Wednesday, 19 August 2026

Wednesday, 19 August 2026

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Start of Sitting Day

Karakia/Prayers

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

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

SPEAKER:No petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation, no papers have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation, and no select committee reports have been delivered for presentation. No bills have been introduced.

Oral Questions to Ministers

Finance

Question No. 1

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote) (14:01) to the Minister of Finance: How is the Government helping New Zealand businesses to invest in productive assets?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (14:01): To lift incomes and drive long-term economic growth, New Zealand needs businesses to invest in capital investment that increases their productivity. That’s why the Government introduced Investment Boost in last year’s Budget. Investment Boost allows New Zealand businesses to immediately deduct 20 percent of the cost of a new asset on top of normal depreciation. This tax change means more investment opportunities will stack up financially so more investments will be made. Treasury and Inland Revenue consider that over the next 20 years, Investment Boost will increase New Zealand’s capital stock, lift productivity, and lift wages.

Dan Bidois: Who benefits from Investment Boost?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: A lot of people benefit when businesses do well, but let me quote from the regulatory impact statement for Investment Boost, which was prepared by Inland Revenue and Treasury officials: “Our view is the majority of the increase in national income from this policy would flow to workers and this increase would come from a combination of higher wages and higher employment, and we therefore expect that the benefits of this policy will be spread broadly across a wide range of New Zealanders.”

Dan Bidois: Is there a cap on the value of new investments under this policy?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No. All New Zealand businesses, regardless of size, are eligible for Investment Boost, and there is no cap on the value of new investments. New Zealand needs businesses, both big and small, to be investing in machinery, tools, farm equipment, technology, heavy vehicles, utes, industrial buildings, and other capital assets. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry, people who want to converse across the House while a question’s either being asked or answered will be asked to remove themselves to the side galleries to continue the argument. The Minister may wish to start again.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Mr Speaker, thank you. All New Zealand businesses, regardless of size, are eligible for Investment Boost, and there’s no cap on the value of new investments or prescription of what can and cannot be eligible. New Zealand needs our businesses, both big and small, to be investing in machinery, tools, technology, farm equipment, vehicles, industrial buildings, and other capital assets. Those are the sorts of investments that drive productivity growth, job creation, and wage growth. An accelerated depreciation scheme that only applied, for example, to assets less than $10,000 in value might encourage some businesses to buy a laptop or a chair or a lamp. None of that is going to transform their business.

Dan Bidois: How much are New Zealand businesses saving from Investment Boost?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Investment Boost is expected to reduce taxes on New Zealand businesses by $6.6 billion in the first four years of the policy. It is a policy to reduce tax on New Zealand businesses. Now, that is not in itself the only point of the policy, which is actually to incentivise businesses to make productive investments which will allow the New Zealand economy to grow. It does show that any policy to remove Investment Boost would, effectively, be a $6.6 billion tax increase on New Zealand businesses. Furthermore, it would have a negative impact on capital investment, on productivity, and on wage growth. Anyone proposing such a policy should be upfront about the consequences.

Prime Minister

Question No. 2

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition) (14:05) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister) (14:05): Absolutely, and I just want to confirm for the member that this Government won’t be implementing a capital gains tax, a digital services tax, a business tax, a 45 percent top tax rate, an inheritance tax, gift tax, rentals tax, asset tax, land tax, streaming tax, or ute tax.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: What day did he first become aware that members of his own team intended to challenge his position as Prime Minister?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We dealt with that issue last week. I’ve been very open about it in the media. I’ve talked about it, we’ve dealt with it, and we’re moving on.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order. What the Prime Minister says to the media is irrelevant. My question to him was: what day did he become aware that members of his own team intended to challenge his position as Prime Minister? This does relate directly to his responsibilities as Prime Minister. He sacked a Minister as a result of it. Asking him when he first became aware of that is not unreasonable.

SPEAKER: And his opening answer was “Early last week”, and I you can’t deny that addresses the question.

Hon Chris Bishop: Point of order. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Hang on. Sorry, it’s a point of order. [Interruption] The Hon Chris Bishop. No one else speaking at this time.

Hon Chris Bishop: The Prime Minister is responsible for his actions and statements as Prime Minister. Issues to do with political party matters are not the responsibility of this House.

SPEAKER: Well, unfortunately, there was a consequence that was taken as Prime Minister that has led to the question.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Did he receive an assurance, between learning of Chris Penk’s challenge and his decision to call a National Party caucus meeting, that Erica Stanford continued to support him as Prime Minister; if so, how was that support conveyed?

Hon Chris Bishop: Point of order.

SPEAKER: That’s right. That does go straight to the heart of it.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order. The Prime Minister can only be the Prime Minister if he enjoys the confidence of the House. Asking questions about that is absolutely within his purview as Prime Minister. He has sacked the person who I questioned him about. It is completely reasonable to question him about that.

SPEAKER: If your position was correct, then you’d need to ask that question about absolutely every member in the House. The Prime Minister sits in that seat because he clearly has the confidence of his caucus.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order. That’s exactly the point. You’re asserting something that has not yet been established. Questioning him on whether or not he does actually have the confidence of his own Ministers, therefore, is totally in order.

SPEAKER: I just want to make it absolutely clear that if there was to be any change in the leadership of a party, it’s done so by a caucus, not by individual Ministers.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If Chris Penk was acting alone in trying to remove him as Prime Minister, which resulted in him being sacked, why did he need to call every National MP back to Wellington to vote on it?

Hon Chris Bishop: Point of order.

SPEAKER: People are going to listen to points of order silently, or otherwise they’ll be listening to it on the broadcast.

Hon Chris Bishop: The Leader of the Opposition is cleverly, but wrongly, conflating two separate issues in attempting to ask questions about matters to do with the National Party caucus, in Parliament where the Prime Minister sits as the Prime Minister. Those are not admissible questions.

SPEAKER: That is correct.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order. He sacked Chris Penk as a Minister, who basically challenged him, and said that Chris Penk was acting alone. It is completely legitimate to question the veracity of that claim. It resulted in a Minister being sacked.

SPEAKER: No, they’re two entirely separate things. One is you have party caucuses choose who their leader is. The second thing is that if that party is in Government and is the dominant party, then clearly that leader will become a Prime Minister. Ministers serve at the courtesy of the Prime Minister, and while you may wish to conflate two different things, I think the ground’s been well gone over as to why the Minister concerned was relieved of his portfolios. It’s not tenable for—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: OK, I won’t go further. Good.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: All right—thank you, Mr Speaker. Did any other Minister in his Government indicate that he should stand down as Prime Minister during the last two weeks; if so, why didn’t he sack them too?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As has been reported, Chris Penk was the only person to challenge for the leadership; he was working for himself. I have to say, this is a pretty sad and petty—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No—excuse me, sunshine.

SPEAKER: No, no. OK. Woah. Point of order, the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: It’s a very straightforward question, Mr Speaker. It was completely consistent with the ruling you’ve just made. It’s whether or not a Minister in his Government asked him to stand down; and if so, why they’re not being sacked. He is responsible for that; it does relate to his job as Prime Minister.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: The answer is no. Chris Penk was the only one.

SPEAKER: The answer’s just been given.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Was Winston Peters correct when he said National’s leadership and MPs are “inexperienced, egotistical, and self-obsessed”; if not, how does he explain their behaviour to twice try and remove him as Prime Minister?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No. I think he may have had his Chrises mixed up.

SPEAKER: The Hon David Seymour—[Interruption] Wait a minute, just wait.

Hon David Seymour: Is it important for his Ministers—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry. Wait. Even the loud laughter from the back could end up being an early afternoon.

Hon David Seymour: Is it important for his Ministers to update their conflict of interest register, and would he sack one who failed to do it after being reminded 14 times?

SPEAKER: No. I don’t think that helps with things.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If standards of ministerial conduct are that important to the Government, why hasn’t he sacked two Ministers who have been repeatedly racist?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I just want to say, look, the member is—it’s very flattering; he’s got very obsessed with me. I have to say, Amanda’s getting quite jealous. I think this election is about tax; he wants to make this election about me. That’s perfectly fine, but I think it’s pretty sad and pretty petty, to be honest. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: When we’re all settled. Question No. 3—Jenny Marcroft. [Interruption] Hang on a minute—there’s one person on the question.

Health

Question No. 3

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First) (14:12) to the Associate Minister of Health: What recent reports has she seen on aged care?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health) (14:12): This Government established a ministerial advisory group to review aged care. The Aged Care Ministerial Advisory Group has delivered their independent report that sets out what they believe is needed to create an aged-care system that provides the right care in the right place, ensuring people can transition between the type of care they need when they need it. In addition, the group focused on the changes they believe need to be made to make the aged-care system fairer and more sustainable. I would like to commend the group for their exemplary work on this report. They were given a huge task, and the amount of work they put in to deliver the 40 recommendations is admirable.

Jenny Marcroft: Why is this report important?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: A proper aged-care system is a key part of ensuring people live as well as they can as they age, and I’m proud that this Government is actually looking at ways to build that. We’ve known for a long time that aged care isn’t set up as a system and it has funding challenges. For too long, Governments have been kicking the can down the road. Aged care has been a priority for this Government, evidenced by the New Zealand First - National coalition agreement commitments: to engage openly and constructively with the aged-care sector, investigate funding options for residential care beds, undertake a select committee inquiry, and work to support bipartisan agreement on the funding needed for care beds into the future. The ministerial advisory group report provides a vision for a pathway forward, and I hope all parties in this House would consider it to be a good starting point for building a long-term solution.

Jenny Marcroft: What is being done in response to this report?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: As I’ve said, the future of aged care is incredibly important—for those in care, their families, everyone who might be in care, the sector, and the wider health system. They also involve significant sums of money. We need to get any change right. That’s why the report and its recommendations will be considered carefully by this Government. Cabinet has directed the Ministry of Health to develop advice for the Government on the recommendations, including on options for the timing and process of aged-care reform. This will cover immediate and longer-term priorities into the future.

Prime Minister

Question No. 4

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green) (14:15) to the Prime Minister: E tautoko ana ia i ngā kōrero me ngā mahi katoa a tōna Kāwanatanga?

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

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister) (14:15): Yes, and particularly I want to reassure the member that this Government won’t be implementing a 45 percent top income tax rate, an inheritance tax, a gift tax, a rentals tax, or an asset tax.

Chlöe Swarbrick: When he said, and I quote, “I thought the Greens’ announcement was sort of a bit of classic Greens, to be honest, in the sense of we haven’t even got the investment here in New Zealand. We haven’t got data centres happening at scale.”, was he unaware of the hyperscale artificial intelligence (AI) Datagrid data centre being approved—the very context of the Greens’ announcement?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No. My point was that we’ve got about three data centres coming on stream in the next year, if everything goes to plan. Current data centres are about 0.6 percent of New Zealand’s electricity generation, Australia’s about 2.2, and I think Ireland’s 22 percent.

Chlöe Swarbrick: So, then, does he stand by his statement that “we’ve got about three data centres, I think, expected to come on stream in the next year. The advice we’ve had is that it won’t put upward pressure on electricity prices”, and, if so, can he confirm that this advice explicitly excludes the AI Datagrid centre?

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

Chlöe Swarbrick: So can he guarantee that the 280 megawatt Southland data centre will not push up electricity prices for households and businesses?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, actually, a lot of data centres that have come into New Zealand actually support additional generation and investment. If you think about the Microsoft one that’s been backed by Contact, think about the AWS one backed by Mercury, think about the Datagrid Southland one backed by Mercury as well—I’m just saying to the member that we agree that there should be some sensible rules. We certainly think there should be additional generation put in place. There’s a number of things that we can work through to get a code in place to get some common, sensible rules, but I just want to reassure the member that we need data centres for a modern life in New Zealand. We want to take the opportunity. That’s what we’re going to do.

Chlöe Swarbrick: So how does the Prime Minister reconcile his agreement with us that we need “sensible, common-sense rules” in place for hyperscale AI data centres with his willingness to continue allowing hyperscale AI data centres to be consented under current rules before sensible, common-sense regulations can be put in place, meaning that those consented AI data centres will not have those rules apply to them?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: My point was that the Greens want to turn off investors and investment before they have even arrived in New Zealand. They want to put up a “closed for business” sign. We went through that experience on oil and gas and it wasn’t pleasant. I was just saying to the member that we have about three coming on stream in the coming year. We believe in some sensible rules, and we’ll get those in place in due course.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Has there been any evaluation whatsoever on the impact on energy prices if his Government’s investment arm strategy of $35 billion more invested into hyperscale AI data centres is successful before sensible, common-sense rules can be put in place?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I think the member would fully support the actions of this Government that have led to a 35 percent reduction in wholesale electricity prices because of our desire to make sure we have a liquefied natural gas import facility, we have a strategic coal reserve, we have a strategic diesel reserve, and we’ve built more renewables in the last two years than we have in the previous eight.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: A point of order and no one else making any comment.

Chlöe Swarbrick: I understand that the rules of question time are not that the Prime Minister obviously has to answer the question, but at the very least I understand he is supposed to address them. My question was specifically and explicitly about whether the Government had requested any advice on the impact on energy prices of hyperscale AI data centres. He did not address that.

SPEAKER: The Prime Minister may wish to make another comment.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yeah. Look, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment advises that if current data centre growth continues as expected, there should be no upward pressure on electricity prices. This is also a Government taking the energy needs of New Zealand very seriously. That is why, actually, a 35 percent reduction in wholesale electricity prices is a good thing for New Zealand and New Zealand businesses.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Prime Minister heard Anthony Newley’s song “Stop the World—I Want to Get Off”, and could that possibly be a political party’s manifesto?

SPEAKER: No.

Women

Question No. 5

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader—Labour) (14:20) to the Minister for Women: Does she stand by her statement that “The Government is committed to supporting women”; if so, why?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG (Minister for Women) (14:20): Yes. This Government is committed to supporting women through practical actions. Just yesterday, we announced further support for women living with endometriosis by introducing guidelines to help doctors and clinicians diagnose the condition. We’ve also expanded free breast screening to the age of 74. We’ve introduced KiwiSaver Government contributions for eligible parents receiving paid parental leave in Budget 2026, and we will continue to invest in initiatives that support women’s leadership, wellbeing, safety, and economic participation. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just wait for the House to gather itself. Just keep waiting. The Hon Carmel Sepuloni.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Was the Government supporting women when it changed the law under urgency, cancelling 180,000 women’s pay equity claims and blocking secondary school teachers from making future claims?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: As has been traversed more times than I can count in this House, I am not the Minister responsible for the pay equity changes. However, this Government remains committed to progressing pay equity through a system that is clearer, is targeted, and is sustainable in the long term. Pay equity is important—

Hon Dr Megan Woods: How much?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: —but it is just one part of the picture.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Show us the money.

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: Women’s overall economic outcomes are influenced by a broader set of economic and social factors.

SPEAKER: The Hon Megan Woods.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: I’m not Megan Woods, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Well, you could have been confused with the amount of questions coming across the House during that last exchange. The Hon Carmel Sepuloni.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Was the Government supporting women when it blocked proposals to introduce cross-party legislation to change our consent laws so the National Party could score political points?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: I have no responsibility for that legislation.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Point of order, Mr Speaker. In the Minister’s answer to the primary question, she rattled off a number of areas that the Government, she proposed, had supported women in, so I believe I can ask about a range of things across sectors involving women, because her job is to advocate on behalf of women, as the Minister for Women.

SPEAKER: That’s an interesting prospect, but there will be some aspects of Government activity that involve all Ministers; the Minister for Women pointing to those is not unreasonable. To ask specific questions about those I think is probably taking it a bit too far, but ask the question again.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Was the Government supporting women when it blocked proposals to introduce cross-party legislation to change our consent laws so the National Party could score political points—

SPEAKER: See, the last part makes it very difficult for a Minister to answer without making some political statements. You’ve got to ask what exactly you want.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Was the Government supporting women when it blocked proposals to introduce cross-party legislation to change our consent laws?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: I do reject the characterisation of that question, but what I would say is this Government is working really hard to improve safety for women. Just last month, I launched a practical guide to help employers and workplaces support staff experiencing stalking. That launch actually coincided with the Government’s introduction of new anti-stalking legislation, which recognises stalking as a harmful pattern of behaviour that carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Was the Government supporting women when it removed 53,000 families from receiving BestStart childcare tax credits and cutting the payments for another 9,000 families?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: I have no legislative responsibility for that.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Was Nicola Willis correct that the reason paid parental leave is not currently 30 weeks is because the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety “didn’t prioritise this change in her work programme”, and, if so, why didn’t she prioritise these changes in her women’s portfolio?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: I’m advised that that is not what the Minister of Finance said, and I’d suggest that member put those questions in writing to the relevant Minister.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Paid parental leave is one of the areas that the Minister did cover in her opening answer to my primary question, so I think it’s fair that I am able to ask a supplementary question on that specific area.

SPEAKER: Yes, and it’s also fair that the Minister says she’s not able to answer on that. Do you have another supplementary? OK, question No. 6—Dr Carlos Cheung.

Housing

Question No. 6

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill) (14:25) to the Minister of Housing: Is the Government considering removing interest deductibility on residential property?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing) (14:25): No.

Dr Carlos Cheung: How does interest deductibility on residential property work?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: In New Zealand, tax is paid on profit, not revenue. That mean residential property investors can subtract mortgage interest they pay, and other expenses like council rates, from their rental income. Take a simple example: if a rental earns $30,000 a year; rates, insurances, and repairs comes to $8,000; and mortgage interest is $20k, with deductibility, the taxable profit is $2,000, and tax is about $660, and without it, the tax is about $7,260—on a property that only actually made $2,000 profit. This is a great way to disincentivise people from renting out their property. The Government supports the principal that you pay tax on profit—as it does with any other business.

Dr Carlos Cheung: Why isn’t the Government considering removing interest deductibility on residential property?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Many reasons, but here are three. For one, removing deduction is unprincipled because it violates a fundamental principal of tax law. Secondly, it’s inconsistent and can therefore create perverse incentives. Thirdly, removing interest deductibility raises cost for people who provide rentals, which—according to experts—is likely to be passed on to renters. It is perhaps unsurprising that between 2017 and 2023, rents went up by $180 per week, and they are now flat, and in some markets falling.

Dr Carlos Cheung: What do experts say about removing interest deductibility on residential property?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Let me quote from the regulatory impact statement. IRD said that they were concerned that denying interest deduction would make rental investment unattractive, reducing supply over time, placing upward pressure on rents, thus raising costs for renters. Dr Oliver Hartwich said that calling interest deductibility a loophole “misunderstands how an income tax works. … No Government would dream of taxing a farmer on gross sales while ignoring the cost of feed, fertiliser and fuel. Yet that is precisely the logic applied to landlords.” Even noted tax expert sir Deborah Russell said it would be an arbitrary rule, designed to achieve a non-tax purpose. I agree with Deborah Russell: we should keep the law as it is.

Finance

Question No. 7

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) (14:28) to the Minister of Finance: Mālō ‘aupito, Mr Speaker. Does she stand by all her statements and actions?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (14:28): In context, yes.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she stand by her claims, in 2024, that New Zealand is seeing the green shoots of recovery, when, on her watch, business liquidations are up 70 percent, with 3,023 placed into liquidation in the year to March?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes, but I would also note that the number of new businesses registered outpaced those liquidation figure in those recent statistics as well.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is the cost of living getting better or worse when there was $43.4 million of KiwiSaver hardship withdrawals in June alone, up almost 20 percent in just one year?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The latest data that we have on inflation—which of course is the biggest driver of the cost of living—shows that food prices, and food inflation, has continued to ease. Food prices increased just 0.1 percent in July, meaning that annual food inflation has fallen to 1.9 percent, which is its lowest rate since December 2024—and a lot lower than the double-digit food inflation experienced under the last Government.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why, then, is there $43.4 million of KiwiSaver hardship withdrawals in June alone, if inflation was just the issue?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I do want to acknowledge that anyone who is put in a position where they feel they have to withdraw their KiwiSaver funds is someone that I have a lot of sympathy for, and that is not a situation that we want to see happening readily. Of course, the question is: what do we do to ensure that fewer Kiwi families are in that situation? Our Government’s answer is to ensure that we are fuelling economic growth that drives wage growth and job creation—whether that’s fast tracking major projects, whether that’s the Investment Boost tax credit to promote investment and wage growth, and whether that’s reducing red tape, these are the sorts of policies that support a stronger set of economic outcomes for all New Zealanders. The reverse is also the case. If we were, for example, to impose billions of dollars of new taxes across the economy, that would send a wrecking ball through the hopes and aspirations of Kiwi families.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why, then, with record net migration, higher unemployment, and low growth—while Kiwis are doing it tougher—has her Government resorted to calling them and New Zealand businesses “bottom feeders”, “soft”, “impatient”, “C-listers”, and “wet”, “whiny”, and “inward looking”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I reject the latter part of the question, but I would simply point out this: the people who stand in this House and say they are on the side of everyday workers better be consistent with their policy positions, because if those are the same people who are saying they want to whack $5 billion worth of additional tax on businesses who are striving to increase wages and increase jobs, and if those are the same people who will oppose fast-track developments—

SPEAKER: Yup, that is enough.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: —creating jobs, then those peopleare not on the side of growth.

Prime Minister

Question No. 8

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) (14:31) to the Prime Minister: E tautoko ana ia i ngā kōrero me ngā mahi katoa a tōna Kāwanatanga?

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

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister) (14:31): Yes, and I just want to reassure the member that this Government won’t be implementing an asset tax, a rentals tax, a gift tax, an inheritance tax, or a 45 percent top tax rate. We think that would take New Zealand backwards.

Hon Marama Davidson: Do hospitals have safe staffing levels?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’m very proud of what this Government has delivered, with 2,100 extra nurses and 600 extra doctors in our healthcare system, a big outreach to nurses to invest in nurse prescribers and nurse practitioners, and a big investment in primary care. I think we’ve got more to do in healthcare, but we’ve made some very good progress.

Hon Marama Davidson: Is he proud that three nurse roles in neonatal intensive care in Wellington were not approved for six months, or that chemotherapy treatments had to be shut down from not having enough nurses to provide treatment due to deliberate delays in approving hires for vacant roles?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I’m proud about is that, actually, this is a Government that’s invested more money into healthcare, it’s a Government that has invested more in workforce into healthcare, and, importantly, the healthcare system is starting to improve on the five key targets and metrics that we’ve set it. We have a real challenge with the bureaucracy in the middle, but we’re making progress on that too, and I’m sure the member would want to support less bureaucracy in healthcare so that we can get funds and people out to the front line.

Hon Marama Davidson: How can he be proud of his promise that front-line services wouldn’t be impacted by Public Service job cuts when we are hearing from workers in the system that “We are required to quietly cut and restrict services in order to prevent waiting lists from blowing out.”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’m actually proud of the fact that we’ve set targets and—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Where was the proof behind that allegation in that question?

SPEAKER: I beg your pardon?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Where was the proof or evidence behind the allegation in that question?

SPEAKER: There doesn’t need to be.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yes, there does.

SPEAKER: No, there doesn’t.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: You can’t say anything you like in here.

SPEAKER: I’m sorry, but there doesn’t. We’re going to have the question again.

Hon Marama Davidson: How can he be proud of his promise that front-line services wouldn’t be impacted by Public Service job cuts, when we are hearing from workers in the system that “We are required to quietly cut and restrict services in order to prevent waiting lists from blowing out.”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I’m proud about is that this Government is focused on health outcomes, and we have prioritised on making sure we have shorter wait times in emergency departments, we’ve made sure that we get immunisation rates for under-twos focused, and we’ve made sure we’ve got access to first specialist appointments, elective surgeries, and faster cancer treatment plans. On all of those metrics, we’re making progress. That matters because we want to see things and outcomes improve for patients.

Hon Marama Davidson: Has a single nurse told him that there are safe staffing levels in front-line hospitals?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I can tell the member they certainly appreciate having 2,100 more nurses in the system than when we came to Government.

Media and Communications

Question No. 9

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula) (14:34) to the Minister for Media and Communications: Is he considering implementing a streaming tax?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister for Media and Communications) (14:35): No [Interruption].

SPEAKER: No one else is talking.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: What would a streaming tax mean for New Zealand consumers?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, any tax imposed on streaming platforms would ultimately risk being passed onto consumers—the people who are trying to watch Netflix, or Apple TV, or whatever it is. The Government’s view is that New Zealanders pay enough tax already, and the last thing that we need is even more taxes, so that is why we’re not going to be adding to the pile of taxes that New Zealanders pay, and part of that is being careful about our spending and that means we don’t have so much tax.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: Instead of a streaming tax, what is the Government doing to support local content?

Hon Willie Jackson: Nothing.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, a large amount and, rather than taxing viewers—

Hon Simeon Brown: Does Willie still want a tax?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: —and I acknowledge my counterpart Willie Jackson who is—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, look, I’m sorry; one Minister answering only would be useful. Start again.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I do acknowledge the member Willie Jackson, who is obviously upset about not having this tax, but he lost the argument, I presume. What the Government does invest is more than $400 million a year in the screen sector, including $85 million a year for NZ on Air, and around $280 million through screen production rebates. Also, this Government is moving legislation to improve prominence on new television sets that turn up. We’ve also removed Sunday advertising restrictions in order to help the broadcasters. There’s been a lot of work done to help New Zealand local content, but we’re not going to be adding new taxes.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: Has he seen any recent proposals for a streaming tax?

SPEAKER: This needs to be very carefully answered.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, as we discussed yesterday, there was a member’s bill and it did refer to a “small levy” on these giant streamers that will create a substantial revenue stream. The only point I’d say is this: things can start small that become big. If we look at Canada, for example, a 5 percent tax was introduced and then—lo and behold—it was 15 percent. The first series was at 5 percent and the next series was at 15 percent, so there’s always a risk when taxes and levies are introduced that they will continue to expand. We’re not going to take that risk, and that’s why we’re not having a streaming tax.

Health

Question No. 10

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) (14:37) to the Minister of Health: Is it correct that the net increase in Health New Zealand full-time equivalent nursing staff between the quarters ending March 2024 and March 2026 is 54 fulltime-equivalents?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (14:38): In respect to the member’s question, all of this information is published, and I refer the member to Health New Zealand’s Health Workforce Information Programme (HWIP), which reports on the growth of our healthcare workforce every single quarter. I’m advised that it shows Health New Zealand now employs 2,162 additional nurses on a net basis compared with September 2023, which equates to a net increase of 1,640 fulltime-equivalents (FTE). There are more nurses working in our public hospitals today than in previous years. Those are Health New Zealand’s own published figures and they’re freely available. That work has not stopped. I’m further advised that as at 28 July 2026, advertising for Health New Zealand nurse roles was under way for 1,422 FTE, with a further 297 at interview stage, 154 at reference-checking stage, and 235 offers under active consideration by candidates.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, sir. This is a very similar circumstance that occurred previously with this exact same Minister: with a primary question on notice that gives a specific time frame, he deliberately chose not to answer that question and talked about something of his own choosing. The primary question on notice specifically asks between the period of “March 2024 and March 2026”, neither of which he responded to.

SPEAKER: Well, I’m not sure about that, to be quite frank with you. I was listening very, very carefully for some of the reasons that you’ve outlined earlier. I think the Minister gave a very comprehensive address to the question.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, sir. The Minister talked about a time period before that in the question, and a time period after that in the question. Speakers’ rulings are quite clear that for primary questions on notice, they should be addressed to a more correct standard than is required for supplementaries. If that were to be a supplementary question, then yes, indeed, it would have been addressed. But if we have a situation where Ministers can choose to answer whatever time frame they wish, what is the point in question time if they’re not required to respond directly to primary questions on notice?

SPEAKER: Well, I’ll take this a bit further, but the question does actually state a specific outcome and asked him to confirm it. He clearly didn’t. The Minister may make a further comment on this answer.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: As I said in my answer, the number is publicly referred to and available in the Health Workforce Information Programme, which reports on the growth of the health workforce every single quarter.

SPEAKER: That’s not a—I would have thought that while you can’t be asked to give a yes or no answer, something more specific about the two dates that are mentioned there would be helpful to the order of the House.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Yes, well, the answer to the question, as I said, the number is available. It is published in the Health Workforce Information Programme for the quarters ending 24 March and 26 March, at that number of FTE.

SPEAKER: You can’t give an answer that leaves the House none the wiser. None of us have that information in front of us, and I presume the Minister does.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: And I said the number is publicly available in the Health Workforce Information Programme for those two quarters at the FTE stated in the parliamentary question.

SPEAKER: I think that was a yes.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Well sir, with respect—point of order.

SPEAKER: The Minister just said it is as stated in the parliamentary question. Can’t get clearer than that.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister referred in his answer to the primary to HWIP data, which is not in a parliamentary question answer. That is published data by Health New Zealand, so it would be incorrect for him to refer us to a written parliamentary question answer, and I think the question remains unanswered for that reason.

SPEAKER: No, no. The way I just heard it is the Minister actually said that the number is correct as stated in the question.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I think maybe I could be a little helpful here. The Minister did appear to be quoting from an official document. Therefore, I’d ask that he table it.

SPEAKER: Is the Minister quoting from an official document? He appears to be not.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Then how can he claim that, then?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: It’s published; it’s online.

SPEAKER: No, hang on—no, no need. Thank you.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is the answer to my primary question “54”?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Yes. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: The Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall, no one else.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Why did he say nursing vacancies reduced by referring to a different time period from the time period specified in my question on 28 July?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, because the member is cherry-picking a set of dates. The reality is I, in my answer to the question, talked about when this Government came to office and what the numbers are now. That member needs to take actual note of the answers that I am giving. As I said, I’m further advised—because at the heart of this question is: is the Government focused on recruiting the nursing workforce New Zealand needs? In my primary answer, I said we have 1,422 nursing roles currently being advertised, a further 297 at interview stage, 154 at reference-checking stage, and 235 offers under active consideration by candidates. I’d also note that the number of vacancies in September 2023 was 2,632; that is now down to 1,601. The turnover rate has dropped from 11.7 percent to 8.4 percent. The vacancy rate has fallen from 8.6 percent to 5.2 percent. The workforce is being strengthened under this Government.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Why did he cite, on Q+A, the nurses hired since coming into Government when nearly all of that growth happened before the election, and nursing fulltime-equivalents has grown by just 54, as he conceded today?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: I’m not sure if she remembers, but this Government came to office in October 2023, after the election, and the number of nurses that have been employed by Health New Zealand is 2,162 additional nurses since September 2023, which equates to a net increase of 1,640 fulltime-equivalents. Those are the facts.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Can he explain—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Everyone, just calm it.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Can he explain to New Zealanders why released documents show he knew about the hiring freeze all along and he has been deliberately deflecting answering questions about it in the House and in media?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: It was a document that was provided to RNZ from the PSA, which is a union campaigning for a change of Government, from March last year, when I’d just become the Minister of Health. Since then, we’ve got a new board, we have a new CEO, and we have established devolution, devolving decision making back down to the regions and districts where recruitment should take place and unravelling the mega-bureaucracy put in place when she was Minister of Health. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just a minute. That general barrage has to stop, or the questions will stop.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Why doesn’t he come clean and admit there has been a hiring freeze at Health New Zealand since the moment he has been Minister?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: There is no hiring freeze at Health New Zealand. In fact, the facts speak for themselves, and there are currently 1,422 nurses—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: We’re going to hear the rest of this without having comment from any other part of the House.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: There are 1,422 nurses currently being advertised at Health New Zealand; 297 at the interview stage, 154 at the reference-checking stage, and 235 offers under active consideration by candidates. This Government is having to unravel the complexity of the bureaucracy put in place by the previous Government when they decided—

SPEAKER: That’ll do. [Interruption] That’s enough.

Agriculture

Question No. 11

SUZE REDMAYNE (National—Rangitīkei) (14:48) to the Minister of Agriculture: Are the Government’s tax policies supporting the primary sector to grow; if so, how?

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture) (14:48): The Government’s tax policies are supporting the primary sector to grow, as it hits a record $64 billion in exports this year. For example, the Government’s Investment Boost tax policy has allowed the primary sector to invest in their businesses and grow production. A tax expert said this Government policy reduces costs of capital investment, making it easier for agribusinesses to grow. A rural accountant has said it rewards forward-thinking businesses that are upgrading gear, reducing risk and improving output. New Zealand does not grow by taxing more and investing less. Investment Boost is an important part of lowering taxes and boosting the rural economy.

Suze Redmayne: What reports has he seen about how the Government’s tax policies are supporting the primary sector to grow?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Investment Boost is driving investment across plant and machinery, vehicles, irrigation, and environmental practices, which is driving regional growth. There are reports of this being a game-changer for rural New Zealand. Pumps and irrigation, for example, immediately have a 20 percent tax deduction under Investment Boost. As the member will know from her electorate of Rangitīkei, water distribution enables greater productivity on farms. Without Investment Boost, significant harm would be done to rural businesses and the rural economy.

Suze Redmayne: Has he seen any other reports about how the Government’s tax policies are supporting the primary sector to grow?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Yes. Earlier in our term, we removed the ute tax, that unfairly penalised farmers, foresters, and growers. At the time, Federated Farmers said, “Taxing farmers in this way only added additional cost to productive businesses for no material advantage.” A commercial vehicle lease and finance company reported many tradies and farmers telling them that the ute tax unfairly penalised them from needing a rugged and practical work vehicle, and there was a rush from tradies to buy new utes when it was taken away. And, Mr Speaker, you will remember, as I do, when Groundswell organised a nationwide howl of a protest: 60,000 people turning up to say no to the ute tax—

SPEAKER: Just don’t bring me into your answer.

Hon TODD McCLAY: I apologise. I thought I saw you at it. I’ll stop now.

SPEAKER: That’s wrong—yes, carry on.

Hon TODD McCLAY: A return of this tax would harm every farmer, every grower, every trader in New Zealand.

Suze Redmayne: Has he seen any other reports about the effects of taxes on the agricultural sector?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, yes, I’ve seen media reports about an intention to scrap Investment Boost and to bring back the ute tax, and this would be devastating for the farming sector. It would impose a tax on tradies who need a ute for work, or farmers who need one to run their farms. The reports referred to a senior Labour Party candidate in Mt Albert, Michael Wood—

SPEAKER: That’s good. No, leave it there.

Seniors

Question No. 12

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) (14:51) to the Minister for Seniors: Is it still the Government’s plan for its policies to reflect the “reality” that “older people are a vital and growing part of New Zealand’s workforce, economy, and communities”?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Minister for Seniors) (14:51): Yes, particularly in the context in which that quote was made, off the back of the latest New Zealand Institute of Economic Research business of ageing report, produced for the Office for Seniors. The report showed that the value of unpaid work by older people has passed $20 billion a year; the paid work by over-65s contributes around $9 billion a year; self-employment for over-65s adds a further $5 billion a year; older people pay more than $13 billion in tax a year; and consumer spending by over-65s is close to $55 billion a year. Everyone knows that older New Zealanders make an incredible contribution to our society, and the business of ageing report puts some serious numbers behind that contribution.

Ingrid Leary: How is it so that her Government values seniors when 51,000 seniors report costs as a barrier to seeing their GP?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Absolutely this Government recognises that those that are on fixed incomes, relying mostly or exclusively on superannuation, are doing it tough. That is why this Government is approaching aged-care reform to ensure that we invest in keeping people well and improving access to aged care, and, most importantly, that we grow our economy. What we won’t do is put a capital gains tax on our older seniors, to ensure that they have a lower cost of living.

Ingrid Leary: Do seniors’ greater health needs and vulnerability to the cost of living make them less or more impacted by GP costs?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: As I’ve just said in my previous answer, those older New Zealanders that are impacted by fixed income will of course do it tough, and we are doing the practical things to ensure we reform our aged-care system to improve access, to improve the quality of living for our older New Zealanders. One of the things that is important to note is that when we saw a problem, we actually looked to reform the aged-care system, not appoint an Aged Care Commissioner to commentate on the problems.

Ingrid Leary: Does she accept that when cost causes seniors to delay seeing their GP, health problems can worsen and ultimately require expensive hospital or even emergency care?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Absolutely, which is why I’m so proud of the aged-care report produced by the ministerial advisory group that addresses just those points. That is why we have sought, under the New Zealand First - National coalition agreement, to seek bipartisan agreement to improve the system. We will continue to work on that because, on this side of the House, we are the party of solutions.

Ingrid Leary: Will her Government commit to providing seniors with three free doctors visits per year; if not, why not?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Having traversed, quite at length, the challenges of accessing a GP appointment in the first place, promising three free GP visits to everyone, regardless of whether they need it or not, puts an added drain on the system. What I’ve said, repeatedly, is we want practical solutions that are delivering, that will improve the health outcomes for older New Zealanders.

Ingrid Leary: Will her Government commit to providing all New Zealanders with three free doctors visits per year; if not, why not?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: What we will commit to is improving health outcomes for New Zealanders. Access to good care, access to early diagnosis, access to surgical treatments—that is what we will do, and we will ensure that is delivered by this Government.

Debates

Loss of Winter Energy Payments

Urgent Debate Declined

SPEAKER: Members, I have received a letter from Ricardo Menéndez March seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 reports that people have lost their winter energy payments. This is a particular case of recent occurrence for which there is ministerial responsibility. I understand that this matter will need to be rectified by legislation. That will provide the appropriate opportunity to debate it. The application is declined.

We’ll take 30 seconds for those who have to leave the House—

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Point of order.

SPEAKER: —for other business to do so quietly before I call on a member to move a matter of—

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Interestingly, I was on my feet, which might explain why I didn’t recognise the member at the time. However—the Hon Willow-Jean Prime.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (14:56): Point of order, Mr Speaker. There was a report in the media recently where the Minister has not committed to amending the legislation. She has not given a time frame for that, and it will potentially be in the next parliamentary term, so we won’t have the ability to debate this when the legislation comes to the House, because she hasn’t committed to that.

SPEAKER: Well, thank you for pointing out your view on that matter. It’s not changing my opinion.

If people want to leave the House, do so.

General Debate

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (14:57): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

Here we are, 80 days or so out from the general election, and MPs are rightly talking about how we address the challenges New Zealand faces. There, on the Opposition benches, they never saw a problem they didn’t think they could solve with somebody else’s money. When there’s a problem that needs solving, the left are here, and their answer is new taxes. The list of new taxes is growing. First of all, we’ve got that old chestnut, the capital gains tax—that’s on the table. Then we’ve got an asset tax—Chlöe Swarbrick put that one on the table—and an inheritance tax, because why not tax death? You can tax people till they die, then tax them when they’re dead too. Then we’ve got a higher tax rate because why not scare off all the doctors and engineers and tell them to head on the first plane to Australia? Why not have a gift tax and a higher corporate tax rate—why not tell all the businesses to shut down?—a digital tax, a rentals tax so that the tenants can keep paying through the nose, and a land tax too?

Now, that’s the list of new taxes I’ve assembled, but I have to admit that it’s getting a bit confusing, because the list is growing by the day. At the heart of the confusion is: which of these taxes is Labour in favour of and which ones aren’t they in favour of? It’s pretty difficult to tell because, fundamentally, you can’t trust Labour on tax. They have a long-term love affair with tax, and they’re like people under Chris Hipkins who’ve sworn off the love affair, don’t have the love affair, but keep falling off the wagon. The problem is that they have all these unfunded promises and they know they need to sneak through some new taxes to pay for them.

We’ve had quite a few flip-flops, haven’t we, in the past few days? The first one that I found quite beautiful was: are they or are they not taxing Kiwis’ Netflix subscriptions? Well, the streaming tax—Hipkins was definitive: it’s not policy. There’s a small problem: not only had Willie Jackson taken the tax to caucus and had it approved by caucus; he had also submitted it as a member’s bill. Don’t worry. Just believe Chris Hipkins when he says, “Oh, no, no, no. That was never on the table.” But, you know, I have to commend Carmel Sepuloni because she was the most honest on this topic. Do you know what she told us this morning on Morning Report? She was asked about the streaming tax, and she said, “Well, look, as you get closer to the election, you do need to be careful about the optics of what you’re promoting.”

Good on Sepuloni. She said the quiet bit out loud, which is “Of course we want to do all these new taxes, but we’re just not allowed to talk about them. Chris Hipkins has told us ‘Don’t talk about the new taxes. We need to keep them quiet.’ ”, and, of course, he knows that playbook well. Who remembers him in the last election campaign saying, “No way I’ll ever do a capital gains tax. Absolutely not—not on my watch.”, and he’s saying to all of these guys: “Don’t worry, when you say that stuff it, doesn’t really mean anything, because look at us now. We’ve got a capital gains tax now.”—don’t you? Actually, what you say on tax cannot be trusted.

I’ll give you the next example: the ute tax. They didn’t campaign on that in 2020, but that didn’t stop them implementing it, and it’s not stopping Michael Wood from going doorstep to doorstep in Mt Roskill and saying, “Let me tell you about one of my greatest hits: the ute tax. Wasn’t that a winner?” That’ll be back—the ute tax will be back.

Then land tax—and this is another hit from Willie Jackson. Wow, he’s really on the tax train. He was asked by Ryan Bridge: “Well, what about the Opportunity Party’s land tax?”, and he said, “Oh well, we wouldn’t do it at that rate.”, and so Ryan Bridge said, “Well, so what percentage of land tax would you accept?” Willie grinned and said, “Who knows?” I guess it just depends on how many unfunded promises they want to make in the next 80 days.

What this actually comes down to is a party on the other side who fundamentally believe that the way to make New Zealand a better place is to punish the things we need: punish the savers, punish the investors, and punish the people who do the right things, who grow businesses, who create jobs, and who start enterprises. Well, National says no.

We say we need lower taxes. We need to back the hard workers, back the investors, back those who save, back talent, and back opportunity creation, and we are able to do that because we hold ourselves accountable for delivering with your money.

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition) (15:02): It would appear that auditions to be the next Leader of the Opposition have begun already, because that was a speech from someone who has given up on governing the country. Five whole minutes in the House, and not once did she mention anything this Government has achieved, probably because she could not find one good achievement to talk about.

Do you know what else Nicola Willis did not mention? Christopher Luxon. Not once—not one mention of the Prime Minister. So desperate are they to not talk about their own leader, she spent five minutes talking about the Opposition. They don’t want to talk about their own track record. They don’t want to talk about the turmoil and the chaos that is the leadership of their own Government, and so they spend their time making things up about the Opposition, instead of tackling the challenges facing the country.

If we had a Minister of Health that was focused on actually delivering, you know, healthcare for New Zealanders, we might not have the crisis in the health system that we have now. If we had a Minister for social development that was focused on making sure people get paid their entitlements on time, we might not have 15,000 pensioners going without the winter energy payment.

The real-world consequences of that are very clear to see. Older New Zealanders are sitting at home not turning the heater on because they’re worried they can’t pay the power bill, and this Government says, “Oh well, that just happens.” Louise Upston was told about that problem 10 weeks ago—10 weeks ago. One would think that a Government focused on the interests of New Zealanders would actually do something about that, but we know that’s not what the National Party have been focused on. They’ve been focused on fighting for their own jobs, not fighting for New Zealanders. There have been 15,000 pensioners shivering at home, not able to pay their power bills, because this Government cut their winter energy payment in what it claims was a mistake. It was simply incompetence from a Government that’s not focused on the job.

Those members promised that they were going to fix the cost of living. What have we seen instead? The price of bread—which Christopher Luxon didn’t seem to know yesterday—is up 72 percent under this Government. Butter is up 85 percent under this Government. Company liquidations are at a 15-year high. Youth unemployment is at a 30-year high. KiwiSaver hardship withdrawals are at the highest rate ever under this Government. Those are people who are desperate.

But this Government said they were going to get the country back on track and they were going to fix everything. They keep going on about the previous Government, so let’s compare the track records, shall we? Prior to the election, by now, unemployment was forecast to be at 4.8 percent. What is it now, after they fixed it: 5.5 percent—after they fixed it. Government debt—because they go on a lot about Government debt, don’t they? Despite the fact that half the debt that the country currently has was accumulated under National Governments, they do like to go on about this a lot. By now, in the pre-election update, it was going to be down to 39.6 percent of GDP by 2027. What’s it going to be now by 2027 under this Government: 45.6 percent. After they fixed it, it went up. The overall deficit—remember they were going on about, “Oh, we’re going to get the books back in balance.”? Well, by now, if the previous Government’s forecasts had been correct—because we’d been re-elected—we’d have a $1.5 billion deficit. It would be going into surplus next year by $2 billion. What’s happened since they fixed it? Anyone want to guess? Well, the deficit this year is going to be $15 billion. Not $1.5 billion—$15 billion after they fixed it; and next year, when it was supposed to be back in surplus, instead, it’s going to be $14 billion in deficit. Goodness me, imagine what being off track might look like these days. If they think this is what being on track looks like, they need a reality check.

And, of course, remember: growth, growth, growth, that’s what this Government is all about. 2026 was forecast to have a growth rate of 3.7 percent before this Government got elected. What’s it forecast to be now? Anyone want to guess? 1.2 percent. They’ve cut it to a third of what it was going to be—so much for growth, growth, growth. But we now know what’s really been on the Prime Minister’s mind: not only keeping his job but, apparently, if you put a cycleway between his apartment and Parliament, he needs to charter a limousine to come across the road in order to get here, because with the cycleway in the way, apparently, he doesn’t know how to cross the road. Clearly, if he can’t figure out how to cross the road, maybe his colleagues were right—maybe he should give up the job. I’ll tell you what, in just a few more days, he’s going to be giving it up.

Hon MARK PATTERSON (Minister for Rural Communities) (15:07): You’ve got to feel sorry for Chris Hipkins. He’s sitting on a powder keg of taxation expectation from his colleagues: the Trojan Horse, of course, the capital gains tax that will metastasize over time, already $5 billion in getting rid of Investment Boost, bringing back the ute tax, Willie Jackson trying to introduce the streaming tax, and does anyone believe Barbara Edmonds’ soothing sounds as she tries to placate Marama Davidson and Chlöe Swarbrick? Has she not been paying attention as they rage against the machine day in, day out in here as they look to bring in a wealth tax, a capital gains tax, an inheritance tax, and a rental tax, killing inspiration and killing business with a wrecking ball through our economy? If you need any more—banning nitrogen fertiliser, well, that will be ruinous for our agricultural powerhouse; or keep a cap on The Opportunities Party who seem intent on introducing full-blown communism. Te Pāti Māori, what are they on about? No one really knows, apart from standing for ethnically dividing New Zealanders into two. Good luck with that, Barbara Edmonds.

Kiwis do not want to be taxed more; they want a fair go. New Zealand First is the party with the courage to take on the vested interests that are sucking Kiwis dry. The supermarket duopoly, we’ll break them up; the Aussie banks are going to get some much-needed competition; and we’ll break up and go after the gentailers as well, those entrenched entities that are using their market position to feast off the paychecks of hard-working, everyday Kiwis at will. New Zealand First is the only party that has the courage to take them head on. Tweaks to the status quo will not be enough. We have them fair in our sights.

New Zealand has an infrastructure deficit, as has been well traversed. There has been a recently announced road of national significance north of Auckland—$3.6 billion for 26 kilometres of road. We announced this week the next phase in planning for the Auckland Harbour Bridge, which will cost eye-watering sums of money, but we must not forget about rural and provincial New Zealand. It’s where 82 percent of our merchandise exports come from.

At the same time as those announcements were made, Mayor Rob Scott of Southland was threatening to rip up rural roads and return them to gravel—hundreds of rural bridges to maintain. That does not look like fixing the basics and building the future; that looks like a provincial powerhouse not getting its fair share.

At the South Island conference, it was revealed last week that the South Island is only getting 11 percent of the road transport budget, yet we produce 30 percent of the exports. We need the Hope Bypass. We need the Woodend Bypass. What chance does the badly needed Mosgiel bypass have to feed the newly instituted inland port that was invested in by the Regional Infrastructure Fund?

There is a saying: “By their deeds you will know them.” New Zealand First has always been the party that has used its political capital—every ounce of it—to return money back to regional New Zealand, whether it be the Provincial Growth Fund in a previous Parliament, or the Regional Infrastructure Fund in this Parliament, getting infrastructure investment ring-fenced for provincial New Zealand.

I just came back from the Chatham Islands last week where I was opening a new airport and the finishing of the runway, a mix which will fortify the island and futureproof it. We also announced upgrades to wharf infrastructure and upgrades to their fuel storage facilities. We put in new wind turbines there to give them renewable energy. It’s that sort of investment in regional New Zealand where New Zealand’s wealth is created—the farmers, the fishers, the foresters, the horticulturalists, the miners, and soon to be drill, baby, drill, when we get out there with New Zealand First’s $1 billion investment commitment.

This is where our internationally renowned tourism locations are situated. It’s critically important that they have the infrastructure. They want a fair slice of the pie in regional New Zealand. They know that New Zealand First is the party that will always back the regions, has always fought for their interests, and will be taking a huge platform of regional economic development through the $100 billion future fund going into the next election. New Zealand First: for the regions.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (15:12): Well, thank you, Mr Speaker. Wasn’t it interesting listening to Mr Hipkins’ speech, where he was desperate to talk about anything else except for his taxes—absolutely desperate to talk about anything else except for his taxes. He sounded more like someone sitting on the side of the road barking at passing cars rather than providing solutions for the problems facing New Zealanders. All I heard in his speech was lots of complaining, lots of problem definition, but no solutions for the future of this country.

I tell you what: in around 80 days, New Zealanders will be going to vote in the voting booths. They will be going to the election and they’ll be asking the question, “What on earth has Chris Hipkins been doing for the last three years? Nothing. Well, he has been up to something—he has been up to something. Sometimes he’s been up to things he’s not quite aware of.

One thing he is aware of is that he said before the 2023 election that Labour, under his leadership, would never, never, ever put in place a capital gains tax. Well, at least he’s had the honesty of his conviction to get out there and tell New Zealanders that actually, no, Labour will bring in a capital gains tax if elected at the election this year.

But there have been other things that he is just not quite aware of. On Sunday, Nicola Willis put out a press release pointing out that Labour was campaigning on a streaming tax. Chris Hipkins gets down on the tiles and says, “No, that’s not true. That’s hysterical. That’s absolutely false. That’s fake news.” Well, lo and behold, Willie Jackson had a member’s bill in the ballot for a streaming tax. He had it in the ballot box. Not only was it in the ballot box but it had 34 names of Labour MPs signed up in support of it, one of which was Chris Hipkins. Chris Hipkins was supporting a bill he didn’t even know was in the ballot box as of yesterday morning.

Well, New Zealanders know this is just scratching the surface of all the taxes that Labour’s got coming. Of course, they have an $18 billion funding gap for all of their freebies. I’ll tell you what: a freebie is not a solution for the problems facing this country. You don’t fix the challenges facing New Zealand by throwing money around. You don’t fix the problems facing New Zealand by simply promising a bunch of freebies. Of course, that is the only solution the Labour Party is taking to this election—freebies here, freebies there, and freebies everywhere. The reality is every single one of those freebies needs to be paid for somehow.

We’ve now heard Chris Hipkins and the Labour Party out there saying “The only tax we’re taking to the election is a capital gains tax.” Well, every single person in this House knows that’s not true. Labour has already said, “We’re going to axe Investment Boost”, a $5 billion tax on businesses up and down this country. That’s an additional tax they’re taking to the election, and everybody knows that they can’t wait to reverse the changes on interest deductibility. They want to put in place a tax on renters once again.

Hon Willie Jackson: Just on you.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Last time they were in Government, the average rent went up by $180 per week—Mr Jackson, you remember that because that’s what you did. Under National, since we got rid of the renter’s tax, we have seen flattening rent increases because of our policies.

Of course, this is the other thing that everyone knows: Labour needs the Greens and they need Te Pāti Māori, and they need the Opportunity Party’s taxes, too. So there’s not only a capital gains tax, a digital services tax, a business tax, a tax on 45 cents in the dollar on income over $160,000 coming, an inheritance tax, a gift tax, a rental tax, an asset tax, and, of course, the Opportunity Party’s land tax—because not only do they want to tax you until you die, they then want to have an inheritance tax to tax you when you die, and the land tax will be there to tax the cemeteries so that you keep paying after you die. And, of course, the streaming tax and the ute tax—well, we know that those will come back, because Willie Jackson can’t wait to bring in a streaming tax and Michael Wood is out there door-knocking his heart out for a ute tax.

National is campaigning to lower the taxes on New Zealanders—keep taxes low. We say no to Labour’s taxes. Party vote National to stop Labour’s taxes.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour) (15:17): Today, I rise to congratulate the Hon Chris Penk. What a good man. As our leader said, the only member of the National Party caucus with the intestinal fortitude to say out loud what every New Zealander’s been saying for the last 18 months—where are you going?—that this Prime Minister is not up to the job. And his reward? Kicked out. Because that’s what you get when you launch a one-man coup, isn’t it? You get kicked out. But as Mr Peters said—making some sense, for once—in his whole lifetime he’s never seen a one-man coup.

We all know it wasn’t a one-man coup. They were all on it. The problem is they couldn’t work out who would be the leader, and they lost their nerve, and they lost their numbers. And I’ll be coming to you shortly, Mr Meager. As Matthew Hooton said—he called them “villains”. I prefer a more accurate term; I think “gutless wonders” would be a better term. Traitors, not just to the National Party traditions, as Chris Finlayson has said, but to that fine young man, Chis Penk.

Now who were these useless detractors? Who were they? Oh, well, the boy wonder’s just left. We heard him with Jack Tame talking about the Prime Minister. He said the Prime Minister’s working hard every day. The problem is he couldn’t name one thing that the Prime Minister had done—not one. Then there’s the future first Māori Prime Minister in his mind, James Meager. When asked whether he supports the Prime Minister, he talked about the All Blacks, he talked about rugby, he talked about everything apart from the Prime Minister. “Mr Meager, do you support the Prime Minister?” “Oh, those All Blacks are going well. That rugby is going well.” Oh, Mr Meager thought he was on his way back to Cabinet, but down the tubes—down the tubes he went. Then there’s “Goldie”—then there’s “Goldie”—admittedly a Prime Minister supporter, but when he was asked whether he would be interested in the job, he thought, “Well, I don’t really do much anyway. I’ve got all these portfolios, and Willie calls me the ‘Minister of Doing Nothing’. I’m No. 7 on the list and, if I was the Prime Minister, I’d be No. 1.” Did “Goldie” make himself available? Well, yes, he did—yes, he did.

Then we come to the two big players—the two big players—the “Bish” and Erica Stanford, the Minister who, according to the New Zealand Herald, was going to wear the crown while Chris Penk wielded the knife. The problem was that the “Bish” lost his nerve—and lost the numbers—and the only knife he used was the knife he used to cut Chris Penk’s throat. Poor Chris Penk, a good man.

Which brings us to Erica Stanford. Who will ever forget the image of her walking through Wellington Airport, sashaying her way through Wellington Airport like she was the Queen of Sheba. She thought she was on the way to the prime ministerial job, but she didn’t know Nicola was behind her—the Minister for women’s affairs, coming behind her. “Do you support the Prime Minister?” Not a word—not a word—of support for the Prime Minister. She thought she was on the way to glory, until the Minister of women’s affairs said, “Well, we’re good mates, great friends. She’s just not prime ministerial material.” Poor, poor Erica—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Under the bus.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Under the bus—under the bus. Shamed and thrown under the bus by the Minister of women’s affairs. A shambolic coup fell apart—a disgraceful coup. Shame on this party.

But that’s this Government. It now spends more time managing itself than managing the country, and on the very day this Parliament debated the leadership coup, we had 15,000 pensioners suffering. That’s the story this coup buried. That’s what this Government has been doing while its senior Ministers have been counting numbers in the corridor. Chris Penk did the country a favour. He held a mirror up to the Prime Minister and asked him to have a look. The Prime Minister sacked the man holding the mirror. In a few months’ time, the voters of this country will hold up their own mirror, and this Prime Minister, and every single one of the Ministers I’ve named, are not going to like what they see. Kia ora, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: The honourable Carl Bates—sorry—

Carl Bates: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Just a minute. The member will wait for me to call him: the member for Whanganui, Carl Bates.

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui) (15:22): Thank you, Mr Speaker. To have a good tax policy, it helps to have people who actually understand tax. The Labour Party doesn’t have a single chartered accountant in Parliament, nor does Te Pāti Māori or the Greens. It’s a bit like a hospital without doctors, a school without teachers, or the Labour Party without unionists.

Maybe—maybe—that is why, when it comes to economic policy, the only answer they seem to have is “tax, tax, tax”. No matter what the question is, the answer is always the same. Need more spending? “Tax.” Need a new programme? “Tax.” Need to pay for another promise? “Tax.” As we head towards 7 November, New Zealanders are looking at the Labour Party, the Greens, and Te Pāti Māori and their menu of capital gains taxes, wealth taxes, inheritance taxes, land taxes, digital taxes, streaming taxes, and business taxes. It’s pretty clear that the Opposition’s manifesto has more tax proposals on it than a McDonald’s menu. Next, you’re going to hear the Labour Party’s campaign ad say, “Would you like tax with that?”

The real issue here isn’t any one tax; it’s the pattern of taxes—and ever more taxes, at that, I might add. The Labour Party, the Greens, Te Pāti Māori, and Opportunity have built an agenda around new taxes and higher taxes. Labour is also being questioned on bringing back that ute as well. The question for New Zealanders is simple: when the answer to every problem is another tax, who pays? The answer is households, the answer is workers, the answer is farmers, the answer is businesses, and the answer is families.

What makes the Opposition’s “tax-athon” especially concerning is their tax stack. This refers to the fact that some of the taxes stack on top of the other. This is where understanding tax becomes important. Yet, Labour doesn’t understand it. Labour and their mates just want more of it. They don’t understand how these taxes will destroy our economy, nor do they understand how they’re going to eat into the hard-earned savings of every New Zealander. Let me give you an example of the Opposition’s collection of taxes and how they stack together.

Look at their proposed taxes on multinational tech companies. The Greens want a withholding tax on offshore profits; Labour wants a digital tax—different names, different mechanisms, but both potentially hitting the same businesses. This “tax-athon” attitude of Labour, the Greens, and Te Pāti Māori brings with it this broader mindset—and speaks to this broader mindset—that when the Opposition needs more money, they don’t ask “How do we grow the economy?”, they ask what we can tax next.

National has a different approach. Instead of taxing investment, we are encouraging it. I’ve spoken with businesses making decisions because of Investment Boost: the transport operator who bought seven new truck-and-trailer units and expanded their fleet; the concrete company that invested in a new forklift to create and lift their productivity; the farmer who bought new tractors to get the job done easier. That is how you grow the economy; not another tax, not another levy, not another money-grab dreamt up in the Labour Party’s caucus room.

Ultimately, this comes down to a choice. It comes down to a choice between Labour, the Greens, and Te Pāti Māori, along with Opportunity’s approach, to more spending, more borrowing, and more taxes. National’s approach is to grow the economy, back investment, create jobs, lift incomes, and help Kiwis get ahead. New Zealand doesn’t need another tax; we need economic growth, we need higher incomes, and we need a Government that understands that you cannot tax your way to prosperity. When Labour sees a problem, they reach for a tax. When National sees a problem, we reach for growth. Only by growing the economy can we help all Kiwis get ahead.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Minister for Courts) (15:28): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Today, I stand on behalf of the ACT Party to talk about the integrity of our democracy and the system that we have here. ACT has serious concerns over recent allegations of electoral fraud in Manurewa. This has recently been reported in the New Zealand Herald, and it is quite alarming. I expect that all parties across the House should be concerned by what allegations have been printed by the Herald.

Elected Manurewa local board member Raewyn Bhana QSM has laid a formal complaint with the Auckland Council, and she has passed that complaint on to New Zealand Police and the Serious Fraud Office. The complaint comes from a whistleblower who has told her that he was part of a team of people who, over seven nights, went around people’s letter boxes and started taking electoral voting forms from those letter boxes. He and others then went to an address, where they opened up those ballots and they filled them in. Where some of those electoral voting forms were wet, they even put them on heaters to dry them out, so that they could fill them in.

The whistleblower has then suggested that a number of them took handfuls of these voting ballots and went to several supermarkets around the area to deposit them. This is of absolute concern, not only because this has happened but also because of the threats that have now occurred towards Raewyn Bhana QSM and her whistleblower. Raewyn has been told to watch her back, and the whistleblower has indicated that there’s been a gang hit placed upon him. Police are making inquiries into this issue, and of course the independence needs to be tested and verified by New Zealand Police as they look into this very serious matter. We should not pre-judge exactly what has happened here, but equally, New Zealanders should be concerned, because caution must not come at the expense of complacency.

The reason why I feel that this is so important is because liberal democracies like New Zealand’s are actually not the norm in the world. The Economist Intelligence Unit Democracy Index 2025 indicated that there’s only 26 full democracies around the world. More than half of the world’s population does not live in a democracy. Liberal democracy means we have a right to vote in free, fair, and regular elections. We have a history of doing so. In 1853, the first members of this House of Representatives were elected. In 1867, all Māori males aged over 21 were allowed to vote. In 1879, universal male suffrage, for all men over the age of 21, was instigated. In 1893, universal women’s suffrage was also implemented. We were the first in the world, and we did all this before 1900, and I note in 1974, we lowered the voting age to 18, and in 1990, the Bill of Rights actually affirmed the right of adult citizens to vote in genuine, periodic, and free elections. When I look around this Chamber, I see the plaques that represent the lives that were lost by so many representatives of New Zealand: our soldiers who fought to allow us to stay in a free and liberal democracy.

If these allegations are proven, someone is deliberately taking away the rights of a person to have their voice, their choice, and their vote heard. A stolen voting paper is not just mail; it represents stealing the democratic voice of individuals, that is then being taken and used by someone else. The right to vote is the right to be heard, and the right to have a say. The right to vote is the opportunity to choose a representative for you, and the right to vote also gives the people the power to remove people that they don’t want there. The right to vote also holds people accountable—

Hon Damien O'Connor: You took that away.

SPEAKER: No, I didn’t take anything away.

Hon NICOLE McKEE: —to the people that they serve. These allegations strike to the heart of New Zealand’s democracy, and we must make sure that those voices and our democracy are protected.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (15:33): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. This week we have heard about the Government’s rushed changes, through urgency, which left 15,000 pensioners without their Winter Energy Payments. I just want to list off some of the temperatures from MetService in the last month: 1.7 degrees in Wellington, -2.8 degrees in Hamilton, -4.6 degrees in Christchurch, and -5.1 degrees in Taupō—the electorate of the Hon Louise Upston. It’s a disgrace, that during some of the coldest months this year, 15,000 pensioners and veterans lost their Winter Energy Payment because of National’s shoddy lawmaking processes. Losing this payment meant that our most vulnerable New Zealanders have been living in freezing homes, losing this payment at this time, during a cost of living crisis, where the cost of living is soaring, food prices increasing, and the cost to see a GP also increasing. This is what National delivers to our kaumātua and kuia, to our elderly citizens. National bungled the Winter Energy Payments for Kiwis, making it tougher for them through winter months. This is the human cost of their rushed lawmaking.

Today, we have seen a report from the New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services. The report is titled The Older Persons Poverty Monitor. What that report shows is that 76,000 elderly people were accessing Special Needs Grants; 25,000 elderly people living without the essentials; 51,000 elderly people putting off a GP visit due to the cost. Yesterday, in answers to questions in the House, the Minister said, “Oh, it was less than $300.” Well, that means a lot to these elderly people, who as we see from this report released today, are putting off going to see the doctor because of the cost. We know they were not turning on their heat pumps or their heaters because they had not been receiving this support. In fact, to share a quote that I received, a person wrote to me about their 98-year-old mother, who was affected by this botch-up: “She received a letter of suspension in her mailbox on Saturday, 25 July 2026, and said she was stressed, anxious, nervous, sleepless, and worried because of these changes.”

These law changes were rushed through without proper scrutiny and without consultation. Yesterday, the Minister and the Prime Minister gave what I think are pathetic apologies to those who have been impacted by something that was of this Government’s doing. What did they do? They threw their officials under the bus. The Minister said it was a policy mistake; the Prime Minister said it was an IT issue. Well, the Minister also said that this probably wouldn’t have been picked up if it had gotten more scrutiny. What I’d like to point out for the House today is I actually went back through the entire Hansard, and it was being picked up—and if it had gone to a select committee, it would have had a better chance of being corrected there, because in fact, Ingrid Leary, who is in the House today, raised it in her contributions. Ricardo Menéndez March actually had an Amendment Paper on the table to expressly exclude the Winter Energy Payment, but no. It was rushed through urgency, no proper scrutiny, no select committee process, and then we have 15,000 veterans and pensioners impacted by this, losing their Winter Energy Payment.

The Minister should take responsibility for this. It was her legislation, rushed through urgency without proper scrutiny, and without proper process. The other thing is that the Minister said she found out about this on something like 14 August. Actually, she was emailed by the Labour Party 10 weeks ago, and her office ignored it. It was in the title: Winter Energy Payments could be impacted—or are being impacted—by this. No, ignored—and so these elderly people, like I said at the beginning, were sitting there in the freezing cold, not receiving something they should have been entitled to.

Oh, the irony though. The Government, the Ministers on the other side, they’re entitled to their entitlements, but what about our senior citizens, who were entitled to this but were ripped off because of botched lawmaking processes. Kia ora Mr Speaker.

CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki) (15:38): Tax, tax, and more tax. This is Labour’s answer to paying for all their so-called free promises. Well, let me tell you: nothing comes for free. I teach my children that, and we are learning that nothing comes for free. “Sugar hit” economics is not the way to help hard-working New Zealanders get ahead. It is just a short-term fix. Between Labour, the Greens, Te Pāti Māori, and the Opportunity Party, they’re proposing nine new taxes. Let’s name a few of these nine new taxes. A capital gains tax: the Kiwi dream of owning a bach, Labour wants to tax it. Higher income tax: doing well at work and earning more, the Greens want to tax it, 45 percent. Inheritance tax: if your grandparents leave you something when they pass away, they’ll tax it. A gift tax: want to help your kids get into their first home? The Greens want to tax it. A streaming tax: you watch Netflix, they’ll tax it. A digital services tax: if you’re on Facebook, they’ll tax it too. A rental tax: own a rental, they’ll tax it. A business tax, a land tax, and let’s not forget: the ute tax.

Those hard-working farmers, tradies, and anyone out there owning a ute—they want to introduce a ute tax, again. We scrapped it. We’re not punishing all those hard-working tradies and farmers out there, and we don’t want to live in a country where your hard work is taxed and taxed—everything is taxed.

The National Party is the party of lower tax. National is the party that provides tax relief to hard-working New Zealanders, and Labour are already saying they’ll take away this tax relief that we’ve worked so hard to implement.

Let’s take Investment Boost. Our Government worked really hard to introduce Investment Boost to support businesses to grow jobs and opportunities. Investment Boost offers 20 percent deductible tax relief for businesses investing in capital assets. This is practical, it’s targeted, and it stimulates growth. It creates jobs and it helps us lift incomes in this country.

We’re seeing real results, and I speak firsthand of seeing the real results in Hawke’s Bay, the fruit bowl of New Zealand. Just last week I was out in Kelston Orchards with our amazing Minister of Immigration, Erica Stanford, and we saw tax relief and Investment Boost in action. It’s enabled them to invest in the Recognised Seasonal Employer (RSE) scheme accommodation and to house over a hundred RSE scheme workers each season. The RSE scheme ensures they have the seasonal workforce when they need it to pick the fruit at the optimum time so that they can get it off to market and help grow our economy.

It’s also enabled us to grow many, many permanent jobs for New Zealanders, and it was impressive to see our growers using Investment Boost to invest not only in the RSE scheme accommodation but in cool-store innovation, packhouses, automation, and robotics. Recently, I opened the Mt Erin cool-store, and they were also using Investment Boost and providing a lot of new jobs—permanent jobs—for New Zealanders.

We want to see more of this growth and, of course, we’ve got to remember that Investment Boost also flows into other areas of the economy. It provides jobs in the civil and contracting area because, of course, they’re getting the flow-on effect of the growth of our horticulture sector. Just recently I visited Stephenson Transport, a wonderful stock truck company in Central Hawke’s Bay. They’ve also used Investment Boost to invest in their trucks, and there are many, many more stories where we’ve seen landscape companies investing in robotics, scrub-cutters in Hawke’s Bay, and cafes investing in new equipment because it’s this type of tax relief that grows jobs and grows opportunities and it lifts wages. That’s what works to build the future of New Zealand.

TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central) (15:43): Thank you for that segue, Catherine Wedd, because I think that that quote that you said in your speech around it being the Kiwi Dream to own a bach is just so far out of touch with reality. Most New Zealanders—

SPEAKER: It wasn’t actually me that was speaking, but carry on.

TAMATHA PAUL: Most New Zealanders, and particularly those of my generation, are really worried that we won’t even be able to afford a house or a family home, point blank—period—without even considering the idea of one day ever being able to own a bach.

I’m glad you segued that because that’s exactly what I want to talk about, because for the last two days in this House, I’ve heard Chris Bishop get up and tell us that it is the best time ever to be a renter, that things have never been better for renters, and that rents are so affordable, which is just in total conflict with what Renters United! and over 3,000 renters said in the report that came out over the weekend.

What they told us is that for 40 percent of renters, their biggest issue is the cost of their rent; for 42 percent of renters, their homes are still damp, cold, draughty, and mouldy, despite healthy homes standards coming into place; and 11.5 percent of renters said that they spend 80 percent of their income on rent. I hope that in this House we can all agree that that’s not good by any means.

Not to mention that this whole general debate has been about all of these taxes, the so-called rental tax—all of these different taxes. Again, it’s been a real slap in the face to have the Minister of Housing get up and talk about how great it is to be a renter when the reason that rents have stagnated or flat-lined in this country is not because of any policies or law changes that this Government has made; it’s actually because everybody is leaving, at a rate of 200 New Zealanders per day.

Hon James Meager: The supply and demand.

TAMATHA PAUL: Do you want to know why rents are declining in Wellington?

Hon James Meager: Supply.

TAMATHA PAUL: It’s because thousands of people have been laid off from their jobs, James Meager, and that’s not a funny joke. There are no jobs here in Wellington and people are leaving, and that is why there is not a lot of competition in the rental market. That is not something to get up and brag about, and, actually—

Hon James Meager: So you want more supply?

TAMATHA PAUL: It’s not as simplistic as a supply conversation.

Hon James Meager: You just said that.

TAMATHA PAUL: No, it’s not, because if everybody is leaving, of course rents are going to go down, because there’s no workers to fill those homes. Simple economics—which I thought that that side of the House understood.

Anyway, what I really want to talk about is the fact that this Government changed the rental laws two years ago, and we don’t really hear a lot about that any more, do we? But I want to talk about the fact that more than 60 percent of renters have said that their lives have not improved—not one bit—since the Government changed the laws and reintroduced no-cause evictions and decided to rob the 100,000-plus lowest-paid working women of pay equity. They’re happy to give $15 billion of tax cuts to landlords, and they will rob the lowest-paid workers in this country to pay that.

But let’s also talk about the fact that since the Government changed the rental laws, the number of Government MPs that have bought investment properties over that side of the House has grown. Let’s talk about the fact that ACT MP Parmjeet Parmar has bought five new houses since they changed the rental laws. Let’s talk about National MP Katie Nimon, who has bought three new houses since they changed the rental laws. Let’s talk about National MPs Erica Stanford, Simon Watts, Tom Rutherford, Joseph Mooney, Shane Reti, David MacLeod, and Grant McCallum, who have all bought another home to rent out since they changed the rental laws and changed rental tax.

Grant McCallum: I don’t rent my place out, thank you. I live in it.

TAMATHA PAUL: Or let’s talk about the National and New Zealand First MPs, including Grant McCallum, who bought a house in Wellington so that they can pay themselves the accommodation allowance while taxpayers pay their mortgages off.

Grant McCallum: Point of order, Madam Speaker. I have not bought a place to rent it out, and I do not rent it out.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): What is the point of order?

Grant McCallum: It’s misinformation. What she’s saying is incorrect.

TAMATHA PAUL: All right, I’ll read it out. The Spinoff reports that National and New Zealand First MPs Carlos Cheung, Jamie Arbuckle, Hamish Campbell, Ryan Hamilton, Mark Patterson, and Todd McClay all bought new houses—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Sorry to interrupt the member, but I’m just going to get some advice. Right.

TAMATHA PAUL: OK, I’ll proceed. It’s not a personal inference, actually. If the Government has changed the laws to make rental properties and rental housing that we rely on a commodity—something to make disgusting profit from while the streets are lined with sleeping bags and while people are paying 80 percent of their income in rent—that is disgusting behaviour. We need more people in this House who are not investment property speculators, because that is the reason why my generation will never be able to buy one single house, let alone a bach.

GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland) (15:49): Point of order, Madam Speaker. I would like to make a personal statement to correct—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): You’ll need leave.

GRANT McCALLUM: I request leave, please, to make a personal statement to correct the comments from that member.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

GRANT McCALLUM: The member opposite was concerned that I had bought a place to rent it out. I did not buy a place to rent it out; I purchased a place so I can utilise it to service the people of Northland when I’m in the upper half of my electorate. Thank you.

Tamatha Paul: Speaking to the point of order.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): There is no point of order.

Tamatha Paul: Speaking to the personal statement?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): No.

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill) (15:50): Monopoly is a classic multiplayer board game where we move around the board to buy, trade, and develop properties with houses and hotels. But imagine there’s a new version of Monopoly where every time you make progress, someone adds another tax.

Let’s start the game. You pick your favourite Monopoly piece, and if you choose a ute as your icon, congratulations—you may need to pay a ute tax just for choosing it. Then you move around the board and, finally, you land on the property you want to buy. You think “Great, I’m investing in my future”, but wait: there’s a land tax, asset tax, and capital gains tax waiting for you. All right, if you’re lucky, you go for a few rounds and you are finally are able to build a business and you manage to build a hotel. You think you’re going to create jobs and take a risk, but there’s another tax waiting for you: the higher corporate tax. Whoa! Tax everywhere.

You think now that you’ll work harder. You want to earn more and try to get ahead. Sure—that’s the right thing, right? Not so fast: the Green Party just proposed another 45 percent top income tax rate. Well, you ask yourself, with all these taxes, how can you save money? If you’re lucky, you’ve managed to save some, but wait, you’ve got another one coming for you: a wealth tax. Then you think, “OK, I’ve got a little bit more money now. I would love to help another player. I want to give them some money or an asset to help them to get back into the game.”, but wait: you may have to pay a gift tax just for being generous.

At this point, you may say, “That’s enough, I’m getting off this game.”, but even leaving the game may not be so simple because your family may face an inheritance tax. You’re like “Well, I’m going to be bankrupt. Let’s go to watch TV to relax myself.” Finally, you sit down, you turn on the TV, and you try to turn on your Netflix and watch some drama. Whoa! There is another streaming tax coming for you.

It looks like everywhere you go, there’s another tax waiting for you, all right. You ask, “What’s the point? Why am I still playing Monopoly? Maybe I shouldn’t work at all.” I have to wonder how many families in Mt Roskill are expected to keep paying more and more taxes when the cost of living is already putting pressure on their household budgets.

New Zealand used to be a country associated with dreams, opportunity, and aspiration. We encouraged people to work hard, to start a business, to invest, to innovate, and to build something better for themselves and their families. But the Opposition is, basically, telling me that we’ve got to turn this philosophy upside down: “We’ve got to tax them. We need to make sure that for every single dollar they earn, we tax them.”

This is not the New Zealand we should be building. New Zealand already has enough taxes. The question is not “How can we find another way to tax people?”; the question should be: “How can we make better use of the money we already collect?” How can we deliver better infrastructure, how can we deliver better healthcare, and how can we make sure every tax dollar from hard-working New Zealanders can get their return? They want a Government that respects the money they earn, they want a Government that rewards hard work, they want a Government that encourages investment and innovation, and, most importantly, they want a country where there is still a pathway to get ahead.

This is what the National Government is focusing on. We have very, very clear Budget responsibility rules: we will make sure of our return to surplus and we will control the net debt and also control the Government’s spending because we know that a responsible Government isn’t about finding another square on the Monopoly board where we can take more money. It is about making sure the money we already collect is spent wisely and delivers results.

We don’t need to add another tax to the board; we need better Government, better value for money, and better outcomes for New Zealanders. This November, you have a choice: a Government of more tax and more wasteful spending, or a Government here, focused on fiscal discipline, growing the economy, and investing in New Zealand’s future. Obviously, the answer is very clear: on this side, we are fixing the basics and building the future.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour) (15:55): Thank you, Madam Speaker. There are two anchoring roles in foreign policy in New Zealand. The Minister of Foreign Affairs is the person who stands in Washington, in Beijing, in London, in Canberra, and in Suva, and tells the world what New Zealand’s values are. Diplomacy is the hallmark of his job, and when that individual creates friction in our relationships, the stakes are high for all New Zealanders.

There is another significant role in foreign affairs: it is the Prime Minister’s role. Now, something that’s probably not well known by members is that for much of the 20^th century, the Prime Minister also personally held the role of Foreign Minister: Fraser, Nash, Holyoake, Lange, Moore, and Palmer. There’s a reason: because we are a small trading nation, our external relationships are existential. One in four jobs are linked to trade. Our reciprocal trade with China is $40.1 billion. The roles now sit technically apart, but they still sit very closely together.

The Prime Minister has responsibility, and so what should a Prime Minister do when a risk emerges in foreign affairs? Well, three weeks ago, we had the Minister of Foreign Affairs make statements—racist comments—in the House. The Prime Minister acknowledged that they were racist. He acknowledged they were offensive. He didn’t immediately contact the Foreign Minister—not until five days after the comments were made. He didn’t contact his Chinese counterparts at all to reassure them of the continuation of a respectful relationship. Instead, for a time he argued that it’s not within the purview of his oversight as the comments weren’t made as Foreign Minister, and so the big question is: does the Prime Minister in these circumstances have the authority to act?

He does on either of two foundations. The first is the Cabinet Manual. The Cabinet Manual is drafted broadly for a purpose: Ministers serve at the pleasure of the Prime Minister. He absolutely has the ability to make the call—in fact, it is his duty. Secondly, on 5 August, Minister Peters said in the House, “I stand by all my comments as the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I also stand by my comments as the New Zealand First Party leader.”, effectively affirming, with his ministerial hat on, the racist comments he made a week earlier. He was almost inviting the Prime Minister to call him out—but nothing.

I, like others, believe that it is not tenable for the Foreign Minister to retain his role, but perhaps the Prime Minister has considered that. If he decided to leave the role as it was, should he on the basis of risk still have taken some sort of action? I say yes because there are two real risks here.

There have been two formal representations made to New Zealand about Minister Peters’ comments: one in a phone call from the Chinese embassy to New Zealand on 30 July, and one in phone call from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Beijing to our Acting Deputy Head of Mission in Beijing on 31 July. We also know that there are sufficient reports in Chinese media itself in terms of taking offence at these comments. But the Prime Minister has chosen not to reach out to the embassy, nor to colleagues in Beijing.

The most serious issue here—the most serious issue—is not a debate on Minister Peters’ right to free speech; it is about the unwillingness of our Prime Minister to assume his role as chief custodian of our international relationships. New Zealanders deserve better than this. International colleagues deserve better than this.

As for Labour, we will not react in the room; we will not turn our back on the duty of diplomacy. Responsible foreign policy requires respectful, clear dialogue—clear in our independence and values, especially in today’s changing and uncertain global landscape.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Sittings of the House

Extended Sitting

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (Deputy Leader of the House) (16:00): I move, That the sitting of the House today be extended into tomorrow morning to consider the following Government orders of the day: consideration in committee of the Disability Support Services Bill, and the second readings of the Social Security (Jobseeker Support and Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill and the Serious Fraud Office Amendment Bill.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the motion be agreed to.

Ayes 67

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

Noes 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Motion agreed to.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Appropriation (2026/27 Estimates) Bill and the Disability Support Services Bill.

Bills

Appropriation (2026/27 Estimates) Bill

Committee of the whole House—Estimates Debate

Finance

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, the House is in committee for consideration of the Appropriation (2026/27 Estimates) Bill and the Disability Support Services Bill. We start with the Appropriation (2026/27 Estimates) Bill.

The Business Committee has determined to organise the debate by portfolio; Votes are available for debate, but only specific Ministers will be available each day to speak to the indicated portfolio. The Government has indicated that the Minister of Finance, Minister of Local Government, Minister for the Environment, Minister of Transport, and the Minister for Tertiary Education will be available today. Each debate will be led by a call from the chairperson or member of the committee that considered the Estimates most closely related to the Minister’s portfolios.

In leading off the debate, the chairperson should take care not to be overly political and should ensure their call gives a fair reflection of the committee’s report on the Votes relevant to the portfolio. This debate expires after 11 hours, at which point questions will be put that the Votes stand part of the schedules and on the provisions of the Appropriation (2026/27 Estimates) Bill. All parties have time allocated proportionally.

The Estimates debate should be relevant to the Government’s current spending plans as contained in the Estimates of Appropriations. A compendium of the reports of select committees on the Votes is available on the Table.

The question is that the Votes contained in the Estimates of Appropriations for 2026/27 stand part of the schedules. Members, we start with the Minister of Finance. The Minister is available to speak to that portfolio from 4.00 p.m. to 5.00 p.m. I give the call to Ryan Hamilton.

RYAN HAMILTON (Deputy Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee) (16:04): Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Appropriation Bill for 2026/27 is a necessary dose of fiscal reality. It recognises quite plainly that New Zealand cannot keep spending as though global interest rates are a temporary inconvenience or that inflation will politely disappear if we just invest a little more. This bill puts discipline back at the centre of public finance, and not a moment too soon. This bill also keeps debt on a sustainable path. With global interest rates elevated, borrowing recklessly is not visionary, it is expensive. Every extra dollar borrowed today is a dollar future taxpayers must repay tomorrow, often with interest that could have funded hospitals, classrooms, or police. This is why this bill reins in baselines, trims low-value spending, and focuses on programmes that actually deliver housing outcomes rather than headlines.

Healthcare will certainly be a winner in this appropriations Budget, including the three nights for post-natal stays for new mums; law and order; education; infrastructure; defence; and, of course, the Cambridge to Piarere Expressway, fully funded. The Treasury estimates that for every billion dollars invested, 5,500 more jobs will be created. Some will call that “austerity”; most New Zealanders call that “finally living within our means”. It is remarkable how controversial that idea becomes only when applied to Governments rather than households.

This bill is not flashy, it is not fanciful, and it certainly does not pretend that fiscal gravity has been repealed. It is a steady, factual, responsible plan to stabilise the books, rebuild resilience, and ensure New Zealand is better prepared for global shocks without reaching for the usual shortcut of taxing New Zealanders harder. It funds core services, strengthens front-line delivery, and requires agencies to demonstrate value rather than simply demand it.

For some members opposite, that may feel like a cultural shock. After all, their approach for years could be summed up in three familiar steps: announce it, fund it, and when the bill arrives, tax it. This Government has taken a different view. No new taxes, no surprise taxes, and no creative rebranding of taxes as levies or contributions. Just responsible management of the taxes New Zealanders already pay. This is the work the public expects of us, and this is exactly what the Appropriation Bill delivers.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) (16:07): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee for a reference to the select committee report. During the select committee Estimates hearing, we heard from the Minister of Finance in relation to jobs, infrastructure, a number of the items within the Budget that have been paid for or cut—or savings, as the Minister would say—as a result of Government decisions.

I want to start with questions—first, in relation to jobs. The Minister has said that the Budget would create 220,000 jobs. What is the increase in the working-age population over that same period, and how many of those jobs have actually been made as a result of Budget 2026 decisions?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (16:08): This was addressed in the select committee hearing. What I said—to clarify; once again paraphrased incorrectly by that member—was that what the Budget forecasts, according to Treasury’s analysis, is that over the forecast period, 220,000 more jobs will be created in the New Zealand economy. Of course, partly that does relate to population growth, but it is also supported by a range of policies, including baseline fiscal discipline which mitigates the corrosive effects of inflation, but also a range of policies which support economic growth and therefore job creation—including, for example, reform of the Resource Management Act, fast-tracking of major developments, the Investment Boost tax policy, and a number of other policies besides.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) (16:09): So how many actual jobs are attributed to Investment Boost in the last year?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (16:09): Again, that matter was traversed at select committee. As the member should know from her time at the Inland Revenue Department, the full tax year to which Investment Boost applied has only just ended, and as the member will know, it takes a year after the completion of a tax year for final returns to be filed because most New Zealand taxpayers use a tax agent. Therefore, we do not yet have the data about how many people claimed Investment Boost in the year previous.

What we do know is that Investment Boost supports businesses who have made capital investments by allowing them to deduct 20 percent of the cost of that investment from their final tax bill, meaning it reduces the tax that they pay. What we also know is that the Inland Revenue Department (IRD) and Treasury assess that a policy of this sort will encourage more investment than would otherwise be the case, affording both greater rates of economic growth and greater rates of wage growth. It is the analysis of IRD and Treasury that the major benefactors of increased investment that Investment Boost will drive will be New Zealand workers.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) (16:10): I mean, I note the Minister’s comments that, obviously, this was traversed during the select committee process. It goes to the exact same point as to why I need to ask the question again, because when I just heard the Minister’s answer, she couldn’t actually address the actual question I was asking her. I was asking her for the actual number attributed to those changes. I do understand the Minister has minimal knowledge of the tax system, given she needed a provisional tax briefing very early in her term; however, she would know provisional tax is by a third—is within particular thirds. So my question is to the Minister: again, how much has actually been attributed? The actual number. We wouldn’t have to come into the House again and ask those questions if we had not got proper answers at the time. So that’s why we’re having to use the House’s time again to ask those same questions.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (16:11): Well, Madam Chair, it’s very early in the Estimates debate for the Opposition member to have taken a cup of Mr Hipkins’ nasty juice. However, what I can clarify is that you don’t need a PhD in tax, like Deborah Russell has, you don’t need years of experience at IRD, like Barbara Edmonds has, to know this: if you impose more taxes on businesses, they will have less revenue available to them to invest in new job creation and higher wages for their people. That is why our Government is proud to support Investment Boost—the first effective tax reduction for businesses in far, far too long. That sits nicely alongside the policy that we continue to deliver on, which was the first adjustment to personal income tax rates for workers in more than 14 years—a policy change that that member opposed. So I can only take it that she would rather New Zealanders were paying more tax right now.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour) (16:12): I’d just like to correct the Minister. My PhD is not in taxation; I’d like the Minister to withdraw that allegation!

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (16:12): I withdraw and apologise!

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Going to some of the Minister’s comments around commitments—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Excuse me. Can I just explain to members in the Chamber: I need to give you the call because the cameras are operated remotely off site and the sound booth needs time to switch the mics, which is the purpose of me giving you the call. Honourable Vanushi Walters.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Vanushi Walters—I’m Barbara Edmonds.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Sorry, Barbara Edmonds.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) (16:13): I know we have the same haircut, but anyway. Thank you, Madam Chair. Going, now, to where a large amount of savings had come through from the Budget; it had come through Public Service reprioritisations. On a number of occasions, the Minister of Finance has committed to not cutting front-line services—she made that commitment back in 2023, she has made it throughout this term of Government. Does she still commit to no cuts to front-line services, given that there’s going to be a 2 percent, a 5 percent, and a 5 percent reduction in the number of Government agencies?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (16:13): Well, in addressing that question, there are two points I’d like to make. The first is that I think it is incumbent on all members of this House who wish to be custodians of other peoples’ money that they work very hard to earn and then pay tax to us for, that we ensure we are always looking for ways to get more bang for their bucks, that we are always looking for ways to enhance productivity and delivery of public services so that the impact we are getting from every dollar is enhanced, not diminished, over time. That is the right goal for any Government to commit itself to. In this year’s Budget, our Government has absolutely committed ourselves to that goal by ensuring that we are not going to put an ever-growing cascade of public money into the back-office functions of public agencies, but are instead going to require them to live within their means and, indeed, live within New Zealand taxpayers’ means. In the absence of that effort, what we would be having to do is increase taxes on New Zealanders, and that is not a course our side of the House is prepared to take.

The second point I’d make is this, and it’s one that I’ve made in the course of many debates with that member over the past few years, which is her definition of what a front-line service is may differ from mine, which is to say that she would, for example, probably define the billions of dollars her Government invested in consultancy reports and contractors as somehow being front-line service delivery. Well, our Government proudly stands by the fact that we have capped and reduced the amount of spending on consultants across public agencies. That member would probably define all sorts of things as front-line service delivery which we would say, “Well, actually, no, those aren’t making a difference to New Zealanders and the outcomes they expect.” We see front-line services as those things needed to deliver core targets like lifting educational achievement, reducing waiting lists in the health system, ensuring fewer victimisations across the law and order system, and across all of those things we are getting better results as a result of driving more accountability for public money.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) (16:16): Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, then, given her definition of a front-line service cut is very different to Chris Penk’s, who regretted the fact that one of the local social services providers in Mahurangi and Kaipara, where he is currently the MP, has had to shut because of Government cuts to public services, the North Shore Women’s Centre has had to close as a result of Public Service cuts, what public services—given the cuts that are going to be coming of 2 and 5 and 5 percent consecutively—does she believe are not a front-line services? Especially given that it’s quite clear a number of community service providers who are funded through the Government sector have had cuts and have had to close as a result of her decisions.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (16:16): Well, we simply think it is possible for the Government to organise its own functions better. We don’t think that there is some rule set in stone that what you must have is 29 separate departments with 29 separate IT functions, 29 separate payroll departments, 29 different brands, and 29 different layers of chief executives and deputy chief executives. Instead, we think, actually, to the extent that those agencies can be streamlined and organised around the delivery of services to New Zealanders on the front line, they should be. So that’s one source of efficiency and reduced spending that we see.

We also think the public agencies who may, in some cases, still be dependent on paper in a digital age, would be able to get more effectiveness and more efficiency by using modern digital delivery and systems which allow fewer hours to be spent on tasks to deliver administrative functions. Those are two ways that we see that there can be more efficiency and productivity in the Public Service.

I’d also point out that the corollary of what that member is putting to the committee is that she’s saying what must happen is there must always, in every Budget, be a large shovel used to dig more money of the pockets of New Zealanders to throw into the Public Service, because it must never be expected to do more with less. On this side of the House, we proudly say, “Actually, just as every household and every business in the country are always looking at their budget to say, ‘Hey, how could we ensure that we can get more impact, that we’re putting dollars in the right places?’, so too must Government.”

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green) (16:18): I think perhaps a good place to start is where the Minister just left us, where she was talking about Governments of all stripes, actually, needing to make decisions on taxation and on spending. I think that that is a broader philosophical debate which has very real-world, practical implications for New Zealanders, when different approaches are taken by Governments of different stripes. We here on this side of the House—the Green Party, in particular—very strongly believe in collective investment in the things that can increase our productive capacity as a country and increase our resilience.

To that effect, I just want to pick up on something which the chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee said in his opening statements. He noted and, I think, implied that on this side of the House, we seem to believe that “inflation will disappear if we just invest a little more”. I think the member would hopefully understand that there are different types of investment. There are indeed types of investment that can reduce our exposure to imported inflation—the likes of imported inflation which our economy is currently suffering as a result of our exposure to fossil fuels.

Here I would just once again put on the public record that the Green Party actually wrote to the Minister of Finance and to the Prime Minister when the fossil fuel crisis first hit, seeing imported inflation on the horizon as a result of our economy’s exposure to fossil fuels, imploring the Government to work with us to reduce that very exposure which would otherwise result in the imported inflation which we are now currently seeing. The Government is actively blaming the fossil fuel crisis for the inflationary figures and the unemployment that we are seeing at this rate, and the cost of living that New Zealanders are experiencing, but there are opportunities for the Government to make investment to actively reduce that exposure to imported inflation.

To that effect, I actually just want to pick up on few things that this Government has actively decided to invest in and pulled its foot off of the lever to withdraw investment from, particularly the likes of renewable energy. Here, the Government will point to the fact that we have seen a lot of consenting of renewable energy projects, so let’s just let the market do what it needs to do. However, if we were to apply that logic across the board, then the Government should not be investing hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidising new fossil fuel production, nor potentially—

David MacLeod: Firming.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: Oh, if we want to talk about firming, for the members opposite, there are renewable versions of firming which would actually increase our sustainability and resilience, and, again, reduce our exposure to imported fossil fuel inflation. At the end of the day, my question, actually, for the Minister of Finance is something which I think is in all of our interests to understand, particularly in the lead-up to the election: does the Minister have any intention at all, or can she categorically rule out any potential taxpayer underwriting of the liquefied natural gas import facility that the Government has stated that it intends to move ahead with?

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (16:21): Thank you, Madam Chair. Minister of Finance, a key factor in your Budget that you tabled this year was a $2.4 billion in projected savings that were a result of losing almost 9,000 jobs in the Public Service. I understand that chief executives have been asked to provide plans to the Minister by August, and I wanted to ask if the Minister had an update on the amount of money that has been retained by her as a result of these job cuts, and also if she’s able to tell the House what job roles are going to be affected by these cuts.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (16:22): Well, the member is conflating two separate exercises. The first exercise is about the reduction of baseline expenditure set out in the Budget estimates. The second exercise is about restoring the Public Service to the size it has traditionally been, which is to say 1 percent of the population. Now, it blew completely out under the last Government, who thought there was never a problem that couldn’t be solved by taxing people more or hiring a few hundred public servants, and so we are now undertaking an exercise to ensure it is restored to its traditional size at about 1 percent of the population.

Now, we’ve set that target to be achieved over a number of years, so it is a gradual consolidation rather than something that will be achieved overnight, and therefore we expect to hit interim milestones along the way. Yes, the member is right: public agencies have been asked to put forward their plans for ensuring that they keep within these headcount reductions over time, and I have not actively considered those proposals as yet.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) (16:23): Thank you, Madam Chair. To the Minister of Finance, I just want to turn now to the $450 million contingency that was in the Budget for possible further measures in response to the conflict. Obviously, when we discussed this back in May, things were a lot more recent, and we’ve now had several months pass. Just want to know if the Minister has an update on what plans, if any, there are to spend that contingency money.

The Minister told us, and it’s reported in the Finance and Expenditure Committee report, that the Government wanted to be able to implement further targeted, temporary, and timely responses if needed. This was in the context of talking about higher oil prices, inflationary pressures, and interest rates that would be factors when the contingency was used. Now that we are in August, can the Minister please give us an update on what the plans are with that $450 million contingency?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (16:24): I stand by all of the statements I have made in relation to that contingency, which was a prudent measure by the Government to ensure that we were well positioned to react to what were inherently, and remain inherently, uncertain global events. As the member doesn’t appear to have any subscriptions available to her to international newspapers or Google, I’m happy to report to her that since the Budget has been delivered, what we have seen is both an escalation in events in the Middle East but, subsequently, further moves towards ceasefire.

The global oil price, which had spiked, has come down and spiked and come down again. Today, the price of petrol is sitting just over $3 a litre in New Zealand, diesel at about $2.70 a litre. At this juncture, the Government doesn’t judge that additional temporary supports are required, although a number of temporary supports do remain in place, including additional in-work tax credits for working families on low incomes hit by higher fuel prices, and including increases to mileage rates for a range of public servants, including relief teachers and those who are required to travel between patients for their healthcare work.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) (16:25): So has any of the contingent of that $450 million contingency been drawn down, and if it has been, what was it drawn down for? I do note to the Minister of Finance that these are serious questions, and it is precisely because of the changing nature of the conflict in the Middle East that these questions are being asked, and this House needs to understand that this is a very large—nearly half a billion-dollar—contingency that was sitting in Budget 2026. It was discussed at the Finance and Expenditure Committee. I think we could just have some answers to the questions around that. Google is something I think most members of this House know how to use, Minister.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (16:26): Well, if the member had asked that question, I would have answered that question. The answer is no, there have been no drawdowns.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) (16:26): Has Cabinet or Cabinet committee considered any uses of the contingency, and additional to that, has the Minister of Finance received any advice on how that contingency may be used?

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour) (16:27): I just want to revert briefly to the discussion raised by my colleague Camilla Belich around the cuts to the Public Service. The Minister of Finance, in explaining some of the cuts that were going on there around the baselines, was with a view to reverting to the traditional size of the Public Service at around about 1 percent of population. That may well be the traditional size, but tradition is not always a good reason for doing something. Could the Minister please explain why 1 percent is thought to be the appropriate size for the Public Service? Surely, the size of the Public Service depends on the services it has to deliver, not on a particular percentage of population. So, if the Minister could tell us why that is an appropriate size rather than just a traditional size.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (16:27): Well, we have ourselves a philosophical question, and I do wish to know from the member at some point what your PhD is in. I’m sorry that I misrepresented you earlier. I’ve always presumed it was taxation because I know you were a tax lecturer, and I presumed your lecturing related to your PhD, so I look forward to finding out.

Look, the philosophical point actually sits within this Government’s fiscal strategy, where we’ve also looked over time to ask ourselves the question: what is the appropriate size of Government? Because let’s be clear, the bigger Government is, the more resources it takes from the pockets of workers and from businesses and industry to spend on its own business, the fewer dollars are available for those same workers, business, and industry to go about their business. We accept on our side of the House that, yes, dollars are required to provide essential public services—a good health system, public infrastructure, and educating our kids—but what we don’t accept is the socialist premise that the way to nirvana is to ever expand the size of the State.

If we look back over time in New Zealand, the size of Government has proportionately been roughly 30 percent of the economy. We’ve set ourselves a fiscal target to get it back there. It is the case that under the last Labour Government, it went from around 27 percent to 34 percent in just six years, which shows you the alarming trajectory they would take us on. The reason, philosophically, we are uncomfortable with an ever-expanding State and an ever-expanding Public Service is because of the corollary it represents, which is: the only way to feed an insatiable State is to tax people more. You don’t need a PhD in tax, Dr Russell, to understand that; that if the Government just keeps growing, that means that workers need to give more of their very hard-earned wages to the tax man or the tax woman.

Our position is that, actually, New Zealanders probably need more of their own dollars in their own bank accounts to meet their own household needs, and make their own decisions about whether they invest in their children, whether they invest in their homes, what they invest in their lives, and the more dollars we take, the fewer choices they have about how they go about it. We set ourselves discipline, and we say, actually, let’s get the Public Service about where it’s been, which is 1 percent of the population, and let’s get Government spending about where it’s been—30 percent of GDP. Let’s not take the lazy path of just allowing Government to balloon, and deciding that every wasteful spending idea that pops into our head, whether it’s a cycle bridge across the harbour or a light rail train set—not every whim needs to be indulged.

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (16:30): Thank you, Madam Chair. I was interested in the discussion before around Investment Boost, because, given some of the forecasts, it’s clearly a very important policy. I understand that Investment Boost is projected to lift real GDP by about 1 percent over 20 years, with half of that coming in the first five years. I was interested in the Minister of Finance’s analysis of what would happen if Investment Boost was removed. What impact would that have on the Government forecasts and the ability for the Government to provide the revenue for the spending commitments that it needs to make for our public services?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (16:31): The member asks a very good question, because, as parties put together their manifestoes and fiscal plans, they’d better be careful about counting in growth that will not occur in the absence of Investment Boost, because what Treasury and the IRD estimate is that half of the GDP growth that Investment Boost is estimated to stimulate will occur within the first five years of that policy. In the absence of Investment Boost, therefore, you would expect half a percentage of GDP growth to be wiped off this economy over the forecast period. With less growth comes less revenue, and in terms of growth, we are talking about having GDP billions of dollars less than it would otherwise be, meaning a significant hit to revenue.

Now, of course, on the other side of the House, what they like to pretend is that you can just tax people more and there are no consequences. In the case of Investment Boost, the consequences of removing it would be very real. We would see a lower rate of capital investment than would otherwise be the case, lower productivity growth, lower GDP growth, and lower wage growth—

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Of what uptake?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: —with those effects most pronounced in the next five years. I put it to that member that that’s why this is such an important policy to maintain, because our economy absolutely needs that stimulus to wage and job creation over the next few years.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour) (16:32): Just reverting to an earlier discussion: for the benefit of the Minister of Finance, my PhD is actually in philosophy—the study of argumentation and logic—and it’s very helpful for noticing when people are obfuscating and not answering questions. I’d just like to point out that the Minister has not yet answered my colleague Chlöe Swarbrick’s question about the liquefied natural gas terminal, the Minister has not yet answered my colleague the Hon Dr Megan Woods’ question about the drawdown on the contingency, and she has not yet answered my question on why 1 percent is considered to be the appropriate size for the Public Service.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Chlöe—

Hon Nicola Willis: Madam Chair, you don’t need a philosophy degree to look at—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I’m sorry, but I had started to call Chlöe Swarbrick.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green) (16:33): It’s very interesting: we’ve just had the Minister of Finance agree with the Green Party that without investment, there is no growth. I guess that this is where there is that kind of dividing line where we have the opportunity to meaningfully invest in the things that will increase our productive capacity as a country, and also to reduce our exposure to imported fossil fuel inflation. I really, really want an answer from the Minister of Finance here, because I think it is critical for the sake of future infrastructure planning for us as a country, but also to that point of resilience and sustainability, and our exposure to imported inflation: can the Minister please make it absolutely clear to the committee that we are not potentially, at election time, going to be faced with a situation where this Government has decided to underwrite the liquefied natural gas import facility with taxpayer money?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (16:34): A revelation that I hope can occur in this House today is that Chlöe Swarbrick will recognise that the Government is not the only source of investment in the New Zealand economy. In fact, the biggest investors in the New Zealand economy are actually in the private sector, which is why it is so important that we have in place policy settings that encourage them to make that investment, and the means we have available to us for doing that are multiple, not the least regulatory. For example, the Fast-track Approvals Act will allow major investments to be made in renewable energy generation and housing and in quarries that would otherwise not be able to occur. By regulating more carefully, we can ensure that billions of dollars of investment are unleashed in the private sector.

The second way that we can encourage the private sector to invest is ensure that they actually retain some of the profits of their investment, which is why things like having a wealth tax are a dumb idea, because what that says to them is “Take your dollars elsewhere.” So let’s head that moment of comity in the committee of the whole House today—that we can agree that private sector investment is important to the New Zealand economy.

In answer to the member’s question, as has been stated by the Minister for Energy multiple times: the liquified natural gas investment is still subject to a procurement process and no final decisions have been made.

CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti) (16:35): Thank you, Madam Chair. [Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

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

Moving to the Māori economy: does the Minister stand by the Government’s commitment to double the Māori economy by 2035? If so, why have Māori economy’s sales fallen 10 percent, exports have fallen 17 percent, and 1,070 jobs have disappeared in a single year, with Māori employment now at 10.8 percent? What tangible investment can the Minister point to that is going to turn around the 2½ years of decline that the Māori economy has seen under this Government’s watch?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (16:36): Absolutely we are committed to our ambitious goals for the Māori economy, and let me point out to the member some of the sources of that growth. Actually, the Māori economy has a significant proportion of land-based and primary industry - based businesses, which are undertaking, at the moment, an export boom. We are seeing higher prices for our diary, for our meat, for our kiwifruit, and for our apples, and we are seeing more of those products being sold overseas. Our Government is supporting that, not only by reducing the red tape that farmers need to untangle themselves from before they plant a single vine, but we are also ensuring they have access to new markets. I want to acknowledge the member’s party for supporting the New Zealand - India free-trade agreement, which is an important part of that.

Māori businesses will also be significantly supported by the Investment Boost tax credit, which will ensure when they make investments in their own growth, whether that’s in a piece of machinery, a piece of technology, they will pay a lower tax bill that year as a result. So, yes, we remain committed to growing the Māori economy. We are committed to policies that support Māori firms and businesses to invest, create jobs, and grow incomes.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green) (16:37): We’ve just had what I think is actually quite an explosive admission from the Minister of Finance just then, when she said that no final decisions have been made and, in fact, she was pretty ambiguous about whether there is the potential for there to be a taxpayer underwrite to the tune of $1 billion for a new liquified natural gas (LNG) import facility just a few months before the general election. If that were to happen, that would bind our country to more fossil fuel imports and, therefore, expose us to more imported fossil fuel inflation into the future. But, look, if the Greens were to be taking the National Party election strategy here in the way that they seem to contort every single piece of information about tax policy or economic strategy, we here would be putting up in billboards and lights the fact that the National Party is going to be investing $1 billion of New Zealander’s money in a new LNG import facility, just to really underscore exactly how profoundly insane the situation is that we are in this election, with the lack of willingness to engage honestly and truthfully about the economic propositions that are before us as a country.

So given that the Minister of Finance clearly so desperately wants to talk so much about tax, let’s talk about what the Green Party is actually putting on the table in contrast to the tax system and the economic strategy that this Government perpetuates and upholds, and, yeah, with regard to the time that is available to us, let’s be really clear that what this Government has spent its time doing has been entrenching deep wealth inequality. Right now, they know that the average hard-working New Zealander—our hairdressers, our waitresses, firefighters, nurses, teachers, doctors, and almost every regular person who is tuned into this debate—is paying double the effective tax rate of the wealthiest in this country. But it’s clear who this Government serves, and it is not regular, hard-working New Zealanders, whom this Government sees as an opportunity to underwrite their billion-dollar LNG import facility to the detriment of all of us and of a safe, stable climate for future generations.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Is there a question?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (16:40): Well, I mean, the only explosive thing about that was the explosive volcano that is unleashed when the Greens get the chance to talk about their list of taxes. Let her count the ways. Look, as the Estimates clearly show, there has been no taxpayer funding commitment made to a liquefied natural gas facility, nor could there be when no final decisions have been made to advance one, because it is subject to a procurement process. There’s nothing explosive about that. If the member wants to take more opportunities to list all of the new taxes she wants to introduce to drive investment and jobs away from this country, she is welcome to take as much time as she likes, because I’ll tell you what: that sort of economic recklessness and vandalism is not what the New Zealand people want.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green) (16:40): Point of order. I’m seeking leave of the committee to have extra time afforded to the Green Party for the sake of us having that meaningful, evidence-based tax debate.

Hon Member: No.

Hon Nicola Willis: No.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Well, let me put it. Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) (16:41): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m just returning to my questions and reminding the Minister of Finance that, outstanding, we had the questions around whether or not any advice has been received, or whether any Cabinet committee or Cabinet has considered any uses of the $450 million contingency fund that sits in the Budget. The other question I would like to ask the Minister is: has she had any update from IRD around Investment Boost and around the 1 percent increase in GDP growth that is forecasted as a result of that policy over 20 years and whether she’s had any updated advice on that 1 percent? She’s saying—and indeed a number of the documents and certainly the documents accompanying the Budget said—that you could expect some of that growth to be front-loaded in the first five years and that it wouldn’t fall in a linear way, the 0.05 percent per year, if you annualised it over 20 years. So, if she can give us some updates within the first five years about how it will perform against the linear path of 0.05 percent growth, and, likewise, in terms of the projections around wage growth from Investment Boost, which is a 1.5 percent increase in wages over 20 years. I think most workers sitting out there would be looking for something more than a 1.5 percent over five years growth in their wages, but this seems to be the only policy that this Government and this Budget is hanging its hat on in terms of anything to do with wage growth and in terms of making life better for workers. So, if the Minister could give an update of any advice she has received in terms of the filings and how that is tracking and what that looks like.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (16:43): I’m sorry I have to spell this out to the member, but that is wage growth additional to the wage growth that would otherwise occur. It’s not the only wage growth that will occur, but it’s wage growth that you can bet your bottom dollar won’t happen if Investment Boost is withdrawn. As to Treasury and IRD’s estimates of the impacts on GDP growth and wage growth, all of the advice that I have received stands by those estimates. It’s very important to note that it is a matter of comparing what would have otherwise been the case, and that is difficult to do. As I have highlighted, we have not yet had the full year’s tax returns for a year of Investment Boost, so we don’t have the data. Even if we had the data, it is difficult to know how much of that investment would otherwise not have occurred.

What we do know is that in the absence of this policy, New Zealand businesses would be paying more tax. If they were paying more tax, they would have fewer dollars available to them for paying their workers and making investments in their own growth and expansion. You can cut it 50 ways, you can talk about your percentages and your incremental and your linear, but if you’re getting rid Investment Boost, you are taxing businesses more. This investment credit is worth $6.6 billion to New Zealand businesses over the forecast period, and in its absence, those businesses would be paying $6.6 billion more in tax. That tax would be, in the case of the Green Party, spent on phantom, crazy, fantasy projects; in the case of the Labour Party, probably wasteful Government spending. Our argument is a simple one: let those businesses retain more of their earnings so that they can make investments in their own workers, their own technology, and their own expansion, and strengthen the New Zealand economy.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) (16:44): So, based on that response by the Minister, if you rewind Investment Boost, it therefore increases the tax impost on a business. What are the tax savings, therefore, from the year, given businesses pay provisional tax?

Cushla Tangaere-Manuel: Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Cushla—

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Supplementary. Quite clearly—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I’d started to call the member Cushla Tangaere-Manuel.

CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti) (16:45): Thank you, Madam Chair. Has the Minister requested or has Treasury provided any advice on the 10 percent fall in Māori authority sales and the loss of 1,070 jobs; if yes, will the Minister release it and, if no, why has she not requested that information?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (16:45): In answer to the member’s question, no, I’ve not received advice on that matter. In addressing member Edmonds’ questions, let me spell it out again for the member, because I don’t think she has understood it the first, second, or third time I’ve explained it. The Investment Boost was introduced on 22 May 2025 and was, therefore, applied for the first tax year through to 1 April 2026. We do not know how many people claimed the Investment Boost tax credit in that year for a simple reason, which is that most firms in New Zealand use a tax agent to make their tax claims and have up to 12 months after the tax year to make those claims. As is always the case, the majority do not make their tax filings until a year after the completion of the tax year. The simple reason that the member’s questions can’t be addressed in factual detail is that the claims have not yet been made.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Well, “the majority”, you said.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Now, the member can mutter under her breath as many times as she likes that she doesn’t know. Well, the IRD do not have that information yet, because people haven’t made those claims yet.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour) (16:47): I just want to help the Minister out here. It is the case that terminal tax claims have not been filed and things like that, but provisional tax returns will have been coming in on an ongoing basis—the provisional upfront payments that businesses make during the year—and so that provisional tax data ought to be giving some indication of whether Investment Boost is actually being used and what kind of an impact it is having on the final tax paid—

Hon Shane Jones: No, no, no, no.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Trust me. I know about the tax system. There ought to be some data available. I would also like to point out that, as the Minister referred to herself when she was in front of the select committee, there was some survey data from Inland Revenue. The final set of that data was due to be coming in in about April, and there should have been reports back on it by now. There ought to be at least some evidence available, both from that survey data and from the provisional tax payments that have been coming in, to give the Minister an indication as to how effective Investment Boost has been. Where is that information, Minister?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (16:48): Well, it’s a sad Wednesday afternoon when a Labour Party member has her hand on her hip and says, “Trust me. I know about tax.” You know what follows. I can tell you what she knows about tax. In her view, more is always better. I’m afraid that the member and I are not going to agree on this point, because the simple reality is that the Investment Boost tax credit has been introduced. Yes, the survey data indicates that a significant proportion of firms have brought forward investments they wouldn’t have otherwise made or expanded investments, and a significant proportion in the survey data indicated that they had or intended to use Investment Boost. However, that is survey data. For the final information, we do need the final tax returns. It is the case that IRD have ensured that those tax returns include a data field which asks people to identify the volume and value of investments that they made that they claimed the Investment Boost tax credit for. We will know that data after the fact. We just simply do not have that data at this point. I can tell you one thing definitively and clearly: as a result of the Investment Boost tax credit, businesses in the last tax year will have paid less tax than would have otherwise been the case. The member can wish that away, or she can just be clear and candid, which is that she wants businesses to pay more tax.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) (16:50): It is quite clear, when you have a Minister who says they’re going to save a significant amount of tax and yet the member just before asked, “Well, how much?”, that she doesn’t actually know. The Minister doesn’t actually know. No idea. Therefore, given there was a survey—and we’ve read the survey—I want to ask the Minister: of that significant proportion that have actually changed their investment decisions because of Investment Boost, how much was that percentage of those that actually did the survey? From my understanding, only 7 percent of those that did the survey said it was significant, and 53 percent said that Investment Boost doesn’t actually affect them.

Therefore, if the Minister is claiming they don’t know how much yet from Investment Boost and yet was asked just before how much it was—she said, “We don’t know yet, because the filing data.” Well, which particular filing data are you talking about? Are you talking about the IR10, the annual financial statements, or are you talking about their provisional tax, which is done three times a year? I’m getting a bit confused by the Minister here because she’s conflating a number of different filing obligations in order for us to get the information around how effective Investment Boost is, given her claims that it will have significant impact on them. Yet a survey result shows the complete opposite of that. Can the Minister provide the House with the answer to how much has actually been drawn down from Investment Boost for the last year? Her comments that the majority—you don’t know? Well, then, what is the minority, if you do know that?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (16:51): I’m very happy to address the member’s question, although I’d suggest that she’s given me a spade with which to dig a hole she is going to fall into. What the IRD did was they threw forward estimates of the amount of investment that would be made by firms and how much their tax bills would be reduced in each of the years in the forecast period. The amount of less tax that businesses will pay per year as a result of Investment Boost—let me spell it out to the House: in the 2024-25 year, $208 million less in tax; in the 2025-26 year, $1.830 billion less in tax; in the 2026-27 year, $1.6 billion less in tax; in the 2027-28 fiscal year, $1.7 billion less in tax; in the 2028-29 fiscal year, $1.3 billion less in tax.

Now, the corollary is also true, members. If Investment Boost were removed, let me tell you how much more tax businesses would be paying. Well, this very fiscal year they’d be paying $1.6 billion more in tax. Next year, they’d be paying $1.7 billion more in tax. In the 2028-29 forecast year, they’d be paying $1.3 billion more in tax. What kind of a finance spokesperson would promote that if they want to grow this economy?

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour) (16:53): I would like to—[Interruption]

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Just a minute. I can’t hear myself think.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Thank you, Madam Chair. Of course, the point of Investment Boost is that it accelerates the depreciation right off, so it brings forward a write-off—20 percent in the first year—and then it decreases the write-off in subsequent years. Given that the Minister has said that businesses will pay X amount less in tax in the immediate years as a result of Investment Boost, how much extra tax will they be paying in the out years as a result of the decrease claims they can make in those years? The Minister needs to be clear that this is a cash-flow advantage only. Oh, the Minister doesn’t know. Perhaps I’ll sit down, and someone else can take the call.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (16:53): Well, if you ask a silly question, expect an answer that will be very simple for the member to understand, which is this: the Investment Boost tax policy reduces people’s tax bills in the forecast period, meaning that the time value of money is significant and they have more funds available to them in the short term than would otherwise be the case. What IRD and Treasury advise is that, as a result, they will have more cash available to them to do the following things: pay their workers more, invest in more equipment, expand their growth, send their products to new markets, and do any number of things which will be good for the economy overall. Here’s the thing: rather than imposing new taxes and increasing taxes, another way that you can increase revenue is by growing your economy more by growing your businesses more. The Investment Boost tax policy will allow businesses to grow faster, and we say that’s a good thing.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) (16:54): That was interesting. While the Minister waits for a text from her adviser to provide the answer for Dr Deborah Russell’s question, the question I have in relation to the last year, therefore—given that the Minister has said that Investment Boost will provide more employment—is: how many jobs have come online as a result of that Investment Boost, given her claim and given unemployment is now at a 11-year high? The fact is that it’s supposed to bring in more employment, and yet unemployment is higher. How many additional jobs in the last year, therefore, given the Minister’s claims have been brought on as a result of Investment Boost?

Hon James Meager: It’s under 3 percent in Otago; 3.7 percent in the South Island.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: Sorry, what was that, James Meager?

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The debate isn’t across the Chamber, members.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS: He was just trying to correct me. My question is: given unemployment figures, how many more jobs have been added into the economy as a result of Investment Boost decisions and businesses accessing Investment Boost?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (16:56): We’re now entering the dregs of the debate where we enter endless repetition. I repeat two points that I’ve made ad infinitum. The first is that it will be difficult to disaggregate the effects of Investment Boost from any of the other wonderful, pro-growth policies which this Government is implementing, from advancing fast-track developments to implementing new free-trade agreements to reducing red tape and regulation and to better educating our school leavers. That would be a difficult number for any serious scientist to come up with.

The second point is this: in terms of how many claims have been made using the Investment Boost tax credit, we will not know that until the final tax returns are in.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour) (16:56): Well, seeing as the Minister doesn’t really want to explain anything further around Investment Boost, I want to go to some of the general economic figures. Perhaps the Minister could explain this. I have, sitting here, the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update (PREFU) from 2023, and at that time, the forecast GDP growth for the 2026 year was 3.3 percent, but sitting here in the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update (BEFU) from this year, the year for which the Minister has been responsible, it’s 1.2 percent. Could the Minister explain the difference in those figures and why, under her watch, growth is much, much lower than it was going to be under the watch of the previous Government?

While she’s at it, perhaps she could explain why, in terms of the operating balance before gains and losses (OBEGAL)—they’re not actually reporting the OBEGAL figure, because they’ve gone to her own special little operating balance before gains and losses, excluding ACC revenue and expenses (OBEGALx) figure. With OBEGALx compared to OBEGAL, it shows that there was a considerable decrease in OBEGAL from when the Labour Government was in charge until when she’s been in charge.

We could add, to that, inflation. Inflation was due to be down at about 2.1 percent in PREFU 2023, and, now, under that Minister’s watch, inflation for the 2026 year is predicted to be something like 4 percent—well out of the band.

Let’s do it one more time with some other sets of figures. We always knew unemployment was going to be trouble and difficult for a few years, but by this time, according to PREFU 2023, unemployment would be starting to track down. It would be at 4.8 percent, but on her watch, unemployment is sitting at 5.5 percent, and that’s without taking into account all the New Zealanders who have fled overseas. The Minister needs to explain why things are so much worse on her watch.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (16:58): As we have traversed at the Finance and Expenditure Committee and as the Treasury have acknowledged, their forecasts at Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update 2023 were overly exuberant, and they subsequently pulled back their productivity expectations and their growth expectations. Essentially, in their analysis, they overestimated the bounce-back after COVID, and as the real data came in, they then adjusted their forward forecasts. In addition, we have of course had a global tariff war and the biggest oil shock in recent history. In terms of what the economic indicators show, under the last Government, core Crown expenses went from 27.3 percent in 2018 and leapt to 33 percent in 2024. On our watch for the only year for which we have final figures, which is the 2025 year, those expenses reduced to 32.6 percent. In terms of debt, debt was 19.5 percent in 2018. Under the last Government, it had more than doubled to 41.7 percent by 2024.

Despite the ravages and the challenges of the global economy, and despite the massive interest bill that we inherited from the last Government, which is now totalling around $9 billion a year, on our watch, debt has only increased in the final year for which actual figures are available—2025—by 0.2 percent: going from 41.7 percent to 41.9 percent, which I think the member will acknowledge is a far lower level of growth than the 19.5 percent to 41.7 percent that Grant Robertson managed to achieve.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, the Minister’s time in the chair has come to an end.

Committee of the whole House—Estimates Debate

Local Government

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): We now have the Minister of Local Government, the Hon Simon Watts. The Minister is available to speak to that portfolio from 5 p.m. until 5.40 p.m.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Chairperson of the Governance and Administration Committee) (17:00): Thank you, Madam Chair. The Governance and Administration Committee met on 17 June to hear evidence on the appropriations within Vote Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport, which are the responsibility of the Minister of Local Government. The Minister of Local Government, as I said there, is responsible for six appropriations totalling about $126.1 million in 2026-27. This is roughly a quarter of Vote Cities, Environment, Regions, and Transport: $523.1 million. At the hearing on 17 June, we heard a lot about simplifying local government—the Government’s Head Start pathway—and the backstop process. We heard also a lot about city and regional deals around water services and the Government’s plans around what is happening in that space, but we also covered off some other areas as well, including cost to councils to simplify local government, transition of local government functions to the Ministry of Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport and strengthening environmental resilience.

We welcome the Minister here now, and I know that there are lots of questions that people want, so I’m keeping my part very short because we only have a short time. So I’ll leave the introduction at that.

MIKE DAVIDSON (Green) (17:02): Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a question around Taumata Arowai, obviously a Crown entity and our country’s national water regulator. The Government has budgeted $4.642 million for this financial year, yet the councils are contributing in levies, $20.658 million, this financial year but it’s actually for three financial years in a row, and we’re not too sure what it will be after that. That represents 80 percent of the total levies to run this organisation. If I look at, for example, Christchurch City Council, their contribution is $1.6 million, which obviously represents a significant increase in rates. I’m sure the Minister is aware of the impact on rates when it involves operational spending. So my question to the Minister is: why have councils been forced to be the primary funder of the operations of a national regulator that the Government has created?

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour—Māngere) (17:03): Thanks, Madam Chair. I appreciate the opportunity. I’d like to ask Minister Watts, in terms of local government: elected local government is being abolished and without telling anyone what replaces it in terms of what was given to the committee. Regional councillors will not be elected in 2028. What sits in their place? We have been advised as a committee that there will be a board of mayors, Crown commissioners, or some hybrid system that has not yet been decided by Cabinet.

So my question is: in terms of the central democratic question, what has been planned? How will the public know, in terms of the system, if one system is being abolished and we are used to nationwide local government elections—I want to understand what type of system, what will be the public consultation in a very short time, what will be the envelope, and who will make those decisions in terms of that new system?

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Local Government) (17:04): Well, thank you very much, Madam Chair. Good afternoon, fellow members. It’s an honour to be the member, and also the Minister of Local Government, and to be entrusted with this portfolio that is delivering for New Zealanders. We’ve had a number of questions there, one in regard to the water regulator and the levy model, and also another question in regard to regional councils. In order to set the context before I come to those two points, I think it’s important to acknowledge that there has been significant reform in the area of water services. The reform is focused on more flexible, cost-effective, and financially sustainable water services, and that is a priority of this Government.

The Local Water Done Well programme has seen all councils prepare water services plans, which provides them with a clear pathway to put in place the infrastructure required and the investment needed. The overseeing and the implementation of these plans is a significant task for the Ministry of Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport (MCERT), and I acknowledge my MCERT officials here with me.

In regard to the question around the levy for the water regulator, it is common practice across other sectors within our economy that the funding of those regulated entities is provided by those entities that, in effect, are the users of that. In this case, they are the local government mechanism. The regulation applies to water quality standards and, more broadly, around the efficiency in the context of water as well. So that is how it is.

In regards to the regional council model, the member is right to acknowledge that the Government has a wide-ranging reform programme in regard to the reform and simplification of local government. We’re working our way through that at the moment, and it’s pleasing to see that a number of councils have made voluntary submissions in regard to their plans to amalgamate. We’ll have more to say on that in the coming weeks to months, but in regard to regional council specifically, it is correct that these regional council elections will not occur again, and will not occur in the 2028 year, which is when they were planned to occur again. In effect, the functions of regional council will form part of new amalgamated unitary councils across the country, and that process of transition will be happening over the period from now to 2028.

The destination is not 2028; it is a milestone on that journey and then the further bedding in of that reform will occur post 2028. Those councils that have selected into the Head Start process can expect that they will have their, in effect, amalgamated entities in law by midway through of next year. That will then give them a certain clarity to start that reform programme faster, which was the feedback that they gave to us through the consultation process.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour) (17:07): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I’d like to thank you, Minister, for that. I would like to ask a follow-up on the question from my colleague from the Greens around Watercare and what is happening in the Local Water Done Well area. Now, we noted that the Department of Internal Affairs reported that councils’ water services delivery plans under Local Water Done Well predict that nearly $9 billion more investment is needed over the next 10 years. That was over and above what councils’ long-term plans forecast. Now someone has to pay for that, and I’m presuming that there has been household modelling and the impact on household modelling, and I’m very keen to know which and what the modelled household impact is. So, who really pays for that $9 billion and what is the forecast impact on the average household bill?

MIKE DAVIDSON (Green) (17:08): I just wanted to follow up on my questions around Taumata Arowai, and I appreciate the comments from the Minister. I guess I want to get some insurance that there’ll be no other Crown entities, departments, or agencies that council may end up having to fund some of the administration. I look at something like Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Authority, which obviously works within the local government space. I’d just be good to get some insurance that that won’t happen.

One of the things I also want to look at is we know that the Minister’s proposing to introduce a rates cap, and whether he would look to exclude these levy costs from councils from that rate caps proposal, and whether he’s willing to work across parties to actually look at some of the reforms that are currently happening that are posing significant costs on councils from the administration of them, and develop them. They could be looked from being excluded from the rates cap because we see, across the board, councils struggling to actually keep up with the pace of the reforms—but the cost to council is significant.

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Local Government) (17:09): I thank the members for the questions. I’ll cover Watercare first and then come on to the broader reform in regards to rates caps. In regards to Watercare specifically—so this is the entity responsible for the delivery of water services in the Auckland region—it is probably one of the most significant and substantive examples of the success of the Local Water Done Well reform.

The mechanism changes in the Local Water Done Well reform is, basically, enabling the funding and financing to flow to the Watercare entity in order to undertake and embark on a significant capital programme and investment programme. That capital programme is in the region of $15 billion over the next decade. We all acknowledge that there is a deficit of infrastructure required and the investment required to do so, but the ability to decouple Watercare from the Auckland Council balance sheet allows it to have the flexibility to be able to borrow that, and, of course, it is offset with the ability to collect revenue from water connection charges to offset that borrowing. So that has really unlocked probably what is one of the most fundamental significant reforms of the ability to invest in water infrastructure in New Zealand in the past generation, I would go as far as. The savings, particularly in Auckland’s case, are $900 million as a result of the Local Water Done Well reforms, and that is answering the member’s question.

In regards to the rates cap point, the member is asking around the interest around bipartisanship. I can give the member certainty in the context that it remains the Government’s intent to introduce legislation in regards to a rates cap model. We have spent an extensive amount of time consulting and working with the broader industry around policy design considerations for that model to work in practice, taking into account learnings such as Australia and where they have learnt from that. As and when it is introduced, it will go through a select committee process, and I would welcome interactions, support, and thought around that across the House. It is my view as Minister of Local Government that any legislation that we look to introduce, particularly new legislation such as a rates cap, is enduring. Therefore, it would be appropriate for us to ensure that that legislation is well considered and deals with the underlying issues but also provides the mechanisms and the safeguards to deal with, say, natural events and disasters where there are exceptional circumstances and we need a mechanism to deal with that that is built into the design of that legislation. We’ll embark on that process in the future.

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour—Māngere) (17:12): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank the Minister of Local Government for his earlier replies. Minister, I want to understand, in terms of the interim body, if the elected regional government is abolished, there’s not much time, and you’ve kindly explained that in probably about mid-2027 there will be the appointment of that interim body. Minister, can you please explain, in terms of the final design of the new set-up, with what the public understand, what will the education package to the public be in terms of consulting the public up and down Aotearoa that there is going to be a new body in the interim, there will be an appropriation for Parliament, and there will also be a completely new system—what consultation will there be done?

I have a number of questions in terms of the consultation, because it is important that when there is such a fundamental change in the new system, there is a serious component in terms of the planning of the design of the new system. It needs to be asked how public consultation will be done for voters of Aotearoa so that they can understand the reform programme.

But I also wanted to ask, Minister, if you could explain: has any assessment been made to the risk of regional planning capability in the abolishment of this current system to the new system because of the cost of living increases? What will worry people in their local communities is the cost of a new system. There will be the processes through Parliament in terms of legislation directed and designed by the Minister and officials and the impact of that new system being understood clearly by communities across Aotearoa.

Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour) (17:14): Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, just because we’ve got a short time and it is jumping around a bit, but I do want to move to the city and regional deals from my questions, if that’s OK. This is something that’s been a particular interest for me, of course, coming from the Western Bay of Plenty, and that is one of the first areas where one of the city and regional deals were signed.

Minister Watts, you told the select committee at our hearing that pursuing Head Start does not affect a council’s eligibility for a city and regional deal, but that a region that has been through Head Start is likely to meet some of the prerequisites, such as the ability to coordinate as a region and produce a clear growth plan. Now, to me that seems a little bit of a contradiction. It seems like amalgamation is formally irrelevant to eligibility, but it’s also practically advantageous, from that quote. Councils have understood the message. It seems like it converts a voluntary pathway into a condition of access to funding. So I would like some comment, if the Minister thinks and believes that that’s true. Just to clarify that, because it did seem very contradictory during the committee hearing.

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Local Government) (17:16): Yeah, I’ll come to the member’s question in regards to the broader city regional deal and the relationship in that context, just to clarify. I just want to acknowledge the member’s contribution and support. These regional deals are 10-year deals. They will span the political spectrum, and you’ve seen that in the UK, where they’re now 20 years ongoing. The importance of having alignment around the key aspects that are going to benefit our cities and regions are important, so I do acknowledge that across the House.

The assessment that the member is stating is not my view. It is not a prerequisite that the amalgamation of the councils is a prerequisite or a requirement of a city regional deal. It is, obviously, in terms of the criteria for a city regional deal being considered, a helpful example of how well in practise a region is able to work together. I think that is the point that is noted for those regions that have not yet negotiated or are negotiating a city or regional deal with the Crown, it obviously is advantageous to be able to signal their ability to work together, and that is important.

In the case of the Bay of Plenty and those aspects, the groupings of councils which were party to that agreement met the criteria in regards to that, and as a result the deal has been signed. So what they choose to do in regards to the amalgamation of their council positions or not is subject to their choice at this point. Western Bay and Tauranga did not participate in the Head Start proposal programme, and therefore, by virtue of that, they will be subject to a backstop process.

In regards to the questions around timing around that, because I think this is very important, Head Start proposals were due on 9 August. Government decisions around proceeding with any detailed design of those will be made in September, with final decisions in regards to that in 2027. It is the expectation that the detailed design of any backstop process will not be made or determined until 2027. And following decisions, legislation, and implementation of the successful Head Start proposals, then we will look to instigate the backstop process that will be developed and enacted in early 2028 and in place for the 2028 local body elections.

There was a question before around the entity body and when is it going to be in place. The entity body that’s been referred to will not be in place until 2028. What that acknowledges is that the backstop process will not apply until following the 2028 elections. Together with Head Start and the backstop, this will provide a clear pathway for reform for councils to move from where they are. Again, the Head Start proposal and pathway was put in place because we had feedback when we consulted with councils that a number of groupings wanted to move faster than the 2028 deadline. As a result, we created a voluntary mechanism to do that. Again, while I can’t be specific around the decisions off the back of that, we have been pleasantly surprised with the large number of 18 or so proposals that we received from councils across the country with an interest in looking to amalgamate into unitary groupings. That is important with a backdrop that we’ve only ever had one amalgamation in this country’s history in the last 35 years, which is one. To have 18 proposals in a voluntary process is not to be underestimated in terms of significance.

ORIINI KAIPARA (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau) (17:20): Tēnā koe, e mihi ana ki te Minita—thank you. I want to stay on the topic of local government reform. I have three questions themed around accountability to hapū and iwi Māori. Given that some councils are struggling to collaborate on local government reform, how will Vote Cities, Environment, Regions, and Transport and local government 2026-2027 ensure that councils are adequately engaged with and supported by local hapū, iwi Māori to collaborate and meet reform deadlines? Following that, given that councils aren’t able to successfully collaborate unlike their iwi Māori counterparts on critical reform, how does the Vote Cities, Environment, Regions, and Transport and local government 2026-2027 support partnership between councils who fail to collaborate across regional interests, opting to patch protect their own local interests and reform? The third and final question on this topic is regarding ministerial backstop powers. How much money has been allocated under Vote cities—under this Estimate—to engage with iwi Māori on the use of such powers to prevent reform failure?

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Local Government) (17:21): So working backwards on those, the allocation of funding specifically to iwi Māori in regards to the Head Start proposal has been through baselines. There hasn’t been any significant allocation of funding actually to any groups or any entities as a result of this. What has been the case from the outset is that this has been undertaken first and foremost from the local communities and local groupings.

I just want to acknowledge the role of iwi Māori and broader hapū in the Head Start proposals. In many instances actually iwi Māori in particular have been more pro-reform in this area than potentially what some councils have been able to agree to. I guess that acknowledges that there is a clear understanding of the importance of getting to a point which is different to the status quo, and actually working more together as a region does have advantages which in many parts of the country iwi Māori have recognised in some cases before councils have got to that point of understanding. So that will continue.

There are other examples across the board where iwi Māori are very much aligned with the Head Start proposals that have been put in place. Seldom are there examples where there is large conflicting view in regards to that, which is positive. The view has always been that local councils have the best relationship with iwi Māori and their communities than central government, and they are best placed to do that. I’ve been very clear with my expectations to councils that they must engage in so in good faith and ensure that all people within the community including iwi Māori are at the table at a very early stage to ensure that anything designed is considered with all of the perspectives around that table from the outset.

MIKE DAVIDSON (Green) (17:23): Thank you, Madam Chair. I guess part of the reason why so many councils have entered the Head Start programme is because they’ve got one hand pushed up behind their back. I think this quote from the Hon Chris Bishop explains it quite well: “Lead your own reform or we will do it for you. Either way, change is coming.” So it was very clear that these councils were forced to do this Head Start programme, and to be fair, there are some councils that are in a good space to do it. But from a lot of the elected members that I’ve spoken to across the motu, they are being forced to do this and it’s been rushed too quickly and the community is not having their say.

What we’ve also seen from a recent report commissioned by Wellington was actually the cost to do this is extreme, and the cost for them over just a couple of years was $269 million. And my question to the Minister is: will these costs be excluded from those rates capping proposal? And will there be a mechanism for councils to seek reimbursements for this cost for because of a reform that this Government has forced upon them?

Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour) (17:24): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m sorry; I’m going to go back to the city and regional deals just to ask two follow up questions that I think I just want some clarification around. It seems that when I look at the appropriations of this portfolio, the total is $126.1 million, but the city and regional deals is described as unlocking funding for roads, infrastructure, and housing supply. So my question on this is what is the total funding committed under the Auckland and Western Bay of Plenty deals, and over what period, and in which appropriations do they sit for those deals? The other question I have, and I’ll just ask it now so that the Minister has it, is there seems to be a number of councils who are waiting with no decision that they have received. So I’d like to know how many regional deal proposals are awaiting a Cabinet decision, and does the Minister have an idea around when those councils will receive an answer?

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour—Māngere) (17:25): Thank you, Madam Chair. I do want to go back just with a couple of follow-up questions for the Minister with regards to abolishing elected regional government. But one of the things, and the Minister has mentioned that there has been one amalgamation which is Auckland Council, and whilst there was a number of—there was a legislation and there were policies that came out under that amalgamation, it actually turned very messy because communities were not clearly informed as well as the elected members moving over to the new system.

My question to the Minister is: it has been signalled that there will be an interim period, and the Minister has explained that 2027, which then leads on to a 2028 time line—which will then be in line with the local government elections. Whilst it sounds good, can the Minister give assurance that that will happen accordingly, with respect to the new legislation? But also the Vote appropriation, can the Minister explain, in terms of the final design of the legislation, what exactly will Parliament be appropriating the money for?

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Local Government) (17:27): In response to the questions first and foremost around the transition costs for all proposals, but in this instance it was referred to as Wellington, is that each of the Head Start proposals which are currently being assessed by officials, a number of them did include assumptions and indications around transition costs that may be considered or necessary by the groupings of councils in order to facilitate the transition. Officials are currently working in their way through that information. No decisions have been made by Cabinet in regards to what proposals will progress, nor whether any support will be provided for those transition costs. But it is currently under active consideration and we will release that decision as part of the information we do as noted in September.

The question in regards to the city regional deal proposals and how many more and are councils waiting; we did a first wave of that where we sought proposals and we made the decision to progress negotiations with three groupings, of which we have signed two deals, and we are imminent to sign the third deal in regards to that. We have no other negotiations currently under way. However, we have signalled to councils that post the Head Start process being reviewed and assessed by Cabinet, we may take a decision to open up a phase two around the city regional deals. We have not made that decision at this point. It’s still under active consideration.

Lastly, the question around the allocation of funding and around city regional deals and how much is allocated to both Auckland and the Bay of Plenty deal: as the member highlighted, the city regional deals include a wide range of portfolio implications, from health to education to roading and other aspects, and a number of projects and appropriations within that are either appropriations or they are intents to do something in the future, some of which are in the later period, so years seven to 10. It is not the case that there is a single number definitively that can be placed upon the totality of appropriation for a city regional deal because of the fact that some aspects of that appropriation and decision making is at different stages of design. So they also sit across multiple portfolios. So there isn’t a single allocation within the portfolio of city regional deals to fund that. It comes from respective Ministers, such as transport or health.

MIKE DAVIDSON (Green) (17:29): Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the comments from the Minister. I just want to check if the Minister agrees, because we’ve had a lot of commentary about the level of rates increases from councils over a number of years and whether he agrees that the driver of increased rates over say the last five years has been insurance, interest rates, and inflation. And one of those drivers actually the council can control—it’d be great to get his opinion on that.

The other question I have is around this. As we know, councils are going through the Head Start process, which will see a number of councils merge. But also, at the same time, we have, I believe, 44 councils undergoing representation reviews due to legislation, and there’s the potential that there’s going to be a lot of money spent in that space, which obviously will be passed on to ratepayers. That may be redundant if they have to merge into another council. My question to the Minister is: what is the Minister doing in this space? Are there going to be some changes to actually allow councils not to do those representation reviews, or if they do them and they become redundant because they merge, will they be reimbursed those costs?

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Local Government) (17:30): Just in regards to the question, in terms of the key drivers of rates increases in the country, the member is correct to note that we have seen significant increases in year on year rate increases; some jurisdictions up to 20 percent. Obviously, in your home region, double-digit rate increases, as well. The drivers of those are varied across the country. Obviously, high inflation historically has been a contributing factor, but one of the aspects is also the scope of what local government undertakes as a service delivery model. Currently, within the Act, it’s defined as “wellbeing”. It’s very difficult to define what is “wellbeing”—it pretty much could include everything. Legislative change that we will be putting through before the 24 September will define the core activities of local government across the key areas of rubbish, water, roading, civil defence, and parks and recreation, and there is a financial requirement, also, to spend money on those things first and foremost, before anything else.

As a result of that, and aligned with the implementation of a rates-capping model, we’re trying to, in effect, regulate those monopolies that will ensure that the increases in rates are at a level which is affordable for New Zealanders. In regards to the systems improvement bill, that is where that legislation will fall in regards to what are core services of local government. In regards to the questions around representation review, the member is correct that that is an area that has been highlighted from local government. It is something that I’m taking advice on, and I’m very open to thinking about how best to relieve that pressure on local government through, potentially, the Head Start legislation that we will put in place. I’ll have more to say on that soon.

ORIINI KAIPARA (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau) (17:32): My question is around the establishment of the Ministry for Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport, otherwise known as MCERT, and it’s to do with the funding for capacity and capability of the Crown to deliver on Treaty settlement commitments. One, how will this Estimate support MCERT to build any new capacity and capability to uphold Crown obligations to iwi and Māori, including Treaty settlement arrangements? What are the cost implications for Vote Cities, for this Estimate, to source new and to retain existing iwi Māori capacity and capability required to uphold obligations to iwi and Māori, including Treaty settlement arrangements? The third and final question on this topic is: what trade-offs will MCERT be required to make in its first year which may require weakening of Crown obligations to iwi Māori, including Treaty settlement arrangements.

MIKE DAVIDSON (Green) (17:33): Thank you. I do appreciate your comments. I’ve asked a lot of questions around the cost to local governments from these reforms being passed on to them by central government, which goes directly to ratepayers. There is the impact that’s going to happen with a rates cap, and, obviously, the fact that these reforms costs are going to have to sit underneath those things, underneath the rates cap. My question to the Minister is: will he commit to, where councils are spending money that is due to a central government reform—that that money will be excluded from the rates cap?

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour—Māngere) (17:34): I do want to thank the Minister for his answers, but, Minister, I did ask an earlier question with regards to public consultation. Can you give an assurance that the changes—because these are drastic changes for the whole country, in terms of the reforms. Will the public consultation be done effectively in terms of the interim body and then the new system, and also how long will that interim period be?

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Local Government) (17:34): In regards to the questions on public consultation in particular, it will always be the intent of the Head Start process—which is a voluntary process for councils to opt into—that it would be for those councils to undertake any engagement with their communities in regards to consultation and their proposals around what they’re looking to do as result of amalgamation. It’d be fair to say that there are a number of councils across the country that, for example, have undertaken and have held referenda on the decision of whether the communities want to proceed in that area or not, and it would be fair to say there is a range of views. But at this point, the Head Start is a voluntary process and we’ve left it for councils to undertake that conversation with their communities, and, again, of course, the councillors are democratically elected and therefore represent the views of their communities in that case.

The Head Start proposal, as I’ve said, will not conclude until 2028, and so there remains a significant amount of runway between now and then in order to continue discussions and to design and ensure that the model that is proposed and is implemented is fit for purpose for their communities. As I’ve highlighted before, I do have the expectation that there is active engagement with all stakeholders within the community to ensure that that reform is placed. We have only had one amalgamation of local government in the last 35 years, with the exception of Auckland. We are embarking, potentially, on a large number of amalgamations, and so I do not take that process lightly.

We do need to ensure that any reform that we undertake is enduring, is well-thought-out and well considered and that it does take into account the needs and requirements of the community. So the principles that apply to Head Start include things like protecting local voice, whether it is practical, and whether the efficiency is going to deliver value for ratepayers. In that context, that will remain the focus.

ORIINI KAIPARA (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau) (17:36): In terms of the Better Off support package, Minister, and the questions surrounding the role of iwi and Māori with these support packages, what input, if any, have iwi or Māori had in delivering the Better Off support package money for water infrastructure services? After receiving Better off support packages, how does this Estimate support local councils to deliver a new water services regime alongside iwi Māori as Te Tiriti partners?

A further question for the Minister is around improving departmental performance reporting now around the reporting aspects of the water programmes. The question is around the role of iwi Māori: if no allocation for involvement by Māori has been made under this Estimate, then what opportunities are there for iwi and Māori participation? What has been identified by the Department of Internal Affairs and/or Ministry for Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport that is non-financial? Further to that, one more: how does this Estimate ensure evidence of public value and departmental performance can be measured and demonstrated without hapū and iwi Māori at place?

Hon SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore) (17:37): I thank the member for the question. In the two minutes and 10 seconds remaining before the main event, I’ll keep this to within two minutes. The key element, I think, raised by the member is that the new Ministry for Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport, or MCERT, is that it brings together multiple agencies and multiple capability of expertise, particularly in regards to Māori advisory capability and teams within all of those respective agencies. We now have a singular agency where all of that capability is able to work together, and there are, obviously, opportunities and synergies to amplify that capability across all those agencies to derive better outcomes. That has been the intent of the formation of MCERT, and, to the member’s question around ensuring that there is appropriate investment capability and delivery in regards to outcomes for Māori, I’m confident that the MCERT model is going to amplify and ensure that that provision of information continues appropriately.

As I’ve noted to the member before, the design of Head Start has always been ensuring that those within the community that have a perspective and an interest in making sure that this works in practice are at the table from the outset to design the model that will work, and I acknowledge iwi Māori’s perspective across the country, where that has been very vocal and very positive and very constructive, and sometimes more advanced than, particularly, what other councils have been themselves. That is just the reality of where different groups are across the broader country.

But, overall, I’m very proud of the work that I’ve undertaken as the Minister of Local Government. We have embarked on the most significant local government reform that we have seen in this country in generations, and as a result of the reform which we’ve undertaken, that sets ourselves up for success. There is obviously more work to be done, but from this point forward, I am looking forward to continuing to do that.

Lastly, I just want to recognise the Hon Dr Duncan Webb for your valedictory, which is about to occur. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, in accordance with a determination of the Business Committee, the committee is suspended for the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s valedictory statement. We will resume this debate at 7.30.

Debate interrupted.

House resumed.

Valedictory Statements

Hon Dr Duncan Webb

SPEAKER: Members, I’ll indicate now that at the conclusion of Dr Duncan Webb’s valedictory statement, the House will rise for the dinner break and resume at 7.30.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) (17:40): Thank you, Mr Speaker. [Applause] Easy on—just the once.

SPEAKER: I don’t think you’re going to top that, so we’ll just call it there, shall we?

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Yeah—call it a day. I will if you will, Mr Speaker. Ha, ha! Look, there’s never a right time to leave Parliament, but I guess there’s one way to leave Parliament, which is by choice, and there’s the other way, and I guess I can just be lucky that I’m leaving by choice.

You do sometimes, I think, wonder, in the hurly-burly of this place, whether you have any impact at all, and I certainly know that some of my constituents wonder that as well. But it does make you reflect on why you came here, and I suppose that’s what valedictories are all about. In fact, Mr Speaker, it was your work in Christchurch that drove me to become a member of Parliament.

SPEAKER: Very happy to be an inspiration to you.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Well, you did call me an ambulance chaser, and I might have called you a few things as well. But, look, the scars of the Christchurch earthquake were very real and raw, and in my maiden speech I said that on the day of the earthquakes, the heart of Christchurch stopped beating. What drove me here, it wasn’t a big policy goal; it was actually quite personal. I still recall one incident that stood out, which was when a very old man in his 70s or 80s called my office and was really apologetic to trouble us, because he didn’t really have any money. He said he’d been living in a caravan in east Christchurch in his backyard for two years because the Earthquake Commission (EQC) hadn’t come round to assess his badly damaged home and he didn’t have any sanitation—was that OK? It wasn’t, and that’s one of the reasons I chose to come here.

I do want to recognise some of the young lawyers I worked with back then who worked really hard on cases like that to change people’s lives who really needed help. Some of them are here today, and that was a team I was proud to be part of. But I joined a different team—I joined this team, and it’s a team I have loved working with. When we came in, we were focused on the Christchurch earthquake and what had happened there. Certainly, the Christchurch MPs were.

When I look back and I see that we launched a royal commission into EQC—that actually did change the culture of EQC in significant ways. We created a claims resolution service that still exists to assist people through natural disasters, and we established an earthquake tribunal. Perhaps most importantly, we established the on-sold programme which meant that people got their houses and their dodgy EQC repairs fixed without having to go through court. They were all transformative changes for the people of Christchurch. That earthquake story isn’t finished. People are still struggling 15 years on, but I think we changed the focus to what it should be, which was on the people.

Another project that I was involved in was an innocence project in Christchurch—and it was great, and I’ve got Andrew Little here in the House—to see the Criminal Cases Review Commission established. I think sometimes, as a party that’s been in Government, you can focus on the reversals instead of some of the changes that have really stuck, and I do think that they’re just some of the changes that I came to Parliament wanting to see happen and indeed they have, so that’s something I think we can all be really proud of.

I know we all come here with the vision of making people’s lives better, and we disagree what that might mean—sometimes fiercely—but I do worry, sometimes, that we don’t give enough weight to community, culture, recreation, and art, and we value a society where every spare hour is spent working, making ends meet, and we miss out on friends and family and the things that really matter. It’s the tyranny of accumulation.

I want to recognise the work that Grant Robertson did when we were in Government—he really understood the importance of what mattered, and I think his wellbeing Budget was a transformative way to look at how we manage our economy and make a fiscal plan. I know that this Government hasn’t continued along that road, but I think the foundations are there, the work’s been done, the knowledge is there, and I hope that in future Governments, we will go back to asking the question of how we make people’s lives better through the Budget process.

When I got here, I was sitting over there, and when I did my maiden speech and I stood up and said, “I’m a member of the Labour Party. We believe in democratic socialism. I am a socialist.” [Applause] It’s good to see that that line still works. I was surprised to get a cheer because I actually didn’t think I was saying anything particularly outrageous for a Labour Party member. But I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised that the word “socialism” sends a shiver up the spine of some people on the other side of the House, but to me it’s not an ideology; it’s an approach. It’s not necessarily about State ownership or things like that; it’s just about the idea that where you start, someone’s circumstances of birth, should not be determinative of their course in life. Out there, in the real world, we see people with compassion and humility and humanity that they bring to their lives every day and I think that’s the kind of socialism I think we should be bringing into this House.

I guess policy, for me, is personal. Perhaps it comes from all that time I spent in church, but when I see jobs being cut, emergency accommodation being harder to get, support for disabled people being taken away, I wonder if we should frame it as something some old bloke did a very, very long time ago when he said, “Insofar as you turned away the least of them, you turned away me.” That seems to me to be a sound basis for public policy.

Sometimes we spend far too much time sitting down and not enough standing up, and as the election rolls around, I think we should ask each of us and each of the parties who we’re standing up for. Some groups and people are easy to stand up for, but some aren’t. When I think of the homeless, people in prison, unemployed, youth offenders, I wonder who’s standing up for them, because if it was easy to stand up for them, we wouldn’t really be needed in here anyway, would we?

I do want to recognise what a huge privilege it is to be in this House and I really appreciate the confidence that the people of Christchurch have put in me. One of the jobs I really quite enjoyed was being chief whip—[Laughter] I did!—of 65 MPs; oh, no, 64.

Hon Member: Too soon—too soon.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Ha, ha! Of course, one of the jobs of a chief whip is to not get a great big deal of attention. If you do get attention, you’re doing the job wrong. But it was a real privilege to manage a large caucus in a way which let the Ministers in Cabinet do their job and make sure that the backbenchers were meaningfully engaged in supporting that ministry. I want to give a shout-out to all the whips past and present: keep it up, keep out of the news.

Most MPs’ headlines don’t hit the headlines, my own included, but I do want to recognise the importance of every MP that comes here, both in their own caucus and in ushering through important legislation. I can actually remember a real sense of pride as we sat in the Environment Committee passing the zero carbon Act, thinking this can change the direction of climate change in New Zealand and the world. That is something which is a very special place to be, and it happens here a lot.

I was also very lucky to be given a ministerial role, Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs—not glamorous, and that’s probably why I got it, but I actually did really enjoy the work there, particularly the consumer-oriented stuff. Obviously, the insurance contracts bill that Andrew Bayly mucked up. I actually thought that was an important piece of work that’s going to change a lot of what goes on in New Zealand. I did learn, in that role, that banks, supermarkets, insurers, and the like are articulate, well organised, well funded, and very close to Government. Any Government needs to work equally as hard to hear from those on the other side of those conversations, and there’s still a lot of work to do there.

Don’t worry, Mr Speaker. I’ve spoken to Matua Adrian, and he said I can take as long as I like. No, look, it’s usual to thank a few people in these speeches, and I suppose I should. Firstly, Suzanne, who’s tolerated me and nine years of politics, which isn’t easy—it’s probably more public service than anything I have ever done. Thanks for your patience and your wisdom and for keeping me grounded and for all that time that I’ve taken from you. My kids are here—Albert, Lewis, and Felix. Keep it real. Treat me with disdain and scepticism! Only young men can master that. But it’s been really important to me to have them, and it’s great that they’re here tonight.

In Christchurch, Sonya Rowell’s been my electorate office manager since 2017, and that’s quite some feat. Some people say we’re like an old married couple, but I didn’t think it was quite that bad. Thanks to her and all the many staff who’ve helped me out in that office. Of course, there is the Wellington crew. Frank, Marleen, and Casper have helped me as executive assistants here and have tried to manage the chaos. Also Claire Szabo, who’s here today as well. She was my ministerial adviser, and she really looked after me. There were a couple of occasions—or perhaps more; I’m not quite sure—where she disappeared letters that I had written handwritten responses to people on, telling them what I really thought. They would appear the next week as clean copies that were safe to sign. So thanks for that, Claire. You didn’t save the Government, but you did save me.

Politics is a local activity, and I want to thank those people who helped me on the ground. When I started campaigning in 2017, John Key was Prime Minister, and Labour, to be fair, was in the doldrums. Christchurch had a National MP, and people thought I was mad to give up a job in law and come here—they may be right. By election day, much had changed. Bill English was the leader of the National Party, Jacinda was our leader—and a rising tide lifts all boats, but I was also lifted by absolutely hundreds of not just Labour Party members but supporters and friends who had a belief in me. That is a huge thing, so I want to thank them all. They are truly too numerous to name. Some of them are here tonight, but thank you very much. The only one I’ll call out is Aaron Campbell, who’s here today. He campaign managed three campaigns. He’s got an eye for detail and energy and obsession that pays absolute dividends. Thank you, Aaron. Of course, every campaign gets the odd disgruntled volunteer, but not everyone becomes a National Party MP. Thank you, Vanessa Weenink.

I also want to thank the people of Christchurch for your support, because I don’t think a constituency MP can actually do the job unless they have a fairly broad base of support across a broad section of their community—across party political lines. Obviously, as a constituency MP, you want to see the best for all of your constituents. I think that it’s been a real privilege to work with business, with community groups, and with schools across the board in Christchurch. It’s been a real honour to be the MP for a fabulous central city electorate.

In terms of this place—look, this is an odd place, and I think sometimes you need to reflect on that. To be honest, as you kind of slowly slide into the shadows, you see it in stark relief. It’s got a strange mixture of tradition, procedure, personalities, and institution, but the thing I love most about it is that it’s representative. That is exactly what it should be. From the four corners of the country, we come here, and we bring a diverse group of voices to the arguments and discussions we have.

To be fair, when you’re a lawyer, you do have to have a certain degree of arrogance, particularly as a litigation lawyer, and so when I arrived here, I did thank I was going to do OK. It didn’t take me long to work out that I had to take a big chunk of humble pie and recognise that I was back in school. I actually want to give a shout-out to my Māori colleagues in particular, who have been really good in both nurturing me and also leveraging a little bit of my skills. I think we’ve worked really good together on some massive issues. I do remember one Waitangi when Kelvin Davis was there, and he kind of did that with his head—you know, that “Get over here, boy”. As I walked over, he’s got this inscrutable face, and he looked at me, and he said, “I saw your video on the Treaty principles bill.” I thought, “Oh my God! I’ve done it wrong—big tikanga breach.”, and he just did this wry smile and said, “It was good.” That’s pretty high praise. That’s about as good as it gets from Kelvin.

Sometimes the antics that go on here bring this place into a bit of disrepute, but I think everyone around here understands that it’s actually important that we apply ourselves to good legislating and good government. The rules are strange, the hours are oppressive, and the place is foreboding, and sometimes there’s more performance than policy, but, ultimately, it’s a place of hard work, and it should be, because this is the centrepiece of our democracy.

I just want to mention that the oil that runs this place, of course, are the many staff. Their attitude, their kindness, their friendliness, and their manner makes our job so much easier. It’s exemplified by the day I arrived here. It was all very exciting, and I had my new swipe card. I came back about half past 9 at night and thought, “I’ll have a look around the building to get my bearings.”, and I got hopelessly lost. I was in the depths of the basement, with the buzzer going that I couldn’t go through that door, when I was stopped by a security guard. When I said, “Look, I’m a new MP and I’m having a look around, his face lit up, and he said, “Sweet.” I got a one-on-one tour, for an hour and a half, of the entire building. The oldest urinal is in the old library building. It’s the place to go.

We do reflect on this place, and it’s usual to say that things are going to hell in a handbasket. This place isn’t falling apart, but we do need to be vigilant. It’s so precious. I do think we do need to be wary of excessive lobbying, of an excessive use of urgency, and of retrospective legislation, and we need to be constantly vigilant that whoever has the Treasury benches values not just the rules but the principles that underpin our democracy. If we don’t do that, the frustrations will spill out of here on to the streets outside.

I want to acknowledge the media because they have a—thanks for coming. They do such an important role, and I think they do it, on the whole, very, very well indeed. They keep us honest. I actually knew my career was on the slide when Luke Malpass did one of his ministerial kind of “How Ministers are doing”, and he said, “and then there’s Duncan Webb—affable and competent”—damned by faint praise. I’ve been questioned by media on all kinds of things—insurance, law, consumer data rights, earthquake recovery, and so on and so on—but the best question ever was about two weeks into my time here when Jenna Lynch said, “Do you still think it’s OK to eat kiwi?” You need context for that one.

Some might think it’s surprising that I’m calling it a day, but this is the longest I’ve ever held down one job—not a proper one. But I’ll miss this place a lot, and I’ll miss these people a lot. This is a fantastic group of people. It’s a fantastic Labour caucus. From the outside, it looks unified, focused, and committed. From the inside, it’s pretty much that as well—believe it or not—and, Chris, that’s a real credit to your leadership. You’ve done an amazing job. We are here, and it’s going to be a tough election, but this caucus is ready to govern.

I leave optimistic about this place, about Parliament, about Christchurch, and actually about New Zealand. Christchurch Central will be well served by its next candidate, George Hampton. If I could offer him one piece of advice, it would be this: ka tae koe ki te whareumu, tihorea te kūmara—when you get to the kitchen, peel the kūmara. This place is full of noise, drama, strategy, process, personalities, ego, but in the end, the job is actually very simple: find those people that need help, find the fix, do the mahi. Thank you.

[Applause]

Waiata—“Tūtira Mai Ngā Iwi”

Sitting suspended from 6.01 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Bills

Appropriation (2026/27 Estimates) Bill

Committee of the whole House—Estimates Debate

Environment

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, the committee is resumed. We now have the Minister for the Environment. The Minister is available to speak to that portfolio from 7.30 p.m. to 8.30 p.m. I’ll give the call to Catherine Wedd, Chairperson of the Environment Committee.

CATHERINE WEDD (Chairperson of the Environment Committee) (19:30): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d just like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the Ministry for Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport (MCERT), because most of our examination that we did back in June for Vote Environment took place before MCERT was established on 1 July. Obviously, now that ministry is established. We did speak a lot about that during our examinations.

The appropriations sought for Vote Environment in 2026/27 total $2.166 billion, but the bulk of this funding is the responsibility of the Minister of Climate Change, while the Minister for the Environment was responsible for appropriations totalling $376 million. During the appropriations for Vote Environment, we heard about the waste disposal levy, Environmental Investment Fund, tyre stewardship fees, and activity that related to waste minimisation work. During our discussions, the focus also included the transition of the environment functions to MCERT, to the new ministry.

We also spoke heavily around the resource management reform and the appropriations that were directed to Resource Management Act reform—obviously a big job of our Environment Committee. During these discussions, we also spoke about the freshwater farm plans. The Fast-track Approvals Act was also part of what we spoke about and what we heard during this time, and, of course, product stewardship—Tyrewise, as we’ve already spoken about. Other matters considered include the city and regional deals, renewable energy, and upcoming legislation, as well: the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Amendment Bill, and, of course, the Waste Minimisation Fund.

I would just like to thank the Environment Committee for the work around Vote Environment and appropriations and Estimates. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Before I take a call, I just want to clarify with the Minister: so we have Minister Grigg and Minister Hoggard here at the moment—

Hon Nicola Grigg: And Minister Bishop will join at 8.00 p.m.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): OK. Thank you. The Hon Rachel Brooking.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (19:33): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for the clarification. I’d like to start with waste tonight. I know that there will be lots of questions about the range of issues, but for anyone who didn’t hear, it was that Minister Bishop is coming around 8 o’clock, and Minister Hoggard is here for the whole thing, as well.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Correct.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: And no Minister Watts, I presume? For climate? No—OK. So, waste legislation: we might have some climate questions for you, then, Minister, given that the Estimates report included that and, as the chair of the Environment Committee said, most of the Budget is, in fact, related to the emissions trading scheme.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I can clarify for the member that climate is not currently included.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Thank you. Now, waste legislation. The Minister will be aware, of course, that at the end of last term there was legislation that was ready to be drafted to modernise the Waste Minimisation Act and also the Litter Act. If she could give us an update of where that is at—it mentioned in the select committee report that it was ongoing, so when will that bill be introduced?

And then my next question is that her predecessor and the Ministry for the Environment sort of banned the use of the term “circular economy”. I have heard other members from her party embrace this term “circular economy”—looking at you, Grant McCallum. Does the Minister have a position on “circular economy” and will that be included in the legislation, or does she agree with her predecessor that it’s merely an ideological term?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG (Minister for the Environment) (19:35): Good evening, members. It’s a pleasure to join with you here this evening. As has been noted, I’m joined by Minister Hoggard and Minister Bishop is on his way.

I’m happy to answer questions around the progress of the Waste Minimisation Act amendments. I do intend to reform the Waste Minimisation Act and the Litter Act to ensure that New Zealand has a fit for purpose and modern waste legislation that, I think, does need to provide more flexibility and more options to reduce waste efficiently and effectively. In October last year, the Cabinet approved policy proposals for the waste legislation and for the Parliamentary Counsel Office to commence drafting the bill. Unfortunately, we seem to have run out of runway. I would humbly request that Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition perhaps utilise the time that we have remaining in the House this parliamentary term wisely and perhaps we might get more bills introduced.

Look, you will be aware that public consultation has been carried out and it closed in June 2025. There are a number of proposals that have been consulted on, particularly around creating frameworks for extended producer responsibilities, which is an area of work that I am very keen to lean into when we have the time, because I think it is a very, very good model that will allow New Zealand to very much improve recovery and recycling of materials and products.

There will be changes to how the waste disposal levy is allocated, particularly to territorial authorities and how they might consider spending it. There will be an opportunity to improve and provide more proportionate tools for compliance and monitoring and enforcement. I’ve had a number of members of Parliament from parts of Auckland who are concerned about increases in littering, and they are looking forward to more opportunities for compliance and enforcement.

As to particular vernacular chosen or declined to be used by previous members and Ministers, I can provide no comment on that.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (19:37): Thank you. Well, of course, I was asking the Minister what her view on the circular economy is and if that’s a term that she is allowing the part of the ministry that reports to her to use. That’s the question on circular economy.

And then, in response to the answer, will the new legislation contain any waste reduction targets? That’s a specific question.

The Minister mentioned the waste levy and how there will be changes to that, particularly to district councils, to territorial authorities. Will waste minimisation activities be able to be funded by that levy? That is the first question about the levy. The second question is if she can confirm to the House that the general approach—and this goes beyond waste—to funding Vote Environment is to take the waste levy, feed it back into the part of the Ministry of Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport that is the Vote Environment, and then reduce the funding that comes from the centre to go into Vote Environment.

LAN PHAM (Green) (19:38): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to touch loosely on the very clear distinction that has been made between the last Budget and this Budget, and that is the formation of the Ministry for Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport (MCERT). I wanted to ask the Minister specifically about that, because despite not one Government party campaigning on it and not one credible submission in support, the Government did move to disestablish the Ministry for the Environment and that core dedicated voice for the environment that had been in place for 40 years.

I’m interested because the Minister at the time said that she wanted to assure New Zealanders that this bill signals a new chapter for environmental management in New Zealand. My question specifically about that is: does she mean improved environmental outcomes, and what specific outcomes does she envisage will be strengthened by the disestablishment of the Ministry for the Environment and it being subsumed into this MCERT ministry? Really keen to hear that. Thank you.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (19:40): Thank you. Moving on, then, to the Ministry for Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport (MCERT) as well. The select committee report-back noted that: “The Minister told us that she intends to set clear expectations for the incoming Secretary and chief executive, that environmental considerations are to be paramount in policy development, consent considerations, and anything else that MCERT looks at.” Can she give this House an update on whether or not she has in fact acted on that intention and set those clear expectations?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG (Minister for the Environment) (19:40): Yeah, I am happy to give a little bit more detail on that. I think I said last time we were here in this House, that with the formation of the Ministry for Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport (MCERT), and thanks to the work of the Environment Committee, there is now a requirement of the Secretary for the Environment to report on the performance of their Environment Act functions every year, and for that to be included in MCERT’s annual report.

Further to that, I do want to reassure the committee that since I informed the committee of that information, the Secretary for the Environment has set about establishing a new role in his office, in the Office of the Chief Executive, that will specifically assist with developing the approach to undertake the Environment Act functions—and, of course, preparing those quarterly reports on the progress as well as the annual report that’s required by the Environment Act. It’s envisaged that the interim role will provide independent—I think that’s a really important point to make: it’s independent advice, independent visibility and assurance to the Secretary regarding their performances under the Environment Act functions across MCERT.

So that’s the whole point of the merger. It’s to stop the siloing that’s been occurring and to make sure those functions are occurring across the new ministry. The future of that role will be considered through the MCERT operating model process, but I’m really looking forward to seeing the impact that it will have.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) (19:42): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank the Minister for that information that she shared. I’ve got a couple of questions around the environmental advice piece within the Ministry for Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport (MCERT). During the Estimates examination for this particular Vote, when we asked for details around that, the response that we were given was that MCERT’s operational practices at the time were yet to be determined. And so I wonder whether the Minister would be able to give us a little bit more insight into that piece within MCERT, whether the operational practices that were previously mentioned have in fact been put in place, and what they look like.

That went back to the point that many of us on this side of the House raised during Estimates examinations around how Ministers responsible would be able to—with the amalgamation and Vote environment moving into this new ministry, how would members have any comfort that environmental advice will remain sufficiently prominent within MCERT, given that the chief executive of MCERT is also the secretary for everything, all of the things, cities, transport, environment and so on and so forth? We were quite concerned that environmental advice, specifically both around the urban environment but also the natural environment, would be subsumed within this larger ministry. So really keen to get a sense from the Minister around what those practices are that have been put in place to ensure that that advice retains its prominence.

I’ve got a couple of other questions related to the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s recent report around environmental information, and a particular Budget line within Budget ‘26 as well. But I’ll see if the Minister would like to answer this bit first.

Hon NICOLA GRIGG (Minister for the Environment) (19:44): her I thank the member for her question. Look, I’m aware of the concern that was raised, particularly during that select committee process, and indeed by members of the Opposition, that the disestablishment bill would somehow subsume, to use the member’s words, the environment functions or that they’d be deprioritised as they became a part of a larger ministry. But again, and I have said this a number of times, those amendments simply transferred the Ministry for the Environment’s existing functions to the Secretary for the Environment, and they will—and I expect that they will—continue to be performed appropriately by that new ministry. Again, to be clear, and I’ve said this a number of times, the previous statutory functions under the other Acts do continue to be performed. And, you know, it is my expectation that the environmental capability does remain a core capability within the new agency. That includes, of course—and I’m sure Minister Bishop talked to it—the implementation of the resource management reforms.

I have to say, you know, I think I’ve had the portfolio for nearly five months now, but the more I get to know the officials within the Ministry for Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport, who were once the officials of the Ministry for the Environment—I would call them world class. I think we’re very, very lucky to be to be supported by such high-calibre experts.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) (19:46): Thank you, Madam Chair. I take the Minister’s point that the intentions and expectations that Ministers hold is for the environment not to be deprioritised, and that is good. I also have absolutely no objection to what the Minister said about the quality and calibre of officials in our Public Service. However, I would like some comfort from the Minister in terms of how those intentions will be realised. Because while it’s one thing to say that it’s a lift and shift off Vote Environment and the priorities of the Ministry for the Environment into a much larger ministry, having been previously a Minister who held portfolios that were serviced by a larger ministry, I do have some experience as to how it could be subsumed or deprioritised.

While the intention is not that, I would like some comfort from the Minister in terms of what practices have been put in place to ensure that there is the same quality of advice, that there’s timeliness around the environmental advice that is provided or received from the ministry. How many staff, for example, have transferred over from the former Ministry for the Environment into the Ministry for Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport? Who will specifically provide the Government with advice around both the built and natural environments? And if it is continues to be a priority for the Minister that there is independent advice around both aspects of the environment, what particularly has been put in place to ensure that that is actually delivered?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG (Minister for the Environment) (19:47): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to again reassure the House that we are very much committed to ensuring that the Ministry for Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport (MCERT) continues to prioritise the environment. I’ve already outlined that the Secretary for the Environment has already established a new interim role in his office to help with developing the approach that will undertake all of the environment functions and to make sure that they remain front and centre of this new ministry. And again, in establishing MCERT the Government is neither removing nor diluting the environmental responsibilities. They’ve transferred, unchanged, into that statutory role of the Secretary for the Environment—who does remain directly accountable to the Minister of the day, which happens to be me at the moment.

To answer your questions around staffing, I can tell you that 621 permanent full-time equivalent (FTE) have transferred from the Ministry for the Environment to MCERT as of 1 July 2026, and 125 fixed-term FTE transferred.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Lan Pham. And I’ll just make a note that Minister Bishop is now here, too, and also available for questions. So we have all three Ministers.

LAN PHAM (Green) (19:49): Thank you. What a treat, Madam Chair, thank you. I wanted to pick up on freshwater, and particularly—I’ve just come from a lecture by Dr Tim Chambers, who spelt out really clearly that we’ve had a massive increase, particularly, in dairy herd numbers across the country. It’s gone from 100,000 cows in 1990 to 1 million just in Canterbury alone. Over that time, we’ve had a threefold increase in nitrogen fertiliser application.

As a result, there are numerous studies and research and even the Minister’s own data which shows nitrate pollution in many of the country’s drinking water sources, but particularly around Canterbury and Southland are now breaching drinking water standards. Communities are having to pick up the costs. For example, there have been numerous schools currently in Ashburton who cannot drink the water and are having to dig deeper bores to search for water that is less polluted than they currently have. We have Selwyn and Christchurch both facing bills in the hundreds of millions to treat their drinking water for increasing nitrates, and the Government has put in place, unfortunately, rules that are going to exacerbate this issue.

I’m really interested in the Minister’s response, particularly when it comes to the environmental health aspects of nitrate pollution. How is her Government addressing this and what does she expect the environmental implications will be over the next few years, particularly as the new planning regime is put in place that this Government is so set on putting in place?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG (Minister for the Environment) (19:51): Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the member for her question. I don’t want to get into a debate over data and her sources versus my sources, but the information that I have been given today from the Ministry for Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport is that cattle numbers are actually declining in Canterbury. At so-called peak cow, 2023, there were 1.36 million cattle, and I’m rounding here. As of late last year, it was 1.33 million, so, again, we can—

Lan Pham: So worse than what I was saying.

Hon NICOLA GRIGG: Well, it has declined. Look, we can debate those numbers until the cows come home—bada boom. Look, equally, what I would say is there are conflicting reports across Canterbury and, yes, there absolutely are areas that are reporting nitrogen increases and they have to be dealt to. I’m sure the Minister Hoggard will be able to talk to that effusively at some point, but, again, there are a lot of variances.

I can talk specifically to Canterbury as a Canterbury-based MP. I suspect that the data you might be referring to has come from the regional council. If you look to some of the actual irrigation providers, which have, in my view, far, far more robust measuring capacity—different depths, different sequencing, more frequent intervals. I think every 15 seconds was the last count I got given. If you look to Central Plains Water who irrigate 45,000 hectares, they’re actually showing that 60 percent of their dedicated groundwater monitoring bores are seeing a reduction in nitrates, and that trend has been very evident over the past five years of the data I’ve got. Again, it’s not perfect, but there is a material improvement being shown.

Look, interestingly, they have actually also, as a scheme, reduced groundwater use by 75 million cubic metres, which is actually equivalent to 22,000 Olympic swimming pools, for those who were interested. But, look, we all accept that agriculture does have an impact, but we note that the most significant reductions across the Canterbury plains have been made on-farm and I think collectively we need to start to look to the urban environments and the pollution that they are causing.

GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland) (19:53): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just for the Minister, is she aware of some of the research and the progress the farmers are making in Canterbury, with research into aquifer recharge and the use of plantain and the research that has come out of that which shows that a 17 percent increase in the pasture content of plantain can lead to a 33 percent reduction in nitrate levels? Would she care to comment on that and other work farmers are doing?

Hon NICOLA GRIGG (Minister for the Environment) (19:54): Oh, I thank the member for that question. Look, I think—and, well, I might as well sit down if Grant McCallum made the best contribution of the night. Look, again, there are real gains being made. I note that of their own volition, I think farmers have fenced off some 25,000 kilometres of waterways around the country. Stock exclusion rules are in place and winter grazing rules are in place. I’ll invite Minister Hoggard to get up and talk about the freshwater farm plan announcement that he made today, but certainly I think we all should collectively accept, as a Parliament, there are parts of the freshwater system across this country which have been degraded and I think collectively we have to work towards improving them. I think with the new planning regime, that lightens up on the low-intensity areas but comes down a bit more heavily on the high-intensity areas. I think there will be gains to be made out of that. Minister Hoggard.

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister for the Environment) (19:55): Thank you, Minister, for that. I totally agree. I think I’ve said it before, but when I started dairy farming in 1998, the attitude of farmers was way different than what it is today. Back then it was “No, we’re not part of the problem. We’re not causing anything. Go away. Leave us alone.” Now the attitude is far different. You’ve got catchment groups up and down the country. You’ve got people looking at what options they can do.

Just touching on the farm plans, I did a trial run on my farm and it was very informative in terms of being able to highlight the parts of your farm—what the soil types are, what the risk factors are, what the challenges are that can be caused to the environment, and coming up with solutions in terms of how you mitigate that. The farmers being engaged in the space and coming up with tools that work alongside them will help that.

As the member Grant McCullum mentioned, great news on the plantain. We’re seeing more and more of that being planted around the country, and I’ve mentioned bioreactors and engineered wetlands before. Part of the new system is we’re going to make them a permitted activity to put in an engineered wetland. I was blown away over some of the visits I’ve done with community groups who had built engineered wetlands to do all this great work to remove contaminants. They had to spend upwards of $100,000 on consents to be able to build this. It was improving the environment.

We’re moving in the right direction in terms of coming up with these solutions. The farmers are in the right mindset to do this. We need to move out of the blame game and work towards how we’re going to improve all of this. We know what caused it and we’ve just got to work towards coming up with solutions.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (19:57): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just reminding the Minister of my questions about her view on the circular economy, whether waste minimisation activities will be able to be funded by the remaining waste levy, whether the legislation has waste reduction targets, and if my potted history of how funding for Vote Environment happens via the waste levy is correct.

Moving to the freshwater farm plans that we seem to have moved on to, a small question: the Minister cited a number there about cattle. I guess the question is how does that reflect dairy?

Then for Minister Hoggard, I note in our Environment Committee report we talked about the gaps where catchment groups are not set up or where one member of a community is not a member. In those areas, the Minister said it is important that challenges are still identified and addressed. I’m interested in the addressing of those challenges that the Minister intends to do, but in particular, I’m interested in the relationship to proposed local government change and the getting rid of regional councils that are largely based at a catchment level. What are the plans for keeping that catchment approach?

Then a question for the Minister for the Environment: is she advocating for catchments and catchments as an important unit for any resource management?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): All of the above.

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister for the Environment) (19:58): I’ll try and deal with the farm plan question. I believe what I was talking about in the previous situation was where not everyone in a catchment might be a member of a catchment care group. That’s why it was important for every individual farm to have a farm plan, so that even if they weren’t being part of the group effort, they were still recognising the challenge on their farm and taking actions to improve it.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (19:59): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Tēnā koe to the committee. In relation to local government reform, I think the point the member makes in relation to catchments is an important one and is certainly something we are thinking about when it comes to the next steps on the Head Start pathway and broader local government reforms. That was one of the criteria that was listed in the Head Start document that people have been cogitating over over the last few weeks and months and—

Hon Rachel Brooking: Panicking over.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: What’s that?

Hon Rachel Brooking: Panicking.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I don’t know about panicking. I mean, what’s interesting is there’s quite a bit of desire from some councils to crack on with it—that’s why Head Start was started: people said, “Rather than you guys run through some long-winded process, we’re keen on cracking on with it,” and we said, “OK, well, come and give us your best shot.” We haven’t made decisions on it yet, and once we’re in a position to do that, we will make announcements in due course.

LAN PHAM (Green) (20:00): Thank you, Madam Chair. Other than a sunny attitude of farmers, I wasn’t hearing anything that would practically address the very real issues that I just outlined, which I won’t repeat. What I am really interested in is asking about the cost to New Zealanders of the fact that numerous plans, particularly that pertain to fresh water, will not be able to be implemented, even though there’s been millions of dollars put into them.

I particularly want to touch on two instances of this. It was reported just recently that after the numerous horrific cyclones up in Gisborne, Tairāwhiti, and unfortunate tragedies that occurred in the aftermath, Gisborne District Council came up with a plan that would actually urgently tackle those forestry issues and the destructive land use that is currently going on across Tairāwhiti. This was through a regional plan change, Plan Change 7, that was proposed to protect erosion-prone land—but this plan change couldn’t go ahead because of this Government’s plan-stop legislation, and they asked for an exemption and they didn’t get it.

Now, the same is happening when it comes to the Waikato, when it comes to Otago, and when it comes to Canterbury. Regions are ready and in place to put in rules and frameworks that will actually help their environment and help their communities. What I’m really interested to know is who does the Government expect will pay the costs of these issues remaining unaddressed for the years that are to come when it comes to health costs, when it comes to a lack of recreational opportunities, the costs of ecosystems passing tipping points, or impacts on our international clean, green image? This is even extending to the cost of illness from polluted drinking water. These are serious costs that are being borne by community, and I’d really like to hear what the Government is proposing to do in this space.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (20:03): I’d just proffer a small comment, Madam Chair. The plan-stop process is not perfect—I don’t think anyone pretends that it is—but it’s a pragmatic attempt to deal with the transition problem we’ve got, right. The law is the law until it isn’t, OK. The Resource Management Act (RMA) provides that people do regular plan changes and councils update their plans all the time. Sometimes they’re small, sometimes they’re large. At a certain level, we just decided—and Parliament, in fact, agreed through the RMA consenting and other matters bill last year—that there had to be a point at which you say, “Well, hang on—tie-ho—and we’ve got to get ready for the new system.” There obviously had to be exemptions for that, and so there’s been a range of pathways—

Hon Rachel Brooking: We didn’t agree.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: What’s that?

Hon Rachel Brooking: Opposition parties didn’t agree. You say Parliament sought it, but that’s because you’ve got a majority.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, that is actually the way Parliament works. When Parliament agrees to something—

Hon Rachel Brooking: The way you’re saying it is making it sound as if we were all in agreement, and we weren’t.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Parliament agreeing to something is, by definition—it can either be by majority or by unanimity. That does mean Parliament agrees. That is the reality. That is the way our parliamentary democracy works.

Anyway, I have the power as the Minister responsible for RMA Reform to grant exemptions. Some have been granted—in fact, many exemptions have been granted. Others have not. Speaking generally, the more complicated the plan change, the less likely it is to happen now, because we didn’t want to find ourselves in a situation where a three- to five-year long plan change process is under way—because sometimes they can take a long time—that was happening simultaneously as everyone was gearing up for transition to the new system.

That’s not to say that the impetus for the plan changes is not important. Many of the issues the member is raising are important. It’s not that. It’s that, at some level, they have to happen in a different system, otherwise you end up with this endless duplication and churn and endless cost. And so, that’s where the position is. I accept it’s not perfect, but environmental law often isn’t.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (20:05): To that Minister: do the complex plans that he’s talking to happen to relate to water quality?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (20:05): Well, it depends. There’s been heaps of different plan changes—they’re all on the Ministry for the Environment website; the member can look for herself, and the member can see the law has the various different exemption pathways through, as well. So the short answer is that it depends. They’re across a whole range of different things. Some issues are to do with water; many others are not.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (20:06): Reminding the Minister for the Environment about my waste questions; and, also, the cattle versus dairy; and if she has been advocating for catchments.

Going to Minister Hoggard: we were at the Environment Committee talking about the nitrogen cap and the low compliance with it. My question is whether there’s any further movement on—if he has an update on his approach towards a nitrogen cap and if there has been any additional work on compliance.

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister for the Environment) (20:06): In terms of additional work, no, there hasn’t. Obviously, there will be a new system we will have—and it’ll be in the next term of Government—that determines what the national standards on all of this are. So that won’t be happening anytime in the next five weeks. In terms of compliance work, I don’t believe that fits under my delegation, so I haven’t heard anything on that. One of the other Ministers may have.

Hon NICOLA GRIGG (Minister for the Environment) (20:07): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to confirm to the member Rachel Brooking, they were dairy cattle numbers that I was referring to. Yes, I advocate on behalf of catchment groups. I meet with them regularly. I also approved a transfer of some funds from the former Ministry for the Environment to the Ministry for Primary Industries to go in towards supporting catchment groups.

Regarding the question on waste levy, yes, money is available for waste minimisation as well as wider environmental benefits. That’s why the rules were changed a year or so ago.

Regarding targets, there are not targets in the legislation.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (20:08): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m going to move to resource management reform, and I want to again ask the Minister what she is doing in terms of advocacy for the environment with that. I’d like to start with asking her if she’s thought about advocating for future generations within that legislation. That may be because I have just been with the chair at a group talking about future generations, but, of course, the Resource Management Act does refer to future generations and all of those ideas have very much come out of the legislation, which is soon to have its committee stage.

When I was asking the Minister about catchments and advocacy for catchments, it was not just catchment groups; it is the idea of using a catchment as a tool for environmental planning, and particularly around water.

I’d also like her to comment further on a remark she just made in this House about how the resource management reforms are “lighter in some areas but harder in other areas,” or words to that effect, and if she can give some examples of where the new resource management legislation is going to be “harder”.

Hon NICOLA GRIGG (Minister for the Environment) (20:09): To clarify, I was talking about freshwater farm plans, and it’s been made very clear in the press release just this evening that there will be a lighter touch for low-intensity activity and more rigorous auditing for high-intensity activity.

Just responding to the query around thinking about future generations—well, I would submit to this Parliament that that’s been the driver behind the entire Government work programme this term. I speak specifically to replacing the Resource Management Act (RMA). That has been with the purpose to unlock economic growth, improve environmental outcomes for the benefit of all. We will have a new system passed into law before this Parliament rises, God willing. The likes of, if I can speak specifically to the Natural Environment Bill, that will very much provide a framework for protecting and enhancing the natural environment through limits.

I know that the Minister responsible for RMA Reform can talk very succinctly about the next phase of work regarding national direction and how those limits will be designed and where they’ll sit, but there will absolutely be clear limits for the environment to support better land and water management.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (20:10): The Minister for the Environment makes a very important point, which is one of the many failures of the Resource Management Act (RMA): the failure to set limits. Everyone’s in favour of development within limits. The RMA has not allowed for that.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: What about the Natural and Built Environment Act?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: What’s that?

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: What about the Natural and Built Environment Act and Spatial Planning Act? They set limits.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: What about them? They’re not part of the law any more. We got rid of them three years ago because they were disastrous pieces of legislation.

Hon Rachel Brooking: I’ve been rereading them—so much better.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, you’ve got to get over it, because it was three years ago, Rachel. No disrespect. But Parliament—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I just want to remind, the question is these Estimates, not historical.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Parliament dealt with those issues, and we’ve worked a damn sight harder to try and get you guys on board than you tried with us, but anyway.

Hon Rachel Brooking: Nonsense.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, do you want to know what actually happened? David Parker called me into his office the night before the Natural and Built Environment Act was introduced and said, “Here it is.”, and expected me to read 1,000 pages overnight. So that has not happened in relation to the backwards and forwards between the Government and the Opposition in relation to RMA reform. We have not been able to reach agreement, but it’s not—

Hon Rachel Brooking: That is not what happened in the select committee.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, it is what happened. I was there. You were never—oh, sorry, you were part of his little hand-picked advisory group writing the legislation in the first place. I forgot about that. I was going to say that you weren’t an MP, but you eventually became one. Anyway, I slightly digress. In fact, I wildly digress. One of the main benefits of the new system will be the setting of clear environmental limits across fresh water and across other environmental domains; we intend to do that. National direction will be part of that, which we will soon publish an illustrative draft of.

I think members will appreciate seeing a bit more flesh on the bones as to how the system will work in confronting some of these trade-offs, because environmental management is at some level about confronting trade-offs. You can’t do everything, you can’t have it all, and you’ve got to weigh up the costs and the benefits of things. Again, costs and benefits will be one of the key functions and features of the new system, because one of the things that I’ve learnt—I’ve learnt many things in the last three years, but one of the things that’s really been highlighted to me in Government is the concept of trade-offs. You can’t do everything. You have to prioritise and make choices. Part of good decision-making is confronting those trade-offs early, and that’s what we’re attempting to do through the new planning system and environmental system, and creating a simpler process down the other end of the funnel from a consenting and permitting point of view, which is in everybody’s interests and everybody actually agrees on that. So that’s all I have to say, really.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (20:13): Now, this question is to the Minister for the Environment, and the Minister just spoke about limits before referring to the other Minister. Is she aware of clause 79 of the Natural Environment Bill, as reported back, that enables the Minister—a different Minister—to sidestep limits with very few criteria to constrain that decision? That’s one of my questions.

Another one is: has she, as Minister, advocated for the inclusion for provisions that would improve the environment, such as green spaces, to be provided in that legislation? I’ll leave those questions there, and then I’m happy to move to the fast-track legislation. No? No answer?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): OK. Keep going.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Great. Thank you, then. We will move to fast-track legislation. We’ve heard on Morning Report from Minister Bishop that fast-track has been designed to enable out-of-sequence housing developments and he’s not apologetic for that in the slightest. Has he been listening to his members of Parliament that come from Queenstown, that come from Selwyn, that come from where Mr Penk hails from, and all around the country, where they are making the point that they’ve made the whole time that this version of the fast-track has been a thing, that those councils already have planned areas for infrastructure for 30 years of housing growth, and yet this Government is just letting other developers totally ignore that, go over the top, and cost ratepayers a whole lot of money?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (20:16): Well, there are a few things that are not accurate there. The first thing is Queenstown does not have 30 years of feasible housing capacity. In fact—

Hon Rachel Brooking: That’s what the mayor said.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, ha, ha! They wrote to me a few months ago telling me that, because the National Policy Statement on Urban Development that the last Government promulgated that we support was required by law to write to me when they don’t meet their development capacity obligations. The mayor and the council chief executive had to write me a letter saying that they admit that they have not done proper spatial planning, they have not planned for enough growth, and all the rest of it. So they might be claiming now they don’t, but I’ve got it in writing, and the member can Official Information Act it and she can see for herself.

It’s not entirely their own fault. The planning system has been difficult to do proper spatial planning, which is why we’re changing it. Unlocking land for housing has proven a burdensome and difficult problem, which is why we’re changing the law to make that easier. Fast-track is a way around that. The member assumes that all growth that is in sequence or phased and planned growth is good, and anything that’s out of sequence is bad but that’s not necessarily the case. The whole problem with our planning system is that we sequence it and we plan it and we draw a ring around a city and say, “You can build here but you can’t build here.”

That anti-development approach is precisely why we have overinflated land markets with high prices for the land that you can build on, which flows through to housing prices. Now, there’s extensive economic work around this. That’s why the new planning system, as we announced today, will contain a goal around abundant opportunities for development and competitive urban land markets, and create a statutory obligation on councils to create competitive land markets, so that when people want to build and they can fund the infrastructure and recover the infrastructure costs of that infrastructure and deal with the environmental effects of that infrastructure, they can build it. That is the system we are building. It’s not there yet, I accept that, but we’re going to get there.

In relation to the member’s points around infrastructure, I accept her point, and that’s why we are advancing an amendment to the Local Government Act via the Local Government (System Improvements) Amendment Bill in order to allow councils to retroactively—or at least in response to green fields fast-track projects—change their development contribution policies so that they can recover the growth costs because the issue, which I accept is an issue, is that the direct costs are locked in once an application is made, but, of course, the direct costs for out-of-sequence growth are deliberately low because no one anticipates the growth there. That’s fair enough; you end up with under-recovery of the growth costs, and that’s why the Government is changing the system around development levies, which we are a couple of years away from legislating, but we’ll get there eventually. We’ve done a whole lot of policy work around that. The changes to the Local Government Act are a sort of interim fix in the interregnum period between now and development levies. I think that will be—well, I know for a fact it’s been widely welcomed by councils and mayors and will allow for the recovery of network growth costs.

It is worth noting that people need to read the fine print on some of these fast-track conditions, because people just assume, “Oh, it’s been fast-tracked, therefore I can just go and build.” They can’t. You need to read the conditions. The conditions are often extremely extensive around highway upgrades, around waste water, around stormwater, around local roading upgrades. One of the ones that people are worked up about involves endless amounts of time and money being spent on wetland restoration, for example; before the project can happen, or at least to the extent the project sponsors want it to happen, it requires a whole range of ancillary infrastructure upgrades, so it depends on project by project. The point is that the panels are imposing quite extensive infrastructure conditions on projects. I think the sort of misunderstanding that “Oh well, it’s just been fast tracked; you can go and build.” is not actually the reality. Unless you can actually build and deal with the infrastructure conditions, you can’t. That’s part and parcel of the fast-track process.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (20:20): There are a lot of “depends” in that answer. Does the Minister responsible for RMA Reform accept that there are areas with fully planned growth for over 30 years where fast-track applications can jump into separate areas?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (20:20): Yes, but I see that as a feature, not a fault of the system.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (20:20): Will the development contribution problem, the foreseeable problem that he just explained, apply to fast-track approvals that have already been approved or are in the system?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (20:20): No, we’re just working through the fine print of that now, but we’ve made decisions and announced most of it. So anything that’s been approved now—no, it won’t, because I hope the member would agree it would be pretty contrary to good legal practice to retrospectively impose different draft conditions on approved projects. That would be bad, so we’re not doing it for those. It will apply to referral projects. The question is over the substantive applications, and so we’re just working our way through the fine detail of that right now. But anything that’s been approved—no, it won’t. Anything that is in the process of going towards the substantive application—the answer is yes, and we’re just working our way through that, and you’ll be able to see the Amendment Paper when it’s tabled in a couple of weeks, I think.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (20:21): So it will be rate payers that are picking up the bill that would have otherwise been paid by development contributions for those fast-track approvals that are on land zoned for not being housing.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (20:22): The short answer is that it depends. It depends on the project, and it depends on the conditions granted in relation to that project.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (20:22): Now, moving to back to Minister Hoggard—and this is about farm environment plans. In a prior hearing, he mentioned that the industry did not want to audit their own farm environment plans, so the question is: why has the Government moved to allow the self-certification and self-auditing of those plans?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister for the Environment) (20:22): You’ll find that most industry assurance schemes—for example, the one I’m involved in, the Fonterra Tiaki plan, uses third-party auditors. In effect, all of them already use third-party auditors. Fonterra may provide a certified farm plan for myself and Grant McCallum, but it does not audit them.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (20:23): I’d remind the Minister for the Environment of my many unanswered questions, and I’ll give her another one, and that is about the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Amendment Bill. Why were they sent to the Primary Production Committee and not the Environment Committee?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister for the Environment) (20:23): Well, I’ll cover one of those. It’s quite simply because the main challenge that we were trying to address with both of those bills is the fact that it was slowing down the ability to get in new agricultural chemicals, compounds, and sprays. That was the challenge we were trying to fix, so it felt most sensible that it was the Primary Production Committee that was the one that received those bills and worked through the answers.

Hon NICOLA GRIGG (Minister for the Environment) (20:24): Just further to that, as I understand it, it was also because the Environment Committee had an extraordinary heavy workload at the time with taking submissions on the resource management bills.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan—I’ll just remind the committee that we have about 5½ minutes left on this topic.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) (20:24): OK, I will be very quick. Thank you, Madam Chair. My question is for the environment Minister, and it’s around the environmental information system. Now, there’s been a recent report by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (PCE) that shows that the information that we have is fragmented, there’s under-investment, and there’s a lack in system-wide leadership. I know that there’s $13 million, from memory, in Budget 2026 around environmental information but that it’s largely around policy and monitoring. I’m keen to get a sense from the Minister as to what that budgetary allocation is for and whether it’ll go some way towards addressing the issues that the PCE has raised.

DAN ROSEWARNE (Labour) (20:25): Thank you, Madam Chair. My question is to Minister Bishop. Across Canterbury, I’ve had a lot of conversations around flood management, and many residents are asking the question: “If we’re building more houses, are we also increasing exposure to those natural hazard risks?” In fact, Waikuku residents have also sent me a petition regarding the concern about upstream developments and how that might affect our stormwater management and the cumulative effects of that, particularly around the proposed Gressons Road development. I believe there’s a letter in your inbox about that and that petition. Also I just want to actually say the voice of reason around the Pegasus golf course development, declining that fast-track application—that’s fantastic, the voice of reason, and the sustained pressure by the community, so I just want to shout out to the Pegasus Residents’ Group. But back to the crux of my question, Minister, for the benefit of Waikuku residents, any views that you could provide on greater transparency regarding flood modelling and technical assessments would be much appreciated. Thank you.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (20:26): I thank the member for his question. I don’t want to get into specific projects, because that way lies danger as a decision maker on it, or as the decision maker on some projects. What I will say in relation to natural hazard risk and flood modelling is that those are clearly environmental effects and things that need to be considered through assessment of projects and are rightly matters—as they are in the Resource Management Act (RMA)—for expert panels under fast track and as they are through council consenting applications.

Speaking again at a general level, the Government’s working pretty hard to do better with natural hazards. For example, we are developing a national flood map. Version one of that is not going to be perfect. In fact, it will be substandard in my view. But for the first time, we will have a national federated data-system of where the flood risks are in the country and the extent of them. It baffles me, for example, that we have all this data between the insurance companies, the Crown research institutes, and councils. It’s all disaggregated in different places, so we’re going to bring it all together into one place. Over time—and again, the RMA reforms are an important part of this—over time, we’ll be able to bring together a second version, a much more sophisticated and comprehensive version of the flood map, which will factor into planning decisions made in the new system. So spatial planning, and land use planning, and environmental management plans. And it will factor into where and what you can build, for example.

It is not correct that just because something is a flood risk, that you can’t build. I mean, there are flood risks all over this country. The key is the severity of the risk and the possible mitigations against that. That is context specific, right? That is fact specific. Some areas should just be no-go areas, you shouldn’t build here, it’s too dangerous. Probably, in the past, we’ve been far too liberal at allowing building in places where we shouldn’t be.

Hon Member: Hear, hear!

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: In fact, there are many people in Auckland who would say that.

Hon Nicola Grigg: Yes, Christchurch

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Exactly, there’s many places. But there are also places where with a bit of targeted investment you can, and we should be upfront and open about that. The key is data—can I just stress that? It’s impossible to make good decisions in this space, for councils or developers or landowners themselves or homeowners. It’s impossible to make good decisions without having good data, and the problem we’ve lacked is the data. Because we haven’t had the data, we haven’t been able to make good evidence-based policy. We’re changing that, I fully accept we’re not there yet. I would hope that the Opposition, and all political parties, could come on the journey, because, frankly, successive Governments have kicked it into the too-hard basket. We’ve made a good start, but there’s a long way to go.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): We’ve actually got about 20 seconds left, and Minister Grigg has indicated she wants to take a call.

Hon NICOLA GRIGG (Minister for the Environment) (20:29): Thank you, Madam Chair. It was just to answer the question from PriyancaRadhakrishnan, but Chris Bishop did answer it very fulsomely. But just to your point about the reports made by the PCE. Yes, we accept that there is much more to do, but, for the first time, a Government is actually responding to his urgency regarding the need to fund and capture data, which Chris Bishop has just been talking to.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour) (20:30): Madam Chair, I seek leave of the committee for a short time more to ask just one question.

Hon Chris Bishop: OK.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: He did say, “OK.”

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m told you don’t need to seek leave. If everyone’s happy, you can ask a question.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: The question is directed to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform, in relation to his flood map work, which I agree is important and needs to be done. There’s a very real risk that, when those first flood maps come out, there will be a significant impact on people’s property values. I just want to understand—because people will be alarmed by it without sufficient planning under way. I was just wondering what thinking you’ve done around that.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (20:30): The short answer is that I don’t think that will be the case—although I could always be wrong—because the first flood map brings together data that’s already there. It’s already available in public; it’s just bringing it into one place. Version No. 2, I accept, we should do some thinking about as a country and as a polity, but version No. 1 is pre-existing information.

The next step after that is the National Policy Statement for Natural Hazards, which the last Government did some work on and which we picked up and have done in the last two years. That is about to flow through into the national policy direction in the new planning system. Putting it succinctly, the National Policy Statement for Natural Hazards says that councils have to take a risk-based, proportionate approach to land-use plans in light of natural hazard risk.

Having got the data into one place, we can then make good evidence-based decisions, but it sort of goes to the point that I’ve made a couple of times, which is that we’re not there yet; there’s a long way to go on this. I think version No. 1 will be OK—although I stand to be corrected. Version No. 2 is when things are going to get crunchy, and we’re going to have to have some tough conversations as a country about that.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, this Minister’s time in the chair has come to an end, and we now have the Minister of Transport. The Minister is available to speak to that portfolio from 8.30 p.m. until 9.30 p.m. I’ll give the first call to Andy Foster, the chairperson of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee.

Committee of the whole House—Estimates Debate

Transport

ANDY FOSTER (Chairperson of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee) (20:32): Shall I wait until the Minister in the chair has switched over?

Hon Chris Bishop: Yeah, yeah—come on.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): We won’t be long. We really do technically need to have a Minister in the chair.

ANDY FOSTER: Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m pleased to speak on behalf of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee and also on behalf of New Zealand First. We had really good sessions with the relevant Ministers—the Minister of Transport, the Associate Minister of Transport, and the Minister for Rail—and also with agencies. I can see the Ministry of Transport and the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) have joined us. Also, on the ferries issue, with Ferry Holdings and KiwiRail—it was a lot of really, really good information that we got and some good, really meaty issues that we pursued. One of the things that becomes patently obvious, not just in transport but across the country, is that we don’t have enough money for everything we want to do. Therefore, we’ve got to cut our cloth to meet the resources which are available and use what we have got as best we possibly can.

One of the things that we did traverse in quite some length was the issue of asset management. It’s about looking after the assets we’ve got, something that has been stressed to us time and time again as we’ve met particularly with the Infrastructure Commission. I’m delighted that the conversation we had with the Minister in the chair when he was in front of us, as a select committee, was the idea of legislating for good asset management, so that we’re actually looking after the assets we’ve got and we’re not letting them depreciate. That’s not just transport, it’s not just water; it’s hospitals, it’s schools—it’s right across the board that we need to look after those assets better. The direction to suggest that we are going to be looking to legislate next year to require that of organisations is a really good one. I think it will be a game changer.

One of the things that did challenge that, and we did have a conversation about this with the Minister, was the place of the Government policy statement. The Government policy statement on transport has been, essentially, a diktat of the Minister over time—if the Minister says, “I’m going to allocate this much to this pot, and this much to this pot, and this much to this pot.” It is how that links with asset management. If the Minister says, “I want to go and build a whole lot of new roads”—or a whole lot of new railways, or whatever it might be—and there’s not enough money left to look after the assets that are there, that would seem to conflict directly with that. That was an issue I’d certainly like the Minister to respond to.

We had a bit of a discussion around the roads of national significance and how they were fundable. It has been very clear to the select committee for some time that we can’t fund all of those roads of national significance in a short period of time. They might be drawn out over a much longer period of time. It’s a question, then, of how those get prioritised. Again, it would be good for the committee, I think, if the Minister was to talk through a little bit about how that might be advanced. I note that the roads of national significance which are on the table at the moment do not include a second harbour crossing in Auckland. Again, how that gets funded will be of a great deal of interest, I’m sure, both to the public and to the House.

We had a really fascinating discussion talking about the Auckland Harbour Bridge, a really fascinating discussion about the maintenance of that bridge. I can see the chief executive smiling at that. It was really, really interesting—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Don’t bring the officials into the debate.

ANDY FOSTER: Oh, it was only said—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I know you’re being nice, but please don’t bring the officials into the debate.

ANDY FOSTER: It was a really, really interesting conversation that we had around that.

On the maintenance side, we really stressed, also, that it’s not just the maintenance of State highways. NZTA is the part-funder—at least 50 percent funder—of every local road in the country, and sometimes more than 50 percent. The funding assistance rates are sometimes as high as 70—or, in emergency situations, even higher than that. What we were stressing as a select committee—and again, I’d appreciate the Minister’s feedback on this—is the importance of maintaining not only the State’s assets but also the assets owned by local government, which are partly funded by the State through the petrol taxes. Of course, those petrol taxes and road user charges are derived from people who drive on State highways and on local roads equally, which is why they’re funded in the way that they are.

We noted that there is a significant bow wave of ageing bridges, and it’s been really interesting. I commend the South Island for its approach now. They’ve been very, very vocal about this. They’ve said, “Hey, here is how we can grow our economy.”—they’re doing better than the North anyway—“That’s really important.” I see the Minister for the Mainland is backing me up on that. One of the things they have stressed is the importance of maintaining the assets they’ve got, and that includes the bow wave of bridges and also the ability to be able to maintain seal, etc., roads. Again, some feedback on that will be really appreciated.

If I might, just looking at the time that’s available, just to finish off, we also spent a bit of time on the ferries front and noted the excellent progress that was being made with the replacement ferries, at a much lower cost than was the case under iReX. We also noted that rail is gaining market share. The Minister said that the rail freight market share is up 7 percent, compared to 2 percent for road. We also had some interesting and very useful discussions around potential new rail lines—obviously, the one to Marsden Point being talked about, but also through Auckland, the Fourth Main, and Avondale to Southdown.

There were a lot of really meaty issues that the committee covered. I’d really appreciate the Minister’s feedback on some of those issues which I’ve raised. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour) (20:38): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I want to acknowledge the Minister of Transport for his engagement through the Estimates process and also the chair, Andy Foster, who has just resumed his seat, for outlining the work of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. I have a few questions. When we look at the Estimates as a whole, you can see some pretty clear things, so my questions are going to centre on, essentially: where’s the money, where’s the plan, and who’s ultimately going to pay? I know I have some colleagues who will want to ask some other questions about specific transport projects in their areas. Then I have some other questions, not quite on that theme, to finish off with. So I will make my start.

I want to start with the fundamental question of how the Government intends to pay for its transport programme. The chair of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee has touched on a couple of the impending issues that are before us, not just as a Parliament or as a select committee but as a country. The Estimates identify that the National Land Transport Fund is, essentially, a Budget risk because it doesn’t have sufficient funding beyond 2027-28 to cover what are its ongoing activities and debt. This year alone, the National Land Transport Programme relies on almost $2.3 billion worth of borrowing. At the same time, the Government has become much more reliant on direct Crown funding, and I want to ask a couple of questions about that.

The Minister himself has acknowledged that the Crown funding has gone from about 3 percent of the programme in 2018-21 to 39 percent in the current programme. Now, of course, there is some further uncertainty around the revenue that was meant to come from motorists—or “people”, as we also call them.

The Government’s policy has been for petrol excise to rise 22 cents over the next three years, but the Minister of Transport has essentially said on a couple of occasions that the increase to the fuel tax looks like a “non-starter”, I think was the quote. But, of course, we’ve also had the Prime Minister describe it as cancelled, frozen, and delayed. Regardless, there’s some uncertainty, and there’s certainly no clarity around that. We don’t know if the Government is going to increase the petrol tax by 22 cents per litre, but what we do know is that the Government has a transport fund that it acknowledges is underfunded. It’s borrowing billions of dollars to sustain it, and one of the planned sources of additional revenue is now in doubt.

But what’s missing from this Estimates is the explanation of how that gap is going to be filled. So my question to the Minister is: can the Minister, as a starter for 10, tell the committee what the size is of that projected National Land Transport Fund short fund beyond 2027-28? And if the 1 January 2027 fuel excise and road-user charge increases do not proceed—and I’m not necessarily asking for a yes or no confirmation here tonight; but if they don’t proceed, I’m assuming that a certain amount of thought would have already gone into what revenue would be foregone in 2027-28 and 2028-29. What kind of activity classes does the Minister sort of foresee or assume is going to absorb that loss?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Transport) (20:41): Thank you to the member for her questions. They’re good questions, and they deal with some tricky issues that the Government’s confronting and which future Governments will have to confront no matter the political stripes of who is in Government. I also thank the chair of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee for his very sage comments, and I just, in passing, appreciate your engagement, Mr Foster, as part of a very hard-working committee on a range of different issues.

I think it’s good to see a level of maturity around these challenges in the Chamber tonight, because we do need to be up front around the fact that we do have a transport funding challenge, there’s no doubt about that, and future Governments are going to have to deal with it. No one wants to put up fuel tax. I get it. The last Government didn’t want to put it up. In fact, they cut it for a while and then, eventually, life had to go back to normality at some point. No one wants to put it up, but in real terms, so in other words, after inflation, it’s gone down by 20 percent since 2020—21 percent, I think it is, or it might be 22 percent—because no one’s put it up since 2020.

Prior to that, we had a moderate escalation in fuel taxes generally before that. Since then, we haven’t had it. COVID is the reason for that, and cost of living challenges. Now, they’re baked into the system. I get that one wants to put up fuel tax—we don’t want to do it either—but at some point, you’re just delaying the pain and you’re delaying the inevitable. In answer to the member’s question, we’ve not made a call yet on the tax rises scheduled for 1 January 2027. We see it as unlikely, but we haven’t made a decision yet, and so, when we do, we will let you know. In relation to the size of the fiscal challenge in relation to that, the short answer is it depends, because it depends on how much you defer them or cancel or push them out. The short answer is it depends. There is a fiscal trade-off.

To return to one of the central theses of the discussion tonight in the Ministry for the Environment hearing, or the Ministry for Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport hearing as well, these things have trade-offs and the reality is that our system, as the member rightly notices, is meant to be user-pays—it isn’t anymore. Back in 2017, it was broadly user-pays. Now, 40 percent of transport spending is from the Crown, and that comes with trade-offs—schools, hospitals, defence force, justice, corrections, police, and all the rest of it that we have to fund. There are trade-offs and the Government is working hard on broadening the range of funding tools because, frankly, a blunt use of just fuel tax as the proxy for road usage is not necessarily the right way to go about it. It’s imperfect, but there are other things you can do.

Tolling is one thing we’re looking at. We had a discussion down the line tonight at Buddle Findlay about greater use of tolling, which I think, broadly, people support, but have just got to bear in mind that it’s no silver bullet. It barely touches the sides of some projects. It’s a useful supplement, but it’s not a silver bullet. We talked about infrastructure funding and financing levies. Parliament’s just unanimously passed legislation to broaden the use of those in relation to transport projects and State highway projects. That will be a useful supplement, and there’s a range of other things we could look at as well.

We’re keen for broadening the revenue base and we’re keen to use different tools in order to make sure we can get projects away, but we can’t get away from the central conundrum of transport policy, which is: everyone wants stuff for which there is not enough money. I am sure that Tracey McClellan, and I’m sure that Dan Rosewarne, and I’m sure that Shanan Halbert will have transport projects they’re keen on, and I can tell you for free, because, no disrespect to you guys, but I know these colleagues better. I can tell you that my associate the Hon James Meager has got a list, Miles Anderson’s got a list, Dana Kirkpatrick’s got a list, Cameron Luxton’s got a list—everyone’s got a list, right. Everyone’s got a list of stuff, and sometimes I feel like Scrooge McDuck having to say no to everybody. Although, half the time it’s not my decision because it’s the transport agency’s, so I just make them give the bad news. But no, I’m being slightly facetious. But there’s not enough money. We all know that.

Just in the final 30 seconds to finish this point, you can kind of bemoan all that or you can do something about it. We’re broadening the revenue; we’ve got a greater focus on asset management and driving better value for money and optimising what we’ve already got; and we’re also really keen to get the costs down, because you can do more with less if you bring the costs of these projects down, and I think everyone’s on board with that. Doing so is not quite as easy as it sounds, but we’re all up for that. We’ve got a range of work under way.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour) (20:46): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ve probably got a quick follow-up, but I’m going to save that to the end of this next section because I’m going to move on. The second issue is the uncertainty the Government has essentially created for councils and regional transport committees who are, and I’m sure the Minister of Transport is well aware, now working on their regional land transport plans for the next funding period. But that one statutory document that is supposed to tell them what the Government’s priorities are and what the funding ranges are—the Government’s policy statement, the GPS—isn’t going to be released now until after the election. Some commentary exists about that, but I want to ask the Minister tonight.

Instead, the councils have been given an interim ministerial statement, and, obviously, that’s not a GPS—the clue is in the name. It doesn’t provide the same statutory process, and it certainly doesn’t provide those same funding ranges or certainty. I think it’s fair to say we are three years into this Government, councils have been asked to plan the next transport programme without that Government transport strategy, without the settled funding ranges, and without knowing what will actually be affordable. Can the Minister tell us tonight, or tell the committee, what document regional councils—essentially, what are they supposed to be basing these 2027-30 regional land transport plans on, and what legal status has this interim statement under the Land Transport Management Act? What is the legal status of that under the Act? And while I’ve got the Minister’s ear, can we also kind of have a look at what the revised timetable for the 2027-30 National Land Transport Programme would be? Actually, I suppose, simple questions like: can the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) actually adopt a programme without the new GPS being in force? That’s a start. I’ve got a couple more questions along those lines, but I think that’s enough for the Minister.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Transport) (20:49): Yeah, good questions. The current Government policy statement (GPS) period runs from the 1 July, 2024 through to 30 June, 2027 next year, so we’re actually over halfway through, but it’s still quite a long time to go, right. We’ve got through to end of June next year. The answer is yes, and New Zealand Transport Authority’s planned and budgeted for all of those things. So, yes, they can expend money.

Just working backwards a bit, there’s no legal status of this statement. Formally, we have to consult on a GPS in advance of 1 July, 2027, and the intention is to do that. The real question is: when do you do that? We could have gone out and done it now, but there are a couple of challenges with that—in fact, multiple challenges. Number one: you’ve got the ongoing uncertainty with the fuel situation, so that’s a challenge and makes it difficult to plan. I accept that that may still not be quite as good next year, but we are where we are. Number two: you’ve got the election in the middle of all of that, and the election campaign—it’s just a complication, from a sequencing point of view, and there’s nothing you can do about that; it is what it is. The third thing is that we’ve just started this Infrastructure Commission deep dive into transport funding costs, and I’m keen to get the lessons of that from quarter one next, because we’re given until quarter one next year to do it. So I’m keen to get the lessons of that so that we can adopt some of those recommendations when it comes to the Government policy statement (GPS). Finally, there is also the land transport reform work that we’re starting to get under way now, and I want some of the early insights into that work to help inform the GPS next year as well.

So, to be honest, we kind of weighed it up. It is not an easy decision, but we think it’s the right decision. In the meantime, I wanted to give a clear steer to the regional land transport committees and councils around what they should be thinking about for the next GPS. It hasn’t got a huge amount of attention, but it’s actually worth people reading it, because the system is under stress, as we’ve just been discussing. The paper notes that, and the next GPS will focus on value for money and cost discipline; making better use of the existing network; committing to service and system capacity increases before new infrastructure; maintenance, operations, and renewals; stronger asset management and better information on asset condition; resilience, which I know many members of the House regard as a significant issue, particularly in parts of regional and rural New Zealand, but not just there; transit-oriented development, which has a specific mention in the new draft GPS; supporting housing growth through alignment with spatial plans and concentrating development around transit nodes, key corridors, and strategic connection, and I think I’d be right in saying that’s never appeared in a GPS ever before, but it’s part of this Government’s drive to align land-use plan, through the new planning system, with transport plans made through the Land Transport Management Act and via the New Zealand Transport Agency; and then, of course, safety, which continues to be important as well.

So there’s quite a bit in this document. We’ve sent it out to councils, I think—have we sent it out? People are looking at me quizzically—hopefully, we have. We will have sent it out to councils so people are aware of it; it was only last week and there was quite a bit happening last week, as we all know. So that’s gone out. It doesn’t have any legal status but it will guide the next draft GPS. If we are fortunate enough to be re-elected, then the intention will be to get on with that soon after the election.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai) (20:53): Thank you, Mr Chair, and thanks to the Minister for his comments. I had some really specific questions about the guidance that’s gone out—I mean, to the extent that he is able to comment on what might be possible under the next Government policy statement (GPS). Under the most recent GPS, there was a lot of constraint on activity classes and what they could be used for, and there was an explicit banning of a multimodal approach being funded from the State highways activity class or the local roads activity class and maintenance and renewals.

As part of the getting better value for money and getting outcomes we want in urban centres, does he think it will be possible for funding for maintenance and renewals of local roads to go towards improvements for pedestrian and cycle access or safety? That is one way that we can make better use of our existing infrastructure, by enabling more people to use a given amount of road width, and doing it as part of everyday maintenance and renewals is a lot more cost-effective for councils.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Transport) (20:54): I’m not going to get ahead of the development of the Government policy statement. Cabinet’s yet to make decisions on that; you’ll have to wait until, hopefully, next year.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai) (20:54): OK, fair enough. But, like, the point about enabling a better and more flexible use of funding to deliver on transport outcomes—is that something that councils could be thinking about now, or not really?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Transport) (20:55): I’d just refer the member to the statement. There’s quite a lot in that, to be honest. It’s quite detailed and it’s not just high-level motherhood and apple pie; there’s quite a lot of stuff in there for councils to think about.

The other point I’d make—and I don’t want to speak for too long, because I’d use up all the other Ministers’ time for the other portfolios—I mean, let’s be honest about it: the Government policy statement system settings are suboptimal. We provide these activity classes, there are funding ranges, and there’s a whole suite of problems with that, and that’s partly why we’re doing the land transport reform work. We’re at the start of that process, to have a look at whether there’s a better way. That is a modern artefact in the sense that it was only created in 2008 onwards, actually—it was only 18 years or so ago, so things can change—it’s not the way transport funding used to work before that; it was a completely different system and now is probably not the time to get into that.

We just want to have a good look at that system, because I think everybody would be a bit frustrated—councils, too, by the way; I mean, the fact is that the three-year cycle is part of the problem, right? Theoretically, they’re 10 years, but they’re actually not: people focus on the three-year window. I meet councils up and down the country every day, and the member will have met them when she was Associate Minister as well. And they say, “Oh, you know, we can’t plan because we keep being told it’s the 2027-30 period or the three years after that, but we don’t know if there’s any certainty of the funding, so do we do the work now or not?” It’s a nightmare of a situation, and people spend their lives creating regional land transport plans, which would require extensive consultation. By the time we’ve actually finalised the land transport plan and the New Zealand Transport Agency’s come in with the co-funding, we’ve got to start again on the next one. It’s no wonder people get demented by this stuff; I mean, I get driven demented by it and I’m a Minister.

Anyway, there’s got to be a better way, is the short point—slap a hashtag on it. I think we can do it, and I look forward to the member’s support.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai) (20:57): I wanted to come to the topic of the appropriation that was not explicit in how much it was to assist public transport operators with higher diesel costs, and I just wanted to know if at some point it will be reported to Parliament how much has been allocated and to which public transport authorities, and what is the process for public transport authorities to apply for this funding. We’ve heard from different operators that they’ve had much, much higher costs, like just the ferries in Wellington, for example—you know, there’s an electric ferry, there’s also diesel ferries, and they were copping higher costs of, like, a million dollars a month earlier in the year, and obviously they don’t want to have to put up fares, because that will reduce patronage—it’s the same with the regional council. So I was just wondering what the process is.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Transport) (20:58): If the member puts these questions to me in written questions, we can probably come back to it. These are operational matters for the transport agency. The amount is commercially sensitive to allow for negotiations. If there is money used, then it will eventually be reported to Parliament, obviously, in due course. But the member will have to put the questions down in writing, to the exact specifics. The point is, there’s money there for targeted support for public transport authorities on the way through during the fuel situation.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour) (20:58): Thank you. The Minister told us that everybody wants some funding for transport projects. There is an abundance of different transport projects, but I do want to turn our attention now to the roads of national significance. I think that’s where the gap between what the Government promised and what can actually be delivered becomes very clear.

We have a programme estimated at around $56 billion. I think the Minister himself characterised this as a “finger in the wind” figure. Parliament is now being asked to appropriate a substantial sum of money, yet the New Zealand Transport Agency has, to date, been unable to provide the committee with a project by project forecast on what will actually be spent this year.

The chair of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee alluded to the fact that both the roads of national significance and the roads of regional significance were sort of bundled together, and I have a couple of questions about that. At the same time projects are being pushed further and further into the future, and we do know that money, in the meantime, will be spent on planning. It will be spent on buying property for roads that may or may not even begin construction for several years. So can the Minister tell the committee how much of the $1.3 billion—or $1.298 billion—for major Crown investment projects is allocated to roads of national significance and how much is actually allocated to roads of regional significance.

It would be good if there was some sort of breakdown of that. Further to that, can the Minister tell us how much has already been spent on acquiring property for projects that are now in phase 3 of that pipeline. I don’t need to remind the Minister that there was a recent announcement where some of those projects were bumped down. But I’m assuming that money has already been spent. So how much has been spent for those projects that are now in phase 3, and what happens to the property if those projects don’t end up proceeding?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Transport) (21:01): Thank you, Mr Chair. Well, there’s quite a bit there. The major transport projects pipeline, which the Government published—well, the New Zealand Transport Authority (NZTA) published it—a couple of months ago is an attempt to actually spell out for the public and the sector what the sequence in the pipeline is, and that’s what’s actually been widely welcomed by the transport sector and the infrastructure sector, because it gives a sense of when things will happen.

It’s not locked down to X year or X month or anything like that, but it’s a sequence, and we’ve always viewed the major transport projects pipeline as not just about roads of national significance—by the way, there’s the North West Rapid Transit project in there, there’s the Eastern Busway and other projects, very important projects—as a sequence and I think people kind of know intuitively that you can’t build 17 roads all at the same time. Not only could you not do it, you couldn’t fund it and you’d destroy the market and inflation would go through the roof and all the rest of it. There has to be a sequence, and so that is the sequence, and the honest truth is that some projects are more ready to go than others and are needed earlier than others, for example, Mill Road—

Tim van de Molen: Waikato Expressway.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, the extension of the Waikato Expressway is a road that was fast-tracked by the previous Government. People say it was fast-tracked; it was actually David Parker’s fast track—people forget about that. So it was fast-tracked by the previous Government for the consent—

Arena Williams: Ours was good.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: OK, well, leaving that aside, then there was no money, and now we’ve funded it. So that’s the reality of it, and we’re going to get on with that and in fact the NZTA is in procurement for that now, for the offline and the online sections. So it’s always been a sequence. It’s always been a coherent pipeline and some projects are further away than others.

In relation to the member’s point, or question, I suppose, around property acquisition and property liability, the NZTA owns property all over the place. They own rental properties in Mount Victoria that they’ve owned since the 1970s, and that’s because of the on-again, off-again second Mount Victoria tunnel. The NZTA is a landlord all over the place through rental properties and other things. So the NZTA sits on the land and if they don’t need it, they dispose of it. Otherwise, they own the property and there’s a revenue stream often from those properties, sometimes there isn’t, and then there is obviously a property liability incurred with designations that occur as well and other sort of legal processes around that.

So what we’re doing, or what NZTA is doing, I should say, is just getting on with the job of progressing projects so as funding becomes available they are ready for construction. Some projects are further up the kind of curve of construction readiness than others, and that’s publicly available for everybody. So rather than have this kind of show and tell routine and everyone ask all these questions and that sort of stuff, it’s all publicly available. We’re not trying to hide anything here. It’s all publicly available.

Dr Tracey McLellan: Is this process such a nuisance?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, it’s publicly available and my point is that that’s a contradistinction from the past, when communities would get very excited about projects that they thought were going to happen and it turns out they weren’t because they’d been misled, frankly, often by politicians, to believe that things would start immediately when they were never going to start. Both sides of politics have been guilty of that in the past.

In relation to the major Crown investment programme, otherwise known as the New Zealand Upgrade Programme, that is actually, without being too political about it, an example of over-promising, because, as some members of the House know, that was an attempt to basically make announcements about projects that were nowhere near ready for funding. Hence why the project cost blew out massively, Otaki to north Levin being a classic. It was meant to be $817 million, from memory, and it’s now going to come out at the thick end $2 billion.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: It was actually $400 million.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The figure I remember—the figure when the announcement was made by Grant Robertson and Jacinda Ardern back in March 2020, I think; February it might have been—is $817 million. I thought that that was a cheap four-lane road from Otaki to north Levin, and lo and behold, it’s not based on anything other than a literally back of the envelope figure. People just estimated the costs, and then people thought the road would start. That was announced in 2020 and here we are in 2026 and it’s finally getting under way, which is great. We support the road but we’ve got to get out of this habit of just making big spending commitments and big policy promises and pretending that things will just happen without doing the work. So we’re trying to stop all that stuff.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour) (21:06): Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you, Minister, although I certainly do remember there being quite some fans here from the Minister and the Minister’s party.

Anyhow, the New Zealand Transport Authority (NZTA) told us through this process, and it’s mentioned in the report, that there is currently no definition of high value and high risk. But the Minister has said that Cabinet has oversight, and sufficient oversight, of high-risk and high-value projects. It might seem like a small question but it’s something that leaked out, and is of particular interest to me—if NZTA are unable to define that or have no clarity about what that definition is and yet the Minister has provided us with a sort of certainty that that’s been taken care of at a Cabinet level, I’m just wondering if the Minister can elucidate on that somewhat. If I could just go back a step, because I didn’t get a chance to ask after the general policy statement (GPS) question, the Minister talked us through the delay in the GPS and the rationale for that, I accept that. But while I have him can he also confirm whether the next GPS will direct 60 percent of that investment towards maintenance and renewals as has absolutely been suggested should happen in that national infrastructure plan, and that will just round off that section nicely for me. Thank you.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Transport) (21:07): The short answer is Crown funded high-value, high-risk projects go through the Cabinet investment management system process and that assurance work that goes into that. In fact, the Government announced extensive changes to that to make it more streamlined and provide better quality assurance to Ministers. I probably don’t have time or, frankly, the energy to get into that tonight, but rest assured we are taking on board many of the criticisms of it and I’ve been intensely frustrated at the way in which the system doesn’t work, actually, in relation to assurance. So we’re making those changes.

In relation to the New Zealand Transport Authority’s processes, they have the National Land Transport Fund, obviously, and board has operational authority to make decisions in relation to that. But for high-value, high-risk projects, they can also go through the investment management system assurance process as well. To give you an example, there is the Northland Expressway, a road of national significance that just got announced for stage 1 and has gone through extensive gateway processes as well. So the short answer is that it depends.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour) (21:09): I just want to ask a couple of questions about maintenance and local roads in particular, and I suppose that sort of cost shift for councils. We touched earlier on the fact that councils can often get left with those unfunded mandates to do various bits and pieces. Certainly, from my perspective, while the Government has been talking about fixing potholes and getting transport back to basics, the evidence from NZTA to the committee tells quite a different story. They warned that councils would be struggling to meet what is their share of the maintenance cost and could end up restricting the use of bridges. They could end up using cheaper materials or finding other ways to reduce what is then their maintenance responsibilities. And at the same time, only $600 million of a $3.2 billion road maintenance target has been actually directed towards local roads, despite, obviously, the fact that local roads make up the overwhelming majority of the network. I understand that that doesn’t necessarily mean that’s where the overwhelming majority of people are using a road at any one point in time, but that is the nature of the network. On top of that, the Government intends to transfer six special purpose roads to local authorities.

With the future funding, I think that the split on what that future funding might look like is still unresolved, and so I suppose my question to the Minister is: NZTA told the committee that the current funding settings could lead councils to restrict the use of bridges and to use cheaper sorts of materials, so has the Minister had those conversations, does he accept that NZTA assessment, and, if so, has any thought gone into what he might do about it?

With regard to that $3.2 billion fund that I mentioned, can he explain or walk us through why only $600 million of that fund goes to local roads, given that they do make up the overwhelming majority of New Zealand’s road network?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Transport) (21:11): Well, in relation to the special purpose roads: those are matters for the transport agency and they’ll be considering that. In relation to local roads, I mean, it’s like everything. As we’ve talked about for 40 minutes now, there’s never enough money for everything. Local roads are very important. It’s co-funded through the transport agency and local councils via rates. Often, to be honest, one of the challenges is that councils are allocated money which they don’t spend, and I get perennially frustrated when I see the reports of councils that have had money allocated to them for local projects that they fart around not progressing. That’s intensely frustrating because, at the same time the council is complaining about being underfunded, not having resources, often there’s money there and they don’t spend it. It’s sort of like “Don’t come and complain when you can’t even spend the money that’s been allocated.”

Now, in their defence, I partly understand the three-year NZTA - GPS - NLTP - RLTP acronym soup process which has gone through all of that. It’s not entirely their fault, but often it is, and I encourage them to get on with it. Part of the issue, to be honest, just while I’ve got my talking stick, is the convoluted planning processes we make councils go through. They’re often very, very simple projects, and, you know, people are waiting around for six or nine months before they can spend the money because they’ve got to do a consent and go and get a permission for doing that, and they’ve got to do a local business case for a very small project. I mean, I get very, very frustrated by all this stuff, and so the Resource Management Act reform will help with that. Culture change inside councils would help too, frankly. The point is that the local roads are the backbone of the network. We’re going to continue to invest in local roads, and, in the same way, we’re going to continue to look after the State highway network, which is very important maintenance and operations of that.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai) (21:13): I note that today the notice of requirement designation was lifted for the East-West Link. I thought I’d share with the Minister that on the weekend I was doorknocking in my electorate in Hātaitai, and a number of people raised concerns about the proposed Mount Victoria Tunnel changes and how they would adversely impact residents in Hātaitai and Kilbirnie. Given that there’s no way there’s going to be funding for the Mount Victoria Tunnel any time in the next decade or two, what should I say to those constituents? They kind of can’t move on with their lives. They’re not going to have their land taken by the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA), but, presumably, NZTA is going to go ahead and acquire some of the adjacent properties, which is going to leave them with no neighbours, no neighbourhood, and just living with this kind of uncertainty of maybe. You know, people can’t just move on and make our community better because there’s this fantasy project, as the Minister’s referred to. It’s a fantasy project that has no funding and will have no funding. Why won’t the Government consider doing the same thing it’s just done with the East-West Link, after 10 years, allowing other people to move on with the land development and move on and do other things with that area?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Transport) (21:15): It’s not a fantasy project, and the member’s wrong when she says there’s no funding for it for 10 years. It’s not correct and I don’t know where she gets that idea from—it’s not correct. She’s the local MP for Hātaitai; I’m not, so what she says to those residents is over to her. But it is a very important project for Wellington, for the reasons that have been well-traversed by her and I many, many, many times. In fact, the New Zealand Transport Agency has just lodged a fast-track application for it, I think yesterday or earlier this week.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Yeah, but it’s not funded.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Sure.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: You don’t have $4 billion.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Sure—sure. It’s not funded.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: The benefit-cost ratio (BCR) is 0.7.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Lots of projects aren’t funded. The Auckland Light Rail fantasy project that you were in support of was not funded. There’s lots of stuff—

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Exactly, it’s a fantasy project.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, there’s lots of stuff—

Hon Julie Anne Genter: You just admitted it.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Lots of things aren’t.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Just for the advantage of the people living at home, it’s much easier if you stand up and seek the call, ask the question, and then we’ll get our—

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Lots of projects aren’t funded—lots of projects aren’t funded. Partly what we’re trying to do is create a sequence pipeline, which is exactly what the experts say you need to do when it comes to infrastructure projects. As they become ready for funding and they’re ready for construction funding, you fund them. That’s part of the sequence pipeline. The member can see it, publicly available, for herself.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai) (21:16): According to the list that the Minister put out, this project isn’t going to start for at least 10 years. We all know, as they’ve said, there’s no money in there. The money has to be prioritised to projects that make the best use of our limited transport funding. So I guess, I would put to him, on behalf of the residents of Hātaitai and Kilbirnie, that it would be much better if the $100 or $200 million the Government’s currently putting towards this project was put towards improving public transport right now, not acquiring land and having this shadow hang over neighbourhoods of some four-lane road, which is probably not ever going to be affordable or makes sense.

In the most recent thing that was sent to me, released under the Official Information Act—and I’ll be happy to table that—it says that the BCR is less than one; it’s 0.7. It’s clearly one of the lowest priority of the roads of national significance; there’s no funding available for it, and it’s limiting the ability of the community to move forward with far more cost effective improvements to our transport system.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Transport) (21:17): Yeah, I mean, all I can do is repeat what I just said, which is lodging for fast track—yep, there’s some money involved in that, but we think that’s a valuable or justifiable use of money. The project is not funded at the moment. Three-point—

Tamatha Paul: Just let it go! Nobody wants it.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: You sound like—who’s the—

Hon Member: Elsa.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: You sound like Elsa.

Tamatha Paul: [Sings] Let it go!

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: You sound like my son. He’s constantly singing “Let It Go”.

Anyhoo, it’s an important project; it’s not funded at the moment. By the way, it’s not just $4 billion for Mount Victoria. There four elements of that project: there’s the basin, there’s The Terrace, there’s Mount Victoria, there’s Te Aro improvements through State Highway 1—it’s a complicated project. You know, we should have got on with it years ago, but here we are. I believe it will get built. The member’s welcome to continue to campaign against it. I look forward to having long battles on the campaign trail about it in the future.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour) (21:18): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to move on to some public transport questions, mainly because it’s always striking how little attention it has received over the last few years. Whilst I appreciate the Minister’s previous answer about council not necessarily always—how the frustrated he can be when councils don’t spend the money. It just reminds me of the incredible influence that a Government policy statement (GPS) can have and how important it is not to, necessarily, be delayed, because the GPS does seem to particularly send the signal to those councils. The Minister will well remember what negative impacts can happen when a GPS doesn’t signal, for instance, public transport, and councils don’t necessarily, then, go pursue work programmes on the misunderstanding that the Minister du jour doesn’t favour it and money gets rescinded.

Anyhow, I’m still banging on about how Christchurch lost $78 million, obviously. But this time round I will move on and note that public transport—well, that councils—nevertheless, often, find themselves having to fund new costs.

Since July 2025, public transport authorities required, for instance, just as an example, to purchase zero-emission buses when they replace their fleets, and yet central government has provided no specific support towards that additional capital cost or for them to just simply meet those requirements. The Government mandates that public transport authorities make those purchases, so my question to the Minister is, is he aware how much that mandate has added to councils’ capital costs since July 2025? That’s a start—if he could answer that, that would be much appreciated, and his answer to that will guide my next question.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Transport) (21:21): I’m advised that the bus mandate was a previous Government policy that we decided to keep. The Opposition regularly likes to—

Dr Tracey McLellan: It’s a good policy—where’s the pūtea?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, the Opposition regularly likes to say that we tore up climate policies. It’s true in relation to some policies, but it’s not true in relation to this one. I’m also advised that there is no extra cost because the whole-of-life costs of buying an electric bus are cheaper than buying a diesel bus.

MIKE DAVIDSON (Green) (21:21): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to get some clarification, because it was more than $78 million that Christchurch lost; it was over $800 million, and part of that was the $800 million that was on the draft Government Policy Statement for land transport for mass rapid transit (MRT). We’re just wondering how that disappeared and whether it is a priority commitment of this Government to reinstate for MRT for greater Christchurch?

The other question I do have quickly is around the Woodend Bypass. I noticed the member of Parliament for the electorate has just recently that it’s great to see that work is under way on the Woodend Bypass. I’d just like to check whether that is actually a correct statement?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Transport) (21:22): Taking them in reverse order: yes, work is under way, but it’s not construction work—as in, it’s not the main construction work. But there is work happening down there, obviously. The member can see it for himself.

In relation to mass rapid transit for Christchurch: there’s never been $800 million for mass rapid transit in Christchurch. I’m advised that was the overall cost of the project if it happened.

Mike Davidson: It was on the draft.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, there was no money for it; that was just the estimated cost—not funded or anything like that. It’s not worth going back through the potted saga of the money that was for the business case. It was a very expensive business case by the way, which is potentially why the council gave it up. It’s now funding Brougham Street, which I’m sure the member is very happy about—or partly funding Brougham Street.

Look, I’m actually conceptually interested in rapid transit in Christchurch, but here’s the point: there’s very little point in standing up and saying “Well, let’s build trams and light rail in Christchurch”. Let’s do the work. Let’s do a spatial plan for Christchurch and the surrounding area; let’s think about, over the next 20 to 30 years, what we’re going to build and where we’re going to build it; let’s think about the transport plans. Planning reform and the Resource Management Act changes we’re making will allow for all of that to take place in a structured way—involving the Crown, too, by the way, because that’s an important part of it. Then, let’s build up the evidence base and the case over time. Let’s get away from immediately jumping to “Wow, look at these great, stylised pictures of trams down Brougham Street or light rail cars down Dominion Road”. Let’s actually do the work before we start to make major investment decisions. There’s been too much fantasy stuff—too many fantasy-land projects, too many people interested in the AI, stylised drawings.

Shanan Halbert: You’ve changed.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I’ve changed? I’ve certainly got heavier in the last three years.

Dr Tracey McLellan: Roads of National Significance are what’s a fantasy.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, no—on the Roads of National Significance, no one ever promised they would all start straight away. That’s not true. We always said they were a part of the pipeline; they remain part of the pipeline—in fact, six of them are about to be or are under way. The Hawke’s Bay Expressway—I note that Katie Nimon has entered the House, and she knows all too well. You can see it. You can drive down it right now. The road widening is under way, and you can see the projects happening around the country. You can see Ōtaki happening—Ōtaki to north of Levin. Cambridge to Piarere will soon be getting under way, and the Northland Expressway, stage 1 is underway or soon to be under way as well. People can see them, but they were never all going to be built at the same time. People who say—

Shanan Halbert: You just want to do it on your terms.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, I think that’s—in relation to Northland, it was actually in the last Government’s draft Government Policy Statement (GPS) as well, by the way, which is a fact that is conveniently forgotten about by members opposite.

Shanan Halbert: Four lanes?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yeah, in David Parker’s last draft GPS was stage 1 of the Northland Expressway. The previous Government said that they were interested in funding it.

Grant McCallum: As it should be.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Exactly. That’s my point—that it’s a good project, which is why the last Government was interested in it as well. But we’re actually getting on with it.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): I’ll just let members know that we’re into our last five minutes.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai) (21:25): Just following up on my colleague’s question: $78 million for public transport futures was a package of cost-effective bus improvements that would massively increase frequency—

Hon Chris Bishop: Oh, OK—sorry.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: —and practicality of buses. The Minister says that the Government is in favour of public transport and that public transport operational funding has increased, but outside of Auckland, it hasn’t, and there is a desperate need—particularly in a city like Christchurch, which is growing very quickly—to improve bus transport. It’s something that could be done in a short period of time, but there’s nothing for it in this Budget. Could the Minister find some funding for it?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Transport) (21:26): Well, not at 9.26 p.m. at night on Wednesday, I’m not just going to magic up money. Nicola Willis has just called me, as it happens, while you were talking. You never know, she could have heard your exhortation. It could be good news. I don’t know if anyone’s ever been in the chair and rung another Minister on the phone—that may be a breach of Standing Orders, and almost certainly is.

The short answer is that we’ll continue to look at sensible improvements on this stuff, but I’m not going to make any funding commitments on the floor of the House.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): We’re running so close to the edge of Standing Orders that I’m not about to interfere at the moment.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour) (21:27): Thank you, Mr Chair—and I know that we’ve only got a very short amount of time left. The cost of replacing 22 State highway bridged rises from around $110 million in this National Land Transport Programme period to between $300 million and $400 million in the next. Can the Minister tell the committee the total deferred bridge replacement liability across both State highways and local roads? Essentially, things are more expensive if they’re delayed. There are a lot of things that have been pushed into phase—there’s a lot of things being pushed around. If the Minister can just give us a little bit more detail on that, that would be amazing.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Transport) (21:27): The short point is that the $110 million is for nine bridges that are needed to be done now, and there will be further work and further funding required as we move on. We do have an end-of-life bridge issue, but it’s also important not to catastrophise it. Some of the bridges are very old, there is no doubt about that, but they also have economic life left in them.

While the member is of course correct to say that things only get more expensive—that is true—respectfully, that’s also not an argument for funding the update of things or the replacement until they are required. That is also expensive, because it comes with trade-offs around the best value use of dollars. It is obviously true that it’s cheaper to do things now, but that would be an argument for doing everything right now. We don’t; we phase and sequence things out.

The New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) is just getting on with the job of the end-of-life bridges that are right around the country. Some are more complicated than others. The $110 million is for the nine needed now. We’re getting on with them. There will be further work and further funding required. Maintaining the State highway network and the end-of-life bridges on it and just progressively chunking them off over time is really important. I think it’s important not to catastrophise the problem. It’s a challenge, but we’ve got the money there to do it, and NZTA is actually getting pretty good at doing them in a very standardised, sensible way.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour) (21:29): Thank you, Mr Chair. Some very quick questions—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): They will need to be.

SHANAN HALBERT: —because we have already talked about the additional Waitematā Harbour crossing. Questions for the Minister: what are the expected costs related to the detailed business plan, and what are the anticipated costs to reopen the option from Meola Reef to Kauri Point in his projections, and where abouts is that funding sitting?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Transport) (21:29): Cabinet has capped the Meola option at $1 million—50 percent from the Crown and 50 percent from the council if they choose to take up that invitation. But we’re not spending more than a million; it will come Ministry for Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport (MCERT) baselines.

In relation to the detailed business case, I don’t have those figures to hand. If the member puts it down in writing, we can have a look at that. There will be a cost in relation to the detailed business case. A lot of it will be funding through the MCERT and New Zealand Transport Agency standard operational funding. If there needs to be more, we will consider that in due course.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members, the Minister’s time in the chair has come to an end. We now have the Minister for Tertiary Education. The Minister is available to speak to that portfolio until 10 p.m.

Committee of the whole House—Estimates Debate

Tertiary Education

KATIE NIMON (Chairperson of the Education and Workforce Committee) (21:30): Mr Speaker, thank you very much. As the chair of the Education and Workforce Committee, I have the privilege of chairing this Estimates hearing with the Hon Penny Simmonds as the Minister for Tertiary Education. For those that don’t know, Tertiary Education is a separate Vote to Education and has about 2 percent of spending in the Budget 2026—a nice symbol of the importance of tertiary education to the future of our economy and, of course, the report details the amount of funding to which areas within the Budget, which I’m sure we’ll go into.

We talked about the financial sustainability of the sector and funding settings of the Budget as well, but particularly focused on measuring performance of tertiary education, student financial hardship—which is a topic that comes up every year, inevitably—but we focused a lot on those Not in Education, Employment, or Training (NEETs) and the importance of the tertiary education sector in focusing on reducing the number of people not in education or employment or training, and the many different programmes in place to address that. We talked about the better utilisation of the fees-free scheme funding. We talked about work-based learning. As well as that, I think very important to point out that it is the last hearing that would involve Te Pūkenga as an establishment—as it is being disestablished—and talked about the polytechnics and their re-independence and the future of those institutions.

The interesting conversation around the enrolment growth and strong balance sheets of wānanga, and then the industry skills boards that have received additional funding to help make sure that they are providing the appropriate pathway for the workforce; the fact that research funding has been unchanged in Budget 2026. We talked about the importance of international education programmes and, as well as that, an always interesting topic to talk about: the use of artificial intelligence in the tertiary education sector. With that, I think it’s very important to have a fulsome debate on this topic and welcome anyone to read the report.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour) (21:32): Thank you, Mr Chair. Just to acknowledge both the Minister this evening and our Education and Workforce Committee Chair, Katie Nimon, for the work that they’ve done in this Estimates process. I do note that funding has decreased between years by $185 million, and on top of that is the $1.1 billion cut to fees free that was allocated and invested in the young people studying in New Zealand. The Minister has been with me across a few debates, now, where we’ve experienced the green debt monster because people are very concerned about the amounts of their loans, that study is becoming more expensive, but I haven’t seen that this Budget really responds to those particular challenges, and so that will frame the first part of my questioning for the Minister tonight.

I’d like to understand: why was the decision made to allow tertiary institutions to increase their fees by yet another 6 percent? The Minister will understand that hits a 19 percent increase in student fees over her time in three years. What is the total amount of the annual maximum fee movement that has increased under her watch? I’ll start there.

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green) (21:34): Thank you, Mr Chair. As per the previous Estimate debates, I’ll dump my five-minute contribution out of the way so that I don’t have to keep constantly timing myself. Just wanting to acknowledge and thank the Minister for her respectful engagement over the last two years. This is going to be the last Estimates debate we’ll be doing in this Parliament, potentially forever, depending on the outcome of the election for myself.

It was good to see the Minister at the Otago University Students’ Association (OUSA) leaders’ debate. I was a little bit confused to see her because it was called the OUSA leaders’ debate but then I read the day before that there were some leadership ructions within the National Party, but I didn’t realise that it would happen that quickly. Then I saw my colleague Shanan Halbert there as well and then I realised that it was actually broader than just leaders.

My question is around three streams, around the issue of student poverty, around the fees-free scheme, and around the issue of polytechnic support. I’ll start off with a really crucial issue which is the issue of student poverty. The Minister might recall that I sent her a letter on 31 March 2026. It was around the recently released report that we released around the issue of student poverty around Aotearoa New Zealand. My question around that is: did the Minister read that report and are there measures in this current Budget or any planned Budgets within the Estimates period that would alleviate some of that student poverty issue? What cost of living measures were specifically considered for students, given that they were excluded from the cost of living fuel crisis support?

I note that during the Vote Tertiary Education hearing the Minister said that she would have a look at the idea of potentially raising the course-related cost, which has not risen since 1992, except for a brief period in 2020 when it was raised to $2,000 around the COVID support. That could be a good way to enable a slight measure of cost of living relief for students without unduly stretching the Treasury.

I’ll turn now to the issue of fees free. The Government has raised the number of youth guaranteed placements from 1,000 to 2,000 as part of their initiative, as part of the proceeds of scrapping the fees free. Is the Minister aware that in the final year of the first year of the fees-free scheme that the vast majority of students who received fees free were actually from polytechnics—6,000 out of the 10,000 that received that in 2025. The last year of the first year fees-free scheme were polytech students. Why wasn’t consideration given to potentially boosting polytech support or potentially even making polytechs free for students, as happened in some great institutions like the Southern Institute of Technology?

My last question is around the polytech support line in the Budget. You can see in the Vote Estimate line that there’s allocated Budget lines that have been earmarked for polytech support that have had quite significant underspends around it. For example—I’ll just read this here; it’s hard when you have multiple tabs open—of the $25.2 million fund that was allocated, only $6 million of it was spent, so there’s a $19.2 million underspend around that fund. Why has that occurred at the same time when, over that financial year, some polytechs have had to make some really tough decisions to stay financially viable? For example, Taranaki has reportedly had to cut 20 percent of their staff, for example. In my own area—Otago Polytechnic—we know that around 100 roles have been lost and I feel like there could have been potential reallocations of that fund.

Why was there an underspend of that fund and what will happen to the washup of that unallocated funding? We also see that there’s support for a polytech property management line that ended in that period. Are there any considerations for any further supports that will be further given to polytechs? I’ll use my remaining minute to ask any follow-up questions that might arise from the Minister’s answers.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for Tertiary Education) (21:39): Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you to the two members. I agree that the Otago University Students’ Association debate was done in very good humour and, while there wasn’t raging support for the right, I can say that it was all done in very good humour, so thank you to those that were there supporting us.

Turning to the questions from Shanan Halbert, Labour’s MP, the Annual Maximum Fee Movement—yes, look, the 6 percent increase, or the ability to increase fees by 6 percent again, ensured that for that period from 2018 to 2026, the fee increases were roughly aligned with what the cumulative inflation was over that period. So it has taken the fees, essentially, in line with what inflation was over that period.

In terms of student poverty—the question from the Green MP—New Zealand student contribution versus the public contribution is about average in the OECD countries. About 74 percent is contributed by the Crown and the remainder by the students. Actually, interestingly, at the OECD debate when that question was asked, it was really obvious that most of the audience had no idea that they were subsidised to that amount. So it’s about average in the OECD countries. Certainly, interest-free loans are the main way in which we support students, and they remain interest-free as long as graduates stay in the country. Hardship grants are available through a number of the institutions. They may be eligible for student hardship assistance. Student allowances, of course, are targeted, and they are inflation adjusted on 1 April each year. This year, they went up by 3.11 percent on 1 April, which impacted about 52,000 students.

In terms of additional assistance—and I think we’ve talked about that in the past, or recently—in terms of the costs associated with the particular cost of living shift with the Middle East conflict, I acknowledge, yes, that it’s costing students more to get to their studies, to their placements and things, but we have remained firmly focused on any assistance during this period being targeted and timely and temporary. We consider that students have access to more assistance, such as the hardship grants and the accommodation support, than perhaps the other areas where we’ve provided assistance.

We’ve looked slightly quizzically at each other—oh, you’ve found something that might be referring to it? Ah, right. You asked about the unspent portion of contingency. That has been transferred through, and it is just a timing issue of when these funds are needed. So thank you for bringing up that point and allowing us to clarify that. In terms of the Western Institute of Technology at Taranaki, they are still within the New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology (NZIST) at the moment, so those decisions are being made under the umbrella of NZIST.

But can I just tell you one story of today. I did a visit to the Universal College of Learning (UCOL) and was absolutely thrilled to see the progress that UCOL in Palmerston North have made. You might recall that their deficit last year was over $9 million. They are forecasting a surplus of over a million this year. They certainly have rationalised some of their programmes where they had smaller numbers going into programmes, but, essentially, they are going to do over 100 percent of their level 3 and above and level 1 and 2—oh, sorry Mr Chair—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Oh, yeah, so carry on.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Thank you. I’ll be very quick, I promise you. So level 1 and 2, yes, they are running out of a bit of room there, and we were just talking about the possibility of what additional funding might be available for them. So an absolute success story, and I congratulate the staff and management and governance of UCOL. Thank you.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour) (21:45): Excellent. Just to follow up on that with the Minister for Tertiary Education, I guess I just want to understand her rationale for why it was necessary to increase student fees for the third time given that she also cancelled Fees-free, which means a $12,000 loss for particular students. We find ourselves in a cost of living environment where, you know, surveys from Victoria University are telling us that hardship is deeply there, and she’s invested less in the overall budget than she did last year but is charging students more. So what is the rationale there, Minister?

Hon Penny Simmonds: Have another go and I’ll do them together.

SHANAN HALBERT: OK, thank you. So just to follow up there: what is the proportion of the transitional funds that have been allocated, and what additional requests has the Minister received throughout that period which she may not have allocated at this particular point?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for Tertiary Education) (21:46): Thank you. Why was it necessary to allow increases in fees? Well, again, getting in line with inflation was really addressing the cost pressures that were occurring on the providers because of that inflation. So it was really enabling the providers to be able to address some of the issues that they were dealing with because of inflation.

In terms of the increase that we did give, the 2 percent increase that we have put in place in the Budget, that has been to the foundation level 1 and 2, because those programmes don’t have fees and therefore there was no ability for the providers of those foundation programmes at level 1 and 2 to be able to recoup any of those cost pressures.

In terms of the $157 million in contingency for the disestablishment of Te Pūkenga and the standing up of the polytechnics, that hasn’t all been used, and there are some quite big projects that are still sitting there: the Universal College of Learning’s (UCOL’s) rebuild or refurbishment and NorthTec. Both of those are substantial: the NorthTec one is $34 million; the UCOL one I think is just under $30 million. Again, the poster child for the disestablishment of Te Pūkenga, UCOL, now that it is being governed locally by people from the community, they are digging deeper into the need to actually demolish the building that’s there and rebuild new, and they’re getting a more detailed seismic assessment which is showing all the signs of being able to refurbish and strengthen rather than create a hole in the middle of Palmerston North, which the mayor was very agitated about, quite rightly. So having brought community people in to look at what the reality of that build was will actually probably result in a better outcome for that community, at, potentially, a lesser amount than the full amount that was allocated to them for that capital work. I can’t give you the exact detail, but if you want to pop that through to me in writing, we’ll try and give you—but it’s a bit of a rolling thing—

Shanan Halbert: I’ve asked.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: —because, obviously, things are being—you’ve asked, in a written—OK, so we’ll get what we can, but it is moving almost on a weekly basis. But we’re not going to run out of money, if you were worried about that.

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green) (21:49): Thank you, Mr Chair. If there’s money left in the fund, could Otago Polytech have some more, please? Maybe a couple of million? My second question is around the issue of—and I see that the Minister for Tertiary Education referred to universities and polytechs having hardship funds. Part of the funding for those hardship funds comes from, of course, the student services levy, which allows welfare services like that to be funded. You might’ve seen proposals floating around to abolish or restrict the student services levy. Is that something you’ve sought advice on this term, and is that something that you would look to do in the future, potentially?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for Tertiary Education) (21:50): Thank you, Mr Chair. No, because that is not Government policy. That’s a particular party that is campaigning on that policy, so no, I haven’t sought any advice on that. And yes, you’re quite right, the hardship assistance does come from within the universities. If I could just assure you, though, that the university sector is looking in very good heart. Last year, they had an unaudited surplus of $186 million cumulatively. That was $190 million better than they had budgeted, and $28 million better than the sector’s audited results in 2024.

The university sector is in good heart and able to provide some of that additional support to students in this time of hardship. They have had good domestic growth this year of about 3.4 percent, and also good international growth. None of the universities recorded a deficit last year, so they’re in a strong position, and the three wānanga, similarly, are in a really strong position, and the polytechnics are strengthening as we speak.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour) (21:51): I rest my case there, Minister of Tertiary Education, because you’re saying that polytechs, wānanga, and universities are all in good hearts and they’re financially doing well, and yet here you are increasing fees for students by 6 percent once again, and of 19 percent overall in your watch. I just don’t comprehend that during a cost of living environment where students are telling us that they are in the most need that they have ever been in. I digress.

My next question is around the industry skills boards (ISBs), and it’s good to see that there is progress there. It’s not very clear about what progress is coming through. Where are we at with that and the allocation of funds to those ISBs, what are the set dates that you expect the ISBs to be up and running, and what milestones are you working to in that period?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for Tertiary Education) (21:52): Thank you. All the ISBs were up and running from 1 January this year, and yes, they got their annual allocation in the Budget of $30 million, but we also reprioritised an additional $3 million because I really want them to take a look at some strategic planning around the retention and recruitment of apprentices. They got a little bit of extra funding to do that, you’ll be pleased to hear, Mr Halbert.

The work-based learning (WBL) units—so let’s take a step back. What was the industry training organisations (ITOs) then became the work-based learning. They are sitting within the ISBs. They have two years to transition out as private training establishments (PTEs), and at this moment, the building construction ITO have transitioned out, the motor industry organisation has transitioned out, the hairdressing has transitioned out, and ServiceIQ has transitioned out into an existing PTE. There’s a couple more that are getting well on the way; the plumbers and gasfitters are well on the way. They’re all working through this process of the ITOs and WBLs that have been sitting in there and working through the process with industry of whether they go out into a new PTE, or into an existing PTE, or whatever configuration they are looking at.

I’m pretty pleased with what’s going on there. I think all but one have got a full complement of their board. I think it’s only one, isn’t it? It’s just got one missing. They are working well in terms of the updating and renewal of qualifications that they need to be focused on, and I believe that they are engaging well with industry. I’m pleased with how they’re getting on, and I think they have ensured that they understand the Budget and that they are working to their budget of $30 million plus the $3 million.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): I must comment, it’s a very acronym-heavy ministry you have, Minister.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour) (21:55): Thank you, Mr Chair. When we came into this term, sustainability of the sector is top of mind for anyone who is working in this particular space. In 2022, under the last Government, we launched a review of funding. That’s something that you discontinued when you started as the Minister for Tertiary Education. Where is that at and what work is currently being done in order to understand the forecast for the next few years?

GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland) (21:55): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to ask the Minister for Tertiary Education what she has done for NorthTec, please.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for Tertiary Education) (21:55): Of course, I’ll start with the funding review. Thank you, Mr Chair. Yes, you’re right, the funding review that had been initiated by the previous Government I put on hold and felt there were more critical things that needed to occur and have occurred now. I’m starting to look at the funding review again for higher education, level 7 and above. Very early days; just starting to talk about the scope of that, but very early days, and really wanting to ensure that we are prioritising the areas that we’ve got skill shortages in, making sure that we’re getting good value for money, and that the sector is sustainable in the long run.

It’s worried me for some time that there are areas where we maybe aren’t training enough, and you look at dentists and vets and things like that, and what we might need to do in those areas. Look, yes, funding review, and I’m happy to keep you informed with that as we go along, but it is very early stages.

In terms of Northland, what have we done for Northland? Look, we are working really closely with the community up there. I just think the new—what are we calling them?—establishment advisory group and the initial board up there are working really well. Derek Slatter, the acting chief executive, they are working through a process with their community. We have allocated, I think, $34 million to ensure that they have a knowledge-hub in the centre of town. If it works out to be the right financial thing to do, we can get a business case that stacks up.

I’m really committed to ensuring that Northland has a polytechnic that they are proud of. We know that we’ve got high NEET numbers up there. We know that we’ve got significant needs in the wider health sector that the polytech tends to provide graduates for, and so we’re absolutely committed to ensuring that we stand up NorthTec in a way that it can be successful going forward, that it can be the heart of that Whangārei community, and ensuring that the industries have the graduates that they need up there.

Places like Whangārei, like Nelson, like Invercargill, and New Plymouth, it’s really critical, when you only have one major public tertiary provider, that they are strong, that they can operate sustainably, and that they are fit for purpose and that young people and, well, everyone in that region is proud to be part of. So, very pleased to be doing that for NorthTec.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): We’re down to the last 12 seconds.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour) (21:59): Thank you, Mr Chair. One final question is just a follow-up on the Youth Guarantee (YG) numbers. I note that there is an increase in this Budget. How did the Minister for Tertiary Education come to that particular number? Was it purely a Budget decision? When we have almost 100,000 young people not engaged in education, employment, or training, 175, Minister, is simply not enough.

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for Tertiary Education) (21:59): Thank you, Mr Chair. I did have the number here, and it is actually more than that. It’s 5,500 that will be the total number of YG places. Yes, it’s still well short of the 100,000, however, remember that YG is a part of the whole picture, with Ministry of Social Development (MSD), YG, and other supports around that. Again, I’ll refer back, because I visited there today, to University College of Learning who, working closely with MSD, contracted to take two cohorts of MSD clients through revenue from MSD; so polytechs working together and ensuring that we are putting support and pathways in for those young NEETs to find a way to employment. Thank you for that question. Yep, it would be lovely to have more, but we’re gradually working through.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): On that last set of acronyms, the time has come for me to leave the chair. I’ll report progress on this bill presently. The committee is suspended and will resume tomorrow morning at 9 a.m. to consider the Disability Support Services Bill. Have a good night.

Debate interrupted.

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

Extended Sitting

Thursday, 20 August 2026

Bills

Disability Support Services Bill

Committee of the whole House

Part 1 Preliminary provisions, and Schedule 1

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Good morning, everybody. The committee is resumed. We come now to the Disability Support Services Bill, and we begin with the debate on Part 1, “Preliminary provisions”, and Schedule 1. This is the debate on clauses 3 to 6. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Disability Issues) (09:00): I would like to just make some introductory comments on this part, and remind the House that at the moment, Disability Support Services (DSS) operates without a dedicated legislative framework, which means that important decisions about support, funding, and service delivery don’t have a level of legal clarity, transparency, and certainty that disabled people and taxpayers should expect. The disability support system must be fair, consistent, transparent, and sustainable. Disabled people and their families should be able to understand how Disability Support Services works, and to have the confidence in how the decisions are made. Once this bill becomes law, the system will have clearer rules and greater certainty straight away.

I do want to give some thanks to the parliamentary staff, particularly to the accessibility advisors; and I want to give significant gratitude to the select committee for the significant work they put in, and in particular the chair, Joseph Mooney, for the work that you did in the process of this bill, and in recommending changes that make it clearer.

Although I have not watched the submissions, I’ve paid significant attention to them, read many of them, and my team have paid close attention. I also want to thank the team at DSS, who have worked incredibly hard to ensure that the reflections, considerations, and suggestions by submitters have been incorporated. Thank you to the team.

During this time, I’ve also met with disabled people, organisations, and providers to make sure that we did address the issues that they had presented, and I wanted to touch on a couple of them. I do want to very clearly clarify that the bill does not broaden family responsibility. The bill says that DSS makes a contribution to disabled people, and families do that where it’s appropriate; that is exactly what happens today. We do know that families’ role and contribution sits alongside the contribution and support from DSS.

I also want to make very clear that at no time did I ever make any comment about disabled people being a financial burden for the State, and I find that offensive. The point is that the lack of clarity without the legislative framework has created litigation, and the potential for system-level financial risk. The bill does create a deliberate legislative framework to support clarity and transparency, which are things that the disability community has been asking for, for many, many years. Over the time I’ve been the Minister, that has been the clarion call: to have clarity, transparency, and consistency.

The bill ensures that a Minister and officials are unable to make arbitrary decisions that impact funding for services. That is a massive improvement on the past. The bill requires consultation before approved support programmes are changed; it requires decision makers to have regard for statutory principles; it requires consideration of outcomes for disabled people. Actually, the bill provides a clearer and firmer basis for how future decisions are made than exist today. I will say it again: the bill does not change eligibility, entitlement, or support that people receive. The bill is not changing supports; it is about establishing the legal framework that sits underneath these supports. Of course, it doesn’t mean that the work to strengthen DSS stops here; quite the opposite. It allows us to make very, very important improvements in the foundation on which those further improvements can be made, which, of course, benefit disabled people and their families.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (09:04): I wanted to start with clause 3, “Purposes of Act”, and I wanted to, first of all, test the language on clause 3(c). This is “mitigate litigation risk, and related fiscal risk, to the Crown”. The reason why I wanted to focus on this is that throughout the submissions, we have heard a lot from carers, particularly, and disabled people who they look after, on the reality that they see this provision—the purpose of the bill—which was to prevent further litigation risk, as preventing carers, particularly, from fighting for additional rights in the courts, which they can then secure, and obtain greater rights, and greater—basically, care.

I wanted to ask the Minister, to begin with: when it comes to the purpose of the Act, and her intention to mitigate litigation risk—related to fiscal risk—why would she be wanting to, potentially, prevent carers from being able to obtain further rights through the courts? If we’re to take a rights-based approach, why would an avenue be taken away from them to be able to secure the rights that they may be deemed to be entitled to—for example, being greater in line with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, or just employment matters? She did make, in her opening remarks, the comment that she finds it offensive that she sees disabled people as a financial risk, but in the purpose of the Act, there’s some very explicit language here that one of the purposes is to avoid related fiscal risk to the Crown, but if we are to interpret that “related fiscal risk to the Crown”, it’s actually greater resources for carers or disabled people, right? Because where else would this fiscal risk be coming from, if it’s not litigation relating to the very same rights, support, or resources to carers and disabled people.

I wanted to ask what kind of litigation risk would she be wanting to prevent? What are the things that she wouldn’t want carers to be able to fight for in the courts? And what are some of the related fiscal risks that the Minister could foresee that could come about with carers, for example, being able to litigate and win additional rights or resources within the court system? Ultimately, what this looks like to me is cutting an avenue for rights to be won through the courts. If she’s going to cut that, I would like to know: what are the things that she would have foreseen carers could have additionally fought for and won within the court system, that could have resulted in so-called fiscal risk to the Crown, as opposed to potentially rights being earned by carers through the court system? That’s my first question.

Secondly, what would she say to the people who had court cases that are outstanding in relationship to these matters—in relationship to these provisions—does she have a message to them? The purpose of the Act only notes one Supreme Court case, but we know that obviously there are people that would have wanted to fight this in the courts, or who would have been getting ready to fight this in the courts. If she has any message for those groups of people, in relationship to the purpose of the Act, that would be great. Thank you.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Disability Issues) (09:08): I thank the member for his question, and I think it is a really good opportunity to clarify what is intended here. There is a longstanding challenge where carers have felt undervalued and underpaid, and that’s why one of the really important parts of this legislation, which we will no doubt address later, is support programmes. One of the first ones that I envisage will be worked on is a carer support package, to resolve some of the challenges that carers face today.

Where the fiscal and legal risk comes from, I want to see—and I would have thought that every member in this House wants to see—funding that’s allocated to Disability Support Services going to disabled people, their carers, and families, as opposed to going to lawyers, and fighting things in the court. That is very simply what is meant by fiscal and legal risk, and that is why clarity is required.

The decisions around funding sit with the Government. There’s been a lot of work that’s been done around making sure that now there are assessments done across the country that are consistent. Every needs assessment and service coordination (NASC) provider uses the same assessment process. For the first time ever, carers are now considered as part of that assessment. Is it perfect? No, it’s not. We’ve still got more work to do, but that is clarifying the fact that we want to ensure that funding that is available is going to disabled people and their carers, rather than being spent in litigation and court fees, and to make it clear that there was never an intention that the Ministry of Social Development would be the employer of family carers. That was never the intention, and that is why it is important to address that. The question was raised about those that are currently in a legal process. They are under way, they have been saved, and those processes are under way and working through the court process at the moment. But I do want to say, the fact that there has been no legislative framework is what creates legal uncertainty and therefore legal risk. When there is legal risk, it creates fiscal risk, which is of course something we should all be awake to.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) (09:11): Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to add a question to the line of questioning that Ricardo Menéndez March has embarked upon, and I would like the Minister for Disability Issues to clarify this. Can the Minister confirm—so the Minister said, just now, something about them being saved, the people who are going through the court processes at the moment, if I heard that correctly? Can the Minister confirm that this bill will extinguish 40 employment-related claims that are filed, but haven’t been determined or resolved at the introduction of this bill to the House—that is my first question to the Minister—and whether she can share, for the benefit of the House, what the fiscal cost is of those 40 claims?

I’d like to go right back to the start of Part 1, clause 3(a), which, as the Minister said in her opening remarks, the aim of this legislation is to provide a legal framework for Disability Support Services funding. Literally nobody argues with the need for a legislative framework, not through submissions and not on the side of the House, but it is the form of this legal framework that we’re here to test, today, at committee stage, with the Minister. The Minister has said, in this House, that there was consultation with disability communities prior to the introduction of this bill, and I would like some clarity from the Minister around that—when she said that MSD has consulted—because, time and again, we have heard from disabled people, carers, and their representative organisations that there was no specific consultation on this legislation prior to its introduction. So is the Minister then referring to consultation that was held in February and March 2025, during the review process of Disability Support Services (DSS), and then used that to inform the drafting of this legislation? So I’d like, for the sake of clarity, and for those in the sector as well, for the Minister to confirm or clarify that.

My second question around the purpose and the framework for DSS-funded disability support services is—I think all of us in this House knows that politics is about choices. There are different ways in which this framework could have been drafted. The Minister has chosen to codify and legislate, as she has said, what currently happens when it comes to DSS funding, and I have a few questions around that. The first is, the Minister will be aware that the previous Government had work under way which was to transform the disability support services - funding landscape. It was literally called the DSS Transformation Bill, and it was working towards actually implementing the principles of Enabling Good Lives when it comes to the way that DSS funding is disseminated to disabled people. That would have transformed the type of services that disabled people and carers could access through this funding. There was also $100 million ring-fenced for that. I would like to know why the Minister has chosen to codify DSS funding that is disseminated in a way that, for years, disabled people have said does not work for them, instead of transforming the system when there was a framework there that she could have built on, and money that was ring-fenced to be able to achieve that transformation.

The Minister has said that there’s been a clarion call from disability communities for a legislative framework—that is true—but there has been an even stronger clarion call from the sector to transform DSS funding, and she has chosen not to do that in this legislation, and I would like her to clarify why.

I do have one more quick question that I’ll get in there. The Minister has said in her opening remarks—and many times—that her aim is to improve certainty and transparency for disabled people through this legislation. If that is the case, why is there so little information in the primary legislation, with extensive focus on ministerial programmes through secondary legislation that nobody has been able to see when submitting on this bill? How does that improve either transparency of decision making or eligibility or access of this funding or certainty for disabled people?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Disability Issues) (09:15): There’s quite a lot to go through this, so I just hope I will get through all of them. So the first thing is that in terms of any of the claims that are currently lodged, they are saved. So once the legislation is passed, there will be no further ability for new claims. They are well under way—the existing claims—in terms of being settled or resolved.

In terms of consultation, one of the challenges has been, you know, first the work around stabilising. That work to the Disability Support Services (DSS) has been done, and then we moved after that to look at what strengthening DSS looks like. The team from DSS have done significant consultation with disabled people directly, and with organisations, and over the time that I’ve been Minister, I’ve had similar engagements where the messages around consistency, transparency, simplicity, and fairness are all kind of values and principles that came through loud and clear.

The other thing that came through really loud and clear is how much DSS needs to improve. The member referred to the Enabling Good Lives principles, which were established back in 2014-15, and that has very much been a focus of how the bill has been established so that further improvements can be made. It’s hard to improve things if you don’t have the foundations in place, which is why this first bill is very much about just laying out what the current state is. Then, one of the challenges has been the lack of understanding about how the current state operates. What we’ve heard in the consultation is, “lack of transparency, lack of understanding; it’s too complex; it’s not simple enough”. So trying to deal with, in the first stage, getting those foundations in place, and having a foundation on which things could be improved for DSS, has been really important.

The member raised the areas around transformation, and I would say that the improvements that we have made to flexible funding, that were announced in September last year and came into effect on 1 February this year, really is an example of what an improvement looks like—so having a consistent assessment around the country that is transparent, where carers are considered, but really importantly, individual needs of individual disabled people are taken into account in their assessment. That has been a significant improvement—some would say transformational—to at least have, everywhere around the country, consistent, because it was grossly unfair to have disabled people in one part of the country getting a much wider range of supports and much greater funding than others. That’s exactly what we heard in consultation. That’s exactly what I heard in meetings: that it was unfair, people didn’t understand it, and it wasn’t transparent. So that’s why it is important that we have this legislation.

I want to address the member’s question about why more wasn’t put into primary legislation. Why is it in secondary legislation? There’s this really important balance, because one of the things that is really special, that needs to be protected in the disability support system, is the fact that it is very individualised. The improvements we made to flexible funding are an example of just how individualised it is. You want to protect that flexibility, so one of the first support programmes that I envisage will be done, which is through secondary legislation, is to lock in the gains in the flexible funding changes that were announced. At the moment, without any protection, they can be changed overnight again. That’s why the intention was to get the balance right of the foundations in primary legislation but also of the support programmes in secondary legislation. In the secondary legislation—so the support programmes—there will be extensive consultation that relates to that particular support programme. We want to be able to lock in those improvements. If they’re put into primary legislation, it actually makes it harder and slower to make improvements. That is the balance of ensuring there is maximum flexibility but still having the core foundations in primary legislation.

I accept that was another area that, perhaps, wasn’t communicated well enough at the start, but following many of the conversations I’ve had, particularly with disability organisations in the last couple of weeks—

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: She just keeps blaming them.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: —they understand that clarity—look, I’m trying to answer the questions that you have raised because I think you’ve raised really important issues and I do want to communicate why things have been put in secondary legislation. If you don’t want me to answer, that’s fine.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Madam Chair.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): OK, I’m going to take Priyanca Radhakrishnan because I feel like there’s a supplementary here, then I’ll come back to you.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) (09:22): Thank you, Madam Chair. Minister, I do appreciate your answers. I do want to hear why you’ve made certain decisions, and I know that others do out there as well. Just on the primary versus secondary legislation decisions here, I take your point that there needs to be a balance between the two, and I’m not arguing or I’m not asking why everything is not in primary legislation, but I have looked at this legislation versus the Social Security Act, for example, which, again, has some level of discretion—not as much as the disability support services. I take your point around that, but I think the question that disabled people have and are asking is: why wasn’t there, for example, eligibility criteria? The high level of who can access disability support services funding hasn’t changed from 1996, so if you are codifying the current state of play in legislation and since you’ve been quite clear that you don’t intend to change eligibility criteria, why couldn’t then some of the bones of that—who can access disability support funding, how can they access disability support funding? You have talked about the assessment and allocation tools that you have brought in for consistency—and I’ll come back to that in a minute—but those sorts of things are not going to change through ministerial programmes from what you have said. Why could those not have been in primary legislation to give disabled people more certainty around who can access this funding?

The second point is around things not being able to be changed so much now through secondary legislation. I seek some clarity around comments that you made prior to the select committee hearing of consideration of this bill, where you had said that they won’t be able to change in the way that they did in March 2024, because Cabinet would make decisions around secondary legislation and it would be gazetted. All of those processes don’t involve any sunlight or consultation with disability communities at all. Therefore, Cabinet passed the changes that happened in March 2024. Sure, they weren’t gazetted, but the gazetting process only becomes public information after the process, so what happened in March could have happened again, except that disabled people came out in force at select committee and said that they need to be consulted when secondary legislation is passed. Select committee has recommended that, and I understand you have accepted it and will make those changes through the committee stage, which is good, but I would like on the record, Minister, to hear what you meant when you said that the Cabinet and gazetting process would have resulted in a different outcome to what the sector saw happen in March 2024. I’m keen for you to respond to that.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Disability Issues) (09:25): Firstly, starting from where you finished in terms of consultation around support programmes, those changes were made in the select committee, so the bill we are considering now has those changes in it already. I just wanted to make that clear. One of the challenges has been that without legislation—if you look back over many years under Governments of every stripe—somebody within the department, a senior official, or chief executive, let alone a Minister, can make decisions at the stroke of a pen, and those changes take effect. That is why having legislation and having support programmes is really important. The support programmes, with the additional consultation requirements, will mean that consultation is required in the creation of a support programme.

Just let me give you some examples, because it links to your comment around eligibility. You will be aware, today, that there is no black and white eligibility in disability support services. That’s a good thing because it is hugely flexible, and one of the things that we must protect is the flexibility of disability support services. When you look at individual funding programmes—let’s say, for example, hearing aids; there is eligibility for hearing aids, right? So one of the things that I was clear about is that I didn’t want to have black and white eligibility for disability support services in primary legislation. That is not what happens to date, that is not the current state, and so it would not have been suitable for it to be included in the bill. Whereas if you look at support programmes, that’s where the question of eligibility to do with a specific support programme can and should be considered, and that is where that is important.

There will be consultation, as you said, but the consultation will be related to that support programme. If we’re dealing with hearing aids, not every disability organisation and every disabled person will need to be consulted regarding hearing aids. That is why the language in the bill is carefully drafted so that the disability community don’t think they’re going to be in consultation overload, because they’re going to be involved and need to be involved in every single support programme. That is not what is intended. As I said before, there is a really difficult balance here and, I think, a balance that we have struck correctly in the foundations in primary legislation but maintaining maximum flexibility. I had advice—very, very strong advice—from people in the disability community not to make it tight and defined like the Social Security Act, because that would have had, or could have had, significant impacts. It’s been a delicate balance to walk.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (09:28): Thank you so much, Madam Chair. I just want to pick up on some comments from this contribution and the one prior that I wanted to take a call on. First of all, I find it really hard to stomach that the Minister could even raise matters of consultation overload where one of the reasons the select committee process was so heated was that there was a lack of consultation. I’d love to understand what the Minister could even define as consultation overload in her eyes when quite the opposite has happened throughout the process of this bill.

This takes me back to an earlier comment she made prior to Priyanca Radhakrishnan’s call, which is that she heard in consultation, in relation to people receiving greater support than others—how extensive was that consultation? As far as I understand, there wasn’t a lot of, if any, consultation prior to this bill coming through. I just find it concerning that I keep hearing from the Minister these claims of consultation happening when submitters, across the board, have told us that they felt like they weren’t included and had full participation in helping design this bill.

I think the other comment in relation to her language is—she talks about the disability community; singular, right? I would like to challenge and test with the Minister whether she accepts that there’s no such thing as a monolithic “disability community”, which has led to a lot of the issues in the design of this bill, which is this kind of assumption that one organisation can provide a voice for a broad range of disabled people, which may not be part of it. That’s my first question.

The second one is just bringing it back to the purpose of the Act. One of the things that I wanted to get the Minister to outline was around the process that she intends to use in the design of secondary legislation. Yeah, we’ve had a lot of back and forth about what should and shouldn’t be in secondary legislation. I accept that the Minister has a view on what should be included in secondary legislation. I’m interested to know whether she has already made decisions on the level of resourcing that will go into the adequate consultation and co-design with disabled people in the provisions that will be in the secondary legislation.

For example, I want to know whether she has considered around the fiscal implications and requirements that she would like to ensure are there to make sure that there’s full participation from disabled peoples around what that secondary legislation should look like. What assurances can the Minister give us in relationship to how extensive the consultation will be in the design of secondary legislation? Has she learned from the errors of the design of this bill itself? Far and large, one of the key pieces of feedback we received in the Social Services and Community Committee was that there was no co-design, no adequate consultation, and that people felt aggrieved—rightfully so—because of it.

Can she give us a guarantee that she and her Government will ensure that there is a co-design process in any secondary legislation processes; that it will not repeat the mistakes that were found in the design of this primary legislation, where disabled people, far and large, felt excluded? If she is going to take a co-design approach, can she guarantee us that she will not treat disabled people as monolithic and assume that perhaps, for example, consulting with a service provider will count as consulting with disabled people and users of those providers, who may not formally be part of those organisations or bodies that provide those services.

I’m also keen to understand, for example, what adequate consultation or co-design could look like in the makeup of secondary legislation. I say this quite seriously, because one of the key pieces of feedback, as well, that we received from disabled people throughout the submission process has been that not all disabled people feel represented by the feedback given from service providers—and that’s OK. Again, there’s no kind of monolithic voice within disabled peoples. I want to understand what will she do to cost the resources—whether she’s already sought commitment from Cabinet on, for example, any sort of costs that could be incurred in the design of secondary legislation, so that disabled people listening to this debate can be reassured that the same mistakes of the design of this legislation won’t be repeated.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Disability Issues) (09:33): This is quite wide ranging and, if the House will allow, I will go further than the bill just to make some of the future expectations clearer. The first thing the member raises—absolutely, disabled people have a wide range of needs and wide range of views. So when we talk about the “disability community”, absolutely; they don’t all have the same opinion, they don’t belong to the same organisations, and they don’t all have the same views, which goes back to my comment before about the need to protect at all lengths the flexibility that we are trying to achieve with primary legislation and secondary legislation.

As I said before, the disability support services (DSS) team engaged in a significant consultation, with over 1,500 individuals coming to a variety of meetings over a 12- to 14-month period. They heard the same messages that I did around consistency, flexibility, transparency, simplicity, etc., which is why we have built those into solving some of those challenges with this legislation. I accept that, as a result of those sessions, it may not have been clear to people that the intent was to create legislation, but as one of the other members who has asked a question before has stated, previous Governments have had the intention of legislating for DSS and providing a legislative framework. So it shouldn’t have been a new concept. I accept that the link between the consultation and the need for legislation wasn’t made clear enough, but I can say both the ministry and myself have not just met disability organisations and service providers. We have met with disabled people. There have been open forums for people to participate. There have been discussions with providers, as well as discussions with the Disabled People’s Organisation as the formal mechanism for consultation.

The other thing the member asked about was the consultation envisaged around support programmes. One of the improvements in the bill—

Ricardo Menéndez March: Secondary legislation, more properly.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, secondary legislation support programmes. I’m trying to explain to people who are listening, and I will give a further example of that in a minute, if the member would like me to. One of the improvements that was made in the select committee was the extension from three years to five for the support programmes to be put in place.

My intention would be to draft a discussion document that would go out next year that would then lay out the areas these support programmes would be created in, and to allow feedback from disabled people and organisations and providers to then assist in the prioritisation of those support programmes. As I’ve said, only two are at the top of my list: one is around flexible funding and the other is around carer support package.

Let me use the carer support package as an example. There have been high-level conversations so far. A formal process will kick off with carers’ organisations and disabled people about what a carer support package would look like to then make decisions that would then be formalised and consulted on through the support programme. I do want to reassure the House, and I do want to reassure disabled people and their families that that is what is intended as the next stage. I would envisage that that would also then mean a second bill, which adds some more of the detail and also picks up some of the concerns that were raised in this bill around complaints, around reviews, and around safeguarding, which is a parallel piece of work in response to the royal commission of inquiry into abuse in State care.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert) (09:38): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to ask the Minister about the implications of the purpose clause, clause 3(b)(i). That talks about the response to the decision of the Supreme Court in Fleming v Attorney-General, and it claims that what this bill does is clarifies the nature of the relationship. Also, in this contribution, I am going to be talking about and asking questions about paragraph (c) of that same clause, which is that one of the purposes of the legislation is to “mitigate litigation risk, and related financial risk, to the Crown”.

My questions are about a case that was hard fought, and it went all the way to the Supreme Court. My understanding of that case was that it clarified that people looking after their disabled relatives do have implied contracts and that overnight care counts as work. When they are doing that work, it is something that we must actually attribute to financially, and that there is a human rights alignment in this interpretation of the Supreme Court that is directly aligned with the purposes of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Those are heavy and weighty things that the Supreme Court has done and they are not in alignment with this piece of legislation, and so the first question I’ve got for the Minister is: does she agree that they are not in alignment and that the Supreme Court has gone in a completely different way on this?

To suggest that this law clarifies the nature of that relationship is simply wrong. It doesn’t clarify it. We need to be honest about what’s happening here. We are deciding what the nature of the relationship is, and we are not deciding it in alignment with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and we’re not deciding it in alignment with what the Supreme Court says would make sense in terms of our employment law. We have things like a minimum code, we have minimum rates of pay and leave entitlements, and we have a definition of work which covers home-care workers, and none of that is in alignment with what we’re doing here. So does the Minister accept that this is not a clarification of such things?

Then I want to ask about that purpose clause, at clause 3(c), in relation to this particular point. It says that the purpose of this legislation is to “mitigate litigation risk, and [the financial] risk, to the Crown.”, and so what I want know here is what the litigation risk was. There were a whole lot of people, as I understand it, who were told that they would be able to take a case based on their circumstances and the work that they were doing in the home, and this bill stops them in their tracks and denies them financially. What is the risk to families—and I ask whether the Minister had advice on what that meant to other families looking after their disabled relatives—and what is that related financial risk to the Crown? I’d really appreciate hearing some really specific answers—what were we looking at?

Sometimes we make law because we simply cannot afford the alternative, but I would like to know what that was, because what I’ve heard is the Minister stand up and say that we are doing this to create a framework and that it is a neutral thing. We are trying to shore up something that’s been a bit floating, and there have been some advantages to that process, from what I’ve heard the Minister just say, because we can be bespoke. We are doing this to create a framework which always should have been there, and that’s a neutral thing and we’re not taking away anything—but we are, aren’t we? We’re taking away potential claims by litigants that are hefty in their financial weight and that would make a big difference to families who have presumably paid a huge financial cost in their pursuit of looking after their relatives. So I’d really like an answer about that financial risk.

I also would like to know about the undermining of trust here. We’ve heard a lot from my colleagues formerly about the consultation and how that rattled people, but stopping people in their tracks when they are in the midst of litigation and when they’re pursuing their rights also causes issues with trust, and these are people who work really hard. They do jobs I don’t want to do myself. I am lucky enough to be able to be here because I don’t have that kind of responsibility at the present time, but it could happen to any of us.

What does she say to the issue about the trust of those people and could she please explain whether she got any advice on that, or whether she acknowledges that, in fact, for people, this will have contributed to the kind of emotional submission we got in our listening to the submissions, and I did listen to those submissions. We had people who were howling—they were crying in the corridor. So can she talk about that trust issue and about whether she got any advice on it, either before she made the decision she made or during that process? Thank you.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Disability Issues) (09:44): I’m not going to go over territory that I’ve already covered around the purpose, but I do want to just reiterate that in terms of the savings of cases that have been settled or determined, that is taken care of in this legislation. Any that haven’t entered that process, obviously, won’t be able to or have not been concluded. As I’ve said before, there was never an intention that the Ministry of Social Development would be the employer of family carers, nor that the courts would set employment terms and conditions for individuals.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour) (09:45): Thank you, Madam Chair. I am rising merely to put something on the record in terms of our position relating to Crown Law’s advice on the bill, and I do have a question for the Minister for Disability Issues connected to that, as well.

One of the rights that Crown Law was concerned about was the procedural right in section 27(3) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, which relates to every person’s right to bring civil proceedings and to defend those proceedings. The Attorney-General in this case didn’t issue a section 7 report indicating that in his view, there was a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Instead, what was made public was Crown Law’s advice that found that while there were prima facie rights issues, both in relation to discrimination and also procedurally, those were justified.

My reading of the Crown Law advice is that there are two flaws in the assessment, particularly relating to the section 27 advice. Firstly, there is no pure assessment of the retrospective application of the bill and how that affects those procedural rights. I would have expected that to be assessed as part of whether it was or wasn’t considered reasonable under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

The second issue is that within paragraph 38 of the advice, there’s a comparison with section 70E of the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act 2013. That was a previous bill that had a broader bar, as it also barred future litigation. My view is that the assessment that needs to be made under section 5 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—so whether it is reasonable or not—is an assessment against the current circumstances and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act itself. It’s not a matter of saying that because this bill is, effectively, less worse than the 2013 bill, it therefore meets the threshold of being reasonable. I think that the methodology, or the logic, of that reasoning is flawed.

I want to put this on the record because I think there’s an irony that the intention is partially to mitigate future litigation when, to my mind, this invites public law litigation and, potentially, an application for a declaration of inconsistency. I’ve called bills like this boomerang bills in the past because I expect that the House may well see them returned to the House, should a declaration of inconsistency be found by the courts, and I suspect that should that case proceed, then that particular paragraph in terms of procedural rights would be raised. So this is an invitation, really, for the Minister to comment on her view of that justification of reasonableness and whether the appropriate comparator is the 2013 legislation—the less worse comparator—or whether the appropriate comparator is the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act itself. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Disability Issues) (09:49): I’m not going to challenge Crown Law advice, but I just will put on record for the House that the Attorney-General did do a consideration of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and found that this bill is consistent with the rights and freedoms affirmed in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act of 1990.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (09:49): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m mindful that people may still have some calls on the purpose of the bill, but I just briefly wanted to move to paragraph (a)(i) and (ii) of the definition of “disability support services” in clause 4. But, again, other people may want to traverse stuff that—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): No, that’s fine. We’ve sort of covered up to clause 3, and so it is time to move forward. So feel very comfortable to do so.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: Thank you. I’m not privy to new material that others may bring, but in my case, I just wanted to focus on the interpretation clause. In the definition of “disability support services”, it talks about “goods, services, and facilities—(i) provided to disabled persons for their care or support or to contribute towards enabling them to live”—and this is the language I want to test—“their everyday life;”. It also says, in subparagraph (ii), “provided for purposes related or incidental to the care or support of people with disabilities or to contribute towards enabling them to live their everyday life;”.

I’m really interested in understanding the Minister for Disability Issues’ interpretation of the quality of life that this guarantees, because to live your everyday life could just be to be alive. It does not guarantee a full participation—

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Or a good life.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: Or a good life—that’s right. Enabling Good Lives solves that, which disabled people have been telling us we should actually try and follow. I’m genuinely curious, because the Minister talked about another piece of legislation, which she compared this to—she wanted to avoid creating some of the issues—which, of course, is the Social Security Act. For example, in the purposes and principles of the Social Security Act, there’s language that permeates decision-making, which is to “alleviate hardship”. That is some of the language that is used. For example, that is often used to justify giving someone a $20 food grant as opposed to what people actually need to live well.

When I see language here that says “live their everyday life”, it’s deeply unclear what that means at a practical level and the test that will be applied to know whether the disability support services and/or secondary legislation that is designed alongside that actually supports disabled people to live good lives, to fully participate in their communities, as opposed to, for example, designing secondary legislation and the provision of services that simply keeps people alive but living miserable lives. There’s nothing stopping, as far as I’m aware, in terms of the language—and I am not trifling with this issue, because I’ve seen how that plays out when we design, in the Social Security Act, language that actually sets the bar extremely low. It does create conditions for front-line service managers to justify leaving people without enough to be well—for example, someone needing to gain weight for a surgery, and therefore needing additional support for food, not being granted that because that’s not what the interpretation of the Social Security Act is.

I’m really concerned about the fact that we’ve set the bar so low in the interpretation that it simply means “to live their everyday life”. It’s hard for me to know whether that means that the Minister is committed to ensuring that disabled people can live good lives and that they can fully participate in their communities. I am really interested to test with the Minister how she interprets the quality of life that is guaranteed to disabled people through disability support services in clause 4, paragraphs (a)(i) and (ii). I think this particularly matters. I know that when people end up testing this further—in, say, the courts or through any reviews or through advocacy—this language will, I think, be key, and it will be used time and time again to justify inadequate provision of services, because the Minister can just claim, “Well, you know, they’re alive. They’re living their everyday life. They’re still alive.”

I want to understand what the bar is and the expectations of the quality of life that should be guaranteed to disabled people on disability support services, when the legislation just says “to live their everyday life”. I am very serious about this, because I do think this has been one of the key things that has also come back from feedback from submitters. If the Minister is able to articulate what she means by that and the quality of life, that would be deeply useful.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Disability Issues) (09:54): The bill does use the language of “everyday life” because it focuses on supporting people in the realities of their own lives, their own circumstances, and their aspirations. It comes back to what we talked about before: that there is maximum flexibility, an individual assessment of the disabled person’s needs, and that’s how it should be. It’s also consistent with Enabling Good Lives (EGL) and mirrors the EGL principle of ordinary life outcomes.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) (09:54): Thank you, Madam Chair. A couple of things, just to draw a line under the questions that I’ve asked around primary versus secondary legislation, the sequencing of ministerial programmes, and so on and so forth, I’d just make the point that I guess what we disagree with is the sequencing of it. And I’ll leave it there. In terms of the consultation that the Minister for Disability Issues pointed to, I would just like on the record that what disabled people and carers have been saying to us is that that consultation was around what the Minister has called “stabilisation” of disability support services and wasn’t about the legislation. That’s the issue that has been raised—that feedback from that consultation for something different, related but different, has now been used for something else, and that is the issue that people have.

I would like to ask the Minister a question around her response to my question around eligibility criteria. The Minister said that there is no eligibility criteria and that is why there is no definition or interpretation of it in this bill. However, when you go to the Disability Support Services (DSS) website, her own ministry’s website, it basically tells you how to access support. It says, “Check if you’re eligible for DSS funded support”, and there is a whole list there of criteria that one must fulfil to be able to be eligible for any DSS support funding. I don’t understand why the Minister said there is no criteria. Also, part of that criteria is a confirmation that one must have at least one of the following: physical disability, intellectual disability, sensory autism. Now, autism was introduced by a Cabinet minute in, I think it was, 2013 or something like that. That’s partially what’s led to an issue, because the Government at the time didn’t increase funding to include this expansion of autism into the expanded disability criteria.

All of that points to the fact that there is disability criteria. It was set back in 1996, and there have been changes through Cabinet minute. I would have thought that if the Minister’s primary objective, as stated in documents supporting this bill, was to increase certainty and transparency, at least that level of criteria, eligibility, and so on, could have been in the primary legislation. I want to get a response from the Minister as to why she said there is no eligibility criteria, and, if there is criteria, why wasn’t at least that bit that isn’t changing in the primary legislation?

I’ve got a couple of other questions to get into the details of the role of families and means testing, two areas that were raised time and again by submitters, and I have some specific questions around those two, but just before I move on from the foundational legislation design questions, I would like to know why the Minister decided to club the two together. There were, obviously, options in the regulatory impact statement to separate this into two pieces of legislation, one that responds to the Supreme Court ruling and then one that lays out disability support services funding. The Minister has decided to join the two together, which I personally think is unhelpful, but I would like to know from the Minister why she decided to go down that route rather than having two separate bills. Was it just easier or was there something else that underpinned that decision?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Disability Issues) (09:58): The first thing I want to clarify is the consultation that I referred to earlier with the 1,500 individuals that participated. That was not about stabilising; that was about strengthening. The first piece of work, in the first 12 months, was about stabilising. The consultation that took place that I referred to earlier was about strengthening, and the bill is the kind of foundations of that.

In terms of eligibility, the member’s reference to a Cabinet minute changing eligibility is exactly why we need primary legislation and secondary legislation, so it is clear. The fact that literally overnight something could change like that is, you know—in that way it was the inclusion of autism. Imagine if it had been the exclusion of something that happened in the Cabinet minute. That would be horrendous. That would be absolutely horrendous. That is exactly what we are trying to prevent with this legislation. That’s why it is important that there is greater clarity through primary legislation or secondary legislation, as I referred to, in terms of support programmes.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (09:59): Thank you so much. I just wanted to pick up on the response the Minister gave me in relation to clause 4 (a)(i) and (ii). Again, I cannot reiterate how important the language in this is. It’s great to hear that the Minister interprets this clause as disabled people being able to meet their aspirations. I just want to put it on the record that I can see, now, that disabled people and their carers could test this with the Government in relation to not just living their everyday lives but being able to meet their aspirations. This is quite important, right? If disabled people want to challenge anything through the courts or any reviews, they can go back to the Hansard and also note that the Minister has interpreted “live their everyday lives” as disabled people meeting their aspirations. That is really critical because we often do rely on, for example, the Minister—or the Government of the day—clarifying how they interpret these definitions of what the disability support services are.

I wanted to give the Minister one more chance because, again, this language will likely be continuously tested, and if she has any other language that she would like to add on what an adequate everyday life looks like, that would be useful because this, again, is one of the key pieces of feedback we received—that people just feel like the bar has been set so extremely low that they just don’t feel like the services will be adequate if it’s simply just there to keep you alive. Is there anything beyond “meeting your aspirations” that the Minister would like to add to her interpretation of this clause and that would give greater guidance to disabled people, carers, or, actually, decision makers, when it comes to funding, of what her interpretation is of this clause? Again, I cannot stress enough how much the language in this particular clause, clause 4, will end up mattering when it comes to the design and when it comes to discretionary decision-making and/or disabled people wanting to challenge any decision that is made.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) (10:02): Madam Chair, I would like to ask some questions specifically around the role of families as defined in this legislation. The overarching concerns that have been raised were partially responded to by select committee recommendations and the changes made in this iteration of the legislation but not entirely. If I were to summarise submissions—the few thousand submissions—to select committee, most of them made mention of this point and the anxiety that people were feeling because of the role of families being codified into legislation.

I will preface that by saying that I take the Minister’s point that her intention is for this legislation to reflect the status quo and what currently happens, and that is that families, in the first instance, do contribute to the care and the wellbeing and the support of their disabled family members. I understand that. However, the collective outcome or result of the definition of “family” in this bill—that is in clause 4, under the “Interpretation” section—under “family member”, there is a long list. That’s under 4—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yeah, we can see those on page 4, We can see that list.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: Yes, on page 4. It’s quite an extensive list. I’m not going to read out the whole list; it’s very extensive. It goes right from a person’s spouse through to a person’s first cousin and niece and so on. That, alongside the fact that, in a later part of the bill—and I’ll get to that in greater detail later—that, initially, the wording in this bill led people to read it, quite rightly I feel, that families had to step in and support, in the first instance, right down to their first cousin, the disabled person before funded support by the State would kick in. That is also then further compounded by wording in this legislation that states, quite clearly, that Government-funded support is contributory. All of those were then read by disabled people—again, I think, quite rightly, because that was the letter of the legislation being passed—to mean that a disabled person has had to exhaust all of those various avenues of family support before they could then get disability support services (DSS) funding, which is a massive shift from what currently happens. The Minister has said that that is not the intention of this legislation, but the question that I would like to ask—select committee could only get a few changes across the line, in terms of softening that language a little bit, to basically state that that was not the case but that families do have a role to play and that it’s contributory to State-funded supports.

The discomfort for me and for many disabled people here is that the legislation still doesn’t have wording in it that gives them a clear guarantee that family support is complementary to DSS-funded support.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The member’s transitioning into Part 2 at this point.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: Yeah, that’s a good point.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): In Part 1, we just have the list.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: Yeah, true. All right. I will save the substantive bit of this question for when we get into Part 2, but perhaps the Minister could clarify why the list in the definition of “family member”, in the first part of this bill, is quite that extensive? Does it have to be detailed so that these family members can be paid, as in part (b) of the “paid family carer” definition in that same section? Or were there different ways to give disabled people some comfort that they didn’t have to rely on their first cousin before they could get support?

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (10:06): Thank you so much. Further to that—and please stop me, Madam Chair, if I’m approaching into Part 2 territory—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): We will.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: —because that’s not my intention. Just following on the family member matter, can the Minister clarify whether she intends for the list of family members, outlined on page 4, to be treated as a resource as well?

To the previous speaker’s point, the issue around whether—and I kind of take a different angle here around whether they should be treated as resource when it comes to definition, because, then, a resource is then treated, subsequently, as something that gets measured against for eligibility criteria. Is that her intention? Submitters often talked about the need to take a rights-based approach when it comes to funding decisions. People don’t see family members as something that should get in the way of having a rights-based approach. I’m interested to know whether that list is also intended to provide decision makers with a list of the kind of people that would be treated as a resource, as per the clause we were discussing earlier, for the design of secondary legislation. When it comes to the eligibility criteria that will be set out in secondary legislation, can she guarantee to us that the list of people included in this definition will not be treated as a resource for the purposes of the design of secondary legislation as per the previous clause? I think that’s really important because that was, again, like I said, a really key theme that came through disabled people who want to see a rights-based approach.

Secondly, when it comes to the “paid family carer” definition, I just wanted to take the opportunity to understand whether the Minister intends to do further work on ensuring that paid family carers are supported in a way that keeps up to pace with other improvements in employment policy, or whether part of the reason why there’s that sort of cutting off of further litigation is to prevent paid family carers from being able to further their rights and other means.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Disability Issues) (10:09): I’m conscious I’ve strayed outside the bill, so I will keep it very tight now. I know that members have questions about Part 2, and I’ll address them then.

In terms of the questions around a “family member”, the definition and the list is to enable payment for them under a support programme, and recognition that for disabled people, the need to have choice around who they might choose to be a carer and, therefore, supported through payment under the support programme.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 1 be agreed to.

Ayes 67

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

Noes 48

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Pāti Māori 2; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Part 1 agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Part 2 Disability support services system

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we come now to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 7 to 16, “Disability support services system”. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) (10:11): Thank you, Madam Chair. I will now get into the question that I asked previously around family care. I won’t traverse all of the detail. The Minister said she’s read some submissions. I’m sure she’s heard loud and clear what the concerns are that many submitters have raised. It’s basically that family circumstances are very varied depending on where one lives; proximity to other family members; abuse that can also take place and that disabled people are more susceptible to, as evidence shows; relationship breakdown; and carer health needs. All of those things have been shared by disabled people, organisations, and carers.

I guess that the question is twofold; one is: why does it even need to be in the legislation? If the State’s view is that families need to step in and need to provide care to disabled people and, therefore, that the State’s contribution is contributory—it’s only part of the support and the care—families already do this. This has been raised by many people. Families, by and large, if they can support their disabled family member, will do so. Why does the State need to legislate for it? Why does it even need to be in this legislation? That is my first question.

My second question is: if it needs to be legislated for to fully represent the status quo, then will the Minister consider an amendment that clarifies and provides disabled people and carers with a guarantee that family care and support will be complementary to State-funded support? There is then no shadow of a doubt that disabled people will need to exhaust their family’s ability to care for them before they can get the support that they need from the State to be able to live with dignity and independence, which is at the heart of the Enabling Good Lives vision and principles. I’ll leave it there for now, but I’ve got a couple more questions around this.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Disability Issues) (10:13): I want to just put on record the considerable concern and alarm that the wording in the bill, as drafted, created, and I apologise for that. There was never any intention for the role of families to be expanded from what occurred. I just want to put on record my thanks to the submitters and to the Social Services and Community Committee for coming up with wording that better reflects what happens in the current state. The member asked about whether or not it needed to be included at all, but, because this is describing the current state, it does.

I think it’s also worth recognising that many of the organisations that were involved recognised that the change to the language around families’ responsibilities—where it says, “responsibility in the first instance”, replaced with “a responsibility to contribute to”—and recognises that it’s “as well as” instead of “instead of”. There’s not an expectation that families exhaust their resources first. That was never the intention. As the member raised in her comments before, in some circumstances, family support isn’t available, or, actually, it’s not appropriate, and it’s not safe. That’s why I think the language that we have in the bill, now, better reflects what the current state is and recognises that family do have an important role, but it is alongside disability support services.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (10:15): Thank you so much, Madam Chair. On Part 2, clause 8(2), I wanted to also focus on the language around “family, whānau, and other culturally recognised family groups”. One thing that she did not address in my previous contribution in Part 1—but I think it actually is quite suited to be debated in here, as well, and I just want to repeat it because I didn’t get engagement—is whether she intends for the provisions in here to, then, if families are deemed to have responsibility for the wellbeing of their members—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Sorry to interrupt the member, but to my right, there are a lot of conversations going on, and I hope that the Minister can hear the questions because I’m actually struggling a little bit to hear them myself due to the conversations. If you want to have a conversation, go in the lobby.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: Maybe they have some questions for the Minister, too—I don’t know. Look, I just wanted to test with the Minister whether that responsibility will be translated, or is it her intention for that responsibility to be translated as family members treated as a resource for the purposes of eligibility of those very same services? This is key to have engagement, in answer, from the Minister on because, as I said, submitters have often talked about the needs for a rights-based approach. In the moment that you treat the responsibility of family members as a resource for the purposes of eligibility criteria, you create the conditions where care stepping in actually undermines disabled people’s ability to access some of those disability support services. That is exactly what we want to prevent and I want to prevent and the Greens want to prevent.

A rights-based approach should not then deem family members stepping in, because they want to, as a negative for purposes of any eligibility criteria. I just want to have stated by the Minister what her intention is on how those family members stepping in is going to be treated in that secondary legislation. The other sort of unintended consequence, if the Minister does treat family members stepping in as a resource, is that if that then prevents people from accessing other types of disability support services, you could see what you see in the welfare system, which is that families feel like they have to almost try and present a breakdown in the family for the simple purposes of accessing support. I don’t think that honours the care and the interdependence that people have to one another, the interdependence that family members have to disabled people they care for, and the interdependence that disabled people have with their families as well. That’s my first question, that has not been addressed, and I think it’s really, really key.

I go back, now, to page 6. This is clause 8(2)(b)(ii) around the language of a “person’s safety and dignity”. Now, I was quite interested in the language around dignity. I’ve always talked about how we should treat everybody with respect and dignity, but one thing that I note is missing is full participation. Again, this is language that really matters because full participation means, for example, that a disabled person isn’t just supported to stay alive or to live with dignity, but full participation means they could be resourced to participate in, for example, going to the movies, which sounds trivial, right? But it is actually that enablement of fully participating in the communities that they are part of. That includes recreation, which people should have a right to access as well. Can I test with the Minister whether the choice of the word “dignity”, on page 6, includes, for example, access to full participation in the communities through recreational activities to the things that just make someone feel like they’re fully part of the physical spaces and relationships that they want to be part of and belong to, and, if not, does she think that the omission of language around full participation is an unfortunate omission? I just wanted to test how she interprets the term “dignity” for the purposes of, for example, the design of secondary legislation when it comes to eligibility criteria.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Disability Issues) (10:20): We addressed some of the member’s questions, or intent behind the questions, in answering in relation to everyday life. In terms of that particular statement around an eligible person’s safety and dignity, I did touch on that in my answer to the previous speaker’s question—that, yes, it is a contribution, yes families are considered, but there will be some circumstances, for a range of reasons, where a disabled person doesn’t want to have the support of their family, or it’s not safe for them to have the support of a family member, which is where the individual circumstances of the disabled person are paramount. That won’t change under this bill.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) (10:21): Given that the Minister has said that this needs to be reflected in the legislation because it reflects what’s currently happening, would the Minister then consider amendments to change the wording from “obligation to contribute”, in a sense, to reflect that that is what families currently do—that many families, as and when they can, already contribute to the care and support of the disabled person. Also, I point to particularly the submission by Enabling Good Lives (EGL) MidCentral, where they’ve said that ideally what this legislation should do is reflect the intent—so not just the language, because the select committee has made changes to include the language of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the EGL, but to go beyond that: to include the intent of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and to say that this is an obligation, or that it’s an option that families already do this, and many, when they can go well beyond, will do so. But as the Minister has said, in certain cases where there are issues around safety, that is not an obligation there. Can the legislation be a bit more explicit about this and the fact that family support is complementary and not assumed?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Does the member want to refer to her tabled amendment on this issue?

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: Yes, I think my tabled amendment is currently on its way, on this issue.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): No, we have it.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: Oh, do you have it?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yes.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: OK. I would like to refer to my tabled amendment that I do not have in front of me, but thank you.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Well, is has been tabled, so perhaps one of your team could go and get you a copy.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: Yes, yes. I have got a copy now. That is, in essence, the crux of the amendment: to ensure that care is complementary and not—[turns to Hon Jo Luxton] Can you find my actual amendment, please. Thank you.

The other question that I’ll ask in the meantime is specifically related to clause 8(2)(b)(iv), and that is around families, whānau, and other culturally recognised family groups, where appropriate, having the responsibility to contribute. There’s a bit in subparagraph (iv) that says, “where appropriate, the eligible person’s resources;”. This is, basically, what Needs Assessment and Service Coordination (NASC) and others have to take into account when determining the families’ contribution. What is being raised by NASC and others is who determines appropriateness, and how is appropriateness determined? That is the worry that many others have raised as well: that the disabled person may not consider their family support to be appropriate to them, but that the decision maker in this equation might. So then who makes the ultimate decision there?

I do point to the changes in terms of including the choice of preference of the eligible person when it comes to determining the provision of disability support services support, and that was a good change that the select committee has made, and a meaningful one, and also to include the eligible person’s safety and dignity.

That then takes me to the other point. The Minister said that details around safeguarding complaints mechanisms and appeals processes will come in later legislation. But the decision not to include those provisions or those guardrails in this legislation is what has led to a lot of the anxiety as well. So it’s not just the language, which, you know, is partially changed, in the situation of the bill, but it’s the lack of safeguarding as well. So can the Minister clarify her decision not to include those when this piece of legislation makes it so clear that families have a role to play to contribute to the care. So saying that the safety of an individual will be taken into account is different from having mechanisms to enable that to happen.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Disability Issues) (10:26): I want to clarify in terms of this legislation covering the current state. There are currently complaints reviews and safeguarding that already occur. I don’t want anyone to think that they don’t occur, but in terms of this particular bill, we have kept the scope of it narrow, and my expectation is, particularly around safeguarding with the work that’s going on in parallel with the royal commission into abuse in State care, that there will be further improvements to what the current state is, which would be captured in the second piece of legislation. I hope that clarifies it.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (10:26): Thank you, Madam Chair, and, again, I’m mindful that the member who spoke prior to me may have questions on clauses 9 and 10. I just wanted to talk about clause 11, and particularly I want the Minister’s commitments on how she intends to use the existing income-based and asset-based criteria. One of the things that people have raised concerns about is whether there are further or additional limitations to it. But I wanted to, first of all, just test whether the Minister believes in a rights-based approach, because income-based or asset-based criteria goes against that. So I wanted to just test whether she interprets the approved disability support services programme criteria that may be specified to be taking a rights-based approach.

Secondly, on the income-based criteria, I wanted to just test whether the income and asset base that could be used for any eligibility requirements would be just the disabled person’s income and asset base or whether any family member’s income and assets could also be included, in the way that the legislation is written. Again, it’s not just the family members that do the care work and could be treated as a resource that I’m concerned about; it’s the family member’s income and asset base, that could also be treated as a resource for eligibility criteria, that I am worried about. So I just wanted to check with the Minister how she interprets that to be.

I wanted to ask her on clause 11(3)(ga), which states “eligibility for an entitlement card issued under—(i) regulations made under section 437 of the Social Security Act 2018; or regulations saved as if they were made under section 437 of the Social Security Act 2018;”—a community services card, for the right person. I wanted to get a sense of why this was added. You know, we were reassured that no additional limitations would be put in, but we’ve got this additional bit that clearly spells out additional limitations that could be put on to the criteria that may be specified. This seems contrary to the reassurances that we’ve been given. I mean, this is one of the key criticisms that has come from disability justice advocates across the country, when the Minister came out after the select committee stage trying to reassure us.

I will just wait for the whip and the Minister to stop talking—I’ll just pause for a second. OK, cool; I’ll resume.

The issue I have here is that the language in clause 11(3)(ga) seems to hint at a new criteria that could be applied to the provision of services. How is that consistent with the comment that she made post the select committee process? I have heard a disability advocate question whether her comments after the select committee were actually factually correct when those provisions are still in place. So I wanted to test whether they’re correct in their assessment of her follow-up comments on concerns on further restrictions to access.

To recap—and I know we have a new presiding officer in the Chair—I’m really interested in the income and asset testing and whether that could be expanded to the income and asset base of family members as well. Does the Minister have any hints around, for example, how broad in range the income and asset base criteria that are specified here will be? I know that she said that she does not intend to further those, but I’m just curious as to at least as the legislation is written, what a future Minister is able to do with these provisions. This bill will endure with her as Minister but I want to know what she thinks a future Minister could do with it.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Disability Issues) (10:31): As I have said previously, this is just documenting the current state in terms of means testing. There are a limited number of programmes that are related to, for example, the community services card, so that doesn’t change. In terms of what a future Minister may or may not do, that’s a different matter that I can’t crystal-ball into, but I have said on the record, and will say again, that there is no intention for me as Minister to introduce or change anything related to means testing.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (10:32): Thank you, Madam Chair. That’s exactly what I want to get into, because why would she create legislation that still allows for a future Minister to further restrict access to disability support services? You know, all it takes is a Cabinet reshuffle after another leadership challenge for a future Minister to be in her place and do exactly what she said she wouldn’t do—like, literally the way the bill is written does not guarantee disabled people that no further restrictions will be added. So why would she not have clarified that no further restrictions will be made in primary legislation? Why does she not add those safeguards in primary legislation, not just have disabled people have to take this current Minister at her word but actually safeguard any future Government from being able to add additional restrictions?

Perhaps if their coalition partner gets to secure her ministry in the next term, what is to say that they may not want to add further restrictions into this? Does she accept at least that the way that the bill is written does leave it really open for a future Minister to cause harm to disabled people by restricting access to services by tweaking and changing the income and asset base criteria?

Does she accept the concerns that have been raised by submitters and by advocacy groups that the way that the bill is written leaves disabled people and carers very open to a future Government choosing to harm and actively restrict access to disability support services? I just want her to at least be able to be upfront not just about her intentions but that a bill cannot just stand on the current measures and intentions; the bill has to stand the test of time when it comes to the protections that are afforded to groups that have had to fight for their rights in the courts and in the streets and in Parliament. So, again, does she accept that a future Minister could just, because of the way she’s written the bill, further restrict access to disability support services; and if so, why did she not deem that primary legislation would be a better place to actually add further safeguards?

I know the Minister has talked about engagement with some of my previous comments but the one that I haven’t had engagement with—and I will just reiterate that I’m really interested in having a bit of engagement on it—is whether family members will be treated as a resource. That is a simple question I’m asking for engagement on—whether they will be treated as a resource for the purpose of eligibility criteria.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Disability Issues) (10:34): The irony in the member’s question is that yesterday or the day before, for years in the past Ministers have been able to make decisions at a whim. So by the time we have this piece of legislation and support programmes in place, that will be consulted on with disabled people and the communities and families. Those support programmes will ensure that changes can’t happen quickly.

That period, admittedly, we’ve now extended from three years to five years to enable the support programmes to be established, and my expectation is that with a discussion document early next year, disabled people and organisations and carers will signal where the priorities are for those support programmes to be established. This does not change anything around means testing. It simply states that they exist already in a very limited number of occasions and it would not have been accurate in describing the current state in the legislation if that had been ignored.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (10:36): Following up on that exchange, the Minister often talks about not changing things that are already there, but isn’t part of the issue that we’re finding ourselves in that disabled people have talked about how the status quo isn’t good enough? So when she says, “Hey, look, we’re not changing anything.”, does she concede that that speaks volumes of the fact that inadequate consultation with and input from disabled people has been taken on board when it comes to the fact that even the current income and asset base criteria doesn’t adequately uphold the dignity of disabled people. So I just wanted to test whether the Minister actually thinks that the current settings, including lack of safeguards that have already presently existed, are fit for purpose. I think that just saying—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): We’re discussing this bill. Which clause are you speaking to?

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: Clause 11(3)(f) and (g), and (ga) specifically—just following up on the Minister’s answers.

The key thing that I want to test with the Minister is that she is saying she’s not changing anything. Does she think that the current settings, then, actually reflect the voices and the feedback of disabled people or is she just simply conceding to the fact that not changing anything just means that things are well and fine and no one needs to worry about them?

I will move on to clause 11(4) which is about the things that the Minister is required to do before approving and establishing a programme and the fact that the Minister needs to take into account the purpose of the disability support services and the likely outcomes for disabled people of approving and establishing that programme, and any other matters that the Minister considers relevant.

I have a series of questions on this one. For the purpose of interpreting how the Minister will likely execute these provisions in the bill, would the Minister outline some examples of any other matters that the Minister may consider to be relevant? Has the Minister already thought of matters that have previously been considered or that she intends to consider? The second question I have is, when it comes to the likely outcomes for disabled people of approving and establishing the programme, how will those outcomes be measured? Will it be through extensive engagement and co-design with disabled people and carers? Will it be just through sort of consulting Government officials? And what happens if inadequate engagement has happened for the likely outcomes for disabled people? This takes me to clause (4A), which says, “the Minister must also consult such representatives of disabled persons as the Minister considers appropriate.”

I’m keen to understand—and I know there’s been a lot of questions and I am happy to traverse further engagement if the Minister’s not capturing it. What does the Minister consider to be an appropriate level of consultation as per clause 11(4A)? If there hasn’t been adequate consultation should any programme be approved—because that is one of the key things that disabled people have noted—that there are no protections that safeguard disabled people from a programme that disabled people may deem inadequate from being rolled out despite these requirements being in place. There’s no sort of, like, that you “must” have adequate consultation. It kind of just leaves it to the Minister. So, you know, it would be useful at least for the Minister to clarify what in her view “appropriate”, as per (4A), looks like in practice, so that maybe disabled people have a bit of reassurance of how much resourcing will go into ensuring that there’s a “code assigned” process with disabled people, or whether she thinks that maybe talking to one service provider will be enough to be deemed appropriate consultation over 4A in clause 11.

I’m really interested, and I will have some further engagements on this, because I know that this has been one of the key pieces of feedback that has come—particularly post our comments after the Social Services and Community Committee stage, around disabled people’s feelings of sort of inadequate safeguards on consultation. And also, that sort of retraumatising process and feeling of the errors of the bill process being then mirrored in the rolling out of these programmes, because of that lack of faith that disabled people currently have with the way that the—well, what I would say is with the Minister and the Government, due to the legislative process and the lack of faith therefore being extended to how particularly close 11(4A) will be rolling out.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Disability Issues) (10:41): I did traverse some of this area in the earlier part, which I acknowledged at the time went beyond the bill to explain the process that would go beyond this. The example that I used at the time was in terms of consultation; if the support programme was around hearing devices, for example, the consultation and the organisations and the representatives of disabled persons that would be considered appropriate would be very different for a support programme around hearing devices as it would be around residential care. So that is what is intended there. It is important that disabled people directly—as well as disabled people’s organisations, as well as those who provide services—are involved in that process. As the member himself raised in an earlier part of the debate, the disability community is not an amorphous group and they don’t have the same views or agreements. That’s why the consultation here will be important, but it won’t be the same for every support programme.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) (10:42): I’ve got a few more questions that are related to clause 8 and the various things that Needs Assessment Service Coordination agencies (NASCs), for example, will need to take into account when making decisions around who gets Disability Support Services (DSS). My first question is related to clause 8(2)(b): “decisions about the provision of DSS-funded disability support services to an eligible person should be made taking into account—” all of the rest of the things that are laid out underneath it. I want to ask the Minister for Disability Issues why the wording there is “taking into account”, which to me is rather vague and not as strong as it could be, for example. I’d like to refer to my tabled amendment that recommends or suggests changing that to “give effect to”, which is stronger legal language. So that’s the first part of my question.

The second is related to clause 8(2)(b)(iii), and that is that people who are making these decisions around DSS access, or eligibility to support funding there, must take into account “the eligible person’s immediate, and long-term, needs and circumstances;”. I’d like to know what definitions would be used around that; what are the parameters that must be considered around the immediate and long-term needs, what circumstances will be in versus what will be out?

And then going down to clause 8(2)(b)(iv), “where appropriate, the eligible person’s resources;”—is that related to income and assets that the eligible person may hold? If not, what is the thinking behind including “eligible person’s resources” in there, and what does that actually mean?

The next part of that, clause 8(2)(b)(v), “any support that is available to the eligible person from other publicly funded sources;” given that the whole point previously of Disability Support Services transformation towards an Enabling Good Lives (EGL)—and the Minister made a comment earlier on that she had heard from the disability communities that various different assessment tools, allocation tools, and decisions were being made around the country, where one disabled person in one part of the country would get more support than somebody else, and that’s why she’s brought in the assessment and allocation tools, to bring in consistency and this legislation is the next part of that work. I would put to the Minister that that has lowered, potentially, the access or the types of services that disabled people can access. Because what we were trying to do was to transform the other way around, towards the EGL sites and the ways in which funding was disseminated by EGL sites. Instead, everything’s been brought back to how NASCs, previously, were doing things. So I would put that to the Minister.

But the other issue that’s been raised around this is: when the changes were made back—some of the subsequent changes to the initial ones made in March 2024, where, for example, children and schools couldn’t use their DSS funding for things like writing for the disabled, because the Government’s view at that point, the Minister’s view at the time, was that education should be funding that, not DSS. Whereas previously—and the transformation of the moves that we were wanting to make in the previous Government was that the person was central to the types of services and support that they could access. That is, in essence, the EGL vision. This legislation just imports some EGL language, but not the intent or the vision of the Enabling Good Lives approach. So is that what is now being captured in legislation in clause 8(2)(b)(v), Minister, where if there’s support that comes out of the education pot, or the transport pot, or the housing pot, this will be—my fear, and the fear of many, is that this will lead to the further fragmentation of the type of support that disabled people can get and not a better, more cohesive package of money that actually transforms a person’s life and makes it better. So I’ll leave my questions there for that.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Disability Issues) (10:47): I keep getting into trouble with going further than outside the bill, but let me just, in terms of the questions that the member the Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan asks, the principles of Enabling Good Lives (EGL) are absolutely reflected through the section here. If you think about the eligible person’s immediate long-term needs and circumstances, one of the things that we do want greater consideration of is investing early. So the social investment approach, which might mean, when considering a disabled person’s long-term needs, actually there might be different assessments made around what support is available now. An example of that is the powered wheelchair research that’s under way at the moment.

In terms of your question around other Government departments and support that’s available, that is also one of the EGL principles, about mainstream access. So access should be equally available to health for disabled people—

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: That’s not what it means.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: No, no—let me explain. So health should be accessible and available to disabled people, and clearly there’s improvements that we need to make across the board there. The changes that were made to flexible funding—that started 1 February—took away all the guidelines, took away all the rules around flexible funding, to maximise disabled peoples’ choice and to ensure that they are able to access the services and supports that they require.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert) (10:49): Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to dig down on the wording in clause 8, which is about “where appropriate”. My colleagues touched on it, but I want to kind of dig down into this issue as it arises in clause 8(2)(b)(iv) and (vi). So my major concern would be with the first of those, but it is a principal question.

Here, we have a clause that says that one of the criteria is “where appropriate, the eligible person’s resources;”, and then we have another which says, “where appropriate, any other support that is available to the eligible person, including from—(A) their family, whānau, or other culturally recognised family group; and (B) their community.” Now, that looks to me like there’s a lot of capacity there to decide what is appropriate. What I’d like to know is, what is meant by “where appropriate”? When would it be appropriate and when would it not? What kind of restrictions are there on the Minister for Disability Issues changing what that criteria is through that pathway of just simply deciding that it is now appropriate, and moving a lot away from the status quo into something that is much more burdensome on both that person’s resources and their family and community?

For example, we had the Minister talk about how that wasn’t her intention at the moment. She was categorical in the House that her intention was that there would be no means testing beyond the point it is now, but does she accept that that particular wording is permissive? What kinds of constraints has she put in place to hold firm to her assertion in the House that that would not be happening under, at least, her watch? What kind of constraints has she put on others in this piece of legislation if it is her intention that this is not the beginning of an increased use of means testing or becoming overly burdensome on family and community in a way which actually means that people are being asked to do something that’s simply burdensome to the point of becoming dysfunctional?

One of my portfolios is community and voluntary. I appreciate that the community steps up so many times in this area, but I also appreciate that it often fails in those situations because of a scarcity of resource, often from, actually, Government funding, but also because it’s hard out there and there just isn’t the money to support the organisations the way they were. We’re seeing a dip in giving, so we do not have those kinds of resources available in the community anymore. I’m also aware in areas that are well beyond the scope of this bill, things like in the—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Then we won’t be talking about it.

HELEN WHITE: Well, no, it’s important because it does relate, I promise, Madam Chair. We have a situation in something like Oranga Tamariki where there is a pushing out to whānau and pushing out to community when that resource is not there, and it is known not to be there. That can happen in a situation where we’re trying to stop the burden coming on to the State. We can push to these places that just don’t exist.

I am aware that, in these situations, it’s a problem that’s systemic that we push out, and we can say it’s appropriate when it’s actually just simply factually impractical. I would love for the Minister to tell me what is the constraint on the use of that beyond what is actually really appropriate? What kind of stop has she put on others misusing this, even if she has made a binding commitment in this House to it not being used in that way? Those are my primary questions. That use of the language, “where appropriate” —did she have advice on that? That really concerns me that there is so much wiggle room in it, even if the Minister is bona fide trying to do the right thing. What was the purpose of using that wording? Why does it need to be so wide?

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The member’s time has expired. Before I take the next call, I’ve been in the chair a short time and I believe we have thrashed subclause 8(2), so I am looking for new material please.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (10:54): Thank you very much. Just a question on definitions in the bill, and this will be very brief stuff, and I note your comments, but one thing that I wanted to note that seems to not be defined in the bill is there’s a lot of definitions for what “family member” is—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Under what clause?

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: This is my final contribution on clause 8, so I will move on immediately after, but I just wanted to note that there is quite an extensive definition of what a “family member” is considered as, but there seems to be no definition of what a “community” is for the purposes of this bill and disability support services (DSS) funding services. I’m concerned that we have this kind of thing where “community” is just left out and not really defined, and I wanted to get the Minister for Disability Issues’ views on what interpretations she will be giving, or wants to give, the term “community” for the purposes of, for example, whether frontline decision makers could be using, “Well, you belong to a church that runs Sunday programmes and that counts as a community stepping in for you.” Would it be like, “Hey, look, in your neighborhood, there are volunteer-run programmes that exist, say, three blocks away from where you live. That counts as a community for the purposes of the resources that exist.”? Could it be that, in small rural areas, just somewhere in your whole township that provides some sort of support is considered “community” for the purpose of eligibility criteria? Because we have quite an extensive definition of who is and is not a family member, but I’m concerned about the fact that “community” just doesn’t have that.

The reason why I think this is quite important is that, if we look at other Acts where, for example, people are asked to look outside for support that could be met—for example, the Social Security Act—we often have case managers saying, “Well, have you checked out this food bank that exists several neighborhoods away before we give you assistance?” It’s really fraught how, for example, in the Social Security Act, those provisions cover “Have you checked for other support first before we give you support?” I am really concerned that “community” is just left out so broadly. I am none the wiser as to how that will be interpreted when it comes to the DSS funding decision making. If the Minister would like to elucidate on what her definition of “community” is and how that could be used to the detriment, if at all, obviously, of people, I’d love to know, because I do think that that is really, really, really important criteria.

Now, moving onto clause 11—and to signal to the chair that the only reason I would go back to clause 8 is if I don’t get engagement from the Minister on the “community” definition—but on subclause (4A), on page 8, something that the Minister did not engage with in my previous comments was just on a reassurance that no programme will go through without adequate engagement and co-design with disabled people. Because, again, that’s one of the key tensions that has existed post-select committee stage in the reassurance that the Minister has given. I note that the Minister has apologised for, say, the process and the hurt for what has occurred in this legislative process, but this subclause (4A) on page 8 is, in my view, the place in which those mistakes could be redressed by giving a reassurance that no programme will go ahead without an adequate co-design process. Otherwise, what we have heard from the likes of Dr Huhana Hickey, from CCS, and others is that the Minister can just claim, “Well, I talked to one service provider and that is good enough.” I know that the Minister said in previous comments, “I’ve already addressed that, and I agree with Ricardo that community is not monolithic and there are many views.”, but that doesn’t really address or engage with the matter of whether programmes could still go ahead without a high bar of consultation.

If the Minister could engage with subclause (4A) specifically, and what bar and standards she wants to set before any programme gets rolled out in terms of the level of co-design, and what, for example, “representatives of disabled people” mean. Representatives of disabled people could be someone who’s not disabled. You could literally talk to a bunch of able-bodied people who are not disabled and who deem themselves as representatives, and the programme could then be rolled out. Could she please set the standard that she wishes to use for the purpose of subclause (4A), and, to recap, what does she define as “community” for the purposes of—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The member’s time has expired. Just to reiterate the point—this is my second warning about repetition—even though I did make that clear before the member stood up, he has repeated two items that were previously answered by the Minister—

Ricardo Menéndez March: It’s new material on those items.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Please don’t argue with me, Mr March. I am explaining myself. Repetition is not getting us anywhere. You are going to get the same answers to the same questions.

Ricardo Menéndez March: She’s dismissing the questions.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (11:00): Thank you, Madam Chair. This is my first call in the entire debate—I’ll just point that out. This is new material that the Minister has not addressed. I am anxious to give it because it does relate to the definition of “communities”, which is the clause 8 that you’re warning us to move on from, but it is relevant to the points that I also want to make about another section. I hope that the Chair can give me the ability to do this because what I am wanting to raise here is the lack of any reference in this legislation to Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the impact of these legislative changes on Māori.

I’m referring in particular to a submission from Te Ao Mārama Aotearoa, who represent tāngata whaikaha and their whānau and who in their submissions point out how disappointed and how upset they are that they were not consulted at all in the development of this legislation. They have concerns around the wide definition of “community” and the impact on concepts and tikanga like whanaungatanga that are important in terms of clause 8. They also have concerns around the lack of consultation in the development of this bill. Talking to clause 11(4A), it says the Minister must consult, and yet we didn’t see that consultation happen in the development of a very significant piece of legislation—a huge change in a generation, essentially—with no references to Te Tiriti o Waitangi and no engagement with the representative body of tāngata whaikaha and their whānau.

Te Ao Mārama Aotearoa point out that the Crown is obliged to engage with them directly under Te Tiriti o Waitangi and many other conventions that we are part of, and the Crown did not. They also said that when it comes to conscription of whānau in clause 8—I just want to read the submission and see if the Minister has any response to this. They say: “The communities with the most expansive conceptions of collective responsibility, our communities, carry the heaviest statutory expectation, while the Crown that drafted the clause carries none: no duty to assess whether the presumed support exists, is safe, is sustainable, or is consented to by the whānau or by the disabled person; no training, no respite guarantee, no income protection; no limit in scope or duration; no point at which the obligation is fulfilled.” The point they make is that “Whanaungatanga is a taonga. It is not fiscal infrastructure for the Crown to draw down, and aroha is not a substitute for the State meeting its obligations to its disabled citizens.”

In terms of clause 11(4A), “Before approving and establishing a programme under subsection (1), the Minister must also consult such representatives of disabled persons as the Minister considers appropriate.” Does the Minister consider Te Ao Mārama Aotearoa, the representative organisation for

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

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

appropriate to engage with? Why did she not engage with them in the development of this legislation? Will she engage with them under that particular clause, and will she reconsider the fact that they do not have any reference to Te Tiriti o Waitangi in this legislation and, as these submissions point out, what the need for that is?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Disability Issues) (11:04): I’ve answered questions around consultation in the creation of the bill; I’ve answered questions around consultation going forward, and I’ve answered questions about family.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) (11:05): I would like to ask the Minister some questions around clause 10, and that is the ability for the Minister to give the ministry binding directions. This is the section of the legislation that allows the Minister to create, through secondary legislation, ministerial programmes or support programmes, which basically contains all of the detail that disabled people and carers are interested in and wanting to see.

I will note the Minister’s comments earlier on in this debate; we did have a back and forth on decisions around the line between primary and secondary legislation and why so much of this detail the Minister has decided to put in secondary legislation instead of primary. I won’t traverse that bit, but what I do want to ask the Minister is, given that the authority to make secondary legislation is both by convention and through the Legislation Act, from memory—the guidelines around that are to be really careful about the level of detail, technicality, and complexity that Ministers put into secondary legislation. If I look at the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet’s own website—and I’m looking at this because in clause 10(3)—it basically says to “(see Part 3 of the Legislation Act 2019 for publication requirements).”

This is to the Minister’s previous point, where she stated that her decision to include all of the detail around support programmes in secondary legislation rather than a mix of primary and secondary is to give people comfort that things can’t be changed very quickly. I’d like to tease that aspect of the Minister’s comments out through this particular clause. The guidelines are basically that substantive policy shouldn’t be in secondary legislation, but it should just be, for example, the amounts or the thresholds that need to be changed that should be in secondary legislation. But the specific types of support programmes that people can access should be in primary legislation so that they cannot be changed quickly and without the oversight of Parliament. Can the Minister give us some clarity around that later part of that point?

Disabled people who have been submitting to this, who have been listening to debates in the House around this, don’t feel a level of comfort, because it’s easier to change secondary legislation than primary legislation. I also understand that there is specific language that the Minister could have used in this legislation, in this particular clause, to require the Regulations Review Committee—and I understand that my colleague Arena Williams would like to speak to that a little bit further. That could have then given people some comfort that changes cannot be made to support programmes quickly. Can the Minister clarify why she said that, given that secondary legislation is easier to change than primary legislation?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Disability Issues) (11:08): We have traversed this in the earlier conversation around flexibility as one component. The other thing I would point out here, in terms of clause 10 that the member is referring to, is that this is also about how the ministry performs its duties. Without traversing history, I think there are many examples of how it was previously set up that it didn’t perform those duties anywhere near well enough.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert) (11:09): Thank you. I would like to talk about the employment provisions here—so I’m looking at clause 13. I have a background in this area, so it is of great concern to me when I see clauses like clause 13(2), which talks about “If A is a party to, or covered by, a written agreement with the Crown stating that A is an employee, the agreement is conclusive proof that A is an employee of the Crown.” My problem with this is that employment relationships are a matter of fact. We have some very strong rules about what those things look like in the real world, and we also have a long-term relationship, here, just like many employment relationships, and things morph—they change significantly in that time—and employment law has always recognised that reality versus anything that’s written down. I’m concerned that, here, we have a very dangerous—it’s not really a precedent because it’s also being done with contractors—idea that writing overrides reality.

In these situations, we have a whole lot of people who are working their socks off, and we are deciding what they are, as a matter of signing the document, when, in employment law, we recognise that the reality morphs over time. We also recognise that there is a power imbalance in these situations. I couldn’t think of anything more likely to have a power imbalance in it than this particular relationship, where people are trying to look after their loved ones. They really don’t have a lot of choice in what they sign at that point. They are actually in a position of deep moral quandary.

And so, I wanted to know from the Minister, what she looked at when she looked at that issue of the consistency of our country’s moral approach to work and the issue of power imbalance, which is built into our Employment Relations Act. It recognises that straight up, and then all these other things hang off it, but we don’t recognise a power imbalance in this relationship. Why not? That’s what I’d like to know. And I’d like to know what safeguards there are with regard to that power imbalance. In other situations—for example, the contractor situation—we have often a reliance on independent legal advice. Is there anything going on here like that?

Then, I have an issue with regard to that relationship choice: were there other options about the way we could handle this relationship that would not have excluded this community from the employment paradigm entirely? If there’s a dispute, what happens? What happens in that situation? If there’s a dispute about the way that people are treated—we have a whole scaffolding in employment law around that. What’s going to happen to these people if there are issues that emerge in terms of the way that they are treated?

I also asked questions about this when we were in the select committee—about the issues around their employment treatment and the savings that were associated with excluding this group of workers from that scaffolding of employment. I asked questions about how much the Government would save, and I’m asking you those questions now.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I don’t answer.

HELEN WHITE: Sorry, Madam Chair. I’m asking the Minister to talk and be transparent about how much money the Government saved in this circumstance, but also how much there is an unintended consequence of people simply refusing to do this work in these conditions and that work being bounced into institutional care or other frameworks for care because they cannot do it. Is there a risk of economic impact with regard to that, and did she do some work on that? Thank you.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Disability Issues) (11:14): I spoke about this earlier in terms of one of the priority pieces of work being the future carers support package, which basically would resolve many of the issues the member raises.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (11:14): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll take a brief call for the Minister. I just want to ask her about her comments that the directions will allow who the flexibility—it’s the other way I want to ask about. Why is it formal and formally recognised as secondary legislation when the option for her was, obviously, then, policy, which would not be secondary legislation? The directions in this bill are similar in nature to the old system. I commend the Minister for this framework, which, as she, quite rightly, points out, didn’t have a legislative basis before, so the directions were more akin to the immigration instructions in that they didn’t have a legislative effect but they were something more binding than departmental policy.

The amendment in the name of the Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan that we have suggested to clause10, after (3), would make these confirmable instruments, which would give them the same status as confirmable instruments, which are a more commonly used tool to give ministerial directions. When the Regulations Review Committee confirms instruments, its only check is that they are made in line with the purposes and objects of the Act. That is what this clause 10 purports to do, but there is no check that the directions do, in fact, realise the objects and purposes of the Act.

My question is: if it is her intention to make the directions secondary legislation, then what is the check and balance to ensure that that secondary legislation is made within the purposes of the Act, and that it’s not ultra vires to the Act? Policy can be extra to the legislative framework; this is not policy and so the choice here to make it legislative, in effect, binds the Public Service in a way, which you’re only able to do at this level, at the parliamentary level, if it is in line with the legislative intent. We’re having a debate, right now, about what the legislative intent is, so it’s also useful to be clear about what the checks and balances are to keep it in line with that intent. The alternative, then, is that it’s meant to function more like the immigration instructions.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) (11:16): Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a few questions to the Minister on clause 11, and they are related to tabled amendments of mine as well. This particular clause brings into the debate issues around income testing, means testing, and asset testing, and that is another area that many have expressed significant levels of discomfort and anxiety around. I’d like to test a few things with the Minister with regard to this. I won’t go into the details, but it’s across the various parts of clause 11.

The Minister has said, many times, that the inclusion of income- and asset-based criteria in this clause is only meant to reflect where it’s currently taken into account, and that is in very few circumstances. I would ask the Minister to consider my tabled amendments to remove these criteria completely to give disabled people comfort that they will not be means tested before disability support services support is made available to them. In the event that the Minister does not want to take it out completely, because it is currently criteria for specific things, I would draw her attention to my tabled amendment that is to replace, in clause 11(3)(g), after “criteria”, to then be specific about what this current criteria for income and asset testing refers to—specifically, the Community Services Card for hearing aids, home modifications, or vehicle modifications. From memory, those are the only areas that the Minister has said is currently means-tested. If that is not the case, I would like the Minister to clarify what other areas are currently means tested, and I’m happy to include those in my amendments as well. That will then give disabled people absolute surety and certainty, which is what the Minister wants to achieve out of this legislation—that it will not then be used to means test further types of disability support funding that they can access, because those changes can be made, through clauses 10 and 11, in future support programmes.

My next question around criteria for the Minister is reflecting on a previous discussion as to why eligibility criteria, more broadly, as laid out on her own Ministry’s website, is not included in primary legislation. The Minister said, firstly, that there was no such thing but also that her decision there was to ensure a maximum level of flexibility.

Now, reading clause 11 in its entirety, it occurs to me, and I’ll put this to the Minister—I would like her to either confirm or clarify that her decision not to include disability services support (DSS) eligibility criteria in primary legislation is so that it can be changed for various types of support, which is, again, a departure from current practice. Currently, if you are a disabled person and you meet some of the criteria that is currently listed on the ministry’s website—you have specific types of disability—the Needs Assessment Service Coordination (NASC) organisation will assess what particular supports you need based on your disability and then give you a support package that will allow you to access the support that you need to be able to live an ordinary life—presumably.

Not including that in primary legislation but saying in clause 11 that there will be different types of eligibility criteria for different types of disability support is anxiety-inducing, because at this point, although the Minister has repeatedly said that this legislation does not change current eligibility or entitlement today to DSS support, this indicates that it will change. This indicates that the Minister, through secondary legislation, can change the criteria for, say, community-based support versus residential support or flexible funding. The Minister is shaking her head, which is good—if that is not the intention—but can she please clarify how else anyone is meant to interpret this legislation other than the interpretation that I have just put to her?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Disability Issues) (11:21): We’re going over the same ground again, so I’m not going to traverse that. In terms of means testing, it would not be an accurate reflection of the current state if it had been excluded from the legislation. That is why it is included, and it has been amended to make it clearer as a result of the select committee.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): This is my final warning on repetition. We have traversed up to clause 12, and we are moving on.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (11:22): Thank you, Madam Chair. I wanted to speak to Priyanca Radhakrishnan’s amendment, tabled at 9.13.07 a.m., which hasn’t been spoken about yet, so bringing some new material to it. This is the deletion of clause 11(4B)(b)—and I haven’t spoken about new subclause (4B) in clause 11 myself yet; I don’t think anyone has. So, on (4B), and particularly looking at paragraph (b).

First of all, I want to know what the Minister’s justification is to have the ability to basically override the provisions in new subclause (4A), which is about consultation—basically, to say that there’s a “must also consult” with disabled people, but, actually, in (4B), failure to comply with those consultation requirements does not affect the validity of any programme. Can she see why (4B)(b) doesn’t give any teeth to the provisions in (4A), because, basically, why would the Minister have a requirement to consult and then have a provision that says, “Well, actually, but if it doesn’t happen, it doesn’t really change anything.”?

Can I get a sense of the Minister’s intention for having a provision in (4B)(b) to say that “Look, at the end of the day, if you do not comply with any of these consultation requirements, the programme can go ahead anyway.”? Which takes me to the point that, you know, if the Minister is genuine about having a requirement to consult, why wouldn’t she support Priyanca Radhakrishnan’s amendment that seeks to delete clause 11(4B)(b)? If she doesn’t support it, I’d love to know what her justification is for just simply scrapping those constitutional requirements.

That takes me to my final point, which I haven’t had engaged with the Minister, which is whether the term “representatives” actually includes disabled people or whether it can include non-disabled people, or whether the Minister would be satisfied if she only consulted with able-bodied people that seek to represent disabled people for the purposes of (4A). Again, I just don’t understand why you would have this interaction between (4A) and (4B)(b), which seems to just sort of allow the Minister to ignore disabled people or their representatives anyway. Any comments, justification, or indication of support—not “or”; and indication of support—for the amendment would be very welcomed.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Disability Issues) (11:25): Where there’s a minor, in effect, issue that wouldn’t be consulted on—for example, it could be where there is an increase in a rate, so you wouldn’t go out with wide consultation where a rate is being increased. Clearly, if there were changes the other way, which would not be minor and which would have an impact, that would require consultation. So that is an example.

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill) (11:25): I move, That debate on this question now close.

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

Ayes 67

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

Noes 50

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan’s tabled amendment to clause 8(2) to replace “take into account” with “to give effect to” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 50

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan’s tabled amendment to clause 8(2)(a) to insert words after “members” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 50

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan’s tabled amendment to clause 8 to insert new paragraph (c) into subsection 8(2) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 50

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan’s tabled amendment to clause 10 is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

The question is that the Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan’s tabled amendment to clause 11(3) deleting paragraph (f) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 50

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan’s tabled amendment to clause 11(3) deleting paragraph (g) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 50

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan’s tabled amendment to clause 11(3)(f) restricting income-based criteria for matters relating to community services card be agreed to.

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

Ayes 50

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan’s tabled amendment to clause 11(3)(g) restricting asset-based criteria for matters relating to community services card be agreed to.

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

Ayes 50

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan’s tabled amendment to clause 11(4B) deleting paragraph (b) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 50

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

Part 2 agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Part 3 Miscellaneous provisions, and Schedule 2

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, we come now to Part 3, which is the debate on clauses 17 and 18, “Miscellaneous provisions”, and Schedule 2. The question is that Part 3 stand part.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) (11:35): Thank you. I have a couple of quick questions for the Minister on this part, and all of it relates to clause 17 and the review that will need to be undertaken at the conclusion of five years. I also, I guess, take the Social Services and Community Committee’s recommendation to shift the transitional period from three years to five years to enable for the consultation that is now required in this bill to take place, although the Minister had said she was going to consult anyway—but now she has an additional 2 years to do that.

My questions, though, are related to clause 17(1)(a) and the review of the operation of this Act. I would like to ask the Minister what she envisages that review to include. Will it just be whether this Act is working, which is how I would interpret that particular part of this clause. Given that the bulk of the detail is in the secondary legislation, will the review also include whether those support programmes are working, bearing in mind that the Minister’s intention is to have that, or at least some of them, concluded, presumably by the end of that five-year period. Or will it be all of the support programmes concluded via secondary legislation at the end of that review period? I’d like some clarity around what the review will actually include.

I would also like to know whether the Minister intends for there to be consultation with disability communities in that review process as well. The reason that I ask this is because I would like to know whether the review, and the report that results from that, will include a reflection on whether this legislation—given that the intention of the legislation is to provide a foundational framework for disability support services funding, but, ultimately, it is to ensure that disabled people and carers are supported to be able to lead, in the words of this bill, everyday lives. Will that be included in the review? Will it actually look at whether this legislation is working for disabled people, carers, and the disability community more broadly, rather than just whether the letter of the law is functioning in an operational sort of manner? So that’s my main question to the Minister.

I’d also like to know in clause 17(1)(b) where it states that there should be consideration as to whether any amendments to this Act are necessary or desirable, whether that will also take into account secondary legislation as part of that review.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Disability Issues) (11:38): Madam Chair, I want to thank the Social Services and Community Committee for their work, particularly on this part, which created the inclusion of the review of the legislation after five years and increased the transition period from three years to five. Clearly, a review of any legislation would need to consider if it is acting as intended. I think that’s particularly important because there hasn’t been legislation in this space already. My expectation is that it would of course review or include in its scope support programmes that are secondary legislation. Not all of them would have been in place for long enough, so it perhaps wouldn’t make sense to review all of them, but any of them that were in place would make sense.

The other thing that I had indicated, which admittedly is out of the scope of this legislation, but I had talked about an intent that there would need to be a second Disability Support Services Bill to look specifically at some areas that have been raised. A second bill would also mean that if there was anything in this piece of legislation that was clearly not working already, it could be picked up at that stage. But what is the intent behind this legislation? What is the intent behind support programmes, specifically the ones I’ve talked about in terms of flexible funding and a carers support package? It is absolutely to make disability support services better than it is today. Why do we care about that? Because we want to improve the lives of disabled New Zealanders, their carers, and families. So, yes, that would be part of the review. The law clearly wasn’t going to be working as intended, unless disabled people, their carers, and families were seeing an improvement in their lives.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (11:40): Thank you, Madam Chair. My questions relate to clause 18, and the consequential amendments. First, as a more general question to the Minister, she was helpful in her elucidation about the purpose of the review, and the answer might be “the review” to this question, but this is a devilishly complicated piece of legislation in the way that it deals with secondary legislation and confirmable instruments that exist within the system. That’s the purpose of the legislation, is to deal with all of the things that have grown up that are regulatory-like within the system. The consequential amendments section seems light, and I want to ask her what advice she has had from officials that the consequential amendments are the whole suite of legislative changes which will be needed to be made to other Acts. What has been her process to ensure that we are capturing those people who have already had a decision under the law that is a legal decision now, but under her new law will not be a legal decision and will rely on outmoded legislation. So that’s the first question.

The second question is particularly about the ministerial directions. I think that her new clause 10 makes ministerial directions that have happened prior to the commencement of this Act secondary legislation. My question is: does this Act amend secondary legislation by giving directions which were policy now the status of regulation, or is it the case that she will need to reissue all of the ministerial—what are now directions, but were policy. To give you an example of this, programmes that the ministry would have been responsible for before are now secondary legislation. Do they automatically count as new law now, or do they need to be reissued? In which case, shouldn’t they be in the consequential amendments part? Should there not be amendments which list out all of those pieces of what is now secondary legislation? The reason I ask this is because the real-world impact is that somebody’s house that is partly funded under health, and partly funded under the new system, will rely on a ministerial direction that didn’t have the status of secondary legislation until this Act is in force. It’s useful to understand, for those people who are carrying over from the old system to the new system—it’s good that they now have a new system which is legislative—but how do the directions now become legislative?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Disability Issues) (11:43): There are no ministerial directions.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) (11:43): Back to the review—and I thank the Minister for her responses there, that the review will look at the impacts, or the effects, of support programmes as well, and not just the primary legislation alone. I would then like to ask her who will carry out the review. Will disabled people lead that review, or will they be part of that review? I would also like to know whether the terms of reference for that review will be made public before it’s undertaken, and whether they will comply with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities as well. I would also like to ask the Minister how she is going to measure improvement. If this is foundational legislation, we don’t really have a baseline, I guess, of how it’s working for disabled people outside of what they tell us, and even that is not codified in terms of a baseline. Given the Minister has said that her intention through the review process, and the report, is to improve the lives of disabled people and carers, how will she measure that?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Disability Issues) (11:44): I would expect that the terms of reference for the review include the disabled people’s organisations, similar to the consultation around support programmes. There are other pieces of legislation that have been reviewed, and I would expect that this would follow a similar course.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (11:44): My question to the Minister is—I understand that her answer is that there are no directions because the directions are a creature of her new clause 10. What I’m asking her is—and I’ll put to her a real-world example of a constituent of mine, for things which operated like the directions under the old system. I understand why you’re doing this, Minister—that we need a legislative framework for the sorts of instructions that Ministers need to give for the programmes and the systems, for disabled people to access the services that they require. This is a good piece of legislation, in that it at least does give legislative form to what are appropriately, laws. In a situation that my constituent had, they were trying to use funding that they were entitled to, for a trip, which was rightly funded within the rules and instructions.

The question that ended up going all the way up to the top level of the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) was whether the sort of trip that they were asking for was within the remit of the policy intent. All of the instructions said that they could have this kind of trip—for their wellbeing, for their mental health—because it was within their special interest, and because they were someone who was entitled to support for that kind of thing. All of the policy requirements were met, but the question that ended up being needed to be determined at the very highest level of leadership of MSD was whether they were entitled to use it for this particular kind of trip—and, rightly, whether that was within the full scope of the legislative design of the programmes. Those didn’t have precedential value before, where a Minister or chief executive was being asked to sign off on a particular policy question where all of the policy intentions were met for someone’s programme and for someone’s funding, but does this particular example sit within the scope of the legislative intent, that is rightly law; you are making it law. Do those decisions in the old system now have precedential value? Are they like law? Or are you going to, essentially, reissue all of those, so this person who was able to go on a cruise would not be able to in future?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Disability Issues) (11:47): Madam Chair—Mr Chair, my apologies.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): It’s the year 2026.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The member—from the circumstances that she has outlined—refers to the flexible funding policy, and my intention would be that the flexible funding policy would be one of the first support programmes, because of the improvement we’ve already made. There are no rules, there are no guidelines now, around flexible funding. Where there is overseas travel, there is kind of a check and balance, which I think people would expect, but there is no intention to change what the policy is currently, but it is going to be important to put it into a support programme that’s one of the first that I want to be in a support programme, because we have made improvements from a year ago, two years ago, three years ago, and I want those improvements to be protected.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) (11:48): Thank you, Mr Chair. Further to what the Minister has said around the review, and I note that she has not responded to how it will be measured—how improvement will be measured—so if there is a way in which it will be measured, it would be useful to hear that. I also want to know what happens in the meantime. This review—the transition period has now increased from three years to five years. The Minister has said that at the end of the five-year period, when this legislation and its effects are reviewed, some support programmes will be completed and in a position to be reviewed, whereas there will be others that will not. That makes sense, but in the meantime, if there is harm that is caused as a result of some of those support programmes, what, then, is the mechanism for feedback and change, particularly given that some of those won’t be part of the review?

Also, would the Minister consider amending this portion to include a requirement for Ministers to implement the report? Currently, as the legislation is drafted, the Minister conducts the review—presumably—the Ministry conducts review—and there is no requirement for it to be informed by disabled people. I wonder whether the Minister would consider including that amendment in this legislation. Also, the requirement then is to consider whether there are any amendments necessary, prepare a report, and then to just present that report to Parliament. Would the Minister consider some sort of binding amendment there to require a Minister to implement the report once it’s published and presented?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Disability Issues) (11:50): I just want to clarify then the inclusion of support programmes in the five-year review would be—within the transition, my expectation is that all of the support programmes will be drafted and in place. At the end of five years, there might be one that’s only been in place for three months, for example, so it wouldn’t make sense to include that in the review, because it hasn’t been in place long enough, right? I just want to be clear about that.

I will ask the Ministry of Social Development to put some early consideration into what the starting point might be, in terms of being able to measure those outcomes in five years’ time—I think you raise a good point there. I will ask for that so that we can make sure we’ve got a starting point. As I said before, the review of the legislation—because it is about reviewing whether or not the legislation has delivered as intended—would of course include disabled people in that. To me, it would make sense in the first stages of that, which includes confirming what the terms of reference for the review would be—I don’t think it’s useful for me in this Chamber now to dictate how that review would work, who would be involved, over what time frame, etc. I would have thought any member in this Chamber and any Minister who’s responsible at that time, given that there is a very strong interest by all of us in improving the lives of disabled people, their carers and families, would want to make sure that those changes are made.

Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill) (11:52): I move, That debate on this question now close.

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

Ayes 67

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

Noes 50

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Motion agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 3 be agreed to.

Ayes 67

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

Noes 50

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Part 3 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Schedule 1 stand part.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 1 be agreed to.

Ayes 67

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

Noes 50

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 2 be agreed to.

Ayes 67

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

Noes 50

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Clauses 1 and 2

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members, we come to our final debate, clauses 1 and 2, “Title” and “Commencement”.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) (11:56): Thank you, Mr Chair, and I thank members and the Minister for quite a wide-ranging back and forth today, but it’s clarified a fair bit as well. The title of this bill is the Disability Support Services Bill, and it’s reasonably vanilla, but I would include, in brackets, after “Services” and before “Bill”, “(Just the Status Quo)”. This is the “Disability Support Services (Just the Status Quo) Bill”, because the Minister in the chair had the opportunity to transform the disability support services landscape and she has chosen not to. She has outlined her reason why, and that is: “We have a difference in approach.” That’s really what it boils down to.

On this side of the Chamber, we were in the process of transforming disability support services to such a point where the starting question to access services is not “What support you need?” but “What does a good life look like to you?”. Then transforming the processes and the systems that sit behind the funding lines and funding streams to be able to then deliver a package of support that would make meaningful difference to disabled people, carers, and the disability communities more broadly and to ensure that disabled people have more choice and control over the services and supports that they access and that they are supported by the State to live with dignity and independence as far is possible—instead of us as a society moving in that trajectory, all this bill does is codify a system that is fragmented and not working for disabled people and carers. Therein lies my disappointment with this legislation. When we have an opportunity in this Chamber to make things better, all we are doing is legislating for the status quo that we all know doesn’t work.

That is the crux of why I feel that this bill should be titled slightly differently. It could also equally be the “Disability Support Services (Not Transformational) Bill”, because, ultimately, it doesn’t achieve any sort of transformation. The Minister’s point is that once we’re done with another five years of then putting into secondary legislation the detail of what is currently available, then we can get to a point of transformation, but I would argue that disabled people have been waiting a very long time for that change—it’s been twenty-odd years since Enabling Good Lives, as a uniquely New Zealand approach, was developed to deal with some significant failures in the sector, in terms of disability support services back then.

Here we are today, where we could also argue that this the “Disability Support Services (Actually Taking us Backwards) Bill”, because the assessment and allocation tools that the Minister has talked about in this committee stage today takes us back to the lowest common denominator. It doesn’t progress us. She has talked about it in terms of increasing consistency—and I would probably agree with her that maybe it does go some way to increasing consistency—but it increases consistency and certainty not in the way that we would have liked, not in an aspirational way to improve lives, just to ensure that everyone gets access to basic supports that don’t actually make a huge difference. Well, not that it doesn’t make a difference to them; it does. It is important funding, but it could have been better. Instead, we’re legislating to bring it down to the lowest common denominator, and that is very disappointing.

I will take the Minister’s point that there are certain changes that have been made, and the select committee supported some changes because of the significant pushback from disabled people—

Hon Member: Pressure.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: “Pressure” is a good way to put it. There was significant pressure from disabled people, who had not been consulted at the start of this process. That has now led to some changes that are good, but they don’t go far enough.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): I just note that that was probably a third reading speech and that any other contributions won’t be given quite the same largesse as that one was given.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (12:02): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ve got a question for the Minister for Disability Issues on the commencement date. Does the Minister think that the commencement date is fit for purpose, based on the feedback that we have received from disabled people, who have felt excluded throughout the process and have only had limited ability to give input in the select committee stage through oral submissions?

I ask this because the commencement date in and of itself could give the Minister an opportunity to say, “Let’s pause this. Let’s potentially continue hearing from disabled people”—not just through the select committee stage, which disabled people have talked about; how it was insufficient because it was a truncated select committee process. I’m curious to know whether the Minister is satisfied that the commencement date as it stands adequately takes into account the feedback that she has thoroughly received from disabled people, advocacy groups, and carers that they haven’t been able to co-design this bill with her. Would she be open to amendments to the commencement date to give her a bit more time to adequately engage with disabled people and carers, who can then give input on whether the provisions in this bill actually reflect their aspirations?

Ultimately, I know that, throughout the debate, she dismissed a lot of the concerns by nature of just saying, “Well, nothing is changing.” But that’s kind of the point, right? Disabled people and carers have told us that the status quo isn’t working for them. To simply keep things the same, in my view, does not adequately reflect the feedback we’ve received from disabled people. I am just concerned that the way in which we’ve got this commencement date and this bill and the rush with this process reflects more an aspiration from the Minister to be able to create a legislative framework from disability support services as opposed to actually honouring disabled people’s and carers’ voices along the way.

I’m curious to know if she would be supportive of any tabled amendments we propose in this moment to act in good faith and honour the feedback we’ve received on actually co-designing this bill. As has been noted by both the Green Party and the Labour Party, our commitment has been to scrap it and sort of start the process again, but we don’t have to—we could just delay the commencement date, go back as much as we can to the drawing board, and perhaps refer this back to the select committee and actually do it justice. I guess my question is: why the rush? Why the rush when disabled people have told us that they’d rather us take the time we need to design this well.

For me, I think that would prevent what has happened, actually, which was the Minister coming out of the select committee process and apologising for the grief she had caused to disabled people. Disabled people had a right to be upset about this. I would loathe for the Minister to have to come back and apologise—for example, for ongoing or unintended harm that this bill may be causing to carers and disabled people. So, on the commencement date itself, I just want the Minister to put on the record as to why she thinks there is a rush, despite a multitude and a variety of disabled voices telling us that the process has been fraught from the get-go.

I want to reiterate that I am by no means claiming that there’s a monolithic voice in here, but I would say that I have met National Party, Labour Party, Green Party and the odd New Zealand First and ACT Party voters who are disabled who have not supported this process. I don’t think this is so much a partisan sort of issue as it is about a community that has, through its multitude of voices and experiences, told the Government this process is fraught. Why not at least end this legislative process, delay the commencement, so that we can actually, then, potentially go back to the select committee or adequately canvass disabled people’s voices so that whatever comes out of it is fit for purpose.

I just don’t think that, so far, what we’ve got adequately reflects disabled people’s voices and aspirations. Even if we look at some of the previous parts of the debate, we did not even get adequate engagement—or any engagement—on, for example, how the Minister could ignore the need to consult disabled people’s representatives in the design of disability support services. So, in good faith, I’d asked the Minister to offer us any reflections on whether she’d be open to delaying the commencement, to do this bill right.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (12:07): Point of order. Thank you, Mr Chair. I wanted to draw your attention to Speakers’ ruling 127/3, on page 127 of the Speakers’ Rulings—just in relation to your guidance, which I understand wasn’t a ruling, but it leaves us in some trouble here, because we have a number of engaged spokespeople from the Opposition who wish to give concluding remarks on this bill.

Speakers Hartley, Robertson, and Tisch have all affirmed the latitude of the Opposition, in making speeches on the preliminary clauses at the end of a debate which summarise and make concluding remarks about a bill, about the issues that they have raised within the committee’s consideration of a bill. I just wanted to clarify, given that it’s a new practice in this Parliament for the chairs of committees to give not rulings but sort of guidance to members, which is by and large helpful, whether your guidance there is that spokespeople from the Opposition should not give concluding sorts of remarks in the committee stage.

Say, in the 2004 example, where Speaker Hartley affirmed that position, that was in a debate where the Government had called repetition on members after 18 calls that the Opposition had made in concluding remarks around a preliminary clause. I just want to clarify the level at which you’re giving that guidance and whether it is, in fact, a ruling which disagrees with the remarks of Speakers Hartley, Robertson, and Tisch.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Absolutely not. Any wise and experienced speaker will ensure that if they are speaking to the title and commencement, they will make more than a passing reference to it at different stages during a five-minute presentation. There is always some latitude. Also, the amount of repetition—if a series of speakers stand up and say the same thing. Each presentation will be taken on its merits, but any wise speaker, especially when they’re the third speaker in the series, would make some fairly constant reference to title and commencement, or to invite a closure motion.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (12:09): Mr Chair, thank you. I would like to speak to the title of this bill, the Disability Support Services Bill. It should be titled the “Enabling Good Lives (Constituting and Reforming the Legislation) Bill”.

I’m proposing to the House that that title should have been commensurate with what was in the bill, because this bill should have given effect to the policy that is transformational and would have impacted the lives of disabled people in Aotearoa and was something that New Zealand could have been proud of on the world stage. But, in fact, this bill does the opposite of that; it reverses the policy that disabled people have been calling for for 20 years. I would suggest to the committee that this is the stage that it should vote with the Opposition to not only change the title of the bill but also reject the rest of it, because this is a bill that changes New Zealand’s framework for the better but introduces a policy that is all wrong.

I find it difficult to talk about this bill. This is a bill which is not in my specialist area. I commend the Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan for her work in this area. It is not my area, but this is the area of Government reform which I find the hardest to see and hear in this House, because I think it is all in the wrong direction. I think if there is one thing that should be bipartisanly agreed in this Chamber, it is that disabled people should be able to live with dignity in a country like Aotearoa and that when they do not have the means to provide for themselves, the State should step in. That is a fundamental belief of mine, and it should be carried forward in any country that likes to call itself one where people have equitable and equal access to rights as citizens. This is more fundamental than any other change, I believe, that this Government has made, because this says that we are moving from a system where disabled people and our most vulnerable can rely on a social safety net—one that was agreed after war in the 1940s in most liberal democracies that we like to compare ourselves to—to one where they cannot, where there is uncertainty in the law regarding the sorts of services that they will be provided with, and where there is almost entirely ministerial discretion. It will come down to “first in, first served” and the most in need gets it without any kind of fundamental relationship to the idea that people with disabilities and their families should be able to rely on a fundamental standard of dignity with which to live their lives.

I walked out on to the street in Manurewa the other day. It was about 12 o’clock, and there was a chap there—his name is Hone—who was waiting for a taxi to pick him up. He used a crutch, and he had a small carry-on suitcase with him for the things that he needed to go about his day. When I walked out again after my meeting at about 1.20 p.m., he was still waiting there. I had a conversation with him about why he was waiting. He said that the taxi won’t pick him up and that he’s spoken to the taxi driver twice, but because of the changes to Total Mobility, he understands why the driver won’t pick him up. He understands why the driver has other jobs to do, he understands why it’s not profitable for the driver, and yet he waited an hour and 20 minutes.

The changes that are happening in this system mean that people like that are living worse lives. This bill does that. This should be a different bill. This should be a bill which outlines the New Zealand Government’s long-term commitment to people with disabilities. It should outline our bipartisan long-term intentions to enable them to live lives with dignity. It does not do that.

Hon Member: No question. Third reading.

ARENA WILLIAMS: I hear the Government asking “What is the question?” My question is: where is the humanity in this bill? Where is the commitment to the principles that the National Party espouses and will be espousing on the campaign stumps? We will hear them say that they have compassion for people in Aotearoa. We will hear them say that they believe in the kind of future for young people where they want to stay here and build good lives. This is it too. It’s not just about the people who can afford to provide for themselves, it’s not just about the people who can aspire to own a home and live the kind of life that we would all want them to, and it’s also about their brothers, their sisters, and their kaumātua and kuia who cannot provide for themselves. At the end of the day, if they cannot rely on the State—whichever colour it is; blue or red—to fight for those people and to advocate for them and to stand in when they cannot provide for themselves, then that is a fundamental change in the way that we do things here in Aotearoa. This is that bill.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Ms Williams, you’ve taken a liberty. I’ll take a—oh, honourable Minister.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Disability Issues) (12:14): We won’t be changing the name and title of this piece of legislation. We will not be changing the commencement date, and I want to explain why. It’s because the lives of disabled people in New Zealand are frankly not good enough. They are not served well enough by not just the Disability Support Service but Government agencies across the board. That’s why it is important that this legislation is passed so that continued improvements can be made to the lives of disabled people, their families, and carers. In terms of the principles of Enabling Good Lives, they are very much at the heart of this legislation, which is why it is important it is passed and that it commences. Significantly, some of the improvements that have already been made by this Government in increasing funding over both Budget 2024 and 2025 in areas of flexible funding, where there are now no walls and no guidelines, that are having a significant improvement over the lives of disabled people—this is important that we pass this legislation and we get on with the improvements that disabled people deserve.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland) (12:15): I move, That debate on this question now close.

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

Ayes 67

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

Noes 51

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Motion agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 be agreed to.

Ayes 67

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

Noes 51

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Clause 1 agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 2 be agreed to.

Ayes 67

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

Noes 51

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 11; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment.

House resumed.

Appropriation (2026/27 Estimates) Bill

Disability Support Services Bill

Report of Committee of the whole House

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Appropriation (2026/27 Estimates) Bill and reports that it has made progress on the bill. The committee has also considered the Disability Support Services Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Social Security (Jobseeker Support and Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (12:19): I move, That the Social Security (Jobseeker Support and Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

As I’ve said before, our Government believes that the welfare system should be a safety net for those who need it most. It should be there to support people when they generally need assistance, while encouraging those who can support themselves or who can reasonably be supported by their families to do so. New Zealanders deserve a welfare system that is firm, fair, and simple, and that’s what this bill does.

The Social Security (Jobseeker Support and Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill amends the Social Security Act of 2018 to support fiscal sustainability in the welfare system by better targeting financial assistance to those most in need. As I outlined in the first reading, the bill has two policy components. Firstly, the bill tightens the eligibility criteria for jobseeker support and the equivalent emergency benefit for 18- and 19-year-olds by introducing a parental assistance test. When this initiative is implemented, young people will need to meet the parental assistance test criteria before they can access or continue to access one of those benefits. The initiative will reinforce the expectation that young people who are not in employment, education, or training should be financially supported by their parents instead of relying on the welfare system.

There has been an increase in benefit dependency among young people. As of 2017, modelling has indicated that 18- and 19-year-olds on jobseeker support were projected to spend an average of 12 future years on a main benefit. However, more recent modelling indicates that this estimate has income. However, more recent modelling indicates that this estimate has increased to an average of 21 future years supported by a main benefit. That is why our Government is building a more active welfare system that supports more young people into work. Going on welfare when you’re young is a trap, and it’s not the future our Government wants for young people.

To meet the parental assistance test criteria, a young person will need to demonstrate that they have a support gap with their parents, meaning they cannot reasonably be expected to rely on their parents for financial support and/or their parents’ incomes fall below the income limit. The support will be there for those who need it under this test.

Secondly, the bill targets the accommodation supplement more tightly for some homeowners. It increases the minimum weekly contribution some homeowners must make before they are eligible to receive the accommodation supplement.

I would like to thank the Social Services and Community Committee for its careful consideration of the bill and to those members of the public and organisations who provided both written and oral submissions. The select committee received a number of submissions that commented on the parental support gap for jobseeker support. To be clear, the parental support gap test has been designed as a safety net to ensure that where parental support is not available or cannot reasonably be relied on, those young people will remain eligible for support. This test allows for a young person to provide relevant evidence to the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) to determine a parental support gap.

Some submitters raised concerns about the lack of details in the bill around the parental support gap test, and I acknowledge those concerns. The detail will be set out in secondary legislation, as provided for in the Social Security Act. This will be gazetted and published in the House to set clear and consistent guidelines for verification of parental support gaps. The secondary legislation will include the types of evidence that MSD can accept, criteria for who can verify a supporting statement, and the circumstances when MSD can nominate someone to verify a parental support gap.

There were concerns about the impacts of the policy on those with disabilities. Firstly, impacted young people will continue to have access to supplementary payments from MSD, such as a disability allowance, where they are eligible for support. I want to make it clear that the Supported Living Payment is not in scope of this policy. This means no parental assistance test is required for young people who have a health condition, injury, or disability that permanently and severely restricts them in their ability to work.

Rather than being on the jobseeker support, young people will have better future outcomes if they remain close to the labour market. To do this, the parental assistance test will apply to all grounds of jobseeker support to encourage young people into employment, education, or training.

For the accommodation supplement entry threshold change, many submitters were concerned that older and low-income homeowners may be impacted. I want to reassure the public that the entry threshold increase is not applied to New Zealand superannuation, the veterans pension, the Supported Living Payment and emergency benefit equivalent recipients or their partners. Our Government acknowledges that the circumstances of these recipients are less likely to change and they are likely to require longer-term social assistance. Generally, homeowners with the highest accommodation costs and those with the most support will not be affected by the entry threshold change.

Several technical amendments were agreed through the select committee stage, and these provide greater clarity and ensure the legislation operates as intended. After its consideration of the bill, the Social Services and Community Committee has recommended the bill proceed.

This bill ensures that financial support is targeted to where it is needed most. It encourages young people to move into work, study, or training. We will continue to support New Zealanders who have no other means of support available to them, but when individuals or their parents are able to provide that support, our expectation is that they should do so, not other taxpayers. I’m confident that these changes will lead to better long-term outcomes for 18- and 19-year-olds and to support being provided to homeowners who need it the most. I look forward to seeing this bill through the remaining stages of the parliamentary process, and I recommend and commend this bill to the House.

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

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (12:26): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. The Minister for Social Development and Employment in her contribution talked about it being firm and fair, and statements like “a more active … system that supports young people into work.” Labour opposes the Social Security (Jobseeker Support and Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill. This bill is yet another attack on people who are doing their best but are struggling to get by because of this Government’s choices and that this Government is doing nothing to help them. Every day this Government is in power, their choices make it harder for people. Instead of helping New Zealanders get ahead, we’ve got Christopher Luxon promising to fix the cost of living while his Government continuously makes choices that are making it worse, and this bill is one of those bad choices. We’ve already seen National slash temporary additional support and make it harder for emergency housing, and this week we learnt that thousands of pensioners and veterans lost access to their winter energy payment because the Minister was in such a rush to put through that legislation and make life harder for people. Now we have this bill.

I focus on the impacts of this bill on young people, but I want to note how detrimental the changes to the accommodation supplement will be for low-income earners in a cost of living crisis as well. But turning to young people, young people are suffering because there are no jobs for them. According to the Salvation Army, in the year to September 2025, the number of young people not in education, training, or employment was higher than it has been in 20 years. Many of these young people need jobseeker support to get by, and this Government wants to take that support away.

So what does this bill do? This bill makes it harder for rangatahi aged 18 to 19 years to access jobseeker. These are young adults stepping out into the world and trying to make independent lives for themselves, but this bill cuts them off at their knees and undermines their ability to exercise their own agency and develop as adults. Many have already had a lot of negative experiences in their lives. Moving into independence is a crucial step, but this bill undermines it.

I want to point out for the House the Government’s own document that summarises this situation well, and I want to read into the Hansard because I think that every member of the House should hear this. The regulatory impact statement says, “In terms of impact on young people and their families, the costs will significantly outweigh the benefits.” That’s not the Labour Party saying this; this is the Ministry of Social Development that is saying this, and the Government proceeds anyway. We oppose this bill.

The Minister for Social Development and Employment acknowledged those that had taken the time to make submissions and highlighted some of the issues and concerns in those submissions. Well, I note for the House today that 933 submissions were in scope and received by the select committee; only one supported the bill—one. That’s not a close call; that’s a verdict.

Let me tell the House what some of those submissions said, because they deserve to be heard, even if this Government chose not to listen and to dismiss those concerns. The New Zealand Council of Trade Unions, who represent over 370,000—

Tim Costley: Ha, ha!

Hon James Meager: Ha, ha!

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Oh, look at the laughs and the eye rolls on the other side because I mentioned that dirty word “union” to the other side. Well, they represent over 370,000 workers, and told the committee plainly that the bill will not achieve the stated intention of reducing benefit dependency among young people. In fact, they highlighted that youth unemployment has risen significantly. Oh, Minister for Youth over there—maybe you might want to listen to this. But what they were at pains to point out is that this is not because young people have suddenly become lazy or uninterested in working; it’s because they are trying to find work and there are just no jobs.

On top of this, young people generally have fewer skills and less experience simply because of their age, and the work that they are trying to find is concentrated in industries like hospitality and retail. Well, what’s happened in hospitality since this Government came into power? They have been some of the most hardest hit industries in the economic downturns.

I want to turn to the New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services, who also detailed the changes for young people finding work. Like we’ve heard across the submissions, they pointed out that this bill will lead to increased financial hardship among whānau who become financially responsible for young people unable to access work. Their first recommendation was simply this: do not proceed with it. Did the Minister listen? No.

What about the Salvation Army? They have worked for over 140 years, supporting around 130,000 people every year. They told the committee that this will only add complexity into what is already a highly complex system for vulnerable people to have to navigate and will make life harder. They also pointed out that this will reduce young peoples’ access to the very services they need to get jobs—that is employment support and training, things like helping with literacy and getting a driver’s licence, which we know are the reasons that stop young people from getting work in the first place. So the Minister in her contribution said that this will be about a more active system that supports young people into work, but what submitters told us is that if they are not on the jobseeker benefit, then they have no access those very supports that they need to help them get into these jobs or “ghost jobs”, because where are all the jobs, Minister?

Then we have the Citizens Advice Bureau. In their submission, they referred to the Government’s stated aims, which are to reduce benefit dependency, and they showed how this is at odds with the reality. Most young people who receive jobseeker support are already actively seeking work. They gave an example of Maia: “Maia had a job she enjoyed in hospitality, but the business closed due to the recession and she lost her job. She has been looking for work, but due to limited opportunities, she has enrolled to study. She has run out of funds and with no work needs to apply for support.” So the Citizens Advice Bureau emphasised what other submitters said: “The young people who come to CAB are not choosing benefits over employment. They are navigating insecure labour markets, rising housing costs, increasing food prices, transport barriers, mental health challenges, and limited opportunities.”

I also turn to the submissions that we received for the impact that this will have on Māori. That was from Te Hunga Roia Māori—the Māori Law Society—and Pou Tangata on behalf of the National Iwi Chairs Forum. In Te Hunga Roia Māori’s submission, they talked about how this had been developed once again without any meaningful engagement with Māori, despite the foreseeable impacts on Māori communities. As they state, this is “inconsistent with the Crown’s obligations under Te Tiriti … Meaningful engagement requires Māori participation at a formative stage of policy development”, not after things have already been settled. They submitted that the bill should be withdrawn. We agree with that—the Government didn’t.

Pou Tangata also said that forcing rangatahi to legally declare their parents cannot support them places an undue burden on whānau relationships, creating internal friction and shame within households already under financial duress, and ignores the reality that Māori communities face under the national employment rate, which is that the Māori unemployment rate is double that of the rest of New Zealand—the general unemployment rate.

The Minister talked briefly about the impact on people with disabilities, and that came through again strongly in the submissions. Just like she ignored the submissions in the previous bill, she’s ignored them here too. These are some of the reasons why submitters and Labour oppose this bill. The most effective way to support young people into employment is education, training, and tailored employment services; not punitive income tests, not parental means testing. We would invest in young people on this side of the House. This Government is divesting from them. So 930 submitters told this committee the bill should not proceed. Labour agrees with them, but that side of the House just ignored it.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (12:36): The National Party is all about breaking the basics and ruining the future for young people. This bill is just the latest example of their ongoing beneficiary bashing attacks on the poor, while they cut thousands of jobs and leave children growing up in poverty with worsening material conditions. That is not my view; that is a fact. The Government has been told that as a result of decisions that they have made, more children are growing up in households where they do not have enough to meet their basic essentials.

Tell me how cutting benefits for thousands of sick, injured, and disabled young people fixes the basics. Tell me how pretending that sick and injured and disabled young people who have been deemed by Work and Income to not be able to work full time will just magically be able to transition into training or education. Tell me how a young person who is seeing a hiring freeze on our public healthcare system will be wanting to go into a healthcare profession, only to find themselves with a massive student loan and no job to go into. None of the provisions of this bill help address the basics, which is that we’ve got a Government that has been focused on cutting jobs, rather than creating them; that has been focused on worsening material conditions for students, rather than improving them; that has been focused on stripping the sick and injured and disabled people of the support that they need, instead of improving it.

The Minister, in her previous speech on the previous bill, conceded that disabled people have it hard. Well, then, why cut thousands of sick and injured and disabled peoples’ income support as part of this bill? Thousands of people on jobseeker, health, injury, and disability benefits will be affected as part of this bill. For any member of the Government who will say, “Oh, they can just go on the supported living payment.”, I urge you to go out to the streets. Talk to a single bloody beneficiary for once. Talk to them about the challenges that they face getting on the supported living payment. Talk to them about the fact that they face humongous hurdles trying to get into a benefit that has huge barriers, not just because it requires you to be able to afford the cost of going to a GP—it requires you to go to a GP that, for example, will actually be cognisant and competent on disability issues. And it requires Work and Income to choose to not challenge a doctor—a trained medical professional—with a board that can often have people who haven’t practised for years to, basically, decline the comments from a doctor. It should come as no surprise that we’ve got members from the ACT Party, for example, further wanting to restrict access to the supported living payment.

I’ll tell you who exactly is having their incomes taken away from them. This is coming off the select committee’s own documents. We’ve got people who are facing psychological or psychiatric conditions—that’s almost 70 percent of the people who are on jobseeker, injury, health condition, or disability benefits. So much for a Government that cares about our youth mental health crisis. We’ve got people who are facing cardiovascular disorders, who have faced accidents that have left them unable to work, complications of trauma, pregnancy-related issues, congenital conditions including cancer, infectious and parasitic diseases, muscular skeletal system disorder, respiratory disorders, genitourinary disorders, blood and blood forming organs, skin disorders, digesting system disorders, nervous system disorders, immune system disorders, metabolic and endocrine disorders, intellectual disability sensory disorders, and other conditions.

Tell me how cutting the benefits of people who are facing those conditions does anything to fix the basics rather than ruining their lives. Cutting income support for people who are sick, injured, and disabled worsens their health conditions. I find it so galling and telling that the Minister, when I’ve asked her in question time about this very same serious issue, she goes, “Oh, well, people can still access hardship grants for food”. You’re telling families that they should go and line up at food banks and Work and Income to continue to survive while their kids are sick, injured, or disabled? What kind of safety net is that? What kind of future are we trying to provide for young people who are unwell? Their health conditions and their injuries will not improve as a result of cutting that very same income support. You will worsen them.

It doesn’t take an expert to know that if you’re injured or sick and you deprive people of that support, you’ll be leaving them worse off. Then the Minister talked about “Oh, well, don’t worry, there’s a parental income test”. How much is the parental income test? It’s $67,000 total as a household. That means that if you’re deemed to earn as a household over $67,000—that means, for example, two parents’ combined incomes—you won’t be eligible for a benefit. Tell me what family in this cost of greed crisis can actually afford their basic essentials with two parents, perhaps two children, with a total combined income of $67,000. Not many. It just shows that this Government is completely out of touch with the lived realities of working families. Putting more pressure on parents who are simply trying their best while also stripping those parents of the support that their children would have been eligible for before they turn 18—it just does not make sense.

If we look at some other components of the bill that cut the accommodation supplement for low-income homeowners, it tells you exactly who this Government is serving. They have rushed legislation to support property investors, but when it comes to low-income people who have maybe finally saved enough for their first home—yep, we’re stripping them of support. How much? On average, $40 a week. That $40 a week for a low-income family is actually the difference between being able to keep the lights on or put food on the table. The people who they’re cutting support from include people who are in work—in fact, the large majority of people who are affected by this, of a single group, are non-beneficiaries. They’re not just targeting people on the benefit: they’re targeting working families.

It also includes solo parents, who perhaps finally managed to build a life, to get a home, and are just trying to pay the mortgage off. It includes people who have become injured or sick as well and have had to go on a benefit temporarily. We’re not talking about the 18- and 19-year-olds who the Minister continuously and erroneously claims that they’re going to be—she kind of presents it as 20 years continuously on the benefit. We’re talking about people who may just need support for a handful of months while they get better. But I guess it’s OK because, at the end of the day, the Minister says that she’s targeting support to those who need it while claiming $50,000-plus of accommodation benefits herself. That is not serious. You can’t take a Minister seriously when she says, “We’re targeting support to those who need it the most.” while she cuts income support for those who actually needed it, and she claims tens of thousands of dollars to pay for a property that she does not have debt on.

Shame on this Government for showing us who they’re serving, which is not everyday working families. Those 18- and 19-year-olds on a benefit, yeah, they’re supported by and large by working parents—working parents whose lives this Government is choosing to make harder. Again, I just cannot see how Government members on the other side can give us their 10-second contribution telling us that this is a bill about fixing the basics and building the future, as though it was a ChatGPT-produced speech, when they’re doing the exact opposite. They cannot even tell us how exactly this bill will reduce the number of years that someone spends on a benefit, other than by just simply taking that benefit away. It’s not because they’ve created better employment outcomes, and we know that. Young people are applying for countless jobs; we’ve got news stories of jobs that have had hundreds, if not over a thousand applicants.

We know that in this economic system, unemployment is baked in by design. No matter whether it’s Labour or National in Government, unemployment has been a fixture of the economy. You will not tell us that you’ve got a National Party that wants to reduce unemployment to zero. It’s not correct. They don’t want to—they never wanted to. They have never, ever stated that their intention is to reduce unemployment to as close to zero percent as is possible. They have always intended to have a group unemployed, living below the poverty line, and desperate to take any job no matter how poor the conditions are. When you compound that with a legislative agenda that has worsened conditions for low-income workers, it tells you that this isn’t a Government that is ruling for working families but instead for their mates, who are actually benefiting from the policies that they’re putting forward—whether it’s people in the fossil fuel industry, or whether it’s property investors.

The Green Party is committed to repealing this legislation and building a safety net that actually provides tailored support for young people who want to go into education, who want to go into training, who want to get a job—and a safety need that honours the dignity of people who are injured, who are sick, and who are disabled, rather than taking those very benefits away. I dare for those members of the other side to justify taking benefits away from cancer patients or people who are struggling with psychiatric conditions. Justify it. Look at the select committee report and tell me that you don’t know that you’re actually taking the benefits of thousands of people who are sick, injured, or disabled away. Tell me that you don’t know. Justify it—I dare you.

LAURA McCLURE (ACT) (12:46): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Firstly, in response to the previous member Ricardo Menéndez March’s comments, this bill does not take away the supported living payment for those with the likes of cancer and a lot of the conditions that the previous member spoke about, or the disability support. There were submitters that came to us who had been whipped up in a fear that this would happen by, quite honestly, members from that side of the House. That is not what is happening with this piece of legislation.

We cannot unlock the potential of the next generation if we say that it’s OK to be at home and not in education or work. That is completely not acceptable. This side of the House and the ACT Party has way bigger ambitions and goals for our young people, and we will not allow them to just sit at home. If you’re a student and you’re in education, your parents’ income is tested before you get student allowance. How is it fair that an 18-year-old could get the jobseeker payment and that not be income tested?

We are not saying that you can’t go on jobseeker if you don’t have parental support; we are merely saying that if you do, and you’re living at home, and you’re with your parents, you have to have that income tested. I think that is actually fair and reasonable, because we can’t have people not in education and not in work. They still have the other supports that the Ministry of Social Development offer around helping getting young people into work, which I think is a really important thing to note: CV help, matching them with employers—all of that still exists under this legislation.

When it comes to the accommodation support, yes, the criteria has changed, and that means that some people who own their own home may have a reduction or will have a reduction in the amount that they get for their accommodation support. But think about the people who don’t own their own home—the ones that are way far behind. They’re going to be receiving an extra $30 a week, I think it is.

Ricardo Menéndez March: No, it’s like $12.

LAURA McCLURE: Well, I think it’s between $10 and $30, depending on who they are.

Ricardo Menéndez March: You’re taking $40 away.

LAURA McCLURE: Well, we can clarify that. But they will be receiving an additional payment in the next coming months. I think that is really important to acknowledge that nothing has been cut here. We’re actually redistributing money to those that really desperately need it, and we are not going to incentivise staying on a benefit if you’re 18, because we actually care about the next generation. We want to unlock their potential, and we’re not going to do that if they’re sitting on the couch and playing PlayStation at home with mum and dad. I commend this bill to the House.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (12:49): Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table pages 12 and 13 of the advice given to us by the Ministry of Social Development that shows that there are thousands of people with health conditions affected by this bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): As a select committee document, that is readily available to all members.

Dr Tracey McLellan: Not to ACT, by the sounds of it.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: I’m not aware if it’s been published, but it seems like they’re not aware of it.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection?

Hon Members: Yes.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): There is.

JAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First) (12:49): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support the Social Security (Jobseeker Support and Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill. One of the first priorities for New Zealand First is the employment of New Zealanders. That is, in our planning, a priority and one of the first things we think about as a party in this Government.

I was able to sit on the Social Services and Community Committee for this. We heard 87 oral submissions, and over 935 submissions in total. I do agree with the Minister: the welfare system is a safety net, and the first priority here is looking at the jobseeker—it’s about the eligibility criteria for jobseeker support and the emergency benefits for those aged 18 and 19 years old. In the first reading speech, I talked about our young people being our future, and they are the people that we want to see, firstly, in work, or education or training. That’s the principle here—that we want to see our young people either in work and, if they can’t find work, in education and training. We do not want to see our young people on jobseeker benefits and becoming dependent on benefits. What we learnt and have learnt is that if young people start on benefits at a young age, their dependency can be up to decades. As a country, we want to be a productive country, and to be a productive country we need our youngest and brightest people to be in training, education, or they need to be in work. So it’s a very simple process from this side of the House.

The second part of this bill was the entry threshold for the accommodation supplement. Again, it was very clear that this hadn’t been reviewed since 1993. Obviously, the threshold here is increasing from 30 percent to 40 percent, but, proudly, New Zealand First want to highlight that it will not impact New Zealand superannuation and it will not impact those on the veterans pension.

This is a very common-sense update to this bill, getting our young people into work. That’s what we strive for in this country and on this side of the Government. Hearing from the Opposition, it sounds like they want everybody on the couch and going to the ATM every week to get their money. On that, I commend it to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): A five-minute split call—Oriini Kaipara.

ORIINI KAIPARA (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau) (12:52): I give rise to the voices of those who are looking after rangatahi on the front lines, especially in Tāmaki-makau-rau. The question is, where do they go? The Minister and their Government still cannot answer that. When an 18-year-old has no job, no income, this Government is asking, “How much do your parents earn? How much do mum and dad earn?” I’m asking something very different: “Are you OK? Are you safe? How can I help, and what can we do right now to stop you from being homeless?”

That’s the difference between this bill and my youth homelessness prevention bill. At first reading, I warned this House about the assumption sitting underneath this very policy: that every rangatahi has parents who can support them, that every home is safe, that every whānau has money to spare. Well, guess what! They don’t. A parent’s income on paper isn’t a home, it doesn’t mean there’s a spare bedroom, and it doesn’t mean that relationship is safe. In Tāmaki-makau-rau, where whānau are already stretched by rent, food, power, transport, medical and dental bills, even school costs, it certainly doesn’t mean that there’s money left over to support another adult.

When you take income away from one rangatahi, where are they supposed to go? If they end up on nan’s couch, you haven’t solved benefit dependency. If they end up sleeping in a car, you haven’t created independence. If they end up in emergency housing or, worse, out on the streets, you have not saved the Crown money. If they end up on the street, every single one of us in this House has failed them.

That’s why I introduced my youth homelessness prevention bill, because I refuse to accept that we have to wait until our rangatahi is homeless before the State acts. My bill starts earlier. See the warning signs, step in, keep them housed, connect them to community, and then help them into education and into training, and then into mahi—into work. That is prevention. That is what social investment should actually look like, not removing a young person from one Government spreadsheet and declaring success, because getting someone off a benefit isn’t the same thing as getting somebody into a job, and it sure as hell isn’t success if we get them into homelessness.

I’m putting this Government on notice. At committee stage, I will ask this House to remove the parental income regime and, if the Government refuses, I will move amendments to protect our rangatahi. If taking away their income puts them at risk of homelessness, they should keep their support. If the Government says they can go home, prove that home exists; prove that it is safe, prove that it is actually available to them. And if the Minister genuinely believes that that this policy will improve young people’s lives, measure what happens to them. Tell us how many enter into work and how many leave work. Tell us how many enter into education and leave successfully, and tell us how many end up needing emergency housing or homeless, because there’s something seriously wrong with the direction that we are heading in. This Parliament is considering laws that make it harder for some rangatahi to access income when they bloody need it, and laws that make it easier to move people on once homelessness becomes visible in our public places. You think about that: make it harder to stay afloat and then, if they end up on the street, move them on. That’s not a pathway forward.

We offer one. It exists in this House right now. Don’t wait for homelessness; prevent it. House our rangatahi, back our whānau, and intervene early. Give our rangatahi, our young people, enough stability to get back into mahi—to get a mahi—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Now, the member’s got one minute left. She should refer what happened at select committee, which is the real purpose of the second reading.

ORIINI KAIPARA: I’m nearly done, Mr Speaker, thank you. Get them into mahi, education, and training, and stop measuring success by how many people we can remove from a benefit. Measure success by how many rangatahi never become homeless in the first place. And to every member preparing to vote this bill in, when a rangatahi loses their income, when home isn’t safe, when mum and dad aren’t an option, where do they go? If you can’t answer that question, you have no business taking their safety net away.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Just reminding that member that a second reading speech is required to make reference to what happened at select committee, as well as other contextual matters. Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair. The debate is interrupted and set down for resumption next sitting day, and the House is adjourned until 2.00 p.m. today.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 12.58 p.m. (Thursday)