Thursday, 19 February 2026

Thursday, 19 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.

Visitors

Poland—Deputy Prime Minister

SPEAKER (14:01): Members, I’m sure that you would wish to welcome His Excellency Krzysztof Gawkowski, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Digital Affairs for the Republic of Poland, and his accompanying delegation, who are present in the gallery.

Speaker's Rulings

Membership of House

Use of "Aotearoa"

SPEAKER (14:01): It was yesterday I undertook to review a supplementary question asked by the Rt Hon Winston Peters, relating to question No. 11. I was not able to fully hear the question raised, mainly because of the considerable volume of noise coming from other members in the House. On review, two points stand out. One was raised in a point of order by the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins that all members of this House are equally elected. No one member is more or less elected than any other. All members are equally entitled to participate in the proceedings of the House. Any question of an elected member’s rights and privileges in this House being questioned is highly disorderly. Members who engage in such comments can expect to be ejected from the House. Free speech does not enable gratuitous comment about other members. Such comments are not only disrespectful to the member concerned but also to this House and also disrespectful to the electors and the electoral process that allows members to sit in this House.

The second point is that on 4 March 2025, I gave this House a ruling on the use of Aotearoa in describing this country. I drew on past Speakers’ experiences in putting that together. That ruling stands, and I would encourage members unfamiliar with it to become familiar with it. Further questioning of the ruling will also be considered highly disorderly with the usual consequences. While I add for the benefit of the many who sent me emails in the last 24 hours relating to this matter, I suggest they go and read the online copies of not only Standing Orders but also Speakers’ rulings. That would then enable them to be in a much better position to offer advice as to how these matters should be dealt with.

Debates

Auckland Housing Plan—Ministerial Decision

Urgent Debate Declined

SPEAKER (14:03): I have received an urgent letter from Chlöe Swarbrick seeking to debate, under Standing Order 399, the ministerial decision on the Auckland Housing Plan. This is a particular case of recent occurrence for which there is ministerial responsibility. The question is whether the matter requires the immediate attention of the House. One relevant factor is whether the matter must come before the House in the form of legislation—Speakers’ ruling 223/5. The Minister, in his press release on the decision, announced that the Government will amend the Resource Management Act to give effect to the legislative process, which will give ample opportunity to scrutinise the issue. For that reason, the application is declined.

Resignations

Hon Peeni Henare—New Zealand Labour

Resignation of Member

SPEAKER (14:04): Members, I wish to advise the House that I have received a letter from the Hon Peeni Henare, resigning his seat in the House effective 11.59 p.m. on Sunday, 15 March 2026.

Speaker's Rulings

Membership of House

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) (14:04): Point of order, sir. Thank you very much, sir, and thank you for that ruling. It’s clearly considered, and we support that. On two occasions, you mentioned types of behaviour that would be considered highly disorderly, and in the first instance, you said that that could lead to a member being ejected from the House. The concerns raised by the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins yesterday were serious and led to that ruling today. It would be, I feel, a disservice to honouring the rulings that you have given and the rules that already exist in this House for the Rt Hon Winston Peters to, at very least, not be asked to withdraw and apologise for the comment that led to this.

SPEAKER: Well, the problem is that the moment has passed, and the Standing Orders are quite clear on how that works. Can I say, too, that it might be slightly hard for people to understand, but sitting at this elevated site, sometimes the sound is not all that easy to pick up, particularly if there’s other noise in the House. I have had technicians looking at the prospect of having a different sound arrangement for this particular chair. [Interruption] Has someone got something to say about that? I can hear all of that. When the House is quiet, I can hear a lot of things.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Point of order, sir. For clarity, we weren’t criticising the fact that you didn’t hear.

SPEAKER: I realise that.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: However, on 4 August, I believe it was—it was certainly in August last year—you required Chlöe Swarbrick to withdraw and apologise for comments that were made the day prior. Now, at the time, we expressed concern about that because we felt that in doing so that was setting a precedent. Nevertheless, here we are again in a situation where you are saying that you are unable to require a member to withdraw and apologise for something that happened yesterday. Now, you didn’t hear it, and that’s no problem, but you did commit to this House that you would review it, and, actually, you committed also, in the Hansard, that you would act on that. Failing to require the Rt Hon Winston Peters to withdraw and apologise for something that was quite clearly an offensive comment when you have required that of other members—indeed, other party leaders—runs the risk of you applying different standards to some members than to others, and that in itself, I think, would be undesirable by the House.

SPEAKER: It most certainly would, and I’ll avoid that in the future.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour) (14:06): Just adding to that, what we heard yesterday was one of the worst things I think we’ve ever heard in the House—

SPEAKER: Well, I’ve heard the member—[Interruption]

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: They can laugh on the other side.

SPEAKER: Just a moment. It is a point of order, and it will be heard in silence.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m sad that people find it so funny on the other side, because we’ve received a lot of complaints here with regards to what a senior Minister has said in terms of casting aspersions on another member of the House and questioning that person’s background. If we go down that track, Mr Peters himself perhaps can’t speak, because he’s Scottish; Mr Jones can’t speak, because he’s Dalmatian.

SPEAKER: No, no. You’re not helping things here.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Mr Speaker, I take personal offence at what the Minister has said, and I ask that he be asked to withdraw and apologise.

SPEAKER: Yes, but on what basis do you take that offence, and why didn’t you do that yesterday?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Thank you for the question, Mr Speaker. I think yesterday so many of us were in shock at what Mr Peters said. It’s stunning that such a senior Minister can come out with what our leader said was a racist comment yesterday. To come from someone of his stature and mana was a shock for all of us. I’ve had calls overnight. A lot of people are shocked that he would make that allegation against our MP from the Green Party, who was born here and has Cook Islands background and speaks fluent Māori. I ask that the Minister give an apology—withdraw and apologise.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Deputy Prime Minister) (14:08): Speaking to the point of order, if Willie Jackson would like to start retrospectively apologising for racist things he has said, then he should fill his boots.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green) (14:08): You said yesterday that you would act after reviewing the actions that occurred in the House yesterday. As the member that is now being referred to by virtue of the standards which you have applied in this House, I ask you to apply the very same consistency that you have applied to me, lest you be accused of double standards.

SPEAKER: That is borderline trifling with the Chair. I’m not listening to that.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Resources) (14:09): Members on the other side of the House should be invited to write you a letter. These matters pertaining to what happened yesterday have been dealt with. Speakers’ rulings 60/1-6 outline where the parameters are. There is nothing to be gained by continually rehearsing and trying to challenge your ruling. Let’s move on with question time.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) (14:09): Point of order, sir. I’m concerned by the response that you’ve given my colleague the Hon Willie Jackson. In suggesting to him that, if he had concern at the time, he should have raised it; sir, you made it very clear that you would review the Hansard and report back. If he or any other member had stood up and done a point of order and questioned that, you would have, quite rightly, pushed back on that. Now, I’m sorry, but that cannot stand. You can’t on one hand expect us to follow your rulings and then, when we raise legitimate concerns about, arguably, double standards being applied, say, “You should have done it yesterday.” You can’t have it both ways, sir.

SPEAKER: And you can’t challenge the Chair quite like that, either. If you think about it and look at the Hansard extensively, as I have, you’ll find there was quite a period of time between the point where Mr Hipkins took his point of order and ultimately I said that I would put the whole matter under review. I have done that, and I have ruled accordingly.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Musterer—Green) (14:10): Speaking to the point of order, just looking at Standing Order 418(b), around deliberately misleading the House; one matter which I don’t believe has been addressed—we have written to you on this matter—is the factually inaccurate statements of my colleague’s place of birth. Unless the former Deputy Prime Minister was deliberately trying to mislead the House, I think a correction should be in order, because there was a factually incorrect statement being made about where he was born. I don’t believe that has been addressed, and I would like your reflections on how you would like to apply those Standing Orders.

SPEAKER: No, if you are, in fact, making a suggestion that there has been a breach of privilege, which this is a matter that it deals with, there’s a process for doing that and a process for responding to it, and it would be unfortunate if that were to become something that was immediate and in the House.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) (14:11): Point of order, sir. Thank you very much. In response to your response to my last point of order, you indicated that there was quite some time between when the concern was raised and when you committed to reviewing the Hansard. Well, actually, the point of order made by the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins was part way through the question, and your commitment to review the Hansard was immediately in response to that point of order. For you to now suggest that it would have been appropriate for a member to then come and ask you to do something after you had committed to reviewing the Hansard does not stack up. The fact of the matter is, sir—and you’ve, basically, essentially, suggested that we are trifling with you—if you were to kick myself or any other member out of the House now, it would still be for a lesser offence than what you’re refusing to ask Winston Peters to apologise for.

SPEAKER: That’s your judgment. I simply made the point that the Hon Willie Jackson, in his offering to the House today, said that he was, I think he said, “deeply, personally offended.” I suggested that if that was how he felt at the time, he should have mentioned it. It’s not unreasonable for me to do that.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour) (14:13): Mr Speaker, I’m still personally offended by the statements of the Rt Hon Winston Peters, and I put to you now that the Minister should withdraw and apologise for his terrible statement yesterday.

Hon David Seymour: Sit down.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: You sit down, Seymour.

Hon David Seymour: I am.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Mr Speaker, seriously, I am personally offended. We’ve had the most senior person in this House, who came out with something absolutely outrageous yesterday and has been condemned widely for that—surely, he should stand and withdraw and apologise.

SPEAKER: Well, that would be a decision that he can make. I’m not ruling that way. I have ruled on this matter. Continuing to try and debate it is trifling with the Chair and is, in itself, disorderly.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) (14:13): Speaking to the point of order—

SPEAKER: A new point of order?

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER: It is. Not to trifle with the Speaker, can you clarify, please, that the decision is that, if a member commits or has racist comments or misleads the House, there are no consequences? Is that what has been decided?

SPEAKER: No, that is not what I’ve said, and I’d encourage the member to read the ruling when time permits.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) (14:14): Point of order, sir. Thank you, and I thank you for your consideration of this matter. Earlier, in one of the earlier points of order, you agreed with my point and said that you would look to apply that moving forward. If it is your intention to ensure that these standards are kept, moving forward, why can’t they be kept now?

SPEAKER: I’m sorry, I’m not sure what you’re saying. What I have made clear is that I did not hear the comment at the time. I’ve reviewed the Hansard. I’ve found in a way that has led to a ruling. I have ruled, and that is the end of the matter.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) (14:14): Point of order. On the basis of you saying that you didn’t quite understand my point, I’ll try to be more clear. Earlier, I made the point that you have indicated in your ruling—

SPEAKER: Hang on a minute. If you are asking why I’m not retrospectively doing something here, I have answered that. I have put it in the ruling. Members may wish to shake their heads, but that’s somewhat perfunctory. I have ruled. We are moving on.

Business of the House

Business Statement

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Deputy Leader of the House) (14:15): Today, the House will adjourn until Tuesday, 3 March. That week, the House will progress the Social Security (Accident Compensation and Calculation of Weekly Income) Amendment Bill, the Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Amendment Bill, and the Public Finance Amendment Bill. On Wednesday, there will be a special debate on the National Infrastructure Plan, and the Hon Peeni Henare will make his valedictory statement. The hours of Wednesday will be extended into Thursday morning for Government business.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Thank you, Deputy Leader of the House for that comment. Will the move-on orders set to be announced on Sunday be passed through under urgency next sitting week, or the week after?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I’ve laid out the business before the House in the next week, and I know the member is excited always about legislation we have before Parliament.

Presentation

Papers

SPEAKER (14:16): No petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. Ministers have delivered two papers.

CLERK (14:16):

Reserve Bank of New Zealand Monetary Policy Statement, February 2026

Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet Strategic Intentions 2025/26 to 2029/30.

SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House. No select committee reports have been delivered. No bills have been introduced.

Oral Questions to Ministers

Pacific Peoples

Question No. 1

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader—Labour) (14:16) to the Minister for Pacific Peoples: Does he agree with Christopher Luxon’s statement about Pasifika, “We’re gonna make sure we deliver for them”; if so, why?

Hon MARK MITCHELL (Acting Minister for Pacific Peoples) (14:17): Yes, the Prime Minister’s absolutely right that we must deliver for Pacific peoples. We know Pacific unemployment is unacceptably high. The Government is working incredibly hard to fix the basics, rebuild the economy, and improve the situation for all New Zealanders. The Toloa Scholarships programme will see hundreds of secondary students supported through strong education to employment pathways in high-growth industries and skilled careers. The Pacific Business Trust has created hundreds of new jobs. Tupu Aotearoa is transitioning to the Ministry of Social Development to provide better, more streamlined support and access. Alo Vaka has provided targeted support to over 1,200 individuals and supported more than 300 individuals into better employment. This Government invested $35.9 million into Pacific housing projects. The Our Whare Our Fale initiative provides for up to 300 homes through an investment of $114.6 million across three years. The cost of living crisis and inflation hits our most vulnerable communities the hardest. Clearly, there is more work to be done, but we should not forget that the Government that left us inflation and a struggling economy is the same Government that was going to end child poverty.

SPEAKER: No, that’s enough.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Did that promise to deliver for Pasifika include delivering a Pasifika unemployment rate of 12.3 percent—more than double what it was when he came into office?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, the Government has several specific initiatives that support Pacific young people to pursue qualifications and careers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. For example, the Toloa Scholarships programme will see hundreds of secondary students supported through strong education to employment pathways in high-growth industries and skilled careers, where Pacific representation has historically been low.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Did that promise to deliver for Pasifika include delivering a Pasifika unemployment rate more than twice that of the general unemployment rate?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Through the Pacific Business Trust, the Government is actively supporting job creation by enabling the growth and sustainability of Pacific-owned businesses and enterprises. In recent years, the Pacific Business Trust model has created hundreds of new jobs.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Did that promise to deliver for Pasifika include an additional 13,000 Pasifika people unemployed on his watch?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: I want to acknowledge the hard work that the member did in the previous Government in terms of trying to deal with both Pasifika poverty and unemployment, but I’d point out to her that both of those rose under the previous Government. We inherited an economy that was in a serious slump. We’re working hard to make sure that we deal with those issues. We recognise that they’re important, that they are serious, and we’re taking it seriously.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: In the Treasury forecast for the outgoing years of Budget 2023, are those not the exact figures that the Treasury forecast?

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: No, they’re not.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yes, they are.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: I’d have to check on the numbers. What I understand is that the previous Government’s unemployment forecasts had us above where we currently are. So we are making good progress on unemployment, but we know there’s a lot more work to do.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Better go and check that. Did that promise to deliver for Pasifika include delivering for the one in four Pasifika youth that are now unemployed because of his Government’s decisions?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, this Government’s decisions are purely based on recovering an economy that was handed to us in a terrible state and slump. It was awful. We have been working hard and are very focused, as a Government, to create the economic conditions so that we can start to help not just our Pasifika youth but all youth in New Zealand.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: How can Pasifika people trust that he has their back when all his Government has delivered them is the rising cost of living, fewer jobs, and the worst Pasifika unemployment rate in more than a decade?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, I’ve outlined all the initiatives this Government has currently undertaken in terms of having to deal with what is a really serious issue that we acknowledge, and that is Pasifika unemployment. All I’d say is that this Government doesn’t just care about our Pasifika youth; we care about all of our youth. The reality of it is—

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: What?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, the member might laugh—the member might think this is funny, but this is a really serious matter.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: No—thinks the Minister’s a joke.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Oh, she thinks the Minister is a joke. Well, I’ll tell you what the joke is. The joke is that we had a previous Government that stated that they wanted to get rid of child poverty and, instead, it became worse, whilst at the same time throwing billions of dollars at it with nothing to show. As an incoming Government, we now have had to clean that mess up so that we can start looking after our young people and we can give them a future to look forward to.

Finance

Question No. 2

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai) (14:22) to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by her statement, “As Finance Minister, I take responsibility for managing our Government’s books ... I am the Ministerial colleague who takes pride in scrutinising the dollars, in reading through the business cases, and having the courage to say ‘no’ when proposals don’t stack up”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (14:23): Yes, and I note that my full statement went on to say that I also take pride in “saying ‘yes’ to innovations and partnerships that enhance the financial discipline and reliable delivery of vital public infrastructure.”

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Will she be reevaluating her Government’s infrastructure priorities, especially the roads of national significance (RoNS), given that the 17 roads the National Party campaigned on, estimated to cost $17 billion, are now understood to cost $56 billion—that’s $56,000,000,000, more than a 300 percent increase on what the Government thought they would be?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, as the member should know, as a former Associate Minister of Transport, the RoNS projects have gone through the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) investment case process, and they have been considered and approved by the board. That process is rigorous, and each investment case includes a high-level assessment of potential alternate funding and financing opportunities. All roads of national significance projects have demonstrated they are value for money in the context of the problems they are trying to solve. NZTA has followed the latest Treasury guidance on calculating the benefit-cost ratios (BCRs) of all of the roads of national significance projects, and I am happy to confirm for the member that all roads of national significance projects have positive benefit-cost ratios.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Had she seen the full business case for a second Mount Victoria tunnel before campaigning for it and committing to it as a priority project?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Again, as the member should know, as a former Associate Minister of Transport, the investment case process is governed by the New Zealand Transport Agency board. When I was campaigning for that, I knew that, and I knew that they would take it through a rigorous process, which they have, and they have found that that investment case stacks up and it has a positive BCR.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Is she aware that the full investment case published for the State Highway 1 Wellington improvements project has a range of benefit-cost ratio and it could be as low as 0.6, and, if so, that represents a hugely significant loss; does she think that project stacks up, and, if so, why?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I’m aware of a couple of things. The first is that we are still in the early stage in terms of the investment case, and in terms of the overall cost envelope that has been put forward, that includes significant contingency—more than a billion dollars’ worth of contingency in that cost envelope, which reflects NZTA’s learning under the last Government that putting forward low numbers that then blow out again and again and again, as was the case with the so-called shovel-ready projects, is not a good way to go about planning infrastructure. So they have put a significant amount of contingency in that envelope, which, of course, does affect the BCR and could mean the BCR could go higher. I’m also aware that to get to the low number that the member is using, you would have to exclude wider economic benefits. It is the case that Wellingtonians will benefit from having a better connected city—less time spent in traffic; more time being productive.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Minister consider that while bureaucrats can conjure up positive benefit-cost ratios for many ideas, when faced with limited finances a pragmatic person would choose to fix pipes over building new cycle lanes?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, if only the former Wellington City Council had had the foresight of that Minister.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Point of order. Apologies, Mr Speaker, if I’m mistaken, but I’m not sure how the supplementary question relates to the primary and whether the finance Minister has responsibility.

SPEAKER: Well, with all due respect, at least two of the member’s supplementaries so far have been quite tangential to the intention of the primary question. Do you have another supplementary?

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Yes.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, no, no; I asked first.

SPEAKER: Yeah, we go side to side.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, she’s a point of order now—she’s already had three. She didn’t get up for the supplementary question, and now she wants to jump the order again. These people should learn what the processes are here.

SPEAKER: Yeah, Mr Peters, I called her for a supplementary. She made a point of order; I’m now calling her for a supplementary.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does she agree with the Infrastructure Commission that “Too often, projects are announced without going through a proper planning process, and maintenance gets routinely deferred in favour of the new and shiny.”, especially given the multibillion-dollar funding gaps our land transport system is projected to face?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, yes, I do agree with the Infrastructure Commission, which is one of the reasons why I’m so proud to sit next to Minister Simeon Brown, who, on becoming the Minister of Transport, kicked off the pothole remediation plan, necessary due to the lack of road maintenance that occurred on her watch.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Minister consider it courageous to carry on with a $4 billion cost blowout in a simple ferry and wharf replacement project, or was it courageous to stop it, fix it, and save the taxpayer $2.3 billion?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Indeed, Minister, and I would also reflect that sometimes those in glass houses should not be throwing stones or sitting next to Tamatha Paul, who built cycle ways instead of fixing the pipes.

SPEAKER: No, no, that’s—I’m going to—[Interruption]. Consistent with the ruling earlier in the day, the Hon Nicola Willis will withdraw the last part of that answer.

Hon Nicola Willis: I withdraw.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Supplementary?

SPEAKER: Supplementary, the Hon—[Interruption] Whoa, whoa. Supplementary, Julie Anne Genter, and no one speaks while questions are being asked.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: How will the Minister explain to provincial communities around the country, whose roads are in desperate need of investment, that her Government is going to be building the most expensive road by far ever built in this country for less than 2 kilometres of one car lane in each direction in central Wellington when across Aotearoa we are being hit by flooding and severe weather events that will mean thousands—

SPEAKER: Just the question.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: —of kilometres of roads need to be improved?

SPEAKER: Just the question—and, sorry, just concise that down to a question without the statements around it.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: How will she explain to provincial New Zealand that her Government is prioritising $3.8 billion on less than 2 kilometres of one car lane in each direction in our capital city when we could be improving thousands of kilometres—

SPEAKER: No, you don’t need the last bit—no.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, it’s not a case of either/or; it’s a case of both. I would point out to New Zealanders who share my concern about the resilience of our transport network that NZTA has a multi-hundred-million-dollar programme of resilience works under way across the country to improve the resilience of our roads to increasing climatic events, including flooding and landslides. That work is vital, it must continue, and our Government will continue to ensure there is the funding available to support it.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Does she understand that multi-hundred-million is significantly less than $3.8 billion and that by prioritising the Mount Vic tunnel, which has a BCR of less than 1, she is robbing the rest of the country—

SPEAKER: No, you can’t make that statement. [Interruption] No—sorry, the question is ruled out. We move to question No. 3.

Health

Question No. 3

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Does he still believe that supporting locally trained nurses—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just a moment. We will have quiet while a question’s asked. I’ll call again, Dr Ayesha Verrall—to start the question over.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) (14:31) to the Minister of Health: Does he still believe that supporting locally trained nurses is key to growing the health system’s nursing workforce; if not, why not?

SPEAKER: The Hon—[Pause] Simeon Brown. I just—you’re quite unrecognisable at times.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (14:32): Oh, thank you, Mr Speaker. Supporting our locally trained nurses is an important part of our focus on building a healthcare system that has patients at the centre, and that is why our Government is delivering this for patients. Since September 2023, nursing vacancy rates have reduced from 9.5 percent to 3.6 percent, nursing turnover rates have reduced from 13.3 percent to 8.1 percent, and around 2,000 additional nurses have joined Health New Zealand. This has not happened by accident. Our Government has delivered: 1,400 graduate nurses have been employed by Health New Zealand this financial year to date, tracking well against the plan to hire 1,800, meaning over 80 percent of the total cohort are expected to secure hospital-based roles. We’ve also funded 120 places for nurses to train as nurse practitioners in primary care this year, and funded up to 400 graduate nurses per year taken on by primary - and community-care employers. More nurses trained here, in New Zealand, delivering front-line care for New Zealand patients—that is what our Government is focused on.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Why, in Christchurch, where a lack of nurses led to staff rationing the amount of care they could give to patients, did his Government slash the number of graduate nurses employed from 84 to 28 percent?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, as I said, Health New Zealand is making significant progress in strengthening our nursing workforce. Since September 2023, nursing vacancy rates have reduced from 9.5 percent to 3.6 percent. This year, we have hired, so far, 1,430 graduate nurses placed by Health New Zealand, tracking well against the plan to hire 1,800. Those positions are being filled in districts across this country. Our Government’s position is very clear: vacancy rates are down, retention rates are up, and around 2,000 more nurses are working at Health New Zealand since we came to Government. We are making good progress.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Why did 340 nursing graduates miss out on jobs at Christchurch Hospital, where patients who are nil by mouth, gowned, and minutes away from surgery have their operations cancelled due to lack of staff?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Our Government is making good progress in recruiting the nursing staff that New Zealand needs across New Zealand, in districts up and down this country, and, as I’ve said, we have seen nursing vacancy rates drop from 9.5 percent under her watch to 3.6 percent today. Nursing turnover rates have reduced from 13.3 percent to 8.1 percent. We are seeing progress. There is more work to do and we’re continuing to do that.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Why did his Government slash the proportion of graduate nurses hired in Tauranga, where Chantelle went to the emergency department with shortness of breath and waited 11 hours to be seen?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: As I’ve said, we are hiring around 1,800 graduate nurses this year—it’s a significant intake of nurses—in districts up and down our country, and every district across our country will be hiring nurses, meaning that approximately 80 percent of the total cohort are expected to secure hospital-based roles. We’re also making wider progress, with nursing vacancy rates having reduced from 9.5 percent to 3.6 percent. The reality is the facts speak to significant work and significant progress being made under this Government to strengthen our nursing workforce.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: How can New Zealanders know they’ll get the care they need when locally trained nurses are in the dole queue or the immigration queue?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, when that member was the Minister of Health, nursing turnover—

SPEAKER: No.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: —rates were 13.3 percent. It’s now down to 8.1 percent. Our Government’s vacancy rates are down and retention rates are up. Around 2,000 more nurses are working at Health New Zealand today, since we came into Government. We’re funding graduate placements, training nurse practitioners, and growing the primary and community healthcare workforce. We’re getting on with the job.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That set of questions all related to the primary, which was about opportunities for graduate nurses. All of the Minister’s answers related to nurses who are already lucky enough to be in the health system. I wonder if you’d consider directing the Minister to actually answer the question about why so many graduate nurses are missing out on jobs in our health system.

SPEAKER: While I’m not responsible for the Minister’s answers, I would have thought that if the Minister is talking about a reducing percentage of turnover, that would indicate that there are more people working in the system, and that’s what he said.

Dr Tracey McLellan: No, it doesn’t.

SPEAKER: I heard him say there were 2,000 extra nurses. I’m not going to ask him to do it again. Do you have another supplementary?

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: No.

Finance

Question No. 4

RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East) (14:38) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has she seen on the economy?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (14:38): Yesterday, the Reserve Bank released its latest Monetary Policy Statement. This included the bank’s decision to keep the official cash rate (OCR) at 2.25 percent. The Reserve Bank’s forward track implies that this is likely to be the bottom of the easing cycle in terms of OCR reductions, but it also indicated that monetary policy is likely to remain accommodative for some time, with low interest rates continuing to provide stimulus to the economy.

Ryan Hamilton: What does the Reserve Bank say about the current performance of the economy?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Reserve Bank says that economic activity began recovering over the second half of last year in response to strong export prices and lower interest rates. Although it does note the volatility in recent measured GDP data, it says that “Stronger activity has been observed in the rural economy and in the primary sector.”, and says, “There are signs that the recovery is broadening across the economy,”. It notes that residential and business investment is increasing but that households remain cautious for now in their spending. The Reserve Bank’s forecast is for GDP growth of 0.5 percent in the December quarter.

Ryan Hamilton: What does the Reserve Bank say about the economic outlook?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Reserve Bank says, “The economy is at an early stage in its recovery.” It expects growth to continue throughout 2026 and 2027, with increases in business and residential investment, growth in household consumption, and a decline in Government spending as a share of the economy. Economic activity is expected to support growth in employment. The Reserve Bank thinks the unemployment rate peaked in the December quarter last year and will gradually decline from here on. I agree with what the Reserve Bank Governor said on Mike Hosking’s show this morning, which was “there is a lot of good potential in this economy.”

Ryan Hamilton: What does the Reserve Bank say about the outlook for inflation?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, annual Consumers Price Index (CPI) inflation in the December quarter was slightly above the 1 to 3 percent target band. However, the Reserve Bank expects inflation to be within the band this quarter, then converge to near the 2 percent mid-point as some one-off increases drop out of the annual calculation, and as tradable inflation declines and domestic price pressures moderate. Two percent annual CPI inflation has been the mid-point of the target band for almost 25 years, as successive Governments have pursued the goal of low, stable inflation.

Ryan Hamilton: How often in New Zealand’s history has annual CPI inflation been negative?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, it’s worth pointing out, in the context of recent debate in this House, that price decreases would correspond with negative inflation. Over the past 90 years—so that’s 360 quarters in total—annual CPI inflation has been negative for only four of those quarters. Governments never aim for negative inflation, which is when prices overall are falling, because that can be very harmful to the economy, because when prices are falling, people hold off spending and investing to wait for lower prices, so economic activity seizes up and you get into what is termed “a deflationary spiral”—very harmful for people. Instead, Governments aim for positive, low, stable inflation. It is tragic when they fail to achieve that, because big price increases do get baked in—for example, when inflation in successive quarters was 6.9 percent, 7.3 percent, 7.2 percent, 7.2 percent, 6.7 percent, and 6 percent, as it was in 2022 and 2023 under the previous Government.

Housing

Question No. 5

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) (14:41) to the Minister of Housing: Does he stand by all of his statements and actions?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (14:42) on behalf of the Minister of Housing: Yes, in the context in which they were given.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: How will issuing move-on orders, moving homeless people from the CBD to other areas, assist the housing situation in Auckland?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, we are doing a lot, as a Government, to assist the housing situation in Auckland—in particular, we have contracts with the Auckland City Mission and a number of other housing providers to ensure that transitionary housing support is available, including the wraparound support often needed for people with additional needs that lead them to be living on the streets. It is also the case that, in addition to those social supports available for people, some people behave in ways that are obnoxious and upset the peace of others, and our Government will take action to address that.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Does he agree with Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour, who said, “Things have to be practical. They have to work. So if you ban homelessness, where do people actually go? … you’re better to actually build homes, engage community housing providers, get people a place to go. That’s what actually works.”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes, and that’s exactly what we’re doing.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: How many of the 300 Housing First places he announced in September have been filled?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: On behalf of the Minister, I don’t have that figure with me, but I’ll be happy to furnish it to the member in the appropriate way.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, sir. While I fully accept that it is a Government’s right to allocate whichever Minister it chooses in the absence of the responsible Minister, we have a situation here today, where we have a Minister who is responsible for social housing, who was part of the announcement that I have just referred to, and normal practice would assume that if the housing Minister is away that the associate housing Minister would stand in their stead so that you can avoid the situation that we’re in now, where a Minister answering on behalf of a Minister is unable to answer a simple question, which the Minister who has the associate delegation would have been able to answer. It seems, sir, that this tactic, if not monitored, could be used to avoid answering questions in future. To your point earlier this week, sir, this is election year, so we want to be conscious of these things.

SPEAKER: Yes, I am conscious of that, and that’s—if you look at it, firstly your first point was that it’s the Government who decides who is most capable of answering the question. The question you did ask was relatively specific, and there was an indication that the answer would be provided through a different means. I think I can’t do more than just that.

Hon Louise Upston: Speaking to the point of order.

SPEAKER: Have you got a supplementary question?

Hon Louise Upston: No, speaking to the point of order. Speaking to the point of order, the primary question was incredibly broad, so there was nothing specific in the primary that indicated the line of questioning.

SPEAKER: I’m well aware of that. I’ve just ruled on it.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Will he accept that with only half of the places he announced in September actually being filled and the number of homeless in Auckland far exceeding that number and continuing to grow, move-on orders aren’t about addressing homelessness but just trying to look like they are?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No, I won’t accept that, but what I will say is that the Government has funded a number of housing places so that people who are without homes are able to get appropriate housing. We do encourage, and have been working hard behind the scenes with, community housing providers to ensure that they take all steps necessary to fill those places, which is to say that if there are people who are homeless, there are housing places available for them. The member has actually highlighted this point by highlighting that we are funding housing places right now that are available for people who are on the street should they connect with them.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, sir. Now, I accept that the Minister, by her own admission, is not fully on top of this issue, and fair enough—she’s answering on behalf of, and she’s not got the associate delegation—but she has just made a comment that is factually incorrect and has been shown, through previous questions to the actual Associate Minister of Housing, that is not the case. I would like to give her the opportunity to correct that now rather than going through a privileges process.

SPEAKER: Well, I can’t judge whether or not the Minister should or should not have known something—that’s not the role of the Speaker. An answer was given. If you’re not happy with that answer, use other remedies.

Tamatha Paul: Is the Minister aware that move-on orders could lead to incarcerating homeless people, which would cost around $200,000 per year, which is far more expensive than actually housing people?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: On behalf of the Minister of Housing, it is always the case that putting people in prison comes with a significant cost to the Crown. It is also the case that people committing crime against other New Zealanders comes at a considerable cost. We on this side of the House are happy to be on the side of law and order.

Chlöe Swarbrick: When, if ever, will Government Ministers respond to my letter from last year inviting them to walk the streets of Auckland Central to meet the people, including the children, who their Government policies have made homeless?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: On behalf of the Minister of Housing, I do walk the streets of Auckland reasonably regularly, as do my colleagues.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Can the Minister confirm that—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just a moment. Just a moment. All questions are heard in silence.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Can the Minister confirm that Government Ministers are capable of walking the streets of Auckland and do on many occasions without the assistance of the member for—whatever it is—Auckland Central?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: On behalf of the Minister of Housing, yes.

Prime Minister

Question No. 6

TODD STEPHENSON (ACT) (14:48) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government’s statements and actions?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Deputy Prime Minister) (14:48) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes—particularly our continued drive to make careful use of taxpayer money. It’s long been said that monetary policy needs friends, and monetary policy in New Zealand finally has a friend in this Government. By keeping tight spending allowances and driving for efficiency to get more out of less with Government services, we’ve been able to keep standards up while also taking pressure off inflation, which has halved, and interest rates, which have also halved. We saw, just yesterday, the Reserve Bank Governor suggest that relatively low mortgage rates will remain—to use her word—“accommodative” for some time. We’re not only making careful use of money; we’re also cutting red tape to make life more affordable. Just today, I saw three small examples that are significant to New Zealanders from Ministers in this Government—Nicole McKee allowing clubs, such as RSAs, to apply for on-licences so that more people can access good times in an affordable setting, and Brooke van Velden making it possible to charge EVs and run amusements for children; all of the things that make life better and more affordable by cutting red tape through this Government.

Todd Stephenson: What is the Government doing to reduce the size of Government?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, just today, the Government has introduced legislation to be debated later on. That legislation will take four ministries and merge them into one, with one Minister, one coherent purpose, one budget, and one set of accountability to make sure that we build the pipes and the pumping stations and the infrastructure to connect homes together for the next generation. That is the sort of reorganisation that’s time has come, I believe—and that Governments in the future should do much more of as they seek to be smaller and more efficient to serve New Zealanders.

Todd Stephenson: Does a smaller Government mean New Zealanders will get less out of their Government?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: The answer on behalf of the Prime Minister is no. I’m hearing people on the other side say yes, and that is because they have a mentality that the only way to solve a problem is to throw more money at it. They think that aroha comes from spending more taxpayers’ money and borrowing off future taxpayers. We know on this side of the House that if we really love the next generation, then we will have a smaller, more efficient Government that delivers the public services New Zealanders require, without believing that borrowing and spending more money is the only way to achieve results. We know what happens when we do that, and that’s why New Zealanders will be asking themselves why put it all at risk this November.

Todd Stephenson: What actions is the Government taking to take the pressure off rental costs?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, many things. I mentioned earlier that we have been careful with our own spending so that mortgage rates can fall. They’ve halved under this Government. That means that we now see less pressure on rent because many landlords are trying to service mortgages. We’ve also made mortgage interest a deductible expense for people renting out homes, and that has put downward pressure on rents, which have fallen in many cases. We’ve also simplified the Residential Tenancies Act so that a landlord can take a chance on a tenant and offer them a place to live, knowing they can get out of the relationship if it goes wrong. Those three changes have made it better to be a tenant in this country, and we’re very proud of what we’ve done to make renting more affordable as a Government.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Point of order.

SPEAKER: Point of order, the Hon Chlöe—Chlöe Swarbrick.

Chlöe Swarbrick: I’ll take it, Mr Speaker. The Minister may wish to revise his answer to that question just now, because I believe that potentially he may be in violation of Standing Order 418(b), and that is misleading the House. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever—in fact, evidence to the contrary, both from Treasury and from the Reserve Bank—that the Government’s decisions around the likes of the brightline test put upward pressure on house prices. In fact, the reason that they are falling is because of the record number of New Zealanders leaving.

SPEAKER: Sorry; that is, with all due respect—[Interruption] Excuse me. That is not a point of order; it’s a debating point, and members should be careful about raising those things. You cannot invite someone to correct themselves; there’s a process for that.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Does he agree with David Seymour that the Government is “open to the possibility” of abandoning the LNG gas tax because people are concerned that their “power bills add up higher” as a result?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: On behalf of the Prime Minister, I find David Seymour very agreeable and a great person to agree with. Sadly, in this case, I happen to have some insight that he didn’t exactly make that quote.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table a transcript with David Seymour on Heather du Plessis-Allan’s show on 18 February where he is quoted as saying this.

SPEAKER: That’s fine; it’s publicly available.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: No, it’s not publicly available; it’s a transcript of the interview.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order.

SPEAKER: Just a moment. Well, look, the House can make up its mind.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I speak to the point of order?

SPEAKER: It’s unusual. No, it wasn’t a point of order; she was seeking leave.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: It’s a very important point. She’s seeking to table—

SPEAKER: Mr Peters, please, sit down.

Hon Member: Oh, shut up, Peters.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I won’t be shutting up for you, you turkey. She’s seeking to recite a quote which if it had any veracity should have been attached to the question in the first place.

SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is. [Interruption]

Hon Willie Jackson: You don’t like the truth; they don’t want the truth.

SPEAKER: Excuse me. Mr Jackson, I’ve been pushed to take a hard line on high standards.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, sir. Now, it’s quite clear that Willie Jackson is now on a warning; that if he interrupts you again, that he’ll be sent out.

SPEAKER: No, it’s not. No—no. Please don’t interpret—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: So he can carry on? The point is, sir—

SPEAKER: No—sorry. The member is going to trifle with the Chair if he carries on with that. Make up your own mind.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, sir.

SPEAKER: OK. It better be a very clear point of order.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: It is a point of order because I’m concerned that, just by that statement, it’s quite clear that you’re saying that if I trifle with you again that I will leave, but you won’t even require someone making a racist comment to withdraw and apologise?

Question time interrupted.

Withdrawal from Chamber

Hon Kieran McAnulty

SPEAKER (14:56): The member will leave the House.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Double standards, sir—double standards.

Hon Kieran McAnulty withdrew from the Chamber.

SPEAKER: Yup. Keep saying it. [Interruption] Just a moment. Look, here’s the deal: I ruled on something today; this side of the House challenged that significantly. Everyone knows that’s not what is supposed to happen. Second thing is, during that exchange there, when a question had started, there was a lot of conversation, from this House, being led by one member in particular. I pointed it out; everyone knows that’s not the way the House functions, and, somehow, that’s exercising a double standard.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Yeah.

SPEAKER: That’s, also, an attack on the House. If people want to keep on sitting there, saying, “Yes, that’s the case.”, they can go and join him. In the meantime, we’ll have the supplementary question from Todd Stephenson.

Oral Questions to Ministers

Prime Minister

Question No. 6

Question time resumed.

TODD STEPHENSON (ACT) (14:57): Still to the Prime Minister: does he stand by the creation of the Ministry for Regulation?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Deputy Prime Minister) (14:57): On behalf of the Prime Minister, absolutely. And how could you not; when it has demonstrated savings for Kiwis that far exceed the cost of the ministry itself—in one estimate, by a ratio of $16 of extra economic activity for every $1 it costs to cut red tape. Whether you’re trying to bake cakes, build a garden shed, run a hairdresser or a day care, grow hemp, or even just get probate for a will, the interventions of the Ministry for Regulation are cutting away the red tape that makes life unaffordable for New Zealanders and we’re having a great deal of fun doing it. In stark contrast, there is the Opposition, who have wasted almost an hour of the public’s time today with pointless—

SPEAKER: No—no. That’s not acceptable—

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: —out-of-order points of order; that’s why we’re proud to be on this side.

SPEAKER: Mr Seymour, that is completely unacceptable, entirely unhelpful, and that’ll be the end of that question.

Health

Question No. 7

SAM UFFINDELL: Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry—the next person who speaks while a question’s being asked will be leaving.

SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga) (14:58) to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has he made about enabling 12-month prescriptions for patients?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (14:58): Our Government is focused on making a real difference for patients. That’s why, from 1 February this year, New Zealanders with stable, long-term conditions can now receive prescriptions for up to 12 months. This common-sense solution will help patients with conditions such as asthma, diabetes, epilepsy, and high blood pressure by reducing their need to renew prescriptions every three months. This change reduces costs for patients that need repeat prescriptions, improves access to medicines, and frees up valuable GP time for those who need appointments.

Sam Uffindell: How will this change benefit patients with long-term conditions?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: We are making the system work better for the patients it serves. For those managing stable, ongoing conditions, this change will mean fewer trips to the doctor just to renew a routine prescription and fewer prescription charges over the year. Patients will continue to collect their repeats from the pharmacy as usual but will no longer need to return to their doctor each time for a new script. This is expected to save patients up to $120 per year, for those who receive 12-month prescriptions. This is a practical, patient-focused change.

Sam Uffindell: What benefits will this have for access to primary care?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: This is a win-win for both patients and health professionals. This gives doctors and prescribers the ability to prescribe for up to 12 months for stable, ongoing conditions, reducing the burden on GPs and other prescribers, who currently spend time issuing repeat prescriptions every three months. This initiative will free up appointments for patients with more immediate or complex needs. This policy isn’t just about expanding prescription lengths; it’s also about using our health workforce more efficiently to improve timely access to care and ensure patients can see a clinician when they need to.

Sam Uffindell: What other steps has the Government taken to improve access to medicines?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: In addition to 12-month prescriptions, we’ve also increased prescribing rights for health professionals such as nurse practitioners, enabling them to prescribe a wider range of medicines within their area of practice, and we’ve progressed practical changes to strengthen the pharmacy workforce by removing ownership restrictions that limited pharmacist prescribers from prescribing if they owned or held an interest in a pharmacy. Together, these patient-focused changes will ensure New Zealanders have quicker, easier, and more affordable access to the care and medicines they need. It’s all part of our plan to fix the basics and build the future for a more patient-focused health system.

Internal Affairs

Question No. 8

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour—Māngere) (15:01) to the Minister of Internal Affairs: Is she confident that Fire and Emergency New Zealand is doing everything it can to ensure firefighters are receiving a fair deal; if so, why?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (15:01): Yes. I understand the leadership of Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) have sought an agreement with the New Zealand Professional Firefighters Union (NZPFU) that complies with the Government’s Workforce Policy Statement, is affordable, and doesn’t increase cost of living for Kiwis. I’m advised that the NZPFU’s most recent settlement proposal was more than three times higher than Fire and Emergency’s last offer, which they believe was fair, sustainable, and reasonable, and in line with other settlements across the Public Service. Facilitated bargaining with the Employment Relations Authority (ERA) is under way at the request of Fire and Emergency, as they believe the ERA gives them the best chance of coming to a positive, sustainable outcome and introducing some realism into discussions. That process continues and, as it is an independent process, it is not appropriate that I comment too much further.

Lemauga Lydia Sosene: How can she be confident when firefighters are striking twice a week?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Industrial action that puts the community at risk doesn’t help to get trucks fixed or build new ones or make any settlements. Fire and Emergency have been in bargaining with the NZPFU for 583 days. They have been willing to be at the table. Striking doesn’t help settle any faster.

Lemauga Lydia Sosene: Is she concerned that her cuts of $50 million a year have led to a situation where FENZ cannot make the investment in the staff and equipment they need to keep firefighters safe, resulting in the strike?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Absolutely, I refute that. What I would say, though, is that when Ministers get personally involved in collective bargaining, as previous Ministers of Internal Affairs have done, it hasn’t led to better outcomes. Let me tell the members of the public who’ll be listening what happens when former Ministers of Internal Affairs have gotten involved: there was a 24 percent pay increase in the 2022 agreement with the NZPFU, which required a Crown loan of $75 million, which Fire and Emergency is still trying to pay back, and has paid over $5 million just in interest costs on that loan, which is being paid for by people out there in our community as levy payers. This is a Government that is looking at how we can constrain the fiscal environment and have a fair outcome for the professional firefighters as well as the people who pay their wages.

Lemauga Lydia Sosene: Can the Minister name any other profession where workers must strike to get the basic equipment they need to do their jobs safely?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: No, and the NZPFU doesn’t need to.

Lemauga Lydia Sosene: How can Kiwis have confidence that firefighters will be able to turn up when they need them when they are dealing with basic equipment failures that prevent them from doing their job safely?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: All New Zealanders do want to have confidence that the right resources will arrive quickly to an incident, and that is what Fire and Emergency seeks to uphold. Whenever we have a fleet of around 1,300 trucks, there is always going to be a maintenance issue, but Fire and Emergency give me assurance that when they have a networked approach—which is what they do—they respond to incidents with backup trucks and backup crews available to respond as required so a breakdown doesn’t mean that no one is coming, and I would caution the member attempting to try and create any perception for members of the public that there is unsafety because of Fire and Emergency’s leadership. What is unsafe is the NZPFU striking when Fire and Emergency as a leadership team are ready to be around that bargaining table, because it’s already been 583 days of willingness from this side.

Education

Question No. 9

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini) (15:06) to the Minister of Education: What announcement has she made regarding school property?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education) (15:06): Last week, I attended the opening of a brand-new primary school in Takanini. Te Kura Rau Iti has the capacity for 700 students to support roll growth in the fast-growing suburb of Flat Bush. The school was built in under 18 months and came in below budget following our inquiry into school property and a subsequent value-for-money exercise. It cost $41 million—almost half the previous build cost, estimated to be $76.5 million projected in 2023. Not only did we build the school for $41 million, saving $35 million, we also delivered an extra 100 student places for that price—no open-plan classrooms, no expensive, unnecessary bespoke designs, just getting on with the job and delivering warm, safe, dry classrooms for our kids.

Rima Nakhle: How has the Government been able to deliver this?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: The delivery of this school on time and under budget proves that our Government’s approach to school property delivery is working. We undertook an inquiry into school property and appointed a ministerial advisory group to bring commercial oversight to school property. We’ve driven a focus in the ministry on moving away from bespoke, expensive, architecturally designed buildings. We’re using off-site manufacturing with standardised, repeatable, quality designs and layouts. Through these changes, we’ve been able to halve the cost of building a classroom so that we can deliver more classrooms faster and at a lower cost—and that’s what delivery looks like.

Rima Nakhle: What else has she announced on school property?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: For the first time in 50 years, we’re building two new specialist day schools to support children with high and complex additional learning needs. One is in Palmerston North, where there is no provision for 72 kilometres, and the other is in South Auckland where the wait-lists are just not keeping up. Over the last two Budgets, we’ve ring-fenced money for specialist education and property, including funding 50 new specialist satellite classrooms and the redevelopment of four specialist schools. Learning support is a huge priority for this Government, and that includes empowering parents to make the choice that is best for their children.

Rima Nakhle: How have schools been supported with their maintenance work?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: As well as building more classrooms than ever before, this Government is focused on maintaining the schools and classrooms that we have. Budget 2024 uplift of $780 million in depreciation funding for school property maintenance was almost double that of the previous six years. We helped to get maintenance work under way over the summer break, with a $58 million package for schools to help their painting, repairs, and other minor fixes. We increased the Five Year Agreement funding for schools by 50 percent for the first time since 2010 to help schools with planned upgrades, modernisation, and replacement of existing school buildings. We’re completing work to support improvements in school property for 934 isolated small and rural schools. This work also means more jobs for our tradies, which is all contributing to economic growth.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: What plans does the Minister have to address the Ministry of Education’s assessment identifying 1,102 schools and kura—about 44 percent of all schools—as potentially exposed to costal, surface, or river flooding, and 106 schools as vulnerable to coastal flooding or landslides?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, the Ministry of Education, for the first time, is putting in place 10-year property plans. It is the first time that the Ministry of Education has done this to take into account a range of different issues so that we can make really good budget decisions every single year, taking all of these things into consideration.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Will the Minister ensure that financial support will be available for schools to address climate-charged, weather-related damages, or does the Minister expect schools to pay for the damages out of their own operational fund?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, with recent weather events that have impacted schools, of course insurance, for the most part, covers those damages, but the Ministry of Education always comes to the party where we need to.

Universities

Question No. 10

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour) (15:11) to the Minister for Universities: Does he think the that current student loan levels are sufficient to allow students to focus on their studies; if so, why?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education) (15:11) on behalf of the Minister for Universities: The Government expects the costs of study to be shared between learners—for example, through part-time work or summer jobs—their families, and the Government, and this has been a long-held position. Since 2005, there has been an inflationary adjustment every year, through multiple Governments, designed to account for annual inflationary changes.

Shanan Halbert: How can students get by when the student loan living costs increased by 2.2 percent but the cost of food is up 4.6 percent in the last year and energy is up 18 percent since the election?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: As I have already outlined, the annual calculation to those increases has been almost exactly the same since 2005. There have been a couple of adjustments, but, for the most part, they have been the same. I would like to point out that in 2022, when the Consumers Price Index was running at 7.22 percent and food inflation was running at over 12 percent, it was really tough for students, but this Government has driven down the cost of living, we’ve got inflation under control, rents are flat to falling, and if that member was so concerned about the calculations—

SPEAKER: No, that’s enough.

Shanan Halbert: In what ways has this Government driven down the cost of living for university students?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: As I’ve just mentioned, if you compared the stats to a few years ago, they’re much better than they were. One example, of course, is rents: driven up under the previous Government by $150, they’re now flat to falling, and in places like Auckland and Wellington, significantly falling.

Shanan Halbert: Does he think eating, paying rent, and having electricity are optional luxuries for students?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: As I said in my primary question, the costs for students fall on three parties; it has been a long-held position. They fall on students, their families, and on the Government, and it’s up to students to make sure they’re making use of the student loan scheme as well as looking after some of their costs through part-time work, either during term time or during their summer jobs, and also with support from their families.

Shanan Halbert: Why is his solution just for students to work on top of their studies when his Government has also made it harder for students to even find a job?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: The outlook, according to Treasury, was much worse than it actually has been. This Government has been working really hard to make sure that there are opportunities available for New Zealanders. We have been working hard to make sure that we’re driving investment into this country. We’re making sure that we are driving down the cost of borrowing so that companies can expand and create more jobs. The outlook for students, compared to just a few years ago, is a lot better than it was.

Tourism and Hospitality

Question No. 11

MILES ANDERSON (National—Waitaki) (15:14) to the Minister for Tourism and Hospitality: What recent progress has she seen on tourism and major events in New Zealand?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Tourism and Hospitality) (15:15): New data released by Stats NZ last week showed international visitor arrivals reached 3.51 million in the year to December 2025, putting us at 90 percent of pre-COVID levels. This is the first annual period to exceed 3.5 million overseas visitor arrivals since the March 2020 year, meaning tourism levels are now at their highest since December 2019. Visitor arrivals from Australia reached 1.52 million in the year to December 2025—an increase of 10 percent on the previous year—while arrivals from China were up 29 percent over the same period. Growing tourism is a key part of our plan to fix the basics and build the future. This progress shows that our plan is working.

Miles Anderson: What progress has she seen in the business events sector?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Last week, the New Zealand International Convention Centre (NZICC) was officially opened. This world-class venue is estimated to bring in 33,000 international conference visitors who would not otherwise come to New Zealand, contributing $90 million of new spending annually. New research from Business Events Industry Aotearoa also shows that multi-day conferences delivered $925 million in economic and productivity contribution in 2025. This was before the opening of the NZICC last week, so I’m really excited to see where we go from here. With more than 120 events having already been confirmed for NZICC in 2026, the strong pipeline of events means more visitors to New Zealand, more economic activity, more jobs, and more opportunities for Kiwis.

Miles Anderson: How are recent visa changes impacting visitor numbers?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Changes that allow eligible visitors from China and the Pacific to travel to New Zealand from Australia with a New Zealand Electronic Travel Authority, or an NZeTA, rather than a visa are also making a difference. To date, we’ve seen over 36,000 additional arrivals from China travelling through this pathway. With an average visitor spend of $5,800 for Chinese visitors, that amounts to an estimated economic injection of $210 million for Kiwi businesses for those visitors. A new survey following these changes shows that being able to travel with an NZeTA was a deciding factor in people’s decisions to visit New Zealand. Eighty-five percent of respondents have said they travelled to New Zealand specifically because of the NZeTA option becoming available. I’m proud to have worked with my colleague the Hon Erica Stanford on this.

Miles Anderson: What feedback has she seen on the progress on tourism and major events?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: We’ve received a range of positive feedback on our progress to date. Tourism Industry Aotearoa chief executive Rebecca Ingram says, “Forward bookings are looking positive, and the industry has real momentum.” She attributed that to the Government’s tourism focus and investments, targeted marketing from Tourism New Zealand, changes in visa settings, and new and exciting changes on the horizon. James Doolan from Hotel Council Aotearoa said, “Central government’s increased investment in event attraction and destination marketing have allowed private businesses to invest in their assets.” Tourism is critical to our economy, and our investments will help to deliver lasting benefits for communities and businesses from one end of New Zealand to the other.

Emergency Management and Recovery

Question No. 12

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato) (15:19) to the Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery: Does he agree with the Prime Minister that “Iwi and marae are very good at emergency management. They don’t just stand up for iwi, they stand up for the entire community”?

Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery) (15:19): Yeah, I definitely agree with that statement from the Prime Minister. That has, without a doubt, been my experience since I’ve been Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery.

Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke: Will the $1 million marae emergency response fund be enough to cope with the increased frequency of climate-related distresses in Aotearoa?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, it’s money that we put immediately into Te Puni Kōkiri because, especially over the last couple of months, you will have seen that we’ve had lots of events to deal with. Local Māori and iwi have stood up, marae have been opened, and what happens is that they will have a stockpile of goods there to support the broader, wider community, but then they have to go through a big bureaucratic sort of process to replenish that. What we’ve done is, with meetings with the Prime Minister, getting around the country, we have tried to remove some of that red tape to make it much easier for marae to replenish those stocks, and we also put an additional $1 million in there, which has actually gone out to most of the marae now that they’ve been providing that support.

Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke: Does he stand by the Government’s decision to cut $23 million from the Climate Emergency Response Fund that was intended to help hapori Māori deal with climate change adaptation and resilience?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, that’s not my portfolio area, but what I would say in terms of our readiness, our response, and our recovery as a country is that we’ve made hundreds of millions of dollars of investment, particularly into marae in Tairāwhiti and the Hawke’s Bay. We continue to have conversations with iwi leaders. We just had a very good session and meetings up at Waitangi on how we continue to (1) make sure that marae are in the right place and are not exposed to flooding, and (2) make sure they are supported and ready to be able to respond to these weather events.

Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke: Will he commit to ongoing funding to support marae in responding to emergencies and to improve climate change adaptation and resilience for hapori Māori?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yes. Iwi are an extremely important partner for the Government, in readiness, response, and recovery and also in the reduction and the mitigation work. I could get into a lot of detail around that, because there’s a significant amount of money and work being done around the country with local iwi on mitigation work. Of course, we’ve got the emergency management legislation in front of the select committee. I want to acknowledge all the members in this House, from every party, who’ve worked really hard to get that into good shape, because it’s important for us as a country to have that as a launching pad in terms of how we deal with these emergencies. As part of that I actually codified and made sure that Māori have now got a seat at what we called our coordinating executive group, and that is the senior executive group that works together to make plans, and to be fully involved in how we respond to these weather events.

Bills

Environment (Disestablishment of Ministry for the Environment) Amendment Bill

Legislative Statement

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation) (15:23): on behalf of the Minister for the Environment: I present a legislative statement on the Environment (Disestablishment of Ministry for the Environment) Amendment Bill.

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

First Reading

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation) (15:23): on behalf of the Minister for the Environment: I move, That the Environment (Disestablishment of Ministry for the Environment) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Environment Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 24 April 2026.

This bill will allow for the creation of the new Ministry for Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport, also known as MCERT. MCERT brings together the Ministry for the Environment; the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Te Tūāpapa Kura Kāinga; the Ministry of Transport Te Manatū Waka; and local government functions of the Department of Internal Affairs into one unified agency—one agency to rule them all.

MCERT will combine key levers across central and local government, reducing duplication and complexity. It will provide joined-up advice to solve complex problems with a regional focus on deals and delivery, backed by a strong economic engine, high-quality data, and insights.

The primary purpose of MCERT is to unlock the potential of New Zealand cities and regions, boosting economic growth and productivity through lower transaction costs, a simpler and more responsive Public Service, and a more integrated planning and investment environment. Bring it on to Hamilton as soon as possible.

This will support faster decisions and better outcomes across housing, transport, local government, and environmental systems. The Government has ambitious and complex policy reforms under way, from housing growth and Local Water Done Well to the national adaptation framework, but responsibility for progressing these reforms currently spans multiple agencies, many agencies, many Ministers. For example, solving our housing crisis is impossible without fundamental planning reform, which is currently the responsibility of the Ministry for the Environment. It is also impossible without reforms to infrastructure funding and financing, which are currently split across HUD, the Department of Internal Affairs, and Transport. The work is deeply connected, but the current system, being fragmented and uncoordinated, creates unnecessary cost delays, uncertainty, and inefficiency, and it is hampering investment.

MCERT will make it easier for advice to be integrated and accountabilities to be clear. These connections will significantly strengthen implementation of our current mahi programme and help ensure we fully realise the benefits of our current reforms. The new ministry will bring layers of central and local government, their regulations, their services, their investments closer together to be more coherent, cohesive, and effective for all New Zealanders.

Key benefits will include integrated housing, transport, environmental policy, planning, and investment for better outcomes; a single point of contact for stakeholders, for local government, for iwi Māori organisations and community groups; joined up solutions for complex challenges with a regional focus on deals and delivery; smarter planning and investment backed by better data and insights; and economic benefits through reduced transaction costs and coherent advice, unlocking greater value for future developments.

Changes to the Act: the Environment Act 1986, established the Ministry for the Environment and must be amended before MCERT can be created. The Ministry for the Environment's functions include advising the Government on all aspects of environmental administration—including in Northland, Mr McCallum. This covers climate, natural hazards, natural and physical resources, wider ecosystems, and the economic, social, and cultural factors that matter to current generations as well as future generations. These functions are not changing. They will remain in the Environment Act and will be an important part of the new ministry.

The bill simply transfers the functions from the Ministry for the Environment to the Secretary for the Environment, who will also be the chief executive of MCERT. As Secretary for the Environment, the chief executive will be responsible to the Minister for the Environment for the performance of these functions and comply in their obligation to have regards to the matters in section 17 of the Environment and Act. Section 17 matters also remain unchanged.

These changes will modernise the existing accountability framework to better align with that of other Government departments. It will also enable other instruments under the Public Service Act 2020 to be used to implement the Government’s desired machinery of Government change.

While MCERT brings immense potential to boost growth and productivity, I know that it still marks the disestablishment of the Ministry for the Environment after 40 years—that’s 80 percent of my life—and it brings us one step closer to also disestablishing the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development and the Ministry of Transport on 1 July.

I want to thank all the public servants who have been working feverishly at these agencies for the benefit of all New Zealanders for up to four decades and who will continue to work during this period of change. We are establishing a high-performing agency in MCERT to match our intention in our delivery of high-performing planning, infrastructure funding and financing, and, of course, local government systems. The Government wants to unlock the economic potential of New Zealand cities and regions and alongside the environment, our society, communities, and culture, today we are one step closer to achieving that.

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

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) (15:29): This bill is an absolute disgrace. What is does is it speaks to a Government that continues its war on nature, doesn’t care about environmental protections and continues to erode them. I’m not terribly surprised because it comes from the Minister for the Environment, who said quite clearly—well, she has claimed—that the balance has swung too far in favour of environmental protection—that from the Minister who is supposed to be protecting the environment.

Despite ongoing biodiversity loss, despite the fresh water degradation, despite the fact that that Minister has absolutely no evidence once again to base her statements on, she claims that we are protecting the environment too much, suddenly, and so we need now to continue to stop protecting it, and that is what this bill is about. It fits with the National Government’s track record on the environment.

They have been described as being radical, far-right, waging a war on nature and a war on climate policy. They have been described as the most anti-environmental Government since the 1980s, and I would agree.

In fact, their track record on protecting the environment is so egregious that just today, I think it is, four major environmental organisations have announced that they will boycott the Bluegreen conference, which is a pretty big deal. It’s been going since the 1990s, from memory. It was founded on principles of sustainability and science-based policy, all of which this Government is abdicating responsibility from. Those environmental organisations—very credible, very well-regarded organisations—have clearly said that they have predicated this decision, not taken this decision lightly, but it’s based on the fact that this Government has a terrible track record when it comes to fast tracking mining, including on conservation land, and I will come back to that in a minute; they have weakened safeguards for rivers, forests, and conservation land; and they haven’t taken any meaningful action when it comes to climate action.

Let me just dwell briefly on that point around fast tracking mining on conservation land. I am, of course, talking about Denniston Plateau, which is listed in Schedule 2 of the Fast-track Approvals Act, and it is egregious. More than 12,400 people have signed a petition asking for this area to be protected. Denniston is rated by DOC—the Department of Conservation—scientists as one of the top 50 most ecologically valuable sites in Aotearoa New Zealand, that this is public conservation land that should be permanently protected for nature and not destroyed by a massive coalmine, which would dig up an area the equivalent of 1,700 rugby fields, destroying Denniston Plateau.

Now, Minister Potaka had the opportunity to reclassify this area and protect it, but, no, he didn’t. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment wrote to him and talked about the fact that it merits reclassification using higher conservation status. The Minister’s written back and said, “Oh, well, no, I’ve decided to decline that proposal. I don’t think that it has any conservation value.”, despite the fact that numerous scientists have said that it does and it should be protected.

But that is emblematic of this Government. They don’t care. They don’t care whether we fast track our way through all of our environmental protections. They don’t care and they have stripped over $100 million of funding from the Department of Conservation. They have used the visitor levy, which they opposed, by the way, when Labour in Government brought it in—they opposed it because they said that increased funding would just go to line Government coffers, and that is exactly what they are doing now with the increase of the visitor levy.

Ultimately, this is down to the Luxon Government. They’ve watered down protections on the Hauraki Gulf to allow commercial fishing in highly protected areas. This is a Government that is weak, that is out of touch, that doesn’t understand the anxieties that New Zealanders are facing. Whether it comes to the need to address the cost of living and whether it comes to the need to better protect our environment, they don’t care about either. This is not the way to improve infrastructure growth. This is a mega-ministry that nobody asked for and nobody wants, and all it will do is transfer the functions of the Ministry for the Environment, when it comes to urban planning; everything else to do with biodiversity protection, conservation, better fresh water will all be down the drain, thanks to this terrible Government.

LAN PHAM (Green) (15:34): Thank you, Madam Speaker. What happened to caring about our environment? It used to be something that was genuinely accepted as something that Governments of all stripes did, and yet here we are. I’m just getting increasingly frustrated, time after time, of this tagline that is attached to every comment that the Government makes and does where the environment suffers, where they’re removing be it funding from our Government agencies, from our science departments, whether it be legislative change, and they say they’re doing it whilst protecting the environment. I’m so, so disappointed with that, alongside so many other New Zealanders across the country who we absolutely stand with in the face of such destructive decisions on a scale that we have not seen before. I particularly want to acknowledge all those communities across Aotearoa who are standing up against particularly fast-track projects but every single aspect of every decision that this Government is making that takes us backwards. In 2026, we are going backwards, and that is unacceptable if you can accept—which I think all of us can in this Chamber—that we need to be good ancestors, we need to actually make decisions that set up our kids and grandkids into the future.

Now, I want to acknowledge, as well, those leading environmental voices who are deciding that they’ve had enough, because these are groups that are not political groups, they are standing up for te taiao—our environment—and they’re not turning up to the National Party’s fake environment conference this weekend; they’re citing fast track, weakened river protections, proposed conservation sales, and inadequate climate action. You can’t wreck the environment, host a conference about it, and expect people to just show up and put on a smile. This is really disappointing and hugely damaging.

I want to reflect that the Ministry for the Environment actually exists because, in 1986, New Zealanders decided that protecting our natural world needed a dedicated voice at the heart of Government. Since then, that voice has told us, time after time again, that the health of our environment is actually at risk, and, therefore, everything that is built upon that is also at risk. This is the stuff that the Government purport to just want to be so laser-focused on: our economy, our society. Yet they’re consistently undermining the very foundations of that.

Burying the Ministry for the Environment in a superministry designed to drive development, growth, and infrastructure is the clearest possible signal that this Government can give that environment comes last. This is all from a Minister that claims that the balance has swung too far towards the environment, even as her own ministry reports, time after time again, that across oceans, across biodiversity, across water and air our statistics are going backwards. It’s like they just keep thinking “If we just keep saying it, New Zealanders will be us. If we just add an “E” to MCERT, that stands for environment, that will mean something.” It doesn’t mean anything; it is meaningless.

What is so important for New Zealanders to know is that they do not have to put up with this; they can take a stand in the lead up to 7 November when they can decide that they want environment to be the very core of how we centre caring for each other, caring for the environment, and we actually build our economy and society around that, not the other way round. This is an absolute stain on this Government’s reputation. This Minister should be ashamed that under her legacy, 40 years of environmental progress that is held in this ministry by the amazing people in it, is going down the drain.

SIMON COURT (ACT) (15:39): I intend to speak about the bill. Today is about fixing what matters: affordable homes, reliable roads, and a planning system that says “Yes, and”, not “No, and here’s the bill.” That’s what the Government is here to fix. That’s why I’m proud that ACT is part of this Government.

I welcome the disestablishment of the Ministry for the Environment in law, clearing the way to bring planning, housing, transport, and local government functions into one coherent Ministry of Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport. This merger is not cosmetic; it’s a practical layer in a wider growth programme. Some have suggested to me—unlike the member Lan Pham’s contention that environment might get lost—that the environment might take over and poison the minds of people who want to deliver housing and transport. But I don’t believe that. I trust that there’s practical, sensible, constructive people at the Ministry for the Environment who will go on to enjoy working and contributing in this ministry.

“We’re replacing the Resource Management Act (RMA)”, is one of the reasons we’re doing this. That’s so it’s easier to say “yes” to homes and easier to say “yes” to the infrastructure that supports them. We’re reforming infrastructure funding and financing, so projects are delivered, not just announced. And we’re refocusing local government on core services and value for money, so that reform sticks where it’s applied in communities. But reforming the rules is only half the job. If form should follow function, then the right form also helps to deliver the right function. If housing policy sits in one silo, transport in another, environmental settings somewhere else, then you get delay, duplication, and drift.

Pulling these functions together rationalises advice. It aligns direction and gives councils and communities a clearer entry point. That’s structural alignment to support growth. But this reform also points to a bigger issue. The centre of Government today looks like a spaghetti junction—here’s one that we prepared earlier: the Wellington Spaghetti Bowl. David Seymour put it plainly in his State of the Nation speech: 28 Ministers and two under-secretaries governing 41 departments. The Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment alone answers to 23 Ministers. The Ministry for Regulation is still counting regulatory agencies. At the last count, I heard it was up to 250 agencies regulating 5.4 million New Zealanders. This is out of control. It’s not clarity; it’s complexity—and complexity, as Kiwis know, is very, very expensive.

Core Crown spending now consumes around a third of the economy. The tax takes around a third of GDP. Between 2017 and 2023, under a Labour-Greens Government, the core Public Service grew by more than 30 percent. More agencies, more officials, but not more houses, not better and faster roads, and certainly not cheaper infrastructure—because when accountability is spread over overlapping institutions and reporting to multiple Ministers, no one owns delivery. We found that out with the previous Government because nothing got delivered, but they hired 30 percent more bureaucrats.

This merger is one step to untangle that issue—sharpening responsibility, simplifying oversight—and it will create a clearer institutional home for growth-focused reform. And it matters, because rationalising the form of Government means we can start to rationalise its size. Structure and size go hand in hand. That’s exactly what the RMA reform seeks to correct: a system that drifted, that grew and grew and grew, and with it, a massive planning bureaucracy. Because if we want a planning system that says “yes” more often, we need institutions designed for delivery, not obstruction. A clearer structure means we can right-size them. We can shrink the size of Government to only deliver the minimum viable core functions that are necessary. We can strip away all that bloated and duplicative regulation, and the steady expansion of the bureaucracy that’s coincided with the steady expansion of intervention into the way people use their private property in every aspect of their lives.

This is just a signpost as to what’s to come under a future Government that involves ACT. This reform is a good start. We’re under way. It aligns institutions with policy intentions and signals the beginning of a much larger rationalisation task that ACT is ready to take on, because when Government already consumes a third of the national GDP, rationalisation is not optional; it’s overdue—it’s vital. It’s time to build—let’s get started.

JAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First) (15:44): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support the Environment (Disestablishment of Ministry for the Environment) Amendment Bill in its first reading. This side of the House, we’ve got a bold Government here with what we’re doing. We’ve got some vision of what this ministry can now look like, and by having a new Ministry of Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport, today, this is the first part of establishing that new ministry. It’s about being effective and it’s about being efficient.

New Zealand First, as well, we have campaigned through the 2023 campaign for a ministry for infrastructure, and this also shows us that this is possible and this is the right way to go about a unified ministry framework for infrastructure development in the future, as well. The select committee process will be really important here; we’ll be able to hear different views. And yes, this ministry has been around since 1986, but, as I say, this is a bold Government. We’ve got a vision. We’re not scared to change the way we are moving forward. On that, I commend this bill to the House.

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato) (15:46): Tēnā rā koe, e te Pika, otirā tēnā rā tātou, e te Whare. E tū ana ahau ki te waha i ngā kōrero i te rangi nei e pā ana ki tēnei o ngā pire. Waihoki, tangihia rā ngā mate kua pēhi nuitia e ngā haukeri, e ngā huarere kua taumahatia ki runga i a rātou. Pai mārire.

[Greetings, Madam Speaker, greetings to all in the House. I stand today to speak in regard to this bill. I also acknowledge those who have passed and those who were severely affected by the violent winds and weather that they were struck by. Peace and good will.]

I rise on behalf of Te Pāti Māori to speak to the Environment (Disestablishment of Ministry for the Environment) Amendment Bill.

The context of this bill is that this bill seeks to disestablish the Ministry for the Environment. It folds, and it folds into a mega-ministry alongside transport, housing, urban development, and parts of internal affairs. I think it’s bizarre that now more than ever, we need to prioritise the environment first and foremost. We cannot deny climate change, and when we look at the bigger picture and focus on climate change and the environment, we cannot deny the weather events that we’ve seen across the country in the past month. In just the first weeks of 2026, there has been eight states of emergency that have been declared, matching the total for all of 2025. Recent storms across to Te Ika-a-Māui—the North Island have brought record rainfall, flooding, evacuations, power outages, and loss of life. January storms alone caused multiple deaths from landslides and flooding, with record daily rainfall and Tauranga and Whitianga.

When we look at specifically the constituents that I represent—young, Māori—who want to access and reach their pepeha, accessing and reaching pepeha has become a luxury. Our pepeha anchors us to our maunga, our awa, and our whenua. As Rawiri says sometimes, “You may not know your maunga, but your maunga knows you. You may not know awa, but your awa knows you.” But today, in 2026, you actually can’t get to your pepeha. Maunga have had, of course, landslides. Awa and moana have waste-water contamination. All throughout the country, you can see the desecration of pepeha and the environment here today. From Te Tai Tokerau to Te Wai Pounamu, the whenua has slipped, rivers have risen, and the winds have torn through our communities. In the North, landslides have taken lives and homes.

Inland Waikato—my electorate of Hauraki-Waikato—just recently, we have attended Ōtorohanga, where we’ve seen marae come together, Māori and non-Māori, for communities that have been devastatingly impacted by severe weather events.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Can I ask the member to come back to the disestablishment of the ministry?

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE: The disestablishment of the ministry—yes, and that core purpose is environment, and these are the foundational, real, raw realities for communities across the country today, and the recent weather events that have desecrated the constituents that we represent. Across Manawatū-Tararua, East Coast communities have scattered again because of evacuation. So that is why the Ministry for the Environment is now needed more than ever.

The legacy of environmental desecration under past legislation—now, this is really important because there’s context and there’s a timeline of how we are now suffering with the outcomes of past legislation. When we think of the Government land policies and the Forests Act 1949, which converted vast areas of native forests into plantation forestry or farmland, water pollution and the Resource Management Act 1991 are all outcomes and the results of that past legislation. There has been a timeline of legislation, and between 80 percent and 90 percent of Aotearoa’s wetlands have been lost since colonisation. We are going to suffer in the future when we are creating bills like the fast track bill and the Resource Management Act, and disestablishing the Ministry for the Environment, because we’re not prioritising the environment as much as we should be—like with the recent weather events that we have seen.

The solution moving forward is this. Thirty-three years ago, Te Arikinui Te Atairangikaahu travelled to Brazil as patron of the National Māori Congress, and she celebrated Māori as—

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

GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland) (15:51): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to take a call on the Environment (Disestablishment of Ministry for the Environment) Amendment Bill. I think what is being missed here is the fact that, actually, by merging all these ministries together, what we’re going to be doing is helping put environmental issues at the heart of big decision-making. That is what it’s going to enable it to achieve, and that has been lost sight of on the other side.

I’d just like to respond, as co-chair of the Bluegreens movement, and say to those NGOs that decide not to attend this weekend that they’re always welcome. You don’t solve problems by walking away. I commend this bill.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour) (15:52): We oppose the dissolution of the Ministry for the Environment. We oppose this bill, and we oppose it for the very good reason that we need a separate Ministry for the Environment because the environment is so critical to us. Disestablishing it is a very powerful symbol, I think, of that Government’s rejection of the environment.

This merger is saying that the environment is not important. It says that what comes first is commercial considerations. What it does is it contributes yet again to the approach of that Government to the environment, where they regard the environment as a subset of or even a hindrance to the economy. It is exactly the other way around. The economy is a subset of the environment. If we do not have a flourishing environment, nothing else will flourish, and so I think it’s really quite devastating that we are disestablishing the Ministry for the Environment.

It’s really interesting, as my colleague Priyanca Radhakrishnan said before, that this is a Government that, frankly, has given up on the environment and it has done so to the extent that the groups who used to give them a bit of shelter by participating in their fabled Bluegreens meeting have now all said that they can’t do it any more. I just want to read what some people have said. Nicola Toki, who is the Chief Executive of Forest & Bird, has said that “The Bluegreens principles still hold: … science, incentives and a shared birthright to enjoy our natural places. But these principles mean nothing if they are cast aside when decisions get hard.”, and that is what we are seeing from that Government—the environment getting cast aside.

It’s quite astonishing what the Executive Director of Greenpeace here in New Zealand has said. He said, “I last addressed the Bluegreens just before the 2023 election and I asked them to be conservative on climate change and nature—to protect what we have. Instead, they have pursued a radical, far-right, war on nature and a war on climate policy. I continue to engage with politicians from across the spectrum, but I don’t want my presence at the National Party’s Bluegreens conference this year to give any succour to their war on nature. They need to change course.”

Gary Taylor of the Environmental Defence Society, which is a really highly respected NGO in the environmental space in New Zealand, has pointed out that in terms of this war on nature, he has confirmed that they won’t be attending the Bluegreens conference. At the 2024 forum, he called the coalition Government the most “radical anti-environment” Government since the early 1980s.

Disestablishing the Ministry for the Environment simply underlines the actions that this Government has taken that undermine the environment. From refusing to acknowledge the importance of the Denniston Plateau and backtracking on the water cleanliness standards to the extraordinary range of measures they have taken to undermine our response to climate change, this Government, at every step, has chosen to treat the environment as a mere subset of the economy. That approach will ruin us all. They’ve done it in the meantime while “Waldorf and Statler” over there alternatively mumble and then bellow “Coal, coal!” and the popinjay of Epsom smirks away as they sell out our heritage, and that Government is led by Christopher Luxon, the man who has just bent right over to accommodate that astonishing anti-environmentalism.

You know, it is true that the National Party had a proud history with the Bluegreens. It is true that someone like Nick Smith really did try to give a focus to environmental policy. That Government, led by Christopher Luxon, has let its minor coalition parties push it around and has absolutely trashed the environment. When will their Minister of Conservation, when will their Minister for the Environment, and when will their Minister of Climate Change stand up? It seems never. What a wretched outcome this is.

DAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth) (15:57): Thank you, Madam Speaker. In all the memos that I’ve read about this bill, I don’t see anywhere where it says that it’s removing the functions of the Ministry for the Environment. In fact, I think it is strongly argued that this has got the intent of unlocking potential, improving efficiency, providing effectiveness, and also, potentially, removing some of the silo-potential behaviour between these entities that are ultimately going to be merging together.

This bill simply has to have an Act to disestablish the Ministry for the Environment. People may ask why there are not other bills with regard to the other ministries in question. Those other ministries, being the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, the Ministry of Transport, and also some Department of Internal Affairs functions with regard to local government—those other entities can be disestablished via secondary legislation. They don’t need a bill. The establishment of the Ministry for the Environment dictates that we need a bill to actually change that. That’s what this bill simply does. I commend it to the House.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour) (15:58): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. It is hard to listen and hear some of the comments from the other side of the House, and also to hear that from a former chair of the Taranaki Regional Council, who was focused, obviously, on the environment and on protecting the environment. Here we are, and, if we look at this—it’s the optics of what is going on right now, and the fact is that we listen and look.

I remember being part of the Environment Committee last year as we went through the Fast-track Approvals Bill, which is now the Act, and there was just the challenge that that Act now holds. I remember watching 30,000 New Zealanders who opposed the Fast-track Approvals Bill march on Queen Street, and that was about the environment. It was about protecting what is sacred, and that is something that is known for us here in New Zealand.

As we look and as we read, and as we look at this Government creating this new ministry, I guess we can reflect back to the previous National Government in their last term and we think about the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and the issues that that has created. It’s done some potentially good things, but it has also become this super-ministry that things get quite easily lost in. I think that that is the concern that I have when we look at this piece of legislation. It’s the fact that the environment gets swallowed up into a large ministry—it gets swallowed up and it becomes an afterthought. It becomes something that we don’t consider as much as we should. We are the people of New Zealand, where we champion and celebrate the land. We champion, around the world, our mountains and our rivers and our oceans. We have to make sure that we protect that, because that is Brand New Zealand, but also that is our future—it is for future generations. It is not only life, but it is also the wellbeing and building of our economy. As we know, tourism is our second-highest income earner in this country, and I know it will be that again. That’s why we need to protect and make sure we do everything we can to make sure that our environment is one of the first thoughts we have, not an afterthought disappearing into a ministry.

As I was reflecting and wondering why this was so necessary—wondering why it needs to be disestablished and why this other ministry needs to be created—I did have a look, and there’s been some mention of the Bluegreens, but I also looked at the previous election and the promises that were made by the National Party in their Blueprint for a Better Environment. Nowhere in that does it talk about disestablishing the Ministry for the Environment. It talks about protecting biodiversity; it talks about protecting our waterways; it talks about other things in terms of making sure that we do what is right by our environment, in that document. But here we are yet again: another piece of legislation this Government is bringing to this House that is saying no to our environment—that is saying it doesn’t really matter. Of course we believe in progress; of course we believe in building more houses; of course making sure our infrastructure is fit for the 21^st century, but we can do that with the environment and by making sure that we protect it. We need to make sure that we don’t just allow it to become an afterthought and to disappear into the back pages of a new ministry.

As we listen to different stakeholders and those who engage with us on a regular basis, they are concerned about what this means. They are concerned about what this means for the loss of our wetlands, the loss of creatures and critters—the loss of Freddy—in terms of what could happen and ensuring they are protected for future generations, because once they’re gone, they never come back. That’s what we need to remember. My challenge to the Government—my challenge to the National Party—is to look at your Blueprint for a Better Environment and what you promised at the last election and see whether that matches up with this piece of legislation and what you’re wanting to do.

We will oppose this bill. We will stand with New Zealanders around the country, who will march on Queen Street like they did on fast track, who will send submissions, who will do everything they can to make sure that the Ministry for the Environment remains.

RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East) (16:03): After listening to some of the masters of misdirection, it’s good to get back to the facts. They say we don’t care about the environment, but actually we do care, that’s why we’re making this front and centre of a combined ministry. We acknowledge the connectedness and the inseparability of economic outcomes and environmental protections. This is a union of two flames. I commend it.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Environment (Disestablishment of Ministry for the Environment) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Referral to Select Committee

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh) (16:04): The question is, That the Environment (Disestablishment of Ministry for the Environment) Amendment Bill be considered by the Environment Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Environment Committee.

Instruction to Select Committee

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation) (16:05): I move, That the Environment (Disestablishment of Ministry for the Environment) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 24 April 2026.

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

Glen Bennett: Point of order, Madam Speaker. My understanding, and the convention of this House, is that when there is a shortened time frame and a Minister shares it, there always has to be an explanation for why that is being done.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): It may be convention and it may be helpful to understand the rationale for the short report-back, but it’s not compulsory that the Minister does deliver it. What it does do is provide an opportunity—

Glen Bennett: Opens it wide up.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Exactly.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour) (16:06): I move, That “24 April” be replaced by “16 July 2026”.

The Minister speaking just then did not give any justification as to why there should be a shortened report-back on this particular bill. That means that the Government has not stated its reasons, and it leaves this debate wide, wide open as to the issues that are associated with having such a shortened report-back period; the general issues, but also the specific issues to do with the Ministry for the Environment; and the issues that are canvassed in the departmental disclosure statement, which was tabled along with the bill at some stage—I’ll just have to see if I can find my copy of it.

Let’s start with the very broad issue. This is yet another bill being put through by this Government with a very, very short report-back period. We’ve seen a number of these during the course of this Government, and, frankly, it’s shameful—and it’s shameful for a number of reasons. The point of the select committee process is to give the committee plenty of time to examine the ins and outs of the bill, to pick up any issues that might require a fix in the bill itself, and to examine the implications of what’s being done. There’s a whole lot of this that’s viable in this particular bill. For example, we know from experience that within the other mega-ministry, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE), it can be comparatively hard to understand the Votes and where funding is being allocated within MBIE and how funding can be transferred from one part of MBIE to another, what projects are being supported at what time, and so on—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. Exactly on what basis is this debate happening? I mean, all the matters she’s raising now could have been raised at the first reading, which we’ve just attended to. Now she’s moved a change of motion, and she wants to have the whole debate all over again, reciting all the facts that belonged to the last debate.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Learn the rules.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can she—I know the rules, that’s why I’m raising it. You don’t know, adiós. You’ve never known the rules.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): For the member’s information, there are 10-minute—

Glen Bennett: Read the rules.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I’m speaking to the point of order. There are 10-minute speeches allocated in response to the shortened report-back, and members are exercising that right.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Just to explain to some of the more senior members, given that the Minister introducing the bill didn’t give a reason as to why there should be a shortened report-back period, that does mean that this particular debate can canvass a range of issues. I have chosen to start with the fact that shortened report-back periods are a problem in themselves. There are other issues that we will canvass as we go through this debate. I just wanted to help the senior members of the House out there.

Carrying on with this: there’s a particular range of issues that can be canvassed around the funding structures within this new mega-ministry. We have seen some of the examples from MBIE as to what can go on. We want to be sure how funding is going to be structured within the new—what’s it called—“MCERT”, which is some cunning acronym for “Ministry of Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport”. That’s the new MCERT. We do want to understand how funding is going to be allocated amongst each of those areas and who is going to be responsible for each portion of the Vote. We particularly want to be clear on that with respect to ensuring that the environment gets its proper allocation and that it doesn’t just get subsumed under the other structures. So that’s the first reason why, as members of Parliament who are required to scrutinise the executive, we want to have a good select committee period so that we can examine that issue.

The second reason why shortened report-back periods are deeply problematic is that it shortens the time in which the public can have their say on what should be going on. Now, in this case, obviously there will be members of the public who want to put a submission in, but given that the Minister has proposed only a couple of months for the report-back period, that will limit the amount of time that the select committee can spend listening to the concerns of the citizens of New Zealand about the disestablishment of the Ministry for the Environment. Ordinarily, a person would make a submission, they would request to be heard, and they would expect to be heard—that’s the ordinary cause of events. The shortened report-back period means that there is much less time available for that.

That goes for individuals, but there’s also a huge issue around some of the non-government organisations, the NGOs that operate in the climate space: people who have serious mana, who have really serious standing in talking about the environment in New Zealand. People like the Environmental Defence Society, like the World Wildlife Fund, like Greenpeace, like Forest and Bird, like Lawyers for Climate Action, like Kiwis in Climate. There is a whole range of environmental organisations and climate organisations who will want to have their say on this disestablishment of the Ministry for the Environment. They will want to be sure, again, that they have the capacity to examine the funding structures in this proposed new environment. They will want to be sure that some of the issues that are critical to us will be given their due regard by this new ministry once we lose the Ministry for the Environment.

There’s a whole lot of those organisations who, presumably, will now have to put together a submission on a very tight time frame. Because, ordinarily, you would have submissions open for six weeks on a bill to give people plenty of time to write their submissions and get them in, but if we’ve only got about a two-month report-back period, that’s going to be a much shorter time to get submissions in. The chair of the Environment Committee will only be able to open submissions for a short time. You know, the committee had its meeting this morning and ordinarily it would have had the bill referred to it, the committee would have decided on a period for which submissions would be open, and then they would have got to work. Usually, the chair, on their own cognisance, can put out a call for submissions and then have that ratified at the next meeting of that particular committee. Now, that’s going to be problematic for the chair of the Environment Committee because there was a meeting of that committee this morning and the next one is not going to be until the week after next—two weeks into the report-back for this particular bill—so there’s going to be quite a lot of pressure on that chair to make a good decision about how long they are going to open the submissions period for.

All I can do is urge the chair of that committee—who I know runs a good committee; I’ve got no problems with that particular chair, she runs a good committee and she gives us plenty of say in it, but I am asking her to make sure that she consults with the Opposition before she opens up that report-back period. I think an important part of ensuring that there is a good and effective select committee process happening is going to be to at least look at that period for which submissions will be open, to consider what might be appropriate, to bear in mind that she cannot get a decision from that committee until the committee meeting two weeks from now as to whether or not they endorse her report-back period, and she can consult with the Opposition—but there’s a whole lot of technicalities that need to be carried out there in order to get that democratic process under way.

Look, the third problem with having a shortened report-back period for a select committee is that the officials need to get to work on this as well. Now, I am anticipating that, as with many other select committee processes and many other pieces of legislation that this Government has forced through this House, there could well be a significant number of public submissions to this particular bill. We have in the last 18 months or so, in some cases, seen over 100,000 submissions on a bill. Now, I don’t think we’re going to get that level of submissions on this particular bill, but I do think that there could be a significant number of submissions. There is a great environmental consciousness in New Zealand. New Zealanders as a whole actually value and care for their environment. You know, it turns out that the extent to which most of us can identify our native birds would qualify all of us as birders in some other countries. We actually care about where we live. The same thing goes for our indigenous trees: we love them and we value them. People do care about the environment.

There’s a whole set of issues around water quality in Canterbury. I bet you those people are going to want to submit on this bill too, and I know that there are masses of citizens who are concerned about climate. There’s going to be a whole lot of submissions that are going to come in from people and it’s going to take time for the clerks of the committee to process those submissions. These are all reasons as to why we should not have a shortened report-back process. You know, the Minister left it wide open. There are a whole lot of issues to canvas. I haven’t even started on looking at the departmental disclosure statement yet. There’s a whole lot of stuff we will want to cover there. We cannot support this shortened report-back period. It is a nonsense.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) (16:17): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move, That “24 April” be replaced by “18 June 2026”.

As my colleague the Hon Dr Deborah Russell has pointed out, this Government has given us no rationale for shortening the report-back period of this bill. This is a bill that will come to the Environment Committee, of which I am a permanent member. We sat the whole morning this morning. We went back and forth trying to figure out how we were going to fit in 45.5 hours of submissions to the Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill. That committee is currently considering two of the most complex bills before this House. It is pretty much going to take up all of our time for a good two months or so to consider those bills. They are incredibly technical. We’ve spent already numerous hours just hearing from officials on the technicalities of those bills and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment as an adviser to that committee as well—and now we get landed with this. We’re already grappling with how to fit in submissions on just those two bills, let alone all the rest that is before that select committee and is on the select committee’s work plan, but we now have this as well.

Just before I get into the matter of why we need a longer report-back period, which of course is the substance of my amendment, I will also just draw the attention of the House to what happened within the same select committee when we were considering the Fast-Track Approvals Amendment Bill, where the report-back period was truncated without discussing it, without debating it in this House, to 10 days. Despite that, from memory, we got about over 2,500 submissions, but pretty much every submitter who came before the Environment Committee made the point, in great detail, that their submission was rushed because of the decisions and the time frame of this Government. I would have thought, given they’ve already done this once before—and we’ve had a number of people come before the select committee and raise concerns about the implications of that on the quality of their submissions—that this Government would at least have given us the courtesy of telling us why there was a need to rush this so much. Because a rushed process when it comes to lawmaking weakens the checks and balances that this House has over the quality of lawmaking, and that is not a good way to make legislation.

It also speaks to an overarching attitude by this Government that Ministers always know best, that we don’t need the processes of democracy, that we don’t need the debate in this House, and that we don’t need to hear from submitters—many of whom have much more expertise, experience, and knowledge than the Ministers in charge of these pieces of legislation. The arrogance to shorten the report back period such that we won’t be able to hear from many of them, given already the commitments that the Environment Committee has, is incredibly disheartening, frankly.

What does the select committee need to do? We need to recommend whether the bill be passed, we need to consider the bill in its entirety and to look at the implications of the changes that are being proposed through this legislation. While it may be, in the number of pages, a relatively short piece of legislation, it is significant. Now, many members on this side of the House have alluded to the optics here. The very fact that a Government would bring a bill to disestablish the Ministry for the Environment (MFE) speaks volumes of what this Government thinks of the environment and their role when it comes to strengthening environmental protections.

The optics aside—which, of course, I agree with—there is the reality of what this bill will actually lead to. Many will say that it is actually leading to the fast tracking of environmental degradation. I will lay out why this is an issue and why a shortened report-back period, that we are debating here today in this referral motion, is a problem. I looked at the Environment Act 1986, which, of course is the piece of legislation that led to the establishment of this ministry through statute, which is not a terribly common occurrence. The whole rationale, back in 1986, for this was the fact that environmental responsibility was scattered across departments and could be reorganised at the drop of a hat, at any time, by Cabinet without the scrutiny of Parliament. There was a view, at the time, that environmental management requires long-term continuity across Government.

To that point, we’ve had the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (PCE) appear before the Environment Committee and speak to numerous pieces of work that he has instigated—research projects that he has produced—that speak to exactly this: the requirement for Governments to look at the long-term continuity of environmental management and stewardship for us to be able to look across our Government departments on the spend that leads to outcomes that we would have thought both sides of this House would have wanted to achieve, which are better protections for the environment. Going right back to the point that Dr Deborah Russell made earlier, that the environment is not a nice-to-have; it should not be something that, if it’s convenient and expedient, we will look after it. This whole narrative of economy versus the environment is such a false narrative. It is a false dichotomy because without the health and wellbeing of the environment, we don’t have the health and wellbeing of our economy or our people. It is as important as the other two components, and we’re not seeing that in the legislation that this Government has brought before the House today.

Our concern, on this side of the House, is that the focus will just be on urban development when the Ministry for the Environment is subsumed into a much larger mega-ministry. That is already what we’re seeing, and I’ve alluded to that in the more fulsome contribution that I made earlier. We’ve seen a track record of that happening. This just seems to be the straw that breaks the camel’s back, or the nail in the coffin, because, now, it can be quietly dropped altogether.

If we’re here, on this side, debating why a shortened report back is detrimental and is damaging and why the whole substance of this bill is potentially detrimental, we would have thought that if a Government actually cared about this, we would have at least heard a rationale or a justification for the shortened report back, but we haven’t even had the courtesy of that from this Government.

If they can so quietly and so quickly disestablish something that was established through statute, then it gives us absolutely no confidence—that the entire environmental focus of the ministry, that will be now subsumed into this mega-ministry, will be dropped and will be dropped quietly. We won’t even need to come back to this House to debate that at that point in time.

Now, here’s why a shortened report back is worrying. MFE has an incredibly important role when it comes to monitoring the environment. It was set up to monitor both the natural and built environments. Now, this new mega-ministry for cities, environment, regions, and transport (MCERT) has quite a shift of focus to just the built environment, so there is a glaring concern—which, I suspect, will be obvious to anyone who wishes to submit on this bill—that the natural environment and conservation that goes hand in hand with it will just be dropped. It also produces a state of the environment report where MFE has the responsibility to monitor waterways, set regulations to prevent pollution, work on policy to prevent waste, and lead climate work. There are biodiversity functions that sit within MFE and not the Department of Conservation.

Now, I know what members opposite would say if they cared to take a call on this motion. They would say that the bill sets out the fact that all of these functions will just be a lift and shift from MFE into the new MCERT. That’s what they say, but there’s a lot that they’ve said that hasn’t actually transpired, and so I will point to that. I will point to all of the science that tells us that creating another mega-ministry with numerous Ministers that it reports to and that focuses purely on urban development means that there is a very real and very important risk that the national environment will be deprioritised.

Now, with such a shortened report-back period, the Environment Committee will not have enough time to scrutinise this. We won’t even have time to hear proper submissions from submitters. It’s an absolute joke that there’s such a short report back period here.

Glen Bennett: They just don’t care.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: Clearly, that’s right. Glen Bennett says that they don’t seem to care, and that’s exactly what it looks like—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The member’s time has expired. Members, can I just come back to the amendment moved by the Hon Dr Deborah Russell, which is the question before the House and for which we are having this debate. The question, members, before the House for debate is that the amendment be agreed to. The amendment is now debatable together with the motion. We are debating the amendment to the motion by the Hon Dr Deborah Russell.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. Madam Speaker. We’ve heard two speeches on this matter not confined to the amendment before the House but on everything but the amendment under the guise of the amendment. Thank heavens you’ve brought them back to be specific about what this debate is about.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Well, Mr Peters, if you hadn’t interrupted me, that was the next point I was going to raise. I have in front of me Standing Order 298(3), which does explain the debate “may not extend to the principles, objects, or provisions of the bill to which the motion relates.” It is simply to the shortened report back and, in this case, the amendment to that date.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green) (16:28): Thank you, Madam Speaker. If I may speak to that amendment in the name of the Hon Dr Deborah Russell, that amendment, of course, extending, or at least seeking to extend, the time that this Minister laid a surprise on the House with by announcing that this Government would allow the people of this country, the regular hard-working New Zealanders who they so frequently like to cite, only two months to engage with their legislation to disestablish the Ministry for the Environment. On exactly the same week that we have, once again, seen more of our country under water in a supposed one-in-100-year extreme weather event, off the back of a similar event happening only just a few weeks ago, this is the priority of this Government: to literally disestablish the Ministry for the Environment but, worse than that, to allow the public of this country just two months to engage with that legislation. I would like to engage particularly with that amendment, from the Hon Dr Deborah Russell, to extend that select committee time because of how important democracy is when it comes to considering legislation.

I’d like to run through a few of the rationales as to why we oppose the Government’s shortened select committee and support the amended motion from the Hon Dr Deborah Russell. First, in doing so, I’d actually like to respond to some of the points raised by one of the right honourable co - Deputy Prime Ministers, in which he said that this debate was—and I quote—“a waste of time”. This debate, on this referral motion, whereby the Government is seeking to truncate the ability of New Zealanders to engage in legislation, which, fundamentally, transforms the landscape and the power of our environment in our legislative ecosystem.

In fact, to that co - Deputy Prime Minister, this is, really, the only time that we are being given to meaningfully scrutinise this proposal from the Government to truncate that process but also this legislation, on the basis that the Government is rushing this through as quickly as it possibly can. So it is, in fact, really important that we tease out the rationale, by which we are opposed to that truncated process, and support the extension as put forward by the Hon Dr Deborah Russell. More so than that, we implore members of the Government to stand up and to take a call and to make clear why they believe that we should cut New Zealanders off from their democratic right, the status quo that sees their ability to participate in the legislation process.

We had no idea that this bill was coming until very recently—New Zealanders had no idea that this bill was coming until very recently—and we didn’t know until just now, when the Minister announced that he would truncate the select committee process to two months, that that was going to happen either. Not only have we all been blindsided by a piece of legislation to fundamentally transform the ecosystem, the legislative framework that cares for and protects our environment in this country, but we also now have been completely blindsided by the inability for New Zealanders to participate through the usually expected legislative process.

I wonder why the Government would oppose the ability of regular New Zealanders engaging and having their say on this piece of legislation. So frequently they make clear their disdain for democracy. We have literally heard from the mouths of Ministers in this Government that they want to seek to concentrate power and decision making for fast tracking projects to themselves. They have no interest in checks and balances nor in democracy, nor in the fact that tens of thousands of New Zealanders mobilised down Queen Street to submit against these nasty, awful, anti-environment pieces of legislation.

Of course, this also sits on the backdrop of the reality that we all in this House well know, which is that we are already among the fastest lawmakers in the West. That so frequently means that mistakes end up being made in the legislative process. Actually, there’s ample examples of those mistakes in the rushed process that this Government decides to deploy time and time again as it rolls out legislation—particularly the legislation to attack and undermine and remove protections from our environment, the very content of the legislation which they’re now trying to push through in this truncated time frame.

On top of all of that, we have a situation where we have heard from Government MPs throughout this debate. They have cited the evidence—the evidence—the official advice—official advice—yet they’re now trying to truncate the ability for more evidence and more official advice to come before the select committee and the proper consideration of and scrutinising of this legislation. So the question for the Government really has to be: what are they so afraid of? Well, we have no idea, because they’re yet to articulate any reason whatsoever for truncating this process, which leaves us with the conclusion that, really, once again, all we’re seeing is a naked disdain for the participation of regular New Zealanders in the typical select committee process and the typical legislative consideration.

There has been absolutely no reason given for why we should truncate the select committee process. In fact, we heard from some Government MPs in the debate on this legislation, which is very much related to the scrutiny necessary at select committee. They ridiculed ENGOs for deciding not to turn up to their Bluegreens conference to greenwash their Bluegreens conference this weekend in the midst of this Government’s relentless attack on nature. They ridiculed those very ENGOs—those environmental non-Government organisations—on the basis that they’re walking away from the table.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. Madam Speaker, this latest diatribe, the part we’ve heard for the last 50 seconds, is not related at all to the amendment. It’s going straight back to the debate we had prior to that, and that’s what you should have given it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah, I believe that the member was giving reasoning for her comments, but we will come back to the date. The member’s point is now well made.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: The point that I was making, if I may, Madam Speaker, is that the disdain that this Government has showed for ENGOs walking away supposedly from the table is exactly the kind of logic and exactly the kind of disdain that they are showing for New Zealanders. Their move to truncate the select committee process and their move to disable New Zealanders from participating in typical legislative scrutiny and from putting in their submissions to the select committee.

I’d also make the point, to the co - Deputy Prime Minister, that hard-working New Zealanders are not able to organise themselves to this Government’s fast tracked process for all of the legislation that they are seeking to ram through to undermine the wellbeing of people and planet. For all of that talk of hard-working New Zealanders, in fact it is incredibly difficult for those who may be having to work multiple jobs, by virtue of this Government’s mismanagement of the economy, to organise themselves to make time at the drop of a hat to be at a select committee with that truncated process, which disallows for flexibility—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: It’s got worse!

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: —and turning up to that very select committee process.

The point that I am getting at here—and I implore, actually, the co - Deputy Prime Minister to get up and to argue for the rationale for truncating the select committee process. What we have so far and right now is only the ability for the Opposition to fill that gap and to offer potential rationalisations. If I may, unfortunately, all of them are profoundly disdainful of democracy.

Once again, we support the amendment from the Hon Dr Deborah Russell to extend the time frame by which New Zealanders are able to organise themselves, to educate themselves, to inform each other, and, in turn, to make submissions to the select committee, which is a critical part of democracy.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs) (16:37): Thank you, Madam Speaker. The report-back date of 24 April is needed because the environment amendment bill needs to pass and receive Royal assent before 30 June 2026 to transfer the functions of the Ministry for the Environment (MFE) to the Ministry for Cities, the Environment, Regions and Transport (MCERT) on 1 July 2026. This is a short bill, and no material changes are being proposed to MFE’s existing functions. This is a minor and technical bill to transfer functions from the Ministry for the Environment to the Secretary for the Environment, who will also be the chief executive of MCERT.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’m going to call Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan, but we’ve now had some reasoning from the Government, and so I want people to focus clearly on Deborah Russell’s amendment, which has been put forward.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (16:38): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move that the motion be amended to delete the words “195” and “meetings outside Wellington area during sitting”.

I will justify that in a short while. But, first of all, I do want to support the Hon Dr Deborah Russell’s amendment of 16 July, but also noting what the Hon Scott Simpson—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’ve been advised that the amendment isn’t in order because the motion that we’re talking to doesn’t contain those words, OK?

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Oh, OK, sure.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. In terms of the support to the Hon Dr Deborah Russell’s amendment, which is 16 July and I also want to thank the Hon Scott Simpson’s submission and contribution as well on the rationale of why that should be 30 June. I do think that maybe potentially a better amendment to be moved would be that “I move that the motion be amended to replace ‘24th April 2026’ to the ‘24th of June 2026’.”, and that way we’re also still within the timeline that the Minister has just previously clarified.

Now, the reason for that is—there are a couple of reasons. Number one is—Madam Speaker, as you would know—that the standard submission process for select committee is six months. From a select committee perspective, that is a submission period of six weeks. When we are looking at a submission period or a select committee process of two months, we’re looking at, at most, a submission period of two weeks, and that’s simply not enough.

One of the previous speakers—the Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan—has already expressed about the kind of load that is currently in front of the Environment Committee. I think if this is the case, we should be able to extend that or potentially allow for the fact that maybe another select committee is better to hear on this particular bill.

Now, Madam Speaker, you also mentioned before—and that is actually a cause of concern—that Standing Order 195 has not been waived from the referral motion, which is, I guess, the standard drafting of a referral motion of this nature, which is the waiving of Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196, which then also means that when we are looking at this particular bill, there’s no ability to sit on some of those aspects as well, and Madam Speaker, you may have other thoughts on that.

So I think that is a concern if we’re looking at a select committee with a heavy workload—a truncated submission process as well as the inability for the select committee to actually perform some of the functions in accordance with Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196, without having to get leave from the Business Committee, as stated.

I think it’s also important to note that when we are looking at what the previous speaker, the Green Party Co-Leader Chlöe Swarbrick, mentioned in terms of truncated process, we are also more likely to make mistakes. That is an important point to mention when we’re looking at any sort of truncated select committee process, because this is something that the Attorney-General in previous years has warned us against doing.

So within that two months, it’s also important for us to consider what the workload is not only in terms of for the members who will be participating in the select committee but also the officials’ ability to bring information and also bring questions from the members of the select committee and find those kind of responses at select committee.

I also think, in this case, when you’re looking at the bill specifically, the bill has mentioned that there is a departmental disclosure statement, but no part of this bill mentions a regulatory impact statement. So even though we have a truncated select committee stage, we’re already kind of on the back foot to begin with, having a lack of information on what is to be expected of this bill.

I also implore, actually, other members of this House to have a close look at this bill and potentially particularly, as we all know, in the legislative environment of Aotearoa, we are not looking at any particular bill in isolation, but our legislation—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. He’s required to talk about the motion of the extension of time, but now he’s talking about the quality of the bill and a whole lot of other things, and he should have been stopped in his tracks. This debate’s going on and on, possibly 15, 30 minutes too long, because people have not stuck to the motion.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Speaking to that point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Look, the member has been talking about the time, and a reminder that we’re speaking to the Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan’s amendment, which is related to the time, but it is a very narrow debate. I have heard the member speak to the time but I just want to remind the whole House that that is the purpose of the exercise for this debate.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order. Just a clarification, if I may, because when the referral motion was made, no reasons were given, and as you’ll be fully aware, a Minister has now come to the House and given some reasons for the shortened referral period. Now, I accept that the motion on the Table is the amended motion, but presumably there will be space in this debate either now or at a later time to respond to the Minister’s reasons that have now been given.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, that’s absolutely correct. It’s about time and it’s about the response to the Minister’s reasoning, and you are correct, Dr Webb, in that we’ve actually now had the Minister’s reasoning.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Just to kind of finish my contribution—and I do appreciate other people’s contributions as well, because I think it is important to also note that I am speaking specifically on the referral motion and also specifically on the timing in accordance with Standing Orders 298(3). I think other people would be prudent to also remember some of these clauses within our own Standing Orders.

I think the other point that is really important, I guess in response to what the Minister has just said—the Hon Scott Simpson—in terms of the rationale of why this bill needs to be in place by 30 June 2026 to be in time for 1 July, it proves my point earlier, which is that none of the bills, nothing we do here is done in isolation.

Now, the reason I want to address this particular point is currently there is another bill that’s going through the House—the Public Service Amendment Bill—which particularly speaks to the some of the changes, to the transitional measures when we are looking at interdepartmental—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. Now there’s a reference to another bill going through this House unrelated to the time frame of this amendment. Could you please bring it back to the debate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I believe, Mr Peters, that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan was pointing out the reasoning why the connection was and how the shortened report-back date was a problem in this situation.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: I was about to make precisely that point, because if you look at Schedule 3 of this bill, it does talk about the department, departmental agencies, or interdepartmental ventures. Now, that is a specific part of what we’re currently debating on when it comes to the Public Service Amendment Bill, Part 1, “Amendments to Part 3”.

The reason I mentioned that the truncated section doesn’t work, and particularly in the context of what information we need from the officials, is the fact that there is no information that has been given on how, with the disestablishment of the Ministry for the Environment, that would interact with the current change we’re seeing that’s a bill that’s going through the House right now.

Currently, the committee stage for the Public Service Amendment Bill is number six on the Order Paper and is scheduled to continue with committee stage. At its best, it will pass in a few weeks’ time, but by then we will have already finished the submission period of the bill and we will already be in the consideration of what this bill is going to be from the officials.

However, I guess the advice I would like to have, and by resetting the speaking order with my amendment, it is also to invite the Minister to maybe help the Chamber understand. Are the submitters, then, expected to submit with the understanding that the Public Service Amendment Bill would be passed by the time that this bill will come into effect? Those interactions are important because it needs to give the clarity that our public and the people of Aotearoa deserve when it comes to a bill of this magnitude like disestablishing a ministry.

So, with that, I will deliver this amendment to the Clerk shortly. With that, I do want to invite the Minister to maybe explain how this will interact with some other parts of the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah. I just want to clarify for Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan, we ruled your amendment out at the beginning because of the wording.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Point of order from Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan and then I’m going to come to Dr Webb.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: So, with that, because the first one, as you have instructed, has been ruled out, I move that the motion be amended to replace the words “24 April 2026” to “24 June 2026”.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: OK. Yeah, I’ve just had advice that because you had moved a motion, you now can’t move another motion, so I’m going to move on to the Hon Dr Duncan—

Glen Bennett: Speaking to the point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You can speak to the point of order, but I’ve taken advice on it and I’m clear on the advice, so unless—

Glen Bennett: Well, I just want to clarify, because you’d ruled his was out of order initially, then he moved that second one.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah, he can’t do that.

Glen Bennett: So he can’t, even though he made a mistake and he then corrected his mistake—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is the advice that I’ve been given, so we’re currently speaking to the Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan’s amendment motion.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) (16:49): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I do want to address, essentially, the two things that the Minister said. The first thing he said, which is really concerning, is that this is, essentially, I think he used “trivial and administrative”, or words to that effect, essentially.

Glen Bennett: Minor and technical.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Minor and technical. To collapse the watchdog for the environment, the single voice in Government for the environment, into another ministry is not minor and technical.

So, to go exactly to his reasoning, the bill is a very substantial bill, and it requires substantial scrutiny. Whilst this House’s debates are useful, they are nothing like the scrutiny that it can get in select committee. As has been noted, because of the timing of this bill being debated today, immediately before Parliament goes into recess, it compounds the difficulty of giving people proper and full notice of an ability to submit.

Equally, in terms of that scrutiny function, it’s deeply concerning to me that this bill has had no scrutiny so far. In terms of its policy development, outlined in the departmental disclosure statement, it’s clear that it hasn’t had any external or thorough scrutiny. One of the main things that’s missing here—and this is a Government that purports to pride itself on its regulatory quality—is there is no regulatory impact statement. So that’s one part of scrutiny. If the Minister had stood up and said, “The policy development of this has been extensive, widely consulted on, and there is a thorough-going regulatory impact statement, and therefore the select committee process is not quite as important.” that would have made sense. But he can’t say that because it’s simply not the case.

What is worse is not only is there no regulatory impact statement, there is a procedure, if you think a bill is minor and technical, to go to the Ministry for Regulation and say, “Can we, essentially, have sign-off that the usual processes of undertaking a regulatory impact statement can either be reduced or done away with entirely?” But the Government didn’t do that. To suggest that there is—because, the reason you can not have a regulatory impact statement is, essentially, that the passing of the bill will have no substantial impact.

Now, the party who promoted the Ministry for Regulation may frame that as impact on property rights or on individual freedoms, but it’s equally an impact on the environment—an impact on the way we manage our natural environment. This bill has a massive impact on the way we manage our natural environment. So to suggest that it’s minor and technical, and yet not getting sign-off for no regulatory impact statement on the basis that it’s minor and technical, beggars belief. It’s duplicitous. They’re not being upfront about what this bill does, because they would have gone through the proper process if it was.

Simon Court: Point of order. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, I understand that the member’s struggling to understand that the bill is a machinery of Government bill—very simple—but I’m concerned that he’s bringing the House into disrepute by accusing other members of being duplicitous, which indicates that we don’t believe what we are saying. I find that unacceptable and I would like that member to apologise.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Look, I didn’t hear the member accusing any particular person of doing anything. I think he may want to clarify, but in my view he was referring to the mixed messages that have been sent here. I’ve given him the opportunity to clarify.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Happy to clarify. My point was that the Government was presenting this bill in one way in this House, and yet in its administrative functions and Cabinet functions, it was doing something else. That’s all I was alluding to.

The same can be said in respect of the deep concerns that exist in terms of the Treaty of Waitangi.

Tom Rutherford: Clock!

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Sorry, I was getting a wave from Mr Rutherford, but that was a little distracting. He doesn’t often wave to me!

The further point is equally, in terms of the need for a thorough-going analysis of this bill, which should have happened, in part, in a regulatory impact statement setting, is the Treaty of Waitangi, because, of course, the importance of mana whenua in terms of the guardianship of our natural environment and the relationships that exist between the Ministry for the Environment and mana whenua is really important. That is now going to disappear.

This is exactly the kind of legislation which before its introduction should have been consulted on. That would have been one of the first questions in the regulatory impact statement: “Have you consulted with parties affected?” It’s clear that they didn’t. So for the Minister to stand up and say, “It’s minor and technical” is not accurate—it is far from accurate. There’s a whole lot of words you could use to say that, but it’s about as far from accurate as you can get.

The other point he made was to say that this must come into force on a particular day. I understand the day to be, essentially, the day at which the annual financial accounts for the Government start. Is that correct? I think that’s the case—

Glen Bennett: 1 July.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: —1 July. Now, that might be administratively convenient, but it’s not a reason to circumvent the entire procedures of this House. In fact, there have been plenty of instances of major, structural changes within Government happening. The re-establishment of the Social Investment Agency didn’t happen on 1 July—in fact, I think that happened on 1 January. The creation of the Ministry for Regulation happened on 1 May. A totally unnecessary vanity ministry, but nevertheless it happened on 1 May. Now, there was no sense—didn’t have to wait two more months so that it hits the right accounting cycle. They wanted to get it under way as a soon as possible, so out of the bowels of Government it sprung.

So it’s just fatuous to suggest that there is some magical date that means that New Zealanders can’t have their say on this bill and, what’s more, that means that the Treaty obligations are overridden and that the scrutiny that a bill that is, essentially, dismantling a key protection for our environment exists. So I’ll wind it up there, but I am utterly unconvinced by the Minister’s reasons given here today.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’m going to call Ricardo Menéndez March, and just a reminder that we are debating the Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan’s amendment. Thank you.

Tim Costley: Madam Speaker?

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (16:57): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’ve already called someone, Mr Costley.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Madam Speaker. Sorry, I apologise to my colleague, but, in light of that instruction to the House, I was under the impression, in response to the query from the Hon Dr Duncan Webb earlier, that it is in addition to debating the amendment in Priyanca Radhakrishnan’s name that commenting on the Minister’s explanation, as Dr Webb just did. Now, I just want to clarify, because you’ve just made it clear to the House that we are debating Priyanca Radhakrishnan’s amendment, but the Minister’s reasoning is also relevant.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes. Yeah, sorry, I should have clarified that. It was mainly around the date that I was referring to, so yeah. Thank you.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: I move, That the motion be amended to replace “24 April 2026” to “24 June 2026”.

Let me explain the rationale for this amendment, which my colleague Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan attempted to move earlier. As you’ve explained, due to his former amendment being ruled out of motion, he wasn’t able to. Now, the reason for this amendment is that we heard from the Minister—and he is correct when he pointed out that the commencement date for this bill was 1 July 2026. Now, I understand that we’re not able to amend the bill itself at this point, and I understand and I’m trying to offer this in good faith, that if the Minister’s intention is to have this come into force on 1 July, I cannot see why he wouldn’t agree to an amendment that would seek to, basically, have the report-back date to be on 24 June 2026.

That is, as far as I’m aware, a sitting week. The week of 1 July is also a sitting week. Now, that should allow for much better and adequate scrutiny, while, at the same time, affording time for the bill to be debated in those sitting days between 24 June and 1 July 2026, so that the second reading, the committee of the whole House, and the third reading are able to occur before the actual commencement date, which is found in clause 2 of the bill. On top of that, I think the extension of a two-month select committee period to a five-month select committee period, per my amendment, would adequately invite proper scrutiny of the bill. I know this very well, having sat on a degree of select committees on bills with a shortened select committee process.

There are two reasons why I think the extension from two months to five months, per my amendment which would seek it to return on 24 June 2026, is important. The first one is to enable adequate participation from communities that care deeply, but also people who may be, for example, working multiple jobs to make ends meet and may not be able to have the spare time and capacity to be able to submit on a bill that may have a relatively short report-back date.

I’ll give an example. We’ve got a bill right now in the Social Services and Community Committee which, effectively, had about 2½ days for a submission period. My experience was that it, basically, became impossible to engage with members of the public who, basically, had a job and had family lives to juggle on top of that, for them to make submissions they felt they could be proud of. I think that most people would not want, due to a shortened select committee change, to just simply write a submission saying “I support the bill.”, or “I oppose the bill.”; a lot of people would like to give a rationale for that. So, in good faith, my amendment would, I think, allow a larger amount of submissions, a greater amount of engagement, and to actually do due diligence to a robust democratic process and scrutiny.

My amendment also draws from the Minister’s comments in relation to the bill. We heard from the Minister that he doesn’t intend for the functions to be changed, but, I guess, there are questions around, for example, how many fulltime-equivalents will be part of that, like the resourcing. There’s a difference between functions and resourcing and powers and resourcing, as well, right? How well you can exercise those functions and powers has to do with the level of resourcing that will be given to this new entity, basically, that will be part of, effectively, a mega-ministry. I think a lengthened select committee stage—still less than six months, actually; so it’s five months—would allow for that exchange to be adequately robust.

Other members have pointed out issues around select committee capacity. So we know that the Clerk effectively has worked with a very similar budget for some time, and I think that also allows the Clerk to be able to produce adequate reports and to engage with us, to the best of their ability, without creating a level of burnout or stress that, perhaps, they may be engaging to a degree that they’re not able to.

The other point that I would like to make, as well, is that when we have quite shortened select committee stages, we’re sometimes not able to adequately get information from officials to the extent and detail that members would like. I have experienced this myself in other bills and in other processes in select committee, where, for example, we may have a long and robust series of oral questions during the briefing period or, for example, our questions in writing that we may wish to put forward to the officials down the line. Officials, I acknowledge, try their best to be able to produce answers that are up to the standards that they want to produce and that also are to the standards that members expect. But when there is a shortened select committee process, it creates the conditions for that exchange between members and officials to produce answers from officials that are not, I think, good enough, and it’s not their fault.

So I think the reason why I’m moving this amendment is for two things. One of them is to actually comply with the intent that the Minister put forward in front of us in good faith, because I hear what the Minister said, I understand the Government’s intent to pass this bill on 1 July, independent of our views about the bill, this is about actually creating the conditions for adequate scrutiny. If I look at the dates that we’ve got between the 24^th and 1 July, I think that should allow us to get it back for a second reading, committee of the whole House, and third reading. In fact, I could give the Minister, perhaps, a bit of an invitation that should we have enough time to engage in the select committee stage in a lengthened time with officials that perhaps we’ll probably have less question that we were not able to have answers to by the time we get to the committee of the whole House stage.

Often, what we find is that—and I go back to my motion—when we have referral dates that are shorter, for example, than my motion is proposing, a lot of the questions that we have end up happening in the committee of the whole House stage. Now, that creates a much less robust and useful exchange and it also makes it harder for people who deeply care about these issues to find evidence and a track record of the information that was presented in front of us, because what happens in the committee of the whole House stage doesn’t get reported in a select committee report. Now, if we had a five-month select committee process, it would allow all of that to be captured in the departmental report and also in the select committee report that is produced later down the line. That allows people who deeply care about this issue to go back to a document that is robust and is a product of a much more democratic process, compared to what we’re seeing right now.

Part of the motion, as well, and the intent of the motion, is to draw from the experiences that many of us have had in select committee stages when we have had bills that have a much shortened and, often, brief report date. We have seen, firsthand, how these shortened select committee processes are simply not good enough. As I have mentioned, it also prevents people, who feel, often, due to the material conditions most disenfranchised from participating and feeling like they’re heard, from being able to participate in the oral submission process. It is not just the time that it takes to prepare, for example, a written submission; it is then the period that is afforded for oral submissions that follows. If you are someone who has to work multiple jobs to make ends meet—for example, someone who may be battling health conditions but just deeply cares about environmental issues, or the Public Service more broadly—a shortened select committee allows a shortened period for oral submissions, and to allow members of the public to find a slot that actually accommodates them, like my amendment seeks to do, is to also create a much broader oral submission process and flexibility to engage with as many members of the public who feel passionate about this bill.

Just to recap, the key reason for my amendment is to honour the Minister’s contributions and intent, while also honouring robust, good, thorough lawmaking. I hope that members of the Government are able to get behind it, because I do not think that this goes against the intentions that the Minister put forward in front of us. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’m not hearing any new information currently, but I am putting a warning out. I’m going to take a call from Glen Bennett, but, at the moment, I think all of the reasonings that I’m hearing in everyone’s situation are very similar. So we’ll give Glen Bennett a chance to put the case.

Glen Bennett: Kia ora, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just before you start speaking—Ricardo Menéndez March, you moved an amendment but we don’t have—

Ricardo Menéndez March: I did have it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour) (17:08): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. I want to begin my reflection on why we oppose what the Government is doing, because it is about holding the executive to account. For me, and for us in Opposition—and it also should be backbenchers within the Government, their job is to hold the executive to account. They are not the executive. Just because someone may be a backbencher in the National Party, just because someone may be a backbencher in the ACT Party, if someone may be a backbencher in New Zealand First, it does not mean they are part of the executive.

As we should all know, when we sit on select committee, it is not actually about the executive making the rules; they present, obviously, legislation, like we have here this afternoon, to the select committee, but then it is up to the select committee to critique, to unpack, to look at the fiscal ramifications, to look in terms of “Is this legislation fit for purpose?”

It is up to all of those who sit on select committees to hold the executive to account. By having a shortened select committee time frame, that undoes and lessens the ability for many of us in this House—on the Government side and on the Opposition side—to hold the executive to account. That is a huge part of our democracy here in New Zealand. We are a small democracy; we have one House, and we often hear in this place that we can run fast and loose with legislation because there are no checks and balances. That’s why we need to be committed to the fact that select committees are a sacred and important part of this House: to ensure that the executive of 20 in Cabinet, plus the extras sitting outside Cabinet, are held to account, and to ensure that legislation that comes back to this House for its second reading and to be passed into law, potentially, is fit for purpose and that the executive don’t just get their way and what they want, because that undermines democracy.

We’ve talked a lot about participation, so I won’t spend a lot of time on it, but, actually, it does erode what goes on here. The fact that we have record numbers of people feeling disenfranchised with politics and with the Government means we need to make sure that we are lifting and making sure that people are able to participate, but also to believe that what goes on in here and in the select committee rooms is something that actually works.

I also want to talk about something that I’m not sure people think about when it comes to select committees. I always find it really fascinating, in the second reading of a piece of legislation, that, so often, members on all sides of this House will step up and say that the select committee is the engine room of this place. It’s the place where it doesn’t get too political, where we reach out across the aisle, we work together, and we pull things apart and put them back together. It’s around the cross-party participation that we hear so often in a second reading in this House. Yet again truncating and shortening a select committee process is undermining that cross-party collegiality—that ability to work together to get it right.

I want to comment about when I was on the Environment Committee, which this piece of legislation is going to go to, and around the Fast-Track Amendment Bill. The reason I bring it up is because my colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking and myself sat there and went through the submission process and listened to the submitters and participated—and of course we didn’t want it to pass. Of course we didn’t want that piece of legislation to pass, but we did what we could in the select committee to reach out across the aisle, to work with our colleagues—our backbench colleagues in the Government—to find a way, if it has to come back to this House for a second reading, for the committee of the whole House stage and the third reading and Royal assent, to do everything we can to make sure that that piece of legislation vaguely had something a bit more in it that would be slightly more palatable for us.

I think, and I know, that every time a shortened report-back time is presented—every time a select committee process is shortened—it diminishes the ability of this House to reach out and work together, and that is an issue. As I said in my previous comments, we’re responsible for holding the executive to account, and that requires all of us who are not in the executive—but it also means how do we work across the floor, together, to make sure that this small democracy is fit for purpose?

Of course, the other thing that I want to mention is about how good things take time. Yes, the Government, for whatever reason, has decided that 1 July is a very important date for them to create this new ministry. That’s not our problem; that’s the executive and the Government’s problem for choosing that binary date for whatever reason. It takes time to get law right. We oppose this legislation, obviously, and we have good reason to oppose it, but it should, again, sit in select committee and give us time to unpack it. It was said earlier around officials and having submitters come through. We know that poor process is short and fast and loose, and we don’t want that. Good law takes time—and that might be frustrating for the executive, but it’s just the way it should be. If they want to set an arbitrary date, then they should have thought a bit earlier about the process and how they would make that work.

Finally, I just want to mention about submitters and those who feel like they’ve just been on this constant rollercoaster and this constant cycle of having to submit, time after time after time, on legislation that seems to come so quickly and so loosely. I think particularly of some of our smaller organisations. We’ve heard some of them mentioned in the House during the debate on the first reading. Some of those smaller organisations and some of those individuals are those who work full time and who don’t have time to actually formulate their ideas and their concepts to help us. Again, in the second reading, I so often hear Government MPs get up and say how wonderful it was to have the community, stakeholders, and key organisations present and give us great food for thought, to wrestle with and make sure this law is good. What we do when we shorten our time frame yet again is, particularly for our small organisations and our small businesses—who are already struggling to keep up with everything that’s going on, with paying the bills, and, of course, we talk about the cost of living so often—I really think it disadvantages those smaller groups who will have less time or ability to have reasoned, thoughtful, well-produced arguments on why they oppose it, or maybe why they support this legislation, for those who do.

I really need us to think about this and my opening point around the executive. The executive needs to be held to account—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: You said that at the start.

GLEN BENNETT: As I sum up: as I said, Mr Peters, we must hold our executive to account. I challenge the backbench MPs in Government. Those members talk about it all the time, and we need to make sure that we get it right. For us to shorten this process is not good lawmaking, it doesn’t engage key stakeholders, and it’s just not holding our executive to account. That concerns me around our small democracy that we must protect, because we are a voice to the world, and we need to extend the time of a select committee.

SUZE REDMAYNE (Junior Whip—National) (17:18): I move, That debate on this question now close.

A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.

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.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the amendment in the name of the Hon Dr Deborah Russell be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the motion be amended by replacing “24 April” with “16 July 2026”.

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.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the amendment in the name of the Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the motion be amended by replacing “24 April” with “18 June 2026”.

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.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the amendment in the name of Ricardo Menéndez March be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the motion be amended by replacing “24 April 2026” with “24 June 2026”.

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 the Environment (Disestablishment of Ministry for the Environment) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 24 April 2026.

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.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (17:24): Point of order. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just want to seek your advice on what we just debated in terms of referral motions, because I can’t make a point of order while the voting is happening. Rightfully, you took a closure motion, but one of the things we often do see as part of the referral motion is the exemption of Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196, and one of the things I was hoping to do was move an amendment around one of the Standing Orders—despite Standing Order 196—that 196 be exempted. The reason I ask your guidance on this is the fact that with a limited or truncated select committee process, unless 196 is exempted, it means that the select committee must go to the Business Committee to ensure that 196 is waived. Otherwise, the select committee cannot sit.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: So I understand the member’s point of order, but I did put out warnings at various times about the limited width of the debate, and we had had ample time for those issues to be brought up. I was hearing a lot of repetition and I understand that these are always very tense situations and I can understand the Opposition’s anger at what’s just happened here, but, actually, the arguments that I heard to that point, there were no new arguments coming through. So I thank you for kindly saying I rightly made that call, and we will move on.

English Language Bill

First Reading

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs) (17:26): on behalf of the Minister of Justice: I move, That the English Language Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill.

This bill seeks to formally recognise that English is an official language of New Zealand in legislation. English has long been the predominant language of Government, education, people with some brains, commerce, and daily life in New Zealand. It is spoken by around 95 percent of the population. It has never been formally recognised in statute as an official language. This bill seeks to correct that anomaly, providing consistency in legal framework and clarifying the status of all three official languages in legislation. The bill does not diminish the status of other official languages, te reo Māori and New Zealand Sign Language, but rather complements them, acknowledging the linguistic reality of our nation and affirming the value of English as a shared means of communication used by the mass majority of the population—I’ll say it again quietly: used by the mass majority of the population.

The bill reflects commitments made in the New Zealand First - National coalition agreement to legislate for the official status of the English language.

Glen Bennett: What’s your fear?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: English will continue to be the predominant language used in our courts, Parliament, and Government.

Hon Member: Why?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: This bill provides clarity and certainty. The purpose of an introductory speech is that some ignoramuses, like you, might learn why the bill is being brought in the first time. So be patient. For the next eight minutes, you’re going to hear them all, and a bit extra.

This bill provides clarity and certainty—

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah, I know what the member’s going to say and I was just trying to advise the Rt Hon Winston Peters to be careful about calling names. I’m not sure who it was intended at, but it was certainly intended at an individual, and I’d ask the member to refrain from that type of language. Thank you. Just use plain language—English!

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, I know that some people have limitations when it comes to our language, but I’m not one of them.

The bill provides clarity and certainty in legislation of the official status of the English language in New Zealand. This affirms in legislation that New Zealand has three official languages. Other jurisdictions have taken similar measures to recognise English as an official language, including Canada, Ireland, and Wales. This indicates the importance of providing for the official status of a language in legislation to ensure a country’s official languages are respected and supported in public life, or more importantly, it is what the people in the mass majority of this country want.

This bill is an important clarification of the official status of the English language in New Zealand in legislation. This bill not only clears up a long-held assumption that English was already an official language but, importantly, also serves very practical applications.

With the increase, in recent years, in te reo being used in place of English, even when less than 5 percent of the New Zealand population can read, write, or speak it, it has created situations that encourage misunderstanding and confusion for all, and all for the purpose to push a narrative. We have some very real situations now where communications and names of important services are using te reo as primary names and language, and the room for confusion and miscommunication is huge.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Tell us about confusion.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: We have alarming examples in our essential health services in hospitals and online, and that former Minister should know that. First responders, on their vehicles and in communications, being unable to get to places because they don’t know where they’re going; transport services with important road signs—they have all announced that. But, of course, over there, being the elitist specialists they are, they ignore ordinary hard workers—they think they know better. There are examples of transport services with important road signs, and even an example of the important maritime navigational charts place names being changed to te reo in recent years. More and more place names, bays, headlands, safe anchorage points, and key navigation points have shifted from English to re reo on electronic charts, and the English name only becomes visible once you are physically within a bay or know precisely where to look.

This is getting patently ridiculous. Here is a real example of the risk and the consequences of not using the language that the mass majority of people in New Zealand understand. I was sent the following example privately just recently: “During a recent experience in the Bay of Islands and on an increasingly stormy January day, after an 11-hour coastal passage, the issue became significantly more perilous. Still several miles offshore in deteriorating conditions, the lack of clearly visible and well-recognised English place names on the latest electronic charts made orientation far more difficult than it should have been.”

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Ha, ha!

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: See—it’s a laughing matter over there. I just heard the so-called lawyer from Christchurch thinking it’s funny. He thinks it’s hilarious. [Interruption] Let me tell you, I was a far more successful lawyer than you, sunshine—about 10 times more successful.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Back to the bill. I know it was provoked but we’ll go back to the bill.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: But I’m here now: “When navigating unfamiliar waters, the inability to easily identify known safe anchorages by not being able to reorientate yourself against recognised place names, such as Russell, adds another level of risk. These names do appear once you zoom right into the fine detail, but when you need to see a broader area to plan an approach and those landmarks are not visible and are instead named in te reo, it can be both distressing and dangerous. In our case, daylight was fading, 40 knot winds and 2.3 metre seas were forecast, and conditions building. We needed to find safe harbour promptly without placing further stress on crew and family. That included Māori on the boat as well.” How do you like that?

These changes to place names on navigational charts can only have come from Government departments such as Land Information New Zealand providing name changes. This form of dangerous and nonsensical totalitarianism is a reminder of the old Soviet Union. [Interruption] You should love this, being a pinko, being a communist—you should love this.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. Madam Speaker, there’s a longstanding and consistent convention in this House that members must not refer to others as communists. It has been upheld consistently from Speakers throughout my relatively short time in this Parliament. It should not be permitted.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I agree with the member, and I think the Rt Hon Winston Peters should refrain from the name calling and focus on the piece of legislation.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Madam Speaker, I was reading from his CV.

Hon Members: Oh!

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh, yes—I’ll table the CV.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, that’s not relevant, and if the member wishes to continue with this line of conversation he will withdraw and apologise. Otherwise he will go straight back to the bill.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: OK. This form of dangerous, nonsensical totalitarianism is a reminder of the old Soviet Union where out-of-touch bureaucrats were building, costing, and installing chandeliers based on weight-for-production bonuses rather than shape and design, and as a result, ripping the ceilings out of buildings because they were too heavy. And then President Khrushchev, upon finding this out, asked this question: for whom is this illuminating? And “for whom?” are the circumstances we now finding ourselves in with the use of te reo as a means of important communication now illuminating what exactly? That’s what happens when cross purposes defeat the public good.

This bill won’t solve the push of this virtue signalling narrative completely, but it is the first step towards ensuring logic and common sense prevails when the vast majority of New Zealanders communicate in English and understand English in a country that should use English as its primary and official language.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Can they read in English?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I commend the bill of the House, and for that member over there, next time I’ll bring some pictures to show her what I mean.

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

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) (17:35): E te Mana Whakawā, ngā mihi. Great to be here in Aotearoa today to celebrate this. Look, I didn’t know it was comedy hour—that speech was a rambling mess. What Russian chandeliers have to do with the English language, I don’t know. Only the wandering mind of Winston Peters could tell us that—so-called lawyer that he is. He’s only ever appeared in court as a litigant.

This is yet another example of the important things that this Government wants to do—while people can’t buy their kids school uniforms, they want to make sure that English is the official language of New Zealand. While power prices are surging, they want to make sure that signs are in English as well as te reo, although I think I heard Winston Peters say that he got disoriented if he saw a te reo sign. Well, he’s certainly disoriented today, but I’m not sure it was a te reo sign that did it.

Look, the fact of the matter is that this bill is entirely unnecessary. Winston Peters himself talks about 1840 and the clauses, the actual wording, of the Treaty of Waitangi, where the English Government obtained sovereignty, at least in some sense, over New Zealand and all of the laws of England applied. That’s what happened on that day. That is what the intention, at least of the English, in signing that treaty was. What is the official language of England? We still inherit those laws. Read the English laws application Act, a piece of legislation where we inherit all of the laws and customs of England into New Zealand today. And what’s the official language of the United Kingdom? It’s not out there in legislation. There is no English Act or United Kingdom Act that sets out English as an official language. But I’m pretty sure they’re comfortable with the fact that it’s an official language of England and the United Kingdom.

So this is an entirely unnecessary piece of legislation—yet another distraction, a silly piece of legislation that Winston Peters, in his Jurassic thinking, wants to put before his sub-sub-subsection of voters because they get a little bit anxious because the library in Christchurch Central is called Tūranga.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: What!

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Yeah, I know. It’s a big building full of books, with big signs to it, but because it doesn’t say “Library”, they don’t know that it’s the library if they’re new Zealand First voters.

So that’s the distraction. They are trying to distract us, with this trivial bill, away from the fact that they can’t actually run the country. That chaotic coalition, that fractured group of people, can’t actually run the country, can’t get costs down, can’t actually cut the cost of living, can’t organise two boats for the Cook Strait—haven’t seen those yet; the costs there are still going up. But, no, on a Thursday afternoon, they want us to be talking about the English language—and it is a great language. But, of course, one of the challenges is that you’re going to ossify the language.

You don’t want to freeze it. A language is a moving thing. If you listen to a conversation in New Zealand today, you don’t actually hear English English; you hear New Zealand English. The beautiful thing about it is that it’s got a scattering of words—or more than a scattering; a goodly number of words—from languages around the Pacific: te reo, Samoan, Tongan. That it what language should be. Here’s a good question: what English is it? Is it New Zealand English, American English, English English? These are actually dialects. But, you know, they want to box it in. The great joy of our language is that it’s alive—and that’s why.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green) (17:40): Tēnā koe e te Māngai. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. This week, parts of Aotearoa will once again plunge underwater in the most recent climate emergency. These one-in-100-year weather events that we consistently see are occurring week after week after week. Sewage is spilling into the waters in our capital. There are water boil notices in our second-largest city because of the bacteria in our drinking water, and as a result of the intentional economic decisions that this Government has made, and unemployment is the highest that it has been in a decade, and Christopher Luxon waves goodbye to 200 New Zealanders every single day.

So this week, Christopher Luxon and his Government has once again plunged our House into urgency and made their priorities abundantly clear. Firstly, disestablishing the Ministry for the Environment, literally. Secondly, leaving tens of thousands of beneficiaries living in poverty, despite their entitlements to ACC and despite the courts telling this Government that that practice is unlawful. And now we are spending our time in this place debating whether to make English an official language.

These are intentional decisions. The Government continues to choose to remove protections for our environment; to pour oil, coal, and gas on the climate crisis fire; and to make life harder for regular hard-working New Zealanders just trying to get by. That is actually why this English Language Bill is on the Order Paper today, because the Government wants us distracted, they want us divided, and they want regular people exhausted, fighting amongst themselves.

Some out there say that this Government is stupid. Unfortunately, I think that they know exactly what they are doing. The English language is not under threat. We are literally speaking it and debating in it right now. This is a bill which is an answer to a problem that does not exist—a problem which this Government is trying to create in the minds of people across this country in place of the very real problems of the climate crisis, record homelessness, inequality, and infrastructural decay, which they have decided to actively make worse.

All across the world, official language status is provided to protect languages under threat, in order to put a spotlight on the need to protect and resource their survival and revival. Here, in Aotearoa, that status has been granted to te reo Māori as the indigenous language of this country, which was once physically, violently beaten out of the mouths of Māori by those who imposed English as the only language. Māori fought for more than a century to keep the language alive and fought for decades to see it afforded the status that it has today.

The royal commission into abuse in State care told this House pretty recently that Deaf New Zealanders were not only denied the right to learn sign language but also punished for using it. That is the reality of our history. That is why te reo Māori and New Zealand Sign Language (NZSL) were granted their official status. Te reo Māori was fought for, NZSL was fought for; English, however, was literally beaten into people. We are speaking it right now. It is not under threat. But in order to try and cling to power, this Government has decided that it needs to bank on fear. It needs to invent an oppression that does not exist.

If you’re wondering how Trump’s America happened, it is actually through tactics exactly like this. Trump has done exactly this so recently in an executive order. The Government wants to stoke a fight between te iwi Māori and Pākehā, and they want that fight to be the focus of this election. But no one out there in the real world—perhaps bar their mates in the Atlas Network and Hobson’s Pledge—have asked for this. New Zealanders—Māori and tangata Tiriti alike—just want to live their lives in peace. They want food on the table, a roof over their head, a decent income, and a place to belong. That is the reason 100,000 took to the streets last year to reject this Government’s approach.

So, in plain English for all members of this Government: this bill is bullshit and you know it.

SIMON COURT (ACT) (17:46): It’s incredibly difficult to respond to such a rant that is removed from the purpose and intent—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: That’s your Minister you’re talking about!

SIMON COURT: —of this very simple bill to restore and establish English as an official language, so when people, like Duncan Webb, go to the library, they can see the word “library”, which is what many New Zealanders have been asking for. Can we read it in English, which is the language most people speak? It doesn’t have to be a culture war issue, Chlöe Swarbrick and the Greens or Labour; it’s simply practical, constructive, common sense. ACT supports this bill.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty) (17:46): I commend the bill to the House.

ORIINI KAIPARA (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau) (17:46): He aha te aha ka pahawa i tēnei pire? I ahu mai tēnei pire i hea? He aha ngā hua ka puta ki a Ngāi Pākeha nō rātou tonu tēnei reo. Tēnā areare taringa mai ki te reo rangatira, ki te reo Māori, ki te reo tuatahi o tēnei whenua. He reo i whakamantia e te ture i te tau tahi mano iwa rau waru tekau mā whitu. Kua tata ki te hokorua tau e toitū ana te reo Māori i tōna whenua tipu, i taea ai nā ngā moni, nā ngā toto, nā ngā hekenga tōtā a te momo pērā i a *Hana Te Hemara mā, i kawe mai i te Petihana Reo Māori ki ngā tepe o Pāremata i te tau tahi mano iwa rau whitu tekau mā rua. I mautohe te iwi Māori i ērā tau i te kitenga iho i te mate ā-moa te reo Māori. Nō tēnei rautau noa nei i tīmata ai te whakarauoratia o tēnei taonga, te reo Māori. Kei te rārangi mō ngā reo kua tata korehāhā o UNESCO te reo Māori e tiaki mai ana. Kei ngā kokonga o te ao te reo Māori e rere ana, heoi, i konei, i Aotearoa nei, kei te tohe nui tonu a ngāi pikoko ki te reo Māori kia ūkaipō anō ia ki ōna kāinga, ki ō mātou hapori, kia ora tonu ai tō mātou ahurea. Otirā kei te ākina rawatia e ngā ngaru nui o whakatoihara, o kūare, o ngākau kino, o manawa hūngorungoru.

Nōku e pānui ana i te pire nei, me te whakarongo ki te toki pūhuki nāna i whāo i tēnei pire, ka whakaaro ake ahau, he aha tāna e whai nei? Uaua ka kitea he tauira i te ao e mana nei i te reo Pākehā, nā *Chlöe tonu tērā kōrero. Ko Amerika me Kānata noa iho kua pērā. E tika ana kia whai a Aotearoa i ā rāua tāuira? I nē? He aha te hua o te pire nei mehemea i tāna te reo Pākehā hei reo matua i Aotearoa, ā puta noa i te ao. Inā kē te nui o ngā tauira i te ao e kite ai tātou ko tā te ture he tiaki i ngā reo, pēnei i te reo Māori, e tata ana te korehāhā. He aha ai? Inā kē te nui o ngā tauira i te ao i kōrerotia ki te ngaro te reo, ka ngaro te tuakiri tangata, ka ngaro te iwi, ka riro hoki te mauri o te mana Māori, te mauri hoki o tēnei whenua. E mate ana te reo Pākehā? Nō! Me pau he moni anō ki te whakarauora i te reo Pākehā? He mahi ka riro ki ngā whānau e pōhara ana i te motu mā tēnei pire hou? Kua raru nui a Aotearoa i te whanaketanga o te reo Māori, ahakoa ko tōna tekau mā waru ōrau noa iho mātou e mōhio ana ki te kōrero. E whakatumatumangia ana te iwi kōrero Pākehā o Aotearoa i a au, i taku reo Māori? Kāhore, kāhore. He aha tā te Minita nāna tēnei pire i whao? He whakatamariki i te reo rangatira, he tāmi i te mana Māori, he whakahoki i te whenua ki ngā rā o te waru, arā o te ngōuruuru. Koirā tāku e kite nei, koirā tā Te Pāti Māori e whakahau nei.

He pire moumou wā, moumou hā. Kō tā te Tiriti o Waitangi, he tiaki i ā tātou reo katoa, tae atu ki ngā reo o ngā iwi nā rāua tonu te Tiriti i waitohu hei painga mō Aotearoa tāngata katoa. Me mana te reo Pākehā e toitū ai te Tiriti? Kāhore. Kia hahū ake ahau, i te wāhanga tuarua o Te Aho Matua hei kai mā te hinengaro o te Minita nāna tēnei pire. Wāhanga tuarua Te Aho Matua, rua ira tahi, e kī ana he tapu ngā reo katoa, nō reira me whai koha ki ngā reo katoa. Mō ngā tamariki, kia rua ngā reo. Ko te reo o ngā mātua tūpuna tuatahi, ko te reo o tauiwi tuarua. Kia ōrite te pakari o ia reo kia tū tangata ai ngā tamariki i roto i te reo Māori, i roto hoki i te reo tauiwi. A kāti, kia panoni i a au i tērā kōrero, me te whakataukī ake i konei, kia toru kē ngā reo o ā tātou tamariki. Ko te reo Māori ka tahi, ko te reo Pākehā ka rua, ko te reo rotarota ka toru. Whakautengia ngā reo e toru o Aotearoa. Kaua e tuku kia kōhurutia te reo Māori me te reo rotarota e te reo Pākehā. Ki te pērā, he pakanga nui kei te haere. Nō hea au, nō hea mātou o Te Pāti Māori e whakaae ki tēnei pire.

[What will this bill achieve? Where has it come from? What gain will be made by Pākehā, the people whose language this is? Listen closely to the Māori language, the first language of this land. A language recognised by law in 1987. It’s been almost 20 years that the Māori language has been sustained in its own land, made possible through funds, blood and sweat of those like Hana Te Hemara, who brought the Māori Language Petition to the steps of Parliament in 1972. At that time, the Māori people protested as they could see that the Māori language was heading to extinction. It was this century that the revitalisation of the treasured Māori language began. The Māori language sits on UNESCO’s list of near extinct languages. The Māori language is being spoken across the world. However, here, in New Zealand, those hungry for the Māori language are continually striving for the language to be re-embedded in their homes, in our communities, so that our culture remains alive but, instead, it is being beaten down by great waves of discrimination, of ignorance, of malice, of insecurity.

As I read this bill and listened to the blunt adze that shaped this bill, I wondered, what is he trying to achieve? It is difficult to find an example around the world that recognises the English language, as Chlöe said. Only America and Canada have done so. Is it right that New Zealand should follow their examples? Really? What will be gained from this bill if, as it says, the English language should be the main language of New Zealand and around the world. There are numerous examples from around the world where it is apparent that the role of the law is to preserve languages, like the Māori language, that are nearing extinction. Why? There are numerous examples around the world that state if a language dies, the identity of the people is lost, the people are lost, the essence of Māori autonomy, the vital essence of this land. Is the English language dying? No! Should more money be spent to revitalise the English language? Will this new bill bring employment to the impoverished families of this country? The growth of the Māori language has been problematic for New Zealand, even though there are only 18 percent of us who can speak the Māori language. Is the English-speaking population threatened by me, by my Māori language? No. What is the intention of the Minister who shaped this bill? To trivialise the Māori language, suppress Māori autonomy, and take this land back to times of scarcity; that is what I see, that is what Te Pāti Māori is contending.

This bill is a waste of time and a waste of breath. The Treaty of Waitangi protects all our languages, including the peoples that signed the Treaty for the benefit of all New Zealanders. Must the English language be recognised for the Treaty to be honoured? No. I bring to light section two of Te Aho Matua for the consideration of the Minister who brings this bill. Section two of Te Aho Matua, 2.1, states that all languages are sacred, therefore all languages should be appreciated. Children should have two languages. Firstly, the language of their forebears, secondly, the English language. Now, let me adjust that, and proclaim that our children should know three languages: firstly, the Māori language; secondly, the English language; and, thirdly, sign language. Respect all three languages of New Zealand. Don’t allow the Māori language and sign language to be eliminated by the English language. If this was to happen, we will have a great fight on our hands. I and Te Pāti Māori will never agree to this bill.]

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui) (17:51): English has long been a de facto language in this country. This bill simply recognises that and makes no other changes. I commend it to the House.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) (17:52): It is remarkable, at a time when New Zealanders are struggling with the cost of living, when food prices are going up, where people are struggling to pay the rent, where unemployment is at record highs, that this is the Government’s priority. That this is the Government’s priority when there are real problems out there in the community that need to be addressed.

I can only join my colleague Duncan Webb in concluding that this Government is bereft of ideas about how to address the real issues for New Zealanders. They are so out of touch that they need this piece of symbolism.

But the Government has chosen to devote Parliament’s time to this bill, so I have the remaining time left for my speech to talk about the beauty of the English language. It is a beautiful language and it is so powerful. I care deeply about English because of how my mum raised me. My mum loves the English language; in fact, she’s an English teacher. She’s from the Maldives. They don’t speak English there; they speak their own language, Dhivehi. She was born there in 1950. Her aunt, who spoke not a scrap of English, who raised her, knew that my mum needed to speak English to secure a good future for herself—so mum did. She worked really hard at her English and she was the first person from her country to pass Cambridge O Levels in English. That’s how she got a Colombo Plan scholarship to come to New Zealand. She loved English so much, she went to Otago University, she went to teacher’s college, and, by the time I was born, she was teaching New Zealand students English. Can you imagine that? A woman from another part of the world, who used to read Oscar Wilde, even though she’s never met an English man, comes to New Zealand and teaches New Zealand kids in Southland English. Because I’m from a small town, I sat in her class—the class where she taught Shakespeare, where she taught Steinbeck to New Zealanders. That’s pretty special.

Kind of ironic to think that someone for whom English wasn’t their first language gave so much in terms of enjoyment of English and English literature to her students. I’ve been thinking about my mum a lot today, because I sat in her classes during the 1990s, where English was being used in a very powerful and destructive way in this country. Some politicians were making claims about there being an Asian invasion in the 1990s. Someone in our class raised that. They asked questions about Asians, and my mum, feeling bigger than her five-foot - nothing stature, took on those racist questions posed in our class, and said to the students in our class not to believe what you might hear from politicians. Now, we had a discussion as a class and that matter resolved itself, but that wasn’t the case all the way around New Zealand in the 1990s.

Remember, a Somali refugee family had a burning cross erected on their lawn because New Zealand politicians—some of them were indulging in race baiting. I remember that. That was what was happening in my childhood.

Part of the power of the English language—yes, its beautiful words, but when we speak in the English language, we have impact beyond our words. As politicians, we create permission for people to do things outside this House. So that’s what happens when politicians indulge in racism. The English language can be used as a weapon, and that can lead to people having violent acts committed against them. It can be used for people being insulted and humiliated. I remember after that time, mum and dad took us on a long drive to Christchurch and we went to the supermarket. Mum was helping my Pākehā grandma with some errands and offered to do the shopping for her—me and my sister were in tow. I can’t remember, maybe I was about 12 and my sister—she’s now a lawyer and whip-smart—younger than me, was with me. I remember—and it was all during this time—how my mum’s cheque was declined because “We don’t take foreign cheques.” I mean, it had the Bank of New Zealand’s name written on that cheque and her address in Te Ānau. That was the climate at the time.

I fear that we may be approaching that time again. I remember a man who stood up in this House and condemned Winston Peters for that. That man’s name was Jim Bolger.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini) (17:57): We just heard a leader of an Opposition party say the words bull s-h-i-t. It just makes me wonder—[Interruption] And they’re laughing right now. It just makes me wonder about the double standards that they’re talking about with respect to this bill. It makes me wonder how many times we’re just going to take their bullshish of theatrics, when they just want to get on a headline, when they just want to get on to the news. That’s what I call “bullshish”. I’ve seen that since I’ve come into Parliament. Yep, they’re going to do more of the theatrics, walking out, and we’re all upset, but how about we just calm down a little and stop the theatrics and talk about what this is. It’s OK. We’re only making English official. It’s not the end of the world. How about some respect for you being an MP, for the people here being an MP, for the privilege that we have being an MP, and not abusing that privilege by saying disgusting words like bull s-h-i-t. I commend this bill to the House.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Musterer—Green) (17:58): Point of order. It’s hard to know whether that was the member taking offence or otherwise. I just wanted to have it noted that there have been five previous instances of the word “bullshit” being said in the House, including from Chris Penk, member of the National Party. So I wanted to clarify from you, Madam Speaker, as to whether you deem those words unparliamentary, since they have already been said five times in this House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: To the member’s point of order, the reason I didn’t pull it up is because it is a word that has been used in Parliament previously. So I made the decision that it stood, all right. There are certain words that we won’t take, and we wouldn’t want to take that word in every bill and every speech. But sometimes, when tensions are high, it’s OK.

This debate—[Interruption] Quiet, please. I know it’s been a very tense afternoon, but this debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 3 March 2026.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 5.59 p.m.