Wednesday, 24 June 2026

Wednesday, 24 June 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.]

Privilege

Misleading Evidence Given to Education and Workforce Committee

Referral to Privileges Committee

SPEAKER (14:01): Members, I have received a letter from the Hon Phil Twyford raising, as a matter of privilege, matters concerning evidence given to the Education and Workforce Committee by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment on 4 March 2026. I’ve also received a letter from the Education and Workforce Committee on the same matter. The conduct complained of could amount to deliberately attempting to mislead a committee, which is given as an example of a contempt of Parliament in Standing Order 418(b). The Speaker does not inquire into the veracity of the evidence presented or conduct of an inquiry into the allegations. That is the role of the Privileges Committee. The Speaker’s role in such matters is to determine whether the facts alleged could amount to a breach of privilege or a contempt of the House. I find that a question of privilege does arise and the question stands referred to the Privileges Committee.

Presentation

Petitions

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

CLERK (14:02): The petition of Grace Haden requesting that the House establish an independent statutory authority to carry out all the regulatory functions currently assigned to the New Zealand Law Society.

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

Select Committee Reports

SPEAKER (14:02): A select committee report has been delivered for presentation.

CLERK (14:02): Report of the Justice Committee on the petitions of Sam Troth and Jacinta McGregor.

SPEAKER: No bills have been introduced.

Speaker's Rulings

Question Time—Party Political Positions

SPEAKER (14:02): Before the House comes to oral questions, can I just respond to the issues raised by the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins yesterday. I want to make it very clear that it is not appropriate for parties to discuss party political positions ahead of something like the general election that we are going to shortly. Question time is for Governments to be held account for their activities. It is appropriate for any Minister to be asked for an opinion, but that opinion, when offered to the House, should be constrained by decisions about Government policy. As we go into the next four months—about 10 and a half weeks of the House to go—there will be a great temptation to stray into these territories. I’d ask the House, generally, to show some restraint and stick to the Standing Orders, as we have for many, many years.

The first oral question is in the name of Dan Bidois.

Ingrid Leary: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Point of order, Ingrid Hipkiss. Sorry.

Ingrid Leary: You wouldn’t be the first person to do that, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: I know, but if you knew the opinion I hold Radio New Zealand in, you’d find it most strange. Ingrid Leary.

Ingrid Leary: Seeking your guidance, Mr Speaker. I received confirmation of a lodged urgent debate motion from your office this morning, and wondering when we might expect a decision on that.

SPEAKER: Well, shortly.

Ingrid Leary: Thank you.

Oral Questions to Ministers

Finance

Question No. 1

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote) (14:04) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has she seen on New Zealand’s recent economic growth?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (14:04): I’ve seen reports confirming that New Zealand’s economy had real momentum at the beginning of this year. Stats New Zealand figures released last week showed GDP grew by 0.8 percent in the March quarter. That is more than twice the rate that Treasury forecast at Budget 2026. That means the economy has now grown for three consecutive quarters, with total growth of 2.1 percent over the past nine months. New Zealand’s growth in the March quarter was also stronger than that experienced by Australia, the United States, and the OECD average. These figures show New Zealanders’ hard work is paying off and that the economy was tracking in the right direction before recent global instability created additional uncertainty.

Dan Bidois: What does the GDP result show about the nature of the economic recovery?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: What was encouraging was that growth was coming from across the productive economy. Manufacturing grew 1.9 percent in the quarter—a very healthy level of expansion. Wholesale trade grew 2.4 percent, and exports increased 3.1 percent—thank you, farmers. Business investment was also strong, with investment in plant, machinery, and equipment contributing to a 2 percent rise in gross fixed capital formation, undoubtedly supported by the Government’s Investment Boost tax policy. Importantly, GDP per capita rose by 0.5 percent. That means the economy was becoming more productive, not simply larger through population growth.

Dan Bidois: How does stronger-than-forecast growth affect the Government’s fiscal outlook?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, a larger economy supports stronger Government revenues and improves the country’s fiscal position over time, in addition, of course, to supporting additional jobs and better incomes for New Zealanders. The fact that growth came in materially ahead of Treasury’s Budget forecast reinforces that New Zealand was tracking toward recovery and back towards surplus before recent international events disrupted global conditions. That matters because stronger growth supports jobs, lifts incomes, and helps the Government continue reducing debt while investing in front-line public services and infrastructure.

Dan Bidois: What is the Government’s outlook for the economy from here?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Government remains realistic about the challenges both behind us and ahead of us. The conflict in the Middle East and volatility in global oil prices will weigh on short-term growth and create uncertainty for households and businesses. We do not expect that the figures for the second quarter GDP will be as sunny as those in the first three months of the year. However, recent easing in fuel prices and lower international oil prices than Treasury forecast at Budget are encouraging signs for the future. Treasury continues to forecast growth strengthening over time to 2.3 percent next year, and 3.2 percent the following year, alongside 220,000 more jobs being created over four years. The Government’s job is to stay the course, restore the country’s finances, and continue creating the conditions for sustainable long-term growth that improves New Zealanders’ living standards and makes this a more affordable country.

Education

Question No. 2

TĀKUTA FERRIS (Te Tai Tonga) (14:08): E te Pīka, tēnā koe. Tāku pātai ki te Minita Take Mātauranga, Erica Stanford—[Interruption]

[Mr Speaker, thank you. My question is to the Minister of Education, Erica Stanford]

SPEAKER: Hold on. What’s that all about?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, he started it.

SPEAKER: No, he was making a polite address to the Chair—something you should take on board.

TĀKUTA FERRIS (Te Tai Tonga) (14:08) to the Minister of Education: Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Will any kura kaupapa Māori receive funding as a result of the Government’s recently announced $62.5 million infrastructure investment in education across the South Island?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education) (14:09): Not in that particular tranche of funding, but we have a strong focus on building and strengthening the kura kaupapa network in the South Island. There are five kura kaupapa Māori in the South Island. Two have been addressed through previous Budgets. We’ve bought a new site for Te Whānau Tahi in Christchurch to get them out of their leaky site that was built on a rubbish dump—and I’m going to be making further announcements about that very soon; it’s really exciting—and I am advised that construction will start soon at Te Kura Kaupapa Māori o Waitaha in Canterbury. The final one, Tuia te Matangi, in Nelson currently has enough space to grow.

Tākuta Ferris: Does the Minister accept that the 2.9 percent of tamariki Māori in kura or Māori-medium education in Te Waipounamu is not because of a lack of demand but rather a lack of investment in capacity?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: As I already outlined, we have had a particular focus on making sure we are building up the network. Importantly, this Government is working alongside Te Matakāhuki on a network plan for kura kaupapa Māori, the first of its kind. It ensures that our investments are targeted at where they will have the greatest impact, strengthening local choice and making sure that communities have the education infrastructure they need for the future. Since 2024, this Government has invested $233 million across all kura kaupapa and Māori-medium education.

Tākuta Ferris: Is the Minister aware that many Māori-medium providers in Te Wai Pounamu continue to face significant infrastructure challenges, including overcrowding and ageing facilities, and if so, what are your plans to remedy these longstanding issues?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Back to my answer to the primary question , there are five kura kaupapa Māori in the South Island; two have been addressed through previous Budgets. As I have said, a real concern I had was for Te Whānau Tahi, who, for 20 years, have been built on a rubbish dump. We’ve purchased them a new site, which was the site of a private school that was exiting, and we are going to be moving them on to that site. They were a leaky school as well. Also, as I already said, for the fourth one, I’m advised that construction will start soon at Te Kura Kaupapa Māori o Waitaha, in Canterbury, and the school in Nelson currently has enough space to grow.

Tākuta Ferris: Is the Minister comfortable with kura such as Te Pā o Rākaihautū continuing to operate in earthquake-damaged, leaking, and mould-affected facilities while $62.5 million is invested elsewhere in Te Wai Pounamu?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, is that a Te Rūnanga Nui school? We’ve got an issue here, Mr Speaker, because the question was specifically about kura kaupapa Māori which sit under Te Rūnanga Nui, and the school that the member has spoken about, I don’t think—I need clarification, though—is included in the primary question.

Tākuta Ferris: Considering Māori-medium education and kura kaupapa Māori result in significantly higher academic achievement for Māori learners, what is the Minister’s plan to grow the capacity and number of these kura to enable Māori whānau to participate throughout Te Tai Tonga?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Going back to my answer to the second question, for the very first time in the history of this country, we are developing a network plan alongside Māori, and as I have already said, Te Matakāhuki are, for the first time, working alongside the Ministry of Education in our network planning so that we can offer more choice and target the investment where it needs to go, to make sure that we are building kura kaupapa schools in the right place so that we have the ability to make sure that young people can go from either puna reo or kōhanga reo all the way through, but we can’t get that without a network plan. We are for the very first time, as I have already said, developing that network plan for Te Matakāhuki.

Auckland

Question No. 3

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader—Labour) (14:13) to the Minister for Auckland: Does he stand by all his statements and actions?

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister for Auckland) (14:13): Yes, in the context of fixing the basics and building the future.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does he stand by his statement that his Government’s target is “to grow the New Zealand economy, lift productivity, increase job opportunities”; if so, why has unemployment in Auckland doubled since the March 2023 quarter?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Yes, I do stand by the statements that I have made. The context, as the member will be aware, is that unemployment is a lag indicator, and what we are focused on, on this side of the House, is ensuring that we have got economic growth flowing through to the Auckland economy. What is positive to see with the economic growth indicators that have come out is that Auckland is growing, and that is an important signal that ensures that Aucklanders have the bow wave of economic growth behind them to support higher-paying jobs and more opportunities. We are going to continue to do that work.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Will he acknowledge that his Government’s cancelling or delaying of Auckland infrastructure and build projects, including more than 1,500 State houses and 58 school upgrades, has contributed to job losses en masse in Auckland?

Hon SIMON WATTS: I don’t wish to embark on a conversation around failed or stopped projects in Auckland under prior Governments, because we all know the implications they have caused, but what we are doing as a Government—one thing we have done is sign the Auckland Deal, and the Auckland Deal very clearly identifies areas of economic growth for Auckland, and we’re working constructively with Auckland Council to make sure that those areas of economic growth and focus for the city are unlocked. When Auckland does well, New Zealand does well.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does he stand by his statement that he is “aspirational for the opportunities for Auckland”; if so, should the 35,000 additional Aucklanders now unemployed since three years ago be comforted by his aspirations?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Well, absolutely I am aspirational for Aucklanders, and I am aspirational for the opportunities ahead for Auckland because this is a Government that’s getting on and delivering—focused on economic growth, delivering opportunities. While we acknowledge that what we inherited was difficult and challenging, we are taking action to turn that around. The actions that I’ve outlined, on top of everything else, are going to help Aucklanders be more prosperous in the future.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: How many of the almost 3,000 business liquidations in 2025—a 15-year high—were Auckland businesses, and how does this reflect his Government’s Going For Growth strategy?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Well, as the member will be aware, about one-third of Kiwis live in Auckland; 40 percent of New Zealand’s GDP is derived from Auckland. Again, liquidations are a lag indicator of prior periods of fiscal and economic management. And I don’t have to look too far from where I’m standing to look at who’s responsible for those outcomes.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does he agree with the Prime Minister that the Government was elected to “get Auckland back on track”; if so, why has Auckland’s GDP growth lagged behind the rest of New Zealand two years running?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Well, if the member looks at the most recent economic growth indicators from Auckland, she will be aware that economic growth has increased 0.2 percent in the March quarter, an increase on year-on year-growth. Economic growth is a good thing. On this side of the House, we are focused on ensuring that economic growth is sustained. When Auckland grows, New Zealand grows, and that’s good for everyone.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Why should Aucklanders have any confidence in his Government when, under them, unemployment has doubled, critical projects have been delayed or cancelled, and as a direct result of their decisions many businesses are struggling to stay afloat?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Well, because what Aucklanders want is Aucklanders want to see a clear plan, and this Government has a clear plan to deliver for Aucklanders. You’ve already seen the economic growth aspects that are flowing through to Auckland—you’ve seen a reduction in interest rates, you’ve seen a reduction in inflation—and that all helps the back pockets of hard-working Aucklanders. On this side of the House, we make no apology to be relentlessly focused on economic growth, prudent fiscal management, and actually being aspirational for Auckland. Because, again, when Auckland does well, New Zealand does well.

Health

Question No. 4

SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga) (14:18) to the Minister of Health: What recent progress has been made towards the Government’s health targets?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (14:18): The Government is focused on fixing the basics and building the future of our health system. Yesterday, the latest quarterly results for the Government’s five health targets were released, showing continued improvement across every target compared with the same quarter last year. More New Zealanders are being seen and treated sooner, with elective treatment wait times improving, more patients receiving special assessments within four months, higher childhood immunisation rates, improved emergency department performance, and faster access to cancer treatment. These results demonstrate our Government’s focus on delivering timely, quality care and improving accountability across the system. It is making a difference for patients.

Sam Uffindell: What progress has been made around access to elective procedures?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: The results show real progress in getting New Zealanders the care they need sooner. The proportion of patients receiving treatment within four months has increased to 64.9 percent, up from 57.3 percent 12 months ago. During the quarter, more than 51,000 elective procedures were delivered, a 5.5 percent increase on the same quarter last year. While our targets are measured in percentage points and numbers, what they represent are New Zealanders getting their life-changing operations sooner, spending less time waiting in pain, and getting back to their families, work, and everyday lives sooner. I’d like to thank the health workforce for everything they’ve done to deliver these results.

Sam Uffindell: What do the results show about the volume of care being delivered across the system?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: The results show that more care is being delivered across the system: 178,349 first specialist assessments were completed during the quarter, an increase of 7 percent on the same quarter the year prior. More than 51,000 elective treatments were delivered, up 5.5 percent on the same quarter last year. Almost 4,800 people received their first cancer treatment, and almost 12,000 children were fully immunised at 24 months of age—both up since the same quarter last year. These results show what happens when the system is focused on delivery with patients at the centre, with every percentage point increase representing real people who have waited less time to receive the care they need.

Sam Uffindell: Why are the Government’s health targets important?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, the health targets are about ensuring the system remains focused on what matters most to New Zealanders: getting timely access to healthcare. They provide clear accountability, transparent reporting, and a strong focus on results. After years of growing wait-lists and declining performance, this Government is focused on fixing the basics, rebuilding performance, and ensuring patients receive the care they need when they need it. While there is still more work to do, these results show we are making steady progress and heading in the right direction.

Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti

Question No. 5

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour) (14:21) to the Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti: Does he agree with Hon Paul Goldsmith that the Māori-Crown relationship is in “good shape”; if not, why not?

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti) (14:21): Absolutely agree with my exemplary colleague Minister Paul Goldsmith, who’s audaciously progressed a number of Treaty settlements to their logical conclusion over the last three years and also assisted in ensuring that Treaty obligations arising from settlements over time have moved, from 2024, from around 76.7 percent to 85.1 percent and delivery issues arising from Treaty settlement obligations from 4.9 percent down to 1.9 percent. I’d also like to acknowledge the work that the Matua and myself and others in this House have done to ensure the largest ever investment in marae by any Government in the history of this country. Kia ora tātou.

Hon Willie Jackson: Is it a sign of the relationship being in good shape when the iwi chairs have described this Government as the most racist, anti-Māori Government ever to come to power, and, if so, how?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: People are entitled to their opinions and also are responsible for their actions, and it wasn’t too far in the past where the member opposite and his party were not invited to National Iwi Chairs Forums. However, what I would say is that yesterday in Ōtākou, down at the Ōtākou Peninsula, Kāti Te Ruahikihiki of Ngāi Tahu were absolutely energised by the presence of this Minister to support marine reserves that were started under the National Government, under John Key, 13 years ago, well before the time of the previous text writer and text recaller, and the work that we have done as this Government, the National-led Government, to ensure those marine reserves come to come to life, Te Umukōau kei te haramai [Te Umukōau is on its way].

SPEAKER: We’ll stick to the rule and go for three—Hon Willie Jackson.

Hon Willie Jackson: If the Māori-Crown relationship is in such good shape, why did the National Iwi Chairs Forum label Budget 2026 and its approach to Māori employment as a form of economic apartheid?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: As I mentioned before, people can have very strong opinions, but I would note that many iwi leaders were absolutely enthusiastic about the fast-track process and ensuring that nearly 25 of the Schedule 2 projects were actually fast-track projects owned or co-owned by Māori. That’s across a range of industries and a range of sectors, whether or not it’s property development, aquaculture, or, indeed, in the resources process. Whilst there are some strong opinions, there’s also a willingness to work together, to do that mahi tahi between the iwi and the Crown, and that’s something that I absolutely enjoy. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If Mr Jackson’s penultimate question is correct, why have the iwi leaders asked to see me?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: The rangatira has spoken. Kia ora.

Hon Willie Jackson: Can the Minister name one iwi, one hapū, or one iwi Māori organisation that has publicly said that the Crown-Māori relationship is in good shape, or is he the only person making that claim—him and Paul Goldsmith of Ngāti Epsom?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I did not see Ngāti Epsom on the list of iwi in the Fisheries Act. However, what I will say is this: tomorrow we will have the first reading of the Te Here ā Nuku (Nelson Tenths) Bill, which will ultimately resolve the longstanding fiduciary and property claims of Rore Stafford and his relations, a matter that the previous majority Labour Government actively opposed and rejected.

Hon Willie Jackson: Mr Speaker—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just wait for the House to compose itself.

Hon Willie Jackson: Does he agree with former Treaty Minister Chris Finlayson, who said Christopher Luxon’s Government has gravely hurt the Crown-Māori relationship, and, if so, why is he progressing with removing Treaty clauses, knowing full well it will be harmful to the Māori-Crown relationship?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: In response to the comments around Treaty principles references, these continue to be a work-on under the diligence and professionalism of Minister Goldsmith, and, of course, ensuring that we’ve got clarity around what Treaty of Waitangi principles references mean is very important to everyone in this Whare—and, actually, all New Zealanders. In relation to the other matter, we’ll let that lie.

Education

Question No. 6

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui) (14:26) to the Minister of Education: What announcement has she made on strengthening trades pathways?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education) (14:26): This Government recently announced that we are doubling places in our trades academies from 10,000 to 20,000. The investment supports our wider qualification reforms, which are creating stronger vocational pathways for young people and ensuring they have access to meaningful real-world learning opportunities while still at school. Vocational subjects will be fully integrated into our national qualification system and developed in partnership with industry. I’m proud to be part of a Government giving parity of esteem to trade pathways.

Carl Bates: How will strengthened trade pathways support the labour market and help fix the basics and build the future of New Zealand?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Strengthened trade pathways will help ensure more young people leave school with practical skills, industry experience, and clear options for further training, apprenticeships, and employment. This is why Budget 2026 invested that additional $69 million to double the trades academy places. It’s also why the Government is investing a further $15 million for industry skills boards to develop new vocational subjects as part of New Zealand’s new senior secondary qualifications. That means students are better prepared for the pathway that they choose, and New Zealand has stronger vocational pathways into the workforce.

Carl Bates: How does this help grow the economy?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, growing the economy requires a strong education system and requires young people to leave school with the skills and knowledge they need to succeed in their chosen field. Through our investment, students will be finishing school with meaningful qualifications, allowing them to enter further training or work. Strengthening the trades pipeline means we’ll have more skilled workers to deliver the Government’s infrastructure agenda and more tradies to build all the classrooms that we’ve funded.

Carl Bates: What feedback has she received on this announcement?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, the Employers and Manufacturers Association said that the additional 10,000 trades academy places and new trades-focused courses are a good use of funding and could help fill future skills gaps while improving the work readiness of young people. Retail NZ also welcomed the expansion of trade training opportunities, recognising the role it can play in helping more young people become active participants in the economy. Agribusiness and schools adviser Melanie Simmons has highlighted that greater vocational learning opportunities can open career pathways, complement academic learning, and improve employability.

Social Development and Employment

Question No. 7

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (14:29) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she stand by her statement that “I absolutely stand by our target of 50,000 fewer people on the jobseeker support by 2030”; if so, why?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (14:29): Yes. Jobseeker numbers will reduce as economic conditions improve. That’s what we’ve already seen in Taranaki, Canterbury, and Southland. I don’t shy away from an ambitious target to get Kiwis off welfare and into work, and a target provides a focus across Government. It’s also important to note that the latest figures from the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) show that more than 85,000 people exited a main benefit into work in the year ending May 2026. We are ambitious for all New Zealanders. That’s why we have created a more active welfare system to support more job seekers into work.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Is the Treasury wrong when it forecast jobseeker numbers to be 200,000 by 2030, as shown in the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update for Budget 2026?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: There is a difference between what Treasury forecasts and MSD, and I think it’s useful to put that on the record for the House. The Treasury forecasts include, for the Jobseeker Support and Emergency Benefit, an annual average over the fiscal year July to June. It also includes other benefits that fall under the Jobseeker Support and Emergency Benefit appropriation, such as the Emergency Benefit, the Emergency Maintenance Allowance, and the Jobseeker Support Student Hardship. The MSD target and the MSD forecast on the MSD website has more detail and shows the average number for each month. That is why there is a difference in 206,000 and 194,000 for the month of June 2030.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How will she hit her target when employment confidence is at its lowest point in over 20 years and unemployment is likely to rise further still?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As I said in my primary answer, what we are seeing is the result of regions of New Zealand where we are seeing economic growth: Taranaki, Canterbury, and Southland. We do know that the number of people on a jobseeker benefit is a lag indicator. What we’re seeing in those three areas gives me great optimism and promise in terms of reducing the number of people across the country on the jobseeker benefit.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How many people who have exited into work since she became Minister have gone back on to jobseeker?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I don’t have that data in the House with me, but I’d be happy to provide that for the member. It is really important to note, and I think it is really encouraging—

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: You talk about that number—85,000. How many have gone back?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Yeah, 85,000. I think it’s a great number.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How many have gone back?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: It’s a great number of people who have left welfare into work.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How many—

SPEAKER: That’s enough. Thank you.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Will she accept that jobseeker numbers will continue to rise higher than forecast when working people at places like Kinleith Mill, Smithfield meat works, and, as reported this morning, Northland Mill continue to lose their jobs, with no hope coming from the Government?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: No, because we have seen the peak in the jobseeker numbers in December last year, so we have come off those highs. That has been as a result of significant work. As the Minister of Finance has said, we’ve seen growth in the March quarter, higher than Australia, higher than the United States, which is really encouraging. Budget 2026 says 220,000 jobs will be created, and I’m amazed that that member is not celebrating that.

Prime Minister

Question No. 8

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) (14:33) 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 WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs) (14:33) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Āe.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he accept that changing the purpose of the Conservation Act to include economic development is a fundamental shift away from the reason the Department of Conservation exists, which is to protect and restore nature?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, we don’t accept that at all. That’s short-term thinking. The reality is that it’s an enormous part of the country, and where it can be used in the interests of expanding the wealth and security of ordinary New Zealanders, then we will do so. But this bill protects our conservation land, think Kepler, Taranaki, Fiordland, Abel Tasman, and more. We are talking about gravel pits being sold, not Great Walks, so when did the Greens start caring about industry?

Hon Marama Davidson: Is it his view that 60 percent of conservation land is of low or no value?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Again, that’s the kind of calculation you do when you don’t know mathematics. We’re talking about pieces of land within the 60 percent, not selling the 60 percent. That’s the kind of misinformation the public doesn’t want to hear. That’s just being deceitful in the extreme. The bill is currently being considered by the select committee, and we’ll change it if we have to. The bill stops the department from selling any land—the bill stops the department from selling any land that is “important for ... threatened species or ecosystems”. So the Labour Party and Green Party are safe.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Point of order. Mr Speaker, seeking your guidance. Given that I have been punished in this House a number of times for inferring and stating that Government members are lying, I would like to understand what your punishment will be for one of our co-Deputy Prime Ministers stating that the Green Party is being deceitful.

SPEAKER: Good, I’ll—[Interruption] Why is there a conversation going on while we’re dealing with a point of order? I appreciate the point that the member has made, and I will consider the Hansard and come back to the House.

Hon Marama Davidson: Why, then, is he proposing that 60 percent of the conservation estate should be opened up for disposal or commercial activity if he does not consider that this land is of low or no value?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Again, that is a total misrepresentation of what the 60 percent means. It means that, within the 60 percent, there are gravel pits and other things which may be better assigned somewhere else. That’s a totally different picture. It’s not misrepresenting the House; it’s not lying. But here’s the point: the Greens won’t be happy until 100 percent of the land is State owned, and we all know what that is called. We don’t want to take advice from the dancing tussocks over there.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Thanks for the ad campaign.

SPEAKER: One voice while a question’s asked.

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he recognise the significant public opposition to this bill, including the 24,000 people who submitted on this bill just on the weekend alone, and if so, will he reassure New Zealanders by ruling out the sale of conservation land and putting this bill in the bin?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The reality is there are, for example—take the Belvedere Hall. If an Historic Places Trust group of people say, “We wish to look after that hall ourselves. It’s 142 years old.”, why would that sale be adverse to New Zealanders’ interests? That is happening all over the country. The reality is, of course—

Steve Abel: That can still be done.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, no, and here’s the point—OK, here come the Māori people over there. Let me ask you this: what happens when iwi show up with a right of first refusal to buy land? Will the Greens stop them from buying the land? Look, the fact is that the Greens like to touch grass, but only when it’s rolled.

SPEAKER: I think that’s a good example of what we don’t need in the House. The member might like to withdraw that comment.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: You want me to withdraw that?

SPEAKER: Yeah, I’m pretty soft.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I can’t: half of it has been smoked. Ha, ha! I withdraw—I withdraw.

Hon Tama Potaka: Does economic development already take place on the conservation estate—like ski fields and guided walks and grazing—and can we further activate economic development, like car parks and charging for the use of carparks, and charging international visitors to access some tracks, to then reinvest in biodiversity in New Zealand?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The answer is most certainly yes, yes, yes, and also tens of thousands of New Zealanders depend on it for their employment. But no, no, they want to stop everything—like, stop the world; I want to get off!

Hon Marama Davidson: Does he stand by the statement of his Minister of Conservation that “National is the party of conservation”; if so, how does he reconcile that statement with his Government’s actions to allow commercial fishing in a marine protected area, enable the killing of kiwi, cull $165 million from the Department of Conservation, and provide protection to invasive species?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The reality is that, when Mr Potaka said that, he meant the coalition Government. He didn’t just mean the National Party; he meant that all three political parties are very conscious of their responsibilities. As for the other matters raised here, when it comes to fishing, ordinary New Zealanders are entitled to be able to buy their own fish in their own shops at an affordable price. Under their regime, if they ever had power, there would be no supply of fishing at all to ordinary New Zealanders.

Hon Tama Potaka: Can the Minister confirm that between 2020 and 2023, the majority Labour Government failed to pass the Hauraki marine park protection Act?

SPEAKER: No, no, the Minister has no responsibility—[Interruption] No, no; Mr Peters, sit down. There is no responsibility for the Minister to answer that question, so it won’t be part of the Hansard record. Moving now to question No. 9.

Education

Question No. 9

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (14:39) to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by her statement that “This curriculum has been written by Kiwis for Kiwi kids”; if so, why?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education) (14:40): Yes. However, noting that the Ministry of Education wasn’t checking the residency or citizenship of the status of the hundreds of writers, they were more concerned with the quality of the curriculum, not the nationality of the person who wrote it. The member should also note that we are writing for Kiwi kids, but we’re also writing it for the Pacific Realm countries: Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Why was the open tendering process bypassed and a contract directly awarded to Australian provider Learning First when there are New Zealand providers, such as New Zealand Council for Educational Research, who have the experience and the ability to internationally benchmark the New Zealand Curriculum?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: These matters are operational for the ministry. They make decisions on who they contract. Questions, I know, were put to the officials at the recent select committee inquiry, and, as I’ve said, those matters are operational and not for me as the Minister.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Why, then, did her adviser directly engage with Ben Jensen, chief executive of Learning First, about what services they could provide, such as receiving advice on how to use data to win “the hearts and minds of New Zealand teachers”?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, these are questions that the member could have put to the officials—

Hon Ginny Andersen: I’m asking you now.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: —while she was in the committee. I can’t answer those questions because I don’t have the answers, because those are questions that should have been put to officials during the meeting.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Maybe the Minister misunderstood my question. It was: why did the adviser from her office engage with Ben Jensen from Learning First about the content of what the contract was?

SPEAKER: Yes, I did hear the question. Look, the other thing that’s worth noting is that our Standing Orders mean that Ministers do answer to the House for operational matters because officials can’t, and so there are some aspects that that answer would be acceptable in and others that aren’t. But the Minister might like to address the question that’s been asked.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Yeah, I apologise; I misunderstood. We get lots of unsolicited and solicited emails in my office, and I don’t read all of them. They go to my officials, and so I don’t always see all of those. I don’t know the ones that the member is referring to. This question wasn’t put on notice; I don’t have them in front of me. If she wants to put a written question to me about this, then she’s welcome to do so, but I can’t come down to the House and answer questions on things that aren’t on notice in this level of detail.

Hon Ginny Andersen: When Pauline Cleaver, Deputy Secretary for Curriculum, explained that Learning First was directly awarded the contract because “the Ministry was already working with them”, was there already a contract in place between the Ministry and Learning First, and, if so, for what services?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I’m advised that there was a contract signed with Learning First in—they started work on benchmarking work with the Ministry of Education in August 2025. That’s the information that I have to hand.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Did she meet with Ben Jensen, the chief executive of Learning First, for a coffee on the Gold Coast before or after they got exclusive rights to benchmark the New Zealand Curriculum?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, this is an interesting story that the member might like to listen to, but, actually, I was introduced to Ben Jensen from Learning First by the ministry—by, in fact, the Education Review Office (ERO)—when Dr Ben Jensen was invited here to New Zealand as part of some of the regular meetings that ERO holds between Australia and New Zealand to learn more. They introduced me to him, and then, when I happened to be in Australia for other matters, we had a coffee. I have coffee with many people, but in this instance the ministry or the Education Review Office were the people who introduced him to me, and not the other way around.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table the exchange of emails from the Minister’s office—clearly, from her adviser—and Ben Jensen that was going on before the request for procurement exemption. I’d like to table both those documents. Neither are publicly available

SPEAKER: Where did the member get them?

Hon Ginny Andersen: They were both obtained under the Official Information Act.

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

Documents, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Mental Health

Question No. 10

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula) (14:44) to the Minister for Mental Health: What announcements has he made about delivering faster access to maternal mental health and addiction support?

Hon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health) (14:45): The Government’s mental health plan is delivering faster access to support, more front-line workers, and a better crisis response. Recently, I announced significant investment into maternal mental health and addiction services as part of Budget 2026. Funding will support specialist maternal mental health and addiction services while growing the front-line workforce. It also includes funding for community NGOs to increase support in their communities. One of the most important periods of a child’s life is the first 2,000 days. By supporting families early, we can help build a stronger future for our children.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: What steps is the Government taking to strengthen peer support for mothers experiencing mental health and addiction challenges?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: We know that connection can be a powerful form of support. Mothers can benefit from talking with someone who has lived experience and understands what they are going through. That is why this investment includes funding for new peer support positions to provide practical and emotional support and help build stronger local support networks for parents. Behind every one of these roles will be more families getting the support they need earlier.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: How will access to specialist services for families be improved?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: This Government is focused on strengthening prevention and early intervention. Investment will boost funding for specialist maternal mental health services and increase specialist maternal addiction services. We’ll also deliver new regional Supporting Parents Healthy Children Coordinators to strengthen family-focused approaches and improve coordination of care across services. This investment will increase capacity and help women and families access support faster during pregnancy and the year after birth.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: What additional support will there be for bereaved families?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Losing a child is an unimaginable grief. This is why we are delivering mental health support as part of the Perinatal Bereavement Care Pathway. Funding will provide dedicated mental health support to better help families through baby loss. This investment will help ensure families are better supported during some of the most difficult moments of their lives.

Question No. 9 to Minister

Amended Answer to Oral Question

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education) (14:47): Point of order. I seek leave to amend an answer to question No. 9.

SPEAKER: You’re seeking leave?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Yes, I’m seeking leave.

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

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I said August 2025 for Learning First contracting with the Ministry of Education. It’s actually April 2025 that Learning First first signed a contract with the Ministry of Education.

Disability Issues

Question No. 11

KAHURANGI CARTER (Green) (14:48) to the Minister for Disability Issues: Does she accept the Human Rights Commission’s criticism that the Disability Support Services Bill is inconsistent with core human rights obligations, including the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Disability Issues) (14:48): No. Over the past two years, we’ve taken urgent action to stabilise the system and improve support for disabled people and carers. This bill is the next step. It will provide a legislative framework for disability support services. It will make the system more fair, transparent, consistent, and sustainable. Over the last 18 months, we have consulted the disability community as part of the work to stabilise and then strengthen the system. This consultation has informed the principles and purpose of the bill. There is also consultation under way on how improvements can be made to areas of the system, including better planning for life changes, greater flexibility, and easier navigation of services and support. Over the next three years, Disability Support Services (DSS) will continue to undertake consultation on key improvements that will strengthen the system for thousands of disabled New Zealanders and their carers.

Kahurangi Carter: What is her response to former National Party MP Dame Marilyn Waring who said in her submission to the Social Services and Community Committee this morning of the bill, “New Zealand will now have to enter reservations on Articles 3 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights because we cannot comply. This is a significant step and has an impact on our human rights reputation and our ability to make judgments of other nation States and their human rights records.”?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, I quite simply disagree. If you look at the independent review of DSS, it found that without a legislative framework, DSS’ mandate was drawn from Cabinet or ministerial decisions that do not provide adequate direction on a range of areas, including the role of Government in supporting disabled people and the purpose of DSS. It is absolutely critical that disabled people have certainty, clarity, and consistency in terms of the supports that are available. There is no legislation currently that underpins that. That is what we are fixing. If there was a right for disabled people we should be honouring, it is their access to very critical support and services and ensuring there is legislation that enables that and provides for it.

Kahurangi Carter: Can she commit to ensuring no means testing for individualised funding, which is currently the case, as a result of the Disability Support Services Bill (DSS bill)?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I said in my answer in the Estimates hearing last week that there is no intention to introduce means testing in the DSS bill. All it is doing is currently stating what occurs today. So I will state again for the record: there is no intention to introduce means testing for flexible funding or anything in the DSS support that is currently provided that doesn’t have means testing.

Kahurangi Carter: Has she received any advice that this bill could leave more disabled people living in poverty in New Zealand?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: No, because the DSS bill does not change any eligibility, does not introduce means testing, does not change any support that any disabled person or their carer receives today.

Kahurangi Carter: Will she commit to ensuring no disabled people are worse off as a result of the Disability Support Services Bill or any secondary legislation?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As I said in my answer to one other supplementary, it is quite shocking that $2.9 billion of investment into Disability Support Services has no legislative framework. That is what this bill fixes. What that means is—

Hon Member: That wasn’t the question.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: If the member wants to hear an answer, I am very happy to answer it. I think it is very important to put things on the record where there has clearly been misinformation spread within the disability community. In terms of the question around ministerial programmes, they are no different than what we have in the social security legislation that are called welfare programmes. Over the next three years, DSS will have support programmes or ministerial programmes that cover all of the support that is currently available. I have said publicly and on the record—and I’ll state it again now, as Minister—any programme that is introduced will be consulted on with the disability community.

Public Service and Digitising Government

Question No. 12

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (14:53) to the Minister for the Public Service and Digitising Government: Does he stand by his statement that “our focus is not on frontline services” when it comes to public spending cuts?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for the Public Service and Digitising Government) (14:53): Yes, the Government is not focused on cutting front-line services. As I said multiple times to the member at the select committee last week, public services did expand very significantly in recent years. Between 2017 and 2023, it grew from approximately 47,000 to over 63,000, which was unsustainable, in our view, and our focus is to deliver better public services that grow smarter and are not simply larger, as New Zealanders expect. The Government has asked each of the core agencies to conduct an exercise to consider how they operate and consider what reductions in staff numbers are feasible. Agencies have a different mix of front-line and back-office staff, and that is the point of the exercise.

Camilla Belich: Does he, then, agree with the mental health Minister’s refusal to rule out cuts to the Suicide Prevention Office?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I haven’t seen those comments. The purpose of the exercise is for the agencies to consider how they fit within the broader efforts, but in terms of teachers, doctors, nurses, police, they’re outside of this process.

Camilla Belich: Does he agree with the conservation Minister’s refusal to rule out cuts to the Aoraki / Mount Cook rescue team?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, there are many hundreds, if not thousands, of people employed across the Department of Conservation, and, like every other department, they will be looking at the whole of the entity and recognising the Government’s statement that it is focused not on front-line services but on back-office operations in particular. If we look over the last couple of years—the two years to June 2025, for example—there was a 15 percent reduction in the number of clerical and administrative roles, a 6 percent reduction in managers, and a 10 percent reduction in policy jobs right across the Public Service and, at the same time, there was an increase in regulatory officers, such as corrections officers and so forth. We are able, as a Government, to distinguish between the front line and those who are supporting them, recognising that we value all workers in the public sector, but we are asking for efficiencies in those operations. I think all New Zealanders will understand that it is very easy just to hire lots of people and go on a hiring spree like the previous Government did, but ultimately, we have to pick up the bill, and that is part of the issue we’re facing as a country and why this Government is doing things differently.

Camilla Belich: Given his answer that he is able to distinguish between the front line and the back office, does he agree with the workplace relations and safety Minister’s refusal to rule out cuts to the Labour Inspectorate, which investigates exploitation of vulnerable workers?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: There is an element of repetition to these questions and, indeed, my answers, which is to say that each Government department is tasked with the overall task of reducing its numbers back to somewhere closer to historic norms, and they are going through that exercise.

Camilla Belich: Does he, then, still stand by his statement that his focus is not on cutting front-line services, when he has acknowledged today that several of those front-line services are still at risk?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: We’re going through a process, as a Government, of asking Government departments to reverse some of the hiring spree that went on under the previous Government, and we’re giving them the ability to do that, but we’ve also sent a clear signal that when they’re doing that, they shouldn’t be focusing on the front line; they should be focusing elsewhere. We have every confidence that the ministries, across the board, will be able to do this, recognising—and I just repeat it again for the benefit of the House—there were 47,000 in 2017, and under the six years of the previous administration, that blew out to more than 63,000. That’s one of the reasons why the finances of this country are under considerable strain. We can just carry on as we were and face the consequences of that, or we can address the situation, which is what this Government is doing.

Debates

Wakari Hospital—Decision to Halt Admission to Ward 10A

Urgent Debate Declined

SPEAKER (14:58): Members, I received a letter from Ingrid Leary seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 the decision to halt admissions to ward 10A of the Wakari Hospital. This is a particular case of recent occurrence for which there is ministerial responsibility. As I indicated yesterday, this is an important matter, but I note there are other means of addressing the issue in the House. In her application, the member set out a series of questions she wishes to have answered. Those could be answered through oral questions. Members also have the Budget debate this afternoon, which is very broad in scope. In the very near future, the Estimates debate will be a further opportunity to question Ministers on their plans for health provision. Accordingly, I do not think the application has reached the point of urgency that warrants setting aside the business of the House today to debate it.

Bills

Appropriation (2026/27 Estimates) Bill

Second Reading—Budget Debate

Debate resumed from 23 June on the Appropriation (2026/27 Estimates) Bill.

Hon CAMERON BREWER (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs) (14:59): Budget 2026 is built around a simple but important concept: fixing the basics and building the future. It is a Budget that secures New Zealand’s future by backing the people who create growth—our businesses, our workers, and our communities. This Government understands that you cannot build for the future unless you fix the basics first. That means restoring discipline to the Government’s books, it means bringing inflation under control, and it means creating an environment where businesses can invest with confidence.

A personal highlight for me, and one which Kiwis can take much confidence from, was the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update, the BEFU, announced on Budget day. Let me just take you through some of the highlights there. Treasury forecasts growth averaging 2.7 percent over the next four years. Treasury also forecasts that 220,000 new jobs are expected to be created. The books are forecast to return to surplus in 2028-29, one year earlier than previously forecast. Inflation is contained and interest rates are easing, and debt is expected to trend down over time. Those are not just economic statistics, they are the foundations of confidence, and confidence is what small businesses tell me they need.

As Minister for Small Business and Manufacturing, I spend a lot of time on the shopfloor and on the factory floor. These people I meet are very practical people, and they don’t ask for favours. What they ask for is stable settings, sensible regulation, and an economy that rewards hard work. Small businesses account for 97 percent of all enterprises in our great nation. We are a country of small businesses. Around 700,000 Kiwis work in small business. They sponsor local sports clubs, they support charities, they employ apprentices, and they keep our towns and communities alive. That is why fixing the basics matters so much. Small businesses are often the first to feel the effects of inflation, high interest rates, and economic uncertainty, and they are also the first to invest when confidence returns. Budget 2026 backs those businesses by restoring stability and creating the conditions for investment. This is a Budget that understands prosperity is built from the ground up.

In the March 2026 quarter, manufacturing grew by 1.9 percent, as Statistics New Zealand revealed last week. Overall GDP growth for the first quarter of this year was 0.8 percent. Manufacturing grew at more than twice the national rate. In many cases, it was leading the charge. These are New Zealand businesses investing in equipment, taking on apprentices, exporting around the world, and creating highly skilled and well-paid jobs. Manufacturing is proof that, when we create the right economic conditions, New Zealand businesses compete with the best. This Government backs manufacturers, because we back New Zealand making things. That’s why, when we announced a $1.2 billion gas transition loan guarantee scheme, it went down very well. It will help businesses to reduce or eliminate their dependency on gas. The Crown will guarantee 80 percent of eligible bank loans, so businesses can access lower interest rates to switch fuel sources. It’s a great policy.

Building the future also means building the workforce, and one of the most exciting parts of Budget 2026 is our investment in vocational education. University is one path; trades and vocational skills are another. Both deserve equal respect, and in this Government, both get it. Budget 2026 invests $68.9 million to double the trades academy places. We are growing from around 10,000 places today to more than 20,000 places by 2030. That means more young people learning practical skills whilst still at school, and that includes my own local high school in Upper Harbour, Massey High School, which is a leader in trades academies, with kids there literally building Kāinga Ora houses on the school campus. We are investing $15 million to establish at least eight new industry-led subjects in secondary schools, as well.

Subjects like this are coming into our secondary schools: construction and specialist trades, food and fibre, manufacturing and engineering, energy and infrastructure, electrotechnology and information technology, transport, services, education, and health and community. These are practical courses that are being designed by our industry skills boards and aligned with real jobs. I know that our manufacturing advisory group has been meeting with the industry skills board to work on that manufacturing and engineering course. Employers have also been asking for this. In fact, they’ve been asking for a long, long time. They want apprentices, they want welders, they want electricians—they want people graduating with skills that businesses actually need.

It’s this Government that’s committed to vocational training, and it’s this Government that is investing in young people to get there. This Budget delivers exactly that. Vocational education is simply not an education policy; it’s a small business policy, it’s a manufacturing policy, and it’s a building-the-future policy. I see the benefits of this Budget in my own electorate. Growing communities need growing skills—schools, and skills.

It was a pleasure to take the Minister of Education, just a couple of weeks ago, around the new Ta Pae School—the brand new Ta Pae School near Westgate, a brand new primary school that will be open for term 1, 2027. She also announced in my electorate, as well as across the whole of the north of the North Island, many more classrooms: 20 more for Upper Harbour, and an upgrade to Massey High School. So, real investment in Upper Harbour when it comes to education, more schools, and more classrooms. The same principle applies across New Zealand.

Budget 2026 makes targeted investments into education, health, law and order, and infrastructure. These are the fundamentals that support families, communities, and businesses. Better infrastructure means businesses can move goods more efficiently; stronger public services create stronger communities; and stronger communities support stronger local economies.

What I like most about this Budget is that it has confidence in New Zealanders. We are backing New Zealanders; we’re not getting in their way, we’re getting behind them. Confidence in the tradesmen, confidence in manufacturers, confidence in the small-business owner, confidence in our next generation. This Budget is about fixing the basics above all, and it’s about securing the future.

I want to finish up, again, on the BEFU forecasts. The BEFU forecast that the Minister—

Dan Bidois: What does BEFU stand for?

Hon CAMERON BREWER: That stands for— as you well know, Dan Bidois—Budget and Economic Fiscal Update. Dan’s still reading it; he loves rereading these documents. It was released on Budget day, and it shows Treasury’s forecasts. Another 220,000 jobs are expected to be created—another 220,000 jobs. Treasury forecasts growth averaging 2.7 percent over the next four years.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: You’ve got another one minute and 15 seconds to go.

Hon CAMERON BREWER: The books—while the Labour Party can yell, the books are set to return to surplus in 2028/29, one year earlier than previously forecast. Debt—here’s one that the Labour Party wouldn’t have ever heard of—debt is expected to trend down over time. After we inherited all that debt, threefold—threefold debt going up. It is now, as we go through this decade, expected to start trending down.

Inflation is contained. Oh, the Opposition won’t like hearing that: inflation is contained. Of course, it got to 7.3 percent under the giddy heights of Labour. And, of course, interest rates are easing, making home ownership and making the cost of living even more affordable. These are not just economic statistics; they are the foundations of confidence. Confidence is what gives small businesses and manufacturers what they need most. This Budget is about the basics, and, above all, securing New Zealand’s future. I commend this bill.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) (15:09): This was this Government’s last chance in this Budget to prove to New Zealanders that they got it—whether that be New Zealand households that are sitting at the table thinking: “How am I going to pay my bills? What am I going to do when the car breaks down? How am I going to make ends meet?” or New Zealand businesses that are struggling to stay afloat. They did not deliver this in Budget 2026.

This is a Budget that delivers so much, that even one of the newest members of their ministry struggles to make a 10-minute speech about that Budget. There is nothing more sure of a Government that is on the slide than when newly minted Ministers give speeches that concentrate almost exclusively on their own electorate, trying to shore up their own seat because they know where the party vote is going; they know what is ahead of them.

The previous speaker talked about all those indicators that were glowing for small businesses. Well, what he did not talk about was business liquidation being at a 15-year high. What we’re seeing for New Zealand businesses—small, medium, and large—is that they are going under at a greater rate under this Government than they have at any other time. This is because this is a Government that is not delivering for them.

What happened when National came into Government? The half-yearly economic update, the first one that Nicola Willis, the Minister of Finance, received in 2023—compare it to what she delivered with this Budget. Well, GDP growth projections of 2.8 percent that she received in that first half-yearly fiscal update are now 1.2 percent. So growth is lower than it was going to be. Unemployment is higher, though. Unemployment was forecast to be 4.8 percent; now 5.5 percent. Inflation was meant to be 2.2 percent; that’s now forecast to be 4 percent. And Government debt is now $4 billion higher than forecast. Under any indicator that you look at, you can see a Government that is failing on the business front.

But I do want to talk about the fact that we had the Minister stand there and say that this was—I wrote it down—a Budget that was delivering for ordinary New Zealanders. Now, let’s have a look at where some of these “savings” in this Budget came from. I want to talk about the $195.6 million of “savings” that this Government has extracted by decreasing the amount that someone who cannot pay, who is in a situation where they simply cannot afford to buy food, they cannot afford their rent, and they cannot afford childcare—$195 million is being taken out of those people’s pockets, in the form of the changes to the temporary additional support payment. The Government know—they will have been told—that this will increase poverty, this will increase food insecurity, and this has the potential to render people homeless. These are the kinds of savings that we are seeing in the lines of this Budget.

We are also seeing the changes that are being made to State houses. Now, I’m not just talking about the changes made to the income-related rent supplement levels; I’m talking about the messages that were given by the Minister of Housing, Chris Bishop, around the fact that they’re going to start kicking people out after a certain period of time. I have had a steady train of people through my office—in fact, I’ve had people stopping me when I’ve been doing my shopping, crying about the fear that they now live in that they are going to be kicked out of their homes. This is real. This is what this Budget means to people.

Some of these people voted for National at the last election on a promise of $250 a fortnight in tax cuts that were going to make them better; not one of them has received it. The Government cannot point to one single family in this country that receives enough. I have lost count of the people that have said, “The National Party told me I was going to be better off, but things are harder, things are worse, and there is no way out of this. And I certainly won’t be making that mistake again.”

This was the last chance for the Government to prove to New Zealanders that they have their interests at heart, and they certainly have not delivered that. They have delivered more pain for businesses and for households, and they certainly did not deliver hope.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) (15:14): Kia orana, Mr Speaker. Well, this is a terrible Budget, and when we look at why that is, it is a Budget that has not provided hope for people around the community and the country. It certainly hasn’t provided a lot for people in Palmerston North. It is a terrible Budget.

This was a Government, in the National Party, that was elected, as they say, to fix the cost of living, and the reality in communities all around the country is that they continue to make it worse. They’ve already made it worse; this Budget continues to make it worse. It was, as my colleague the Hon Dr Megan Woods has said, the Government’s last chance to respond to the cries of help that people have been calling out, based on their own experience in communities and in households, and they have failed to deliver.

It is yet another example of Christopher Luxon being completely out of touch with the experience of the hardship that communities all around this country are experiencing every single day of the week. Of course, that comes as no surprise when this is a Government, when we reflect on their priorities—yes, it is a Government that wants to focus on billions for tobacco companies and for property speculators, as well.

When we look at the context of the bigger picture, unemployment continues to rise, particularly for our Pacific community. The costs when it comes to people’s electricity bills, rent, food—all of these things that people need to meet the costs of, they continue to go up. We have people in households who are going cold during winter because they know that they cannot afford to turn on adequate heating. Petrol costs are going up. How much it costs to go to the doctor is going up.

Twenty-thousand people who were employed in building and construction in this country have moved on from their jobs. Why? Because this is a Government that has continued along the path of cancellation when it comes to Kāinga Ora housing in our communities.

This is a photo that was taken in the Government’s first year of office, and this is land in my electorate of Palmerston North in Church Street where there were 63 one- and two-bedroom homes that were proposed and funded, with resource consent granted for them to be built.

Camilla Belich: Where are they?

TANGI UTIKERE: Well, Camilla Belich, I’ll tell you where they are. They’re not on Church Street because the bollards continue to be there.

This was a Budget that provided an opportunity to send a really strong signal to people in communities like Palmerston North and elsewhere around the country, that we acknowledge and we understand that there are issues and we are prepared to fix them. To the people of my community that will continue to travel past Church Street and see that those more than 60 homes are still waiting to be built: not under this Government. It is an absolutely terrible Budget, and that’s not just in my community; that is in communities all around this country.

Perhaps for the rural school buses, there was hope that maybe Erica Stanford and the Government would see the light and return to providing alleviation in terms of cost pressures that households are dealing with right now. Oh no, there’s nothing in the Budget when it comes to supporting households in that particular light.

When it comes to public transport, the day before the Budget, I implored the Government to think about what they were going to do to address the concerns about public transport. Were they going to perhaps have a $20 fare cap for Auckland, Wellington, and Christchurch, and $10 everywhere else? Oh no, they weren’t. They had the opportunity in their Budget, but it was not forthcoming.

When it comes to fuel excise and road-user charges, just yesterday the Government did not rule out—they did not rule out—the fact that those increases were still going to come. That is yet another example of a Government that is out of touch, where they do not understand that households all around this country continue to do it tough. Fuel tax increases and road-user charge hikes are still on the cards under this Government, and, in actual fact, their revenue forecasts in their Budget depend on those increases. They’re baked in, and that will be another direct hit on households that this Government is not prepared to simply rule out.

Our communities were looking to the Government to provide some certainty for them. Kiwis need certainty right now. They crave certainty, and that’s what we’ve provided in ruling out things like the fuel tax increase for next year.

In transport, again, it’s disappointing that it’s not likely that we will have a Government policy statement on land transport in the lead-up to the election, probably because the suite of projects of roads of national significance is over $56 billion and climbing. There’s no sort of plan for how that’s going to be funded under the current Government.

The priorities in this Budget under the National Government provide nothing for households. It provides nothing for communities that continue to do things tough right now. That is why this Budget is a terrible one.

Hon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health) (15:20): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Look, for those listeners and viewers today having to experience Tangi Utikere and Megan Woods, the conclusion they would come to is that it’s the same old Labour; nothing has changed. The crocodile tears come out, but, in fact, what the public wants is just an apology—an apology for the state they left the country in three years ago. The rose-tinted—or should I say “red-tinted”—glasses are out for what was comprehensively a failed socialist experiment. If those members want to talk about affordability and the pressures of affordability on everyday Kiwis today, all I need to point to is the 7 percent inflation rate under that last Government. Inflation is a thief in the night, and under them, affordability went backwards for everyday Kiwis.

Tangi Utikere talked about housing. Think about KiwiBuild, an absolute failure: trying to build 100,000 houses. They even had the nerve to talk about education, where, under their watch, 50 percent of our kids were not going to school. You’ve got to listen very clearly to their language, because what they’re starting to frame this as is the need for Labour to intervene in your life. That’s their modus operandi: State planning and socialism. They want to get into your life and make the decisions for you, whereas, on this side of the House, we want to create the economic environment and the economic settings, and then get out of your way so that you can go on and flourish.

Nothing was more emblematic of the last failed socialist experiment of that Labour Government than mental health. Remember the $1.9 billion? The Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission, in their last report for the last Labour Government, said that despite the $1.9 billion for mental health, it had made no material improvement. Last week, this Government welcomed the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission report on the performance of this Government. They found significant improvement. Waiting times had come down, access rates had increased, workforce vacancy rates had come down, and the number of people in the workforce had increased. Workforce diversity had increased as well.

It shows you that it’s not just how much money you spend; it’s where you spend it—targeted investment—and that’s why, under Budget 2026, I welcome the targeted investment into better mental health. Over $100 million is going into better support the Government’s mental health plan, faster access to support, more front-line workers, and a better crisis response.

That’s why, in Budget 2026, we’re investing for the first time into a new registration—one of the first health registrations we’ll see in New Zealand in over a decade. I’m going to meet those students in the middle of July at the University of Canterbury. That’s the new psychology assistant role. They’re hitting campuses around New Zealand, and they’ll hit the workforce next year. That’s why, through this Budget 2026 investment, we’re funding an extra 150 full-time equivalents of psychology assistants at the front line.

On top of the 11 percent increase we’ve seen in the mental health and addiction workforce since coming to office, there is a 19 percent increase in the child and adolescent mental health workforce. Why? Because the Ombudsman said to the last Government, “You have no plan for the mental health workforce.” We published ours in our first year and $44 million went into it. We’ve seen clinical psychology double, psychiatry increase by 50 percent, and an 11 percent increase in the front-line workforce.

Not only that, there is faster access to support. The data is out today for quarter three of the financial year: 83 percent of Kiwis are accessing primary mental health and addiction support within one week, and 82 percent of Kiwis are accessing specialist mental health and addiction support within three weeks. That’s been a real game-changer.

What did the last lot do? Their approach to the post code lottery—remember it? They took a wrecking ball to our health system in the middle of a pandemic, put all of the control in Wellington, and said, “Wellington knows best. Wellington knows better about your health system than local communities.”

What has this Government done? On 1 July, we’re returning local decision-making to the front line to decide about service delivery, budgets, and workforce. That’s why we’re investing more into one of the most important times in a parent’s and child’s life—that’s maternal mental health—not only to increase the investment into our specialist services but also to roll out new roles of peer support, lived-experience workers in our maternal mental health services. That will be a game-changer. On top of that, we have further investment into community and NGO services for better maternal mental health support. That’s our front-line NGO community and iwi providers, who know their community, know how to engage their community, and know how to make a real difference.

When you look at our third priority—faster access to support and a better crisis response—sadly, in New Zealand, quite often when you call 111 in a physical health crisis, you get a health response, and in a mental health crisis, you get a criminal justice response. That’s why this Government is rolling out 10 new mental health co-response teams across the country, so that in a time of need in a time of mental health crisis, if you call 111, you will have a mental health professional coming out to your house.

But it can’t just stop there. When you go to the emergency department (ED) under this Government, you no longer wait hours in the emergency department—brightly lit, noisy, with a lot of people—with two police officers with taser guns; you are fast-tracked within one hour of getting into an emergency department, to be seen by mental health professionals. But it doesn’t stop there. Too often, people are stuck in emergency departments after being assessed because there is no availability of beds. That’s why, under Budget 2026, there’s significant investment into opening up a number of mental health in-patient beds.

Would you believe that when we came into office, there were dozens of mental health in-patient beds sitting there unfunded, and they weren’t open to respond to the need and that demand. You’ve got to question: where did the $1.9 billion go? No one knows where it goes, and I’ll tell you what. Typical of a Labour Government, they raised expectations for some of the most vulnerable Kiwis and then failed to deliver. As the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission said, it was $1.9 billion with no material improvement. Only a former Labour Government could spend $2 billion and not make a difference. That’s why we’re opening up more in-patient beds—to ensure that people get faster access when they come into ED in a time of crisis.

I do want to highlight one more investment out of Budget 2026: forensic mental health. It’s probably an area that does not get the profile it deserves. Sadly, we have too many prisoners who need specialist mental health support and who wait too long.

Budget 2025 has $51 million to open up more beds, not only in our forensic mental health facilities—I opened a new forensic in-patient facility in Waikato recently because of that $51 million investment—but also stepped down here, in the community. We continue with that investment in forensic mental health today with Budget 2026, investing a further $36 million. That will provide more forensic mental health in-patient beds. It will also deliver more prison in-reach, which is mental health support for our prisoners in corrections facilities who need that specialist support, as well as court liaison for those going through the court system.

There is a lot to do in mental health, but I would point you to the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission report last week that said that there was significant improvement. I’d point you to the data today that shows Kiwis are accessing mental health faster than ever before. I’d point you to the continuing investment of Budget 2026.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Tai Tokerau) (15:30): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā tātou e te Whare. Budget 2026 is not a Budget of transformation; it is a Budget of maintenance. Most—much of what—I’ll try these, shall I? [Puts on reading glasses] Yes, there we go. Much of what has been presented as investment is simply the redistribution of existing funding. Money is moved from one pocket to another, repackaged as progress, and sent out for the headlines. It’s all smokescreens and mirrors.

This is a holding-the-line Budget. Growth is forecast at around 1.2 percent this year. The Government is running a deficit of approximately $12 billion. Government debt is projected to rise from around 42 percent of gross domestic product to 46 percent next year. At the same time, inflation remains elevated and the cost-of-living pressures continue to bite. Those realities matter because Budgets are ultimately about choices.

If you are wealthy, this Budget asks very little of you, but if you are a family already choosing between food and power bills, or are unemployed, Māori, or a woman, you are helping fund this Government’s pathway back to surplus. The Government has chosen to prioritise fiscal restraint while expecting households to absorb more of the burden.

Nowhere is that burden more visible than in Māori communities. Māori unemployment has risen to 11.5 percent. Māori under-utilisation now sits at 22.3 percent. Nearly one in four Māori rangatahi aged 15 to 24 are not in employment, education, or training. For Te Tai Tokerau, it is what we call poverty in paradise.

Our midwives are increasingly supporting māmā who cannot afford adequate nutrition throughout their pregnancy. Appointments are missed because transport costs too much. Medication is delayed because every dollar has already been spoken for. These realities breed environments for domestic violence. This intensifies the risk for māmā and pēpe. Addiction levels are rising, and babies are more frequently born pre-term, where survival is a struggle.

I want to discuss this in the context of the four-page child poverty report in this year’s Budget, where one of the pages is a diagram, and nowhere within is the word “Māori” mentioned once.

Dan Bidois: A picture is worth a thousand words.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: Considering our tamariki were not mentioned once—that’s you and I, Dan—in that report, I will take the chance now to say that around 25 percent of tamariki Māori live in material hardship. That represents approximately 77,000 Māori children.

Nationally, around 170,000 children are living in hardship, meaning households are going without essentials such as heating, food, healthcare, clothing, and keeping up with the bills. A nation that tolerates 170,000 tamariki in poverty is not short of resources, but, rather, political will. The question is not whether we can afford to end child poverty, but, rather, if we’ll choose to, because the cost of hardship does not disappear; it reappears elsewhere. It has appeared in this year’s Budget for health, corrections and social services. Those figures suggest a system that remains heavily focused on intervention after harm has occurred, rather than preventing harm in the first place.

Across multiple Votes, I questioned Ministers and officials in the recent scrutiny time about performance measures relating to Māori outcomes. Increasingly, those measures are being removed, narrowed, or absorbed into broader reporting frameworks. Without transparent reporting, Parliament loses its ability to assess whether public spending is actually improving outcomes for Māori communities, but it also tells us who is expected to carry the burden while those targets are pursued.

I agree with Ganesh Nana that the brunt of this Budget sits on Māori whānau [Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]. [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]Tēnā tātou.

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato) (15:35): Tēnā rā koe e te Pīka. Otirā tēnā rā tātou e te Whare. I rise today to speak on the outcomes of Budget 2026. Budget is where every citizen in this country gets to see where their taxpayer money is going. Right now, across the world, so many countries are experiencing what we call a polycrisis: multiple crises happening at once, when we think of fuel, shelter, food and climate devastation.

Now, when this happens, we should have Budgets produced by Governments and a tax system that can quickly relieve short-term pressures and create long-term solutions, not making it harder. These crises are felt internationally on the international indigenous scale, but also felt here on a national scale and into our local communities: the polycrisis of food, fuel, shelter, climate, [Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.] [Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

When it comes to food, this country can make $450 million worth of food productivity for the rest of the world, and yet the 5 million that live here in this country are in food poverty and can barely afford the $11 butter that is at the grocery store. For many whānau who work in AFFCO, Tegal, and Fonterra, who make the food on our whenua with 87 percent of the diary and meat being exported across overseas, it shouldn’t have to be a luxury to buy the food that you make on your own whenua and land.

The wider Waikato region exported approximately $14.4 billion worth of goods in 2025. Hauraki-Waikato is consistently over-delivering in this country’s economy. It is 10 percent to 30 percent cheaper for New Zealand meat over in Australia than here at home in Aotearoa. All GST should be removed from the receipt of your grocery shop spending when it comes to food, and we should see our own country starting to have conversations on how we can break down the supermarket duopoly.

When it comes to fuel, around 44 percent of the petrol price is taxed. Nearly half of what you pay at the pump goes to the Government. During a fuel crisis, this Budget and Government should have made public transport free and removed road-user charges temporarily. That’s why you see the majority of people in Hamilton going to the NPD on Tuesdays and Thursdays, because that’s when it’s on a freeze.

When it comes to shelter and housing, during this winter, we saw this Government come out with move-on orders, which literally translates to “People can arrest you if you haven’t moved in a certain location, even if you’re homeless.” This is not a supply issue. There are enough houses in this country to house every single person in Aotearoa.

When it comes to climate, we have never had so many states of emergency in this country due to climate crises than in the three months of this year, and after three months of work consistently, we’ve only seen one out of the 19 fast-track projects that were detrimental to Hauraki-Waikato in the mining and fast-track projects be cancelled.

So with those four crises outlined in this year’s Budget, what was actually done by this Government to relieve those pressures of all these crises happening at once for our whānau and communities, who suffer the brunt? Now, when it comes to crises, it affects our most vulnerable, and that’s when our system shows how unfair it actually is. The New Zealand tax system literally protects 150 people who own more than half of this country’s wealth. They are the top wealthiest 1 percent of the country, who pay only 9 percent in tax and earn over $26 million a year, while the rest of the country pay 22 percent to 33 percent in tax. We are not saying to bring the rich down; we’re literally just saying that they should pay their fair share.

These are our teachers, nurses, the people who create the food for our country’s economy globally. These are our front-line workers. Now, what have they gotten out of this Budget in 2026, and where has their taxpayer money gone to? Tēnā rā koe e te Pīka.

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam) (15:40): Excellent—thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise in support of this Budget because it’s helping secure New Zealand’s future by getting us back to surplus earlier, while still investing in the drive for better health and education and law and order outcomes.

The Opposition wants us to get out the cash bazooka and spray money around in every direction. I’ll answer that directly, because that rests on the confusion in this country, that we can no longer afford: a confusion between spending money and solving a problem, and that is exactly what we can do. Anybody can open the books and absolutely empty them out. It takes no courage to hand out what you don’t have. It takes no wisdom to call a debt a gift. But let’s be honest about what un-targeting funding actually does: it pours money indiscriminately into the economy, which actually drives prices up—exactly what we are trying to fix. It doesn’t fight the fire; it feeds it. Why would you treat the disease with a larger dose of poison?

Let’s be clear what we’re actually doing here: we are making sure that we are building a solid foundation for New Zealand so that our wages and job growth can outpace the cost of groceries and our prices. That is the way we’re going to help New Zealand. We need to help the families in front of us, and not penalise the future generations that are coming along.

Let’s start where we plan to continue. Let’s start with health, because, of course, the last Government did a restructure of the healthcare system during the pandemic. What we saw was wait-lists balloon, we saw people waiting for knees and hips for far too long, we saw people not being able to access their GPs. Well, we have added an extra $5.5 billion into the healthcare budget.

For the first time in New Zealand’s history, we have a 10-year health infrastructure plan so that communities around the country can see what is coming. Because a number of our hospitals are well over 47 years old, we need to make sure we have a programme in place to actually replace that. We are lowering the age of bowel cancer screening to 56 so that cancer is caught early and not more later. It strengthens our ambulances, because, of course, many New Zealanders know that in times of need, we need ambulances to get out and help.

It funds more medicines through Pharmac. In previous Budgets, we’ve already increased Pharmac funding by $604 million; this Budget is adding another $54 million to that pot. These are medications that New Zealanders can access—33 new cancer medications already. With a total of 57 new medications approved, we’re going to see even more medicines. These are going to affect the life of all New Zealanders. This Budget also gives new mothers the right to stay where she is cared for, rather than being sent home too early. As I say, this is the first time in New Zealand’s history that we’ve got an infrastructure plan: a $55 billion increase for health funding.

Now let’s move to education, because, of course, our children are the future of this country, and if we can get the basics of our education right, then the future of New Zealand will be well suited. There’s another $470 million of capital investment to redevelop up to 10 schools, deliver 232 additional classrooms, and also buy land for new schools. We are putting education as a priority for the country, and it is going to pay off handsomely in the future for our children. We are doubling the number of trade academies to 20,000 people, because, as I said, the children are the future of this country. We need to fix the basics now to build for the future.

A Government is not judged by how loudly it spends money or how much cash it blows without actually having results; it is judged by the reforms that it can drive and that we can actually deliver these services for all New Zealanders. We’ve had more spending in the law and order space, defence, and foreign affairs. This is a Budget which is fixing the basics and building the future. It is going to secure the future for New Zealand. Therefore, I commend it to the House.

DAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth) (15:44): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. This debate is about the Budget that is before us, the Budget that is for the year of 2026-27.

Just as a brief explanation for those viewing at home, people may think that once the Budget has been read by the finance Minister, the money is there ready to be spent. Well, that is not quite the case. We actually go through quite a process, and enacting the bill that we are debating is actually what allows the Government to go on and do its spending that it releases within the Budget. Another part of the process is actually the imprest bill that was read, or spoken to, prior to this. We need that bill there to allow the Government to be able to spend money between the time of the end of the financial year and when this bill comes into enactment. That’s just a very basic “101” of what we’ve been doing in recent times here.

One of the areas that’s of extreme interest to me is the role that I play as chair of the Māori Affairs Committee. Within Māori affairs, we have just recently conducted some scrutiny hearings with regards to Te Tari Whakatau, which is the Government department that deals with the Treaty settlements; but also Māori development, which is in the spheres of Te Puni Kōkiri (TPK). They have different Ministers for both of those particular entities.

But I do want to briefly talk to Te Tari Whakatau with regards to the settlement. As a little bit of an update, the Government of the day has completed just north of 100 settlements, and, of those 100 settlements, the high 80s are actually do with iwi. We have settlements that are of a non - particular singular iwi basis, which are with the likes of Taranaki Maunga, where there’s multiple iwi; the Whanganui Awa; the Te Ureweras; and all that type of stuff. There are settlements associated with pan-iwi on most occasions that are not specifically a singular iwi settlement, but of the iwi of New Zealand, we’ve currently settled about just north of 85 of those. There are quite some more to come. They say that there are up to another 50 settlements still to be enacted there, but progress is being made, and, of course, every Budget actually allows for that journey to continue.

With Te Tari Whakatau, they also have the takutai moana determinations within it also. There is allowance within the Budget that is associated with helping our iwi to be able to go through their process with regards to takutai moana.

With regards to Te Puni Kōkiri, I’d love to actually mention one of, what you might call, their ethoses, or the ways in which they conduct their businesses, and it’s said by the line of “whānau-centred, locally led, Government-enabled”. That there is, basically, where Te Puni Kōkiri goes out on the whenua, out to hapū and whānau, and endeavours to enable them to succeed. But it’s very much a bottom-up scenario, rather than a top-down scenario, and it works.

I heard a speech from a member on the Opposition there about how it’s endeavouring to use data to look at the success of some of the programmes that are happening within TPK. It’s great to see that they’re capturing data. It’s going into the IDI—the central government data-capturing centre—and, hopefully, that there is going to help in securing more funding for some of these great programmes that are there in this space.

I look very simply with regard to the Budget. I think about my own homestead, my own family, my wife, and I, and about how we actually budget for ourselves as we traverse through our life and that, and it always comes down to choices. The choices are dictated by the revenue—the amount of money that we earn as a couple—but we most definitely have to make choices.

I think it’s fair to say—and I hear it across the House—that there are many spaces that we would like to spend more money. This is primarily in Public Service with regards to health, education, law and order, and all the necessary stuff that we all play to. But, simply, we have choices to be made with what we are generating. We are not a Government of wanting to tax more and to borrow more. We are wanting to get to a point of surplus to repay debts and to make our country far more better-positioned to handle some of the catastrophes that we deal with from time to time. This Budget is most definitely about fixing the basics and building the future. I commend it to the House.

STEVE ABEL (Green) (15:49): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak to the Appropriation (2026/27 Estimates) Bill. This bill demonstrates a long-evident agenda of this Government to cut funding to environmental protections. Specifically, over the course of three years, we see $165 million in cuts to the Department of Conservation (DOC). Similarly, we see in this bill expressed a greater funding of what is labelled “Regional Infrastructure Fund”. You can read between the lines on what a Government’s agenda is through the likes of an appropriation bill like this. So soon after the Budget, we see in other legislation before the House the manifesting of that agenda, which is one which sees DOC have its funding cut at the same time as there is legislation that is brought to open up DOC to commercial exploitation—i.e., our conservation estate.

I wonder how much of the Regional Infrastructure Fund in the appropriations bill will go towards the mining of our conservation land. I wonder how the Department of Conservation, with its cuts to its funding, will be able to actually deal with the concessions it is expected to deal with for mining facilitation—the mining consents that are no doubt going to be applied for. We see today the extent of the mineral deposits—those listed by the Government as critical minerals that it’s interested in extracting. We see how much of those are on Department of Conservation land in a map released today by Greenpeace.

Now, is it any accident that that exploitation of conservation land coincides with an appropriation that drops the funding to the Department of Conservation? Is it a likely pathway to DOC becoming a mining facilitator, rather than a protector of the conservation estate? Indeed, the language in another bill before the House expects that the Department of Conservation should be focused on exploitation to the greatest degree practicable of that conservation estate. So this appropriation paves the way for a Government that has been the most radically anti-environmental Government in certainly my lifetime and possibly in New Zealand history.

But I wonder if it will become the last Budget of this Government, because they have misread the room on the extent to which New Zealanders value our conservation estate; the extent to which we expect the Department of Conservation to be appropriately funded to take care of the extraordinary species, the taonga species that exist within those estates; the extent to which we appreciate the ability to enter those magnificent Gondwanan forests, to walk through those crystal clear rivers, to hear the birdsong of the kōkako and the kākā, and to know that we can enjoy those without them being exploited or risked or sold off or dug up for mining by a foreign mining company. Those are not the expectations that New Zealanders have of how any Government should fund that extraordinary asset that is something that we are all obliged to care for and treasure, because it is, indeed, the inheritance of our children and our grandchildren. This Government seems intent on running that inheritance down through its failure to properly fund environmental protections and specifically our Department of Conversation. We have to wonder if their intention is to sell it off because they are not funding the care of it. Here, telegraphed in this appropriation, we see that intention demonstrated.

It was about 16 years ago that a Government proposed to open up the conservation estate to mining, and they got a pretty big shock when 40,000 people marched up Queen Street against that proposal. It seems that the lessons of history that are not learned: those who do not learn them are doomed to repeat those lessons. Here we have a Government that has not learned the lesson of how New Zealanders expect our conservation to be cared for, not to be exploited and extracted from.

I also wonder, when we understand that there is a clear ideology around what economic development looks like that sees a massive rise in our cost of living, that sees an underfunding across the board of our public services, a decline in the ability of those public services to deliver the most basic needs and expectations of New Zealanders: good healthcare, accessible education, good housing, good public transport—all of those things that are actually a benchmark for a thriving country. Instead, we see a greater polarisation of wealth inequality. We see the highest rates of homelessness that we have ever seen in our history. We see one in seven children in poverty—the highest rates of poverty that we’ve ever seen in this country. And what do we have? A Government that has been—how should be put it?—miserly with its willingness to actually protect those who are most vulnerable and those who are most in need of being cared for in our society.

My final point is that one feels that the coalition has let the flanks of the major party drag it to more extreme focuses. It has failed to actually represent what most New Zealanders think are the appropriate focuses of any Government: that birthright of all New Zealanders to swim in clean rivers, to fish in abundant oceans, to walk in healthy native forests, and to live in a society where everybody thrives, no matter what their background, no matter what their circumstances of birth. That is a thing that this appropriation fails to step up to. That is a thing that this Government has failed to meet in the basic values of New Zealanders. It is my sincere belief that this will be a one-term Government for the exact reason that a Budget such as the one before us has not dealt with the essential values and principles that New Zealanders stand for. Thank you.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert) (15:57): Thank you. I respect the views that have just been shared about this Budget. What I would say is that my own instinct when I saw the Budget played out and the legislation that came into urgency was that it was very, very lacklustre. It’s interesting that the Government seems to have decided its new word is going to be “ambition”, after “temporary”, “targeted”, and something else. There’s no ambition in this Budget. There’s actually a defeat in this Budget for ordinary people. There’s just nothing there for them.

So I wanted to talk about why I thought that was particularly important in terms of what I’m seeing in my electorate. I’ve got this really wonderful market in the electorate called Wesley, and it’s not a farmer’s market like Matakana; it’s a farmer’s market with growers bringing in cheap carrots. It has lots of women—Chinese women—selling little amounts of things that you couldn’t get anywhere else because they’re used by the Chinese community, so quite different vegetables and they’re very cheap. And they sell duck eggs and other really quite special stuff, but the big thing about it is it’s very cheap in comparison to our supermarkets. I talked to those people who are coming to that market, scratching out what they’ve got, and they’ve all got stories about why it is that they’re earning a lot of money—and they’re not. They’re not earning much money at all. A lot of them haven’t been able to find jobs.

There are people who have come in as part of the refugee quota or they’ve come in from war-torn countries, like Afghanistan, and they haven’t been able to find work for a long time, and young women who’ve done all the right things—they’ve gone, and they’ve studied, and they’ve become engineers—can’t find work. That’s the environment which means that there just isn’t enough money to make ends meet at the moment. I’m proud of the fact that Labour has a policy that addresses just that direct need that people have—particularly the one about public transport, because I can see those women and those people being able to lock in the expense of public transport at $20 in Auckland. That will make a big difference to our students etc.

I just can’t see anything, in this Budget, coming to help people with things like energy bills and food bills. I just cannot see it. I was thinking about one example of this, which is the decision the Government made to up the rate that it gave home-care workers when they drove their cars to places. That was an upping of the rate to 82c from 62c. Now, that was proudly described as “temporary”. It was only going to happen for a short time. How much do we get, as parliamentarians, for our mileage? We get $1.20 or $1.30 and it’s not temporary. That’s how much it costs. That’s how much it actually costs, because that’s what the AA says it costs. We don’t prioritise, at the present time, a group of workers who are on about $25, maybe, to $32 an hour. They help people, like my parents, to stay in their home, and they’re gold. They’re people who we need doing that work, and we’re paying them peanuts. When we look at them under stress because of a fuel crisis, what this Government decides to do is to give them 82c temporarily, back to 62c the minute we see a shift. That’s what these people have been given.

There’s a lack of values in the decisions this Government is making. There’s a kind of punitiveness towards anybody who wants to help anyone in their work. That’s apparently not what we’re after. We’re after a class of people who are supposed to produce a lot, which is all supposed to trickle down to the others. The others, who are all of us, really, are seen as some sort of parasite rather than the heart of New Zealand. For me, those people are the heart of New Zealand. I am grateful, every day, to those home-care workers who go in and help my 95-year-old father and my mother with dementia survive in their own home. This Budget doesn’t give those people enough

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour) (16:03): E mihi ana ki a koe e te Māngai o te Whare, otirā tēnā tātou katoa. I want to reflect on this year’s Budget and Whānau Ora. What we know in this Whare, in this House, is that Whānau Ora works because it backs whānau. It doesn’t back bureaucracy; it trusts communities and whānau to know what support is best for their people out there. When families are struggling with housing costs, with food prices, with health needs, and with rising unemployment, the answer is not less investment in Whānau Ora; it’s more. One of the honours, I guess, of working as the Opposition spokesperson for Whānau Ora is that there is some connection between this side and that side, in that we agree, most of all, that Whānau Ora works. I honour our kahurangi Tariana Turia for the work and the idea that has forged the pathway through to today.

Over the past few months, I have visited Whānau Ora providers on the ground at grass roots to hear directly from them about the issues that whānau are presenting to them. The things that they tell me are that things are getting more expensive for people out there. More people are presenting on their doorsteps, but, most of all, they’ve seen shifts in the increasing number of rangatahi that are tuning up on their doorsteps.

In this Budget, what they wanted to see is a little bit of hope. They wanted to see additional funding that recognised the needs that they have communicated to this Government. They didn’t want to see how a wonderful data system can inform Budgets of the future. They wanted to see how this Budget in 2026 can create the change and help the need tomorrow. The reality of this Government is that while they’ve taken an axe to all things Māori, almost, in this term, with Whānau Ora, there was the opportunity to put some backing behind our kaiwhiriwhiri, our navigators. Instead, this Budget asked them to do the same—to do more with less. That says, “Hopefully, one day we’ll be able to expand the reach out into different communities, out in the regions.”, but that day is not today, because our fantastic data that we talk about hasn’t informed this Budget.

On top of this, the Minister tells me that there hasn’t even been any recognition of the wait-list that Whānau Ora providers have told him about. That response says that there are at least 90 whānau out there that have presented since back in October and that are still on that wait-list, waiting to access the service and waiting to access the help that this Government is responsible for delivering. The reality is that these providers, in good faith and with goodwill as good Māori and Pacific people, are out there providing the services over and above without the resources that they need to do their job to connect individuals and whānau with the Government services that they need.

What we wanted to see was increased funding, even a lift to increase the number of navigators and kaiwhiriwhiri to engage directly with those whānau. It’s not necessarily additional resources; it’s putting people in jobs to help connect these individuals with the services and support that the Government is responsible for providing. That is not what our Whānau Ora providers have seen. There’s not additional investment in Whānau Ora, a kaupapa that works, a kaupapa that we know changes lives and outcomes of not just one individual but of the whānau that live in our community.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura) (16:08): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a great privilege to speak in this Budget debate, and it’s actually, essentially, what you would expect: we’re singing its praises, and, of course, the Opposition is not. I thought I’d reflect on what’s actually happening on the ground. Mr Speaker, I know you’re a follower of these things, and it’s really important to get the feedback on how this Budget is going down and what the mood in the country is.

If I start at the Fieldays, I know a number of colleagues across the House attended the Fieldays, and it was a really good opportunity to take the pulse of the nation and certainly the rural nation. It was magnificent. Actually, people were really buoyant. They’re confident, and they, I think, were enjoying their time in the sun because it’s been a long way back for a lot of them. I don’t know whether the tools were ringing that much, but, certainly, farmers are paying down debt, and that mood went right across it.

It was great to actually come across the wilding pine trust at the Fieldays. Mr Speaker, I don’t know if you got a chance to go along there and look at the great work that was done there, but I thought I’d tell you a little story about that. Years ago, one of the most famous or infamous—depending on which side of the House you came from—politicians, Sir Robert Muldoon, wrote a letter guaranteeing that if wilding pines got out of control, the Government would do something about it. And at last, we are. It’s been a long time coming.

We only got in this position, Mr Speaker, as I’m sure you’re aware, because the old Forest Service and the catchment boards decided they were going to stop erosion, and really stop a natural process, and they were going to plant all these trees. They’ve, unfortunately, planted trees that would thrive in New Zealand, but their seed is so light that actually the wind-blown seed rain—it’s called—is causing havoc in New Zealand. So to have that $109 million over four years—I think it is—is a magnificent step in the right direction. It’s a heck of a job to get on top of it, but on top of it we must get.

The positive feeling in the rural sector went on when I went to the Taimate bull sale, and that’s in my electorate just north of Ward, and the Hickman’s are great farmers there and they set a New Zealand record for their bull at $168,000. I thought, “Wow, that was great”. It was a magnificent animal. But then of course Kaharau sold a bull just this week for $220,000 and set another record. Now, that’s fantastic. And that’s on the back of the demand for beef, for our beef. Of course, to have beef, you’ve got to have bulls. It’s magnificent for the rural sector, but it’s great for those guys that put everything on the line, and they stand there that day and that’s the only day they earn their money. So if it goes well, they have a good year. And believe me, I’ve been to a few where it’s been quite sad. So to see farmers doing really well is great.

The SOPI report, the Situation and Outlook for Primary Industries, has come out recently and is predicting $70 billion of agriculture exports by 2030. So, you know, everything’s up, dairy’s up $27 billion, up by 16 percent. Horticulture’s up by $8.4 billion, which is 19 percent, which is a huge uptick largely led by kiwifruit, of course. Meat and wool are up $12.3 billion, up 8 percent.

It’s not all happy days; the wine industry is going through a tough time at the moment. I was at Grape Days in Marlborough in Blenheim on Monday, and, you know, the industry’s got itself to where it is at the moment, which is that supply has grown faster than demand. But despite what the rest of the world is doing, in the report that Philip Gregan, the retiring CEO of New Zealand Winegrowers, gave on the market, it’s clear that while demand is slightly reducing in most of the markets, in all markets we sell into, New Zealand wine demand and sales are going up. So it’s a positive story. But we do have to get that supply back in balance with demand, and that’s what drives it—it’s an immutable supply and demand story, and it’s just a pity it got out of whack. But it’ll come back and there is some sign of that, but quite a lot of grapes are being pulled out around the country and I really feel for those people involved. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland) (16:13): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, it is with real privilege I rise to support this Budget. It’s an excellent Budget. It’s a responsible Budget in difficult times, and I hope I wake up the member over there, she’s yawning a bit, but that’s OK, I’m sure by the end of it she’ll be awake.

It’s a Budget that’s about fixing the basics and building the future. Look, one of the areas we’ve spent up large has been in the health area. We really have put a lot of money, extra money, into health. For example, we’re looking to spend $5.8 billion over the next four years—extra—on top of what we’ve been doing in the past, which is significant. And in the Northland area, areas that have actually benefited from this is the new oncology and cancer unit hospital in Whangārei, which I was privileged to attend the opening of the other day. It will benefit Northlanders so much, because currently what they have to do is travel all the way to Auckland for treatment and back. For some of those people in the Far North, that is quite a journey and a long time to spend away from their whānau. So it was really good to have that, and I have to pay credit to the retiring Hon Dr Shane Reti who helped drive that project, I really do.

One of the other areas—I recently also attended the 70^th anniversary of the Dargaville Hospital, and we actually have provided extra funding into the Dargaville Hospital to extend the care hours. So extend the hours during the week till 8 p.m. at night and also during the weekends—open during the weekends, during the day. The difference that makes, as one of my friends and colleagues who’s involved in motocross explained to me—Colin said that now if we have someone that gets injured in the weekends at the motocross event near Dargaville, they no longer have to go all the way to Whangārei base hospital during the weekend, they can initially go to Dargaville Hospital for assessment. That is quite a big improvement, and it’s great to see that.

Another area where we’ve been spending a lot of extra money is in the area of education. In education we’re looking to spend quite a bit more on new classrooms and a new school in my electorate. They’re building a brand new kura in Kaiwaka. We recently had the blessing of the site, which was great. I, unfortunately, couldn’t attend, but the Minister of Education, Erica Stanford, did attend, and it’s been really well received. In many ways, it’s long overdue because this little school has been operating down the end of the Oruawharo peninsula for many years in a set-up that has not been acceptable. So they are really excited about having their own brand new school in Kaiwaka.

Then there’s also been new classrooms for Kerikeri High School, where you’ve seen the huge growth in demand in that area for new education facilities. That was really well received. Then, actually, one of the most exciting discussions I had was with the new principal in Dargaville High School who’s taken over a school that was struggling, but he’s doing a great job and getting the community on board. The school was very old, tired, and run down. We’re putting new funding in to actually upgrade the classrooms in the school, which has been very well received, as well as building two new specialist classrooms for some students.

Now, it would be very remiss of me if I did not stand up here and talk about roading infrastructure and the importance of that to the Northland economy and Northland. As an example, there’s been a commitment in the Budget to build the new highway from Cambridge to Piarere, which is great—over a billion dollars—and actually coming up soon, we are looking forward to progressing the next stage of the four-lane highway all the way to Whangārei, of which the next stage will be through to Te Hana, which will be great. That will make a massive difference to the people of Northland, who are really looking forward to that.

For my area in the farming sector, one of the really great announcements, whilst not a lot of money but huge impact, is the increase of base funding for the Queen Elizabeth II Trust. The second biggest national park in this country is on private lands. That is really great to see, and as chair of the Bluegreens and as a farmer with much bush on our land, it’s great to see that our Government is so committed to the environment in this country.

It’s a great Budget and it’s a Budget that is fixing the basics and building the future, and I commend it to the House.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (16:18): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. This was the Government’s last chance with their Budget to get things right for struggling Kiwis.

Shanan Halbert: Last chance.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Last chance! And they have failed. National has been busy trying to distract New Zealanders from their failures and they’ve actually forgotten about the human cost of their poor choices. Let’s go over them.

One in three households struggling to access food, one in seven children suffering from material hardship, unemployment reaching decade highs, food banks being under immense pressure never been seen before, and Kiwis leaving the country in record numbers—all under National’s watch.

Just today, I’ve seen the sad news that in my own rohe of Te Tai Tokerau, one of Kaitaia’s two mills will close down, with no certainty about the future of the second mill. I attended a public meeting in Kaitaia recently, and we know that there are up to 200 jobs on the chopping block. I want to firstly acknowledge those whānau who have lost their jobs and others who are still waiting for certainty on theirs. This is an incredibly difficult situation, and my aroha goes out to them and their families. We are talking about dozens of families with children and households facing the pressure of cost of living and, now, uncertainty about whether they even will have jobs. This is all while the Government has failed to keep its promises of fixing things, all while choosing to give billions in tax breaks to landlords and tobacco companies.

Day by day, Kiwis lose their jobs under National. It becomes even more shameful that National refuses to own up to their collapsing jobseeker target, despite the Government’s own Budget forecast showing that there are going to be over 60,000 more people on the jobseeker benefit. National’s target wasn’t sabotaged by officials or inherited from previous Governments. They said it, they promoted it, and now they are failing to deliver it. You can’t talk tough about people being on benefits while presiding over an economy where more than 1,200 people are applying for one single cleaning job in Auckland. That’s not a failure of job seekers; that’s a failure of this Government not creating enough opportunities.

I put these serious questions to the Minister Louise Upston in scrutiny week, and she refused to take responsibility for a failure of her own making, resorting to blaming everybody else. It’s been almost three years, and Kiwis are sick of the excuses, sick of being talked down on, and sick of being treated as disposable by this Government. The least the Minister Louise Upston could have done was acknowledge the reality. The fairytale target that they sold New Zealanders is failing horrendously, and refusing to take responsibility for it won’t help a single person into work.

I want a better future for our children, one where we can feel confident that they will be able to build a future here in Aotearoa New Zealand. Therefore, it absolutely beggars belief that the Government is continuing to invest money, tens of millions of dollars, into the failed boot camps experiment. It completely boggles the mind to think why on earth we are still having this conversation. The first pilot failed, and now the Minister will not even answer questions about how many participants are in the second military-style academy. We have been here before, and it’s insanity to see history repeating itself. At a time when we are hearing stories from front-line providers—prevention services, counselling services—all put at risk under this Government’s funding cuts, we have a Government more worried about pouring tens of millions of dollars into a failed boot camp experiment. Our children deserve better. Our whānau deserve better. This Government isn’t making things better; they are making it so much worse. If the Government can’t even get it right for our youngest, how do we expect them to get it right for everybody else?

Labour is focused on getting it right for our future generations. We are backing them to thrive here in Aotearoa New Zealand, and come 7 November New Zealanders will get a chance to vote this Government out.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (16:23): Thank you, Mr Speaker—

Grant McCallum: She’s awake!

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: —for this opportunity to talk on the Budget. Wide awake, Mr McCallum! Does this Budget focus on the cost of living? No, no, it does not appear to. Does it focus on the great city of Dunedin? No, doesn’t do that either. How about the environment? Is it focused on the environment? No, no, not that either. There is some money for some implementation of some new environmental laws or planning laws that this Government is doing, ones that are going to create a whole new industry of people involved in regulatory relief and do much worse for the environment. So that’s not a good thing, is it? No, it is not.

What else do we have for the environment? Have they brought back the fund for the environmental legal assistance? Nope. How about those environmental hubs that were building up communities and doing such great work? Nope. Jobs for Nature? No—no, not there either. And, of course, the cynical use of the waste levy, funding now a huge proportion of Vote Environment so that that money’s not coming across from the consolidated fund. So, not good for the environment.

I will, in a surprising move, talk about one positive thing, and that is the work that we did—that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime did, particularly, when she was the Minister of Conservation, that followed many other Ministers of Conservation, as well, across both sides of the House—to increase marine protected areas with the south-east marine protection area. I was very pleased yesterday to celebrate Te Au Roa o Te Rakihouia with Edward Ellison, who’s been involved for a long time in that, and that these marine protected areas are happening from 1 July. Willow-Jean Prime and I, in October of 2023, announced that we had signed off as the Ministers all the work required for this, we’d found the funding for it, and now—almost three years later, but better late than never—the Minister of Conservation has signed them off and they will be in effect from 1 July, and some co-management is happening here as well. It’s a beautiful thing to see. I was able to, at Ōtākou Marae, meet some of the kaitiaki rangers who are going to be working in this area. It’s great stuff. So that’s one positive thing. Thank you, Willow-Jean Prime, for that work.

Let’s talk about Dunedin now, of course—wonderful electorate, wonderful city. That’s right. I might ask my colleague here, Ingrid Leary, if she’s noticed any funding for those Kāinga Ora houses that were all ready to go—41 units ready to go on Carroll Street. You see anything?

Ingrid Leary: No.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: No, not there—

Grant McCallum: There is a hospital being built.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: —they’re all still being built. Oh, I’m hearing across the aisle about the hospital build. Is there anything to make up for the 18 months that it was on pause in this Budget? No. Have the timelines been totally blown out because this Government, that National Party that promised they would do more than Labour, heaps more than us, then said, “Oh, maybe it’s in the wrong place. Maybe it should be prefabs. Maybe we’ll put it in Cromwell.” That is what people said in the urgent debate that we had on this topic. So, no—no, Mr McCallum; that’s still not good and it’s still broken promises from this Government.

Port Chalmers, the houses at Port Chalmers—what’s happening with the land there? Oh, Kāinga Ora keeps trying to sell it off.

And if I’m talking about selling off land and the environment, well, we’ve had an interesting week on that discussion, haven’t we? Rather than paying for public conservation land, the Minister wants to sell it. That is how environmental things are going to be funded by this Government, and it is just not on. Generations of New Zealanders have built up that conservation land, and it is not for sale for this greedy National Party.

What would’ve been good to see in the Budget is something like a $10 public fare cap, as Labour’s promising to do in cities like Dunedin—very good thing—a capital gains tax to fund three free GP visits, free maternity scans, and free prescriptions. These are good things that this Government has chosen not to do, and they need to be voted out.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini) (16:29): Unlike others, I don’t break the rules. I am very happy, and I feel actually quite privileged, to be able to have these five minutes to say what—there’s so much to say about Budget 2026, but what I’m going to start off with is just to take us back a few years ago to when the Hon Chris Bishop stood in this House lamenting one of the Labour Party’s past Budgets, in the dark ages—God help me get through this. He said that they are throwing around taxpayer money like confetti. I want to thank our taxpayers. I want to thank them for working so hard to help put together this pool of funds where we are able to do what we’re doing in Budget 2026, on the back of Budget 2025 and Budget 2024, to deliver meaningfully, respecting taxpayer money, for my neighbours in Takanini and for our loved ones all around New Zealand.

Now, what I’ve heard throughout this Budget debate—from the ones that can’t turn their frowns upside down, on the other side of the House—is a number of them say: “This Government has failed to deliver.” Whoa. This is where we need to look at what are the perceptions of delivery, because they’re pretty different on this side of the House. On the other side of the House, delivery is reducing the number of prisoners in jail by a target of 30 percent. On the other side, delivery seems to be spending hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money on bridges—bridge designs that went nowhere; on light rail, which not even a metre of track was built for. On that side of the House, they think that delivery is announcing people will get a lot of free stuff, but not really knowing where the $18 billion is going to come from. On this side of the House, “delivery” has a whole different meaning. Maybe—maybe—some of them may just listen and learn a little bit.

On this side of the House, delivery looks like an 85 percent reduction in ram raids from when that lot were in power; 46,000 fewer victims of violent crime—that’s what delivery looks like on this side of the House—66 new medicines funded, including 33 cancer medicines; approximately 2,000 nurses and hundreds more doctors employed; 24/7 online GP care. Cell bans—cellular phones banned from our schools so that our children can focus more; structured literacy and mathematics—we’re seeing the results in a small amount of time, so just imagine what it will be like in the future; and so much more. Not to mention, the free-trade agreement with India that Chris Hipkins mocked—mocked—Christopher Luxon about, saying, essentially, that we’ll never be able to achieve it. Well, guess what? We’ve achieved it, because here, results and delivery are actually tangible.

What I’d also like to talk about, with delivery—because we’ve been quite careful with taxpayers’ money over the years, and this Budget continues to reflect that. For the first time ever, New Zealand has a Minister for Mental Health. This week, results came out with respect to access to mental health and addiction services. Anyone with a heart will probably have tears well up in their eyes, because we know that in New Zealand mental health is such a stigma on our society in that we have not been able to address. And the over a billion dollars of taxpayer money that the Labour Party poured into mental health—with no direction and no targets—meant that nothing was achieved. Access to specialist mental health and addiction services within three weeks of referral—we’ve gone above target in Counties Manukau: 88 percent of people. Access to primary mental health and addiction services within one week: 84.7 percent.

I received from Flatbush Police yesterday, as well, figures about crime in Flatbush going down and down and down, thanks to the tools we’re giving police and the funding we are sustaining in our Budgets, including Budget 2026. I am really proud of this. We will continue to fix the basics and build the future so that life can be more affordable for my neighbours all around Takanini. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

PAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn) (16:34): Thank you, Mr Speaker. When our Government came into power in 2023, we came upon an economy that was perilously weak, and a law and order situation that had people feeling unsafe and New Zealanders all over the country feeling quite unsafe. We wanted, we needed, to focus on fixing these basic things and looking to the future and building for the future. We needed to get the economy going, first and foremost. That meant allowing for people to get from point to point. That meant infrastructure growth and building. It meant investing in roads that the country relied on. We needed to have people feeling safe to be out and about and getting from where they needed to be to and from, and, also, the goods that they were producing where they needed to be.

It meant backing hard-working New Zealanders and creating job opportunities all across the country, pushing for exports, and creating the opportunities and the pathways for exports to grow all over New Zealand. We have invested in rural and regional roads. We’re also investing in over a billion dollars in the Cambridge to Piarere Expressway. This is really meant to get the flow of goods to and from the producers to the market very quickly. Protein is trending globally, and it happens that protein from milk is the best, most easily assimilated protein into the human body, and so the demand for protein is growing. We are helping our dairy industry to produce as much as they can and get these products to other countries through the many free-trade agreements, including to India, for all other export goods.

I’d also like to focus on the improvements in healthcare. We have invested $5.5 billion in front-line health services. This means that emergency departments have started flowing much more quickly. More patients are being seen much more quickly. Elective surgery has moved very quickly; 51,000 people were treated in just this year alone, just from the elective wait list. More specialist assessments; cancer being diagnosed much more quickly, and the opportunity to get to treatment has been very much improved. For actual persons who are going into very uncertain ground in terms of their health, if diagnosed with cancer, this meant that people could be diagnosed more quickly and treated more quickly. That meant humans—actual people—would be able to get to their families, stay for that one more birthday and experience hope going forward.

We’ve also invested in adding 30 percent on mileage rates for community support workers and people travelling for specialist treatment. We have also strengthened the ambulance service with an additional $35 million over four years. This is what fixing the basics and building for the future means. On top of that, we have enabled KiwiSaver to be paid for all children born in New Zealand, and for 65-year-olds who want to carry on working to continue to have them. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) (16:39): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is an absolutely disappointing Budget. It is particularly disappointing because members opposite campaigned long and hard in 2023 about easing the cost of living. Yet decisions that they have made—including a decision to borrow and blow billions of dollars on tax breaks to one tobacco company and property speculators—has meant that people today, that New Zealanders today, are struggling more than they have before the 2023 election when this Government campaigned to ease the cost of living. They have made it actively worse. One in three households today face food insecurity. That figure goes up to 82 percent when you factor in a disabled person in a household.

This is a Government that claims to be backing small businesses, but company liquidations are at a 15-year high. The number one issue that I hear from small businesses up and down the Maungakiekie electorate is the fact that sales are down, that it’s one of the toughest years that they have done. They are asking locals—and I back this—to support small businesses as and when they can, but this is not a Government that supports small businesses.

Unemployment: there are 40,000 fewer jobs today than when this Government took office—20,000 of those alone in the construction sector. They’ve stopped, en masse, building. Members opposite wax lyrical about the fact that they’ve invested in roads and so on and so forth. The construction industry is on its knees because of this Government.

As a result of all of this, people are struggling and making some incredibly tough choices. CCS Disability Action describes this Budget as one that risks further isolating disabled people, stating that it “makes disabled people’s lives more restricted, harder to live in their own communities, and less visible to the rest of the country.” That is the implication of successive Budgets by this Government. They’ve outlined some of the detail in this: a disability allowance with the baseline in long-term decline; Total Mobility—that has been cut—a scheme that has been reduced by this Government, leading to a 40 percent increase in out-of-pocket expenses for taxi trips for disabled people who cannot take public transport; cuts—of course, further cuts—to Whaikaha, reducing the voice of the Ministry of Disabled People under this Government’s watch.

The most egregious thing is the fact that part of what they gloat about in terms of an investment in disabled people is actually an expense transfer of funds that weren’t spent. It was an underspend over the very years where they restricted access of disabled people to support to such a point that the disability community has outlined this in terms of trauma and suffering that disabled people have experienced. That is now an expense transfer of an underspend.

I want to also quickly touch on what this Government’s doing to the environment. My colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking pointed out some piddly sums in this Budget that go towards improving the environment. But the overall story is very different. We’ve seen multi-year funding cuts to the Department of Conservation (DOC) across successive Budgets, and that’s continued in Budget 2026, as well, to the tune of almost $38 million. I did a quick back-of-the-envelope accounting exercise, and it’s pretty much to the tune of $196 million that this Government has stripped from the Department of Conservation alone. That’s not taking into account their very cynical spending of the international visitor conservation and tourism levy (IVL) that they increased—

Suze Redmayne: Oh, tell that to the wilding pines!

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: The wilding pines was good—I’ll give you that—but it was tiny, and it was work that we’d done, as well. It’s kind of neither here nor there in that sense, but it’s good. Look at it in context of what’s been stripped out of the environment, though. IVL funding increased. It was meant to be a top-up. It was meant to be additional spend to offset the impact of tourism on conservation, but, no, it’s being used to replace Crown spending on the Department of Conservation. All they have achieved is the watering-down of protections for the Hauraki Gulf, the ending of Jobs for Nature, the disestablishment of the Ministry for the Environment, and now the enabling, through a change in law, of the sell-off of up to 60 percent of public conservation land and a change in DOC’s fundamental purpose in order to focus on economic development to the greatest extent practicable on conservation land.

This is a Government that continuously fails its people, the economy, and the environment, and, come November this year, people can vote them out.

Ingrid Leary: Mr Speaker!

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Go ahead—

Hon Member: Ingrid Leary.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): —Ingrid Leary.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) (16:44): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s appropriate to be talking in this House about mental health. I did request an urgent debate, earlier today, which, unfortunately, was declined. When I looked at the Budget, the issue that I wanted to discuss is very relevant to it, because we see that the Mental Health Commission this morning has released a road map calling for improved crisis response, workforce growth, reduced coercion and seclusion, equitable access, and better outcomes for people with the highest needs. Yet we haven’t seen anything in this Budget that speaks directly into what that road map is advocating.

This is presenting as a real problem in the neighbouring electorate to mine, the wonderful electorate of Dunedin that my friend and colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking looks after, which is at Wakari Hospital. I have an interest in this both as a mental health spokesperson for Labour but also as someone who has constituents who are impacted. The hospital is the only place in the lower South Island that has the facility to look after a very particular group of vulnerable New Zealanders who are those with mental health issues over the age of 18 with disability in terms of intellectual disability and a conviction or, if not a conviction, a demonstrated propensity to cause harm to themselves and others.

What we have seen come out in local media recently is a sudden decision by this Government to close Wakari Hospital, even though it made a Budget announcement last year to refurbish ward 10A. They’re now closing ward 10A, and, not only that, they’re also moving patients out of that highly specialised ward with no disclosure of where those patients are going to go. This has been very distressing for the families of those people who they love and who should be given the same level of dignity and reference to their human rights as any other New Zealander. Yet, despite repeated questions and also articles in the Otago Daily Times, we have not been able to get answers from the Minister for Mental Health.

What I would like to understand is, if the Minister is not going to prioritise things like this in his Budget, can he at least rule out that there have been no cases of abuse, of cruelty, or of torture at Wakari Hospital? Why won’t he rule out an independent investigation? That might be a good use of the Budget spend, because this comes on the back of his offer this week to apologise to the family of an autistic girl who was 11 and who was sedated and restrained and incorrectly identified in the mental health service. It comes on the back of real issues at Hillmorton Hospital with rat infestation and with issues at Nelson Hospital of facilities that are not fit for purpose. I’ve had people contacting me from a hospital in Napier with the same kinds of issues and poor resourcing and poor facilities. Then we’ve had very recent media coverage of Palmerston North Hospital and a litany of issues that were brought out by the forensic work of a brother of a man who tragically died of suicide in that facility.

We’re seeing a systemic problem at the very high, specialised, acute needs end of mental health. These are the people who are the most vulnerable in our system and who have the least visibility and the least voice. What we are not seeing is any kind of investment, in this Budget, to that part of the mental health response. Nor are we seeing answers to our questions about where the patients at 10A Wakari Hospital are being relocated to. Are they going into corrections facilities, which are highly inappropriate for most of them? Are they being expected to be cared for by their families, and do the families have the resources to support them? When will ward 10A reopen, or will it reopen? What happens to ward 9A, given that they were expecting to be refurbished to take on some of the people in the 12 beds in ward 10A? There’s a whole plethora of questions and lack of transparency that is just deeply worrying. We have no regard for that in the Budget, and, now, we have no regard for the anxiety of the families of people impacted by what is happening at Wakari Hospital and, indeed, facilities all over our country. This is not a good Budget, and there’s a lot to be answered.

Hon MIKE BUTTERICK (Minister for Land Information) (16:49): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Before discussing the Budget announcements, I’d just like to acknowledge the extraordinary contribution the rural community makes to New Zealand. The numbers are very impressive. More than 360,000 New Zealanders work in it. Roughly one in six New Zealanders works in the food and fibre sector. That’s the farmers, the growers, the foresters, the contractors, transport operators, processors, etc., etc. Seventy-thousand businesses up and down the length of this country, from the top to the bottom, are associated with the food and fibre sector. Over 80 percent of our export income and 15-plus percent of GDP comes from the food and fibre sector. This year, the food and fibre exports are forecast to reach a record $64.3 billion; that’s the highest in New Zealand’s history. Dairy revenue is forecast to increase by 5 percent, meat and wool by 14 percent, and horticulture by 7 percent.

Those earnings do not just simply benefit rural communities; they generate the tax revenue that helps pay for our hospitals, our schools, our roads, our police, our emergency services, superannuation, and the public services that New Zealanders rely upon. When rural New Zealand succeeds, New Zealand succeeds. My word, the confidence is high. Unlike the minus 66 percent confidence when the previous Government was in power, we’ve had the biggest turn-round since that farmer confidence survey was started in 2008—100 percent turn-round in confidence—and you can feel it. I was actually at the primary industries awards last night in Auckland. You could feel the confidence and excitement in the room, and particularly about the anticipation of the India free-trade agreement. Everybody is really looking forward to that.

It’s really important to look beyond the headlines of the Budget and examine what is actually being delivered for our regions, our farmers, and our rural communities. The Budget is built around a very simple principle: creating the conditions for growth, because growth matters. It’s not just growth in export earnings and not just growth in productivity but growth in opportunity, resilience, innovation, and leadership. One of the most significant investments is the Government’s commitment to accelerating the adoption of new farm technologies through AgriZero; $100 million is being jointly invested through an early adoption accelerator programme that will help bring world-leading technologies on to New Zealand farms faster. Up to $51 million of this will be contributed by Government. For farmers, this is not just simply about reducing emissions; it’s about improving productivity, profitability, and competitiveness. It’s about ensuring that our New Zealand farmers remain at the forefront of global food production.

Alongside this, the Government is investing in smarter land-use decisions. A package worth over $140 million across the lifetime of six major commercial projects, including $59 million from Government and over $84 million from industry, will support innovation across dairy, sheep and beef, horticulture, forestry, aquaculture, and Māori-owned land. These projects recognise that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to land use. There never has been; different regions face different opportunities and challenges. Providing that flexibility will allow landowners to respond to changing markets, environmental expectations, and emerging export opportunities, while also maintaining profitability. In the Budget, we’re also seeing targeted investment in Māori agribusiness. More than $5.3 million is being invested through the Māori Development Fund to support horticulture and aquaculture projects in Hawke’s Bay, Raupunga, and Akaroa. These investments unlock the potential of collectively owned Māori assets, create jobs, and expand export opportunities, while strengthening regional communities.

Importantly, Budget 2026 is not only focused on productivity; it’s also focused on people, because thriving farms require thriving communities. That’s why I welcome the creation of the Rural Wellbeing Champions Programme. An investment of $98,000 will help train and support 100 rural wellbeing champions through a partnership between New Zealand Young Farmers and Farmstrong. Those champions will help lead conversations around wellbeing, support their peers, and strengthen those community connections. This initiative recognises something that every rural New Zealander understands: resilience is not just about infrastructure, it’s also about people. We’ll also continue to fund the good work of the Rural Support Trust. It was only last night that I attended the Primary Industries New Zealand Awards, where Neil Bateup, the previous chairman of the Rural Support Trust, was recognised for his significant contribution to the Rural Support Trust. One of the women leaders in agribusiness, Sarah Donaldson, was also a nominee as well from the Wairarapa. I’d just like to acknowledge the great work that they do for the mental wellbeing of their community up and down the length of New Zealand.

This Government is also backing the next generation of rural leaders. The new Minister of Agriculture Future Leaders Scholarship will support three emerging leaders every year across agriculture, horticulture, and forestry, because investing in leadership today means investing in the future capability of our sector for tomorrow. Likewise, New Zealand Young Farmers are receiving support through one-off grants of $1,000 to 60 clubs nationwide, alongside $585,000 in Rural Wellbeing Fund initiatives to strengthen physical, mental, and financial wellbeing. Those investments will ensure that the next generation will remain engaged, connected, and optimistic about a future in the primary sector.

Resilience is another key theme running through the Government’s investment. Recent years have reminded us how vulnerable rural communities can be to adverse weather events and natural disasters. To strengthen that preparedness, the Government is investing $160,000 to enhance the capability of New Zealand’s 16 rural advisory groups, $50,000 to support Taskforce Kiwi’s rapid deployment during emergencies, and $50,000 to build leadership capability and future resilience planning within rural regions. These are practical investments that will help communities prepare for challenges before they occur.

This Government has also recognised the vital role played by catchment groups. Across the country, catchment groups are delivering practical environmental improvements, while helping farmers share knowledge and solve problems collaboratively. I would liken it to a continuation of the investment that rural communities have made in their environment. I would just point out the 186,000 hectares of Queen Elizabeth II National Trust covenants in this country, 2.8 million hectares of woody vegetation on our farmland, as well as 23,000 kilometres of waterways fenced off on our dairy farms as well—that’s actually 100 percent of waterways fenced off. It’s great to continue backing them with wider investment exceeding $40 million. The catchment groups will now benefit from baseline funding agreements that will provide certainty and allow them to focus on delivering outcomes rather than chasing funding applications.

That certainty matters, just as certainty matters in another area that remains a major priority: resource management reform. For far too long, farmers and rural businesses have struggled with excessive compliance costs, delays, and regulatory complexity. Our commitment to replace the Resource Management Act remains one of the most important productivity reforms currently under way. Whether it’s building infrastructure, improving water storage, developing farm systems, or investing in regional growth, rural New Zealand needs a planning framework that enables sensible development while protecting environmental outcomes. Progress in this space will deliver benefits long after any individual Budget announcement. The Government’s also continuing its commitment to tackling one of the most significant environmental and economic threats facing many rural regions: the dreaded wilding conifer. Through a $109 million investment in wilding pine control over the next three years, work will continue to protect productive farmland, our ecosystems, our water resources, and our iconic landscapes from the spread of invasive wilding trees.

For the record, rural New Zealand is not an afterthought; it’s a cornerstone of our nation’s prosperity. As long as the food and fibre sector continues to grow, innovate, and compete on the world stage, the benefits will be felt in every town, every city, and every community across New Zealand. National backs our farmers 100 percent as we fix the basics and build the future.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Tākuta Ferris will now take his call, which he missed before.

TĀKUTA FERRIS (Te Tai Tonga) (16:59): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. We’ve heard the Government describe Budget 2026 as “responsible”, but for the whānau I represent in Te Tai Tonga, it’ll be remembered differently. It will be remembered for one simple question, and that is “Who matters?” Budgets are never just numbers; they’re decisions, they’re choices, they tell us who is invested in and who is expected to wait. Once again, Māori are expected to wait.

Across Te Tai Tonga, whānau are facing rising rents, rising costs, rising food, overcrowded housing, barriers to healthcare—the list goes on and on. Too many can’t see a GP when they need one, too many rangatahi can’t see a clear pathway to education and work, and too many whānau are working harder than ever, only to fall further behind.

Yet in this Budget, we do not see transformational investment in Māori; instead, we see $3.5 billion more invested in defence and intelligence, on top of $12 billion last year. We see half a billion dollars for Corrections to expand prisons. The Government is investing heavily in managing consequences. So I have to ask: what about the causes? What security exists for whānau sleeping in overcrowded homes; for kaumātua waiting months for healthcare; for rangatahi locked out of housing, work, and support? The greatest threats in our communities are not foreign powers; they are poverty, preventable illness, poor housing, addiction, intergenerational disadvantage, and this Budget does far too little to address them.

Instead of investing in solutions, the Government continues to invest in systems that manage failure after it occurs. It fails to invest properly in kaupapa Māori health. It fails to invest in rangatahi Māori. It fails to invest in housing that people can actually afford. It fails to invest in Māori education.

Just weeks ago, the Government announced $62.5 million for classroom and school expansion in Te Wai Pounamu, yet not one dollar was specifically targeted to Māori-medium education capacity—not one—despite demand being up, despite wait-lists, despite ageing and unsafe buildings in many kura, and despite the fact that 2.9 percent of Māori learners in Te Wai Pounamu are in Māori-medium education. That is not due to a lack of aspiration; that is due to a lack of investment. When kura Māori are delivering stronger outcomes—strengthening identity, language, and achievement—why are they still treated as an afterthought? Kura, like Te Pā o Rākaihautū in Ōtautahi, are outperforming national NCEA averages, and won the Zayed Sustainability Prize for their world-leading mātauranga Māori innovation. But that excellence is still being delivered in mould-affected, leaking, unhealthy buildings that no tamaiti should have to learn in. Imagine, if this Government invested equitably in Māori-medium education, what our tamariki could achieve in safe, proper learning environments that match their excellence.

The truth is that the solutions already exist. They exist in education, in health, in social services, in housing. Solutions exist everywhere that Māori have developed kaupapa Māori initiatives. The persistent problem is that they are simply not funded fairly. So I ask: why must Māori continue to fight for equitable funding for equitable outcomes? The answer is: priorities, and the Government have made that very clear. They found billions for defence, they found billions for prisons, but couldn’t find meaningful investment into Māori-medium education or Māori development or kaupapa Māori health. That tells us everything we need to know.

Te Tai Tonga is not asking for charity; we’re asking for fairness, for investment, for opportunity, because the greatest asset in this country—in our country—is not a warship or a mega-prison; it’s our people. Our people are our wealth. When Māori succeed, Aotearoa succeeds. When our tamariki thrive, the whole country thrives. That’s a future worth fighting for. That’s a future of Te Tai Tonga, where investment is equitable and comes before crisis, where Māori solutions are funded for greater success, and where the people of Te Tai Tonga are empowered to determine their own futures.

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

SIMON COURT (ACT) (17:04): When it comes to Budgets, ACT asks a simple question: if we’re going to spend money, where does it come from? Too often in this House, we hear parties proposing billions and billions of dollars in spending, as though these decisions don’t have consequences, as though deficits don’t matter, as though debt is free, and as though taxpayers are committed to unlimited sources of funding. These things are not free, and that is why ACT believes that every dollar the Government spends is a dollar earned by somebody else, and we apply that rule to every decision that ACT makes as part of this coalition Government. That means making choices. It means deciding what matters most.

We’ve heard from members of the Opposition today, Priyanca Radhakrishnan included, that the Government shouldn’t consider whether land under the control of the Department of Conservation, that might include a works depot, a shed, a paddock that’s been grazed for 100 years—why that couldn’t be exchanged for money to reinvest in biodiversity in the conservation estate.

That is the difference between this Government and the Opposition. The Opposition will pretend that all problems can be solved by taxing more and spending more and failing to make trade-offs. This Government, and ACT in this Government, will continue to reinforce—

Hon Rachel Brooking: Oh, that’s what you call a “trade-off”. A cut isn’t a trade-off.

SIMON COURT: —the Hon Rachel Brooking, while you sit there yapping from the Opposition benches, where you’ll stay for a while—that these things do require hard trade-offs. But we have the courage—ACT has the courage—and we will continue to focus on fixing what matters.

There’s nothing compassionate about spending money you don’t have. There’s nothing progressive about handing today’s bills to tomorrow’s taxpayers. There’s nothing responsible about pretending the trade-offs that I’ve described do not exist. That is why this Budget matters.

Over the last few years, New Zealanders have had to tighten their belts; Government has had to do the same. We’ve started to move in the right direction. We can go faster. But Budget 2026 builds on that progress.

This Budget takes a different approach to the past. New Zealand is now forecast to return to surplus a year earlier than anticipated. That matters because deficits do not exist in a vacuum. Government borrowing—

Hon Rachel Brooking: When? After other anticipated forecasts?

SIMON COURT: Listen, Rachel Brooking, you might need to know this some day—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): I’d ask the member to refer to the Speaker, as opposed to speaking across the Chamber.

SIMON COURT: She’s interjecting, Mr Speaker, and that should be on Hansard.

Deficits do not exist in a vacuum. Government borrowing puts pressure on inflation, interest rates, and ultimately on households trying to get ahead.

ACT Ministers have collectively delivered over $14 billion in savings over three Budgets. That is not an accounting exercise. That is money that does not need to be borrowed, that does not need to be taxed, money that does not need to be taken from the next generation, because every Budget is a set of choices.

While some argue for a bigger bureaucracy, this Budget continues that shift towards a Public Service that is smaller, more efficient, and more productive, with $2 billion in savings forecast from future reductions in size. That is before we get to potential reductions in scope, which is another opportunity over the horizon. Labour proved that more bureaucrats do not automatically mean better outcomes. That’s why ACT in Government’s approach is simple: we focus on fixing what matters, we create room to invest in the things that solve New Zealanders’ problems.

I want to talk about one of the initiatives that I’ve been involved in funding. The Resource Management Act is one of the best examples we’ve had of why it’s important that law and regulation are clear and that everybody operating in a system—like building housing, building infrastructure, or maintaining roads and bridges—understands exactly what their obligations are and how to comply, so that you can go and get a cheap, effective design for something and you don’t spend years litigating with your local council potentially all the way through the Environment Court or, you know, for some poor souls, all the way to the Supreme Court to try to get consent for something we need.

Now, not all infrastructure is pretty, I’ll grant you that. We can do our best to put a cultural mural on the side of a bridge, but I’ll tell you what, there’s not much you can do to a landfill to make it look good. But we still need infrastructure like landfills, like ports, airports, things that make noise, quarries that generate dust and traffic, because without them New Zealand cannot build the things we need.

Look, all of these things will eventually get consented, even under the old system. It will just take decades and add billions and billions in cost. That is why Minister Chris Bishop and I, in the resource management reform portfolio, have secured $294 million to deliver and transition the current resource management system to the new system—that we’re going to deliver with the passing of the Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill in a few short months’ time. That money is going to fund the first tranche of national direction. That is the direction that tells council planners and decision makers like commissioners and judges—and, of course, in the new planning tribunal—how to weigh up some of these tricky things.

We want to build houses, but there’s a paddock with a few bull rushes in it. Do the houses win or do the bull rushes win? I’ll tell you what, in the new system, the houses are going to win, but not if we don’t invest in the data that’s necessary to make good decisions, if we don’t invest in a digital platform that is standardised across the country. Chris Bishop and I have said we want standardised zones to apply to towns and cities in New Zealand, instead of 1,170 different ways to describe height to boundary and the set-back that your garage must have from the road frontage. Instead of 1,170 ways to do it across 67 councils, think about Japan: they’ve got about 12 zones across the whole country. I’ve said to Minister Bishop we should aim for 11. He seems to think we might not quite get that low, but that’s the opportunity that investing in standardisation, investing in one digital planning system for the country, offers. And that’s before you get to the opportunity that AI offers.

Once you start asking of every applicant and every decision, “Hey, did we really need all this information in order to make the decision?”, and “Were the consent conditions or the planning conditions that came out of the decision really necessary to protect the environment and protect the neighbours?”—or, actually, can we have a lighter touch, the opportunity to go not just from the 40,000 consents a year we have now but potentially down to 20,000, or even back to 5,000 consents a year demanded of Kiwis, like we had in the 1990s? It’s actually right there in front of us if we make this investment and we follow it up by making sure that the new system is implemented thoroughly. That is over four years. We intend the new system to be fully functioning by 2028-29, with new plans in place across the country. For those people sitting at home or sitting at their desk in their development office, or if you’re sitting down the road at the transport agency thinking “How on earth are we going to get consent for this site?”—you know, like a culvert; I mean, imagine having to replace a pipe under the road in 2026; it could take years to get consent—I’ll tell you what, relief is coming. Minister Bishop and I have assured that.

Then, when it comes to energy, what we know is that when the sun doesn’t shine, the wind doesn’t blow, and the rain doesn’t fall—it does happen in New Zealand sometimes. It’s usually raining somewhere or blowing somewhere in the country. The problem is that, if it doesn’t do it enough and all at once, we don’t have enough energy. That’s why, in this Budget, we’ve made provision to fund a liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal, to make sure we have a secure energy system, that we are connected to the rest of the world. In a way, our isolation has actually been a problem; it solves the problem that our isolation has caused. When the previous Government banned oil and gas exploration without having a plan B, they left it to this Government to pull a rabbit out of the hat.

Now, the LNG terminal could have been avoided if we had kept drilling for the gas that is available right now on the eighth-largest continent of the world. Just because you can’t see it, members of the Opposition, doesn’t mean it ain’t there. New Zealand, there’s a couple of little islands that are on the eighth-largest continent of the world. We have some of the best mineral and best energy resources available to any modern democracy. Under this Government, with ACT as a part of this Government, we are driving to get access to our oil and gas resources, to get access to our mineral resources. There is funding in this Budget to make sure we can get critical minerals which can contribute to the international supply chain, so that all of us, including members of the Opposition, can have their cell phones, have their iPads, and have electricity. I commend this Budget bill to the House.

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui) (17:15): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Every day, I come into this House and hear the Opposition talk about spending more money. I’m surprised that it happens just day after day after day, as though this magic money tree can be growing every day to pay for stuff, without consideration to how the Government is going to create, where it’s going to take it from, how it’s going to grow the economy—the things you’ve actually got to do to be able to pay for things in the first place—and that not just spending money solves the problem.

It reminds me of when I was a kid. I remember, one day one of my siblings said to my dad, “Can we have McDonald’s?”, and Dad said, “Well, we don’t have any money.” My siblings said to Dad, “Well, go down to that ATM thing and just get some out.” Labour thinks the ATM—the New Zealand taxpayer—can just be shot up for another amount of juice to fund another project that, quite frankly, as much as they’ll announce it, they won’t get it off the ground. You have to, as I said earlier in this House today, not only create money, you have to invest it and deliver an outcome from it. That’s what we’re doing with this Budget. We understand where the money is coming from. We understand that it is hard-working New Zealanders, that it is businesses, that it is the people who are making this economy tick that are paying the taxes. We appreciate that we have to invest that wisely in order to deliver outcomes to improve the challenges across New Zealand, including, as I said to the member across the House, Tākuta Ferris, earlier in this debate, the investment we have made into improving attendance at schools across the motu.

Along with that, we have invested in tackling hardship and homelessness. There’s been an announcement, last week, of an additional $14.5 million over the next couple of years that’s going into that focus on reducing homelessness in New Zealand, including $2.7 million to support six new additional sites, two of which are in Taranaki and in Whanganui. That’s something we can be proud of. It’s about ensuring communities where housing pressure is real have an answer that is not endless motel stays, as it was under the last Government. It is about more homes and better pathways out of hardship. Part of that is the increase to 2,250 social housing homes, or social homes, that are additional under this Budget. It’s about backing rural New Zealand, and that’s about the size of the sector—this engine room of the New Zealand economy that Fieldays demonstrated to us is confident about where the economy is at.

I said, in my maiden speech in this House, that there were farmers in Stratford that wanted a Government that backs them, and we have delivered on that over the last 2½ years. This Budget continues to support that focus: $266 million for the Primary Sector Growth Fund; $40.5 million for farmer-led catchment groups—a real driver of environmental improvement across our farming communities across New Zealand; a reminder that they don’t need to just be told what to do from an ivory tower in Wellington. They can practically go into their own communities, their own farms, their own environments, make changes, improve environmental outcomes, and achieve results in real rural New Zealand. Quite frankly, it’s not people from across this House that have no understanding of rural and provincial New Zealand that should be telling them what to do. It’s about regional infrastructure and services and the stronger communities that come from that, including, of course, I must mention as part of a Budget discussion in this House, the new police station in Whanganui, and the $15 million that’s going to go to the Awakino Gorge, the regional road of significance for Taranaki; our key line up from Taranaki to Auckland, which keeps us connected, which enables those products from rural New Zealand to get to markets in Auckland and overseas.

It’s this Government that has committed that funding, along with the funding for the condition upgrade, of course, at Te Paepae o Aotea, the high school in Hawera that was started under the last Government, who promised much, did not fund what it needed, and it is this Government that’s delivering it under this Budget, as we continue to fix the basics and build the future.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato) (17:20): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. This is, quite simply, a Budget focused on fixing the basics and building the future. We’ve heard from Mr Bates a number of very salient points in terms of how we are investing to ensure growth, but before we do that, I just want to pick up on one of the comments that he mentioned as well around the spending piece.

Now, we just had scrutiny week here in Parliament last week, and on the committee that I have the good fortune to chair, the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, we heard questions numerous times from the Opposition about why spending was lower, and that that was therefore clearly a poorer outcome. And what we actually heard from the agencies and the Ministers was, “No, just spending more doesn’t actually always deliver better outcomes.”

Now, there are plenty of examples we have seen over the six dark years of the Labour Government that highlighted exactly that, where indeed it just felt like money was being thrown out the door and the only measure of success was how much can we spend. Have we spent more than has ever been spent? Then we must be doing well. Well, that is not the view of this Government. Quite frankly, that was a dereliction of duty from the former Government.

This Government, now, is clearly focused on fixing the basics. That means getting expenditure under control, and we’ve demonstrated that over three successive Budgets now, staying within those operational balances every time as well—those operational allowances, something the former Government did not achieve once, despite having higher operating allowances in every one of their six Budgets, they could not stick to that. We have, and yet, despite that, we have also been able to make some crucial investments, some prudent, pragmatic improvements for Kiwis’ lives around the country.

I’m very pleased that in the Waikato we have secured funding now for the extension of the Waikato Expressway to the intersection of State Highways 1 and 29 at Piarere. A dangerous stretch of road that, frankly, should have been done by now. It was planned under the last National Government, cancelled by the then Labour Government in 2018 when they came in, and unfortunately, we saw throughout the intervening years the continuation of the trend of deaths and serious injuries along that stretch of road and the increase of traffic volumes as well. So it is a delight, now, that we have finally secured the funding for that. Construction is getting under way. Anyone driving through that corridor will see activity taking place already. That is a fantastic outcome. It brings massive safety improvements, it brings greater social connection in terms of being able to transit through that corridor more efficiently, and, of course, it drives economic prosperity for our region, too.

Now, ultimately, we want to connect the Bay of Plenty to the Waikato with four lanes. That is a long-term, ambitious project, but this is the sort of ambition that we need to have. This Government is clearly focused on trying to deliver towards those sorts of ambitions because that is how we build the future. We are fixing those basics right now, but we need to have that ambition for the future as well.

We’ve also, of course, got the third medical school under construction in the Waikato as well. Another fantastic project that will deliver meaningful outcomes in terms of training new doctors and nurses in New Zealand, ensuring that rural focus, and helping to drive delivery of critical health needs for everyday New Zealanders, who, quite frankly, just expect to get that service when they need it. Now, that wasn’t always the case, and, unfortunately, when we came in, we saw in health all the targets had been removed, so it was hard to tell exactly what had happened or how performance was going. We had seen more money—as I said at the start, more money’s not necessarily a measure of success. Yet despite that more money going out the door, and yet across just about every metric that we dived into in health, poorer outcomes for Kiwis. Now, that is not good enough. We’ve set health targets in place and we are making good progress on those.

Education is another key one—and I hear this from fellow parents around the Waikato electorate, that they were concerned at the underperformance of New Zealand students across the board over time, and, frankly, the attendance alongside that as well. So that’s another area where we have turned the dial.

Law and order as well. Greater consequences for criminal offending, backing the police more, reduced victimisations—all of that is fixing the basics.

Now, that is fantastic progress. Sure, there’s more to do, but we are getting on with doing it. This Budget is a fantastic continuation of that great work. We can’t go back to the dark days of Labour. National is getting it done.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): This call is also a split call.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (17:25): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, why won’t National tell us what they are going to cut? Why, in this Budget, have they told us that they’re going to get rid of 9,000 Public Service jobs but they seem to have absolutely no plan as to how this is going to be implemented, and absolutely no idea of the jobs that are going to be cut.

Now, we take our job here, as the Opposition, seriously. So when they announced the Budget and they said, “We are going to balance this Budget on the jobs of public servants”, we said to the National Party, “Who is going to lose their job? How will this impact New Zealanders? What public services that Kiwis rely on are going to be cut by this Budget?” And what did we hear? Crickets. So then we had questions in the House, we had scrutiny week where I asked the Minister, Paul Goldsmith, “What are the jobs that are going to be cut? What is exempt from this process? And who needs to worry about how they’re going to pay their bills and what services they are going to be able to rely on?” I have had no satisfactory answers.

In fact, today, we had to go line by line to every single Minister in this Government and ask them about every single important job that Kiwis rely on and say to them, “Will you rule this out? Will you rule out cutting the jobs of these really important public services that people do?” And just some examples for you, Mr Speaker, on that. The people who do suicide prevention; the people who do search and rescue; the people who work in the Labour Inspectorate to investigate crimes against vulnerable workers; the people who work for Oranga Tamariki’s contact centre, the contact centre where people call to alert authorities that children are in danger. I asked Ministers to rule out cuts to all of those important jobs, in addition to many, many others—dozens of other jobs. I was not able to get any assurances.

Now, that doesn’t mean that the Government hasn’t ruled out some job cuts, because we see that Maritime New Zealand search and rescue coordination is staying and also the Cancer Control Agency is staying—two Ministers were able to provide that information. So I say to the Government, if it’s possible for them to give that level of detail around these key public services, the rest of the public servants who work across New Zealand need to know whether their jobs are safe or not, because, at the moment, we have 9,000 people, their families, their parents, their children, everyone who relies on them, wondering: do they have a future in this country? Do they have a career in this country? Can they afford to pay their bills? We have not had answers to that.

You’ll also be aware that this couldn’t have come at a worse time for these New Zealanders. Not only are they facing the prospect of losing their job, but at the same time New Zealanders have a cost of living crisis. The economy, despite what you may hear from the other side, is not going well. We have business liquidations at a 15-year high. Well, that is a terrible indictment on the Government which is meant to be the party of business. The businesses in New Zealand are closing under this Government. We have unemployment continuing to grow. We have 40,000 more people out of work since National took office. Power bills are up 18 percent. We see more New Zealanders leaving than ever before. And we see 650,000 people unable to get primary care.

Then, we look to this Budget, which we are debating today, and we thought—because we are optimists on the side of the House—“Surely there will be something for everyday New Zealanders in this Budget. Surely, on the background of this terrible economy, on the background of job losses, and the background of the cost of living crisis that New Zealanders are facing—surely there will be something.” There was nothing but misery and further cuts.

To make it even worse, there are no details about how that’s going to be implemented. The only thing we heard is AI is going to ride in and save them. Well, that is blatantly ridiculous. We know that they don’t have a plan. We know that these cuts don’t add up. All we know is that austerity is coming for New Zealand, and if you think it’s bad for you today, then just wait. After three more years of that Government, it’s going to be even worse, because they have no plan, and the plan that they have means cutting back the public services and the jobs that you rely on. Let it be a warning to New Zealanders that if they make the grave mistake of re-electing that side of the House, the only thing that will happen for them is that employment will get worse, public services will reduce, and everything will be—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The member’s time has expired.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) (17:30): There’s no shortage of things that have outraged New Zealanders over the last couple of years, and, most recently, there’s Shane Jones’ $33,000 trip to Canada, companies donating to National and ACT and New Zealand First who have directly benefited from fast-track decisions, the current proposal to sell off conservation lands, tax cuts for landlords while State house rents are being hiked up, the subjugation of our once-proud independent foreign policy to the geopolitical interests of the United States and Israel. It’s a very long list, but, actually, what’s done the real political damage to this Government is their economic mismanagement, and you can see it in the Budget.

Never has so much damage been done to so many people by the mishandling of the economy by a party and a Prime Minister who promised to fix the cost of living crisis. He’s the business guy, Christopher Luxon, He was going to make everything fine. The New Zealand public have watched for the last 2½ years while it’s got worse and worse. There is a widespread, pervasive view now across New Zealand that this Government has no interest in the lives of ordinary New Zealanders. Their hearts are not in it for ordinary Kiwis. They don’t care about them, they don’t want to look after them, and their priorities lie elsewhere.

It’s this Government’s ideology, that’s reflected in this Budget, that’s done the real harm. It started off with tax cuts that disproportionately benefited the wealthy, and tax cuts that went to tobacco companies and landlords. That was the first big signal. That’s exhibit A, your honour. It was followed by the stopping and delaying of hundreds of construction projects—not only of State housing projects in my electorate but also of dozens and dozens of public housing projects cancelled and sections lying bare while homelessness has doubled. Then there was the sacking of thousands of public servants and the cutting of numerous social programmes—not to mention the hiring freeze in our hospitals, leaving our hospitals short staffed and under-resourced. Is it any wonder, in the face of that economic agenda, that there was a collapse in both consumer confidence and investor confidence with record business closures, high unemployment, and low to non-existent growth? Having throttled the life out of the economy, small businesses, contractors, tradies, and anyone in construction—20,000 jobs in construction alone gone—800 to 900 Kiwis are leaving the country every week for Australia, because there are no jobs. There are no opportunities there. That is what has really hurt people.

The people that have been hit worst are the people who rely on casual work, the people who work two or three part-time jobs to survive, people who have to hustle for business every week—the independent traders, the contractors, and the small businesses. Retail has been absolutely savaged under this Government, and it’s because of the economic mismanagement. The fundamental lessons of demand management haven’t been learnt—or they’ve been unlearnt and forgotten—by Nicola Willis and the people around her.

With that economic wasteland as the backdrop, grocery prices have relentlessly gone up week after week; petrol prices have gone up, not just because of the war in the Middle East that Christopher Luxon supported; power bills have gone up 18 percent, as Rachel Brooking said; insurance rates; car regos. Is there any household expense that hasn’t gone through the roof in the last 2½ years? When I’m in my electorate talking to people—whether it’s at the mall, the supermarket, car park, or on the doorstep—do you know what people say? “We’re dying out here. We need help. This is not working for us. I didn’t vote for this. Something needs to happen.”

Now, luckily it is possible for Governments to do something about the cost of living crisis, and there are examples of Governments all over the world who have done something. Our Government took action consistently and repeatedly to ease the cost of living crisis when we were last in office, and we’ll do it again, and you can see it in the flavour of the policies that we’ve announced—three free doctors visits, the public transport fair cap. These are the policies that will make a difference to people’s back pockets, and, luckily, people have a choice in November to choose a better Government.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai) (17:35): Kia orana, Mr Speaker. This country deserves so much better. New Zealanders deserve so much better than what this coalition Government delivered in this Budget and the two before it. We have amazing opportunities, and there are opportunities of clean energy, electrification, the green economy, investing in our people to look after and educate other people. That is what will genuinely lead to better lives in New Zealand—not just better lives for Nick Mowbray and his family but better lives for the average New Zealander, the ones who are doing the real work of cleaning, of building, of nursing, of caring for aged people in our aged-care facilities. There are so many important jobs out there that require Government funding in order to be done, and we’re all better off as a result of it.

That level of economic development and support is completely not understood by the ignorant people in this coalition Government. I mean, maybe they’re ignorant; maybe they’re malevolent—I don’t know which it is—but the reality is that with Government investment, the revenue circles around, and it actually multiplies. When we make sensible Government investments, then businesses are able to invest, the workers have more money, they’re able to go out for coffee, for a drink, and for a restaurant meal, and they’re able to do other things that support local business. That is something that Nicola Willis has apparently never understood. She thinks that jobs are magically handed down on high from those people who’ve been lucky enough to work our rigged tax system and economic system to become the super-rich. We’ve seen the super-rich getting more rich at the expense of ordinary people who are struggling with cost of living.

Governments can do something about that. We absolutely know that that can be done, and the Green Party has long demonstrated where we can make practical investments that benefit our people and our planet, like the investment in Jobs for Nature, which was fantastic for regional economic development and fantastic for biodiversity, because biodiversity in nature is something that New Zealanders care about. All this coalition Government can think to do is to sell off and create a situation where our Department of Conservation isn’t looking after the intrinsic value of our conservation estate but looking to make money off it, potentially by selling off land and assets, which is extremely unpopular.

Another example of the ways in which this Government is very out of touch with ordinary New Zealanders is that they go out claiming that their policies are resulting in business confidence, and yet here we have the most recent employment confidence index by Westpac, a regular survey of employment confidence, that just hit a new low—worse than 2008 and worse than COVID. That’s a result of failed economic ideology that too many people in the Government parties are adherents of, where they don’t understand that public investment is absolutely necessary. It’s necessary for the survival and the flourishing of our communities and our societies.

They claim that we can’t afford to buy new ferries, for example. We had these new ferries that were a direct connection between the North and South Islands that were under order from a Korean shipyard. They came in, without any idea of what an alternative might be, and cancelled the order for the ferries—some of which would have been with us right now. Cancelling the work that was planned to enable those rail-enabled ferries meant a lot of jobs were lost in the construction sector in Picton and in Wellington. Now we’ve spent hundreds of millions of dollars on sunk cost on cancelling the ferries, then we still have to buy some brand new ferries; it’s going to be years before they’re delivered. We are looking at years of disruption to the movement of people and goods between our two countries. Surely, that is, like, fundamental investment in our public good infrastructure, and so it’s an example of the ideological approach that is short-sighted and destructive, that this coalition Government came in and did right off the bat. The country is living with the consequences of that and will continue living with the consequences of that.

What we did not see in this Budget was any commitment to changing the tax system to make it fair. The Green Party announced a tax policy; you wouldn’t know from the Government’s critique of it, but it would actually leave 96 percent of New Zealanders better off. So if you can make changes to the tax system that result in 96 percent of New Zealanders being better off and the Government having more revenue to invest in essential public services and infrastructure, who on Earth would oppose that? Who on Earth would oppose that? Oh, I know: the coalition parties who are getting massive donations from the super-rich. That probably has something to do with the fact that they wouldn’t make sensible changes to the tax system that would mean the first $10,000 of income earned would be tax free. That’s what the Green Party’s proposing: first $10,000 absolutely tax free. When we give more of our resources to more people, that benefits the entire society. If we concentrate ridiculous amounts of money in a small number of families, that’s of no economic benefit to the country. That’s where these fools are just, I don’t know—like, you almost can’t believe it’s true. It’s like: what is happening?

One thing that is not reflected in the Budget is the fact that they’re about to sign us up to a very long-term, extremely expensive loan for a highway project that doesn’t make any sense—like, it doesn’t make any sense. They’re keeping the benefit-cost analysis secret, which is unheard of. If the benefit-cost analysis was public, I’m sure it would be overstating the benefits of the project, because they dropped the discount rate, which makes road projects look better even though they’re not actually better. Look, if there’s a road that’s carrying less than 0.2 percent of daily vehicle trips, we probably shouldn’t spend $12 billion on it, you know? Like, we’ve got other roads that need improvement. That’s what the National Infrastructure Plan said.

The Green Party is absolutely committed to implementing those recommendations and putting maintenance and renewals first, bringing in appropriate pricing, and investing in the alternatives, because that is the huge opportunity for productivity gains: moving more people and goods with fewer vehicles and less fossil fuels. It just makes sense. Then, of course, obviously, electrifying our transport and investing in rail, because not everybody can drive, and also rail is just a more cost-effective way of moving low-value goods that are going a long distance. So, you know, there’s a whole bunch of sensible things that we could be doing.

One of the more frightening things, I think, is the way that so many of the Government parties are distracting from the real challenges of inequality and climate change. Let’s be honest: climate change, we have always known, will drive up the cost of living, because when we have more serious flooding incidents, when we have more cyclones hitting us, that disrupts business, it means our insurance premiums go up, we’re having to put more resources into repairing the infrastructure that we already had, and it’s going to result in higher fuel food costs. So we have known for decades that climate change would result in higher food costs.

One really simple thing the Government could’ve done to reduce cost of living, for example, was not cancel the programme that was supporting local councils to buy electric buses, because if we buy electric buses, we spend less money on imported fossil fuels to run our public transport services. Now in this Budget there is an undisclosed secret amount that the Government’s having to pay more for the same amount of diesel. So we’re not getting more services, we’re not getting electric buses, which would be good for air quality and save us money on diesel. Instead, we’re just spending the money on diesel.

That just absolutely epitomises the short-sighted, ideological approach of the National Party; of Simeon Brown; of ACT and New Zealand First, who are supporting them, to cut back on programmes that just made economic sense. They finally came out and realised they actually had to help businesses transition away from gas, so after 2½ years, after cancelling the Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry Fund, they’re coming up with a programme to do that. Well, we could’ve been doing that the last 2½ years if this Government hadn’t cancelled it. This is a record, a shameful record, of embarrassing failures for the people in the current coalition Government.

I talk to businesses every day in my electorate and around the country who want to see direction from central government on sustainability, on waste minimisation, on transitioning away from fossil fuels because it makes sense, who want to see more investment in public transport and public housing. I had hundreds of public homes cancelled in my electorate. People need those homes. This is a shameful coalition Government.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The next call is a split call.

GREG FLEMING (National—Maungakiekie) (17:45):

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

About nine months ago, I had the privilege of attending the opening of New Zealand’s first IKEA in, yes, “Maunga-IKEA-kie”—[Interruption] ah, there we go, yeah—just down the road from where I live there. I had the privilege of being there along with the Prime Minister and with Simeon Brown, who at that stage was the Minister for Auckland. After celebrating the opening of this business, we went out and had a press conference, and it was my first opportunity to be ambushed by Tova O’Brien. She’d been listening attentively, apparently, to the scrutiny hearing the day or two before; it was in the Māori Affairs Committee, and we were talking about the Vote and the amount of Budget that was being allocated to the support of Māori broadcasting, which she knew was something that I’m particularly passionate about. The question that she asked the Prime Minister was referring to a plug that I had made at that committee for more money to go into broadcasting, that even though we had these fiscal cliffs approaching, I would love to have seen the opportunity for us to increase the support of those fantastic agencies that we have in New Zealand: Te Māngai Pāho, Te Puni Kōkiri itself, Whakaata Māori, and Te Mātāwai. For the work that they do, you know, [Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

So she asked me this question in front of the Prime Minister, and the answer that I gave was one that I reflected on recently when I looked at the wisdom of our Budget. I said that what we are able to do as a country is invest in these things that we are truly passionate about when we have a growing economy. That is why our number one focus has to be to secure the economy of this country, because when we have economic growth, when we control our spending, when inflation is down, then we actually have a surplus to invest in these things that we are truly passionate about. In this Budget, because of the economic wisdom, we were able to invest in some things. Even in these lean times, we were still able to invest in these taonga, which is why I was so excited to see an extra $48 million—even in these tough times, an extra $48 million, that equates to more than 10 percent of the baseline funding—an additional 10 percent that’s been allocated for investment in Māori broadcasting.

But there was even more for Maungakiekie. I had a phone call from the Minister of Education sharing with me some fantastic news, and that is that Ellerslie primary school in my electorate had for the last 25 years been seeking an auditorium. It’s been over 25 years since that school of 850 students has been able to gather as a community in a hall on site, and they have done everything and more than a school could ask to do. We have presented that case to our Government, and even in these lean times, because of careful fiscal management, we have been able to invest generously in school infrastructure, including the schools of Maungakiekie, and so Ellerslie primary school is getting its new auditorium.

But there’s more. I also received a phone call informing me that we’re going to have new classrooms at One Tree Hill College. We’re going to have new classrooms to provide extra learning support for the students of our community. Those are the kinds of things which we are able to do, and do more of, if we continue to focus on fixing the basics, because then we can build the future.

Suze Redmayne: Half-price classrooms.

GREG FLEMING: And half-price classrooms. It is a strong economy that allows us to take better care of our communities. It is a strong economy that gives us the resources and the ability to take better care of each other, and that is why I am enthusiastic about this wise Budget, and I am excited about the future that is dawning for Aotearoa New Zealand. Thank you.

DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast) (17:50): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, I rise to take a call in this series of wonderful speeches about the Budget and the great things that have been indicated. I wanted to talk a little bit about how important it is for regional communities and infrastructure, in particular. I think it’s really important to remember that in this Budget and in challenging financial times, and in times that we have had to be very prudent in terms of spending, the Government has allocated $400 million to resilience and risk reduction works on key pieces of roading infrastructure across the country. I’m referring, of course, to my colleague David MacLeod’s Awakino Gorge; I’m referring to Scott Simpson’s Coromandel—the beautiful Coromandel, as he calls it—and, of course, I wouldn’t want to forget the Waiōweka Gorge in the Tairāwhiti region, in particular the work that we still are yet to do and commence—and, I guess, understand how we deliver that—for State Highway 35 around the East Coast.

In January 2026, the Waiōweka Gorge had 200 millilitres of rain fall in a two-hour period. The result of that was 40 slips, a significant amount of damage to culverts and flood-ways, and also a really difficult disruption to traffic and to anything that could get through. In Tairāwhiti, in January and February, we’re just entering into the time where it is harvest season, where the kiwifruit are about to come off the vines. We’re looking at citrus a wee bit further down the track, but we have squash, we have salad, we have all manner of things: persimmons, lemons—everything you can think of goes out. Horticulture New Zealand estimates about 120,000 tonnes of produce leave the Tairāwhiti region.

Now, that’s one thing if you live in Gisborne; if you live in Te Araroa or Tikitiki, Rangitukia, the detour, if the gorge is closed, is more than seven hours to get through to the area where the port is. So it’s a significant detour, and then throw into the middle of that, of course, a fuel crisis, which makes the cost even more exponentially great.

So for our producers in our region, it was a very stressful and difficult time. I want to commend in the New Zealand Transport Authority (NZTA) for the work they did to get it open as quickly as possible, but the investment allocated, in the Budget, of $75 million for the Waiōweka Gorge, is a significant amount in a constrained funding environment. I really want to commend the Government for delivering that. We have a whole lot of work to do in there. We have $8 million to be spent between now and Christmas on flood-ways and culverts, and then we have the rest of the $75 million to be spent in the coming years, or next year or the year after, to deliver much greater risk reduction.

Because the problem is this: if you live in Gisborne and you’re planning to get on that bus at 8 in the morning and go to Auckland because that’s the way you get there, or if you live in Ōpōtiki and you’re planning to get on the bus and go to Rotorua or to Hamilton or to Auckland, it doesn’t go anymore. Those people have nowhere, no reason, no way to travel. If you think about the cafe owners in Ōpōtiki and in Tairāwhiti, and if you think about the people up the coast owning businesses where there’s no traffic all of a sudden because all of the roads are shut, it has a significant detrimental impact on the local economy. I think the importance of roading infrastructure and good investment into it cannot be lost.

If I think about the tourism sector in Tairāwhiti, the report done by Trust Tairāwhiti in May 2026 indicated that tourism and hospitality during the six-week closure recovery period dropped in spending by $1.7 million compared to the year before for the same period. Remember, of course, in January, that’s the time when everybody’s travelling around having their family holidays, and the tourism ventures and the cafes and what have you are stacking away some savings for the winter period when it’s quieter. So they have a significant long-term, enduring effect on regional economies when roads are shut.

We have worked really hard to make sure it’s open. We’ve stopped NZTA from shutting it every time it might rain, to keep it open and keep it a bit more secure. We’ve worked with the freight operators, and now we have delivered a substantial amount of money to ensure that the road remains open and that people can go visit their friends, that they can go about their business, and that our horticulture and agriculture producers can get their product to market to the Port of Tauranga and beyond.

We will make sure that we are not forgotten, in the regions, and we are not forgotten in terms of State Highway 2, Waiōweka Gorge and State Highway 35, both of which deserve and should have investment into the future. Therefore, this is a good result and a Budget that has delivered for our region in a small but useful way.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Members, the time has come for me to leave the chair for the dinner break. The House will resume at 7:30 p.m.

Sitting suspended from 5.56 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Good evening, members. I hope we’ve all dined well. We resume the Budget debate. The next call is a split call to the Labour Party, and there are 18 minutes left in this debate.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour) (19:30): Thank you, Mr Speaker. As we’re coming to the end of this Budget debate, I thought it would be really timely to talk about one of the glaring holes and one of the moments of shame that this Budget is bringing to this Government. Alongside the Budget, we had the release of the child poverty figures: 50,000 more children suffering from material hardship than there were three years ago—50,000 more children. Overall, that’s nearly 170,000 children facing material hardship in this country. That is an absolute disgrace for this country. Also, New Zealand is nowhere near on track to meet its 2028 targets.

I want to mention a retired Starship Hospital paediatrician, Dr Innes Asher, who said that the latest Budget was a very bad one for New Zealand because more children were in poverty now than there were 10 years ago. Poverty costs everyone. It costs our societies, it costs our economy, and it is not good for those precious taonga who are our future generations.

To put that into terms of what that looks like for those children, there are 50,000 more children who don’t have enough food to live with food security on a daily basis, who don’t know where their next meal is coming from. There are 50,000 more children who don’t have enough shoes to put on their feet, who don’t have enough clothes, who don’t live in houses that are warm and fit for purpose. There are 50,000 more children who are more prone to diseases that will hospitalise them. We’re already seeing that some of the indicators of poverty—the diseases that are the true indicators of poverty—are becoming more prevalent in society right now: skin diseases such as scabies. We’ve had alerts about outbreaks of scabies. Scabies happens when poverty is rife. That’s what’s facing our children at the moment.

It’s 50,000 more children who face greater inequities in their lifetime, greater inequities in their home lives, greater inequities in their schooling lives. It’s harder for them to have good outcomes across those areas such as schooling—not impossible, but much more difficult—than if they were living in a secure and poverty-free household. This is the shame of this Budget: 50,000—50,000—more children that this Government has caused to go into poverty from their policies or their lack of initiatives that they are targeting towards bringing kids out of that.

It’s all very well when we can talk about those numbers, but I’m mindful of those children that I have seen in recent times. I think of ones that I saw at the end of last year, at a Christmas party, where a child wouldn’t unwrap the Christmas present that was given to them at that Christmas party because they wanted to take it home so that their sibling would have a present to open, because it would be the only present they would get under their Christmas tree—or the other child, who had unwrapped their present and was then busily trying to wrap it back up again because they wanted to have something for themselves to open on Christmas day. Those are the realities of kids that live in poverty. They don’t have extras. They don’t have presents. You stop asking them what they got for Christmas or what they got for their birthday, because they just don’t get anything.

It’s a real blight on this country that we have children that are living in that situation. One would be one too many, but 170,000? We are heading in the wrong direction. This Government’s policies are heading this country in the wrong direction. We have far too many children that are living in situations not of their making but of the making of a society that is not supporting them. This is not a good Budget; this is an absolutely shameful Budget. We need to turn that around, and the hope is in November when we can vote.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson) (19:35): Thank you, Mr Speaker. As my colleague the Hon Jan Tinetti has just pointed out, this is a Government and a Budget that is failing New Zealand. This Government came into power nearly three years ago with a massive promise to New Zealanders that they would fix the cost of living, that they would make things better for New Zealanders, that they would make things easier for New Zealanders; instead, things are getting worse. I’m going to talk about that in a moment, particularly in relation to some matters in my electorate of Nelson.

First, I want to focus on some of the cuts that haven’t necessarily had enough air time in this country, but it shows this Government’s priorities. Those are the cuts to the arts budget: $27 million worth of cuts over the next few years from organisations like Te Papa, which house our most precious taonga; from Creative New Zealand, which gets money out to artists operating in the regions; from the New Zealand Music Commission; from the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra, who travel up and down the country—a world-leading orchestra in our own country. Instead, this Government is giving millions of dollars to international artists who are multimillionaires, like Robbie Williams, yet leaving behind the artists in New Zealand who are looking to grow their talent and make a contribution to New Zealand across the whole country. I’ve spoken to many, many arts leaders who cannot understand why this Government is giving millions of dollars to people like Robbie Williams, who would come here anyway, through a process that isn’t transparent, and then they cut $27 million from Kiwi artists—from New Zealand artists—many of whom are doing it tough.

Now, let’s talk about the cost of living, because, again, this Government talked a massive game. They said, “We are going to do so much for this nation.” Well, in my community of Nelson, we have lost hundreds of jobs. Unemployment continues to grow across the nation. Business liquidations are at a 15-year high. I want to give a shout-out to the wonderful team at Comida and Prego—a wonderful cafe and retail outlet in Nelson that has closed this week, very sadly. We’ve had jobs lost at Carter Holt Harvey, we’ve had jobs lost at Sealord, we’re having jobs moved out of our region from Proper Crisps—many, many more jobs lost and many people having to leave New Zealand for Australia because they cannot get access to an opportunity in New Zealand. We’re also seeing many people—around 650,000 people—who cannot afford to go to the doctor. They can’t afford it because of the cost.

What I want to talk about is some of Labour’s plans to address this. We have some actual plans to address the cost of living. This was the last chance of this National Government. They could have come with a Budget recently, they could have come to this House, and said, “Here is how we are going to help you with the cost of living now.” Instead, they talked about KiwiSaver and things for the future, but they had made a promise to New Zealanders and they needed to do something for New Zealanders now. Here’s one of those things. I just want to thank my colleague Mr Utikere for lending me his Bee Card, because we both have a Bee Card—it’s a Bee Card. Now, these wonderful Bee Cards can be used in places like Palmerston North, in places like Nelson and Tauranga—all over the country—in order to pay for the bus. Now, one of the most popular things that we’ve been talking about that will address the cost of living in my community of Nelson, and it is very, very popular, is that you’ll only pay $10 a week in Nelson to use the bus.

We have fantastic e-buses in Nelson that our Government helped introduce—something I was proud to assist with getting funding for. We have fantastic electric buses, the first electric bus fleet in New Zealand—sorry, I know we have a little contest about this—the first fully electric bus fleet in New Zealand. We’re very, very proud of it in Nelson. We are very proud of it. Ten bucks a week is all you’ll pay. Under the previous Labour Government, we had half-price public transport and we saw a massive increase in public transport usage in Nelson. People didn’t have to use petrol to fill up their car. These are the kinds of things that this Government could have done. They gave money to families but not money to the elderly people in my community, of which there are many; not money to the workers who don’t have kids but are still paying hundreds of dollars to fill up the tank; not money to the beneficiaries who are trying to get a job; but a $10-a-week bus fare will do wonders for them. It’s just one of the many things that Labour will do to properly address the cost of living, unlike this Government, who have come into power and made things worse.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): The Hon Chris Bishop, for eight minutes.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing) (19:40): What a woeful contribution from the soon-to-be former member for Nelson—what a woeful contribution. It is hard to know where to start with the paucity of policy offerings coming from the Opposition. They like to lecture us about numbers. Well, just in the last week or so, we have seen from the Opposition quite a demonstration of the need for financial literacy in schools. I mean, leave aside the Greens’ kind of make-believe, mumbo-jumbo, make-it-up-as-you-go, “Oh, what’s $400—oh, sorry, it’s actually $800 million—

Hon Nicola Willis: What’s $800 million between friends?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: “What’s $800 million between friends?”, says the Minister of Finance. I mean, if the Minister of Finance made an $800 million mistake—it’s a good thing the public don’t take the Greens seriously.

We’ve also got, of course, the heroic claim from Mr Utikere that 1.2 million people can benefit by hundreds of dollars per week and it will only cost $65 million! Interestingly, according to him, we’ll also include the Eastbourne Ferry, which doesn’t have Snapper—so it doesn’t even work on the system that their own policy document said it would affect.

It was quite interesting to see the reaction of Eastbourne locals. I should declare an interest: I live there. So—

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Sorry, what was that about your Budget?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I should disclose an interest. It was interesting to see the Radio New Zealand article in which people from Eastbourne said, “Well, hang on, this is a bit interesting. It’s a huge amount of money to cross the harbour, and now we’re getting free cash from Tangi Utikere and his mates?”

Anyway, there is so much to talk about in this great Budget. I want to talk about a couple of things. The first is the very large capital investment in the Budget: $7 billion across a whole range of different things. One of the things we’ve been trying to do since this Government was elected is establish a long-term infrastructure pipeline and make sure that we get the cash out of the door, because that has been a perennial problem for Governments of successive stripes over the last few years. We’re making real progress. It’s not there yet, but we are making progress. This Budget invests a considerable amount into the kind of social infrastructure that this country needs.

One of the outgoing legacies of the Hon Dr Shane Reti, who’s now, sadly, retiring from Parliament, will be a new 158-bed block at Whangārei Hospital—fantastic—and we’ve got redevelopment money for a whole range of other regional hospitals. This is evidence-based policy. The National Infrastructure Plan, with cross-party endorsement, says we need to lift hospital investment; well, that’s what we’re doing. Unlike the last Government, which just made large pronouncements of money and worried about the details later—hence why, in 2026, having been promised in 2017, we are just getting started on the new Dunedin Hospital, which will finish in 2032; what a sad tale of infrastructure neglect and mismanagement in this country—we are making sure we can deliver projects and fund them when they are needed. Likewise, with Police; likewise, with courthouses, replacing the Rotorua Courthouse.

I want to talk briefly about social housing, because I was at the Community Housing Aotearoa conference today. It was interesting to see the Labour Party a bit late to the party, a year after we came out with a liquidity system for the Community Housing Funding Agency and a bank loan guarantee scheme, to see them stand up and say, “Do you know what would be a good idea? If we did a Crown guarantee for the Community Housing Funding Agency.” It’s like, well, yeah, no doubt about it; we did it last year. Where were you? Like, wake up, Mr McAnulty, because that is delivering up to 400 basis point reductions in debt for community housing providers around the country, and it means we’re getting more bang for buck, so it’s a great thing.

This Budget puts another 1,800 to 2,200 social houses funded from 2028 onwards, and I am very proud of this. For the first time in New Zealand history, we now have a four-year funded pipeline of social housing places, which is what the community housing sector has said they’ve wanted for as long as I’ve been involved in housing in this House. No Government has been able to deliver it; at a time of great fiscal restraint, we have been able to do it. I know that there are kids and whānau around the country who will get access to those homes, and the kids will wake up in warm, dry houses and all of the benefits that come from that. That makes me very happy.

There is a significant investment in this Budget into the Waikato Expressway. The Cambridge to Piarere Road: $1.77 billion to deliver the extension of the Waikato Expressway. It was interesting to see the Labour Party, after the announcement, cast doubt on the benefit-cost ratio, which is actually really good; it’s about 2.7 to 3.1. Then they said it was unaffordable, even though it was capital funded in the Budget. My challenge to them is: will they commit to that road? I tell you, go and talk to the people of Cambridge, go and talk to the people of Tauranga and the Bay of Plenty, which the road connects to through State Highway 29, and if you say to them, “Do we need that road? That death trap of a road—a replacement road.” They’ll say yes. Go and talk to the Port of Tauranga, go and talk to Tainui, go and talk to the people at the Ruakura Inland Port, go and talk to the people of Hamilton and the logistics firms around that “golden triangle”, that great hub of growth, the great nexus of growth in the centre of this country, and they’ll say to you, “Yeah, it’s the greatest thing since sliced bread.”

They want a commitment that we will get on with it. Well, under this Government, we are doing that. But it’s not just about big new roads. We made a specific decision in the Budget—

Grant McCallum: I like big, new roads.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: —I know you like big, new roads; you’re getting a very big one—to make sure that we fund resilience investments; Waiōeka Gorge, for example.

Dana Kirkpatrick: That’s right.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I acknowledge the very hard work of Dana Kirkpatrick to make sure that that project was prioritised, because that’s a lifeline route for the great people of the East Coast. It has been bashed around through severe weather events, but we actually need to fix it, and we’re going to do that, and the work is going to start soon. I want to acknowledge David MacLeod and Barbara Kuriger for their advocacy for the Awakino Gorge—a real stress point. It has been a real problem, and we are going to fix it. There’s a whole range of other resilience improvements, and it’s, again, following the work of the National Infrastructure Plan, which said, “Focus on what you’ve got. Focus on resilience.”

Finally, RMA reform and the digital investments. Now, people might say, “Oh, this is all very boring”, but it’s actually critical. I was speaking to the Environmental Defence Society today. There’s genuine excitement about building the digital backend of the system so that we have a federated data infrastructure, and rather than every council going off and purchasing their own IT system, going off and purchasing their own digital systems, we’ve got one for the country. A radical concept: one data system, and also making use of a thing that I’ve discovered in the last six months: artificial intelligence. It turns out it can do amazing things. The Opposition live in fear of it; we embrace it on this side of the House.

It is a great Budget, delivered by a great Minister of Finance, and it sets up a sharp contrast in election year: a Government with a plan for the future, a long-term plan to set New Zealand up for prosperity, and people opposite who just want to splash the cash and get out the money hose and create all the problems they created in the first place.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): In reply, the Minister of Finance, the Hon Nicola Willis.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (19:49): It is my honour to give the closing speech in a debate about a Budget that was delivered in very serious times and that rises to the challenges that New Zealand faces.

As every New Zealander has experienced, in recent years we have lived in a volatile world. First, we endured the pandemic, then the intergenerational inflation spike and the cost of living crisis that flowed from it, then the huge hike in interest rates, and since then we have been slowly working ourselves out of that hole that was created. The world has thrown us a few curve balls. We’ve had a global tariff war. We’ve had an oil shock—the worst in a generation. New Zealanders, through all of this, have kept going. They have shown enormous resilience, and they have shown enormous prospects for the future. What our Budget does and what we sought to do was build a better future for those New Zealanders by fixing the basics today, which sets us up better for that future.

Ultimately, when a Government puts a Budget together, it has to make choices. I know there are some in this Parliament who like to pretend you don’t have to make those choices. They think that, actually, you can just keep running up the old credit card, think up a few new ideas—“What could we do that would be free?”, or a subsidy over there, or a cheap thing over there—but, you see, the people who take that approach are really underestimating New Zealanders, because what they’re expecting Kiwis to believe is that, somehow, the money to pay for those things comes from the ether. Kiwis actually get it; they know where that money comes from. It comes from everyday people who work really hard to earn it. They know that Governments who spend more than the country is earning end up doing one or two very simple things: either they end up borrowing so much that inflation and the cost of living goes through the roof, or they introduce new taxes to take more money from working people and productive industry—or, as has been the case in New Zealand’s history if it’s a Labour-led Government, a beautiful combination of the two: more tax, more borrowing, more inflation, and higher interest rates to boot.

In serious times, our Budget has had to confront serious context. The real back story to this Budget is the fiscal story of where New Zealand has come these past few years. In delivering this Budget, our Government stuck to a very tight new spending allowance. We got it down to $2.1 billion. For reference, colleagues, in Grant Robertson’s 2022 Budget, he let himself spend more than $9 billion.

Hon Chris Bishop: How much?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Nine billion dollars. Now, to be fair, he hid some of that outside the operating allowance, but he spent $9 billion. We stuck to a tight spending allowance of $2.1 billion, and yet while doing that, guess how much we will be spending this year simply servicing the debt the last Labour Government left us? That bill this year will be $9 billion, and you see the way that history rhymes there, because that $9 billion debt servicing cost is one that we are having to meet and that we will keep on having to meet until we achieve one very simple thing, and that is getting the books back in balance.

The truth is that, since 2019, we have been in deficit. We have been spending more as a country than we earn. While some like to pretend that can go on for ever, here’s the news: it can’t. Our Government gets that, and we have taken a responsible course of saying, “Right, we’ve got to straighten it up. We’ve got to get those books back in balance.” And how do you do that? Well, you need to get more value from every dollar that you are spending and you are investing, and you need to make very careful choices. Actually, it involves reprioritising some stuff that might have seemed fun in the glory days when Labour had the cash bazookas out and were flying them everywhere but now look a little misplaced. We’ve done $50 billion worth of reprioritisation over three Budgets, and this Budget was the continuation of that. And, by doing that, we have been able to prioritise investments that truly matter for the future: job-rich infrastructure; actually getting on with redeveloping hospitals in Tauranga, in Hawke’s Bay, in Palmerston North, in—

Grant McCallum: Whangārei.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: —in Whangārei. Thank you; the member for Northland reminds me—and making sure that they are actually being built; intergenerational assets that need to be fixed up. We’ve gone on and we’ve committed funds for new schools, for redeveloping schools, for building classrooms, and we’re doing it much more affordably than the last lot did.

We’ve committed to replacing the stretch of *State highway that is one of the most dangerous parts of the country and has been for many, many years—that’s the Cambridge to Piarere stretch of the Waikato Expressway. We’re making it happen. We’re fixing up major bits of road that keep having problems every time there’s a severe weather event. We’re getting in there and we’re fixing them rather than doing the nonsensical business of coming and cleaning it up every time there is a severe weather event. We’re investing in those future projects, and we’re also investing in the things that really matter to everyday New Zealanders. That is, to my mind, health, education, having a decent police force, and making sure that our servicemen and women who defend New Zealand’s interests on the world stage have the equipment they need—and that’s in our Defence Force.

I look at the approach we’re taking to education. In this year’s Budget, the real focus was we said, “Well, look, Erica Stanford has done such extraordinary work making sure we’re bringing structured literacy and numeracy and assessment and a knowledge-based Curriculum back into schools; what we need to do now is build on that foundation with an approach that actually heroes skills and trades training for the future.” We’ve seen what success looks like. It looks like trades academies, which ensure kids are far more likely to end up in enduring employment. We’ve seen the demand for those programmes and we are doubling them—doubling the number of trades academy places. At the same time, we are putting extra funding in to ensure that more of the kids who missed out on the basics they needed at school—probably the kids who had Jan Tinetti as the Minister of Education—those kids who missed out, actually, when they leave school and they are at severe risk of becoming unemployed in the long term can go into a Youth Guarantee programme and get the wraparound support needed to give them the foundational literacy and numeracy and skills needed to enter an apprenticeship. We’ve prioritised that.

We’ve prioritised health—health funding, which we have increased, on average, more than 7 percent a year every year, because we know that we need to deliver more elective surgery, we need people waiting less time to see a doctor, we need them waiting less time in the emergency room, we need them to see specialists earlier. We haven’t just sprayed the money at the health system and said, “Hey, let’s do a restructure and set up a Māori Health Authority and hope for the best.” No, Simeon Brown has gone out there and set targets. He’s measuring, he’s driving accountability, and we are getting results. We invested in health and then we also prioritised, as I said, our police force, ensuring that they have the resources they need, ensuring that violent criminals who victimise other New Zealanders don’t get caught and released but actually can go to prison so that members of their community are kept safe from them. We are resourcing our prisons to keep New Zealanders safe from the criminals who reside within them.

We’re rebuilding the Defence Force, because we, as I said at the beginning of these remarks, appreciate that the world, in case the people opposite haven’t noticed, is a lot more fragile, a lot more volatile than it once was. We don’t live in Helen Clark’s benign strategic environment; we live in quite a different environment. What we need is a Defence Force that can advance and protect New Zealand’s interests. We are rebuilding its capability, and this Budget continues the investments needed to do it. I think it’s actually a disgrace when you look at the condition of some of the housing that we have asked our soldiers to live in. Actually, the Labour Government, who like to claim they were all about houses—how did that go with KiwiBuild by the way; not very well—were prepared to have our servicemen and women living in, frankly, disgraceful conditions. These are people who are putting their lives on the line for our country, and we are investing in fixing it up.

What this Budget does is it makes good choices, but, ultimately, it recognises that the people who create real opportunity in this country are not the Ministers who sit along this bench, or the backbenchers who sit behind me; it is the everyday men and women who each day decide to work hard, to make something, to build something, to farm something, to grow something. The Government needs to make it easier for them, not harder, and it does that by building a strong economic foundation, by taxing them fairly, and by investing their money well. This Budget shows respect to hard-working New Zealanders by doing exactly that.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That all of the words after “That” be replaced with “this House has no confidence in the Government because after promising to grow the economy, it has shrunk it; after promising to get Kiwis back to work, it is presiding over record job losses; after promising to fix public services, it has gutted our public health system; after promising to fix the cost of living, it has made it worse; and after promising New Zealanders relief, it is prioritising corporate interests over the interests of everyday New Zealanders.”

Ayes 54

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

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 55, Noes 67.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Appropriation (2026/27 Estimates) Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 54

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 67, Noes 55.

Redress System for Abuse in Care Bill

Legislative Statement

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Lead Coordination Minister for the Government's Response to the Royal Commission’s Report into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions) (20:02): I seek leave to present a legislative statement on the Redress System for Abuse in Care Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

Third Reading

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Lead Coordination Minister for the Government's Response to the Royal Commission’s Report into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions) (20:02): I move, That the Redress System for Abuse in Care Bill be now read a third time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Sorry, that legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website. Go ahead.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: The Government is committed to supporting survivors of abuse and neglect in State care through a range of improvements to the State redress and care safety system. While we can never undo the harm and suffering survivors experienced, we are committed to addressing the wrongs of the past and strengthening the care system to prevent, identify, and respond to abuse in the future.

The bill is an important part of our work to improve the State redress system. I want to thank the Social Services and Community Committee and my parliamentary colleagues for their thorough consideration of the bill, and I want to thank the 168 individuals and organisations who submitted. Submitters included survivors, survivor advocacy groups, legal representatives, and community organisations, and these submissions demonstrated care and concern about how the State responds to survivors who have experienced abuse and neglect in State care. I particularly want to acknowledge the survivors who submitted. Thank you for your courage and willingness to be part of the process.

Specifically, I want to, once again, acknowledge Charlotte and the other survivors of abuse in mental health facilities after 1993, whose courage contributed to the change made to the bill in the committee of the whole House to extend the redress system to include claims for abuse in State mental health facilities until 30 June 2022. The change resolves a longstanding gap in redress where survivors of abuse in mental health facilities after 1993 faced bureaucratic dead ends and a lack of recognition. Charlotte’s change means that there will be a consistent and clear pathway for anyone who experienced abuse in State mental health inpatient settings between 1993 and 2022 to make a claim, alongside financial acknowledgement, and also be able to access supports and services and a personalised apology for the abuse that they suffered.

I’d also like to thank my parliamentary colleagues across all parties for supporting this amendment, and for the survivors who have contacted me since we announced the amendment, letting me know how much this means to them.

I’m able to update the House this evening that the Ministry of Health will implement this extension on 28 July, starting with the approximately 30 people who have already pre-registered their intent to make a claim. I hope that, for the others who were abused in mental health care settings, this will give you the confidence that you need to come forward and also to make your claim. For those of you who need some more support or just need someone to talk to, the Survivor Experiences Service, a survivor-led organisation funded by the Government, can provide assistance through their listening service and help with accessing your care records.

The Government has made a number of other improvements to the State redress system in the last 12 months. We’ve increased the average redress payment by 50 percent, from $19,180 to $30,000. We’ve delivered top-up payments worth more than $25 million to over 2,000 survivors, and we’ve developed a clear, consistent, timely, and fair approach to payments through the implementation of a common payment framework. We’ll also be introducing the single point of entry, which will mean that survivors with claims across more than one agency will experience a more joined-up approach, rather than having to deal with each redress agency individually.

The bill introduces a presumption against the financial redress for survivors of abuse in State care who were also serious, violent, or sexual offenders who were sentenced to more than five years for a qualifying offence, and the appointment of a redress officer to consider applications to overturn that presumption. I want to be clear that this legislation does not exclude serious offenders from redress. Alongside being able to apply to overturn the presumption, survivors who are also serious offenders can access other forms of redress, such as an apology and wellbeing support.

Of the survivors who have lodged claims since 9 May 2025 and completed a criminal conviction history check, seven people have been identified as being in scope of the presumption. The bill establishes a process for those survivors to apply to an independent decision-maker, the redress officer, to have the presumption overturned, and we know from overseas examples, many of those who go through this process will indeed receive financial redress. The appointment of the redress officer is one of the key steps in the bill’s implementation, and I expect to be able to make an announcement on who that person will be in the coming weeks.

As many have highlighted throughout the bill’s passage, the redress officer will need to make complex decisions, which will require a high level of expertise and knowledge from across a range of areas. That is why the redress officer must be a retired judge, a King’s Counsel, or senior lawyer, and have a range of skills and experience relevant to the role, including knowledge and understanding of the criminal justice system, including the impact of crime on victims, as well as knowledge and understanding of the royal commission’s report. They will also have the ability to make a balanced and reasonable assessment of community expectations, and to work effectively with survivors of abuse in care and people from a range of backgrounds and cultures. They’ll also be responsible for ensuring the process is fair and consistent with natural justice.

The competencies required for the redress officer were strengthened during the select committee process. They will need to understand the impact of abuse and neglect in care on survivors and have the ability to work effectively with people from diverse cultures and backgrounds. Several other improvements were made to the appointment process during select committee, including specifying the grounds for removal of a redress officer, the inclusion of a duty to act independently, and provision for an alternate redress officer who can act when the redress officer is absent or otherwise unable to act.

At the committee stage, alongside Charlotte’s change, other important amendments were made to the bill. The bill has been futureproofed to include a future redress scheme which covers abuse in mental health settings from 1 July 2022. It was also amended to address situations where survivors have a terminal illness or die before their claim is resolved. The redress officer will have the discretion to exempt a survivor from the serious offender process if they have a terminal illness with the prognosis of less than six months to live. This approach ensures survivors are not unfairly disadvantaged or delayed by procedural requirements associated with the serious offender process, and it will ensure that terminally ill survivors have an opportunity to settle their affairs before they die.

The bill also now confirms that families and estates of survivors can continue claims through the serious offender process if a survivor dies after registering a claim. This aligns with how redress agencies already deal with claims from survivors who are not serious offenders. The commencement date for the provisions in the bill that implement the serious offender process was changed to 1 August 2026. This will avoid a gap between the legislation coming into force and the redress officer being appointed. The rest of the bill will come into force the day after Royal assent.

Finally, the definition of redress was amended to include assistance accessing care records. This reflects that accessing care records is an important part of the redress system for many survivors. I want to acknowledge and thank the Hon Willow-Jean Prime for proposing this amendment. The changes to improve and strengthen the bill will help us to ensure that the process is fair, that it is transparent, and that it is efficient for all survivors. I now commend the bill to the House.

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

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (20:09): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. I want to start my contribution by acknowledging that it is almost two years since the royal commission tabled their final report, Whanaketia, in Parliament on 24 July 2024. Here in Parliament, we received 16 volumes representing years of work, thousands of hours of research and listening, all a testament to the courage of survivors who shared deeply traumatic accounts of their lives. Once again, I want to thank everyone involved in the royal commission’s work. I acknowledge and honour the survivors, those who came forward to share their stories, those who chose, for whatever reason, to not engage, and those who died before they were even able to make that choice. You deserve many things, but at the very least, you deserve proper redress.

Nobody could read Whanaketia and not be shocked and saddened by what it said. Those 16 volumes clearly documented the unimaginable horrors that were inflicted on children and vulnerable adults by people who were supposed to protect them and care for them. In November that year, the Prime Minister gave an apology on behalf of the Crown. During that apology, he spoke directly to survivors, saying that for what occurred to them, “the Government must take responsibility”. This redress system bill does not take responsibility. It side-steps it. The bill places responsibility on the very people the State harmed, requiring them to make the case that they are due full redress for the significant harm, abuse, and trauma that was inflicted on them. This bill is ethically bankrupt, and Labour opposes it.

Why this bill is wrong—we have traversed it multiple times in this House through the readings that have already passed in the House as well as the committee stage. But, in summary, I will say it again: abuse in care is directly connected to criminal behaviour and imprisonment later in life. The evidence is clear. It was the State that caused harm and triggered the pathway to prison; yet this bill removes the responsibility of the State to provide full redress to the people it harmed. Survivors who have been sentenced for serious, violent, or sexual offences have been receiving financial redress since the claims processes were set up 20 years ago, and this has not brought the redress system into disrepute. We do not need this bill, and that justification does not stand. What we do need is what the royal commission recommended: a single, independent redress system carefully legislated for, that is survivor-focused, trauma-informed, and accessible to all survivors. This system would mean that survivors no longer have to go back to the organisations that caused harm and seek redress from their abuser. This bill does not do that.

The Minister did just speak about a few changes that have been made to the bill throughout the select committee process, and when we look at the detail of the bill and its journey through Parliament, some improvements have been made. Given it is going to pass into law tonight, any improvement we were able to achieve could make a positive difference for the survivors that this bill affects. I’d like to thank the Minister for adopting my amendment to include in the purpose of a redress system “assistance with accessing care records”. This is a fundamental change that means a great deal to survivors. As the royal commission found, requesting records is often the first thing that survivors or their legal representatives do when making a claim. Access to records is, for some survivors, the only redress they want. It was crucial that the purpose of the redress system included access to records. We know from survivors and advocates that records are of the utmost importance to survivors. Care Leavers Australasia Network New Zealand is quoted in the royal commission’s report, and I’d like to share that here. They said, for survivors, “being able to access their personal files and records usually represents their only hope in finding answers to the many questions that they have carried with them for a lifetime”.

“Records” is a dry word and does not convey what these documents actually are for these survivors. For many survivors, official records hold the story of their lives. This is because survivors were often sent from place to place, separated from their siblings, and lost contact with their families, meaning there is no collective family memory about their lives. Being able to access this information can reveal information about their family and whakapapa that they had no idea about before. Being able to begin to understand what happened to them is a crucial part of healing and can be life-changing for survivors. Throughout the period of this inquiry, the royal commission found that records were not kept, inaccurate, incomplete, and sometimes destroyed or hidden. Many survivors have had to navigate several Government institutions and non-government entities to get their records, and even then, they may not get them. Things have improved. Access to records was one of the first actions the last Labour Government instigated in 2022, and work on this has continued since. However, obstacles remain for survivors wanting to access their records, and they need assistance. The royal commission recommended that access to records be something that the redress system did, and it is good to see that in this bill.

The other amendment I welcome is the change that the Minister brought in amendments including survivors who experienced abuse in State care in State-run mental health facilities up until 1 July 2022. It enables more survivors to claim redress for harm they experienced. A provision being provided like this for survivors to apply to the redress officer for an exclusion if they are terminally ill is the right thing to do. These are improvements, yet the fundamental bill remains flawed, which is why Labour opposes it.

In conclusion, this may be the last time that we talk in detail in this House about abuse in care in this term of Parliament. Given that, I want to take this opportunity to say how disappointing the Government’s response has been. Abuse in care in State and faith-based institutions is a dark time in our country’s history. The royal commission shone a light on half a century of systemic failures and the associated abhorrent treatment of people who were entitled to love and care. The abuse, harm, and trauma inflicted on people continues to shape the social fabric of our country today. It is a history that must be fully reckoned with if we are to properly learn from it and to move forward. Every royal commission in this country’s history has had the majority of its recommendations accepted in full and implemented; yet this Government accepted the intent of, or partially accepted, a mere 40 percent of this royal commission’s recommendations. This is despite the fact that the royal commission into abuse in care detailed a nationwide care system that, over several decades, harmed tens of thousands of people and their whānau across generations.

Sadly, what we see in society today are the very conditions that the royal commission documented in Whanaketia: punitive attitudes towards people who experience poverty, racism, ableism, disablism, rigid ideas about gender roles, and homophobia. Yes, we have come a long way since the 1950s, but there is more that we must do to build an inclusive society. Now we have politicians and political parties who try to exploit our differences for the sole reason of gaining political power. They actively work to deepen divides rather than bring us and our community to a shared humanity. We are better than this. What the royal commission gave was a unique opportunity to work together to create a care system and a country where the royal commission said “every child, young person and adult … is loved, safe and cared for in a manner that supports their growth and development into a thriving contributor to society.” That’s the country we can all believe in. That’s a country I believe in, and alongside my colleagues, that is the country that we work hard for every day. That is why we do not support this bill.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (20:19): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand to also oppose the Redress System for Abuse in Care Bill. I also want, first, to acknowledge all of the survivors who have worked tirelessly to ensure that such a dark part of Aotearoa’s history has been addressed through the royal commission of inquiry. I want to thank all of the submitters who have submitted on this bill and all of the people who are continuously working and fighting to address the historical wrongs that we have seen here in Aotearoa.

I want to address first a couple things that the Minister has said. I think it is really, in many ways, disingenuous, the misrepresentation by the coordinating Minister in charge, when the Government thanked those who made submissions on this bill. I do want to remind this House that 168 submissions were received on this bill—128 individuals and 40 organisations. Out of those, 144 opposed this bill. Only three supported it, and four partially supported it. Out of the 35 oral hearings on this bill, 33 opposed this bill. For the Minister, on behalf of this Government, to get up and thank those who submitted is disgraceful, because, clearly, the Minister and the Government have not heard the concerns that the submitters and the survivors have made on this bill.

Joseph Mooney: You’re just trying to get more votes—disgraceful!

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: I want to check with the member who just heckled and just ask what votes we are to gain when we are here speaking on behalf of those who have opposed this bill? This is the truth. This is the fact. These are the numbers that we have seen in our own department report. I’m not misrepresenting what we are seeing as part of the process that we’ve come to with regards to this bill.

There are quite a few additional things that I think were important to address as part of the committee stage. I first want to, I guess, recap for the House some of the key areas that we discussed. I do acknowledge the Minister for putting forward the two Amendment Papers 581 and 582. I acknowledge the fact that the Minister has accepted the Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s amendment. I think those amendments are important, and they are amendments that the Green Party did support, because it is what the survivors have asked for. What the survivors didn’t ask for is what we see in, for example, clause 9 of this bill, where, if you are a serious offender, there is a presumption—a legal presumption—that you do not have a right to redress. That’s not what the survivors have asked for.

That also flies in the face of the original intent and the recommendation by the abuse in care royal commission of inquiry. The royal commission of inquiry acknowledge and understand the vicious cycle of harm that we have seen as a part of that abuse in care. There are many complex factors in those circumstances that lead to a survivor’s offending. This was supposed to be an opportunity for any Government to take a more compassionate and restorative approach to how we look at this dark part of our own history. That’s not what we’re seeing in this bill. What we see is a bill where the power lies not with the survivors but with the Crown, the very people who have abused them and who have led to their abuse in the first place.

We have heard from submitters that, yes, there is a process for the offenders to seek redress should they not meet that legal presumption. However, we have checked with, and also asked, the Minister over and over again during the committee stage—because, again, this is the will of the survivors—about the fact that those people who are being denied have to come to the same Crown, the same people, who have abused them in the first place, which, of course, continues trauma, shame, and re-traumatisation. How is that going to be addressed as part of this? There’s no response to that.

Finally, again, the reason the Green Party opposes this bill—and I just want to remind everyone of the most egregious aspects of this bill compared to what the royal commission recommended. The royal commission recommended that there is no exclusion for serious offenders, whereas this bill creates a legal presumption against redress for those offenders. The royal commission recommends an independent survivor-led system. The bill keeps redress inside State agencies. The royal commission recommended no criminal record checks. The bill introduces criminal record checks, plus that legal presumption. The commission recommended access for all survivors and families. This is something that has been addressed, thankfully, and we’re seeing that there will be access to redress for some of the families and particularly families of deceased survivors. The royal commission recommended meaningful apologies acknowledging responsibility, but this bill makes that apology inadmissible in certain circumstances. The royal commission recommends a trauma-informed accessible process, but this bill adds new processes. Finally, the royal commission recommends a Te Tiriti - aligned, Māori-led design, and there’s no part of this bill that explicitly acknowledges Te Tiriti o Waitangi requirements.

For the Government to say that this bill is in line with the royal commission of inquiry is simply misrepresenting, and also misidentifying, the pain and suffering and the desire of those survivors to move on. Whanaketia, as we have heard from the previous speaker, builds a vision as a part of that recommendation—he māra tipu, a growing garden. The survivors were hoping that this bill, on the back of the commission of inquiry, could have been one of healing, could have been one that restores the survivors’ mana, but as we’ve seen from the very onset, right after the apology, the Government introduced bootcamps, which is something that the report explicitly mentioned will continue the trauma that they have experienced as part of that abuse.

Joseph Mooney: Shameful!

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: The member is right. It is a shameful day, and the Green Party will not support it.

LAURA McCLURE (ACT) (20:29): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise in support of this legislation. Firstly, I’d like to say a huge thankyou to all of the survivors who contributed to the royal inquiry into abuse in care, and also the ones that presented to our select committee. I will be honest with you, I know that this doesn’t meet all of the expectations that the survivors and their families would want, but the truth is, this Government could have sat on those findings for some time, really thought about what to do, or they could have started the pathway to some kind of compensation for those that really suffered.

While this isn’t exactly where a lot of those who submitted to us in our select committee wanted to land, I do think that there is a good compromise here. When you are setting up a redress system, yes, you do have to be mindful of those who were abused—absolutely—but you also have to be mindful of public perception, because we don’t want the system to come into any form of disrepute. One of those things—around putting a presumption in there for those that have gone on and committed serious crimes, particularly violent sexual crimes—doesn’t exclude them from other forms of redress; it just excludes them from the financial aspect. There are other ways that that presumption can be overturned, as well.

Look, I’m definitely one of the first to say that people that are hurt or harmed, particularly in their youth, often go on to be a perpetrator as well. I think we need to do more around that preventative side if we are going to change and we’re going to break cycles. But, as far as the Government’s concerned and the obligations that we have, we have to make sure that we also think about the victims of the crimes that some of these survivors themselves have committed. I know, because I’ve talked to a survivor whose abuser was also a victim of State care, and so was she herself, and she would not be happy with that person getting some kind of financial redress. Support and help—100 percent, yes—but not financial redress. We need to be able to balance those views, so I commend this bill to the House.

Again, I just want to thank all of those that came forward, whether it was in the inquiry or to the select committee. We heard you, and this is a good starting point, and I’m sure there will be many other things and many other actionable things to come in the future in regards to that inquiry.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Minister of Customs) (20:32): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the third reading of the Redress System for Abuse in Care Bill. There are no winners in this process. This has been a hard-fought, hard-worked process to get this bill to the House. I would like to commend the Minister, the Hon Erica Stanford, who has the coordinating responsibility for navigating this work. It was navigating a number of ministries, a number of agencies, as well as engaging with victims to ensure voices were heard and that we continued to move forward.

It is completely inappropriate to use this time in this third reading to talk about who cares more or less, who wants more or wants less. This is about a process of moving forward. We all care. We were all devastated by what the Crown did, and we all want to ensure that we continue to develop a process that provides support, provides a better redress process, and provides a system that works and is robust, and that we continue to ensure that this does not happen again. To suggest that we are criticising Crown agencies today for things that have happened in the past is just a tragedy. It is an insult to the wonderful people that have worked so hard to ensure that we do better, that we deliver redress, that we provide support. To stand in this House and suggest that they shouldn’t be engaging with the Crown, that they shouldn’t be reaching out, is just cheap political point-scoring that they should hang their heads in shame about.

We need to encourage victims to know that they can trust the Crown, to know that they can come forward, and this system will deliver that support. This is not a time for politics; this is a time for ensuring that we put our egos and our political aspirations to one side and actually think about what is good for these people. This system may not be perfect, but it is better than sitting in paralysed fear while we decide what is the very perfect situation, what is the very perfect system. What we are delivering in this bill is a process to move forward. Those that have worked on delivering this process, bringing this bill to the House, and ensuring that we do move forward should be commended. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): The Hon Julie Anne Genter—five minutes.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai) (20:35): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I want to start off by acknowledging our survivors. There are so many of them, and their stories are devastating. The apology was, we think, insufficient. It would be much better if the Government was willing to go further and implement more of the recommendations of the royal commission.

It’s OK, I know that the people watching and the people who experienced harm in State care understand that we’re speaking up for their aspirations and that this isn’t about political point-scoring. If anything, the Government’s unwillingness to implement the recommendations of the royal commission is because of their own political ambitions and their unwillingness to truly listen to the people. It’s amazing the way we can tell—we can all tell—because the Government MPs are so fragile, even their Ministers, that at the slightest bit of legitimate criticism, they start saying we are disgusting and we are shameful. It’s a perfect example of the projection that comes from these people in power, that they turn their own inability to accept where they’re getting it wrong and to acknowledge that into attacking the people who are just trying to speak up for those who’ve been most marginalised, who’ve been harmed. We should, as representatives, be willing to do what’s necessary to make things right.

No one is asking for perfect, but does this bill meet the needs and the support and the proper compensation of survivors of State care? It’s a pretty easy answer: no, it doesn’t. Is it a survivor-led response that honours Te Tiriti o Waitangi and places survivors at the centre? No, this bill doesn’t do that. I want to acknowledge the work and the sacrifice and the emotional burden that survivors have undertaken to advocate for each other and to bring awareness into this dark part of our country’s past. The bill, as it stands, does not take into full account what our survivors of abuse in care deserve, and it does not represent justice.

The royal commission of inquiry recommended that there should be no exclusions in redress for those who are serious offenders, as this creates presumptions against redress. Many of our survivor community have ended up in the justice system as a consequence of the abuse they endured. The royal commission called for an independent, survivor-led system that honoured the lived experience of survivors, and with this bill we do not have that. Access to redress is being kept inside the system that caused the harm in the first place—and we’re not talking about individuals who work in that system; we are talking about the system. A restorative justice approach has been shown to work in so many different places and times. It’s incredibly effective, but it takes time and it takes resource. That would be a true apology and redress. It would be properly resourcing the redress, properly resourcing a survivor-centred system that’s outside and independent from the Crown.

The royal commission called for no criminal record checks; however, this bill includes that. To me that’s politics. That’s the politics of these parties in Government. It’s not politics to say—it’s not being political or being shortsighted to call out the fact the bill is literally not doing what the royal commission recommended. That’s all—it’s not doing what the royal commission recommended.

I urge Government MPs to be a little bit honest with yourselves for once and acknowledge that we could have done better—the Crown could have done better—than this bill simply by implementing the recommendations of the royal commission. That would be the very least that we could do, and that still would not be perfect, but it would be better than blocking access for some survivors and some families simply for ideological and political reasons. Members of our survivor network feel the Government apology and redress is not enough, and it’s their voices that matter.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland) (20:40): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak on the third reading of the Redress System for Abuse in Care Bill. The bill provides a legal framework for providing redress for survivors of abuse in State care, and, particularly, it recognises the personal experience of abuse in care. It offers an alternative to litigation to provide for redress for abuse in care, including the provision of one or more of financial payments, an apology, counselling, or other wellbeing support.

I want to just take a moment, actually, to acknowledge all those survivors who will be watching these events this evening or who will be watching them in the future; just to say once again that what happened to them is unforgivable. It should never have happened, and it should never happen again. This Government is taking steps to acknowledge and provide redress. This bill does not do everything, and it does not pretend to do everything, but it is providing a redress system for abuse in care, which is a very important step forwards.

I have seen and heard many disgraceful things in my years in this House, and, frankly, the behaviour of the Opposition on this bill is, I think, the most distasteful of them all. This is something that is nationally significant and nationally important. It is incredibly important to the future dignity of our country, and they have not brought dignity to the discussion of this issue. They have focused on a very small part of the bill, which is intended to ensure that it retains credibility in the eyes of New Zealanders going forwards and that we are getting this balance right.

Ninety-eight percent of survivors will have a direct, simplified path to redress as a part of this bill—98 percent. Two percent—2 percent—will need to go through a more robust vetting process. Why? It is because they have been convicted of a serious violent or sexual offence. It is one of the offences that is in the three-strikes legislation. These are serious offences. Not only that, they must also have been sentenced to five or more years in prison. That is a long time in prison. That indicates they have committed a serious offence against another human being and that there’s another human being in our country who is deeply victimised by their behaviour. Now, that does not take away the survivor’s and, simultaneously, the abuser’s own experience as a child in faith or State-based care, which should never have happened. To retain confidence in the system, we have put in place a balanced regime to ensure that they can still get it redressed. There will be a redress officer who carefully assesses that application.

This is really important and requires a sensitive, deliberative discussion, which we have not heard in this Parliament. I would call on the members of the Opposition to put aside politics and think really carefully about how we shape our future and how we have a responsible discussion about an issue that is incredibly important to all of us. There is much more to say, but I think I’ve made a point that really needs to be carefully thought about. Thank you, and I commend this bill to the House.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour) (20:44): While I was listening to the member Joseph Mooney, and I think there is obviously some sincerity in what he’s saying, the reality is that we’ve got some really disaffected communities out there and we just can’t get away with what has happened to so many people through the years, who felt let down by what the Government did after the original promises from the Government, which many of us supported and celebrated with them—well, not celebrated, that’s the wrong term, but certainly came together with the Government through the initial process. The reality is that things didn’t go to plan, and we, as an Opposition, feel absolutely let down by the actions of this Government.

Up to 200,000 kids and vulnerable adults were abused or neglected in New Zealand’s State and faith-based care between 1950 and 1999. Almost one in three kids in State care over this period suffered some form of harm, with Māori disproportionately affected; 80 percent to 90 percent of members in Maōri-majority gangs were all in State care—I’m talking about the Mongrel Mob, Black Power. But the reality is, a survivor is a survivor. Trauma does not disappear because someone later on entered the criminal justice system. The harvest of pain that the State has caused these people, our people, is an obscenity that demands a response that respects those survivors’ mana. Instead, so many of these people feel they have been betrayed.

In my view, despite what some of the Government speakers have said, the Government should be embarrassed with this response. The State didn’t just abuse and hurt those 200,000 vulnerable kids and adults. It was an unprincipled campaign of legal warfare against the many brave survivors who tried to speak their truth. The Government now, right here, it seems, is abusing those victims and has certainly disappointed many of them. Something victims have said to me is that they feel their mana has been betrayed for legal barriers to protect the State’s liability. This Government should be embarrassed. They should be embarrassed by this deal. This is a redress bill that fails to deliver the redress survivors were promised. The bill does not create the independent, survivor-led redress system recommended by the royal commission. Instead, it creates a presumption against financial redress for some survivors with serious violent or sexual convictions. It establishes a process to assess exemptions and gives legal process to apologies made by State agencies.

The royal commission called for a comprehensive, independent redress system, and this bill is not that. By excluding those who’ve gone on to commit serious crimes because of the abuse that has plagued them, it’s punishing those victims twice. This bill is more about protecting the Crown than survivors by narrowing access to compensation. Disability advocates and survivor groups have argued it reduces access rather than expanding it. Because Māori were disproportionately represented in State care and among abuse survivors, this bill continues historic injustices rather than repairs them. The Crown abused Māori kids, ignored Māori voices, and now wants Māori survivors to accept this second-rate apology. The bill spends more time deciding who should be excluded than how survivors can receive justice. The Government listened to survivors’ stories and then ignored their recommendations. Many of the people this bill excludes were first failed by the State and then criminalised by it. Many survivors wanted an independent body, but what they’ve been given is a State-controlled system. Survivors are still being forced to seek redress from the same institutions who’ve been responsible for the abuse.

This bill protects the Crown’s reputation more than it restores the mana of survivors, and that must be something really upsetting for everyone tonight. The royal commission spent years listening to survivors, but this bill does not implement the redress system those survivors asked for. What was the point of making the apology if all the State wanted was the performance and none of the responsibility once we had said “Sorry”?

We, some of us on this side, believe that the apology was hollow and history will judge this Parliament harshly for the insult. I want to go to what some of our members have said tonight. This is what the royal commission said: “We consider there should continue to be no exclusion for serious offenders or any extra criteria for them to meet. A large number of those in prison have been in care and the tūkino they suffered may have contributed to their offending. Most of Maori, and they and their whānau, are likely to be among those most in need of help through the scheme.” This is what the commission was saying. This was clear to everyone, but this was ignored.

I want to address what the Prime Minister said just one year ago. The Prime Minister of this country stood in this House on behalf of the Crown and apologised to survivors of abuse in State care. We all applauded that. He said, and I quote, “For many of you, it changed the course of your life, and for that, the Government must take responsibility.” Take responsibility—that was what the Prime Minister’s words were. So I asked the Prime Minister and other members sitting on the other side: what does “take responsibility” look like in this bill? Surely, that’s got to be the question.

Does taking responsibility look like a bill that creates a presumption against paying the very survivors whose lives were mostly changed by what the Crown did to them? Does taking responsibility look like a bill that gives the Crown legal protection when it apologises, so that the apology cannot be used against it in court? Does responsibility look like a bill where 92 percent of public submissions opposed it, and the Government brought it back anyway? The questions just go on and on. Does taking responsibility look like ignoring the royal commission, ignoring the high-level design group, ignoring survivors, ignoring iwi, ignoring legal experts, ignoring the privacy commission and ramming it through the Parliament before the election? That’s not responsibility; that is the opposite of responsibility. The Prime Minister’s apology, every word of it, has been made a mockery of by this bill.

Let me now speak about the what the bill actually excludes. The estimate in the original Cabinet papers was that it will exclude 110 people, or roughly 5 percent of the claimants—110 people. The Crown is going to twist itself into knots, change its legislation retrospectively, change everything. They’ve changed everything to deny access to 110 people. It just seemed to be such a waste of time, to have these people, mainly Māori, excluded; disabled survivors, most of them placed in State institution as kids—all of them survivors of abuse, every single one of them broken by the very institutions that they were supposed to protect.

The original Cabinet paper said it plainly impacts on the estimated 95 percent of claimants who did not have a record of serious criminal offending. So just summarising the Government’s logic: they’ll make every survivor wait longer, every survivor go through more checks, every survivor experience more delay, and the entire system grinds slower so that they can deny payment to about 100 Māori men in prison. It’s just so sad and insulting and upsetting because we could have had so much more.

We want a system, in terms of Labour, that’s independent, that is trauma informed, that is inclusive, that is holistic, that recognises people and their community and the contributions that they make. We want a society that is more balanced, that recognises what people have gone through, and I assure you that when a new Labour Government comes in, we will be relooking at this kaupapa. And I assure everyone who’s listening tonight that all our aroha goes out to you tonight. We’re sad, disappointed about this bill, but under a Labour Government, things will be different. Kia ora anō tātou.

DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast) (20:54): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to take this call on this Redress System for Abuse in Care Bill. Look, nothing will ever make up for the trauma and the harm that was inflicted over the years on to so many New Zealanders, and whilst this bill does go some way to addressing the wrongs of the past, they will never be forgotten and that will never change what happened to many of our people.

The bill aims to strengthen the care system to prevent, identify, and respond to abuse in the future as well as dealing with the past. I want to thank the Minister and all those who worked hard to get it to this point so everyone can move on, including the colleague Willow-Jean Prime, who brought in the amendments at the end to include the access to records, which has been such an important part for the survivors.

I want to thank my colleagues on the Social Services and Community Committee, who dealt with this bill and made good improvements, made changes, and helped to get it to this point. You listened and provided good advice. I think the big thankyou, however, must be to the survivors, to the families, the groups, and everyone else who contributed, and who gave such brave accounts of their stories to help us understand in some small way what they have been through and how it’s affected their lives for ever.

This has been a long time in the process, and I know it’s been challenging for so many who live with the trauma every single day. I do hope that it will come some way to dealing with some of that for them and that we can move forward together and look towards the future. With that, I commend the bill to the House

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) (20:56): This is called the Redress System for Abuse in Care Bill; it probably should be called the “Sorry But Not Sorry Bill”. What we have heard tonight is about a system that talks about not bringing this system into disrepute. My question to the Government members is: in whose estimation? Because let’s think about what happened. There was a royal commission of inquiry where, for years, people had known that there were things happening in faith-based institutes and in State care. Finally, there was a royal commission of inquiry, and people were encouraged to come forward to the very system that had let them down, to the very system that had robbed their childhood, that had caused them trauma and unimaginable horrific abuse and experiences. And yet, they were enticed forward because there was this royal commission of inquiry that was going to give them an opportunity to be seen as whole people, to be seen in all their trauma, to be seen in all their humanity, and, for some of them, to also be seen in the scars that they carried through some of the crimes they committed.

At that point in time, nobody from this House said to them, “But don’t do this if you’ve committed a serious offence because you will be rejected and marginalised further at the end of the process.” Nobody said that to them. If we were going to do that, we should at least have done that at the beginning of this process. But instead, we encouraged them forward. We told them they’d be safe. They took witness stands and they shared the most personal stories, the things they had never revealed to anybody. They shared those with the royal commission thinking they would be protected and they would be seen in their totality.

And now, under this Government we are saying, “No, we want to protect the so-called reputation of the redress system.” Well, whose reputation? Because certainly it’s not enhancing the reputation of the royal commission. The next time we have a royal commission, people are not going to want to come forward because they will not be trusting that they will be treated in the way that they were when they were enticed at the beginning of this process.

We looked at the people who are most marginalised by this: there are Māori, there are disabled, there are Pasifika people, there are all the usual groups who are at the most invisible end of society. And yet, we are saying to them, “You have to go through extra hoops if you want to be accepted, because we’re sorry, but we’re not sorry. We’re sorry, but we’re sorry in a kind of middle-class, privileged way. But we’re not sorry and we don’t relate to the worlds you come from because we have no idea about your experience, because if we did, we would accept you as human beings or we would have told you at the outset, we would have put more thought into this process, and we would have made it very clear that you are not safe to come into this process.”

That is what is such a shame about this bill and this whole process. We are further traumatising the most marginalised people. Now, I am not making excuses for the crimes that they committed or for the hurt that they caused, but to not make them aware at the beginning of the process about what was at stake and what it would cost them is, I think, grossly unfair. Again, I ask: whose reputation are we protecting? Is it the Crown? Is it the State? Is it privilege? Is it the royal commission?

As I’ve said, I don’t believe it enhances the reputation of the royal commission at all, because it calls into question what will happen in future royal commissions when people are treated in this way: where the playing field has changed, where the goal posts have changed, and when they are not safe to reveal the things they give in evidence because the rules at the end of the process are changed and taken from under them. Then, to add insult to injury, there is a requirement that, if they don’t declare a qualifying conviction, they will carry a maximum fine of $5,000. Again, there is this burden of disclosure on people who have gone through a process, who have had it changed, and who now face further marginalisation if they do not declare.

I imagine that this burden of proof will probably fall on lawyers, but not all the abuse in care people had lawyers representing them. There are many, many more points that I could make about the recommendations that the royal commission said—many of which have been ignored—which calls into question: why did we have a royal commission if we’re going to ignore their recommendations? My fundamental question is: whose reputation, right now, are we protecting?

PAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn) (21:01): Thank you, Madam Speaker. There can be nothing worse than young people, children, the vulnerable in different circumstances, coming into an abusive situation by the State or in other institutions, in whose care they were placed in, and in whose care they were supposed to have trusted. There can be nothing worse than being abused by the people that have been placed to care for you, but this has happened in a very, very large way. The approach of the New Zealand Government has evolved and developed over time—over more than two decades—with the court cases in the 1990s clearly not being appropriate, over time. This redress of abuse in care has been developed as a solution outside litigation. It spares many people and their families from the horror of going through litigation.

For this reason, and through the royal inquiry, we must say to the people who have been abused and who have shared their stories through the process—it would have been unimaginably difficult that they would have gone through this, so I thank them; I thank each and every single person who has shared a very personal and deeply vulnerable story of abuse. Also, I thank the Social Services and Community Committee—all the members who have gone through the submissions. Through this, this bill seeks to ensure that the people who have suffered abuse—the survivors—are given redress in the most effective manner, without dragging them through a court process, and bearing in mind that some may have committed serious violent or sexual offences or offences involving firearms. There is a list of these offences. For them, the redress would not be automatic but they would have to apply to a redress officer, who is an independent decisionmaker.

It’s important that the public understand that this is less than 2 percent of those who have gone through the inquiry and who have submitted claims. I echo the chair in his statement that 98 percent are going to be given redress. Not every person who has suffered abuse in care has gone on to commit serious violent offences; just less than 2 percent, and for that there must be accountability. This process aims to make sure that all of the survivors are treated in the best possible way and redress provided in a very standardised manner. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert) (21:06): I want to start my speech by talking about this issue that is a dispute between the Opposition and the Government, but I want to do it within a wider context and try and take a pretty different lens to it.

One of the things that I think we have to do is begin at the beginning. This inquiry was about abusive behaviour from 1950 through to 1999, and when the inquiry first began, it was going to be just the State, and then it moved to the Church. Now, we’re not alone. Other countries have also had their children subjected to terrible abuse in care, so we can look to places like Canada, where they’ve dealt with this very differently, and not in a way that I think we should be critical of our own approach at all. I think we have done, in lots of ways, a much better job than places like Canada, which worked on class action systems and buried a lot of the evidence and prosecuted very few people for what happened. I’m not saying it’s all rosy somewhere else.

I think we started well. We had an inquiry that was quite an in-depth inquiry. We gave that inquiry to very trusted people that I deeply respect, and they walked through the process with about 3,000 survivors. Those survivors told their stories, and they were traumatic stories. They had to buy into trusting the State to that extent. I think they were heard. The recommendations that came out of that inquiry were from wise people; they were considered recommendations.

One of the things they talked about was a system for redress. Now, what we know is that in, the interim, people had tried to sue over the abuse that had happened—sometimes torture, often violent sexual abuse. They had tried to sue, and our legal system had failed those victims badly. We had a controversy before the apology that was delivered in this Parliament about the Crown prosecutor and the aggressive attitude that she had had, and that was something—I don’t want to blame a particular person for that. That’s an attitude I’ve seen far too often in litigation, of minimising what’s gone on and trying to get away with things at the least possible cost to the State.

Actually that did terrible damage. There were things like the hiding of evidence, the failure to disclose. There were real issues about putting people under pressure and denying what was undeniable under that system. So legal systems don’t work that well in this situation because you take vulnerable people and you put them into a space where power is often imbalanced. The lawyers in the room probably all agree that that system is flawed when it comes to victims. It does not work well.

The system that the commission proposed for redress, the one that was the beginnings of the one we look at today, that was a system where thought was put into who would be able to claim redress. The people that I trust, who were the commissioners, said that it needed to be a system that was all-enveloping, that made no distinction between people. Now, what I want to say to those who have made claims that people on this side of the House are doing this for votes, or that they are disgraceful, is I genuinely believe there’s a flaw here in the thinking of the Government on this. I think it’s really important that we see the people that have been abused as victims. That’s why they’re getting the redress. They are victims. It doesn’t mean that they’re saints. It doesn’t mean that they haven’t gone on to do harm. All of that can be true because we don’t live in a world of cartoon characters, and there are correlations between abuse and going on to abuse. Horrible, ugly, evil as it is, that’s the reality. And that is irrelevant to whether the State harmed and victimised those people.

Let’s just have a think about this for a minute. We are talking about sexual abuse. Is it ever something that we shouldn’t see the person who was sexually violated, the person who was brutally hurt—is it ever something that we should let ourselves off the hook for? Because my concern with the other lawyers who stood up in the room today is that they’ve left out the little logical piece that is redress itself. My concern is we owe every victim that we made, as the State, the same duty of care.

It’s incredibly important we never cloud this issue with public opinion, because guess what? We are moral leaders. That’s part of our job. And we shouldn’t ever, ever step away from our responsibility to lead public opinion. That’s our job. We are here because we get the nine reports that came out, we get to read them. Most of the public, they’re getting on with trying to make ends meet at the moment, but we get the great privilege of looking at that material, of sharing it with those victims. And we know that it’s important. We lead, and we lead maturely.

Now, this is going to lead to my last point, which is that we need to talk about what an apology is. Because on the day the apology was made, there was actually an inclusion of what the Crown prosecutor had done, the aggressive approach that had been taken on behalf of the Crown, that was included in the apology. And she said, “We’ve moved on, we’ve learnt, and we’ve changed our culture.” I expect when somebody says that they are apologising, especially a moral leader, I expect that they will give a fulsome apology, a heartfelt apology, a real one. If anybody wants to look at any literature on what an apology has, it actually has a significant part of it which is to make amends. We can’t simply say the words, we can’t even just feel the remorse; we have to make amends if that’s what’s required.

In this piece of legislation, one thing that I just can’t handle is that we actually enrich the State every time we decline one of the claims from someone who was victimised, who was raped, who was brutalised. We decline it and guess who is enriched? The State, because it doesn’t hand over the cash.

In the select committee, I sought to look at this issue. I said, “Well, couldn’t we put it into victims’ funds? Couldn’t we do something for the next generation of victims?” I was open minded about this and I got told it was too hard: “No, no, no, we can’t do that.” I am sick of hearing that the system cannot cope with humanity. Our job here is to always remember humanity, and if there are victims out there who were raped, who were brutalised, who were harmed by the State or churches, I want to look at them in that light as victims and do my end of the bargain as a representative in this House.

Actually what happens next, that’s important to understanding the ripple effect of evil. That’s really important, but that’s the important bit. I do not want to follow some shallow, public opinion fear because we make that opinion happen. Our job as moral leaders is to lead this country in a way that we can be proud of. And, unfortunately, tonight, I’m not proud of this law.

DAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth) (21:16): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s fair to say that I stand to participate in this debate with a sorry heart, really. I would believe that this is one of the more sombre debates that I’ve experienced in my time during this term itself, and it’s very obvious as to why. There’s not a smile on anybody’s face around this room, and we all deeply empathise with the situation that we’re all presented with. I think we all would wish that we didn’t have such a bill like this in front of us to have to pass to provide a new beginning, potentially opportunity, redress—that word “redress”—for these individuals that have been abused in care.

I think about the word “care” and what it actually means. And you could think about the fact that it’s providing health and wellbeing and, I suppose, protection to humans itself. And yet what we’re discussing here this evening, tonight, is exactly the opposite to what’s actually occurred. It’s absolutely appropriate that the Government does something about it. I’m trying to get my head around the fact that the Opposition are not supporting this bill with what it’s endeavouring to do with this step. I understand it’s not perfect, but surely it’s a step in the right direction to some degree, and I would measure that by the fact that I’m sure the Opposition’s not going to repeal this bill if they come into power.

It’s a bill that’s needed. It’s subsequent to a huge amount of work in a very, very large report that many individuals brought their experiences, their unreal experiences, to light within the report, and it almost beggars belief to think that other human beings transpired the ill-doings on over a couple of hundred thousand people in this way within our country itself. It’s not a good situation for us, any of us, to be in with this here, and I think this bill, which has been through its process, parliamentary process—I empathise with the select committee members that had to listen to probably many, many stories that were brought before them. It must have been a very sombre experience; I wasn’t there myself.

In some ways, I’m pleased that we’ve actually got a step to be taken here, but I also empathise that you can never fix the wrongs of what this whole situation is. With that, I commend this bill to the House.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Tai Tokerau) (21:20): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Tēnā tātou e te Whare. The title is about the redress system for abuse in care. Obviously, the collision between abuse in care or in State care, or in faith-based care, for that matter, are probably the things that should shock us into reality. The reality, as I know it, having worked in the sector for many years, is that it has been going on for a very long time. It’s sombre, but it’s a sobering reality that I remember well, so I’m less sombre and, I guess, in a perverse way, glad that we are having this debate, though it’s at the third reading and though I have my own sense of where I think we have not gone far enough.

I’d like to just read a quick excerpt from a poem that was written by one of the survivors, if I may. In the third reading, I think it’s relevant and important and I’d like to share that. She writes:

Where does the story end?

Who gets to call time on my life?

I knew the telltale signs of what was coming next,

So I’d run until I could no more.

Forgive him,

Forgive me,

But some I never will.

They need to pay.

They all must pay,

For that is all I say.

Don’t walk around in the light that is not yours to see.

Still fighting for myself and all we need to say,

With love now surrounding me.

A path there still to travel,

Deciding now where I go and what I do,

To claim back all our innocence that was always meant to be.

That was by Neta Kerepeti. I wanted to bring this into this particular moment in the conversation, because I certainly recall, when the apology occurred, I stood in this House and referred to the fact that it is one thing to make an apology, of course, and good on us, but I also said that none of the survivors had to accept it. The gallery was full. None of the survivors had to accept it, and they don’t. Whether they do or not,

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

—that is up to them—but it must still be up to us to continue to correct the harm.

From what I see when I look at the changes—and I do, I acknowledge there are points in it where we talk about the key changes, formalising access to apologies and payments, restrictions on financial compensation. All of those things prevent apologies being used as admissions of liability in court. They’re all words, and though they’re important, they’re not anywhere near as important as the act of remorse and the acting on apology and to going further than we should, to keep going. So I don’t support this, and I don’t support it, coming right back to the time in which I used to work in this field. I used to sit across from children that had been sexually assaulted, and would take the story from women, from grandmothers, from sons, from fathers. When I hear this kind of conversation—and, might I say, intention has never been enough, and, in this context, it fails even more.

I mean, I sat on that committee, as you all know—sorry, I didn’t mean to bring you into this, Madam Speaker—and, of course, when I heard many of the submissions that came in the hearings, they break your heart and they should remind us of the harm that we—and I mean this in the enduring time in which all this harm occurred—are responsible for. We are responsible for that harm. In fact, I might even say that we did that. How do you undo that and how do you redress it? You do more, and you do that based on what the perspective—and, just in closing, it is the perspective of the survivors which is the thing that I think is fundamentally missing—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The member’s time has expired. The question is that the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion, please say Aye. To the contrary, No. The ayes have it.

Hon Member: Party vote.

Hon Member: No, the noes have it. Party vote.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I’ve called the vote.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill

Legislative Statement

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (21:26): I present to the House a legislative statement on the Health and Safety at Work Amendment 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 BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (21:26): I move, That the Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

I want to begin by thanking everyone who made a submission to the Education and Workforce Committee on the bill, and, in particular, those who made suggestions to improve its workability. The feedback received has been important in making sure that the bill does what it’s intended to do: focus effort on preventing the most serious harm. I also want to acknowledge the Education and Workforce Committee for its work on this bill. The committee has tested the detail carefully in response to submissions, and the changes it has made improve clarity and make the bill more workable in practice.

This bill delivers on a commitment in the ACT-National coalition agreement to reform work health and safety law and regulations, restoring clarity and common sense to the system. Importantly, it reflects what we’ve heard from people across the country. I’ve heard from small-business owners, workers, and operators across this country, through submissions, engagement, and direct conversations, that the current system can be confusing, time-consuming, and, at times, focused on the wrong things. Too often, effort goes into paperwork and process rather than into the actions that actually keep people safe. That is what this bill is changing. Put simply, this bill is about making the rules clearer so that businesses and workers can focus on what matters most: preventing deaths and serious injuries and illness.

There are many technical changes in this bill, but I want to focus on three that will make the biggest difference in practice. The first is about making it clearer that effort should be focused on the risks that can cause the most harm—that is, critical risks: the risks likely to result in death, serious injury, or serious illness. There was a confusion about what “likely to result in” meant. Some people thought this was about how likely a risk is to happen. That is not the point. This bill now makes it clearer that it’s about the consequence; how bad the outcome would be if a risk goes wrong. Even if a risk is unlikely to eventuate, if it is likely to cause serious harm or death, it should be a priority. For example, a catastrophic machinery failure may be unlikely, but, if it occurs, it is likely to result in death; that is a critical risk. By contrast, a more common but low-consequence hazard would not meet that threshold. This is an important distinction. It helps businesses cut through the noise and focus on the things that really matter: the risks that seriously change lives. We’ve also made it clear that this can include psychological harm, where that harm is likely to lead to serious physical harm. This is about keeping the focus where it should be: on real-world outcomes.

The second area is where multiple businesses are working together—for example, on a construction site or a shared operation. Under this bill, small businesses are required to manage only critical risks, while continuing to meet all worker welfare obligations. The committee has clarified how this works in practice when multiple businesses are involved in the same work. I’ve heard that this can be one of the more confusing parts of the system. People are not always clear about who needs to do what, and that can lead to duplication or unnecessary complexity. This bill does not make that more complicated. In fact, it does the opposite. It reinforces that businesses need to work together on the critical risks to consult, cooperate, and coordinate, but without duplicating effort or over-complicating things. If a business would prefer all firms on their worksite to manage the same duties, they can. The bill enables them to contract other firms to manage all health and safety risks, not just critical risks, putting the power in the hands of those with boots on the ground rather than Wellington bureaucrats. The goal here is straightforward: less confusion, less overlap, and more focus on the risks that actually need managing.

The third change is about recreational access. I’ve heard concerns that the current settings can lead to unnecessary restrictions on people accessing land, whether that’s for walking, hunting, or other outdoor activities. That’s not a good outcome. New Zealanders value access to the outdoors, and landowners need clarity about when work health and safety duties apply. This bill makes that clearer. For example, charging a small access fee won’t on its own make that activity part of your business and subject to work health and safety duties. The aim is to remove unnecessary barriers while still making sure protections apply where work is actually taking place.

Across all of the changes within this bill, the goal is the same: to make the system easier to understand, to reduce unnecessary compliance and duplication, and to make sure that time and effort are going into preventing serious harm, not into navigating complexity.

This bill does not lower standards. It strengthens the system by making it clearer and more practical. Finally, I again thank the Education and Workforce Committee for its work and all those who contributed to the process. This is a practical set of changes informed by the people who use the system every day. It reflects a Government that has listened, and to a lot of people who usually don’t get consulted, and that is focused on getting results—clear rules, less confusion, more focus on what keeps people safe. I commend this bill to the House.

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

Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour) (21:32): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Throughout the course of this term of this Government, we’ve had quite a number of employment bills and legislation moving through the House. It has been one hit to workers after another. There have been times when I’ve stood here and I’ve said I’m willing to work and willing to look at how we can make legislation better. This is not one of them. This is perhaps one of the worst pieces of legislation that we’ve seen come into this House. This bill does nothing but weaken protections that keep people safe on the job. It risks more injuries and deaths and does nothing to reduce New Zealand’s already unacceptable rate of workplace fatalities.

Last week in our scrutiny hearings, we questioned the Minister about this bill and perhaps the budget that goes alongside it, or non-budget that goes alongside it, to implement it, and we got told, “Perhaps people need to stop being so pessimistic.” What an awful thing to say when we’re talking about protecting people’s lives and keeping them safe at work. This is a terrible piece of legislation. We’re not standing here trying to say, “Oh, it’s bad.” just for the sake of it being bad. This is a piece of legislation that is going to put people’s lives more at risk than what they currently are.

Simplifying legislation does not make it better. In fact, in this particular case, simplifying it is only making it worse. The Minister knows that on her desk when she was coming in as Minister were the completed plant and structure regulations. But I believe that, being from a party that doesn’t believe in regulations, they were put aside for this horrible piece of legislation.

In fact, the Minister has been told by business, by workers, by employer advocates, by unions that the Act itself, as it stands at the moment, works quite well, but it’s the secondary legislation that needs to be put in place. Why that wasn’t listened to? Only the Minister can answer that, but by not listening to those people and those experts, she is putting more people in this country at risk and more people at risk of not coming home at the end of the day.

I don’t normally sit on this select committee, but I sat in for many of the submissions. The vast majority of submitters were against this bill, and, actually, they came from all different walks of life. We had many businesses who were against it, employer advocates, and some of those employer advocates would normally be on the side of the Government and support the Government and their agenda, but, actually, this time they said, “No, we cannot support this, because we want our workers to come home safe.” We also heard from workers, we heard from unions, who were united in that this bill is going to be a bad bill and a bad piece of legislation for workers in this country.

Again, at the scrutiny hearing last week, the Minister alluded to the fact that maybe many of those people who are opposed are making money as consultants, as health and safety consultants. How insulting to those people that care about their workers and care about people coming home safe that that statement would be made about those people who were opposing this bill.

The other part that’s really insulting in this legislative statement, and was also present in the departmental report, is a statement that says the submissions revealed considerable misunderstandings of how the bill is intended to operate. I say it’s insulting because many of those people are the most passionate and most skilled people in the health and safety at work area. Many of those people have spent their life’s work fighting, fighting to make our conditions better so that we can improve our horrific standards of safety in this country at work. Yet it is stated that they’ve misunderstood how the legislation is to work. They haven’t misunderstood it. They have actually said to the Minister it works well now; we just need to have that secondary legislation in place.

People deserve to come home safe from work. The health and safety Act as it stands at the moment was put in place after one of the most horrific workplace events that caused the most fatalities in the modern era in this country. Of course, we all remember that, and you too, Madam Speaker, being in your electorate—the Pike River disaster. It was a horrific stain on our history in this country. We came together as a Parliament back then and put that legislation into place, knowing that there was more work to do. Why are we not doing that work and continuing that work? Why are we weakening this now to pre - Pike River conditions?

The Stand with Pike River people have been here in Parliament over the last couple of days. Standing out the front, listening to them today and listening to their rationale—Sonya and Anna—of why they have fought and fought and fought to get our workplaces safer so that no one else ever has to go through what they have to go through was one of the most emotional times that you can spend, or I have actually ever spent, as a politician. I watched people in the crowd out there today with tears in their eyes. They know that this bill has come back from select committee no better than what it went to select committee as.

This bill is a backward step for health and safety at work in this country. It is a backward step, especially for small businesses. The small carve-out for persons conducting a business or undertaking from some of their health and safety duties runs counter to the evidence that they are often less safe than their larger counterparts. We have the evidence that shows that, the ACC data shows that, and yet some arbitrary figure of 20 was put in place, rather than looking at the safety of the businesses themselves.

I read a Spinoff article this week that showed just how stupid that is. You could have an abseiling company of 12 to 15 people or less, and you don’t have the same health and safety requirements put on you as an accounting firm with 21 employees. That just makes no sense whatsoever—20 is an arbitrary figure.

The other side know that this is silly, they know that this doesn’t work, and they know that this will mean more accidents and fatalities in this country, but they have to go through with it because it’s in their coalition agreement. Well, I’m going to turn to New Zealand First and say that that coalition agreement is not with you, and I know that New Zealand First members feel that they have to abide by the others, but they have also heard from those Pike River people. They could put an end to this bill right now, and how much more harm has to happen in this country—how much more? It is not OK to sit there and say, “We will do something about it after the election.”

This bill does nothing—nothing—to address our poor record on health and safety in this country. The big fear here is that we are going to see more issues after this bill is in place and, unfortunately, more people not coming home from work.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green) (21:42): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Greens to oppose this bill. The proposed changes within this bill weaken the system designed to keep workers safe and healthy. New Zealand already has disastrously bad workplace health and safety outcomes, and this bill is likely to make that worse.

It is a reasonable expectation of whānau and families that when their loved ones go to work, they come home alive, and when their loved ones go to work, they come home unharmed, and it’s also a reasonable expectation of families, whānau, and communities that this House passes laws which improve work safety. This bill does not do any of that.

I want to acknowledge the many people that came to the Education and Workforce Committee to share their views—and I acknowledge what has been said before me, as well. They came from a wide range of perspectives. We had unions, we had businesses, and we had health and safety experts, as well, and next to none of them supported this bill. In fact, everybody that I listened to had some sort of criticism of this bill. The range of organisations and businesses that oppose this bill, or that at least raise significant concerns about its impact and workability, demonstrates the significant failings of this legislation. The fundamental issues of critical risk and the small employer carve-out for persons conducting a business or undertaking were widely opposed by many business groups, individual businesses, unions, lawyers, and health and safety specialists.

As all good select committees do, the select committee did try to knock some of the rougher edges off this piece of legislation, but, as we have seen through the passage of this Parliament when we’ve had anti-worker piece of legislation after anti-worker piece of legislation come through the select committee process, all of a sudden, it then just gets rubber-stamped at the end of it. I am concerned about the number of concerns that have been raised about the amount of legislation that has come through that select committee where, basically, the ACT Party shows up and they’ve got an anti-worker piece of legislation, and then the National Party tries to knock some of the edges off, as well.

So my challenge to the parties on the other side of the House is to do the right thing and actually see this for what it is. We’re getting closer to the election, and people can tell. People can tell that, actually, the National Party needs to stand up. They need to stand up to their bosses in the ACT Party, because, once again, we’ve got another bad piece of legislation which is going to be worse for workers and bad for their work health and safety, as well.

I was out on the steps of Parliament today, where we were joined and, actually, led by the Pike River whānau, and, if I could remind the House, the changes that were brought in by the 2015 Health and Safety at Work Act were passed in response to the Pike River tragedy. We all remember that. We all remember that; in fact, some of us were here in the House when the legislation was passed—including yourself, Madam Assistant Speaker Pugh—and if anybody knows what happens when you don’t do things properly and when you don’t get things right, it is those families and it is those whānau. It is those families, and when they raise their voices, it is important that we listen, it is important that we take stock, and it’s important, if we need to, to pause the process and to really reflect on what is being done here.

I listened very carefully to what was being said outside. I’ve got a quote here from Anna Osborne, who spoke outside, on the front of Parliament, and this is what she said. “This will undoubtedly lead to more injuries and people may take shortcuts where there is no requirements to comply with the laws that larger workplaces must adhere to. We have seen the consequences of ignoring health and safety, look at Pike River.”, she said. “Because of Pike we fought hard to toughen up these laws. We devoted our time to try to save the lives of workers in New Zealand to make sure Pike never happened again.”, and she ended with this: “We urge every member of Parliament to listen to evidence, take these warnings seriously and”—New Zealand First, this is for you—“vote this bill down.”

The whānau who we were listening to outside were angry and concerned about this bill, but there has also been other commentary—a wide range of commentary—in opposition to and critical of this bill, as well. I’ve picked up the comments of Mike Cosman, the spokesperson for the New Zealand Institute of Safety Management, who has said—and I think he put it succinctly—that this is a “dog’s breakfast” of a bill.

A “dog’s breakfast” of a bill is how he has described it, and he went on to describe the many problems with the bill. He outlined them and he focused on four different parts, and I’ll read those out: “The bill would exempt 97 percent of New Zealand businesses from having a legal duty to manage many of their most significant risks, the non-critical ones.”—97 percent is what he said. “Small businesses have a 24 percent higher injury rate than larger firms. Carving them out makes no sense.”

I did pick up the comments made by the Minister about one of the amendments, amongst a number of amendments that were made by the select committee, which I don’t feel will resolve the issue, where you’re going to get larger firms who will be able to work with smaller companies to try to adhere for some of these issues. What that does is it actually places more compliance on those worksites, because if you’ve ever been to a worksite, often there are small contractors working with other medium-sized contractors and sometimes with bigger contractors, and if, all of a sudden we’re pushing the responsibility on to that group, that doesn’t provide clarity; actually, that gives the potential for more confusion.

So there, on that side of the House, they’re all about trying to get rid of the tape, and I think they call it the red tape and the green tape. But here we have yellow tape and blue tape, and the potential confusion of it.

The other thing that Mike Cosman also talked about was the main risk that workers in some of those businesses will no longer be protected against musculoskeletal risks—so ergonomic slips, falls—and psychosocial harms, and that was brought up a number of times by submitters, as well. These are the Nos 1 and 2 causes of workplace harm.

We also noted that ACC strongly opposes the carve-out of musculoskeletal risks because they pay out more than $3.6 billion every year for such injuries in small businesses. Actually, during scrutiny week, our Green MP Mike Davidson, I believe, was scrutinising the Minister for ACC by asking these questions directly to the Minister for ACC about what potential this bill will have, because what it will do is shift the responsibility on to the workers but also, potentially, overburden the ACC system. The response, from what I could gather, from the Minister for ACC was the hospital pass back to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, who had a lacklustre response at scrutiny week in front of the Education and Workforce Committee. When we asked her directly about this, she kicked the can down the road. There’s another thing that’s waiting for us in the future. If no one’s going to be taking responsibility and there won’t be any direction from that side of the House, then, actually, there’s going to be the potential for it to become another layer of weight and burden on the ACC system there as well.

Mental health and workload management are also very unlikely to be captured by the new focus on critical risks. We did prosecute this also in scrutiny week as well. It’s all very good and well to point to particular moments where things get particularly stressful, which could lead to, in some cases, workplace suicide, but what we know is, actually, that can happen over a number of years—it can happen over a number of years. Mental stress and the impact on mental health and wellbeing can happen over a number of years as well. This can was also kicked down the road as well.

We had different groups coming to the select committee, and I want to acknowledge all of them. We had people working in the forestry industry, as well, who are really, really concerned about how this would impact some of their industry. You have sometimes small contractors working there—sometimes one or two people—but those are often high-risk jobs as well. This will add extra confusion to that.

The problem with this bill—and there are many of them; and if I could use the words of somebody who came to the committee, who said, “It’s like having a two-tier system.” It is going to be a two-tier system and a confusing one at that. Different cars are driving on the road. Some are having to stop at traffic lights, but others are not. This will just create problems, and this will create further risks in the health and safety system. The Greens do not support this bill. In fact, this entire House should listen to the Pike River whānau and oppose this bill. We do not, at all, commend this bill to the House.

KATIE NIMON (National—Napier) (21:53): I’d like to build on the last member’s analogy and actually say that what this is is a road with multiple different lanes—a bus lane, a T3, and general traffic. Actually, sometimes the bus lane and the T3 need to get some shortcuts so that they can get ahead and make efficiencies. That is what this is about. The answer that is going to take our businesses ahead and take our industries ahead to protect these sectors, especially the high-risk ones, are the approved codes of practice (ACOPs). I want to draw attention of members opposite to the very strong provision of the ACOPs, which has been called for by industries. We heard that in submissions. With that, I commend this bill to the House.

Hon MARK PATTERSON (Minister for Rural Communities) (21:53): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First on this Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill to offer what I could generously describe as tepid support for this second reading. It is, I would emphasise, a coalition agreement between National and ACT. We do agree with the Minister’s intention. Health and safety has been too bureaucratic and burdened with too much focus on clipboards and not practical solutions. The current system is not working. Our injury rates are far too high, certainly in comparison to our international comparators. Too many New Zealanders are injured at work. For some, they don’t come home. It was poignant to hear the Pike River families this morning, reminding us. Even minor injuries take a high human toll. They’re debilitating, they’re irritating, and they’re inconvenient. The Crown picks up an eye-watering ACC bill—$3.6 billion for those minor injuries. It is a drag on our nation’s productivity. Workplace safety is, essentially, a culture issue, and it is important that this Parliament does not send the wrong signal.

In the first reading, New Zealand First, through myself, indicated that this was a difficult issue and the stakes were high. Unfortunately, New Zealand First is not represented on the Education and Workforce Committee. I emphasised that New Zealand First would be listening very carefully to what the feedback was from that hearing. This is where our problems with this bill began. The bill was universally slammed in select committee. We had a literal conga line of organisations in our offices, raising the alarm bells—not just the usual suspects of the unions and those that might be described, possibly unkindly, by Jan Tinetti as “professional clipboard operators”.

I’ll give you this, from the submission of the Employers and Manufacturers Association: “The Bill as presented will not reduce red tape, reduce harm or make compliance easier for small employers. Rather than making ‘minor tweaks’ we feel the Bill introduces structural changes that we believe will undo all the progress to date. It makes systemic changes that will create (by design) a two-tier platform where a large number of employees may be at risk and receive a lower level of protection. This appears inconsistent with the intent of the Health and Safety at Work Act’s purpose that all workers receive the highest level of protection against harm.”

And this is from Safer Farms: “Safer Farms is concerned that the proposed amendments may not achieve improved health and safety outcomes for agriculture and may introduce unintended consequences. In particular, the narrow definition of ‘critical risk’, the subjectivity introduced by the term ‘likely’, and the proposed exemption for small PCBUs risk diminishing attention on the harms that occur most frequently and cost [our] sector the most.”

I would question the select committee because this report did not come back reflecting the overwhelming weight of the submissions. What we heard was that the characterisation of “critical risk” was a major problem and that the carve-out for small persons conducting a business or undertaking (PCBUs) created a problematic two-tier system. The term “likely” in clause 9, as opposed to the current—I’ll skip over that because that’s not clear in my notes; I want to be accurate here because this is an important issue. Adding the term “likely” in clause 9 creates uncertainty in the probabilistic assessment. We heard concerns about the lack of requirement to consult for changes to the New Schedule 1A list; that overlapping enactments seemingly create a loophole; and that removal of safe harbour provisions stops innovation with the approved codes of practice (ACOPs) and, essentially, gives them a status that sits above regulation. We heard some concern from port operators about the requirements in the bill as it stands to coordinate all PCBUs on those dangerous workplaces.

We heard sensible suggestions that WorkSafe be split between education and enforcement. The lessons from Pike River were that the labour department was both culpable and the prosecutor. If there has ever been a case that we step back and reassess after listening to feedback to the select committee, this is it. The risks of getting this wrong are high. We continue to seek constructive dialogue with the Minister and our coalition partners before the committee of the whole House stage.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair. The House is adjourned. We’ll resume at 2 p.m. tomorrow.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 9.59 p.m.