do my bit for my country.”

Mr Speaker, you’ve spoken at every stage, I think—some really, really considered, insightful contributions from yourself, and you’ve spoken often about the family of Leon Smith, from your electorate. Can I tell you my memory of Leon? I think the one I will always remember the most is on some of my last days in Afghanistan, in Kabul, sitting outside what we called Area 51. There’s a long—there are multiple reasons it was called that. But sitting there at 10 or 11 p.m. at night over a bacon sandwich—we found some bacon in some old freezer; I don’t know if it had been left there by the Norwegians that went before us, but anyway, it was tasty at that time of night—and sharing stories, hearing about his background in the navy; working as a postman; he’d put extra bricks in his pack in his training, working in construction; he’d worked at Government House. I started saying, “Jeez, you’ve done everything—have you done this?”, and sure enough, whatever I mentioned, he had done. I won’t mention the job he did part-time when he was a student, but trust me, he’d done everything. He was just a top human. Every Anzac Day since that terrible day in 2011, I’ve remembered him. The law didn’t capture him. But I stand there and I remember my mate Leon.

I remember Muddy and Ben and Dan and “Creeggs” from the Anzac Day helicopter crash of 2010. Do you know, I think of Muddy as I stand there in the early morning. My wife, when we were first dating, flatted with Muddy and Kim, and Tuesday nights being introduced by Muddy to Boston Legal and Denny Crane and—jeez, I just remember those good times. My last flight with him was my last day in East Timor. It was my last flight peacekeeping. It was his first, and I was showing him around and, you know, there’s good memories.

Or Nick Craig, who also died in a separate crash in 2010. Our wives were pregnant at the same time. You know, I think of that trip around the South Island in 2009, that flight from Stewart Island up to Tekapo, crammed into that freezing-cold cockpit. But, man, that flight is something I will always remember. I remember the night, actually, on the way home from East Timor with him to Amberley, outside of Brisbane. They are precious moments.

But, you know, for me, as one person—think about those precious moments for the families of these people, people that weren’t covered by the old legislation because they served before 1965. They deployed overseas—and then, of course, they all lost their lives while serving their country. That’s what this bill picks up. It picks up people from all conflicts, no matter when they occurred. There’s no date, there’s no cut-off, to be a veteran, all conflicts. It picks up all service to New Zealand. Every year I go to Ōtaki College and we commemorate the Arctic Convoys, our Merchant Navy, Russia, the UK—man, those guys were brave. We remember those. We remember the police officers—as you yourself have said, Mr Speaker—that served in East Timor, in Afghanistan, and many other places. And, of course, we remember all those who have died serving New Zealand, connected with the military—people like Nick and Muddy and Leon.

This legislation says that we will remember them. We always have, we always will, but now the law catches up. I commend this bill to the House.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour) (17:48): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. I don’t have the same connections or stories that the member for Ōtaki has. But I thank you for your contribution and reflecting on friends, on colleagues, on family members, and the ripple effect that situations—whether it be in combat or whether it be in peacekeeping—may have on the lives of our communities.

We stand and debate this legislation this afternoon in this Chamber, which is also a memorial to members gone, to members of our armed forces throughout the last century and more. I think, often, as we debate legislation and we unpack it—often, I don’t think legislation potentially had an intention to exclude people, but it was just legislation of its time that seemed to be doing the right thing at that time. That’s why it is always good to spend time in this place, to go through select committee, committee of the whole House, to allow members of the public to engage, and why updating legislation is important—why, as was said, we do remember fallen colleagues. We do remember fallen servicemen and servicewomen, but it is actually about how do we acknowledge it in a formal way that this House brings that it hasn’t brought before.

As I think about us reflecting on legislation that is past its due-by date, I remember a number of years ago in New Plymouth, long before I was an MP, but in my community development capacity, speaking with some members of the Merchant Navy—this would have been sort of early 2000s, like 2007 or 2008—it really surprised me, and I had never thought about it, but the fact that the Merchant Navy’s service in the wars had never been recognised. I think it was around 2009-10, again, this House brought legislation forward that said, “Actually, the Merchant Navy, those members actually made a significant contribution and we should honour them and we should respect them”, and laws were passed to allow that. That’s an example of how we can do the right thing in this Parliament, which we are doing today.

As I think about Anzac Day 2026, I’m not sure what it’s like for other members of this House, but I’m sure, for many of us, it’s a very busy day. Depending on the size of your electorate or the places that you occupy and are a part of, it is actually a wonderful day. For me, moving around through different parts of New Plymouth and Taranaki, you get to experience all aspects of what it is to meet and greet with members of the returned and services, but also current serving members of the New Zealand Defence Force.

I do have a soft spot—I guess we’re allowed to have favourites sometimes—but the Waitara RSA—well, actually, I’m a member there as well—it’s one of those places where it’s always a melting pot of what has been and those who were before, but also those who are current; we always have a number from the New Zealand Defence Force there. I always think it’s a place where you meet those who are to come. Some of our young people—I think of our high school students and our Cadet Corps—who participate and get to experience a social occasion afterwards at the RSA in Waitara. I hope that this coming Anzac Day at the Waitara RSA, there will be some people who might be in that building, around that commemoration, who feel just a little bit more validated, feel a bit more honoured because the fact that we today, and in recent weeks and months, have taken time in this House to update legislation to ensure that we honour those who we should honour.

In closing, it does worry me, the state of the world and where we are at right now, and as much as we pass this legislation and we honour those who have served, those who have fallen, it was always the hope of: how do we prevent us having to come back again and update this in 50 years’ time? Because of those who may have served and been honoured or those who we’ve lost. And again, as a House, how do we pass this and do what is right, but how to also reach out across the aisle to make sure that we, as a country of New Zealand, are peacekeepers, not only to our own communities but to the world?

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula) (17:53): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a great honour—again—to speak, this time in the third reading of the Anzac bill. I was trying to think how best to sum up all of this. For me, being a veteran is a key part of my identity; but, I think, for New Zealand as a nation, Anzac Day is a key part of our identity as a nation. It hasn’t always been an easy thing. It hasn’t sat easy for us as a nation. How we’ve dealt with various aspects of our servicepeople hasn’t always been fair. It hasn’t always been smooth. For me, personally, my identity as a veteran is something that I didn’t always see. I didn’t think of myself as a veteran. It came as a bit of a surprise to me when one day a veteran’s pin turned up in my letterbox—great marketing from the RSA—and I thought, “Well, what are they trying to do? They’re just trying to get more people to go to their pubs.” Well, it was possibly a little bit of that, but the key thing is that when we’re telling these stories, when we’re coming together and sharing our history and acknowledging of this, it is helping, in some ways, to heal and to acknowledge. When we say that “We will remember them”, for those who of us who served and lost people, the real problem is that we’ll never be able to forget them.

Thank you, Helen. Thank you for acknowledging Mel. Mel Ryder and I served in Afghanistan together. Nothing much happened that time. But the second time I went to Afghanistan, we were on a patrol—it’s not really that sad or anything, but it just gets me a bit emotional—going out to do a little clinic, and it should be pretty routine; the day before had been pretty routine. We got to this valley and, as we’re driving through, an IED exploded two vehicles in front. We went into the drills that we’d practised and that had come easily and naturally to us. We went into all-round defence. We were in, basically, a huge gully that was a kill box—it was just a shooting box—and we had to make the scene safe. Luckily, nobody was injured; nobody was hurt—that time. But what happened for me, personally, was that I realised that, as a medical officer who’s a non-combatant, I would have killed anybody who had tried or even come close to hurting one of those guys around me. There’s no way that they would have gotten away with hurting anyone else. Any of my guys, I would have—there’s no chance. That was really confronting, and it still kind of haunts me a little bit. All of us who’ve had difficult times, who’ve been through really significant events, whatever they might be, those live on with us. So like I say, for me, it’s about all of those other people; all of the people that I’ve served with; all of the people that I cared for, as a doctor, who were veterans—all the Vietnam vets.

When we’re acknowledging this day, it’s not about compensation, it’s not about our debt to these people; it’s about acknowledging our country and it’s about acknowledging service—whatever that kind of service may be. All of us here are serving our country. It’s just in quite a different way. So I acknowledge all of the members of the House; I acknowledge this memorial that we stand in and that we serve in together. I’m just very honoured to speak on this bill. I recommend it to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): The question—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: A point of order, sir.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Point of order. I was just about to go to a vote.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: I know, that’s why I’m doing a point of order. So given we are within five minutes to 6 o’clock, and the Speaker has discretion to call that, there are two speeches remaining. In normal circumstances, there may have been an arrangement where we would look to do the vote before 6 o’clock, but I think we can all recognise that every contribution to this, including, most likely, the two that are set to follow, contain personal contributions that mean deeply to those. I think it would be a shame to this debate for it to be truncated. So I would put to you, sir, that you use your discretion so that we can continue this debate, continue the last two contributions, and allow this House to fully contribute to what is quite clearly a very important bill to all of us.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): So are you requesting to do that now?

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Well, sir, I’m due to speak next.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Well, what I was going to do was, actually, I think, for that reason—to do it justice for those speeches—we might leave it until another time—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: That’s right. That’s what I’m proposing, sir, yes.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): —which is what we’ll do now. The debate is interrupted and set down for resumption next sitting day. This House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. Tuesday, 17 February. I thank the members for their incredibly thoughtful and personal contributions this afternoon.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 6.01 p.m.