Thursday, 25 June 2026

Thursday, 25 June 2026

The Deputy Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Start of Sitting Day

Karakia/Prayers

MAUREEN PUGH (Assistant Speaker) (14:00): Almighty God, we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests, we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom, justice, mercy, and humility for the welfare and the peace of New Zealand. Amen.

Business of the House

Business Statement

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (Deputy Leader of the House) (14:01): Next week, the House will consider further stages of the Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Amendment Bill, the Antisocial Road Use Legislation Amendment Bill, and the Regulatory Systems (Primary Industries) Amendment Bill.

Presentation

Petitions

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

CLERK (14:01): Petition of Yulia Khimich requesting that the House introduce a self-referral service for privately funded pelvic and breast ultrasounds.

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

Select Committee Reports

DEPUTY SPEAKER (14:01): Two select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.

CLERK (14:01):

Reports of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the 2026-27 Estimates for Vote Audit, and the

petition of Positive Money New Zealand.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No bills have been introduced.

Oral Questions to Ministers

Speaker's Statements

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The House comes to oral questions. Some of today’s questions have been reordered to take account of travel challenges caused by the weather. Affected parties have been informed of the changes.

Customs

Question No. 1

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First) (14:02) to the Minister of Customs: What recent announcements has she seen about drug trafficking?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Minister of Customs) (14:02): Today, the New Zealand Customs Service announced the arrest of six drug couriers and organisers that are linked to an organised crime syndicate that is actively recruiting young New Zealanders to do its dirty work. These arrests are part of a wider Customs investigation that has now resulted in 22 arrests and 31 search warrants since January this year, highlighting a disturbing and dangerous development. Organised crime groups are now actively recruiting young Kiwis to be drug couriers.

Andy Foster: Why are these arrests so concerning?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Criminal groups will do anything to boost their profits. They don’t care what happens to the young people they use as drug mules. We’ve got young New Zealanders risking their lives for free holidays or to make what they think is quick money, but the reality is that couriering drugs means real prison time. It means they won’t be with their loved ones, it means they won’t get to enjoy their favourite activities, and it means their future travel and career prospects will be severely damaged. I’d also like to note that Customs proactively acts when they suspect an individual is leaving New Zealand with the intent to courier drugs back to New Zealand. Not only does this act as a circuit-breaker to help people make better decisions, but it also prevents a potentially far worse outcome than a long jail sentence. A number of South-east Asian countries retain the death penalty for drug crimes.

Andy Foster: What can the Government do to stop this activity?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: This is exactly why it is critical that Government agencies are joined up when trying to address transnational serious and organised crime. I’ve said it many times: organised crime groups are commodity-agnostic, and they will do anything they can to boost their profits. They’re sophisticated and dynamic. Once they know we’ve got a grip on their activities, they’ll change course, and that is what we’re seeing now, with them targeting young New Zealanders. It’s just another example of how they pivot. Over the last two Budgets, we have invested over $100 million to support the critical border security work of Customs and Police, but the Government can’t do this alone; we need the Government and industry working closely together to identify risks and act. This is already happening in pockets, to great effect, but we know there is room for far more, greater cooperation to stay ahead of gangs and their cartels. In this instance, New Zealanders have a key role to play in helping to protect their families and their loved ones from being victimised in this way.

Education

Question No. 2

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (14:05) to the Minister of Education: Does she agree with the Minister of Finance, who said “We want to see taxpayer money supporting Kiwi businesses to grow, hire, and thrive”; if so, does that apply to the Ministry of Education?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education) (14:05): Yes, I agree with the Minister of Finance, and her directive came into force in December 2025. However, the Ministry of Education has always been a champion of New Zealand businesses, with the vast majority of money spent by the ministry being on New Zealanders. On occasion, overseas suppliers or vendors are selected, but this is dwarfed by the billions that are spent locally.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Why was a contract directly awarded to Australian company Learning First to benchmark the curriculum when New Zealand provider, the New Zealand Council for Educational Research, has recently stated that they would have “certainly bid for the work” and “had deep expertise in curriculum benchmarking and design”?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I don’t think it will shock anyone that an international company was used on international benchmarking and consistency with comparable countries who have knowledge-rich curricula to ensure that our kids can compete internationally.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Why, then, did her adviser directly engage with Ben Jensen, the chief executive of Learning First, about the specific services they could provide: “As discussed, we can get started on a number of projects quite quickly … For example, we start the curriculum benchmarking and start organising the curriculum implementation data”?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: My adviser meets with lots and lots and lots and lots of people who are suppliers and people who might have things that they want to offer this country. I first met Dr Ben Jensen when introduced to him by the Education Review Office (ERO). As I said yesterday, that was the first time that I had met Dr Ben Jensen. It was the ministry, in fact, and ERO that had already met with him, and introduced him to me.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Was she or was she not aware that her adviser directly engaged with Ben Jensen, the chief executive of Learning First, specifically about the benchmarking of the New Zealand Curriculum before a contract was exclusively signed with them?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: The first time that I talked to Ben Jensen about the work that he did was at this meeting. I wasn’t aware of any of the work that he undertook around international benchmarking or his deep knowledge of a knowledge-rich curriculum; in fact, it was ERO that came to me and said, “We’ve got this guy in New Zealand. You should meet with him. He is an expert in knowledge-rich curriculum and international benchmarking.”

Hon Ginny Andersen: Point of order, Madam Speaker. Yesterday, I tabled in this House an Official Information Act (OIA) request document that gave details of an exchange between the Minister’s adviser and Ben Jensen that specifically pertained to discussing benchmarking the New Zealand Curriculum. I have asked today whether the Minister was aware of that exchange or not, and that answer did not even address the question.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I believe the Minister had stated that she was aware of exchanges but also noted when she first met with the person that you’re asking about, and so she has said she was aware of exchanges with her officials. Is that—I mean, I can ask the Minister to restate that if that’s unclear, but that was the way I understood it. am I correct?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Yes.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Further to the point of order, I specifically asked about the Minister’s adviser’s exchange with Ben Jensen—not her officials. I asked about whether she’s aware of the exchange between a political adviser and Ben Jensen.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: The first time that I became aware of that particular exchange was, I think, when it went out in an OIA request.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does she think it is credible that her adviser’s directly engaging with Ben Jensen, the chief executive of Learning First, specifically about the benchmarking of the New Zealand Curriculum was completely done of his or her own accord, without any knowledge of the Minister?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: As I’ve already answered, political advisers meet with many, many people, especially because the Ministers are very busy. The first time that I met with Ben Jensen was at the direction of ERO and the Ministry of Education, who had already been dealing with him.

Hon Ginny Andersen: How many times has she met with Ben Jensen, the chief executive of Learning First, and did these meetings occur before or after there was a signed contract in place?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, if the member wants to ask questions of that detail, she’s going to need to put them on notice or put them to me in writing, because I don’t have that information on me.

Hon Ginny Andersen: How does she explain (1) her office directly engaging with Ben Jensen, the chief executive of the Australian company Learning First, about the benchmarking of the New Zealand curriculum, (2) her meeting in person with Ben Jensen on the Gold Coast shortly after this, and (3) a subsequent closed-tender process that excluded a New Zealand provider that could have done this work?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: As I’ve already said, the first time that I met Ben Jensen was not on the Gold Coast; it was at the invitation of the Education Review Office, who introduced me to him, and I met him for the first time and understood the work that he did in a meeting, as arranged by the Education Review Office. He was one of the speakers on the Gold Coast, and I met with, I think, almost all of the speakers at a conference on the Gold Coast, as you would expect any Minister to do when they’re overseas and they’re travelling and they’re talking to international people who are very interesting. Whether or not, then, the Ministry of Education go out and contract them is not a matter for me, and it had nothing to do with the Ministry of Education going out and contracting with them later on after that.

Finance

Question No. 3

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini) (14:11) to the Minister of Finance: How, if at all, is the Government strengthening New Zealand’s economic resilience?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (14:12): The Government is strengthening New Zealand’s economic resilience by getting the Government’s books back in order and backing the long-term drivers of growth. Rebuilding economic resilience is important because New Zealand, as a trading nation, is exposed to global economic shocks, such as from the conflict in the Middle East, as well as physical shocks, such as earthquakes and severe weather events. The good news is that New Zealand is making progress. Last week’s GDP figures showed quarterly growth of 0.8 percent, which was twice what Treasury forecast at Budget. Over the same quarter, business investment rose 3.7 percent, exports increased 3.1 percent, and GDP per capita increased 0.5 percent. The important thing about growth per capita is that it shows the economy is becoming more productive, not simply larger through population growth. The hard work of New Zealanders is building a stronger, more productive, and more resilient economy for the future.

Rima Nakhle: Why does the Government place such importance on fiscal discipline?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Because, contrary to the views of some in this House, we don’t have an exhaustible supply of free money, and resilience matters. Government debt has more than doubled as a share of GDP in recent years, while the Government’s annual interest bill is now around $9 billion a year. For some context, that interest bill, that debt servicing cost, is more than five times the size of this year’s entire Budget operating package. And, of course, every dollar spent servicing debt is a dollar that cannot go into front-line public services or reducing pressure on taxpayers. And when shocks happen, New Zealand needs strong books so we can respond effectively.

Rima Nakhle: Is the Government investing to strengthen New Zealand’s physical resilience as well as its fiscal and economic resilience?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes. Budget 2026 includes $7 billion of new capital investment in transport infrastructure, hospitals, schools, rail, energy security, and public services. The Government has also strengthened fuel resilience through strategic fuel reserves and is backing new flexible generation capacity to improve domestic energy security. It includes a gas transition loan scheme to ensure more businesses can have energy resilience. Alongside that, Budget 2026 includes a $5.5 billion uplift for health and $1.6 billion for schools and early childhood education. Importantly, Treasury forecasts around 220,000 additional jobs over the forecast period as growth strengthens.

Rima Nakhle: How does the Government’s broader economic plan support long-term growth?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Long-term resilience for a better future is not built through short-term sugar hits. It comes from higher productivity and both increased and smarter investment. That’s why we’re replacing the Resource Management Act. That’s why we’ve expanded fast-track approvals. That’s why we’ve pursued new trade agreements, like the India free-trade agreement (FTA), and why we have supported higher long-term savings through improvements to KiwiSaver. The India FTA gives our exporters improved access to the world’s most populous market, a country with 1.4 billion people. Encouragingly, the KiwiSaver changes are already taking root, with 99.5 percent of KiwiSaver contributors now contributing more to their KiwiSaver accounts since we increased the default rate in April. This will lead to deeper savings pools, which means more money available for investment in the things that create jobs and lift incomes. This Government is fixing the basics and building the future boldly—[Interruption]—and I urge others to get on board.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That’s probably—the question had already been answered by that point.

Workplace Relations and Safety

Question No. 4

Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour) (14:16) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Does she stand by her statement regarding the Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill that “We’ve got to get away from this pessimistic mindset that everything is going to be dreadful”; if so, why?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (14:16): Yes. Look, I know it’s a strange concept to Labour, but policies that benefit business can also benefit workers. I am confident that the changes I’m making will lead to both better protections for workers and lower compliance costs for businesses. Workers will be better protected by businesses focusing their resources and efforts on what can do the most harm, and compliance costs will be reduced for small businesses especially, as once they’ve identified their risks and identified whether they have any critical risks, they must manage only the critical risks. This means their limited time and resources and money will go to what matters most, not making sure they warn people about the dangers of hot water taps.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Are Stand With Pike being pessimistic when they say that her bill will “mean more injuries, more families carrying the cost of unsafe work, and more risks being ignored before it is too late”?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Look, it is very, very serious what did happen at Pike River. It is exceedingly unfortunate, and my heart goes out to people who are still processing and dealing with the grief of that tragic event. However, what is not the case is that this reform will lead to another Pike River. I want to make that very clear. Not a single change in this bill changes anything to do with mining and quarrying regulations. This is specifically designed to help businesses identify the risks that will lead to death and serious injury and illness—to manage and stamp those out across every workplace in this country. I met with the Pike River families last year. I thought it was a constructive dialogue. I walked them through what I believed was my desire for this country of reducing fatalities and serious injuries and deaths in this country. Also, I would acknowledge that one of the core proponents of this piece of legislation is what is actually described in the Pike River inquiry as necessary, which is the approved codes of practice regime, which is what we’d be strengthening under this law.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Was ACC being pessimistic when they said that her bill generates a “real and material risk of increasing deaths, injuries, claims and costs”?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Yeah, I actually do think they were, because I see what they stated as an opinion. I didn’t see any cost estimates or modelling provided by ACC to back up that assertion. But also, my officials advised me that even when it came to the 2015 reforms, ACC didn’t have any cost estimates at that time either, because it’s simply not possible to do so.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Why did she dismiss expert critics of her bill as “people who get paid a lot of money to provide companies with health and safety advice” when they told her the damage that her bill could cause?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Because I believe it’s true. Look, I spend my time in this Chamber talking to people who are helping build this economy, the small businesses up and down New Zealand who are struggling in this economy. We know they have limited time, they have limited resources, they have limited money. They don’t have hundreds of thousands of dollars or millions of dollars for entire HR and health and safety departments. Now, you can listen to so-called experts who work in those companies who have tens of millions of dollars or hundreds of thousands of dollars for health and safety, or you can talk to the small businesses who are struggling every day to make sure they have cash flow, they have revenue, they have health and safety standards, and performance in their own companies. I want to support them to do even better, but if they’re coming out here and telling us, “We don’t know what we need to do to comply; it’s so stressful.”, we have a duty to listen to them, to make the laws less complicated so that people who work in small businesses can be supported because they’re putting their effort in prioritising their resources in the right places. So let’s stop focusing on posters for hot water taps and actually make it clear that business owners and managers need to identify and manage the critical risks in their companies, which are: what are all the activities and risks that will lead to death, serious injury, and illness? I don’t see how that’s a radical reform.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Was the Rt Hon Winston Peters being pessimistic about her bill when he said, “They’re right, it’s going to create accidents and deaths, and that’s what I’m concerned about.”?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: The member has also worked with Winston Peters, and I would say never try and put words in his mouth.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Peters, is this a supplementary question or a point of order?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question. Is it possible, Minister, that on a worksite, a large gang will be caught by the law and a small gang will not be?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Can he repeat that?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister didn’t quite hear the question; could—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it possible that on one worksite, a large gang will be caught by her law and a small gang will not be?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I’m very happy to clarify the law for the member. Under the changes that came back from the Education and Workforce Committee, we made it exceedingly clear that when it comes to worksites like construction worksites, where you’ve got large players and small players on the exact same site, it is possible now for the larger player to impose on the smaller player the same health and safety standards that they would apply for their own workforce. This was something that came out quite strongly from the select committee that I heard, I agreed with, and the select committee changed. So now there will be consistency across construction sites.

Hon Jan Tinetti: Does she stand by her statement that it is “politicking” when a party votes in favour of a bill at first reading, then select committee, then claims to be uncomfortable but has to vote for it because it’s in a coalition agreement?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Oh, sounds like something I would’ve said.

Workplace Relations and Safety

Question No. 5

TEANAU TUIONO (Green) (14:23) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: What changes, if any, will she make to her health and safety reforms to address warnings from officials of “a real and material risk of increasing deaths, injuries, claims and costs”?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (14:24): I won’t be making changes, because my health and safety reforms focus on practical, common-sense changes that set businesses up for success in keeping people safe. The advice I received from my officials is that my reforms shift the focus towards managing critical risks and support the continued reduction in the incidence of serious workplace injuries and fatalities, thereby reducing the cost of these incidents for ACC. My officials also advised that as a general rule, the scale of ACC costs is not an accurate indicator of whether or not the health and safety system is working well. My changes enable small businesses to concentrate on what causes the greatest harm rather than spending valuable time and effort trying to manage every single lower-level risk. I’d also note that ACC did not provide any cost estimates or modelling that back up their assertion that was made in the member’s question, but I’d also note that the previous reforms in 2015 also didn’t provide those cost estimates, because it’s near impossible to try and model that.

Teanau Tuiono: What is her response to Anna Osborne who lost her husband in the Pike River Mine explosions and said, “We’ve tried so hard to get our message out there, of what it’s like to lose loved ones in the workplace, and I don’t know why Brooke van Velden is so hell-bent on weaking those laws that we actually managed to strengthen.”?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Look, I would say to the Pike River families, I also struggle to understand the difficulty and the magnitude of grief that must come from losing a loved one at work. Unfortunately, this does happen too often in our country, but I would also acknowledge that I believe we have alignment. I don’t believe that this law change will weaken health and safety. I believe it makes it stronger, because like I said before, for all of those companies that are time-poor, resource-poor, cost-poor, they don’t have the resources of the large companies. They want to do the right thing. They just need to be able to have confidence that they are doing the right thing, that they are prioritising in the right areas to manage, identify, and stamp out critical risks in their workplace so more people can come home safe at the end of each day. I believe we do have alignment.

Teanau Tuiono: What is her response to comments from Winston Peters that her reforms will “create accidents and deaths”?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Well, look, I would just refer back to the advice that I’ve had from my own officials, which I talked about before, that the reforms shift the focus towards managing critical risks, they support the continued reduction in the incidents of serious workplace injuries and fatalities, and thereby, they could reduce the cost of incidents for ACC. I do believe that we do have alignment across this Chamber, it’s just that sometimes things get lost in the noise.

Teanau Tuiono: Does she agree with Winston Peters that she was informed of his party’s concerns and wanted to meet to discuss possible amendments in a constructive manner, which “the Minister refused to do”?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I didn’t refuse to do that.

Teanau Tuiono: Is he wrong?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Yes. I didn’t refuse to meet.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does that mean the Hon Mark Patterson and Winston Peters are both wrong on that very matter that the Minister just answered?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Well, they must be.

Laura McClure: What feedback did the Minister hear from businesses and workers from around the country during the health and safety roadshow?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I heard consistently that small businesses across this country are wanting to do the right thing, but since the law change in 2015 led to confusion, because it’s so vague as to what you need do to manage all risks at all times, I heard quite clearly that there’s a need to prioritise, and that means making it explicit from Government, from WorkSafe, from the top down, that we want people in this country to prioritise stamping out critical risks or the actions and risks that will lead to serious injury, illness, and death. Let’s stop focusing on compliance for the sake of it. It costs a lot of money. We’ve got heaps of companies out there that are buying up these big ring binders full of health and safety policies, never reading them, putting them on the bookcase, but they’re doing it because they’re afraid of WorkSafe, and they’re afraid of having to tick the box. We need to stop ticking the box and doing compliance for the sake of it and help these companies identify and manage their critical risks. That’s what this Government should be doing and that’s what we are doing.

Teanau Tuiono: Why is she ploughing ahead with reforms that are deeply unpopular among worker organisations, grieving families who lost loved ones in workplace accidents, numerous business and health and safety experts, and her own coalition partner?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: There is not one voice for all workplaces in this country. I’d also note that some business interest groups have come out in support of this bill. There are many workers and businesses across New Zealand that I meet in the community who have come out in support of this bill. But I think you’ve also got to take off the rose-tinted glasses that the Opposition is wearing and ask the question of why might there be some vested interests by people who make money out of health and safety compliance. If you simplify the law, you have less money going to health and safety consultants, you make life easier for businesses on the front line, and that’s a good thing for us—maybe not a good thing for the health and safety consultants.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. Madam Speaker, in that line of questioning, it emerged that there was a clear disagreement between Government Ministers. To get to the bottom of that, I seek leave for the Rt Hon Winston Peters to have two additional supplementary questions.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I don’t believe that the member has requested extra supplementary questions, so I think we’ll just leave it at that point for now.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: But we can still put leave for it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: What’s that? We can seek leave, but I don’t see an indication from the member—

Hon Chris Bishop: No, you can’t seek leave on behalf of another member.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, and you can’t seek leave on behalf of somebody else. There is no indication that the member’s seeking leave.

Tertiary Education

Question No. 6

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour) (14:31) to the Minister for Tertiary Education: How many apprentices were there on 27 November 2023, and how many are there today?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for Tertiary Education) (14:31): I’m advised that on 30 November 2023, which is the closest I can get to the 27th, there were 47,475 learners enrolled in an apprenticeship programme; and on 31 May 2026, which, again, is as close to this date as I can get, there are 35,825 learners enrolled in an apprenticeship programme. This decline in apprenticeship numbers reflects lower levels of business confidence, driven by higher costs and economic pressures, particularly in the construction sector. However, good news: recent Treasury forecasts have growth forecast at 2.7 percent over the next four years, and 220,000 jobs being created. So we expect to see apprentice numbers track up as businesses feel more confident to invest in training new staff.

Shanan Halbert: What actions in Budget 2026, if any, did she take to encourage an increase in apprenticeships?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Well, most of the Budget 2026 was about encouraging the growth of the economy, and it’s the growth of the economy that increases job creation and increases opportunities for apprentices.

Shanan Halbert: How, then, have Government cuts to Apprenticeship Boost impacted the number of apprentices?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Well, of course, a budget can’t be cut if it wasn’t there. The Apprenticeship Boost funding cliff meant that there was no funding by the previous Government after December 2024. So we extended it and we targeted it towards high-growth economic areas to address skill shortages.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just before the member asks the next question, there were a lot of people on that side of the House who thought they were the Minister, and were trying to answer on her behalf. We’ll leave the answers to the Minister, thank you.

Shanan Halbert: Why, when the number of apprentices has reduced by 17,000 under her watch, was Apprenticeship Boost unspent funding reprioritised in Budget 2026?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Well, I think that just absolutely proves that previous Governments who put money into Apprenticeship Boost increased numbers but they didn’t increase the completion rates, which went down; they didn’t increase retention rates, which went up; and they didn’t decrease attrition rates, which got worse. So we saw, in fact, apprentices joining and then not completing. We saw apprentices coming out of it. So what happened was that there was unmet demand last year, and we transferred $3 million underspent in the Apprenticeship Boost budget line into the industry skills boards so that they could look at ways in which they can improve retention, improve completions, and look into strategic workforce issues.

Shanan Halbert: Did the Government’s changes to the targeted occupations list for Apprenticeship Boost impact the number of women in apprenticeships; if so, why?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: In 2025, when we put funding into Apprenticeship Boost, we targeted the areas that we felt were important at that time for skills shortages, but we also committed to reviewing every two years. That list of occupations will be reviewed next year, in 2025—2027, apologies.

Shanan Halbert: Sorry, what was that?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The last part of that question—do you just want to repeat the last part of that again, with the correct date?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: It will be reviewed in 2027.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.

Shanan Halbert: How can she claim to be building New Zealand’s future when its apprentice workforce and 20,000 construction workers are leaving in droves to Australia?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Because we have got apprentice completion rates up into the 80s; we have got attrition down. In fact, if I can let you know that, in 2021, the completion rate for apprentices was only 67 percent. It’s now up to 86 percent—so, in fact, we are getting more apprentices through their qualifications. We are targeting the Apprenticeship Boost where the skills shortages are.

Conservation

Question No. 7

ORIINI KAIPARA: My question is—[Interruption]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Quiet during questions, please. Would the member please like to start the question again.

ORIINI KAIPARA (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau) (14:37) to the Minister of Conservation: Does he stand by his statement, “There’s no way we’re going to sell off large swathes or large parcels of land in the conservation estate. We’re not going to do that”; if so, why is he proposing a bill that could make up to 60 percent of the conservation estate eligible for disposal, exchange, or development?

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister of Defence) (14:37) on behalf of the Minister of Conservation: On behalf of the Minister, yes, I’m happy to provide the assurance that I, the Minister, and others on his behalf have provided recently in relation to this matter, particularly referring to statutory tests that were to be established in the event of the infrequent possibility of relatively small parcels of land being disposed of or exchanged. I’m also happy to give an update on behalf of the Minister—namely that, consistent with his assurances that he would continue to engage in good faith in the matter, he has advised stakeholders recently that he will consider, or rather that he will recommend to fellow Ministers the removal of the particular clauses in relation to the disposal or exchange of conservation land within the bill.

Oriini Kaipara: For clarity, and especially for those at home and Māori right across Aotearoa, can the Minister [Holds up a map of New Zealand]—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The map’s upside down.

Oriini Kaipara: Well, I’ll clarify: Te Ika-a-Māui—

Teanau Tuiono: Kia ora.

Oriini Kaipara: Kia ora—in the Māori context, it’s not upside down. But for the satisfaction of the House, here we go. [Turns map the other way] Here we go, for clarity [Interruption]—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Quiet, we’ve got a question here.

Oriini Kaipara: This is the way Māori recognises Aotearoa [Holds map with South Island at the top]; this way is how New Zealand recognises it [Turns map the other way], so we’ll go with this way.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.

Oriini Kaipara: Can the Minister clarify for Māori right across Aotearoa, can you assure the people of Aotearoa, that this bill will not make the areas which are highlighted in orange and red—these areas displayed on this map—eligible for disposal, exchange, or development?

Hon CHRIS PENK: On behalf of the Minister, I am happy to confirm that it was never the case that there was a realistic prospect that the areas indicated on the map—whichever way held up—would have been eligible for disposal, sale, or exchange. The reason is that there were strict statutory tests that were in the bill, and one would have to wilfully disregard those in order to hold that position as alleged by the member. For example, the land would need to be considered not to be important for threatened species or ecosystems; the habitat not to be one of the best examples of its type; cultural and historical factors would need to be considered; and so on. But, as I say, the update that I’ve provided is such that we’re going to remove the possibility of any confusion, in good faith or bad, wherever it has emanated in relation to that matter.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Could I just ask the Minister, in answering further questions, just to put the microphone a little bit closer. I can hear you, but it’s quite quiet.

Oriini Kaipara: Thank you for picking that up, Madam Speaker. How does the Minister reconcile proposals to expand commercial activities across the conservation estate with Te Tiriti obligations, and will he guarantee that no conservation land, most of which is whenua raupatu once owned by Māori outright, will be sold, privatised, or permanently alienated under his watch?

Hon CHRIS PENK: On behalf of the Minister, I confirm that the Government will uphold its Treaty of Waitangi obligations, not only in terms of concluded Treaty settlements, whereby rights of first refusal would continue to be available to be exercised, but also that it would be a relevant factor to consider were there to be a disposal or exchange regime, that a parcel of land might be considered for a future Treaty settlement agreement not yet entered into.

Conservation

Question No. 8

STEVE ABEL (Green) (14:41) to the Minister of Conservation: Will enabling development on conservation land under the Conservation Amendment Bill to the “greatest extent practicable” mean more mining on conservation land?

Hon CHRIS PENK (Minister of Defence) (14:41) on behalf of the Minister of Conservation: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The answer is no. Permissions for mining are granted elsewhere on the statute book. To be clear, they are not under the Conservation Act, either currently or nor were they contemplated to be. On the broader point, in terms of economic opportunities, though, I can say on behalf of the Minister that he continues to wish to ensure that the appropriate wording of the relevant clause is fit for purpose, so he will continue to engage in good faith with stakeholders around what the best form of wording might be, with a baseline that strong environmental outcomes that will stand the test of time will be assured.

Steve Abel: Are you suggesting that that clause that refers to the “greatest extent practicable” is now going to be changed?

Hon CHRIS PENK: On behalf of the Minister, of course it’s always possible in a parliamentary process that changes might be made. Of course, select committees consider these matters, and there is an opportunity through Amendment Papers in a committee of the whole House stage, but I am not staying on behalf of the Minister that that is necessarily the case. He will continue to engage in good faith on that question, such that the bottom lines that we have indicated, namely that strong environmental outcomes that will stand the test of time will be prioritised, and there is no need for anyone to fear that any different approach will be undertaken.

Steve Abel: Does he not share the Minister for Resources’ view that New Zealand is riddled with conservation land, and that the land is pregnant with minerals that should be exploited?

Hon CHRIS PENK: On behalf of the Minister, of course it’s true to say that we live in a mineral-rich nation. Of course that’s true, and of course it’s the case that we should maximise our opportunities to extract that economic opportunity, where that is suitable across a range of factors, including, of course, the imperative of conservation as measured by and prioritised within the Conservation Act, and nothing in that regard will change.

Steve Abel: Does he see New Zealand’s irreplaceable taonga species and ancient forests and spectacular rivers and landscapes as merely barriers to the Government’s vision of corporate exploitation and mineral extraction?

Hon CHRIS PENK: On behalf of the Minister, no.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Question No. 9—

Steve Abel: Madam Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry, did you have another supplementary?

Steve Abel: Yes.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Be a little bit quicker next time. I’ll let the member have it, but that was rather slow-moving. [Interruption] The supplementary question from Steve Abel will be heard in silence. Thank you.

Steve Abel: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Why does his bill allow for 60 percent of conservation for possible sell-off if, in his words, he’d never support the large-scale disposal of conservation land, and, if it was not him that advocated for that, was there any other member of the coalition who did?

Hon CHRIS PENK: I repeat the assurances from earlier in the week—and, for that matter, before that and already given today—that there is no and has never been any intention, programme, plan, or legislative change that would enable the large-scale disposal in the terms the member has described. The fact that we are modernising and making more efficient the Conservation Act for legitimate activities that all New Zealanders, I’m sure, would support, which is to say, of course, to protect the environment, maximise the conservation value of the estate, but, at the same time, enable commercial opportunities, which include, for example, filming and tourism opportunities. The basis of the bill—really, to enable access fees to be charged for international visitors—will be a boon for conservation, because it will enable greater resources to facilitate conservation activities as well as tourism.

Trade and Investment

Question No. 9

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato) (14:46) to the Minister for Trade and Investment: What will be the benefits for New Zealand exporters from the NZ-India FTA entering into force?

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister for Trade and Investment) (14:46): It will give New Zealand exporters preferential access to the market of 1.4 billion people and, in many cases, level the playing field against others who currently have better access. For instance, Australia negotiated a free-trade agreement (FTA) during the COVID lockdowns. Australia’s goods exports to India doubled within two years. Services trade for Australia expanded by 90 percent within two years. Forestry exports were up by 119 percent as ours fell. Sheep meat: we used to export 85 percent of India’s imported sheep meat, and, now, Australia, at 90 percent, has surpassed us. Seafood exports from Australia went up 269 percent during the first two years. It means Kiwi exporters will be able to compete in that market. More so, the United Kingdom and the EU have recently concluded free-trade agreements. Should those enter into force and we didn’t have an agreement, our exporters would find it even more difficult. Now we have some of the best access negotiated with any country into India. Ninety-five percent of tariffs will be eliminated or reduced at 57 percent duty-free from day one, rising to 82 percent of everything we sell being tariff-free when the agreement is fully enforced.

Tim van de Molen: What specific tariff reductions will New Zealand exporters see under the FTA?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, much of the primary sector, as well as other parts of the economy, does things extremely well. There is immediate tariff elimination to zero for sheep meat; wool; kiwifruit, within a quota; coal; and over 95 percent of forestry and wood exports. Over a period of time, phasing to a zero tariff rate will be most seafoods, including mussels and salmon; cherries; avocados; persimmons; blueberries; most iron; steel; most industrial products; and bulk infant formula. We also see tariff reduction for apples—the first of any nation to receive this; a reduction by 50 percent—mānuka honey, the first time any country has had honey access, a tariff rate falling from 66 percent down to 16.5 percent. Wine exports currently facing a 150 percent tariff will fall between 25 and 50 percent, and high-value milk products, albumins, and so on will have a 50 percent reduction. Where we get better access to markets and we’re more competitive, we create more jobs in New Zealand. Export jobs pay people more, and exporters employ more women.

Tim van de Molen: What market access improvements will New Zealand exporters benefit from under this FTA?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, I mentioned that, for the first time, apples have had a reduction. We will have a quota of 32,500 tonnes of apples on day one, rising to 45,000 tonnes over six years, with a significant tariff reduction. For kiwifruit, we will have a zero tariff rate for a quota of four times what we currently sell India—15,000 tonnes—and, outside of that, a 50 percent reduction, which means we are level with others. Albumins have a 50 percent tariff reduction on day one for 1,000 tonnes, growing to 3,000 tonnes over five years. We also, in this area of services, have great gains. We have 100 additional services sectors that have been liberalised under this agreement over their World Trade Organization commitments—for example, engineering service, environmental services, some tertiary and adult education, and financial services. Again, this is preferential access, better than most others have got, into a market of 1.4 billion people. This will mean more jobs for Kiwis and better paying jobs as we diversify our trade interests around the world.

Tim van de Molen: Does this agreement include a MFN, or most favoured nation, clause?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Yes, it does. MFN clause—most favoured nation—means that if India gives someone else better conditions than they have to us, they must automatically extend that to us. I mentioned the tariff rate for wine of 150 percent falling to 25 percent for wine valued over $25, or 50 percent for wine valued between $8.50 and $25. The European Union (EU) got a better deal than we did. They will only face a 20 percent tariff for wine over $20 or a 30 percent tariff for a lower-value wine. If our FTA is in place before the EU’s, our wine exporters will automatically get those additional gains as a result of the MFN clause. In the services area, the European Union also has advantage; they got more liberalisation than we did. But we have an MFN clause on services, so if we get the agreement in place before the European Union, our exporters will benefit more than that, concluded and signed, as a result of that MFN clause. It’s the reason that—

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: It’s a very long answer.

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, it’s a very big agreement—1.4 billion people. [Interruption] Madam Speaker—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I actually can’t hear a word the member is saying now, but I would encourage the member—I think you’re getting close to the end of your answer.

Hon TODD McCLAY: I can conclude my answer here, because we will have first reading in the House of the India FTA straight after question time. But to the honourable member opposite, good news takes a long time to explain to the public.

Auckland

Question No. 10

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader—Labour) (14:52) to the Minister for Auckland: Does he stand by all his statements and actions?

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister for Auckland) (14:52): Yes, in the context in which they were made and given.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: If the Auckland City deal is, as he has said, about providing “long-term certainty”, is he concerned that Auckland councillors have not been consulted on the Government’s proposal for a second harbour crossing?

Hon SIMON WATTS: No, I’m not concerned, because as the member may not be aware of, the sponsorship group, which includes the mayor, deputy mayor, and Ministers in regards have met and have already initiated discussions around the Auckland deal, and one of the topic areas was, in fact, the second harbour crossing.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Why did he say that, via the Government’s Auckland City deal, he’s “working constructively with Auckland Council” when he hasn’t bothered to consult them on a major infrastructure project that Aucklanders will be expected to pay for?

Hon SIMON WATTS: I’m not sure where the member is getting the information in regards to these questions, but the Auckland City deal was actually approved by the governing body of the Auckland Council, which includes all of the councillors. It included a significant amount of input from those members through the mayor and the chief executive. To say that they have not been consulted is simply not the case.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Is a commitment to tell Auckland Council about the Government’s decision on a second harbour crossing at some point really setting the “new standard for collaboration between central and local government in New Zealand”, as he promised?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Look, again, I’m not sure where the member’s going. If she’s not wanting to see constructive dialogue happening between central government and Auckland Council in regards to significant infrastructure projects that will change the game in regards to economic growth and prosperity for our largest city in our country, then I’m not sure what she is pushing for. On this side of the House, we’re focused on ensuring that we get certainty around such significant projects, which will drive economic growth and productivity, and we’re working our way through that constructively with Auckland Council.

Hon Chris Bishop: Can the Minister confirm that the New Zealand Transport Agency has met with the mayor, the deputy mayor, senior council staff, and a variety of Auckland Council family organisations over many months and years to discuss the additional Waitematā Harbour crossing, and that will continue because, ultimately, it is a project in Auckland?

Hon SIMON WATTS: I absolutely can, and I can even send the member a photo of the Mayor and the Ministers underneath the Auckland Harbour Bridge where we were taking a look at it together and talking about the opportunities to be able to develop what is a strategic asset. It’s absolutely ridiculous to suggest that these conversations are not happening when they are, and that type of context, which isn’t aligned with the reality, is not helpful.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Is Councillor Richard Hills correct that Auckland has been excluded from a conversation about its own future, and how does that represent—[Interruption]

Hon Kieran McAnulty: I thought it was supposed to be Simon.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah, it is—and, actually, I noticed that everyone answered that question except for the Minister, so I would encourage the member to ask that question again, and all members be quiet. Thank you.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Is Councillor Richard Hills correct that Auckland has been excluded—

Hon Chris Bishop: No.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon Chris Bishop is trifling now. I encourage the member to be quiet.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Is Councillor Richard Hills correct that Auckland has been excluded from a conversation about its own future, and how does this represent, “working constructively with Auckland Council.”?

Hon SIMON WATTS: What I can confirm to the member is that Councillor Richard Hills does sit on the Auckland Council, and the Auckland Council approved and endorsed the city deal for Auckland. So, to imply that he was not consulted is some bit of mathematics that probably only adds up on that side of the House.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Is it his view that consultation simply means telling Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown what the Government intends to do, and how does this meet his promise to deal with Auckland “based on a foundation of mutual respect.”?

Hon SIMON WATTS: It’s been a long Thursday—as you can see on that side of the House—but the reality is that on this side of the House, we’re about putting together a constructive arrangement, with certainty, to deliver between central government and Auckland, to create prosperity, to create jobs, to create economic opportunity for a third of New Zealand and 40 percent of our GDP. When Auckland does well, New Zealand does well. A little bit of advice for that member: she should get in behind and support our work.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he stand by his action to support move-on orders to help reclaim the streets of Auckland for the enjoyment of people who live there, who work there, and who visit?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Well, absolutely. The move-on orders are about keeping our city safe and free from anti-social behaviour, and we know that that behaviour that we have been seeing in the city centre of Auckland is unacceptable and holding Auckland back. If you ask Aucklanders about what they want in their city, they want safe communities, they want safe streets, and on this side of the House, we’re a Government of law and order and delivering those outcomes.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Why did the Government sign the Auckland City deal only two months ago, when it clearly has no intention of following it?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Well, it is very disappointing to hear one of the senior members of the Opposition party speaking so negatively about certainty for our country’s largest city, the economic engine for this country—a deal in which creates certainty, growth, economic prosperity for one third of New Zealanders. Again, on this side of the House, we make no apology for ambition for our biggest city, and we will continue to deliver.

Hon Chris Bishop: Can the Minister confirm, in relation to the Waitematā Harbour crossing, the Government’s position is clear that it needs to be done in conjunction with Auckland Council, and also—if they can put their grown-up pants on—the Opposition, so that a decision is made in the national interest?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, the member is entitled to ask a question, but not take a swipe at the Opposition while he’s doing it.

Hon SIMON WATTS: Yes, and that’s why—[Interruption]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah, no. I’ve actually—that was not a relevant question. Thank you.

Justice

Question No. 11

TOM RUTHERFORD: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Justice. [Interruption]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Quiet during questions—now it’s that side.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty) (14:59) to the Minister of Justice: What progress has the Government made on reducing the number of victims of crime?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice) (15:00): The Government, and our country generally, is making great progress. The latest update of our target to see 20,000 fewer victims of assault, robbery, or sexual assault indicates that 46,000 fewer people experienced violent crime compared with October 2023. That’s 46,000 fewer families that have been having their lives and their families upended by violence and the actions of others. However, there still are too many victims in this country, and that’s why there is so much more work to do to continue the effort across all of New Zealand to restore law and order in this nation.

Tom Rutherford: What actions has the Government taken to contribute to the significant reduction in the number of victims of crime?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, our Government’s been focused since day one on prioritising the needs of victims. We took immediate action to restore real consequences for crime so that those who cause the most harm are kept in prison for longer by reforming the sentencing regime to bring back three strikes, to prevent judges from issuing discounts of more than 40 percent, preventing repeat discounts for youth and remorse, and stopping taxpayer funding of cultural reports, amongst many other things. We’ve also taken actions to deal with retail offending such as progressing citizen’s arrest and trespass law reform and giving the police more powers to deal with gangs.

Tom Rutherford: What other actions has the Government taken to contribute to the significant reduction in the number of victims of crime?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, on top of all that, the Government’s embarked on a significant reform of the Crimes Act, which is under consideration by the select committee and will soon become law. This introduces tougher sentences for those who attack our first responders, those who go towards peril on behalf of their fellow New Zealanders; introduces criminal charges for coward punches; amends penalties for theft; and increases penalties for offenders in dealing with slaves and human trafficking and people-smuggling. Also, after many, many years of calls to action from victims, we have made stalking an illegal and jailable offence with prison for up to five years.

Tom Rutherford: What is next on the Government’s agenda to reduce the number of victims of crime?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, we’re very proud that there were 46,000 fewer victims of crime in this nation since we took office, on an annual basis, but we still have much more work to do. So we also intend to further progress trespass law reform, and despite misinformation from some of those opposite, we will be providing the police with tools to deal with disorderly behaviour on our streets with move-on orders. Collectively, we are determined to continue to reduce the number of victims of crime in this country.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) (15:03): Point of order. Madam Speaker, it’s actually quite a serious accusation to accuse members of this House of spreading misinformation. It’s certainly inappropriate to do so in a question and response from your own side.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah, thank you for the member’s point. I will take advice. I’ll read the Hansard and take advice and look seriously at that. Thank you.

Children

Question No. 12

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT) (15:03) to the Minister for Children: What recent announcements has she made regarding funding for children and young people with high support needs?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children) (15:03): I recently announced that children and young people will receive a boost in support thanks to Budget 2026: $93.5 million will be invested over four years in a broad range of care options, including specialist care placements and clinical support. We are investing in what matters: caring for our nation’s most vulnerable and unlocking their potential.

Cameron Luxton: Why is it important to support children and young people with high support needs?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: We are seeing an increase in the number of children with high and complex needs, children experiencing multiple significant challenges across several areas in their life, such as health, mental wellbeing, behaviour, disability, and more. These young people and their families need and deserve our care and support, and this is why we are continuing to boost support in Budget 2026. Ensuring that these young people and their families get the support they need can also reduce escalation into more restrictive and costly care.

Cameron Luxton: What impacts will this investment have?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: This investment will improve stability for children and young people with high support needs in care; prevent placement breakdowns, where possible; and provide earlier and more intensive support when needs are identified. We also know that many young people who end up in the youth justice system often have high unmet health or other needs. I know that, over time, this investment will also help to address some of these unmet needs that can lead to offending behaviour and subsequent involvement with the youth justice system. This Government has already overseen a remarkable reduction in the number of children and young people with serious and persistent offending behaviour, with a 25 percent reduction from baseline—well ahead of the 15 percent target by 2029.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members, that concludes oral questions.

Bills

Redress System for Abuse in Care Bill

Third Reading—Intended Votes

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members, just before you start leaving and chatting, in the Speaker’s absence, I have received a letter from the shadow Leader of the House requesting the opportunity to record a vote on the third reading of the Redress System for Abuse in Care Bill. Therefore, I invite a member to seek leave to do so.

GLEN BENNETT (Chief Whip—Labour) (15:06): I seek leave for a recorded vote to be held on the third reading of the Redress System for Abuse in Care Bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none. I would ask the Clerk to please conduct the vote.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Redress System for Abuse in Care Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 67

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

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would now give members the opportunity to quietly leave the House, as is customary after question time, before we start the next part of the agenda.

India Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill

Legislative Statement

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister for Trade and Investment) (15:08): I present a legislative statement on the India Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill.

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

First Reading

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister for Trade and Investment) (15:08): I move, That the India Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee to consider the bill.

The bill will bring the now signed New Zealand - India free-trade agreement into effect. Once implemented, the agreement will reduce tariffs on 95 percent of New Zealand’s current exports to India, with 57 percent being duty-free from day one, increasing to 82 percent when fully implemented. The NZ-India free-trade agreement is a milestone development in New Zealand’s bilateral relationship with India. This once-in-a-generation agreement gives our exporters unprecedented access to 1.4 billion people, it will help diversify New Zealand’s export markets, and it will support the goal of doubling the value of our exports over 10 years.

The case for an agreement with India is clear. With a GDP of nearly $7 trillion, an average GDP growth of 8.25 percent since 2021, and a growing middle class of consumers approaching 700 million people by 2030, India represents a wealth of opportunity for New Zealand businesses looking to sell overseas, and, until now, New Zealand products have been, effectively, locked out of the Indian market due to high tariffs and restricted quotas. With our competitors like Australia, the UK, and the EU all securing their own agreements, we needed to level the playing field. We also secure some advantages for New Zealand exporters.

Through this agreement, we have achieved historic wins for many key New Zealand exports. The forestry sector will see 95 percent of its exports become tariff-free immediately. Tariffs will be removed on sheep meat and wool on day one. The kiwifruit and apple sectors gain valuable preferential quota access—well above recent average trade levels—and kiwifruit also gains preferential access outside of that quota, too. For the first time, India will grant preferential access for honey, as a 66 percent tariff on New Zealand mānuka honey will be cut to three-quarters over five years; that’s 16.5 percent. Tariffs on New Zealand wine will reduce from 150 percent to 25 percent or 50 percent depending upon the value over 10 years, with a guarantee to further reduce tariffs to match improvements granted to future FTA partners.

As a result of the FTA, New Zealand exporters will benefit from $43 million in additional tariff savings from day one of entry into force, growing to $62 million and rising with the expected growth and trade that will result from the FTA.

Consistent with their existing FTAs, including with Australia and the United Kingdom, as well as the recently concluded FTA with the European Union and domestic political sensitivity, India has excluded outcomes on core dairy products in the FTA. This is disappointing, but New Zealand has secured outcomes for bulk infant formula, peptones, and albumins, as well as an agreement to establish a tariff-free re-export programme.

Furthermore, the agreement ensures that we can engage in consultations and negotiations with India should they offer tariff concessions in dairy to comparable economies, therefore future-proofing our negotiation. Beyond market access, the FTA includes a range of other commitments to encourage increased trade in services, facilitate investment flows, and facilitate the movement of business people between our countries. We’ve secured improved access across nearly 100 additional services sectors, beyond India’s World Trade Organization commitment, with our gains future-proofed again through a most favoured nation provision, providing priority export sectors. India will establish a New Zealand Investment Desk to help New Zealand businesses succeed in India. Mobility provisions with strong safeguards support and mean access to skilled talent and opportunities in both directions.

Without an FTA with India, New Zealand goods exporters would continue to face prohibitive high tariffs, which effectively lock us out of the Indian market. The untapped potential that will be unlocked by the FTA is enormous, and many New Zealand businesses stand to make significant gains.

There are a number of legislative and regulatory amendments that are required to align New Zealand’s domestic law with our obligations under the FTA. The bill presented to the House today makes these changes as required for New Zealand to implement its obligations under the FTA and to bring the FTA into force. The most significant changes being made are the establishment of new quota administration systems for exports of apple, kiwifruit, and mānuka honey to India. The bill enables these systems to be established via regulations, and the legislative statement summarises the key elements of the bill.

The FTA references several international instruments, including the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People (UNDRIP), which was first included in the UK FTA and then the EU FTA. However, the inclusion of reference of UNDRIP to the India FTA do not and does not impose, and are not intended to impose, any obligation on New Zealand law or Government policy. We reaffirm the reservations that were made by the New Zealand Government to the United Nations in 2010.

The NZ-India FTA reflects the strength of the relationship between New Zealand and India and is the start of a new and exciting chapter in the New Zealand-India relationship. I would like to acknowledge all those who have worked so tirelessly to support our shared ambition. I would also like to acknowledge the Labour Party for their support of the bill. This is a significant achievement for New Zealand. It will create jobs and incomes for New Zealanders for many, many generations to come. Our negotiators, the private sector, and all those have been involved over so very, very many years should be extremely proud, and I commend the bill to the House.

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

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour) (15:14): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak on behalf of the Labour Party in support of the bill, which, as the Minister has outlined, for many of our export sectors—whether they be kiwifruit, apple and pear, honey, forestry, wine—will mean cuts to tariffs as well as access to an extremely large market, and we do welcome that. I commend the Minister for getting us to completion on the deal and no doubt building on the work that was done by my colleague the Hon Damien O’Connor in the last term in terms of building that relationship with India.

We have also been clear, in terms of our position, that this isn’t an ideal deal in terms of what it excludes, and that, of course, those ideal deals are very complex and difficult to reach. But we’ve also been clear that the deal does carry some risk with it, in that New Zealand exporters need to go into their exports with India with their eyes wide open and do their own diligence in terms of the risks of tariffs being put back in 15 years’ time, and I’ll speak more to that in a moment. But we do look forward to—now in Opposition, and from November in Government—facilitating a growth in our relationship with India that goes from strength to strength.

In relation to the investment clause of the deal, on which there’s been a substantial amount of discussion, some have argued that it is aspirational; others have argued that it is a strict obligation to meet the US$20 billion investment. My view is that it is an effort clause, so the clause requires us as New Zealand to put substantial effort into meeting that target as opposed to meeting it itself. However, it is still an obligation, and the other unique thing about that particular clause is that India, at the 15-year mark, will have the unilateral ability to make a call on whether we have exerted a sufficient amount of effort to meet that clause. If not, tariffs can be returned at that stage. This is why benefits will absolutely accrue to those exporters in the meantime, and it’s not at all to take away from that, but certainly our exporters need to be aware of that.

This is an interesting process in the House that we go through when we have either an international treaty or a significant bilateral agreement alongside legislation that’s enabling it. This bill itself doesn’t cover everything that’s in the agreement. It covers, actually, very narrow provisions around the Tariff Act, for the most part, and the Overseas Investment Act. But just to reassure the public at home, the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee has been considering the agreement as a whole, and we have received a number of submissions on the agreement as a whole, and we’ll be reporting back on that to the House as well. Should this bill have a shortened time in front of select committee, there hasn’t been an opportunity missed for people to be able to submit.

On the issue of immigration, this is an area where I have been disappointed that there have been members in this House who have used parts of the immigration agreement, in essence, to cause division in New Zealand, and I do think that’s unfair. Having looked at the provisions myself, I’m confident that there are fair limits in terms of the skilled workers coming into New Zealand for the three-year visa, which is capped at three years and there’s a total of 5,000, and also that family members don’t have an automatic right to work when they come with someone. It’s not a visa that’s designed to attract those people. I’m also sufficiently happy that we have other mechanisms to limit the number of international students who might come into the country, with policy mechanisms that we can use. We can also choose to cap the total number of international students. So there are sufficient mechanisms in there.

Once again, I would say that there is huge opportunity for our exporters here, but, again, I would urge them to look very carefully at the provisions that do kick in at 15 years to assess their risk in the long term. In the meantime, we will certainly be working with the National Party to ensure that we’re doing our utmost in Opposition now, in Government later, to do our best to meet our obligations under the deal.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (15:19): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand, and we do not support this bill or the New Zealand - India free-trade agreement (FTA). We have serious concerns about its environmental and climate protection, Te Tiriti obligations, labour rights clauses, and acclaimed economic benefits.

I want to start by discussing the nature of the bill. Actually, even before that, as previous speakers have said, we have considered the agreement under international treaty examination rules. However, first I want to point out that, under best practice, particularly when we’re looking at paragraph 7.133 of the Cabinet Manual, the select committee should be given 15 sitting days to consider the agreement. Indeed, when we had the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, that timeframe was extended to consider the gravity of the agreement we were looking at. However, I would like to point out that the select committee has only 11 sitting days to consider this agreement, despite the fact it is a 1,400-page agreement. That, again, is one of the aspects where we see this Government fundamentally undermining the democratic process of Aotearoa New Zealand.

On to the deal itself, firstly, when we look at the nature of the deal, the negotiation was driven by a political deadline, set by the current Government, to conclude an agreement with India during this parliamentary term. This is “negotiation no-no 101”, and the political imperative gave India massive leverage to set its own terms and to determine the outcomes. It is also unfortunate that, when we saw the politicking of the deal, we had certain political parties grandstanding and misrepresenting parts of the bill, which has fuelled racist attacks towards various communities. For example, we’ve seen race baiting open the door to broader racist attacks on local and future migrant Indian communities, while misinformation on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples has further perpetuated anti - Te Tiriti and anti-Māori sentiments. Such distractions have displaced the debate that the committee should be having, which is on the content of the deal.

When we look at the economics of the deal, we are concerned with the tangible benefits of this deal. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s national interest analysis states that the economic benefit are only likely to be 0.07 percent of GDP, or $401 million, in a decade, relative to a non-free-trade agreement baseline. While Aotearoa New Zealand will see some of these tariffs, not all of them will be available on day one. Most of them will be available over time. Exporters will be competing in a market with many other countries that India has negotiated FTAs with, and we’ve heard that from the Minister, which includes the EU, the UK, the UAE, Australia, and the European Free Trade Association (EFTA).

The other issue that we have is, obviously, the promotional investment clause, where the explicit wording of the investment commitment is US$20 billion, or NZ$34 billion, over 15 years. It has been difficult to discern whose narrative is accurate in this case: that of Aotearoa New Zealand or the Indian Government. New Zealand is obliged to promote foreign direct investment by New Zealand investors, but India has said it will establish a dedicated investment desk to assist those New Zealand investors. We have also heard that the precise amount is not binding, while India has referred to some of the conditions in the agreement as a binding pledge where only India has access to a disputes settlement process.

To put it into an investment context, in 2025 the total foreign investment from Aotearoa New Zealand was around $1.5 billion, and the average foreign investment over the last decade was minus $28 million. Still, if India determines that New Zealand has not fulfilled its commitment, it may take proportionate remedial measures to rebalance the concession—for example, by removing some of the cuts to the tariffs.

It is also worth noting that this FTA wording differs from the EFTA—the European Free Trade Association—agreement, where a footnote linked achieving the investment target to an Indian GDP growth rate of 9.5 percent, but if it’s anticipated that India’s GDP growth rate continues to decline, the EFTA will have a justification to reduce its commitment. There is no such apparent leeway in the wording of footnote 2 in chapter 9 of the New Zealand - India FTA.

Finally, I just want to mention that, although we didn’t hear a report-back time, I am expecting the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee to take the full six months to consider this bill, and the Green Party will look forward to this in the select committee.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT) (15:24): Thank you, Madam Speaker. The ACT Party is very pleased to support this bill that is to implement our free-trade agreement between New Zealand and India. I must say that this is one of the most significant achievements for New Zealand in many, many years. We know that this hasn’t been achieved overnight. There has been a lot of effort that has gone into it—a lot of effort, persistence, and diplomacy from successive Governments, and, of course, businesses and officials as well, those people who actually believed that, yes, we could achieve this.

I also want to say that this is not the first time we have attempted to get this agreement done. We remember, in 2010, negotiations were started, but then they stalled after many, many rounds of talks. Then, after we formed the Government, the Government took a delegation to India last year, where it was announced that negotiations had been launched for a comprehensive agreement between New Zealand and India. That was just in March last year, and then, in December last year, the agreement was concluded. I must say that that was remarkably fast. For that, I want to acknowledge our Minister the Hon Todd McClay for his work. I know he has been working really hard behind the scenes. He has been to India many, many times to ensure that we are able to conclude this agreement and also to ensure that we are able to implement this agreement in this term, so that our businesses are able to take advantage of this.

Yes, we wanted to get this agreement with India, but this time we also saw that India was interested in New Zealand too. We had many, many high-profile visits from India. We recently had India’s President visit New Zealand. We had India’s Foreign Minister, and just towards the end of last year, we had a visit from India’s commerce and industry Minister Piyush Goyal. Then came the historic moment in New Delhi, and it was really great to be part of the delegation where this agreement was signed. I want to thank the Indian Government for hosting us there for the signing ceremony, and I also want to thank Minister Piyush Goyal for hosting MPs, those who were part of the delegation, for a private lunch. I also want to acknowledge our High Commissioners on both sides, because they did put in a lot of effort to ensure that we were able to come to the stage where we have this bill before us.

We know that the election is coming up, so there are some voices who are trying to turn this very important national conversation, very important conversation about economic partnership between New Zealand and India, into immigration and fear. What I say is this: do we want to have a debate that is based on facts or a debate that is driven by fear? I’m sure that New Zealanders want to have a debate that is based on fact.

Finally, I also want to say this: Shane Jones described this FTA as a “butter chicken tsunami.” This is not the first time that Shane Jones has tried to insult the Indian community, but this time, when he described the free-trade agreement as a “butter chicken tsunami”, he didn’t only insult the Indian community, the migrant community; he also insulted each and every person who was involved in this whole process—all the diplomats, all the officials, all the negotiators. He insulted each and every one of those people, and he has also insulted all those businesses, those who are really looking forward to the implementation of this free-trade agreement, because they want to bring in more revenue and support our economic growth.

This agreement is about giving our businesses access to a country which is home to around 1.4 billion people. We are a country of only 5 million people. Imagine getting access to 1.4 billion people, the opportunities that this agreement is going to open up for our businesses. This is going to bring so many opportunities in terms of jobs, and this agreement is also going to bring so many opportunities to ensure people are able to earn more. This is good not only for the current generation but for our future generations as well, for the overall prosperity of our country. We know that there are so many countries around the world who are competing fiercely to progress their relationship with India, because India is, we know, one of the world’s fastest-growing economies. We have this relationship here, and we must value it. Thank you.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs) (15:29): On 22 December last year, the India free-trade agreement (FTA) was announced, and we immediately said we opposed it. We always felt that there should be no immigration provisions in the FTA at all. This is, after all, a trade agreement, not a migration pact, but National and ACT felt otherwise.

The FTA allows various new categories of Indian migration. For the last six months, we have raised concerns about what the commitments under the FTA would mean under existing immigration policy settings as applied for all other New Zealand FTAs. We told the New Zealand people that it would mean open-slather immigration from India to New Zealand. But the National Party has just changed its course—no doubt due to poor polling—and they have done so covertly. Their officials have even discussed the importance of not announcing these changes for the fear of the Indian reaction. This is bad faith.

We’ve recently received the evidence in the form of a briefing from officials and the consequent decisions made by the Minister of Immigration that immigration policy settings are being made more restrictive in a way which targets India and India alone. I cannot believe the last member doesn’t know this and is out there supporting it. Officials have alerted the Minister of Immigration that creating, and I quote, “more restrictive settings for India than for other partners will have impacts on our bilateral and trade relations with India and, potentially, on New Zealand’s reputation as a place to do business”. The briefing further notes, “In some instances, such measures may be open to challenge on legal grounds, including the potential for proportionate retaliatory action, potentially impacting on trade between New Zealand and India.” Did the Labour Party spokesperson know that when she got up and made her speech today?

The measures that are being put in place to make immigration settings more effective are not being made for all of New Zealand’s FTA partners, not for China or for South Korea or for Thailand—just for India. These are special, discriminatory, targeted restrictions just for Indians, which our coalition partners don’t want the Indian Government to know about just yet, presumably for fear of their reaction. This is a scope of these restrictions. Again, to quote first: “agreed to not provide the partners and children of Indian TEE visa holders work rights or a domestic student visitor visa and not provide long-term visitor visas”; (2) “work experience in New Zealand on the TEE visa will not be considered skilled work for the purposes of an application for New Zealand residents”; (3) “will not allow Indian TEE visa holders to be able to count time spent in New Zealand towards any work experience requirements across all skilled residents categories”; (4) “Applications are required to apply for a TEE visa from outside New Zealand, and this only applies to Indian nationals, not all FTA countries.”

We know—officials have warned—that bringing in stricter requirements specifically targeting India could adversely affect the bilateral relationship with India, be subject to legal challenge, and provide grounds for possible proportionate retaliatory action from India, but that’s precisely what National plans to do. The way that National and ACT intend to implement the FTA is putting the purported benefits of the FTA at risk before they are even realised. Doesn’t Labour understand what we’re talking about here? Even worse, we have seen evidence, over the past few weeks, of New Zealand officials actively discussing the importance of not publicly announcing these changes in fear of the Indian reaction. We know all of these things, but the Government and the people of India do not.

This is our concern as Foreign Minister, because they are potentially damaging to our reputation as a country that is transparent in dealings and one whose word can be relied upon. National, ACT, and Labour must explain to the Indian Government in what respect New Zealand tends to treat an Indian citizen coming here under the FTA—maybe a chef or traditional Indian health practitioner or an ITA specialist—worse than we treat Chinese, Thais, Koreans, or other nationals coming here under New Zealand FTAs. It must explain why these restrictions will apply to India and India alone and not to all New Zealand FTA partners. We look forward to the Prime Minister and the trade and immigration Ministers clarifying these matters publicly with urgency so as to avoid any potential trade retaliation, legal action, or reputational damage.

And I ask the Labour Party: before you made your speech, did you get all the information? Did you find out what’s going on right here, right now? What’s the latest thing? Well, the ACT member got up to her feet; did she know what she was talking about? Does she know what’s happening to the Indians?

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Yes, I do.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh, no, you don’t. You’ve never seen this paper. You have clearly never seen this paper and other papers as well. The disgraceful thing about that is the arrogance to think that you’re going to speak on regardless just because you happen to be part of an arrangement which was made in nine months flat. This was speciously rapid in its conclusion, and it has this effect: we give everything up on day one, and they give up concessions sometime in the future or maybe never. Those are the facts there. The sooner that New Zealanders know what’s going on, the better.

ORIINI KAIPARA (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau) (15:34): E te Pīka, tēnā koe. Today, I rise on behalf of Te Pāti Māori to oppose this bill and the India free-trade agreement (FTA). Our position is simple: Māori were not included, Māori were not invited, and Māori were not allowed to co-design this agreement. When tangata whenua are shut out, Te Tiriti o Waitangi is breached. This is not just our view. It is a clear finding of Ngā Toki Whakarururanga, the Tiriti-based body created through a mediation agreement with the Crown. Their role, agreed to by the Crown, is to ensure that Māori have genuine and meaningful influence over free-trade negotiations. Yet they’ve said that they are deeply disappointed that the Crown rejected the co-designed Tiriti protections and, instead, kept the same flawed Treaty clause used since 2001. Ngā Toki Whakarururanga also reported that the Indian Government refused to share negotiation text with Māori or even with the Crown. That meant Māori could not carry out a full Te Tiriti assessment. It meant partnership was impossible. It meant transparency was denied.

The interim assessment is clear: tangata whenua were excluded, mātauranga Māori is not protected, and the final agreement contains only weak and unenforceable references to indigenous rights. We also note that Cabinet chose not to attach Ngā Toki Whakarururanga’s assessment to the national interest analysis. Parliament was denied independent scrutiny of whether this agreement meets the Te Tiriti obligations. That alone should concern every single member of this House.

We have also listened to Māori in the export sector. The Federation of Māori Authorities, representing the largest network of Māori land owners, supports trade but has real reservations. Their chairs said plainly that dairy where Māori hold major assets was “always going to be sidestepped” and that the gains in this agreement are narrow and sector specific. Even the iwi chairs who are deeply involved in economic policy have shown little enthusiasm. The data tells the same story. Māori exports make up only 5.6 percent of national exports. Māori collectives, however, own around half of all agriculture, forestry, and fishing assets, yet the biggest Māori sectors, like dairy, receive little benefit here, and many of the tariff gains will not be realised for seven years or more.

Te Pāti Māori asks: who actually benefits? Where are Māori in this deal? Why were Māori not at the table from the absolute start? Let me be very clear: Te Pāti Māori is not opposed to trade, we are not opposed to working with India, we are not opposed to economic opportunity, but we are opposed to being shut out. We are opposed to agreements that treat Te Tiriti as an afterthought. We are opposed to a process where Māori expertise—legal, cultural, economic—is ignored until the deal is already done.

There is one simple way that this agreement could—and I emphasise the word “could”—cross the line for our support, and that is this: honour the mediation agreement, restore the co-design Tiriti protections, give Ngā Toki Whakarururanga real influence, not symbolic consultation, and ensure that any future FTAs include enforceable protection for mātauranga Māori, for indigenous knowledge, and for Māori data sovereignty. Do that, and we may just stand by you on this issue, but, today, we absolutely will not and cannot. This bill does not meet the standard of partnership, it does not meet the standard of transparency, and it does not meet the standard of the Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Therefore, it does not receive the support nor the commendation of Te Pāti Māori.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing) (15:39): For me, there are three really key questions we have to address when it comes to this bill. The first is a really simple question—will it be good for New Zealand? I think the answer to that, when you look at it objectively, fairly, and reasonably, is yes.

There are significant and substantial tariff reductions for New Zealand exporters under this bill, and other members have talked at length about what those are. Take mānuka honey: India will cut the tariff by three-quarters from 66 percent to 16.5 percent over five years for honey certified by the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) and priced at or above US$30 per kilogram, and at the same tariff rate for a volume of 200 tonnes for mānuka honey priced between $20 and $30. This is the first time India has granted preferential access for honey, and it provides a significant opportunity for growth. Take wine: the 150 percent tariff—massive—on wine, one of our biggest exports to India, cut 75 percent to 100 percent on entry; further reduced to 25 percent or 50 percent, based on import price over 10 years from entry into force.

This is a good deal for New Zealand, there is no doubt about that. It will be good for New Zealand. And the second question is, is it a good deal for New Zealand? You just have to look at the facts. There are arrangements made, through this deal, that have applied, that have never been done by India before, and that means it is undoubtedly a good deal for New Zealand.

The third question, I think, is slightly more of an existential one, which is, does the deal align with New Zealand’s long-term future? Here, we just need to look at the context with which this deal has been signed and is coming before the Parliament. India is one of the world’s largest economies now, and that will only increase. We’re talking about 1.4 billion people. There’s 5 million of us and there’s 1.4 billion people. It’s our eleventh-largest trading partner—11^th—and 1.8 percent of our exports go to India. For goods, it is just 1.1 percent of our exports. It’s actually outside our top 20 export markets. This, with a country that has a close relationship with New Zealand—a friendly, collegial relationship—and a country that is democratic, the world’s biggest democracy, that supports the rule of law.

Hon Chris Penk: Second-best cricket team.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Second-best cricket team in the world, as the Hon Chris Penk says.

It’s interesting, I was in India in March on a sports delegation with Ross Taylor and whole range of other luminaries, and it was interesting because one of the points the Indians make is cricket is obviously extremely important for them—as it’s important to me, and it’s important to this Government, but one of the points that was made to me by many people in India was, “Don’t let the relationship between New Zealand and India just be defined by cricket.”, because it was so much more than that. Developing in rugby, in hockey, and in a whole range of other sports—it’s not just about sports; it’s about Indian culture, the Indian diaspora in New Zealand, the very vibrant Indian communities. I use the word “communities” in its pluralistic sense, deliberately, because there are many people from different cultures and different religions and different backgrounds who live in India now, and who may have moved to New Zealand now. Many members of the House, I think, will be familiar with the vibrant Indian communities in their electorates in their communities. It’s not just about cricket; it’s about so much more than that, and the opportunity for New Zealand to forge a close partnership with this democratic country in the middle of one of the fastest-growing regions in the world is immense.

It’s actually about slightly more than trade. The trade agreements and the benefits to New Zealand exporters are big, but it’s about more than that, and I think all parties in the Parliament, I hope, support closer ties with India.

The final point I’d make is, historically, trade deals have sometimes been a bit controversial, and people have said the benefits won’t necessarily accrue in the same way that people think they will. Well, people said that about China. Before the China free-trade agreement (FTA) was signed, we exported $2 billion a year of goods to China. For the year ending September 2024, our exports totalled $22.82 billion overall, and they’re now 25 percent of New Zealand’s exports by value. China, in 2008, has been a boon for this New Zealand economy. I think we’ll look back, in 2040, and say the same thing about the India FTA.

REUBEN DAVIDSON (Labour—Christchurch East) (15:45): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to stand and take a call on this bill—the India Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill—and it is a big deal. I think the question we have to ask, and what I want to explore is, is it a good deal? We need to make sure of that, and it hasn’t been straightforward through this process. We know what it does deliver. It delivers real tariff cuts, and it delivers market access for New Zealand. But there are also some risks, and some potentially serious risks in here, and one of those—the biggest—is the $33 billion investment commitment. We’ve heard that variously talked about as being aspirational when the Minister for Trade and Investment’s referred to it, but we’ve also heard about potential claw-back measures, which is quite different language with quite a different meaning.

Earlier, my colleague, Vanushi Walters, in her contribution to the House, spoke about the effort clause—the ability, potentially, for one party to demonstrate that the other hadn’t exerted the effort required to meet that goal, and then the impacts on our apple exporters, our kiwifruit exporters, our mānuka honey exporters, and the market access that this agreement purports to provide and whether those could be taken away again. The further concern is around the migrants who come here: the risk that workers and students could be exploited while they’re in New Zealand, and the very real scenario that we do need to protect these people.

So very real questions that need to be thoroughly explored through the select committee process, and I think what we need to see is a shift in the way that this process has gone. Because if you look at the timeline and the various public and then private conversations, and the requests on multiple occasions for additional information for clarification about points for Labour to be able to get a good understanding of what was in this and what wasn’t, it is a frustrating process that ran through the end of January, through February, through March, right through to the end of April, when, finally, there was enough clarification gained for Labour to be able to support it through to this first reading.

The other thing I think that’s important to note is that we have a long history in the Labour Party of negotiating very good trade agreements, some of which have been referenced in contributions to the House this afternoon. There were some wins that Labour got in this trade agreement for all of New Zealand, the first of those being the expansion of a Labour Inspectorate at the next Budget. That’s funding for at least 14 additional staff in the Labour Inspectorate, focused on migrant worker exploitation and serious and complex immigration offending. That is so, so very important, and if we hadn’t been able to gain an understanding or enough of an understanding of the bill to be able to get in that clause and that protection for migrant worker exploitation, who knows what may have happened.

Further to that, we also were able to get in faster visa changes: commitments, both written and verbal, to speed up the processing of variation of conditions for those visa holders who are seeking to change employer. That’s a really, really important piece to get in there as well, so that people aren’t trapped, and so that people can transition through to an employer, or a new employer, if there are issues where they are.

Additionally, we were able to progress the Modern Slavery Bill. The Government has committed now to prioritising the Modern Slavery Bill, ensuring that it passes its first reading before the election on 7 November, with a commitment to further resourcing community law to provide legal advice. Those are some very, very important—goodness me, what’s the word? It’s a Thursday.

Hon Phil Twyford: Commitments.

REUBEN DAVIDSON: Commitments—that’s the word. Thank you, Member Twyford. There were some very important commitments that we were able to gain. But the outstanding questions really remain about the aspirational versus the claw back measure. Those two things are very, very different. Also, we look forward to seeing that information that was redacted and curated. Thank you.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato) (15:50): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise and take a call here on the first reading of the India Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill.

Now, with the way this process works, in terms of the merging of the first reading and also the debate on the treaty examination process, I just thought I’d take a moment to cover off what we heard through the select committee. It was my honour to chair the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee through our consideration of this treaty examination process. We heard from 1,800 submitters through that process, which is much higher than normal for a treaty examination; normally, they receive a pretty modest number of submitters, but, in this case, there was a lot more interest, obviously. It’s seen some profile in the media that led to a number of those submissions coming through, as well. Quite clearly, from all of the industry groups that presented to the committee, we heard strong support—strong support for the reduction or elimination of tariffs, for the increased market access through tariff-rate quotas, for example, and general strong optimism for the potential opportunity that this agreement presents for those respective industries.

Now, coming from the Waikato, as I do, I will have to touch on, of course, the fact that we didn’t quite get the dairy access that we would have liked. That is always a difficult challenge for free-trade negotiations, from New Zealand’s perspective, in terms of gaining that access into other markets. But that aside, there was nothing from the dairy industry’s perspective—and we heard this from the Dairy Companies Association of New Zealand—that would prevent them endorsing the agreement in terms of the support it provides.

So, I think, on balance, we’ve heard plenty of good reasons why we need to do this. This will be a great opportunity. It will provide massive growth potential for New Zealand exporters, and will contribute to our target to grow the value of exports, double the value of exports over 10 years. Indeed, I look forward to the next stage, the select committee stage, where the committee will be working as efficiently as possible to carry out the appropriate assessment of this piece of legislation to give effect to the free-trade agreement, such that we can get it in place in time for that most favoured nation clause to come into effect where possible. So, on that basis, I commend this bill to the House.

Hon JENNY SALESA (Labour—Panmure-Ōtāhuhu) (15:52): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Kia ora, namaste, and I’m really honoured to contribute to the India Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill. Labour will support this bill to select committee because we believe in free trade. India is far too important a trading partner for us. India is one of our fastest-growing major economies in the world, so deepening our relationship with India is good trade policy, it is also sound economic policy, and a long-term investment in Aotearoa New Zealand’s future.

But I also want to be clear: supporting this bill today is not a blank cheque. As my colleague and former trade Minister the Hon Damien O’Connor has outlined previously, there are some serious and legitimate questions about how this agreement will be implemented, especially around the investment provisions, protections for migrant workers, international students, and ensuring that New Zealand businesses fully understand both the opportunities and their obligations in this free-trade agreement.

Much of this debate has been focused on tariffs, exports, and market access. These are all important; however, I want to discuss something that is, I think, equally as important: the people behind these trading relationships. Trade agreements may be signed by Governments but they are built by people. The relationship between New Zealand and India did not begin just with this agreement; it has been built steadily over many, many decades by our Indian diaspora; New Zealand businesses, educators, researchers, diplomats, and Kiwis; and they have been supported by successive Governments across the political spectrum.

Now, as Labour’s spokesperson for ethnic communities, I would like to acknowledge the extraordinary contribution of our Indian New Zealanders, who are one of the fastest-growing communities in our country. They number just over 400,000, now, in Aotearoa. Indian Kiwis are doctors caring for our families, they’re nurses supporting our health system; they’re teachers educating our young people; and they’re professionals who are driving innovation across so many sectors in Aotearoa. They are also business owners, exporters, retailers, and entrepreneurs who are creating thousands and thousands of jobs and contributing to our economic growth in every region in New Zealand.

More broadly, ethnic communities contributed just over $87 billion to our GDP in 2023, and that figure is around about a quarter of our GDP for that year. That figure represents real people; it represents real businesses—real contributions made to New Zealand’s prosperity. Indian-owned businesses are a vital part of that story. They strengthen international connections, expand our export opportunities, and deepen our commercial ties between our two countries.

Trade in the 21^st century is about far more than goods crossing our borders; it is about innovation, education, technology, research, professional services, and cultural exchange. At its heart, it is about people. Our people are, often, New Zealand’s first trade ambassadors. Long before the Governments actually sit down to negotiate the agreements like this one that’s been signed, it is our people who are building those trusting relationships across our two countries.

I want to now quote from some of our businesses who are in strong support of this agreement. Zespri’s CEO has stated that this agreement unlocks one of the world’s largest markets, because, as many of the speakers that have spoken before said, 1.4 billion is indeed a very, very large market. Another: New Zealand Apples & Pears—and I quote—“[This deal] includes a world-first reduction on apples and pears to India.” And the final quote from one of our large exporters, from New Zealand Forest Owners Association—I quote—“[This] marks an important step forward for forest growers, wood processors, exporters and regional commodities.”

As we strengthen our relationship with India, we must also protect our migrant workers from exploitation. We should ensure that international students receive high-quality education and fair treatment, and support our businesses to succeed. Also, we should ensure that the benefits of trade are shared wisely because it is not just the success in terms of tariffs that we should be looking at; we should also be looking at whether the businesses are growing, jobs are created, and whether all of those long-term benefits benefit all New Zealanders. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki) (15:57): I genuinely believe that this is a once-in-a-generation moment, when we bringing in something as big and as significant as the Indian free-trade agreement. Just think about it for a minute: for every single New Zealander, there are 80 Indian, what they class as, middle class—there are 80 people for every single Kiwi. Within five years, that Indian middle class grows to 700 million; that’s about 120 for every Kiwi. We are a nation that makes money, that gets ahead by selling stuff to the world. That means that, within five years, there are 120 extra customers for every single New Zealander.

To hear parties, like New Zealand First and the Greens, putting ideology ahead of progress is really disappointing, because whether they are motivated by benefits or by superannuation or whatever they want to pay people more, you get that money by selling stuff to the world. This is our opportunity. This is really important. I commend this bill and the trade agreement to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the India Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 93

New Zealand National 48; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11.

Noes 29

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; New Zealand First 8; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Referral to Select Committee

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh) (15:59): The question is, That the India Free Trade Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill be considered by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee.

Vote Correction

Appropriation (2026/27 Estimates) Bill

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh) (15:59): Members, before we move on to the next item of business, there are two votes that were incorrectly recorded on 24 June 2026 on the second reading of the Appropriation (2026/27 Estimates) Bill and the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition proposed to it. The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand’s vote was incorrectly recorded as 15 rather than 14 on both. The correct result on the question that the amendment in the name of the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins be agreed to is ayes 54, noes 67. The correct result on the question that the Appropriation (2026/27 Estimates) Bill be read a second time is ayes 67, noes 54. The record will be corrected accordingly.

Bills

Te Here ā Nuku (Nelson Tenths) Bill

Legislative Statement

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Attorney-General) (16:00): I present a legislative statement on the Te Here ā Nuku (Nelson Tenths) Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

First Reading

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Attorney-General) (16:01): I move, That the Te Here ā Nuku (Nelson Tenths) Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Finance and Expenditure Committee to consider the bill, and, at the appropriate time, I intend to move the bill be reported to the House by 29 July 2026, and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, during any evening on a day in which there has been a sitting of the House, on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196.

On 17 December 2025, Mr Stafford, the trustees of Te Here ā Nuku Trust, and the Crown signed a resolution agreement. This agreement settled the long-running private law Stafford v Attorney-General litigation, also known as the Nelson Tenths case. The agreement was signed here at Parliament and a historic event, well attended by Mr Stafford’s family and beneficiaries of the trust.

Today, I introduce this bill to give effect to aspects of that agreement. Once again, we have many trust representatives who’ve travelled to be present at Parliament for this occasion. I welcome you to Parliament and acknowledge those watching from other places, including Mr Rore Stafford. Tēnā koutou katoa.

I know acknowledge Mr Stafford in particular for the commitment he has demonstrated throughout this process. In 1986, he and the late Hohepa Solomon first lodged the Waitangi Tribunal claim Wai 56 on behalf of the descendants concerning the Nelson Tenths. In 2010, Mr Stafford took his cause to the High Court. After appeals all the way to the Supreme Court and a second High Court hearing, Mr Stafford and the Crown agreed to a resolution of his case last year. This year, therefore, marks 40 years of Mr Stafford’s advocacy for this work, including 15 years engaged in private law litigation. Through all these years, Mr Stafford has carried forward this cause with strength, patience, and humility. He has not acted for his reward alone but for all the descendants of the customary owners and the fulfilment of promises made to their ancestors. He has not acted alone, but with the support of these people. I acknowledge and thank all of his whānau and supporters who’ve played a role through these 40 years.

I acknowledge the trustees of Te Here ā Nuku Trust. The trustees represent the next generations of descendants following Mr Stafford, who will now carry forward his legacy and his vision. I acknowledge especially those trustees that negotiated the resolution agreement with the Crown and worked together to finalise the bill, including Kerensa Johnston, Jamie Tuuta, Hēmi Sundgren, and George Stafford.

The history is fascinating for those of us interested in New Zealand history. The Crown and Mr Stafford have resolved this case. The agreement signed here last year has settled it, and the bill now gives effect to some aspects of the agreement. But it is worth highlighting some of the history for the record of the House. The case begins in the 1840s with the meeting between the leaders from the top of the South Island and the New Zealand Company on the beach of Kaiteriteri. Those leaders were the customary owners of land in and around Nelson, Tasman Bay, and Golden Bay. I acknowledge the MP for Nelson here in the House. What was discussed there in 1841 was a shared vision of settlers coming to live amongst the customary owners. The customary owners supported that vision, but not without the New Zealand Company making two important promises: first, the lands the customary owners occupied would be excluded from the deal; secondly, a tenth of the remaining land would be reserved for the benefit of them and their descendants. This is the Nelson Tenths. On the basis of that deal, the settlement of Nelson was established.

From 1845, it was the Crown rather than the company that become responsible for those two promises, and they were never fully realised. Some occupations were excluded and some reserves were made, but never to the promised extent. While the standards by which we in the present are to measure the conduct of those from the past is an area that’s ripe for debate, the rule of law and respect for property rights have always been part of New Zealand’s legal tradition. That is particularly true for the law of trusts and equity. These areas of the law are derived from the English legal tradition that was already ancient when nascent colonial Government in New Zealand first failed to keep the promises made to customary owners.

Despite the historic neglect of these promises, in 2024 the High Court found that, based on these promises, the Crown held land on trust for the descendants of the customary owners and had done so ever since 1845. My predecessor as Attorney-General, Judith Collins, took this finding seriously. Last year at the signing of the resolution agreement, she shared that the High Court decision has signalled to her that the restoration of the trust property and the resolution of the case should not wait any longer. She described working together to resolve the case as simply the right thing to do.

Dame Patsy Reddy and David Tapsell led negotiations for the Crown on her behalf, and I acknowledge them. With Mr Stafford and his supporters, a resolution agreement was negotiated. The Government was proud to agree to it. The agreement vindicates property rights which were upheld by the High Court in private law litigation. The agreement brings to an end 15 years of that private law litigation, unresolved by successive Governments. It restores the land and asset base for the descendants of the customary owners. The agreement allows the Government to continue to deliver on priorities in the top of the South Island, including education, and it allows for the continued public enjoyment of some of the descendants most treasured property. In this regard, I acknowledge the pragmatic and generous approach of Mr Stafford and his supporters.

The Government now introduces this bill to give effect to some aspects of the agreement. I do want to emphasise that this case is not like a Treaty settlement. The bill is not required to give effect to the main components of the agreement. From December last year, the resolution agreement has already bound the parties. The ultimate ownership of trust land has already been determined by the courts and recognised through the agreement. The Crown has already paid the trust for the shortfall in the trust land and the lost beneficial use of that land over 180 years. Instead, the bill assists with the implementation of components of the settlement package and is required to authorise certain aspects of it.

The primary purpose of the bill is to provide for the transfer of legal title to the trust land from the Crown to the new trustees of Te Here ā Nuku Trust. The Crown, having come to appreciate in the last two years that it holds this land on trust for the descendants, has no desire to hold it any longer, and nor would it be appropriate to do so. The historic arrangement of the Crown holding land for the benefit of customary owners reflects a paternalistic and dated attitude from the 19^th century. In 2026, the Government is pleased for Te Here ā Nuku Trustees to take the title and responsibility for the land. The trustees are deeply connected to the trust land, and boast an impressive range of experience, including strong commercial acumen.

As the Hon Judith Collins noted at the signing last year, trusts foster innovation and encourage us to look to the future, as anyone with family land or business assets held in trusts would appreciate. I would also add that anyone with family land or business assets held in trust also appreciates when Government gets out of the way and trusts them to build their own future, which is what this bill does.

That said, the nature of the trust land is unique, because much of it was previously held by the Crown for Government purposes. So the bill also provides for arrangements so that some trust land may continue to be used for conservation, reserve, education, or other Government purposes. The Crown and the trustees have reached agreement regarding public access to important areas and reserves. The key feature is that there will be a seamless transition in relation to the public enjoyment of those areas.

While the resolution agreement settled Mr Stafford’s case, the bill puts the matter beyond further doubt. It provides that no court or tribunal can make a finding or order in relation to any claims based on the facts underpinning Mr Stafford’s claim or the Nelson Tenths scheme.

I want to conclude by reflecting on the history of 180 years. Parts of the history are and were extraordinarily complex. Ultimately, it is actually a simple case that involves land, whenua, promises, and persistence. Last year, the Government was proud to agree to finally resolve the case. Today, it’s my privilege as Attorney-General to introduce the bill to give effect to aspects of the resolution agreement. I hope that this first reading marks the opening of a chapter, set in this House, which should double as the final chapter of Mr Stafford’s case, and the first chapter of a new story to be written in the northern South Island.

To Mr Stafford, your whānau, your supporters: I’m very much looking forward to hosting you back here at Parliament for the third reading, which we hope will be before the election. Tēnā koutou katoa .

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

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour) (16:11): Thank, you, Madam Speaker. [Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

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

Kia ora koutou, kia ora tātou—I’m just welcoming our trustees in. I want to acknowledge the Minister’s excellent kōrero today outlining the tragic history—the tragic history—of this kaupapa. I was listening intensely to the Minister and what he was saying, and I do think this kaupapa is one of the saddest stories that you could think about. Our people were denied so much opportunity. As Nelson flourished, our people almost died. It’s just so sad. And all our people asked for was a tenth—a tenth—of the kaupapa; a tenth of the opportunity to develop; a tenth of the opportunity to access trade, access education—just a tenth of what was happening back then. But the betrayal started almost from day one.

It shows the maturity of this House that we are able to come together to remember and, also, celebrate. But it’s also ironic—and I’d like the Government to think about this, and New Zealand First, in particular, and the ACT Party—that this could have been one of the best examples of co-governance that we would ever see, that we could ever get. That’s all our people wanted. They wanted the opportunity to work with Pākehā, to work with the settlers. They were excited by the opportunity to engage with the settlers who are coming across. It was a golden opportunity for Māori to work and to take some of the opportunities—I suppose—that colonisation was offering. That’s what Māori sought at the time, and yet they were denied it every step of the way—every step of the way.

So, it saddens me that the opportunity was denied of our people. But I’m so glad and proud to see that we, as a Government and as a Parliament, have come together, and I’m glad to see that the coalition has signed off on this. That’s why it’s important to acknowledge that work today. It’s important to acknowledge former Minister Judith Collins, who has gone out, I would say, in style. What a way to go out on; I think it’s terrific. And so, while on previous days we may have been attacking the Government in terms of their commitment to Māori today, I can only mihi to Minister Collins, Minister Bishop, and this Government, because these are the types of agreements that set the blueprint and are an example for New Zealanders to look at.

New Zealanders need to look back at the history. They need to look at the betrayal that happened, but they also need to look at how our people have come to the table and negotiated a settlement. They could have gone down the billions track. We understand what the loss was. They could have asked for every acre back, but they’ve compromised and they’ve worked in a pragmatic way. I can only mihi to you all today and look forward to the third reading, when our koroua joins us, Mr Stafford, and the rest of the family. I’m looking forward to that day when we can, again, come together and celebrate one of the great settlements in our history of Aotearoa. Kia ora, Madam Speaker.

STEVE ABEL (Green) (16:16): Thank you, Madam Speaker. [Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

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

Tēnā koutou to all the representatives of the descendants of the tūpuna of the Nelson Tenths, Te Here-ā-Nuku. Ngā mihi rangatira, Rore Stafford.

We are profoundly humbled by the intergenerational patience and determination to achieve justice. You have fought to write injustices created out of private greed. Though the New Zealand companies promise was the foundation of the legal battle that you have fought, I have, previously in this House, called out the selfishness and the evils of Edward Gibbon Wakefield. Over nearly two centuries the ongoing failures of the Crown to do right, did not dissuade you from your persistence in seeking justice for your people. You have held the line, and today we stand in this House that has, sadly, all too often, been a place that has delivered injustice to Māori. But today this House stands together to write an ancient wrong.

I read the accounts of Kerensa Johnston, who was the project lead for Te Here ā Nuku, “We refused to accept injustice”—her account in E-Tangata—“It [took] over 17 years of intense, complex, and at times incredibly challenging proceedings. It was momentous for our whānau and community of Te Tauihu to finally settle the litigation.” There was a huge sense of relief that she described. There’s also sadness that it has taken us so long to get here and disappointment that it took so many years in the courts before the Crown was willing to sit down with us to resolve it. It was 1986 when the first case was taken to the Waitangi Tribunal and 22 years later, a change in Government policy in 2008 stopped that pathway to achieving justice.

So, undeterred, a case was brought to the courts that we saw the resolution of in recent years and that has brought us to where we are today. But further, it is expressed that the whānau had to fund the legal proceedings. It was very expensive. There were huge opportunity costs associated with that, because, of course, there are so many other places that money could have gone to support the wellbeing of whānau. The human cost has been so significant, and many have given the years of their lives for this kaupapa. For us, that was our kaumātua Rore Stafford, alongside others who provided critical leadership through the process. We salute you today for your determination and your persistence.

It is ever humbling to see that determination and that simple principle of justice, and I want to echo my colleague Willie Jackson that the agreement of the 10 percent was an economic instrument designed to provide the basis of an endowment to anchor participation in a rapidly forming economy and to ensure that Māori prosperity would grow alongside the settlement itself. Māori, as Willie Jackson pointed out and our history shows, welcomed the settlers on the basis of mutual respect, and it was the Crown and the settlers that broke that respect.

Today, we do some justice, and I am proud to stand here today. The Green Party finds this consistent with our principle of hoki whenua mai—return of land to Māori—and the correction of injustices. We support this settlement in full, and I might add that it is but 3 percent of the original 151,000 acres that was granted to the New Zealand Company and it is less than the 10 percent that was promised to iwi. We also support the call of the Minister to pass this rapidly so that it is finished before the end of this term. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT) (16:21): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak in support of Te Here ā Nuku (Nelson Tenths) Bill, and I’m glad to do so. After a couple of members were talking about the Minister and the Government and about having the Attorney-General being the Minister in charge of this, it’s an important part of what’s happening here. This is a settlement to end long-running litigation and to give some certainty.

We’ve had oratory—and appreciated oratory it is—about the history here, and so I’m not going to relitigate that. I’d just say that I haven’t been able stand up and talk about a settlement bill of this particular nature because it is so unique, but I’m glad to be supporting it. As the previous speakers have said, it brings an end to a long-running pain, and it’s about time that this started again through the House. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First) (16:22): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a privilege to rise on behalf of New Zealand First in support in the first reading of the Te Here ā Nuku (Nelson Tenths) Bill. I’d like to begin my contribution this afternoon by congratulating the Attorney-General, Chris Bishop, and also the former Attorney-General Judith Collins, on the fact that we now are in the House today to bring to an end what has been an extremely long, long process.

I want to acknowledge Mr Stafford and the trustees but also, in particular, the commitment from Mr Stafford to carry this cause forward. It is a delight to be speaking here on this bill today as we bring it in for a close. I also acknowledge those who have not lived to see this day, but whose spirits guide this legislation.

This is a distinct and historic moment. While Treaty settlements address breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi, this bill resolves a specific private law case. It’s about property rights, legal obligations, and basic fairness.

With the introduction of Te Here ā Nuku (Nelson Tenths) Bill, we’re finally moving to close a painful, gaping wound that has persisted for nearly two centuries. This legislation represents the final legal step in honouring a promise made in the 1840s, a promise that one-tenth of the land settled in Nelson would be reserved for the benefit of its Māori customary owners. For generations, families have advocated, litigated, and waited and waited, and today that wait begins its final approach to an end.

Let us be absolutely clear about what this bill represents. It is not a Treaty settlement, as our courts have decisively ruled, culminating in the landmark 2017 Supreme Court judgment and the 2024 High Court finding that this is a matter of strict trust law. The Crown did not own this land outright; instead, for over 180 years, the Crown has been holding it on trust for the rightful owners. This bill is a technical legal mechanism to right a property rights wrong. It’s about acknowledging that the Crown failed in its duties as a trustee, and it’s about restoring legal ownership to those from whom it was withheld.

The legislation formally gives effect to the landmark resolution agreement reached between the Crown and Te Here ā Nuku Trust last year, and it stands on two distinct pillars of justice: the return of whenua and financial redress. Te Here ā Nuku (Nelson Tenths) Bill formally removes the Crown as trustee and sets out the mechanism to transfer legal title back to 14 replacement trustees appointed by the High Court: the trustees of Te Here ā Nuku Trust. Crucially, this bill does not alter ultimate ownership or transfer new value. The courts have already spoken: this land always belonged to the beneficiaries, and the Crown is simply returning what it has held on trust.

Restoring identity is also an important part of this piece of legislation, and through Subpart 5 under Part 6, we formally correct the orthography of key place names. We’re fixing up the spelling of Kaiteretere.

This bill has seen decades of litigation and it has spanned successive Governments. This bill discharges the historical Stafford claims and brings a long-awaited finality to this private litigation but—more importantly—it offers a path forward, where the customary owners reclaim their legal rights as kaitiaki of the land. I’d like to acknowledge at this point the Crown negotiators, Dame Patsy Reddy and David Tapsell, who are no doubt delighted that we’re here in this House today, and hearing also from the Minister in charge of the bill that we expect to be putting this legislation through to its third and final reading before the House rises for the election.

It is a moment that transcends party lines in the House today, and when historical errors are laid bare by our highest courts, we have the maturity as a nation to correct them. This is a technical piece of legislation, but its heart is entirely human. It’s about restitution, it’s about property rights, and, above all, it is about justice. I commend the Te Here ā Nuku (Nelson Tenths) Bill to the House.

ORIINI KAIPARA (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau) (16:27):

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

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

because this bill should never have been needed. Our tīpuna signed Te Tiriti o Waitangi in good faith. They upheld their end of the bargain, they protected the relationship, and they honoured their word, but the Crown did not.

The story of Whakatū is a story of whenua taken without consent, of authority stripped away, of economic futures denied, and of generations forced to carry the weight of decisions that they never agreed to. The Crown’s actions broke that balance, they broke trust, and they broke the promises made between two peoples, and yet despite all of that, the iwi and whānau of Nelson have stood strong. They have held fast to their whakapapa, to their whenua, to their reo, to their tikanga, to their mātauranga, and to their whakapapa. They have carried the kōrero of their tīpuna like a torch through the darkness. They have waited for far too long for the Crown to finally acknowledge what it has done.

Te Here ā Nuku (Nelson Tenths) Bill is a step towards restoring that balance, but let us be honest: this is not generosity from the Crown. This is not a gift; this is the Crown finally facing its own behaviour. This is the Crown finally admitting that it breach Te Tiriti o Waitangi, that it acted without mana, and that it allowed injustice to sit unchallenged for more than a century.

For the people of Nelson, for the whānau, the uri of the tīpuna who once thrived on the lands in question, that mamae has been intergenerational and continues. The loss of land meant the loss of economic power; the loss of economic power meant the loss of opportunity; and the loss of opportunity meant that whānau were forced to rebuild their entire lives without the resources that were rightfully theirs. That is the truth. That is the legacy of Crown action.

So today, as we introduce this bill into this Whare, we must ask ourselves: what lesson does this provide to us as lawmakers, as Governments, and as a nation? The lesson is very simple: honour your word, act in good faith, uphold Te Tiriti—whakamanatia Te Tiriti—not sometimes, not when it’s convenient, but always. Te Tiriti is not a historical artefact; it is a living covenant. It is the foundation of our whenua, and every time the Crown breaches it, every time it delays justice, every time it hides behind process or excuses, it repeats the very harm we are trying to repair today.

If we truly want to avoid future settlement bills, then we must stop creating the need for them. That means recognising Māori authority. It means sharing power. It means understanding that tino rangatiratanga is not a threat; it is a promise—a promise of partnership, balance, and mutual respect. Te Here ā Nuku, e hoa mā, this is not the end of the journey; it is one step. It is a step that carries the hopes of your tīpuna and the aspirations of your mokopuna.

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

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

Hon CAMERON BREWER (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs) (16:32): It’s with great pleasure that I speak on the first reading of Te Here ā Nuku (Nelson Tenths) Bill. This settlement returns 7,411 acres, roughly 3,000 hectares, to the trust. It’s about returning private land to its rightful legal owners. The courts found, as others have articulated, that the Crown never owned it; it was only ever holding it in trust. This, as we well know, is not a Treaty settlement; it is a trust law matter. The Crown was a trustee, and the trustees do not own the property they hold.

We are righting a historic wrong today with this first reading, and it goes back a long way, with Mr Stafford first filing his claim 16 years ago. In 2024, the High Court agreed that the Crown did not own the land, and Cabinet signed off the settlement package in 2025. The resolution agreement was signed late last year, which formally ended the litigation. A great day for all those involved—a long time coming. I commend the bill.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour) (16:33): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a great privilege for me to be one of the speakers supporting this bill through the House today. I want to first acknowledge the whānau and community of the descendants of the Nelson Tenths, including Rore Stafford. I also want to acknowledge that we have some of their presence in the House here today, including board members of Te Here ā Nuku Trust: Johnny McGregor, Barney Thomas, and Jeremy Banks. I want to acknowledge Dame Patsy Reddy and David Tapsell; the current Attorney-General for his work getting us here; the Crown Law team, led by Jason Gough; the Te Puni Kōkiri team, led by Steven Sutton and Mark Hickford; and, really, acknowledging that without those people present and the depth of conversations that have happened outside this place, we would not be at resolution. I finally wanted to acknowledge that it’s also not without the grace of those conversations which was no doubt required that we got to a resolution.

The Attorney-General in the past, the Hon Judith Collins, also absolutely requires a mention, because it was, as far as I can see, through her tenacity and her willingness to stand up for these principles of justice that we have arrived at this resolution.

The current Attorney-General spoke to a large part of the history here, so I won’t do that. I would like to acknowledge the opportunity cost that has gone into focusing resources in this area and what the whānau and the community could have done with that resource. So I’m very glad to see that we have now moved on from there.

In the same article that Steve Abel mentioned where Kerensa Johnston wrote about her reflections, she also talked about the funding of the case coming from Wakatū Incorporation and then from the iwi entities in Te Tauihu, recognising that it really was a community effort to see that justice was done. This is a string of acknowledgments for very good reason, and so I do also want to acknowledge the graciousness of the whānau and leaders involved in the allowance of Government ownership relating to some of the roads in the whenua and also undertaking separately to lease back some of the schools that are in that area as well.

This is such remarkable case law, which is unique in so many ways, that has brought us to this place, and I imagine that it will be discussed in legal classrooms around New Zealand for many, many decades to come. Not only did the case establish that there was a strict duty that the Crown owed in terms of that single-minded loyalty to protect the whenua as a trustee, but what I considered equally interesting was the birth of that duty. The court found that the birth of the Crown’s fiduciary duty was the direct legal consequence of the extinguishment of customary indigenous title. In essence, one was the catalyst for the other.

While many have spoken about this being a contract trust case and the return of the whenua to its people, I think the most important thing for me and for New Zealand to know is that it never left. It was always theirs. In my view, this is not a return as we might ordinarily term a return; it’s an acknowledgment that this land was never given in the first place. No ownership changed hands.

I also want to acknowledge special terms of the new trusteeship that will take this whenua forward into generations to come. One is that the beneficiaries of the trust are not simply those who are listed in a trust deed; they’re also descendants who are not yet born. The second is that the rule against perpetuities will not apply in this case. We truly do have a sense that this land will be protected for generations to come, as it should be. Once again, I would say that it’s a privilege to speak in this first reading. I look forward to this bill proceeding speedily through the House to third reading. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki) (16:38): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Speaking on Te Here ā Nuku bill, also called Nelson Tenths, I think it’s another example of us just getting on with getting the job done. Ultimately, it’s more about what gets done than what gets said. But in terms of what gets said in this bill, I know there’s a number of people reading this who won’t know why it’s called the Nelson Tenths, and I just wanted to cover that because I think it explains the heart of the issue.

This pre-dates the Treaty. When the land was purchased before the Treaty got signed there at the top of the South Island, part of the deal when the New Zealand Company bought the land was that one-tenth of it would be returned to the then vendor, the then current owner. That’s what never took place. That’s why it’s often called the Nelson Tenths bill, because it is that tenth now being given back, as it should have been at the time. It’s a great move from a Government just getting on with keeping the job done for all Kiwis. I commend the bill to the House.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson) (16:39):

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

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

I rise as the member for Nelson to speak on the Te Here ā Nuku (Nelson Tenths) Bill, a bill that carries deep significance for whānau, iwi, and communities across Nelson and Te Tau Ihu. Can I particularly acknowledge those of you in the gallery today from the Te Here-ā-Nuku Trust.

At the outset, I want to acknowledge the weight of what this bill represents and the long journey that has brought us to this point. It takes us back to a promise made in 1839, a promise that was not kept. When the New Zealand Company entered into agreements with Māori customary landowners in Nelson and Tasman, it committed to reserving one-tenth of the land for Māori owners and their descendants, land that would provide an enduring economic base for generations to come. For the people and whānau who should have been protected by that commitment, it was not honoured. That is a breach of trust, and that breach has had consequences, not just in the past but across generations.

This bill comes before the House as part of a long-overdue effort to confront that history, because Te Here ā Nuku is not simply about land titles or governance structures; it is about whakapapa, identity, and justice. For four of the iwi across Te Tau Ihu—Ngāti Kōata, Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Tama, Te Ātiawa—these lands were meant to secure a future. Instead, what followed was the loss of control, the loss of opportunity, and the undermining of rangatiratanga. That must be acknowledged plainly.

The benefits of this bill will be felt not only by the beneficiaries of the Nelson Tenths but also across Nelson and Te Tau Ihu as a whole. When governance is restored and whenua is able to be managed effectively, it unlocks opportunity for investment, for jobs, and for sustainable economic development, grounded in the values of iwi Māori. It strengthens connections between people and place, supports intergenerational wellbeing, and contributes to more resilient communities. As we know, when Māori land is thriving, the wider region thrives alongside it, socially, culturally, and economically.

I want to acknowledge those who have carried this kaupapa forward. For many, this has been years, even decades, of advocacy, of raising issues, of pushing for change, and of insisting that these commitments be taken seriously. This bill reflects that persistence. It reflects the determination of iwi and community leaders who have refused to let this history be ignored.

It is always dangerous to single people out for acknowledgment at times like these, but there are three people who I want to pay special tribute to as we reach this historic day. I want to particularly acknowledge Rore Stafford and the Stafford whānau, whose resolve, patience, and commitment have helped keep this kaupapa alive through many years of struggle and advocacy. I also acknowledge Kerensa Johnston for her leadership, expertise, and steadfast work in advancing the interests of the Nelson Tenths beneficiaries and ensuring this history is understood and addressed. Finally, I want to thank former Attorney-General Judith Collins KC for her role in enabling progress on this issue, particularly through her engagement with the legal pathway and all parliamentary parties that have helped bring this bill before the House.

We cannot undo the decisions of the past, but we can decide what we do now. We can choose to acknowledge injustice. We can choose to act on it. For that reason, I support the Te Here ā Nuku (Nelson Tenths) Bill passing its first reading today, and I look forward to being part of the final stages of this historic journey. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote) (16:43): It’s a pleasure to wrap up and be the final speaker in this debate. As we can hear, there is widespread agreement for the kaupapa of this bill. In terms of the next steps, this bill is going to the prestigious Finance and Expenditure Committee, of which I am a proud member, and there will be a process—a shortened select committee process. I certainly look forward to hearing from members of the public on this bill. I commend it to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Referral to Select Committee

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh) (16:44): The question is, That the Te Here ā Nuku (Nelson Tenths) Bill be considered by the Finance and Expenditure Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee.

Instruction to Select Committee

Hon CAMERON BREWER (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs) (16:44): on behalf of the Attorney-General: I move, That the Te Here ā Nuku (Nelson Tenths) Bill be reported to the House by 29 July 2026 and that committeehave authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196.

Motion agreed to.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I understand permission has been granted for a waiata.

Waiata

Game Animal Council (Herds of Special Interest) Amendment Bill

Legislative Statement

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (16:46): I present a legislative statement on the Game Animal Council (Herds of Special Interest) 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.

Third Reading

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (16:46): I move, That the Game Animal Council (Herds of Special Interest) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

I would have loved to have gotten up here today and spoken at length to the members of the hunting sector about the importance of this bill, about how today is all about hunter-led conservation and the efforts they make in our great conservation estate, but I am wary of the clock. I am wary that it’s a Thursday and we all want to get this bill passed, so I will say but two things to the House and two things to our hunting community.

First, today is about one simple change. It is about clarifying the law to make it clear and undeniable that, from today, a herd of special interest can be designated in a national park and that the requirement in the National Parks Act to eliminate animals as far as possible will not apply to that herd. Instead, a sensible, adaptive, management-focused herd management plan will manage those animals down to a level which achieves acceptable environmental and hunting outcomes.

If we want to improve our conservation estate, we will support this bill. If we want to empower hunters and their families to contribute to our conservation estate, support this bill. If we care at all about the rights and interests of hard-working New Zealanders who slog their guts out at work all week and just want to go for a hunt on the weekend with their son or their daughter, for a truly magical outdoor experience, we’ll support this bill.

Let’s be clear: our hunters are conservationists. Hunters have done more for conservation than probably anyone in this room has, and possibly ever will. They are the ones that are removing animals from our national parks. They are the ones maintaining our public walking tracks. They are the ones that are checking, setting, monitoring traps to protect our native birds. They are the ones that are establishing, maintaining, and restoring public huts for all New Zealanders to enjoy.

Our Government strongly believes in the ethos of hunter-led conservation as one of many tools to achieve better environmental outcomes on our conservation estate. We empower, and we will continue to empower, the hunting sector to contribute to New Zealand’s conservation estate. We will never apologise for that; we will never back down on that. To our hunters, to the deer stalkers, the pig hunters, the guides, the educators, the community foundations, and the conservationists, thank you for your work, and, most of all, thank you for your patience. This bill is the right thing to do. We won’t back down from it, but we will back you. I commend it to the House.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (16:49): There were some interesting contradictions in that speech from the Minister. On the one hand, he says he’s all about conservation, but on the other hand, he’s very definitely not.

Hon James Meager: I shot three goats the other day. How many did you shoot?

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Oh, and now this is all fun and games, isn’t it? How many deer have I shot? I’m happy to report to the House that I’ve shot one, with one shot. It was a very good shot, right into the lung, from over 300 metres away. But the thing is, with our conservation lands at the moment, you don’t have to be 300 metres away from a deer to shoot it, because they’re everywhere. And that is what we should be focused on, in this House, is: what do we do with all of those ungulates wreaking havoc in our conservation lands? Not: why are we trying to protect some of them? That seems a very strange thing to be doing when we know we have this huge problem.

I’m sure some of the people in this House have heard me say it before, but here I am, wearing my pekapeka earrings, and, of course, pekapeka bats are the only indigenous land mammal in New Zealand—we’ve got, obviously, beautiful mammals in the sea, but not on the land. And what that means is that our intriguing and wonderful biodiversity has evolved without the types of mammals that deer represent: the ungulates that go and eat all of that—they browse all that low-lying bush. So what happens is that they eat the seedlings, they eat the saplings—it’s all very tasty if you’re a deer, I’m told—and we know that to be true.

We also know that in New Zealand, most New Zealanders, as evidenced by a lot of noise in the past week, are very proud of our conservation lands. They don’t want them sold off, and I don’t think they want them to be mined willy-nilly either, or having restaurants on Mitre Peak or anything like that, because people care about these lands and they want them to do well. Of course, we know that there are different categories of conservation land, and the pinnacle of this is the national park. This is the jewel in our conservation estate, and that is exactly what this bill relates to. It relates to saying, “Oh, we know we’ve got a huge pest problem in our national parks, but what we’ll do is not deal with that; instead, we’ll defund the Department of Conservation, we’ll talk about economic opportunities, which appear to be selling off a whole lot of conservation estate—that is our idea for conservation—and we’ll protect some animals that we know to be harming that conservation estate.”

We had evidence in the Environment Committee—here is a submission we had from the New Zealand Plant Conservation Network, and they have photos, that nobody will be able to see, that demonstrate they’ve done some good ecological studies where they have a plot of land that was eaten by deer and then they’ve restricted the deer to that area, and voila, a whole lot of saplings and biodiversity has come back. You’ll see in this photo, there is Sir Alan Mark, who is a great conservationist, who has worked hard for New Zealand to protect some of our most precious spaces, and who I was lucky enough to have as one of my ecology professors when I was at the great University of Otago. It’s a shame the Minister didn’t take those classes—some would say.

But, of course, we also see in the submission a good outline of the biodiversity crisis that New Zealand faces: 46 percent of vascular plants, ferns, flowering plants, and conifers are threatened with extinction or of at risk of becoming so; additionally, 19 percent of hornworts and liverworts and 14 percent of lichens are threatened with extinction or at risk of becoming so; 82 percent of our indigenous birds are threatened with extinction or at risk of becoming so, as are 94 percent of our reptiles and 80 percent of our bat species. Many of these birds, and all the reptiles and bats, rely on plants for their existence. So we’re talking about habitats here—habitats of our precious flora and fauna that the deer eat. They think it’s tasty, and that is a problem.

So how the bill works—it’s very simple; it’s just a couple of clauses, and I know people were debating this just recently in committee of the whole House—but what it does is the National Parks Act says: this is our very precious, precious space and we want to let the biodiversity do well in these spaces. We also want to maintain them so people can come and visit them as well. To enable that good biodiversity, we want to exterminate the pests—and ungulates are pests, as I’ve just been explaining; they eat that undergrowth. And so what we’ve got the Minister saying is, “Well, what is more important than that biodiversity is the rights”—the word he used was “the rights”—“of hunters to go out and hunt.” So national parks, the pinnacle of our conservation estate; national parks where we’re supposed to care about your biodiversity—“Oh, we can care about that some of the time, but not all of the time, not when some hunters are involved.” That is what the Minister said.

And I think this does a disservice to hunters, because we on the select committee had a lot of hunters come and talk to us. And they did talk about some great work that they do—the Wapiti Foundation does wonderful work in distributing its meat from what it catches, and has also done some other good conservation work. In no way do I dispute that, but now this Minister just seems to be saying, “Well, because those hunters do some good conservation work, we should leave it to them.” We should just say, “Oh, that’s OK. We need those hunters to do the good conservation work because we don’t want to do it. We’ll just have it for the hunters to do it.” And that is this Government’s approach to our nature, to our biodiversity, to our conservation estate, as we have seen throughout the week, and shame on them.

Hon James Meager: Fake news. Total fake news. Respond so it’s in the Hansard.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: I’m not sure what the Minister is referring to, but apparently something is fake news. That Minister just stood here and said it is the rights of the hunters to go hunting. That means, “Be gone, national parks, as our pinnacle, as our high biodiversity areas; we can’t look after you.” We are being defeatist, he says. We have to rely on the hunters. That must be his argument, and it is a terrible argument to be making, because we want people to go and kill these deer. We know that the deer are all over Fiordland, all over our national parks, and great if hunters can go and kill those deer; that’s wonderful. That will help improve our biodiversity. But to then say, “Well, within the rest of that biodiversity, our undergrowth, we don’t care about it. It doesn’t actually matter if somebody wants to go and hunt a specific species.”—that is what the other side of the House is saying.

We have to enable those people to keep hunting something that is causing damage to our biodiversity in an area that where, apparently—I’ve heard Tama Potaka say this week “he’s the most pro-conservation person there is”. This is the opposite of that. This is giving up on the conservation estate. This is admitting to wanting to see a decline in biodiversity and shame on them.

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

CELIA WADE-BROWN (Green) (16:59): Thank you, Madam Speaker. This is a very short bill, but it has quite a dramatic effect. My colleague, and hunter and conservationist, Scott Willis, has been very clear. We have both attended the hearings on the select committee and we’ve read submissions and we appreciate that most people on either side of this bill care deeply about conservation. The question is: how can we make sure that our national parks, perhaps particularly our international heritage areas, that it’s not only people who are here today, this generation, people residing in New Zealand; it’s people from overseas, people who care about this biodiversity crisis across the world?

When we talk about the sixth extinction, that isn’t actually happening somewhere else. I think some of you may have been at the Young Ocean Explorers. We often forget that something like 80 percent of our endemic species are in the marine. But, equally, people will see some of our iconic species. They’ll know that kiwi are well-looked-after in one place; they’re coming back to the western hills of Wellington. They’ll see the kākāpō returning to, perhaps, the Murchison Valley, the numbers increasing, or the kārearea over the Tararua Forest Park. But those people see those signs, which are great signs, and they think all is well.

My colleague Rachel Brooking talked about ecosystems and habitats. A less-informed eye will often look at a forest or a tussock land and think it’s great because there are plants there. They’ll think it’s great because there are native plants there. They’ll think it’s great because there are some of our wonderful, iconic bird species. But if they are not a highly informed ecologist, they will miss that ungulates can take out species that you and I, even with our iNaturalist on our phone, would not know about. They sometimes talk about deer taking some species as the “ice cream” of the bush. Every plant species has got moths or butterflies or other insects that depend not on general different trees or general different flowering plants, but they have a specific requirement for that plant.

I’m really concerned with this Government’s defunding of a lot of the Department of Conservation (DOC), and even the reducing of the DOC Community Fund over the last three years, that we will not be able to have sufficiently qualified people monitoring the comparison. I do agree that most of the hunters that came in and said that this should happen have got the best of intentions, but they are not usually ecologists. Some of those that do both did come in and say they were not happy about this bill.

It is really expensive to do helicopter culling. But as the Ruahine pilot showed, that was the only effective way not just of maintaining herd sizes but of reducing them. If you don’t cull half the population of deer in a herd every year, it increases. If you want to reduce it, you need to cull it by two-thirds. These are mathematical results. Again, maybe they’re not qualified population scientists, as well as not being qualified ecologists.

I think one of the most moving submissions was from Edward Ellison, who chairs the New Zealand Conservation Authority. One of the things that concerns me is how this is not a small bill in isolation from everything else; you have to see it within the context of the attack on our conservation realm. Whatever may be changed over select committees, we all know that putting economic exploitation at the top for DOC to have to look at—is it the greatest extent practicable—must undermine conservation of species for their intrinsic state of being as well as the advantages to tourism, as well as the advantages to our towns that are downstream from national forests, the sea that is downstream from national forests. If we find the forests being destroyed at the top of the catchment, that has, literally, flow-on effects: sediment into the rivers—that’s the habitat of our whio.

We have to make sure, if this goes through—and, given the numbers, I’m sure it will. I would like some real commitment from the National Party—that thinks it has the environmental credentials, which it certainly did have in the past—to extraordinarily good monitoring and comparison so you can really see that maybe there are going to be one or two places this will work. But I am very sceptical, and I think that you need to prove to the people of New Zealand—and not necessarily people who have left school without NCEA level 1 science, as it used to be, but you need to show people like the New Zealand—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): No, I don’t need to show anyone anything.

CELIA WADE-BROWN: I beg your pardon, Mr Speaker. Through you, I would like to see that DOC is empowered to do a really thorough before and after measurement of comparable plots. Yesterday, I showed two pictures of a similar ecosystem. That was really obvious that one had too many deer. I’m sure that all of the people who are promoting this also know that was too many deer. I would say the deers’ feet are different from moa feet; the deers’ mouth and food preferences are different from moa. Moa co-evolved with the plants. You look at all those divaricating plants; you look at the way the small-leaved coprosma hold themselves in, the kōwhai criss-cross against each other—that’s a defence against moa; it is not much of a defence against deer.

Rather than me going through the whole list of all of the plants on my iNaturalist account, I would just move to a couple of points that have been made by our submitters. One of the examples was the 2024 Landcare Research paper. Again, why are we so nervous about this? It’s partly because science has been under-funded. The Landcare Research paper on deer browse shows clear evidence that deer consume tonnes of native vegetation daily, fundamentally altering forest ecosystems and preventing natural regeneration.

The thing is: once plants are gone from an area, they don’t magically come back. They’re not mobile like fish might be. You have to think about what effect this will have in the long term. The Green Party opposes this bill, although we recognise the sentiments of many good hunters.

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT) (17:09): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is late on a Thursday, so I won’t take long, because hunters have waited long enough, and conservation outcomes have waited even longer. This has been promised since the 2013 Game Animal Council Act, when we could start moving in this direction to have some herds of special interest. I’m glad to see bills like this coming through the House, making practical changes that enable the real conservationists—the hunters who are out there in the bush, getting stuck under the punga, bluffed on hills, but seeing parts of the bush that many of us can only dream of seeing. I like to think that I have had some amazing experiences in the bush that grew my love for the New Zealand that we all are endowed with, and I wouldn’t have got those opportunities without chasing the quarry of deer and other animals throughout the bush. This does not have to be a binary argument; there is nuance in-between.

Hearing the speeches from the other side, members who I sat across from in the select committee seem to have taken so little in from this long process. This is about management plans. This is about outcomes for nature. This is getting biodiversity right by having people who are in there, in the game, hunting and getting outcomes: trapping mustelids, maintaining tracks, doing things in our environment that actually improve it, not just for everybody else but so that they can get out there and go in and enjoy that to hunt as well. This is not going to be across the country; this is in specific areas. I think the scaremongering that we’ve heard does a disservice to the people who have been giving that scaremongering. This is a great day for hunters—the real conservationists. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First) (17:10): Thanks, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in support of this bill. Look, I think we know what the bill’s all about. I think the key bit that I want to say here—a couple of key things—the first one of them is that it is going to be subject to a carefully prescribed process, which is set out in the legislation already. As you heard from Cam Luxton, it’s likely to be used only in special and limited circumstances.

I just want to point out a couple of things there. The Minister is required to make sure that the management of animals for hunting purposes is consistent with the overriding considerations—that’s the National Parks Act. The Minister is to have regard to the status of the land—National Parks Act again, in this instance, we’re talking about. And the Minister must have regard to an extensive range of advice from the likes of the Ministry for Primary Industries, the Department of Conservation, councils, the Conservation Authority, conservation boards, and any representative organisations the Minister considers appropriate. There are a lot of safeguards in there, and then the Minister also has to make a herd management plan. Now, if the herd management plan shows that there’s a real problem for the national park, you’re going to have to change direction. There are a lot of safeguards that are in there.

We know how much our conservation estate means to New Zealanders who get out and enjoy it, whether it’s tramping, skiing, kayaking, hunting, fishing, just looking at it, or visiting for tourism purposes. For all of those reasons, we value our conservation estate. I’ve got to say, on this occasion, it is really great to stand up here today and be able to say how good it is to have heard from the Minister of Conservation that there is going to be some clarification that we are not interested, we never were interested in selling off a large chunk of the conservation estate, because New Zealanders love our conservation estate. The Minister has got up there and made it clear that we are not going to be selling off a large chunk of the conservation estate. That is a good thing.

Hunting is a greatly valued way for many New Zealanders to enjoy the outdoors. Recreation, camaraderie, putting food on the table, connection to land, and actually to our origins as a species, I would say as well. Hunting is greatly valued by many people. The conservation estate is also valued by many people, as I said, for intrinsic landscape, ecological values, the kinds of things that Celia Wade-Brown was talking about. I’ve got to say, we know that these values are under pressure, but they’ve been under pressure since the first human beings set foot on these islands. We need to turn that around over a period of time. There will be challenges when deer numbers get out of hand, and that’s the kind of place where the management plan will say, “Actually, there’s a problem here. We need to intervene. We need to do something differently.” That is a requirement on the Minister under this legislation.

Finally, there’s been extensive debate between hunting and conservation interests for many, many years. I would dearly love to see people coming together to try and reach an accord between those people who get out and enjoy it for hunting purposes, for conservation purposes, and so that we can reach that sort of balance, because that’s what this is all about. New Zealand First is a party of balance. As my friend Cam Luxton just said, this should not be a binary issue. We should make it one that all New Zealanders can celebrate and enjoy our natural outdoors. I commend the bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Five minutes—Lan Pham.

LAN PHAM (Green) (17:13): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m very pleased to say I’ve come from the Environmental Defence Society conference, and one thing that struck me there was the very compelling and very concerning presentations around the state of biodiversity. By the time it came to one of the Government Ministers, Minister Bishop, speaking after the biodiversity session, he made a statement that “environmental protection is at the core of the National Party.” What the response from the room was, was the room erupted in laughter. I couldn’t help but feel that same response when I heard Minister Penk standing up earlier today, talking about the Government’s response to the Conservation Amendment Bill and saying that the Government was committed to “strong environmental outcomes that will stand the test of time.”, because this bill is exactly the opposite of that.

We’ve been hearing so much about the conservation space recently because of this Government’s incredibly short-sighted—and I don’t even know how they got themselves in this situation—terrible decision-making to have a crack at the heart of the conservation purpose and the heart of our public conservation land. This bill is just another avenue in which they’re doing that. What I’m hearing, and what I hope the Government members and the whole of Parliament are hearing, from people who are out there and so concerned about this chipping away at the heart of conservation is that they’re just wanting basic stuff. They’re just wanting to see the Government actually protect public conservation land. It’s not too much to ask. It’s actually very basic. If the Government just followed through with that, we wouldn’t be in this place with this bill being pushed through. We wouldn’t be in the place with the Conservation Amendment Bill that’s being proposed having to be walked back when it’s just been announced and we’ve yet to see changes actually come in.

New Zealanders want to see, and they want to have secured, conservation as the purpose at the heart of public conservation land. When we keep coming to this bill, it’s just astounding how far away we’ve gotten from that, because the third thing that we’re hearing is that New Zealanders actually want to see science, evidence, and mātauranga at the fore of decision-making. If we did that, we would know that there are already statutory management plans in place for things like tahr. The example with tahr is a classic one. It’s been in place since 1993, with agreed limits that have never been met. Population-monitoring data shows that those tahr numbers are at about three times the agreed limits. This is the knowledge and information that we have. Time and time again, ecologists, environmental professionals, and people who are out in the bush, and a lot of the hunters that we heard as part of the submissions on this, were saying that some of our most intensively hunted areas, places like in the Kaweka Forest Park, are completely devoid of understory, and the ngahere—the forest—is dying.

That’s not helpful when it comes to us turning the tide on our absolutely clear biodiversity challenges, and when the Government are also putting the Department of Conservation in this $400 million structural deficit where they don’t have enough funding to actually put in their functions over the next four years. It is completely unjustified to put through this bill. New Zealanders are seeing this for what it is: privatisation, exploitation, and against the interests of New Zealanders. The Green Party do not support it.

CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki) (17:18): Look, let me be clear: on this side of the House, we are 100 percent committed to protecting our conservation estate. Part of protecting our conservation estate is with our amazing hunters across New Zealand, who are the best in the world at conserving our conservation estate, protecting our conservation estate, because hunters are conservationists. I think that those Opposition members need to realise that. This is what this bill is all about. It’s about protecting regional economies and protecting our conservation estate with our amazing hunters. I commend this bill to the House.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) (17:19): This bill isn’t about conservation; it’s actually about trophy hunting, as my colleague the Hon Dr Duncan Webb pointed out in the first reading of this bill. It’s not a technical bill; it is actually a substantive change to how the National Parks Act will operate.

What was very clear from the committee of the whole House stage was that the Minister does indeed know a lot about a hunting—he is the Minister for Hunting and Fishing—and, sadly, I wonder if the fact that he knows so much about hunting has got in the way of what he knows about good process. Certainly, what is very apparent to us is what is missing from this whole debate, and that is the lack of process around how this bill was arrived on, landed on, drafted. It was not tested and it was not developed at any stage in the lawmaking.

Let’s be clear about what happened. We don’t know how the policy was initiated. There was no outline of the analytical framework behind it and no evidence that the usual disciplines of good lawmaking had been applied. In fact, there were real questions about some of the drafting that were asked in the committee stage, and we didn’t receive adequate answers.

We also note that it alters the National Parks Act and the way it operates and it overrides the existing legal framework that has been interpreted and applied through the courts. Rather than allowing the courts to work through that process of analysis and test the framework that was there, the Government decided to jump in ahead and do a favour for the trophy hunters that it likes to hang out with, because this would be a good—maybe should I say vanity project for the Minister rather than having anything to do with conservation at the heart of it.

The reason I say that is not because I’m a mean person; it’s because there was no inquiry, no review, no regulatory impact statement, no impact analysis, no cost-benefit analysis, and no external consultation to justify the change. That became very apparent in the committee stage. We continually asked the Minister questions about process, and the Minister gave us quite long and convoluted answers that demonstrated a great knowledge about hunting in different parts of the conservation estate but didn’t tell us anything about the process that was used to make this significant policy change.

When we look at the evidence, what this bill is doing is it’s going in the opposite direction of what the evidence says. In 2024, a Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research report examined almost two decades of monitoring across Fiordland National Park in Te Waipounamu—one of the islands in New Zealand that will be most impacted by this—and it concluded that it’s not really about the numbers of deer herd that we should be looking at; it is about the ecological impact. That is a much more sophisticated conversation to be happening, and that is not one that is being allowed by this bill.

The research found a whole lot of other things as well that I won’t go into, but I think it would be important for people on the Government side to have a read of it, because having an evidence base to a policy brought into this House is a really good starting point. That report basically says that conservation should be measured by the health of native ecosystems, not by assumptions about deer numbers or by changing legislation to accommodate particular hunting—or should I say trophy hunting—interests. That’s exactly what’s missing from this bill.

The bill doesn’t evidence that changing the legal framework for national parks will improve or even balance biodiversity. It comes as a result of a series of ministerial reckonings, but it really changes the law first and it leaves the evidence for another day. The speaker from New Zealand First indicated that and, in fact, at the committee stage, we also heard that the management plans would have intentionality around them. But as the Green speaker has alluded to, there is nothing in the bill that requires measurement of what is happening to those outcomes, so it’s all done on a bit of a wing and a prayer. It’s all done on a great deal of faith put into the hunting community, who I have no doubt do have good intentions, but nobody is measuring it, and if we don’t measure it, we don’t know what’s happening.

As has been said, Labour’s got nothing against hunting. We support responsible hunting and we do recognise that hunters make valuable contributions to conservation in many parts of New Zealand. But this debate is not about whether hunting is valuable; it’s about whether Parliament should weaken the conservation framework applying to our national parks without first demonstrating that doing so will improve conservation outcomes, and that evidence hasn’t been presented to the House. It is basically assertion without analysis and with a lot of reckonings.

Recognising that the Government side had the numbers to get this through, I did my best as somebody who—this is not my wheelhouse, but I did my best to try to strengthen the bill so that there could be some mechanisms to provide the critical measurements that would be needed or to make sure that the attention of this House is drawn back to that bill at the correct intervals so that we don’t just give the deer hunters a free pass to say, “We trust you. We agree with your intentionality. Go out into the world and do your thing, and we’re not going to measure that or look at it.”

My amendments—there were a number of them—all of them were rejected. One of them actually responds to what the Green member was asking for, which is about animal ecological monitoring and reporting—that was rejected. I also suggested that we have no designation of a herd of special interest unless the New Zealand Conservation Authority provided advice and the Minister was to give due recognition to that advice. In fact, the New Zealand Conservation Authority submitted to the select committee about how disturbed it was that it hadn’t been sought and consulted on its opinion, and that it was going to be left out of this process. Here was the ideal opportunity for the Minister to adopt my amendment, get them back into the picture so he could at least balance the trophy hunting with the conservation rather than tipping the scales in the way that he has.

I also suggested an amendment to require the management plans to have ecological measures. As I said, there was a discussion and lots of rhetoric from the Minister about the intentionality of the hunters. I don’t doubt their goodwill and their intentionality, but there is nothing in the management plans that requires that to be measured, and that should have happened by statute—not in some future secondary legislation, not in some other law, but in this particular law so that we could be sure that this was going to come into effect.

I also asked that there be an independent statutory review after five years—that was rejected, and no adequate answers as to why. Finally, perhaps out of desperation that perhaps there might be different members on the other side, we could quietly put in a five-year sunset clause, which would simply allow this bill to quietly die off after five years so that when the damage has been done, we at least are able, within a generation, to recoup the losses to our conservation land. But, no, the Minister rejected all of them, and that’s a real shame. If you look through the bill, there just are not the safeguards that are needed to even give a hint that this is about a balance rather than about putting the interests of one group first—i.e., the trophy hunters.

When we got to the title, we wanted some more transparency around what the bill actually did, and, fair enough, the Minister thought there were some facetious titles being proffered, and I won’t say that he was wrong. But there was an opportunity to change the date, instead of being the date of Royal assent, to at least allow court processes to run through, but also to allow there to be adequate resourcing and systems set-ups for implementation of what is a fundamental change. The fact that the Minister thinks that this law can pass into law after Royal assent shows that he’s not intending to have any resourcing, he’s not intending to do anything different to the management plans, and that this really is just about creating a nice little carve-out for the mates that he supports and he supported in his Facebook posts and in the Otago Daily Times—nothing wrong going hunting, nothing wrong with supporting them, but when there’s no evidence base of what actually caused this change in the law, it does make me wonder whether it’s kind of like the coffee on the Gold Coast situation with the Minister of Education or other conversations that happen.

Suddenly, magically, we have these bills before the House, and what we have is the arrogance of the Government who think that because they know a little bit about a topic—or maybe or a lot, as the Minister does—they don’t have to follow due process, and that’s the biggest concern. It would be better if the Minister knew nothing about hunting, in my view, because then maybe he would have done his homework and followed the processes of good governance and good lawmaking. But it’s like a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and it’s particularly so in this House of Representatives.

As much as I applaud the Minister and his knowledge of hunting, and I did appreciate his fulsome and quite entertaining answers in the chair, when it comes to lawmaking, this is a terrible piece of law. It doesn’t deserve to pass in this House, and I look against seeing what the impact is going to be on our conservation estate.

RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East) (17:29): With this bill, both hunting and conservation values will be improved. Property management is based on sound scientific approaches to game animal management achieved at low or no cost to the taxpayer. I congratulate the Minister for Hunting and Fishing, and I commend this bill to the House.

Debate interrupted.

Personal Explanations

Question No. 2 to Minister

Amended Answer to Oral Question

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education) (17:30): Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to correct an answer I gave to oral question No. 2 at question time today.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Thank you. When I stated that I thought the first time I became aware of correspondence between my political adviser and Ben Jensen was through an Official Information Act request, I answered to the best of my recollection as the question was not on notice. I’ve since gone back and reviewed all my records to make absolutely sure, and I’ve identified that there was an email chain to which the member referred to forwarded to me on 11 August 2024.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): For the record, that was Minister Erica Stanford.

Bills

Game Animal Council (Herds of Special Interest) Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Debate resumed.

DAN ROSEWARNE (Labour) (17:30): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s my pleasure to take a call on the Game Animal Council (Herds of Special Interest) Amendment Bill. We oppose it, particularly in light of the Environment (Disestablishment of Ministry for the Environment) Amendment Act, which went through the House only recently, and then also the cut in funding for conservation—and also biosecurity, but that’s a debate for another day.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Relevant though, isn’t it?

DAN ROSEWARNE: It is extremely relevant, absolutely. The Minister for Hunting and Fishing gave his opening statement, and it was relatively short. I was actually expecting a hunting story or something like that. Maybe he might be a “Tupperware” hunter? You know, he has all the gear but no idea! A bit like the National Party at Fieldays. They had their cute little blue Swanndris on. They must have just pulled them out of the bag and put them on—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Brand new.

DAN ROSEWARNE: Yeah, brand spanking new. Then they went to their little corner, right on the boundary of Fieldays, and waited for people to come to them. In the meantime, we were out talking to the community, out there going around the stalls and hearing what people had to say. In the days that I was there, I didn’t see one National MP. But, as I promised at the start, Mr Speaker, I’ll get back to the bill, and we’ll start with a hunting story. My favourite area—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): There was so much noise coming from the right that you can talk about what you like, because I can hardly hear you.

DAN ROSEWARNE: My favourite place to hunt is down in Stewart Island. They have the elusive white-tailed deer, and 85 percent of that land is protected Department of Conservation land. The good thing about white-tailed deer is that they’re so elusive and you have to actually apply a bit of craft to shoot one. I’ve found the best way to do it is to go down there with a group of friends and you kayak around, rather than taking the tracks. You find one of the long beaches—there are fantastic beaches there, which just belong on a postcard. If you saw them on a postcard, you wouldn’t even know it was Stewart Island. You’d think it was somewhere in the central Pacific, or somewhere like that.

Anyway, the best way to shoot a white-tailed deer is either first thing in the morning at dawn or at dusk, when they come down to feed on any kind of remains that are on the beach. Zero in your rifle ahead of time. I had a .308, so don’t bother zeroing it down there. Zero it before you get there.

Hon Cameron Brewer: How’d you get that in the Koru Club?

DAN ROSEWARNE: Absolutely—now, where was I? You wait for them to come down. If you try to shoot them during the day—because they go into the bush, and it’s thick bush, thick canopy—they’ll just hear you coming and they’ll take off.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): And then you get in your boat and go up to the wapiti block, don’t you, because that’s what we’re talking about.

DAN ROSEWARNE: Absolutely. But, if you’re there dawn or at dusk and you set up shop, you’ll eventually see them come down.

The main point with that story, Mr Speaker, is that the whole appeal of shooting white-tailed deer is not because it’s easy; it’s because it’s hard. That’s why I oppose this bill, because the key aspect is that this legislation asks the House to shift the purpose of our national parks. The National Parks Act 1980 is clear in that these places are to be preserved in their natural state, and introduced species are to be exterminated as far as possible. This bill cuts directly across that principle. It creates a legal pathway to deliberately maintain introduced species, such as deer, inside national parks for hunting purposes. That’s the contradiction at the heart of this bill. You cannot preserve a natural system while sustaining introduced animals within it.

I particularly liked Celia Wade-Brown’s contribution. She highlighted that those on both sides of this argument care about the same thing. You can be a hunter, absolutely, and you can support this bill. I truly believe that. At least with Cameron Luxton, he gave some kind of half-hearted hunting story. I was getting really excited about that, but then it kind of nosedived—typical of the ACT Party poll right now, but, again, that’s a story for another day. We oppose this bill.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula) (17:35): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call on the third reading of the Game Animal Council (Herds of Special Interest) Amendment Bill.

We know, and hunters know, that when deer numbers are too high, the bush is devastated. That’s why, under this bill, it brings in small areas where there’s designated management plans to be in effect. Those plans require ecological surveys of the browsing intensity levels, and they’re aiming to get between the levels of about 10 to 15 percent in those areas. What we know is that, at present, some of those unmanaged areas are seeing areas getting about 50 percent of browsing. That is way beyond what we’d expect to see for a sustainable forest.

This will put more attention into those areas and improve the conservation outcomes where those herds of special interest remain. It allows them to continue. It allows people to still be able to hunt white-tail on Stewart Island, as the previous member, Dan Rosewarne, so enjoys.

Hon JO LUXTON (Labour) (17:37): Thank you, Mr Speaker. One of the things that I think has been a bit misconstrued throughout this debate is the fact that the members on the Government benches have said that members on this side of the House don’t think that hunters are conservationists. That’s simply not correct. Nobody on this side of the House, and particularly in the Labour Party, has said that hunters are not conservationists.

Hunting has a very important and special place here in New Zealand. We do it for recreational purposes. Many people and their families head out for a trek for a day, for a camp for a few days, particularly to go on hunting expeditions. It’s in the fabric of who we are here as New Zealanders, and hunters make a real contribution to the management of deer on public land, and they do deserve respect and recognition for that. But this bill goes too far. It’s a bit like my colleague Ingrid Leary said before in her contribution: this is about trophy hunting, not necessarily conservation. I understand there have been points made throughout the several readings of this bill and the committee stage, etc., about the importance and tourism opportunities—that having a herd of special interest creates tourism opportunities. Many people come to New Zealand to enjoy the beautiful flora and fauna that our national parks provide, and they are also coming for those tourism opportunities. I don’t think we should necessarily say that the opportunity for trophy hunting is the be-all and end-all of providing or creating tourism opportunities here in New Zealand.

We heard from Rachel Brooking in her contribution about some of the devastating impacts that deer have on our forests, on our flora and fauna: eating saplings and the undergrowth so then it’s not enabling it to regenerate. Our wild deer population in the country has absolutely exploded, and we heard Rachel Brooking when she talked about her one shot from 300 or something metres away. Then she talked about the fact that you don’t need to be 300 metres away to shoot a deer these days, because the population has exploded so much; it’s just about not even hunting. You hear of farmers who go out on farm and, basically, the deer have come in from the bush and they can just stand there and shoot—that there’s about 30 or 40 of them just sitting there.

That does bring me to another point, because I wanted to talk a bit about—I just want to find my notes on it—the exploding deer population and, as I mentioned before, the issue around the deer coming on to farms. Now, we know that the deer are moving a bit more freely between conservation land, private farmland, and forestry blocks, and if we elevate particular herds of special interests, we do risk creating pockets of higher deer densities that will spill on to adjoining farmland, particularly, potentially—

Hon James Meager: No, not true. Not true.

Hon JO LUXTON: I don’t know. Are you fencing it off? Are you, Minister?

Hon James Meager: It’s not true. You manage the numbers down.

Hon JO LUXTON: Are you fencing the deer off for this specific—

Dr Vanessa Weenink: We’re not doing any fencing.

Hon JO LUXTON: Well, there you go then. So they’re not going to want to go to other places and, potentially, on to farmland. But anyway—

Hon James Meager: Yes, because there’s going to be fewer deer.

Hon JO LUXTON: You can have another call later on if you like, Minister. However—

Hon James Meager: The bill will be passed.

Hon JO LUXTON: Oh dear—anyway. It’s the farmers that bear the brunt of the cost if we have this deer exploding population. We have wild pigs; we have all these things coming in and destroying productive land, eating crops, and it’s just not fair.

In a note here, in a Federated Farmers survey, farmers are spending significant sums of money on control work in lost production. More than half of the survey’s respondents report deer numbers have increased in the past five years. Now—

Hon James Meager: It’s almost like you should manage the numbers down.

Hon JO LUXTON: The Minister says, “That’s why you manage the numbers down.” What is the correct number, though? What is the ultimate number to ensure that you have a deer population that you can keep under control? Because, from what I understand and what I’ve heard from other people—

Dr Vanessa Weenink: It’s about the state of the bush. It’s the browsing intensity, not the number of animals.

Hon JO LUXTON: Take another call if you wish. Take another call if you wish.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Miss Weenink, I believe you’ve had a call.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Not a very long one.

Hon JO LUXTON: That’s right. Miss Weenink could have taken a longer call if she had more to say, but she didn’t.

However, the issue is, though, that when you create—that’s right; I was speaking about the exact, the best, the perfect number. There can’t be a perfect number to have for herds of special interest, because I think it was Lan Pham that mentioned before, unless you cull them by a specific percentage, they are going to continue to get out of control and it’s just simply not going to be in the best interest for our beautiful taonga, our beautiful native parks.

This piece of legislation has gone through the House, and it seems that it’s gone through following an awful lot of lobbying and just-in-time policy making, a complete lack of evidence and data regarding impacts on native flora and fauna, a lack of recognition of Te Tiriti, and a transfer of far more decision making to the Minister than I believe is actually necessary. It’s also an additional cost to New Zealand taxpayers for an unnecessary piece of legislation that’s not even required to allow hunters to continue hunting. That is the thing: this piece of legislation doesn’t allow more hunting or anything like that, because the hunters can continue to hunt as they have always done, and they can continue to hunt these herds of special interest or these trophy deer, as we’ve heard. We don’t need legislation to allow them to continue to do that, because at the rate that these deer—what’s the word—have more deer—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Reproduce!

Hon JO LUXTON: —reproduce—I don’t think there’s going to be an issue, right? We just see the population exploding. I do think that this particular piece of legislation is actually unnecessary, because, as I’ve mentioned before, we can’t keep on top of our invasive species as it is, so I just think that it is completely and necessary.

I mentioned before about the lack of recognition of Te Tiriti, and it was that question of whose voices are heard that also extends to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, because if the Government’s prepared to listen to those advocating for these herds of special interests—those that have lobbied, the hunters, etc.—then they should be prepared to listen to those who have longstanding cultural, historical, and environmental interests in these landscapes. Yet this bill contains no meaningful implementation of Te Tiriti o Waitangi principles, no recognition of important cultural values associated with the conservation estate, and that includes places of immense significance to iwi, such as Aoraki and the Tōpuni status as recognised by Ngāi Tahu. When we’re making decisions about the future of our public conservation land, those values should not be an afterthought. If this Government believes that the interest of hunting groups deserve recognition and legislation, then it is also fair to ask why the interests and cultural values of tangata whenua have not been given the same consideration in this piece of legislation.

To recap: no one on this side of the House has said that hunters are not conservationists. Hunters can still, and have always been able to, continue hunting, regardless of whether there is a specific species made a herd of special interest or not. Hunters play an important part in trying to keep our deer population down. Our deer population is continuing to explode, so it takes more than our hunters; it’s going to take a variety of options to ensure that our deer population comes down.

We do not need this piece of legislation. We do not need herds of special interest, because our hunters can continue to hunt. They have always been able to hunt. No matter whether there is a deer that is a just an ordinary old wild deer or whether there is a special wapiti deer or whatever it might be, they’re still destroying our flora and fauna, and they should not be protected. Hunters can still continue to hunt them. They shouldn’t be given special recognition.

TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki) (17:47): I would like to respond, to, I think it was Rachel Brooking, that said the Minister’s comments were contradictory. Now, if I lay aside all the factually incorrect comments that we’ve heard from the other side of the House, if we want contradictory, in rode Dan Rosewarne, the “King of Koru”, to say that at Fieldays you couldn’t see a National MP, while six of us at a time were at our stand engaging with hunters, engaging with the rural communities, next to the empty site of just plain grass that was the alleged Labour Party stand. To then stand up here and say that they are speaking for hunters, they’re speaking for conservationists, they speak for the regions—they wouldn’t know what they were. They’re moving electorates because they’ve—they’re moving away from the regions. This is a great bill. It is bang on target.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Dr Duncan Webb—the Te Pāti Māori call.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) (17:47): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thank you for giving me this call, and I know it was at your discretion, because I do intend to make a substantive contribution.

It’s always struck me as a funny old thing when you drive up Lindis Pass and you get to the top of the pass or thereabouts, and there’s a monument there, and it’s celebrating the introduction of the first deer in New Zealand. I look at that sometimes—I’ve stopped there and read the plaque—and I thought, “Well, you know, it’s actually not something I would actually celebrate.” Now, they’re here and they’ll always be here, but to suggest that it’s a fantastic thing to have these introduced species running rampant through our forests is a really kind of odd thing.

Now, I accept that hunting is a thing—I’ve done a little bit of it myself—and that many of the hunters do have great conservation values. The whole idea of trying to divide us for and against hunters and not hunters is a really bad thing. But when you travel to some of our most remote regions, when you do get to those places where there are very few of these browsers, you get for the first time an impression of what our forests used to be like, where the entire forest floor is a thick undergrowth of mosses, of saplings, of small plants, of all kinds of amazing biodiversity. Of course, within that is hidden all kinds of fungi and insects and invertebrates and all sorts. That’s what it used to be like. That is why we have national parks, because our national parks are set aside—at least they currently are—to protect our most treasured areas. That’s why, when we have national parks, we don’t have arrangements where we protect, within those parks, herds of introduced species, essentially, for recreational purposes.

Of course we can, and hunters do and should hunt in national parks. We can have herds of interest, and we have management plans in national parks, but we can have management plans which look to preserve hunting in other parts of the country which aren’t our most treasured areas. But what this does, and why it makes no sense, is it says, “Look, we think we should promote hunting”—that’s OK by itself—“and we think we should have national parks.”; that is to say, “We should preserve the utmost pristine nature in our most remote areas, and let’s do those two things at the same time in the same place.”

That’s the madness of this bill, because we should, in fact, recognise that our national parks should be kept as pristine as possible, and while we have deer and other browsers in our national parks, and all kinds of other introduced pests, we shouldn’t be encouraging them. There’s plenty of land in New Zealand where deer and other species can be managed, and hunters can go and hunt them at their will. But if they’re going to a national park, let’s make it hard. Let’s make sure there are as few of these browsers damaging our national parks as possible, because, as Rachel Brooking said, if you look at an area where deer have proliferated, where there are a good number of them, there is nothing below deer level. There’s nothing growing. There’s nothing on the ground. It can be near barren, and, certainly, all the branches on the trees have been chewed off. It’s a really terrible thing.

And yet we’ve got a Minister for Hunting and Fishing here who’s quite happy to see that happen in our national parks. This is an incoherent piece of legislation, which, unfortunately, is pandering to a very small group of people, because most people do want to keep our wildest areas the most pristine. I would suggest that the Minister get his boots on and go and trek to some of those truly remote areas, and perhaps then he’ll appreciate what we’re trying to preserve here, because it’s a treasure that, once gone, will never come back; once sold, can never be bought back.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Game Animal Council (Herds of Special Interest) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 67

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

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Members, we are one minute short of the five-minute call. The New Zealand First member has indicated he intends to take a full 10-minute call. That will take us beyond 6 o’clock, and I know people are looking to catch flights tonight, so the time has come for me to leave the chair. Have a good weekend. Thank you.

The House adjourned at 5.54 p.m.