Wednesday, 11 March 2026

Wednesday, 11 March 2026

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Start of Sitting Day

Karakia/Prayers

TEANAU TUIONO (Assistant Speaker) (14:00): E te Atua kaha rawa, ka tuku whakamoemiti atu mātou, mō ngā karakia kua waihotia mai ki runga i a mātou. Ka waiho i ō mātou pānga whaiaro katoa ki te taha. Ka mihi mātou ki te Kīngi, me te inoi atu mō te ārahitanga i roto i ō mātou whakaaroarohanga, kia mōhio ai, kia whakaiti ai tā mātou whakahaere i ngā take o te Whare nei, mō te oranga, te maungārongo, me te aroha o Aotearoa. Āmene.

[Almighty God, we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests, we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom and humility, for the welfare, peace, and compassion of New Zealand. Amen.]

Presentation

Petitions

SPEAKER (14:01): A petition has been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.

CLERK (14:01): Petition of William Rea requesting that the House urge the Minister for Regulation to review the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 and associated legislation to modernise New Zealand’s drug laws.

SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee. No papers have been delivered.

Select Committee Reports

SPEAKER (14:01): A select committee report has been delivered for presentation.

CLERK (14:01): Report of the Education and Workforce Committee on the petition of Before16 Charitable Trust.

SPEAKER: No bills have been introduced.

Sittings of the House

Leave to Suspend Sitting after Valedictory Statement

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Deputy Leader of the House) (14:01): Point of order. I seek leave for the House to suspend for the dinner break following the valedictory statement of the Hon Peeni Henare.

SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action? There appears to be none.

Oral Questions to Ministers

Workplace Relations and Safety

Question No. 1

LAURA McCLURE (ACT) (14:01) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: What progress has she made toward repealing and replacing the Holidays Act 2003?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (14:02): This week, the Government reached a huge milestone in addressing one of the most vexing issues faced by business and workers across the country. This week, the Employment Leave Bill was introduced to Parliament. It will bring simplicity and logic to the way employment leave is calculated, which prevents many headaches for both employers and employees from getting payments wrong. The Holidays Act is complex, confusing, and it has led to huge remediation costs. I am pleased we’re one step closer to getting rid of it.

Laura McClure: How is the Employment Leave Bill different from the current Holidays Act?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: The biggest change in the Employment Leave Bill is a switch from a weeks-based entitlement system to an hours-based accrual system for both annual leave and sick leave. There will be no more wrestling with the definition of “weeks” and “days”, adjusting balances when hours of work change, or trying to define what constitutes a “working week” for staff with variable schedules. It also means no more waiting for six months to access sick leave or 12 months to access annual leave. For most people, leave entitlements will stay the same but what will change is how it is calculated.

Laura McClure: How long have previous workplace relations and safety Ministers worked on fixing the Holidays Act legislation?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: When I came into this job as workplace relations and safety Minister, I was well aware of the history of Holidays Act reform, and it has been plagued by multiple delays and a growing sense of frustration from the public that the Government can’t just get the job done. The previous Government set up the Holidays Act task force in 2018, but by the 2023 election, draft legislation still wasn’t complete and ready for introduction. I am proud of the significant progress made already, to have legislation ready and available for public feedback—a milestone that successive Ministers tried and failed to reach.

Laura McClure: What feedback did she receive when she consulted on draft legislation largely based on the previous Government’s decisions?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: This Government agreed to test whether the previous Government’s work was hitting the mark by going out for targeted consultation on the work that they had done to date, rather than having to start from scratch. Many submitters indicated that the general framework of that bill was not a significant improvement on the current Act, and that a fundamental change would better address longstanding issues. In fact, 70 percent of technical experts and 67 percent of employers expressed a preference for more significant change to the annual leave provisions. The Law Society, in particular, described that draft bill as “unnecessarily complex” and “difficult to follow”, with some provisions more complicated than what we have now. A large retail franchise owner told us that if a business of their size had challenges interpreting the proposed changes, then small to medium employers would have found it particularly challenging to navigate those changes.

Laura McClure: What reports has she seen on the Employment Leave Bill?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Since the bill has been introduced, I’ve seen that the Employers and Manufacturers Association has said “it’s good to see the reforms maintaining momentum as this overhaul has been needed for a very long time.” Business Canterbury has said that “businesses will be very pleased to see this bill enter Parliament, and congratulations must go to the Government and Minister van Velden for taking a piece of legislation that has been stuck in review for years and delivering changes that will make it clearer and more workable for both employers and employees.” Simpson Grierson have said that it has been “advocating for an overhaul of the Holidays Act for more than a decade, with a key focus on the need to move from a ‘days’ and ‘weeks’ based model to an hours-based framework”, which this bill does. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: I’d just refer the House to Speaker’s ruling 204/1. Particularly on the Government side, it would be useful to consider that as we progress.

Prime Minister

Question No. 2

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition) (14:06) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister) (14:06) Yes, and particularly our actions not to spend $66 billion on Government spending and wasting it; particularly our actions not to triple the debt and incur a $10 interest pay; and particularly our actions not to run up inflation and interest rates to record highs. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just hold on. A barrage can come from both sides. I don’t think Ministers answering questions need the support of those who are sitting behind them.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How do increasing parking fines, more than doubling vehicle insurance levies, increasing the cost of registering a car, or his proposed 22-cents-a-litre hike in fuel tax help Kiwi motorists with the cost of living?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as the member would well understand, a lot of increases in fees and charges across New Zealand are linked to increases in rates. That’s why I would really ask the member and his party to consider supporting our rates cap work, which is a big, significant driver of the cost of living for New Zealanders and it’s running at four times that of inflation.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he believe that the Government withdrawing funding from local government for things like roading and water infrastructure has had any impact on the rates increases that councils are imposing across the country?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, again, I just would encourage the member to support the Government around the local government reforms, removing regional councils, Resource Management Act reforms, fast track legislation—it’s all designed to get things done for New Zealanders and to lower the cost of living.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: I’ll ask it again: does he believe that the Government withdrawing funding from local councils for things like roading projects and water infrastructure has had any impact on the increase in rates that people are seeing across the country?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No. As we’ve said from the very beginning, we want councils focused on what they can do. We don’t think light shows on public toilet blocks here in Wellington is a good use of public money. We don’t think putting bike lanes up Molesworth Street is actually a very good use of money; it would be better in three waters assets. No, councils need to get back to basics. We encourage the member and his party to actually support good, common-sense reform.

Hon David Seymour: Supplementary?

SPEAKER: Start it when the House is quiet.

Hon David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister agree that a Government shouldn’t measure its success by how much it spends and, in fact, wasteful spending is itself inflationary?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: It is, and a good example would be, under the previous Government and the previous Minister of Education—

SPEAKER: No, no—well, wait, hang on—

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: —classrooms were $1.2 million—

SPEAKER: That’s enough. The answer was given. Using a supplementary question to attack the Opposition is not allowed.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How did cutting public transport funding, forcing some commuters to pay up to 50 percent more to go to work or school, reduce cost of living pressures for New Zealanders?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I can tell you what is making the most difference to cost of living pressures for New Zealanders, and that is a Government that’s got control of spending. It isn’t spending $66 billion and half of it we don’t know what we’re getting for it. It doesn’t run up debt three times, and therefore we have high interest payments and high interest rates. I’d just say to the member, if he’s very, very serious about helping the Government lower the cost of living for New Zealanders across the system, he shouldn’t be progressing a Reserve Bank of New Zealand dual mandate, he should have supported the income tax thresholds increase that we had, he should be supporting RMA reforms and fast track.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. There was no mention of public transport funding at all in that diatribe from the Prime Minister. Perhaps he might like to address the question that was asked, which was around cutting public transport subsidies.

SPEAKER: Hang on—wait on. No talking while someone is doing a point of order, tempting as it may be. Start again.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: I can repeat the question, if you like, Mr Speaker, but the ultimate—

SPEAKER: Well, no, I’m going to repeat it back to you, which is going to be my answer to your point of order, so carry on.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: The Prime Minister has not addressed the cutting of public transport subsidies, and the increase in cost of living that that’s resulted in for New Zealanders.

SPEAKER: The question was “Has it contributed to the cost of living?”—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: “How”.

SPEAKER: It might well have said that, but the Prime Minister’s answer said, “I will tell you how”, so I’m not going to pull that up.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker—

SPEAKER: No, don’t—hang on—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How does saying, “I will tell you how” and then saying something completely unrelated address the question?

SPEAKER: It’s not unrelated, because it was talking about how the cost of living is being addressed.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Well, further point, Mr Speaker—

SPEAKER: No, no, don’t—hang on. Not a good idea—not a good idea to keep the argument going. Just ask the question again.

Hon David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker—fresh point of order.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How did cutting public transport—

SPEAKER: Hang on. Fresh point of order, the Hon David Seymour.

Hon David Seymour: I don’t know whether it’d help to draw the House’s attention to Standing Order 390, which says that questions should not contain ironical expressions, which is actually what the member has been trafficking the whole time.

SPEAKER: No, I don’t accept that. Thank you. It’s not helpful at all.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Just to be clear, are you asking me to repeat the question?

SPEAKER: Yes.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Thank you. How did cutting public transport funding, forcing some commuters to pay up to 50 percent more to get to work or school, reduce the cost of living pressures on New Zealand families?

Hon David Seymour: That’s an ironical expression, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: I’m sorry, look—do you want to stay in the House or not?

Hon David Seymour: Absolutely.

SPEAKER: Well, you can have an opinion, but don’t express it like that.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I just refer the member to my previous answer. The major driver of the costs of living challenges that New Zealanders have been experiencing is actually the Government spending out of control, driving up inflation, driving up interest rates, putting the economy into a difficult place, and people losing their jobs. I would just say, with respect to public transport—if I may, to address the question—this is a Government that has stopped Auckland Light Rail, because $300 million was wasted on that; $80 million on an Auckland walking bridge; and $110 million on Let’s Get Wellington Moving, which didn’t move at all.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why did his Government cut funding for apprenticeships in critical infrastructure areas, exacerbating skill shortages and depriving young Kiwis of future job opportunities?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I said to the member yesterday, I’m actually very pleased with the fact that this is a Government that’s put together a 30-year infrastructure pipeline to give the industry and sector great clarity about the projects that are coming. It’s also a Government that has made sure that we get inflation and interest rates down so the development sector, who do the building and construction in this country, can crack on with it. It’s also a Government that’s lowered the cost of building and construction by opening up the market to overseas building products and doing a lot of common-sense reforms that the previous administration didn’t tackle.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Supplementary question—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just a moment.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Did cutting $2 billion from school-building funding, $1.5 billion from State house building, and funding from hospital rebuilds contribute to the $5 billion collapse in construction activity between when he became Prime Minister and last year?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’m actually very proud about the fact that we are investing in the Nelson Hospital rebuild, the Dunedin rebuild—that we got that project the right size after the hospital pass we literally got from the other side. I’m very proud of the work that we’re doing on education and building new classrooms for our schools across this country. It turns out you don’t need to pay $1.2 million a classroom; if you pay $600,000, you can get twice as many built, and that’s what we’re doing. It’s a fantastic record. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Before we progress, that general running commentary behind the Prime Minister is getting a little bit too much, so we’ll have no more of it, thank you.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: The backbench like to do things behind the Prime Minister, Mr Brownlee!

SPEAKER: I think you should be pleased your microphone is off!

Finance

Question No. 3

DAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth) (14:13) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has she seen on New Zealand’s long-term fiscal position?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (14:14): Last September, the Treasury released its latest statement on the long-term fiscal position for New Zealand. These statements are prepared every four years, and they look at least 40 years into the future. The latest statement is not advice to one particular Government; rather, it describes the environment that successive Governments will face over the next few decades. The key factor, of course, is the ageing of our population. A greater proportion of the New Zealand population will be receiving superannuation and needing healthcare, and a shrinking proportion will be working and paying tax. As a result, successive Governments will face difficult choices around spending, revenue, and management of public assets and liabilities.

David MacLeod: What does the Treasury say about shorter-term actions?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: What the books look like in the short term makes a big difference to how they evolve in the longer term. In the Long-term Fiscal Statement, Treasury says, “An important first step is to create fiscal space for future shocks and choices by returning to surplus and bringing debt down to more prudent levels”. That, of course, mirrors the COVID-19 royal commission statement that “There is a pressing need to reduce public debt to provide a buffer for future pandemics or other economic shocks.” The commission pointed out that the previous Government spent too much during COVID and for too long. This Government’s fiscal strategy is about returning to surplus and bending the debt curve over, from going up to going down.

David MacLeod: What is the Government doing to get the books back in order?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, for one, we haven’t committed to find $12.8 billion for an unaffordable pay equity approach without knowing where the money will come from. The Government is investing in front-line public services like healthcare, education, and law and order, and we’re funding those investments to a large degree by making savings elsewhere in Government. The Opposition has opposed every single one of those savings measures, and so let’s be clear about what that approach means. All else being equal, if Government spending in Budget 2024 and Budget 2025 had not been offset by our Government’s savings, this year’s operating balance before gains and losses, excluding ACC revenue and expenses deficit, would be $25 billion, and net core Crown debt would be on track to reach 59 percent of GDP by the end of the forecast period. That would be a terrible starting point for dealing with the challenges of an ageing population.

David MacLeod: What does the Treasury recommend about prudent debt?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, in the Long-term Fiscal Statement, Treasury restates its advice from 2022 on a ceiling for net core Crown debt. It notes that New Zealand faces ongoing risks from natural hazards, including a 75 percent chance that the Alpine Fault in the South Island will rupture in the next 50 years, and it emphasises again that the maximum prudent level of debt for New Zealand in normal times is 50 percent of GDP. The latest Treasury forecasts show debt staying under 50 percent of GDP and the books returning to surplus. That will take work to achieve. Ongoing savings will be necessary, but this is the starting point that New Zealand needs when considering the long-term fiscal position and our resilience to future shocks.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does she agree with Treasury’s statement in that very report that says—and I quote—“costs associated with achieving New Zealand’s commitments under the Paris Agreement are one of the most material fiscal risks.”; if so, what is her plan to achieve the nationally determined contribution, as Treasury has also said that every year that Governments refuse to do domestic mitigation, the cost increases to the tune of billions for offshore mitigation?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I agree that there could be a range of approaches to meeting that obligation. I’m aware that some parties’ preference would be to send an enormous multibillion-dollar cheque overseas.

Hon Shane Jones: Congo!

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: That is not my preference. I reject the member’s claim—

Hon Shane Jones: No money for the Congo.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: —that we are not undergoing domestic mitigation efforts.

SPEAKER: Sorry—excuse me. Is someone in distress there? It’s starting to sound like it. Start the answer again.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: It is the case that there are a range of ways in which New Zealand could meet its obligations under the Paris Agreement, and I am aware that some parties in this Parliament would prefer to send a cheque for many billions of dollars overseas. That is not my preference. I reject the member’s claim that this is not a Government undertaking domestic mitigation efforts, and I suggest she join me one day to visit a farm where AgriZeroNZ are doing world-leading research into reducing methane emissions from our world-leading dairy industry. That’s mitigation effort right there.

Prime Minister

Question No. 4

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER: Tēnā koe e te Pīka—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Hang on. Questions are heard in silence.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) (14:19) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister) (14:19): Yes.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does the Prime Minister accept that Aotearoa has higher average sunshine hours than Germany, one of the world’s leading solar markets, yet only one in 35 New Zealand homes has rooftop solar?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, there’s more for us to do, and we’re very interested in rooftop solar—we think it’s part of the solution, ultimately. That’s why this Government’s made some consenting changes to make it easier for people to do so. But what’s really exciting is the fact that we’ve got a renewables boom going on in this country, and that’s because of the great energy policy that we’re building.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: If that is the case, why is the Government prioritising an expensive LNG import terminal instead of putting cheaper, home-grown solar power on the roofs of New Zealand families?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, actually good energy policy is “and, and, and”, and what we have done is made sure that by getting access to thermal firming energy, that actually enables more renewable investment to take place; gives more certainty to the market; and, importantly, covers off our dry year risk, which of course the member would understand drives into a risk premium, which leads to higher power bills.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: How many households could be fitted for solar power systems for the $1 billion price tag of the liquefied natural gas—LNG—import terminal and the $3 billion price tag of the landlord tax cuts?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I think the member’s mixing her drinks in that question, but I just say that—as I said in my previous answer—it’s an “and, and, and”. This is a Government that’s incredibly proud that we actually have a renewables boom under way in this country. The settings that we have put in place through fast track, which none of the Opposition parties supported, has enabled that to happen. The work that we’re doing to reach out to investors overseas and here in New Zealand to expand solar, to expand wind, to expand geothermal is all very good. The fact that we have coal, the fact that we have gas—that’s all good because we need that for dry year risk, and that’s actually about lowering power bills.

SPEAKER: Can I just suggest that the Prime Minister’s a little cautious about some of the descriptions he might put on other people’s interpretations of various situations.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Is the Prime Minister aware that the modelling from Rewiring Aotearoa shows that if 80 percent of New Zealand homes had solar, it could provide the equivalent backup of up to 29 days of additional hydro storage?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In answer to my earlier questions, that’s why this Government’s very interested in the role that rooftop solar can play in our total energy mix.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Why is the Government choosing imported gas and the wellbeing of landlords over home-grown solar energy for whānau in Aotearoa?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I reject the characterisation of that question.

Social Development and Employment

Question No. 5

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour) (14:22) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Is the number of people receiving jobseeker support benefit higher or lower now than it was when she took office?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (14:22): We inherited an economic downturn where close to 190,000 people were on the jobseeker benefit, and jobseeker numbers have been rising steadily since 2022, before we took office. Just yesterday, the COVID-19 royal commission inquiry found Labour’s increased spending drove up Government debt and inflation, which leads to higher unemployment. That’s why the forecast has always been due to get worse before it gets better. That’s why we’re fixing the basics—

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: This is a massive speech that isn’t responding to the question.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: That’s right—it was a question on notice, too.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: —and building a welfare system focused on getting more people into work.

SPEAKER: I’d just make the point that, actually, members cannot demand a particular type of answer. That’s always been the case.

Hon Willie Jackson: Can I ask the Minister how many people will have to come off the benefit for the Government to reach their target of 50,000 fewer people on a jobseeker support benefit?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, as I’ve said in this House, we are absolutely focused on reducing the number of people on the jobseeker benefit, which is why I’m proud, despite still having the hangover of the previous Government’s excessive spending in the COVID years, we are seeing 83,000 New Zealanders exit benefit into jobs, which is great news, and I thought that member would celebrate with me.

Hon Willie Jackson: No, thank you. But does the Minister—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Wait, Mr Jackson, just—the House needs to listen to questions in silence.

Hon Willie Jackson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. To the Minister, does she stand by her statement that “2026 will be the year that my progress towards the jobseeker target starts heading in the right direction.”, and, if so, when does she expect to see a reduction?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, absolutely, yes, and what we are seeing are green shoots in terms of economic recovery if you look at the latest filled jobs data, showing the strongest annual growth in the hospitality sector. We’re also seeing confidence in the construction sector. We’re seeing the labour force participation rate increasing, which is one of the earliest indicators of labour market recovery. So, absolutely, I’m encouraged by what we are seeing. We are dealing with what we inherited from the previous Government, where Auckland was locked down for longer than it needed to be and the Government spent excessively, which led to higher unemployment.

Hon Willie Jackson: Has she asked officials to model the long-term social and fiscal costs of pushing more people into severe hardship because of her policies, or is she only interested in rhetoric rather than action?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, just later in the day, we will be debating in this Parliament the Treasury long-term forecast or impact of what we saw during the COVID years that very much directly affected New Zealanders and the challenges they face today. So I suggest that member look in the mirror.

Hon Willie Jackson: When the Prime Minister promised to fix the economy, did she advise him that his policies would instead lead to more than the population of Wellington city in terms of jobseeker benefits, and, if not, why not?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, I said in my answer to the primary question: unfortunately, we inherited trends of rising numbers on the jobseeker benefit—unemployment has been increasing since 2021, and the jobseeker numbers going up since 2022. What we have done to fix the basics is create a far more active welfare system, including what we launched last week: an industry partnership with chambers of commerce up and down New Zealand, to support more New Zealanders into work.

Hon Willie Jackson: Mr Speaker, point of order. I don’t believe the Minister went anywhere near the question. The question—

SPEAKER: Well, hold on, wait on a minute. You started your question by referring to a policy that was part of a 2023 election, and asked what advice the Minister had given to the Prime Minister at that time. It’s only reasonable that she looks at what the circumstances were at that time.

Hon Willie Jackson: You think so?

SPEAKER: Yeah.

Hon Willie Jackson: OK, I’ll go to my next supplementary, then, Mr Speaker. To the Minister: why should hard-working New Zealanders trust the Minister to fix unemployment and reduce job seekers when, under her watch, job seekers have increased every quarter, unemployment is at a 10-year high, and homelessness is out of control?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Because it’s very simple: this is a Government that has been absolutely focused on reducing excessive Government spending which led to higher levels of inflation, higher interest rates, which leads to unemployment. So we are dealing with the root causes of what we have inherited. That’s why we have been focused on economic growth. We know that is what drives down the cost of living and supports more opportunities for New Zealanders being in work. If I look at one area we are focused on economic growth, it is tourism and hospitality—to the year to March 23, an extra 9,000 in employment, just in that one sector alone.

Health

Question No. 6

SPEAKER: Question No. 6, the Rt Hon Winston Peters. [Interruption] The House will be quiet to listen to an answer again.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) (14:28) to the Minister of Health: Particularly now. Does he stand by all of his statements and actions?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (14:28): In the context they were made, yes.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Did the royal commission find that the Ministry of Health provided advice to former Ministers Chris Hipkins and Ayesha Verrall regarding concerns about mandating the COVID-19 double-dose vaccine for 12- to 17-year-olds, and, if so, when?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: The royal commission found that a briefing raising concerns from the COVID-19 Vaccine Technical Advisory Group was provided to the Hon Chris Hipkins on 22 December 2021.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can the Minister confirm whether former Ministers Chris Hipkins and Ayesha Verrall took any action or raised any questions following advice received on 22 September 2021 about concerns surrounding the mandating of COVID-19 double-dose vaccine for 12- to 17-year-olds?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. How can a Minister in the current Government possibly answer questions about an action that a Minister in a previous Government—of which he was not part—did or didn’t take?

SPEAKER: No, the question was about what the royal commission had said.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: No, that didn’t mention the royal commission at all.

SPEAKER: Then we might re-word the question. So the Standing Orders are very clear and have been for a long, long time. You can’t bring another party into a question—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. Mr Speaker, we had—

SPEAKER: Hang on, I’m just ruling on a point of order. Just give me a minute.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, maybe I could help you, before you make an improper ruling.

SPEAKER: It hasn’t happened so far. My point simply is—I’m just talking about Speakers’ rulings that have been around for a long time, and you can’t use a supplementary question or a question in the House to attack the Opposition. You can ask the Minister questions about what the Minister is dealing with at the moment.

Hon Nicola Willis: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister has delegated responsibility to respond to the royal commission into COVID-19, a report which—

SPEAKER: That’s right.

Hon Nicola Willis: —specifically notes and names Chris Hipkins.

SPEAKER: That’s right. I’ve just made that point.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Right. In the context of the royal commission’s report, can the Minister confirm whether former Ministers Chris Hipkins and Ayesha Verrall took any action or raised any questions following advice received on 22 September 2021 about concerns around the mandating of the COVID-19 double-dose vaccine for 12- to 17-year-olds?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: The royal commission did not highlight any actions from former Ministers following this, and I’m not aware of any.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Did the royal commission find that either of the former Ministers Chris Hipkins and Ayesha Verrall acknowledged safety concerns about mandating the COVID-19 double-dose vaccine for 12- to 17-year-olds, and, if so, on what date were those comments made?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: The royal commission found the briefing received by Ministers on 22 December 2021, which raised concerns from the COVID-19 Vaccine Technical Advisory Group, was considered by the Hon Ayesha Verrall on 7 January 2022. The royal commission also found that the Hon Ayesha Verrall made a comment on the specific advice related to the COVID-19 Vaccine Technical Advisory Group’s concerns. I’m advised that this comment referenced data relating to safety concerns.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Did two-dose vaccine mandates remain in place for 12- to 17-year-olds, despite former Ministers Chris Hipkins and Ayesha Verrall having been advised of concerns about mandating the COVID-19 double-dose vaccine for this age group?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Yes, I’m advised the vaccine mandates in workplace settings for the age group remained in place until late January 2022, and that COVID-19 vaccine certificate requirements for this age group remained in place until April 2022.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: So is he concerned that advice regarding the health risks of mandating the COVID-19 double-dose vaccine for 12- to 17-year-olds, who numbered in their hundreds of thousands, was not made available to the public?

SPEAKER: No, he can’t comment on that. That’s an action of a previous Government—or inaction, or whatever way you put it—but it’s not something that he has direct responsibility for and it’s not something that’s reflected on in the royal commission report.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. On this most serious matter, where over 100,000 people were affected by the failure to warn them or their parents or the public—are you saying that that’s not a proper question to be asked in this House, as to whether he’s concerned about that, and what its possible legal ramifications mean for us, not now—10 years, 20 years, or 30 years from now? Surely that’s what this Parliament’s about.

SPEAKER: Mr Peters, I deeply reject any suggestion that I am not concerned about those many hundreds of thousands of people who are affected or that I don’t know the circumstances of some of those people who are affected. But it is not an appropriate question. It can be worded in a different way, and if it was worded in a different way, it would comply with Standing Orders. You’ve been here a long time. You know what the rules are. You can’t use a question about a report like this to attack another side; you can talk about the report, and then you can talk about the Minister’s response to that report.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: All right. Has he received any legal advice in the last 24 hours raising concerns about the Government’s future liability for the public failing to have been notified in the first place?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: I have not received such advice, but what I would say is that the report does raise some serious concerns in relation to the advice that was provided at the time. Ultimately, improving immunisation rates is a key policy of this Government, and it is critically important that we have transparency around the information in this regard, so that the Government—and I have made that expectation very clear to the Director-General of Health.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does he believe that the entire point of the COVID inquiry was to identify accountability and responsibility and to identify reasons for the future, and, if so, does he believe a “nothing to see here” attitude from the previous Government Ministers is remotely good enough at this point in our history?

SPEAKER: You can answer the first part of that question.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: The Government has welcomed—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. Mr Speaker, yesterday, you heard countless objections and points of order right at the beginning of the Prime Minister’s speech, denying any knowledge or any accountability. One day later, they’re hiding behind Standing Orders. That cannot be the way this Parliament operates.

SPEAKER: No, it’s not doing that at all. The reality is that we have a way in which questions can be answered and a way in which questions can be directed. It’s not the Hon Simeon Brown’s decision to reflect on the accountability of anyone else in the context of this. Some of that stuff is for the public to decide. But the first part of the question—the Hon Simeon Brown.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: The Government has welcomed the royal commission report. New Zealanders lived through one of the most significant global public health and economic events. They made real sacrifices. We will now be considering the recommendations from both the phase one and phase two reports and expect to outline our response in July, ensuring any future decisions balance the health and economic needs of all New Zealanders.

Hon Shane Jones: Point of order. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Speaker’s ruling 181/3: can you clarify, sir, please, why a question related to the conduct of former Ministers covered in a royal commission report, which could lead a reasonable person to conclude they were either grossly negligent or they deliberately concealed the information—why is that not allowable?

SPEAKER: No, that’s an opinion, and I’d refer to the Minister to Speaker’s ruling 180/4, which makes it permissible and legitimate for a Minister answering questions to refer to something that came from a previous Government that landed on their plate. The royal commission report that we’re dealing with here is retrospective and quite different, and so you do apply the fairness in the situation. But anyone who reads that report will reach their own conclusions.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday in this House, the then Minister responsible for health denied all knowledge; today, it has been proven by evidence that that denial yesterday was false and wrong. Now, what’s available to this House 24 hours later, when that’s allowed to go by as being a totally unfair question to ask, and it ought to be held accountable? There are standards of this political environment we’re in now where Ministers are called to account—that’s the whole idea—and former Ministers as well. But in the report, it said she knew, and yesterday in this House, publicly, she is saying the reverse. This is a contempt of this House and she should have been ruled out yesterday and told to come down today and apologise.

SPEAKER: Standing Order 418 is the remedy, for the member, that he’s just asked for.

Prime Minister

Question No. 7

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) (14:38) to the Prime Minister: E tautoko ana ia i ngā kōrero me ngā mahi katoa a tōna Kāwanatanga?

[Does he stand by all of his Government’s statements and actions?]

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister) (14:38): Yes.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he stand by his statement: “As Prime Minister, I have a responsibility to do everything I can to bolster the existing rules-based order and to further strengthen New Zealand’s position offshore.”, and, if so, will he commit to supporting countries and peoples that are victims of illegal aggression?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In answer to the first leg of the question, yes.

Hon Marama Davidson: Will he commit to providing material support to the 700,000 people displaced from their homes in Lebanon by Israeli attacks, and, if not, why not?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, Israel obviously has a right to self-defence against Hezbollah. You know, we would note that their response has been heavy-handed, it’s causing mass displacement, and it actually further destabilises what is already a very fragile region.

Hon Marama Davidson: What does he see as the difference between the people displaced by a war of aggression in Lebanon, whom he will not commit to providing aid to, and the people displaced by Russia’s war of aggression in Ukraine, which he did provide aid to?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, that comparison is embarrassing. Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation.

Hon Marama Davidson: What is the criteria for his Government to introduce a blanket visa extension for people in New Zealand whose countries are at war or under attack, as was done for Ukraine?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I just would reassure the member that with respect to Iranians that are in New Zealand and need a visa extension—my advice that I’ve received is that there’s around about 130 whose visas might expire in the next two months—we have an excellent Immigration New Zealand response and a dedicated team that’s able to help them on a case-by-case basis. Of course, the Minister is monitoring the situation closely, and if she needs to change special directions in due course, she’ll give that some consideration.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he agree with Muhammad, an Iranian man with a 72-year-old mother on a visitor visa, who told The Post, “If they automatically extended the visas that would have been a great help from the Government and also peace of mind. They did that for Ukrainians … with a pathway to residency. So for us, it could be the same.”; if so, will he push for a blanket extension of visas for people affected by the war?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I said earlier, I just encourage Muhammad to reach out to Immigration New Zealand if his visa is expiring. The important thing is that Immigration New Zealand has set up dedicated resources and a team to actually respond to visa issues case by case.

Housing

Question No. 8

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote) (14:41) to the Minister of Housing: What reports has he seen on housing affordability?

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Acting Minister of Housing) (14:41): Just this morning, I saw a report from Cotality showing that housing affordability in New Zealand has improved to its best level in almost a decade due to stable housing prices, rising wages, and falling mortgage rates. There are many measures of housing affordability, and all are looking good under this Government. Cotality says that in quarter four 2025, the house price to income ratio was 7.2, down from above 10 in 2021. The average years needed to save for a home deposit has also fallen from 13.4 years post-COVID to 9.6 years today. To top it all off, there’s been a huge improvement in mortgage payments as a percentage of household income, down from twin peaks of 56 percent in early 2022 and late 2023 to 42 percent now. This coalition Government doesn’t just talk about it; we deliver on housing affordability.

Dan Bidois: What other evidence has he seen on improved housing affordability in New Zealand?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: The Ministry of Housing and Urban Development has a housing affordability indicator dashboard on its website. It’s got three indicators—deposit affordability, mortgage serviceability, and rent affordability—and all three have improved since we came into Government. The rent affordability indicator shows that rents are the most affordable they have been since the series started in 2003, and over the last two years, with responsible fiscal management—mihi ana ki a koe e te Minita Pūtea Willis—an improvement of economic conditions. We have created the environment for low inflation and low interest rates, and since December 2023, the mortgage serviceability indicator has improved by 60 percent.

Dan Bidois: What does more affordable housing mean for Kiwis?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Improved housing affordability means more pūtea in the hand for Kiwis. It means that our whānau can go to the movies now and again, or nanny can buy—especially in Hamilton West—rugby boots for her mokopuna for the season. It also makes homeownership more accessible. We’re starting to see more affordable housing bear fruit for whānau. In the December 2025 quarter, first-home buyers dominated New Zealand’s housing market and accounted for 28.4 percent of property purchases—the highest level ever recorded by Cotality. Go the Chiefs.

Dan Bidois: Has he seen any evidence of average rent prices going up 10 percent in the last year?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Unlike some members of this House have asserted, no. I’m advised that the credible measures of rent price changes show that rents are flat. For instance, the stock measure, Stats New Zealand’s rent price index measure, shows rents up 1.2 percent in the year to January 2026—lower than inflation. The Ministry of Housing and Urban Development’s measure shows rents up 0.4 percent in the year to January 2026.

Rt Hon Christopher Luxon: MBIE bond data.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s tenancy bond data, Prime Minister, shows median rents down 1.6 percent in the year to January 2026, and TradeMe data shows rents down 3.1 percent in the year to January 2026. We are making housing more affordable.

SPEAKER: Question No.—

Hon Nicola Willis: Mr Speaker? I’ve got a question—supplementary question.

SPEAKER: Supplementary question, the Hon Nicola Willis.

Hon Nicola Willis: Can the Minister confirm that this stabilisation in rents is particularly remarkable given quite recent history in which rents went up $170 a week?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Yes, and I can confirm that that is a great thing for the hard-working people of Hamilton West.

Hon David Seymour: Is the Minister expecting people so committed to evidence and data, not ideology, to congratulate him on these results, or have they been a bit quiet lately?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: We are making progress. We are delivering on housing affordability, and we are delivering for all Kiwis and the people of New Zealand. Kia ora.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Point of order. I seek leave of the House to have one extra supplementary question to ask exactly about that.

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

Hon Members: Yes!

Chlöe Swarbrick: Interesting.

SPEAKER: The Hon Kieran—[Interruption] Just a moment.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Can he confirm that front-line providers such as the Auckland City Mission, the Wellington City Mission, and the Christchurch Methodist Mission have told him to his face that homelessness has reached unprecedented heights and they point to his policies as to the reason why?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I can confirm that many community housing providers—including some in Auckland, Hamilton, Wellington, and Christchurch—have been very enthusiastic about the additional support that we have given for Housing First that has seen nearly 500 people come off the streets, out of rough sleeping, into housing over the last four months. The Opposition should be congratulating those housing providers for their good work. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just calm, everyone.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Another lie—another lie.

SPEAKER: Mr McAnulty, you can stand, withdraw, and apologise for that. I asked you to stop; you didn’t—stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: I withdraw and apologise.

Mental Health

Question No. 9

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) (14:47) to the Minister for Mental Health: Is he concerned that unaffordable counselling costs and waiting times of up to six months for funded services are preventing many New Zealanders from accessing mental health care?

Hon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health) (14:47): Our mental health plan is working. We’re delivering faster access to support and more front-line workers: 83 percent of Kiwis are now accessing primary mental health support within one week; 82 percent of Kiwis are now accessing specialist mental health support within three weeks. The front-line mental health workforce has grown by 11 percent since coming into Government. The child and adolescent mental health workforce has grown by 19 percent. Last week’s Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission report found an extra 35,000 adults were seen last year due to 557 more specialist front-line staff.

Ingrid Leary: Point of order. Thank you, Mr Speaker. The question was about unaffordable counselling costs; I didn’t hear anything about counselling costs. I don’t believe he addressed the question.

SPEAKER: Well, I think he did address the question by talking about availability of services, which, if it’s being taken up, might translate to cost. The Minister may make an extra comment.

Hon MATT DOOCEY: The question also mentioned access, which I answered, and concerns, and I do have a concern, because the premise of this question is about reprioritising public mental health funding into private health providers. I’m concerned for her—her colleagues don’t know that, and they’ll have questions for her after this question time.

SPEAKER: That’s what happens when you have a point of order that goes awry.

Ingrid Leary: Is he concerned that counsellors report that they could see more clients yet people remain stuck on waiting lists because funding is not available to them?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: I’m happy to announce to the House that when you look at primary counselling support, when we came into office, that was sitting at 200,000 Kiwis a year; we’ve now grown that to 250,000 Kiwis a year.

Ingrid Leary: Is he concerned that around one in five counsellors say they are considering reducing hours, retiring, or leaving the profession within two years, and what impact will that have on already long waiting lists?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Well, I’ve got a deal for them. Last year, we opened up the accreditation pathway so a further 330 counsellors can now be registered—when previously they couldn’t have been—to work for Health New Zealand publicly funded roles.

Ingrid Leary: Why should someone who can afford private counselling be able to get help quickly while someone relying on funded support can be left waiting months?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Ah, she’s bit confused there, because the premise of the report was, actually, that for private counsellors, the cost was going up, resulting in delays for people going private, which is quite contrary to that question.

Ingrid Leary: Shouldn’t mental health care be available for people who need help, not just those who can afford it?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: The irony here is that we are talking about counsellors, and that member and her team rallied when this Government committed $24 million directly to fund 800 more counsellors on Gumboot Friday to deliver to 15,000 young people more access and support. We’re delivering for counsellors too.

Commerce and Consumer Affairs

Question No. 10

KATIE NIMON (National—Napier) (14:51) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What actions has he taken, if any, to ensure fuel markets continue to operate fairly and transparently for New Zealanders?

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs) (14:51): In a time of global uncertainty affecting international oil markets, it’s important that expectations are clear and oversight is strong. So, to that end, I’ve written to the Commerce Commission to clearly set my expectation that it closely monitor wholesale and retail fuel prices, as well as importer margins, to ensure motorists continue to receive a fair deal at the pump. At the same time, the Minister for Energy and I have also written directly to fuel companies to reinforce those expectations and encourage open and constructive engagement. When global conditions are uncertain, it is right for Government to set clear expectations and work with industry to safeguard fair outcomes for New Zealanders.

Katie Nimon: Why did the Minister write to the Commerce Commission, and what expectations has he set for his role during this period?

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: The Commerce Commission plays a central role in supporting confidence in the fuel market. They do this by monitoring prices, margins, and engaging, where necessary, to ensure pricing reflects market conditions. In my letter, I asked the Commerce Commission to increase the frequency of its fuel price monitoring to closely watch pricing behaviour and margins and to engage with industry and consumers if any questionable behaviour emerges. The expectation is straightforward: it’s about giving households and businesses confidence that fuel prices are fair and reflect real market conditions.

Katie Nimon: Why did the Minster and the Minister for Energy also write directly to fuel companies?

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: The Minister for Energy and I wrote to fuel companies to be transparent about the steps the Government is taking and to emphasise the importance of fair pricing and clear communications during a period of volatility. This was not about making accusations, but about setting expectations and reinforcing the value of open constructive engagement between Government and industry. Fuel companies have an important role in maintaining public confidence, especially when global conditions are uncertain as they are currently.

Katie Nimon: How do these steps help protect households and businesses while still supporting a competitive fuel market?

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: New Zealanders, rightly, expect a competitive fuel market and the confidence that they are being treated fairly. By strengthening monitoring and keeping communication channels open, we are helping to ensure price movements reflect genuine global pressures, not unjustifiable increases. I also want to acknowledge the fuel sector’s ongoing contribution through the Fuel Sector Coordinating Entity, which is especially valuable at times like this. The balance between strong consumer protection and a well-functioning market is central to this Government’s work on fixing the basics and building for the future.

Energy

Question No. 11

SCOTT WILLIS (Green) (14:54) to the Minister for Energy: Does he have concerns about the volatility of international liquefied natural gas prices eliminating the forecast cost savings from the proposed liquefied natural gas import terminal; if not, why not?

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister for Energy) (14:55): As I answered in the House last week, when the member asked this question, no I am not. Forward prices for electricity have declined about 13 percent, or $20 a megawatt hour since the Government’s liquefied natural gas (LNG) announcement. This clearly shows that despite international events, the market is confident that LNG will work as an insurance for the sector during a dry year.

Scott Willis: Why did he decide that electricity users should be the ones levied for an LNG import terminal, when gas users will be the primary beneficiary of LNG by having an alternative to dwindling domestic supplies?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Because LNG is an insurance policy for the electricity sector.

Scott Willis: Would a liquefied natural gas terminal be commercially viable as a dry-year solution without the Government intervention to levy electricity users; if not, does this indicate that the electricity market has failed to deliver a solution for the dry-year problem?

Hon SIMON WATTS: As I have noted previously, there is a risk premium built into power bills for households and businesses as a result of a lack of dry-year cover when we have insufficient rain, wind, and solar, and hence the solution required is to ensure that we have cover in a dry year, which is produced by both coal and gas. The challenge is that the last Government stopped gas exploration and, as a result, we have no gas. So we are looking to import that.

Scott Willis: Does he accept that any cost savings from an LNG terminal are estimates only, and that the only thing guaranteed about an LNG terminal is that there will be extra costs levied on electricity users in New Zealand households?

Hon SIMON WATTS: As I answered in my primary answer, the member only needs to look at the future prices of electricity, which are traded on the Australian Stock Exchange and other exchanges, to see the numbers I have quoted. The pricing for 2027, 2028, and 2029 are all below or exceeding $20 per megawatt hour. Again, that is a reflection that the market has confidence that the solution which this Government is going to undertake deals with the challenge and the problem which we have, which is lack of cover in a dry year.

Internal Affairs

Question No. 12

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour—Māngere) (14:57) to the Minister of Internal Affairs: Is she confident that Fire and Emergency New Zealand’s cuts of $50 million a year will not impact the safety of firefighters and the public; if so, why?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (14:58): Fire and Emergency New Zealand is not making cuts of $50 million per year; they are looking for cost efficiencies, something I support. In fact, I’m advised that in this financial year alone, they are planning to invest $84.7 million in new fire trucks, property, and equipment, all of which will contribute to improved working conditions as well as the safety of firefighters and of the public.

Lemauga Lydia Sosene: Will cancelling recruit courses for professional firefighters keep the public and firefighters safe?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Sorry, could the member repeat that. I couldn’t quite hear.

Lemauga Lydia Sosene: Will cancelling recruit courses for professional firefighters keep the public and firefighters safe?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I’m not aware of cancelling of recruitment, so I will take that one back to my office.

Lemauga Lydia Sosene: Will cutting fire prevention staff, specialist wildfire roles, and key support staff for firefighters keep the public and firefighters safe?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I can only assume that the member is referring to a restructure that Fire and Emergency is currently undertaking. Those are simply proposals, and there are no final decisions that have been made. I have been assured that no front-line firefighters or comms centre positions are proposed to be affected. However, on the other hand, I’m advised that savings will be reinvested in areas including those that support the safety of volunteers and paid firefighters, such as fleet, training and equipment.

Lemauga Lydia Sosene: How does forcing firefighters to use unreliable equipment that, as one firefighter put it, “fails us constantly and we have to repair them ad-hoc on the go so that we can do our jobs” keep the public and firefighters safe?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I feel sometimes I’m repeating myself when I’m answering questions on Fire and Emergency New Zealand, because I’ve had multiple questions over multiple months on the exact same topic. I’ll simply repeat that Fire and Emergency New Zealand has inherited decades of under-investment in old trucks with the amalgamation of the two services into one. They have a plan and have had a plan for a number of years to invest in new fleet and equipment. This year alone, they have a plan to invest $84.7 million in new fire trucks, property, and equipment. However, when they have a fleet of over 1,300 appliances, there is always going to be a maintenance issue. However, Fire and Emergency New Zealand has assured me that they manage all of their trucks. They ensure they have back-up appliances and crews that can respond if a truck is temporarily unavailable. It doesn’t mean that equipment issues mean unsafe environments for workers and the public. Once again, I would caution the member against buying into a concern, which could grow in the public—

SPEAKER: Wind it up.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: —that we have an unsafe environment. That is not true.

Lemauga Lydia Sosene: Will docking the pay of firefighters just asking for a fair deal keep the public and firefighters safe?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I can only assume that the member is referring to the decision to partially deduct pay. That has been a response to the New Zealand Professional Firefighters Union (NZPFU) escalating its industrial activity, which has put the community at increased risk. I would ask the negotiators for the NZPFU to come back to the table at the Employment Relations Authority.

Lemauga Lydia Sosene: How can she possibly claim that cutting more than $50 million a year from Fire and Emergency New Zealand, cancelling recruit trainings, and forcing firefighters to rely on unreliable equipment is keeping firefighters and the public safe?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I haven’t done that.

Debates

Statement on the Long-Term Fiscal Position and the Investment Statement

Special Debate

CAMERON BREWER (Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee) (15:03): I move, That the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Statement on the Long-term Fiscal Position and the Investment Statement be noted.

If the National Party had an off week last week, isn’t Labour having a terrible week this time? The emperor has no clothes.

SPEAKER: Bad start.

CAMERON BREWER: Today—

SPEAKER: It’s a very topic-specific debate; you should at least start the speech with some address to the topic, not a reflection on the current political situation.

CAMERON BREWER: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, sir. Thank you, sir, and thank you for raising that, because it is a matter that I was reflecting on at that point. We have a situation where we have a report from the Finance and Expenditure Committee that covers, obviously, the Statement on the Long-term Fiscal Position and the Investment Statement, and that was what was moved by the member. In addition to that, the report also includes the Treasury’s Long-term Insights Briefing, which I understand is not up for debate in this, and it seems like it might be a good time to provide clarification on that point.

SPEAKER: That is quite correct.

CAMERON BREWER: As chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, we are grateful for this debate, with the committee report titled “Three Stewardship Reports from the Treasury”: Treasury’s 2025 Long-term Insights Briefing, Treasury’s Long-term Fiscal Statement 2025, and the Investment Statement 2025. We reported back as a select committee on all three statements; we heard evidence, all at once, on all three statements; and, subsequently, I want to take the opportunity to reflect across three statements that we reported back to the House this week on.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. Thank you, sir. You’ve just made it extremely clear to the House that the long-term insights briefing is not part of this debate.

SPEAKER: That’s right.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: The member indicating to the House that he intends to report back on that is in direct contradiction to the guidance you’ve just given the House.

SPEAKER: It is, and it risks termination of the speech. The motion for the House is very clear, very explicit, and can’t be expanded. It’s a two-hour debate on the two topics in the statement.

CAMERON BREWER: Mr Speaker, point of order. The advice I got was that we were debating our report with the three reports.

SPEAKER: Good. I’ll stop you there, because what’s front of me is what you just moved—that the House take note of its report on the statement of the long-term fiscal position and the investment statement—and nothing else.

CAMERON BREWER: OK, well, that’s fine. I want to take the opportunity to focus on these long-term statements. I want to focus on, frankly, some of the damning information that’s in it that reflects poorly upon others, and, subsequently, the significant and subsequent medium- and long-term economic impacts.

Let’s not just take my word for it. When these reports were released last week—last year, at least—the reaction was swift, and the reaction was severe. One Herald headline read: “Government overcooked spending during pandemic, against official advice, harming economy – [says] Treasury”. At the same time, our own Minister of Finance described Treasury’s language as “polite” but its conclusions “damning”. In his foreword to one of the statements, Treasury secretary Iain Rennie noted that increased use of fiscal support during shocks had contributed to public debt ratcheting up over time.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: I’d just like to point out that that particular quote comes from the long-term insights briefing, not from the Long-term Fiscal Statement 2025.

SPEAKER: Yeah, well, you’ll be surprised to know I haven’t read any of them, and neither am I meant to nor am I meant to judge them. But in the context of the wider debate, I think allowing the member to actually make his point in relation to—and I’ll state it again—the statement on the long-term fiscal position and the investment statement doesn’t seem unreasonable if he refers to something that was said somewhere by the Secretary to the Treasury.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: May I speak to that point, Mr Speaker?

SPEAKER: No, you’re arguing with me.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: It’s because the point is that it was from the long-term insights briefing, which you have explicitly ruled out.

SPEAKER: Well, thank you for that information. Carry on.

CAMERON BREWER: As—

Hon David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I think there is a wider point here that members of Parliament have freedom of speech to speak on behalf of the constituents that they represent. Now, if we’re going to start being pedantic about what can and can’t be referred to in a debate that is set down about a report from a select committee, then there’s going to be an enormous amount of difficulty upholding that much more important principle. I think we should just let him actually say it as he sees it, rather than have this censorship.

SPEAKER: Well, what did I just say? That’s exactly what I just said.

CAMERON BREWER: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is hard to delineate when we had the Secretary to the Treasury before us, as a select committee, talking about all three statements. Iain Rennie, the Secretary to the Treasury, also warned that if nothing changes, this leaves future generations with less financial capacity to respond to shocks.

Thank goodness this National-led Government is now in charge and our finance Minister is squarely focused on three things that have been loud and clear in all three reports: returning the operating balance to surplus; placing net core Crown debt on a downward track towards 40 percent of GDP, and rebuilding fiscal resilience so that future Governments have options when the next shock inevitably arrives.

While none—and we talked to Mr Rennie about this in the select committee—of this COVID spend was our responsibility, the National Party has taken full responsibility for fixing the mess and putting New Zealand in a stronger position, as these reports demand and as Treasury has told us we and future Governments have a responsibility to do, whether that shock be a major event, a natural hazard, or—God forbid—another global pandemic.

As time went on, it became increasingly clear that spending during the period under investigation and reported on in these reports was a Trojan horse, simply to fuel Labour’s unfettered largesse and spending, which we are now all paying the price for. While the royal commission was talking $60 billion yesterday, Treasury papers actually formally calculate the total cost of the COVID-19 pandemic at $66 billion.

A staggering 20.4 percent of the country’s GDP was spent on the pandemic, making the response one of the largest among advanced economies, according to page 49 of one of the reports. Worst of all, about half of the spending was directed at pandemic economic, and health initiatives—here we go; wage subsidies, health response—but nearly another half was completely unrelated to direct core expenditure on COVID responses. What was that spent on? Well, that was spent on shovel-ready projects that weren’t ready and saw no shovels. That was spent on welfare increases, benefit increases, and Jobs for Nature programmes. That was spent on school lunches for middle-class kids, training schemes, and tax changes.

Thirty billion dollars of the $60 billion-plus was spent on non-core COVID spending—that is what these reports reveal. That is what the royal commission revealed last time, and it’s absolutely disgusting.

Don’t let them gaslight you that the National Party voted for and supported their more than $60 billion spend-up. Yes, we supported the core and immediate health and wage support response, but, no, we never supported the billions of dollars in subsequent wastage, additional spending, and forgone tax revenue, and guess what? There’s nothing to show for it but just unprecedented Government debt and a huge $8.9 billion interest bill, and growing. No bridges, no roads, no busways, no new hospitals—nothing.

In its long-term insights briefing—and it is also reflected in the other two reports—Treasury also outlined a history of advice it gave on the pandemic, and it made it explicitly clear that it advised the Labour Government to ease up on the spending. But guess what, and page 16 reveals it in one of the reports: despite Treasury’s mounting advice against any further stimulus and to at the very least get much more targeted, Labour ignored that advice. Labour, as these statements reflect, has favoured undisciplined spending and opted for large operating allowances in its Budgets. It pushed up inflation, eroded New Zealand’s previously low debt position, and fuelled a cost of living crisis that many families are still suffering from. Despite Treasury’s firm and frank advice and analysis, Labour’s spending was too high and it went for too long. Now, that is what is inside these reports.

In total, Auckland spent more than six months in lockdown. It was the longest lockdown of any region in the country, and, as we know, Aucklanders and Auckland businesses continue to pay a huge and disproportionate cost. As the royal commission reported yesterday, Auckland’s lockdown went down longer than the official advice recommended.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I was, unsurprisingly, in the Finance and Expenditure Committee when we were discussing this with the Secretary to the Treasury. There was very little mention of COVID. There is very little mention of it in these reports; in fact, there is only a glancing mention of it in the report we are supposed to be discussing. This is not supposed to be a free-for-all debate. It is supposed to be on the long-term fiscal—sorry, on the—

SPEAKER: Sorry, stop there. Thank you for your advice. It would be very difficult to discuss the long-term fiscal position of the country if you could not discuss the current fiscal position of the country and how we got there.

CAMERON BREWER: Thank you, Mr Speaker. As we know, Aucklanders and Auckland businesses continue to pay a huge and disproportionate cost, and, as the royal commission reported yesterday, Auckland’s lockdown went longer than official advice had recommended.

Weren’t they quick to fire out the media statements and offer up media interviews yesterday, but where were they when the New Zealand public demanded accountability for them to front up in person to the royal commission? “Chippy” turned into “Zippy” and was gone—

SPEAKER: Point of order. The first point I’d make is that you don’t refer to members of this House by nicknames or anything else. Refer to them by their full name or nothing else, and so withdraw the last remark you made.

CAMERON BREWER: I withdraw “Chippy”.

SPEAKER: The second thing I’d say is that reflecting on something that is not mentioned in this report, or not even tangentially relevant to the report, is also not helpful in this debate. Resume.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you. Recognising your guidance there—and there’s no dispute from me—I think part of the problem that we have here is a report from the select committee that includes three statements. If we look at the relevant Standing Order around the statements that the select committee can debate in an instance like this, it actually uses the word “or” rather than “and”. Normally, it would be the investment statement or the fiscal statement that can be a debate, and, obviously, if there is a report back from the committee that combines two, then that then makes it a debate about both. But it is extremely difficult for you, as the presiding officer, to determine what is in and out of scope when the insights briefing—which is actually much of the basis of what the member’s speech is—is included in this. So whilst I recognise that that makes it difficult, in moving forward, I wonder if some reflection on, potentially, an instruction to the committee to stick to what is actually in the relevant Standing Order, which is Standing Order 344—

SPEAKER: Yeah, yeah—yeah. Look, I think the Clerk’s Office will have already worked out that perhaps there could’ve been a different recommendation to the committee and that the committee itself might then have made a different recommendation to the House for the debate. But bring it back to the relevance as much as you can.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Sorry, sir, but further to the point of order.

SPEAKER: Well, a further point of order.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Thank you for that. So, just for absolute clarity, this is not an opportunity for members to relitigate the royal commission report that was released yesterday—

SPEAKER: That’s what I’ve just said—I’ve already covered that.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Well, now everybody knows, don’t they?

SPEAKER: Yeah, thanks very much. I’d just assumed that everybody hangs on my every word—but Cameron Brewer.

CAMERON BREWER: Thank you, Mr Speaker. What is in scope in these three reports is the impact—

SPEAKER: No, no, hang on—here’s the problem.

CAMERON BREWER: Two reports. Two reports; three that we reported on—

SPEAKER: No, you might have, but for some reason your committee did not ask the House to debate three of them; it asked for two. So that somewhat constrains the way in which the debate can be conducted and allowed, and it doesn’t matter if you’re annoyed about that. It’s just the way it is, and it might be a good thing for the chair to ask the select committee clerk how we got to this position.

CAMERON BREWER: Thank you, Mr Speaker. One thing that we looked at that continues to exercise the minds of this House is the huge weight of superannuation as we head through the coming decades, as the cost of universal superannuation goes from about $25 billion to over $70 billion in the middle of this century.

I know that the Treasury has exercised its views on what needs to be done. I know that the Treasury wants future Governments—this and future Governments—to be singularly focused on getting us in the strongest position so we can fund all our commitments, going forward this century, and we are in a stronger position when there’s another shock, inevitably, whether it be natural hazard or pandemic. I commend the committee’s report.

Ryan Hamilton: Point of order. Mr Speaker, seeking your guidance: obviously new to this process [Interruption], but if the chair was to seek leave—

SPEAKER: Just a moment. There is a convention that no one else speaks in the House other than person moving the point of order.

Ryan Hamilton: Mr Speaker, seeking your guidance: obviously there’s been a clerical error. If leave was sought to correct that statement and add the long-term insight briefing—which was clearly the intention of this special two-hour debate through the Business Committee—would that be acceptable to the House?

SPEAKER: No, there has not been a clerical error; that would be a wrong analysis. However. we got to this position; this is what the select committee sent to the Business Committee, to set down the time for the debate. So we’re not relitigating that, nor are we placing any blame on the clerical assistance that’s provided and the advice that’s provided to the committee. What happens in the future is a different matter, but it’s always open to any member to seek leave of the House.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour) (15:22): I’m here as part of the Finance and Expenditure Committee to discuss the long-term fiscal statement which we received last year, which set out a number of concerns for the long-term future of New Zealand and the New Zealand economy.

In the previous speech, we’ve heard that perhaps the long-term future of New Zealand and the New Zealand economy might have been in some way compromised because of what was needed to be done to get through COVID. There are a number of things stated in that speech in terms of how much was spent to get us through COVID. Let me give you some quotes of the House—some quotes—from what people said at the time when the Labour Government was proposing spending money in order to get through COVID. Here’s one, in April 2020: “It is necessary for the Government to go further in terms of offering relief to those businesses most affected. So we support the Government in this bill and we encourage them to go further.” That was Paul Goldsmith.

In August 2020: “So we’re very conscious that this is a time for extraordinary measures, and that’s why National has been broadly supportive of a very significant increase in Government spending outlined in this Budget and the need to go further into debt.” That was Paul Goldsmith—

SPEAKER: Yeah. Look, in June, we had numerous points of order about the relevance—

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: I’ll move on, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: I would do so, very quickly.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: There was contention, too, that spending during COVID-19 has created the problems that are now here sitting in the long-term fiscal statement. Then it was said, “Well, what do we have to show for it?” Twenty thousand New Zealanders are still alive, the lowest excess mortality rate in the world—businesses have survived; livelihoods that were protected. That’s what we have to show for it.

Finally, there was the contention that there was a lot of spending that was not necessary for COVID-19 itself, that the shovel-ready projects weren’t worth it. I bet you Mark Patterson will be there when the Hood Aerodrome reopening goes ahead, next week in the Wairarapa, and I bet you Mike Butterick will be proud to be there with him, too; a project that was built with shovel-ready money. I’ve noticed that Christopher Bishop has been very proud of the RiverLink project in the Hutt Valley; the interchange and the flood protection. Well, that was shovel-ready money.

That’s something to show for it: long-term projects that have benefited New Zealand. So to say that the COVID spending was irresponsible is simply wrong, and to say that they’ve had no benefit to New Zealand is simply wrong. I’m pretty sure that my dad is still alive because we spent money on COVID, and there would be many people in this House who could say the same thing or that even that they themselves did not run the risk of death or long-term illness because this House—right across the House—supported spending money on COVID.

Let’s have a look at what this long-term fiscal statement actually talks about. What it does is it raises a number of concerns about New Zealand in terms of New Zealand’s income; the revenue it raises, in terms of what the Government raises; and the money it spends. It says there’s a long-term problem, here; we have a growing problem, it asserts, with superannuation, with the increased cost of healthcare, and with the challenge that is posed to us by climate change. That’s setting aside the individual shocks that come our way, from time to time; things like earthquakes. I know you’re very familiar with that one, Mr Speaker. Things like pandemics; things that are not caused by climate change, and we do need to prepare for that.

Now, again, the long-term fiscal statement quite clearly points out that we need to keep our debt levels reasonable and that we need to ensure that New Zealand is well placed to meet the next shock, as well as out setting ourselves up, long time, for our future security. So let’s think about that: keeping debt levels reasonable. Despite the huge shock of the pandemic, debt levels were kept amongst the lowest in the OECD at around about 40 percent of GDP. Debt levels have increased since that Government has come to power.

There were lots of fine words and rhetoric about decreasing them, but we haven’t seen that happen yet, and I get that. It’s because we were coping with a shock, but this is on all of us to help make those debt levels come down over time, so that we can cope with the next shock.

Let’s think about superannuation: we know that our population is getting older, but, again, our spend is pretty round about middle of the way through the OECD. In terms of health, we know we need to do better there. I’d like to point out that the infrastructure report recently released has pointed out that we do need to spend more money on hospitals and less on roads.

If I am to take one message from this long-term fiscal statement, it is the message that we need to think longer term than the short three years of the electoral cycle; that we need to engage in that long-term planning. I would like to point out here that Labour has been the party that in the past has done that long-term planning and has put the measures in place to ensure the future prosperity of New Zealand. Labour is the party that introduced KiwiSaver, that has enabled New Zealanders to build their own savings for retirement.

Labour—and thank you, Sir Michael Cullen—is the party that set up the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, that sovereign wealth fund that will enable us to stay prosperous into the future. Labour is the party that put together the New Zealand National Resilience Plan, scrapped by that Government. Labour is the party that set up the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission so we could engage in that long-term planning. Labour is the party that set up Kiwibank, so we now have actually some competition in the banking sector, and a bank that is owned by New Zealanders. Labour is the party that set up Working for Families so that we could redistribute wealth so that children were not impoverished and living in poverty.

These are all the things that Labour has done over the years and years. The long-term history of our party points to a party that does do the long-term thinking for this country.

If we think about what is going to be the best predictor of the future, it’s typically what’s happened in the past. That’s why we are confident in saying to the country that the country can rely on us to engage in that long-term thinking. But if we think about the past being the best predictor of the future, that party over there is the party that way, way back in the 1970s scrapped the first attempt to set up a long-term savings plan. That is the party that sold off State assets. That is the party that is setting up a failed electricity market. That is the party that has prioritised private actors over social need. That is the party that is engaged in short-term, three-year thinking.

The classic example of that is that party coming in in 2023 and, for who knows what reason, just flipping up everything that Labour had done and deciding they had their own better ideas, instead of trying to build on what was already in place. We had a fast track. There was no need to abandon that fast track; it could have been built on. We had Resource Management Act reform under way. There was no need to scrap that; it could have been built on.

If we are going to go down the bipartisan route and if we’re going to try to plan for the future, it needs to be done properly by both sides of the House, and not just by one side standing up and saying that it needs to be done. So I’m saying to New Zealand that the choice this year simply could not be clearer. We have promised a Future Fund for a future made in New Zealand. We’re hearing every day that the system is not working for ordinary New Zealanders. They are working hard, but not getting ahead, and because of choices that that Government has made and that Christopher Luxon has made, unemployment is up, the cost of living is up, and the economy has shrunk. That is what that party has brought to us.

On this side of the House, Labour has a plan for action on the cost of living. We have a plan for good jobs at home that pay enough to get ahead. We have a plan for healthcare that you can actually afford and for homes that do not take up all your income. Our plan is built on long-term investment, shared prosperity, and good jobs that keep young people building their futures here, in New Zealand.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green) (15:32): E te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. We are, of course, debating the Finance and Expenditure Committee’s report on three of the Treasury’s stewardship reports. The one that I would like to focus on in particular is the long-term fiscal statement.

What we know and what is represented is that we have in front of us an unsustainable future. What that means and what is identified in those reports is that we are confronted with the challenges of an ageing population. In the 1960s, there were seven New Zealanders aged 15 to 64 for every New Zealander over the age of 65. Now, it is the case that it is one in four, and in 2065 it will be one in two. What that tells us is that the cost of superannuation is going to escalate, and with all other things remaining equal, that cost, if we are not to end up with more revenue to pay for it, is ultimately going to become unsustainable.

So too Treasury points to the challenges confronting us with climate change. Notably—and this is a question which I put to the Minister of Finance in question time today—they state that not only climate change is going to see us confront more frequent and severe extreme weather events but also higher average temperatures and sea level rise, all of which puts our infrastructure at immense risk, not to mention our communities that are so frequently now being hit by the these so-called one-in-a-hundred-yearweather events. Also, and importantly, I here quote from one of those reports: “Costs associated with achieving New Zealand’s commitment under the Paris Agreement are one of the most material fiscal risks.”

I think it is really important to unpack this. The Government cannot say that it is committed to meeting our nationally determined contribution under the Paris Agreement out to 2030 while simultaneously saying that it will not be sending any money offshore in the form of purchasing offshore mitigation. The reason for that is that we have known as early as the beginning of the 2020s—when both the Ministry for the Environment and Treasury produced a report looking at the costs to meet our nationally determined contribution under the Paris Agreement—that we would be looking at a quantum anywhere between $3 billion and $24 billion in offshore mitigation.

The major determinant of how big that scale is, how much that bill is, and how many billions we have to send offshore is, effectively, what the Government of the day chooses to do in the form of domestic mitigation, and, unfortunately, what we have in front of us is a Government that has shredded domestic mitigation. That has simultaneously, on the other side of the ledger, meant that we have got on a bigger and bigger hook to pay more and more money—billions and billions of dollars more—to meet that nationally determined contribution. So I just really want the Government to stare the truth and the reality of that in the face, because you cannot simultaneously say that you are going to meet our nationally determined contribution but then not be willing to pay for that offshore mitigation which you put us on more and more of a hook for every time you shred domestic policy to meet mitigation targets.

Now, all of these problems that have been identified—particularly the one around the ageing population—have been exacerbated by so many of this Government’s decisions, which are now seeing more than 200 New Zealanders, with the majority of them young New Zealanders, leave the country every single day. There are recommendations that Treasury has put in front of the Finance and Expenditure Committee for how we may go about potentially grappling with some of these increased challenges in the form of climate change, an ageing population, the cost of superannuation, and the associated extra costs that we will see in the healthcare system.

Treasury propose that we could potentially look at reforming superannuation by, for example, instituting means testing or raising the threshold. The Greens would make it really clear that we’re opposed to both of those things because we do not think it is fair that future generations end up not being allowed the same rights, privileges, and entitlements that the current generation is enjoying, but also means testing oftentimes ends up being a sham, and an administratively costly sham, because those that have the means are able to use their lawyers and accountants to put their means in a place that is difficult to look through.

Treasury also recommended restraining expenditure, but, notably, made the point—and I think this is a really important one—that there is an opportunity for meaningful investment in early prevention. That is precisely what we’re proposing in Green Party policies like ensuring that everybody has free access to GPs and to dentistry but also to early childhood education. This is the social investment that the Government talks about but is not willing to invest in.

So what is the Government doing and what is the Government talking about? Well, the Government is talking a heck of a lot about debt caps, and I’d here like to again point to something that Treasury themselves say specifically when they are talking about having a prudent level of debt. They say—and I quote—“This specific benchmark is less important than the rationale behind it of ensuring that the Government has the economic flexibility necessary to respond to shocks.”, and what is kind of being alluded to there is the fact that not all expenditure is simply a cost. It has the opportunity to be an investment and to do the likes of that social investment that we’re talking about, which reduces costs in the future, and, more than that, it builds our resilience and our real-world productive capacity to lower New Zealanders’ cost of living, to rapidly reduce our climate-changing emissions, and to improve our quality of life—to actually build this country, as opposed to shredding it or selling it for parts, as this Government seems intent upon.

You cannot treat all forms of Government expenditure the same, and just to run through some examples of that, this Government has chosen to spend billions of dollars in tax cuts that have been funded by debt, which produces precisely zero jobs. In fact, it has probably created the economic doom loop that we are currently experiencing, whereby we have record unemployment, lower than projected income tax off the back of that, and then the Government says that we therefore need to cut spending more. It is now proposing asset sales, and so on and so forth we circle the drain. We need a fuse-breaker, and that looks like an active Government willing to put its hands on the wheel and not leave the future of our country to monetary policy and to offshore shareholders.

So too this Government is choosing to spend billions of dollars on roading projects with a low return on investment—riddle me that! Parties of the right, who talk a lot about economic responsibility and evidential basis and return on investment—well, they’re not following their own rule book, which I think, again, belies the fact that none of this is actually logical; it is ideological.

The same Government is choosing to shred billions of dollars from climate action, not only from mitigation but also from adaptation. The flood prevention that they so frequently cite as one of their proudest things that they’re doing in adaptation has, in fact, been cut by three-quarters by this Government if you look at the spending track and the commitments and the money that had been put aside by the former Government. Now, in question time, the Minister of Finance had the gall to say that by pointing out the lack of logic or the inconsistencies in the Government’s argument that it is somehow going to meet the nationally determined contribution but not undertake the offshore mitigation that is necessary in all of its official advice and the basic maths, that this is because we don’t support farmers on this side of the House.

In fact, quite the contrary: we actively do and did. One of the things that this Government has announced is a fund for farmers to transition to greater resilience. That is a fund that they reannounced which the former Government had committed to funding after this Government had shredded tens of millions of dollars from it. Honestly, I think part of the reason that it is so difficult for New Zealanders to follow just how many—I can’t say the “l” word in this place—pieces of information that do not track with the truth is because there is a barrage of them that this country is facing under the so-called leadership of this Government.

Now, on the healthcare piece, which, again, was one of these long-term risks that Treasury identified is going to cost us more into the future as a result of this ageing population—this is not abstract. We had it in the COVID report released yesterday, which obviously many have now used as an opportunity to insert into this debate, so I think it’s important to respond. The basic question that this Government has to answer is whether we now, two years into their stewardship, are in a better or worse place to respond to the next pandemic. Very clearly, we can see from their outsourcing to the private sector for 10-year contracts which ultimately gut the public sector, from their gutting of 1,800 jobs in data and digital—the IT infrastructure necessary to track and trace—and so many other cuts, that we are not.

But the key message that I want to get across today is that despite these challenges, a better future is possible. The Greens are proud to have put solutions on the table, such as our fiscal strategy.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Deputy Prime Minister) (15:42): Well, thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I’m very pleased to participate in this special debate on three stewardship reports from the Treasury. These are critical because we need to sometimes think about generations to come and how we ensure that New Zealand remains a place worth staying.

I’ve got to give credit to Sir Michael Cullen, the former Minister of Finance, who was in charge at the time that these 40-year forecasts of the Government’s statements began. He was a good man and did a very good thing. I’ve been following, perhaps tragically, these reports every four years—

Dr Vanessa Weenink: That is tragic.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: —since they came out first in 2006. There’s a voice behind me—I don’t know who it is—that just said, “That is tragic” that I follow them. Well, actually, it would be good if more MPs did read them. It’d be good if people took public policy more seriously, unlike this member behind me. I think it’s absolutely vital for New Zealand that we start to more closely follow the financial future that we will be leaving to the generations who come after.

I think it’s a real problem, when you open this long-term fiscal statement, that you see that debt will reach 200 percent of GDP. At the moment, it’s in the low 40s. It is the dark target of the Government to keep it under 50. But you imagine for a moment if the debt of the Government was 200 percent of GDP. Well, the truth is we’ll never get there, because what that looks like at the moment, is we’re paying $10 billion a year in interest payments alone. At 200 percent, let’s say that we’d be paying something like four times that. If we were to pay $40 billion a year in interest, nearly all income tax would be taken up by interest. Now, in that scenario, the reason we’d never get there is that the people who buy New Zealand Government debt, who buy Treasury bonds from the debt management office at the Treasury, would say, “No, we’re not going to keep loaning to you, unless you pay so much interest that, actually, your interest bill will be so much higher you can’t afford that so the spiral stops.”

What that tells you is that we’ve got to avoid what is forecast here. In order to do that, we’ve got to understand why it is that the Treasury has us forecast to go so high in debt over the next 40 years. One of the answers is that we have a 20^th century welfare State set up for 21^st century demographics. What I mean by that is that when we started paying pensions and running Government education and Government healthcare back in the 1890s and the 1930s, at that time it was quite normal for a family to have six, seven, eight, nine children. Barbara Kuriger, she’s from the Taranaki King Country, she still thinks it’s quite normal—but, for the most part, it’s not.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Don’t bring the Speaker into the debate. However, I am from a family of six, so I’ll put that one out there.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Madam Speaker, I made an exception because I thought it was relevant this time. But now it’s normal for people to have one or two children. That means that the number of people coming along as taxpayers is less.

It’s also true that people are living longer. I remember when a 70-year-old was ancient. Now, in my case—I was a lot younger, but it seemed that someone who was 70 might as well be 110. Now, 70-year-olds walk among us in the workplace. They’re just about everywhere.

Hon Nicole McKee: 70’s the new 50.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: “70’s the new 50.”, I hear Nicole McKee saying. But one of the things that this means is that where there were, only a few decades ago, 15 taxpayers or working people for every retiree; there’s now only four. In a couple of decades, there will only be two people of working age—and that’s defined as 15 to 64—for every person over 65. So the numbers worked in the 20th century but they don’t work now.

The second reason that this is happening that you need to understand, in my humble opinion at least, is that the Government has been too big and too inefficient. It has also had to deal with shocks. It’s just the nature of our small society. We’re pioneering people who moved to the edge of the earth for a better life, but every now and then, we have to hang together and it costs a bit. When our second-largest city was destroyed by earthquakes, when the great financial crisis hit, when the COVID-19 pandemic hit, the estimate is from the Treasury—and Iain Rennie has said this—that it takes about 10 percent of GDP every time that happens.

So you put these two things together. At the moment, Government is too big, and it’s too inefficient, and we’re spending too much because the numbers of taxpayers to dependents don’t add up any more. Then you take these shocks that happen every now and then, and you start to think, “Well, what would it take to actually balance the budget?” Well, if we have a shock every decade that’s about 10 percent of GDP, we need to run a 1 percent surplus every year just to catch up. That means 1 percent is about $4 billion of surplus every year just to get ahead. But the estimate from the Treasury is that we’re running a 2 percent of GDP deficit. So when you take away the overs and unders and good years and bad years, we’re about $8 billion behind. The gap is around $12 billion. That is the real hole. It’s not about Labour or National or ACT or the Greens; whoever’s in power is going to have to grapple with this for all New Zealand. That’s why I like these reports and I credit Michael Cullen with starting them.

But it does mean that we’re going to face hard choices. We are going to have to accept that with the numbers changing, our welfare State and our benefit system have to change. The Treasury paper says here at the moment we spend about 5 percent of all our income each year on benefits—not superannuation, but on benefits. If nothing else changes, that’ll have to come down to about 2 percent. So are we going to do that level of welfare reform? It sounds pretty tough. The alternative is to raise the pension age to 72—that would, basically, keep the pension costs level. I suspect not many people will be up for that, but that’s another hard choice.

The one thing that we absolutely need to do—and I talked about it in my state of the nation speech last month—is commit ourselves to a smaller, more efficient Government. We have too many Ministers, we have too many portfolios, we have too many departments and not enough drive for efficiency, and people ask themselves, “How is it possible? More money goes in, more people get hired, and yet the customer seems to be even less satisfied with the quality of the services they get.”

Now, I acknowledge my friend and colleague Cameron Brewer. I’m proud of what this Government has done to pull back some of those costs and make Government more efficient, but it’s not a $12 billion question. That’s the real issue. How do we answer the $12 billion question so we can balance the books and put enough aside for a rainy day: 1 percent of GDP every year, for a 10 percent shock every decade? That is why we need to fundamentally rethink the shape of Government, the number of Ministers, and the number of departments, and start having a really tight relationship between who’s responsible for minding the public purse, for getting the results, and for ensuring the efficiency. That’s the way we can get on top of the major drivers such as health. If we don’t have that, we end up paying too much for too little, and people are enormously frustrated as a result.

You can’t have a Government department that answers to 23 Ministers. I would argue you shouldn’t have a Minister that is trying to keep across several different portfolios. You shouldn’t have 30 members of an executive, 10 of whom aren’t actually in the Cabinet. If you’re prepared to go down to one or two departments per Minister so that you’ve got real focus, or only one Minister per department so that you've got real accountability, that is the first step we can take to taking on this $12 billion problem. A smaller, more efficient Government is the most important thing we can do in order to be honest with those who come after and leave them a place worth staying that is capable of delivering the services that New Zealanders expect and paying its way on fair terms.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, and thank you for your indulgence of my including you in the debate—you and your many children.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, that’s my brothers and sisters.

Hon SHANE JONES (Associate Minister of Finance) (15:52): Well, given that my dad was one of 17 children, I’ll avoid talking about whānau. Greetings, Madam Speaker.

I’ve read several of these documents going back a number of—well, dare I say, decades, and, yes, there are some deep, fundamental challenges in terms of how we fund the future costs, given that we have inherited a very egalitarian set of traditions as Kiwis. I rather suspect that one day, if future Governments are not capable of growing the economy, the bond market may very well impose changes on us. I have to agree with the Deputy Prime Minister that there’s a constant need for us to trim the sails of the State and demand better results from the people who are there ostensibly to work on behalf of Kiwis, and we are meant to be a proxy for Kiwis, holding them accountable, but, in my view, this report does miss a deeper challenge.

As society changes, demography is altered through a range of migration decisions. In some parts of New Zealand, the faces of the schoolchildren are changing in the sense that there’s a growing proportion or percentage in a number of the schools where I hail from—Te Tai Tokerau—which are of Māori descent. But, sadly, their political leaders are leading them astray. Sadly, we have gifted far too much power and far too much authority to stakeholders in society whose narratives and whose motivations are actually to worsen the prospects of future Governments from being able to meet these costs. Why? Because we seem to have lost our commitment to prioritise growth and development.

Yes, we can shrink the cost of welfare, and, yes, we can continually have debates—it won’t be happening much while I’m around—related to the pension age. But the deeper problem is an economy that’s static, an economy that is not exploiting its resources, an economy that does not put an accent on security, and an economy and a society and an administration that sells resilience short. You will never have the surplus to meet the expectations of a new generation wanting a higher quality of education. Well, I say to that generation and their parents, ensure that you hone the ethic of service and you teach at the kitchen table yourselves and your children that obligations and duties are just as important as rights.

Now, of course, nowhere do we see this craziness more widely acclaimed than in the “Gretarisation” of New Zealand politics, with that foolish juvenile Greta Thunberg across the other side of the world, believing, with her tiny amount of experience in New Zealand—and, of course, that young girl has analogies on the other side of the House—that, somehow, New Zealand is going to save the planet. Somehow, New Zealand is single-handedly going to conquer this imaginary taniwha called climate change and that we’re going to have to tax every cow, close down every mine, and regulate excessively every quarry. That is never ever going to happen, and fortunately, in my view, what that report shows is that without a clear commitment to growth and a clear commitment to development, we’re going to struggle to find the wherewithal to maintain our infrastructure.

So what holds us back there? Yes, at one level, it’s a distorted philosophical understanding as to how we should interact with our environment. The environment is made up of multiple opportunities and, in most cases, it’s self-healing. For those who want to actually threaten New Zealanders with the thought that somehow we are inert, impassive, and incapable of dealing with weather, they don’t understand the history of New Zealand. The Treaty was hardly signed and there was a massive flood up in the Hutt. That generation adapted.

We’re always going to have adverse weather. Each generation, as we’re seeking to do with our stopbank resilience, which can do with a lot more money—but where’s the money going to come from? It will never ever go to the Congo, as promoted by the Green Party today during question time, for as long as the good matua is in this House. There will never be a dollar spent on buying credits overseas from the Congo when would then suffer an inability to build hospitals, to recapitalise our military, or to maintain our infrastructure. It’s that type of ideological folly and it’s that type of juvenile, performative nonsense that is actually undermining the capacity of Kiwis to work together, or, indeed, to find the strength and the risk management to begin to use our resources.

Of course, this report does talk about fiscal vulnerabilities, and those fiscal vulnerabilities can be seen in the scale of our welfare bill and they can be seen in the scale of our health needs, but we’re never going to overcome those particular problems by continually supporting unfettered migration. We are overdue for a pruning of our welfare appetite, we are overdue for a pruning of our welfare expectations, and it’s about time that we saw more amongst the hapū and iwi of an embodiment of that old line out of the Good Book “By the sweat of thy brow”. That is done not by going to Wellington, not by importuning politicians, and not by coming to the House in some sort of performative iwi way and guilt-tripping everyone that somehow colonialism is responsible for our current woes. Happily, at the next election you’ll see an end to that performance of rubbish because people will now accept that unless we grow, expand, and develop at every opportunity, we are going to continue to lose too many young people going overseas.

Now, it could be said that we’re not doing enough to shrink the scale of government, but that means also shrinking the opportunities for law to be weaponised—weaponised by small groups like the deluded hapū that went to Australia from Taranaki recently. They were standing over some fake bit of paper, pretending that they had the sovereignty of Māoridom and the sovereignty of New Zealand to stop international investors following the law and investing in our country. I say to them, “Hapū leaders, stay home and shoot all the feral dogs that blight your neighbourhoods. Make your children lunch and take them to school every day, week. Ensure that you go and volunteer, that you join your community and uphold the ethics, the ethos, and the values, rather than jumping up and down, cuckolded by green groups whose interests are inversely related to the regeneration of economic opportunity in our regions.”

Now, of course, you will not see language of that character in this report, because it is composed in windowless rooms, people who don’t want to offend anyone for fear of being cancelled when they speak the truth. Of course, the truth, in a political sense, is a debatable concept and I look forward to that debate, as the Deputy Prime Minister has averted to, as we move towards the end of the year.

But the key point that I hope Kiwis take from this speech: underlying the economic challenges is the challenge of social cohesiveness, is the challenge of accountability, is the challenge of self-responsibility. It’s also the challenge to stand up and support, in the way our forefathers and their wives and mothers did, and create opportunity, wealth, and security out of our natural resources. It’s actually a heartening experience to be one of the minority voices amongst te ao Māori who has that view—oh, but wait! Every time I go to Australia, I meet the rangatahi, the young men and women from Taranaki, who quietly say to me, “Matua Shane, when are we going to develop our own resources so we can stay in New Zealand and enjoy the ability to dig up Taranaki, to use our own natural resources?”

Papatūānuku is not some inert figure that you sit there stroking, singing “Kumbaya”. Papatūānuku, in terms of our tūpuna, was a figure that created nourishment and opportunity, and it’s about time we stepped away from mythology and stepped up to the plate and used our resources to sustain our economic security and opportunities for the future.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) (16:02): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Well, it’s really important to talk to this kaupapa, especially when we have matuas that are so busy stroking different parts of their tinana they don’t know when to stop.

Every four years—for our whānau who are titillated with this conversation—Treasury must produce this 40-year outlook. So it’s fair to say most people debating this today won’t be around in the next 40 years. Hana will be 63. So the outlook that we’re expecting to hear in this debate is way beyond triennial thinking, Governments, and twilight-setting politicians. It’s meant to help the debate for big-picture thinking. You’ll note that not much of the debate has been that way because there’s not a lot of big-picture thinking in this place.

The fundamental question that we are debating and asking ourselves, as a country, is: will we be able to hand it over to our mokopuna in a stronger position or a more unequal position? That’s what’s fundamentally come out of this report. This isn’t normally the space that I talk to, so I’ve been able to sort of really look at it from a grassroots perspective: what is it that we are debating here, why does it even come into the House, and what are we looking for out of it? If you’re looking for anything new, fresh, dynamic, innovative, this isn’t the show to watch. If you’re looking for something that’s actually addressing the issues that we have, which they have identified—ageing population, climate change costs, global instability and economic shocks, and rising health costs—you won’t see a lot of change in the discussion, particularly from the Government. Effectively, from what we’ve just heard, it’ll be about “mine, mine, mine”, and in 40 years, who knows what’s going to be left, and it will be about continuing on the same way that we do now.

Growth should absolutely be an agenda, and growth in a responsible way is something that we all support, but what we’re not hearing—and it’s interesting that this report is actually called He Tirohanga Mokopuna; you only see “mokopuna” written in it once. That’s how short-sighted this report from Treasury is. There’s actually nothing in it to actually have any foresight for the next 40 years.

Probably the biggest question that we should be asking is—so we know that we have an ageing population. We all care. We should all be responsible for looking after our pāhake, whether they are kaumātua or other cultures. The reality, though, is that we have a growing Māori and Pasifika population, so we have a shortfall and we are now being asked to have the same obligations for everyone, community-wise, even though the growing rangatahi and those who have been cut short of jobs and of equity are actually the Māori and Pasifika population. It’s a really interesting quandary to sit down and listen to. What we aren’t hearing from this, politically, is about wealth and inequality. We’re not hearing about housing affordability. We’re not hearing about corporate tax settings; we’re not hearing about economic power imbalance in society; we’re not hearing about climate equity—none of those solutions because, guess what, they are just too hard to handle.

One of the things I was really interested in understanding in this whole portfolio is that there is this continuation of accepting that billionaires pay lower tax rates. They pay lower tax rates than workers. This Treasury report assumes that. It assumes that it continues on—that large property speculation can continue to be lightly taxed. It assumes and carries on that wealth can grow tax-free across generations, and that, actually, we will never, ever address the fact that we need to redistribute wealth and we need to have a different tax system. Nowhere in any of this report can we see anything different. It proposes status quo.

The real issue is—and what Te Pāti Māori will continue to say about—is that we need to have net wealth tax on the very richest households, on the very super rich, not the mediocre rich that you’ll all jump up and down about around this House. We need to continue to talk about how we systemically redistribute wealth. None of that is coming from anyone that is benefiting from the existing tax system. I know it’s really hard to imagine, but I can guarantee those generations 40 years from now are talking and thinking this way because they believe in equality and fairness for all.

The other side that we didn’t see is real climate security, which must mean us addressing, as a nation, energy sovereignty, solar on homes, solar on marae, solar on community centres, solar on libraries, solar on schools. These are all about us addressing the issues and addressing them at scale, but nowhere in this report do we see anything that is aspirational and truly thinking how those who are Hana’s age today would be addressing and wanting to move in 40 years.

It’s been an interesting kaupapa to be a part of. I’m glad that I’m not in this committee all the time because, sorry, I’m really disappointed in the calibre of this type of reporting. Kia ora rā.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai) (16:07): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. This report is all about understanding the long-term challenges our country faces and there’s a lot of useful observations in it. The most obvious one is we actually do need to take action on climate change. Ignore the speeches from the dinosaurs who are currently in the Cabinet at the moment, who are completely in denial about the reality of human-caused climate change. It is literally a threat to human life and all other life on the planet in a relatively short period of time. If we continue digging up fossil fuels, we’re in trouble. There is no future.

But Minister Shane Jones, I think, really suffers from projection. Basically everything he says about the Opposition can be said of himself.

Hon Judith Collins: Point of order.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Oh, sorry—Judith Collins is going to take offence.

Hon Judith Collins: Point of order, Madam Speaker. The member who’s just sat down has referred to the dinosaurs in the Cabinet. I’m a member of that Cabinet! I might be old, but I’m certainly not a dinosaur. I don’t want to refer to the member as being deluded or something like that—she wouldn’t like that. I think it is important to have some semblance of respect in this House towards each other. Every member is supposed to be an honourable member.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thanks for that point of order, the Hon Collins. Yes, it wasn’t pointed directly at anybody, but maybe we could lift the tone just a wee bit and maybe talk about the policies as dinosaurs rather than the people.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: I would hate to offend anyone in the Government. They’re obviously very sensitive to criticism and use very colourful language all the time. Not that Minister, but the other Minister who was speaking earlier does use extremely loaded terms to refer derogatorily to the Opposition on a consistent basis. I don’t see why we shouldn’t be able to colourfully use language to describe the point of view that is completely outmoded. That is what is meant by fossil fools: fossil fools love fossil fuels. The people who believe that we can’t take action on change climate or that we shouldn’t take action on climate change are the biggest threat to the future of humanity. So I have absolutely no issue with referring to some people in the Cabinet as having views that—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’ll just ask the member to refer to the policies in that way, and that’ll be acceptable.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

We have to take action on climate change, and, of course the Government is doing the exact opposite. All climate action is basically action on cost of living, particularly when we look at the rising cost of oil internationally, so it simply makes sense for New Zealand to become less reliant on imported fossil fuels for transport. It makes sense for New Zealand to invest in distributed renewable electricity generation like home solar. Pair that with energy-efficient machines like electric vehicles, which can also be used as batteries, like hot water heat pumps—all of those things reduce costs for households and reduce our carbon emissions, so why wouldn’t we do them? It just makes sense.

The other interesting observation is, of course, that New Zealand does need to change tack when it looks at its overall investment. We have an ageing population. The National Infrastructure Plan that was released last week demonstrated that the country has not been sufficiently investing in hospitals and healthcare facilities and services. In order to cope with that, we need two things. We need to change our tax system so that we have options to broaden the revenue base in a progressive way. That means the wealthiest pay more than their fair share. When we have that, we have more revenue to invest in the services that everybody benefits from and the infrastructure that everyone benefits from.

What’s interesting is that if you look at page 66 of this report, it shows that New Zealand, far from being a high-tax country, is a country where we’re collecting lower than the OECD average in terms of Government revenue as a percentage of GDP. That would probably be partially responsible for the fact that people can’t access the same high-quality services and infrastructure that we see in many other OECD countries. So while there is a myth that has been bandied about for the last 20 or 30 years in New Zealand that somehow New Zealanders are paying too much tax, the reality is our tax system disproportionately taxes lower income people, doesn’t collect enough revenue at the high end of income earners and wealth holders, and as a percentage of GDP, we’re on the lower end.

Treasury itself mentions that while income and consumption taxes—this is page 68—are two of the most important sources of Government revenue, they’re all alternatives. Other papers from the Treasury have considered alternative labour tax schemes that are more and less progressive. They also consider adjusting capital income taxes. Those papers illustrate that taxable income in the upper income tax brackets and capital income tax bases could be a contribution. But we also need to have a better investment plan when it comes to infrastructure, and, of course, this Government needs to grapple with the reality that the Roads of National Significance it campaigned on are unfundable and not the best use of money.

RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East) (16:13): Look, it’s great to stand and speak in regard to these bills—not bills, sorry; it’s a habit. The Investment Statement 2025 and the Long-term Fiscal Statement 2025: together, these documents give us a comprehensive view of the Crown balance sheet today and, obviously, the long-term fiscal pressures that will shape New Zealand over the next 40 years. What they show is that this is quite simple. We have a limited window of time to act, and acting early will cost us far less than delaying. It gives me privilege to be part of a Government that’s looking the tiger in the eye and is prepared to make policy changes that will address these long-term structural changes for the benefit of our country.

The state of the Crown balance sheet today: the investment statement sets out what the Government owns, what it owes, how those assets are performing, and how resilient we will be when shocks strike, and they certainly do strike, as we know. As at 30 June 2024, the Crown held $571 billion in assets, or roughly $107,000 per person, and $380 billion in liabilities. This leaves a net worth of $191 billion, but even that number needs context.

The balance sheet is larger than ever, more complex than ever, and under increasing pressure. There’s a clear amount of structural change required by this Government in the way we spend, monitor, evaluate, and restrain public spending. There has been a clear anomaly around the COVID area which cannot and must not go unnoticed.

I know the Opposition wants us to move on and say that there’s nothing to see here, but there was a significant amount of spending and it’s been related to these documents that show that it was wasteful, excessive, poorly controlled, and now has placed real strain on where we are today in terms of the debt situation. Treasury refers to it as the debt ratchet—crisis spending that never closes. Often around national crises, it says that we’ll spend about 10 percent of GDP, like the earthquake situation in Christchurch and other natural disasters.

But around COVID, the Labour Government spent $60 billion. Nearly half of that was not even related to the COVID pandemic—$60 billion was spent and not even half of that was related to the pandemic itself. These are eye-watering figures, and that’s why this National-led Government has worked so hard to control spending so as to create buffers and resilience that the Treasury says are so important to the ongoing sustainability of our balance sheet and to our cash flow.

Treasury gives us a simple test for responsible fiscal policy. It says temporary, timely, and targeted. Those three things work well to ensure that our spending is appropriate and is proportionate and is time-bound. Unfortunately, we’ve seen some uncomfortable clarity flow through these documents, which shows that some supports, particularly around COVID, were slow to deliver, were too broad, and proved difficult to unwind, even when circumstances changed significantly, such as some of the mandates which lasted much longer than were justified, shutting down Auckland for longer than was necessary and without an adequate review of their effectiveness.

Weak monitoring and evaluation allowed waste to persist. Treasury’s documents show that we cannot evaluate what we do not measure and often the Labour Government failed to measure the impacts of its own decisions. That’s why we’ve been very clear as a Government to set up targets that are both public facing and hold us to account so that we can measure our outputs, and dare we be aspirational with some of those targets. We may not even be able to achieve them, but at least we’re being accountable to the public.

Hon Damien O'Connor: Rubbish.

RYAN HAMILTON: GDP is showing that we’re actually growing, Mr O’Connor, so I bet you wish you were on the other side of the fence.

The Labour Government failed to measure the impacts of its own decisions. Treasury’s analysis shows similar supply problems on the fiscal side. During the COVID response, some spending programmes lacked the value for money that should be standard. Fiscal reports were sometimes extended without strong evaluations. Scrutiny was weakened and transparency was diminished.

Hon Damien O'Connor: Money for your mates.

RYAN HAMILTON: Do you know anything about transparency, Mr O’Connor? Treasury also criticises the use of large infrastructure and investment programmes as crisis tools, noting that they were slow, poorly timed, and not reversible—the very opposite of what prudent, temporary—

Hon Barbara Edmonds: What are you talking about?

RYAN HAMILTON: —fiscal support should look like. I’m going to give you three examples very soon, Barbara Edmonds. If public money is spent but not monitored, if policies are introduced but not assessed, if major decisions are made without clear data, then waste is not an accident; waste becomes inevitable.

Infrastructure is essential. You know that we’re a Government that’s really proud of our history in terms of investing in infrastructure, and we’ve worked really hard to forecast a 30-year infrastructure programme, which is something that Treasury is really keen on in terms of good balance sheet management and projecting forward. Treasury’s long-term fiscal statement said that we often get low value for that spending, poor project selection, weak asset management, and cost overruns.

The example that Barbara Edmonds wanted was the so-called shovel-ready projects that were rushed out the door during COVID. In many cases, maintenance and renewal work was far less glamorous but actually more cost-effective. In fact, many of those projects—50 percent of those projects—didn’t even start until two years after the funding was approved, so they can hardly be called shovel-ready. Treasury also criticises the use of large infrastructure and investment programmes as crisis tools, noting that these projects tend to be slow, poorly timed, and, again, not easily reversible.

Interestingly, the International Monetary Fund and the OECD estimated the discretionary fiscal response was approximately 20 percent of GDP for our COVID response, and this is among the largest COVID-19 responses globally. This clearly has had a big impact in terms of the reports that Treasury was reporting on.

Three programmes which came out of it: the large asset programme, or the LSAP, as it’s more affectionately known, has shown losses of $10.5 billion as early as last year—$10.5 billion. Those reports warn that indemnities and guarantees running into the billions were approved without strong transparency requirements or clear public reporting. Treasury echoes the call for stricter rules and more rigorous assessment before such tools. Again, these are not small technical issues; they are huge fiscal exposures that bypass the safeguards designed to protect taxpayers. Two more programmes: the $3 billion shovel-ready project I talked about; most of the spending occurred two years after the Government decided to commence it. This one’s a pearler: the lump sum programme—a Grant Robertson special. There are limitations noted in the insights briefing. For example, some payments were made to people who were not intended to receive them, such as—wait for it, Sam Uffindell—people who were overseas; think French backpackers or, in some cases, deceased people.

In conclusion, the reports show a clear message: wasteful spending cannot be primarily a priority of any Government. We’ve got to think about our long-term pressures. We’ve heard about the growing need for retirement savings across the country. We’re pleased that we’ve made some headway there with some incremental KiwiSaver investments across employers and employees. We will insist on high-quality capital investment focused on maintenance and renewal first—as Treasury indicated, they’re often better for stimulatory responses in the short term.

The path forward is clear and the stakes could not be higher. This is not just about accounting; it’s about a future we have to leave to our children and our grandchildren. It’s about whether Government serves the public with discipline and honesty, or about whether we will have the resources and the resilience to respond to the challenges of tomorrow. Over the last decade, our assets have doubled—a bit more than half of that increase, $119 billion, was not new capability; it was re-evaluations driven by inflation; rising land and construction costs, especially for State highways, rail, and public buildings. This means our balance sheet looks stronger on paper without delivering more or better services.

We know our social assets are ageing. Transport, health, education, and housing holds 81 percent of the Crown’s physical assets, and many are reaching the end of their useful life. The average hospital is 45 years old. Education: one-third of our school buildings are more than 50 years old and nearly half are between 20 and 15 years old, many with deferred maintenance.

But we’re looking those challenges in the eye. We’re prepared to address them as a Government. It hasn’t been easy coming in with a high-inflated, high-interest environment, largely contributed by gross misproportionate spending during that COVID era, and now the chickens have truly come home to roost. National has a proud history of strong public finance and responsible stewardship, but that legacy must be earned again and again. We are fixing the basics and building the future.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) (16:23): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Yeah, I’m not surprised to hear that sort of speech coming from Ryan Hamilton, the MP up in Hamilton, given his personal views in 2021, which are well reported in the media, in relation to COVID. I’m going to leave it there lest I embarrass that member with a number of quotes that he has in relation to vaccinations and mandates.

I want to indulge the House for a moment today, because one of the greatest privileges of being an electorate MP are the relationships you establish and develop in your time as a sitting MP. I acknowledge that in my community of Mana, we have lost four strong community leaders in the last week alone. Today, I attended the third funeral this week, of Acting Major Ioane Washburn, who was only 45. Major Washburn was a community stalwart. He was a boxing coach at the Cannons Creek academy, He was involved heavily in financial planning for the Salvation Army. He was a social worker at the Taeaomanino Trust, and he was a big brother to many people.

To Fuamoli “Molly” Fiso—“Queen”, as her brother Fiso John Fiso would describe her—she was one of the directors of the Fiso Group, which are friends to many in this House, not just here in the Labour team. She was a fierce protector of her family and her friends, she was an innovator, she was a carer, and she was my good friend, and I have the privilege of speaking at her funeral tomorrow.

To Levaopolo “Livi” Livingstone Finau—probably the best dancer that has come out of Porirua East—he was a coach for the Tawa rugby club. He was a huge advocate for gagana Samoa, particularly in Porirua East, where a number of his grandchildren attended schools, and he was a papa to many.

And, lastly, to Auntie Atilele Lauifi Baker: she was the matriarch of Tītahi Bay’s probably largest family. She was the mother of 11. She was a humble servant. She was one of the founding members of the Ekalesia Fa‘apotopotoga Kerisiano Samoa Samoan congregational church in Elsdon, the Ketesemane Church.

To all their aigas—to the Fiso, the Baker, the Finau, and Washburn aiga—my alofa to you all at this time. Your family members and our community leaders, they leave big shoes for our community to step up and to fill. Ia manuia lau malaga, my friends.

Each of these leaders used the platforms that they had within our community of Porirua to build a better community for future generations, and, effectively, what we are debating today in the long-term fiscal statement is about those long-term decisions that whether it be this Government, the next Labour Government come November, or future Governments—it’s about the choices that they need to make in order to make, basically, the public services that New Zealanders depend so much on sustainable.

From the actual report, it set out a number of the problems in relation to some of the bigger challenges we’re going to face. It assessed the long-term fiscal sustainability; it included spending, revenue, and debt trends over the last 40 years; and it informed fiscal strategies and wants to support long-term decision-making, something that we haven’t seen much of in the last two years. It sets out that we do have a strict structural fiscal deficit, meaning that even without the pressures of climate change, an ageing population, the demographics changing, and other long-term factors—despite what previous speakers have said—there are adjustments that will be required to bring expenditure and revenue into balance. Those are some pretty massive problems that Treasury set out in that statement, which we have the privilege of debating here in the House for the next couple of hours.

The other challenge that Treasury set out in their report is the rising geopolitical tensions. Now, that report was written perhaps about a year ago, nine months ago, and it had talked about how defence spending is doubling by 2 percent of GDP by 2032. Well, we’ve seen what’s happened in the last week or so that’s happening overseas. That setting out of that problem is even more pertinent today given the flowing impacts that’ll happen to the New Zealand economy in the next wee while.

Also, it talked about the weather and the natural hazard risks. These are, basically, costs that the Government, costs that local authorities, costs that Kiwis will have to deal with as we have more and more climate change and major disasters. I do want to note—I know there was a previous speaker who said that this stuff happens all the time. Well, the interesting thing is that the reinsurers who reinsure New Zealand insurance companies, they absolutely know that this is an issue; they forecast for this as an issue. There’s a reason why Florida is not covered by reinsurance but New Zealand continues to be, despite us being the second-highest amount of spending for natural disaster risks throughout the world. That’s how importantly both the reinsurers and the insurers in New Zealand are taking into account climate change risk.

Population ageing was also covered extensively in this report, including the increase to the cost of retirement, and probably most important, which most Kiwis are feeling today, are healthcare costs. They are also rising relative to GDP. I heard yesterday a report around the use of the private sector, and the good thing is that Deloitte report said we don’t want to move towards a US type of health system, but there is a role for the private sector to play. But, most importantly, these are the public services that Kiwis do absolutely depend on and want from a Government.

The long-term fiscal statement is about planning for the future. We here in the Labour Party have always considered those long-term decisions in planning for the future. We have the receipts. We had KiwiSaver set up by a Labour Government and the New Zealand Super Fund set up by a Labour Government. We set up the national resilience plan, which then the National Party scrapped as one of their first decisions coming into Government in 2023. We set up the Infrastructure Commission, and last week, we had a debate around the infrastructure plan—it’s good to see that work continuing. We also set up the Natural Hazards Commission. That was set up after World War II—again, that’s long-term decision-making that impacts on future generations. Actually, the Natural Hazards Commission was one of the reasons why reinsurers in the United Kingdom still supported to reinsure New Zealand, because they saw that we had some of the systems and some of the funds set up already to be able to deal with these huge costs.

We hear it every day. I heard it today when people were talking to me at the funeral. I heard it in the last few days as I’ve been sitting with my community as they grieve their loved ones. We are hearing it every day that things are incredibly tough for Kiwis—even more so when you have the extra financial burden of a funeral to pay for. Kiwis are working incredibly hard but they’re still not getting ahead. That is the key reason why we saw record emigration—why we saw so many of our Kiwis following the Government’s “Everyone must go” and go to Australia, where they can get paid better; where they can actually find a job.

We know that the cost of living is up, and we know that the economy has shrunk—it’s actually smaller than what it was two years ago when the Government took office. New Zealand is in a moment of urgency. We have an extraordinary opportunity, and the Treasury set that out in the report. It’s up to each and every one of the members of this House to be able to pay some serious attention to those long-term decisions that we need to make. Some of them we can make together. For some of them, quite clearly our values won’t align. When National’s answer to every fiscal challenge has been the same—and that’s been to sell off or to hand stuff overseas or to keep cutting public services, while at the same time investing in other parts of the economy like property speculation, those are the types of choices as to why they’re so unpopular and so out of touch with everyday New Zealanders.

We need to keep assets in Kiwi hands.

Andy Foster: Sounds like New Zealand First policy.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: We need to return those investments back into Kiwi businesses, which is why we suggested the future fund. I can hear Andy Foster—I know you agree with the future fund because you want one too, and that’s why. Labour’s plan is built on long-term investment, shared prosperity, and good jobs that keep young people building their futures here in New Zealand. Until you give our young people a reason to stay here, they will be on the next plane, even with the fuel charge, off to Australia, where they can feel they can get their first home, where they can get a job that pays them well, and where they can access the healthcare that they need.

This is not a New Zealand that we need right now. We need a Government who is serious about the long-term challenges. When Labour takes over in November this year, that’s exactly the Government New Zealand will have.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula) (16:33): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call to speak on the Finance and Expenditure Committee’s report on Treasury’s long-term fiscal position and the investment statement for 2025. These briefings have a really important purpose—it’s that they force Parliament to move from just the reactive day-to-day political noise and look at the longer-term challenges that our country faces. The reality is this: we will continue to face challenges, and some of the worst and biggest challenges that we have in this country are not the things that happen every now and then; they’re the long-term issues that build up quietly over decades.

Governments naturally focus on the urgent issues. Part of the debate this afternoon has talked about how we’ve ended up in the fiscal position that is the starting point for the next 40 years. It’s right that we acknowledge that part of that position did come from the debt position and from the fiscal attitude of the previous Government around COVID. I was on the front line during the COVID response, and I was very grateful for the initial phases of that. As the response wore on and the Government seemed to get more tired about making decisions, it was really clear that, actually, they weren’t considering all of the factors and they weren’t weighing up the long-term impact and the fact that the fiscal impact of their decisions was going to go on for years and decades and decades into the future. The impact that that would have on peoples’ health over time would massively outweigh the benefits of the time that they overspent—and they did overspend in that time. Whilst we’re not looking into, and talking about, the COVID-19 royal commission of inquiry report, it does highlight some of the same issues.

The long-term fiscal outlook shows that what we need to do is be fiscally resilient. We need to make sure that we have fiscal resilience, because that is our way of being able to respond. That is national resilience. If a country weakens its financial position in good times, it becomes so much harder to act decisively in the difficult ones. In a nutshell, you cannot just have ongoing taxation and spending with a small population of a diminishing number of taxpayers over time. This is the key message that comes out of the insights and the long-term briefings on fiscal matters.

These issues about demographics are not new. I remember studying population dynamics and seeing exactly where this was heading when I was a medical student. In fact, I remember having discussions about it in social studies—that was last century. Yes, New Zealand is ageing, yes it has greater demands on our health system, and we’ve got fewer people to pay for that. In the future, that will be even greater. The tragedy of this is that this has been coming for decades. We have seen this coming for decades. We’ve known that there’s going to be increased pressure on the health system. We’ve been talking about it in health for the entire time that I was studying medicine and have worked as a doctor.

We’re also going to have rising costs of superannuation. None of that should come as a surprise. We’ve also been talking about that. For me in Generation X, we know that we’ve been staring down the barrel of this population timebomb for a long time and not having the courage to stand up and deal with it, because of the political pressure. This is something that has been a failure of all sides of this House—it’s not one party or the other.

When we think about some of the ways in which we’ve derisked our future, we can be grateful to those politicians in the past who made those decisions. What has been helpful is that both sides of the House have continued those on. We’ve strengthened them. National is strengthening and helping to shore up the future by increasing the default payments for KiwiSaver, for example—that’s one of the things that we will be doing. That’s an important measure.

The other thing that’s really important is looking at our investment portfolio, because that is another key part of these reports. The investment portfolio highlights that our health, our roading, our schools, and all of that infrastructure needs to be maintained and very carefully planned out over the future. We have also recently had the debate on the Infrastructure Commission’s report into that. It’s really important that we work together across the House to have a orderly pipeline for those investments that need to be made so that we can continue to do that for the future.

Too often those decisions are postponed. Too often they’re delayed or they’re deferred, and we have avoided hard conversations. One of the very disappointing things for me about the last Government was that they had the mandate. They had an absolute majority, which was a rare thing in this Parliament under MMP, and yet they didn’t address the things that we’ve seen coming for decades. For a generation, we have known that this is happening. My generation—our generation—was in charge at that time, and they avoided those hard conversations. They didn’t look at superannuation. They took that opportunity, and they squandered it. Now, we are left in a position where we have to fix up the mess that was left behind, We have to fix the fiscal fundamentals that we were left with—which we are addressing, and we’re getting on with—and, at the same time, we have to look realistically and ask the hard questions and start the hard conversations about our future.

One of those hard conversations is, basically, we’ve got a choice: do we tax more so that we can continue to spend at the same amount, or do we look at how our spending is working and do we make some alterations in that spending? One of the ways of doing that might be to address Government spending on welfare. Well, I lived through the 1990s National Party “mother of all Budgets” welfare reform, and I don’t think any of us have got an appetite to be doing major reform on the welfare system, just carte blanche cutting benefits. That has a measurable impact on people’s wellbeing—but not only that: you could see in the 1990s and late early 2000s there was actually a measurable impact and dip in life expectancy because of those. I don’t see any reason why we would go in that direction.

We have to look at the other fundamentals, which is: how are Government departments working? Are they fiscally responsible? When we came into Government, it was clear that the culture that had been inculcated through the Government Public Service was profligate, it was irresponsible, and it wasn’t even putting in basic, fundamental, profit-and-loss, balance-sheet sort of stuff that I’d expect as a governor. Governance matters and proper management matters. If you’re a governor, you ask questions about how things are being done and how money is being spent—“Is that value for money?” It was clear that the previous Government failed to do any of that, and we’re having to change the whole direction of the Public Service because of that. It’s hard work, but it’s the right work to do, because cutting the Government’s spending just by cutting off services is not acceptable.

The other thing that we have to start to do, as a country, is we have to look at how we how we would spend money on services. I mean, specifically, we need to have a conversation as this country about what our expectations are for the health system, what is reasonable to expect that our public purse will pay for, and what is not expected or is unreasonable. But, at the same time, we have to say: is it reasonable that the taxpayer of the day are the only people on which the costs of the day fall? Because that’s the reality of our health system and ACC. What we’ve done is we’ve got a system where it de-risks the taxpayers of the day and has a fund and a levy system that helps to pay for and offset the taxpayers of the day. I think there could be more that could be done in the whole health system with a similar model, but it’s time we actually start looking and thinking about these things and talking about how we pay for things, and not just saying that “We’re going to raise tax and raise tax.”, because that actually will put more burden on the future populations, not on our current generation.

For me, I care about our future generations and setting things up so that it is actually going to be affordable and sustainable for my son and for any future grandchildren that I might have. And for all of this—

Rima Nakhle: May they be many.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK: And may they be many—thank you. And so this is about fixing the basics and how we do that, and building the future.

CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti) (16:43): Tēnā koe te Māngai o te Whare otirā tēnā tātou katoa. Nāku te whiwhi ki te tū i te kōrero i runga i tēnei kaupapa, i runga i taku pōtae kaikōrero mō te ōhanga Māori.

[Greetings Mr Speaker, greetings all. It is my pleasure to stand and talk about this subject, in my role as the spokesperson for Māori economics].

One of the issues we’re talking about in this debate is the ageing population, and today, someone very dear to me is ageing—so to my sister Ruvae, happy birthday. I’m sorry I’m not there with you, but doesn’t this look like so much more fun?

Heoi anō rā, ka huri ahau ināianei ki tēnei taupatupatu, ki tēnei whaikōrero.

[So then, I turn my attention to this debate, to this discussion.]

The report highlights the ageing population and, conversely, the young population of Māori that we will have in about 20 years. In 20 years, Māori will be over 25 percent of the population and the median age for Māori will be mid-30s, compared to early 40s for the rest of the population. This is actually great news for Aotearoa, because the long-term fiscal statement has the name He Tirohanga Mokopuna. A mokopuna’s perspective—how wonderful. What isn’t really considered in the report is the impact the Māori economy can have on affecting the issues raised. That’s why I say that’s great news, is because “he tirohanga mokopuna” is exactly the basis on which the Māori economy is based and has grown, because every decision is an intergenerational decision, and intergenerational wellbeing is another key kaupapa raised in the report.

We’ve talked about investment, or options for investment. Again, this is an amazing area where the Māori economy and iwi organisations can have a massive impact—they already are. If we talk about keeping people here in Aotearoa, we all know that iwi and businesses involved in boosting the Māori economy are big players—key players—in areas such as forestry, fisheries, tourism, etc. They’re already on board in terms of boosting and enhancing employment opportunities to keep people here in Aotearoa—and not just Māori people; all people who desire to have a good job and earn a good living here in Aotearoa.

Housing is another thing that will keep people in Aotearoa, having access to good housing. We know—it’s been acknowledged across the House—that iwi are good partners in that sense, and have already established housing developments which range from whānau homes to intergenerational developments, which house our elderly right down to our mokopuna.

Health: investing in health is another key issue, and that’s why we know that hauora Māori around Aotearoa know their communities. They are already invested, and they want to keep the expenses in this area low by servicing the communities they know so well. That’s why the debate the other day about diluting the powers of iwi-Māori partnership boards was so important.

Climate change: well, they are kaitiaki. It’s their responsibility by birth, by nature of whakapapa, to maintain Papatūānuku, to maintain whenua, which their uri—their descendants—are connected to at conception.

So this is a great opportunity, not only to support some of the sentiments in here that this is our responsibility across Parliament—and I hope that, moving forward, we can share that sentiment a lot more frequently—but, in particular, it’s a great opportunity to consider how partnering with iwi and honouring iwi, hapū, and whānau is a great and a wise investment for Parliament, no matter who is in Government. Because success of Māori, the wellness of Māori, will play a key part on the fiscal future of Aotearoa.

Tēnei te mihi anō ki a koutou katoa, to everyone who has been responsible for growing that asset base, and be assured that a Labour Government are ready to work further, to work closely with hapū and iwi as partners in growing the fiscal future of Aotearoa. Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote) (16:48): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s an honour to speak in this special debate about the long-term fiscal position.

I would like to focus on debt and speak directly to New Zealanders about why they should be worried about Government debt. At its core, Government debt is about borrowing from future taxpayers to fund current taxpayers’ obligations. It has an impact on all Kiwis, through high inflation and higher interest rates, but, also, indirectly, through the opportunity costs from the interest paid on that debt. As a great economist—Adam Smith—once said in the 1700s, the payment of interest of public debt has become one of the most important articles of the expense of every State. So the question is: how much debt is too much? Well, Treasury’s view is 50 percent is a prudent and practical level, but they also go on to say that 90 percent is the point of no return, the point at which the ability to service that debt becomes unserviceable, credit ratings are going to be impacted, the cost of new debt will increase, and there will be an endless spiral downwards from there. The quality of the debt is also important: about infrastructure, economic growth, things that power our economy out, not pet projects like the other side did when they were in Government.

Now, let’s turn to New Zealand’s current debt position. I want everybody in this House to be aware that the nominal debt of this country stands at just under $200 billion. We have never as a country had that much debt. It is second highest, as a net proportion of the economy, in New Zealand’s history. The first highest was in the 1990s under the previous National Government of that time. It grew 2.5 times under the previous Labour Government—2.5 times that debt increase. We heard from the Deputy Prime Minister that, actually, it’s pretty low. Yes, it is. We’re low relative to most other developed countries, but actually quite high when you consider small, developed countries.

Let’s turn to the interest on that debt. It is currently about $8.4 billion in this financial year. That goes up to $13 billion by the forecast period. That’s just servicing the debt. But let’s turn to what the next 30 years looks like: by 2040, we’re going to hit 90 percent of debt-to-GDP, and by the 2060s, debt-to-GDP will balloon to 200 percent. Don’t believe we’re going to get there? Well, Japan’s debt is 230 percent of gross domestic product.

Economists around New Zealand agree on the severity of these numbers. It’s driven by really three factors: superannuation, the cost of healthcare, and the cost to service the debt. These forecasts are conservative and don’t account for the likes of natural disasters, shocks, and other extreme events like war. What this will mean for Kiwis is that if nothing changes, we’re going to suffer higher inflation, there will be greater stress on our public finances, and a lower standard of living as a result.

So, what are the options? Well, thankfully, the option is to go for growth, which is what this Government is all about, increasing the productivity and the growth of the economy. The second is to get back to surplus as quickly as we can and stay in surplus, and that is not going to be an easy thing to do. Treasury’s own reports say that that’s going to be harder as the years go by.

In summary, this country has a choice: to confront the tough fiscal challenges that we face, to pay down the debt and ensure that New Zealand is a great place well into the future, or we can put our head in the sand, borrow more, tax more, and spend more, like the other Government and the other side wants to do. It is our purpose and mission in this Government to chart a great path for prosperity and fiscal restraint. Our nation’s future, our kids’ future, depends on succeeding in this endeavour.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (16:54): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It’s a rare and great thing in this Parliament to be having a debate about the long game, and maybe we should do that more often because all too often, it is based upon the short term and those sugar highs or even dead cat bounces that we see from the side opposite.

The big challenges that we face ahead are going to require some long-term planning and some long-term solutions. Sadly, that’s what has been lacking from any policy we’ve seen from the Government. Some of the big changes, some of the big challenges that we face going forward that have been outlined in He Tirohanga Mokopuna are really clear and we know what those are. We know that climate change is going to continue to cause issues in our country. We know that, particularly up in places like in Te Tairāwhiti, where they get continually hammered by storms coming through. In Northland, up that way, we know it is also prone. There are parts of our country that we know now will continue to be a struggle for roading, for housing, for infrastructure, and we need to be planning now for those things. This would not be the time for a national resilience fund to be cancelled. This would be a time to be investing in those areas. So it’s really sad to see that when we had, again, another recent incident happen up the coast that, you know—I mean, it couldn’t get any more vivid as a picture to be cancelling a national resilience fund and handing out buckets of KFC. I mean, how short term can you get it?

The other main challenge we see in the air is the ageing population. This is a significant issue that’s outlined in He Tirohanga Mokopuna. We know that healthcare will continue to be an area that we need to fund, and we want to make sure that we do that in a way that is accessible to all New Zealanders, so that you don’t have to be saving your entire life in order to get healthcare that you rely upon when you need it, and so that you can go to a doctor when you need to go to a doctor and you can do that for free. That is a critical way that we make sure that people get the health treatment they need early on and prevent those longer-term health problems, because our hospitals have broken systems and are unable to look after the people they need to.

We also see, outlined in the report, the rising geopolitical tensions which we are currently facing and which are now even more pronounced than when this report was written a few months back.

Those are things that we are going to have to continue to navigate no matter who the Government is in New Zealand. They will continue to put demand upon us, in the face of the fact that we currently still have a structural fiscal deficit, and so those areas are where we need to have plans in place to make sure we are set up for the future.

Labour has always wanted to have a long-term plan. As Barbara Edmonds rightly referenced, we’ve got the receipts to show that we have a history of having a long-term plan. Michael Cullen in KiwiSaver is a big promise in terms of how we deliver on that, and KiwiSaver has been a critical part of how we do that. I’m incredibly proud that that was delivered by a previous Labour Government. The New Zealand Superannuation Fund is another excellent investment that we see. Sadly, it was paused under a previous National Government—they paused those Government contributions—and they were restarted again by the previous Labour Government. Again, an eye on the long term, an eye on the horizon to make sure that we have a long-term plan in place. The National Resilience Plan, as I’ve already referred to, is another example of long-term planning and what we’ve done in terms of that planning for infrastructure in the long term.

The Infrastructure Commission, with its report recently coming out, is another way of having, hopefully, a bipartisan approach to looking at the infrastructure investment that we need, instead of just promising a lot of roads without having them properly funded and then banking on a fuel tax when fuel prices are going through the roof. That would be a short-term way of looking at it.

The Future Fund is another one on that list. We want to see a Future Fund because we know too many Kiwi businesses have to go offshore and find the opportunities that they couldn’t find right here. We have seen company after company—great New Zealand businesses—who can’t get the backing right here and they’ve had to go offshore when they reach a certain size. When they go offshore because they get that extra capital they take with them their workers, their smart ideas, and all the benefits that New Zealand would have seen right here. Our Future Fund would back Kiwi businesses to stay here, invest in here, and give our people jobs that pay a decent wage. That’s what people are really crying out for now, more than ever before. The best banking on our future and for people to be secure is to pay people a decent wage for having a decent job right here and now, because the cost of living crisis is what’s biting people more than ever before. And that’s going to get worse under this Government. They promised they would make it better, but they’re actually making it worse.

If we can save for their retirement, if we have people that have a wage—enough where they can pay down their mortgage and own their own home—where they can put some money aside, then that is a benefit for New Zealand. We need to do that by having good Kiwi companies who invest here, back people here, and pay a decent wage right here, and not undermining workers’ rights and workers’ wages.

Tax can’t be the only Government source of income. It’s time to build new ways of generating national wealth for the benefit of everyone, and that’s exactly what the Future Fund will do, keeping opportunities in New Zealand by investing in our people, our ideas, and our industries. Nothing changes to this mindset until the Government changes. New Zealand deserves a Government that has their interests at their heart, not just their mates. With a real plan, I believe New Zealand can make it affordable to live here and have greater opportunity right here in New Zealand. [Interruption]

I think it’s also important to note that while we’re hearing a lot of noise from the others, we haven’t heard, actually, any answers; we haven’t heard any answers from National in terms of some of the key problems that I’ve outlined that are in He Tirohanga Mokopuna. So National’s answers are property speculation. They are to sell off our assets; to look at overseas investments; and also mentioned is to promise roads that aren’t funded and don’t have a source of income; and offer things like $2.9 billion of tax cuts and additional millions of dollars for tobacco companies. I mean, short-sighted; that money is not staying in New Zealand, it’s not benefiting our people, and it’s not growing a future that our next generation can rely and build upon. So that is why a lot of those challenges are made worse under a National Government.

Labour wants to be able to see a wealth creation and aspiration and a future here in New Zealand. We agree that many of the things that we are facing like climate change, like an ageing population and some of the geopolitical challenges we face—we want to be able to know that it’s secure here and that we’re making our future here secure. We do face some really serious, long-term challenges. As I have said, we really believe that those challenges are made even more difficult and solutions made even further out of reach by National. Under this Government, debt is higher than Treasury has predicted, prices are rising, and productivity has stalled.

All the areas that we need to be making greater traction on have got worse under National. They have made it harder to fix the future of our children, not easier to fix. It is making absolutely reckless decisions, in the here and now, for some short-term, sugar highs at the expense of things like national resilience in the face of increasing climate change. I could not think of a better example.

National has prioritised tax cuts and other short-term measures at the expense of the next generation of New Zealanders, and we will not buy into that. We have no real tangible benefits and the Government can’t find or produce one single example of a family—

Hon Nicola Willis: Tax some more! That’s her solution!

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: —that’s benefited from their proposals and their promises in the next election. The reality is that National has no plan, and that’s why they’re just yelling a lot, because they think that if they yell a lot, New Zealanders won’t notice that they absolutely have no plan at all. They just want to sell off assets, hope that there’s going to be some overseas investment by holding a big forum that no one really came and actually did anything out of. When talking about asset sales, we must reference our plan to keep Kiwi assets in our hands and to use that revenue to build Kiwi businesses, because we know a future made in New Zealand is the best one for Kiwis.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (17:04): We’re here today to debate a very serious document which is the long-term fiscal statement produced by the Treasury, looking ahead to New Zealand’s future. It is a sobering report because what it outlines is the environment that successive Governments will inherit, and that environment will be shaped by an ageing population—a demographic trend that has already started—in which we will need to support more people in their elder years, with fewer taxpayers to support them.

Treasury is very emphatic in this report that we, as future Governments, will need to make decisions that allow us to face into those challenges effectively. What have we just heard from Labour as their response to those serious questions? Well, Labour has a plan, and it may be familiar to members of this House because it goes a little like this: spend more, tax more, borrow more. That is literally the response of our opponents to a sobering report that sets out the scale and magnitude of the fiscal challenges that New Zealand is facing. Their response is put your hands on your ears, pretend you haven’t heard what’s coming, and just dial up the spending, dial up the borrowing, and if you can’t get enough that way, tax some more.

Well, that is the wrong approach and Treasury, in this report, is emphatic, actually, on this point. I want to quote what it actually says in the report. It says as we face into these significant challenges that New Zealand faces: “An important first step is to create fiscal space for future shocks and choices by returning to surplus and bringing debt down to more prudent levels”.

Now, this makes logical sense because where we start from now will affect how hard it is to meet future challenges, and that is precisely why our Government has been working so hard to make savings now that set up this country—and indeed our children—better for the future challenges that they face. We have, of course, been making ongoing and significant investments in core public services like healthcare, like education, like law and order, but we have been funding those investments to a very large degree by making savings elsewhere in Government. We’ve had clear-sighted set of priorities.

This has been a very different approach from the approach of the Government that preceded us, because the Opposition have opposed every single savings measure that the Government has put forward. So let’s be clear about what that means in terms of New Zealand’s long-term fiscal position. All else being equal, if Government spending in the past two Budgets, including the significant investments in health and education; tax relief, which means that New Zealanders are on average $60 a fortnight better off than would otherwise be the case—if that had not been offset by savings, which it was, this year’s deficit track would be $25 billion and net core Crown debt would be on track to reach 59 percent of GDP by the end of the forecast.

Why does that matter in terms of our long-term fiscal position, which we debate here today? Because that would be a terrible starting point for dealing with the challenges of the ageing population; challenges no one has got up on this House to say aren’t real. No one in this House has got up to say they can somehow solve; challenges that are real and that are coming for us.

I want to call out the blithe denial that we have seen from Opposition members whose contributions to this debate, instead of grappling with that challenge of how do we tidy house now to make sure we’re ready for the things that are coming—instead of grappling with that issue, have instead said, “Oh, well, wouldn’t it be easier if we spent more now? I can think of a lot of things we could spend more on. Wouldn’t it be easier if we just borrowed more now? I can think of a lot of things I’d like to borrow for. And, look, actually, wouldn’t it be better if we just taxed people more?”

Well, that is not a sufficient answer to the challenges that New Zealand faces because, while members opposite like to say things like, “Well, the thing to do right now is to put in place the most extensive, most elaborate pay equity regime in the world.” What they don’t like to talk so much about is where they would find at least $12.8 billion to fund that. Why does it matter? Because with that $12.8 billion added to our already significant commitment, what you’re actually saying is we will indebt this country further. Far from the belief of those opposite that, somehow, if only you’re kind-hearted enough and can only identify enough things you want to spend money on, then a magic money tree will appear, that is not the case. What this report sets out very clearly is that it doesn’t matter how big our hearts are and how much we care—we all care deeply—we are going to face fiscal constraint.

The world doesn’t owe New Zealand a living. The world isn’t going to say, “Look, just keep borrowing more, we don’t mind; we’ll relieve the interest.” Well, actually, right now, we are paying interest on our debt that built up during COVID, and that debt comes with an interest bill this year of around $9.5 billion. Debt isn’t free.

Now, $9.5 billion—what is the opportunity cost right now that we’re facing for the interest bill on debt, which, by the way, hasn’t even reached the 59 percent that it would with Labour’s spending promises? What does that interest bill mean? Well, it means that that $9.5 billion can’t be spent on other things. Let me tell you what it could pay for. Members, $9.5 billion would pay for more than four Transmission Gullys, not just this year but every year; $9.5 billion would be enough to pay for the entire operations of the entire New Zealand Defence Force, combined with the entire New Zealand Police force, combined with the entire justice system, combined with every corrections facility and service in the country, combined with our Customs Service; $9.5 billion is a lot of money.

So the point that I thought would be self-evident to educated and learned members of the House is that when you keep dialling up the debt, it’s not free; the interest bill goes higher and higher and higher. What Treasury says in this report is that if we don’t start getting the debt under control now, our ability to deal with that interest cost in future will be extremely limited, because we know what’s coming at us: the superannuation bill will be going up, the amount of workers paying tax will reduce—that is coming for us.

So how do we want to be positioned when that comes? Do we want to be in a position where we’ve already dialled the debt up to emergency levels, or do we want to be in a position where we’ve paid it down? The answer is self-evident, and yet we have the delusional response from members opposite, who say, “Well, actually, the thing to do now is to spend more. Actually, the thing to do now is to oppose every measure by Government to reprioritise, every measure by Government to make careful savings.”

So what does Treasury say about the approach that members opposite have signed themselves up to—the borrow more, spend more philosophy? In this long-term fiscal work, Treasury takes the opportunity to very clearly restate the advice it gave former finance Minister Grant Robertson in 2022—advice, colleagues, that he accepted. This was back in the days when Labour seemed to have some sense of the limits of money. What they said was that New Zealand must keep net core Crown debt below 50 percent, because we faced ongoing risks from natural hazards, including a 75 percent chance that the Alpine Fault in the South Island will rupture in the next 50 years.

Treasury emphasised that that maximum prudent level of debt for New Zealand in normal times must be 50 percent of GDP, so that if those shocks happen, we can borrow to fix them. That’s what we did after the Canterbury earthquakes, and hear, hear to Bill English, who got it paid back. That’s what we had to do during COVID, but the point is, if you keep spending hard now, you will not be in a position to face into those challenges when they arise.

So it is the case—and I again want to quote Treasury—that “Fiscal sustainability depends on good decisions and management around the assets and liabilities [and spending] that government [does] on our behalf.” We spend sensibly, we’re careful, we’re preparing for the future. They want to tax more, spend more, borrow more—a recipe for certain disaster.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Carter Trust Amendment Bill

Second Reading

MIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa) (17:14): I move, That the Carter Trust Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

The second reading of the Carter Trust Amendment Bill is another step along the path to ensuring that legacy, an enduring vision of Charles Rooking Carter, continues to deliver for the people in the community of Carterton. As the local MP for Wairarapa, I’m proud to be the sponsor of this private bill; however, I need to add that my part in the process is just a small one, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank those that have put significant time into getting us to this point.

To the Carter Society, with a special mention to the chair of the society, Sharon Parker, who has been on this journey from the beginning and made herself available through the select committee process. To the Public Trust for 129 years as trustee of the bequest from Charles Rooking Carter, and for championing a future-focused approach. To the St Mark’s parish in Carterton, for being pragmatic and future-focused in supporting this bill. And to David McLay, whose legal guidance and expertise have been instrumental in navigating the complexities of the bequest and the legislative process.

I also want to take this time to acknowledge and extend my thanks to members of the Social Services and Community Committee for their diligent consideration of the bill. Their balanced and careful approach has ensured that the spirit and purpose of this legislation has been preserved while fine-tuning the details. Last on my list of thankyous and acknowledgments is to all the members of this House. In a time when partisanship can often overshadow progress, it’s great to see a sense of unity and a shared commitment to Carterton’s future by supporting this bill.

The Carter Trust was established by the will of Charles Rooking Carter in 1896. The trust was created to fund a home for aged poor men, with the public issue as trustee. The Carter Trust Amendment Bill is a private bill aimed at winding up the Carter Trust, amending its governing will, and enabling the distribution of its assets to the Carter Society and the Anglican Parish of Carterton. The bill also seeks to remove ministerial oversight of the Carter Society’s rules to facilitate more efficient operation of the society and its aged-care services.

The Social Services and Community Committee identified areas where the original provisions could benefit from additional clarity, and unanimously recommended passing the Carter Trust Amendment Bill with these changes. This bill is more than a technical measure; it is a living tribute to the values of Charles Rooking Carter, a philanthropist and a visionary whose ethic was defined by responsibility, generosity, and a commitment to public service. His intention, so clearly stated in his bequest, was to empower future generations, advance education and welfare, and ensure Carterton’s vibrancy in the years to come. I’m confident that this bill will fulfil its promise and protect the legacy of Charles Rooking Carter and continue to serve the Carterton community for at least another 130 years. I commend this bill to the House.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) (17:18): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I guess this is one of those bills that we come across from time to time that serves an important role in terms of bringing up to speed an important institution like this particular trust, the Carter Trust. But it also does use a lot of the parliamentary resource, and so, once again, we face the issue of having to use select committee processes and legislative change to change something that perhaps could be done in a more cost-effective and efficient way. I can see the member who’s sponsoring this bill, Mike Butterick, nodding at me, and that is not to derogate from the great job that he has done in bringing this to the House, because it is serving the good people of the Wairarapa.

I would also like to acknowledge that the person whose trust it was lived at a time when the Māori Land Wars were on, and he was known as somebody who had integrity and charitable intentions. So he was a good person, by all intents and purposes, but we cannot look at this bill without acknowledging that this was during a colonial era when a lot of Māori land was taken through unfair contract terms, unequal bargaining power, and pressure on Māori landowners. In fact, the amount of his bequeath was in the tens of thousands of pounds, which was quite unusual at the time. So I think it would be fair to say that the legacy has some pain attached to it, and yet, in context, all the research I have done shows that Mr Carter himself was seen as one of the landowners who did act with integrity. But I thought I should mention that because also Carterton and the Wairarapa are well known for one of our Labour Māori MPs, Georgina Beyer, who, in fact, was the Mayor of Carterton for some time. So I felt it important to channel what she would have wanted us to say in this House about how that money may have come about, in part, during that time.

Nevertheless, there is, now, this important trust, which has contributed to community ventures, to education, to culture, to social welfare, and so on, and what happened with the trust is when, I believe, the member looked at what needed to be done and got that fantastic legal advice that he acknowledged, it seemed proper to disestablish the original trust and to recreate it. We have a very unusual provision in here, in fact, where the bill overrides the original will of Mr Carter and it also overrides some of the provisions that would not stand up, really, to the Ministry of Health and Health New Zealand laws around entitlements and so on.

So rather than try to tidy up a will that was really out of date, I think this bill, instead, has disestablished the trust and then reestablished it to be much more fit for purpose and to be able to slot into the modern environment. The Wairarapa is a part of New Zealand that, traditionally, has been underserved and under-delivered due to, probably, the tyranny of distance it has to major cities. So we do know, for example, that mental health services there are really stretched. We know that it is really difficult for some older people in the community, for seniors, to get into retirement villages and so on. That is just what has happened in provincial New Zealand as services have coalesced around the cities. So it’s really important to have trusts like this and endowments like this that go on to serve future generations and the needs of those communities. Indeed, the bequeath was made in 1896 and the legacy still lives on today, as we can see with all of the good work that has been done by this trust.

I just want to, really, acknowledge the member for bringing this piece of legislation. I want to acknowledge that the bequeath happened at a fairly controversial time in New Zealand history. It’s easy for us to look back at that time now and query some of the land acquisitions and what happened, which made the colonial landowners enriched. We also can acknowledge that Mr Carter himself was a man of great integrity and known in his community as being a really honourable person, but he did, through his endeavours, get tens of thousands of dollars and then left this really useful legacy for his community in the Wairarapa. All of those things can be true at the same time, and I just think it’s really important that when we look at a trust like this, that we take into account all of the histories and all of the perspectives that attach to it. With that, I commend the bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the motion be agreed to.

CELIA WADE-BROWN (Green) (17:23): Thank you, Mr Speaker. As a resident of the Carterton District, and the Green list MP based in the Wairarapa, I’m very pleased to support this bill.

I’d like to thank the Carter Society; Sharon Parker, the chair; Peter Croft, the treasurer. I really salute the good work that the Carter Society does, particularly the Carter Court Care Home that’s got more than a hundred residents and has a very pleasant atmosphere, but it needs investment to make it fit for purpose. The change from this bill will see some $50,000 distributed to the Anglican parish and the remaining funds going to the Carter Society for those essential capital works. The Carter Society is well regulated, well run, and has very much sufficient skill on its committee to be able to manage this accommodation.

I, too, want to say a few words about Charles Rooking Carter. Not every colonial settler merits positive remembrance, but his story is quite remarkable. He was born in England and became an apprentice carpenter. It’s good to know that he is another tradie that made it to both the General Assembly and Provincial Council. His suggestion that unsold town sections should serve educational purposes led to the establishment of the Greytown and Masterton Trust Lands Trusts which actually still provide significant benefit to the communities.

His other philanthropic legacies are remarkable: fantastic Carterton Library, which is still one of New Zealand’s finest; the Carter Observatory in Wellington—the name is not a coincidence; and, most notably for this bill, he gifted the Carter Home, which was then for aged men, but now serves both men and women; and also, the beautiful, ecologically important, significant Carter Reserve.

I’d like to thank my colleagues Mike Butterick, Kieran McAnulty, members of the Social Services and Community Committee, and this House for ensuring sensible cross-partisan support, which we could do more of. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Do we have a speaker from the ACT Party? We are not yet—sorry. Todd Stephenson.

TODD STEPHENSON (ACT) (17:27): Thank you, Mr Speaker. [Interruption] Yeah, I know. I feel like I’m just filling in.

Look, I rise on behalf of the ACT Party to speak on the Carter Trust Amendment Bill. [The Hon Chris Penk hands him a copy of the bill] Thank you, Mr Penk.

Obviously, as we’ve already covered in the previous speeches, this is a bill actually updating a historic trust. As Mr Butterick has outlined, this actually is a sensible thing to do for the community. Taking something that was established some time ago to actually benefit the local community is a worthwhile endeavour, and we should thank Mr Carter for that.

We discussed this the other day, actually, in our caucus when we were discussing this bill. It is unfortunate, an oddity, that we still have to debate these bills in Parliament for these trusts that, obviously, were discovered some time or created some time ago. It is great that the Social Services and Community Committee has done work on looking at this trust, making sure the updates are appropriate, and that’s all outlined in the select committee report. So ACT will be supporting this bill, and I commend it to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): I’ll just make way for the Speaker for the valedictory.

Debate interrupted.

Valedictory Statements

Hon Peeni Henare

SPEAKER: In accordance with the determination of the Business Committee, I call on the Hon Peeni Henare to make a valedictory statement.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour) (17:29): Mr Speaker, tēnā koe. Reo Māori. Tuatahi, ka tahuri atu ahau ki a Te Ātiawa, ki a Ngāti Toa. Ka noho tonu ahau ki raro i te maru o Tangi Te Keo e tū mai rā. Kati, e kara, e Kura Moeahu, aianei ka hoki atu tēnei uri nā Kupe, nā Nukutawhiti ki Te Tai Tokerau. Tēnei e tūohu atu ana.

Ka tiwhatiwha te pō, ka kākarauri te pō. I a au i te pō kerekere, i a au i te pō tangotango ka tangi tonu ahau ki ngā mate hūhua o te wā. E te pāpā, e Hone Wharepapa; e te pāpā Anaru Kimura; e te ariki, e Tumu Te Heuheu; e tōku whaea, e Tilly Reedy, koutou katoa kua huri atu ki tua o te ārai, haere mai, haere. Ka hoki mai ki te ao tūroa, e te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe, tēnā tātou katoa. E ōku whanaunga o Ngāti Whātua i tiaki mai nei i a au ki roto o Tāmaki Makaurau, tēnā koutou.

[I will speak in Māori. Firstly, I turn to Te Ātiawa and to Ngāti Toa. I still reside below the shelter of Tangi te Keo that stands yonder. Well, my friend, Kura Moeahu, shortly this descendant of Kupe, of Nukutawhiti, will return to the North. I go with gratitude.

The night became gloomy and dark. As I was in the extreme darkness, as I was in the intense darkness, I wept for the many who have recently passed. Hone Wharepapa, Anaru Kimura, the great chief Tumu Te Heuheu, my aunt Tilly Reedy, all who have crossed beyond the veil, return in spirit, go well. I return to the light of day, and I acknowledge you, Madam Speaker and all here. To all my relatives of Ngāti Whātua who looked after me when I was in Auckland, I acknowledge you.]

To the multitudes of Tāmaki Makaurau who saw fit to elect me to represent them here in Parliament, I will for ever be thankful. I extend that thanks to the many people across New Zealand who supported me and continue to support me today. Mr Speaker, in my 12 years here in Parliament, I have been truly blessed to have been served by so many amazing people, so with your indulgence I would like to acknowledge them, for without them my time here would’ve been very different and, I suspect, very difficult.

For most, the journey into Parliament starts with a strong local committee, so I want to acknowledge Grant Williams, the chairperson of my Labour electorate committee (LEC), and the many members and volunteers who did amazing work to support our efforts in Tāmaki Makaurau. In particular, I want to acknowledge Francis and Kaiora Tipene, who led our LEC in the past and were key to many of my campaigns. One can’t mention Tāmaki Makaurau without mentioning Uncle John and Aunty Christine Panapa, who were approached by my father 12 years ago and asked to support me. They have been my backbone and my greatest strength through the highs and the lows of local and national politics. So to Aunty and Uncle, Tracey and Dave, Sonya and Dunn, and Johnny and the many mokopuna, I will for ever be indebted to you.

To the many others, in particular my good friend and brother Mr Andrew Kelly, for his support through many campaigns and through many trials, I owe you the greatest debt of gratitude. Our local electorate office worked hard to serve the people of Tāmaki Makaurau, and I would like to thank Shannan, Jade, Aunty Christine, Kaiora, Laughton, Jennae, Jaleeza, David, and Natalya.

Here in Parliament, can I start by thanking Mr Andrew Little, Dame Jacinda Ardern, and Chris Hipkins—or our man “Chippy”—for the belief they showed in me and the support that they gave me. To my first Parliament staff, Tim and Ben, who carried the office in my first term, I say thank you.

My second and third term saw me return as a Minister, and I was blessed to be given the opportunity to serve as Minister for ACC, Civil Defence, the Community and Voluntary Sector, Defence, Forestry, Tourism, Veterans, Whānau Ora, and Youth Development. Over that time, I also held the associate roles for ACC; Arts, Culture and Heritage; Environment; Health; Housing; Social Development; and Tourism—as you can see, I’m a sucker for punishment. I was blessed with an amazing team during this period, so I want to thank all of the private secretaries: Avi, Jason, Alana, Stefan, Lisa, Duncan, Alice, Matt, Sophie, Shane, Kiara, Tilly, Matt, Shaan, Jane, Tessa, Libby, Karen, Andrew, Megan, Jesse, Shane, Nat, Renee, Charles, Tom, Julia, Pernelle, Hina, Clyde, Alex, Rupene, Wetini, Libby, Huriwai, and Hikurangi.

During my time as a Minister, I had the privilege of working alongside a very close-knit and hard-working team. I start with Cami Van Ausdal for keeping our office running smoothly. Irena Smith, thank you for standing by me during some very challenging times, but, more importantly, for helping me learn and love my East Coast whakapapa—something that’s very hard to do as a Ngāpuhi. Phillip Little, who must be the only press secretary I know who has a fear of flying, thank you for your sharp eye and hard work, and for catching the bus to every hui we had across the country. To Penny Arrowsmith, thank you for hard work and attention to detail—iron certainly does sharpen iron. To Haidee Hemsley and Ellie Amiri, I couldn’t have asked for better senior private secretaries. Not only did you run the team; you ran my life. To Ethan Bryant, despite supporting terrible sports teams, it has been an honour to watch you grow from strength to strength, my friend. You have performed so well through so many challenges, and I say thank you.

Finally, to my closest advisor and tuahine Patisepa Helu, I recall your interview, sister, where I asked you if you were intimidated by me and you didn’t even flinch and, with that staunch Tongan stare, looked me straight in the eye and said, “Hell no!” For my entire time as a Minister, you led with great poise and dignity; thank you from the bottom of my heart.

This amazing group of people worked long hours to progress and implement policy through to national emergencies. However, before I come back to some of those matters we worked on, I want to briefly acknowledge the Parliamentary Rugby Team. Thank you to all I played alongside, to all I played against. I am proud to say that through rugby, we supported charities and kaupapa across the country.

I want to reflect on one particular story. Shortly after COVID-19, we were allowed to play rugby again. There was a charity game held in Wainuiōmata—as Ken Laban would say, the home of rugby league; however, on this occasion, it was rugby. Just before we all warmed up to head out on to the field, to duel on the rugby field, I got a phone call from Dame Jacinda Ardern, who said, “Peeni, if there is a hair out of place on Ashley Bloomfield’s head, you will pay the price.” Little did I know, he was playing openside flanker that day, the hardest-working position on the field, and as many in this room will know, despite not admitting it, the knees at this age aren’t meant for stepping. So the call was one-two cut; I’m the second five, and my job was to run straight. I ran straight, and as I looked up I saw Ashley Bloomfield, quickly pulled the handbrake, and stepped off my left foot, only to be cut in half by former All Black Rodney So‘oialo. I dare say part of me was left on the field that day. But it was one of those occasions that reminded us that despite our political affiliations, sport—and in this case rugby—was one of those things that brought us together.

To the many portfolios that I had—and I apologise because I can’t cover all of them, but there are some that I particularly want to speak to. For five years, I had the good fortune of being the associate health Minister, with a particular focus on Māori health. I want to say that we worked hard to make sure that equity was right across all of what we did. We succeeded in some places and, sadly, failed in others. One of the crowning moments for myself during that time was the establishment of Te Aka Whai Ora, the Māori Health Authority. I said at the launch of that particular kaupapa in Waitangi, amongst my people, “Kua oti taku mahi.”—“My job here is done.”

Well, it would turn out that we would return to this House, sadly, to dismantle something that these very hands had built. Yes, I feel sad, but I don’t, however, hold any grudges. Myself and Dr Shane Reti—who I acknowledge not just as my former family doctor but, of course, as my duelling buddy that day—went toe to toe in this House in rigorous debate on the matter of Māori health. As a testament to the good nature of the man, we walked across the floor here after a tough debate, and days of debate, gave each other a hongi and a hug, and said we have work to do for Māori health. So I lay that challenge to all who remain in this House, that Māori health, yes, is important. Why? Because equity matters. When we serve our people, we must make sure that equity continues to drive the decisions for the benefit of all and not the few.

During that time as an associate health Minister, I was fortunate to be part of the COVID response. Now, I know it’s a hot topic at the moment, so bear with me—hopefully, we can keep it civil. It was a particularly difficult time, one that can only be described as a challenging time for the entire country. We worked hard to make sure that people were looked after. We worked hard to make sure that people had what they needed to survive during that particular time. That is why the world looked to the New Zealand response as a world-leading response.

I can only say how proud I am of not just my colleagues but the many health workers right across the country who served our people during this challenging time. They all went above and beyond, and we must remember that at the heart of all decisions, while perfection was the pursuit—but rarely achieved—indeed, it was for the wellbeing of our people. I stand by that record and I’m proud of that record, and I will look back, no doubt fondly, over that time and reconnect with many who did the hard work.

I was once the civil defence Minister. It was a particularly hard portfolio, but one of those ones that I know others in this House, and indeed yourself, Mr Speaker, have had in the past. Well, there was a flood on the West Coast, which won’t surprise anybody in the House, and I happened to be down on the West Coast at this particular time. While waiting at the airport to return here to Wellington, we looked at the news and saw that Whakaari / White Island had blown. First, can I acknowledge those who were tragically lost, those families who are still grieving, those who are injured, and those who responded. They all stood up. They all stood up to make sure that whether you came from New Zealand or from offshore, we looked after you and this was a place that you could call home. Sadly, some of those people now call this their permanent home.

I was sitting in the airport and saw the pictures unfold across the television. The private secretary at that time was a man by the name of Stefan Weir—well known to many in this House. Without even looking or blinking, I turned around to talk to him and he had already run out on to the airstrip to stop a plane—that could have ended horribly by the way, but he ran out because he noticed an Air Force plane and he stood in front of it to stop it. He convinced the pilots—I don’t know how, but he must have had a bit of whitebait in his bag. He convinced the pilots to fly us to Wellington and to pick up the Prime Minister after a briefing and head on to Whakatāne.

It was one of those occasions where I had the good fortune of sitting alongside our then Prime Minister, Dame Jacinda Ardern, to witness, firsthand, her poise, her calm, and her ability to discern what needed to happen at that point in time. For anybody who has been in those situations—if you can imagine—we walked into a room where there would have been north of 60 advisers and support staff. Well, the Prime Minister then turned to me and said, “Peeni, surely not everybody needs to be here.” So I stood up and asked, “Right, hands up if you are this, this, this, or this.”; everybody put their hand up. The hard part of that was actually making sure that we had the right people to fulfil the hard task ahead of us. The images and the work that we got through on that day will forever be burnt in my memory. It was a particularly tough time. It’s a time that, when I reflect upon it, will be something that we will no doubt continue to talk about long into the future.

There is a lot I can say about the Civil Defence portfolio, but one thing I know is sure: our first responders in this country are amazing people. From the top of the North to the bottom of the South, regardless of what the issue might be, they are the ones who, as everybody runs away from the emergency, they are the ones running towards it.

In 2017, I found myself the Minister for Whānau Ora. It was a tough initiation, you can imagine. My auntie Dame Naida Glavish, my other auntie Dame Iritana, my other auntie Dame Tariana, and my other auntie Dame Areta all of a sudden didn’t talk to me anymore. In fact, they were quite explicit. They rang the Prime Minister and said, “We want a meeting.” The meeting sort of went like this—I don’t know, I wasn’t invited, but I certainly heard about it afterwards—they said, “We don’t want Peeni as a Minister, he’s not good enough.” And then they came out and had a cup of tea with me and said, “How’s the whānau, boy?” Anyway, after that meeting, we were able to see past our differences and look towards a kaupapa that I believe is truly revolutionising the way that we look after families here in Aotearoa, not just for Māori but for one and all.

We invested heavily in Whānau Ora, and it couldn’t have come at a better time as we looked towards the response during COVID. I’m proud of the work that we did. We looked towards breaking barriers across silos in public sectors to make sure that when somebody needed help, their entirety was served—not just the immediate action that they needed then and there but in a holistic approach that made sure that not only did we look after one, we looked after their entire whānau.

I’m really proud of that time I was an associate housing Minister. We had record investment in homes across the country. I made it a point that regardless of whether or not we were opening one home or many homes, it was my job to be there to celebrate with whānau who moved into them. Why? Because I firmly believe, today, that when people have somewhere warm, dry, and safe to live, it will transform the wellbeing of that family and, indeed, the face of that community. I travelled in some of the most rural places around the country and, of course, in urban settings, and I’m proud to say that the work we did there continues today under my tuakana Tama Potaka—thank you.

Mr Speaker, I was fortunate to be the defence Minister, and you’ll know this to be true: the Defence Force looks to you and tries to discover which one is your spirit service. Of course, the competition is fierce across the army, the navy, and the air force. It just so happened, because of my whakapapa and my grandfather, that the army won out. As a lieutenant colonel who returned the 28^th Māori Battalion, it went without saying that I had a particular fondness for the army. In that time, I managed to witness the amazing work of our Defence Force personnel here in New Zealand and, indeed, around the world. I couldn’t think of a better force to continue to look after its citizens and our country during these particularly challenging times. They are amazing people. Most people, when they think about defence, think about ships and guns. What I ask is for everybody in this House to think about people. They are people—they are people—and they are amazing people.

So that was a particular portfolio that I enjoyed. It gave me the opportunity to engage on an international stage. It was a stage that I relished, a stage that I enjoyed, and I made some amazing friends. One of them is the current Deputy Prime Minister of Australia, Mr Richard Marles. I can tell a story, and I’m sure he won’t mind: after a particular conference in Cambodia, it was our job to, of course, go and play golf. While on the golf course—Mr Miles, for those of you who know, is an exceptional golfer. In fact, I showed up two minutes before tee time; he actually showed up two hours before to warm up. Straight off the tee, he proved that he was going to win the day. None the less, we continued with the day and as one of my many slices made it close to the edge and into the rough, he happened to land his ball not too far from mine. As we both chatted and walked towards our balls, I noticed a snake on the ground. It’s the only time I was scared in front of an Australian. To his credit, Richard Marles literally grabbed the snake and threw it away. I said, “Thank you, Richard.”, but still took a drop somewhere else.

It’s those memories that I carry with me beyond this place. In my maiden speech, I called Parliament “an august institution”. With all of my heart, I still believe that to be true. I have seen this place work hard for the benefit of this country. I see it as a true mechanism of change, and we must protect it as a bastion of representative democracy when the world is turning against it. I am not surprised to see, however, the waning of trust and belief in this institution. We have a role and a responsibility, each and every one of us, to rebuild that trust.

Can I impart some of my thoughts on this matter: this House must make our select committees a true platform of refining and making legislation representative and truly allowing the voice of the people to be heard. I also believe that we must work to devolve power to communities and families. The minute we release that power responsibly, our communities will thrive and grow. We must move beyond “gotcha” style politics and actually engage across parties with mana and integrity. It sounds old-fashioned, I know, but he mana tō te kupu [words are binding]. My ancestors believed a word is binding and means something. Many times in this House I have heard my ancestor Meri Ngāroto, of the Far North, quoted. She uttered the phrase that many in this House have used: “He aha te mea nui o tēnei ao? Māku e kī atu, he tangata, he tangata, he tangata.”

[“What is the most important thing in this world? I will tell you, it is people, it is people, it is people.”]

I want to remind everybody in this House that we must humanise this House. We must make sure that we don’t stand here out on an island but, more importantly, as a community that looks towards the welfare and prosperity of this country.

In conclusion, to my family: to my son, I look forward to supporting you in your health career. I apologise for the fact that while I was a Minister, you had to listen to all of your colleagues giving you advice to hand on to your father. I love you, Tawera, and I’m here for you. To my daughter Tahunakura Uruwhakareia Henare, I can’t wait to be your biggest cheerleader on the sidelines of all that you do. You have sacrificed much, and I want you to know that I love you. To my baby Maraea Te Aweawe o Te Rangi Henare, I look forward to seeing you grow and blossom into an amazing wahine toa. I love you.

E te tau, e takutāringa [To my partner, my darling], for too long, my dreams have been your dreams. It is now time for your dreams to be our dreams. I look forward to the next chapter and all that it will bring.

To my mum, Te Hemoata Henare, thank you for teaching me patience and resilience. To my siblings, I look forward to—someday soon, perhaps—standing in the ranks of the haka whānau of Waerenga Te Kaha. In the second row, of course; oh no, maybe the middle front row. Hoi anō.

Nearly 11 years ago, my father left my office in this very building for the final time. It was a particularly difficult time, but I am so glad that we were able to take him home, where he lies beside his beloved mother and all of our whānau who have passed beyond the veil. I say to him: thank you. Thank you for being a guiding hand as I felt your wairua [spirit] with me on this epic journey. It is now time for us to go home.

I suspect that I won’t be the last Henare, however, to stand in this House and represent our whānau and our people. Until such time, we will return to support them. Pāpā, me hoki tāua.

[Father, let us return.]

In my time here, I made 545 speeches, and I said 716,675 words in this House—all of huge mana and integrity. I’ve been asked to withdraw and apologise once by Speaker Rurawhe—I’ll be taking that up with him—and, of course, the wee matter of a haka that was addressed by the Privileges Committee. As I have done many times in this House and, indeed, around marae across the country, I say: Mr Speaker, tēnā koe. Ki te Whare e noho nei, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Mr Speaker, my acknowledgments to you. To everyone here in the House, I acknowledge you all.]

Applause

Waiata—I Taku Tūranga Ake

Haka

SPEAKER: The House stands adjourned until 7.30.

Sitting suspended from 5.55 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Bills

Carter Trust Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The House is resumed. We’re on the second reading of the Carter Trust Amendment Bill.

JAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First) (19:30): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support the Carter Trust Amendment Bill in its second reading. Charles Rooking Carter is the reason we’re here tonight talking about this bill, and we’re really fortunate that we had people in our community like Charles Rooking Carter and the legacy that he’s actually left. I want to congratulate Mike Butterick for supporting this bill through to the Social Services and Community Committee. You’ve done a great job to champion this all the way through the committee. I also just want to recognise our first reading speaker Andy Foster, who’s recently moved to the Wairarapa and who gave a very good overview of the reasons around this amendment bill.

Charles Rooking Carter was an amazing person. He was a builder, a contractor, a farmer. He was a politician in this House not that long ago, and he was a very generous New Zealander. As we realise, he died in 1986, but he was a pivotal leader in the Wairarapa. The Carter Home for Aged Poor Men is what he originally set up, and, as we know, over a number of decades, the purpose there has changed, but that still runs today. The Carter Society now runs this setup, and they’ve got roughly around about ten units, the retirement village, and 40 independent senior rental units, so it is quite substantial in that sense.

This legislation in front of us is to make it a more efficient way of running the legacy of Charles Rooking Carter and to help the operations of the Carter Court home. What we’re trying to do here also is so that the Minister of Health will no longer have to approve any changes. That will be taken away, because the society will then be running this under their steam. The bill removes, as I say, the Carter Trust, but it gives a small amount of money—and it is, in today’s money, $50,000—directly to the Anglican Parish of Carterton, and the Carter Society receives the rest of that money. It is substantial. Who knows the value of that—it could be somewhere in the tens of millions of dollars. I think we estimated in our first reading around $12 million worth of assets.

Through the select committee hearings, we received just the 12 submissions; two of them were received orally through the hearing process. Obviously, the Carter Trust was the promoter of the bill, but we did hear from the Public Trust that is the trustee. The barrister who represented the Public Trust and the Carter Trust, David McLay, came in on a number of occasions and talked through the changes for the Carter Society and to the trust.

The two issues that I want to raise that were quite topical through the discussions are the upkeep of Mr Carter’s grave. We heard through those discussions that the Carter Society produced an affidavit to the committee agreeing to the upkeep of that grave. In the piece of legislation here, you don’t see that, but there is an affidavit in behind that gives the upkeep of that grave, and I think it’s very, very important. The other piece that the committee did deal with was the proposed amendments around removing section 12, which was around the fees. As I say, the Minister of Health is no longer needing to be involved. What we did find, through the Residential Care and Disability Support Services Act 2018—that’s the set, nationally agreed maximum contribution for contracted care services, and that sets the rates. What we find now is the Carter Court care home is a signatory to that Act, so there’s no need for ministerial involvement in setting the fees. That’s the reason section 12 was removed.

In closing, I just want to say that New Zealand First supports the intention of the bill, and we admire the foresight of Charles Rooking Carter in helping vulnerable New Zealanders. New Zealand First has a long and proud history of supporting our regions, and the Carter Trust has been a been a pillar of the Wairarapa for over 130 years. This legislation provides the ways and means to ensure that the assets intended for the aged poor continue to benefit the seniors in the most cost-effective way possible. On that, I commend the bill to the House.

MIKE DAVIDSON (Green) (19:36): Kia ora e te Pīka. I’ve been in Parliament for a few months now and been in this House a number of times, and I think the only thing I’ve learnt from that side of the House is how to do a short call. I support this bill.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland) (19:36): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise on the second reading of the Carter Trust Amendment Bill. I had the privilege of chairing the Social Services and Community Committee, which heard submissions on this bill. I want to take the opportunity to also acknowledge that it’s been sponsored by the great MP for Wairarapa, Mike Butterick. The Carter Trust was a charitable trust established through the will of Charles Rooking Carter, and I do want to join other colleagues in the House in just acknowledging his foresight in generating income to establish and maintain a home for aged poor men, as it was called at the time. This bill will basically allow this to be modernised and for his intention to carry on.

There were a couple of small amendments we made in the select committee. One was that we were concerned about the provision for the upkeep of Mr Carter’s grave. It wasn’t something that he had in his original will, but we think, over time, that’s clearly become important, so we wanted to ensure that would continue, and we received assurances that it would and were satisfied that that did not need to be included in this legislation. The other was whether the Ministry of Health needed to be consulted in setting the fees for long-term residential care. We noted that that’s already controlled by the Residential Care and Disability Support Services Act 2018, which sets a nationally agreed maximum contribution for contracted care services. We’re satisfied that that’s already addressed under legislation and didn’t need to be included in this legislation, so we recommended that be taken out to ensure that this can be administered as well as possible.

The final thing I would say, and this something that the Parliament may well consider at another point in time, is whether an omnibus bill would be appropriate at some point to deal with bills of this nature. We do have many of these kinds of Acts on the books, and I think there is scope to do something about them in the future. Apart from that, this has been a very good process—very collegial at the select committee—and I commend it to the House.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert) (19:38): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise in support of this bill. I join my colleague on the other side of the House in supporting the idea of perhaps streamlining the way we deal with these bills. They are important, but I think that that could be an improvement made.

I also just wanted to say, as the spokesperson for community and voluntary services for the Labour Party, that it’s actually really important that people like Mr Carter make these kinds of bequests. We have a whole lot of people who are baby boomers, and they are people who it would be lovely to see look at things like this and see that we handle them carefully. We adhere to the purpose in the great sense, and it would be great to see people follow suit and generously leave bequests, because we desperately need to boost philanthropy in this country. Thank you, I commend the bill to the House.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini) (19:39): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It really is a pleasure to be able to contribute in the second reading of this bill, the Carter Trust Amendment Bill. I didn’t have the pleasure of being on the Social Services and Community Committee with my colleagues, but I know that good work is being done here. I want to commend my colleague and my friend Mike Butterick for shepherding this bill.

I also would like to acknowledge—Mr Butterick brought it to my attention, because he’s in the second-best electorate in the country after Takanini. I’d like to welcome Mr David McLay, the legal practitioner, also helping with the good work being done here. He’s in the House tonight. Thank you for making your way here, but also thank you for the guidance and the expertise. It really has been instrumental with the kaupapa and taking it forward. There’s a lot of complexities with situations like this. It’s good to know, hearing from my friend Mike Butterick, that you were able to alleviate some of the concerns and keep the wairua, the underpinning, of the original intent of Mr Carter with these changes.

With that, I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The next call is a split call—call No. 10. I think it’s between the Labour Party and the National Party.

Greg Fleming: Mr Speaker? Yeah, it was a split call.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): It was a split call. Usually the Labour Party goes first, but we’ll go ahead—Greg Fleming.

GREG FLEMING (National—Maungakiekie) (19:41): I rise to take a short call on this. I just acknowledge the contribution of my friend and colleague Joseph Mooney. I just want to echo his suggestion that it might be possible in future for these kinds of bills—the best use of the House—for them to be dealt with in the manner that he suggested. On that one, can I just mihi to the whole House in the way that today’s members’ day is being progressed and the amount of legislation that we are going through rapidly. It’s fantastic, and long may it last. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) (19:41): Thank you very much. I rise in full support of this. This is long overdue, and the Carter Society do tremendous work in the Carterton community. They’ve been working on this for quite some time, and I’m really pleased to see—acknowledging Mike Butterick for bringing this on their behalf. I’m pleased to see that it has the full support of the House. I understand that the next bill on the Order Paper is likely to have the same, and I’m confident, on the bill that follows that, at least the discussion will be done in a respectful manner, and that’s exactly how a members’ day should be conducted.

This bill will make a tremendous difference to the trust, who have been constrained by the rules that were set a very long time ago. It is a valid question as to why we need to debate legislation in the House for individual trusts that simply just want to evolve with the modern requirements of the needs in their community, but nevertheless we are here. I’m pleased to speak on behalf of it and I’m looking forward to it passing.

CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki) (19:42): I rise in support of the Carter Trust Amendment Bill and would also like to echo my colleagues and the wonderful work of Mike Butterick, MP for Wairarapa, for bringing this to the House—obviously, a very important bill. I’d just like to also acknowledge the Social Services and Community Committee members and Joseph for his comments as well.

Obviously, we really support philanthropy and the work of Charles Rooking Carter and would like to acknowledge him, the centre of this bill, as well. This allows his legacy to carry on, so I commend it to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Trust Horizon (Trust Variation) Bill

First Reading

DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast) (19:43): I move, That the Trust Horizon (Trust Variation) Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Social Services and Community Committee to consider the bill.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s my great privilege to stand here today and bring to the House the Trust Horizon (Trust Variation) Bill as a private bill. As the MP for the East Coast, which includes all of the Eastern Bay of Penty, I’m honoured to be shepherding this bill through the parliamentary process for the benefit of all the people, the community, and the organisations of the Eastern Bay of Penty.

By way of background, Trust Horizon is a local charitable trust with investments that include 100 percent ownership of Horizon Networks and Horizon Energy Distribution Ltd. Trust Horizon first began back in 1994, originally named the Bay of Plenty Electricity Consumer Trust. It was formed with the goal of keeping a portion of the local electricity company under community ownership. In 2015, the trust obtained 100 percent ownership of Horizon Energy Group, which includes the lines company that distributes electricity to homes and businesses throughout the Eastern Bay of Plenty.

The trust has distributed over $51 million to worthwhile energy-related causes in the district since its inception. However, its governing deed was drafted more than two decades ago, and while it has served the community well, the trust now faces structural and operational limitations that impede its ability to meet contemporary needs.

This private bill seeks to amend the terms of the trust’s deed to allow it to support a broader range of charitable activities within its district, consisting of Whakatāne, Kawerau, Ōpōtiki, and Kaingaroa, among the most deprived communities in New Zealand. It will seek to amend its deed to be able to apply in the future to the High Court for any further amendments so it does not have to come back to Parliament. The trust is not asking for unchecked powers. Future changes will still be independently tested and approved by the High Court.

In the Eastern Bay of Plenty, there are only a certain number of energy-related purposes available to support within the district, which has led to 30 years of static grant distribution, despite population growth. By the end of this year, the trust would have distributed around $55 million. It estimates the change as part of this bill could mean an additional $1 million to $2 million a year available for the community in the Eastern Bay of Plenty. This supports community and sporting organisations and the many volunteers who keep the community’s not-for-profit sector going.

At the same time, the district includes some of the most deprived areas of New Zealand, with many worthy charitable causes that could benefit from the trust’s support. Community wellbeing goes well beyond energy, and the limitation on making grants only for energy-related purposes restricts the trust’s ability to respond to changing community needs or to support charities, societies, and other worthy groups that do not meet this definition.

With the present limitation on energy-related purposes, the trust has been able to grant about $900 per person in its district over the last 30 years. By contrast, its neighbour, the Rotorua Trust, which has broader charitable purposes, has been able to grant about $2,000 per person in its district over the same period.

In considering the need for change, the trustees have traversed many conversations. They consulted widely, including conducting a poll which 3,625 people responded to, and 80.7 percent of those people supported the changes. Those who supported the bill supported a wider range of social, educational, cultural, and environmental initiatives to include a variety of community projects and groups. Of those who opposed the changes, many felt it might result in higher power prices for consumers, which largely comes from the confusion about the difference between the trust and the electricity distribution company Horizon Energy.

Related to this, the trustees considered a variation of the energy-related purposes under Part 3 of the Charitable Trusts Act 1957. However, the ability to vary charitable purposes under that Act is limited. The trustees also explored a consumer distribution model, but as it’s a charitable trust, providing small regular payments to all electricity users across the district is not considered a charitable activity. The trust instead granted up to $2,000 to support charitable causes with energy bills and co-funded the EECA Warmer Kiwi Homes initiative to make insulation and heating free for those eligible. This equates to, on average, $1,000 for insulation and $700 for heating.

The trust has been integral in insulating more than 50 percent of all houses in the district through its insulation contribution, creating energy savings in healthy homes for past, current, and future generations. It provides low-interest lending for organisations wanting to install solar and has deployed over $1 million in funding to date for this purpose. This includes equipment such as electric lawn mowers, rollers, mobility vans, school EV chargers, community bike chargers, and very much more. They’ve done as much as they can in the electricity space. The trust supports local groups with energy transition, funding projects at around $1 million to $2 million in granting a year.

The reason I talk about all of these things is to demonstrate they have literally exhausted the electricity-related projects, and the funds continue to accumulate due to the narrow nature of the trust. The trustees have now agreed that a wider charitable purpose would be the most efficient way for it to assist with that need, and a private bill is the only way to achieve that goal.

It has, in numerous numbers, letters of support from all of the leadership agencies in the region. It has good support across the district. I think the trust’s intention is to unlock transformational change by enabling more funding that positively impacts communities and supports a wider range of community projects and groups across Whakatāne, Kawerau, Ōpōtiki, and the Kaingaroa Village.

There are a number of people to thank, but I think I’ll leave those for the right of reply and just leave that for now and commend the bill to the House. We are very excited in the Eastern Bay of Plenty to unlock some more funding and potentially more opportunities for our communities and organisations. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Hon JO LUXTON (Labour) (19:50): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call on this Trust Horizon (Trust Variation) Bill. The Labour Party supports this piece of legislation, although we are keen to see what comes about at the select committee process because we have some things that we would like to see perhaps considered at that time.

This particular piece of legislation just simply amends the trust’s deed. The trust was set up at the time as part of the energy reforms in the early 1990s, and their remit was quite narrow. It was quite narrow insofar as they just had to be able to support applications for funding that related to energy specific projects. Now, this trust is in an area in New Zealand where some of our highest needs are, so what they are asking for is the ability to broaden the scope for whom they can grant funding. To me that makes sense because what we know is that our community, local charities, and our local volunteer groups have had funding access cut and stripped out so much that every organisation is desperately trying to seek funding from some agency wherever they can get it. This actually does make sense in order for the communities that this trust serves to be able to access additional funding for projects that they deem worthy.

Hon James Meager: Not very collegial—that’s not a good sign for the alcohol debate.

Hon JO LUXTON: If you would like to make a contribution, feel free to make a call, Mr Meager.

However, there are some things that we would like to understand and see perhaps through the committee process. The trust has said that the applications for energy-related grants is somewhat limited despite population growth; they’re not seeing those applications come through. We’d be interested to explore if there’s any scope for the trust to support local residences, businesses, and groups with energy independence, for example, through initiatives such as solar power.

This proposed bill has some really good aspects to it in that it will look to serve the community, as I said before, where there are some real deprivation issues. We’ve seen some real success stories with other trusts—for example, the likes of Trust Tairāwhiti; when they were formed through the same sort of era and issues, didn’t have the specific clause in it that said that they were only mandated to be able to provide grants to those around the energy-specific area. They have gone on to achieve fantastic, fantastic things and support the community in incredible ways.

We are supportive of this piece of legislation. We do see the benefits that it will bring to the community, and so we support it at this point, particularly to the select committee process, and we look forward to hearing from all those organisations and people that will look to benefit from it so we can get a really good picture of how it will benefit those communities more specifically. So I commend this piece of legislation to the House.

SCOTT WILLIS (Green) (19:53): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. I rise also to support this bill. I want to thank Dana Kirkpatrick for engaging so productively on this bill to help me understand just how valuable it would be to make sure this passes.

I certainly have had the experience of working in the environmental non-governmental sector (ENGO) and I understand the value of the small grants that charitable trusts can make to the ENGO sector. Today, just to check where this bill was going, I took the initiative to talk to Derek Caudwell, the CE of the trust to understand what their intention was. I was really pleased to hear that this isn’t going to leave behind all of those energy projects that the trust is already supporting. I think that’s really important to note because there is so much to do with energy and energy is fundamental to how we do things. If the trust is going to keep doing that work, supporting the sustainability options, for example, in Tauranga, supporting the 20 Degrees movement to ensure that we have healthy homes, to ensure any more work for Warmer Kiwi Homes. This is great stuff. And in fact, I heard—I was told that they’ve been doing grants to help people move away from fossil fuel vehicles to EVs; they’ve been doing EV chargers for schools; they’ve been moving people off fossil heating systems to heat pumps; they’ve got $1 million that they’re putting into solar on schools, marae, and council buildings. They’re already doing a really huge amount in this space.

What I also heard is that they want to do that and other things such as operational grants to small-scale ENGOs. And this we know in this day and age where people are really struggling and our charities are finding that they are overwhelmed with people in hardship or difficult environmental problems, those operational grants, which are so hard to get, that is what’s going to be enabled by this bit of legislation.

I think we all understand that Eastern Bay of Plenty has some great deprivation issues, and if we can do something to enable better community outcomes and community development through this bill, then let us do that. I’ve had the experience of the other trusts that operate in my jurisdiction down south, the Central Lakes Trust and the Otago Community Trust, both of whom were the recipient of those reforms from 1992. They have a wider mandate, and they do some great things in our community, so I can see a future where the Horizons Trust will be able to have that wider mandate.

I’m also very, very pleased that, interestingly, they are one of the organisations that both donates or provides resourcing to Sustainability Options, a member of the Community Energy Network. They are themselves a member of the Community Energy Network, so there’s a nice grouping there of people who are working for our community, working at the flax roots, and making sure that things happen.

Finally, I had a really interesting conversation because, of course, I am interested in the energy side of things and I want that to continue, and I heard that Horizons Trust is going to keep working and they want to support the Community Energy Activator. This is really important because across the House, I’ve got to say, one big mistake the Government made was killing off the community energy fund. Now we’re looking to the sector to provide that, and Horizon Trust is looking to do just that, which pleases me no end. We are very happy to support this bill, and Mr Speaker, Dana, we commend this bill to the House.

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT) (19:58): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a good day to see such leadership from the Eastern Bay of Plenty coming together and lobbying their local MP, who I think took not much arm twisting to take this bill on, because getting some money into the community is what Dana Kirkpatrick is trying to do.

That community we’re talking about is the Eastern Bay of Plenty. Now, the local MP who’s ably shepherding this bill through talked about Kawerau, Ōpōtiki, Kaingaroa, and Whakatāne, but you know, there’s other places which I hold a special pride—

Hon James Meager: Galatea—what about Galatea?

CAMERON LUXTON: Galatea, Mr Meager; Murupara, we were talking about Kaingaroa village, but there’s Mininui, Ruatahuna—all these places that need a bit of love in this House, and I’m happy to give it to them.

I have to tell a story, about my old mate Cannon, who decided one day that he was going to trim the trees on the front of his place and happened to take out the Horizon lines which were providing the entire valley with electricity. We went dark for a couple of days, and I think he might have hurt the profits of Horizon’s lines company, which may have meant that we didn’t quite get $200 million or maybe a bit more sitting in assets to be distributed, but because of the hard work of Dana, what is in there is going to be distributed and I commend it to the House.

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First) (19:59): I’m delighted to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support this bill, and congratulations to Dana Kirkpatrick for bringing the bill to us, but also congratulations to Horizon Trust, not only for developing the bill and the way they’ve gone about it. They really, really clearly signalled it to their community. It’s up there in lights in their annual report. They had a poll in their community, and I don’t know if that member said how many votes were cast, but 3,469 were cast and 80.7 percent said yes, they liked the idea of this bill. So it’s got really, really strong support, and you can see the reason for that support.

As Dana Kirkpatrick has already said in introducing this bill, the range of different activities that are able to be supported by the trust has been limited, basically because they’ve done most of it, and you can see the investment made in schools, LED lighting for rugby clubs and so on. Actually, one I did like—and I’m not quite sure how it fits with the energy—was investment in supporting New Zealand AutoTraps’ work. AutoTraps is another wonderful creative organisation in Whakatane that does predator control. They have broadened out a little bit this is about trying to allow them to broaden out much more and to be able to give much more benefit to the community as a whole.

Like many others around here who have been involved in some of these organisations that give grants, I know that when you have an organisation that is really focused on the community, is really embedded in that community and has a certain amount of money to be able to give to that community, it is careful and thoughtful and it engages with the community in thinking about where that money goes to give the maximum possible benefit, and I’m sure that is exactly what the trust is doing,

There are a couple of other things that I did want to note. The bill says that the trust now has more than $200 million dollars in assets—$207 million, according to the annual report, but $173 million of that is essentially the ownership of the lines network that is there. I hope that in your right of reply you will be able to cover off that the trust has a responsibility to maintain the asset on an ongoing basis to make sure not only that this generation but generations are able to continue to benefit from that. I think of the bill we passed not that long ago for the Auckland Council where they had set up, essentially, the idea of a perpetual fund that will benefit not just this generation but future generations of Aucklanders, and likewise I would hope that this will continue to benefit future generations of people in the Easten Bay of Plenty.

There are a couple of other things I wanted to reflect on. During the debate on the last bill, the Carter Trust Amendment Bill, comment was made about omnibus bills, and maybe there’s a whole bunch of different organisations that are limited by, as in this case, a trust deed. I have had this conversation at least in passing—whether there are other organisations, particularly of this nature, which are similarly limited and might want to put their hands up and ask if they can get their trust deed expanded if that’s what they want to be able to do.

I think I’ve said all that I needed to say on this. I think it’s a great bill and congratulations again to all who were involved with it, and I look forward to seeing the submissions and to seeing its passage through the House.

Hon JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata) (20:03): What a great day for local representation—a bill has been brought forward by a local member of Parliament with passion for her community to do the right thing, to support her community. This is what you can get, New Zealand, when you have great, strong local advocacy and local representation. It’s been an excellent debate with support across the House, no sniping, no politics. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) (20:03): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. These private bills are an interesting beast, and there is a real question to be asked about whether the House’s time is best used in what is essentially a minor trust variation expanding the powers of the trust to distribute money beyond its original purposes. The High Court is perfectly able to do that, but efforts being created by Parliament is not seen as within the ambit of the court’s powers. So I’m very happy to see this bill go to select committee and have a good look at the proposed trust variations, see what’s good for the community, which is ultimately what this is about, because it’s a community asset in terms of this electricity company that we’re talking about. So let’s send if off to select committee as soon as we can and see what happens. Kia ora.

MIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa) (20:04): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’ve recently had the privilege of visiting the Eastern Bay of Plenty with the outstanding member of Parliament Dana Kirkpatrick and have seen firsthand the high esteem in which she’s held within her community. I just congratulate Dana on bringing this bill before the House.

I note that the trust estimates a further $1 million to $2 million potential contributions annually into their community on top of their already very generous local support. I commend them on their dedication to their community and I commend this bill to the House.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour) (20:05): Thank you, Mr Speaker. When I knew I was going to be speaking on this bill, I went to have a look at what the Horizon Trust does, and I have to say I’m very impressed with the work they are currently doing. I’m looking forward to see what they are able to do with the passing of this bill through all stages.

It seems to me that they’re almost on that journey now, when you look at what they’re doing, when you see that they have apprenticeships, they’re looking into making certain that people have warm, dry homes. They are investing in businesses like Whakatōhea Mussels. There’s a whole lot that they are doing and I’m really excited.

I have personal knowledge of what a trust such as this can do, with our western Bay of Plenty trust and the difference they can make for people in need, and I look forward to seeing what this trust is able to do when they’re able to expand their operations. I’m looking forward to seeing those questions coming through in the select committee and seeing the representation made. I too have no hesitation in commending this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Five-minute right of reply—Dana Kirkpatrick.

DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast) (20:06): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just want to cover a couple of things quickly just to reinforce the two main parts of this bill: to broaden the funding from energy-related purposes to charitable purposes, so to widen the scope; and, secondly, the bill will alter the trust deed so it can be updated in the future by a trip to the High Court, not a trip to the House, which will please Mr Webb no end, I’m sure.

The trustees have worked very hard to get to this point. I just think there’s a list of a few people who need to be thanked: the settlor of the Trust Horizon Energy Distribution Ltd and their board who support the changes; the local councils, iwi and others who have written to trustees and supported the bill; the fellow charitable trusts Bay Trust, Tauranga and Western BOP Community Trust (TECT), the Rotorua Trust, and Philanthropy New Zealand who have supported this bill, and in the case of TECT and the Rotorua Trust, they’ve already made similar changes to their deeds to those being proposed today.

Finally, I mention the trust’s chief executive, Derek Caudwell, the staff advisers and trustees past and present who have had the vision and conviction to put this before Parliament to unlock greater funding support for their community, including Allison Windley and Robyn Forrester; legal advisers James Every-Palmer KC, Jonathan Orpin-Dowell from Stout Street Chambers, and Brooke Courtney from Sharp Tudhope; and trustees David Glover, David Bulley, Edwina O’Brien, Kevin Hennessey, Merrin Stables, and Yvonne Boyes. I was also asked to pass on great thanks to the Parliamentary Counsel Office, who offered great support, and the Clerk’s Office, who were instrumental in helping guide the trustees and us through the initial stages of getting this to this point.

I want to thank all of these people for the opportunity to do this job for the community. It’s a great privilege and an honour and I look forward to the select process. I commend the bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Referral to Select Committee

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor) (20:08): The question is, That the Trust Horizon (Trust Variation) Bill be considered by the Social Services and Community Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to Social Services and Community Committee.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Sales on Anzac Day morning, Good Friday, Easter Sunday, and Christmas Day) Amendment Bill.

Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Sales on Anzac Day Morning, Good Friday, Easter Sunday, and Christmas Day) Amendment Bill

Committee of the Whole House

Parts 1 and 2, Schedule, and clauses 1 and 2

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, the House is in committee on the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Sales on Anzac Day morning, Good Friday, Easter Sunday, and Christmas Day) Amendment Bill. Members, before we come to the debate on Part 1, I have determined that the subject of any votes on this bill will be treated as a conscience issue. I know there are members who want a personal vote and I am prepared to accept one when we come to voting. The process we are going to follow once we reach voting is that I am going to put the question, I am going to announce the result. At that stage, any member can ask for a personal vote.

We now come to Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 3 to 8—“Amendments to Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012”—and the Schedule. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

David MacLeod: Point of order, Mr Chair. I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one debate.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Is there any objection to that? There seems to be none. The question is that Parts 1 and 2, the Schedule, and clauses 1 and 2 stand part.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) (20:10): Thank you very much. I thought I’d start by making a few comments and acknowledging the role that so many members have played to get this bill to this part. I want to acknowledge the way in which the debate has unfolded thus far, because we’re talking about alcohol and it is also linked to religious views, and those are two matters that came up during the select committee. What has been really encouraging throughout the discussion of this bill is that whilst there have been opposing views aired in this House, they’ve been received with respect and I just want to acknowledge that because I think it stands out.

The intent of this bill is quite clear: those hospitality, on-licensed businesses that are already allowed to operate on Good Friday, Easter Sunday, and Christmas Day will be able to continue doing so, but under the same licensing conditions that they operate on, on all the other days of the year. It also enables RSAs to be able to serve members of the public after Anzac Day services on the morning of Anzac Day without having to apply for a special licence.

I want to also acknowledge the work that was done at the Justice Committee. Every party was well represented during the select committee, and where we landed, I think, has improved the bill in the sense that it’s increased its chances of passing. I think that’s an important point because a number of members have come to me from across the House and said if the Justice Committee hadn’t made the changes that it had—which I fully endorse—then the support that they lent to the bill to get it to select committee probably wouldn’t have been put to it at second reading. I think that’s important.

So whilst the bill was originally more expansive, if you like—not by much, but it did include those off-licences that were already allowed to operate—the select committee process drew that back to only include on-licences, and I am comfortable with that on the basis that I’m confident it will have the numbers to pass. If it does change, I don’t think it will. Given that this is the only bill to suggest some changes to trading on Easter to get this far, I would hate to see it fall over at this point. So I’ll leave my commentary there.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty) (20:13): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. Firstly, I just want to echo what the member in charge has just said about the legislation. When we talk about alcohol in this place, it is a really challenging topic for a lot of people to discuss and it’s important that when we do it, we do it politely but we also do it with the intention of the legislation.

There are a number of amendments that are on the Table that I want to talk through, tonight; a couple in the name of my colleague Cameron Luxton, and a couple from New Zealand First—Jamie Arbuckle and Andy Foster—and I am keen to get an understanding from, firstly, the member in charge of the bill, the Hon Kieran McAnulty, around his thoughts to the four amendments that sit in front of us.

I want to start with Cameron Luxton’s first Amendment Paper 532, and it talks about trading hours on Anzac Day, Good Friday, and Easter Sundays, but it talks about on-licences, because when the legislation was first brought to the House, it was inclusive of both on-licences and off-licences. This was a change made by the Justice Committee. The views that we heard on the Justice Committee were: what is the intention behind the legislation? What’s the problem we’re trying to fix here? Is it the anomaly of the experiences that our RSAs across New Zealand go through every year on Anzac Day? Is it the situation of what is a fulsome meal on Good Friday or Easter Sunday? I can’t remember the exact phrase they used there: substantial meal. Is that what we’re trying to remedy here or are we trying to remedy that supermarkets can open and sell booze on Easter Sunday, for example?

So Cameron Luxton’s Amendment Paper 532 would allow on-licences to be able to sell alcohol through those times. I’m keen, firstly, to get an understanding from the member around whether he would support that amendment or not. I certainly hold a personal view and I’ll share it now while I’m on my feet. We made this fix on the Justice Committee for this exact reason: to remove on-licences and to solely focus on the off-licences and the clear anomaly we have across New Zealand around our bars, our restaurants, and our cafes, and things like that. You know what I’m meaning. I have it the other way around.

So I’m keen to understand from the member and charge around his thoughts on that amendment and whether it’s something he would support or not, and whether we can then take the debate for forward from there.

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT) (20:16): Mr Speaker, thank you very much. It is an important bill and I’ve acknowledged, first up, the way in which the Hon Kieran McAnulty has engaged with this topic, with the House, with the Justice Committee, and with individual members across it. I’d also like to acknowledge his opening statement saying that there is a range of views across the House and across New Zealand on these matters, and so the respectful nature in which the debate has been held and the conversation has been held, I think, has been right.

I would first like to take this opportunity, in my first address—because I am planning on having a couple here, as I have a couple of Amendment Papers on the Table—to talk about Amendment Paper 532, which my colleague Tom Rutherford has just finished addressing. The Amendment Paper is trying to make sure that what is on the tin is actually delivered.

Now, what the member, I understand, is trying to achieve with this bill is to enable on-licences to trade on restricted trading days, for the good of the patrons who frequent them, whether an RSA or a bar, to make sure that New Zealanders are no longer restricted by infantilising policies about what is a substantial meal, how long you can stay, where you can go. Up and down New Zealand, that has irritated Kiwis and visitors alike for such a long time, and my Amendment Paper 532 has the intention of making sure that this Byzantine law structure that we have around alcohol sales and shop trading is tidied up.

There was a previous bill that’s come to this House to do with Easter trading, where I got a bit of a training in this. There were two Acts of Parliament that needed amending: the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act, which this member’s bill addresses, and the Shop Trading Hours Act. There was a massive amount of overlap between the two, meaning that, yes, fixing this issue in the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act does address it, but to actually get it done, we’ve got to make sure that the section 3, which flows onto section 4, which flows onto the interpretations in section 2 of the Shop Trading Hours Act, do not hold back the good intention of what the member is trying to do in this bill.

So I’ve tabled an amendment that I hope members are supportive of, because this is trying to make sure the intentions are achieved by allowing an on-licence to remain open if it is permitted to do so during trading hours that apply to that premise. So if it’s allowed to open, it should be allowed to open, overriding anything contrary in the Shop Trading Hours Act which would kibosh that good intention.

So I’ll leave that there first, but I’d like to just say why this is an important amendment. This year there is an opening of a very expensive and important and long-awaited piece of infrastructure in New Zealand. The Christchurch stadium, called Te Kaha, is about to have its opening weekend over 24 to 26 April. They’re going to have 10 Super Rugby teams from around the Super Rugby competition coming down to Christchurch from all parts of the Tasman and the Pacific, and celebrate what is a great achievement to finally have this stadium open, and celebrate what is another one of our national religions of rugby.

Now, after these games, people will be leaving the stadium and wanting to continue the festivities before they tuck themselves up in bed and get to Anzac dawn parade the next morning. What would happen, if this amendment doesn’t happen, would be that all of those patrons, all of those visitors to the mighty Christchurch, to watch the Crusaders get trounced will have—

Hon James Meager: You want us to pass this amendment?

CAMERON LUXTON: Oh, sorry; Chiefs. Sorry. I’m surrounded by Cantabrians here.

Hon James Meager: No, Chiefs mana, here, mate.

CAMERON LUXTON: Yeah, Chiefs mana. Thank you.

What we want to make sure is that all those people who have come down to watch the Chiefs win, when they go out to celebrate don’t end up turfed out on the street prematurely, wondering why a country on so much money on such an important piece of infrastructure to have such a great opening, and then call it quits. Hospitality is struggling. We need to make sure that we have a functional system that means that people can enjoy what is being put on offer. The council in Christchurch cannot fix this; only this House can. It is imperative and important and behoves all of us to make sure that this is fixed. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) (20:20): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. Thank you to Mr Rutherford and Mr Luxton for your contributions. I acknowledge you’ve asked me to indicate my view on the amendments, but I’m going to hold off and give the proposers an opportunity to speak to it first. I don’t want to respond before they get a chance to do that. If they don’t take that up, that’s all good, I’ll comment soon, but I do want to give them a chance to do that.

To answer your question directly, the intent of this bill primarily is to sort out the anomalies that currently exist where the law allows unlicensed premises to operate on these stated days. Those workers and the managers of those establishments don’t have to follow the same rules that they normally do on any other day. They also have to monitor the amount of food that people consume, at what time, and how that then relates to how much they’ve had. It’s not clear what a substantial meal is. The member will know from the submissions made at the committee stage that we had hospitality operators saying that it’s not clear to them. They’re pretty clear that a bowl of chips isn’t a substantial meal—

Tom Rutherford: Oh, the wedges scenario.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: —but a bowl of wedges, if you make it loaded wedges—

Tom Rutherford: Yeah, add the bacon and cheese.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: —does that become—that’s right, bit of sour cream—

Tom Rutherford: Sweet chilli.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Nah, you’ve lost me, you’ve lost me. Each to their own, of course. If you want to ply on the sweet chilli; you go for gold.

Frankly, that is illogical in my eyes. Any other day of the year, liquor licensing is determined basically on health grounds, but for some reason—and it seems to me the only reason that we have this is for religious grounds, historical religious grounds. I don’t think that’s a really good way to determine liquor licensing rules in this country, particularly when you consider that the vast majority of Christian religions, particularly the mainstream ones, don’t prohibit the consumption of alcohol on those days. Nevertheless, that is the intent of this bill, Mr Rutherford. I appreciate the question and being able to clarify that.

I want to quickly, while I’m on my feet, acknowledge Cameron Luxton, not only for the amendments that he’s put forward but actually for the work that he’s put forward on the back of the bill that he put through the House last year in educating people about what the intent of this bill is. He actually has no vested interest in this bill passing other than that he believes in it. I want to commend him for that. Here’s a Labour Party member and an ACT Party member working together on something where they agree, which is great. I think that, on social issues, we’ve probably got a very good chance of agreeing—economic, maybe not, but on this, we do, and that’s great.

Mr Rutherford, I’ll come back to your question about the amendments. I just want to give the New Zealand First members an opportunity to speak to it first.

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill) (20:23): Thank you, Mr Chair. My question to the member, firstly, is referring to the member’s opening remarks. He talked about the purpose of this bill. It’s about addressing the issue that the RSAs have been facing when they can’t celebrate with a drink during Anzac Day. Also, I think you talked about the online sales of alcohol during those holidays as well. Also, you mentioned, just now during the select committee process, that some of the feedback is also on the religious background.

My question to you is: instead of targeting or addressing the online sales of alcohol issue, why don’t you close the loophole? Now, you’re trying to open up more opening hours to allow more alcohol to be sold. Also, when you say that this bill is about addressing the issues for the RSA, then why include Christmas and also Good Friday and Easter Sunday as well? I think this is not really the purpose of your own bill. You’re not addressing the initiative you tried to put on this bill.

This bill, as you mentioned in your second reading when I heard your contribution, is all about the people and about helping the RSA, but in the way you actually set out the legislation, I think that’s a little bit off track from your initial initiative. I would like to have some clarification from the member.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) (20:25): Thank you, Mr Cheung. I appreciate the questions and the opportunity to provide that clarity. Referencing the online sales is actually a really good point because, I’ll be honest, it’s not something I thought of, because I’ve never bought booze online, certainly for delivery.

Dana Kirkpatrick: You haven’t lived!

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: The world’s opened up for me now. You learn something every day.

Dana Kirkpatrick: Only been to The Horseshoe, haven’t you?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Yeah, I suppose you’re right. I could get the booze delivered and have a punt on my TAB app, but I’d like to go to the pub. I like to go to the pub. I’m a bit old school in that respect.

In all seriousness, it’s a serious question, so I will give it the respect it’s due. I didn’t anticipate the impact of what I originally proposed on online alcohol delivery. The law, as it currently stands, is that you can make an online purchase for delivery on these days, but the delivery can’t occur until the following day when the restrictions don’t apply. The intent of the bill is to allow those businesses that can already operate on those days legally—acknowledging the restrictions that are on so many off-licences, excluding supermarkets—open. There were some restrictions on cellar doors and bottle stores, and what would have been unintentionally done was we would have allowed those deliveries to occur on those days. We had this weird situation where I was inadvertently proposing that off-licence bottle stores couldn’t open but alcohol deliveries could deliver. That’s not what I intended to do. That’s why I mentioned it in the second reading speech after the select committee stage, because I wanted to point out that by accepting the select committee’s recommendations and focusing now only on the on-licences—the hospitality outlets, essentially—we don’t inadvertently open that up.

Now, what it does mean, as it’s now proposed, is that supermarkets will have to—pending the Parliament’s vote on amendments—still restrict sales of alcohol on these days. They will not be, as it’s proposed, be able to sell alcohol on these days. That is ultimately because the select committee got to the point where the majority felt that we were picking favourites. Even though it was consistent with the intent of the bill that we’re focusing on those businesses that can already operate, picking and choosing which off-licence businesses could operate, I felt, and I agreed with the majority of members on the Justice Committee, that would have been too much for Parliament.

I think that assessment is right, because of my conversations with a few members who have said that they’ve supported the bill to select committee to nut these things out, and they’ve then indicated that they’re very comfortable with where we’ve landed. If we hadn’t made the change, they probably would have voted against it. It only takes about five of them to change their vote and the bill’s lost, so I think that is a pragmatic position to land in.

TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki) (20:28): Thank you, sir. I want to just ask two questions to the member in the chair, and I hope I’ll get the chance to cover them both. The first one just relates to the other Amendment Paper put forth by Mr Luxton. I spent probably a good half an hour talking it through with him. This is the one about the interplay with the Shop Trading Hours Act. I just wonder if you’re able to shed a bit of light—it’s Amendment Paper 532. This is how I understand it: people can sell two things. They can sell goods, and they can sell alcohol. Goods are everything other than alcohol, if you read the interpretation of that Act. In the Shop Trading Hours Act, it talks about when you can open and if you can be open on Christmas Day, Easter Sunday, Good Friday, and Anzac Day and that you can sell goods as long as you’re only selling food and beverages. We know that bars and cafes and restaurants are selling that, because, remember, it doesn’t include alcohol. Arguably, as I read it, a bar could open now on Good Friday if they were only going to sell their bar snacks and a soft drink, and that would be perfectly OK. Of course, that doesn’t financially stack up for them—hence your bill actually addresses that by tackling the liquor one. However, there are two things that they sell: they sell goods, which are the non-alcoholic drinks and the food; and they sell alcohol.

Now, if your bill is addressing the alcohol clause, why do we need to amend the Shop Trading Hours Act, or do we? Do you have advice that says that actually there is a reason that we need to do it, because otherwise these shops couldn’t open on that day? I don’t want to drag this out, so I wonder if I can put that question in there and I’ll make my second point.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): We’ll go to Jamie Arbuckle, who has been waiting patiently.

JAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First) (20:30): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ll just firstly congratulate the member again for getting this to this point into the House, but he will be aware there’s an amendment that I’ve put forward, and the amendment does change this bill to remove Good Friday, Easter Sunday, and Christmas Day. I’ve done that for a reason.

Firstly, through submissions, we did hear in the Justice Committee that there is concern that opening the alcohol sales on those three days, that traditionally hasn’t been the case—there is a lot of concern. What I do want to firstly say is around Anzac Day, what this would mean is yes, I do understand there is a tradition with Anzac Day that people come together, and it is an unusual thing if you’re not a member of the RSA that the RSA at the moment needs to get a licence for non-members to be able to have a whisky, a beer, or whatever that drink may be. I think that part we can get past, and we can understand the reasons why, on Anzac Day, the member has put this forward. It will save the RSAs that compliance time to do that.

What I do really struggle with with the member is when we start looking at Easter Friday, Easter Sunday, and especially Christmas Day. They’re days that I would put to the member that are traditional days for New Zealanders. They’re the fabric that puts our country together. I would say to the member—and as I did in my speech at the second reading—by no ways am I religious person. I understand that side of it, that for a lot of people the religious significance of those days—Good Friday, Easter Sunday, and Christmas—is a big part of why they would oppose this.

But I’d say to the member: there is also a tradition where we have not been able to purchase alcohol unless there are certain reasons. Those reasons are that if a shop had opened and they were serving food, you would then be able to buy alcohol. To me, that seemed a reasonable, logical way of progressing that concern around the religious part; around the fabric of society, the tradition we had.

To then say that now we are going to open this up and the rules are going to be different for some other financial gain, I actually wonder if we have gone too far. What is the point where for 3½ days—well, in my case here for the three days—we are going to protect the sale of alcohol? What is wrong with asking for our families to actually be at home with family members, to enjoy Christmas, to enjoy Easter? Maybe we’re not religious, like myself, but there is still a tradition; still a fabric around the enjoyment of those days. I would say to the member: family time is important.

I think we also had the Hon Mark Patterson—I remember in his speech, he said, “What is wrong with taking a breather?” As a country, sometimes, on the few days that we do have to enjoy ourselves, why can’t we take a breather? My amendment is taking away those three religious days, but I don’t class them necessarily as religious days; I class them, as I said in my speech originally, as family days. Remove Good Friday, remove Easter Sunday, remove Christmas Day. I’ll accept the Anzac Day part, but I ask the member to really think about why we are actually going into that family time and actually taking away that tradition that we have been born with and have always respected.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) (20:34): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to thank Mr Costley for his question. Your reading of this is correct. It’s certainly along the lines in the sense that that’s how I read it, too, that the proposal from Mr Luxton is simply to allow the on-licence businesses to be able to extend into the morning of Anzac Day. But I would be interested to hear his description of that because I think, given that this is a member’s bill, we don’t have justice officials here to be able to advise. That’s actually in part why I’m treading quite carefully here. I want to make sure that we are on solid ground before we consider extending that. That’s not necessarily expressing a view on it. I’m keen to have a conversation.

But it does touch on an important thing, that ultimately, at the end of the day, unlike a committee stage for Government business, my view is only one vote. So it’s possible, theoretically, that I might oppose an amendment but Parliament supports it. I’m just going to have to suck that up if that’s what happens.

Mr Arbuckle, thank you for your proposal in your amendment. Look, I respect your commentary. I don’t agree with it and I’ll give a brief explanation as to why. The arguments put forward I think would be more applicable if the proposal was to allow businesses that can’t already open to open, but given that these businesses are already allowed to open, people have made that choice for themselves.

What is also important is that those that choose to use those days to stay at home could choose to have a drink there, but also this bill provides no compulsion whatsoever. It simply allows those that make a choice for them and their families, frankly, to be able to go to an on-licence. They are able to do that. For those that choose not to, it is a choice that I fully respect, but respect goes both ways. I see it as a two-way street. We respect the choice for those that choose to stay at home and not to consume alcohol that day, but currently we don’t respect the choice for people that do choose to go to an on-licensed premises.

But I would be interested, and this is a question that your colleague with the other—is it in your name, Andy Foster? I’d love to know, if your amendment passed, would that mean you support the bill? That would be a really interesting thing, I think, for the committee to understand. I think that’s all I need to say.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): I know there’s a number of people who are asking for calls, but I did indicate to Mr Costley that I would allow him to do a further reply on part of his original call.

TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki) (20:38): Thank you, Mr Chair. I am trying to keep it quick, because I know a lot of people want to contribute and we want to see this move on. I appreciate the answer and I appreciate the engagement earlier with Mr Luxton as well. I do have some sympathy from the New Zealand First position for the same reason I opposed off-licences at the first reading, for the same reason I opposed the bill that allowed all shops to trade last year, because I do think that having four days a year where people spend a bit of time with their family—the Government shouldn’t have to tell you to do that, but I still think it’s a good thing. I am wary of seeing this brought in too much to the point that as people are forming up for the dawn service on Anzac Day, we have other people stumbling home drunk.

I’m OK, if the net result is us not passing any amendments and the bill goes through as it is, and that means that four times a year you have to stop drinking at midnight in a public bar—I’m actually OK with that. I think it still allows every business to trade every day of the year, if it kills a couple of days—my mum always said that nothing good happens after midnight and I think she had a point. But my reading of it, as the bill stands, says that it should still be OK, but I’m just wary of this then trampling any ability for local licensing authorities to go and put their own local limits in terms of what is acceptable, what the community wants.

For that reason, and based on what I’ve heard, I’m not going to support New Zealand First’s amendments—though I have sympathy for the position—and I’m not going to support the ACT Party amendments for the same reason. I think this strikes a good balance and a middle ground. I was with the Chief Executive of Hospitality New Zealand last night and she iterated her support for this bill and how important it was. I want to see our hospitality sector do well, but I think that’s the middle ground. Thank you.

STEVE ABEL (Green) (20:39): I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): This debate is hearing all parts at the moment, so it’s not just one part. There’s still a bit more to go.

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT) (20:40): Thank you, Mr Chair. I appreciate you giving me this call, Mr Chair. I indicated earlier, in my first contribution, that I had two amendments to speak to, but I feel like I need to just clarify some of the back and forth that’s been happening between the Hon Kieran McAnulty and Tim Costley, specifically about the lack of officials we have here advising us and what parts of the bill—

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Which amendments, or which amendment?

CAMERON LUXTON: Speaking to Amendment Paper 532, regarding why it is important that we have these on-licence restrictions that are inherent in the Shop Trading Hours Act addressed. Now, in the Shop Trading Hours Act, clause 3 has “Shops to be closed”, and it has a list of shops, but then, in clause 4, it says “Certain shops may remain open”, and this is the part where Mr Costley and I had a discussion earlier today. In section 4(1)(a), it says “Section 3(1)”—closing shops—does not apply in “a shop where—(i) the goods for sale include nothing that is not food, drink, a household item”. So there’s a double negative there. This is what happens when you start reaching into these laws; we have a whole lot of confusing terminology and cross-referencing. But there is a double negative saying, “The goods for sale are nothing that is not”.

And then, you go into the interpretation section of the Shop Trading Hours Act, which is section 2, and under “goods”, it states: “includes all personal chattels other than alcohol”. So now we’ve got a triple negative, in a way, but, basically, it’s saying that “For the sake of this bill, a good is not alcohol. You cannot sell if you are selling any alcohol.” So you can’t sell nothing that ain’t food or drink, and that does not include alcohol, which means if your main thing you are selling is alcohol—say, 50 percent of your income comes from alcohol—the Shop Trading Hours Act restricts you from being open. That is what is operative in the Shop Trading Hours Act that circumvents the good work that the member is trying to do in the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Sales on Anzac Day Morning, Good Friday, Easter Sunday, and Christmas Day) Amendment Bill to loosen some of these restrictions. Hence why we need to be able to make sure that venues that are trading—and the intention is for them to be able to trade—can continue to do so by putting this amendment in place and actually achieving what is in the bill.

I know there are a lot of my fellow colleagues that would like to speak, so I am going to resume my seat and come back out for my Amendment Paper 531 a little bit later on. But, in the meantime, I just want to also recognise someone who I think might be watching at home, Chris Baillie, a former member of this House, who brought an original bill in the last term to deal with these issues. So we’ve got multiple members over multiple terms trying to fix this issue—I hope, tonight, that we’re able to do so.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) (20:43): Thank you, Mr Chair. The recent changes to the way that committee stages operate allow for a back and forth if it’s been indicated to the presiding officer. Now, it’s normally not the member in the chair that initiates this, but, I think, given the lack of officials and the interest in your amendments, perhaps, I can ask you some questions, Mr Luxton, and we can get a bit of better understanding.

It seems to me that your amendment, with the pending opening of the Christchurch stadium in mind and the issues that the hospitality businesses down there are facing—which is a real one—we finally get this massive project open. It’s a project that has the full support of the House; supported by the previous Government, continued under this Government. We know how hard it’s been for hospitality at the moment. Everyone’s excited about it, but they face the prospect that the fans leave the stadium and they go to a bar, and then they’re likely to be kicked out at 11.45 p.m., on the current rules. So it seems to me that your amendment looks to address that, in this instance, across the board and ongoing.

Can you explain, please, under new section 45A, under the proposed amendment, you’ve got specific reference to the Shop Trading Hours Act 1990. You touched on it there, but, keeping in mind the intention of this bill, can you reassure the House that your amendment does not go beyond what has been stated as the intention that businesses that are already allowed to open, and only them, will be able to operate under existing conditions?

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): I will go to Cameron Luxton, but I do want to indicate to the committee that the member has addressed a lot of the issues in Amendment Paper 532, so if you can really focus in on the questions that you’re asking.

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT) (20:45): Absolutely, Mr Chair, absolutely, and acting as an official in this, maybe we should have co-sponsored a bill, perhaps, Mr McAnulty—we could have got somewhere earlier and things. But I appreciate this back and forth.

Look, just to be clear, those sections that I read out are in the Shop Trading Hours Act. What this bill is amending, as we all talked about, is the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act, with the intention of allowing shops who are able to be open, to open. The restricted trading days—Part 1 of the Shop Trading Hours Act has the sections which talk about “Shops to be closed on Anzac Day morning, Good Friday, Easter Sunday, and Christmas Day”, which are the intention of this bill to address. It’s outlining before 1 p.m. on Anzac Day and all day on the other three days. So it’s saying, “You must be closed”, in section 3.

In section 4, it gives exemptions. I learnt a lot about this during the Easter trading bill that I put through in regards to some absurd carve-outs that didn’t make a lot of sense, specifically at garden centres, rural supply stores—like, explain that when the dairy next door can’t open. It’s a bit nuts. But, anyway, my point is that section 4(1)(a) is saying that restricted trading hours do not apply to a shop where the goods for sale include nothing that is not food. If you are selling alcohol, you are selling something that is not food; therefore, you are not exempt to be open, and so that means that if the alcohol laws say you must be shut, then you must be shut, despite what is otherwise happening in this bill.

To address the part of “Does that go any further?”, my understanding of what your intention is, Mr McAnulty, is to enable shops that otherwise would be able to trade to be able to sell alcohol, meaning that they would be able to trade. These restricted days in the Shop Trading Hours Act restrict that trade through another mechanism in another bill, which is what my insertion of new section 54A is trying to address.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) (20:47): I thank the member for that explanation. Am I correct in reading this: in the proposed amendment, new section 45A(i) set out on Amendment Paper 532, the specific reference to “on-licences” is what restricts it to on-licence premises and doesn’t extend it to other businesses?

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT) (20:47): That is right. It specifically says “on-licences”, not “off-licences”. The other Amendment Paper that I’m going to talk about later on does address off-licence; this is not off-licence.

Hon JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata) (20:48): Thank you, Mr Chair. I don’t drink. I haven’t drunk for over five years, and it’ll be six years coming up. So, like the reference before, I have no vested interest in this bill, except for the fact that I believe in the principles which underpin this bill. I support it. I support the bill as it was introduced. I support the bill as amended by the select committee. I support the amendments by Mr Luxton. I supported his bill originally. I supported Stuart Smith’s bill when he did cellar door.

But what I want to focus on is one key issue, and it’s to do with this amendment, which we have traversed and it has been raised before. Later this month, there will be a formal opening of Te Kaha stadium—a stadium that the Crown, on behalf of the taxpayer, has poured $230 million into, a stadium which the ratepayers of Christchurch and the wider areas have poured $453 million into, a stadium which will host probably the largest single event in the region over the year—maybe Electric Avenue surpasses it, who knows, let’s wait and see—of the Anzac weekend Super Rugby round.

I am urging those of you in the House to support Amendment Paper 532. Even if you don’t support the substance of the bill, you should support this amendment, for one reason—well, for many reasons, but for one reason: if you are at all interested in harm minimisation; if you are at all interested in the welfare of people who are going to be out on 24 April—the thousands and thousands of Cantabrians, of Australians, of people from around the world who have come to Christchurch to enjoy that round and who will be revelling in the delight of a fantastic new stadium, who, at 12.00 p.m. that night, will be forced onto the streets en masse in a sense of chaos.

If you are at all concerned about harm minimisation and about the welfare of those people, you may not support the bill; you may not even support this amendment. This amendment is the single thing that will allow those bars to continue to stay open and to minimise any potential harm caused by thousands and thousands of people enjoying their night out, spilling out onto the streets all at once and having the potential to cause absolute chaos in central Christchurch. Even if you do not support the bill and even if you are going to vote against the bill at the end of the night, I urge you to support this particular amendment, if for any reason but that you think about, on 24 April at midnight, what will happen when all those bars close down and people pour out into the street.

I think this is a good bill. I think the arguments have been well canvassed for this amendment. I think the debate back and forth has been lively and has been good. I support the bill, and I look forward to its passage with these amendments supported at the end of the night.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) (20:50): Mr Chair, thank you very much. I want to thank Cameron Luxton for his explanation of his amendment and Minister Meager for his impassioned contribution, which I support. The thing here, now that we’ve had an opportunity to traverse this and discuss this, is that Amendment Paper 532 in the name of Cameron Luxton is entirely consistent with the intent of the bill, as it currently stands outside the select committee and as it was originally proposed.

Now, I’ve already said to the committee that I support the amendments that have come from select committee, and I know that Amendment Paper 531 looks to traverse that—we’ll cover that in due course—but I want to indicate that I do support Amendment Paper 532 because it is consistent, and I don’t think that, if the House passed this bill, that would compromise the qualified support that others have indicated. I’m noting the warnings from Mr Costley that nothing good happens after midnight. I do think, though, that there are a number of members that might be quietly thinking, “Well, if that was the case, I wouldn’t have met my spouse.” Nevertheless, I don’t want to cast aspersions. On that basis, I just want to indicate to the House that, personally, I’ll be voting in favour of Amendment Paper 532.

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill) (20:52): Thank you, Mr Chair. Just referring to my previous contribution, I think the member still hasn’t answered my question. If you just wanted to address the issue of the members of the RSA enjoying a drink on Anzac Day, why are Christmas, Easter Sunday, and Good Friday included in the bill as well? This is very important because, in my electorate, I’ve got a lot of churches. A lot of people in my electorate, actually, quite care about this bill.

I did a survey for you. I actually asked people what their feedback is about this bill. I can tell the member that 95 percent of people actually agree that if this opened the alcohol licensing for people to enjoy on Anzac Day, 99 percent would be happy to agree with this legislation. But once I mentioned Easter, Good Friday, and Christmas, the support actually dropped to 48 percent. Obviously, I think it is a major concern—it’s also being raised in the select committee—as to why those days are being included as well.

Just now, the member said that if he accepted the amendment from New Zealand First, we are going to support the bill. I can tell you it’s not only me. I think there are a few people who say that you want to take away Christmas. We are very happy to support this bill, but as a Christian—I think you’ve mentioned that you are a Christian as well—I think that it’s very important to honour God. Also, if you’re just talking about two days or three days without alcohol, I don’t think it’s a big ask. I think it’s good to be there to honour God and to say, “Hey, no alcohol on these days”, or, “You can’t buy alcohol on these days.” I would love the member to seriously consider the amendment from New Zealand First.

Also, the second point I want to raise is—I don’t think anyone’s raised it before; oh, maybe some members have raised it before—how about you give some power to the local government as well? The reason why I’m saying that is that in Auckland, Auckland Council actually works very hard to limit alcohol harm by trying to change the opening hours of alcohol shops to limit people’s access to alcohol. I think—as some of the speeches from your colleagues in the Labour Party also mentioned as well—that in South Auckland, alcohol harm is a big thing. Allowing more opening hours for the alcohol shops is, I think, contradictory to all the effort that the Auckland Council have been putting in when trying to limit the alcohol opening times, but the central government is trying to open up longer opening hours for people to buy alcohol. I just don’t think it’s a very good approach.

I think, maybe, the member should consider firstly accepting the amendment from the member of New Zealand First to remove Christmas in the legislation and, second, maybe also consider giving some power to the local government as well so they can determine things. As you can see, within just our National Party caucus, we have already got different opinions on how people work with alcohol. Some areas have actually got less alcohol problems compared to others, but in Auckland—especially South Auckland—alcohol harm is a big thing. I would like, at least, that we give some visibility for local government. They can actually do their own amendments as well.

The last thing I just want to try to mention is that I disagree with Minister James Meager’s comment about people needing alcohol in order to enjoy their life. If someone needs alcohol so they can enjoy things, I think there’s something wrong.

Hon James Meager: I don’t drink.

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG: That’s right, but you mentioned just now that people in Christchurch would love to have a drink so they can enjoy themselves.

David MacLeod: Choice—choice.

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG: Yes, it is a choice, but what I’m saying is if someone relies on alcohol in order to have an enjoyable life, I think their life is wrong, and I think that this is wrong as well. I want to emphasise that there are a lot of things that can bring you happiness or help you enjoy life, but if you just want to rely on alcohol so that you can enjoy life or so that your night will be more perfect or more enjoyable, I think this is wrong.

Hon James Meager: You drink more than I do.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) (20:56): Thank you, Mr Cheung. Far be it for me to get involved in an argument between National Party MPs, but I am going to stick up for Mr Meager here. At no point did he suggest that people can only have alcohol to have fun. I’ve known Mr Meager for a number of years. He’s been sober throughout, and sometimes he’s had a hell of a lot more fun than I have, but that’s by the by.

The question that you have posed as to why to include Christmas and Easter—at no point have I ever portrayed this bill to be primarily about Anzac Day. It has been quite clearly about all of these days. The principle at play here is that those businesses that are already legally able to operate should be able to operate under the conditions that they are permitted to across any other day of the year. I’m not proposing that any business that can’t already open is able to open. That is why I’m comfortable with where the select committee has landed by excluding off-licences on that, because it got too complicated and I feared the bill wouldn’t pass. I’m hopeful that it will pass as it currently stands, but the reason that I’ve included Easter and Christmas is because that is consistent with that principle.

Your suggestion around the local-licensing ability for local communities to determine their licensing rules—that exists; that is retained. This bill does not change that at all, and I acknowledge your suggestion that I support Mr Arbuckle’s amendment to reduce this down to only include Anzac Day. I have addressed that with respect. I personally, whilst the amendment has been ruled in scope, believe that the amendment takes away from the intent of the bill, and I’m yet to hear an assurance from the member that if his amendment passed, he would support the bill.

Dr Carlos Cheung: Well, I’ll support you if you changed it.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: That’s good to know, but I do suspect that it would be a net loss on that proposal. While I respect Mr Arbuckle’s suggestion, I do suspect that, even if we did follow his amendment, he wouldn’t support the bill. I think that is not really the intent of this committee.

LAURA McCLURE (ACT) (20:59): Thank you, Mr Chair. I am standing to speak to my colleague’s Amendment Paper 532. I know that this has been traversed quite widely, but, because this is a conscience issue, every member has the right to speak to it. Given that I am a Christchurch-based MP, and I know there are a few of us in the Chamber this evening—I know we’ve got the current Christchurch MP on the other side, and I’d actually really like to hear his views on the opening of Te Kaha and how he feels about my colleague’s Amendment Paper going forward.

There are other members in the committee that know that this isn’t just about the opening night of Te Kaha for Christchurch, but, since the earthquakes, Christchurch has not had a real stadium. We’ve missed out on heaps of different events. It has been a huge and significant loss to Christchurch. Whether it has been the economic loss post the earthquakes, and we’ve had things like COVID, it has been really, really hard, and to have this huge project, which is a massive milestone—and it’s not just for Christchurch; it’s for the whole Mainland and for New Zealand in general and for our economy—to turn around and say that we have these archaic laws that mean, come midnight, this bar or this restaurant will no longer be able to serve you and they’ll be closing is, honestly, absolutely outrageous, given our day and time.

Look, I sympathise with those that have strong personal religious views—I do—but you’ve got to remember that we live in a country where we’re really multicultural at this point. There are lots of different views when it comes to religion, and everybody should have the right to observe those how they wish to do so, but we also need to accept the fact that for most people, they also want the right and the freedom to be able to choose to enjoy themselves, whether or not that is having a drink. To be honest, even for people that don’t drink, like James Meager or sometimes myself, you might just want to stay out and have a bit of a dance for a few hours later, and so it’s not always about actually drinking alcohol. When we’re talking about on-licences, they are some of the safest places you can drink. They’ve got rules around intoxication levels and serving, they have bouncers and people that take care of our young people when they’re out and about and they’re drinking, and it is a safe place to be.

I completely disregard my other colleague’s comment around people blasting out in the street at 4 a.m. and showing up to an Anzac parade. Sure, you might get the odd-person that might go straight from a bar to a parade—yep, that could happen—but I think that for most people, that is not what it’s going to be about, and for Christchurch, in particular—this time, it’s Christchurch—they really need that economic boost. To any Christchurch-based or Canterbury-based MPs in the Chamber tonight, I’d say that if you don’t vote for this amendment, I seriously hope that you won’t be out there enjoying a drink on the night of the opening of the stadium or, to be fair, on any other night after midnight, because what night is really different from Anzac eve, to be honest?

I support this amendment and I really urge everybody else to support it because this time it’s Christchurch that’s affected, but it could be your electorate next time. It could be anywhere else in the country, and I do believe that at some point in time, if this doesn’t pass right now, we will be coming back to this House to pass it in the future.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Just before I take the next call, it is a member’s bill. It is a conscience issue, but the normal rules still do apply, and that is that we’re still looking for relevance. While there’s always going to be context around any of these speeches, really, it’s time we started focusing on what the bill actually does, and I think we’ve pretty well established the broad issues around the alcohol aspect.

GEORGIE DANSEY (Labour) (21:03): My question is around community engagement. I support this bill for two reasons. The first reason is what has already been highlighted regarding the impact on businesses and employees. Previously, I was a small-business owner, and so I understand the importance of having consistency. My business was a gym, and so we didn’t have any booze there, but the same process applies. I’ve also previously worked with employees as a union representative, and consistency in the workplace is really important. It’s important for employees to have a good day at work and to know where they’re going and what they’re doing, and any inconsistency can throw people out and put extra pressure and stress on employees in the already quite stressful situation that hospitality is. The first reason I support the bill is simply that: I think that it is good and for the benefit of employees and business owners alike.

The second reason I support it is because of the community impact. I have a personal story here, which is that my dad was very, very passionate about wanting to be able to buy a drink on Easter weekend. He was a regular at a Hamilton bar called The Londoner, and it was really distressing for him, as a community member, to not be able to go to The Londoner at Easter and buy his glass of white wine. He wasn’t there to drink excessively; he was there to have his white wine because that was his routine, and it was part of the community for him.

The question I have is just around that community impact. We’ve talked a little bit about Anzac Day and people being able to go out for a drink then and we’ve also talked about a Christchurch event and people being able to drink there, and so has the member had any further thoughts about what other community impact that might have?

I also just wanted to respond to the questions around alcohol harm. I’m also passionate about not extending alcohol harm in our communities, and on a similar alcohol bill, I’d probably vote against it. The reason that I feel OK about this one is because it’s not extending the conditions around alcohol use; it’s just consistency with on-licences, which are already providing alcohol on other days, and so they are still subject to the existing provisions around serving alcohol. Other speakers have spoken earlier about those provisions and about what is in place. The people that are serving the alcohol have, hopefully, a good employer who has given them the adequate training to be able to serve alcohol and to know when someone is intoxicated and move them out—all of those things. I don’t see this as a major factor in contributing to alcohol harm; instead, I just needed a few things cleared up so that we have consistency across the board.

Returning to my question about community engagement, do my dad a solid and explain the thinking that you have done, because I know that for him this bill is vital to his engagement in his community and his livelihood. Thanks.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) (21:06): Thank you to Laura McClure for her contribution. The only response I have is that I agree with you. I think it’s unlikely that people that were in a hospitality establishment until the early hours of dawn on Anzac Day would have attending a dawn parade in mind, but, nevertheless, if they were that way inclined, they would be doing so out of respect.

To Georgie Dansey’s contribution, thank you for that. As a proud Irish Catholic, I wouldn’t normally make a beeline to a pub called The Londoner, but I think I will make an exception, and particularly if this bill passes, I would like you to buy me a beer, if that’s all right, in The Londoner—or perhaps I should buy you one, in fairness. But to your question around the community impact and alcohol harm, we did see that submitters were concerned about this, but with the greatest respect to them, we weren’t given evidence to suggest that allowing businesses that were already operating anyway to do so under normal licensing conditions would increase alcohol harm; in fact, the Justice Committee found that it wouldn’t.

What is, I think, an important point here—and this is why we have members who have backgrounds in working for unions and representing workers and who are staunchly defending their rights being comfortable with this bill—is that these workers are already working. It’s actually to their benefit to be able to work under the conditions that they do on any other day of the year and that they are trained and they are skilled at doing, rather than introducing a new element that actually—from what I’ve heard from the hospitality sector and those that work in it—adds anxiety to the work day because they are, one, determining that what the customer has ordered is substantial enough and then monitoring how long it is after they’ve finished the meal, and also we haven’t touched on the absurdity of the rules that say that you could order a series of roast meals over the day and continue to drink. That doesn’t make any sense.

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First) (21:09): Thank you, Mr Chair. Can I just say to the member Kieran McAnulty that I just thank you for your considered way in which you’ve been dealing with all the issues which have been raised during this, and often they’re quite complex to work out. The other thing I might do is just say that it’s been lovely to see—particularly from my National Party colleagues—the way in which the two previous bills were so quickly addressed, because that’s not always the case on a members’ day. I hope that it stays that way and that we continue to address these things and get through more legislation as a result of that, as that would be very, very good.

My amendment is simply focused on Christmas, and there are a number of reasons for that. A number of people have touched on the religious importance of Good Friday, Easter, and Christmas Day. I think Christmas Day is particularly important in the Christian calendar. The other two are, too, but I think also Christmas Day is particularly important in New Zealand as a day which is a family day. Whatever your background is, whatever your religion is, whatever your value sets are, Christmas Day is the day in which essentially the streets are quiet. There’s the odd runner going around the place, but by and large people are home with their families.

Now, the concern that I’ve got with this particular proposition is while you’re saying at this stage—and there is a slippery slope here, potentially—it is only, as I am understanding it, those premises which are already open and able to be open on Christmas Day. At the moment, they’re only able to be open and serve alcohol to diners who come in to eat a meal or to guests who are staying in the house. This would then open them up to anybody else coming in there, so it’s not quite the same proposition. The thought that it’s the same number of people who would necessarily be needed to serve in that premises is probably wrong because you’re likely to need more people because you’re likely to have more customers. So there are going to be more people.

It’s interesting, Georgie Dansey, hearing from you from the point of view from a union background. Quite often I’ve heard from some of your colleagues talking about the union side of things and saying, “Actually, this is a day which is special to us and we don’t want to have to be potentially forced to work in that area.”

The other issue there is that it if we’ve got a number of different premises around any given town—which are effectively now open for anybody—how long is it before you would say, “Actually every other pub, every other hotel, etc., is then open slather to everybody”? Because going to be very hard to say, “Well, these people should be able to serve to everybody. These people should be able to serve to everybody, but you can’t.” I can’t see how that will be sustainable, and then Christmas would not be a special day for quite a lot of people who would then have to work on those days. That is the reason for picking on Christmas—because it is a particularly important day; a family day for New Zealanders. As I said, I think there is a real concern about the inevitable next step.

Just the other thing I would say is in the amendments that Jamie Arbuckle and I have moved, you will note that we have not included Anzac; that we’ve taken on board that that is a day when often people do—well, certainly returned service folk are very, very keen to have that drink in the morning, and I know that there are special rules around that. But we have also taken that on board. Of course, we are all looking forward to the opening of Te Kaha in a few weeks’ time.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) (21:12): Thank you, Mr Foster, for the explanation of his amendment. It’s good to understand the rationale behind the proposal. Similar to that amendment, your colleague Jamie Arbuckle, I respect where you’re coming from but I don’t agree and I won’t be supporting it, but I will explain why.

I can’t see, in fairness, the difference why you would be comfortable with people drinking at 5 a.m. on Anzac Day but not on Christmas Day. The fact of the matter is it is a choice. My prediction is that if this bill passes, most hospitality businesses won’t open on Christmas Day because the demand won’t be there. I think most people will choose not to go to the pub.

But I am reminded of the time when I was living in Ireland—staunchly Roman Catholic community. I went to Christmas Mass on Christmas morning, spent the time with the family, and everyone went to the pub on Christmas night. It was a wonderful occasion; it was a beautiful community feel. If that is how families wish to choose their evening, I don’t think we should be the ones to get in their way.

But I do want to pick up on one point. You may not have intended to or you may have—it doesn’t matter—you used the word “forced”. The rights and protections of workers on those days remain. No worker will be forced to work on those days; they still remain their right to say no. I absolutely accept the concerns that have been raised by my colleagues when we’ve discussed this in other forums that look to expand it further—that, actually, for many small businesses it is not easy to say no. I fully accept that. But it equally isn’t accurate to say “forced”, and I just think it’s important that we that we use—

TODD STEPHENSON (ACT) (21:14): Thank you, Mr Chair, and congratulations again, Mr McAnulty, on getting the bill this far. I actually just want to talk about a few clauses in your bill and, if you don’t mind, maybe we could just do a few Q and As on it—and then it’s going to obviously relate to one of the Amendment Papers. But I was lucky enough to be in the Justice Committee process—and it was a very productive process. I think I was pretty pragmatic in the end and I wanted to get your bill back to the House. Obviously, I didn’t agree with everything we necessarily did, but I think we got into a good shape to get back and have this debate tonight.

I just want to focus on clause 6, replacing section 48, that was put into the bill and amended. Because obviously when you first introduced the bill, it did cover off-licences that were open on the on the days we’re talking about—Anzac Day, Good Friday, Easter Sunday, Christmas Day. Again, only businesses that were open, but they all were off-licence businesses. But I just want to confirm: obviously there was a change made in section 48 to allow a particular type of off-licence business opening. Can you just talk to why that was done and what this means?

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT) (21:15): Mr Chair, thank you very much. I feel like what we’re trying to do here is open up people to be able to enjoy special stadiums and places in their cities. I welcome the contributions from members around the Chamber so far, including Dr Cheung, who’s had a member’s bill to expand the days which concerts can be held at Eden Park. I’d just like to inform Dr Cheung that if this bill was to pass, it would actually enable the good people of Auckland to go and enjoy themselves after a big concert at Eden Park on a restricted day, in the same way that we are trying to liberalise this in time for the good people of Christchurch when they have their guests entertaining. So we can all do this.

Just one more point I would like to make, considering some speeches from around the Chamber. There are places around the world which don’t hold the same views as Mr Foster, including dear old England, where going out and having a drink on Christmas is actually part of some of the cultural practices in that sweet isle. Also, I’ve talked to a great number of South Africans who find a great lot—and I come from Pāpāmoa; a large South African population has moved to the area—

Tom Rutherford: Oh, great area.

CAMERON LUXTON: It’s a great area, and a lot of South Africans say to me, “It doesn’t make any sense. What we did in South Africa was go with our family to a restaurant or a bar on Easter. So having these restrictions makes no sense to our cultural practices.”

Some of the contributions we’ve heard tonight are saying people should be able to enjoy these special days with their special people in a way that is meaningful to them and no one should be compelled to do anything—from a staffer or a patron or a business owner. That is the core of what I think Mr McAnulty is trying to achieve here.

Now, how I’d like to just finish my speech—because I think this may be my last contribution, Mr Chair; you have been gracious in giving me this call—is to talk about my Amendment Paper 531.

Now, I was not on the Justice Committee, which addressed this bill, but my colleague Todd Stephenson was, and he has been working diligently to make sure that the view of the ACT Party and of people who want to be able to enjoy their businesses and themselves without unnecessary regulation and burdens put on them—which I think was in the original intent of Mr McAnulty’s bill.

Now, the select committee put restrictions around off-licences and also on remote sales. In his original contribution to the House, Mr McAnulty talked about how online remote sales were not intended to be captured, and so that has now been restricted at the select committee. I think that is an overreach; I think that saying this might be the one day of the week where I’m sitting down and I’m making my grocery order perhaps—I should be able to make that order and have it delivered on a day that works with me. If you are saying I am too drunk to drive because I’ve enjoyed this day with my friends and family on the deck of my back lawn and I’m enjoying the sun, why would we make it that you have to find a different way? When we’ve got this modern technology where you can say, “Look, you’ve brought the wrong drink to the party. This isn’t what she asked for. Can we order some pink gin”—or some bourbon and Coke if you’re my wife. Well, bourbon and Coke’s actually her drink of choice, but I’ll have the pink gin.

Then the final thing just to touch on before I resume my seat, Mr Chair, is the restrictions for off-licences. It doesn’t make sense that a supermarket, which can remain open, has to fence off a part of that supermarket on certain days of the year—

Arena Williams: Oh, it’s fine! It doesn’t bother anyone.

CAMERON LUXTON: —while people walk past them and go—yeah, well, you can take a call, I’m sure. But you can say it’s not bothering people. The part that I find most infuriating about the off-licence ban is that the idea that there is going to be harm caused by selling alcohol on these days. We have addressed this in the House before, and I think the arguments that reducing the sale of off-licence reduces harm erroneous. If somebody who has got an unhealthy relationship with alcohol finds out—which we all know—you are restricted on certain days, they stockpile. The last thing that you want are people who have an unhealthy relationship with alcohol stockpiling alcohol at their house because they are so nervous they might not be able to get it.

The evidence is out there that alcohol sales, on average, do not change week on week, which means the people who are not buying alcohol are probably—and this is a supposition—not the people who have an unhealthy connection to alcohol; it’s the people who do.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) (21:20): Thank you very much. I want to thank Mr Stephenson for his question but also his contribution at the select committee stage; I thought it was excellent. I fully accept that the Justice Committee recommended by a majority, and not in line with his views, to restrict it to on-licences. I’m pleased that Mr Luxton got an opportunity to speak to his amendment, because my response to his amendment actually answers your question, in a way—

Steve Abel: Mr Chair?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: —is that ultimately—

Steve Abel: I thought you were done.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Just generally one at a time!

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: —at a principle level, I absolutely understand what you’re putting forward here in Amendment Paper 531, and what Mr Stephenson was arguing at select committee is that, at the end of the day, this is about choice.

The argument “What if someone’s been on the chop all day and they need to do an online order?” is an interesting take. But nevertheless I’m going to give you a direct and honest response here: regardless of my personal views on this, I think, if this amendment passed, we would lose the support of Parliament. That is based on my engagement with some members that indicated that they voted for the bill to get to select committee and that they only continue to vote for it because of the changes that were made at select committee. I absolutely respect what you’re putting forward. It is consistent. We will end up with a situation where supermarkets are open but can’t sell alcohol. But keeping in mind that every previous attempt to change liquor licensing at Easter has failed—in fact, it hasn’t even got this far—I’m not willing to put that at risk. So I’m not going to support Amendment Paper 531, on that basis. My read of the situation is that if we keep it as it stands to on-licences, we’ve got a real chance to actually finally change this; if we expand it, I fear we’d lose it. I’m not willing to take that risk.

STEVE ABEL (Green) (21:23): Thank you, Mr Chair. You may be surprised that I’m taking a call. It’s going to be a brief call because I appreciate that the Chair made a point earlier that a lot of this bill has been canvassed and it is a relatively simple bill, let’s be fair.

David MacLeod: No, it’s not.

STEVE ABEL: Morally questionable, but simple. I cast no aspersions on the member; I recognise the character of the gentleman in the chair, but I will not be supporting the bill. I think we risk being in the space of frivolous filibustering. It’s all very well to hear the personal and family drinking prerogatives of the members, but we are not making small talk at a bar; we are in the Parliament of Aotearoa New Zealand, where we should be passing legislation. I think we all know the position that we hold on this bill. It has been seriously canvassed. It would be appropriate that we move to a vote on it.

I have a question for the member, to conclude. In the spirit of cross-party consensus, I agree with one of the points made in the differing view by the New Zealand First Party: “During the committee it was demonstrated that increased access to alcohol on these restricted days would increase alcohol-related harm. This is an issue of conscience, and Parliament should consider the risks very carefully—over and above … perceived commercial benefits.”—and I might add to that “perceived freedoms”. I wonder if the member could answer with his response to that question of increased alcohol-related harm; certainly a concern for Te Pāti Kākāriki. I hope that this will soon draw to a close, so that we can get on with some other legislation. Thank you.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty) (21:25): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I’ve actually got a couple of questions which are in the body of the legislation, not relating to the amendments, because, actually, most of the speeches have canvassed the amendments but actually haven’t dived into the detail of the actual legislation.

The two questions that I’ve got that I would like to ask firstly touches on the point that Todd Stephenson was alluding to in his contribution around cellar doors, which are the only one that can sell alcohol on those days where they’re allowed to operate, aside from restaurants, cafes, and bars under the current legislation. On the same day that a supermarket or a bottle store cannot sell alcohol to people who would like to purchase it, a cellar door can. Why is there that delineation between the two where we’re allowing cellar doors to be able to sell alcohol—which would not be consumed, necessarily, on site, on premise, because it could be taken off site—but we won’t allow supermarkets or bottle stores to do the same, and why is there that separation that’s been created? That’s my first question.

The second question relates to a provision that we incorporated on the Justice Committee around our RSAs on Anzac Day, and the requirement for a duty manager to be present on that day. It wasn’t initially in the legislation when it was first presented, but I’m keen to understand from the member in charge why he believes it’s vital, based on the proposal put forward by the Justice Committee, to include that duty managers are present on site at RSAs on Anzac Day whilst alcohol is sold to patrons who are there. If we talk about it and we look in the legislation, it is under the Schedule, New Part 3 inserted into Schedule 1AA, clause 5, it says “Transitional arrangements for off-licences”—oh, sorry, that’s actually the cellar door one—“A condition imposed on an off-licence has no effect to the extent that it—(a) is imposed before the commencement date; and (b) prohibits the sale on or delivery from the premises, on Good Friday, or Christmas Day, or before 1 pm on Anzac Day, of grape wine or fruit or vegetable wine made—(i) on the premises; or (ii) from produce harvested from land on which the premises are situated.”

Firstly, that’s the inclusion as to why cellar doors would be allowed to operate on those days but out bottle stores and supermarkets may not be able to. Then, on the second point that I was making, under Part 2, clause 12, it says “Schedule, form 11 amended”, and it says, “In the Schedule, form 11, first paragraph, replace the third bullet point with: is a member of some other club with which the club has an arrangement for reciprocal visiting rights for members; or … is on the premises at any time during the hours from 4 am to 1 pm”—that’s around members being present there. But what about the provision to include that duty managers must be on site at RSAs for the sale of alcohol to people who are both members but also non-members and guests in that club to allow them to service and sell alcohol to those people who are in there?

I’m keen to hear from the member in charge on those two points that I’ve raised from the legislation.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (21:29): Thank you, Mr Chair. I move, That debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): We’re getting very close. We’ve got some technical questions relating to the bill; the amendments have pretty much been done. We’ve got some questions relating to the main bill proper. I’m looking for questions of that type. We will have a standing closure motion.

TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki) (21:29): Thank you, sir. I just want to ask the member one question because there’s been some great discussions around the Chamber during this, and it relates to the main bill and the interplay with Amendment Paper 532. Are you convinced that, regardless of if 532 passes, is the advice from officials back in select committee—I appreciate we don’t have them now—that the bill would still go ahead? The Amendment Paper doesn’t just impact Anzac Day before 1 p.m. but, actually, all of Good Friday, all of Easter Sunday, and all of Christmas Day. If we accept the argument that we need that Amendment Paper to change the law for early hours of Anzac Day morning, by default you would also need it for all the other times, and, without that, the entire bill would achieve nothing. I don’t accept that. I believe the bill stands as it is. But I’d like to hear if you have any advice on if the bill would still take effect without the Amendment Paper.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) (21:30): Thank you very much to the members for posing those questions. To Steve Abel, thank you very much for that question. There was certainly a common theme amongst the submitters, a concern raised, around increased alcohol harm. Looking into that, it appears a clear connection in the view of the submitters that any increased access—albeit, I would argue, in this instance a technical increase in access, because they can already access it. All it’s actually doing is not increasing the access to alcohol but removing the requirement to buy a meal at the same time—that’s the guts of it. It doesn’t necessarily relate to an increase in alcohol harm, although I respect the concerns raised.

Can I very quickly say to Carlos Cheung—I referred to you as Mr Cheung earlier. It should have been Dr Cheung. I apologise for that. I get irritated when people call me “McNulty” instead of “McAnulty”, so fair’s fair.

To Tom Rutherford’s question around cellar doors—a good one. Another anomaly that we found in this rule is that cellar door operations—which are considered on-licence operations, essentially—were able to operate on Easter Sunday already but not the other days. If we were going to allow them to operate on Easter Sunday but not the other days, that would be inconsistent with the bill, so that’s why that was included.

The issue with Returned and Services Associations (RSAs) is an interesting one. The ability to be able to sell—I’ll take one step back. RSAs, like other clubs, are not required to have a duty manager on site at all times, but they’re also not allowed to sell to members of the public. What this bill does is carve out a little window on Anzac Day morning so that veterans and people that attend Anzac Day—maybe members of the club or an affiliated club—can bring members of the public with them and buy alcohol. The trade-off, though, to that is that they are required to have a duty manager on at the time, and I think that is a fair trade-off.

To Mr Costley’s question, the truth of the matter is I thought my bill did this already, and that is why I’m comfortable with Mr Luxton’s amendment, because at the end of the day, what we’re saying, the intent of the bill, is that those businesses that are already allowed to operate can do so under normal conditions, but because Anzac Day was a particular carve-out for RSAs, we missed that for the on-licences. My read of Amendment Paper 532 is that it just brings it to be fully consistent with the intent of the bill. Like I said, I honestly thought the bill did that already, and perhaps if we had access to the resources that a Government bill would, we would have tidied it off, but we have the opportunity to tidy it off now. I’ve explained that to the House—that I will be voting for 532, but I’ll be voting no on the other three amendments.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Is this a technical question, Mr Stephenson?

TODD STEPHENSON (ACT) (21:33): It’s related to—yeah—section 48 and the Amendment Paper 531 and the interplay. Thank you to the member in charge. He’s been very generous with his time. Again, I think Mr Rutherford covered it off well. What I’m concerned about, and why I will be supporting Amendment Paper 531, which I think actually retains the original intent of your bill, is because I’m going to end up—I’m from down South, as you people will know: Otago, Southland. I come from the great wine region of Central Otago, and I’m going to end up in my area with the absurd situation where a cellar door will be able to sell off-licence, which is what’s contained in section 48 as amended. Again, I support that, because we went through this whole cellar door Stuart Smith bill—it was excellent, and I totally support that. But I’m going to end up, in Queenstown, for example, and in Central Otago, with the absurd situation where my local vineyard and winery can sell off-licence on the days, but my supermarket in Queenstown—there’s a bunch of them—in Wānaka, and across Central Otago won’t be able to. I guess that’s why I’ll be supporting 531, which kind of addresses that issue.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): It’s not quite a technical question, is it?

TODD STEPHENSON: Yeah, but it’s a technical question in the sense of—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Or are you making a statement?

TODD STEPHENSON: No. I’m getting to the question, Mr Chair. Thank you. I would really ask the member just to reflect on whether he does see that as an inconsistency and whether this Amendment Paper will actually address that issue, particularly in tourist towns.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (21:35): I move, That debate on this question now close.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Cameron Luxton’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 531 be agreed to.

A personal vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 27

Noes 71

Abstentions 1

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Jamie Arbuckle’s tabled amendments be agreed to.

A personal vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 14

Noes 82

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Andy Foster’s tabled amendments be agreed to.

A personal vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 12

Noes 85

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Cameron Luxton’s amendment to Part 1 inserting new clause 4A, set out on Amendment Paper 532, be agreed to.

A personal vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 60

Noes 40

Amendment agreed to.

A personal vote was called for on the question, That Parts 1 and 2, the Schedule, and clauses 1 and 2 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 65

Noes 44

Part 1 and 2, the Schedule, and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Sales on Anzac Day Morning, Good Friday, Easter Sunday, and Christmas Day) Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The House is adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 10.49 p.m.