Wednesday, 22 April 2026

Wednesday, 22 April 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): The petition of Endo Warriors Aotearoa requesting that the House urge the Government to commission an independent review and rewrite of the Ministry of Health’s endometriosis guidelines.

SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee.

Papers

SPEAKER (14:01): A paper has been delivered for presentation.

CLERK (14:01): 2025-2030 statement of intent for NZ Transport Agency Waka Kotahi.

SPEAKER: That paper is published under the authority of the House. No select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.

Bills

Crown Land Legislation Amendment Bill

Introduction

SPEAKER (14:01): The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of a bill.

CLERK (14:01): Crown Land Legislation Amendment Bill, introduction.

SPEAKER: That bill is set down for first reading.

Oral Questions to Ministers

Prime Minister

Question No. 1

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green) (14:01) 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) (14:01): Yes.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Prime Minister understand that reducing our dependence on fossil fuels reduces our exposure to imported inflation?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What the Prime Minister understands is that, actually, a failed policy that ended oil and gas exploration puts this country at huge risk, drives up energy prices, and actually puts huge pain and suffering on low and middle income working people. And that’s why we don’t support the Labour - Greens energy policy. We have a different plan now.

Hon Shane Jones: Carnage! Carnage!

SPEAKER: Just to be very clear, the Prime Minister doesn’t need the assistance he’s currently getting from some of the coalition members when he’s answering questions. Chlöe Swarbrick—[Interruption] No, just Chlöe Swarbrick.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Is our country more or less exposed to imported inflation because of his decisions to cut former Government investment in decarbonising and electrifying industry and transport?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, our country is much safer and more secure in an energy security sense with this Government in charge. It is an “and, and, and”. We have a huge boom in renewables. We’re opening up. We’ve got a strategic coal reserve sitting beside Huntly. We want to make sure that we’ve got as much optionality as possible so we can lower the dry-year risk, keep power bills cheaper for people. That’s what it’s about.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is our country more or less exposed to imported inflation because of his decision to spend at least $1 billion of taxpayer money on a liquefied natural gas (LNG) import facility?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, our country is infinitely better off by actually avoiding the policies of the previous administration that saw us import huge amounts of Indonesian coal and actually make the rather unique global transition from domestic gas to international coal—

Chlöe Swarbrick: Tell the truth!

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: —twice as bad from an emissions point of view. We’ve got a renewables boom like we’ve never seen before; we’ve got emissions the lowest it’s been since 2010; and we’ve got an “and, and, and” policy where we are going to continue to invest and have fossil fuel in this country in order to lower the dry-year risk so we lower the power bills and we keep people in jobs.

Hon David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Besides the tedious sanctimony, that member saying, “Tell the truth.” is an implication that he’s not and, therefore, completely unparliamentary, and she should be asked to withdraw and apologise for that.

SPEAKER: No, sorry. You can’t take objection to something that might mean something else. There are some very specific requirements around that.

Hon David Seymour: What else could it mean?

SPEAKER: Well, it could be that it is an exhortation, and I think that would be a perfectly reasonable example.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I felt quite hurt by it. I was quite wounded.

SPEAKER: Well, if you’re wounded, you take your own offence. Don’t leave it to your—I know that the theory is that if you’ve got a whistle and a dog then you don’t need to bark yourself, but that’s not the case here.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Would the country be more or less exposed to imported inflation if the Government took the $1 billion of taxpayer money intended to be spent on a liquefied natural gas (LNG) import facility and instead invested that in renewable energy generation?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I’ve said to the member, we have an energy policy which is about doubling the amount of renewable energy in this country, and we have a renewables boom under way, thanks in part to things like fast track—and that member never supported that. We have reversed the ridiculous oil and gas ban; that member supported that. That ended up driving up $800 megawatt per hour costs, and then people in low and middle income working jobs in mills in industrial, provincial parts of New Zealand lost their jobs. So the energy policy of the Labour-Greens lost people their jobs. We’re not doing that.

Hon David Seymour: Is the plan—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just wait, Mr Seymour. Thank you.

Hon David Seymour: Does the Government have any plan to use “taxpayer money” such as that raised from income tax and GST for the proposed LNG terminal or is it to be funded by a levy on the power companies that use it—which of those would be “telling the truth”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In answer to the first part of the question, no. I also want to reassure the House: we’re not going to go borrow another $44 billion or increase taxes by $90 billion.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Supplementary. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Chlöe Swarbrick, and no one else.

Hon David Seymour: Tell the truth—tell the truth.

SPEAKER: Just—who’s making that comment after I asked them all to be quiet?

Hon David Seymour: A timing issue, sir.

SPEAKER: Well, it’s never been your strong suit.

Chlöe Swarbrick: If hope is not a plan, what exactly is his plan to reduce our exposure to imported inflation through reducing our dependence on fossil fuels?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, our plan is to actually have good fiscal and financial management, which is what you’re seeing from this Government. We haven’t cranked up spending by 84 percent, driven inflation to 32-year highs, had 13 increases in interest rates, put the economy into recession where people have lost their jobs—we’re doing the reverse of that. We are disciplined spenders. We’ve lowered inflation, we’ve brought interest rates down nine times, we have an economy that’s growing, and we’ve created 15,000 new jobs in the last quarter.

Finance

Question No. 2

GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland) (14:07) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on the economy?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (14:07): Earlier this month, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) released its latest World Economic Outlook, which contains forecasts for the global economy, including New Zealand, and gives broad policy advice. The latest report was produced as conflict in the Middle East was unfolding. The IMF acknowledges the difficulty of forecasting in this environment. Its main forecast assumes that the conflict will have limited duration, intensity, and scope, with disruptions fading by mid-2026, consistent with what markets were indicating when the forecasts were prepared. But the IMF also presents an adverse scenario and another more severe scenario.

Grant McCallum: What does the main scenario say about the outlook for the world and for New Zealand?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: At the beginning of this year, before conflict began in the Middle East, the IMF was forecasting global growth of 3.3 percent in 2026; it’s now forecasting that growth to fall to 3.1 percent. In 2027, the IMF is forecasting global growth of 3.2 percent, unchanged from before the conflict. For New Zealand, the IMF is forecasting growth of 2.1 percent in 2026 and 2.4 percent in 2027. This is a little lower than the Reserve Bank was forecasting in its Monetary Policy Statement in February, but it is higher growth than the IMF is forecasting for the world’s advanced economies as a whole.

Grant McCallum: What do the IMF’s alternative scenarios indicate?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, the IMF’s scenarios were constructed on a top-down basis, so there are no alternative forecasts available specifically for New Zealand, but they have been done for the world as a whole. In the IMF’s adverse scenario, oil prices are assumed to increase by 80 percent and not return to pre-conflict levels until 2028. In this case, the IMF forecasts global growth to slow to 2.5 percent in 2026. In the severe scenario, there is more damage to energy infrastructure in the conflict region, and oil prices increase by 100 percent in 2026 and 2027. Under this scenario, the IMF cuts its global growth forecast to just 2 percent in 2026. While the impacts of the conflict are still very uncertain, I would observe that oil prices are currently around 35 percent higher than they were before the conflict began—so, well south of some of the IMF’s more dire predictions.

Grant McCallum: What is the IMF’s advice about fiscal support at this time?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The IMF’s advice to countries is: “Where fiscal support is deemed to be necessary to protect the most vulnerable … it should be targeted, timely, temporary and funded within current budget envelopes by reprioritising spending”. Just to clarify, that is not a quote from me; that is a quote from the International Monetary Fund. That is exactly what this Government is doing, of course. Furthermore, the IMF warned Governments not to take their eye off the ball at this time and to continue to pursue credible medium-term fiscal consolidation to rebuild fiscal buffers—fiscal buffers that will be more important in the future to countries’ resilience, arguably, than ever. Again, that is exactly what this Government is doing, as members will see in the Budget. Others may talk big about splashing the cash. We are taking a responsible approach.

Prime Minister

Question No. 3

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition) (14:11) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister) (14:11): Yes.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Will the Government be adopting any of the International Energy Agency’s recommended fuel conservation initiatives in response to the current international oil shock; if so, which ones?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As the member knows, we have a four-phases approach to how to manage this crisis. It’s triggered by a conversation of whether we should move between phases on six different assessment criteria. At this stage, New Zealand has sufficient supply of fuel. We see no disruption to that fuel supply, and as a consequence, it’s business as usual.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Under the National Fuel Plan, what is the Government’s definition of “critical customers”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, we are working that through with industry. One of the lessons out of COVID is, actually, we don’t believe in a parent-child relationship where Government happens to industry; we actually work with industry. We have ongoing work as we put more definition around phases 3 and 4, should we ever need it, but the focus of this Government is to make sure that we never get to phases 3 and 4. It’s about making sure that we ensure we have fuel supply at all times, and that’s what we’re doing.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How will the Government prioritise fuel supplies to critical customers, as indicated under level 2?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again, that’s laid out in our phases. The member is well aware to look at the broad sketching that we have. But we have ongoing work with industry, with our officials. We meet regularly. We’re deeply, deeply engaged. But it requires there to be a disruption to our fuel supply. Again, we are in phase 1 because we do not have a foreseeable disruption to our fuel supply; our fuel importers are confident, they have orders out to May into June; and we’re in a good position.

Hon Nicola Willis: Can the Prime Minister confirm that at phase 2, it is the Government’s expectation that fuel importers and distributors ensure that they maintain supply to critical customers, but that the Government would stand ready to regulate to ensure that fuel distributors were doing that, should there be disruptions to regional supply?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: That is correct, but this is a Government that has a different approach from what has been the management of the previous Government, which was all about—the approach to pandemics was about “We’ll tell you what to do.” We believe we’ll work with Government on that.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Will petrol stations be expected to check whether their customers are critical customers in order to ensure that they are given supplies; if not, how are they going to make sure that critical customers—

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Look, I appreciate the member has had experience running a crisis in the past, but we have taken the mistakes of his management and we are doing it differently. The reason, very simply, is that we are a Government that will work with industry—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: We’re going to hear the answer in silence. It’s a pretty important question.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We will work with industry rather than do things to industry, which was the mistake of the last management of the last crisis that Government dealt with.

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

SPEAKER: A point of order. A point of order is heard in silence.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: It might surprise the Prime Minister I wasn’t asking him about the pandemic. I was asking him about how critical customers are going to be identified by fuel companies.

SPEAKER: Yeah, an important question, and you can ask it again without penalty, and we’ll hear the answer in silence.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Will petrol stations be expected to check whether someone is a critical customer in order to identify whether or not they have a critical need to access fuel, should we reach that point?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No, and as I said to the member, we are working closely with industry so that, should we ever get to phases 3 and 4—which we hope never to do—we will work together on how we allocate and prioritise the rationing of fuel in that situation. But we have got ongoing work with industry. We’ll continue to build that, and when we’re ready to share it, we’ll share it.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How is he saying that fuel companies will be expected to ensure that critical customers are prioritised if the fuel companies aren’t expected to know who the critical customers are and aren’t expected to check?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Look, I really appreciate the member’s anxiety in the question he’s raising. I’ve noticed his scaremongering about the supplies of fuel that are within New Zealand. I want to reassure him that we are in phase 1 of our national fuel response plan. What that means is that the market is operating effectively and fuel is available. If we move from phase 1 to phase 2, that decision will be made because we see that there could be some risk of fuel supply in place. Should we ever need to get to phase 3, and then phase 4, obviously there is rationing, but we are working that up with industry. We’ll have more to say about it, and we’ll share that when we have it.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Will petrol stations be prohibited from supplying customers who are not deemed to be critical customers at any point; if so, how will they know who the critical customers are?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Look, I just want to reassure the member: we’re in phase 1. We’ve got plenty of fuel. Don’t worry about it, son. It’s all good.

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

Hon Kieran McAnulty: The only person who should be worried is you, mate.

SPEAKER: Excuse me, what’s happening here?

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Well, if he’s going to—

SPEAKER: No, you’re going to be quiet while your leader is taking a point of order.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Mr Speaker, a lot of New Zealanders are concerned that they may experience a shortage of fuel in the near future. They are asking—

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No, you’re scaremongering.

SPEAKER: No, just a minute. No one speaks while a point of order is taken, but it would be good if the member could come to the point of order without the explanation ahead of it.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: The point is that the Prime Minister has given us a detailed explanation of what he thinks the previous Government did wrong during the pandemic without actually answering any of the questions about what people are going to face in New Zealand in the near future should we end up with a fuel shortage. I’ve asked him who the critical customers are—

SPEAKER: Yes, I know.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: He hasn’t answered that.

SPEAKER: Yes, he has.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: I’ve asked him whether the petrol companies are going to be expected to prioritise them and how, and he hasn’t answered that. These are not unreasonable questions.

SPEAKER: That’s enough. In each of those, he’s been given a question where the answer has been that the process, as far as I heard it, is still being worked through. But if the member wants to ask one more question without penalty, he may do so.

Hon Nicola Willis: Supplementary?

SPEAKER: No, supplementary here.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Two months after the fuel crisis started, why can’t he tell New Zealanders who critical customers are, how they will access fuel, what the role of the fuel companies is going to be, and when we might get to that point—what the criteria are for if we do get to that point?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, again, I’ve said to the member that we are doing it differently than he may have done the management of a previous crisis. We have six criteria, which actually trigger a conversation—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry, we’re going to hear it in silence. It’s been clearly outlined by the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins. It’s a very important question, so we’ll listen to the answer.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I said, we’re doing it differently. We have six trigger criteria that actually bring officials, industry, and Ministers together to make an assessment about where we should be with respect to phases. Job number one is to continue to secure fuel supply. We’re doing that job. I want to reassure the member we are in phase 1. We are delivering fuel data on Mondays and Wednesdays. We’re being very transparent with the New Zealand people. They are reassured that we have plenty of stock. There is no disruption to any fuel supply. As I said to the member, our fuel importers—we’ve worked with them from day one. We are actually working in partnership with industry, rather than the Government sitting there in an ivory tower telling industry what to do. The solutions will be delivered with industry together. As we work our way through the phases, we continue to put definition to them, in the event we should need them.

Hon Nicola Willis: Does the Prime Minister think it is responsible for political leaders to scaremonger—

SPEAKER: No, no—stop there. That’s not a question. We’ll go to question No. 4.

Trade and Investment

Question No. 4

SUZE REDMAYNE (National—Rangitīkei) (14:19) to the Minister for Trade and Investment: What recent announcements has he made regarding the free trade agreement with India?

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister for Trade and Investment) (14:19): New Zealand and India have reached agreement to sign a landmark free trade agreement in New Delhi on Monday, 27 April of this year. It is an agreement that’s worth celebrating. New Zealanders will have unprecedented access to 1.4 billion people in an economy set to become the world’s third largest. It will ensure our exporters remain competitive with Australia, the UK, the European Union (EU), and European Free Trade Association countries who already have or will benefit from lower tariffs—95 percent of our exports will see tariff elimination or reduction, amongst the highest of any India free trade agreement (FTA), with almost 57 percent being duty free from day one, increasing to 82 percent when fully implemented. The benefits of the New Zealand - India Free Trade Agreement will be available to all Kiwis for many generations to come.

Suze Redmayne: What benefits will this agreement deliver for New Zealanders?

Hon TODD McCLAY: The FTA will create jobs for Kiwis and give us more options in a challenging international trading and geopolitical environment. New Zealand has secured tariff-free access for lamb, wool, coal, leather, forestry, most industrial products, infant formula, and seafood; and reductions of duty rates for our wine, as an example, from 150 percent to as low as 25 percent. For the first time in any India FTA, New Zealand has secured preferential access for apples, mānuka honey, and a tariff-free quota for kiwifruit, almost four times what we currently sell them. Trade grows the economy, and it creates jobs. The New Zealand - India free trade agreement is about futureproofing our exporters and allowing Kiwi companies to continue to punch above their weight.

Suze Redmayne: What support has there been for the India free trade agreement?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, last week, 28 companies and organisations published an open letter calling for support of the agreement. In their letter, they said, and I quote: “An FTA with India is not luxury; it’s a strategic necessity for our economy security.” Support for that letter has grown to 97 businesses and organisations. The chambers of commerce across New Zealand have called on parties to support the agreement. For instance, Business Canterbury said, “Opportunities like this are rare. We urge all parties across Parliament to get in behind backing our business community and our economy, through ratification of the FTA.” ExportNZ said, “This Agreement was hard fought and represents New Zealand’s best opportunity to secure meaningful access to one of the world’s most important growth markets. It also keeps the door open for further engagement … The time to act is now.” Finally, the New Zealand Indian community has described the agreement as once in a lifetime.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Will the India-NZ FTA allow Indian temporary employment entry visa holders to bring their family members with them to New Zealand, as is the case with temporary entry visa holders from other FTA partners, such as China, Thailand, and the Philippines?

Hon TODD McCLAY: One of the things that we agreed with India is that, every year, 1,670 high-skilled workers that New Zealand needs, because we have a shortage in our economy, can come to New Zealand under a special visa that would be created. The visa will be for three years. At the end of that time, they would need to return home. In as far as that special visa is concerned, it is different to other trade agreements that the Minister has spoken about. It does not give them a right automatically to bring family members here, because that was not part of the negotiation. However, should they be able to in other parts of New Zealand policy around migration, they with every other person in the world are able to make an application for a visa.

Suze Redmayne: Following signing of the agreement, what are the next steps?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, upon signing the FTA, we will go through the normal Parliamentary process, enabling all parties and the public to consider the agreement in full. The agreement and a national interest analysis will be tabled in Parliament to be referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee for public hearings, and then they will report back to the House. The EU negotiated better access for their wine and services sectors in their recently concluded FTA. A most-favoured nations clause in our agreement, negotiated by our negotiators, means that if these additional benefits must be extended to New Zealand, should our FTA enter into force before the European Union’s, this will be worth tens of millions of dollars in extra exports to New Zealand businesses, and so we’re going to work hard to make sure this can happen.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Will this FTA reduce the cost of butter chicken for those who love it?

SPEAKER: I’ll tell you what: he’s responsible for a lot of things, but I wouldn’t want to eat his butter chicken, so we’ll go to a supplementary question.

Hon David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. To ask if a trade agreement will have an effect on the price of things that people can buy is a perfectly legitimate question that actually does deserve an answer.

SPEAKER: Yeah, look, it does, but—

Hon David Seymour: So let him answer it.

SPEAKER: No, it might deserve an answer, but certainly not in the context of a trade agreement.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: So is the Minister’s position that an Indian chef coming here under the Indian free-trade agreement (FTA) will have fewer rights than a Chinese chef coming in under the China - New Zealand FTA; in other words, that an Indian chef is worth less to the National Party than a Chinese chef?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, I welcome the member’s concern that all migrants should have the same rights and opportunities within New Zealand, but, no, I’m not saying that. I’m saying that every time you negotiate a trade agreement, you actually negotiate it with a partner. As far as the questions you ask, that was not part of the negotiation, nor is it part of the trade agreement. No commitments were made in that area. However, all Governments of New Zealand decide that they want to set migration policy and the rules that sit around that. This Government, as with the previous one and future Governments, has that ability, because that has not been part of the trade agreement negotiated with India.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If that’s the case, has the Minister or the Prime Minister directly and explicitly informed their Indian counterparts that they intend to implement the India temporary employment entry (TEE) visa scheme in a way that treats Indians worse than Chinese, Thais, and the Vietnamese; and, if so, what was the reaction from Prime Minister Modi and trade Minister Goyal to the admission of this planned discrimination against Indian citizens?

Hon TODD McCLAY: I reject not only the characterisation of that question but its intent and its meaning. Indeed, I have had many conversations with my counterpart in India, as frequently and most recently as a few weeks ago in Africa at the World Trade Organization trade negotiation. He, and I, and almost every other New Zealander I have spoken to, thinks this is a historic occasion. It’s a high-quality agreement and it deserves to be celebrated.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If that answer is in the affirmative, and given the data shows that, on average, a visa holder will bring their partner and two children with them, doesn’t the 5,000 TEE visa and the FTA mean that up to 20,000 more Indians are able to come to New Zealand?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, it wasn’t in the affirmative—that’s not what my answer was—but, very clearly, in the case of these 1,670 high-skilled Indian workers that the New Zealand economy needs, decided upon by a green list set by Government because there are skills shortages, they will be able to apply for a visa. They’re also able to apply for the existing shortage visa with the rights and obligations that come with that. I caution suggestions of large numbers of people from anywhere in the world that would come to New Zealand. The reason for that is it does a disservice to the migrant community, many of whom work very hard and help us grow our economy. There won’t be the number of people coming as a result of the agreement that has been suggested by many in the media.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why does the FTA, for the first time in any New Zealand FTA, state that the number of international students coming from India to New Zealand will be uncapped? And does the Minister agree with Indian Government officials who have described this as unprecedented and “a huge win for Indian students”?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, I think it is a huge win for Indian students to have the opportunity to come to New Zealand, one of the most beautiful countries in the world, to get an education and then to return home, but it is important to note that there are no caps that have ever been put on the places of any students from any country in the world coming to New Zealand. What successive Governments have done, on both sides of the House, is use criteria that we set to have an effect upon the number of students that may come from somewhere. For instance, in the last period of Government, changes were made that reduced students from many parts of the world coming to New Zealand, including when they came from India. This Government has upheld those and looked for other areas to tighten that criteria so that the students that come, particularly at higher levels of education, can benefit and that it is a fair match with New Zealand, and so that, actually, we can continue to make sure that the balance is right. The India free-trade agreement allows current and future Governments to continue to make decisions in the best interests of New Zealand around what requirements are needed for students to get a visa to come to New Zealand, and that is an extremely important part of a negotiation. It is something that both the Indian Government and New Zealand Government are more than aware of.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why does the India FTA include an investment clause with a completely unrealistic and unachievable $34 billion target over 15 years, when no previous New Zealand FTA has ever done so?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, whenever a trade agreement is entered into, trade increases in both directions as does opportunity for investment. But I want to be very clear and say this very carefully: the New Zealand Government, through the India free-trade agreement, has not taken on a commitment to invest an amount of money in India. In fact, a month or two ago, the Indian High Commissioner to New Zealand stated this publicly and said the figure that has been mentioned is aspirational. What the Government has done is taken on a commitment to promote investment in India, and already we see New Zealand businesses that are interested to go to India to invest. In return, the Indian Government—not only around all of the access we have for the areas of tariff-free trade that I mentioned—has agreed to set up a single desk to make it easier for New Zealanders to invest in India, something that no other country in the world can rely upon. New Zealand is already an open country that’s easy to invest in if that investment is in the best interest of New Zealand. I back Kiwi companies to go over there and do well because as we’ve seen everywhere in the world, when New Zealanders invest, it grows our economy at home.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Minister saying that his counterpart, trade Minister Goyal, was misleading when he said that “If they do not invest, there will be a clawback of benefits”; in other words, if New Zealand does not invest $34 billion over 15 years, then India will claw back the benefits it has given New Zealand in the FTA?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, no, that’s not what I’m saying. What I’m saying is our commitment is to promote. It is very clear in the advice the Government’s received and in the text of the agreement: New Zealand must promote investment. That is the obligation that the Government has taken on. As with every Government and every trade agreement, New Zealand Governments take their obligations seriously. We are probably the standout country in the world when it comes to meeting requirements of trade agreements and upholding the rules-based approach to trade. In the case that there was a decision that was made that any party in a trade agreement is not meeting its obligation, there are processes it could go through. But it is to promote investment and this Government will—as I’m sure future Governments will—take that obligation seriously.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Minister consider that it’s in good faith for New Zealand to include an investment target in the FTA which the Government knows will never be met and, second, why is there a monitoring group out of India to see whether this target is met or not?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, aspirational targets are very important. Parties of this Parliament have a lot this year; they all want more MPs. Aspiration is something this Government backs. But what I would actually say to you is: ultimately, what we have agreed between the two parties is 12 months after the agreement enters into force, a committee is formed that will meet annually to look for ways to improve the agreement, to continue to get better access for New Zealanders, and so on. As part of that, of course, we monitor the agreement. We have similar types of arrangements with the UK and the European Union and many countries around the world. We monitor it to make sure it’s working, to make sure that it is being implemented as we wanted it to. And, actually, that’s a very good thing: the committee that the Minister is speaking of will be of significant benefit to New Zealand exporters. A country of 5 million people selling to a country of 1.4 billion people—I don’t do maths well, but that works well for New Zealand.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Given that all politics is about realpolitik, why is there a massive chasm between the understanding of the Indian Government—the Prime Minister and the trade Minister—and their officials and what the country is being sold in New Zealand?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, I don’t think there is a massive chasm, but its election year and there’s always going to be a bit of kicking and screaming in New Zealand.

Finance

Question No. 5

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) (14:34) to the Minister of Finance: Does she agree with the Prime Minister’s statement that we are seeing “falling food prices, a sustained drop in inflation, and early indications that interest rates could soon begin to fall”; if so, what was the increase in food prices for the year to March 2026?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (14:34): Yes. The Prime Minister made that statement in July 2024. At that time, the most recently available data showed that food prices had actually fallen for the year by 0.3 percent—a feat not achieved by the last Government. There had been a sustained drop in inflation, and a month later, interest rates started to fall as the Reserve Bank began reducing the official cash rate—so, yes, the Prime Minister was absolutely correct. To the second part of the question: in the year to March 2023, food prices rose 12.1 percent, and in the year to March 2026, they rose 3.4 percent.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is it correct that the price of fruit and vegetables has increased by 9 percent since she claimed, “the era of crushing price rises is over”?

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Seasonal—seasonal.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, it is the case that food price increases vary across product ranges, some of which do reflect seasonal variation. It is also the case that Kiwis are paying lower prices for groceries than would have been the case if the last Government had been re-elected with their record of adding pressure to inflation.

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That statement is, first of all, completely out of order, but without any foundation whatsoever as well.

SPEAKER: That is true. It’s not appropriate for the Government to make—look, read the Standing Orders, you’ll see it’s very clear there that that is out of line. I’d ask the Minister to withdraw that statement.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I’d like to speak to the point of order. I was asked a question about food price increases, which I directly addressed. I also provided context for my answer, which was to say that while there had been food price increases, that it was my view—which I am able under Standing Orders to give in this House—that food price increases would have been greater with an alternative Government.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The member cannot speculate on what may have happened under a different Government—

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Ah!

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: —because it’s actually not true. I think she might be having a few issues; she may need some medical help—

SPEAKER: No, hang on—hang on—[Interruption] When we’re all settled. It is not inappropriate for a Government Minister to refer to circumstances that they have inherited in their portfolios. It is not appropriate, though, to make a direct statement saying what would have happened had there been a different Government. If the answer had been, “if food inflation had continued at 12.1 percent, then that would have been unfortunate for the New Zealand consumer”, that would be fine, but please just withdraw the statement.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Can I make a new point of order?

SPEAKER: No, we’re dealing with this one. Are you going to withdraw that statement?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, it relates directly to what the member just said.

SPEAKER: Then you’re speaking to the point of order.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yep—and I take offence to the statement that I need medical help—

SPEAKER: Yeah, I’m coming to that.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: —which I find offensive, and I would like to assure all members of this House that I’m in great health and went for an excellent run with the Treasurer of Australia and the British Chancellor in Washington DC recently, and I find it offensive, and in a long line of politicians in this House making personal aspersions on people, and, in this case, I find that it is disreputable for the Leader of the Opposition to have conducted himself that way.

SPEAKER: Yep, look, that’s fine, but we’ll deal with the matter in hand—

Hon David Seymour: Speaking to the point of order.

SPEAKER: No, I’ve ruled on it.

Hon David Seymour: No, this is the one you’re still talking about.

SPEAKER: Well, which one? I just want to make sure you’re clear about what we’re talking about.

Hon David Seymour: I’m talking about the idea that if a Minister can’t say what the difference this Government has made is—

SPEAKER: No, no, no.

Hon David Seymour: —what can she comment on?

SPEAKER: No, don’t get clever with this. It’s quite simple: a Minister may say, “If circumstances had continued, this might have been the case—”

Hon David Seymour: That’s what she said.

SPEAKER: No, it was a definite reference to the previous Government, which is not in order. I’m asking the Minister to withdraw the statement, and then we’ll deal with the next part.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I withdraw my statement.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Mr Speaker, I’m happy to withdraw my statement if the member has taken it out of context. I was referring, of course, that to the noise that she made and nothing else. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Quiet! I don’t want to ask the whole House to leave. Hang on—on second thoughts.

Hon Simeon Brown: Mr Speaker, he made an offensive statement and now he’s trying to justify his statement or qualify it. He should just withdraw it.

SPEAKER: Thank you.

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

SPEAKER: No, just a minute. This is getting quite pathetic, actually. I think anyone watching it would also add the word “childish”. I think it would be a good idea just to simply withdraw the statement and we move on.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: I withdraw the statement. Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister of Finance, before withdrawing her statement, gave a detailed explanation of what she was referring to and why she didn’t think she should have to.

SPEAKER: I appreciate that.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: I’m just asking that we both be treated by the same standard.

SPEAKER: Well, now you have been—now you have been. We’re going to—

Hon James Meager: Déjà vu.

SPEAKER: Excuse me.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is it correct that the price of meat has increased by 3 percent in six months since she posted on Facebook in September 2025 that the Government is “speeding up the supermarket consent progress to bring in more competition and lower grocery prices”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes. Both statements are correct. I also share, helpfully, a visual aid for the member which shows a record of food price inflation. The bit where it’s going up extremely steeply occurred in the period between 2021 and 2023. The period where it is coming down occurred under National, and this is what food price increases have looked like under this Government as compared to that very steep mountain that New Zealand shoppers were climbing under her party’s Government.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: She can’t read her own graph.

SPEAKER: We’re all just listening to the question.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why, then, in March 2023 did she say that National will take action to get food prices under control, once more considering that food has actually increased by 22 percent?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Because that was what we wanted to do and that is what we have done. I once again wish to rehearse the figures which demonstrate the progress that we have achieved. Here are the inflation percentage changes for quarters in the period March 2022 through September 2023: 6.9, 7.3, 7.2, 7.2, 6.7, 6, 5.6. Here is the record since we were elected: 4.74, 3.3, 2.2, 2.2, 2.5, 2.73, 3.1, 3.1. You don’t need to be a mathematician to realise that food price inflation has dropped dramatically under our Government when compared to the last.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Therefore, is that a decrease in food prices since she took office?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No. If the member would like a lesson on inflation then I’m very happy to give her one. In part of that lesson, I will take her through the history, which is that under her Government, inflation was higher and, Lord alive, if another Labour-led Government was elected, you betcha, inflation will be higher again, borrowing will be higher again, and taxes will be higher again, too.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why did she promise Kiwis to “help bring down food prices”, “get food prices under control”, and that they would “pay less for home-grown food at the checkout” when she had no intention of keeping those promises?

SPEAKER: Sorry, you can’t say that last part of the question.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: I can restart it, then.

SPEAKER: No, you can’t restart it. You simply withdraw the last part of the question.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: I withdraw the last part of the question.

SPEAKER: Thank you.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, because this Government is determined to ensure that the prices Kiwis pay will be lower than they would have otherwise been without the policy decisions that we are taking. The issue that the member continues to forget is that the period of the highest increases in food prices happened under a previous administration’s policies.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: When can hard-working Kiwis who are paying more week in and week out for food finally expect that she will keep her commitment to “lower grocery prices”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I am determined to make progress on that commitment. One of the ways that I will ensure that is to work very hard every day to ensure that that member and her party of people who drove food price inflation through the roof are never re-elected, because that is the biggest risk to Kiwi shoppers concerned about grocery prices.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Nasty, nasty, nasty.

SPEAKER: Carlos Cheung—

Hon Nicola Willis: I don’t think you should be calling anyone nasty today, Chris.

SPEAKER: Sorry, hang on. You can both go in a minute.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Oh, I’ll go if he goes, absolutely.

SPEAKER: Well, if you volunteer. We have question No. 8 from Dr Carlos Cheung.

Dr Carlos Cheung: You mean question No. 6, is it?

SPEAKER: Yeah, OK.

Auckland

Question No. 6

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill) (14:45) to the Minister for Auckland: What recent announcement has he made about progressing a city deal for Auckland?

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister for Auckland) (14:45): On 10 April, I joined our Prime Minister and the Minister for Infrastructure to announce Auckland’s landmark city deal. Auckland is the economic engine of our country; it accounts for 40 percent of New Zealand’s GDP and it’s our gateway to the world. When Auckland succeeds, New Zealand succeeds and when Auckland grows, New Zealand prospers. That’s why this city deal matters. It sets out how this Government and Auckland will work together in the future to unlock the potential of our biggest city.

Dr Carlos Cheung: What’s in the Auckland city deal?

Hon SIMON WATTS: To name just a few of the commitments in the deal, we’re unlocking Eden Park’s ownership and operating model, and recognising Eden Park as New Zealand’s national stadium. We have agreed to work together on key transport projects to unlock growth, including the second harbour crossing, the Northwest Rapid Transit, and City Rail Link level crossings. We’re jointly going to develop a destination and major event strategy to grow tourism and hospitality in Auckland. There is a lot to be excited about in this deal, so I encourage everyone to take a read.

Dr Carlos Cheung: How will the Auckland city deal change the way that Wellington and Auckland work together?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Let’s be clear: the way of working between Auckland and Wellington, in the past, has been fragmented and uncoordinated. This deal recognises the size and significance of Auckland, it sets out joint priorities, and levels the relationship between central government and our largest city. Based on a foundation of mutual respect, central government and Auckland will be working from the same plan, heading in the same direction.

Dr Carlos Cheung: What reactions has he seen to the deal?

Hon SIMON WATTS: A lot of positive feedback in regards to this. Infrastructure New Zealand welcomed the announcement, saying “Auckland’s City Deal will boost New Zealand’s economic growth”. Business New Zealand called the deal “a long-overdue step toward unlocking economic growth,” with “innovative funding mechanisms” being “particularly encouraging”. The deal is the first step to a stronger relationship between central government and a more productive Auckland. That is good for Auckland and, ultimately, good for New Zealand.

Children

Question No. 7

LAURA McCLURE (ACT) (14:48) to the Minister for Children: How many Oranga Tamariki front-line sites has she visited since becoming Minister?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children) (14:48): Since becoming the Minister for Children, in November 2023, I’m proud to say I have visited all 72 front-line Oranga Tamariki offices and secure residences, as well as a number of Oranga Tamariki - and community-run supervised group homes and remand homes. These visits and my discussions with front-line staff have been hugely important in how I’ve approached this job and my work programme. I want to take this opportunity to thank the many hundreds of staff for taking the time to meet me, sharing their concerns and their solutions to the challenges they face and, on many occasions, sharing, what I call, their “why”—the reasons they get up every day to do the important work that they do. They make the lives of children and their families better and ensure that children have the opportunity to grow up in safe environments and be the best versions of themselves—something that every child in New Zealand deserves.

Laura McClure: What is the benefit from visiting front-line offices and speaking to front-line staff?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: No disrespect to my officials on The Terrace, but I have found that there is nothing better than hearing directly from the people on the ground, doing the actual hard work every day. I think most people in this House would agree that there is no substitute for making informed decisions than by actually getting out of this place and talking to those who are directly impacted by the decisions that we make here in this place. The smallest things can make the biggest difference. I think of the example of visiting one rural site and hearing about a fleet issue with the new vehicles that national office have been rolling out. These new vehicles might have been great in Auckland or Christchurch, but they weren’t suitable for the sorts of distances and roads that these social workers had to travel each and every day. I was able to take their concerns back to national office, and they were able to resolve this issue for them quickly.

Laura McClure: What do front-line staff tell her at these visits, and how has this changed over the period that she has been the Minister?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: There have been some common themes that are raised at almost every site I visit. The commitment these staff feel to the children and the families that they serve and the dedication they have to their work to help make people’s lives better is clear across the country. We should never forget this and never take this for granted. They also tell me about the generational issues many of these families are struggling with and how, despite their best efforts and going above and beyond for them, unfortunately, that is not always enough. More recently, I have been hearing from front-line staff that they are seeing some positive changes with the system, which includes the likes of Health, Police, Education, and the Ministry of Social Development working better together for the benefit of children and families. There is still a lot more work to do, but I’d like to thank my ministerial colleagues and the staff at those agencies for breaking down the silos that, for many years, have not been putting young people first.

Laura McClure: What changes has she seen in the culture and professionalism within these offices over the period that she has been visiting these sites?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: When I was in Opposition, I regularly heard stories of poor practice and behaviour, as well as sites and facilities that were no longer fit for purpose. To address this, I made the professionalisation of the workforce a priority for Oranga Tamariki leadership. This Government has invested $41 million in their professionalisation through Budget 2025, and I’m pleased to confirm that the Oranga Tamariki sites I visit today are significantly improved in both culture and practice. Harm within youth justice and care and protection residences has seen a 14 percent decrease since 2024, and staff are telling me that they now feel safer, supported, and heard. As a Government, we have also made significant investments into upgrading facilities, with $22 million for repairs and upgrades to Oranga Tamariki residences and $33 million in safety and quality improvements to the facilities at youth justice residences.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Has she visited Birthright in Lower Hutt, which is a front-line service who will be forced to close their doors to over 1,000 whānau as a result of Oranga Tamariki funding not being able to keep up with cost of living pressures, including rising fuel prices?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I’m not going to talk to individual contract decisions. Those are operational matters. Yes, I will say I have visited Birthright, but I will not be going into operational matters.

Housing

Question No. 8

TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central) (14:53) to the Minister of Housing: Does he agree with the reported findings of The Urban Advisory’s second annual housing survey that New Zealanders are dissatisfied with the quality and insecurity of the rental homes available to them; if so, is he doing anything to improve the quality and security of rental housing?

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Associate Minister of Housing) (14:53) on behalf of the Minister of Housing: Sat sri akaal and kia ora, Mr Speaker. The housing survey found that issues like quality and insecurity are not short-term fluctuations but structural characteristics of the New Zealand housing system. That is why this Government is absolutely laser-focused on fixing some of the structural defects through, for example, some of the work championed by Minister Jones around granny flats, or the reinstatement of interest deductibility by Minister Seymour, or the absolute support by Minister Willis and others around ongoing mahi to build supply through Māori community housing providers and Kāinga Ora, and, most importantly, of course, the grand work of Minister Bishop around the fast track—yesterday’s 19th approval, with the Ashbourne development in Waikato to enable more housing. I particularly agree with the survey where it says that providing the right houses in the right places is not only a social necessity but a primary driver for commercial success. Yes, we’re concerned about security and quality, but that’s why I’m pleased to see some softening in the rental market, which allows tenants more choice, and pleased to see credible measures such as the Stats New Zealand rental price index showing flattening rent prices.

Tamatha Paul: If he is so concerned about security of housing, then why did the Government proceed with introducing no-cause evictions?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Namaste anō, Mr Speaker. The no-cause evictions are part of a broader suite of changes that were made right across the housing system to ensure there is a higher level of supply. That flexibility, which is given to landlords and also tenants, who are now able to terminate their tenancies with three weeks’ notice, is absolutely right square in the middle of a suite of changes that we have seen, and, as a result, a flattening of rent prices, which I’m sure parties opposite would be absolutely enthusiastic about.

Tamatha Paul: If he is relying on increasing housing supply as a response to structural issues with housing, why did he cut Auckland’s housing capacity targets by 33 percent, or up to 600,000 new homes, under urgency?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: That question absolutely demonstrates the lack of awareness of parties opposite about what’s actually going on in Auckland, and I recommend they take a flight and get up there and see what’s happening. We have landed in the right place—[Interruption] I can’t even hear myself, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: I think you can stop for a minute. The people who are heckling from the other side just need to draw a bit of breath and recognise that a constant barrage—[Interruption] It’s still continuing. You can’t do that. Make a comment if you need to, but make it brief and succinct.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: E te Māngai o te Whare, kia ora this time.

Hon Shane Jones: Āe, tīmata anō.

SPEAKER: Well, he’s one of yours.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Yes. My sense of the situation is that many parties on this side of the House want to see more supply and want to see more growth in Auckland and, of course, to ensure that rental prices continue to remain flat and remain affordable and accessible for Aucklanders. But what we’re not going to do is come up with some random number, right out there in the gazillions, in order to justify 2, 3, 4 million more houses being built. It’s absolutely ridiculous to think that 2 million houses are going to come on stream in Auckland in the next 10 years. That is not what’s going to happen. What we are going to do is ensure that there is a balanced approach to the supply of housing in Auckland that accommodates not only Aucklanders who are moving to Auckland but also those who live there now and the needs that they have in their communities.

Tamatha Paul: If housing is to “remain affordable”, why have one in four respondents been having to skip meals in the last year, mostly due to housing costs?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I think the implication in the question was that skipping meals is a direct result of the flattening of the rental market across New Zealand. I think that is very disingenuous and has no legitimate connection.

Tamatha Paul: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That wasn’t the question. The question was, in his previous answer that housing affordability will remain—I am saying, how can there be housing affordability when one in four people, according to this report, are skipping eating to pay housing costs?

SPEAKER: That’s what you just said. The question you asked related to that, and he answered that question. You can have another supp.

Tamatha Paul: OK, all right. Does he consider it a systemic failure of our housing system that over a quarter of New Zealanders in the housing survey have delayed medical care to make ends meet; and if not, why not?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Again, there continues to be a connection between choices that people have made around housing and choices around things like food and medical costs. We are very confident that we are resetting the housing system to enable not only more supply of houses but to ensure that affordability continues, whether or not it is in a rental space or an owner space. We are very confident that we are heading in the right direction, particularly with fast-track approvals that are coming on stream in places like Nelson and places like Morrinsville and, of course, famous places like Hamilton.

Energy

Question No. 9

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) (14:59) to the Associate Minister for Energy: What advice, if any, has he seen on the impact of Kuwait declaring force majeure on shipments of oil and refined petroleum on New Zealand’s future fuel supply?

Hon SHANE JONES (Associate Minister for Energy) (14:59): I have been advised that the Kuwait Petroleum Corporation first declared force majeure on 8 March. I have also been advised that, globally, we consume 100 million barrels of crude oil per day. Twenty million barrels was previously going through the strait; 2.6 million barrels of that volume came from Kuwait, and less than 10 percent of that crude oil makes its way to South-east Asia.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: What advice has he received on potential price increases for Kiwis at the pump, as a result of Kuwait’s most recent declaration of force majeure on shipments?

Hon SHANE JONES: As I said, given the minuscule amount of the crude oil which feeds the refineries in South-east Asia, where New Zealand derives its refined fuel from, such an insignificant amount is highly unlikely to show a long-term impact, and I’m advised there is no immediate impact.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Has he sought advice on using the additional powers put in the Fuel Industry Act that allow him to increase minimum stockholding levels from their current levels?

Hon SHANE JONES: Naturally, we have, as a country, a just-in-time fuel importation model. The fuel companies are operating within their statutory thresholds, and whilst there may be a small matter of ebb and flow, they are well within their legal parameters. It is not my intention, with the current advice, to place more pressure on the fuel importers; I’d rather see them manage their business and keep their pledge to Kiwis that the model of just-in-time can be made to work whilst our Government deals with other options.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Has he sought advice on using the additional powers put in the Fuel Industry Act that allow him to require more detailed reporting on fuel stocks and supply chains?

Hon SHANE JONES: Obviously, a system, in order for it to have integrity, should be buttressed by quality information. I’m advised that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment does have access to different sources of information. Where previously there may have been some reluctance from the fuel import companies to provide information, that is no longer the case.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Why has he not sought advice on using the full statutory powers put in place by Labour, but instead has chosen to rely on voluntary cooperation from fuel companies, under his National Fuel Plan?

Hon SHANE JONES: I say, once again, I most certainly will not emulate anything to do with Labour, given the tragic outcomes at the Marsden Point refinery.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Will he now commit to immediately consulting on higher minimum stockholding levels and tighter reporting, or is he still confident that his bare minimum approach is sufficient for New Zealanders in the face of escalating global risk?

Hon SHANE JONES: I say once again that the law outlines what are the thresholds. This is not a time for reckless assertions, adventurous language—and I only wish that the member showed passion, zest, and advocacy, rather than acquiesce to the closure of the refinery at Marsden Point.

Prime Minister

Question No. 10

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) (15:03) on behalf of Rawiri Waititi (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government’s statements and actions?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Deputy Prime Minister) (15:04) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Absolutely, I stand by all of the Government’s statements and actions, particularly those that have benefited Māori in the form of five charter schools, which are lifting achievement and showing real tino rangatiratanga in action, allowing communities to take charge of their destiny, with education.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he stand by voting against the Treaty principles bill?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: On behalf of the Prime Minister, absolutely. One of the things that the Treaty promised was the rule of law, but the rule of law needs to be clear and accessible to all people, and that is why, as part of a coalition agreement between New Zealand First and the National Party, we are clarifying and, in some cases, removing references to the Treaty principles in law.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Will he commit to opposing any similar legislation that comes from the Treaty clause review?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: On behalf of the Prime Minister, no. I’ve just given a rationale for why the Government believes it is important to clarify and, in some cases, remove Treaty clauses from legislation, and so it would be rather strange to commit to opposing legislation designed to give effect to the policy intent that I’ve just said the Government has.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Question No. 1 and question No. 2 were very specific. One was: does he stand against the Treaty principle—

SPEAKER: Yes, I heard them. What’s the problem?

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Question No. 2 was: will he commit to opposing similar legislation?—full stop. It was a yes or no.

SPEAKER: No, you can’t ask for a yes or no answer. The Standing Orders will tell you that.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What has changed in the Prime Minister’s position?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: On behalf of the Prime Minister, it would appear by the member’s references to question No. 1 and question No. 2 that she is not thinking for herself, but simply reading off a sheet, and the next question that might be asked is: who wrote this stuff? None the less, the Prime Minister has not changed his position. If the member would like to point to a specific position that she believes the Prime Minister has changed, then I will attempt to answer on his behalf.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Why should New Zealanders trust the Prime Minister’s position on Te Tiriti when it shifts, dependent on what keeps this coalition together?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: On behalf of the Prime Minister, New Zealanders should trust the Prime Minister’s position on the Treaty because this Government has actually delivered for Māori—

Hon Willie Jackson: No, you haven’t.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: —in practical ways. Someone has said that, no, we haven’t. Well, let me tell you a little bit about it. the number of Māori new entrants who are at or above expectations was 25 percent. Only one in four Māori students, the new entrants, was at or above expectations for things like reading and maths and writing, things that give people a future—only one in four. In the couple of years we’ve been in, we’ve got it up to 43 percent. We’ve nearly doubled the number of young Māori new entrants who are meeting expectations for critical skills that will give them real mana in the future and the ability to navigate their century on their terms, equipped with the taiaha of knowledge. That’s why we should be trusting this Prime Minister on the Treaty, because we’re getting actual practical results, and these guys say that we’re not getting results. Maybe they think that young Māori reading and writing doesn’t matter. Certainly, from the results they got in Government, it seems that’s exactly what they think.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Is the Prime Minister saying—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Hang on.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Kia ora. Is the Prime Minister saying that his position on Te Tiriti is dependent on political convenience?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: On behalf of the Prime Minister, no, but I think we’re seeing a very good example of what happens when you give a job to the wrong person. You see, this question was down under the name of Rawiri Waititi—

SPEAKER: No, no. Sorry, Mr Seymour—

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: —and we’ve now got a member who can’t think on her feet just reading off a script.

SPEAKER: The member knows that you can’t refer to matters in that way.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: The question was also to the Prime Minister.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Neither is the Prime Minister here. Can the Prime Minister explain—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just a moment. Absolute silence, apart from the person asking the question.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Can the Prime Minister explain why his Government is prioritising Treaty clause changes over urgent action on the cost of living, fuel security, and climate resilience?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: On behalf of the Prime Minister, the Government is not prioritising changes to Treaty clauses over action on the cost of living and fuel security. As important as the changes to the Treaty clauses may be to the future of this country, Ministers are meeting every morning at quarter to 8 to get situational updates and check on progress in relation to the fuel situation. Ministers are meeting several times a day—Nicola Willis is here, and she’s probably getting sick of seeing me; I think this is our third meeting in 24 hours before question time—about the Budget, which is designed to take the pressure off inflation and interest rates, which were so devastating to Kiwi households when those guys were in power. The priorities of this Government are the cost of living and the fuel crisis, and the No. 1 way to understand someone’s priorities is to see how—

SPEAKER: Good—shorten it up.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: —they spend their time. You can see how we’re spending ours. I hate to think how that member has been spending hers—obviously, not preparing for question time.

SPEAKER: Shorten it up.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does the Prime Minister accept that stronger partnership with Māori under Te Tiriti would improve national resilience, and, if not, what evidence does he rely on to reject that?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: On behalf of the Prime Minister, we actually believe that strong partnership with all New Zealanders strengthens resilience. We do not believe that New Zealanders should be ranked in a hierarchy of when their ancestors came to their land. We should be united by the fact that we are a nation of pioneers, with a spirit of adventure, who took huge risks many times to live in these beautiful islands—that is what unites us.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does the Prime Minister stand by Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) funding decisions that will result in the loss of nearly 200 emergency coordination and prevention roles at a time of increasing extreme weather events?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: On behalf of the Prime Minister, I’m advised that that is not true. What’s more, if you look at what’s happened with FENZ, the budget of Fire and Emergency—which is funded primarily from levies on people’s household insurance—has stayed the same; in fact, it’s risen slightly. However, money has been taken out of the back office and put in the front line, fixing up the fire trucks, buying the diesel, and ensuring that our firefighters are well provided for.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is that why they’re striking twice a week?

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: As a great New Zealander once said, it won’t happen overnight, but it will happen, because dealing to decades of neglect—

Chlöe Swarbrick: Go talk to your firefighters in Parnell.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Chlöe Swarbrick says, “Go and talk to the firefighters in Parnell.” Well, she’ll be pleased to know, I do exactly that. Let me tell you what firefighters I talk to say, Chlöe Swarbrick: they are saying—Debbie Ngarewa-Packer is putting her arms up; she wants more attention. The fact is that they understand there’s been neglect for years of their fire trucks, and this Government, under Brooke van Velden, is finally fixing it.

Veterans

Question No. 11

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula) (15:12) to the Minister for Veterans: How will this Anzac Day be different to previous years?

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Veterans) (15:13): Anzac Day is a significant day for New Zealand, and this year it will be historically different thanks to changes brought about by the Government and supported by the whole of Parliament—I thank all colleagues for that. I also acknowledge the member asking the question; I thank her for her service, along with others in this House who have done likewise. The Anzac Day Act has been modernised to acknowledge the service and sacrifice of all who have served New Zealand in times of war. Prior to the changes that we have made together, the Act failed to acknowledge conflicts and operations after 1966, meaning that many service personnel were technically excluded from official commemorations under the law.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: Why is Anzac Day important to New Zealanders?

Hon CHRIS PENK: Honouring our service personnel on Anzac Day is one of our most enduring national traditions. It binds us to the history that surrounds us in the form of memorial plaques and wreaths in this very debating chamber. Anzac Day connects us to the story of who we are as a nation and provides us with an opportunity to reflect on the courage and extraordinary sacrifice of those who have served to defend and protect New Zealand, our ideals, and our interests.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: Can the Minister give some examples of individuals who will be covered under the new legislation?

Hon CHRIS PENK: The new legislation is also more inclusive about those who participated in the first landings at Gallipoli. It covers personnel from countries such as France and India in that campaign, along with civilians serving in medical units, members of the Merchant Navy during the world wars, and those who died while training for conflict. It also extends to post-Vietnam service, including veterans of Timor-Leste and Afghanistan, including the member herself, as well as personnel deployed on UN and other multinational missions, such as this Sinai peacekeeping force.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: What else is the Government doing to support veterans?

Hon CHRIS PENK: Further to amending the Anzac Day Act, the Veterans’ Recognition Bill has been introduced to Parliament to formally recognise more sailors, soldiers, and aviators under the term “veteran”. For those who have worn military uniform, that term carries profound personal meaning; it speaks to identity, pride, and a recognition of service and sacrifice. There are some in our military community who feel that the current legal definition creates an unnecessary divide. The Government is also working towards establishing a national veterans’ day—not a statutory public holiday, I note—to be marked annually with veterans’ service awards. I’d like to finish by thanking our current Defence Force personnel for their service and by acknowledging those passed: we will remember them.

Social Development and Employment

Question No. 12

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (15:15) to the Social Development and Employment: Does she stand by her statement of 3 December 2025 that “I accept that there will be households who are finding it tough right now”; if so, why?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (15:15): Yes. Our Government has always acknowledged that many Kiwis have been finding it tough during a prolonged cost of living challenge. Over the last two years, we’ve focused on fixing the basics such as lowering inflation and reducing taxes because New Zealand needs a growing economy to create more jobs and lift wages. Higher wages and more jobs are ultimately what will help ease Kiwis’ cost of living burden and that is what we’re focused on. That’s also why our Government’s welfare reset is shifting the dial. We are driving policies to support job growth and preparing job seekers so they are ready to seize the opportunity of work.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Are things getting better or worse when Auckland City Mission is reporting that people needing their services due to the cost of living has jumped to 60 percent?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, I accept that the immediate challenge that we’re facing as a country due to the conflict in the Middle East that is completely outside any New Zealander’s control is adding a layer of pressure to organisations at the front line. I would just say to the House and to those listening: if anyone is experiencing difficulties in meeting the costs that they face, I would encourage them to get in contact with Ministry of Social Development (MSD) and seek assistance.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Are food grant requests going up in response to the fuel crisis, and, if so, does that show that fuel support is reaching everyone who needs it?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: What I can say is that we have seen an increase in the number of special needs grants that have been granted for food for the month of March, which tells me the system is working. Where people have needs and requests for assistance, they go to MSD and they get them.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Are St Vincent De Paul Society’s reports that increasing numbers of people can’t collect the food they need because they can’t afford fuel a sign that Government assistance is reaching everyone who needs it?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: What we’ve been really clear about in terms of the response to the current fuel challenges is that support needs to be temporary, targeted, and timely. That is why we have provided several rounds of support, the first being the $50 for working families. The second is the support for in-between travel for people like carers, for example. The third we have seen is the increase for over 1.5 million New Zealanders that came into effect on 1 April.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: When will she realise that accepting that people are doing it tough without doing enough to help isn’t good enough?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, what we’re really clear about is we will not be making the mistakes of the previous Government in response to COVID, where money was hosed around and the long-term impact and the long-term pain hits those on the lowest incomes the hardest. So what we will ensure is that the response to the current fuel crisis will be targeted, timely, and it will be specific, so that we don’t create long-term pain for those who can least afford it.

SPEAKER: OK, so that’s the conclusion of question time. We’ll take a 30-second break while those who have to leave can leave quietly and without conversations on the way.

Debates

General Debate

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (15:20): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

The world is experiencing the worst oil shock in history. We are experiencing a conflict in the Middle East with an uncertain trajectory, no certainty of an enduring peace anytime soon. New Zealanders are feeling the impact: rising prices and anxiety about what a less stable world means for us here at home. For our part, as a Government, we are offering a responsible economic management approach, a proactive approach to securing fuel supplies, and ensuring we’re providing temporary and targeted relief to those who most need it.

Meanwhile, colleagues, what are we getting from the Opposition at this time of democratic debate? Well let me paint a little picture. Because, once a week, I get the joy of heading up to Radio New Zealand for a weekly joint interview with Carmel Sepuloni—sometimes Tangi fills in on her behalf. And here’s how it goes, each and every week: Ingrid or Corin, and soon, John, ask me a question—next week, I suppose it might be John—and I answer the question. Carmel says that my answer is “terrible”, the Government should be doing “something else”. And the interviewer says to Carmel, “Well, is that what you would do?” and Carmel says, “Well, I can’t commit to that. We haven’t released our policy yet.” And the interviewer says, “Well, what would you do?” and Carmel says, “Well, I’m not going to tell you that, we haven’t released our policy yet. We’ll be doing that closer to the election.” And then the interviewer says, “Well, how would you pay for it?” And then Carmel says, “Well, I’m not going to tell you that, we haven’t yet finalised our policy. We have to wait until after the Budget.” And then the interviewer says, “Well, yes, but how would you pay for it and what would you do differently?”

Well, just as an aside, Labour’s policies invariably involve committing to spend more money that the Government doesn’t have. And then Carmel, of course, then continues to say that they will have more to say about that when the books have opened. Which rather leads me to think, what do they think is going to happen when we open the books at Budget day? Is it their view that when we open those books, we will report to the nation: “We have discovered the forest of magic money trees that Labour has been looking for, and now they’re free to come up with some ideas”? Because—newsflash, Mr Hipkins—that ain’t happening. Or is it that they think, colleagues, that we’re going to discover oil and the discovery of oil is going to mean we’re flush with cash? Well here’s another newsflash, you banned oil and gas exploration, so that won’t be happening anytime soon either.

These interviews go on, colleagues. It’s very tiresome; I think, not just for me, but for the listeners at home and certainly the interviewers. It’s got to the point where I could spare Carmel and Tangi the long trek up The Terrace from Parliament to Radio New Zealand studio, and I could just stand in for them, if I know the answers before they’ve even started speaking, I could say, “Well, we don’t have a position on that. We don’t have a policy on that. No, no, no, the Government’s idea is bad, they’re bad, it’s bad. We have no alternative plan and we would spend more because we know where the secret money stash is hidden.” I would do a great job of filling in for Carmel and Tangi. So what we are looking at, my friends, is an Opposition with no plans, no policies—actually, no principles.

Mr Hipkins likes to speak of kindness, if not back it up with his actions. And in fact, what we have is the same simple formula they’ve always had. What is it? More tax, more borrowing, more inflation. So my message to New Zealanders today is: yes, it is the case that our country finds itself in a very challenging time. And yes, it is the case that New Zealanders have endured a very difficult economic recovery following a period of sky-high inflation and interest rates. But the question for New Zealanders is not “Is it bad or not?” It’s not who can describe how bad it is the best, it’s “How do we fix it?” And so it is the time to stick to a responsible course of economic management which sees us through this crisis and through to the other side stronger. It is not a time for a change to a bunch of people who can’t even answer a single question.

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition) (15:25): At a time of huge global uncertainty with an international fuel crisis, a breakdown of the rules around the world as we know them, a cost of living crisis here in New Zealand, a shrinking economy, jobs being lost, higher unemployment, business liquidations reaching a 15-year high, New Zealanders are naturally looking to the people who are currently in Government for leadership. They’re looking for some reassurance that the Government has a plan, and they’re looking for answers about what the Government will do if indeed things get worse with regard to the international fuel crisis. Unfortunately, they’re not getting answers on any of those questions. They’re getting slogans, blame, and excuses. A Government more obsessed with their own jobs than obsessed with the jobs of New Zealanders who are losing theirs. A Government that wants to spend all of its time talking about the Opposition and not talking about what they are actually doing to support New Zealanders through the current crisis. A Government constantly looking backwards rather than looking ahead. A Government that’s offering a warped nostalgia rather than a future for New Zealanders to get excited about.

We can do better than that, and Kiwis deserve better than that. Yes, the world can feel pretty overwhelming at the moment, but we are not powerless. We have options. We don’t just have to sit tight and wait for other things to happen around the world and see how they affect us. We can shape our own future; we have choices and we have opportunities. From all of the chaos that is happening around the world at the moment, there are opportunities for New Zealand. Renewable energy is a huge opportunity for New Zealand—an opportunity with jobs, an opportunity for competitive advantage, an opportunity to do not what’s just morally right but what’s economically right as well. The rest of the world is trying to catch up when it comes to renewable energy, and our Government is going the other way. They think our energy future lies in imported liquefied gas rather than renewable energy, which we have an abundance of.

Rather than focusing on building more resilience, on recognising the fact that these severe weather events that we’re currently experiencing aren’t just one-off events any more but are a regular pattern, the Government is turning the other way. New Zealanders want to know that their current Government has a plan to deal with New Zealand’s lack of resilience, because it’s clear we do have a lack of resilience when it comes to extreme weather events. We can build a New Zealand that’s far more resilient, one that has far more self-reliance, one that is independent and confident in the world, not because we are the biggest, the boldest, or the strongest, but because as a country we’re worth listening to.

More self-reliance doesn’t mean living in the past, it means embracing the future. Renewable energy, food security, these are major concerns for New Zealanders and they’re hearing nothing from their current Government about those. Food security is massive. As a food producing nation, we produce so much food for the rest of the world and yet the closure of food manufacturers and food processors in New Zealand is making us more beholden to international supply chains at a time when they are more and more uncertain. Yet they’re hearing nothing from the Government about a plan to provide food security in food producing country like New Zealand. When we should be embracing science and innovation, and the Kiwi entrepreneurial and innovative spirit, we’ve got a Government that’s doing the opposite: cutting funding for science, cutting funding for research, and blocking support to the innovators—the people who can grow the jobs of the future in New Zealand. A Government that, rather than bringing people together to solve the challenges that the country faces, are more intent on creating divisions for their own political purposes.

Haven’t we seen this? Because a Government that is divided cannot lead the country to unity. And this Government is more divided than any Government that New Zealand has seen in recent history. A Government that turns a blind eye to outright racism and race baiting, and will not call that out. Well we will call that out, on this side of the House, and I will be very clear that there will be no room for racism in any Government that I lead. The world might feel overwhelming at the moment, but with that comes opportunity. We can embrace it and we have so much to look forward to. New Zealanders deserve a Government to lead us into the future with optimism—they’re not getting it from this Government.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (15:30): I’m not sure if it was ChatGPT or Copilot who wrote that speech, but clearly when he was putting it in, he said “Give me a speech which is five minutes and 30 seconds.”, and it spat out one a bit long. But every single member of the Opposition was looking and saying, “I could do a better speech than the one that I just got from Chris Hipkins.” They were all saying that. You could see it in their eyes—“I could deliver a better speech.”—particularly Willie Jackson up the front here. He knows he could deliver a better speech than something written by Copilot or ChatGPT, and, of course, it was just full of spin, with not one single word about what Labour’s plan is to deal with the challenges facing New Zealanders.

The only thing they did: they talked about race. I find it absolutely offensive that they get up there and talk about race-baiting when they are the ones whipping up anti-migration rhetoric in this country with their opposition to the free-trade agreement with India. They should be getting onside with the free-trade agreement, which opens up jobs, opportunities, and industry here in New Zealand. That is a solution that is needed for our country, and they are sitting on their hands rather than getting on the side of New Zealanders, and at the same time whipping up anti-migration rhetoric in our country, which I find frankly appalling, and I know that many, many New Zealanders do, too.

The Labour Party does have one policy, and I do think it’s worth highlighting what their one policy is: it is a capital gains tax on New Zealanders—capital gains tax. Their only policy that they’ve so far announced is a capital gains tax on New Zealand. Of course, it fits within their frame. They have a three-point plan: tax, spend, borrow.

Now, they’ve only announced the tax part so far, but of course we know there’s more coming on that front, because last week, Labour’s tax spokesperson, Dr Deborah Russell, who we of course remember—her doctorate is in taxation. That’s the type of doctor she is. She has spent her career lecturing university students on ever more creative ways to tax New Zealanders more. She was asked six times whether her capital gains tax goes far enough—six times. Now, of course, if you listen to Chris Hipkins on the radio, he goes, “Oh no, it’s a very confined policy.” Well, six times she refused to answer the question about whether it goes far enough, and, of course, we know what happens to Labour Party taxes: they grow—they grow.

Then we had Kieran McAnulty, their campaign chair, saying, “No, no, no—no other taxes.” Very reassuring, except in the very same week Ginny Andersen popped up and refused to rule out changes to the brightline tests. She refused to rule out changes to interest deductibility. The same party in the same week, and entirely different positions.

Then, when you thought you’d just about had enough of Dr Deborah Russell, she popped back up in another interview and let slip—and I quote—“Well, of course we’ll have more tax policy.” Of course they will, because it’s part of their three-point plan for the election: tax, borrow, spend. That’s the same party, and that’s what they do to everything.

Of course, this all came in response to their mates at the Council of Trade Unions (CTU)—

Rima Nakhle: Best friends.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: —who put out—their best friends, says the member for Takanini. Their policy was to have a tax rate of 50 percent on income over $150,000, a more comprehensive capital gains tax, inheritance tax, wealth tax, windfall profit tax, higher trust taxes. Labour’s tax spokesperson said, “Well, of course we’ll have more tax policy.”, and we know who writes their tax policy: it is the CTU.

My question to the Labour Party is: who holds the pen on tax policy in the Opposition? Who’s actually making the decisions? I think Kiwis deserve real, straight, non - Copilot and ChatGPT answers to the question of what a Labour Party would do if elected to Government.

I can tell you that on this side of the House, we are focused on reducing taxes for hard-working New Zealanders. We provided tax relief in the 2024 Budget, for the first time in 14 years. We didn’t put in place the 12c increase in tax on fuel which Labour would have done if they were elected in 2023. We axed the Auckland Regional Fuel Tax.

Of course, Labour has learnt nothing in Opposition and nothing from their time in Government. If they are elected in November, they will go back to their same old policies of tax, borrow, spend. New Zealanders know better, and that’s why they’ll re-elect National in November.

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) (15:35): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I hope you’re having a good day. Toitū Te Tiriti to you, Mr Speaker, and to all of us here in this House.

A mature conversation is really the opportunity that, actually, all politicians could be taking right now. At the front of a mature conversation is really understanding the beautiful vision, in fact, that Te Tiriti always has been and always is and that the vision for mana motuhake and tino rangatira—self-determination for iwi and hapū—actually is essential to creating an Aotearoa where we have social justice; where everyone has what they need to live good lives; where we are protecting te taiao and our environment, because she is our mother; where we are creating a future planet that is stable for our mokopuna, because we have obligations to at least the seven generations ahead; and where we are upholding the mana and dignity of every single one of us because that is inherent to te ao Māori, and our own mana relies on us upholding the mana of all.

These are longstanding, well-established principles and understandings of Te Tiriti. They always have been, and they always will be, and it is our communities every single day, Māori and non-Māori—tangata Tiriti—working together for the better of their communities and people, who show that leadership. They show us every single day—generations now, in fact—everyday examples of care and manaaki and aroha, of ensuring that people are living quality lives with dignity, of working out together how to address some of our most pressing crises and issues: how to save the local lakes by working together with our shared knowledge, how to improve the health of water by working together with indigenous mātauranga Māori expertise and knowledge, and how to ensure that we can properly house our people and feed our people and have healthcare that serves all of our people.

That is what Te Tiriti offers, and that is why the Greens are not surprised but are absolutely outraged at the further attacks that this Government is bringing in by way of trying to weaken the legal standing of Tiriti clauses across legislation. It is pure ideology and National members actually know it is wrong, and that’s why they are quietly trying to go about it, because themselves even understand that that is a backward step. It flies in the face of generations of the maturing and evolving understanding that Te Tiriti has always been about people taking the best possible care of each other. Instead, it has been used and weaponised to cause division and to create further attack against Māori people and Māori communities, and against Te Tiriti, which the Greens are proud to stand behind as the founding document of our nation and, more specifically, its upholding of the tino rangatiratanga of iwi and hapū over our people, our lands, our treasures, and our resources.

Actually, we signed up to it to work in proper partnership with the Crown to achieve quality lives for all, and then this Government, with its coalition partners, is instead choosing to use their resource and energy to focus on further division and on trying to make out that Te Tiriti is something that it isn’t. While we’re in the middle of a war and a fossil fuel crisis and having people literally swimming in the streets of Wellington and people going without housing and kai and healthcare, this is what they choose to focus their energy on, while at the same time their own experts have advised against taking this forward with this process, which has never sought to properly engage and work with the very Māori who will be impacted by these legislative clawbacks and weakening of Tiriti responsibilities and obligations. This is where they are choosing to put their focus?

The Prime Minister needs to answer as to why he is continuing to give any credence and energy to weakening Te Tiriti when all that we are seeing every single day is marae around the country constantly stepping up first and without question to look after everybody, and they can do it quickly because they have been set up for centuries to immediately step into gear and take care of the masses, no matter who they are. In the face of all of that example of Te Tiriti beauty, this Government is choosing to create hate. Kia ora.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) (15:40): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. I want to talk about the last 511 days of this chaotic coalition and the crisis plus crisis plus crisis that it seems to have put Aotearoa in. It’s made me extremely angry and really sad, and I think what we need to be really clear about here is that what we have seen is a Government that has dismantled every kaupapa, every solution, everything that can be part of a growing, positive Aotearoa.

We shouldn’t take away from what it is. We have a country at the moment experiencing three major crises: a cost of living crisis, a fuel crisis, and a resilient climate crisis. And what have we got? We’ve got a Government that’s continued to attack and to deny what exactly it is that is taking down everyday New Zealanders—everyday whānau, hapū, and iwi. And what do we see this Government do during this crisis? What do we see it does? Does it come up with solutions to help look after those women that it took equity funding from? Does it sit there and talk about those that are having hauora aspects equities? Does it sit there and help working whānau that have been pushed back the harder they work? Does it sit there and address our reo? No.

What does it do during a fuel crisis? Does it sit there and give a plan so that our whānau know how they’re going to cope, how our kaumātua can choose to go between, “I’m going to get kai.” or “I’m going to travel to the GP.”? Does it sit there and help our whānau who have to drop off their tamariki to kura? Does it sit there and help our whānau who have to sit there and go out and do their jobs every day, based on fuel they can’t afford? No. It sits there and continues to make big profit from these fuel taxes.

We’ve got a climate crisis—a resilient climate crisis. We literally have seen cars on fences, and people hugely affected and fatally affected. What does it do? I’ll tell you what this Government does in its 199 days left that it has to govern. It starts a culture war, because that is exactly what the playbook of Trumpism does. What does he do? We’ve got Epstein files. What does he do? Start a war. What does this Government do? Start a war on Te Tiriti—slyly, quietly, without integrity. For years and years, we have seen legal experts, our leaders—our iwi leaders, our hapū leaders—go into urgency after urgency after urgency to hear our Te Tiriti claims. But no, what does this Government do in 511 days? It pretends it doesn’t have to honour Te Tiriti. It pretends it doesn’t exist.

That is the crisis that we’re dealing with here. A Government that continues to show it’s not only run dry of fuel; it’s run dry of solutions. So it deflects. It sits there and reminds people what we don’t agree on. It sits there and deflects from the whole fact they’ve run dry of solutions for the cost of living. They are hurting our whānau in a way that they’ve never been here before. In Te Tai Hauāuru, we have food banks that are 60 percent increased—increased. We have whānau that are making decisions on whether to eat or whether to be able to go to the hospitals.

What are we dealing with here? We’ve got a country governed by a Government that doesn’t care about its people, so what does it do? It rage baits. It goes out and creates a cultural war. And we continue—

Hon Paul Goldsmith: You would never do that.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER: And we hear the deflection over there. We continue to hear—let me remind our whānau what, in 511 days, this Government did. It cut Māori housing by $624 million. Te Ahu o te Reo Māori: it cut our reo by $30 million. It cut Kaupapa Māori education by $36 million; Whakaata Māori by $10 million; iwi Māori radio, Whānau Ora—all being cut, all at risk. Why? Not because it has an affinity with Māori or cares about Te Tiriti.

One billion dollars in 511 days. This Government has taken us back 60 years—60 years. I want to remind our whānau—and we don’t even want to talk about the healthcare situation; we don’t even want to go there. I want to remind our whānau: we have 199 days to get together to fight against what it is that this Government is doing to us. And let me tell you, we have the power to constitutionally protect Te Tiriti. We have the power to get this Government out, but it will require that we have the power to turn up, to get on the Māori roll, to make sure you participate, because they’re counting—they are counting on us not mobilising.

For Māori, oneness is not sameness, but I tell you one thing that we’re really great at is coming together and protecting our Tiriti. That is my call to action for all of us out there who can no longer handle the pain that this Government has inflicted on us, 511 days of pain. We’ve got 199 days to get them out. We have the power, whānau. We have the ability to do that. Take it seriously, take people with you, and get them out now. Kia ora rā.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice) (15:46): Two years ago, the people of New Zealand made the right decision to get rid of that Labour Government that was hopeless and that had overcooked the stimulus and driven up $100 billion of extra debt, driven up inflation, including 30 percent house price inflation in one year—and they talk about housing affordability; they drove up house prices 30 percent in one year. And then, as a “Surprise, surprise!”, there were higher interest rates that made New Zealanders struggle. At the same time, we had a rise in crime, mainly driven by their culture of excuses—it wasn’t your fault if you bashed somebody over the head; it was society’s fault. It was somebody else’s fault.

Surprise, surprise, we had a rise in crime and we had very poor educational outcomes, including in maths, which we’ve just had a beautiful example of with the previous speaker talking about 511 days of this Government. I think you’ll find that we’ve been in more than 511 days. I think it’s 877, according to Copilot. We’re nearly up to three years in Government. I’d just encourage the member to think about that a bit more carefully.

What have we done in two years, under the great leadership of Christopher Luxon, Prime Minister—the Rt Hon Christopher Luxon? What we’ve achieved: we’ve achieved a path back to surplus, so we’re not adding to our debt. We’ve focused on real changes to bring about growth in our economy, such as the changes to the Resource Management Act, such as the infrastructure, such as changing the tax investment rules to encourage businesses to invest and get immediate relief from their taxes, such as the India free-trade agreement that our good friend Todd McClay’s going to be signing in the next few days—five million people trading with 1.4 billion; what an opportunity that is. And, also, including extra tax relief so that there’s more money in New Zealanders’ pockets. And—what’s that? The disciplined spending that we’ve had has led to a reduction in inflation and a reduction in interest rates.

Great progress has been made—great progress has been made. I don’t like to be claiming any credit, because there’s been great work from Mark Mitchell and a whole host of colleagues in restoring law and order. We’ve had a reduction of 49,000 fewer victims of violent crime in the past two years since we’ve taken over in power. What an amazing transformation that’s been, as well as the changes in education. So yes, we’re in a time of global challenges and global uncertainty, but in six months’ time, the New Zealanders will have to decide whether they continue on with the progress that has been made over the last 2½ years to restore our country, get ourselves back in shape, or do we return to the mob that got us into the strife that we had 2½ years ago?

The point I would make to people tuning in on their crystal sets this afternoon would be to say that would be to say, has anything changed on the other side? Has Chris Hipkins changed in the last 2½ years? My answer to that is, absolutely not. As the economic maestro Simeon Brown has pointed out, their policy can be distilled into three words: spend, tax, borrow—and the combination of those three things; if you need to spend more, well, you tax more, and so, the only thing that come up with is the capital gains tax. They’re also floating, I’ve heard, a windfall tax, so just think about that. There will be taxing the feijoas that fall off your tree, because they’re so desperate. Such is their lust for your money that they will go anywhere to get more taxes out of our people, and they will continue to borrow.

Apart from this capital gains tax, there have been no proposals from Labour in 2½ years. I remember that about a year and a half before the previous election, as an Opposition spokesperson, I basically couldn’t open my mouth in talking to the media without those members saying, “I’m not listening to you until you say what you’re going to do. What is your policy, Mr Goldsmith?” That was a consistent message for 18 months. I couldn’t say anything without coming up with proposals, and we had serious proposals all lined up a year and a half before the elections. We were cranking stuff out. This mob have come up with nothing.

Yes, there needs to be a contest between the centre right—this Government—and a proposed Labour - Greens - Māori Party coalition, and I’m very confident that we will win, but it’s a very important matter for this country. In the meantime, of course there will be competition between the three parties on the centre right. My simple message to anybody tuning in today is that if you want to be sure of having a centre-right Government leading this country after the election, you’ve got to vote for National because anybody else is a bit of a risk. I wouldn’t say that it’s a terrible risk, but there is a bit of a risk, and if you want to be sure of a centre-right Government, you’ve got to vote for National.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (15:51): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It was interesting to hear that speech by the Minister of Justice, going over all of the different things that he wanted to discuss. One significant piece of work that he has been secretly working on was conveniently omitted from the list of policies that the Government has been focused on, and that is the work that the Government has covertly been doing to undermine existing legislation, which includes provisions with relation to the Treaty of Waitangi, or Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

I was lucky enough to grow up in a New Zealand during a time that is known as the Māori renaissance. That was a period of time where you could go to school, you could learn te reo Māori, you could learn about New Zealand history, you could learn about Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and, whether you were Māori or Pākehā, no matter where your ancestors came from, you could learn about our history and you could look towards a future of how we could grow together as a nation.

It has been incredibly disappointing for everyone who has grown up in that period of time to hear the rhetoric from the Government, to see this coalition Government voting for a Treaty principles bill, and to then learn that not only was that bill, which they blamed on the ACT Party, part of their work to undermine the Treaty of Waitangi in New Zealand but that they are secretly looking through every other piece of legislation in this country with a Treaty clause to see how they can weaken that provision.

Now, the Treaty of Waitangi is not a document which relates only to historical grievances. The Treaty of Waitangi—Te Tiriti o Waitangi—is a living document that can only be a living document if there are provisions within our legislation that look to enforce it. What the Government is doing, through Paul Goldsmith—who purports to have a background as a historian—is shamelessly going through and undermining every single document.

Why are they doing that? They say in their policy proposal that it is because they do not think that when these policies were put into place, when they were passed democratically by this Parliament, that they had robust and detailed Treaty policy analysis. What does the Government do in response to that? It decides to go through a process which, by its own regulatory impact statement, states that it has not had enough time to go through the detail of what the impacts would be, that there has been no robust analysis, that there has been no in-depth look at what the policy of this would be. The Ministry of Justice itself says that there is a risk through their work that it will create further division between Māori and Pākehā, between Māori and Crown relations. This is an absolutely shameful piece of work that they have decided to go ahead with.

What is the impact of that going to be? We know that many, many of the principles that are set out in legislation do important things like protecting the environment. The removal of this, we fear, may lead to greater environmental degradation because there isn’t a Treaty clause which is strong enough to protect that from happening.

We’ve heard a lot from the other side about what policies Labour stands for, and I can tell you that Labour does not stand for this. When we get elected at the end of this year, we will either repeal this or we will stop this work because we know that Te Tiriti o Waitangi is one of the founding documents of New Zealand. It has constitutional importance for this country. It is important for Māori—yes—it is important for Pākehā, too. It is important for everyone in this country, and we will not take this Government trying in secret to undermine this very foundational document in up to 40 different pieces of legislation where we see Treaty principles.

This is of huge importance to New Zealand, and we have to ask: why are they actually focusing on this? We know that cost of living is the most important issue to New Zealanders. New Zealanders are not focused on changes to Te Tiriti provisions, and neither should the Government be. They are clearly desperate to do anything to take away from showing that they, in fact, have not done anything to fix the cost of living; in fact, they’ve made it worse. National members are too busy fighting with themselves and doing covert, secret operations to remove Treaty clauses to actually focus on what matters to New Zealanders, which is having jobs—the fact that people can actually go to work—warm homes, healthcare, and real action on the cost of living.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery) (15:56): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just thought that I’d take the opportunity with the recent Cyclone Vaianu and the weather events that we have faced, although I’m not going to go back past December and Christmas-time, because we’ve had a significant amount of weather events that have hit us as a country in the last three or four months. I just wanted to take this opportunity to firstly acknowledge all of those responsible who have stepped up to actually respond to these events and, of course, also the people that we’ve lost and their families and their loved ones and their communities, and I’ll come to that a bit later.

Basically, I want to start with acknowledging in this House the MPs who I work very closely with: Camilla Belich, who just spoke, who in my view has been an outstanding Opposition spokesperson for emergency management, and she has recently been promoted into the justice spokesperson role. You’ve been outstanding working with me. You often turn up to these events. You’ve taken it really seriously, working on the legislation as well, and I want to thank you and acknowledge you for that.

Francisco Hernandez—who is not in the House—for the Greens, has taken a really responsible approach to our emergency management in this country, as well. I want to acknowledge him and the work that he’s done on the select committee.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer—she will hate me acknowledging her, but the fact of the matter is that when we have these events, we work together for what is best for the country. There are two things that I believe this Parliament should always be united on. One is national security and the other one is emergency management. We do have a good working relationship.

I want to acknowledge Mark Patterson from New Zealand First—who is in the House—and just say that it is not only the leadership and the support you provide to the rural communities, but Mark is someone that turns up to these events as well, and is always there and is always available.

Andrew Hoggard—who isn’t in the House—from the ACT Party, is exactly the same. He is deeply connected, especially to our rural communities, and is always there and present and ready to assist and provide any support that he can.

When I first became Minister, I had several reports, with the most recent one being from Sir Jerry Mateparae in relation to Cyclone Gabrielle, where he highlighted that one of the issues that we face inside our emergency management ecosystem in this country was what was called an optimism bias and, in sort of Kiwi terms, a “She’ll be right.” attitude. That was one of the things that was highlighted.

One of the others was the fact that we didn’t have clear command and control. We had our heroes step up to do the work but they didn’t really know where the information was coming from, where they could feed it, or where they were going to get it from. We fixed that with a lot of work with the current bill that is going through the House, and I thank all of those people that are working on that.

Obviously, I want to acknowledge my own National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) team. They have put an enormous amount of effort in the last couple of years into the professionalisation of the service. They have had a constant cadence of work of dealing with this. They’re not always visible, our people out on the ground. Our NEMA people obviously are. They do incredibly hard work and I want to thank and acknowledge them for what they do.

To our mayors, to our chief executives, to our Civil Defence Emergency Management teams, the same. Thank you for the vigilance, thank you for the focus, thank you for taking these events seriously and for being prepared to make decisions early and not wait until it’s too late, not wait until you’re trying to play catch-up and you risk losing the confidence of the people that you serve.

To our first responders, we have world-class first responders in police, Fire and Emergency New Zealand, St John’s, Wellington Free Ambulance, and our surf lifesavers, who are really stepping up and really getting involved with the likes of swift water rescue teams.

To iwi and hapū, thank you. You are outstanding partners in these events. You are very good at emergency management. I just want to address one point, and that is the Prime Minister, who is often on the ground with me at these events, recognised the importance of being able to actually make it much easier for marae to replenish supplies and has removed a lot of the red tape and compliance and went to a high-trust model so that we can do that. That has made a fundamental difference.

To our rural sector, to our rural trusts that stand up, to our communities—and I keep saying it, and I’ll say it again and again: the best way and the strongest way we can have a response to these events which leads to a much stronger and better recovery is whole of society, everyone working together, everyone has got some skin in the game and can take good personal decisions.

I just wanted to take the opportunity to be able to say thank you. Thank you to everyone who has been involved and put the effort in over the last three or four months. Thank you.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) (16:01): I want to talk about seniors, because seniors are really hurting right now. They’re hurting in a cost of living crisis. They have had no fuel relief because they’re not in that thin wedge of 150,000 New Zealanders who qualify, and yet they rely on fuel, many times, to have connection in the community. We heard from Simeon Brown today about tax relief. Many of the seniors got as much as $2.15 a week in the Government’s tax package. They face a bleak winter of coldness, many of them in cold, isolated houses, and food prices are up around 9 percent since this Government took office.

Now they’re hurting even more, because the Government is failing to respond to them in terms of the retirement villages law that they are planning to bring into the House. I am so thrilled to see that Consumer NZ is supporting, effectively, my bill and has launched a campaign today, which I would encourage everybody to get online and have a look at, saying that it is time that the Government actually did right by seniors and by retirement village residents and made sure that there were fair, mandated repayment times of three months, with 10 percent within five working days.

Now, that exactly mirrors my bill. It’s what I’ve been asking for. In fact, if the Government had taken up the opportunity to support or even adopt my bill, we would not be here today arguing over this point. But it is great to see that Consumer NZ has. They’re looking for 65,000 signatures. They already know that eight in 10 New Zealanders support the repayment times to be within three months and with some immediate money upfront. In fact, Jon Duffy, the CE of Consumer New Zealand, has described the current situation as ludicrous and the proposals from the Government as unfair.

What’s happening at the moment is it’s costing around $700,000 cash for somebody to move into a retirement village, and they get about 30 percent taken off immediately. They only get their capital repayment, depending on how long they’ve stayed in there and when they exit, when the right to occupy is on-sold. Many of them—in fact, the majority—do not get a capital gain, and therefore the operator wins on every level.

Now, the Government is proposing to change this, after enormous pressure from the Retirement Village Residents Association and from a quite a lot of pressure from myself and from many wonderful residents up and down the country who’ve been writing to MPs. They’ve finally said they’re going to do something. But the time that they are mandating, the proposed time, is 12 months, which is ludicrous, as has been said by Consumer NZ, and, perhaps even more unfairly, will not apply to existing residents.

I asked the Associate Minister Tama Potaka about this in the House yesterday, and his reasons for failing seniors were limp. He talked about the one-year mandated time frame period as being to help operators with their liquidity. Well, when I look at the big six operators, they don’t have any problem with liquidity. One of them reports in its 2025 annual report that it has $600 million worth of undrawn debt capacity—in other words, that’s the capacity of the retirement village residents’ money—but also they have 27 percent of uncommitted arrays in stock and also 31 percent of a contract pipeline increase. Now, that shows that they definitely have liquidity, so that argument doesn’t fly.

He also talked about sanctity of contract, but that doesn’t make sense when, actually, in his own proposed legislation, he is mandating the requirement to stop fees when somebody dies or exits a village. It’s abhorrent that that should even happen, but it also shows that there is an inconsistency in how he is cherry-picking the so-called sanctity of contract. He tried to say that chattels and fixtures would not be included when I asked about repairs and maintenance, but his own advisers are telling people that will be included, so I think the Minister has shown some confusion.

When he says he talks to villagers and they support his bill, I wonder who he is speaking to. Is it the Retirement Village Residents Association, who are absolutely against the proposals, or is it the village council, which is funded by the operators, has no mandate and no elected representatives and no credibility? Yet they were busy contacting media last night, trying to make sure that they could be seen to be purporting the views of village residents.

Anybody who, if you’re in the eight out of 10 New Zealanders, is supporting this, get online, make sure you sign that petition, and let’s do right by our seniors.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Resources) (16:06): Thank you. Mr Speaker, this is a short but important speech about the politics of delivery—$20 million - odd dedicated in a rapid period of time to recommission, restore, and save the legacy of Marsden Point by creating up to 100 million litres of storage for fuel in the midst of geopolitically driven uncertainty worsening our prospects for fuel certainty in New Zealand. I tell New Zealanders, I tell the Labour Party: I didn’t enter into long-term seances. Our Government made a rapid decision, dedicated capital, and within eight weeks, New Zealand will have this additional fuel storage capacity either for an additional buffer or, in time, to be used by the fuel companies.

Of course, the fuel companies need to bear in mind that in the law, if they do not abide by the restrictions—and I heard the member from the Opposition, the Hon Woods, say, “Are we going to lift immediately the burden of obligation upon them to store more fuel in New Zealand?” At this stage, we’re taking them at their word. But fuel companies’ integrity depends on quality information, timely information. That is a key portion of the understanding that New Zealanders have with this particular model of just in time.

Of course, I don’t want to just champion my efforts at Marsden Point and reviving that once proud and magnificent asset which slipped from our grasp. I also have to move on to the $200 million dedicated to accelerating the delivery of gas in the short term. Now, it was a fateful and very bleak day when Jacinda Ardern made her captain’s call and condemned the oil and gas industry to a deep-freeze virtual type of termination. It took our Government to come, change the law, reverse that juvenile climate-riddled type of analysis, and provide an opportunity for investors to help New Zealand assume a common-sense and defensible position. You cannot maintain electricity without fossil fuels, whether it’s access to coal, whether it’s access to gas. It’s absurd that Kiwis have mountains of coal under their feet in New Zealand, yet we are relying on Indonesian coal. Wait—wait. That is going to change. Obviously, these matters will be keenly contested at the next election, and I look forward to that fight. I think the trick that was missed by Jacinda Ardern is that, when she cancelled the oil and gas industry, she dedicated nothing to the rapid development of an alternative source of electricity to keep the price of electricity affordable in New Zealand. She did nothing. She hoped that stardust—she hoped that forlorn hope—would provide a solution to Kiwi businesses. And what do we have now? A host of firms in Strugglers Gully, unable to cope with the escalation of fuel prices associated with gas and looking for assistance to transition to other sources—i.e., electricity.

What have I said? A hundred million of actual delivery in super critical. Now, I have to acknowledge the member of the Opposition the Hon Woods, who did contribute, as science Minister, a relatively modest sum of money, and as reflects my rhetorical approach to life, I turbocharged it. That means well over $100 million to accelerate the delivery of geothermal energy. Now, what about the super critical minerals? Super critical minerals are key to our future. You cannot have a net zero journey without being mineral rich. We have them in New Zealand, we’re going to use them, and if the opportunity arises and we can do that in association with the United States, Japan, Korea, and other countries, I’ll do it in a nanosecond.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote) (16:11): We are witnessing one of the most significant oil shocks in our lifetime, and the role of this Government, and our focus, is to limit the economic impacts of this crisis for New Zealand people. That is primarily through fuel and prices. We’ve announced some targeted, timely, and temporary support for 143,000 middle working class New Zealanders out there. We’ve recently announced some fuel relief for people in rural areas and our schools. We’ve got a fuel response plan, of which we’re currently in phase 1. We’ve got a ministerial supply chain group that’s coordinating across ministries on the Government’s response.

Our Minister of Finance, Nicola Willis, has requested the US Government to provide fuel tanks right here in the Pacific. We’ve got the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority out there actually driving really positive messaging around how to save more for New Zealanders. And we’ve got diplomatic cooperation through our Prime Minister, who is working with the heads of State of other countries to make sure we are top of the queue. The message is that we will come through this as a country. Through a measured, targeted response, we will come through this.

The choice at this year’s election is clear: a strong and stable coalition or a tax, spend, and borrow Labour - Greens - Te Pāti Māori coalition; a choice between National, a party of delivery, or Labour, the party who hasn’t released any significant policy to date and whose main strategy is to do nothing, say nothing, and hope and pray that gets them across the line; a choice between Christopher Luxon, a person who has the skills and economic credibility to lead this country to better days, or Chris Hipkins, a person whose only job has been in politics and who has managed, basically, an “F” in every portfolio he has managed. Let’s go through his performance: Police—under his watch, crime went up; the Public Service—numbers went up; Education—outcomes went down; COVID-19—he locked New Zealanders out of this country; and we all know what happened as PM—he got booted out loud and clear in 2023. And that is just his professional performance.

For National, we know we’ve got much to do to communicate our plans and policies to New Zealanders, but we know that the majority of Kiwis back National’s core values: personal responsibility, private enterprise, small and limited Government, and strong families. My message to Kiwis up and down this country is this: if you reject socialism and believe in our values, back National at this year’s election. Our plan is simple: we’ve got to get us through this economic crisis by limiting the impacts on New Zealanders. We’re going to be doing so, as Rima Nakhle said, in a responsible, fiscally prudent way. We’re not going back to the days of spending, borrowing, and raking up New Zealand’s debt.

It’s all about the economy, powering up the economy through Resource Management Act reform, which Minister Chris Bishop is doing a great job with. We’ve got education reform—isn’t Erica Stanford doing a great job—core education reform. We’ve got Nicola Willis making sure we actually get back to surplus, because, without that, your kids, our kids, have no future in this country. We’ve got Minister Simeon Brown, who is doing a great job of turning our healthcare system around. And at the helm of this is our Prime Minister, Christopher Luxon, who’s knitting together three different coalition partners, knitting together a broad coalition of National MPs, getting us moving in one simple direction.

I’m excited about this year’s campaign. I am really excited about 7 November. We’ve got to back National to make sure we get a better, brighter future for New Zealand.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT) (16:16): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m really excited about next week, because the New Zealand - India free-trade agreement is going to be signed on Monday. It is not something to be feared; it is an opportunity to be seized, because it is going to give us access to 1.5 billion people. Imagine the opportunities for our farmers, exporters, and manufacturers. We cannot replicate that scale here in New Zealand.

What does that mean? That means real economic growth. That means higher-paying jobs. That means more money coming into New Zealand. But, despite all these things, there are some members who are trying to spread fear about this free-trade agreement. This is nothing new; we have been here before. I would suggest we recall that, with the China - New Zealand free-trade agreement, similar comments were made at the time. We recall the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. There were so many protests. Some protests were really loud and fierce. What is really interesting to see is that some members, those who took part in those protests, are still members of this House. Do we hear anything from them now? No, nothing, because they have realised that those free-trade agreements were really good for New Zealand. History tells us that those people who oppose free-trade agreements are shortsighted.

I don’t intend to make this speech about immigration, because immigration is not a major component of this free-trade agreement, but I must say this: I hear this again and again—that people coming from other countries, migrants coming into New Zealand, are taking away opportunities from locals. Yes, that is true. When people migrate from one place to another place, they are looking for opportunities. They are looking for better opportunities. It applies to people who migrate to New Zealand, and it applies to people who migrate out of New Zealand. But another thing is also true, and that is: when people come here, they also create opportunities for others.

If some members in this House want to reduce this very serious debate on a free-trade agreement, on immigration policy, to butter chicken, I would say this: let’s think that through in a logical manner, because it doesn’t just stop at butter chicken. If you look at all the positions being filled on our farms, and if you look at all the positions being filled in processing plants, all those people who are working in supermarkets stocking shelves, we see so many migrants working in these roles. Without migrants, it will not only be butter chicken missing from people’s dining tables; there will be no hāngī in community events, there will be no bacon and eggs for breakfast. Migrants are not on the sidelines of our economy; they are part of our economy. This “butter chicken tsunami” is just a slogan. It’s a slogan that has been created to do two things. One is to create fear, and the second is to grab attention. I say this to New Zealanders: don’t fall in that trap. If I just pick one group—I’ll pick senior citizens—I say to senior citizens: don’t fall in that trap. Why? I want them to imagine for a minute, look around—you know, those people who come to help them. Look at that person who comes to provide help in their house. How many times is it an immigrant face? Senior citizens, those who are in rest homes, I say to them: look around, how many of those people are migrants, those who are providing you dignity and comfort at your rest home? I say to these people, when you turn up to hospital, how many nurses and doctors around you are migrant faces? When you had that knee or hip surgery, how many people around you—those who helped you—were migrant faces? When you call for a taxi because you can’t drive, how many times is it a migrant face that turns up to your doorstep and takes you safely from one point to another point? Now, I want these senior citizens to imagine if these migrant faces were not there, what will their life look like?

That is why this debate on immigration policy is a serious debate and we need to do it in a respectful manner, and we know that the ACT party is going to do that. Coming back to the free-trade agreement, it’s not a threat; it’s an opportunity. It’s up to us. The question is not if the opportunity is there or not; the question is whether we are willing to take it. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The time for this debate has expired.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Sittings of the House

Extended Sitting

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (Deputy Leader of the House) (16:21): I move, That the sitting of the House today be extended into tomorrow morning for the remaining stages of the Appropriation (2024/25 Confirmation and Validation) Bill; the Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu Claims Settlement Bill second reading; the Online Casino Gambling Bill third reading; the Building and Construction Sector (Self-certification by Plumbers and Drainlayers) Amendment Bill second reading; and the Regulatory Systems (Transport) Amendment Bill second reading.

Motion agreed to.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I declare the House in committee for further consideration of the Appropriation (2024/25 Confirmation and Validation) Bill.

Bills

Appropriation (2024/25 Confirmation and Validation) Bill

Committee of the whole House—Annual Review Debate

Debate resumed from 21 April.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor) (16:22): Members, the House is in committee for further consideration of the Appropriation (2024/25 Confirmation and Validation) Bill. This is the debate on the financial position of the Government and the annual reviews of departments, Officers of Parliament, Crown entities, public organisations, and State enterprises, as reported on by select committees.

There are four hours and 39 minutes remaining in this debate. Tākuta Ferris has transferred his remaining five minutes to the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand. The remaining times for each party are as follows: New Zealand National has one hour and 25 minutes; New Zealand Labour has one hour and 26 minutes; the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand has 40 minutes; ACT New Zealand has 34 minutes; New Zealand First has 32 minutes; Te Pāti Māori has 17 minutes.

Following a Business Committee determination, the annual review debate will be arranged by portfolio rather than sector. Specific Ministers will be available each day to respond to specific portfolios. The Government has indicated that the Minister for Energy, the Minister for Social Development and Employment, the Minister for the Environment, the Minister of Climate Change, the Minister for Pacific Peoples, and the Minister for Māori Development will be available today to respond to members’ questions. Each debate will be led off by the chairperson or another member of the committee that considered annual reviews most closely related to the Minister’s portfolios. The Minister for Energy will be here until 5.00 p.m. to respond to member’s questions. It is also my understanding that Minister will be available later this evening from 9.00 p.m. to 9.20 p.m.

Once again, the question is that the report of the Financial and Expenditure Committee on the annual financial statements of the Government for the 2024-25 financial year be noted.

Committee of the whole House—Annual Review Debate

Energy

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (Chairperson of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee) (16:24): Thank you, Mr Chair. As the chair of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, I am very happy to open this debate and report to the committee that the select committee worked really hard and scrutinised the energy portfolio. The discussion and the scrutiny revolved around delivering energy security and value for resources. We discussed making energy more affordable; we discussed investment and renewable energy. The Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) told us that on several key issues to drive energy costs down, they were working on many, many measures. They also talked about the electricity market performance review which happened earlier in 2025.

We also talked about giving consumers more power, and MBIE in the select committee told us that to give consumers better ability to control their own costs, they were working on various measures. Examples included removing the need for consents for rooftop solar, developing a consumer data right for electricity, and working with the Electricity Authority so consumers are rewarded better when they feed energy back into the grid.

We also talked about dry-year cover. MBIE told us that they were setting up a regulatory regime to ensure that the energy sector is able to cover a dry year. Along with these topics, we also discussed the efficacy of energy initiatives and funding. Thank you, Mr Chair, and I really look forward to this debate.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) (16:26): Thank you, Mr Chair. The energy and the plans that we as a country have around energy sit at the heart of who we need to be as a nation. It drives our economy, it creates jobs, and it underlies industry. It also sits at the heart of our wellbeing as a country. Having well-heated, well-insulated homes means a healthier population, so examining this appropriation is critically important, not only for understanding our health and wellbeing but understanding our economic health and wellbeing. Our energy system exists to support both its citizens and its industry.

There’s a number of questions that will cut across both the Minister and the Associate Minister, given the divide that sits in this portfolio. I will start with some questions around fuel and the fuel plan that the Government has in place. This afternoon, we heard from the Associate Minister for Energy that he hasn’t considered using the powers that sit within the Fuel Industry Act, as Labour amended it. He’s quite content to sit at the minimum powers that that piece of legislation offers. I’d like to know what plans and what would be the triggers for the Minister to start using both the additional minimum stockholding obligation powers that sit within the legislation, and also the regulatory backstop that was put in place in order for there to be more information for New Zealand businesses and New Zealand households around what the stockholdings would look like.

SCOTT WILLIS (Green) (16:28): Thank you, Mr Chair. We’ve certainly realised just how vulnerable we are to dependence on fossil fuels, given the US and Israeli warmongering this year. We’ve also seen how hard people are doing it. There’s been a 12 percent annual increase in power prices, and the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment identified the lack of backup for dry years as a key issue, and that’s affecting energy affordability. We’ve also heard the previous Minister give a bold claim that importing liquefied natural gas (LNG) will provide dry-year cover and will lower household electricity bills from what they might be. That’s some impressive crystal-ball gazing.

Why on earth did the Government not model the cost of an international price spike, and will the Government now reconsider spending over $1 billion of public funds on the LNG import terminal?—that’s one question. If the Government does not proceed with LNG, have there been any alternatives considered, and would those alternatives be the same as considered by Concept Consulting in their modelling that was released or are new alternatives being put forward? And I’ll follow up.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy) (16:29): Thank you, Mr Chair. I thank the members for their questions. It is good to be able to have a debate in this committee of the whole House stage on energy policy, which is foundational to our economy. Energy policy is the foundation of a strong economy, and this Government has had to clean up the mess left behind by the previous Government and the decisions that they made that led to a New Zealand energy market that was less secure, less affordable, and more reliant on international coal to fire up Huntly Power Station.

Those are the decisions made by the previous Government that we have had to clean up. We’ve had to remove the 2030 100 percent renewable target, which, of course, was an absolute fantasy—an absolute fantasy. We’ve stopped the last Government’s obsession with a lake at the bottom of the South Island that wouldn’t provide dry-year cover until the year 2037 at a cost of $16 billion at least, and, of course, we’ve had to reverse their ghastly ban on oil and gas exploration, which, as I said, has led to us not only being more dependent on international coal, but it has also led to the deindustrialisation of New Zealand businesses across the country. That means fewer jobs. I would have thought the Labour Party, where one of the things they like talking about is jobs—well, I saw a report just the other day that said their decision to ban oil and gas exploration led to the direct result of 2,000 fewer jobs in Taranaki; 2,000 fewer jobs. That is ultimately the result of the previous Government’s decision, which is to deindustrialise New Zealand and reduce and remove regional jobs.

We’re now making the tough decisions to ensure we have secure and affordable energy here in New Zealand. We’re seeing good progress against all of those things, whether it’s making sure that we get the long-term agreements in place so that Tīwai smelter provides certainty to the electricity market—whether it’s making sure we have a strategic coal reserve so we can provide the dry-year cover that’s needed; whether it’s making sure we actually pass fast-track legislation which is seeing a renewables boom in this country. I just saw last week that the Waitaha run-of-river scheme in the South Island is being opposed by our Opposition—the very Opposition who think we need more renewables are opposing fast-track consent for that project. Our focus is very much on affordable, secure supplies so that Kiwi households and businesses have the affordable energy that we need.

There have been a number of questions about dry-year cover, and, of course, that is a critical issue that we must face, and many of the decisions we’ve made have helped to address that. There, of course, have been a range of options that have been considered, and I encourage the member to go and read the Cabinet paper and the business case and all of the documentation, which looks at all of the options and all of their different costs. Ultimately, if the member is suggesting that the option he would prefer is more coal—which is ultimately one of the alternatives—it has twice the emissions of gas, and, ultimately, means more dependency on imported coal from Indonesia. Now, I didn’t think that was the Green Party policy, but that’s what it looks like.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Just before I take any further calls, obviously the scope of the debate has probably been increased somewhat by the range of the Minister’s answer, so be aware of that.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) (16:33): If the Minister wanted to try and tie his answers back to Budget 2024 and 2025—of course we can see that that was the Budget where a range of initiatives to support New Zealand businesses to keep people employed and people in work were scrapped. That was one of the effects of the mini-Budget, and then through into Budget 2025, which is the one that is under scrutiny. The Minister had a range of issues that he talked about, so I have several questions, and then we’ll come back later in the debate—I’m sure the Associate Minister will welcome the Minister making him stay in the Chamber longer; the Minister in the chair will welcome the fact that he has to stay through to the latter part of this allocation.

In terms of the Minister’s claim that the oil and gas ban is somehow responsible for what we are currently seeing, I would like to know specifically what advice the Minister has seen about how long it takes to bring something from exploration to production; what the average period of time in New Zealand has been from a permit for exploration being issued through to be actively producing well, and whether or not ever in New Zealand’s history we would have seen a well go from exploration to production in the period of time from 2018 to 2026. I’m specifically asking about the advice he has received on that. I’m also asking the Minister whether he received advice about the over $1 billion that was invested by the oil and gas industry into existing permits post 2018 to go looking for additional gas in the existing permits, but commercial finds were not found.

I’d also like to ask the Minister, around the dry-year cover—he said that Scott Willis should go and read the documentation. Well, I can assure the Minister, I have read all the documentation, I’ve read the Cabinet paper, and what I know from the Cabinet paper is that is says that there wasn’t time to produce a regulatory impact statement to adequately assess all the alternatives that were in there and that were being considered when the Government made a rash decision around liquefied natural gas (LNG). That cost-benefit analysis was not done, Minister—but since you seem to have that knowledge, I’d like to know exactly what the other options were and how they stacked up against LNG. Certainly, the documentation that the Government released did not show that—neither the Cabinet paper nor any of the supporting information that sat around it.

I wait with bated breath to hear from the Minister. Fundamentally, we have a Government that cancelled work that was under way for the most important part of New Zealand’s energy system, and that is how it is that we adequately store energy for dry-year risk. The Minister will say, “Lake Onslow, Lake Onslow”—the Minister killed the New Zealand battery project. The Minister killed a programme of work that was not just looking at pumped hydro and Lake Onslow, it was looking at a range of options of how to store energy for a dry year. This was thrown out by this Minister in his first time as Minister for Energy. The Government then had to scurry and has come up with an unaffordable plan in LNG that is going to put the price of electricity up in New Zealand.

In terms of the plan that this Government has for giving affordability and security to New Zealanders, we still haven’t seen an energy strategy; the Government has been in Government for nearly three years, and it is still yet to emerge. Businesses are continually asking for it, and in terms of helping businesses in the transition, I’d like to know what the Minister thinks of Business New Zealand’s plea last week for the Government to assist businesses to transition away from gas so that they can keep operating and keep people in employment after the Government slashed all the funding that Labour had put in place to assist businesses with that transition.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy) (16:38): It’s lovely to be back as the Minister for Energy, isn’t it? It’s great to be back, and it’s great to talk about some of the decisions I made last time, such as stopping her boondoggle of a project, Lake Onslow, in the middle of the mountains, which, of course, wasn’t going to produce a single kilowatt of electricity until 2037 at the earliest, at a cost of $16 billion at a minimum. That was the solution. The Government has worked very hard, very fast, and put other options on the table, which we’re now working through a process to make decision on.

I’d point out to the member that making a decision this decade and implementing a solution this decade is far more important than waiting for 2037, because the impact of higher prices is having a real impact on our economy today—today. The advice I’ve seen is that by 2025, higher energy prices, caused by many of the decisions made by her Government, are estimated to have worsened New Zealand’s trade balance by $275 million, reduced our GDP by $5.2 billion, and cut household spending by 1.65 percent. Of course, we saw the impact of what that looked like in 2024, when the sun wasn’t shining, the rain wasn’t falling, the wind wasn’t blowing, and they killed the oil and gas industry. That is absolutely shameful—shameful for our economy, shameful for Taranaki.

She has the audacity to stand up and say, well, how long would it take to find some gas?

Well, I can tell you what: if she hadn’t banned oil and gas exploration eight years ago, I’m pretty sure there would have been “Drill, baby, drill” happening right now up and down New Zealand so we can have our own indigenous gas here in New Zealand, which, of course, she killed, making us more dependent.

Of course, we saw the Leader of the Opposition, the wannabe PM, in question time and, of course, Chlöe Swarbrick talking about how we want to be more resilient, more independent, more of these things—they are the very people who have destroyed the very industry that would make us independent.

That’s why we reversed the ban on oil and gas exploration. That’s why we have got rid of the chilling impact of the Lake Onslow project on the energy sector. We’re now seeing our renewables boom here in New Zealand, with solar, with wind, with geothermal projects. We are seeing fast track getting more projects delivered faster than ever. That is good news. We will keep delivering; Megan Woods will keep moaning.

SCOTT WILLIS (Green) (16:41): Thank you, Mr Chair. Given that the Minister for Energy has been unable to answer the question previously about why the Government did not model the cost of international spike price on liquefied natural gas, I’m assuming that they don’t care about the price, because consumers will pay for it.

We also heard in the 2024-25 annual review of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) that MBIE is working to give consumers a better ability to control their own costs—examples include removing the need for consents for rooftop solar, and working with the Electricity Authority so consumers are rewarded better when they feed energy back into the grid. But the Government rejected advice to provide financial mechanisms like a ratepayer assistance scheme and hasn’t legislated for a feed-in tariff.

Given the energy crisis we’re in and given the pain that households are feeling at the moment, will the Government look again at financial mechanisms to enable greater solar and battery uptake to help households with high electricity bills and/or legislate for a solar feed-in tariff? I’d like to hear from the Minister.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) (16:42): Thank you, Mr Chair. Just to remind the Minister for Energy of some of the questions that are still outstanding: how does he respond to Business New Zealand’s call for the Government to step up and partner with industry to help businesses that are suffering and where we’re seeing businesses close down and people lose their jobs? Business New Zealand put out a very clear plan last week, and I’d be very keen to understand whether the Minister has asked for advice on that and whether the Minister is planning to step up and do something to support our businesses who are struggling, or whether he’s going to ignore that plea.

I also would like to ask the Minister—he hasn’t addressed the issue that Scott Willis raised about the advice they may have had about international liquefied natural gas (LNG) prices, but given in the Cabinet paper it was laid bare that a group of Ministers were going to be making the commercial decision, rather than officials—a delegated group of Ministers—and given the Prime Minister’s call to see whether or not this stacks up, whether the Minister still intends, as per his predecessor’s plan that was laid out in the Cabinet paper, that, at a time of such global uncertainty, it will be politicians making a commercial decision about who should be the final procurer of the LNG scheme.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy) (16:44): Look, I thank the members for their questions. In regards to the questions around solar, my understanding is that the Electricity Authority has made decisions in regards to feed-in tariffs, with that implementation later this year, and that, of course, is alongside the reduction in consent requirements for rooftop solar. We are seeing a significant increase in people putting rooftop solar on their houses, which does make a big difference. We’ll continue to look at what other initiatives may be needed to support increases in rooftop solar and the role that that can play for households across the country.

In terms of the question around the war in the Middle East and the impact that has, of course that has an impact on spot prices, but, of course, as Genesis has mentioned in relation to this issue, there is what’s called “hedging” and managing contracts, and a whole range of other financial and commercial tools which can be used to manage price.

To answer the member who’s just sat down’s question, we’re going through a procurement process. We’ll be taking into account a range of factors for making a final decision.

The last question was in relation to Business New Zealand’s call for subsidies and, I think, a reimagination of the Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry Fund, which, of course, was the previous Minister’s—

Simon Court: Boondoggle.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: —boondoggle. We are not in the business here of just simply subsidising businesses, but we are in the business of lowering energy prices so that we can ensure New Zealand businesses and households have access to affordable energy. That requires all of the initiatives that we’ve done as a Government and more, because we need to make sure that we have an energy market which works and which is driving investment forward. I am pleased to let the member know that we have a renewables boom currently under way in this country, which is doing a fantastic job. There, of course, is much more work to do.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) (16:46): Thank you, Mr Chair. There’s a couple of questions. I just want to start with the first one. Of the 30 permits that existed in the oil and minerals sector, how many were forfeited and how many were actually producing?

Then I’d like to go into the questions about renewable energy. On paper, it looks like we’re 80 to 85 percent renewable, except electricity, except that when you go into those reports more, that excludes our reliance on the transport industry, which is still extremely fossil heavy.

I’m going to push through these questions, if it’s OK with the Minister for Energy, because I’m aware that we have limited time as a party. How I’d like the line-up of questions is: does the Minister accept the quoting of 80 percent renewable electricity masks the reality that less than half of our total energy use is actually renewable, and why is the Government relying on statistics that exclude industries such as transport? That’s our biggest risk to resilience, as a country.

The other thing is the cost of living contradiction. There are 140,000 homes that have taken up the loan opportunity. Is the Government happy with the fact that there are many that haven’t? If we’re having a renewable boom, how is it going to be accessible and how are you claiming that transition is working?

Also, I’d like to understand from the Minister what percentage of Aotearoa’s renewable infrastructure is owned offshore, rather than by communities or the public? Enjoy the conversation of indigenous oil—do we have indigenous solar?

The other aspect is that we talked about dry-year risk, and we have a heavy reliance on hydro. What is the Government’s plan to guarantee supply during those dry years, without reverting to coal and gas?

And just a couple more—bear with me. What investment is being made in regional grids to enable local generation, particularly in rural communities?

Are we building a system, in your mind, from a renewables perspective, where energy is generated locally but controlled and priced centrally; if so, what’s the difference between the issues that we have now? Thank you.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy) (16:49): I thank the member for the questions. Of course, when it comes to what percentage of our electricity comes from renewable sources, those statistics are very clearly stated. That is around the percentage of our electricity and its generation from renewable sources, and it’s around 85 percent as a country. That is something we should be incredibly proud of.

There is a significant pipeline in, in particular, indigenous solar—that is a big part of the pipeline. I’m advised that the total forward pipeline of indigenous solar is 1,867 megawatts, which equates to 2,697 gigawatt hours of indigenous solar in the pipeline, 2026-29. I can also confirm to the committee that that indigenous solar does not need to go through the Strait of Hormuz; it comes straight from the sun to New Zealand, and there is a huge amount of it getting built under this Government. Isn’t that a good thing? I hope the member would be welcoming it and celebrating it, because that’s what happens when you have fast track, and it’s what happens when you have a National Government focused on making sure we get rid of the roadblocks, and getting things done.

There’s a lot happening in the energy space and lots more to do.

Hon MARK PATTERSON (Associate Minister for Regional Development) (16:50): Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, there’s so much going on under this Government in terms of energy generation and resources. It’s really hard to keep up but just this very morning, the public notification—

Hon Shane Jones: Breathtaking.

Hon MARK PATTERSON: —and I’m interested in the Minister for Resources’ knowledge of this, and perhaps you could illuminate, because a major announcement was publicised this morning in turning Southland’s lignite reserve, I believe it’s something like 9 billion tonnes, into urea, and also electricity generation from the hydrogen.

On top of that, my understanding and perhaps the Minister could illuminate, the impact that fast track has had on drawing that investment—that we’re actually competing with Victoria in Australia. If the Minister could answer those questions, please.

Hon SHANE JONES (Associate Minister for Energy) (16:51): Somewhat unusually, I’m going to stand to address, because the portfolio is split, the questions from the honourable shadow Minister for energy, first. A question has been raised: why do we not increase the obligations upon the fuel importers, very quickly, so that they go straight up to 28 days, and that creates a problem as to where this additional fuel would be stored—not only that; the costs associated with demurrage if this additional fuel was brought to New Zealand and left in a vessel bobbing on the coastline.

Now, of course, none of this would have happened had the situation been handled differently with the closure of the refinery, and I’m not going to tempt an admonition from you, other than to say the fact: had the 700 million - odd litres of storage capacity not been terminated in 2021-22, we may very well have had tanks fit for use. However, I inherited a situation where there were a lot of aspirational paragraphs; no budget, no plan of execution. Within eight weeks, New Zealand—eight weeks—I’ve achieved, on behalf of the Government, what the last regime could not do for 1,000 weeks; simply dedicated a small amount of money, relatively speaking, to upgrade 100 million litres’ worth of storage; recommissioned a crude tank, to the best of my knowledge, for the purposes of holding additional diesel.

The acid is on the fuel import companies because, yes, as the honourable member knows, we’ve given them a period of time to create additional storage capacity and, from time to time, a number of their tanks are not full, but no one’s car, day by day, in New Zealand, when they drive it around, is full of fuel. The capacity of the tanks ebbs and flows. That’s my response in that regard.

In respect of what additional steps the Government might be making to build an additional sovereign buffer, all I would say is: until such time all Ministers have addressed that issue, as the Prime Minister has adverted to, then we’ll make an announcement as to what level of additional buffer should be created.

The other point that was made is: what confidence do we have as to what’s happening on the other side of the refinery businesses, given the disruptiveness and the massive changes that have happened in terms of where the feedstock is coming into the refineries? It gets converted into fuel, gets put on to ships, and eventually makes its way through to New Zealand predominantly, if not exclusively, through three companies.

We’ve been advised that the refineries have been reorientated to cope with feedstock from Latin America, the United States of America, Africa, and alternative sources. Now, it is true that 20 million barrels per day were going through the Strait. However, there was always an additional amount of feedstock coming out of that part of the world, the Middle East; that is still flowing, but the disruptiveness has caused the refineries to reorient. No single fuel company has said that they are close or perilously heading towards violating their legal obligations, because punitive damages up to $700 million could be visited upon them.

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First) (16:55): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’m going to ask one question, but I also wanted to remind the Minister who’s just spoken about the question that my colleague the Hon Mark Patterson asked about the lignite urea plant in Southland, which has been proposed because that seems to be a massive opportunity.

The question I wanted to ask about is that when talking to one of the energy companies recently, they said, “Well, look, we’ve got a range of different generation proposals.” They had a solar proposal, they had a battery proposal, they had a wind proposal, they had a geothermal proposal. What was interesting is that the, if you like, base plate number for the solar was very much the cheapest; the geothermal was the most expensive of them. But given that the solar plant would only operate less than 20 percent of the time, in effect because it’s not sunny all the time, it certainly doesn’t operate at night, by the time you set what level of energy it generated, the geothermal plant was actually the cheapest by the amount of energy that it generated, and, of course, it’s operating close to 100 percent of the time.

My question that I wanted to ask, in addition to the question that the Hon Mark Patterson asked in terms of the lignite urea conversion is to ask about the progress that’s being made on super-critical geothermal exploration, how that’s going, and what difference that would make if we managed to get that to work to the New Zealand electricity system, in terms of delivering reliable and more cost-effective energy and what that does, of course, for industry.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The Hon Megan Woods. Just a reminder that the Minister will be leaving the chair at 5 but will be back here at 9 tonight.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) (16:57): OK. I have several questions; one is for the Minister in the chair, the Hon Simeon Brown. What is the current balance, as of today, of the Petroleum or Engine Fuels Monitoring Levy memorandum account?

The other question I have is for the Associate Minister for Energy. What advice did he receive when he cancelled the plan for a 70 million - litre storage facility for diesel that would have been at Marsden Point and would have been under construction right now? Did he get advice that, in fact, the previous Government had changed the law so that memorandum levy account was available to be used to fund it? When the Minister says that there was no plan, was he advised that, indeed, there had been a legislative change to provide the funding to allow for a 70 million - litre diesel storage facility at Marsden Point, but that Minister cancelled that in 2024? He told his Cabinet colleagues that he was doing it as part of the cost-saving measures of their Government. Does the Minister regret the fact that he’s out New Zealand’s energy security at risk? He’s now claiming that he’s fixed it in eight weeks. But does the Minister, now, accept that all he is doing is putting back in place the plan that he scrapped in 2024, which was to have a strategic reserve of diesel at Marsden Point? While that is around a week’s worth of diesel, he would have received advice that showed that, actually, if you were going to use that for essential services, that could be up to four months’ worth of diesel for New Zealand to keep things running. But he took a paper to Cabinet in 2024 and cancelled that project.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy) (16:59): I can only but answer the first part of her question, which was: what is it, as at today? I don’t have the number as at today. I’m very happy, if you put that in writing, to answer that.

Secondly, I’m sick and tired of the scaremongering by the Opposition—the absolute scaremongering from the Opposition—when it comes to how much fuel is in our country at the moment. They’re scaremongering, rather than actually putting out the facts about the fact that we have supply in the country and supply on the way; instead, they’re reverting to scaremongering, which I think’s appalling.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): That’s time, sorry. The time with the Minister for Energy has been suspended now until 9 p.m. this evening.

Committee of the whole House—Annual Review Debate

Social Development and Employment

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The Minister for Social Development and Employment is now available for one hour to respond to members’ questions. The Minister, the Hon Louise Upston.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (17:01): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to just make some opening remarks ahead of the select committee comments, and then I’m more than happy to answer questions. So this is obviously the debate on the 2024/25 annual review for Vote Social Development. As I said at the annual review hearing, which was back in December last year, my highest priority as the Minister is to support New Zealanders into work, while ensuring those who genuinely can’t work are able to draw on support when they need it. We have a Government target to reduce the number of people receiving the jobseeker benefit by 50,000 by the year 2030. Of course, the faster we can help those on benefit find sustainable employment, the better the outcomes are for them, their families, our communities, and of course, our country. I’m conscious that we’ve only got a short time, so I just want to provide some brief statements and then answer questions.

I’d like to acknowledge some of the work that’s been done by the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) during the year in review, 1 July 2024 to 30 June 2025. As expected in the current economic climate, in the uncertain global environment, the overall number of people in the year in review receiving a benefit increased. However, our Government’s welfare reset is getting results and helping job seekers to be work-ready and proactive about stepping into the opportunities that exist to either, you know, be ready for work as the opportunities are there.

So in the year in review, MSD supported 80,700 people off benefits and into work. Given the economic circumstances in the year in review, I think that’s a really great result. MSD answered around 4.4 million phone calls, funded community support services accessed by over 94,639 people, and processed 271,500 student loan and student allowance applications. The focus on employment and proactive staff engagement is really helping more people to move into work. In the 2024/25 year, this included expanding case management from a capacity of 60,000 to 70,000, and that included the implementation of phone-based case management. We’ve also increased our Kōrero Mahi seminars, which saw a total attendance of approximately 70,000 people throughout the year.

We implemented community coaching, which funded a further 2,100 places for youth job seekers to address barriers and support them into employment. This was achieved despite a tight fiscal environment. MSD saved a total of $352 million during the year in review, with more savings forecast in out-years. This included $15.7 million in savings from contractors and consultants, with more savings from this category also being reprioritised within the Ministry; and also 17,000 saved with changes to make the workforce more efficient.

There is, of course, much more work ahead of us; we’re very clear about that. And I do want to acknowledge the incredible work of every one of the team at the Ministry of Social Development, who do an amazing job to help New Zealanders overcome the barriers they face to employment. I want to thank them on the record for their hard work, for their dedication, and the incredible public service they provide. Happy to take questions, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yeah, I’ll call Willow-Jean Prime, but I just wanted to make a comment. So last night, we had a bit of an issue. So if there are any Associate Ministers in the House—I’d like to ask the indulgence of the ACT Party for any Associate Ministers to sit over here, because we can’t have officials coming out onto the floor of the House.

Simon Court: I indulge thee.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Thank you, Simon Court.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (17:05): Tēnā koe e te Māngai. Thank you for the opportunity to take a call. This annual review debate is for the 2024/25 financial year, and it’s an opportunity to reflect on what the Government has done for our most vulnerable people. People who are seeking extra support and assistance, and also assistance to get a job—often the most vulnerable of our people. Unfortunately, when we do this, we can all see that this Government is making things worse. They are taking away opportunity and then kicking people when they are down.

Let’s start with the most obvious: this Government took office promising to reduce jobseeker numbers by 50,000. What we can see is that they are closer to increasing it by 50,000 than they are to decreasing it. Over 25,000 people have ended up needing to turn to State assistance under great duress due to this Government’s failures. The record is stark: unemployment is up, food insecurity is up, child poverty is up, and more and more jobs are being lost. And what has this Government done? They have sanctioned vulnerable people when they simply need support. They’ve slashed funding for community services and made it harder for people to get the help that they need. I want to start by asking questions around those jobseeker numbers, the targets, and the sanctions.

Quite obviously, this target has not been met, and I see from the Government’s own tracking that the chance of meeting this is becoming less and less likely every day that they are in power. But I want to ask the Minister about something that she said in the 2024 Estimates hearings. During that hearing, my colleague the Hon Carmel Sepuloni noted that she had received an Official Information Act (OIA) response about the measure for the target. In that OIA response, the Ministry for Social Development and Employment recommended that work exits be the measure of success for the target, not the number of people on jobseeker support. The Minister has referred to that in her opening comments. The Minister’s reply was “You’ve also got to look at what’s happening for the numbers coming in and staying in.” My question for the Minister is: what is she doing to understand the people coming on to jobseekers and staying on, and the people leaving and staying off?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (17:08): Thank you, Madam Chair. The member has referred to the jobseeker target, which was, of course, as I mentioned in my opening comments, to reduce the number of people on the jobseeker benefit by 50,000. That’s by the year 2030. So I accept that the target is at risk, but every day I get up and go to work, that is what I’m focused on. Because what we do know is that the best way to reduce hardship is for families to be in work. While I accept, and I said in my opening remarks, that the economic conditions in the 2024/25 period were incredibly challenging, but actually we saw 80,700 people leave benefit and go into work. The member asked the question and referred to the difference between work exits and jobseeker numbers. If I’m blunt about it, actually work exits is an easier target. But I’m more interested in people actually being in employment, leaving jobseeker benefit, and being on a better pathway towards independence—which is why I accepted a far more challenging target, which was around the number of people on the jobseeker benefit. We want to see real results and real outcomes, and we’re not afraid of having an ambitious target that will be challenging for us to meet. But we know the difference that people coming off the jobseeker benefit and being in work makes.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (17:10): Thank you, Madam Chair. I did ask the Minister to explain more to help me understand what she is doing to understand the people coming on to the jobseeker benefit and staying on, and the people who are leaving and coming off. I don’t believe the Minister addressed that.

While the Minister is getting some guidance there, the next issue I would like to ask about is the sanctions and the traffic light system. I understand that the Minister has an early assessment of the traffic light system that she uses to talk about its success, but, as far as I can see, success relates to people simply understanding their obligations, and not actually success in getting people into work. Can the Minister tell us how she is assessing the impact of her sanctions in terms of actually getting people into jobs? This is important because so much resource is going into the sanctions and obligations, and we need to know that this is a good use of those resources.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (17:11): I thank the member for their question. One of the changes that we’ve made is the Kōrero Mahi seminars. Before someone comes on to the jobseeker benefit, they have that initial participation in this seminar, which is all about understanding what support and services the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) can provide to them and, on the other side of it, what responsibilities they have if they sign on to the jobseeker benefit. It’s about having really clear expectations, a greater understanding of what people’s responsibilities are, and—really importantly—what support is available through MSD, and then the traffic light system is all about having a really simple way of being able to demonstrate that somebody is fulfilling their obligations or not.

In the year in review, we’ve seen high degrees of great people participating at green, which means they’re on track, they understand their obligations, and they’re fulfilling them. I do want to be very clear in this committee of the whole House—because it has been misrepresented on many occasions—that nobody is sanctioned if they can’t find a job. The sanction regime, which is the same graduated sanction regime that was in place under the previous Government, is only used if they don’t fulfil their obligations.

We have seen great success with the traffic lights. We do know that it’s about being clear about what the expectations are and an easy way to see if people are on-track or off-track, and less than 1 percent are at red, which really indicates that people are clear about their expectations and it’s working.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Joseph Mooney, as chairperson of the Social Services and Community Committee.

JOSEPH MOONEY (Chairperson of the Social Services and Community Committee) (17:13): Regs review? Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I rise to speak as the chairperson of the Social Services and Community Committee to the annual reviews of the Ministry of Social Development for 2024 and 2025. It is the organisation that sits at the centre of our social support and employment system.

The Ministry of Social Development has enormous reach. In 2024-25, it administered over $44 billion in non-departmental expenditure, with superannuation and core benefits accounting for the majority of that spend. While total departmental revenue fell by just over 8 percent, the ministry recorded a surplus and received a clean audit, with all major control environments rated as good, a positive improvement on the year prior.

In employment, the committee spent significant time examining the Welfare that Works programme. Case management continues to be one of the ministry’s most effective tools, with around 70,000 clients now receiving this support, up from 60,000 the year prior. We heard clear evidence that targeted, intensive support works, particularly for younger New Zealanders, with nearly half of those completing community job coaching entering employment by the end of June 2025.

The context is telling. At the same time, as of June 2025, more than 216,000 people remain in jobseeker support, with forecasters suggesting numbers will peak in 2026 before declining. The ministry was candid with us that the Government’s longer-term reduction targets are under pressure from current economic conditions, but we were encouraged by the fact that over 70,000 people moved from being on an employment benefit into work last year, which is more than 10,000 than the year before. We were also reassured by improvements in benefit entitlement accuracy, with performance lifting steadily over the year, although of course there’s always more work to do, particularly for supplementary payments and disability-related payments.

This is an incredibly important agency to support vulnerable people, to support New Zealanders achieve their goals in life and, where possible, get into employment, and to assist those who fall off the tracks that our society has within a whole raft of different ways. I acknowledge that it has been a very challenging couple of years, and the ministry is performing a very important role, but we were encouraged by the reports that we received and heard as a committee. With that, I commend our report to the House.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (17:15): Thank you, Madam Chair, after the chairperson of our select committee showed up to work—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): No, I don’t—

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: —because he doesn’t want to get sanctioned.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Sorry, but I’m going to stop it right there. It’s not a fair comment. There was a change in time as I came in to take my role in the Chair and we moved the agenda slightly, and so it was not the chairperson’s fault that—

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Oh, OK—it was 5 o’clock on mine, so—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): No, it’s not your fault either, but I just think that that was an unfair comment.

Hon Member: You didn’t check the email.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Sure—OK, Madam Chair. As I was just exploring with the Minister around the sanctions and the traffic light system, one of the things that I’m concerned about is that the evaluation only looks at exits, and not exits into work. How does she know that it’s not the case management system or job coaching that is actually achieving work exits and that it is nothing to do with the sanctions? Why did the review not include that?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (17:16): Let me talk about a couple of things. I think, going back to the question that the member asked prior to this, one of the other significant increases is in the investment in case management. There were 60,000 people in case management, and there are now 70,000. Case management is the most effective programme that the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) funds and delivers, and it is the significant increase in the number of people in case management that is a strong correlation to what we are seeing in terms of work exits.

The evaluation of the traffic light system that the member referred to isn’t within this annual review period. What I would instead draw her attention to is the evidence around sanctions, which shows it can result in more exits from benefit. That is 84.7 percent of people, and this is where the impact is. Where there is someone who moves from green into orange, 84.7 percent are resolved after they contact MSD. Part of that is then what support is available, are they accessing it, are they participating in their obligations, which might be contacting their case manager, it might be participating in training—those sorts of things. All of those together are the things that have a greater impact and that lead to greater work exits, and so, as the member would well know, it’s not one thing. It is a multitude of many services and supports that MSD provide that is contributing to those high work exit numbers, and in terms of the evaluation of the traffic lights system, that’s not in this year of review.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (17:18): I appreciate the Minister saying that the review isn’t in this period that we’re covering, but it is to review something that is in the period that we are covering, so I believe that the Minister can actually talk to what is from that review. The reason that I’m asking this question is because significant resources are being put into the sanctions and obligations, and I want to know why the review is looking only at exits and not exits into work, and how do we know that the sanctions and the traffic light system are worth the amount of money that the Minister is spending on that? There is also the significant impact that it has on some of our most vulnerable people.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (17:19): Thank you, Madam Chair. I wanted to raise an issue that relates to people having their benefits cut or prevented from accessing a benefit because they’re deemed to be in a relationship in the nature of marriage. We know that disabled people are particularly hard hit by this policy. In previous annual review debates, the Minister noted that this is just the longstanding policy, but I’m interested in knowing whether the Minister supports the policy altogether that has been used in the period we’re reviewing. That’s my first question.

My second question relates to the number of people with a client integrity service case completed from 1 July to 30 June in the year that we are reviewing. We have seen the breakdown by ethnicity, and I am particularly concerned that as MSD moves from early intervention to investigation, once you move to investigation, the ethnic disparity over who’s more likely to be investigated turns to a really concerning figure, which is that Māori are more likely to be investigated once they move towards those more kind of heavy-handed interventions that could result in prosecutions, could result in prison time, and could result in tens of thousands of dollars’ worth of debt.

My second question is: why are Māori more likely to be investigated for things like welfare fraud than their counterparts when that is not the case for early intervention and facilitation processes which do not show that Māori are disproportionately targeted by these less burdensome and consequential interventions, like I said?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (17:21): I want to clarify the question the member’s asking. Are you asking specifically in question two in relationship to the relationship rules, or is it a much broader question? If you could just clarify, please. Thank you.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (17:21): The reason why I raised the relationship rules is because historically we know that most investigations, or the largest reason for investigations, is to do with someone’s relationship status. I accept that there may be other reasons, but that has been the largest reason historically.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (17:21): I thank the member for his question. In terms of the relationship rules, they are longstanding rules, and they are in place because an underpinning principle of the welfare system is that it’s based on a household rather than an individual. I know that there are some people who disagree with it and believe that support should be based on each individual. There is no view to changing a longstanding principle of the Social Security Act.

Moving on to the member’s second part of the question, I don’t have that detail in front of me in terms of the disproportionate number that he is suggesting are being investigated. What we do know is, unfortunately, Māori have a disproportionate number of people receiving benefit and then, further down the track, in interventions or, in this case, in investigations. It does then lead to that there’s a higher proportion that are also being investigated.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (17:22): I’ve got the figures in front of me. For example—I’ll just compare Māori with European, for example, in this case—for early intervention, it’s 636—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Just wondering, could the member come a little bit closer to the microphone, and if I could just ask the people on my right just to—we’re getting a few conversations going on, and I think the Minister and I are probably struggling to hear some of what you’re asking. Thank you.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: No worries. Thank you. For early intervention it is 636 Māori versus 996 European; for facilitation, it’s 1,150 Māori versus 2,487 European. But for investigation, there are more Māori: 861 versus 828. What this tells us is that the more heavy-handed approaches tend to be used against Māori in a more frequent way than for European counterparts, compared to the early intervention facilitation which do not risk, for example, someone being prosecuted. With those figures in front of the Minister, does she have any concerns that there’s disparities along ethnic lines for the more heavy-handed approaches that MSD can take?

Moving on to another topic—so I’d really be keen to just, now that I’ve provided the figures, get the Minister’s view on this—does the Minister have concerns that the rate of declines for hardship assistance for food has increased at a time where the cost of living crisis has been skyrocketing? What does she think that the increase in the decline rates shows, and what are the impacts down the line for families that are missing out on basic essentials such as food?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (17:24): Thank you for bringing to the attention of the committee those statistics around early intervention and investigations. I’ll go away and have a look at that in more detail. In terms of the hardship declines, there obviously have been changes around emergency housing, and my colleagues spoke to those last night, so I won’t cover that in my comments today. There have been no policy changes around the hardship grants. That’s the first thing I want to say. In terms of the numbers that are granted, they are very in line with previous years, which is what you’d anticipate. In terms of the number of declines, there is greater clarity around what the policy is. Some of the rules were relaxed during the COVID years, and they were just put back in place now that we’re well out of the COVID years, but there has been no policy change.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (17:25): Thank you so much, Madam Chair. The rules around the use of discretion have not changed, even within the previous Government. It was just the amount that people could access before they had to show exceptional circumstances, which takes me back to the question of: what does she attribute to the increase in the rate of decline for hardship assistance for food over the period that we have seen? Is that a matter of having a culture problem in the front-line Work and Income offices? Is it just that people do not need assistance for food, which doesn’t seem to be the case, because every bit of feedback from stakeholder tells us that people out there are needing assistance for food more and more due to the cost of living crisis that we’re experiencing.

I’m interested in knowing what, if anything, the Minister can attribute this increase in the rate of decline for assistance for basic stuff like food to? I’m not talking about emergency housing; I’m very narrowly talking about assistance for things like food and toiletries and other essentials that can be provided through those hardship grants.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (17:26): Madam Chair, thank you. I do believe I answered that in terms of there’s been no policy change. But some other settings—for example, approval by a manager—were taken out during the COVID years and put back in when the COVID period ended, which is the period in which our Government has been in place.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (17:26): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just in terms of that, though, can the Minister outline to us—because we’ve seen the declines in food grants, for example; the emergency food grant applications rose by 60 percent between 2023 and 2025, and demand is increasing. Why is the rate of declines rising?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (17:27): I’ll say it one more time: there has been no policy change. It is operational guidelines that MSD follow, and I’ve explained the difference between the COVID settings and what we have now. We have granted a similar level of food grants—1,288,773—which is very in line with the year prior.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): OK—Willow-Jean Prime. I will say that I have heard the Minister answer that question on three occasions.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (17:28): Ah, yes, she said the number is similar, except for the demand has gone up and the number of declines has gone up by 60 percent. How does she explain that?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I believe she has—Ricardo Menéndez March.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (17:28): Thank you. I wanted to go back to the relationship roles and particularly the cancellation of benefits due to them. Has the Minister seen reports or accounts from people on the benefit that people who may have flatmates who they may have just been cohabitating with have been deemed to be in a relationship in the nature of marriage—particularly with disabled people who may just be cohabitating with really close friends? If so, if she has heard those accounts, including from organisations who have long called these policies “outdated” and not reflecting our modern-day life, does she not have any concerns whatsoever around how this policy is applied, particularly for disabled people?

There are some examples where disabled people on the Supported Living Payment completely lose access to their benefit and are made to be fully financially dependent on whoever MSD seems to be their partner, even if they are not. When we talk about “partner”, MSD defines it as “a relationship in the nature of marriage”, but that seems like quite a very, very specific thing to be trying to define when we know in practice people get their benefit cut just because they may have gone on a few dates.

If she has not seen any accounts, how does she know that the policy is fit for purpose? Or has she seen accounts from beneficiaries and organisations such as Child Poverty Action Group, who have long called for these rules to be overhauled? That is destroying people’s lives—particularly disabled people who are made to be financially dependent—through no fault of their own or decision of their own but on whoever MSD decides that their partner is.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (17:29): Madam Chair, I’ve been warned by the whips that I need to keep my comments short. I have already answered the question in terms of the policy. I accept that not everybody agrees with it, but it is a longstanding principle of the Social Security Act.

ORIINI KAIPARA (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau) (17:30): Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. Over the 2024-25 financial year, homelessness has spiked. The Salvation Army State of the Nation Report showed more than half of the 112,000 or so homeless people in Aotearoa are aged under 25. Homelessness in my electorate of Tāmaki Makaurau has more than doubled in the time, to almost 1,000. My question—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’ve just been advised by the Minister for Social Development and Employment that homelessness is actually not part of her portfolio, so perhaps—

ORIINI KAIPARA: Let me state this: my question centres on rangatahi or youth homelessness, which does fall under the social development and employment portfolio. During the period in review, 54,612 benefit sanctions were made. What impact has that had on rangatahi homelessness and homelessness in general in Tāmaki Makaurau and across Aotearoa?

The second question is: how has the Minister’s decision to impose financial sanctions instead of non-financial sanctions improved rangatahi homelessness or homelessness in general?

Thirdly, what specific measures has the Minister championed to ensure rangatahi who are either at risk of or experiencing homelessness receive rangatahi-specific housing support and wraparound care? How many care-experienced rangatahi have become homeless or transient within 12 months of leaving care in the past five years? There are five questions specifically under that portfolio that I put to the Minister.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (17:31): The issues related to housing, social housing, homelessness were covered in the annual review debate last night with Minister Potaka, so I won’t be covering that.

In terms of the question around the use of financial sanctions versus non-financial sanctions, in the year in review, the non-financial sanctions hadn’t been implemented.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (17:32): Thank you, Madam Chair. Going to non-financial sanctions, what does she make of the fact that out of the total sanctions that have been applied, non-financial sanctions, to my understanding, make less than 0.5 percent of total sanctions? A significant amount of money has been spent in updating the Ministry of Social Development’s system so that these sanctions could actually be used, but it seems like they’re not being used altogether, basically. Does she accept that this could lead to, or be seen as, a failure or a policy failure, or, if not, how does she explain the fact that basically no one is able to be placed in community work experience or money management? On the money management side of things, is it because, basically, the way that the policy’s designed means that almost everyone, or at least the average beneficiary, would be left without being able to afford their home if they’re put on money management? On community work experience, would it be the case that front-line organisations just simply do not want to take people in, because the benefit sanction’s unworkable?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (17:33): The policy for non-financial sanctions had only just commenced with two of the sections, and there are conditions around when they can be applied, for clients who are either in case management or who have dependent children and it’s their first obligation failure. What I do want to just put on the record of the House is that financial sanctions were very much a direct response to concerns raised when there were children in benefit-dependent households where a financial sanction was imposed. What we wanted to do was come up with a range of non-financial sanctions for that set of criteria. For the period which we are reviewing, the non-financial sanctions were very early, and it’s too early to be able to assess their use.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (17:34): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I have a series of questions in and around job losses. We know that there are 32,000 fewer jobs under this Government, and so I had a couple of questions for the Minister for Social Development and Employment. You’ll be familiar in your own area, in Taupō, that around the areas of Tokoroa, there have been significant job losses over the past year to 18 months. Kinleith Mill lost 150 jobs, Kinleith plywood 119, and Winstone Pulp’s Ruapehu mills—230 there. At the very same time, we’ve seen these job losses and closures. You would think that for a Government that says they want to create the conditions for jobs and they’re going for growth and things like “the economy is stronger when more people are working”, if these closures are happening, it would’ve been the right time to increase ability for people to take up training, take up opportunities, and retrain in areas where they might need to. She’ll be aware that Toi Ohomai in Tokoroa had 60 job losses in and around the same time that we’ve seen three closures of wood manufacturing.

I’d like to ask the Minister, first of all: how is she creating the conditions for jobs and going for growth when there is a simultaneous kick in the guts for working people who are losing their jobs and losing access to retraining?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (17:35): I will keep my comments in terms of the scope of the portfolio, which is around the redeployment support service, and give two examples. One was the Smithfield Alliance in Timaru, with about 700 affected workers, and the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) worked very closely on the ground with those workers. The example that the member gave in Tokoroa, project phoenix, was stood up as a combination of work across Government agencies, council, and Toi Ohomai to work really closely with affected workers, and I’m really proud of what MSD have done on the ground. I know it’s a really challenging situation when a business makes the decision to close, but MSD have been on the ground early, supporting those workers.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (17:36): Thank you very much. Does she think it was the right use of Government money to be giving a significant amount, undisclosed, for, for example, Robbie Williams to come to Auckland when people in her own electorate aren’t being given adequate support by the Ministry of Social Development to be able to retrain and to get the support, and those on the ground unemployed are not receiving adequate support? Is that the right choice for this Government?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): In as much as it relates to this portfolio.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. There are other areas that have been impacted by job losses. We’ve got Northland, Hawke’s Bay, Taranaki, and also Nelson-Tasman, which have all sustained significant job losses. There seems to be no plan in place apart from a target for the Ministry of Social Development to have people off the jobseeker benefit. What is the plan for regional New Zealand to be creating the conditions for jobs and going for growth when we have seen record levels of people laid off? And, I’m sorry, but if the Minister is going to tell the committee today that fast track is the solution for Northland, Hawke’s Bay, Taranaki, Tasman, and Southland people who are now unemployed, the people out there find that answer to be unsatisfactory.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (17:37): As I said in my answer to the previous question, it is incredibly challenging when a business makes the decision to close. I’ve given two examples of the support that the Ministry of Social Development has provided in the year in review, and I’m not going to speak outside that time frame.

ORIINI KAIPARA (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau) (17:38): Did the ministry receive any direction in 2024-25 to shift away from equity-focused or Tiriti-based approaches? If so, who made that decision, and how was it justified?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (17:38): No.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (17:38): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just going back to the questions around food insecurity and the Minister for Social Development and Employment’s answers, what I want to know is: what is she doing to make sure that people actually have enough food? No?

I also understand that an evaluation was undertaken of the Food Secure Communities programme, which was conducted last year. Can the Minister tell us when this report will be released publicly?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Minister says it’s outside the year in review.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: It was undertaken last year.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (17:39): I’m not going to comment on things that are outside the year in review, and as the whips have warned me, I’ve got to keep my comments short.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (17:39): The review was undertaken last year, which is the year in review. When will it be publicly released?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I think the Minister’s answered that question, so I suggest, given the Minister’s short of time—and it is a House constraint, not the Minister’s choice—I would say just ask as many questions as you have, and we’ll try and get the answers as collective as possible.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Yeah, just trying to get answers, but clearly not getting any in terms of that.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): No, the Minister gave you an answer. She said that last question was out of her scope.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: But it was undertaken last year, which is—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m not arguing with you; I’m just saying you’ve received an answer. You don’t have to like the answer.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Sure. Going back to the non-financial sanctions, and, again, the Minister for Social Development and Employment made the point that they were not in use, I think, in the review period. Again, this is a review of things that have been undertaken within the annual review period—sorry, we’re talking about our review and the annual review period. In terms of the non-financial sanctions, what I’m concerned about is if they had not come into effect and the policy wasn’t being implemented, does that mean that there have been people who should have been eligible for the non-financial sanctions who have actually received a financial penalty instead?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (17:40): During the year in review, there were 69 non-financial sanctions that were applied, and it was not throughout the entire year of the financial review.

ORIINI KAIPARA (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau) (17:40): The annual report confirms persistent disparities for Māori clients. What steps has the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) taking to strengthen their Māori initiatives to close this gap? What steps—I’ll continue on and ask all the questions, as you duly noted.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yes, that’s fine.

ORIINI KAIPARA: What steps are Oranga Tamariki taking to reduce the overrepresentation of tamariki Māori in State care and in youth justice facilities, following Dame Karen Poutasi’s review of the children’s system—are you going to stop me? No. What concrete changes were implemented during 2024 and 2025, and what is the funded implementation timeline going forward? Does the Minister accept that rising hardship demands signals a failure of policy settings, and not just service delivery? Lastly, why should whānau who are struggling right now have confidence that MSD is meeting its purpose when hardship indicators continue to worsen?

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (17:41): I’m interested to know from the Minister what her plan is for creating the conditions for jobs in the Hawke’s Bay. I recently attended a public meeting there where employees, growers, and also local representatives were there, discussing the closure of Wattie’s—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): That is outside the scope of the financial year that we are discussing.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: What, the job closures—the closures, or the impacts on the community?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): We’re discussing the annual review for a specific time, and the questions that you’re asking—

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: —and current as well, I believe. It’s current and—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): No, only if they extrapolate out from what has been discussed in the report.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: OK, I’ll remove those questions about the closures. If the Government doesn’t want to talk about recent closures, that’s fine. What is the Minister’s plan for the Hawke’s Bay for creating the conditions for jobs in that area, which has had increasing unemployment over the past year? One of the issues that I’m aware of is that there is a lack of job opportunities there now, and there’s also been a lack of a Government response in that space.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (17:43): I will say again that this is the annual review for the financial review from the 1 July 2024 to 30 June 2025, and so that is the year which we are considering. I’ve given specific examples of how the MSD redeployment team works, and if the member wanted to ask questions of the Minister for Economic Growth around our growth plan and “Going for Growth”, then that would be the appropriate place to ask those questions. But I would just say again that every single person that our Government supports to exit the benefit into work is a victory. It’s a win for that individual, their whānau, and the community, and that’s what I’ll continue to focus on.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (17:43): I’m interested to pick up on an issue that we covered over the last year—and at the last select committee, as well—in the Hutt Valley in terms of youth employment. There has been a recent termination of a contract. Yes, they still get He Poutama Rangatahi funding, but we’ve got a local youth provider, which the Minister is aware of, that has not received funding and that is now unable to help young people in the Hutt Valley to retrain. What steps is she taking to make sure that there are opportunities available for young people who need to get the additional support?

I understand there has been another contract awarded. I don’t know if that’s public or not yet. I was told last time I asked that it wasn’t public and it wasn’t able to be told, but I’m aware that the new contract has gone to a provider that works with people that are far quicker to place. They don’t need the extra assistance, time, or the extra effort in place to help them, whereas the original contract actually helped harder-to-reach individuals. So I’m interested to know what the Minister has been advised. Was she aware of it simply going for low-hanging fruit for job placements, instead of helping harder-to-reach rangatahi who need extra assistance?

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (17:45): Thank you, Madam Chair. In addition to those questions, I’m quite interested in how many young people who received job coaching have found employment—what percentage—and how long they have stayed in employment. What programmes has the Minister engaged with to achieve the 1,600 places that regional providers have had for people aged between 18 to 24 who are on jobseeker support?

Some questions around the Mayors Taskforce for Jobs: I want to know if there has been any change to the funding and criteria.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (17:45): In terms of the question around job coaching, 45 percent of those participating in phase 1 have so far achieved employment outcomes. In terms of the questions around Youth Inspire, a fair and partial procurement process was undertaken by the ministry.

To the member Oriini Kaipara’s questions. The questions you asked around Dame Karen Poutasi and Oranga Tamariki are outside the scope of the Ministry of Social Development.

ORIINI KAIPARA (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau) (17:46): How is the ministry continuing to measure the effectiveness of Te Pae Tata, a Māori strategy and action plan, in improving employment for Māori? One final question from me: how would the ministry address the concerns from the whaikaha community, or the disabled community, about potential service delivery issues, particularly for whaikaha who are Māori—for the Māori disabled community?

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (17:46): Thank you, Madam Chair. There is another appropriation that I’d like to ask the Minister questions about—and it’s a different line of questioning to the ones we’ve covered—particularly around the historical claims appropriation. The Ministry of Social Development received an appropriation of $81.87 million in Budget 2024, which the Minister told us was to speed up the process for claimants with a lodged claim. I’d like to ask the Minister what this funding was actually spent on and if it is having an impact. Were more staff employed or were processes improved, and, if so, how? Are times to closure starting to reduce? Finally, is there a target or a maximum time cap in which these claims processes that she would like to see are to be received?

I can see the Minister is just processing those questions, and so I’d like to give her the opportunity to do that. Again, we have asked some written questions around this and we know that the average time is about four to five years, and so with that appropriation, I’m interested to understand what the Minister is seeing from that: whether they’ve employed more staff, whether the times are reducing, and what the target is in terms of that and what the maximum time cap is.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (17:48): The appropriation was to increase the speed and also look at improvements to the process. One of the challenges is at the same time we were doing that work, of course there’s been a lot more awareness about the claims process, and so we’ve also seen a significant increase in the number of claims coming in. I’m happy to provide more data to the member on that because I know it is a topic of interest, but I don’t have those figures with me right now.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (17:48): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I appreciate that the Minister can’t comment on specific operational issues such as tenders for the Youth Inspire, and so I thank you for the information. But I’m interested to know, generally speaking, whether the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) collects information on provider rejection rates of clients from MSD that they have declined to work with. For example, if there’s a provider who’s got a contract and someone has being referred to them, and then that contractor is declining to work with that individual for whatever reason, does MSD collect that data, and, if not, why not? Is she aware that contracts have been awarded to providers that regularly reject referrals from MSD, and what is the point of the contract if they’re rejecting people who need that service?

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (17:50): Thank you, Madam Chair. Different topic to that of which my colleague is asking about, in particular it’s the housing supports including boarders’ contributions. Now, I understand that this is just coming into effect now in 2026, but my questions are around the advice that the Minister received, which will fall within the review period. So what advice did the Minister receive regarding how this change might contribute to homelessness?

I’ve had correspondence from some people who this change affects and they say that they will have to evict their boarders, who themselves are struggling to get by and may end up in worse situations because of the interactions that it will have for them. What advice did the Minister receive regarding how the reductions in the accommodation support that people hosting boarders will experience may lead to increase in demand and other forms of income support? And given the cost of living crisis that we have and worsening under this Government with the fuel price rises, has she considered delaying the implementation of this change?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (17:51): So the policy has come into effect in March of this year, and the policy was set in the year in review. It was based on the principle of fairness where every contribution from a boarder should be taken into consideration in terms of the support that somebody receives, and the first two shouldn’t be excluded.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (17:51): My last question was: given the cost of living crisis that we know we have at this point in time, and is being worsened by the fuel crisis, has the Minister considered any changes to this policy?

I just want to ask one more on that boarders contribution. So the question around what advice did the Minister receive about it impacting on accommodation support and demands for other income support, therefore, potentially cancelling any savings that is being planned by this budget initiative? The Minister didn’t speak to that. Could she please answer that question? No?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Sorry, the Minister’s got no more time available to answer questions, other than yes or no. So if you can maybe hone it in a little bit for the last—just before the dinner break. We have two minutes left.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Two minutes left. Do I have two minutes left on my side?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): If you can come up with some very quick questions that get a nod or a—

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Oh, I don’t have two minutes left either. So are we just going to sit here and—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): You don’t have two minutes left either. Well, then, if nobody’s got any minutes left, I think it’s probably—I’ll just check with the Clerk. Yeah, if I seek leave of the committee to suspend for the dinner break and—I seek leave. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is none. In which case, it’s time for me to leave the chair for the dinner break. Thank you.

Sitting suspended from 5.53 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Committee of the whole House—Annual Review Debate

Environment

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Good evening, members. I hope you all dined well. The Minister for the Environment is now available for one hour to respond to members’ questions. Catherine Wedd from the Environment Committee.

CATHERINE WEDD (Chairperson of the Environment Committee) (19:30): I rise to introduce the annual review of the Ministry for the Environment and would like to thank our Environment Committee members for their time and effort in this annual review report. The ministry’s total revenue for 2024-25 was $190.38 million. Its total expenditure was $180.21 million, resulting in a surplus of $10.17 million.

Throughout the annual review, we looked at climate change; we were advised about a range of tools that could be used to support the uptake of methane-reducing technologies and discussed several emissions reduction initiatives being developed or trialled in the agriculture sector, which was very positive to reducing emissions. We also looked at adaptation and emergency preparedness. The ministry said that the overarching purpose of its work on climate adaptation is to ensure that New Zealanders are as informed as possible about climate risk and the potential implications for them to enable them to take action.

We spoke about catchment groups, which was a very positive discussion. In July 2025, the ministry announced funding of $6.4 million for catchment groups. The ministry said catchment groups are incredible partners who offer key skills and capabilities to help achieve environmental outcomes, and the work that catchment groups do across New Zealand is very, very positive.

We spent quite a bit of time discussing resource management reform, because this, of course, is the bulk of the ministry’s work at the moment. The Resource Management Act (RMA) reform, of course, is the largest reform in a generation. It’s predicted to cut consents by about 46 percent and is estimated to save over $13 billion in administrative and compliance costs. This took up a large amount of our discussions, because the RMA reform is intended to speed up infrastructure development, housing projects, and renewable energy, and cut red tape on the farm for our farmers. The ministry also said that the fast-track process had been very effective and that applications had increased, which was very positive news that we discussed.

We also spoke about waste minimisation. The ministry is working to modernise the Waste Minimisation Act 2008. We also spoke about many product stewardship programmes that are going on, Tyrewise being one of them. I know our Minister has recently visited and found out all about Tyrewise and the amazing product stewardship programme that this is, where the tyres are repurposed and kept out of landfill and recycled into roading products, which, of course, is very, very positive.

There’s many, many things that we discussed during this annual review. It was a positive annual review and report, where we all showed our passion for the environment. Thank you.

Hon NICOLA GRIGG (Minister for the Environment) (19:33): Thank you, Mr Chair. It is indeed a privilege to rise and present tonight for my first time as the newly minted Minister for the Environment, and can I acknowledge the chair of the Environment Committee and, indeed, all of her colleagues across the Chamber for the work that they do. I’d also like to acknowledge the former Minister for the Environment, Penny Simmonds. I really do hope, genuinely, to continue the very excellent work that she’s done and, indeed, to explore some new opportunities for improvement, because I think everybody in this Chamber would agree that New Zealand’s natural environment is a great source of pride to us all. Not just that; it is, of course, fundamental to our economy and the health and wellbeing of our people. And so, the Government is taking the approach that we want to grow our economy by cutting that red tape and making it easier and more affordable to do things—but, I have to reiterate, that is absolutely within the bounds of environmental protections.

As the chair of the select committee has alluded to, and I’m sure we will hear from the Minister himself, the Government has been working at pace and great volume to progress two new bills, our new Resource Management Act (RMA) rework. We’ve got the Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill—which, again, is very much focused on that protection and enhancement of our natural environment. For the pieces of work that very much fall within my wheelhouse, work is progressing on amending that Waste Minimisation Act and the Litter Act to modernise and consolidate, because a lot of these Acts are becoming aged and are no longer fit for purpose. I do intend to introduce amendments to the House this year and, hopefully, if time allows, we can enact them before the general election.

I do want to talk to some of the noteworthy wins, to use the colloquial term. Minister Simmonds, across most of last year, launched a range of initiatives and strategies: one, to reduce waste disposal per person—data has shown we’re making great strides in that: two, to increase reuse and recycling of materials and products; to minimise emissions—again, I think across the Chamber we all agree with that, but I think, as always, it’s the “how” that we can vary on. We do also want to reduce that environmental harm from waste and litter and then, of course, to ensure that resource recovery and disposal facilities are managed to minimise their own environmental impacts.

I’m fairly certain that conversations will turn to the waste disposal levy this evening, so I want to acknowledge that in the 2024 Budget, the Government’s changed the Waste Minimisation Act to allow that waste disposal levy to be spent on a wider range of environmental activities and, while doing so, to increase that levy incrementally over the three years from July 2025. That is so that we can actually help to fund a more comprehensive set of waste and environmental priorities. That levy can now also—or will also—support projects to improve fresh water quality, to remediate contaminated sites, and to restore the health of those very vital ecosystems. We’ve got about 50 active projects across New Zealand funded by the Waste Minimisation Fund and other waste-related funding.

I’m sure, again, we will turn to the topic of contaminated sites and vulnerable landfills. We have a fund up and running. We’ve allocated since October 2024 about $21 million across seven projects, ranging from really vulnerable landfills to old mine sites, and so on and so forth. I know the topic of product stewardship has already been touched on, but I do want to single out Tyrewise, which the Hon Rachel Brooking is very, very proud of her involvement with—justifiably so. It is indeed our country’s first priority product stewardship scheme for end-of-life tyres. I was blown away with the briefing that I had on the project. Already, $6.5 million end-of-life tyres have been collected out of the system and repurposed for fuel.

Then, indeed, as is so topical, climate change and ongoing weather-related events—emergency waste funding. The Government is here to support councils with the cost of managing waste following emergencies, and we can talk to a series of those that have occurred over the past year. But look, all in all, we very much are looking to take a pragmatic and balanced approach to the reforms that we’re progressing through this Parliament and, indeed, to our wider approach to protecting, enhancing, and preserving our environment and our ecosystems. With that, I take my leave and look forward to the questions.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (19:38): Now, here we are, at the annual review that’s focused on the environment and, in fact, the Ministry for the Environment—but what does the select committee have in front of us? Oh, a bill, to disestablish that very ministry.

Over the last year, this ministry has faced 278 redundancies. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has noted a $1 billion drop towards environmental spending in the coming year. Meanwhile, this Government has been making it easier to pollute, passing laws under all-stages urgency or dropping in a huge amendment at the committee of the whole House stage so that there is no select committee process. The public have not been able to have their say. We have missed regulatory impact statements.

Ryan Hamilton: That’s not true.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Well, for a lot of these laws, this is very much true. Now, this Government does not seem to be one that cares about the environment at all, and New Zealand deserves better. I’m hearing a lot from the other side, but I want to know from this new Minister today, on Earth Day: is there any inclination to do better for the environment, to improve the environment and embrace being the Minister for the Environment?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG (Minister for the Environment) (19:40): I’m very pleased to be able to respond to that question and, indeed, statement, because I think it’s a really important opportunity to set the record straight. There are certainly some mistruths around the way that the disestablishment of the ministry has been characterised.

Yes, we are disestablishing the Ministry for the Environment, but for very good reason. We’re establishing what is commonly referred to as MCERT—the Ministry for Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport. We are, of course, merging all of those ministries together. It’s an integrated approach, because, as I’m sure everyone will agree, the environment is, indeed, integrated and everything is inter-operational. MCERT will, at its heart, be tackling some of this country’s greatest economic and environmental challenges: housing affordability, infrastructure deficits, climate adaptation. There are very strong synergies between these four agencies. There’s very good intellectual heft between these four agencies. This merger is simply about reducing bloated bureaucracy. We saw, under the previous Government, something like 16,000 extra bureaucrats were appointed.

The spokesperson—I was going to refer to her as the Minister—talked about—

Hon Rachel Brooking: Ha, go on!

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: —redundancies—another day! That’s been made very clear in the select committee’s own report, the annual review of the ministry. Yes, despite that reduction in workforce, the ministry has actually produced a record amount of output—a full 4,822 items, which included 896 briefings, probably most to Chris Bishop; 62 Cabinet papers, probably most to Chris Bishop; 452 Official Information Act requests, that’s probably a lot for you, Andrew Hoggard!; and many, many more parliamentary questions and pieces of ministerial correspondence.

In fact, I’ve only known my colleagues—the officials in the Ministry for the Environment—for a little over a week, but I think it does them a disservice to say that the protection and preservation of the environment is going to somehow go astray or go asunder because of the merger of these ministries.

Again, I want to be clear for the record: we are not getting rid of the Ministry for the Environment’s functions. Its role has always been advisory. We’re simply moving these functions to the newly appointed Secretary for the Environment, who I understand—not yet met—is an exceptional operator. I encourage that side of the committee to have some faith in the officials and their expertise, because I, for one, will expect the functions will continue at the same world-leading standards that they always have. It is simply that the statutory functions will continue as they always have; they are simply being shifted.

Hon Chris Bishop: Mr Chair!

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (19:43): Thank you, Mr Chair. There are a couple of points I’m interested in there, and I’m sure the Minister for resource management reform will be able to have a say on this in a minute.

One issue is that the Minister for the Environment just said that she agrees and that she thinks everyone will agree that everything in the environment is integrated. Yet we have an under-secretary for the resource management reform say that this Government’s Resource Management Act reforms are about ending this integrated management of the Resource Management Act, and we see that in the form of two different bills, being the Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill. I’m interested in whether the Minister for resource management reform might want to comment on how that is enabling an integrated approach—having those two different functions.

Also, how is it consistent to merge the Ministry for the Environment in with these other ministries that are very much focused on that cities and planning area and—I mean, you can’t separate it, because it’s all integrated—not, say, more rural and less urban environments? How do those two work streams come together? That’s one question.

A second question is: the Minister’s talked about how there will still be environmental functions, how is she going to ensure that those environmental functions take precedence and that in any conflicts arising between different Ministers, the environment will have the highest regard as the Minister for the Environment? Is she concerned—like the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment is—that we risk losing an independent voice for the environment?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (19:44): Thank you very much. Can I echo the remarks of my friend and colleague the Hon Nicola Grigg around the Ministry for the Environment (MFE). One of the things that happened when the Government changed on 27 November 2023 is that I became the Minister for the Resource Management Act (RMA) reform, and walked in and said, “Your first job is to repeal two pieces of legislation that the previous Government had passed, that a considerable number of officials at the agency had spent a considerable number of hours working on.”—which obviously is tough for any public servant; they’re human, like the rest of us, and we sometimes need to think about that more, in my view—and the very professional way that was done. Then, I said, “We need a fast-track regime done by the end of 2024.” That was done and it is now rolling out. Just on Monday, yesterday, the 19th project was approved under fast track. In the meantime, we’ve had, I think, three RMA amendment bills—maybe even more than that—most notably of which is RMA Bill (No 2), which made a series of really good, substantial changes, actually, to the RMA, in preparation for the new legislation coming.

You will not find harder-working public servants than the Ministry for the Environment. They have done that, as the spokesperson says, with declining baselines and reducing staff numbers. It is really a testament to the leadership of the outgoing Secretary for the Environment, James Palmer, and the leadership team at the Ministry for the Environment, that in the greatest New Zealand Public Service way, they have got on with the job of responding to a new Government’s priorities and provided free and frank and fearless advice, but they have also taken the Government’s direction. That tension is something that will always exist, but I’m very, very proud of the officials. I take this opportunity to say thank you to them for their exceptional work in difficult circumstances.

The disestablishment of the Ministry for the Environment is not about reducing the importance of the environment to New Zealand; in fact, it is the opposite. It is about amplifying the environment. What has happened with the silo-isation, as I’ve put it—I think that’s a word—but the isolation of the environment into a separate ministry is that there is a tendency to ignore the advice from the Ministry for the Environment, because it can just be written off as “Oh, that’s just the MFE and they’re just doing all their environmental thing.” Actually, the reality is: how do you do proper transport planning in a spatial sense in a region and how do you do land-use planning in a city or a district, without thinking about the environment? Increasingly, as severe weather events happen and there’s greater awareness of natural hazards, and greater awareness of exogenous shocks coming to particular regions, thinking, in the long term, about proper spatial planning and the environment that that is part of is critical to how we do transport and housing. It is obviously true that things like flood mitigation and things like natural hazard mitigation are all intimately connected to transport and housing.

The other thing I would say is that if you think about housing, which is my great passion, we have a Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, but the actual levers, the real levers, for housing affordability currently sit within the Ministry for the Environment because they are, essentially, the regulator of district plans when it comes to housing capacity and all of the rules and district plans, but the funding and financing of the infrastructure required to give effect to those district plans is the responsibility of the Ministry of Transport or the New Zealand Transport Agency—or local government, which is regulated or overseen by the Department of Internal Affairs.

We have made, I think, the pragmatic and sensible decision to bring these functions together. I don’t think it’s going to change the world. No Government restructuring is a panacea or nirvana. It’s not going to change the world, but I do think it will make a difference. I plead with the Opposition to stop this sort of incessant nonsense about how disestablishing the Ministry for the Environment means that the environment doesn’t matter anymore. Like, to be honest, it is the height of facile debate to just kind of—

Hon Rachel Brooking: It’s your record.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I know it’s the name of the bill—I know it’s the name. If I could change the name of the bill, I would. I don’t decide what they’re called. It would be really good if it said “Environment (Establishment of the Ministry for Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport) Bill”. That would be good. If you want to focus on the name of the bill, can I plead with you to get into the substance, because the substance is actually good. Stop with the nonsense.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (19:49): I just have a few comments in response to Minister responsible for RMA Reform’s speech, and one is: if, as he is so adamant, this Government is going to suddenly change course and do better for the environment, will he agree here, today, that every single part of that new ministry will do better for the environment?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (19:50): Yes. In the round, the new ministry, I believe, will lead to improvements of our natural environment over time. That’s the reason we’re setting it up. Take the development of the national flood map, for example. That is going to be the responsibility of the new ministry. Well, why are we building a national flood map? Why are we doing that? It’s because we need to get better granular data led by science around where and what we can build to flow into spatial plans, for example. I mean, the Minister for the Environment talks about waste. Waste is actually—again, this is another example as to why the merger is a good idea—for example, delivered largely by the private sector and in conjunction with local government, and the Waste Minimisation Act gives various different powers and funding streams to local government.

Another classic is stormwater and waste water. OK, so we’ve been having this ongoing debate for the last eight years about the three waters and how we deal with the ridiculous situation we’ve got ourselves into where local councils have been the ones responsible for the funding and delivery of, essentially, what’s a network utility infrastructure service, which is drinking water and waste water. Unsurprisingly, they have done a poor job of that, so we have essentially—

Hon Rachel Brooking: Oh, if only we had three waters.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, they have done a poor job of it. Look, we’re in Wellington right now. Try living in this city—try living in this city. I mean, the member who’s doing the questioning lives in Dunedin. I’m unfamiliar with the state of the Dunedin stormwater and waste water network, but I’m willing to lay a bet that it is better than Wellington’s, which would be about the worst in the country. You can’t walk down Lambton Quay without either (a) slipping on those ridiculous bricks that litter Lambton Quay or (b) walking past tobies that have fallen apart.

Do you know, I am told that Wellington Water discovered that they installed a pipe from the top of Aro Valley down to Wellington harbour in the early 2000s that has never been connected to any network and, until they started actually going through their records as part of local water restructuring, they didn’t even know existed. It had been put in at vast expense in the early 2000s and had just sat there unconnected. All the records are based on paper. They use different sump specifications in Upper Hutt and Lower Hutt and Wellington, and there’s been decades of under-investment largely because local body politicians have prioritised building convention centres and half-billion - dollar town hall upgrades on the ground of heritage and not focused on the basics.

But here’s the point. The delivery of waste water and stormwater treatment plants—

Hon Rachel Brooking: You should have listened to Nanaia Mahuta. That’s the point.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: —is a function of, obviously, local government at some level, but the standards by which they are set and the impact they have on the environment and the flows has an environmental impact. Standards that are set there are set essentially through environmental standards, which is—well, actually, it’s a bit unclear who’s responsible for that at the moment. But in the new agency, it will be the responsibility of the Ministry for Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport (MCERT) because those functions are connected.

I genuinely plead with the Opposition, who think they are going to be in Government after the next election—and we know that is not the case, but let’s just enter an alternative universe in which the Labour Party actually has some policies. I realise that’s a big ask, but let’s enter a fantasy world in which Labour gets it together and actually gets some policies; let’s enter the twilight zone and pretend. In the world in which Labour win the election, I plead with them to think about the system they will be inheriting because what the Government is building is not a system for this Government—

Hon Rachel Brooking: Which is why we had a Spatial Planning Act. It was dealing with three waters.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: —well, it partly is for this Government, but it’s mainly, actually, about better public policy for a better New Zealand. Why are we here in this place? We are trying to build better public policy and that’s what we’re doing with MCERT. Jump on board the journey. It’s even electric powered.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Ms Brooking, this is why it’s good to have interactions: so we can actually stand and say these things without having to yell across the floor so I can’t hear what’s going on.

LAN PHAM (Green) (19:55): Thank you, Mr Chair. I do want to welcome the new Minister, the Hon Nicola Grigg. It’s somewhat a hospital pass when it comes to having to pick up the work not only, as we’ve heard, of disestablishing your own ministry—and I’m hearing the pleas around “please, please, please don’t write this off as something that is actually going to be worse for the environment”. And, Minister, I hope you are well informed about the submissions that we did hear on the disestablishment for the Ministry for the Environment because they were hugely concerning.

I’m picking up the Resource Management Act reform Minister’s comments about getting into the substance, and I actually would like to get into the substance. Firstly, I would really like to hear some commentary from the Minister for the Environment, because a lot of the justification that went into a lot of the Budget decisions when it came to the Vote Environment appropriations were around this idea that the balance had swung too far in favour of the environment at the cost of getting things done. Minister, we actually had your colleague, the previous environment Minister, actually be called out for those comments by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. That actually lead to your colleague admitting in an official information response that she was “not provided with advice or evidence from any agency to support [her] statement” and that “the information requested does not exist”.

Minister, I’m really keen to hear from you in this new role. Do you, as the new Minister for the Environment, share the view that the balance has swung too far towards environmental protection at the cost of getting things done? Where do you expect to see the impacts and the substantial results of, for example, this $1 billion reduction in expenditure—which, again, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has pointed out? Where do you expect to see that? Because we’ve seen cuts across fresh water programmes, across climate adaptation, waste minimisation funding. Where do you think that might hurt the most in terms of environmental outcomes?

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (19:58): Thank you, Mr Chair. Still on this first general topic that seems to encompass the new ministry, integrated environmental management, and whether or not we want to improve the environment. In response to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform, he said something about wanting proper spatial planning and I questioned, then, why did this Government repeal the Spatial Planning Act that the previous Government introduced? And when he gives a plea to Labour to please look at good policy development, why is it that has Government also campaigned—or has party campaigned—to get rid of the work that Nanaia Mahuta had been doing on what was called the three waters and having entities that would actually work? Because of the issues that the Minister has just discussed with issues when you go council by council. I asked the Minister to answer those questions.

I’m also interested in what some Ministers have been discussing, and there’s a document—and I know it’s not this Minister; it’s not the Minister of Local Government —but there’s some discussion about breaking up regional councils and making them into unitary councils. I’m interested in all Ministers in the room—what their view is on the importance of a catchment-based approach to environmental management.

That’s one question as well, and then I’ll just end with one other question that is related to some of what the Minister was saying in terms of flood management and climate adaptation. That is: where in the ministry—and maybe where in this new ministry—does green infrastructure fit?

We, as a select committee, have asked ministry officials to provide us some expertise on green infrastructure, and we were told that there was nobody in the ministry who had that skill set or was working on that issue—

Hon Chris Bishop: What is green infrastructure?

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Green infrastructure: nature-based solutions, rather than grey infrastructure, looking at different things. Some in your Government might call it nice-to-haves, but the Aotearoa Circle just did a big presentation at Parliament that Tama Potaka spoke at. I think Minister Simon Watts was there as well talking about how you can—we’ve heard about sponge cities as well. There was that big Helen Clark report on sponge cities. That is what I’m talking about in green infrastructure. In the Natural and Built Environment Act, there was a reference to it that you would have national direction on the use of this green infrastructure as well. The idea is that it can save everybody a lot of money, and often there will be a dual purpose if you have a sports field that also serves a stormwater purpose in storms.

That is a number of questions. I’m asking about regional councils and the idea of catchment-based planning. Why did the Minister refer to proper spatial planning when there was a Spatial Planning Act that he repealed? Also, if he’s talking about long-term infrastructure planning, why is it that the work that was done for the three waters and those bigger entities was got rid of, plus this green infrastructure—where is it going to fit with the new ministry?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG (Minister for the Environment) (20:01): Sorry, a bit of confusion there—I just want to rise just to respond to the member Lan Pham’s questions, and I do acknowledge her expertise in this area. Look, the comment about where cuts will hurt the most in terms of environmental outcomes—I really want to push back on that because, as we’ve already explained, the reduction in expenditure for this new Ministry for Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport (MCERT) is entirely around creating efficiencies, reducing bloat, reducing double-ups. I just want to point out to the committee that there’s still an “E” in MCERT, for “Environment”. Environmental capability is very much going to remain a core capability of this new agency.

As the Hon Chris Bishop so eloquently pointed out, everything is interconnected, and I really do believe there is opportunity. This is why we are taking bold, brave steps as a Government to do things differently. I do believe there is an opportunity to grow our economy and protect, preserve, and enhance our environment at the same time.

I think what that side of the House is tending to forget or deliberately ignore is the scientific advances that are occurring every single day within this country and indeed around the world. There is an opportunity to grow farming, as an example, to increase our dairy herd, our dairy production, and protect, preserve, and enhance our environment. You see the extraordinary work that farmers across New Zealand are doing of their own volition. You see the extraordinary work that our catchment groups are doing. They are recharging aquifers and groundwater systems. They are rebuilding wetlands.

Yes, everybody acknowledges that mistakes were made in the past. Quite extraordinary that the Canterbury Plains—alluvial flood plains, very leaky soils, piling on nitrogen over decades, starting about 30 years ago. Nobody knew the consequences. We do know those consequences now, and hence this side of the House is going to back development, is going to back economic progression within the bounds of environmental imperatives. Hence, we do have freshwater restrictions, we do have nitrate restrictions, we do have targets for emissions outputs, but, again, they are backed and founded in science, because we believe science will find the solutions to our environmental problems.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (20:04): Thank you. I’ll try and follow the Minister’s lead there and go into water quality. I’m just looking at my friend in the Greens. We’re trying to be helpful, despite all my yelling and heckling.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor) (20:04): I’ve never known you to be otherwise.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Thank you. We’re moving on to fresh water, and I want to ask the Minister for the Environment a follow-up question from her statement then, and then some questions about section 107 and fresh water generally. She just referred to “We now know that Canterbury has leaky soils and there have been problems with nitrate.”—I’m sorry; I’m paraphrasing there. Why is she now going to make sure that the regulations that have lapsed that relate to that, which stopped intensification there—will she reinvigorate those to stop further conversions of dairy farms on those soils? That’s one question.

The second one is: if that is her particular interest, will she also allow the regional councils who had their plans stopped from being notified—will she let them be reignited?

Then, on to section 107, when I was opening, I referred to big changes that were made without a select committee process. One of those was the change to section 107. Some people were allowed to submit on it, and other people weren’t, and that was in the Resource Management (Freshwater and Other Matters) Amendment Act. A regional council can now grant a discharge permit that the council itself is satisfied will cause significant adverse effects on aquatic life. My question around this is: how is that change to section 107 consistent with improving freshwater quality? What steps will she take as the new Minister to improve freshwater quality? And does she think that New Zealand should have swimmable rivers?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister for the Environment) (20:06): I’ll just touch on a couple of those points. In regard to reinstituting land use change restrictions, no, we have no intention of doing that. The reality is that farmers have got new science, new knowledge, new systems to enable them to do things better now than they ever have before. The attitude has changed with farmers around the focus on sustainability. If we look at particularly Canterbury, yes, there were leaky soils, but interestingly enough, if you talk to farmers there, they’ve actually grown their soil carbon through irrigation, through rotational grazing. They’ve actually increased the soil carbon and the topsoil on those paddocks. They’re not as leaky any more.

The other thing is that, with precision irrigation, you’ve got soil monitoring where you can see how much moisture is in the soil. You can manage your irrigation. You can even turn off individual sprinklers on that centre pivot irrigation so that you never get the soils beyond soil saturation points, unless there’s a massive rainfall, which means that you’re able to keep nutrients in the root zone, so it’s growing; it’s not leaching through the soil. These are some of the cool things that are happening on our farms up and down the country.

The key thing is that right now we’re seeing in the arable sector that times are tough. They’ve got a really challenging future in front of them, and some of them are electing—you know, there’s a lot of scaremongering around, “Oh, Fonterra’s forcing all these farmers to change, and the dairy industry is doing it.” These are individual families who are making choices for their farms, for their family, on how they can have a better life, to be able to provide for their children and move forward. This is not some big industry scheme or some conspiracy like that. These are individual people making choices on their own farm, and we’re going to enable them to do that, but at the same time we’re going to be asking for better management than there has been in the past, and we expect to see that.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (20:09): Thank you, Mr Chair. Still on this topic, as I know my friend Lan Pham will have many questions on this as well, as a former Canterbury regional councillor. I want to pick it up again. I did ask the Minister—any Minister is welcome to answer this—whether we should have swimmable rivers and what steps are being taken to improve freshwater quality. That answer Minister Hoggard just gave there was that everything’s fine, don’t worry about it, but then at the end there, he decided to say that something was happening, so I’m interested in what that something is that might be happening.

I want to know if it is going to change the maps that I have on my wall that were provided by Ngāi Tahu, which show the nitrate concentrations—little red dots all around the best island, the South Island, that show how much nitrate pollution there is in Southland and Canterbury. What is he going to do about that, and does he think that there should be swimmable rivers? I’ll leave it there.

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister for the Environment) (20:10): Of course I believe there should be swimmable rivers. My daughters love swimming in the river beside our farm every summer. They’re obviously not swimming in it today, because it’s in flood and it’d be rather stupid to do that. Sometimes, our measurements don’t tell the real story. Often, you look at the E.coli graphs—and I look at it for our river, and, yes, it shows the averages can be high, but that’s in spikes; that’s usually when it’s in flood. That’s not when we go swimming So, yep, it’s important to have swimmable rivers.

What’s happening? You’ve got farmers up and down the country, catchment care groups, who are doing a lot of work. In my own catchment—you asked the question before about nature-based solutions, so a couple of things that are happening in my catchment: we’ve got these detainment bunds that have been trialled in some of the hill country area. What that does is it slows the water flow down when you get downpours in the gullies, slows it down—helps with flooding but also stops sediment, stops phosphorus going through. That’s one solution.

Another one: bioreactor. A neighbour of mine’s put a bioreactor in. What’s a bioreactor? Basically, dig a big hole where water flows, fill it full of shavings. The water flows through those shavings, catches all the nitrogen, reduces it. And, as before mentioned, engineered wetlands—brilliant solution. I’ve seen a number of those around the country. And what are we doing to support those? Well, through the work Minister Bishop’s doing in the resource management reform, we’re going to actually make it a permitted activity to build an engineered wetland. At the moment, I’ve talked to a number of people who almost gave up doing it because of the resource consents they had to go through and all the drama they had to go through to actually build something that was good for the environment.

These are some of the things we’re doing, working with the catchment care groups. The attitude I see amongst farmers around trying to do the right thing, understanding where the problems are coming from and then thinking about what are some of the solutions to those problems, is impressive. It’s an attitude we should all be getting behind and encouraging. Rather than having this debate of “Oh, bloody farmers.” this and that, actually get in behind it, let it move forward, and then we’ll see changes.

LAN PHAM (Green) (20:12): Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, I do want to commend the attitude change. I think humans changing behaviours and mindsets is an absolutely crucial part of the way that we’re actually going to turn this table, particularly when it comes to fresh water. Unfortunately, we’ve been doing a lot of talking and a lot of attitude work for years, and, unfortunately, when we look at the actual statistics, the actual environmental statistics that our Minister for the Environment has within her own ministry, they’re going backwards, and very concerningly so.

I wanted to pick up particularly on fresh water when it comes to rural communities and their drinking water, because the Ministers have likely seen the research that came out of Auckland Uni recently which says that two-thirds of rural communities are struggling with contaminated water supplies. We know that this is an issue not only in private supplies but in things like schools across the country. What we’ve heard really loud and clear throughout the resource management submission process is particularly from public health experts, policy experts that have said that without the hierarchy of Te Mana o te Wai, that sits so clearly in that national direction, communities’ drinking-water sources risk worse pollution, and that’s because there isn’t enough weight in the law when it comes to something that’s outside of that really clear direction that Te Mana o te Wai provides.

Given this, what is the Minister’s contemplation when it comes to changing this national direction? Does it mean that they are satisfied with, you know, polluted rivers getting worse, with drinking water getting more contaminated, and, particularly when it comes to our groundwater sources, that they’re more and more at risk, and who do they anticipate will pay the cost of this? We know that a lot of councils around the country are actually having to face this massive challenge, and we know that their bills when it comes to, say, treating nitrates that are contaminating their drinking water are in the hundreds of millions—if not billions, when it comes to Christchurch City Council. I’m really keen to hear what specific measures are proposed to actually address this for rural communities.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (20:15): Let’s just get a few things straight: number one, farmers are not the enemy in this country. Number two: you can improve the environment and grow the primary sector at the same time. Number three: our farmers are world leading and world class, and they deserve this House’s support, not condemnation. Number four: some of the biggest barriers to improving the environment in rural New Zealand are the Resource Management Act itself, which is why we are replacing it. And, number five, we should take a science-based approach and focus on innovation, which is precisely what this Government is doing.

Let me deal with a few of the questions raised. Number one, from Rachel Brooking: will the new local government system, which we haven’t landed yet—should it be based on a catchment-based approach? Yes, is the short answer, and we’re doing quite a bit of thinking about that. Simon Upton, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, in his inimitable, eloquent way, has been quite an advocate for that. So we haven’t landed any decisions around unitary authorities or regional councils. We obviously released the Simplifying Local Government reform document at the back end of last year; all the submissions have come in on that, and we’re giving some consideration to that. It’d be fair to say the feedback was—

Hon Member: Mixed.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, yeah, it was mixed, to be fair. I mean, if you don’t like regional councils, you were in favour, and if you were a regional councillor, you were, unsurprisingly, opposed to it. But they were sort of at either end of the spectrum; there’s quite a bit of stuff in the middle. What’s been quite interesting, just to dwell on that for 20 seconds, is it sort of ripped the scab off this awful, festering sore that is kind of local government, right? Everyone’s gone, “Well, actually 78 TLAs; you know, X, Y, Z number of regional councils; duplication. Are the regional plans superior to district plans? Which one has the most power?”—all of the sort of difficulties we see in the current system—and it’s actually prompted quite a lot of regions to go, “You know what, there’s actually a better way here.”, and that’s been really interesting. To be honest, they want central government to act, so we’re sort of giving some thinking about that.

Look, the previous Government recognised the problems here. Their approach was to do what Labour Governments often do, which is, you know, set up a three-year-long working group at vast public expense and issue a report which becomes the doorstop that I put on my office door to hold it open when everyone comes in for meetings. It’s a bit like the old Royal Commission on Social Policy back in 1986: it was, like, 5 metres high, and it kept David Lange’s door open—and he’s the one who issued it. But, anyway.

Second question: flood management and green infrastructure. The reason I asked about green infrastructure is people mean different things by it, right, because, you know, building a stopbank, like we’re doing in the Hutt Valley at the moment, or lifting up the stopbank along the Hutt River to protect against a one-in-440-year flood, because the Hutt Valley’s the most densely populated area of New Zealand on a flood plain—well, that’s green infrastructure, but that’s just infrastructure. I mean, it’s green in the sense that it’s, you know, focused on resilience, but I would call that green infrastructure—

Hon Rachel Brooking: I think that’s just good infrastructure.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Oh, it’s just good infrastructure. Well, that’s sort of my point, right? I mean, like, everything’s green at a level.

There will be people in the ministry who are far more expert in this than me, and they will exist in the new system. Yes, we can issue national direction pursuant to the goals of the new Natural Environment Bill, assuming it becomes an Act.

On the Three Waters, well, we sort of played all this out in the 2023 election. It’s not that the Opposition at the time—now Government—disagreed with the idea of water reform. It’s obviously a good thing to do, because as I said earlier, local government’s been a disaster when it comes to managing three-waters infrastructure. We just disagreed with the approach of the Government of the day, which was to, basically—I mean, it started with four mega-entities without any kind of choice of the local authorities.

Lan Pham: Point of order, Mr Chair. I’m really interested in hearing from the Minister for the Environment on a number of questions about the Ministry for the Environment report. The Minister is on a sort of explanation about the three waters reform system. I just wonder if we could, please, address what’s in front of us.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Look, it’s been a wide-ranging discussion. Every speaker has gone well away from the period. I think that the Minister will be aware that he’s using up a lot of his time—

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yeah, well, I was just responding to the question. I apologise to the committee for my loquaciousness. The Minister of Local Government has just entered the Chamber, and he might like to explain the rest of the story to the Government’s three waters reforms, which put democracy back at the heart of local government. Anyway, everyone seems to want me to move on.

In response to the fourth question, on national direction on fresh water, the member knows, I think, that that is a priority for the Government, and we are working away on that, but we want to land the bills first. National direction, we’ve consulted on it but that will flow—flow—in due course.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): I just note that there’s 10 minutes left to go. I’ll take a question from Rachel Brooking. [Interruption] It’s just we’ve got three Ministers now who are covering a lot of the same ground, I might say, from different angles.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (20:21): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ll be quick. I have a number of questions. One is for Mr Bishop, who said something about science—“We’re going to be science based.”—and that something relates to innovation. This was in the context of the previous discussion with Minister Hoggard about protecting our waterways and having swimmable rivers. Can the Government provide any comfort that saying we’re waiting for innovation does not mean that we are not having limits that must be followed? When I hear that, that is my concern. That’s one question.

The second one is a comment. We’re not hating on farmers; it sounds like the Government is hating on councils, though. We haven’t said anything along those lines. On farm plans, I am interested, on page 8 of the review, we asked what the role of the farm plan is; if it’s to replace resource consents or not, how the ministry sees this. They said that it is to be an enabling tool in comparison to having a resource consent, which it described as a more rigid, hard tool. Do you have both a farm plan and a resource consent? What is the Minister’s view on that?

The Minister has also traversed—looking at Minister Hoggard here—catchment groups and some of the good work that we know about from catchment groups. Does he see them as having a regulatory function at all?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG (Minister for the Environment) (20:22): I just want to respond to Lan Pham’s request for me to actually take a call. I’ve been trying, but I have some very verbose colleagues. Look, I do want to talk to—

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: They’re very eloquent and articulate.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): No one took a point of order on that!

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: The member refers, of course, to our freshwater report that was released just a matter of weeks ago, I think, on the day that I got told that I had this ministerial warrant, so I’ve had to think fast. Look, I think it’s really important to acknowledge that this report is neither a win nor a loss; it’s quite a balance report. We do need to note that of the 998 groundwater monitoring sites, 45 percent had E. coli concentrations above the maximum acceptable levels of drinking water at least once across a five-year period. It is acknowledged in the report that, together, these indicators show that, while some aspects of freshwater quality and ecosystem health are good and improving, others are deteriorating, which corroborates my earlier point. That, of course, reinforces the need to view fresh water as an interconnected system where multiple pressures accumulate and interact over time. Again, I think we all acknowledge that.

Look, again, some key statistics that have, I think, been lost in the commentary are that the long-term trends, the 20-year nitrogen trends—that’s all forms of nitrogen—do show improvement when you compare this 2026 report to 2023. Yes, worsening sites are reduced from 41 percent to 32 percent. Again, these aren’t amazing results, nor are they bad. They are indicating improvement. We do know that improvements to groundwater, particularly deep-seated aquifers, do take time to present themselves.

Then, again, to respond to the questions about what we are doing to improve fresh water: of course, no one in this Chamber would disagree that protecting drinking-water sources is an imperative public health issue. Again, we know that rising nitrate concentrations in some areas do give rise to growing public concern, and quite rightly so, but of course we have to consult, we have to get this thing right. We did consult on requiring that source water mapping, so councils and landowners would be clear about where activities can be, particularly putting drinking-water supplies at risk, and therefore the appropriate management can then take place. Decisions on that freshwater direction, as the Hon Chris Bishop has alluded to, will be made in the near future. The new legislation will require limits for human health and fresh water.

Again, I do want to push back on this rhetoric that we’re going to create this wild west and everyone can be pouring effluent into our water streams. That is simply not the case. As the member will know perfectly well, as a former regional councillor in Canterbury, the Avon River and the Heathcote River, two urban waterways, are amongst the most polluted in the district. Of course limits will need to be set, and they will be informed by relevant health guidelines to prevent that significant and irreversible harm to people in the communities, which we’ve seen in the likes of the Hawke’s Bay when that Havelock North outbreak occurred.

I do want to reaffirm to the committee that we are progressing these improvements. We look forward to presenting them.

LAN PHAM (Green) (20:26): Thank you, Mr Chair. There’s so much to respond to in that, but I really want to move on to climate adaptation because that is such a key part of the work. From what we’ve seen in recent days, particularly here around the Greater Wellington and Wairarapa regions—and also up in the Manawatū, I must add—it’s very real, the challenges that communities are facing. What I was really concerned to see with the annual review is that there’s this strategic priority that says it will strengthen the resilience of communities, businesses, and places to climate change and natural hazards. What is really clear is that there isn’t actually much progress in this area, as far as I can see at all.

There was a report that was commissioned by the previous Government, a report on the Expert Working Group On Managed Retreat. The recommendations in that have been, unfortunately, ignored, to be replaced by a short report that one member on the working group described as “one of the most philosophically misguided, morally questionable, administratively inept, and politically naïve documents” that he’d read in many years.

Does the Minister consider that meaningful progress is actually being made when it comes to not building in bad areas, in terms of having communities actually have discussions and face the realities around managed retreat, given that the Minister of Climate Change has said there are no plans to actually speed up the decisions around who will pay and who will protect or move these communities threatened by climate change hazards? We’re really seeing this around and across the country, increasingly so. We really would like some feedback from the Minister around how this objective will be achieved when protections for things like forests and wetlands, those natural infrastructure protections when it comes to climate mitigation adaptation, are actively being weakened by the Government.

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister for the Environment) (20:29): Just quickly, in response to the Hon Rachel Brooking’s question, in terms of farm plans—“Will we still need consents?”—I would think there would still be a need for a consent when you are having a water take, so trying to manage those allocation-type regimes. Where it comes to things like, in some regions, there having to be a consent for winter grazing, I believe a farm plan would be a much more useful tool to replace those consents. At a farm I was on a couple of weeks ago, it cost them $40,000 to get that consent; an absolutely ridiculous waste of money for a very simple process where they can detail what actions they are going to take to mitigate the impact from that practice. They can do that through the farm plan.

And to your second question, catchment groups, no, I don’t see a role for them as a regulator. They are better served as a sort of ground-up, community action. Getting them involved with regulatory powers would probably drive the farmers away from them.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members, our time with the Minister for the Environment has ended.

Committee of the whole House—Annual Review Debate

Climate Change

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The Minister of Climate Change is now available for 30 minutes to respond to the members’ questions. Thank you, Minister.

CATHERINE WEDD (Chairperson of the Environment Committee) (20:30): Thank you, Mr Chair. I rise to introduce the Climate Change Commission annual review. I’d just like to thank the Environment Committee members for the work on this report—a very hard-working committee. Overall, we were satisfied with the commission’s performance in 2024-25. The commission’s revenue was $14.83 million for 2024-25, and its total expenditure was $16.06 million, resulting in a deficit of $1.22 million.

We heard from the commission about its role in providing independent advice for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Obviously, under the Climate Change Response Act, New Zealand is very committed to reaching net zero emissions of all greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. This was well traversed through our session with the Climate Change Commission. We spoke about the work being done to reduce emissions, and it was positive to hear that emissions reduction technologies have become available and affordable at a faster rate than expected, offering more opportunities to mitigate these effects. The commission also noted that the methodology for measuring emissions in New Zealand has improved since 2019, which was positive to hear.

The commission drew our attention to new technologies, such as bolus being developed by Ruminant Biotech, which would inhibit methane production in farm animals. It was really interesting to hear about these new advancements in technology, which, of course, are going to reduce agricultural emissions. The commission said one challenge was ensuring that farmers are supported to deploy the new technologies on farm.

We also spoke about the stockpiles of coal in New Zealand and the work being done to transition away from fossil fuels and towards renewable energy sources, which we spoke about, you know, being very sufficient, this transition. Also, we did touch on the monitoring progress to meet the emissions budget, which, of course, was a very topical conversation. The commission published its first emissions reduction monitoring report in July 2024. It also began work on its second emissions reduction monitoring report in 2024-25, which it published in July 2025. The commission’s latest report found that New Zealand is likely to meet its first emissions budget.

We also spoke about the consenting regime for renewable energy projects and the barriers that we’re seeing in getting renewable energy projects online faster—it taking too long for the consents. It was agreed that there are opportunities to remove consenting barriers for renewable energy, and of course, this would pose a very positive move to bring renewable energy on a lot faster in New Zealand, with a better consenting regime.

We also spoke about transport. The commission said there are opportunities to reduce emissions in the transport sector, especially given that electric vehicle batteries have become cheaper and we’re moving towards more electrification, which, of course, is positive for reducing our emissions. And we heard about trade; we heard that the commission is planning more work to analyse the effects that climate change could have on trade.

It was very interesting, during the process, to look at all of the hard work that has been done to meet our climate emissions and reduce those emissions. We are certainly looking forward to the Minister’s responses tonight and to the questions that are presented. Thank you.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (20:35): I came into Parliament with the Hon Simon Watts in 2020. When we entered Parliament, of course, the Labour-led Government had already passed the zero carbon Act and established the Climate Change Commission.

When Labour was in Government in that 2020 year, we had many, many programmes to decarbonise our economy—that is, to drive emissions down. We had a Climate Emergency Response Fund and the Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry Fund, and an emissions reduction plan with hundreds of different actions within it. In addition, we had in our 2020 manifesto that we would legislate for climate adaptation and do the hard work on working out where people need to move and how that happens. I reference that because it’s become very relevant recently.

My question is, though: given that his Government has either watered down those different actions or got rid of them entirely and has not progressed legislation on climate adaptation, does he regret not undertaking these actions that would have decreased New Zealanders’ reliance on foreign fossil fuels?

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green) (20:37): Thank you, Mr Chair. Just following on from the questioning line by my colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking, I’m curious to see a definition of success from the Minister. What does success look like in terms of successful initiatives, in terms of adaptation, and in terms of mitigation? What does success look like for himself, as climate Minister, and for this wider Government?

I have some specific question lines I want to ask around the nationally determined contribution, as well. Does this Government intend to meet all of New Zealand’s nationally determined contribution domestically, or is it intended that the contribution be met partly through international contributions? Is the Minister and the Government asserting that it’s going to be met purely through domestic negations?

I want to also turn to the Greenhouse Gas Inventory. I want to really applaud the work that the team at the Ministry for the Environment has done in putting that together. I was actually involved in the compilation of the 2023 Greenhouse Gas Inventory; I was listed as a technical contributor there, so I know how much work and how much effort it takes to assemble those things. My question around the Greenhouse Gas Inventory is that, obviously, it’s encouraging to see that the gross emissions of New Zealand have declined a little bit in this period, but I want the Minister to say who he attributes the decrease of that to? Does he attribute that to the success of the previous Government, or does he attribute that to initiatives that the Government set? The debate will take on quite a different tenor depending on who the Minister attributes blame and success to.

I want to turn, also, to the national adaptation plan and to the adaptation framework. Please, can the Minister clarify whether the Government still intends the national adaptation plan to still be operational or whether the Minister regards the national adaptation framework to supersede the national adaptation plan? I have some follow-up questions based on that, but those are my questions for now.

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change) (20:40): Thank you very much for those questions and for the introduction from the select committee.

Working our way through the questions, “Does the Minister regret taking action in regards to that?” Well, what I don’t regret is the banning of oil and gas which has put us into this situation where we now need to look to import liquefied natural gas (LNG). The good thing about importing LNG is it’s actually less emissions that coal which is, ironically, what the last Government looked to do; they had a strategy of importation of Indonesian coal at the expense of domestic gas at a higher emissions profile.

Questions around “definition of success”—well, first and foremost, in regards to mitigation, 2024 had the lowest emissions on record since 1998. So how do you define success? Well, that’s probably a good place to start.

In regards to adaptation, we’ve introduced and will be introducing legislation in regards to the national adaptation framework before the election, and that is a significant priority and that is important work across party lines, to be fair, in the context of an enduring framework to deal with one of our most significant issues.

In regards to the targets, this Government is committed to all of the climate change targets, both domestic and international, and we do have a focus on domestic emissions reduction first and foremost.

In regards to attribution of success—what Government? Well, surprisingly, on this side of the House, we actually attribute success and progress in this country to New Zealand households and businesses. They’re the ones who are doing the hard work, they’re the ones that are reducing emissions—not, with respect, the 120 or so of us sitting in this room—households and businesses; Kiwis. So that’s who I attribute success to around emissions reduction. And the adaptation plan is the major focus for us as we move forward.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) (20:41): Thank you, Mr Chair. My colleague Rachel Brooking in her introductory comments to the session, talked about some of what the previous Labour Government had done in this space in terms of addressing climate change. I’ve got a few questions for the Minister around one specific scheme, which is the Clean Car Discount. That was, of course, the scheme that was put in place to reduce transport emissions by subsidising low emissions vehicles. We know that that’s led to a significant increase in the uptake of electric vehicles as well, and a 14.4 percent reduction in average carbon dioxide emissions from new and used imports before the scheme was scrapped by this Minister’s Government back in 2023.

I want to know whether the Minister regrets scrapping the Clean Car Discount scheme, a decision that his own officials have said will add 1.1 to 2.2 million tonnes of carbon dioxide to New Zealand’s roads by 2050.

Simon Court: Makes plant grow.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: That is from the Ministry of Transport’s data. So if the members opposite want to say that’s not true, I’m not sure what mis- and disinformation they’re wanting to spread. In addition to that, the Ministry of Transport’s own advice has clearly pointed to the fact that the costs of scrapping this particular scheme are double the benefits of the scheme. So I would like to know from the Minister why he made the decision to override his own officials’ advice on this and whether he has received any other advice to this point. Also, the Climate Change Commission has said that cheaper EV batteries means that there are real opportunities to cut transport emissions, and I’d like to know from the Minister what he’s doing to capture them.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (20:44): I’ve got two different lines of questioning that I’ll go down. The first is in response to the Minister’s response, and that is that, apparently, everything would be fine; we would have no reliance on foreign fossil fuels if there wasn’t a ban on exploration. So I want to know if the Minister has any advice saying that, one, and two, if he understands that there is a difference between exploration and actually finding and then taking that fossil fuel.

Secondly, wouldn’t electrification, instead of exploring and then finding and then recovering a fossil fuel, be quicker? Then my last question on this line is: does he agree with Simon Court from the ACT party who appeared to be saying, in heckling just before, that an increase in carbon dioxide emissions is somehow positive because it makes plants grow? I think that is what he was saying. Does Minister Watts agree with that? Those are my mitigation, decarbonisation questions.

Shifting, now, to adaptation but, in fact, I’m not; these questions are about flood plains and building new buildings on flood plains. It’s not about the tricky issue that a managed retreat or anything like that would need to deal with, where there’s existing housing on flood plains but when, in fact, this Government is enabling more building on flood plains. So some questions there: one, where is the promised national flood map? Secondly, I want to know if he agrees with what the Prime Minister said in answer to John Campbell on Morning Report on Monday 13 April. John Campbell said, “Around 675,000 people or 14 percent of the population live in areas prone to flooding. What have you got for them?” The Prime Minister responded, “Well, again, that’s why we’ve got to work on a national flood plan, national adaptation framework.” Then he said some other things and then he said, “Make sure we’re not doing dumb stuff, for example building back into flood plains.”

It’s that statement that I’m interested in, Minister: not doing dumb stuff, for example, building back into flood plains. Because we have just seen the fast-track approval of an enormous, enormous development of over 4,000 houses and a number of retirement homes and all sorts of other things at Sunfield, which everybody acknowledges is on a flood plain. So how does that statement of the Prime Minister—we’re not doing dumb stuff, for example, building back into flood plains—make any sense when this Government’s fast track has just approved an enormous development of new houses in a flood plain?

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change) (20:47): Thanks for those questions. In regard to the points around the clean car or EV subsidy, this Government has focused and is focusing on a least cost approach versus what was, in effect, a ute tax by the prior Government. The emissions trading scheme is the key tool in which we use for emissions reduction and our focus as a Government is around enabling infrastructure. So you would have seen the announcements around EV charging network, which is a key issue around people’s concerns around ability to charge those vehicles.

In regard to the flood map, the work is under way. We have commissioned a party to prepare those maps. It will be ready, in terms of the first part of that, by the end of this year, the beginning of next year. In regard to the preparation of adaptation plans, the legislation that we’ll be looking to pass will require local government to prepare adaptation plans in high risk areas which will mitigate the key issues.

In regard to energy, well, the reality is, when you don’t look for something, you don’t find it and that’s the reality with what happened with the last Government around stopping oil and gas exploration. We now have less and not sufficient molecules to run industry and also make electricity in a dry year. Coal is not sufficient to cover us in a dry year. That’s why we need to import liquefied natural gas (LNG). We did consider 11 other options in regard to covering that dry year risk. You cannot do anything via renewables in the size and scale of energy required to cover that dry year risk, which is in winter, which surprisingly doesn’t have as much sun as summer. That’s the reality of why we’re focusing on LNG importation. We need that solution now. If we have a dry year next year, the ability to cover that because of the reduced amount of gas we have will mean that 2024 was an easy ride. That’s because of the legacy of the last Government.

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green) (20:49): Thank you, Mr Chair. Just wanted to follow on the questioning by the Hon Rachel Brooking around the issue of whether the fossil fuel exploration makes the country more resilient and makes the price of energy cheaper in New Zealand, when we do drill. Is the Minister aware that in the United States of America—which is one of the biggest oil drillers and oil explorers in the world; they’re one of the people that produce the most fossil fuels—that the gas prices have increased by 35 percent since the beginning of the Iran war and in New Zealand, which is not, at all, a big producer of fossil fuels, that gas prices have only increased by 20 percent? So it’s somewhat, I guess, incorrect to assert that just because a country is creating its own fossil fuels that they’re somehow not still dependent on an international market. But as the members opposite are perfectly aware, fossil fuels are actually an international good so the price of it is still set internationally. Just because we grow agricultural products here in New Zealand hasn’t stopped our food from being really expensive and the price of our groceries going far, far too high—higher than it should be.

My second point is on the issue of the national adaptation framework: is the Minister concerned that by moving to the national adaptation framework, they’ve, essentially, abandoned the initiatives that were supposed to be in the national adaptation plan? That is, is the Minister concerned that the national adaptation framework, laudable as it is in its work to produce flood mapping—rural initiatives that were highlighted in the national adaptation plan in the first place, so wouldn’t it have made more sense to just continue on with the existing national adaptation plan and not scrap a lot of the initiatives that were actually in that instead of starting from scratch and just going with the national adaptation framework? Again, we do support the flood mapping, but it is only one dimension of the work that was already in the national adaptation planning.

I believe I’m coming to the end of my five-minute allocation, but thank you for the consideration, Minister.

SIMON COURT (ACT) (20:51): Thank you, Mr Chair. Minister, I’m interested in your views on how we might ensure that New Zealand’s major industries that are emissions intensive and trade exposed are supported through this difficult time where energy prices have risen significantly, whether it’s natural gas, that many of them depend on, or electricity, which many of them depend on. Many of them have converted from gas or other petroleum hydrocarbon fuels, including coal, into more sustainable energy production. But, of course, if you’re one of the half-dozen industries in New Zealand, like cement manufacturing, steel manufacturing, aluminium, or fertiliser manufacturing, making ammonia-urea fertiliser from natural gas in Taranaki, which supplies somewhere around 25 to 30 percent of all of the nitrogen fertiliser used on New Zealand’s farms. Well, somebody else could bring that product in from overseas, and they don’t pay a carbon price if it’s made in Vietnam, if it’s made in China, or if it’s made in Malaysia or Indonesia.

So Minister, I’m interested in what your views are on how these industries might be supported both now and in the future, given that it’s highly unlikely that their competitors in those countries will ever face a carbon price. New Zealand has done its part by setting targets and working hard to meet them for emissions budgets, putting a price on carbon through the emissions trading scheme (ETS). But in the end, it seems that some of these industries will be faced with costs, particularly when it comes to the cost of carbon or buying electricity that factors in a carbon price if it’s thermal electricity produced from gas and coal. These additional costs, not faced by competitors overseas, mean that it may become, in the future, uneconomic to manufacture these important industrial products in New Zealand—cement, steel, aluminium, and fertiliser. Of course, fertiliser has never been so vital when our international supply chain is interrupted, as it has been because of America’s important action in the Middle East to secure the sea lanes and deny the ability of the Iranian regime to obtain a nuclear weapon. Sometimes, New Zealand just has to roll with geopolitical events, whether we’re prepared for them or not.

So I think it’s clear: it’s never been more important that New Zealand have its own manufacturing base to manufacture these important commodities whether they be aluminium, steel, urea fertiliser made from natural gas and, of course, many other industries that depend on burning coal or gas or producing carbon dioxide as an emission.

So Minister, I’m interested: how do you think New Zealand, the Government, and the regulatory system should support these vital industrials now and into the future?

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change) (20:55): Thank you. I just want to come back to the questions in regard to the gas situation in New Zealand. I want to be really clear that this is not a price issue; this is a lack of molecules issue. We do not have the gas—sufficient gas—to run the industrials that Under-Secretary Court was referring to; that’s the problem. And because we don’t look and stopped looking for gas for six years, surprisingly we haven’t found any. That is the reality. We have 25 percent less gas today than what we had one year ago in this country. It is a fundamental and critical issue for this country and the only feasible option, in the short term, is the importation of liquefied natural gas.

Now, Under-Secretary Court raises the point: we want to protect those industrial businesses that are manufacturing in New Zealand because, the reality is, if they shut down and close and we import cement, for example, and the emissions profile of cement made overseas is significantly higher in terms of global emissions than what it is making it here at home. And so the mechanisms to support those industries, first and foremost, need security of supply of the fuel they need to make the product, which is gas, which we are moving our way through, and we also need medium- and long-term solutions, as well. But the reality is, if you do not have the fuel, which is our problem as a country, then you cannot make electricity, you cannot make glass, you cannot make steel, and you cannot deal with the reality of the geopolitical pressure that you are in. Because if the fuel and the supply chain shut and you haven’t got domestic production, you do not have options and, therefore, you do not have security, in terms of national security, and that’s why energy security is national security.

STEVE ABEL (Green) (20:57): Thank you, Mr Chair. I wonder, Minister, if you can respond to the glib and trivialising comments of Simon Court, who thinks that the existential challenge of humanity is merely a good way to help make plants grow. And I wonder if you have reflected on the—

Simon Court: What?

STEVE ABEL: That’s what he said: “Carbon dioxide makes plants grow.” I wonder if you have reflected on the fact that the biggest threat to the production of food over the coming century is climate change and extreme effects of it.

A couple of specific questions, Minister: are you aware that there are still thousands of new households having gas put into them for their appliances and for their hot water? I wonder: what is the wisdom of allowing new-build houses and buildings to be reticulated with fossil gas given the supply issues and given there are things that are more urgent that we need to use the remaining gas we have with?

The other comment you made, Minister, was about “If we start looking for oil and gas, we’re not going to find any.” Well, is the Minister aware that from 2007 there was a steady decline in our gas supply and every major oil and gas company in the world came and had a look here and found nothing before the ban came into place in 2018? So why would you be spending $200 million on subsidising gas exploration, when you could be spending that money on decarbonising? That’s a question: why are you spending $200 million—

Ryan Hamilton: We haven’t spent it and it’s a current investment. You’re welcome.

STEVE ABEL: Why are you not co-investing on renewables—why you not co-investing on renewables?

Final question, Minister: are you aware, on the question of cement, that our local cement manufacturers, who have to pay the emissions trading scheme (ETS), are currently being undercut by imported cement that doesn’t have to pay the ETS? And what are your strategies for dealing with that?

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, our time with the Minister of Climate Change has ended.

Committee of the whole House—Annual Review Debate

Energy

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The Minister for Energy will be here for 20 minutes to respond to members’ questions.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) (21:00): Thank you, Mr Chair. There’s a number of questions outstanding from where we left off last time, and I wonder if Ministers have had a chance. In particular, I’m very interested to know what the balance of the petroleum or engine fuel monitoring levy memorandum account is as of today. That would be something that it would be useful to find out.

One of the things we spent quite a bit of time on before we had a hiatus in this debate was talking about the liquefied natural gas (LNG) facility and asking the Minister questions about the proposed LNG facility. Now, in the last couple of weeks, the new Minister and, indeed, the Prime Minister have made comments to the effect—in light of everything that’s happened in the world—that there will be strong scrutiny and the business case will need to stack up.

Now, one of the things that the previous Minister for Energy said, and is on record as saying, is, “There is no plan B. There is only LNG. We don’t have a plan B.” What I want to know from the Minister is what work he has put into place to ensure that there is a plan B, given that the previous Minister explicitly said there was no plan B, and given that that analysis wasn’t completed in the documentation that was released around the LNG facility material, in terms of the thorough consideration of that.

It would be useful to the committee if the Minister were to elucidate on what the plan B was, because I think everyone can see the skyrocketing cost of LNG around the world. We and many other people at the time of the Government’s announcement of an LNG import facility said that this made New Zealand susceptible to any spikes in global pricing. Then, only a few weeks later, we have seen what is happening with LNG supply tightening around the globe.

I’d also be interested to know from the Minister whether it is still his intention that there be a signed contract by July 2026, in terms of this. One of the things that the Minister addressed but certainly didn’t answer is whether it is still his intention that the final decision on the commercial decision will lie with Ministers—that it won’t be officials who make that call but that there will be Ministers with powers to act who will make that final decision. That certainly was the process that was spelt out in the previous Minister’s Cabinet paper, so we’d be keen to know what that is.

I’d also be keen to know from the Minister whether any further work has been done since questions were asked of the previous Minister on what we could do to ensure that any cost savings would be passed through to consumers. The previous Minister claimed that would be the work and the Electricity Authority had the powers in order to do that, but one of the things when we had the annual review of the Electricity Authority, when they came to select committee, was that they did say that, while they monitor prices closely and can influence outcomes through market design and competition, they cannot directly dictate retail electricity prices. Therefore, in terms of the mechanisms to ensure that any cost savings would be passed through to consumers, what the authority came to the select committee and said certainly didn’t stack up with the claims that the previous Minister had been making. I would like to know what work the current Minister has under way, and if this is to go ahead and, indeed, if there are savings to be had, how we will ensure that these get passed on to consumers, because this is by no means anything that would be guaranteed and that you would expect in terms of that.

One of the things I’d also be keen to know from the Minister is whether or not he is actively considering funding for solar—we know that the previous Minister had tried to get funding for various solar initiatives—and whether or not he has had advice around whether or not it is the cost of capital that is the biggest impediment. I know the Minister has pointed to other things they’ve done around consenting, and all these kinds of things, but addressing the capital constraint that people have in terms of solar roll-out and whether that is something the Government is actively considering there. I would also like to know if the Minister—[Time expired]

SCOTT WILLIS (Green) (21:05): Thank you, Mr Chair, and I appreciate that the Minister may have some responses to my colleague Megan Woods, because I think they were very important questions.

I also understand that we have real issues with energy hardship at the moment, so I’m interested in the Minister explaining where the $178 million funding cut from the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority, which provided funding for hot water heating, low-cost energy efficient measures, an LED lighting scheme, and community-focused outreach programmes to target hard-to-reach households—how has that affected those hard-to-reach households and those whānau in energy hardship, and what evaluation of impact the Government is doing. That’s one lot of questions I’d really like an answer to.

Following on from that, in the face of that significantly increasing energy hardship, I’ve got a graph here that was just presented at the energy hardship hui in Auckland today by Ian McChesney, who had to use his own funds to dig through the stats to dig it out. We can see that there are now 200,000 homes, households, and whānau who cannot afford to keep their dwelling adequately warm. My question here is: did the Minister consider funding the establishment of an energy wellbeing network, as proposed by those working on the front line delivering energy services to households and communities across the country, and, if not, why not? Now that we know people are really suffering, people are having to choose between heating and eating, will he reconsider it now?

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato) (21:07): Tēnā rā koe e te Pīka. My question is involving energy poverty. The Climate Change Commission says renewable energy is a cheaper form of electricity generation in the long term, so my question is: if renewable energy is cheaper, why are whānau still paying the price for delayed investment and continued dependence on fossil fuels?

Tētehi atu o āku pātai—another question that I have is: will this Government invest in solar farms such as the new solar farm in Ngāti Naho that has an ongoing relationship with Maurea Marae within Hauraki-Waikato?

SIMON COURT (ACT) (21:07): Thank you, Mr Chair. Minister, given the amount of attention that the Government’s announced investment in an LNG import terminal in Taranaki has got from business, from the electricity sector, and from major energy users, I’m wondering—given that the Hon Megan Woods, a former energy Minister, was one of the people who came up with the idea to ban oil and gas exploration—firstly, Minister, do you think it would have been helpful to have planned and budgeted for an LNG terminal at the time that banning New Zealand indigenous gas exploration was announced, so we had a back-up transition fuel? Do you think it might have been helpful to maybe, I don’t know, cover your bases?

Secondly, Minister, given the challenges that this Government faced and you as Minister faced around options for a dry year when you took on the role as energy Minister, what plan B was there? Isn’t it the case that the LNG import terminal is actually the worst of a very long list of poor options that are a gift from the previous Government to the people of New Zealand by banning oil and gas exploration, providing absolutely nothing but some taxpayer handouts to big business for energy transition, and leaving all of those hard-to-abate industries like bread-making—bread-making in ovens the size of this Chamber—

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Unlike the handouts to the oil and gas industry from this Government.

SIMON COURT: —exclusively dependent on natural gas with no transition plan. Here’s the Hon Megan Woods chirping in from the sidelines as if she doesn’t have the black ash of the arsonist all over her hands. Minister, I’m interested: was there any alternative, or is this the only solution that can possibly solve the dry-year risk and help us secure New Zealand’s energy future right now?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy) (21:10): Mr Chair, I thank the members for their questions, and I’ll take the member Simon Court’s and the Hon Megan Woods’ questions in relation to liquefied natural gas (LNG) together.

The reality is that the last Government made that decision simply to get a bumper sticker on a car and to get a headline in Paris, so they could look like they were doing something about climate change, but ultimately they’ve left New Zealand high and dry, and the way I’ve described their plan is “Hope it will rain, hope it will rain.” The energy policy of the previous Minister was to hope it would rain. The reality is that the year we became Government, it didn’t rain, and we saw the consequences.

David MacLeod: $800 a megawatt.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Eight hundred dollars a megawatt hour because the lakes were dry, the wind wasn’t blowing, and it was the middle of winter. That is the consequence of not having enough gas—the gas that they banned the exploration of. The consequences of their decisions are before our very eyes, yet they still refuse to change their approach and actually see gas as a transition fuel and see the opportunity that comes through it. Now, we’re working through a procurement process with LNG, and we will be making decisions once that procurement process has been through. Ultimately, the answers to the members’ questions will of course be dealt with as part of that process.

In relation to the member Scott Willis’ questions about energy hardship, we have a Community Renewable Energy Fund to support energy education and communities. There are funds there which do provide support, but ultimately what we need to see is a competitive market which provides affordable energy for all New Zealanders and which drives down prices through the abundance of energy in this country. Whether that is wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, gas, coal, we need all of those types of energy to make sure we have a market which provides lower wholesale energy prices for consumers and for businesses. I’m pleased to note that the Australian Securities Exchange calendar year future prices have shown that, for 2027, since February, there’s been a $27 reduction in megawatt hour cost; 2028, down by $24; 2029, it’s down by $22. We are seeing, because of the policies of the Government, a reduction in those forward prices, which is positive. Of course, there’s more work to do.

In relation to the member from Te Pāti Māori, the question around a particular solar farm—I forget the particular location for that solar farm—we of course support solar. We support investment in solar via energy companies. As I said to her co-leader earlier today, we support indigenous solar. We want to see more solar being developed in New Zealand, and, in fact, the total forward pipeline from 2026 to 2029 has 1,867 megawatts of solar in the forward pipeline.

David MacLeod: Fast track!

Hon SIMEON BROWN: That is fantastic, and of course, fast track is a great way, another part, of how we’re making it speed up. There’s lots happening in solar, it’s great for our energy system, and we look forward to more projects being advanced.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) (21:14): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ll just remind the Minister that I’m still waiting for an answer on what the current balance of the petroleum engine fuels monitoring levy memorandum account is at today. The Government seems to be avoiding this question; it’s many, many, many days overdue on answering written questions on it, and certainly this is the fourth time I’ve asked it in the Chamber. There’s been several hours hiatus where the Minister could have got their information.

I also would like to know whether the Minister is still saying that there will be a signed contract by July; whether that is the intention of the Government and whether that is the timeline he is working to. I’m also interested whether or not the Minister will guarantee that, if a liquefied natural gas terminal goes ahead, it will solely be for the purposes of dry-year risk—that it won’t be used more broadly than that, and that it won’t become a de facto way of supplying gas more fully in the New Zealand economy, because that is what the Cabinet paper, on the surface, purports to claim. Can the Minister confirm whether or not this is a project that is confined to dry-year risk?

SCOTT WILLIS (Green) (21:15): Thank you, Mr Chair, and I would make the point—and I think the Minister also has made this point—that hope is not a strategy and yet we have heard from the Electricity Retailers’ and Generators’ Association (ERGANZ) this morning, we’ve heard from downstream, we’ve heard from all the leaders in the energy sector, that we need a national energy strategy. There was one ready to go out the door at the end of the last Government. This Government’s been sitting on it for the whole term so far. My question to the Minister is: when are we going to see the Government’s release of a national energy strategy or, better yet, the Government opening the doors and bipartisanship? Let’s see what a national energy strategy would look like, to give some certainty to the sector about our decarbonisation efforts; to give some certainty to the sector about the direction of travel; to give some certainty about where we can go and make a difference.

I’ve also heard that the Minister is very keen to see that we need a competitive market, and on that we agree. To that point, there is a bill sitting in the biscuit tin that the Minister can adopt at any moment, and it is called the Electricity Industry (Separation of Generation and Retail Businesses) Amendment Bill. That will build a competitive market; that will make sure that we have a market that functions, that takes away the control, and the cross-subsidisation. Now, that is an option that is open to the Minister right now, and we have heard members of the Government saying they want to do just this thing. Is the Government all talk, no action? That’s what I’m seeing from the Government: all talk, no action. There’s a lot you could do here and you just don’t seem to be wanting to do it. I’d like to hear from the Minister on those points. I’ve got a couple of other questions.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy) (21:17): Mr Chair, I love it when members on the Opposition talk about wanting bipartisanship. Well, what they have failed to do is back the reversal of oil and gas—the ban on oil and gas exploration—which they put in place. They didn’t consult on it, they didn’t come and talk to the National Party, they didn’t try and seek a bipartisan approach to that; they simply went and announced it on the steps of Parliament, for the Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern to be able to then go to Paris and get a headline and be on the front page of a magazine. Shame on the Labour Party and the Green Party for their decisions on that. Where was the bipartisanship then? That is the epicentre of the challenges we are facing now in our energy sector, and it is on their shoulders. They should take that responsibility.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Are you going to answer the question?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Mr Chair, the question was: do we want a strategy? Well, we want to make sure we have lower prices and affordable energy and abundant energy for New Zealanders, and simply, on that side of the House, they want paperwork but won’t actually back the solutions which actually deliver value to people, value to households, value to consumers, and value to businesses and jobs.

The decision they made to ban oil and gas exploration has been detrimental on our energy sector and also on our industrial base and is leading to the de-industrialisation of New Zealand, and they have the audacity to stand up in this Parliament and complain about businesses closing but fail to back the solutions so that they have the energy to stay open. Shame on them.

SCOTT WILLIS (Green) (21:18): Thank you, Mr Chair. Certainly, it sounds as though the Government has no strategy, has no plan, just hopes the market will deliver. Given that there is only one remaining offshore wind developer still floating around, when will the Government finally deliver the Offshore Renewable Energy Bill? And is the Government considering any risk-sharing structures with Taranaki Offshore Partnership?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy) (21:19): Thank you, Mr Chair. That bill, as the member will know, is making its way through Parliament as we speak.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, our time with the Minister for Energy has ended.

Committee of the whole House—Annual Review Debate

Māori Development

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The Minister for Māori Development is now available until 10 p.m. to respond to members’ questions. I’ll give the first call to the chairperson of the Māori Affairs Committee.

DAVID MacLEOD (Chairperson of the Māori Affairs Committee) (21:20): Thank you, Mr Chair. As the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, I present the major findings of the Te Puni Kōkiri in-depth annual review, December last year. During the period, Te Puni Kōkiri published their strategic intentions for 2025-2029. Their strategic vision continues to be thriving whānau, and it says that when whānau are thriving, so too are their communities, hapū, iwi, and all of Aotearoa New Zealand. Te Puni Kōkiri’s policy approach is Te Tautuhi o Rongo, which is a framework for the Public Service to ensure that high-level decision making considers both the collective and individual rights of iwi and Māori. Their delivery approach is whānau-centred, locally led, and Government enabled.

Te Puni Kōkiri employs the equivalent of 423 full-time kaimahi, with two-thirds of them having Māori descent. Outside of Wellington, there are 15 regional offices. Auditors provided a modified audit opinion, with them being satisfied with the financials and that they were fairly presented, with one exception relating to the non-departmental estimated costs and related provision associated with the Wakatū court case. Further details of that are within the report.

In February of 2025, Te Puni Kōkiri took over some functions from Te Arawhiti, now known as Te Tari Whakatau. The transferred responsibilities include advising the Government and the Public Service on the distinct rights, interests, and responsibilities of hapū and Māori, and, secondly, leading post-settlement relationships with post-settlement governance entities and monitoring the Crown’s implementation of Treaty settlement commitments.

ORIINI KAIPARA (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau) (21:22): Mr Chair, tēnā koe. I’m going to get straight to an area that is of huge concern to me and to other members of this House, and that is Māori broadcasting—Whakaata Māori specifically—and reports of cuts to Māori Television in Budget 2024 as part of more than $300 million in Māori-specific reductions.

What advice did the Minister for Māori Development receive about the impact of the $5.5 million in expiring funding for Whakaata Māori during the period under review? Can the Minister confirm whether any of the $5.5 million in time-limited funding has been replaced with ongoing baseline funding? What assessment has the Minister made of how Whakaata Māori will maintain current levels of content production after losing 20 percent of its budget? Did the Minister receive any warnings from officials about job losses or service reductions resulting from this funding expiry? Finally, what criteria did the Minister use to decide not to renew the time-limited funding that Whakaata Māori relied on for digital transformation and for staffing?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour) (21:23): Just further to those questions from Oriini Kaipara, I’m interested in whether the Minister for Māori Development has a strategy around Māori broadcasting. The previous Government had a full Māori broadcasting strategy, and we have yet to see any Māori broadcasting strategy from the Minister. In fact, we haven’t seen anything from the Minister, if I’m being honest, in terms of a future for Māori broadcasters, particularly Ngā Reo Irirangi Māori, who are feeling that they are under major attack at the moment, with Māori radio stations looking at funding cuts of up to 25 percent.

So has the Minister got a strategy in place to address that? I think the previous questions in terms of baseline funding are very relevant questions for whoever the Minister is, whether that Minister comes from National or Labour, or any Māori Minister—baseline funding is always a challenge in the Māori area, because whatever the Government, they always seem to have problems in terms of driving through baseline funding for Māori. So I ask the Minister: what is the strategy, given that he has not put together one extra cent for Māori broadcasting over the time he has been the Minister for Māori Development—not one cent has come through Te Māngai Pāho or Te Puni Kōkiri.

Given that Māori broadcasting plays such an integral role in terms of the whole area of Māori development, it is also concerning given that we have 21 Māori radio stations who are facing massive cuts. Is there a strategy that the Minister is looking to roll-out with the Budget coming up in May? What is his view? We have Whakaata Māori who have been cut back in terms of funding and don’t know where they’re going. There are redundancies. We have Ngā Reo Irirangi Māori now in a position where they may have to make major redundancies. Has the Minister got a strategy in place for the upcoming Budget? Will we see an increase in the Māori broadcasting area, or will he return a zero Budget as he has done in the previous two years?

STEVE ABEL (Green) (21:26): Minister, how does it reflect that under your watch, we have lost a national Māori news service.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Just direct your comments through the Chair.

STEVE ABEL: Mr Chair, pardon me. I wonder if the Minister for Māori Development can answer how it reflects on his record that the nation has lost its national Māori news service—and what is he going to do about it. How is it consistent with our nation upholding our founding agreement, Te Tiriti o Waitangi, to see Māori broadcasting in such a challenged state because of the actions of this Government in terms of its failure to appropriately support Māori broadcasting and its funding?

ORIINI KAIPARA (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau) (21:27): What modelling has the Minister for Māori Development seen on the cumulative impact of $9.5 million in expiring funding on Māori broadcasting capability? Further to that, what planning has the Minister undertaken to address the further $4 million in funding that expires for Whakaata Māori in the following financial year?

Now, I want to move to Te Māngai Pāho. While Te Māngai Pāho’s baseline funding was maintained this year, what advice has the Minister received about the $16 million in time-limited funding that expires after 2026? Further to that, what steps is the Minister taking now to prevent Te Māngai Pāho from facing from facing a fiscal cliff when that time-limited funding ends? Has the Minister sought Cabinet approval to convert any of Te Māngai Pāho’sexpiring funding into ongoing baseline funding, and what impact analysis has been completed on how the expiry of this funding will affect te reo Māori content production nationwide?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour) (21:28): Further to the question from Steve Abel with regards to national Māori news: does the Minister think that te ao Māori should have national Māori news on radio? If you look at mainstream, New Zealanders have quite the selection and opportunity in terms of accessing news. We have TVNZ news, which was built on taxpayers’ money for 44 years before Māori Television started in 2004. So we had 44 years of taxpayers’ money as a headstart in terms of mainstream television. We had Newstalk ZB, Radio New Zealand—all built on taxpayers’ money.

Cameron Luxton: Is the member making a case for selling?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Oh, you listen and you might get it through your thick head.

Hon Members: Oh, Willie!

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: That upset you, did it? I’m just saying the obvious. You have no idea in terms of what I’m talking about

Radio New Zealand was built on taxpayers’ money.

I want to know from the Minister—we now have no national Whakaata Māori news on the hour. Do Māori deserve to have that opportunity? It comes back to a strategy in terms of a Minister being able to outline a strategy. The Minister will be aware that the previous Government allocated $100 million over two years in terms of Māori broadcasting, and this Minister has yet to produce one cent. I would like to know, when will he produce one cent for Māori broadcasting and play a part in the development and strategy going forward? When will he start giving some of our broadcasters some assurances and some tautoko that there’s a brighter future for them, and he’s not just going to sit back and keep delivering zero budgets at Budget time?

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister for Māori Development) (21:31): E te Tiamana o te komiti o te Whare nei, tēnā koe. Tātou e hui tahi nei i te pō nei, tēnā tātou katoa.

[To the Chair of the committee of the whole House, thank you. To all of us assembled here tonight, greetings to us all.]

Te reo Māori is part of the DNA of our country, Aotearoa New Zealand. We all recognise that we as whānau Māori who are committed to te reo, but also the Crown, have a very active duty to protect and tautoko te reo Māori. Literally hundreds of millions of dollars go to kaupapa Māori in te reo Māori, whether or not it’s through the education system or through the four Māori language entities, or a wide variety of other initiatives—for example, Te Matatini. Performances on Matatini stages are nearly entirely in te reo Māori.

Just to recalibrate some of the confusion that members opposite have laced our Parliament with this evening: there have not been cuts to the baseline budget for the four Māori language entities. Yes, there was time-limited funding, instigated by the former Minister for Māori Development. Questions or comments around cuts to the budget, I think, ignore the fact that there was time-limited funding, and that time-limited funding has come to the end of its time. Any suggestion that I have been responsible or the coalition Government has been responsible for cutting budgets on te reo Māori, I think, is distant from the reality.

The second thing is it’s absolutely fantastic to see hundreds of thousands of reo Māori speakers, and we continue to encourage that in many, various ways. The funding that is allocated to the four Māori language entities is, for the most part, in the operational decision making, governance, and management of those entities. If Minister Potaka decides he’s going to jump down the governance and management throats of those entities and start dictating to them, like an adult to a child, how they should spend the money, I think that disrespects the role of those entities, which were established with much conviction and much fight over many, many decades of commitment to te reo Māori.

I think it’s very important to really clarify the role of the Minister and the role of the Government before some of the scarier suggestions are put on my shoulders that I should be telling Te Māngai Pāho how much money they should give to each and every individual Māori radio station. That is not my role—it’s not. We do set up the framework; we do provide funding; and we do encourage all those entities to get on the same waka—to be very clear about a national direction for te reo Māori, rather than having their own individual directions.

There was mention of the Māori news service. Actually, the funder of that service and the decision maker of that service—for the Opposition member who asked that question—is not the Minister for Māori Development. It is the funding authority, and they are set up to do that job.

Again, just to remind everyone, we shouldn’t be confused by some of the assumptions and the implications and connotations that are coming through some of the questions. I am very clear about my role. My role is to support the Minister of Finance in relevant allocations for funding in these four Māori language entities; to encourage those that are involved to get together and make sure they’re on a single waka in terms of the fundamental kaupapa across those organisations, kia mauri ora te reo [so that the language be healthy]—and, of course, to help get started a refresh of the Maihi Karauna, which is now under way.

One final observation I’d make, just in the short time I have available, is that communications and broadcasting today are not like they were in the days of Radio Wha Waho—they’re just not. They are very different, and broadcasting and comms has to be far more agile. A lot of our reo Māori feed is actually not through Whakaata Māori or radio stations; it’s through social media. Te Māngai Pāho, as the main broadcasting funding agency, recognises that. There may be different allocations of funding made at that authority level. That’s their operational responsibility. I see absolutely wonderful reo Māori feeds on social media—and, indeed, some of that reflects the personalities that sit in this House this evening.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour) (21:36): Clearly, the Minister is confused about his role after that terrible explanation about the state of Māori broadcasting. Somebody needs to inform the Minister that as the Minister of Māori Broadcasting as well as the Minister of Māori Development, his brief is not just te reo Māori. His brief is Māori language and culture.

He’s got this thing about the reo, absolutely, as a priority, but the Minister’s brief is about Māori language and culture. Most of the most successful programmes through the last few years, in terms of Māori programming, have been Māori programmes in English. Native Affairs is a classic example of it; Marae has been a perfect example of it.

Hon James Meager: Eye to Eye.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Oh, yes, Eye to Eye—that’s a good one, too. That was a few years ago. Plenty of these shows, Moana’s show—80 percent of these are in English, funded by Te Māngai Pāho (TMP).

The Minister is confused—very confused, as he’s revealed himself tonight—in terms of what his brief is. His brief, I agree, is not about telling TMP what to do—of course he doesn’t tell TMP what to do. His brief is to advocate for TMP, which he is not doing.

That’s my question to this Minister: when are you going to advocate for your agency, advocate for Te Māngai Pāho, advocate for Te Puni Kōkiri? Where is your Māori strategy? No one expects you to go in and tell Larry Parr what to do, but we expect you to tell Nicola Willis what to do. We expect you to challenge Nicola Willis—or don’t you say a word? Are you just like James Meager, who runs around trying to do the numbers and fails every time he does it? Are you just like that Māori over there who can’t count?

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Redirect your—

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: We want a Minister—well, I’m just saying, there’s another Māori over there who’s useless in terms of counting. He couldn’t put a coup together if he fell over one. I want to say to the Minister again, what is the Māori strategy around broadcasting? Is it about saying, “Oh, I support this, I support that. I’ll do this, I’ll do that”? When is he going to challenge his Cabinet and Nicola Willis to provide some real money, funding, and resourcing for Māori broadcasting?

I want to come to Whānau Ora—and my colleague over here Shanan Halbert will as well—which is another kaupapa, because the Minister has failed miserably—

Hon James Meager: I know one number: 0800 723 465.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: —in terms of his responses with regard to Māori broadcasting—you just learn how to count, James. In terms of Māori housing, I want to come to the area of Māori housing now for the Minister. We have lost $800 million, as the Minister knows, and as Chris Bishop has admitted to me—$800 million has gone from the pūtea Māori and to mainstream providers. That is another black mark against this Minister, who is saying, “Yes, Māori can get to it” and “My mate Jamie, well, he’s doing all right, and Willie’s doing all right.” But it’s not about Willie and Jamie doing all right—

Hon James Meager: How’s JT? Has he got a new job?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: —it’s about all the Māori providers getting an opportunity. I want to ask the Minister: where are we going in terms of Māori housing? How many Māori providers are being tied back into that Māori strategy? How many Māori providers have shut up—

Hon James Meager: When’s the trial?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: —because, again, you—like James Meager over there—are not doing your job in terms of advocating for our people.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour) (21:40): Tēnā koe e te Heamana, me ngā mihi ki a koe e te Minita, me ngā mihi ki ngā kaimahi o Te Puni Kōkiri.

[Thank you, Mr Chair, and thanks also to you, Minister, and thanks also to the staff of Te Puni Kōkiri.]

I want to cover off some initial questions to set the scene for Whānau Ora this evening. I appreciate that I am new in picking up this particular portfolio, but I wanted to kick off understanding from the Minister: what was the difference in funding in this financial year, 2024-2025, to the prior year, and what was the Minister most concerned about in the implications of those Budget decisions in that annual review period?

STEVE ABEL (Green) (21:41): Te Māngai Pāho: we did a review of it at the Primary Production Committee. One of the things we found, Minister, was that consistently there’d been a failure to have steady and consistent funding. The time limited funding that you referred to is exactly part of the problem for the constancy of the ability of these institutions to provide a certainty of tenure. These are things—Minister, would you agree?—that we want as a permanent fixture in our society. Therefore, will you commit to baseline funding that, at least, is adjusted to inflation so that there is not this uncertainty every three years or every two years as to whether there will be a continuation of funding or a renewal of the commitment to fund something as important as Te Māngai Pāho?

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister for Māori Development) (21:42): Tēnā tātou. Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m not here to “Roast Bust” any comments from the Opposition either. These comments are in relation to the role of the Minister, and the role of the various Māori language entities are very wayward. The member opposite suggested it’s my role to go and have a beat-up with the Minister of Finance on these issues and then run around making demands to give some sugar-rush input into the entities.

Hon Willie Jackson: That’s what you have to do. Don’t sit there—

Hon TAMA POTAKA: No, that’s not my role. It may have been his role under the former finance Minister, but that’s not my role in the current Government. I can assure the members opposite and also the members of the coalition Government that I’ve been very determined to ensure that we fortify the baseline funding. We set that two years ago, we set that last year, and we continue to support te reo Māori and culture in a variety of ways.

Now, in relation to the baseline funding, the baseline funding has been secured. There’s a suggestion that we should be inflation-proofing any baseline funding in the future, but decisions are made, and the decisions will be made in this Budget as well, and that will be up to the Minister of Finance to announce in sure course. At this stage, the process that has been undertaken by Te Māngai Pāho in relation to allocation of funding to radio stations and others has not been finalised. It will be finalised after the Budget, and Te Māngai Pāho will make its announcements accordingly. I certainly, as the Minister and as a strong supporter of te reo Māori and ngā tikanga Māori, am not going to make any premature comments before that time. It’s the role of Te Māngai Pāho to make decisions and make them in a prudent way.

Now, there were some observations in relation to Māori housing and, again, some fuzzy math by someone who maybe couldn’t put an iskender together in a kebab shop around Māori housing providers. If you take the time to drive around and fly around the country and, as necessary, catch a bus or train or go with auntie, you’ll find that there is a whole range of Māori organisations, iwi organisations, and others who are involved in building and establishing houses. Whether or not it’s Ngāti Kurī, Te Aupōuri, Ngāti Wai, Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa, and Ngāpuhi just in Northland alone—where is the Minister for Northland, actually? He’s usually hanging around here at 9.45—or Ngāti Rangitāne, Ngāti Kahungunu, and Toitu Tairawhiti and others on the eastern seaboard, up where whaea Dana Kirkpatrick is from and whaea Cushla—she left early; she didn’t want to ask me questions—or Ngāti Rangi and Te Kūmete o Paerangi and others in the central North Island; or, of course, our friends over in Rotorua and the Eastern Bay of Plenty in places like Ngāti Whakauē and Ōwhata 2B and 7 on Te Ngae Road in Rotorua or Whakatōhea out of Ōpōtiki.

There’s a whole host of Māori housing providers—oh, Te Pouahi; I’ll put them in too. Many of these providers have been absolutely thrilled to work on a mahi tahi basis with the Government to build and establish not only houses but also the right supports for their people, the right tautoko for the right house in the right place with the right tautoko for those in need. That’s contributed in a remarkable way to ensuring that those whānau and communities that are in need are supported. I’m pretty enthusiastic about that ongoing work because it’s a long way to close up, as I said yesterday. Of the 1,000 or so homes that were contracted under the previous administration, maybe between 700 and 800 had finished and got code compliance certificates (CCCs), but there’s still several hundred to go. The administration left the office in October or November 2023 and sometime in the next nine or 12 years might come back. When you look at the 1,000 or so that have been indicated to be contracted under this Government, about 200 to 300 have been completed with CCCs. There are still hundreds of homes to be built by these organisations, and we shouldn’t think for any minute that because some funding has been stopped, all the work has stopped, all the mahi has stopped. No, actually, it’s ongoing. We continue to support the likes of Ka Uruora and others who are doing some sterling and diligent work in our communities—places like New Plymouth, Ngāmotu, up where David MacLeod’s from and right throughout the country.

I’m very energised by the opportunity to go and visit iwi, such as Ngāti Rangi, and Māori organisations, such Whakauē up at Wharenui Rise in the eastern outskirts of Rotorua, to see what they’re doing, to tautoko what they’re doing, and also to inhale the reimagination of their communities and their small to medium enterprises and their aspirations.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour) (21:47): I’m just waiting on a response to my Whānau Ora questions, but I’ll continue on because I do want to understand, effectively, where the buck stops with the Minister in his responsibilities to Whānau Ora, given the significant cuts to this particular area and the structural changes. I’m happy for the Minister to provide an answer, and then I can continue with my questioning, if he would prefer. No?

Hon Tama Potaka: I’ll give the answer shortly.

SHANAN HALBERT: I do want to come back to the procurement process for the commissioning agencies and understand from the Minister what his involvement was throughout that process. I understand that, at the first stage of procurement, Te Puni Kōkiri received about 30 registrations of interest. Did he have a role in decision making in that? What was the advice that he was provided from staff and that he provided to staff that finalised those particular decisions?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour) (21:48): Just following up on that. I think those are relevant questions. The minister still hasn’t answered previous questions in terms of where the Māori strategy is, and also this question, I think, would be good to get from the Minister answered tonight: has he actually increased the Māori development budget by one cent since he’s been the Minister for Māori Development? I’d just like to know: over the last three years, has there been an increase in the Māori development budget or any Māori funding whatsoever? On top of that, over 100 roles—21 percent of Te Puni Kōkiri’s entire workforce—have been cut or have been proposed to be cut since the Government took office.

How does the Minister expect the Crown’s principal adviser on Māori wellbeing to do its job when we’re talking about a fifth of its people being cut? This is Te Puni Kōkiri, who are already under attack. TPK, Te Puni Kōkiri, are the Minister’s principal advisers. Then the latest round of TPK cuts specifically targets Māori capability roles, and the people who the Minister proudly advocates for and supports—and I acknowledge that—the people responsible for te reo and tikanga competency within the organisation, are getting axed. Does the Minister accept that axing those roles directly affects the ministry’s ability to engage with te ao Māori? Just a few questions in those areas to follow up on the Whānau Ora pātai.

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister for Māori Development) (21:50): Just in relation to a couple of the issues that have been raised and questions that have been raised, I’m advised by the officials that there was no material change in the level of funding for Whānau Ora in the relevant periods announced; that it is around $170 million to $180 million that is dedicated to the Whānau Ora initiatives. I’m sure that the member opposite who asked that question will be even more informed when he comes to visit me to discuss that in the next week or so.

In relation to my role with Whānau Ora, unlike, perhaps, others who have been in this role, I’ve been very clear, number one, to secure the funding and the commitment from the Minister of Finance over the forthcoming years in the Budget period, but also to ensure that the process of recommissioning or renewing the Whānau Ora contractual arrangements was undertaken in a defensible and credible manner. It’s not my job to jump in and say who’s hot and who’s not and to pick winners but to ensure that I provide the relevant ministerial support for Te Puni Kōkiri to make that operational decision. What a fantastic decision that was made to appoint—

Rima Nakhle: By a fantastic Minister.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Yeah, well, hey, my head’s growing as you speak. To see that there are four renewed commissioning agencies, three of which, of course, have a very strong iwi basis, with Māhutonga, Ngāti Toa Rangatira; Te Tauraki in Ngāi Tahu; the Rangitāmiro kaupapa, which has engaged with various iwi Māori partnership boards across Northland, Auckland, and Waikato; and our Pacific brothers and sisters at Tātou Collective, with Ulu Aiono and others—absolutely brilliant.

My role, again, is to make sure that the funding is in place, to make sure that the process is followed, and to provide the type of ministerial support—which may have been different from previous Ministers, whether or not they were Ministers of Whānau Ora, often intervening in the Whānau Ora process.

Now, there was a question of whether or not there has been anything added to the Ministry of Māori Development - Te Puni Kōkiri budget over the last couple of years, and, actually, there has been. As we know, the previous administration didn’t really fund the Māori Women’s Welfare League or Māori wardens as much as we have. We’ve come out and said, “Smell the oily rag.” That’s the type of organisation that’s been doing some fantastic things for wāhine Māori and wātene Māori. They’re always at all those hui that we go to, whether or not they’re at poukai or Te Matatini or elsewhere. But we support the Māori wardens. We support the Māori Women’s Welfare League. I’m happy to report again, if you didn’t see it already, that we gave additional support to those organisations. Isn’t that great? Isn’t that good mahi?

There have been some ins and outs, no doubt. There have been in and outs of the Māori development budget, but that’s par for the course on most portfolios across Government. Of course, some portfolios have had a lot more money. I’d just acknowledge Minister Brown, who was here before, in the health portfolio; police and defence and education—sure, because that’s what we believe in. Actually, those portfolios support Māori communities as well as all New Zealand communities. As a Government, we’ve been very clear that we need to see better Kāwanatanga performance across those core portfolios like education and health.

It’s absolutely shocking that when we arrived here, one out of three Māori kids would go to school regularly. I think that’s absolutely underwhelming, and that’s not the type of standard or achievement or target that we want to have for our young people. Now, it has improved a little bit. We want to see it improve a lot more. But what we’re not going to do is see one out of three Māori kids go to school, no matter what school it is—if it’s a kura kaupapa, wharekura, State school, State integrated. We want to see kids going to school and encourage them to go to school.

I think that, yes, some portfolios have had a reduction in funding, and we acknowledge that, but other portfolios—that are absolutely dedicated to the health, wealth, and wellbeing of Māori and all New Zealanders—have been supported more, and that’s what we’re into. I know I’m not confused about that, because I want to see particularly State schools do absolutely everything they can to support the success of rangatahi Māori, as I’m sure the Opposition members would like to see also.

ORIINI KAIPARA (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau) (21:55): I thank the Minister for mentioning Māori education. That’s where I’ll focus my question. Cuts to Māori education programmes, including Māori resource teachers and kaupapa Māori pathways, have been widely reported. Kura and wharekura in Tāmaki-makau-rau have raised concerns that these changes will reduce access to specialist support for their ākonga. What assurances can the Minister give that Māori-medium learners in Tāmaki-makau-rau will not experience a decline in support or outcomes as a result of these reductions?

Urban Māori in Tāmaki-makau-rau, many of whom are disconnected from their iwi or live far from their rohe, have expressed concern that the removal of targeted Māori programmes will widen existing inequities. How is the Minister ensuring that the voices of urban Māori are reflected in decisions about funding, programme design, and the future direction of Māori development?

Finally, on that note, on Māori economic development and Māori business support, reports indicate that hundreds of millions previously allocated to Māori economic development have been removed or reprioritised. Now, Māori businesses in Tāmaki-makau-rau, particularly small whānau-owned enterprises, have said that these cuts reduce access to capability funding and advisory support. What analysis has the Minister undertaken on how these changes will affect Māori business growth in the region, and what replacement initiatives, if any, have been introduced to fill that gap?

Lastly, Māori trades training—funding for Māori trades training has been stopped, despite Tāmaki-makau-rau having one of the largest Māori youth populations in the entire country, te motu whānui nei, and a strong demand for apprenticeships in construction, in infrastructure and technology. What replacement pathways has the Minister put in place to ensure that rangatahi Māori in Tāmaki-makau-rau and throughout Aotearoa still have access to culturally grounded trades training opportunities?

GEORGIE DANSEY (Labour) (21:58): My question is about Māori economy and employment. Māori unemployment has risen from 6.8 percent to 10 percent, and the employment rate has fallen from 64.7 percent to 60.7 percent—both statistically significant. Name one Te Puni Kōkiri initiative in 2024-25 that has moved either number, with evidence. Thank you.

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister for Māori Development) (21:58): It’ll be a quick one as the glass slipper starts falling off, people. Look, I’m not going to mix kombucha with a coffee like some of the questions asked of me. That’s a bubbly zing, people. Education questions should be directed to the education Minister, OK? Trade training questions on that particular issue should be directed to the Minister of Te Manatū Whakahiato Ora. If you don’t know what that means, that’s Ministry of Social Development—just in case, for you bilingual speakers.

What I will say is this: none of us want to see, OK, a deterioration in the Māori economy and the New Zealand economy, but these are the consequences that hailed from the economic terrorism of the previous administration. The investments that Māori development have made, the investments in fast-track approvals, many of which are actually Māori-owned and led—the fast track is actually benefiting a whole range of Māori organisations to generate employment. Can I say I’m looking forward to the Ngāi Tahu aquaculture application—

Hon James Meager: Oh, big tick!

Hon TAMA POTAKA: —and also, Mr Meager, a range of property developments that will generate Māori employment. That’s why we continue to support iwi like Waikato-Tainui and their massive work in Hamilton, the city of the future. Tihei mauri ora.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, the committee is suspended and will resume at 9 a.m. tomorrow for the extended sitting. Pō mārie.

Sitting suspended from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)

Extended Sitting

Thursday, 23 April 2026

Bills

Appropriation (2024/25 Confirmation and Validation) Bill

Committee of the whole House—Annual Review Debate

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger) (09:00): Members, the committee is resumed on the Appropriation (2024/25 Confirmation and Validation) Bill. [Interruption] There’s a little bit of noise just to my right, Mr Luxton. Thank you.

This is the debate on the financial position of the Government and the annual reviews of departments, Officers of Parliament, Crown entities, public organisations, and State enterprises, as reported by select committees. There are 40 minutes remaining in this debate. The remaining time for each party is as follows. New Zealand National has 15 minutes. New Zealand Labour has 15 minutes. The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand has eight minutes. ACT New Zealand has 20 minutes. New Zealand First has no time remaining. Te Pāti Māori has six minutes. The Minister for Pacific Peoples is now available to respond to members’ questions. Once again, the question is that the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the annual financial statements of the Government for the 2024/25 financial year be noted. I give the first call to Joseph Mooney, who is the chairperson of the Social Services and Community Committee.

Committee of the whole House—Annual Review Debate

Pacific Peoples

JOSEPH MOONEY (Chairperson of the Social Services and Community Committee) (09:01): Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and talofa. Mālō e lelei.Kia orana. Welcome. It’s great to rise as the chairperson of the Social Services and Community Committee to make some brief comments on our report to the House on our annual review of the Ministry of Pacific Peoples for 2024/2025.

In 2024/25, the ministry’s total revenue expenditure was essentially balanced, with revenue of $29.29 million and expenditure only $5,000 less. The ministry reported that changes to its personnel costs were mainly due to vacancies not being filled and ongoing reductions in overall staff to meet the Government’s savings expectations.

The auditor rated the ministry’s financial information and supporting system and controls as good, with some improvements recommended. They did note that the ministry’s management control environment and its performance, information supporting system, and controls did need improvement and recommended that major improvements be made at the earliest reasonable opportunity.

We did look at unemployment and economic development and did note that the unemployment rate for Pacific peoples is 10.9 percent compared with the average rate of 5.2 percent across the entire population. The ministry told us that they continue to work closely with other agencies that have direct responsibility for areas that support Pacific peoples in the areas of unemployment and economic development.

We heard that the savings that it had made were mostly in back-office functions and not in those crucial forward-facing roles. It said that it had invested $10 million towards economic growth each year through initiatives such as the Pacific Business Village, Tauola Business Fund, and the Pacific Business Trust.

One of the ministry’s priorities in delivering for Pacific communities strategies 2025-2028 is a strengthened focus on data equity. The ministry works with other Government agencies in relation to Pacific data, advising what data is available, the quality of the data, and any related issues. I note that that is crucial for ensuring that the right information is in front of decision makers. We did look through other things, including artificial intelligence, Pacific diaspora, performance measures, staffing, and underspending, and those are available to members of the public who wish to look at it. So with that, I recommend our report to the House.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green) (09:03): Kia orana, Madam Speaker, and popongi manea to everybody. Warm Pacific greetings to the House, even though it’s cold outside. Let me start my questions with a bit of context around how many Pacific peoples, myself included, view the role of the Ministry of Pacific Peoples—in particular, Pacific peoples here within Aotearoa New Zealand and around the Pacific. The Pacific is the front yard and the back yard of Aotearoa New Zealand. You don’t go anywhere unless you fly over one of our Pacific Island nations and relatives, so that’s really important.

We have a Treaty of Friendship with Samoa. It’s the only Treaty of Friendship that we have—a very, very important relationship. We have countries which are actually part of the New Zealand Realm—the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau, along with the Ross shelf down in Antarctica—so that points to a very different type of relationship. We also have growing Pacific populations here within Aotearoa as well. There are more Cook Islanders here, more Niueans here. I think now there are more Tongans here within Aotearoa New Zealand, but I’ll let the Hon Jenny Salesa confirm that or deny that in terms of our Tongan population.

But it does actually point to the importance of a place such as the Ministry for Pacific Peoples, because when people come and go from the Pacific, it’s just families connecting with families. The border is just this thing that we have to pass through in order to make those connections, and so that is the difference between this ministry and the others, because we need something here within Aotearoa New Zealand to make sure that we can recognise that aspect, which is very different and unique to other ethnicities, in my opinion.

As a part of the review, we did cover a number of aspects. I did want to see where the Minister has landed with these, given that he’s only been in the role for five minutes, but he’s probably been very diligently going through all the different bits and papers and talking with his officials.

One of the issues that came up was around the potential merger of the Ministry of Pacific Peoples, noting that that wasn’t going to happen. The Prime Minister himself did say that that wasn’t going to happen, but I do want to know whether that’s in the plans. It was something that has been considered. There was a considerable amount of media about it and a lot of angst and anxiety within Pacific communities themselves, so I want to know whether that is at all on the work programme, and if so, why, and if not, why not? So that’s a question I want the Minister to address, and if he could, if he agrees with the context which I laid out as well, to give us those answers within that context.

In that report as well, we did talk about employment figures, unemployment figures as well. That was touched on by Joseph Mooney in his address. I want to know, what is the Minister planning on doing about Pacific unemployment? It is sharply rising. Our people are being impacted. What is the plan there? What didn’t work in the year that we have been reviewing, in the Minister’s opinion, and what will the Minister do to make sure that those unemployment figures are being resolved? What are the plans that are in place? Those are my initial questions.

Hon JENNY SALESA (Labour—Panmure-Ōtāhuhu) (09:07): Thank you so much, Madam Chair. Talofa lava. Mālō e lelei. Kia orana. Warm Pacific greetings to you all and especially to our Minister for Pacific Peoples. Before I go on further with my contribution this morning, can I just acknowledge the passing of Fata‘ali‘i Kamisi Sepuloni late last week. He was laid to rest earlier on this week on Monday—one of our community leaders and a very strong supporter of our party, but especially his daughter, the Hon Carmel Sepuloni.

When a new Minister takes up a portfolio like Pacific Peoples, communities—our Pacific communities—are entitled to ask a very simple question: what are your priorities for Pacific people, Minister? Now, that question matters because priorities determine budgets, priorities determine staffing, programmes, initiatives, and political attention. They reveal whether Pacific peoples are indeed truly valued by the National-led Government or whether Pacific people are being treated as an afterthought.

Can I at this time just remind all of us in this House that according to the census figures of 2023 projected forward to this year, there are over 500,000 Pacific people in Aotearoa New Zealand today. Just following up from my colleague Teanau Tuiono, there are more Tongans in Aotearoa today. There are between 110,000 and 112,000 Tongans here now, compared to 104,000 Tongans in Tonga.

But in terms of our overall population of this country, 5.5 million, having half a million who are from the Pacific is a big and significant number. This is why the questions we’re asking of the Minister today are important. Pacific people face real pressures today. Right now, unemployment figures are high. Youth disengagement is also high today. Cost of living pressures are experienced by everyone in Aotearoa New Zealand, but more so—we would argue as Pacific MPs—experienced by Pacific people, because we have such low incomes coming in to our families.

We also experience pressures on health and on education, and we also have concerns about the voice of Pacific people within Government. Yes, we have a voice as parliamentarians—there are six Pacific MPs right now in Parliament. Can I also just remind everyone, all of the six Pacific MPs are on this side of the House. There is no Pacific representation on the Government benches right now, which is why it’s even more important that we ensure what Teanau Tuiono spoke about, in terms of the voice of Pacific in Government agencies, remains. Yes, we have some words from the Government now that they will continue and not get rid of the Ministry for Pacific Peoples—a ministry that, by the way, has been fought for and advocated hard for by so many Pacific people over so many years.

Can I just go back to the priorities, though: we have looked at what this Government has done, particularly to the Ministry for Pacific Peoples. When this Government came in, there was a direction that Government agencies cut staffing by 6.5 to 7.5 percent. But what did we see happen at the Ministry for Pacific Peoples? It was cut by 40 percent—four-zero. What is that about?

My questions for the Minister are: what are your actual priorities, Minister, for Pacific people? What measurable outcomes is the Minster aiming to deliver over the next 12 months? Which Pacific communities and what issues will the Minister prioritise? Would it include youth unemployment? Business support? Language revitalisation? Health? Housing? Education? Anything else, possibly, the Minister could be thinking of? How can the Minister and this Government claim that Pacific people are a priority if, at the same time they might make that claim, they are cutting programmes and institutional capacity within the Ministry for Pacific Peoples to deliver on those priorities?

These are not partisan concerns. These are legitimate questions of leadership we would like to ask the Minister to answer.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for Pacific Peoples) (09:12): Talofa. Kia orana. Mālō e lelei. Bula vinaka, and warm Pacific greetings to all and to this House. Thank you very much for the opportunity to say a few words. I wanted to just listen to some of the concerns raised by my colleagues on the other side of the House before I started off.

I was asked to focus first on our priorities. The priorities of this Government for Pasifika people are very clear and they’re the same as our priorities for the whole of New Zealand, which is to have a strong economy that can provide a good standard of living and provide jobs; that’s number one. We inherited some real challenges a couple of years ago with very high interest rates and high inflation, which was adding to the pressure on households, so our number one priority has been to reduce that inflation and those interest rates to help families have more money in their pockets.

Then, of course, as we’re all conscious that we’re in a very topsy-turvy global climate, with fuel prices going up, so what this Government has done is put an extra $50 a week into the households of working families through the Working for Families system to help people. That will help many Pacific communities. So number one, we want people to be able to look after themselves and their families, in work, in a strong economy.

Our second focus has been to help to ensure that there is a good quality education system that equips our children. If you live in Auckland, like I do, a significant percentage of the kids in our schools—I think 25 percent, comes to mind—are of Pasifika origin. Our future as a country—in Auckland, or across—depends on those children being equipped to succeed in a modern world. So the very simple basics of that are encouraging kids to be at school. Again, we inherited a real problem with very low levels of school attendance, particularly for Pasifika kids—I think around 50 percent attending regularly. We’ve had a real focus and priority to grow that percentage. The good news is we’ve made some progress there; up 5 percent—one of the fastest areas of growth. Still a terrible situation and a long, long way to go. So that’s number two.

Thirdly, a good quality health system that provides for the health needs of the Pacific community. They are substantial; the Pasifika people across the board have worse outcomes in health, and that is why there is enormous amount of attention and focus here, and we can go into the details.

Housing is another area where this Government, again—I don’t want to over politicise these things, but we’ve had the other side talking about tough conditions for people during the previous administration under Jacinda Ardern. In one year, house prices went up 30 percent—one year.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I just want to remind the Minister that we’re talking about a specific period in time, and anything related to that at this point in time. Thank you.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Thank you very much, Chair. That’s a useful reminder.

So that’s the broader context. I was asked about the priorities; I suppose the point is, where does the Vote and the Ministry for Pacific Peoples fit in this? Because in no way is the $58 million put aside in the Budget for the Ministry for Pacific Peoples the extent of the Government’s commitment to focus on Pacific peoples; it is one slice of that. As the Prime Minister has indicated this term, we’re not suggesting making changes to those arrangements.

But what we have done—and the previous member referred to a reduction in numbers—is we don’t make the assumption that separate programmes and separate duplicated programmes on particular things run by the Ministry for Pacific Peoples is automatically the best way to get outcomes for Pasifika people. So in the area of programmes for young people who are not in education or school, across Government we have many programmes of varying effectiveness. The previous Government set up a separate programme within the Ministry for Pacific Peoples to do that again.

Madam Chair, I might just go on a little bit longer if that’s all right?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): That’s fine, yes.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Our approach is actually, well, why do you have a different group replicating a programme that is across Government, handled by the Ministry of Social Development? Why would you have two different situations. It’s better to have that within the overall Government programme, rather that separate it. That is one reason why we’ve rejigged things in this Government, and I think that makes absolute sense. Overall, of course, across the public sector we have made reductions in the number of people employed, because the previous administration very significantly increased the Public Service, and also very significantly increased our deficit. It is not sustainable for us, as a country, to carry on as we were because big deficits have extremely large debt and we have to manage things appropriately.

Just a quick summary of the areas of the Pacific communities budget: $58 million was what we had in the Budget—$40 million of that was for housing and financial capability initiatives, including programmes such as Our Whare Our Fale housing supply initiative; there was $6 million for education, employment, and skills programmes, including Tupu Aotearoa and the Toloa Scholarships supporting Pasifika learners; $6 million for economic development and business support, including services delivered through the Pacific Business Trust—who I’m going to be meeting tomorrow; looking forward to that—enabling Pasifika businesses to scale and create jobs; and $6 million in community, language, and leadership initiatives, including Pacific languages and community programmes.

Again, yes, we have that allocation through the Ministry for Pacific Peoples, but, wearing another one of my hats, for example arts and culture, there’s a very significant investment in Pacific music and arts and culture through Creative New Zealand and many other places. I remember handing an award to Diggy Dupé, a great Pasifika artist in Auckland at an awards ceremony a year or so ago.

Right across Government, there’s an enormous amount of investment to encourage and support the Pacific communities. Why? Because, as has been outlined before, it’s a very significant part of our demography: half a million New Zealanders. We want them to do well. The Pacific communities bring so much to the complexity, the variety, and the diversity of our community’s workforce, our creative sector, and every element of our lives, and our basic priority, as the Government, is that we want all of those people, as well as all New Zealanders, to do well; to, fundamentally, be able to look after themselves and their families; to have the opportunity to contribute in meaningful work; and to also be able to contribute to our community and to do well. That’s by way of introduction. I’m happy to answer further questions.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) (09:20): Kia orana, Madam Chair, and warm Pacific greetings to the Minister for Pacific Peoples and other members of the Whare. Actually, often when we hear the warm Pacific greetings salutation, it reminds me of Dame Luamanuvao Winnie Laban because, when she was the Minister of Pacific Island Affairs, she kind of started that phrase as part of her patter of rolling out the salutations, and so it’s great that the Minister and others have continued in that particular vein.

The Minister has just responded on a few things that I want to put some questions to him on. He talked about the Government currently having a strong economy. I think that the experience of Pacific communities all around Aotearoa New Zealand would beg to differ with you, Minister. The economic state that they are experiencing in this country, which you and your Government are leading at the moment, is far from strong when they have to make decisions on a daily basis. Things are going in the opposite direction. Pacific unemployment is extremely high, and I have a number of questions about that that I intend to ask the Minister.

The Minister has talked about the Government’s commitment to focus on Pacific peoples. My question to the Minister is: how many Pacific families have benefited from his Government’s announcement of a $250 payment per fortnight—just one Pacific family would be good, because that would make a huge, huge difference. Minister, you were talking about the Government’s focus—excellent. You’ve got this $250 a fortnight, and that would be welcomed by many, many families—particularly Pacific families—and so to hear about just one from him would be quite helpful.

The Minister has also talked about Auckland and the large Pacific population in Auckland, and that’s true. There are other Pacific communities all around New Zealand, including in my community of Palmerston North. He has talked about having a good health system for our Pacific communities. My question to you, Minister, is: how can that be the case when we look at communities like Palmerston North, where our Pacific communities are finding it really difficult to get a colonoscopy because the wait times are extremely high and inadequate, where the gastro department is, basically, on shutdown, where the emergency department (ED) in our region has the worst stats in terms of waiting times for any ED in the country, and where a mental health facility that was invested in by the previous Government took quite some time to open? How are these decisions and these circumstances making a real difference for Pacific communities all around the country?

I won’t go into housing and about selling off all the land. How can Pacific communities be housed if all the homes that were supposed to be built have been cancelled and all the land is up for sale—that barren land that many people see around the place? Those are my questions in response to the Minister.

Pacific unemployment: now, we are experiencing in this country the highest levels of unemployment in a decade, so when the Minister says that this is a strong economy and that this is a Government that is focused on delivering for the needs of Pacific communities, how can he defend the fact that Pacific unemployment rates in New Zealand are the highest they have been in many a year? Why, Minister, has the Government failed to arrest that trend over recent quarters? Despite the clear evidence of what is, I guess, severe regional disparity in terms of Pacific unemployment as well, the Government seems to continue to rely on fairly generic employment programmes, and so what is the Minister doing and what has he done?

I appreciate that the Minister is new to this role, but what is the Government doing to focus on region-specific, Pacific-led initiatives to arrest the trend in terms of the high unemployment that the Pacific community are facing at the moment—and that is in the context of the fact of the disproportionate impact on Pacific communities. If we look at the figures, a lot of those job losses have historically been in service sectors, construction, and manufacturing, where huge numbers of our Pacific community rely on those sectors for employment opportunities. What is the Minister doing to alleviate that concern, because the trend is looking—well, it’s terrible at the moment, and it’s continuing to look pretty negative, as well.

Those are just some questions around unemployment. The final one, obviously, is youth unemployment. That is of real concern for Pacific communities, and while Pacific young people continue to experience what are unacceptably high levels of unemployment—which runs the risk of long-term disengagement—what is his Government doing to arrest this clear state of inaction?

TEANAU TUIONO (Green) (09:25): Thank you, Madam—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Just a reminder that the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand has got four minutes and 47 seconds—

TEANAU TUIONO: I’ve got four minutes?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Four minutes and 47 seconds.

TEANAU TUIONO: I’ll use those four minutes wisely, Madam Chair. Thank you very much.

One of the things that we did talk about that I do want to acknowledge was the fact that there are 500,000 of us here in Aotearoa New Zealand, but those 500,000 are connected to the wider Pacific. I think it’s really important to remember that context, and the context that the Ministry for Pacific Peoples plays in helping the Government to navigate its way around cultural issues and community issues, as well, is incredibly important.

I do want to acknowledge the work that the officials did on my member’s bill, the restoration of Samoan citizenship bill. It went through the House to third reading and actually got the full support of the House, and I acknowledge that we’ve actually got three members in the House who helped to move that through: Cameron Brewer, Tom Rutherford, and Jenny Salesa, who all worked very, very hard on that.

The role that the Ministry for Pacific Peoples played in that—and I would like the Minister’s reflections on that—was in helping to provide that cultural capacity and helping to provide the ability to inform the Government on how to navigate those issues. As a Pacific person who was born here, and who is part of the Cook Island community and who has spent a lifetime going to Samoan events, I’m actually not Samoan, and so having expertise in the Ministry for Pacific Peoples was important to help to inform the Government—and of course, in this case, the Parliament—on how to best navigate those issues.

It was something that the ministry did successfully, and so my question to the Minister for Pacific Peoples is: what is he doing about making sure that that capacity and that capability is bedded in to the Ministry for Pacific Peoples? I do hear the comments around “Actually, we can outsource it.” Well, I don’t know about that. I think that some things need to be foundational and some things need to be part of the core part of how the ministry functions, and so that’s one question that I would like the Minister to elaborate on.

Also, I’d like some reflections from the Minister on the restoration of Samoan citizenship Act, as well. What is he aware of? We did talk about this briefly in our annual review, and so is he aware of the number of submissions that came through? How many people have been supported, and how many families have been supported, as well? I think that that would help to enlighten the committee and, indeed, the public that this House can actually get some stuff done and can work together. So my question here is around that cultural capacity and that skill set capacity, which I think needs to bedded in within the Ministry for Pacific Peoples: what is he doing to make sure that that is there? It is something that’s incredibly important—being able to offer advice to other Government departments, which also have to navigate issues with Pacific peoples. It is a complex area, so making sure that that expertise is in there is incredibly important.

Now, I do want to come back to the issues around unemployment. As others have said: what is the Minister planning on doing about it? The numbers are not good. We have more of our people right across Aotearoa New Zealand getting on a plane and going to Australia. There is some work that the Ministry for Pacific Peoples has committed to. Given that fact, what is the Minister proposing to do? What is the Minister—

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Do you want to leave me some time to answer?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): You’ve still got some time.

TEANAU TUIONO: —proposing to do within this particular space, as well? Thank you, Minister Goldsmith.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for Pacific Peoples) (09:29): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I do note that the warm Pacific greetings that I had from the other side were followed by some pretty chilly comments soon after—

Tangi Utikere: Trying to balance them.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Yes. Yes, of course, it’s blindingly obvious that we have relatively high levels of Pasifika unemployment at the moment, which is something that everybody in this Government is focused on reducing—because we’ve had one of the deepest recessions for New Zealand since the early 1990s. As I’m sure all Pasifika people, like all New Zealanders, recognise, there are big, long lags in the economy following events. The big event that we had was an over-stimulus during COVID, leading to high inflation, leading to high interest rates, leading to a recession. New Zealand is suffering the consequences of those decisions.

How do we deal with it? It’s not a little, particular programme that’s going to fix it; what fixes unemployment is economic growth. And how do you get economic growth? Well, you get economic growth, fundamentally, from investment—somebody somewhere deciding they’re going to put some money into a new business, start something new, hire some new people, buy a new plant and equipment, and grow something so as to create jobs and wealth and opportunity. And how do you get that investment? Well, some very practical things, like what this Government did, which was change the tax laws so that businesses can expense those investments in new plant and equipment straight off and get the tax relief. Those are the simple things. Bringing in investment from overseas, having a predictable tax system where people feel confident to invest—some of those basics are what this Government is doing, and, over time, that will grow the economy.

There were some comments made about the health system, and I just want to give a couple of stats which show you the difference between talk and an approach where folk think that success is based on what you spend rather than what you get out the other end. That is around immunisation rates. When National last left office, in 2017, 95.2 percent of Pasifika children were fully immunised at 24 months of age—95.2 percent. When Labour left office six years later, that had collapsed to 75 percent, so a whole 20 percent drop in six years—below herd immunity, below the levels of effectiveness that we needed to deal with diseases such as measles and a host of other diseases that cause real problems for health. You can talk about health, and you can talk about spending more money on health and more money on Pasifika programmes, but if the actual outcomes of what you achieve over six years is a catastrophic drop in immunisation rates, I think that’s a problem.

What have we managed to do in two years? We’ve lifted it from 75 percent to 82.6 percent. We’re reversing the problem, but it’s not something that you can fix overnight. When we talk about fixing the basics and building the future in this country, one of the basics in health, for Pasifika people and for all New Zealanders, is getting that immunisation rate back up. When you take your eye off the ball and focus only on, “These are the programmes I’m going to do; this is the money I’m going to spend.”, but don’t focus on actually achieving things, then everybody suffers. I’m very proud of the progress we’re making so far. There’s still a lot more work to do.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Just noting that there’s only six minutes left of the debate and the member has enough time, but the Minister’s got a few seconds left at the end that we’ll allow him to answer, unless ACT is generous and gives the Minister just a fraction of the time at the end. So, away you go.

Hon JENNY SALESA (Labour—Panmure-Ōtāhuhu) (09:34): Thank you so much, Madam Chair, and mālō e laumālie, Minister, and everyone in the House of Parliament.

The Minister has just been talking about basic facts and statistics, so I’d like to begin with some statistics. The number of additional Pacific people who are now unemployed since this National-led Government came into office in December of 2023 is 13,000 people. The number of additional Pacific unemployed in Auckland, where the majority of Pacific people live, since the National-led Government came into office is 5,300. When we talk about basic things that are important to people, one of those things that are most important not just to Pacific people but to, I suspect, everyone in Aotearoa New Zealand is work—is employment.

That is where I want to pick up this contribution, because I want to talk about a programme that we know works, and this is a programme that is still there at the Ministry for Pacific Peoples, but it has been really scaled back—it’s been cut a lot—which is the Tupu Aotearoa programme. The main question for the Minister is: why cut a programme like that, which was effective, the evidence shows that it works, and it assisted Pacific people actually to get employed—because for our Pacific people, especially our Pacific young people, employment support is not something that is a one-size-fits-all.

What this Tupu Aotearoa programme did—actually, it was developed by Pacific people, for Pacific people, but, actually, with consulting with young people, consulting with leaders and community, consulting with employers and making sure that it is a programme that works on the ground. It also consulted with our families, our churches, and they found out what the actual barriers for Pacific people are and how we could ensure that we address those barriers so that our Pacific people can find a job and actually retain that job. This is why the programme Tupu Aotearoa matters: because it was built by Pacific, it was culturally grounded, and it provided comprehensive wraparound services around our Pacific people.

It is not just a theory; this is an initiative that the Ministry for Pacific Peoples implemented, and we know it works. In fact, I read somewhere that they were able to place around about 1,300 people into jobs. We heard the Minister in his contribution before saying something along the lines of, “Separate programmes that are run in certain and different ways are not as effective, and the programmes that this Government is now investing in are what is effective or best for Pacific.” But I ask the Minister, is it really? Is cutting—and this is one of my questions, because we know from the annual reviews that $22 million was cut from the Tupu Aotearoa programme—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Two minutes of the debate left.

Hon JENNY SALESA: My question, Minister, is: was that $22 million cut from the Tupu Aotearoa programme returned to the centre and invested in new employment programmes for Pacific, or was it returned to the centre and invested for everyone? This question is particularly important because Pacific have the highest unemployment rate in the country—12 percent. If, indeed, we are focused on ensuring that people actually find a job, get a job, and retain a job, this is an important question.

The other question, Minister, is: why cut an initiative that was actually working? Can the Minister tell us what the reasons and justifications are for cutting this programme? Was there an impact assessment done? Was there any evidence that the programme was failing? Were providers consulted before the funding was cut? Were Pacific communities consulted before the decision was made to cut this initiative? We argue from this side of the House that cutting programmes like this that were effective is not strategic. It is not efficient. It is certainly not consistent with the claim that the Government is actually ensuring that they look out for Pacific people.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for Pacific Peoples) (09:39): Of course, the member preferred to use all the time to speak rather than to listen. She was on broadcast rather than receive, and that’s fine.

I’ve got 30 seconds left, and I would just make the point that a little bit of accountability and responsibility would be nice to hear from that member and that Government, because the reason why there has been an increase in Pasifika unemployment is purely and squarely at the hands of the previous administration that overcooked the stimulus, leading to inflation, leading to higher interest rates, leading to a recession in this country. If they can’t accept that, then I really think they’ve got a lot to learn.

The reference to cuts in Tupu Aotearoa—cutting the programme—is incorrect. It is being transferred to the Ministry for Social Development (MSD). There have been some savings in that process, but the goal of delivering the fundamental programmes in the community continues. It’s just who’s best to manage that, and we think, rather than having separate management lines—well, I do need to get on to the next thing.

It’s been a very useful discussion, but what I would say as we continue through this Pacific Peoples budget process—just a reminder of what are the four targets that we’re really focused on. One is in health: better delivering healthy housing interventions; second, Pasifika business growth: creating 200 new jobs every year through the particular role of the business trust; three, it’s in housing: collaborating to build affordable homes through the Pacific Building Affordable Homes Fund; and, fourthly, in employment and education: the placements such as through Tupu Aotearoa, which is being transferred to MSD, and also through the Toloa Scholarships. The good news is that, on all of those fronts, we’re making excellent progress.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The time for this debate has expired. The question is that the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the annual financial statements of the Government for the 2024-25 financial year be noted.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question now is that the reports of the committees on annual reviews be noted.

Motion agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clauses 1 to 8 and Schedules 1 to 3 be agreed to.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

Clauses 1 to 8 and Schedules 1 to 3 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Madam Speaker, the committee has further considered the Appropriation (2024/25 Confirmation and Validation) Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): This bill is set down for third reading immediately.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Junior Whip—Labour) (09:44): Point of order. Sorry, we’re just a little bit confused on this side of the House; maybe we could seek some clarity. The Minister hasn’t moved anything.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Clarity on?

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN: The moving of the bill. We’re just a little bit unsure about what was happening.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Clearly everyone is. We will sort it.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) (09:44): Speaking to the point of order, the House is in an extended sitting, and in that circumstance, when, effectively, the Minister had a requirement to seek a call—in light of the fact that he did not seek a call after what was a significant period of time, the bill should be discharged.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh) (09:45): For clarification, the Minister had stood up when I got the point of order, but it’s not a Government Order of the Day—and I had called that the bill was set for third reading. It’s not like I’m introducing an order of the day. We are all good.

Third Reading

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage) (09:45): on behalf of the Minister of Finance: I move, That the Appropriation (2024/25 Confirmation and Validation) Bill be now read a third time.

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

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) (09:46): Point of order. The clarity being sought there was that there were members calling out that this is a Treaty bill. It’s now very clear that it’s not a Treaty bill and it is the appropriations bill that the Minister was seeking to move, and on that basis he did not. I ask you to reflect on the earlier point of order that Dr McLellan had originally raised.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh) (09:46): The reality is that we have not moved on to another Government Order of the Day; we are still in the appropriations. There is no debate on the third reading, so all I need to do is—the Minister has moved it; I just need to put the question. I’m just putting the question because there is no debate. I’ll repeat the question. The question is that the motion be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Appropriation (2024/25 Confirmation and Validation) Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu Claims Settlement Bill

Legislative Statement

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) (09:48): I present a legislative statement on the Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu Claims Settlement Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Second Reading

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) (09:48): I move, That the Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu Claims Settlement Bill be now read a second time.

Tihei mauri ora. Ki te mana whenua o tēnei rohe, Te Āti Awa, tēnā koutou. E ngā rau rangatira o Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu, tēnā koutou. Nei rā te mihi hoki ki ngā wāhi o tō koutou rohe, ko Te Aroha, e mihi ana. Piki mai, kake mai ki Te Upoko-o-te-ika. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[The breath of life. To the territorial authority of this region, Te Āti Awa, greetings to you. To the many leaders of Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu, greetings. I hereby acknowledge the significant sites of your region, Te Aroha, greetings. Welcome, welcome to Wellington. Greetings and thanks to you all.]

It is my pleasure to stand and speak here in the House today on the second reading of the Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu Claims Settlement Bill. I want to acknowledge Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu—a small representation here today for the second reading debate—nearing the end of their settlement journey after beginning the negotiations with the Crown 15 years ago, in 2011. A lot has happened since then.

Some of the claims that will be settled by this bill were registered with the Waitangi Tribunal in 1987—a golden year it was.

The Māori Affairs Committee has considered the bill from November last year to March this year. There was a great deal of interest in the bill—it received more than 300 submissions, which is quite a large number for a Treaty settlement bill. Hearings were held here, in Parliament, but also in Te Aroha. I understand discussions were expansive and robust. I’d like to acknowledge the contribution of the submitters and the grace demonstrated by Ngāti Tumutumu Trust during these discussions.

The Māori Affairs Committee notes the impact of the unusually long delay between Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu’s ratification of the deed in 2017 and its signing in 2025. That was due, in part, to litigation about overlapping interests in the Hauraki area and subsequent processes to address the concerns of overlapping iwi. It has been, very much, a priority, for me, as Treaty negotiations Minister, to try and unravel that process and bring a conclusion to it. So while Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu addressed overlapping issues relatively quickly, our initial plan was to have a third reading of all 10 Hauraki iwi bills together; that contributed to the delay so we’re progressing Hauraki bills as they are ready, now. The effect, however, was that there were long periods when the trust had very little to report to the claimant community, leading to some dissatisfaction, as the committee notes, on considering how the impact of the delays can be mitigated, particularly in relation to requirements for trustee elections.

I just want to thank the committee for the review of the bill and their efforts to give their many submissions their due time and consideration. I’m satisfied with the committee’s recommendations, which included an amendment to clause 31 of the bill, sought by the Waikato Regional Council, and agreed to by Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu to enable it, to discharge its flood protection responsibilities. Aside from this, there were only minor amendments to resolve technical issues and to correct reference to Te Aroha maunga in the historical account. This redress is reflective of a robust negotiation and many compromises made along the way. And I just want to thank the negotiators and the trustees for what they have achieved and secured for their people.

We will obviously have a fuller debate and discussion at the third and final reading, which is set down for next month in association with Ngāti Tara Tokanui and the Ngāti Hei Claims Settlement Bill, which will be a very, very special occasion for the Hauraki group. I commend this settlement bill to the House. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour) (09:53): Kia ora. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just want to congratulate the Māori Affairs Committee on the mahi done on this over the last few months, its chairman, David MacLeod, who’s done a good job, and also congratulate the Minister, who needs some congratulations on this because I did wake up yesterday morning and listen to Radio New Zealand and a vote of no confidence was put to the Minister—not from this trust, but from Ruapani—but this is what Ministers have to go through. All Treaty Ministers have a very, very tough road to traverse with Treaty settlements—always they will face division and different views. And this Minister is not exempted, nor was Andrew Little, nor were previous Ministers who constantly have to work with hapū within the different iwi—Ngāpuhi being the biggest, probably, problem that any Government will have to deal with.

I just want to congratulate the Minister on getting to this position and mihi to our little ope who’s come here i tēnei wā [at this time]. Ngā mihi ki a koutou e te whānau, i tae mai nei i tēnei wā, i whakarangatira i te kaupapa. E mōhio au he nui te mahi i ngā tau kua pahure, engari kei konei ināianei ki te whakanui i tēnei kaupapa, he mihi nui ki a koutou i tēnei wā.

[Many greetings to you, the family, who have arrived here at this time, who have honoured the legacy. I am aware of the significant work over the years, but we’re here now to celebrate this legacy; many congratulations to you at this time.]

When you look at this type of kaupapa, it’s interesting to look at some of the kōrero that comes out and some of the aspirations that the groups talk about. Despite the settlement process not being fair, in terms of pūtea, in terms of resourcing and funding, still our rōpū come together and come out with great sentiments. It’s appropriate that I read some of those aspirations.

The Ngā Tumutumu Trust “he taonga, he haerenga, he ara whakamua” [“a treasure, a journey, a path forward”] kōrero talks about a future that includes all of us; a future that reflects the voices, hopes and realities of our whānau; a future that acknowledges our history of landlessness, the forced urbanisation of our people, and the impacts of colonisation that took many of us away from our home and away from each other. During the settlement processes, this is always one of the most relevant areas that hapū and iwi talk about. They talk about, from the respective tribe, being proudly from Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu. They talk about being from that tribe, but never actually being brought up within the tribe, never been brought up within the rohe. When they talk about a settlement, they have to reflect on their reality, and, in many times, their reality, as I’ve said, is an urban reality—brought up in the city. When they talk about a future that acknowledges a history of landlessness and forced urbanisation of their people and the impacts of colonisation that took them away from home, those are real realities for Māori who go through this Treaty settlement process.

Whilst some New Zealanders aren’t able to grasp what Māori are talking about, they only have to read these types of statements to understand how Māori have to grapple with their reality of, say, living in Wellington or living in Auckland, and never having gone back to what we call their hau kāinga, but feeling their hau kāinga—feeling their hau kāinga. I always talked about it, for me, from a Ngāti Porou sense, when we used to go through the settlement process and we went through the processes in the 90s. One of the—and the Minister will know—a lot of the kōrero, at the time, was, well, you can’t talk about your iwi if you’re not in your iwi; if you’re not part of your iwi; if you’re living in Auckland, with some, sort, of flash lifestyle and you’re not participating in iwi events in Ruatōria and what not. The response to that, of course, is that most Māori don’t live in their rohe; most Māori can’t participate at hau kāinga level. One of the problems of the process, we always said, was some of those people at the hau kāinga were grabbing the positions and not acknowledging the pan-tribal aspect. And there’s been a revitalisation of the reo; there’s been a renaissance in terms of kaupapa Māori, and so these types of settlements go some way to recognising that.

That’s why I like it when I hear that a future that acknowledges our history of landlessness, the forced urbanisation of our people, and the impact of colonisation must be acknowledged. Being Māori is not just defined by where you grew up, the colour of your skin, or how long you’ve been away from the whenua, from the land—you belong because you are all of us. That’s what Māori around the country have to feel. That’s what Māori in Porirua have to feel; Māori in Ōtara—Māori everywhere. The strategy has to be about how we bring our people together, how they have to all feel Māori, even though they might not have grown up as Māori, not growing up speaking Māori, not growing up in the area, but they know in their hearts that they are Māori, they whakapapa Māori. That’s why the line “being Māori” is not defined by where you grew up, the colour of your skin, or how long you’ve been away from the whenua; you belong because you are all of us.

We are rebuilding our waka—they’re saying—we are gathering our paddlers, we are strengthening our direction, and one day, with enough of us paddling together, Ngāti Tumutumu will move beyond the negative impacts of our past and into the prosperous united future our tīpuna dreamed of. He hoe, he hīkoinga, he huarahi mō tātou katoa.

[A paddle, a journey, a pathway for all of us.]

I want to congratulate the trust on those type of aspirations, on realising the challenge in terms of what we have to do in terms of te ao Māori, in terms of rangatahi, in terms of realising that the Treaty settlement process, for all its flaws, still is an opportunity to rebuild, to reshape, and to actually take an opportunity in building iwi. That’s where I see this process as being a real opportunity. The redress, of course, is not huge: a settlement package including $5.5 million in financial and commercial redress; the return of 17 culturally significant sites; and additional measures designed to strengthen Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu’s cultural identity and economic base. The iwi will also benefit from redress provided through the Pare Hauraki Collective Redress deed, which addresses overlapping interests across Hauraki iwi.

We all know that there’s been a bit of a renaissance in the Hauraki; they’re finding their way, and this will no doubt help in terms of ensuring a better future for them. The iwi have endured land confiscations, questionable Crown purchasing, and extensive mining operations that stripped them of resources and left them virtually landless. Of course, these types of actions devastate them and, in fact, set them so far back that you wonder if they could ever recover, but the negotiations and the relationship with the Crown, particularly in the last few years—and the Crown has been a Labour Government and a National Government—have been cordial. The signing of the deed of settlement represents a signing of some trust and investment in the future. It’s a step forward, without doubt, for the Hauraki iwi.

The iwi’s inclusion in the broader Pare Hauraki collective settlement framework will also strengthen regional collaboration, which is really important in terms of the tribe’s future. So, we support this, obviously, and we mihi to everyone who’s been involved, and we look forward to a third reading, where we’re sure all the different whānau and groups will come down and tautoko and celebrate, because these are the types of things that we will celebrate. We’re looking forward to that day—the House celebrating—and having a great kōrero when the third reading approaches. Kia ora anō tātou katoa.

STEVE ABEL (Green) (10:03): Kia ora koutou, everybody, and particularly Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu in the gallery today; kia ora. Traveling south from Paeroa, this magnificent maunga rises out of the landscape. You can also come in from Morrinsville and head east, and Te Aroha maunga is a particularly striking geographical site. It is truly beautiful, the ancestral maunga of Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu. One can understand the deep sense of loss that it was for Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu to have this maunga and the magnificent geothermal resources that are part of it quietly stripped away and taken and disrespected, and to have them denied their access to the geothermal waters there, despite promises that access would be maintained.

We got a really strong sense, as the Māori Affairs Committee travelling down there, of how important the recognition of that magnificent natural phenomenon that is the hot water pools there was for Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu. It was gifted by the iwi in 1878 on the condition that the Crown would allow ongoing rights of access to the springs, but by the early 20^th century, Māori no longer had free access. In fact, there was a form of segregation that went on there. We saw the separate small block down the hill where Māori were expected to access the hot springs. It was such a glaring example of a segregationist approach by which Māori were treated in this place: denied access and denied the mana and respect that they deserved for a thing that Māori had utilised and was part of their story and their ancestral heritage for generations before the British ever arrived here.

Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu defended the Waikato from British invasion in 1863 in the Waikato wars. We know it’s Anzac Week; we’re approaching Anzac weekend. We should remember that Māori suffered the greatest losses in the New Zealand Wars, and in fact more Māori died in the New Zealand Wars than in both the First and the Second World Wars combined. More Māori died in the New Zealand Wars than served in the First World War, at a time when the population was about 60,000 in the 1860s. Some of the highest casualties occurred in the Waikato. These were New Zealanders defending New Zealand, and it is right that we have changed the legislation around Anzac Day, which acknowledges that those New Zealanders who were defending New Zealand from British invasion are now recognised as fully as any others who have served our nation.

The consequences of those wars were a completely unjust confiscation, a huge confiscation; 290,000 acres of land in the Tauranga district was confiscated. Then, when part of it was returned, it was returned with individualised title. This is a pattern we see: that land was taken out of collective ownership and then turned into individualised ownership. This is a form of economic colonisation, which had a devastating effect on Māori traditional ownership and land relationships. The economic colonisation of New Zealand is something that we’re getting a greater handle on, understanding just how devastating that was for iwi Māori, and no less so for Waikato Māori.

It’s notable, given this Government’s particular passion for mining right now, that one of the desecrations that occurred on Te Aroha maunga was a goldmine which created lasting toxic pollution, damaged the tapu land, and has caused ongoing distress to Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu. This legacy of boom-and-bust economic exploitation invariably leaves the toxic heritage that iwi Māori have to deal with, long after the miners have packed up, taken their profits, and disappeared. This is one of the examples of a Crown breach and a Crown failing in regard to this iwi settlement.

By the end of the 20^th century, less than 3 percent of the land in the Te Aroha block remained in Māori ownership, and my colleague Willie Jackson has spoken about the impact of the marginalisation and the loss of land, the loss of economy and self-determination that is a consequence of this colonisation. The Crown acknowledges the extent of its failure and its breaches of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in this settlement.

It is but a tiny fragment of the harm and loss that was caused that has been recognised and made amends for by this bill today, but it is certainly the hope of this House and this Parliament, as we speak in unanimity on these bills, that it is a positive step in the journey for Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu, towards your self-determination as an iwi.

I note that one of the changes we made in the select committee process was to the wording around recognising the centrality of the maunga in the settlement. In clause 8(1) the “Summary of historical account” has been amended to include “Maunga” following “the lands on and surrounding Te Aroha”. This change was made to replicate the wording from the historical account in the Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu deed of settlement, which provides more prominence to the maunga than to the township of Te Aroha.

It’s a very beautiful part of the country, and I believe for us to truly celebrate and enjoy the exquisite nation in which we live, we must make amends for the injustices against Māori. I cannot, as tangata Tiriti, as a descendant of the Europeans who colonised this land—I cannot—really, deeply enjoy the magnificence of Te Aroha mountain if I don’t have a sense that the original inhabitants and the original kaitiaki, caretakers of that maunga, have their mana and their tino rangatiratanga recognised and acknowledged and upheld.

It is through justice for Māori that we have a sense of wellbeing for the whole nation. We have a sense of the cohesion and the unity of our nation, underpinned by a principle that there is justice for everybody. That is why it is so important that we fulfil our commitment to that founding agreement, Te Tiriti o Waitangi. That is why we support these settlements, as the Green Party, though we don’t accept the characterisation of them as full and final, because they are part of a relationship that lasts in perpetuity. The importance of that relationship between the Crown and iwi Māori is vital for the thriving of us as a whole country.

We commend this bill to the House and we acknowledge your generosity, Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu in accepting this offering. Kia ora koutou.

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT) (10:13): I rise to speak on behalf of the ACT Party in this Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu second reading, and tēnā koutou to the members who have made it here, and tēnā koe, Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu who are listening.

I live in the Bay of Plenty, and we have many maunga that we see. We can see all the way to Tarawera, we can see Pūwhenua, Mauao most famously, but also where we reside we can see Te Aroha—when you know how to recognise it. Te Aroha Maunga is being placed in an appropriate amount of prominence in this settlement legislation because of the deep connection that it has to all iwi of the Hauraki area, but also the connections it has over and represents metaphorically with the connections into the Bay of Plenty. The historic account recounts the connections that Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu has across the Hauraki and Bay of Plenty, and a lot of the settlement is focused mostly in the Waikato side of the hills there.

I have to say I was pleased to see some of the work that the Māori Affairs Committee—which I’m not on—has undertaken to make sure that important pieces of infrastructure are not burdens on the new landowners but also maintained in a way—this is the flood protection—that can give confidence to homeowners, landowners, and communities that this is a settlement for everybody; to make sure that, as members have spoken about in previous contributions, the harms of the past can be recognised, that harms in the future can be avoided, and that we can work on building this nation together. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First) (10:15): Thank you, Madam Speaker, I rise on behalf of New Zealand First in support of the Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu Claims Settlement Bill, now at its second reading.

Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu, tēnā koutou katoa. Ka nui aku mihi maioha ki a koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu, greetings to you all. Many kind regards to you, greetings and thanks to you all.].

I acknowledge a small rōpū here today to be part of the second reading as we progress this bill through to its final conclusion—hopefully not too far away—because it’s taken a mighty long time to get here to this point.

This bill is obviously the result of 15 long years of negotiations between the Crown and Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu, so it’s important that we are here today to come in for landing at the second reading. The Māori Affairs Committee, which is probably one of the most enjoyable committees to be on, because you learn so much about our history and our Māori history and those early years—that select committee does a great job of panel beating any piece of legislation that comes before them, and it’s certainly done a good job with a recommendation that all of the amendments that have been put through the select committee process be passed.

In 2023, the census estimated around 510 members of the iwi—while small in number, obviously very mighty in mana; and 332 submissions came before the select committee. When you consider how many members of the iwi—510, with 332 submissions, and the Minister noted that there were robust and expansive discussions held through that select committee process. That process is really important, to enable people to give voice to their concerns, of which there were many.

This iwi is one of the original iwi with ancient whakapapa in and around Tīkapa Moana and the Hauraki Gulf. They’ve also been recognised in the broader family of the Hauraki Gulf, the 12 iwi of Hauraki, including Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu, part of the Pare Hauraki Collective in relation to collective redress for those shared interests in the Hauraki region. This bill speaks to those specific iwi matters.

Much has been spoken about Te Aroha Maunga, and in legislation, words matter. They matter because they will be there for eternity. The committee noted that there was an omission in the historical account, around the reference of Te Aroha Maunga. The “Maunga” has been reinserted, to ensure that that is the correct place it should have been, so it matched up with the deed. That was a good amendment to make.

There were some other amendments around the flood protection assets that are owned by the Waikato Regional Council. Clause 31 has been amended there, with some additional subclauses put in around the Omahu whenua, which would be vested in the trustees of the Ngāti Tumutumu Trust. The Waikato Regional Council owns and maintains several flood protection assets on and adjacent to the Omahu whenua, so those amendments were necessary to ensure that they can continue to do their work around access management and operational powers relating to that particular thing. Rāhiri Tumutumu support those amendments, so it is good that that has been amended at select committee.

Also, there was some differing views that came through the submissions. “What is the correct name of the iwi?”; “Should it include ‘Rāhiri’; should it not include ‘Rāhiri’?” It’s really not for Parliament to make any determinations around that; those are iwi-specific matters. It is not for parliamentarians to tell people who they are.

I want to make a short contribution, because I think it’s important that we move through to the third and final reading as soon as we can. The Ngāti Tumutumu Trust have made some statements about where they move to towards the third reading, and I’d just like to read from that. They’re beginning the important mahi of bringing their whānau together to prepare for the significant milestone, the third and final reading. That reading will be a momentous occasion for them and a chance for all the whānau to travel to Pōneke and stand together in their iwi’s journey as it reaches that historic point.

On that note, I’d like to acknowledge all of those who’ve worked hard to bring this bill forward, the Māori Affairs Committee, the Minister, all of the members of the iwi, and all those who made an effort to make submissions at the select committee. Today, another step is taken as the settlement bill makes its way through the House. I commend it to the House.

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato) (10:21): Tēnā rā koe e te Pīka, otirā tēnā rā tātou e te Whare.

Tōia tapotu ki te moana Tainui

Mā wai e tō? Māku e tō

Uia te pou o tōku whare kia tū tangatanga

He kapua whakairi nāku nā runga mai o Taupiri

Ko taku kiri ka tōkia e te anu mātao

E te iwi, whītiki, whītiki. Ngā tai e ngunguru nei, whakarewa, whakarongo mai rā.

[Haul the Tainuiall the way to the sea

Who will haul her? I will haul her

Inquire of the columns of my house to stand at ease

A suspended cloud of mine from above Mt Taupiri

My skin is moistened by the cold

To the people, come together, unite. The tides that murmur, rise, listen to me.]

Kua ara pea ahau i te papa o te whenua, kua kite ahau i ngā whetū e tū takitahi ana. Ko Matariki te kairūri, ko Atutahi kei te taumata o Te Mangōroa.

Kei te Whare, kei Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu, nei rā ka mihi ki a koutou. Ko tēnei te reo owha o Ngāti Mahuta, Ngāti Whāwhākia te toro atu ki a koutou i tēnei o ā koutou kerēme kua tae mai ki roto i te Whare Pāremata i tēnei o ngā rangi.

[Perhaps I arose from the land—I have seen the stars standing alone. Matariki is the one who surveys; Atutahi is positioned at the zenith of the Milky Way.

To the House, to Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu, I hereby acknowledge you. This is the voice of Ngāti Mahuta, Ngāti Whāwhākia, extended in welcome to you in this particular claim of yours, you who have come into the House of Parliament today.]

I’d like to acknowledge the time, energy, and resources spent by many in this settlement—15-plus years of this current phase of negotiations. As I’ve mentioned before in many other settlement readings, I can just imagine the many tears, sweat, and blood it has taken for Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu to get to this point.

I want to acknowledge how hard the Treaty settlement processes can be. It is so exhausting that people die to get settlements across the line. As an uri of Waikato and of Tainui, our iwi has spent 30 years in the settlement processes, and we’ve seen the many stalwarts such as Tā Te Kotahi Mahuta and the many different rūruhi tūpuna who have put their mahi on the line. I’d just like to acknowledge your tūpuna, Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu. While this phase has been long, I want to reiterate the point my colleague Teanau Tuiono shared in the first reading of this bill—that Ngāti Rāhiri brought to this Parliament the issue of the land alienation in 1877 under the Native Affairs Act.

Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu, I want to acknowledge your negotiations team; I acknowledge the challenge of keeping your whānau up to date when the processes were delayed and as you worked through to resolve overlapping interests with your wider Hauraki whānau. Ko Moehau te taurapa, ko Te Aroha te tauihu.

[Moehau is the carved stern post, Te Aroha is the prow figure.]

Historical grievances covered in this claim include confiscation of land, the Crown’s purchasing tactics, the operation and impacts of native land laws, and the impact of mining. I want to particularly acknowledge the raupatu you too suffered when coming to our assistance in our time of need during Ngā Pakanga. Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu sent men to fight Crown forces in Waikato in 1863. Like us, you were branded as rebels and penalised with the confiscation of your lands.

The settlement provisions within this Treaty settlement include a formal apology, cultural redress, and financial redress: a formal apology from the Crown to Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu for promoting laws and policies that lead to loss of land, damaged the sacred taonga Te Aroha maunga, and undermined your wellbeing and ability to pass on mātauranga Māori to your mokopuna; cultural redress that includes 18 sites of cultural significance; financial and commercial redress of $5.5 million. It also acknowledges the recognition of the broader Pare Hauraki Collective in relation to the Collective Redress Deed.

In particular, I want to acknowledge the restoration of your maunga tapu, ko tōna ingoa tūturu ko Puke-kākāriki-kai-tahi [whose true name is Puke-kākāriki-kai-tahi]. I acknowledge its peaks, Te Aroha-ki-uta, Te Aroha-ki-tai. The mining, proclamation of a gold field in Te Aroha in 1880, and Crown actions have deprived your iwi of control of your own resources.

Hei whakakapinga [in conclusion], in this Treaty settlement process, your whakaaro is to create new taonga that reflect the darkness of your negotiation journey, the struggles faced, and the determination required to emerge into the light. As you have stated: “We are rebuilding our waka; we are gathering our paddlers; we are strengthening our direction one hoeat a time; and one day, with enough of us paddling together, Ngāti Tumutumu will move beyond the negative impacts of our past and into the prosperous united future our tūpuna dreamed of. He hoe, he hikoinga, he huarahi mō tātou katoa.” Tēnā rā tātou i te Whare. Te Pāti Māori supports this bill.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green) (10:25):Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker, otirā tēnā tātou e te Whare.

Tuatahi me mihi atu au ki a koutou, Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu. Tēnei ngā Kākāriki e mihi ana ki ō koutou nei māia, ki ō koutou nei mana, me te roa anō hoki o tēnei o ngā hīkoi.

Kei te whakaaro ake i tau tuatahi i tae mai tēnā ki tēnei o ngā Whare i te tau 1870. Tae noa ki tērā wā, tae noa ki tēnei wā kei konei tonu koutou, nō reira e mihi ana, e mihi ana, e mihi ana.

E mihi ana ki a rātou mā kua mene atu ki tua o te ārai, rātou anō i whetūrangihia, ngā kaumātua i whakapau kaha, i whakapau werawera kia rite ai tēnei o ngā whakatau kerēme kia puta ai ki te ao mārama tēnei o ngā ture.

Mō tēnei, ko mātou anō ngā Kākāriki e tautoko ana i tēnei pānuitanga tuarua. Ko te manako nui he iti ake ngā auheke kia tae ki tōna pānuitanga tuatoru.

Tautoko au i ngā kōrero a tō mātou nei tangata, Steve Able. Ki a mātou, ngā Kākāriki, ehara te Tiriti i te kirimana, he kawenata kē te Tiriti o Waitangi. Ko tēnei mea te kirimana e tohu ana anei anō te wāriu o te tāra hei pūtea ki te pūkoro. Kāre mātou e whakaae ki tērā.

Ko tēnei mea te Tiriti o Waitangi he kawenata e whakaora ana mai i te wā i tāmokohia e ngā mātua tīpuna ki Waitangi, huri noa i Te Ika-a-Māui, otirā tae noa ki Te Waipounamu, kia noho ō tātou nei iwi, ō tātou nei hapū ki runga i ō rātou nei mana motuhake.

Ki te taha o te Pāremata, ki tōku nei whakaaro, ki a mātou ngā Kākāriki, me pēhea te tautoko i ngā ara kia ora ai te tino rangatiratanga mō ia hapū, mō ia iwi, mō ia whānau. Tērā te wāhanga anō ki a mātou, nō reira tēnei ka mihi atu ki a koutou.

Me whakaaro nui tonu ai ki ngā hītori o Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu. I tae rātou ki roto i ngā pakanga o te raupatu ki Waikato, nō reira e tautoko i tēnei o ngā mihi a Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke, tō koutou nei māia, tō rātou nei māia kia tae ki te āwhina i ō rātou nei whānau ki te whawhai ki ngā pū o Piritana Nui, ngā pū a te Pākehā. Ka kite anō i tērā, te māia o te iwi.

Nā runga i tērā i raupatuhia te whenua, i raupatuhia tō rātou nei maunga, nō reira Te Aroha maunga, tēnei ka mihi atu, tēnei te mihi atu ki tō koutou nei ata. Kāre anō ahau kia tae ki te maunga, ki a Te Aroha maunga, heoi anō ka whai whakaaro kia tae atu.

E ai ki ngā hītori, he maina koura te mahi ki roto i tērā. Ko ngā para i tukuna ki roto mai i tērā maina e pā ana ki te hapori o Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu. Heoi anō ko te katoa o ngā rawa i ahu mai i ērā maina kāre i tae ki ngā pūkoro o te iwi, kei tangata kē atu. Nō reira ko tēnei ture, me whai wāhi me pēhea e whakatikatikahia ai.

Nō reira me mihi ka tika ki te Komiti Whiriwhiri Take Māori, e mahi ana i ngā mahi ki roto i ngā tukanga a te Pāremata.Ko ētahi wāhanga i hiahia rātou kia paku panonihia ki roto i te ture, te tuatahi i kōrero tahi rātou me te kaunihera ā-rohe, me Waikato, me pēhea te tautoko i ngā āhuatanga o te waipuke, flood protection gates. He whakaaro pai anō tērā.

He wāhanga anō tērā hoki kia noho pū te aronga o te maunga o Te Aroha ki roto i te ture i te mea, ki taku nei whakarongo ki ngā kōrero e huri haere ana i te Whare i te ata nei, kei reira anō te mana nō reira e tika ana kia noho te mana o te maunga, te pū o te maunga, ehara nō te Pāremata, tātou anō e whakarite ana i ngā ture, te maunga kei roto i tēnei o ngā ture.Nō reira e mihi ana ki te komiti whiri take mō tērā o ngā āhuatanga.

Ko te mea i kite au ki roto i te katoa o ēnei momo ture i ahu mai i ngā whakatau kerēme, ko tētahi wāhanga anō mō ā tātou nei tamariki mokopuna, ko tēnei mea te hītori. He hītori anō tērā mō tātou katoa, ō tātou nei rangatahi, kia ākona e rātou ngā hītori kei raro i ngā rekereke i a rātou e hīkoi ana ki runga i te whenua.

Nō reira tēnā koutou e te Whare. Tēnā koutou, Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu. Tēnā tātou katoa.

[Thank you, Madam Speaker; indeed, greetings to us all in the House.

First, I should acknowledge you, Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu. We, the Greens, hereby acknowledge your courage, your power, and the length of this particular journey.

I consider that the first year that this came to this House was in 1870. Right from that time and all the way to now, you are still here; therefore, I acknowledge, thank, and congratulate you.

I acknowledge those who have gathered beyond the veil, those who have become star-like, the elders who expended their strength, that expended sweat to prepare this particular claim settlement, so that this particular legislation see the light of day.

Regarding this, it is us, the Greens, that are in support of this second reading. Our great hope is that the difficulties are few as it reaches its third reading.

I support the comments of our colleague, Steve Abel. To us, the Greens, the Treaty is not a contract; the Treaty of Waitangi is instead a covenant. This particular phenomenon—a contract—demonstrates that this is the dollar value for money in the pocket. We don’t agree with that.

This phenomenon, the Treaty of Waitangi, is a covenant that was given life at the time of its signing by the forebears and ancestors in Waitangi, all around the North Island, and indeed all the way to the South Island, so that our iwi and our hapū could retain their own self-determination.

With respect to Parliament, in my opinion, to us the Greens, the question is how we could support the pathways by which the sovereignty of each hapū, of each iwi and each family, can be realised. That is our role, and so I hereby acknowledge you.

Due consideration must also be given to the histories of Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu. They were involved in the wars of confiscation in Waikato; therefore, I support the acknowledgements of Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke: of your courage, and for their courage to arrive there to provide assistance to their relatives to fight against the firearms of Great Britain, the firearms of the Pākehā. You see that—the courage of the people.

It is due to that that their land was confiscated, and their mountain was confiscated; therefore, I acknowledge Te Aroha mountain—I hereby acknowledge you this morning. I have yet to make it to the mountain, to Mount Te Aroha, however, I intend to do so.

According to the histories, the predominant activity there was goldmining. The waste expelled from within that affected the community of Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu. However, none of the assets that came from those mines made it into the pockets of the iwi; instead, other people have them. Therefore, this legislation should include how this may be corrected.

Therefore, the Māori Affairs Committee should be acknowledged, those that conduct the activities within the processes of Parliament. Some of the sections that they wanted to be amended somewhat within the legislation: the first is consultation between them and the regional council, Waikato, on how to support the circumstances of flooding, i.e., flood protection gates. That is a worthy idea.

Another section is the explicit inclusion of the mountain, Te Aroha, within the legislation, because, as I listened to the comments circulating around the House this morning, it included authority; therefore, it is appropriate that the power of the mountain, the provenance of the mountain, does not reside with Parliament—those of us that create legislation, that the mountain is included in this particular legislation. Therefore, I acknowledge the select committee of that sphere.

The thing that I observed within this type of legislation born of claims settlements is a section for our children and grandchildren, i.e., history. That is history for all of us, our young people, so that they are taught the histories at the feet of those that walked the land.

Therefore, greetings to House. Greetings to you, Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu. Greetings to us all.]

DAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth) (10:31): Tēnā koe te Māngai. Te mihi tuatahi ki ngā manuhiri o Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu, nau mai, haramai, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. The first greeting is to our guests, Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu; welcome, welcome, and greetings to you all.]

Whenever I stand to talk in a reading of a Treaty settlement, I honestly treat it as an absolute honour. I say that because we have a participation in what is going to be scribed into history, and it’s an important part of history that I’m sure many iwi that have been through the process acknowledge. Clearly, the history that we talk to is not always a good history, and Treaty settlements are put in place to correct those wrongdoings.

What I also like to do when I speak to Treaty settlements is to talk to viewers about who it is that we’re talking about. When we say iwi, not everybody’s familiar with where they’re from and that, and I think it’s important that they do. So Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu are of Te Aroha maunga, and I’ll talk to that name specifically, because that was one of the amendments we made within the bill from the Māori Affairs Committee. It is of the Hauraki Plains, obviously. They also have interests in the Kaimai range, out to Katikati and also to Te Puna, but also the Coromandel Peninsula. So hopefully that gives everybody a bit of a bearing of who this iwi is.

Also, the name is interesting, and I’ve learnt a lot, as I do with every Treaty settlement that I go through. Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu has two specific names, Rāhiri and Tumutumu, and I’d like to just briefly talk to that for people’s understanding. Tumutumu: that name there actually comes from Ngāti Raukawa, a neighbouring or very close iwi itself, and it is said within the settlement—and people can read this here—it traces their origins to Te Ruinga, the son of Tumutumu from Ngāti Raukawa. Also Rāhiri itself: people may be familiar with Ngāti Rāhiri of the Far North, up in Ngāpuhi, and that is indeed the Rāhiri that we’re talking about here.

I’m from Taranaki; there’s actually Ngāti Rāhiri in North Taranaki as well. It’s actually in the Tikorangi area, just north of Waitara. Once again, Rāhiri was a prolific traveller, obviously, and I understand that he travelled through Auckland, the Bay of Plenty, and also down to Ngāti Taranaki. So there are the connections of Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu with regards to this Treaty settlement claim.

The process itself was a good process, as it should be. It was an emotional process. We had the occasion as a committee to have a hearing up at Te Aroha, at the railway station building, which is a lovely building to hold the occasion, but we also had another hearing here in Wellington. As it is for all Treaty settlements that I’ve been involved with, submissions come with emotions—not just the emotions of the loss and the grievance of what has preceded what today is but also the challenges of the present-day situation. It wasn’t surprising to me, because I do see it quite often, that when you have a large grouping of people—when you talk about the membership of Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu, you’re talking about at least 510 members, according to the last census that was held. When you have a large grouping your members, to think that everybody’s singing from the same song sheet is probably a little bit of an impossibility, from my experience. So we did have some strong submissions about the process that was there.

The select committee did propose two amendments; they’ve been spoken about by previous speakers. I should mention those, the first one being the name Te Aroha maunga, as I spoke of earlier. In the bill originally, it just spoke of Te Aroha, and, quite correctly, through consultation with the iwi, it was more fitting for it to be Te Aroha maunga. So that was corrected in consultation with iwi, and everybody is in agreement with that.

The second amendment that has been proposed is the flood protection assets of the Waikato Regional Council. Clearly, these are assets that the public, including Māori, have contributed to. Flood protection assets are there for the protection of not just public but also private assets themselves, and I’m very pleased to see that the iwi acknowledged the importance of that and made sure that the Waikato Regional Council had the ability to manage those assets appropriately. So thank you to the iwi for that itself.

There were other areas of interest that were brought up through the submission process. Even the name of the post-settlement governance entity: it is actually named Ngāti Tumutumu Trust—doesn’t actually have the Rāhiri in there. It was submitted to us whether that was right or wrong by some of the submitters, but the committee took what I believe is the absolutely appropriate approach: that’s not our business; that is your business to sort out. So we left that to them to talk of that, and I’m sure there have been many discussions subsequent.

The relationship between the iwi and the maunga, I spoke about that: Te Aroha maunga. I’m from Taranaki; Taranaki Maunga is significant for me, and it doesn’t surprise me the significance that was placed in the submissions with regards to that there.

There was an interesting one, and perhaps the iwi are not so aware of this, but there was a submission, or should I say a report given back, from the Regulations Review Committee. Now, I’ve been on the Māori Affairs Committee for a short time, but for the Treaty settlements I’ve been involved with, it’s not unusual that this kaupapa, this subject, comes up from the Regulations Review Committee. It’s specifically about a few clauses within this bill—89, 90, and 91—but it actually comes up with other settlements. These are the clauses that Te Tari Whakatau puts into the settlement in agreement with iwi. There is actually a common clause that’s been put in there, and it’s often been raised by the Regulations Review Committee. So, subsequent to this particular clause, the committee has chosen to actually open up a briefing with the Regulations Review Committee to set this straight once and for all. This is to do with secondary legislation and regulations and how it’s used in it. I don’t think there’s any worry about it, about what’s been put in place with previous settlements, or this one here itself. It’s a bit more of a parliamentary process that we have to run through to perhaps make sure we’ve got a clear understanding but put this to bed once and for all.

With that, I’m very pleased to support this through its second reading, and I look forward to the committee of the whole House, which is occurring later on today as well. Kia ora tātou.

GEORGIE DANSEY (Labour) (10:38): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. I’m honoured to rise to speak to the Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu Claims Settlement Bill, second reading. I’d like to acknowledge the iwi and whānau who have come to the House today for this reading and really commend you on your mahi getting this bill to its second reading. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

This bill records the acknowledgements and apology made to Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu when the deed was signed, and gives effect to redress in the deed that requires legislation. It’s been a really long journey, as other speakers have spoken to—15 years of negotiations, and a long-awaited agreement. I hope that this bill acknowledges the past and looks to a stronger future. I know that the journey over the past 15 years speaks to resilience and hope for the iwi.

I commend the show of unity and determination from Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu in working with the Crown to get to this point.

This settlement serves as an apology from the Crown on the wrongs committed—namely, the confiscated 290,000 acres of land in the Tauranga district between 1865 and 1868; the retainment of the hot springs near Te Aroha by the Crown, and despite the Crown giving the use of the land back to the iwi by the early 20^th century, I’m aware that Māori no longer had free access to the springs or input into the management of the site; the acquisition of the land in Te Aroha and Te Aroha maunga; and developments that continued into the 1960s by the Crown. This included the construction of a road to the summit of Te Aroha maunga and the granting of a mining licence to a private company. Consequences of these actions meant that the site became severely polluted and there was significant damage to the land and maunga. By the end of the 20^th century, less than 3 percent of the land in the Te Aroha bloc remained in Māori ownership.

Nothing can right the wrongs of the past, but I hope that this bill brings a degree of closure to the people and a hope for the future of the iwi, for your tamariki and your mokopuna. We know that the harm caused continued over successive generations. This speaks to many years of socio-economic deprivation and the disconnection from whānau and hapū that they had with their whenua. We know that many people of the whānau of the iwi ended up living outside of traditional lands, disconnected from their tikanga, tūrangawaewae, and whānau, which also came with a significant loss of te reo Māori and restricted ability for the whānau to pass mātauranga Māori on to their mokopuna.

As I speak on this bill, I speak with two simultaneous feelings of immense privilege and pride, and also one of whakamā. You see, I grew up in the rohe of Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu. When I was eight, my whānau moved to the foot of the Kaimai Mamaku ranges. The property my parents purchased on Lockington Road backed onto the Kaimai Mamaku forest park. I feel privilege and pride because your rohe is so entrenched in my memories of childhood. My stepfather was a hunter, so I spent a lot of time in the ngahere, the bush, that backed off from our property. I spent many a day of my childhood swimming in the oceans near Waihi Beach and swimming in the swimming holes and the many awa that flow from the maunga. Thirty years later, my parents still live in your rohe, and I consider the shores of Bowentown Beach one of the few places that I truly feel at home. It is this beauty and the incredible memories that bring me to the privilege I have and hold dearly here, that I can contribute a very small amount to a place that I treasure so much by acknowledging the people who are truly tangata whenua of the rohe.

But I also feel very whakamā. I feel whakamā, because when I went to Katikati Primary School and when I went to Katikati College, I didn’t know the name of the iwi. I didn’t know the wrongs of the past that were inflicted on you, and I didn’t know the whakapapa of the place where I grew up. In a place that brought me so much taonga and aroha, I grew up not knowing about its history.

From those two places, there comes hope—hope that with a settlement and some redress, your tamariki and mokopuna will learn their tikanga, their whakapapa, and mātauranga Māori. By being able to reclaim sites of cultural importance, create opportunities for rangatahi, and rebuild your iwi presence, there is opportunity and there is hope. It brings me hope that the future of all the kids, whether they’re Māori, Pākehā, or other, will grow up understanding the commitment to Te Tiriti o Waitangi to know the iwi and hapū of that rohe that they are in and learn the importance of knowing that. It gives me hope that the next 8-year-old who moves to Katikati will understand whose land they are living on, that when they go to Katikati Primary and Katikati College, they will learn about the tikanga of the place, the whakapapa.

The settlement is a significant milestone in Aotearoa’s journey in recognising Te Tiriti, but we must go further, and this bill demonstrates that for me strongly. In order to achieve full partnership with Māori, we must ensure that our tamariki and rangatahi have the knowledge and the history of Aotearoa New Zealand, that mātauranga Māori is embedded in our communities. Through the settlement, the Crown seeks to atone for these injustices and rebuild a relationship based on trust and honourable Treaty partnership. I hope this settlement, for your iwi, brings that. I hope this is an opportunity for you to bring your tikanga home, to build a flourishing whānau and hapū within your own whenua for all of the future generations to come. There is an opportunity for reconnection of your people to their whenua, tikanga, and te reo so that the mokopuna of Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu feel connected to their whenua, awa, tikanga, and te reo Māori.

It is a great pleasure to be able to speak on this bill on the second reading. I wasn’t involved in the select committee process, but I know the land so well—walking up Te Aroha maunga. Other speakers have spoken about that beautiful, beautiful place, and I am so pleased that we’ve got to a position through a lot of, I know, pain and acceptance. I hope that this apology will speak deeply to your whānau about the future of hope and the opportunities that lay ahead of us.

Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I commend this bill to the House.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato) (10:47): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Like the speaker who has just resumed her seat, I have also had the good fortune of spending many years throughout my life in that area, and, indeed, now also have the even greater fortune of representing the most beautiful electorate in the country, being the Waikato electorate, which, on its eastern edge, includes this beautiful area of Te Aroha; the mountain, of course, that towers over the landscape from across the Waikato, really, but certainly in that local community; and, indeed, the fantastic people that make up that community as well. It’s a pleasure to be able to make a contribution here in the second reading of the Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu Claims Settlement Bill.

Now, we have heard from the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee and from the Minister. I want to acknowledge the work done in particular from the committee for their efforts. They came and visited Te Aroha. That wasn’t the hard part; it was getting them to leave again that was the hard part, because it’s such a beautiful community, as I’ve mentioned. It was great to have them come up and meet locally there as well and, indeed, to address some of the concerns raised by submitters and also to touch on one of the concerns in particular that I’ve had raised with me around the Te Aroha hospital land continuing to be available for the community, at a price that’s achievable for the community as well. We were able to have those fears allayed, which was fantastic.

It’s particularly pleasing to see this process now reaching the end of what has been a challenging journey over a substantial period of time and to see now the Crown apology, the historical account, and, indeed, the financial redress, that helps to put a line in the sand and acknowledge that there have been challenges but there is opportunity as well. I think that’s always the focus whenever there is a difficult situation—that one works through to try and look at where the opportunity might be going forward. I’m sure we’ll traverse that more in the committee of the whole House stage, in the third reading stage. I do need to keep my contribution limited, so I will commend it to the House. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): This is a split call. I call Camilla Belich.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (10:50): Tēnā koutou katoa. Ko te mihi tuatahi ki a Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu. Ko te mihi tuarua ki tō koutou maunga, Te Aroha; ki tō koutou awa, Waihau; ki tō koutou moana; ki tō koutou marae, Tumutumu. Ngā mihi nui ki ngā tāngata e noho ana i roto i tēnei Whare, me ngā tāngata e kite i tēnei kōrero i roto i te pouaka whakaata, ngā rorohiko, i roto i te Whare.

[Greetings to you all. The first greeting is to Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu. The second acknowledgement is to your mountain, Te Aroha; to your river, Waihau; to your ocean; and to your marae, Tumutumu. Many greetings to the people who now sit within this House, and those that are watching these speeches on the television, on computers, and in the House.]

It is a very significant opportunity for any parliamentarian to be able to speak on a Treaty settlement bill. It’s not an opportunity that comes often, especially to those of us who don’t sit on the Māori Affairs Committee, but it’s always an opportunity to reflect on the history of our country and also of the different iwi and hapū who make up such an important part of New Zealand.

I’ve had a good look at this bill that’s being put forward, and I commend anyone who is watching to look through, especially the historical account. This historical account has been prepared with care and is a very, very difficult thing to read in terms of everything that has happened to this particular group, Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu, over a period of time. I read through it all and I felt a deep sadness that your people had had to suffer through such immense attacks and loss. I know that being here will be bittersweet in terms of moving forward, but I’m also sure that your tīpuna are proud of you for the work that you’ve done, and I’m sure that your descendants will thank you for being able to take this historic step today.

I wanted just to note—I do have a shorter call, and I don’t want to prolong this, because I know that you’ve waited long enough for this settlement—that one of the things that the Crown is actually acknowledging and apologising for is the Acts of this Parliament. I had a bit of a look at where the District Lands Act in 1867 and 1868 would have been done in this very place, in Wellington. The Parliament was moved, as I understand it, in 1865—so we’re standing, really, and apologising for actions that were taken by a predecessor of this House in this place. That is very significant, because the effect of the passage of that legislation, as this bill acknowledges, left you almost landless—“virtually landless” is what it says here.

I want to acknowledge the mana of the land and also of your people, and what I know of Māori, which is not a lot, and what I know of the importance of land, which is a lot less than you know and many other people know. The simple affection that Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu must have for the maunga Te Aroha in order to name it Te Aroha—one of the strongest emotions that you can express—and to have that maunga lost to you throughout such a period of time must have just been horrendous.

It’s not an area where I’ve lived, but I wanted to say how striking it was to me to read through the historical account and everything that the Crown is acknowledging—and I want to also acknowledge the apology, which is really important; I probably don’t have time to read all of that, but I did note it down here that it is a substantive apology and it acknowledges substantive wrongs. One of the things I noticed when I was looking through the information is the thing that Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu did, not only in taking this forward, was also to have a taonga carved for this process by your kaiwhakairo Ben Whittaker. What mana of a people and an iwi to not only go through this substantive settlement process to move your people and this issue forward but to create a taonga to bring to Parliament to acknowledge this. I wanted to acknowledge everyone associated with this process and commend this bill to the House.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini) (10:55): It’s lovely, actually, to be able to stand up and add my kōrero in the second reading of this very important settlement bill. I want to welcome those of you who are in the gallery today. I’m also looking forward to your small but mighty whānau coming in for the third reading, God willing.

I want to acknowledge you up in the gallery, if you don’t mind, Madam Speaker. Jill Taylor, thank you very much for the aroha you showed us around Te Aroha mountain and for the care you all took—you as well, sir, and the chair of the trust, Daniel Braid, in explaining a lot of what came across as kind of nuances to us, but also sharing what your ancestors have been through that has led to this point. It’s something that was very memorable; we started by the railway there, and then we took our little tiki tour around. It’s something that’s tattooed in my memory; it was a very beautiful and special day, and you guys are a special iwi as well—like I said, small but mighty.

I look forward to the third reading where we can celebrate, but of course always underpinned with that reflection on the sadness of the past but looking forward to the positivity that the future can bring. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour) (10:57): Kia ora, Madam Speaker, and kia ora, Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu—ngā mihi ki a kōrua. It’s lovely to see you here for this second reading of this claims settlement bill. It’s not often that I’ve had the opportunity to get up and speak on a claims settlement bill, but I specifically asked to do this.

For a short time, I was on the Māori Affairs Committee—about 9 months—and in those 9 months, I was fortunate enough to be sitting through the process of this particular claims settlement bill, the Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu Claims Settlement Bill. I’d like to acknowledge the Minister—we’ve heard that here before; as the Hon Willie Jackson said, it’s not an easy position. It is a very difficult position to be the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, and you get a bit of raru coming your way. I have to say, to get through to this stage is something to be very proud of with any iwi and any iwi settlement. I’d also like to acknowledge the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, David MacLeod. I think that he has a real heart for this work and for making certain that the mana of the iwi is upheld at all times.

A lot has been traversed in this particular reading here today. We’ve heard about the changes that we made through the select committee process, but I particularly wanted to talk about the day that we spent over in Te Aroha—and I too want to acknowledge you, Jill, and the work that you and Nicola have done in the process. It’s been a long process, and we’re nearly there. It’s a good feeling that we’re nearly there.

It was not that long before the end of last year that we went through to Te Aroha, and it’s not a long drive for me; I live in Tauranga. I’ve often seen the other side of the maunga, but seeing the Te Aroha side and going through and spending that day there, it had a real impact on me. I came away from that day thinking that every member of this House needs to have the experience of sitting through Treaty claims settlements, because it does hit you here. It impacted me so much that I came away thinking about the hurts and the wrongs that have happened to you and to other iwi over time, and how it’s important that we get this process right. It is important that we listen; it is important that we hear the raru. It is important that we sit there and be humble in that process. Sitting, as my colleague Rima Nakhle said on the other side, in that railway station and hearing the hurt from many different perspectives was something that, as I said, sits with you. It’s something that you can’t leave that situation without feeling that we’ve got to do better and we’ve got to do better, for now, to somehow heal that hurt, but, also, we’ve got to do better for future generations, as well, so that that hurt never has to be there again and we’re not sitting in that situation in another 150 years and having to go through the same process.

I remember my former colleague, the Rt Hon Adrian Rurawhe, who gave a very gentle but firm—in the only way that Adrian can do—challenge to everybody in that room that day that this is not the end of the process. This is the beginning. It’s kind of like a transition, and it’s the beginning of a new part of the process. It’s time for new work to be done, to move forward and to repair the hurt. That sat with me that day, too, because I know Adrian has been through his own Treaty settlements and knew the division that can be caused in the process. But we’ve also got to remember that that division was caused hundreds of years ago through colonisation, and now it’s time to put that right and acknowledge that and the coming-together. That’s not going to be an easy process, but it’s one that I know that people are up for and that the iwi are up for, and they’ve already started a whole lot of work.

That’s where I’ll go on to the next part of that day, is that we then got to see around—and many of the people that were there that day have already acknowledged the fact that we walked, with members of the iwi, through the Te Aroha domain and heard about the hurt that has happened over so many years. My colleague Steve Abel talked about the separatism that hurt; the resources that the iwi generously allowed people to have and to participate in the resources of the geothermal area that, as an iwi, back then, they generously let other people partake in, only to have it stolen from them and then to be given the small bath house back that they could use.

I can remember asking the dumbest question of Jill that day, because we’d gone round the whole of the domain and we’d seen the pools and we’d seen all the beautiful areas, and then we came on to this—it’s really hard to describe it, to get that feeling; it’s kind of one of those moments you had to be there—but this little tiny shed and they opened the door and said, “This was where the Māori were allowed to bathe.” Also, with people that had skin conditions, they were put into the separate little area. I remember saying, “Oh, was it bigger than this?”—“No, no, no. This has actually been done up since then.” And I just could not believe it.

It was one of those moments that I had that I went, oh, my goodness, this is just—what have we done as people, what have we done as a nation, that we did this and created so much hurt and how much this meant to the people, the tangata whenua, the mana whenua of the time and now, and the fact that it’s taken so long and that hurt has just amplified and amplified and amplified over time. That’s what it meant to me that day. I went away and I looked you up and I looked the iwi up on your website, and I started to see your own journey back to restoring who you are as a people and the work that you’ve done in restoring the mauri—or you’re starting to restore the mauri—of the maunga, and the work of restoring the people’s mana and how passionate you are about making this a better journey going forward.

That’s what I took from that day, and I knew that we had to make sure that we got this settlement through in a way—as I’m sure every other member of the select committee did that particular day—so that it’s somehow restoring some of the hurt. It’s not going to go all the way, but it’s going to somehow restore some of that hurt and say—we don’t have a magic wand. We can’t go back to the past. We can’t restore and change direction that past has happened, but we can look forward and we can look forward to how we can make a difference now and how we can support you and your goals and your aspirations for what you want for now, for your people, for your tamariki and your mokopuna, and what you want for all of the future generations that you see in front of you, and how we can help be part of that journey, but not dictate the journey. That’s your journey from now, but we will be there to support and make sure that not only are we standing up for the wrongs that have happened in the past but ensuring that those wrongs don’t happen in the future.

So I go back to where I started; I think every member of this House needs to have such an experience. It will change members of this House when they walk through and see first-hand. It’s different than being able to read about it in books. Actually walking through and seeing the hurt, but seeing the aspirations and knowing that we can make a difference in this House, is what every single member of this House needs to experience. With that, I absolutely, wholeheartedly commend this bill to the House.

GREG FLEMING (National—Maungakiekie) (11:06): Nōku te maringanui ki te kōrero e pā ana ki tēnei pire, te pire whakatau mō te iwi, Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu.

Ki a Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu, tēnā koutou. Tēnā koutou, nau mai anō ki tēnei Whare.

Ki ngā mema atu kua kōrero i tēnei ata, tēnā koutou i te āta whakaaro me te āta kōrero. Ko te āhua o tēnei momo kaupapa, te whakatau o tēnei pire, ko te tino āhua o tēnei Whare. Kua rangona e koutou tērā āhua, tērā atawhai i ngā kōrero katoa. Ākene pea i te nuinga o ngā kōrero.

Ko te haepapa o tēnei Whare āianei ko te tuku atu i tēnei pire ki te Whare i tēnei ahiahi, ka āta whakaaro mā te taumata, ko te ingoa o tērā taumata ko te “select committees”, ā, kātahi ā tērā marama, ā tērā atu marama waihoki, ka haere mai, ka hoki mai ngā iwi katoa.

Te mutunga kē mai o te harikoa mō tērā wheako, te whakanui o te whakatau, te mutunga o tēnei haerenga, ā, ko te tīmatanga o te anamata hou. Koirā te tūmanako, koirā te kitenga, koirā te tino tirohanga o tēnei momo kaupapa.

Nā reira, anō, nōku te tino maringanui ki te tū i roto i tēnei Whare, ā, ka tuku atu i te pire nei ki te Whare.Tēnā koutou.

[It is my great fortune to speak on this bill, the settlement bill for the people, Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu.

To Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu, greetings to you. Greetings and welcome back to this House.

To the other members who have spoken this morning, greetings to you who carefully considered and spoken. The nature of this type of initiative, the settlement of this bill, is the true nature of this House. You have felt that nature, that care within each speech—or, perhaps, the majority of speeches.

The responsibility of this House now is to dispatch this bill to the House this afternoon, at which stage it will be carefully considered—the name of the stage is “select committees”—and then, next month, and the month after, also, all of the iwi will come; they will return.

Such great joy for that experience, the celebration of the settlement, the conclusion of this journey, and the beginning of the new future. That is the hope, that is the vision, that is the true perspective of this type of initiative.

Therefore, again, it is my great fortune to stand in this House, and to commend this bill to the House. Thank you all.]

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Online Casino Gambling Bill

Third Reading

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs) (11:09): I move, That the Online Casino Gambling Bill be now read a third time.

Today marks an important milestone in strengthening New Zealand’s approach to gambling harm and consumer protection. The Online Casino Gambling Bill represents a significant and long-overdue step forward. The bill also supports this Government’s coalition agreement.

Before the House reaches its final decision on the Online Casino Gambling Bill, I want to acknowledge the many people who have contributed to its development. I thank the Governance and Administration Committee members for their consideration of this bill, and I thank all those who took the time to make submissions on online casino gambling.

I also acknowledge colleagues across the House for their engagement throughout the bill’s passage, and I thank my officials for their work on this bill. As members of this House will be aware, online casino gambling is already widespread, easily accessible, and currently unregulated. There is no recourse when things go wrong. That is the gap that this bill seeks to close.

This bill establishes a licensing system for online casino operators. It sets out clear requirements for harm minimisation, creates a strong enforcement regime, and ensures that a share of revenue returns to New Zealand communities. This bill allows for a competitive market while also providing Kiwis who wish to gamble with safer, regulated options to do so. Licensed operators will have to meet consumer protection obligations, including minimising the risk of harm from online casino gambling. They must identify and assist those experiencing harm, exclude problem gamblers, and must not offer credit for gambling.

This bill allows up to 15 licences to be issued for online casino gambling. Operators from overseas and in New Zealand can apply if they are suitable. They must meet strict criteria, including having a harm prevention strategy and providing information on their business compliance history. Once licensed, they will be able to advertise with restrictions and be required to pay tax and contribute towards the problem gambling levy. Operators will clearly need to show that their gambling platforms are licensed so the public can easily see which services are legitimate and regulated in New Zealand. This will require a registration icon or audio mark to be displayed on any advertising and gambling platforms.

The Department of Internal Affairs will regulate the sector, with costs recovered from licensed operators. To ensure the regime is effective, the bill makes clear that operators cannot avoid New Zealand law by being located offshore. The bill gives the regulator strong enforcement tools, including take-down notices, warnings, enforceable undertakings, and penalties of up to $5 million for serious or persistent breaches.

This bill also ensures that New Zealand communities benefit through changes to the online gambling duty. Funding will be returned to communities through the Lottery Grants Board. This reflects the clear message from submissions on the bill. If we are regulating online gambling, benefits should flow back to local sports clubs, community groups, and grassroots organisations. I listened and we are delivering on what matters most to communities across this country. Importantly, this funding will come from an activity that is already occurring rather than from increasing gambling participation. It is not the Government’s intention with this bill to increase gambling but to make sure it is safer for those who choose to gamble.

The Government will review the regime once it’s been in place. This will consider how well harm minimisation, consumer protection, and community funding objectives are being met. A separate two-year review will look at impacts on other forms of gambling, community markers, and community returns. This review allows the adjustment of any settings that are not working for operators and consumers and allows this licensing regime to respond and adapt to emerging international trends. A separate two-year review will look at impacts on other forms of gambling and community returns.

The bill enables the Government to set detailed regulatory requirements for how licensed operators may operate here in New Zealand, including harm prevention and minimisation, advertising and marketing restrictions, consumer protections, record keeping, and cost recovery fees. This approach is consistent with the Gambling Act 2003 and ensures that the regulatory framework can remain responsive to market and technology while giving operators clear and enforceable requirements to plan and operate in the New Zealand market.

In relation to advertising, the intent is to support a safe and well-regulated market, not to encourage increase gambling participation. Carefully controlled advertising allows consumers to identify licensed operators and make informed choices while helping to channel demand away from unlicensed operators. The regulations I’ve proposed will mean operators must not target advertisements at those under the age of 25 unless the operator can demonstrate that the advertisement can be precisely targeted at consumers over the age of 18, and the content of advertisements and promotions must not reasonably appeal to those under the age of 18.

Setting these requirements, including fees, through regulations rather than here in the primary legislation provides flexibility to adjust settings as the market develops and as better information on market size and regulatory costs become available. This approach supports proportional cost-reflective fees over time and gives operators greater certainty by clearly stating compliance requirements and updating them as the market evolves.

This bill is a balanced and practical piece of legislation that will support the Government’s coalition agreement. I commend this bill to the House.

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

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour—Māngere) (11:16): Talofa lava, Mr Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to provide a contribution. Before I do that, in case I do not get any chance today, I do want to just honour our Anzac men and women and specifically veterans as we remember them this weekend.

As spokesperson for Labour, I tell members that we continue to oppose the Online Casino Gambling Bill. Yes, while we agree with the regulation in the bill in terms of regulating, we would state that the bill does not go far enough. We’ve heard the statement from the Minister, and I do want to acknowledge the 4,837 individuals and groups who submitted—of that number, 3,966 in the first, initial draft of the bill. There was no community return for our communities who may be involved in online casino gambling.

The reason why, on this side of the House, the Labour team stresses the up to 15 new licences that this bill will allow to be brought into New Zealand is because there is limited information and regulations that do not go far enough in terms of harm minimisation tools and consumer protections.

I also want to acknowledge the officials who worked with the select committee, and I want to acknowledge the select committee members. We collaborated, we discussed the pros and cons, but we also had the opportunity to hear from submitters across Aotearoa, in terms of harm minimisation and what is being brought into New Zealand. In our view, the licences are far too many for New Zealanders to practically understand the controls that, we say, do not go far enough. There was a lot of evidence put forward by submitters, which gave us select committee members the opportunity to consider why this legislation requires very proactive controls.

It is important that New Zealanders understand things like gambling addiction. The difference between online casino gambling and land-based casinos is that land-based casinos, those specific businesses, understand the operations that open and close to people. With online casino gambling, those licences offshore will be able to do their business 24/7. The issue with that is that vulnerable communities across Aotearoa, at a time when affordability and the cost of living are really hitting vulnerable New Zealanders, some of those choices will not be able to be made attentively by vulnerable New Zealanders who have an addiction to online gambling.

In our view, specifically what the statistics tell us is that things like controls on advertising need to go further in term of this amendment bill. We are pleased that the Government U-turned in October 2025; that the Cabinet made a ruling, or a provision, that there would be a community return—return back to the communities across Aotearoa. If you look at the evidence, the Minister stated in some of her explanations, that New Zealanders have to be very careful because addiction is high when it comes to gambling. Online gambling will propose 24/7 access, and the trouble with that activity is that it will be able to be accessed on any device. There are limited controls, and in our view, for Labour, we want to see those strengthened.

We heard from submitters, such as the Problem Gambling Foundation, that there needed to be very clear words in the amendment bill that will help them help New Zealanders who are very vulnerable to this type of activity. The oral submissions that were made by groups, iwi Māori, Pasifika, ethnic, and Chinese raised that, with some of the individuals who will be utilising this online casino gambling to do their activity, the problem is it is such a hidden activity. It might not be popular in terms of some parts of our community, but it is important to raise the health issues and the mental ability of some of the consumers who will be using some of those sites.

We are also concerned about the lack of protections that have been provided under this legislation. Labour continues to believe that, for some of the proceeds that will come from these companies, there has to be a mechanism. When the Gambling Act was set up in 2003, there was the authorisation that some gambling could occur, which was mainly written for land-based gambling operations. The online casino gambling legislation, we would argue, still doesn’t provide the assurance that Kiwis will be protected by this bill.

The offshore gambling duty that is proposed in this bill rests at between 12 percent to 16 percent—the gross gambling revenue—and in our submission it proposes the 4 percent. We would argue that it needs to be raised either to 8 percent or over, because that will ring-fence the proceeds for our communities to be returned to the community, which sits between a $10 million to $20 million figure. Labour continues to argue that the controls that are proposed in this bill continue not to go far enough, and we would like to see those strengthened in any future iterations.

One of the things, when we went through committee stage, was to ask the Minister to consider tools such as the self-exclusion register. When you look at the bill and the provisions, what happens is that there’s a number of different dates. Once the bill goes through Royal assent, it will be introduced in terms of what that proposes, and then there are other tools that strengthen the bill, but the dates of the proposal, of the commencement date, is a much later date. The self-exclusion register was one of the tools that we wanted, on this side of the House, to be input from the start of the actual legislation, because there are consumers, or there are New Zealanders, who, once the doors are open, in terms of those licences, who will come into New Zealand, do their advertising—actually some of them are already in New Zealand. We have social media influencers, which the Department of Internal Affairs has been dealing with. They’re also doing non-authorised activity.

We do, again, acknowledge that community return. We heard from communities, groups, and individuals up and down Aotearoa. The fact that they require those community returns—because a lot of them are doing class 4 activity through Lotto and through their organisations. I know we’ve heard from the Minister that the reliance on that revenue is something she would like to see deterred, however, there is no system to replace the community returns to our community.

The last point I wanted to raise in my time left was the distribution system. We heard from a number of submitters, and we support that the community grant system—the current system—will go through the lottery grants system, which is a central system with a number of controls, and also delays. Labour supports that a local system would be helpful. We heard from the submission of Mr Martin Snedden, in terms of the thoughts that he put forward in his submission, and we would strongly support that. So, just as I end off, Labour continues to oppose this amendment bill.

MIKE DAVIDSON (Green) (11:26): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party to oppose this bill. The Green Party do support good and sensible regulation that is focused on harm reduction and risk minimisation. However, this bill is not that. One of the purposes of this bill is to prevent and minimise harm from online casino gambling; however, it just doesn’t do that. What it does do is gather revenue. This bill is a money-grab that will create misery. Once again, it’s just another example of this Government, which values profits over people, and to ensure they make as much money as they can, this Government will auction off their licences to overseas entities that, like this Government, do not care who or what it hurts.

We know from the feedback from other agencies on this regime that there was some serious concerns about the harm that would be caused by this bill. The Ministry of Health stated: “However, it seems from the paper that very little mention of harm prevention or minimisation is proposed for the bill beyond the purpose, with almost all the detail delegated to regulations. While we understand the benefit of regulations in a fast-evolving environment, we think that some more parameters around harm prevention and minimisations need to be in the bill to anchor to the purpose.”

Te Whatu Ora said: “We welcome the intention to regulate online gambling but are concerned that the proposed regulations will increase gambling and lead to an increase in gambling harm. First, we’re concerned that the Cabinet paper does not reflect the potential for harm that online gambling presents. The regulatory impact statement (RIS) provides evidence and discussion on this, but it is not well-reflected in the paper. We encourage you to make the potential for harm more visible so that legislative proposals can be considered in this context. Specifically, we note that online gambling is particularly harmful as it’s continuous, easily accessible, and easy to hide.”

The RIS notes that the number of presentations to gambling harm services with offshore online gambling listed as a main mode of harm has increased by 71 percent since 2019—a 1,500 percent rise in the number of adults gambling with offshore providers between 2010 and 2020, and growing from around 7,000 adults to 105,000 adults. It is known that online gambling poses higher risks of addiction by being available 24/7. It allows gamblers to hide their gambling by moving it on to their personal device and into their homes. It can lack effective safeguards around age verification of gamblers. And we know, if you look at the e-scooters, they’re also meant to be over 18. The amount of younger people under 18 that are actually riding those scooters, and that’s because the operator is not there and present when they’re being ridden.

This poses problems of regulations due to the online and remote nature of the gambling environment. Problem gambling among those who gamble on the internet is ten times higher than that of the general population. It was extremely clear that this bill would increase harm amongst people—amongst vulnerable people—but it got pushed through without actually fixing that big issue.

From the notes from the regulatory impact statement on the costs: gambling harm treatment providers may experience an increase in direct costs due to increased resourcing requirements. This is showing that there will be increased harm. We assume that these costs will be offset by the collection of the problem gambling levy by licensed operators. You cannot offset harm by a levy. The wider public will experience some indirect costs, namely the cost of gambling harm, which we assume will be partially offset by the problem gambling levy. Once again, you cannot offset the social harm, the costs, the impacts on whānau, financial standing, wellbeing, and mental health, through a levy on offshore operators.

Through the process in the Governance and Administration Committee—which I wasn’t in on; I joined a little bit later—there were, obviously, 4,837 groups and individuals who submitted. Out of that, 3,966 raised issues on the community returns. On the back of that, the gambling duty was increased from 12 to 16 percent, with 25 percent of that revenue ring-fenced for community. I think we all have to accept that is a double-edged sword, because there are so many great, not-for-profit community groups that do rely on the proceeds of gambling services to survive. However, we must accept that the money coming to them is coming at a cost to the wellbeing of our community who are the ones that are suffering from gambling harm.

During the committee of the whole House, the Minister introduced an amendment that would effectively remove the ring-fencing of the 25 percent. She did say that there were reasons to do that to make it a more simple process. She said that the amount returned to the community can, therefore, be increased through amendment by Cabinet rather than amended in legislation. I think what she forgot to mention at that time was it could also be decreased. My colleague Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan did ask: is the funding gambling duty still ring-fenced for the purpose of allocation and distribution for community purposes? Would the removal of the 25 percent mean that the new amount would be less or significantly less than 25 percent?

Naturally, the Minister avoided answering that question properly. She did thank him and said the funding collected from the duty for the purpose of community returns will be transferred through the Budget process and Cabinet will decide the amount. Therefore, it does not require to be ring-fenced. Cabinet had decided the percentage, which is 16 percent, out of the Gaming Duties Act. But this is better flexibility. What we know, through this, is that the Cabinet can actually reduce the amount that was meant to be ring-fenced for community.

Now, I brought in a simple amendment—I brought a simple amendment; a common-sense amendment that would ensure that it could not go below what the committee wanted, which was 4 percent—25 percent of the actual gambling duties. But it was voted down. So you put that at risk, something that, actually, the community, in their thousands, asked for. We know from this that there are many demographics that are hugely affected by gambling: Māori, Pacific people, young people, people with disabilities are all more likely to be impacted by gambling.

I just want to quickly touch on just a couple of what they said in my short time left. I’ll pick up—which one shall we do? Brain Injury New Zealand, who obviously opposed this terrible bill. “We do not believe the bill’s harm minimisation provisions go far enough. Without stronger safeguards, online gambling may cause serious harm to vulnerable groups, particularly those with brain injury.”

Hon Melissa Lee: It already is doing harm. Jeez.

MIKE DAVIDSON: So you may heckle on the sides, but it is clear by what you are saying that you don’t care about the vulnerable people in our community that will suffer by this bill when it gets passed into legislation.

The Salvation Army: they recognise the need for effective regulation, like we do on this side. They were deeply concerned that the bill does not prioritise harm prevention and minimisation, and that the approach to regulation proposed is inadequate. Once again, this bill will cause harm.

We know that, actually, the consultation, the engagement with iwi was pathetic; it did not exist. The Pou Tangata chair, Rahui Papa, said, “Let’s be clear, this reform will expose more young people to risk. It is gambling harm by stealth.”

The Asian Family Services: “The substance of the Bill does not reflect the statutory objective of harm minimisation.”

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): The member’s time has come to an end.

TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki) (11:36): Let’s be very clear: there are two options when we get to vote very soon. One, we do nothing. We let the current online gambling continue unregulated, no assistance for harm prevention, no money coming back to the community—nothing. Or we vote for this legislation. It’s not just GST; it’s not just gambling harm. It is money going to community organisations.

Now, I agree; I didn’t like where the ACT Party started with the bill. That is why we have fought hard, and National has delivered community returns. I held public meetings in my electorate, I met with everyone and every group that would, and we have fought hard for and delivered community returns. By voting against it, they are voting for no money at all to go to our community.

Who was it who asked for a national self-exclusion register? It was the National Party. Who is it that’s delivering money for our community? The National Party. Greens and Labour talk a big game. They’re delivering nothing for our community. They’re opposing only good things. National Party are proud to support this. I commend the bill.

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First) (11:37): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, this bill recognises that we live in what is an increasingly digital world. It is a world that, in many areas, is a world without borders. Of course, we know that most of us transact business via email rather than by letters. Most of our business is done via online banking rather than going down to the bank branch. Of course, in the retail area, increasingly, bricks and mortar is challenged by online retail. That is true of gambling even more so.

The thing I agree with Mike Davidson on is that he said that it is growing very fast. The Governance and Administration Committee heard that, roughly, New Zealanders are gambling something like $800 million a year, and that is growing very fast. I think even the number used was something like 1,500 percent in a very short period of time. It’s not going to go away. The point that Tim Costley has just made is you can either regulate that, or you can leave it alone.

What we heard from Labour and the Greens today—they’ve focused a lot on harm, but we didn’t hear a lot of that at the select committee. We had a bit of discussion; we made some changes. The changes we made were very collaboratively done, for example, making it easier to self-exclude—we did that. It wasn’t just the National Party; it was a collective effort. We also said that we can allow to regulate to say you can’t use credit to gamble—very sensible as well. But what the Opposition are not recognising is that that digital world is here and it is not going to go away.

So what we are seeing is more and more—if you like, it’s the wild west—of these overseas-owned cowboys, effectively, coming in and encouraging New Zealanders to gamble online. This bill is the sheriff. This bill is the sheriff coming into town to better protect New Zealanders and to ensure greater benefit for New Zealand. What the Opposition—as Tim Costley just said—seems to be saying is that by not passing the bill, somehow all of this is going to go away, but it’s not. It’s just going to get more and more and more, and it’s going to be unregulated. So the question is, do you want the wild west, or do you want the sheriff? I am on the side of the sheriff in saying we want to regulate this and do a better job.

What this bill does is to establish a three-stage process—it’s quite a rigorous process—to issue up to 15 licences. Now, we did hear concerns about whether 15 was too many. Some people said it should be unregulated, uncapped, which would be even more, but we didn’t really have a great deal of evidence to say what the right number would be, nor did we have a great deal of discussion in the select committee. We got an alternative view from the Labour Party at the end of it, but we didn’t have a lot of discussion within the committee to say, “Actually, this is the number and this is why the number.” So there are a bit of crocodile tears being shed here by the Opposition in that area as well.

Look, the idea here is that if you have a substantial number of licensed organisations you give some choice as to who people are going to gamble with if they’re going to gamble. I don’t understand why they do it, but if they’re going to gamble it’s safer to do that in a swimming pool that is regulated than to get into the river that is unregulated, with the alligators. That’s your choice: you have a swimming pool that is regulated, you can choose which pool you want to go into, or you’re in the river with the alligators.

It also allows some education. It also allows the operators to promote themselves so that people are actually going to say, “I know these people, I know they’re regulated, and I will go with them rather than with somebody who is the alligator in the river.”. I do note, though, that this House has, in terms of promotion and advertising, of course, said that it’s quite happy with advertising going to greater levels on some of the days which people might find somewhat confronting; I’m thinking of Easter, Anzac, and Christmas. So we’ll just see how that goes. It’s good that we’ve got a review in there.

As we’ve heard, we had a lot of feedback on this. The sports community were really, really quick to get organised. They did a lot of work. They were very united, and they provided very strong and well-articulated feedback. Their issue was community benefit and what they saw as the threat—and it’s an existing threat; the online gambling is there, it’s growing, and it’s an existing threat to class 4 revenue. I’ve been on both sides of this as a person giving grants out and also as part of organisations which have received grants. That money is essential to many of our sporting and community organisations. So they were rightly concerned that online gambling and the growth of online gambling, if there was nothing to compensate for that, was going to be a real concern, an existential threat, potentially, to them.

We’ve had, essentially, a long-term social contract—and it’s in the Gambling Act 2003—that we know that gambling can be harmful. We know that and nobody would disagree with that, but the contract really is that as a result of that we’re saying that gambling comes alongside community benefits, so that the proceeds of gambling go to community benefit. The problem with the bill, and I completely agree with what Tim Costley said here, is I don’t think any of those in that select committee—ACT is not represented in that select committee—liked the bill as it was introduced. That issue of no community benefit was a real problem. Our submitters saw this as breaching that social contract. As we’ve already heard, of the 4,837 submissions that we received, about 3,966 of them—so most of them—raised that issue of community returns.

As I said, there was real concern about the erosion or potential erosion of online gambling eroding terrestrial class 4 gambling. We heard that message. I think parties across the House heard that message. Obviously, the Minister for Internal Affairs and Cabinet heard that message and I’d say well done to her for listening and for making the change and for setting aside that 4 percent of gross revenue for community benefit. And, actually, I agree; if that 4 percent was higher, I think that would be a good thing because the biggest beneficiary, not only of this, but also all forms of gambling actually is the Government. The Government could think—doesn’t matter whether it’s a red-led Government or blue-led Government—about whether in fact it gave more money from those proceeds to community and sporting organisations. That’s a decision that executives can make.

One last thing I did want to talk about was that the select committees often get tram lines within which they can look at amendments and we make quite a number of, I think, very useful amendments. There’s three I want to pick up that were specifically ones that I promoted. So they’re very much New Zealand First - type ones. The first one of them was picking up the Minister’s change—we knew that Cabinet was going to change, but we said “Let’s add to the purpose of the bill.” So into the purpose of the bill, clause 3 (e) now says that the purpose of the bill—“ensure that money from online casino gambling benefits the community.” So that reflects the change that Cabinet said that it wanted to make. It’s now in the purpose of the bill. Previously it wasn’t there.

Another issue which was raised by some of the submitters, particularly some of the community trusts in New Zealand—they said that they wanted to be able to be part of those 15 licences, and in doing that they’re more likely to give more money back to the community. So not only the 4 percent, but they are also—I mean, they are required to distribute their surpluses back to community. That’s a great thing. I said, “Look, can we be part of that?” And so there are two other changes there which make that more likely. The first of them is in clause 14, which requires licence applicants to disclose their intended contributions to New Zealand. Then clause 19 requires the Secretary of Internal Affairs to consider the scope of the licence applicant’s presence in New Zealand—whether they’ve got staff, a base, whatever it might be here—and their planned contributions to the community. So those things make it more likely that—we like putting New Zealand first—New Zealand-based organisations are more likely to be party to those licences.

We also made, in that same vein, amendments to ban synthetic lotteries. Why did we do that? To safeguard the Lotto New Zealand revenue, again because that Lotto New Zealand revenue goes to New Zealand community organisations. So all of those things are about making sure that more benefit goes not just to the Crown, but also to the community. Finally, as I’ve already mentioned, the changes that we made as a select committee to tighten up on harm minimisation, which I think were good.

There is provision, as you heard from the Minister, to review the bill. I think those things are really, really important because we want to see what has been the impact of increasing online gambling—if it does increase, to what degree?—on class 4 gambling. How well does the new system work? How well does New Zealand Lotteries manage it in terms of distribution? How the advertising provisions work, and how the harm minimisation provisions work, and all of those things are important to review. That’s a good thing.

I think that notwithstanding the protestations you’ve heard from the Opposition, this bill is a much, much better bill than it started. It regulates a potentially harmful activity, it improves safety, and it provides, now, for community benefit. I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): This is a five-minute split call. Oriini Kaipara.

ORIINI KAIPARA (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau) (11:46): E te Pīka, tēnā koe. Today we reach the third and final reading of the Online Casino Gambling Bill, a law that will shape the digital gambling landscape of Aotearoa for generations to come.

On behalf of Te Pāti Māori and as the member for Tāmaki Makaurau, I rise grounded in the voices of whānau and Māori health providers and community organisations who submitted in unprecedented numbers. There are 61,000 people across Aotearoa currently experiencing harmful gambling—the same as the population of Rotorua.

For Te Pāti Māori, our compass is very clear. Mana motuhake—the right of our people to live with dignity and self-determination, mana ōrite—equity and fairness in all systems, and mana mokopuna—the protection of our children and future generations. When we test this bill against those values, it fails every single measure.

Mana motuhake—protecting the wellbeing and autonomy of our people. Look, Māori are 3.5 times more likely to experience problem gambling harm. That’s not an accident. It’s the result of decades of targeted gambling access in our poorest suburbs, and communities already carrying the weight of colonisation, poverty, and housing insecurity. Hāpai Te Hauora, the national Māori Public Health organisation, told us that online casino gambling is one of the most harmful forms of gambling: fast-paced, available 24/7, designed to keep people playing until they lose everything. They warned that this bill does not uphold Te Tiriti o Waitangi, it does not embed Māori governance, and it does not protect Māori data or Māori decision making. Turuki Health and Māori providers across Tāmaki Makaurau echoed those same concerns. Gambling harm is intergenerational. It compounds stress, poverty, and whānau breakdown. Without strong protections, this bill will deepen inequalities and inequities for Māori.

Mana ōrite—fairness, equity, and community returns. Of the 4,837 submissions, 3,966 raised concerns about the loss of community returns. Class 4 gambling, for all its flaws, at least requires 40 percent of net proceeds to be returned to communities. But this bill allows offshore operators to extract profits with no obligation to reinvest in Aotearoa. The select committee has recommended increasing the gambling duty from 12 percent to 16 percent, and—

Andy Foster: Did you read the bill?

ORIINI KAIPARA: Yes, I did—and returning 25 percent of that duty to communities through the Lottery Grants Board. That is a good step but it is not equity. It is not mana ōrite because the truth is offshore companies will profit. Māori communities, in fact all communities across Aotearoa, will pay a heavy price.

Mana mokopuna—protecting our children and future generations. The number of rangatahi aged between 13—13—and 18 who have engaged in online gambling has risen to 52 percent. That is half of all our young people. This bill sets the online casino age at 18—18—years old, even though you must be 20 to enter a physical casino. That inconsistency exposes rangatahi to one of the most addictive forms of gambling at a younger age, on a device they carry in their pocket. Problem gambling is not an individual failure; it is a system failure. When that system harms our mokopuna, we have a duty to intervene.

What is next? As this bill turns into law, Te Pāti Māori will continue to hold future Governments to task to ensure they strengthen this legislation. Māori submitters have been very clear about what is needed: a complete ban on gambling advertising, including influencers and images of wealth; a centralised self-exclusion register that’s operational before licences are granted, not in 2027; a higher age limit; mandatory community returns; Māori co-governance; and stronger harm-minimisation tools. These are not just policy settings; they are expressions of our duty to protect our people. E te Whare, Māori organisations, health providers, and community groups have been unequivocal. They have told us that gambling harm is already devastating whānau, and this bill, when enacted, will make that harm worse. They have told us that our mokopuna, our future, deserve better. We oppose this bill.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (11:51): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Prior to coming to Parliament, I worked at the front lines with people on the benefit and people experiencing poverty. We served them every day as they came through our doors, often asking for hardship assistance to survive. During that time, I met many families whose lives had been wrecked by problem gambling. Other speakers have noted the issues of intergenerational impacts of problem gambling, and I saw those first hand. Families who have not received help had entered into such high levels of debt that they became homeless, or they were about to become homeless, and they were struggling to receive assistance from the agencies that were required to support them.

During that time, I also experience what other speakers noted, which was having, as a community organisation, to rely from funds from lotteries, knowing that your ability to serve the community had to come from funds that were directly gathered from harm that was being created as a result of gambling. That was a really, really difficult thing to have to juggle, coming from the community sector. Online gambling does need regulations, and we simply cannot accept the status quo. In scrutinising this bill, we are making a call to vote against it on the merit of the bill itself, not on whether online gambling should be regulated or otherwise.

I think others have spoken about some of the key issues that we have, and I particularly wanted to note how disappointing it is to see that there are no provisions basically prohibiting advertising. I think this is a huge misstep by the Government, particularly because, ultimately, we know that the companies that make profits out of creating misery and harm in our communities do target people that they know are more likely to be impacted by the harm that gambling, including online casino gambling, causes in our communities. Prohibiting advertisement would be one way to curtail the impact that these companies have on our communities.

I do want to note the attempts made by my colleague Mike Davidson to protect the funds that go to the communities. I echo his concerns around the fact that with the way that the bill is now written, there are no guarantees that at least 25 percent of that revenue is directed back into the community. That leaves it open for a future Government to basically decrease that and simply take more of that for just revenue gathering for the Government. I think this speaks of a conundrum that successive Governments have fallen into, of having no reliable and, in my view, ethical ways of resourcing our community sectors, including our community sports sectors who desperately need adequate resourcing. A lot of the grants that exist are grants that are, basically, created out of misery that is caused in our communities. You cannot, as Mike Davidson outlined, offset that harm through these means. You should not be putting community organisations’ ability to survive against harm that is caused in the community.

Something that I raised in the committee stage and committee of the whole House stage and that I do think deserves further work for the Government to explore is around the lack of explicit mention of loot boxes in this bill—I think this is something the Government should do further work on—loot boxes for people who participate in video gaming, particularly computer or mobile gaming. We know that loot boxes are basically a form of online gambling, and they wreck lives. They also target people below the age of 18 particularly. The harm that the loot-box system in video games causes to minors and to families cannot be understated. It’s an area that has not been adequately regulated, and we know from constituency feedback that it causes real financial harm to families. I tried to put in an amendment to add a definition of it so that it would be included in what we considered online casino gambling, but the Minister did not support it. If the Minister thinks that this wasn’t the place to regulate loot boxes, I highly encourage her to look at further work that should be done in this area.

I think that while we all agree in this House that online gambling causes real harm and destroys lives, what we haven’t had cross-party agreement on has been on how to tackle corporates that make profit out of misery. This is why the Green Party isn’t supporting this bill and calls on the Government to strengthen this piece of legislation.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty) (11:56): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I think context in this debate is really important. At present, there is online gambling taking place in New Zealand, and this legislation creates regulation to say, “Enough is enough. We need to bring it into line. We need to have laws in place. We need to make sure we follow proper process, and then, also, we can provide support to those who are impacted by gambling harm across New Zealand.”

This is what this bill does. It says we can know who those people are, we can provide them the support they need, but also—and, importantly, as a local sports player and in many local teams in my community—it has a community-return component too, which is a really positive step for sporting and community organisations that receive lotteries grants. Now they will receive them also from online casino gambling. It’s a really positive step forward. It brings it into line to where New Zealand needs to go, so I commend it to the House.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) (11:57): The characterisation from the Government about what’s going on is really fascinating. They’re talking about regulating an industry that does cause misery. What they haven’t said is that they are regulating it and expanding it at the same time. Listen to the words very closely from the lead Minister, who talked about creating “a competitive market”. Now, that’s a really insightful term there—“a competitive market”. Yes, there currently is online gambling, but it’s around the margins, and there certainly aren’t incentives at the moment for those operators to be competitive against each other in the way that the ACT Party and this particular Minister would like them to be. I think the National Party has fallen asleep at the wheel on this one. The Minister for Mental Health has been missing in action, and the crazy thing about this is that the regime to regulate the online gambling space has occurred, the decision has been made—the Cabinet papers show that—and then everyone’s scratching their heads and going, “What are we going to do to minimise harm?”

There was no discussion at the beginning about whether we even wanted this competitive market in our environment and whether the better opportunity would have been to say, “There is online gambling; what are we going to do to minimise it?”, rather than, “What are we going to do to expand it?” This is what has happened in reality, and that’s what happens when you have a coalition Government that is the tail wagging the dog, with the main party asleep at the wheel. The Minister for Mental Health—who likes to say that he’s the first Minister, and he’s all about creating wellbeing for New Zealanders—is allowing our young people to be at the behest of predatory international gambling organisations, who now have full licence, 15 of them potentially, to operate in New Zealand. That is what is going on with this bill, and that is why we oppose it.

I too would like to thank the 4,837 different people and organisations who submitted to the select committee. I didn’t get to sit there and listen, but I certainly did read many of the submissions, and I was here for the committee of the whole House stage. That was a fascinating process. On the one hand, we have the reality that this bill is going to allow young people, with their devices carried around with them 24/7, to be exposed to a new competitive advertising marketing regime on online gambling in their homes and away from harm’s way.

Then we have a Minister who did not seem to understand the difference between consumer protection and harm minimisation. I asked her very carefully in the committee of the whole House stage about whether she thought the harm minimisation element of this bill was strong enough. She gave answers that related to consumer protection. Now, consumer protection is things like making sure you’re not ripped off, being able to put yourself on to a register if you think you might be in harm’s way, but harm minimisation includes being able to protect young people or those who are already at harm from further harm. It means a positive duty of care on organisations that get licences to make sure they are not causing harm.

Those provisions are not in there, and, in fact, we’ve heard already that advertising and marketing, a critical part of this regime, have been relegated to secondary legislation. We don’t even know what that will look like. That means it will be subject to regulatory capture, because there is every incentive for those big international organisations to want to make sure that the regime is as narrow as possible. It is very difficult to tighten regulatory regimes on advertising in this kind of space once they have been set. How can we have a transparent conversation when we do not even know what those provisions look like?

It feels to me, really, like this is an ACT agenda, and I’m so sad that the National Party didn’t step up around the mental health side of this. We had a decision that was taken as a fait accompli. We had Cabinet papers that showed officials trying to grapple with harm minimisation and the levy for harm minimisation in the health space, acknowledging explicitly in those papers that a decision had already been taken to create this regime. That is silly. It’s flawed. It’s the right hand and the left hand not really being coordinated, and it shows that this has been led by an agenda outside of health.

Now, when we think about gambling, what is gambling designed to do? It is designed to get people involved in a way that they will spend more money. Why is it that in this House we can have very specific debates around details and minutiae about particular alcohol laws over Easter, and yet we do not have a conscience vote and we do not have a health approach on something that is going to open a tsunami of problem gambling and exposure to problem gambling for our young people?

We have a mental health crisis. Our youth have been recognised across the board, including by the mental health commission, including by the mental health Minister, as experiencing a crisis, as the front line of what is happening, particularly in the online space. We are having a debate about whether we should be changing the age rules for social media. On the other side of this, we are saying let’s create—not only create; expand—a competitive market for online gambling that our young people will be exposed to 24 hours a day. How on earth does that make sense? It is unintelligent and it is the cart before the horse.

Why were the public not able to have a discussion first about whether we even want this sector here, and if the reality is that we have it here, what are we going to do to make sure we minimise the harm? That should be the first principle. It should not be about a tax grab. It is not our young people’s fault that this Government could not make their fiscals work and looked around desperately to try and find where they could get some revenue from and thought, “Oh yeah, gambling—that’s a good one. Never mind the harm. Let’s get this through quickly. Let’s allow our mental health Minister to go silent. Let’s put it in internal affairs and take the wrong approach and put not only this generation but future generations at risk.” Unacceptable.

I know this. I’ve seen the documents. I have seen the sequencing that things happened in, and I have heard, with my own unbelieving ears, the Minister’s response to my questions on harm minimisation, which showed she did not understand what that meant.

Let’s think about what some of the provisions do. The advertising is being put into secondary regulation. There is risk of regulatory capture there. There is no duty of care anywhere in the bill to try and find some way of capturing the harm that could be happening to young people who are skipping across multiple sites. It is all predicated on the assumption that somebody will go on to a site and, if alarm bells ring because they’ve been on there for a long time, there will be some kind of red flag. But gamblers don’t do that. They go across sites. The Minister was given that evidence in this House and asked the questions. She refused to do anything about that.

The Minister was given the evidence about loot boxes. She was given the evidence about loyalty awards, around spins, around the very close link with gamification. These are all massive loopholes in this law, because the definition section is not at pace with the reality that is occurring for our young people. Ricardo Menéndez March, myself, and others tried to alert her and say, “Minister, if you are really intent on ramming this through the House, at least put some real protections in for our young people.” But, no, none of that has been addressed, so the harm will continue for those people, and that’s unacceptable.

I recently met with Dr Kelly Feng, who many people in this House know, from Asian Family Services. They are, in some ways, the last cab off the rank to get mental health funding, and it is not because they don’t do an outstanding job—they do. The problem is because they do not know what they do not know about their community. They cannot measure what is not coming through the medicalised door when it comes to gambling harm. Anecdotally, there is a huge amount of evidence and a picture of young Asian New Zealanders in particular with gambling problems, but because they do not go through doctors’ doors or access and Choice programmes, they are not counted. What is going to happen to that community, and how are people like Dr Kelly Feng, who is so committed to serving them, going to be able to provide the tools to be able to clean up the mess and the harm that this Government is proliferating through this unconscionable, immoral, and ill-thought-through bill that they are doing just for a tax grab?

I implore the National Party to find your chops and think about the mental health aspects. Get your Minister to do some advocacy, because he has been completely missing in action, and join us in voting against this bill instead of throwing our young people under the bus.

Hon MELISSA LEE (National) (12:07): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Listening to that speech actually shows that that member was not present during the select committee process. People listening to this debate will be under the impression, mistakenly, that online gambling doesn’t currently exist and that the harm isn’t actually happening. The statistics that were quoted by some members opposite, who talked about the harm that is already here and actually affecting our communities, are correct. The previous Government didn’t do anything for six years about this. It has been around for a while. It didn’t just all of a sudden appear, and we’re not introducing the harm. It already exists in our communities. It exists.

This bill actually minimises that. What we’re trying to do is regulate, because otherwise it is out there already, we’re not collecting taxes from those businesses, and we don’t even know if they’re doing any harm minimisation work. They’re actually happening. This bill regulates, tries to provide harm minimisation work, and actually delivers to the communities who can benefit from the profits. Mr Speaker, I commend the bill to the House.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour) (12:08): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. As I rise and have been listening throughout this debate, as many people have said, and the previous speaker, we’re talking about harm here. We’re talking about individuals. We’re talking about families. We’re talking about communities. I don’t know experiences that members in this Chamber have had when it comes to gambling hurt and harm, but I know in my own family, I have a family member who, unbeknownst to many of us, ended up, within their own home, in an online gambling addiction, which caused great harm—in fact, a relationship breakdown—because of the addiction and because of the allure and because of the in the shadows that online gambling creates.

I also have one of my foster boys who got into the pokies a long time ago. As much as that is harmful—and it is—it was visible and it could be visually regulated, in terms of he was actually banned. He was on the register, and so he would go to the pokies and his photo was there and he wasn’t able to enter them.

Sadly, again, because of challenges, he found the world of online casino gambling, and that addiction has continued. We’ve done work, and hopefully there’s a way through it, but it is a challenge. Yes, emotions are high; yes, people are passionate; yes, we must do something about this. But, again, it’s not just words in this Chamber; it’s not just words on the bill, which will become an Act. It’s actually about the lives of young people, the lives of old people, the lives of all cultures where it happens. Let us pause and remember that.

As a Labour Party, yes, we are going to oppose this, and I want to thank our lead on this, my colleague Lemauga Sosene, who has led us well in terms of not only the select committee but talking us as a caucus through why we should be standing up and saying no. Yes, all the way through, it’s been “We must be doing something, we must be doing something”—we must find a way through—but, in many ways, there have been moments as this bill has traversed the House where it has seemed rushed at times. There were changes that were made at the committee of the whole House and that were made quite quickly. I’m not sure, because of those changes, if we should potentially slow things down and maybe take it back to select committee to unpack it a bit more. Yes, we must change it, but what is the point of changing it if we don’t get it right—if we come back into this House in a year or two and have to play around with it yet again because we haven’t got the settings right, and it actually isn’t helping people, and it isn’t helping the harm? We support regulation; we began regulation on this; and we must keep leaning in and figuring it out.

Now, we’ve had conversations as well—and I heard a previous Government member speak about the fact of helping communities and putting money back into communities. The question is: at what cost do we do that? Community returns—yeah, they maybe potentially can come from the dividends from online gambling, but is that worth it when harm is done within communities and within families? I look at the submission from the Salvation Army; they ran the Oasis programme for problem gamblers—I think it was from the mid-1990s until about five or 10 years ago when the funding dried up for them and they weren’t able to provide that service. The service was so necessary because this is one of those addictions, one of those issues, like many, that crosses whether you’re well-to-do, whether you’re rich, whether you’re poor, whether you’re working class—it crosses through everything. The question for me is: is sustainable wellbeing, in terms of getting a bit more cash into the community, worth it when we cannot be building and dealing with problem gambling issues?

We need to find good policy; we need to find a way through. This is not it, and we cannot in good faith support this bill. We oppose this bill. We suggest, potentially, why not take it back to select committee? Why not pull it apart again so we can get it right and ensure that people, that communities, that families who are struggling with online gambling will get the help and support they need?

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam) (12:13): It is a great honour to rise in support of the Online Casino Gambling Bill in this third reading. Online gambling is in New Zealand; it is widely accessible on many devices, and currently, it is unregulated.

It is surprising that the other side don’t actually want to support this bill. They talk about the harm; they did nothing, for six years, about dealing with the harm of online gambling. This is making sure that it’s a level playing field. Some of that money is going to go towards our community—[Interruption] Pity they weren’t so loud and getting up and talking during the last Parliament to actually do something. This is actually making sure that money can go towards our community organisations and we can help minimise the harm. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour) (12:14): It doesn’t matter what side of this debate we’re on, we all know, in this House, that the harm from gambling is hideous. We’ve heard today from people who have had firsthand experience; we’ve heard from people who maybe have had second-hand experience; but most of us can make a connection to someone or people who have had harm from gambling.

It’s not really recognised alongside the other addictions that we hear about. My colleague Ingrid Leary kind of talked about that, and the way that we even vote upon that in this House. If we have a vote in this House on a bill that’s around alcohol, that usually goes as a conscience vote, but here we’re talking about just as horrific an addiction, in the form of gambling, and we’re not taking that same approach. It’s the same for our support people who help the people who suffer from addictions in society and in the community. They don’t get the same support that other people do—that other groups do. They don’t have the same sort of revenue that comes in to them.

In fact, my colleague talked about Oasis and the good work that Salvation Army did through their Oasis programme. I think it was 31 years that they were delivering support for gambling harm. In fact, in 2024, their revenue dried up—so it wasn’t 10 years ago; it was only two years ago that their revenue dried up. We lost a great organisation that supported people. I’ve seen families drawn and pulled apart because of gambling; I’ve seen mums who are living in poverty and trying desperately to provide for their family who have got hooked into the gambling mode. I’ve seen them ripped apart from their families because of what gambling has done to them. It is absolutely hideous.

Do you know what, I’ve heard from the other side—they’re saying that Labour wants to do nothing here, and that is not the case. We want to see regulation, but not regulation that potentially makes it more permissive, and that’s exactly what this bill does. It has the potential to make online gambling more permissive. Now, nobody is saying, as I’ve heard from the other side today, that online gambling doesn’t exist already. It is getting bigger and bigger all the time, but this bill has the potential for it to become even greater and more permissive. I want to spend my contribution here walking through how that is the case. I fear, from the debate that I have heard here today, that there is not a lot of understanding around what the potential hazards are in this bill.

Firstly, I want to talk about the fact that we have no understanding from this bill of what the harm minimisation will be. We’re concerned that it leaves most of that harm minimisation to the Minister and to regulations. Now, if we’re talking about land-based gambling—and I’m going to talk about class 4, and that’s the pokies with the land-based gambling—there are responsibilities on the host of those machines. They are not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but those responsibilities do exist. That is things like ensuring that they’re checking in on the gambler after a certain amount of time; that is ensuring that we haven’t got one person that’s stuck at a machine for hours and hours on end; that is ensuring that there is the right support there, going and having a conversation, and that there is not an ATM right beside where the gambling is happening. Those host responsibilities are about exclusion as well. The host has to exclude after a certain amount of time. Those host responsibilities happen for a reason: to ensure that our people are kept as safe as they possible can be.

Now, how can you possibly do host responsibilities with online gambling? That’s a question that, when I was Minister of Internal Affairs, I asked myself over and over again. We didn’t have the technology to do that back in 2021. But, guess what, we have the technology, and it’s working in jurisdictions across the world now. That technology exists, through artificial intelligence, to have host responsibilities that would exclude gamblers right from the word go. The Minister knows about this, but the Minister has refused to put this into the bill, so we open up advertising, and we don’t have that technology that can exclude people that are over and over in repetitive gambling right at the start. The advertising’s there, luring them in all the time. That has the potential to be more permissive than what we’ve ever seen in the online space before. I say to the other side: be careful of the unintended consequences that you are putting in place today. That is why we are taking a stance to stand against this bill.

Also, I want to talk about the number of licences. We’ve heard that here. I do believe in a licensing regime, but 15 licences for our population makes us as permissive as the UK, which is the most permissive gambling jurisdiction in the world. That’s what we’re doing today. We’re making it more permissive than ever, and we don’t have the moral obligation with it going to auction. I don’t disagree about how it’s being done, but I’m saying with that going to auction and being on the open market, there is a potential that we won’t have people from our local country or organisations from our local country being able to win at that auction. Therefore, that means no company that is involved in this could have the moral obligation back to our country.

Let’s take one example of that: Skycity are a provider of online gambling who are offshore currently. They have their online site offshore because they can’t legally run it in New Zealand. They, potentially, might not be successful at that online auction, yet they have a moral obligation because they are a big company linked back to this country. We might not have them or any other New Zealand company involved in winning any of those online auctions. We could have companies that don’t give a damn about the moral fibre of this country winning at that auction. That’s what this bill does, and that’s the problem that we see with it. I want to see an online regime here. I want to see something that’s going to keep New Zealanders safe, but this bill has the potential to do exactly the opposite.

To me, I can’t morally vote for it, because I have seen that damage. When I was up, once as Minister, in Whangārei, I walked through a library, and the library people were telling me about all of the wonderful free internet that they were providing with their computers. Every single one of those computers—all 15 of them—was on an online gambling site. I want to see protections, but this bill has the potential to go in the absolute opposite direction. It pains me that we don’t have something on the Table here today that is going to keep New Zealanders safe. That is what you are voting on today. The other side is voting on a bill that has the potential to do the exact opposite of what has been said.

I am never going to be in a place where I am going to put New Zealanders and the people that I see that are unsafe in this area at harm any more. I am willing to work on a solution, and I am willing to sit down and come to something that is cross party in this area, because I think we owe it to New Zealanders. I also think we owe it to New Zealanders to have a broader discussion on the community funding. While I agree with what has happened overall, my heart says we need to look at how we can decouple that community funding and look at other ways, because it is completely immoral that we are propping up our brilliant community organisations on the back of such harm. We need to have that serious discussion, and I hope that we can be adult enough to have that in the next short while. It pains me, but I cannot support this bill.

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill) (12:24): I am personally against gambling. I was told that enjoying gambling, drugs, alcohol, and smoking isn’t a path to a stable life in New Zealand. In my ideal world, we should ban any form of gambling, but we need to be realistic. Online gambling does exist. Online platforms are now making global gambling accessible at any moment, exposing more people to harm. This bill will not stop people from online gambling. However, it does take the necessary steps by closing those loopholes and bringing greater oversight to online gambling. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Online Casino Gambling Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 54

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 5; Ferris.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast) (12:26): Point of order, Mr Speaker. I might be mistaken, but I was pretty sure the Greens voted 14 votes, which would make it not 55 votes, but 54.

Celia Wade-Brown: I did say 14.

DANA KIRKPATRICK: I think it’s the calculation, Mr Speaker. It’s 54, not 55.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): OK. The Ayes are 68; the Noes are 54. The question is still agreed to. Fast maths over there. Congratulations!

Building and Construction Sector (Self-certification by Plumbers and Drainlayers) Amendment Bill

Legislative Statement

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction) (12:27): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to present a legislative statement on the Building and Construction Sector (Self-certification by Plumbers and Drainlayers) Amendment Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Second Reading

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction) (12:28): Thank you. I move, That the Building and Construction Sector (Self-certification by Plumbers and Drainlayers) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

I’d like to start by thanking the Transport and Infrastructure Committee—including, in particular, its chair, Mr Andy Foster—for their careful deliberation on the bill. I’d also like to thank everyone who submitted on the bill at select committee. The submissions resulted in a number of changes that will improve the workability of the bill and, as I shall go on to explain later, regulations that we’ll make to give effect to the scheme.

It’s usual in the second reading, almost as a courtesy, to mention the work of the select committee, and I duly acknowledge the work that’s been done, but, actually, in this case particularly, I do want to make a point of saying that substantive changes to the bill and the regime more generally have actually resulted from really good, thorough, robust discussion, appropriately reflecting the tension—and I use that phrase not in an ugly sense, of course—between the select committee, that which the Minister on behalf of the Government had put forward, and industry, including, especially, through the work of Master Plumbers, etc. I think we’ve ended up with a much better result than that which I would have proposed to Parliament, so I do want to really clearly set out for the record that I’m grateful for the members who contributed to that.

We all know that the building consent system is somewhat slow and inefficient. It can delay and cause increase to cost to build in this country. Inefficiencies are caused by the understandably risk-averse behaviour and limited capacity of building consent authorities—almost invariably councils. A couple of former mayors of Wellington would no doubt have some sympathy for that view, including particularly the fact that they have the unfunded mandate, in local government speak, for the work that we ask them to do in this space.

The system also, though, discourages professionals from taking responsibility for their own work, which is another cause of inefficient behaviour. This bill introduces an opt-in scheme, allowing approved plumbers and drainlayers to self-certify that their work complies with the building consent, without the need for an inspection by a building consent authority—I’m just going to say BCA from now on for that. This will save time and money for practitioners, BCAs, and building owners. It will allow plumbers and drainlayers to get on with the job and to be trusted to do it right.

This bill is about choice. Individuals and businesses will be able to decide if they want to use this pathway to save time and money. They can also, on the other hand, decide to continue to have the building consent authorities inspect their work if they wish. The scheme enables approved professionals to take responsibility for their work, while maintaining consumer confidence that the work will be consistent with the consent and building code requirements. It also helps BCAs to use their resources more efficiently by enabling them to focus on other, higher-risk work that deserves their attention.

There are a number of safeguards in the bill to ensure that the work is carried out by appropriately qualified plumbers and drainlayers. First, BCAs will still be assessing their overall building design, including the design of plumbing and drainlaying to ensure that it meets the building code. The Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Board will be able to set minimum standards so that only competent practitioners who can cover their civil liabilities will be able to self-certify. These standards must cover a technical competency, experience, ability to meet potential civil liability, and business and administrative practices. In practice, this means that plumbers and drainlayers will still need to go through robust checks before being part of that scheme, so building owners and consumers can be confident that the work will be done right—and, actually, in the event that push comes to shove, so to speak, there would be appropriate recourse and redress.

The scope of self-certifiable work will be limited to the definition set in regulations. Again, I’ll touch more on that shortly, but I do want to assure you that it’s something that I’m focused on getting right—again, with due acknowledgment of the work that’s been done by the select committee, submitters, and so on to ensure that we get to that place. Self-certifiers will issue certificates of compliance, which must be accepted by BCAs as evidence that the work complies with the building consent. Territorial authorities must keep the certificates issued by self-certifiers and make them available to the public. In practice, this will mean that the public can view the certificates as part of a property file. Information from the certificates will also be held on a searchable public register, supporting transparency for the board, future owners, and other interested parties such as insurers and maybe lenders.

The board will also be able to audit self-certifiers and the certificates of compliance they issue, with appropriate powers to discipline self-certifiers where things go wrong. These powers are important to give the board the tools for proper oversight and are a key feature of a self-certification scheme. If an audit finds that something is not right, the board will be able to fine the self-certifier or cancel or suspend their endorsement to self-certify among other possible disciplinary actions.

Finally, there are also broader consumer protections available in the Building Act, including implied warranties and defect remediation periods. I have also announced the move to proportionate liability, which will have appropriate supporting structures in place to support that shift—more on that on another day.

Moving now to changes recommended by the committee to improve the bill, I will point out that they made recommendations that will improve the workability—again, with some further discussions about what the regulations flowing from the Act will need to cover. Because these changes can be found in the report, I don’t intend to go through every recommendation today; others might, obviously, wish to do so. I will instead focus on the key changes, and I will briefly summarise them now.

First, the select committee recommended expanding the professions who can declare that the work is self-certifiable as part of an application for building consent to also include registered architects, chartered professional engineers, and design-class licensed building practitioners—or LBPs. This will allow BCAs to be satisfied that the proposed work is self-certifiable before they grant a building consent, regardless of whether plumbers or drainlayers have been engaged at the time that the consent is lodged. This is a sensible change that will make the process of applying for a consent that includes self-certified work more aligned with how plumbers and drainlayers work in practice.

Next, I appreciate the select committee’s recommendation that the bill explicitly state that a building consent may include both self-certified and non - self-certified plumbing and drainlaying work. This recommendation clarifies that self-certifiable work can be done by a self-certifier while any remaining plumbing or drainlaying work that is not self-certifiable will still be subject to oversight from the BCA. This will allow a self-certification to apply to more building consents while managing the risks associated with higher work—again, seeking to strike a balanced and proportionate approach.

I shift now to the powers of the board to provide oversight of the scheme. I appreciate the select committee’s recommendation to ensure the board has appropriate powers to audit self-certifiers. Auditing provides the opportunity to assess whether the self-certifier continues to meet the minimum standards for eligibility to the scheme between the three-yearly renewal periods for endorsements. The committee’s recommendation will ensure that the board has these powers and can fund these audits through appropriate cost-recovery mechanisms. It will ensure that the board can check whether a self-certified plumber or drainlayer is self-certifying in accordance with the expected standards.

The committee also recommended that the board report on its audit activity through an annual report. This means that the number and outcome of practitioner audits and audits of certificates of compliance are transparent. This, in general, will support consumer confidence in the scheme and provide valuable insights into the performance of self-certifiers.

I’m nearly done! The select committee also considered the scope of work that can be self-certified under the scheme. It is important to balance the needs for the scheme to be attractive to both plumbers and drainlayers, as well as consumers, while mitigating the consequence if things were to go wrong. I’m confident that, between the committee’s recommendations in the bill and the regulations that we’re proposing, we’ll end up getting that balance right.

I will just briefly now, in my final remaining moment, take the opportunity to talk about the proposed regulations. Having listened to those concerns and being mindful of the fact that we need not only a system that’s balanced and proportionate and, therefore, has appropriate nuance about where we draw the line, we also need to make sure that it’s workable in the sense that people know what their roles and responsibilities and obligations are. A scheme that is sufficiently clear and simple and will not be the subject of confusion has been a prime aim of what we’ve sought to achieve in terms of where we draw those lines.

I would point out that for a significant number of consents in the rural communities—many of which use on-site systems and can face particular challenges in getting inspectors on site—they wish to be eligible to take advantage of the benefits of the scheme. Similarly, the proposed definitions will allow consents that use sustainable systems, such as solar water heaters, to be within the scope of the scheme.

The effectiveness of the scheme overall depends on ensuring that the regulations are well designed—something that the select committee, quite rightly, highlighted in their commentary. I am confident that we will do this, with thanks again to those officials from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment who have been working with the board; industry groups, including Master Plumbers; building consent authorities; and insurance providers, to make sure that the scheme is attractive to practitioners, encourages strong uptake, and still appropriately manages the risk associated with self-certification. On that note, I commend the bill to the House.

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

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (12:37): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Good on that Minister and good on the hard-working select committee, ably chaired by Andy Foster, for taking on the concerns that have come up from submitters and from the industry on this bill.

This is not a technical bill; this is a bill that really impacts on ordinary people’s lives. Just this morning, at 8 o’clock, I received an email from Jenny. It’s full of explanation marks, and it’s titled “Plumbers”. She says, “Who keeps guarantees for 25 years? Who honours it? Make them!” She also says, “Is there a law that forbids companies from producing tax without spare parts available? So frustrating!” Jenny, you’re right.

These are the kinds of emails that we receive every day. Minister, I can see that you receive them too, and that this is one of those bills where it has been hard to turn around a big ship, in the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, that is resistant to the kind of change that people, New Zealanders, these consumers, people like Jenny, are desperately calling for. That is what we are trying to do here. We are trying to make it more affordable for ordinary and low-risk plumbing to be done in residential homes in low-risk situations. I think we’ve made good progress here, but there is more we could do.

The select committee wasn’t able to produce some amendments that have been called for by submitters. I’m going to use my speech not to talk about what we did arrive at—because that was good work, and I hope the chair will talk about that—but about the things that are missing from what submitters hoped we would be able to make some progress on.

Our support for this remains cautious and not unconditional. My third reading speech will be about the big issues in this, which are about who carries the risk and that liability, because underlying all of this is the need that consumers and homeowners should not bear all of the risk; it should be spread between central and local government and between the practitioners, and that should be fair, because Jenny, at the end of the day, shouldn’t be the one who is left picking up the pieces if things go wrong.

But in this speech, let me tell you about the things that I hope we can continue to push out on that are not within the current confines of this bill. Things have been excluded from a regime that is designed to speed up simple work because the official advice has been that those things are not simple. I think that’s wrong. That’s my opinion; I’m not a plumber, but neither are the people who will mostly be paying for this work and neither are the people who want to see this work becoming more affordable.

The first of these is around the pump systems—pump water supply and irrigation circulation systems. These are really common in some areas like the Kāpiti Coast, and they’re also really common in rural areas and regional areas. They’ve been excluded from what is considered to be simple work. That means that a huge number of houses in large swathes of the country will also be excluded from this regime. That doesn’t seem fair to me. But, also, I was able to go out with a couple of plumbers and to see these systems. These are systems which can be bought from a hardware store at a price which most consumers could afford to do themselves, and often do, but these are being excluded from what plumbers can do because they are not seen as simple by the officials. That doesn’t seem sensible to me. We’ve created an incentive in the marketplace here for me and Cameron to do our own because that will be cheap and is, in fact, legal, but we’ve also excluded the ability of qualified plumbers to self-certify on that work. Why is that? From the layperson’s perspective, that makes no sense, and we weren’t able to hear from officials about why they would also continue to support a regime like that.

There was also a call for solar hot water to be included in this. Heat pump systems and other modern installations are something that plumbers do all the time in New Zealand’s context. These are good things. We should be encouraging them. We should have a regime where it is simple and affordable to be able to install these systems quickly. They are not more risky than other hot water systems. Hot water systems all carry a risk, and they are a serious risk that we should not take lightly: the risk is that they explode. But there is no greater risk from hot water systems which are not solar, and those are systems which are included in this regime. The argument here is that the ordinary person on the street who is choosing between these systems will get a quicker route if they do not elect the solar route. That’s not based on risk; it’s simply based on what has been included in a table from officials. That seems like the wrong call to me.

Grey water reuse systems have also been excluded. This is something that myself and Celia Wade-Brown took up with officials quite in depth, because this is something which, also, is important to systems which are more environmentally friendly and which consumers should have a choice to use, should they want to use their grey water in a way which is going to be not only better for their property in that they’re reusing grey water, but they’re also saving grey water from flowing out into already overloaded systems. This is an important thing that we should be removing any of the barriers from to enable better, more energy-efficient systems of building. This is something that doesn’t make sense to exclude from the simple works. The idea here is, perhaps, there was a health risk. To quote Master Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers (NZ) Inc. on this: “There’s no toilet waste involved. Risk of cross-connection is very low when installed by a licensed plumber.” We trust plumbers to get these sorts of things right. These are the things that they deal with every day. The risk here is not greater than anything else we’re allowing them to self-certify on now.

Retention and detention systems is in the same category as this. The plumber I talked to told me pump systems are needed for the majority of rural properties. If he’s going to be out doing rural properties, he wants to be able to self-certify them. The retention and detention systems that she does every day have been excluded by this Government—probably because the majority of people who work on these systems and the policy aren’t dealing with those systems all the time. It’s not the systems that most people in Wellington would be familiar with in their usual, everyday life, but this is something that plumbers who work in rural areas deal with all the time, and we can certainly find ways of speeding up property connections for rural people at the same time as we do this.

I also want to bring the House’s attention to the views of Master Plumbers around duplicating existing controls rather than targeting the real risk. The idea here is that within a system like the granny flats enabling system, which is about very small dwellings, all of their work is certified. So everything that I’ve just said—which most of you would have thought, “Oh yeah, that seems sensible, let the plumbers do that.”—that is allowed if your building is under 70 square feet; that is perfectly fine. If you’re building 75 square feet, it’s not.

Dana Kirkpatrick: Metres.

ARENA WILLIAMS: Sorry, metres—75 square metres. It’s important to understand here that it’s duplicating rules and making it quite hard for the actual plumbers who are doing the work to make sure that they are complying with these rules. The absurdity of also having different rules for a solar install on a small property versus one that’s slightly larger than that becomes very clear in that context.

If we can tidy these things up, if we can make sure that the plumbers actually doing this work are enabled to continue this, then this will be a workable system. We still have to figure out as a country who bears the risk of this bill, and currently the arrangements for this bill really rely on sorting out proportional liability at the other end. We need central and local government to take their fair share of the risk on. Currently, that’s not what’s going to happen, and so we need to make sure that we also do that work around who carries the guarantees, who carries the insurance.

But this is something that we support, because it brings down the costs for ordinary people to get this work done at the top end, and then we have to, also, sort out the back end of what happens when things go wrong.

CELIA WADE-BROWN (Green) (12:46): Thank you. I would like to start by saying, first of all, that the Green Party really supports plumbers and tradies and the essential work that’s done—for domestic comfort, for safety, and for all of the work that they do. I think there’s about 28,000 plumbers registered in this country or thereabouts, so thank goodness for them, especially with the extraordinary rainfall we’ve been having that has actually exposed a number of issues in past plumbing.

I would also like to say thank you to the chair for the Transport and Infrastructure Committee and my colleagues with slightly different views and experiences. We were certainly enabled to raise issues, have our say, and ask plenty of questions of both the submitters and the officials.

There is a connected bill—and it would be really tidy if they could have come in together, perhaps—about occupational licensing that we do support. A number of the submissions actually made points both about occupational licensing and about increasing the self-certification, and we would, in some ways, have liked to have dealt with those together.

This bill is a tricky one, because you’re weighing up the balance of risk—who takes that risk—and potentially making something cheaper and easier and quicker. I think that people deciding to vote one way or the other can be somewhat of a line call on this. I agree with my colleague Arena Williams that there could be some further improvements.

I just want to quote a couple of things here. I’d like to quote one of the submitters, the Christchurch City Council. They say in their submission: “The self-certification of plumbers and drainlayers is more concerning … [and] The Council”—point 5—“is concerned that most plumbers and drainlayers are not consistently reliable enough to self-certify their work with no third-party overview. The Council observed substantial non-compliant work carried out or supervised by Licensed Building Practitioners (LBPs) after the Canterbury earthquake sequence where there was no third-party overview by persons with no financial involvement (such as a Council).” I think it’s very useful to take what Christchurch City Council has said. This is not a personal opinion; this is an opinion of a large council—and not Wellington, because I thought that would be a bit too close to the bone—to actually reflect that they’re not, or at least at that stage, fully convinced.

There remain some very big questions about what insurance products will be available. The self-certification of electricians and gasfitters is relatively straightforward, because the problems are found straight away or could be tested straight away. Plumbing problems don’t necessarily arise for years. You might end up with a very dry year, in which case the earth cracks, or you might, like we have just now, end up with huge rainfall and scouring and burst pipes and so on that may not have been designed for.

I also would like to echo my colleague Arena Williams’ issues about some of the greener solutions to plumbing. Detention tanks are also used in urban areas, particularly if you’ve got some steep land and perhaps you don’t have an existing or sufficient stormwater connection. They are complex, but they are also sometimes better than a pump system. They would not be included in this work, however much experience—you might have some somebody quite specialised in doing that work. Maybe there should be some way that they were able to be self-certified for that.

The other area is, of course, the reuse of grey water. We’re fortunate—and it was installed by plumbers—we have a system that irrigates our orchard from the washing machine, the washing up, things like that, and it works very well. If somebody routinely installs things like NaturalFlow, should they not be able to self-certify for this?

I think the big question remains about what insurance product is available and for how long they should cover it. Supposing a plumber does some work in the last years of their working life, then—maybe it’s a sole trader—they stop working. Who’s actually going to look after that afterwards so that they’re not going to keep paying from their KiwiSaver into the insurance scheme? I don’t think that has been fully answered yet.

I do agree that there have been some improvements, particularly the fact that you could combine self-certified and non - self-certified in the same consent. Both can be covered. That sort of mitigates the issue of more sustainable solutions—that are still called “alternative” solutions because systems haven’t quite caught up with more natural systems—but I don’t think it’s quite right yet.

A couple of other points. The costs of auditing—I think we really heard both from the Master Plumbers and then from the board. Of course, the board is a different kettle of fish from the Master Plumbers, but we heard from the board that auditing was really important. I think there is still a question in my mind about whether the cost of auditing would only be borne by the opt-in plumbers, in which case it might be quite high and might discourage them, or would it be borne across the whole plumbing fraternity? I do say fraternity, because out of those 28,000, I think there’s less than 20 registered female plumbers, which is a bit of a surprise.

We also don’t know quite what’s going to come up in the regulations. I understand that and that regulations have to adapt to new mechanisms. We’re certainly looking at home at whether we do electric water heating for a bach or whether we do the solar water heating. Would that be a change—would we be deciding one way or the other depending on whether it was cheaper with a self-certified plumber? I don’t know how much difference that would make. We would probably be more concerned about the absolute safety of the system than the cost, but that’s our situation.

Finally, it would be really remiss of me in talking about how the Greens support plumbers not to mention, for the sake of Hansard, that wonderful Green plumber Hannah Spencer, who is now a member of Parliament for Gorton and Denton. The Greens support the plumbers, and at least some plumbers really support the Green Party. Kia ora.

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT) (12:54): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise in support of this bill for a quick speech before we charge off for the afternoon. This is a practical, common-sense piece of legislation. It does something that doesn’t normally happen enough in this country, and that’s trust people who are actually doing the work to get on and do it. I’m proud that this Government—and, by the sounds of it, this House—is moving to trust more people actually on the ground getting the mahi done. At the end of the day, when something goes wrong, New Zealanders don’t want to call bureaucracy. They want to call someone who gets their hands dirty, gets in there, and does the job. These are people who we should be trusting.

Before I turn to the substance of the bill, I think it’s fair to say that there’s been some issues raised in this this debate so far about where liability lands and how we can actually make real changes to a scheme to trust people when, currently, you have to go through a hoop set by legislation that requires building consent authorities to oversee and then carry that liability. It’s a big hurdle for us to fix a system without identifying where the liability lands, where that funding, that underwriting, actually comes from, and then give New Zealanders real choices. If we’re going to continue to have councils holding that burden whilst also needing to fund professional indemnity, insurance, and other things, it’s going to make that decision more difficult.

It just shows though, how slow, cumbersome, and bloody annoying it is when you’re on site to be delayed and delayed and delayed because councils can’t get their A into G and actually get there and sign something off. That’s why we’ve got to call for self-certification for trusted building professionals, just like plumbers, drainlayers, and gasfitters. What we need to be able to do is say that delay is what’s causing the cost. It’s not the underwriting that’s causing the cost. The very fact that we’re trying to get around that cost delay by even having something that may not provide that economic decision as it appears on the surface just shows how much these delays are costing New Zealanders, homeowners, our economy, and our infrastructure. New Zealand across the board cannot go on charging into this century without making sure that we get some of this bureaucracy taken out.

The select committee, I was not a member on at this particular juncture, but I appreciate the work they’ve done, and the contributions so far have been very good for the House to hear, I think. I was particularly impressed at the Opposition members seeming to want to go further. This is something I can completely get behind—reticulated schemes, bringing on hot water, having grey-water storage. This is fantastic news to hear from the Opposition. I’m looking forward to working hard on producing policies for this election that you can get in behind and support. That will be great fun.

What we need to be doing is making sure that this is not a matter of risk and no risk; it’s a matter of risk and professionalism. If you’ve got a plumber or drainlayer, we can trust, to a large extent, that they know what they’re connecting when they’re connecting pipes up. They’re made at different sizes, for one. They’re different colours. You can see these things. If you’re a professional who’s with this every day, you should be able to identify that. There are risks of grey, black, and stormwater connections being made—it’s acknowledged by everyone involved—but this is a very low risk when you’ve got professional plumbers and drainlayers.

What isn’t required to be constantly overseen is things that are in the realm of professional—just doing the work well. Like water hammers—we don’t need inspectors coming out on site and making sure that the person that’s run the pipes has made sure that there’s not a water hammer effect. That is not a critical thing in a building. A water hammer is when you turn off the tap and the pipes shudder and smack into something and make a big noise in the house. It’s bloody annoying, but that’s not a critical failure in a building. That’s just someone who’s not a professional doing their job right. We don’t need to be getting stuck into the nitty gritty of people who genuinely, after doing trades, getting registered, doing the professional development, know what they’re doing and can keep an eye on that. We don’t need a council inspector coming out and checking on that.

I think the expansions that the select committee has made to identify the issues at the design stage and say that registered architects, licensed building practitioner designs, and chartered engineers need to be able to be brought into the scheme so that at the design phase, these can be identified as parts of a building that can be self-certified—so we can actually trust the building professionals, the tradies on the ground who deal with the real world situations. But, actually they need to be identified up front by the partners in the building industry for the people who are out there getting their hands dirty, who don’t always get the acknowledgement that they deserve, and that is the people who are designing our buildings. They need to be able to get it right so that the people on the ground can get it right. There is a whole ecosystem here. I think that goes to show the amount of stages we have to jump through to be able to get stuff built in New Zealand.

Again, this is a great piece of legislation to try and make sure that the real impact on New Zealand is a more affordable, more responsive, more trusted scheme that says to New Zealanders, says to tradies out there, “You are building professionals. We know that you have been trained to do this. We trust you as we would another building professional, and we’re here to enable you and get the hell out of the way.” Thank you, Mr Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): This debate is interrupted and set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. today.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 1.01 p.m.

This early draft is automatically published - it is not yet complete and reviewed.